DOCSLIB.ORG

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Diflubenzuron (Dimilin) FINAL REPORT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Diflubenzuron (Dimilin) FINAL REPORT SERA TR 04-43-05-03b Control/Eradication Agents for the Gypsy Moth - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Diflubenzuron (Dimilin) FINAL REPORT Prepared for: USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0082F USDA Forest Service BPA: WO-01-3187-0150 Requisition No.: 43-3187-1-0269 Task No. 5 Submitted to: Dave Thomas, COTR Forest Health Protection Staff USDA Forest Service Rosslyn Plaza Building C, Room 7129C 1601 North Kent Street Arlington, VA 22209 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Telephone: (315) 637-9560 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com July 30, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................... ii LIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................... vii LIST OF WORKSHEETS ..................................................... vii ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS . viii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS . x CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ..................................... xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... xii 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................... 1-1 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................ 2-1 2.1. OVERVIEW ..................................................... 2-1 2.2. CHEMICAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMERCIAL FORMULATIONS . 2-1 2.3. APPLICATION METHODS ......................................... 2-2 2.4. MIXING AND APPLICATION RATES................................ 2-2 2.5. USE STATISTICS................................................. 2-3 3. HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................... 3-1 3.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ....................................... 3-1 3.1.1. Overview. ................................................ 3-1 3.1.2. Mechanism of Action........................................ 3-1 3.1.3. Kinetics and Metabolism. .................................... 3-2 3.1.3.1. Oral Absorption .................................... 3-2 3.1.3.2. Dermal Absorption.................................. 3-2 3.1.3.3. Metabolism ....................................... 3-3 3.1.4. Acute Oral Toxicity. ........................................ 3-4 3.1.5. Subchronic or Chronic Systemic Toxic Effects. 3-4 3.1.6. Effects on Nervous System. .................................. 3-5 3.1.7. Effects on Immune System. .................................. 3-5 3.1.8. Effects on Endocrine System. ................................. 3-6 3.1.9. Reproductive and Teratogenic Effects. 3-6 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 3.1.10. Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity. 3-7 3.1.11. Irritation and Sensitization (Effects on the Skin and Eyes). 3-7 3.1.12. Systemic Toxic Effects from Dermal Exposure. 3-7 3.1.13. Inhalation Exposure. ....................................... 3-8 3.1.14. Inerts and Adjuvants. ...................................... 3-8 3.1.15. Impurities and Metabolites................................... 3-8 3.1.16. Toxicologic Interactions. ................................... 3-9 3.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ....................................... 3-10 3.2.1. Overview. ............................................... 3-10 3.2.2. Workers. ................................................ 3-11 3.2.2.1. General Exposures ................................. 3-11 3.2.2.2. Accidental Exposures............................... 3-12 3.2.3. General Public. ........................................... 3-13 3.2.3.1. General Considerations . 3-13 3.2.3.2. Direct Spray ...................................... 3-14 3.2.3.3. Dermal Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation . 3-14 3.2.3.4. Contaminated Water ............................... 3-14 3.2.3.5. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Fish . 3-20 3.2.3.6. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation . 3-21 3.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT .................................. 3-23 3.3.1. Overview................................................ 3-23 3.3.2. Diflubenzuron ............................................ 3-23 3.3.3. 4-Chloroaniline ........................................... 3-25 3.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION ...................................... 3-27 3.4.1. Overview................................................ 3-27 3.4.2. Workers................................................. 3-27 3.4.3. General Public. ........................................... 3-28 3.4.4. Sensitive Subgroups........................................ 3-28 3.4.5. Connected Actions......................................... 3-29 3.4.6. Cumulative Effects......................................... 3-29 4. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT......................................... 4-1 4.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ....................................... 4-1 4.1.1. Overview. ................................................ 4-1 4.1.2. Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms. 4-2 4.1.2.1. Mammals ......................................... 4-2 4.1.2.2. Birds............................................. 4-2 4.1.2.3. Terrestrial Invertebrates . 4-3 4.1.2.4. Terrestrial Plants (Macrophytes) . 4-5 4.1.2.5. Terrestrial Microorganisms . 4-5 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 4.1.3. Aquatic Organisms.......................................... 4-6 4.1.3.1. Fish.............................................. 4-6 4.1.3.2. Amphibians ....................................... 4-7 4.1.3.3. Aquatic Invertebrates ................................ 4-7 4.1.3.4. Aquatic Plants ..................................... 4-8 4.1.3.5. Aquatic Microorganisms . 4-8 4.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ....................................... 4-10 4.2.1. Overview. ............................................... 4-10 4.2.2. Terrestrial Animals. ....................................... 4-10 4.2.2.1. Direct Spray ...................................... 4-11 4.2.2.2. Indirect Contact ................................... 4-12 4.2.2.3. Ingestion of Contaminated Vegetation or Prey . 4-12 4.2.2.4. Ingestion of Contaminated Water . 4-14 4.2.3. Terrestrial Plants. ......................................... 4-15 4.2.4. Soil Organisms............................................ 4-15 4.2.5. Aquatic Organisms......................................... 4-15 4.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT .................................. 4-16 4.3.1. Overview. ............................................... 4-16 4.3.2. Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms. 4-17 4.3.2.1. Mammals ........................................ 4-17 4.3.2.2. Birds............................................ 4-17 4.3.2.3. Terrestrial Invertebrates . 4-18 4.3.2.4. Terrestrial Plants (Macrophytes) . 4-20 4.3.2.5. Soil Microorganisms ............................... 4-20 4.3.3. Aquatic Organisms......................................... 4-20 4.3.3.1. Fish............................................. 4-20 4.3.3.2. Amphibians ...................................... 4-21 4.3.3.3. Aquatic Invertebrates ............................... 4-21 4.3.3.4. Aquatic Plants .................................... 4-23 4.3.3.5. Aquatic Microorganisms . 4-23 4.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION ...................................... 4-24 4.4.1. Overview. ............................................... 4-24 4.4.2. Terrestrial Organisms....................................... 4-24 4.4.2.1. Terrestrial Vertebrates . 4-24 4.4.2.2. Terrestrial Invertebrates . 4-25 4.4.2.3. Plants and Microorganisms . 4-26 4.4.3. Aquatic Organisms......................................... 4-26 4.4.3.1. Aquatic Vertebrates ................................ 4-26 4.4.3.2. Aquatic Invertebrates ............................... 4-26 4.4.3.3. Aquatic Plants and Microorganisms . 4-27 5. REFERENCES ........................................................... 5-1 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Acute toxicity of diflubenzuron and p-chloroaniline to experimental mammals Appendix 2: Laboratory and simulation studies on environmental fate of diflubenzuron and its metabolites Appendix 3a: Summary of terrestrial field or field simulation studies on diflubenzuron and its formulations Appendix 3b: Summary of aquatic field or field simulation studies on diflubenzuron and its formulations Appendix 4: Toxicity of diflubenzuron to birds Appendix 5: Toxicity to non-target terrestrial insects Appendix 6: Toxicity to diflubenzuron to fish Appendix 7: Toxicity of diflubenzuron to aquatic invertebrates Appendix 8: Toxicity of diflubenzuron to aquatic plants v LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Selected physical and chemical properties of diflubenzuron . Tables-1 Table 2-2: Commercial formulations of diflubenzuron . Tables-2 Table 2-3: Use of diflubenzuron by USDA from 1995 to 2002 for Suppression, Eradication, and Slow the Spread .............................Tables-3 Table 3-1: Chemical and site parameters used in GLEAMS modeling for diflubenzuron .............................................Tables-4 Table 3-2: Summary of modeled concentrations of diflubenzuron in streams . Tables-5 Table 3-3: Summary of modeled concentrations of diflubenzuron in ponds . Tables-6 Table 3-4: Chemical and site parameters used in GLEAMS modeling for 4-chloroaniline ............................................Tables-7 Table 3-5: Summary of modeled concentrations of 4-chloroaniline in streams . Tables-8 Table 3-6: Summary of modeled concentrations of 4-chloroaniline
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Water Beetles
    Ireland Red List No. 1 Water beetles Ireland Red List No. 1: Water beetles G.N. Foster1, B.H. Nelson2 & Á. O Connor3 1 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ 2 Department of Natural Sciences, National Museums Northern Ireland 3 National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government Citation: Foster, G. N., Nelson, B. H. & O Connor, Á. (2009) Ireland Red List No. 1 – Water beetles. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Cover images from top: Dryops similaris (© Roy Anderson); Gyrinus urinator, Hygrotus decoratus, Berosus signaticollis & Platambus maculatus (all © Jonty Denton) Ireland Red List Series Editors: N. Kingston & F. Marnell © National Parks and Wildlife Service 2009 ISSN 2009‐2016 Red list of Irish Water beetles 2009 ____________________________ CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 3 NOMENCLATURE AND THE IRISH CHECKLIST................................................................................................ 3 COVERAGE .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Organochlorine Pesticides and Metals in Ring-Tailed Lemurs (Lemur Catta) at Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve, Madagascar
    American Journal of Primatology 71:998–1010 (2009) RESEARCH ARTICLE Assessment of Organochlorine Pesticides and Metals in Ring-Tailed Lemurs (Lemur catta) at Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve, Madagascar THOMAS R. RAINWATER1Ã, MICHELLE L. SAUTHER2, KATHERINE A.E. RAINWATER3, RACHEL E. MILLS3, FRANK P. CUOZZO4, BAOHONG ZHANG1, LES N. MCDANIEL1, MICHAEL T. ABEL1, ERIC J. MARSLAND1, 5 6 7 1 MARTHA A. WEBER , IBRAHIM ANTHO YOUSSOUF JACKY , STEVEN G. PLATT , GEORGE P. COBB , AND TODD A. ANDERSON1 1Department of Environmental Toxicology, The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 2Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 3School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California 4Department of Anthropology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota 5Department of Animal Health and Nutrition, St. Louis Zoo, St. Louis, Missouri 6De´partement de Sciences Biologie, Universite´ de Toliara, Toliara, Madagascar 7Department of Biology, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, Texas Like most of Madagascar’s endemic primates, ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) face a number of threats to their survival. Although habitat loss is of greatest concern, other anthropogenic factors including environmental contamination may also affect lemur health and survival. In this study, we examined ring-tailed lemurs from the Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve (BMSR), southern Madagascar for exposure to organochlorine (OC) pesticides and metals and examined differences in contaminant concentrations between sexes and among age groups, troops, and habitats. A total of 14 pesticides and 13 metals was detected in lemur blood (24 individuals) and hair (65 individuals) samples, respectively. p,p0-DDT, heptachlor, aldrin, heptachlor epoxide, endrin aldehyde, and endrin were among the most prevalent pesticides detected.
    [Show full text]
  • Ep 0154508 A2
    Europaisches Patentamt European Patent Office © Publication number: 0 154 508 Office europeen des brevets A2 © EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION © Application number: 85301334.0 © Int. CI.4: C 07 C 149/437 A 01 N 47/34 ^ © Date of filing: 27.02.85 © Priority: 27.02.84 JP 36882/84 © Applicant: Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. 27, Doshomachi 2-chome Higashi-ku Osaka-shi Osaka, 541(JP) @ Date of publication of application: 11.09.85 Bulletin 85/37 @ Inventor: Nagase, Hiroshi 19-6, Daiwahigashi 1-chome © Designated Contracting States: Kawanishi Hyogo 666-OKJP) AT BE CH DE FR GB IT LI LU NL SE © Inventor: Sato, Yasuo 16-5, Ichijojihayama-cho Sakyo-ku Kyoto 606IJP) © Representative: Laredo, Jack Joseph et al, Elkington and Fife High Holborn House 52/54 High Holborn London, WC1V6SH(GB) © Thiophenylureas, their production and use. New insecticidal oriand ovicidal benzoylurea derivatives of the formula: wherein X1 is hydrogen or halogen; X2 is halogen; Y1. Y2 and Y3 are independently hydrogen, halogen or alkyl, whereby at least one of Y1, Y2 and Y3 is other than hydrogen; and R is hydrogen or a group represented by the formula -CFaZbH(3-a-d) wherein a and b are independently 0, 1, or 3, with a + b @ 3 and Z is halogen, their production and use. The present invention relates to benzoylurea derivatives of the formula: wherein X1 is hydrogen or halocgen; X2 is halogen; Y1, Y2 and Y3 are independently hydroaen, halogen or alkyl, whereby at least one of Y1, Y2 and Y3 is other than hydrogen; and R is hydrogen or a group represented by the formula -CFaZbH(3-a-b) wherein a and b are independently 0, 1, 2 or 3, with a + b < 3 and Z is halogen,which are novel compounds processina excellent insecticidal activities, to processes for producing the same, and to insecticides containing the same.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX G3 Diflubenzuron Rejected by OPP and ECOTOX
    APPENDIX G3 Diflubenzuron Rejected by OPP and ECOTOX Rejected Abgrall, J. F. (1999). Short and Medium Term Impact of Aerial Application of Insecticide Against the Winter Moth (Operophtera Brumata L.). Revue forestiere francaise (nancy) 50: 395-404. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: NON-ENGLISH. Aguirre-Uribe, L. A., Lozoya-Saldana, A., Luis-Jauregui, A., Quinones-Luna, S., and Juarez-Ramos, F. (1991(1992)). Field Evaluation for the Population Control of Musca Domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in Chicken Manure With Diflubenzuron. Folia entomol mex 0: 143-151. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: NON-ENGLISH. Akanbi, M. O. and Ashiru, M. O. (1991). Towards Integrated Pest Management of Forest Defoliators the Nigerian Situation. Xviii international congress of entomology, vancouver, british columbia, canada, 1988. For ecol manage 39: 81-86. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: REVIEW,CHEM METHODS. Akiyama, Y., Yoshioka, N., Yano, M., Mitsuhashi, T., Takeda, N., Tsuji, M., and Matsushita, S. (1997). Pesticide Residues in Agricultural Products (F.y. 1994-1996). J.Food Hyg.Soc.Jpn. 38: 381-389 (JPN) . Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: FNT,ACP,DZ,DDVP,MTM,CYP,EFX,FNV,FVL,PMR,MOM,BFZ,IPD,TFZ,CYF,TFY,MLN,BPH,ILL,T BA,DPHP,ES,DM,BTN,FRM,IPD,MYC,TDF,TDM Rejection Code: NON-ENGLISH. Alho, C. Jr and Vieira, L. M. (1997). Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Pantanal Wetlands of Brazil and Potential Disturbances From the Release of Environmental Contaminants. Environmental toxicology and chemistry 16: 71-74. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: REVIEW. Ali, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact Report
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE REPORT ON THE ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT OF THE “CONSTRUCTION OF THE KARCINO-SARBIA WIND FARM (17 WIND TURBINES)” OF 2003 Name of the undertaking: KARCINO-SARBIA Wind Farm (under construction) Contractor: AOS Agencja Ochrony Środowiska Sp. z o.o. based in Koszalin Arch. No. 52/OŚ/OOS/06 Koszalin, September 2006 Team: Bogdan Gutkowski, M.Sc.Eng.– Expert for Environmental Impact Assessment Appointed by the Governor of the West Pomerania Province Marek Ziółkowski, M.Sc. Eng. – Environmental Protection Expert of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry; Environmental Protection Consultant Dagmara Czajkowska, M.Sc. Eng. – Specialist for Environmental Impact Assessment, Specialist for Environmental Protection and Management Ewa Reszka, M.Sc. – Specialist for the Protection of Water and Land and Protection against Impact of Waste Damian Kołek, M.Sc.Eng. – Environmental Protection Specialist 2 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5 II. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT ..................................................... 9 1. Location and adjacent facilities....................................................................................................... 9 2. Modifications to the project .......................................................................................................... 10 3. Technical description of the project ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for Imidacloprid
    Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 www.regulations.gov Imidacloprid Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision Case Number 7605 January 2020 Approved by: Elissa Reaves, Ph.D. Acting Director Pesticide Re-evaluation Division Date: __ 1-22-2020 __ Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 www.regulations.gov Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4 A. Summary of Imidacloprid Registration Review............................................................... 5 B. Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Risk Assessments and Agency Responses 7 II. USE AND USAGE ............................................................................................................... 14 III. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS ......................................................................................... 15 A. Human Health Risks....................................................................................................... 15 1. Risk Summary and Characterization .......................................................................... 15 2. Human Incidents and Epidemiology .......................................................................... 17 3. Tolerances ................................................................................................................... 18 4. Human Health Data Needs ......................................................................................... 18 B. Ecological Risks ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stoneflies^ Or Plecoptera, of Illinois
    STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION DIVISION OF THE NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY THEODORE H. PRISON. Chiij Vol. XX BULLETIN Article IV The Stoneflies^ or Plecoptera, of Illinois THKODORE H. FRISON PRINTED BY AUTHORITY OP THE STATE OF ILLINOIS URBANA, ILLINOIS JANUARY 1935 STATE OF ILLINOIS Honorable Henry Horner, Governor DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION Honorable John J. Hallihan, Dirertor BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION - ! Honorable John J. Hallihan, Chairman William Trelease, D. Sc, LL. D., Biology William A. Noyes, Ph. D., LL. D., Chemistry Henry C. Cowles, Ph. D., D. Sc, Forestry Chem. D., D. Sc, John W. Alvord, C. E., Engineering Edson C. Bastxn, Ph. D., Geology Arthur Cutts Willard, D. Eng., LL. D., President of the University of Illinois NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY DIVISION URBANA, ILLINOIS Scientific and Technical Staff Theodore H. Prison, Ph. D., Chief SECTION OF economic ENTOMOLOGY SECTION OF INSECT SURVEY W. P. Flint, B. S., Chief Entomologist H. H. Ross, Ph. D., Systematic En- C. C. CoMPTON, M. S., Associate En- tomologist tomologist Carl O. Mohr, Ph. D., Associate En- M. D. Farrar, Ph. D., Research E.n- tomologist, Artist tomologist L. H. TowNSEND, M. S., Assistant En- tomologist S. C. Chandler, B. S., Sontheni Field Entomologist J. H. Bigger, B. S., Central Field SECTION OF APPLIED BOTANY AND Entomologist PLANT PATHOLOGY L. H. Shropshire, M. S., Northern L. Ph. D., Botanist Field Entomologist R. Tehon, C. Carter, Ph. D., Assistant Bota- E. R. McGovran, Ph. D., Research J. nist Fellow in Entomology G. H. BoEWE, M. S., Field Botanist W. E.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Evaluation of Insect Growth Regulators Against Several Species of Anopheline Mosquitoes
    [~pn.J. Sanit. 2001. Vo1. 44 No. 4 p. 349-353 19931 Laboratory evaluation of insect growth regulators against several species of anopheline mosquitoes Hitoshi KAWADA,*Yoshinori SHONO,*Takaaki ITO* and Yasuo ABE* Agricultural Science Research Center, Takarazuka Research Center, Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd., Takarazuka 665, Japan (Received: May 27, 1993) Key words: insecticide, insect growth regulator, pyriproxyfen, methoprene, diflubenzuron, Anopheles, vector. -- - Abstract : Larvicide efficacy of insect growth regulators (pyriproxyfen, metho- prene and diflubenzuron), in comparison with the larvicidal and adulticidal efficacy of conventional insecticides, against several species of Anopheline mosquitoes includ- ing several insecticide resistant; strains were evaluated in laboratory conditions. In all species, no cross resistance between IGRs and the other kinds of insecticides, such as organophosphate, organochlorine, carbamate and pyrethroid, was observed. Relative effectiveness of pyriproxyfen to methoprene ranged from several to 40 times and that to diflubenzuron ranged from 19.5 times to more than 400 times. In this respect, IGRs (insect growth regu- lators) seem to be useful insecticides. Pyri- proxyfen, a juvenile hormone mimic, had Anopheline mosquito is one of the most high activities to mosquitoes in the field important vectors of tropical diseases. Re- (Kawada et al., 1988; Suzuki et al., 1989; sidual spray on the wall surface and treat- Okazawa et al., 1991). In this study, we ment of breeding areas with chemicals, such evaluated the larvicide efficacy of pyriproxy- as organochlorine, organophosphate and car- fen against several species of Anopheline bamate insecticides, have been employed as mosquitoes in laboratory conditions, compar- the best and appropriate ways of controlling ing with other insecticides, and discuss the these mosquitoes.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Section a Aquatic Macroinvertebrates (Exclusive of Mosquitoes)
    I LLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. \oc iatural History Survey. Library iiAOs (ClSCi;; ILLINOIS - NATURAL HISTORY Ai . .ý . - I-w. Iv mk U16 OL SURVEY CHAPTER 9 AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES SECTION A AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES (EXCLUSIVE OF MOSQUITOES) Final Report October, 1985 Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification Technical Report by Allison R. Brigham, Lawrence M. Page, John D. Unzicker Mark J. Wetzel, Warren U. Brigham, Donald W. Webb, and Liane Suloway Prepared for Wetlands Research, Inc. 53 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 Arjpp, Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification Technical Report 1985 (6) 6'Wa- CHAPTER 9 AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES SECTION A AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES (EXCLUSIVE OF MOSQUITOES) Allison R. Brigham, Lawrence M. Page, John D. Unzicker Mark J. Wetzel, Warren U. Brigham, Donald W. Webb, and Liane Suloway INTRODUCTION Aquatic macroinvertebrates are primary and secondary level consumers that play an important role in transferring energy through the different trophic levels of the food chains of aquatic ecosystems. These animals feed upon submerged and emergent macrophytes, plankton, and organic material suspended in the water column. Burrowing and feeding activities aid in the decomposition of plant and animal matter and the eventual recycling of nutrients. In addition, these organisms prey upon each other and serve as food for fishes, certain birds, and other animals. In general, aquatic macroinvertebrates have not been systematically surveyed in Illinois, and rarely have individual species been studied ecologically. This is due, in part, to the inconspicuous nature of most freshwater inverte- brates and the many taxonomic problems which preclude distributional, ecologi- cal, and other studies.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED NATIONS Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
    UNITED NATIONS SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Distr.: General 14 August 2012 English only Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee Eighth meeting Geneva, 15–19 October 2012 Item 5 (e) and (f) of the provisional agenda* Technical work: assessment of alternatives to endosulfan; assessment of alternatives to DDT Report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT Note by the Secretariat As referred to in documents UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/8 and UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/9, the report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT is set out in the annex to the present note; it has not been formally edited. * UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/1. K1282318 040912 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Annex Report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT Draft prepared by the ad hoc working group on assessment of alternatives to endosulfan and DDT under the POPs Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention July 2012 2 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Table of Content 1. Disclaimer 2. Background and proposed results 3. Prioritization of Chemical Alternatives for Endosulfan with respect to the Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) Characteristics (Annex D) 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Endpoint and data selection for prioritisation 3.3. Experimental information 3.4. QSAR information 3.5. Description of the data sources 3.6. Uncertainties 3.7. Data analysis 3.8. Results 3.9. Comments on selected alternative substances 4. Methodology for the assessment of persistent organic pollutant characteristics and identification of other hazard indicators for the assessment of chemical alternatives to Endosulfan and DDT 4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Oral Toxicity and Repellency of 933 Chemicals to House and Deer Mice
    U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Government Publication Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services Archiv-of Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14, 111-129 (1985) Environmental ontamination C ... ■ nd I oxicolagy © 1985 Springer-Verlag New York Inc. Acute Oral Toxicity and Repellency of 933 Chemicals to House and Deer Mice E. W. Schafer, Jr. and W. A. Bowles, Jr. U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Building 16 - Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 Abstract. Five individual bioassay repellency or deer mice and white (house) mice. Our purpose is toxicity variables were estimated or determined for to make available these generally unpublished test deer .mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and house results so that they can be referenced or used by mice (Mus musculus) under laboratory conditions. the various public, private, and governmental ALD's (Approximate Lethal Doses) or LD50's of groups that may require this information. 230 chemicals to deer mice are presented, as are food reduction (FR) values (3-day feeding test as a 2.0% treatment rate) for white wheat seeds (Tri­ Methods ticum aestivum) for 696 chemicals and Douglas fir seeds (Pseudotsuga menziesii) for 81 chemicals. A The chemicals included in the tests were technical or analytical similar repellency evaluation (REP) using a 5-day grade pesticides and other commercially available or experi­ mental chemicals. They were purchased from various commer­ test with white wheat seeds at a 2.0% treatment rate cial sources or contributed by cooperating chemical companies. was conducted with house mice and the results for For presentation purposes, they have been arranged by Chemical 347 chemicals are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Behaviour in Dytiscus Marginalis
    International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology © 2018 IJSRST | Volume 4 | Issue 2 | Print ISSN: 2395-6011 | Online ISSN: 2395-602X Feeding Behaviour in Dytiscus Marginalis Dr. Sapna kumari +2 Zoology teacher. M.R.D.Girls high school Sitamarhi (Bihar) India ABSTRACT The present research work on dytiscus marginalis reveals that, how much it is capable of being ecofriendly with aquatic – ecosystem, due to its strong voracious nature as well as a great diving property in aquatic – fauna also. Keywords: Predacious Behavior, Voracious Appetite, Water Tiger, Suction Cup, Ampulla, Carrion, Deterring. INTRODUCTION • Dytiscus marginalis is very widespread and common species, which are able to dive so called- ‘A Great Diving Beetle’ also. • Dytiscus marginalis is a fresh water beetle which occurs in most still or slow moving aquatic habitats.This beetle generally prefers habitat on silty or muddy substrates with plenty of vagetations. FOOD – HABITS • Both the adults and larvae of dytiscus marginalis are voracious predators which feed on anything in their reach. • The larvae are commonly known as ‘Water Tiger’due to their voracious appetite. They feed on a wide range of aquatic–life. • Adults and larvae are carnivorous in nature and search their prey by diving and swimming actively in aquatic medium where light reaches. IJSRST1841393 | Received : 01 Jan 2018 | Accepted : 23 Jan 2018 | January-February-2018 [ (4) 2 : 2154-2156] 2154 FOOD MATERIALS • It includes newts [tadepole resembles baby fish] and fishes etc. They will also consume carrion. • Young larvae are canniblastic at high densities. • It includes other insects and larvae of mosquitoes also. FEEDING–APPARATUS Dytiscus Dytiscus marginalis larva hunting a fish marginalis larva • Dytiscus marginalis is a very significant predators in fresh water aquatic – ecosystem .
    [Show full text]