DOCSLIB.ORG

Endothall Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment FINAL REPORT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Endothall Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment FINAL REPORT SERA TR-052-16-04a Endothall 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-08-0013 SERA Internal Task No. 52-16 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 8125 Solomon Seal Manlius, New York 13104 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com November 27, 2009 Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures................................................................................................................................vi List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Attachments........................................................................................................................ vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ............................................................... vii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................... ix CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ............................................................................ x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... xi 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................... 4 2.1. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.2. CHEMICAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMERCIAL FORMULATIONS........................ 4 2.3. APPLICATION METHODS.............................................................................................. 6 2.4. MIXING AND APPLICATION RATES ........................................................................... 7 2.5. USE STATISTICS............................................................................................................ 10 3. Human Health Risk Assessment............................................................................................... 12 3.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION........................................................................................ 12 3.1.1. Overview..................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2. Mechanism of Action.................................................................................................. 12 3.1.3. Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism ............................................................................. 13 3.1.3.1. General Considerations........................................................................................ 13 3.1.3.2. Absorption............................................................................................................ 15 3.1.3.2.1. Oral Absorption ............................................................................................ 15 3.1.3.2.2. Dermal Absorption........................................................................................ 16 3.1.3.3. Excretion.............................................................................................................. 18 3.1.4. Acute Oral Toxicity .................................................................................................... 18 3.1.5. Subchronic or Chronic Systemic Toxic Effects.......................................................... 20 3.1.6. Effects on Nervous System......................................................................................... 22 3.1.7. Effects on Immune System ......................................................................................... 22 3.1.8. Effects on Endocrine System...................................................................................... 23 3.1.9. Reproductive and Developmental Effects .................................................................. 23 3.1.9.1. Developmental Studies ........................................................................................ 23 3.1.9.2. Reproduction Studies........................................................................................... 24 3.1.10. Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity............................................................................ 25 3.1.11. Irritation and Sensitization (Effects on the Skin and Eyes) ...................................... 26 3.1.11.1. Skin Irritation..................................................................................................... 26 3.1.11.2. Skin Sensitization............................................................................................... 27 3.1.11.3. Ocular Effects .................................................................................................... 27 3.1.12. Systemic Toxic Effects from Dermal Exposure ....................................................... 28 3.1.13. Inhalation Exposure .................................................................................................. 30 3.1.14. Inerts and Adjuvants ................................................................................................. 31 3.1.14.1. Inerts .................................................................................................................. 31 3.1.14.2. Adjuvants ........................................................................................................... 32 ii 3.1.15. Impurities and Metabolites ....................................................................................... 32 3.1.15.1. Metabolites......................................................................................................... 32 3.1.15.2. Impurities ........................................................................................................... 32 3.1.16. Toxicological Interactions ........................................................................................ 32 3.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 33 3.2.1. Overview..................................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2. Workers....................................................................................................................... 34 3.2.2.1. General Exposures ............................................................................................... 34 3.2.2.2. Accidental Exposures........................................................................................... 38 3.2.3. General Public........................................................................................................... 39 3.2.3.1.1. General Considerations................................................................................. 39 3.2.3.1.2. Summary of Assessments ............................................................................. 40 3.2.3.2. Direct Spray ......................................................................................................... 41 3.2.3.3. Dermal Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation............................................... 41 3.2.3.4. Contaminated Water ............................................................................................ 41 3.2.3.4.1. Peak Expected Concentrations...................................................................... 41 3.2.3.4.2. Longer-Term Expected Concentrations........................................................ 42 3.2.3.4.3. Accidental Spills ........................................................................................... 43 3.2.3.5. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Fish .............................................................. 44 3.2.3.6. Dermal Exposure from Swimming in Contaminated Water................................ 45 3.2.3.7. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation.................................................... 45 3.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. 46 3.3.1. Overview..................................................................................................................... 46 3.3.2. Acute RfD ................................................................................................................... 46 3.3.3. Chronic RfD................................................................................................................ 47 3.3.4. Surrogate RfD for Occupational Exposures ............................................................... 48 3.3.5. Dose-Severity Relationships....................................................................................... 49 3.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION....................................................................................... 51 3.4.1. Overview..................................................................................................................... 51 3.4.2. Workers......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Poxviruses: Smallpox Vaccine, Its Complications and Chemotherapy
    Virus Adaptation and Treatment Dovepress open access to scientific and medical research Open Access Full Text Article R E V IEW Poxviruses: smallpox vaccine, its complications and chemotherapy Mimi Remichkova Abstract: The threat of bioterrorism in the recent years has once again posed to mankind the unresolved problems of contagious diseases, well forgotten in the past. Smallpox (variola) is Department of Pathogenic Bacteria, The Stephan Angeloff Institute among the most dangerous and highly contagious viral infections affecting humans. The last of Microbiology, Bulgarian Academy natural case in Somalia marked the end of a successful World Health Organization campaign of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria for smallpox eradication by vaccination on worldwide scale. Smallpox virus still exists today in some laboratories, specially designated for that purpose. The contemporary response in the treatment of the post-vaccine complications, which would occur upon enforcing new programs for mass-scale smallpox immunization, includes application of effective chemotherapeutics and their combinations. The goals are to provide the highest possible level of protection and safety of For personal use only. the population in case of eventual terrorist attack. This review describes the characteristic features of the poxviruses, smallpox vaccination, its adverse reactions, and poxvirus chemotherapy. Keywords: poxvirus, smallpox vaccine, post vaccine complications, inhibitors Characteristics of poxviruses Smallpox (variola) infection is caused by the smallpox virus. This virus belongs to the genus of Orthopoxvirus included in the Poxviridae family. Poxviruses are one of the largest and most complexly structured viruses, known so far. The genome of poxviruses consists of a linear two-chained DNA and its replication takes place in the cytoplasm of the infected cell.
    [Show full text]
  • FSC-TPL-01-002 Application for a Derogation to Use a Highly Hazardous Pesticide
    FSC-TPL-01-002 Application for a derogation to use a highly hazardous pesticide. 2,4-D, 2-ethylhexyl ester Name and contact details of SCS certification body requesting Dave Wager derogation: [email protected] 510 251-7049 To be completed at the national level Active ingredient for which derogation requested: Geographical scope of All states of USA requested derogation: Is there an accredited or preliminarily accredited FSC FSC US standard Forest Stewardship Standard applicable to the territory concerned? Requested time period for derogation: 5 years (nb Derogations shall normally be issued for a five-year period. There will be a presumption against renewal of a derogation after the expiry of the five-year period). 1. Demonstrated need Need may be demonstrated where: - The pesticide is used for protecting native species and forests against damage caused by introduced species or for protecting human health against dangerous diseases, OR - Use of the pesticide is obligatory under national laws or regulations, OR - Use of the pesticide is the only economically, environmentally, socially and technically feasible way of controlling specific organisms which are causing severe damage in natural forests or plantations in the specified country (as indicated by consideration, assessments and preferably field-trials of alternative non- chemical or less toxic pest-management methods) Explain how the proposed use complies with the specified criteria for need, including the consideration of alternatives which do not require the use of pesticides on the FSC list of ‘highly hazardous pesticides’: Overview 2,4-D ester is a selective herbicide used to control broad leaved plants such as woody species and forbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station
    ORTMAL DO ;10T REMOVE 7.9 m FILE Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station Oregon State University, Corvallis I FIELD APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES--AVOIDING DANGER TO FISH Erland T. Juntunen Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon and Logan A. Norris Pacific Northwest Forestry Sciences Laboratory and Range Experiment Station Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture Corvallis, Oregon April, 1972 Trade names are used in this publication solely to provide specific information. No endorsement of products is intended nor is criticism implieLl to products mentioned or omitted. Recommendations are not made concerning safe use of products nor is any guarantee or warranty of results or effects of the products intended or implied. ii Chemical weed and brush control with herbicides is an important land management practice in modern agriculture and forestry. In some cases, herbicides are applied directly to bodies of water for aquatic weed control. More commonly, herbicides are applied to lands adjacent to waterways for general weed and brush control. The responsible applicator will avoid damage to fishery resources by being fully aware of a particular herbicides potential hazard to fish. Herbicide applications should be considered hazardous to fish when there is the probability fish will be exposed to herbicide concen- trations which are harmful. This bulletin offers information that will aid in selecting the particular herbicides and formulations of least hazard to fish considering the toxicity of the herbicide and the poten- tial for its entry into streams, lakes, or ponds. Entry of Herbicides into the Aquatic Environment In aquatic weed control, the effective concentration of herbicide in the water depends on the rate of application, the rate of the spread of the chemical, the size and chemical composition of the body of water, the rate of degradation or adsorption of the chemical on sediments, and the rate of mixing of treated water with untreated water.
    [Show full text]
  • Blister Beetles in Alfalfa Circular 536 Revised by Jane Breen Pierce1
    Blister Beetles in Alfalfa Circular 536 Revised by Jane Breen Pierce1 Cooperative Extension Service • College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences This publication provides information on the veterinary Table 1. Estimated Number of Beetles for a Lethal and agronomic importance, distinguishing features, (1 mg/kg) Dose of Cantharidin biology, distribution, and control of blister beetles. Beetle Horse Weight (lb) Recommendations for the purchase and use of alfalfa Cantharidin hay by horse owners and other livestock owners are Content (mg) 275 550 1,000 also provided. 1 125 250 455 2 63 125 244 3 41 83 161 VETERINARY SIGNIFICANCE OF BLISTER BEETLES 4 31 63 122 The common name for blister beetles comes from the 5 25 50 97 irritating reaction the beetle’s body fluids cause on ani- Adapted from Campinera et al. (1985) mal skin or delicate membranes. These fluids contain cantharidin, a potent blistering agent that is present in varying amounts in most blister beetle species. Fluids are blistering of the mouth, esophagus, stomach, and blad- released when the beetle is crushed or handled roughly. der. Death can occur 24 hours after a heavy dose. Cantharidin is a stable chemical and a long-term health Laboratory studies have been conducted to determine threat to nearly all livestock (particularly horses) that are the amount of cantharidin contained in various species fed contaminated hay. Storing infested hay does not sig- of blister beetles. Reports on beetles in several genera nificantly reduce the amount of cantharidin in the hay. indicate cantharidin content varying from 1 to 11.3% Research reports indicate cantharidin toxosis can be of their dry weight.
    [Show full text]
  • BLISTER BEETLES in ALFALFA L.Ee Townsend, Extension Entomologist
    U N I V E R S I T Y O F K E N T U C K Y COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY ENTFACT-102 BLISTER BEETLES IN ALFALFA L.ee Townsend, Extension Entomologist Several of the common members of this group of Female blister beetles lay clusters of eggs in the soil in beetles contain a chemical that often causes blisters late summer. The small, active larvae that hatch from when applied to the skin; thus the name blister beetles. these eggs crawl over the soil surface entering cracks The substance can be toxic to animals that eat a in search for grasshopper egg pods which are deposited sufficient amount. An understanding of the insects and in the soil. After finding the eggmass, blister beetle their life cycles allows sound management practices to larvae become immobile and spend the rest of their minimize the chances of trapping beetles in hay. It also developmental time as legless grubs. The following gives horse and livestock owners information to summer they transform into the pupal stage and soon consider when making hay purchases. One major emerge in the adult stage. This is why blister beetle factor that increases potential for blister beetle numbers increase dramatically following high problems is crimping hay. This crushes the beetles and grasshopper populations. leaves them in the hay where they can be eaten by animals. The second factor is a large increase in Blister Beetle Toxicity grasshopper numbers. The larval stages of these blister Cantharidin is the poisonous substance in blister beetles develop on grasshopper egg pods in the soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of New Cantharidin Derivatives As
    IDENTIFICATION OF NEW CANTHARIDIN DERIVATIVES AS NOVEL POTENTIAL INHIBITORS OF PROTEIN PHOSPHATASES 2 AND 5 (PP2A, PP5) Olga Balabon, Dariia Samofalova Life Chemicals Europe GmbH, Leonhardsweg 2, 82008 Unterhaching, Germany. e-mail: [email protected] Cantharidin, a natural compound occurring in medicinal insect blister beetle (Mylabris phalerata Pallas), The docking results showed that three amino acid and its water-soluble demethylated synthetic analog norcantharidin (better known as endothall), residues, Arg275, Asn303, His304, and Arg275, His304, historically used in the purification of phosphorylated proteins, were identified as inhibitors of Arg400 (PP5 and PP2A, respectively) were the most serine-threonine protein phosphatases (PP). Cantharidin (CID 5944, hydrolyzing into cathartic acid important for the ligand binding. In total, nine residues were demonstrated to be involved in the binding - CID 2544) is a potent selective inhibitor of PP2A and PP5 [PMID: 1334551], while of the inhibitors. The completeness of the amino norcantharidin (CID 93004) is a medium-strength inhibitor of PP2A only acid sequence and the profile of the site interaction [PMID:12003183, 23809227]. These compounds have extensively been studied as promising leads in were determined by pairwise and profile alignment with the development of more effective therapeutics for the treatment of cancer, the original sequence (with ClustalX). The binding site neurodegenerative disorders, and type 1 diabetes mellitus. As no highly PP5 selective inhibitors for
    [Show full text]
  • CAS No.) Screening Justification Is Public Comment Now Open? CAS No
    EGLE Air Quality Division (AQD) Air Toxics Screening Level Justifications (Numerically by CAS No.) Screening Justification Is Public Comment Now Open? CAS No. Chemical Name Level & Responses Info E-Mail AQD Deadline None ad acid View View Not Open for Public Comment None amyl acetate (mixture) View View Not Open for Public Comment None atlox 848 View View Not Open for Public Comment None biosam tp-1.5 View View Not Open for Public Comment None calcium chloride View View Not Open for Public Comment None epoxy resin solution View View Not Open for Public Comment None heptamethyl-1-vinyl-1,7-dichlorotetrasilazane View View Not Open for Public Comment None n-butylglucamine View View Not Open for Public Comment None n-chloro-2,6-difluorobenzamide View View Not Open for Public Comment None trichloroethylene View View Not Open for Public Comment None triethylammonium suleptanate View View Not Open for Public Comment 50-00-0 formaldehyde View View Not Open for Public Comment 50-03-3 hydrocortisone acetate View View Not Open for Public Comment 50-21-5 lactic acid View View Not Open for Public Comment 50-28-2 estradiol View View Not Open for Public Comment 50-29-3 ddt View View Not Open for Public Comment 50-32-8 benzo(a)pyrene View View Not Open for Public Comment 51-28-5 2,4-dinitrophenol View View Not Open for Public Comment 53-36-1 methyl predisolone acetate View View Not Open for Public Comment 53-70-3 dibenz(a,h)anthracene View View Not Open for Public Comment 56-23-5 carbon tetrachloride View View Not Open for Public Comment 56-49-5 3-methylcholanthrene View View Not Open for Public Comment 56-55-3 benz(a)anthracene View View Not Open for Public Comment 56-81-5 glycerol View View Not Open for Public Comment 57-11-4 stearic acid View View Not Open for Public Comment Revised Monday, September 27, 2021 Page 1 of 51 EGLE Air Quality Division (AQD) Air Toxics Screening Level Justifications (Numerically by CAS No.) Screening Justification Is Public Comment Now Open? CAS No.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review of Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation With
    Eurasian watermilfoil in Christmas Lake, 2011 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Prepared for: Prepared by: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Steve McComas Blue Water Science St. Paul, MN 55116 September 2011 1 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Steve McComas, Blue Water Science Table of Contents page number Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Use of Herbicides as an Aquatic Plant Control Technique ...................................................................................... 2 How Herbicides Work and Their Mode of Action ....................................................................................................... 3 Aquatic Herbicide Impacts on Humans and the Ecosystem ....................................................................................... 8 Where to Find Sources of Specific Information on herbicide Products and Their Active Ingredients ....................... 16 Harvesting, Drawdown, and Biocontrol as Aquatic Plant Control Techniques ................................................... 17 Summary of Control Techniques for Non-Native Curlyleaf Pondweed and Eurasian Watermilfoil ................... 25 Control Techniques for Other
    [Show full text]
  • Wöhler Synthesis of Urea
    Wöhler synthesis of urea Wöhler, 1928 – – + + NH Cl + K N C O 4 NH4 N C O O H2N NH2 Friedrich Wöhler Annalen der Physik und Chemie 1828, 88, 253–256 Significance: Wöhler was the first to make an organic substance from an inorganic substance. This was the beginning of the end of the theory of vitalism: the idea that organic and inorganic materials differed essentially by the presence of the “vital force”– present only in organic material. To his mentor Berzelius:“I can make urea without thereby needing to have kidneys, or anyhow, an animal, be it human or dog" Friedrich Wöhler, 1880-1882 Polytechnic School in Berlin Support for vitalism remained until 1845, when Kolbe synthesized acetic acid Polytechnic School at Kassel from carbon disulfide University of Göttingen Fischer synthesis of glucose PhHN N O N O NHPh Br aq. HCl Δ PhNH2NH2 HO H HO H O Br "α−acrose" H OH H OH H OH H OH CH2OH CH2OH α−acrosazone α−acrosone an “osazone” (osazone test for reducing sugars) Zn/AcOH OH OH CO2H CHO O HO H HO H OH Br2 HO H HO H Na-Hg HO H HNO3 HO H H OH H OH H OH H OH then resolve H O+ H OH via strychnine H OH H OH 3 H OH CH2OH salts CH2OH CH OH CH2OH 2 D-Mannonic acid DL-Mannose DL-Mannitol DL-Fructose quinoline • Established stereochemical relationship CO2H CHO H OH H OH between mannose and glucose Na-Hg HO H HO H (part of Fischer proof) H OH + H OH H3O • work mechanisms from acrosazone on H OH H OH Emil Fischer, 1852-1919 CH2OH CH2OH University of Munich (1875-81) D-Gluconic acid D-Glucose University of Erlangen (1881-88) University of Würzburg (1888-92) University of Berlin (1892-1919) Fischer, E.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Cantharidin for Verruca
    CHA PT ER 4 USE OF CANTHARIDIN FOR VERRUCA Mickey D. Stapp, DPM HISTORY MECHANISM OF ACTION Cantharidin has been used for more than 2,000 years in Cantharidin is a vesicant produced by beetles belonging to both folk and traditional medicine. It was used in China the order of Coleoptera and the family of Meloidae. for many medicinal purposes including furuncles, ulcers, and Cantharidin used medically is collected from species of the tuberculosis, topically, and for abdominal masses, rabies, and genera Mylabris and Lytta, especially Lytta vesicatoria, as an anticancer agent, orally. In Europe, it appeared in better known as “Spanish Fly.” The male blister beetle Materia Medica, a medical monograph written in 50 to produces the substance, giving the chemical to the female 100 AD. Hippocrates prescribed cantharidin as a treatment during mating. Afterwards the female beetle will cover its for dropsy (1). eggs with the chemical as a defense against predators (6). Cantharidin has a long infamous reputation for being Cantharidin acts as a blistering agent or acantholytic. an aphrodisiac and is known as Spanish fly. This reputation The lipid layers of epidermal cell membranes absorb it. Once is based on the observation of pelvic congestion in women applied, cantharidin causes release of neutral serine proteases and priapism in men after cantharidin ingestion. It is not that cause degeneration of the desmosmal plaque, leading a true aphrodisiac, and fatal poisonings can occur (2). to detachment of tonofilaments from desmosomes (7). This Cantharidin has also been used as a homicidal agent in leads to intraepidermal blistering and nonspecific lysis of the South Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Describing Herbicide Selectivity in Aquatics : the Devil Is in the Details
    Describing Herbicide Selectivity in Aquatics : The Devil is in the Details BUILDING STRONG® Managing Plants vs. Expectations . There is a general view that a “right way” exists to manage invasive aquatic plants ►The problem: • it is typically done in a state other than your own . Why do aquatic herbicide use patterns vary so significantly? • State to State (rules/laws) • Region to Region (problem) Lakes vs. Reservoirs 2 BUILDING STRONG® Regional Perspectives on Control NE and Upper Midwest . Native plant protection is the priority- natural lakes ► Can have 30+ submersed species in a lake ► Thousands of kettle lakes = native plants . Permitting process is often onerous . State Grants – MN and WI – $2+ million . Scale of herbicide use & rates are often dictated . Limited emergent management (WETLANDS!) ► Purple Loosestrife, Phragmites BUILDING STRONG® Regional Perspective Southern US . Floating Plant – Kill it . Submersed Plant – Kill it . Emergent Plant – Kill it . Something will re-grow . For perspective – in FL multiple large-scale APM efforts going on nearly every work day of year BUILDING STRONG® What is a Herbicide ? . Typically an Organic Compound (ex. ?) . Controlled/Selective Plant Poisoning ►Each herbicide has unique properties . Chemistry of the Herbicide Dictates ►How it behaves in the plant ►How it behaves in the environment 5 BUILDING STRONG® Mechanisms of Tolerance (Selectivity) Herbicide X Not Absorbed Sequestered in the Vacuole Does Not Bind Me To Enzyme Y Metabolized to Z 6 BUILDING STRONG® 13 Herbicides Labeled for Aquatic Use (223 labeled for terrestrial use) Copper (1900’s) 2,4-D (1950’s) Endothall (1960) Diquat (1962) Glyphosate (1977) Fluridone (1986) *Dicamba, Dalapon Simazine, Fenac cancelled in 1987) Triclopyr (2002) Imazapyr (2003) Carfentrazone (2004) Penoxsulam (2007) Imazamox (2008) Flumioxazin (2010) Bispyribac (2011) BUILDING STRONG® Plant Processes & Herbicides .
    [Show full text]
  • Antiparasitic Effects of Plant Species from the Diet of Great Bustards
    Antiparasitic Effects of Plant Species from the Diet of Great Bustards Paula Bolívar CSIC: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cienticas Luis M. Bautista ( [email protected] ) Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1503-652X María Teresa Gómez Universidad Complutense de Madrid Rafael A. Martínez Universidad Autónoma de Madrid: Universidad Autonoma de Madrid María Fe Andrés CSIC: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cienticas Juan Carlos Alonso CSIC: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cienticas Carolina Bravo Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé: Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chize Azucena González-Coloma CSIC: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cienticas Research Keywords: Great Bustard, Diet, self-medication, Papaver rhoeas, Echium plantagineum, antiparasitic activity Posted Date: December 10th, 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-122399/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Page 1/29 Abstract Background: Diets combine food types according to some trade-offs, as for example maximising nutrients and minimising toxins. But some diets include elements because of their activity against the host parasites and other pathogens. This so-called medicinal role of food is under-reported in the literature, either because toxic elements in diets of livestock and wildlife are infrequent, or because their activity against parasites and pathogens has not been fully documented. We contribute to ll this knowledge gap by testing the activity of extracts and essential oils from Papaver rhoeas and Echium plantagineum against a selection of laboratory pathogens. These plants are strongly selected by great bustards Otis tarda during the mating season.
    [Show full text]