Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:47:21.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The comparative rodenticidal efficiency of five anti-coagulants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

E. W. Bentley  and
Yvonne Larthe
E. W. Bentley
Affiliation:
Infestation Control Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey
Yvonne Larthe
Affiliation:
Infestation Control Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Results are presented of palatability tests and chronic toxicity tests with five anti-coagulant rodenticides at a variety of concentrations against wild Rattus norvegicus, R. rattus and Mus musculus. These results are compared with similar data for warfarin. Estimates are also given of the acute oral toxicity of two of the five, fumarin and diphacinone, to white rats.

2. The toxicity of the compounds vis-à-vis warfarin is examined from the standpoint of the risks to domestic animals involved in their use as rodenticides.

3. Coumachlor, 2-isovaleryl-1, 3-indandione and 2-naphthyl-1, 3-indandione are considered to be less effective than warfarin against R. norvegicus. Their effectiveness against R. rattus remains to be demonstrated.

4. Fumarin appears to be about as good as warfarin against R. norvegicus and R. rattus at similar concentrations. It appears to be slightly less effective against M. musculus.

5. Diphacinone at 0·0025% is regarded as a good alternative to 0·005% warfarin against R. norvegicus. At 0·0125% it is probably more effective against R. rattus than is 0·025% warfarin. The two poisons are about equally effective at this strength against M. musculus, but diphacinone is probably slightly more dangerous for domestic animals.

6. The results of a small number of field trials with fumarin and diphacinone are briefly summarized.

So many of our colleagues and others have helped at some stage or other of our investigations that it would be tedious to mention them all by name. We must, however, single out for our special thanks Mrs M. Rowe and Miss E. Taylor who carried out a large number of the laboratory tests, Mr A. Taylor on whose chemical experience and facilities we have freely drawn and Mr C. H. B. Worrall, Miss B. Jones, Mr S. R. Surtees and Mr J. H. Cuthbert (Department of Agriculture for Scotland) who carried out the field trials.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , June 1959 , pp. 135 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

References

REFERENCES

Bentley, E. W. (1958). Biological Methods for the Evaluation of Rodenticides, 35 pp. London: H. M. S. O.Google Scholar
Bentley, E. W. & Rowe, M. (1956). Pival, an anti-coagulant rodenticide. J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 20–7.Google Scholar
Bliss, C. I. (1938). The determination of dosage-mortality curves from small numbers, Quart. J. Pharm. 11, 192–216.Google Scholar
British Patent Specification (1955). 3-Substituted-4-hydroxycoumarin compounds. Brit. Pat. Spec. No. 734, 143, 3 pp.Google Scholar
Correll, J. T, Coleman, L. L., Long, S. & Willy, R. F. (1952). Diphenylacetyl-1, 3-indandione as a patent hypoprothrombinemic agent. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N. Y., 80, 139–43.Google Scholar
Crabtree, D. G. (1955). Analysis of field resports on the performance of Fumarin for the control of commensal rats and mice. Spec. Rep., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 05 18, 1955.Google Scholar
Dykstra, W. (1956). (Quoted in report of National Pest Control Association annual convention.) Pest Control, 24, (11), 21–30.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1952). Probit Analysis, 318 pp. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gates, R. L. (1957). Diphacin, new anti-coagulant rodenticide. Pest Control, 25, (8), 14, 16.Google Scholar
Hagan, E. C. & Radomski, J. L. (1953). The toxicity of 3-(acetonylbenzyl)-4-hydroxy-coumarin (warfarin) to laboratory animals. J. Amer. pharm. Ass. 42, 379–82.Google Scholar
Heinz, H. J. (1950). Modern Nagetiergifte. Schädlingsbekämpfung, 42, 192–5.Google Scholar
Hüter, F. (1950). Modern Nagetiervertilgungsmittel. Anz. Schädlingsk. 23, 49–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabat, H., Stohlman, E. F. & Smith, M. I. (1944). Hypoprothrombinemia produced by administration of indandione derivatives. J. Pharmacol. 80, 160–70.Google Scholar
Lhoste, J. (1955). Les rongeurs domestiques nuisibles, 149 pp. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Meyer, E. (1952). Erfahrungun über die Bekämpfung schädlicher Nagetiere mit Tomorin. Schädlingsbekämpfung, 10, 161–71.Google Scholar
Papworth, D. S. (1958). A review of the dangers of warfarin poisoning to animals other than rodents. Roy. Soc. Hlth. J. 78, 52–60.Google ScholarPubMed
Reiff, M. & Wiesmann, R. (1951). Untersuchungen über ein neues Rodentizid mit kumulativer Wirkung auf Basis der Cumarin-Derivate. Acta trop. Basel, 8, 97–130.Google Scholar
Saunders, J. P., Heisey, S. R., Goldstone, A. D. & Bay, E. C. (1955). Comparative toxicities of warfarin and some 2-acyl-1,3-indandiones in rats. J. Agric. Fd Chem. 3, 762–5.Google Scholar
Steiniger, F. (1953). Über die Wirksamkeit des ‘Fumarin’ eines neuen Antikoagulans zur Rattenbekämpfung, und seine Verträglichkeit für Haustiere. NachrBl. dtsch. PflSchDienst, 5, 167–8.Google Scholar
Wilk, W. (1957). Vergleichende pharmakologische und toxikologische Prüfung von Scilli-rosid-, Alpha-Naphthylthioharnstoff- und Cumarin-Präparaten. Z. angew. Zool. 44, 419–46.Google Scholar