DOCSLIB.ORG

Emamectin Benzoate Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment FINAL REPORT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Emamectin Benzoate Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment FINAL REPORT SERA TR-052-23-03b Emamectin benzoate Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment FINAL REPORT Submitted to: Paul Mistretta, COR USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region 1720 Peachtree RD, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-06-0010 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-43ZP-D-09-0032 SERA Internal Task No. 52-23 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 8125 Solomon Seal Manlius, New York 13104 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com October 28, 2010 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ............................................................... vii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................... ix CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ............................................................................ x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... xi 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Chemical Specific Information ............................................................................................ 1 1.2. General Information ............................................................................................................. 2 2. PROGRAMS DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Overview .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.2. Chemical Description and Commercial Formulations ......................................................... 5 2.3. Application Methods ............................................................................................................ 7 2.4. Mixing and Application Rates ........................................................................................... 10 2.5. Use Statistics ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.6. Special Note on Data Limitations and the Treatment of Pine ........................................... 12 3. HUMAN HEALTH .................................................................................................................. 15 3.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................ 15 3.1.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.2. Mechanism of Action .................................................................................................. 15 3.1.3. Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism ............................................................................. 16 3.1.3.1. General Considerations ........................................................................................ 16 3.1.3.2. Absorption............................................................................................................ 17 3.1.3.2.1. First-order Dermal Absorption ......................................................................... 17 3.1.3.2.2. Zero-order Dermal Absorption ......................................................................... 19 3.1.3.3. Excretion .............................................................................................................. 20 3.1.4. Acute Oral Toxicity .................................................................................................... 21 3.1.5. Subchronic or Chronic Systemic Toxic Effects .......................................................... 22 3.1.6. Effects on Nervous System ......................................................................................... 23 3.1.7. Effects on Immune System ......................................................................................... 25 3.1.8. Effects on Endocrine System ...................................................................................... 26 3.1.9. Reproductive and Developmental Effects .................................................................. 26 3.1.9.1. Developmental Studies ........................................................................................ 26 3.1.9.2. Reproduction Studies ........................................................................................... 27 3.1.10. Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity ............................................................................ 27 3.1.11. Irritation and Sensitization (Effects on the Skin and Eyes) ...................................... 28 ii 3.1.12. Systemic Toxic Effects from Dermal Exposure ....................................................... 29 3.1.13. Inhalation Exposure .................................................................................................. 29 3.1.13.1. General Considerations ...................................................................................... 29 3.1.13.2. Combustion of Ash Wood ................................................................................. 29 3.1.14. Adjuvants and Other Ingredients .............................................................................. 30 3.1.15. Impurities and Metabolites ....................................................................................... 31 3.1.15.1. Impurities ........................................................................................................... 31 3.1.15.2. Metabolites ......................................................................................................... 31 3.1.16. Toxicological Interactions ........................................................................................ 32 3.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 33 3.2.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2. Workers ....................................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2.1. General Exposures ............................................................................................... 34 3.2.2.1.1. Studies on Tree-äge ....................................................................................... 34 3.2.2.1.2. Deposition Based Exposure Assessments ..................................................... 34 3.2.2.1.3. Absorption Based Exposure Assessment ...................................................... 36 3.2.2.1.4. Comparison of Methods ................................................................................ 36 3.2.2.2. Accidental Exposures........................................................................................... 38 3.2.3. General Public ........................................................................................................... 39 3.2.3.1. General Considerations ........................................................................................ 39 3.2.3.1.1. Likelihood and Magnitude of Exposure ....................................................... 39 3.2.3.1.2. Summary of Assessments ............................................................................. 40 3.2.3.2. Direct Spray ......................................................................................................... 40 3.2.3.3. Dermal Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation ............................................... 41 3.2.3.4. Contaminated Water ............................................................................................ 41 3.2.3.5. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Fish .............................................................. 44 3.2.3.6. Dermal Exposure from Swimming in Contaminated Water ................................ 44 3.2.3.6. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation.................................................... 45 3.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. 49 3.3.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................... 49 3.3.2. Acute RfD ................................................................................................................... 49 3.3.3. Chronic RfD ................................................................................................................ 50 3.3.4. Surrogate RfD for Occupational Exposures ............................................................... 51 3.3.5. Dose-Severity Relationships ....................................................................................... 52 iii 3.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION ....................................................................................... 54 3.4.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................... 54 3.4.2. Workers ......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Bhagirathi Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Limited
    The Bhagirathi Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Limited TESTING PARAMETERS OF MILK & MILK PRODUCTS THAT SHOULD BE TESTED MICROBIOLOGICAL PARAMETER FOR PANEER 1] SPC(cfu/ ml) 2] Coliform (cfu/ ml) 3] E.Coli (cfu/ ml) 4] Salmonella (cfu/ 25gm) 5] Listeria monocytogenes (cfu/ gm) 6] Staphylococcus aureus (cfu/ gm) 7] Yeast & mould count (cfu/ gm) MICROBIOLOGICAL PARAMETER FOR DAHI 1] Coliform (cfu/ ml) 2] E.Coli (cfu/ ml) 3] Salmonella (cfu/ 25gm) 4] Listeria monocytogenes (cfu/ gm) 5] Staphylococcus aureus (cfu/ gm) 6] Yeast & mould count (cfu/ gm) 7] Anaerobic Spore count (cfu/ gm) MICROBIOLOGICAL PARAMETER IN FINISHED MILK THAT SHOULD BE TESTED 1] SPC(cfu/ ml) 2] Coliform (cfu/ ml) 3] Salmonella (cfu/ 25gm) 4] Listeria monocytogenes (cfu/ gm) The Bhagirathi Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Limited LIST OF ANTIBIOTICS IN FINISHED MILK THAT SHOULD BE TESTED 1. Ampicillin 2. Cloxacillin 3. Colistin 4. Dihydrostreptomycin Streptomycin 5. Chlortetracycline/Oxytetracycline/Tetracycline 6. Lincomycin 7. Neomycin 8. Salinomycin 9. Spectinomycin 10. Sulphadiazine 11. Sulphathiazole Sodium 12. Trimethoprim 13. Sulfadiazine 14. Sulfanilamide 15. Sulfaguanidine 16. Zine Bacitracin (minimum 60lU/mg dried substance) 17. Amprolium 18. Apramycin 19. Ceftiofur 20. Cephapirine 21. Clopidol 22. Enrofloxacin 23. Ethopabate 24. Flavophospholipol (Flavomycin) 25. Monensin 26. Sulphaquinoxaline 27. Sulfadimidine 28. Tyvalosin Tartrate 29. Virginiamycin 30. Acepromazine 31. Albendazole 32. Amitraz 33. Aspirin 34. Buserelin 35. Butafosfane 36. Butaphosphan 37. Calcium Borogluconate 38. Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate 39. Carboprost tromethamine 40. Cefquinone Sulphate 41. Chloral hydrate 42. Closprostenol Sodium 43. Clenbutrol (Broncopulmin powder) 44. Diethylcarbarnazine 45. Dinitolmide 46. Doramectin The Bhagirathi Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Limited LIST OF ANTIBIOTICS IN FINISHED MILK THAT SHOULD BE TESTED 47.
    [Show full text]
  • Poster Munoz Et Al Avm 4 Nt
    ANTHELMINTIC AVERMECTINS FOR THE TREATMENT OF NON- TUBERCULOSIS MYCOBACTERIA INFECTIONS IN CYSTIC FIBROSIS Lara Muñoz Muñoz1,2,*, Charles J. Thompson3, and Santiago Ramón-García2,3,4,* 1 Clinical University Hospital Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, Spain 2 Department of Microbiology, Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zaragoza, Spain; 3 Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Centre for Tuberculosis Research, University of British Columbia, Canada; 4 Research & Development Agency of Aragon (ARAID) Foundation, Spain. *Email: [email protected] and [email protected] INTRODUCTION Pulmonary disease caused by non-tuberculosis mycobacteria (NTM) has emerged as a major threat to the health of individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF). The NTM most commonly identified are Mycobacterium abscessus (MABSC) and Mycobacterium avium (MAC) complexes. MABSC includes 3 species M. abscessus sb. abscessus, M. abscessus sb. bolletii and M. abscessus sb. masiliense. Ivermectin Selamectin Avermectins are a family of macrocyclic lactone compounds used as anthelmintics. Although inactive against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, they have demonstrated in vitro activity against mycobacterial species, including Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium ulcerans and Mycobacteriym marinum (PMID: 26270480 & 23165468). Milbemycin Doramectin OBJECTIVE oxime To evaluate the in vitro activity of the avermectins against MABSC and MAC. CONCLUSIONS The avermectins comprise clinically approved drugs (i.e. ivermectin) and are extensively
    [Show full text]
  • Sheet1 Page 1 a Abamectin Acetazolamide Sodium Adenosine-5-Monophosphate Aklomide Albendazole Alfaxalone Aloe Vera Alphadolone A
    Sheet1 A Abamectin Acetazolamide sodium Adenosine-5-monophosphate Aklomide Albendazole Alfaxalone Aloe vera Alphadolone Acetate Alpha-galactosidase Altrenogest Amikacin and its salts Aminopentamide Aminopyridine Amitraz Amoxicillin Amphomycin Amphotericin B Ampicillin Amprolium Anethole Apramycin Asiaticoside Atipamezole Avoparcin Azaperone B Bambermycin Bemegride Benazepril Benzathine cloxacillin Benzoyl Peroxide Benzydamine Bephenium Bephenium Hydroxynaphthoate Betamethasone Boldenone undecylenate Boswellin Bromelain Bromhexine 2-Bromo-2-nitropan-1, 3 diol Bunamidine Buquinolate Butamisole Butonate Butorphanol Page 1 Sheet1 C Calcium glucoheptonate (calcium glucoheptogluconate) Calcium levulinate Cambendazole Caprylic/Capric Acid Monoesters Carbadox Carbomycin Carfentanil Carnidazole Carnitine Carprofen Cefadroxil Ceftiofur sodium Centella asiatica Cephaloridine Cephapirin Chlorine dioxide Chlormadinone acetate Chlorophene Chlorothiazide Chlorpromazine HCl Choline Salicylate Chondroitin sulfate Clazuril Clenbuterol Clindamycin Clomipramine Clopidol Cloprostenol Clotrimazole Cloxacillin Colistin sulfate Copper calcium edetate Copper glycinate Coumaphos Cromolyn sodium Crystalline Hydroxycobalamin Cyclizine Cyclosporin A Cyprenorphine HCl Cythioate D Decoquinate Demeclocycline (Demethylchlortetracycline) Page 2 Sheet1 Deslorelin Desoxycorticosterone Pivalate Detomidine Diaveridine Dichlorvos Diclazuril Dicloxacillin Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride Diethanolamine Diethylcarbamazine Dihydrochlorothiazide Diidohydroxyquin Dimethylglycine
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring Within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘I: Synthesis Report
    Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘i: Synthesis Report Prepared by Francis G. Howarth, David J. Preston, and Richard Pyle Honolulu, Hawaii January 2012 Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘i: Synthesis Report Francis G. Howarth, David J. Preston, and Richard Pyle Hawaii Biological Survey Bishop Museum Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817 USA Prepared for EKNA Services Inc. 615 Pi‘ikoi Street, Suite 300 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96814 and State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Airports Division Bishop Museum Technical Report 58 Honolulu, Hawaii January 2012 Bishop Museum Press 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i Copyright 2012 Bishop Museum All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America ISSN 1085-455X Contribution No. 2012 001 to the Hawaii Biological Survey COVER Adult male Hawaiian long-horned wood-borer, Plagithmysus kahului, on its host plant Chenopodium oahuense. This species is endemic to lowland Maui and was discovered during the arthropod surveys. Photograph by Forest and Kim Starr, Makawao, Maui. Used with permission. Hawaii Biological Report on Monitoring Arthropods within Kahului Airport Environs, Synthesis TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents …………….......................................................……………...........……………..…..….i. Executive Summary …….....................................................…………………...........……………..…..….1 Introduction ..................................................................………………………...........……………..…..….4
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,173.403 B2 Rosentel, Jr
    USOO9173403B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,173.403 B2 Rosentel, Jr. et al. (45) Date of Patent: Nov. 3, 2015 (54) PARASITICIDAL COMPOSITIONS FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS COMPRISING MULTIPLE ACTIVE AGENTS, BR PIO403620 A 3, 2006 METHODS AND USES THEREOF EP 83.6851 A 4f1998 GB 2457734 8, 2009 (75) Inventors: Joseph K. Rosentel, Jr., Johns Creek, WO WO 98,17277 4f1998 GA (US); Monica Tejwani, Monmouth WO WO O2/O94233 11, 2002 WO WO2004/O16252 2, 2004 Junction, NJ (US); Arima Das-Nandy, WO WO 2007/O18659 2, 2007 Titusville, NJ (US) WO WO 2008/O3O385 3, 2008 WO 2008/136791 11, 2008 (73) Assignee: MERLAL, INC., Duluth, GA (US) WO WO 2009/O18198 2, 2009 WO WO 2009/027506 3, 2009 WO 2009/112837 9, 2009 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this WO WO 2010/026370 3, 2010 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 WO WO2010.109214 9, 2010 U.S.C. 154(b) by 100 days. OTHER PUBLICATIONS (21) Appl. No.: 13/078,496 Notice of Opposition in the matter of New Zealand Patent Applica (22) Filed: Apr. 1, 2011 tion 595934 in the name of Norbrook Laboratories Limited and Opposition thereto by Merial Limited dated Jun. 28, 2014. (65) Prior Publication Data First Supplementary Notice of Opposition in the matter of New Zealand Patent Application 595934 in the name of Norbrook Labo US 2011 FO245191 A1 Oct. 6, 2011 ratories Limited and Opposition thereto by Merial Limited dated Aug. 28, 2014. Second Supplementary Notice of Opposition in the matter of New Related U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings
    HIGHLIGHTS CHAPTER 8 Derived from living systems Bacillus thuringiensis is the most important live agent Biologicals and Insecticides Generally of low-order of Biological Origin toxicity Poison control center advice can help avoid potentially harmful treatment This chapter concerns several widely used insecticidal products of natural origin, and also certain agents usually identified as biological control agents. This latter group includes many living control agents, though only the bacterial agent Bacillus thuringi- SIGNS & SYMPTOMS ensis will be discussed in detail, as it is one of the most widely used. Other agents, such as parasitic wasps and insects, are so host specific they pose little or no risk to man. Highly variable based on Many of the pesticides in this chapter, with the notable exception of nicotine, are specific agents relatively less toxic to mammals than to insects. Consequently, there may be no findings Several cause GI irritation of toxicity following ingestion of these compounds. While clinicians should always consider calling their regional poison control center (1-800-222-1222) for advice on Nicotine may have serious any poisoning, it may be of particular value in the case of some of these biological CNS effects pesticides, where no treatment is warranted and poison control center advice can help Nicotine and sabadilla may avoid potentially harmful treatments. have cardiovascular effects Agents are presented in alphabetical order. TREATMENT AVERMECTIN Specific to the agent Source and Products Skin, eye, GI Avermectin and related products are synthetically derived from the toxin of the soil decontamination may be bacterium Streptomyces avermitilis. They are used for control of mites, fire ants (ant indicated bait stations) and other insects.
    [Show full text]
  • China Releases New Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides In
    GB 2763-2016 THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY Voluntary - Public Date: 3/31/2017 GAIN Report Number: CH17016 China - Peoples Republic of Post: Beijing China Releases New Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food Report Categories: FAIRS Subject Report Approved By: Lisa Anderson Prepared By: FAS Staff Report Highlights: On December 18, 2016, the Chinese National Health and Family Planning Commission, Ministry of Agriculture, China Food and Drug Administration released the National Food Safety Standard - Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Foods (GB 2763-2016). The standard will replace the current MRL Standard (GB 2763-2014) and will be implemented on June 18, 2017. This report provides an unofficial translation of the standard. Editors’ Note: The asterisk appearing in the MRL column means that the limit is a temporary MRL. A temporary MRL is usually set under the following four conditions: 1. The dietary risk assessment data is incomplete; 2. The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is temporary (ADI is used as the basis for MRL setting); 3. There is no surveillance or analysis method for the MRL that complies with the standard requirements; 4. In emergency situations, the pesticide is approved to be used on un-registered crops. I GB 2763-2016 General Information: BEGIN TRANSLATION ICS 65.100 G 25 GB National Standard of the People’s Republic of China GB 2763—2016 Replacing GB 2763 - 2014 National food safety standard Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food General Information: National Health and Family Planning Commission Issued by: Ministry of Agriculture China Food and Drug Administration Issued on: 2016-12-18 Implementation:2017-06-18 II GB 2763-2016 Table of Content Preface ...............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Arthropod Natural Enemies in Broccoli with Relay Strip-Cropping
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Daniel M. McGrath for the degree of Doctor of Philosophyin Entomology presented on February 15, 2000. Title: Conservation ofArthropod Natural Enemies in Broccoli with Relay Strip-Cropping Redacted for privacy Abstract approved: Relay strip-cropping combines two vegetation management tactics,under- sowing and strip-management. In this study conductedfrom 1994 though 1997, a cover crop seed-mixture containing oats (Avena sativa L.var. "Monida"), common vetch ( Vicia sativa L.), red clover (Tr4foliumpratense L.), annual ryegrass (Lolium multflorum Lam.), and buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentumMoench) was broadcast over established broccoli (Brassica oleracea L.) 32days after planting. The broccoli was planted, under-sown, and harvestedin sections alternated with strips of cover crop. Thecover crop relay provided tillage and pesticide refuges for beneficial insects without taking landout of broccoli production. Relay strip- cropping increased the abundance and diversity of groundbeetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae), spiders (Araneae), harvestmen (Opiliones: Phalangiidae),lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), and damsel bugs (Heteroptera: Nabidae)in the cropping system; however, this did not always result inincreased natural enemies in the broccoli. Arthropod species varied significantly in theirpropensity to leave the non-crop vegetation andmove into the broccoli. Movement of the lady beetle Coccinella septempunctata L. from thecover crop strips into the broccoli may have depressed aphid populations in 1996. Thenon-crop vegetation may have served as a sink rather than a source for Nabis species and appeared to reduce their density in the broccoli growing nearby. Therewas no evidence that background vegetation surrounding the broccoli reduced colonization by winged aphids.The density of the cabbage flea beetle Phyllotreta crucferae Goezewas lower in the broccoli relay compared with the clean-tilled broccoli.
    [Show full text]
  • Tolerance and Efficacy of Emamectin Benzoate and Ivermectin for the Treatment of Pseudocapillaria Tomentosa in Laboratory Zebrafish (Danio Rerio)
    Tolerance and Efficacy of Emamectin Benzoate and Ivermectin for the Treatment of Pseudocapillaria tomentosa in Laboratory Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Collymore, C., Watral, V., White, J. R., Colvin, M. E., Rasmussen, S., Tolwani, R. J., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Tolerance and Efficacy of Emamectin Benzoate and Ivermectin for the Treatment of Pseudocapillaria tomentosa in Laboratory Zebrafish (Danio rerio). Zebrafish, 11(5), 490-497. doi:10.1089/zeb.2014.1021 10.1089/zeb.2014.1021 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Version of Record http://cdss.library.oregonstate.edu/sa-termsofuse ZEBRAFISH Volume 11, Number 5, 2014 Fish Haus ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/zeb.2014.1021 Tolerance and Efficacy of Emamectin Benzoate and Ivermectin for the Treatment of Pseudocapillaria tomentosa in Laboratory Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Chereen Collymore,1,* Virginia Watral,2 Julie R. White,1,3 Michael E. Colvin,2 Skye Rasmussen,1,3 Ravi J. Tolwani,1,3 and Michael L. Kent2 Abstract Tolerance of adult zebrafish and efficacy of emamectin benzoate and ivermectin in eliminating Pseudoca- pillaria tomentosa infection were evaluated. In the tolerance study, behavioral changes, fecundity, histopa- thology, and mortality were evaluated for in-feed administration of emamectin (0.05, 0.10, and 0.25 mg/kg) and ivermectin (0.05 and 0.10 mg/kg). All doses of emamectin were well tolerated. Ivermectin 0.05 mg/kg ad- ministration resulted in mild behavioral changes and a transient decrease in fecundity. Ivermectin 0.10 mg/kg administration resulted in severe behavioral changes and some mortality. In the efficacy study, emamectin (0.05 and 0.25 mg/kg) and ivermectin (0.05 mg/kg) were evaluated for their efficacy in eliminating P.
    [Show full text]
  • DETERMINATION of BENZIMIDAZOLE and AVERMECTIN RESIDUES in BOVINE MILK by LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY -TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY Date
    DETERMINATION OF BENZIMIDAZOLE AND AVERMECTIN RESIDUES IN BOVINE MILK BY LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY -TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY Date: 2014-april-18 PRINCIPLE This method is based on the principle of the quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe (QuEChERS) method [1]. It includes extraction of a representative portion of the sample with acetonitrile (MeCN) followed by salting out and dispersive solid-phase extraction with a mixture of magnesium sulphate and C18 material. After clean-up, an aliquot of the supernatant is analyzed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). SCOPE This analytical method includes determination of residues of seven benzimidazoles (albendazole, thiabendazole, albendazole-sulphoxide, albendazole-sulphone, triclabendazole, triclabendazole-sulphoxide and triclabendazole-sulphone) and three avermectins (abamectin, emamectin and ivermectin) in bovine milk at concentration levels of 5 ngg−1 to 500 ngg−1. MATERIALS The following reagents and chemical are applicable: MeCN; High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) grade Methanol (MeOH); Octadecylsilane sorbent C18; Sodium Chloride (NaCl), analytical grade; Ammonium acetate, analytical grade; Formic acid, analytical grade; Primary secondary amine (PSA) sorbent; Magnesium sulphate anhydrous. Standards and stock solutions The analytical standards include: Albendazole 99.6% and Ivermectin 91.0% from United States Pharmacopoeia (USP); Thiabendazole 98.3%, Abamectin 94.4%, Emamectin, 96.5%; Cyprodinil, 99.5% all from Chem service; Albendazole-sulphoxide,
    [Show full text]
  • NRDC Comments August 2015
    EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0422 NRDC comments August 2015 September 28, 2015 Comments from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on the Draft Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for Screening Analysis EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0422 These comments are supported by: Alaska Community Action on Toxics Pam Miller, Executive Director As You Sow Austin Wilson, Environmental Health Program Manager Beyond Pesticides Nichelle Harriott, Science and Regulatory Director Beyond Toxics Lisa Arkin, Executive Director Californians for Pesticide Reform Sarah Aird, Acting Executive Director California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Anne Katten, Pesticide and Work Safety Project Director Center for Biological Diversity Lori Ann Burd, Environmental Health Director and Staff Attorney Center for Effective Government Ronald White, Director of Regulatory Policy 1 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0422 NRDC comments August 2015 Center for Environmental Health Caroline Cox, Research Director Community Science Institute Denny Larson, Executive Director Environmental Working Group Sonya Lunder, Senior Analyst Farmworker Association of Florida Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project Coordinator Farmworker Justice Virginia Ruiz, Director of Occupational and Environmental Health Friends of the Earth US Tiffany Finck-Haynes, Food futures campaigner Glynn Environmental Coalition Daniel Parshley, Project manager Brunswick, Georgia Greenpeace USA Rick Hind, Legislative Director Green Science Policy Institute Arlene Blum, Executive Director Informed Green Solutions
    [Show full text]