See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/11968618

Pesticide acute toxicity reference values for birds

Article  in  Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology · February 2001

Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
100 2,897

6 authors, including:

Pierre Mineau Jason Duffe

Carleton University Environment Canada
160 PUBLICATIONS   8,013 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   1,502 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

robert luttik

64 PUBLICATIONS   905 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impact of neonicotinoid and other systemic insecticides View project

Long Term Risk Assessment workshop, York, 2004 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pierre Mineau on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 170:13–74  Springer-Verlag 2001

Pesticide Acute Toxicity Reference Values for Birds

Pierre Mineau, Alain Baril, Brian T. Collins, Jason Duffe,
Gerhard Joerman, and Robert Luttik

Contents
I. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 13
II. Data Selection ...................................................................................................... 15
A. Data Acquisition and Appraisal ..................................................................... 15
B. Selection and Processing of Toxicity Data ................................................... 16
C. Scaling of Toxicity Data to Body Weight .................................................... 18
D. Modification of the Distribution Approach to Incorporate
Body-Weight Scaling ................................................................................ 19
E. Choice of an Appropriate Percentile in the Acute Toxicity Distribution .... 20
F. Choice of the Appropriate Bird Weights to Model ..................................... 21
G. Derivation of Extrapolation Factors ............................................................. 22
H. Procedure for Pesticides Having Low Acute Toxicity ................................. 25
III. Results and Discussion ........................................................................................ 71
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... 71
References .................................................................................................................. 72

I. Introduction
Avian risk assessment of pesticides depends for the most part on two laboratory-
derived measures of lethality. First, the median lethal dose (LD50), a statistically
derived single oral dose of a compound that will cause 50% mortality of the test
population, and second, the median lethal concentration (LC50), which similarly
derives the concentration of a substance in the diet that is expected to lead to
50% mortality of the test population. Mineau et al. (1994) have argued against
the continued use of the LC50 endpoint in avian risk assessment of pesticides.
The test as currently designed was found to provide unreliable results, in part
because of the difficulty of properly determining exposure during the test. The
LC50 test, conducted on very young birds, is greatly influenced also by the exact
age and condition of the test population. Also, the correlation of LC50 values
among test species is weak, thus casting further doubt on the value of the end-
points and limiting our ability to extrapolate from test species to wild bird spe-

Communicated by George W. Ware.

P. Mineau ( ), A. Baril, B.T. Collins, J. Duffe
National Wildlife Research Centre, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Hull, Québec,
Canada, K1A OH3.
G. Joerman
Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land-und Forstwirtschaft, Braunschweig, Germany.
R. Luttik
RIVM, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

13
14 P. Mineau et al.

cies. Finally, comparison of test results with field evidence suggests that lab-
derived LC50s are poor predictors of risk. Until the LC50 test is redesigned to
address these weaknesses, avian risk assessment will depend almost entirely on
the results of the LD50 test.
Avian risk is difficult to estimate in an absolute sense from laboratory-
derived data. Field studies are generally needed to provide “ground truthing” of
a risk model and, to date, a number of such field studies have been carried out
and can be used to “calibrate” laboratory-derived predictions of risk based on
acute endpoints. Laboratory data are most useful in providing a comparative
assessment of the risk posed by different pesticides. Such comparative assess-
ments have also proved useful in the various measurement systems designed to
assess the environmental consequences of choosing different agrochemicals or
agricultural management systems (Benbrook et al. 1996).
When carrying out comparative risk assessments for pesticides, it is essential
to use the most unbiased data possible. Pesticides are customarily tested against
no more than 1 to 3 bird species, yet there are an estimated 10,000 species in
the world. More than 800 species occur in Canada and the United States alone.
In this review, we present acute toxicity values that can be used as reference
values in pesticide risk assessments. These values are only useful for protecting
birds from pesticides if matched by adequate measures of exposure. Also, they
only address acute lethal toxicity and not reproductive or chronic health effects
or even sublethal effects that may give rise to delayed mortality or a reduction
in biological fitness. Different strategies have been used over the years to com-
pare the toxicity of different pesticides to birds. (1) Restricting among-chemical
comparisons to a commonly tested group of species: This strategy quickly runs
into data gaps and leads to an arbitrary ranking of relative toxicity depending
on the species chosen. Test species can be inconsistent in their relative sensitiv-
ity rankings among pesticides (Tucker and Haegele 1971). (2) Several species
as phylogenetically close as possible to a species of interest are used: Unfortu-
nately, toxicological susceptibility does not always follow phylogenetic lines
(Schafer and Brunton 1979; Mineau 1991; Joermann 1991; Baril et al. 1994),
and it is notoriously difficult to predict which species are most at risk from a
given pesticide treatment. (3) Finally, using the lowest value available from all
species tested: This approach, however, introduces a systematic bias related to
the amount of test data available and reported for each pesticide.
Baril et al. (1994) and then Luttik and Aldenberg (1995, 1997) suggested
that a distribution-based method should be employed for birds much as had been
proposed for soil and aquatic organisms (Stephan and Rogers 1985; Kooijman
1987; Van Straalen and Denneman 1989). A distribution-based approach uses
the pesticide-specific data available to define the shape of the distribution
through the estimation of a mean and variance for the distribution. Fitting toxic-
ity data to distributions has been criticized, most recently by Newman et al.
(2000). However, their main criticism concerns the pooling of toxicity data for
very different phylogenetic groups and the resulting lack of fit to commonly
used distributions. This result would be expected, for instance, when pooling
 Pesticide Toxicity to Birds 15

the response of both algae and aquatic invertebrates to a herbicide. We have

found that both the log-logistic and log-normal distributions are adequate when
dealing with the toxicity of pesticides to birds. The alternative proposed by
Newman and colleagues is to use bootstrapping (distribution-free resampling of
the data) to arrive at an effect threshold. The main disadvantage of this tech-
nique is that any biases inherent in the initial data, a likely problem if few
data are available, will be preserved and emphasized. We therefore opted for a
distribution-based method. However, two modifications of this technique were
necessary: (1) introducing a scaling factor for body weight to improve cross-
species comparisons of toxicological susceptibility (Mineau et al. 1996); and (2)
developing a strategy to consider chemicals for which there are insufficient data
from which to derive a distribution. Slightly different approaches were described
by Baril et al. (1994) and by Luttik and Aldenberg (1995) to meet this second
objective. We present here the relative merits of both these approaches, and
provide what we believe to be the most scientifically defensible reference values
that can be used for assessing the relative acute risk of different pesticides to
birds.

II. Data Selection

A. Data Acquisition and Appraisal
Data acquisition procedures were modified slightly from those described in Baril
et al. (1994) and Mineau et al. (1996). Under the auspices of the OECD (Organi-
sation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and following the recom-
mendations of a 1994 workshop on avian toxicity testing (SETAC 1996), the
Canadian Wildlife Service’s existing database of LD50 values was expanded with
the assistance of several collaborators worldwide. A recent (Brian J. Montague
30 April 98 pers. comm.) version of the U.S. EPA ‘one liner’ database was
obtained and amalgamated with our existing database. Between 1996 and 1997,
various data were also obtained from Germany (Federal Biological Research
Centre for Agriculture and Forestry), the Netherlands (National Institute of Pub-
lic Health and the Environment), France (Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique), and the United Kingdom (Pesticide Disclosure Documents from
the Pesticide Safety Directorate). Many of those data consisted of studies spon-
sored by pesticide manufacturers in support of the registration of their pest con-
trol products. The confidentiality afforded to these data varies greatly between
countries. At one extreme (Canada), all data endpoints (e.g., LD50 values) are
considered to be proprietary and confidential unless specifically marked for pub-
lic release by the manufacturer; at the other extreme (U.S.), endpoints are freely
available and complete LD50 studies can be requested through “Freedom of In-
formation Act” provisions. Some jurisdictions make endpoints available for a
fee, either in hard copy form (United Kingdom) or through a dial-up database
(France). Furthermore, several companies release data endpoints in summary
form (e.g., Material Safety Data Sheets) and these data are picked up by public
sources such as the British Crop Protection Council’s Pesticide Manual (see
16 P. Mineau et al.

following). Because of this confusion, we decided that no species-specific data

would be released nor could any be back-calculated from the information pre-
sented here.
Known sources of data from the open literature were also searched. These
sources included existing compendia of avian acute toxicity data assembled by
governmental agencies in the U.S. and elsewhere (Schafer et al. 1983; Hudson
et al. 1984; Grolleau and Caritez 1986; Smith 1987), as well as scientific publi-
cations containing one or a few values. An exhaustive search of the literature
was carried out by means of the Terretox database of the U.S. government as
well as the commercially available Medline and Biological Abstracts databases.
A final source of data consisted of various editions of the Pesticide Manual (the
4th, 9th, and 11th editions; the latter one containing most of the avian data).
Before accepting the data from these editions of the Pesticide Manual, a sample
was checked against our existing database. Although the data presented in the
Pesticide Manual (Tomlin 1997) were often biased toward species of lesser
sensitivity, the data themselves were almost invariably accurate (a calculated
accuracy rate of 99% for 108 data points for which the original data source was
already available to us). The 11th edition of the Pesticide Manual was also used
to indicate which pesticides are currently being commercialized worldwide. All
data were carefully vetted for errors and duplicates and, where possible, checked
to the original source.

B. Selection and Processing of Toxicity Data

The distribution approach to handling interspecies differences in sensitivity to

chemicals requires that a single value be available for each pesticide-species
combination. In many cases, however, more than one value was available for
any combination. It was therefore necessary to establish criteria that provided a
uniform process for the selection of values. The criteria were chosen so as to
minimize bias and variability introduced by the formulation of the pesticide, the
age of the birds, and numerous other factors. Our data selection criteria were
modified to agree with those used by Luttik and Aldenberg (1995, 1997) follow-
ing several rounds of consultation. This method explains some of the small
discrepancies between the values reported here and the few that were presented
in Mineau et al. (1996). The criteria were as follows.

1. Only Data for Adult-Sized Birds Were Used (typically >1 month for passerine
and gallinaceous birds; >3 months for waterfowl). In some cases, age was
unspecified but the data, often generated for pesticide submissions, were as-
sumed to refer to adults as specified in current and former EPA protocols.
Tests on passerine species were generally carried out on wild-caught individu-
als which, we assumed, had fledged at that point. The notable exception was
the domestic chicken, for which it is customary to test young chicks or pul-
lets. Values for domestic fowl were therefore excluded unless age was speci-
fied.
 Pesticide Toxicity to Birds 17

2. Studies of formulated products or of technical products with very low percent-

ages of active ingredient were not used. We did not correct for the percentage
of active ingredient found in the technical grade of the pesticide.
3. If more than one LD50 value was available for a species and a given pesticide,
a geometric mean value was calculated. No one study was given preference
over another.
4. If there were multiple LD50 values for a certain species and a given pesticide,
and one of those values was a “greater than” (>) or “lower than” (<) value,
this value was not used if it lay inside the range of the other available values.
However, this value was used as a point estimate (the < or > having been
removed) when it lay outside the range of other available values for that
species and pesticide.
5. If, in a set of available LD50s for a given pesticide, a particular species only
had a greater or lower than value, this value was not used if it lay within the
range of values available for the other species, but it was used as a point
estimate (the < or > having been removed) if it were outside the range of
values available for the other species.
6. Where the majority of available species LD50s were greater than a certain
value, such as is often the case with nontoxic pesticides where limit values are
given (e.g., all species >2000 mg/kg), the data were not fitted to a distribution
regardless of how many such values were available. Instead, an extrapolation
factor approach was employed, as described next.
7. When separate values were given for each sex, the geometric mean of the
two values was calculated.
8. When the value given by a single source was a range, the geometric mean of
the range was calculated. This criterion applied mainly to the studies reported
by Schafer and coauthors (1983) in which the ranges given correspond to
values obtained from separate studies (Ed Shafer, personal communication).
9. When compendia of values were published by any given laboratory and
where there were discrepancies between different editions or publications, the
most recently published value was accepted. This choice assumes that previ-
ous errors were corrected by the laboratory in question.

Unfortunately, we were not able to take into account the method of dosing
(e.g., by gavage needle or gelatin capsule) nor were we able to account for the
use of vehicles or diluents (e.g., corn oil), this information seldom being avail-
able. We recognize this is an important source of variation as is the differential
propensity of different bird species to regurgitate (Hart and Thompson 1995).
Also, we were unable to ensure that the technical pesticide material was identi-
cal from test to test. The data span several decades, and it is likely that the level
of purity and proportion of degradation products and contaminants changed over
the years and across different manufacturers. Some pesticides are known to be
racemic mixtures and may have been marketed first as the mixture and later as
the active isomer. Often, this is reflected by the fact that there are several CAS
numbers available for any one pesticide (Tomlin 1997). We cannot be certain
18 P. Mineau et al.

that all toxicity tests reported here are specific to the CAS number given for the
pesticide in question, nor can we venture a guess as to the contribution of this
factor to the overall within-chemical variance in toxic response.
As with any such compendium, cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides are well
represented (at least in having higher numbers of species tested per pesticide)
because of their relatively high toxicity to birds and the fact that they account
for the majority of wildlife poisoning incidents. Because of our desire to develop
methods that are representative of all classes of pesticides, we carried out some
analyses (at least initially) on cholinesterase inhibitors separately from other pest
control products. The data for cholinesterase inhibitors are therefore presented
separately in this review (see tables 2 and 3). The database thus compiled for
cholinesterase inhibitors consists of 147 pesticides and 837 acceptable LD50 de-
terminations. For noncholinesterase inhibitors, we were able to compile 1601
acceptable LD50 values for 733 pesticides.

C. Scaling of Toxicity Data to Body Weight

It is customary to extrapolate between species on the basis of acute toxicity
measurements expressed in mg/kg body weight, yet Mineau et al. (1996)
showed that for a group of 36 pesticides chosen for the high number of LD50
data points available, the appropriate scaling factor in birds (with toxicity in
mg/animal regressed against body weight) is usually > 1 and can be as high as
1.55. These authors showed that, when fitting a distribution to LD50 data ex-
pressed as mg/kg body weight (i.e., forcing the data to a slope of 1), the result-
ing distribution overestimated LD50 values for small-bodied birds and resulted
in wider confidence intervals for the usual distribution-based toxicity bench-
marks, e.g., the 5% and 95% bounds of the distribution. For the present analysis,
and for all pesticides with n ≥ 4, ln LD50 values (in mg/kg rather than mg/ani-
mal) were regressed against ln weight in grams. Mean species weights were
obtained from Dunning (1993). As described by Mineau et al. (1996), the slope
or “scaling factor” for the majority of pesticides is positive [corresponding to a
slope greater than 1 in Mineau et al. (1996) when toxicity values were expressed
as mg/animal]. For the 130 pesticides with n ≥ 4, the regressions were positive
in 99 cases and the overall mean slope was 0.239; this was slightly more ex-
treme than the value of 1.15 (corresponding to 0.15 when expressed on the basis
of mg/kg) reported by Mineau et al. for a subset of 36 pesticides. A similar
proportion of slopes was positive for cholinesterase inhibitors (54/68) than for
other pesticides combined (45/62). As determined by an F-test, 14 pesticides of
the 130 had a slope significantly different from 0 at the p < 0.05 probability
level (11 of which were positive). Allowing the p to rise to 0.1, a total of 30
slopes were significantly different from null, 24 of them positive. As argued by
Mineau et al. (1996), failure to achieve statistical significance in a majority of
the slopes does not remove the biological significance of the finding. Several
slopes may miss being significantly different from 0 either because of inade-
quate sample size, or because they are only slightly different from 0, or a combi-
nation of both. The fact that the large majority are greater than 0 indicates a
 Pesticide Toxicity to Birds 19

phenomenon that is biologically significant. Therefore, even for pesticides for

which statistical significance is not achieved, the observed slope should be re-
garded as a better estimate of the true value rather than assuming the slope is
0. Not using a scaling factor when susceptibility does scale to weight would
result in potentially serious underprotection at one end (usually the small one)
of avian size ranges. On the other hand, scaling toxicity data to a completely
spurious slope factor might mislead. Fortunately, inspection of the data revealed
that many of the very extreme slopes measured, both positive and negative,
were in fact significant, at least at the p < 0.1 level, thus lessening the concern
that we may be fitting data to spurious slopes.
The reason for avian acute toxicity values scaling to weight raised to the
value of 1.2 or even slightly higher on average is unclear. In mammals, the
common wisdom is that toxicity tends to scale to 0.67 or 0.75 (reviewed in
Mineau et al. 1996) although a recent reassessment of acute toxicity data in
mammals and birds (Sample and Arenal 1999) calculated an average scaling
factor of 0.94 for mammals and confirmed an average of 1.2 in birds. It was
suggested (Fischer and Hancock 1997) that these scaling factors may be a conse-
quence of taxonomic differences. Songbirds (order Passeriformes) constitute the
majority of the small-bodied species in the database, and they may be more
susceptible toxicologically. A simpler, and more compelling possibility, is that
small birds in any taxonomic group are less able to withstand the rigors of the
physiological disruption brought about by acute dosing, especially reduced food
intake. Regardless of the reason, the end result is the same: the use of the
appropriate scaling factor results in the least estimation error for the toxicity of
a pesticide to a bird of a given weight and in reduced variance in the distribution
of LD50 values. One, however, needs to exercise caution in estimating LD50
values for very large or very small bird species, or birds from taxonomic groups
that are poorly represented in the data set. For example, as reviewed by Mineau
et al. (1999) there is some evidence that hawk and owl species (orders Falconi-
formes and Strigiformes) are more sensitive, at least to cholinesterase inhibitors,
than other birds of similar body weight.

D. Modification of the Distribution Approach to

Incorporate Body-Weight Scaling
Until now the best method available to derive a set level of protection with a
given level of certainty based on the distribution of toxicity data was that devel-
oped by Aldenberg and Slob (1993). These authors modified existing methods
(Kooijman 1987; Van Straalen and Denneman 1989; Wagner and Lokke 1991),
which aimed to determine environmental concentrations or doses of chemicals
that were protective of 95% of the species in the wild. The modifications con-
sisted of deriving extrapolation constants, Kn, that account for the uncertainty in
the estimates of the distribution parameters when dealing with small sets of
laboratory-derived toxicity data. The extrapolation constants are determined
such that a one-sided left confidence limit L for log(HD5) (for Hazardous Dose
at the 5% tail of the distribution) is given by
20 P. Mineau et al.

L = ȳn−[Kn*Sn] (1)
where ȳn and Sn are mean and standard deviation, respectively, of a sample log
(LD50) test data of size n.
This approach does not, however, incorporate body weight as a covariate.
Mineau et al. (1996) were able to describe the relationship between the LD50
and body weight using the equation
yi = β0 + β1xi + ei (2)

where, yi = log(LD50), xi = log(Weight), β0 and β1 denote the intercept and slope

of the regression line, and ei denotes the random deviation of the data from the
model.
The distributional method as described by Aldenberg and Slob (1993) does
not incorporate a body weight covariate and requires an estimate of the mean
and the standard deviation or variance. The equivalent terms can be defined for
a model with a covariate, but in this case one must choose a value for x0 (the
log of the weight of the bird that one wants to protect). The estimators of these
two quantities with and without a covariate are compared in Appendix 1. For
the Aldenberg and Slob approach, the precision of the estimates only depends
on n whereas for the covariate approach it depends on n and another term that
reflects the precision of the predicted LD50 at the designated weight. The pre-
dicted LD50 becomes less precise as one moves away from the average of the
xi. To compensate for this, a value for the extrapolation constant K must be
developed separately for each data set and designated weight of bird to be pro-
tected; this is done through a simulation in the manner of Aldenberg and Slob
(1993).

E. Choice of an Appropriate Percentile in the Acute Toxicity Distribution

Working with a distribution allows one to set a desired percentile, or a threshold
LD50 value sufficiently protective for an arbitrarily chosen proportion of the
entire population of bird species. For risk assessment purposes, it is customary
to choose a value in the left tail, e.g., at the 1% or 5% tail of the distribution.
This custom was born of convenience and practicality and has no scientific
basis. Some may take issue with the fact that 5% or even 1% of the species
inhabiting the exposed ecosystem can be summarily “written off.” Choosing a
percentile does not mean that this percentage of species will necessarily be
impacted. The final level of protection afforded to birds will depend on the
interplay of all the components of the risk assessment and regulatory scheme.
For comparative risk assessment, using an LD50 value representative of the left
tail of the distribution is preferable to using a measure of central tendency (me-
dian, arithmetic mean or geometric mean) because the latter parameters do not
take into account information regarding the variance of the distribution. For the
purpose of this exercise, the 5th percentile of the log-logistic distribution of
species LD50s was determined (the point on the tail of the log-logistic distribu-
 Pesticide Toxicity to Birds 21

tion that excludes 5% of the lower LD50 values). It is useful to also remember
that we are fitting LD50 values to a distribution; these are not no-effect or mini-
mal-effect concentrations. At the predicted threshold, half the exposed individu-
als from a species at the 5% tail of susceptibility are expected to die. Risk
assessors may wish to apply another factor to cover intraspecific differences in
susceptibility. Typically, this would be done through consideration of the probit
slope of the dose–mortality relationship.
Having arbitrarily fixed the protection level at the 5th percentile of the spe-
cies distribution, (termed HD5 (Hazardous Dose 5%) by Aldenberg and col-
leagues as well as in this review, or TLD5 (Threshold Lethal Dose 5%) by Baril
and colleagues), we still need to fix the level of certainty we wish to attach to
the determination of this value. As argued by Aldenberg and Slob (1993) and
confirmed by Baril et al. (1994), median estimates of the HD5 (calculated with a
50% probability of overestimation) may not be sufficiently protective, especially
where rare or valuable focal species of unknown susceptibility must be pro-
tected. In other words, far fewer than 95% of bird species may actually be
protected. However, thresholds that account for a higher (90% or 95% are com-
monly used) certainty that the estimate of the 5th percentile is not overestimated
are extremely conservative (likely overprotective), especially when sample sizes
are small. Our intent here was to present threshold values that would allow for
the “fairest” comparison possible between pesticides having data sets of vastly
different size and quality. Indeed, one of our goals was to permit comparison of
older pesticides (often with large data sets) with that of newer products (with
typically few data) without allowing sample size to have an overwhelming influ-
ence on the result. We opted therefore to report median threshold values (the
5% tail of the distribution calculated with 50% probability of overestimation),
recognizing that some of these values carry with them a very high risk of under-
protection, which may render them unsuitable for product by product risk as-
sessment. Of course, if probabilistic risk assessments are to be carried out, one
may wish to enter the entire estimated distribution of LD50 values rather than an
arbitrary 5% threshold.

F. Choice of the Appropriate Bird Weights to Model

Because of the nature of regression, the real advantage of using the new distribu-
tion model that incorporates body weight as a covariate is predicting the sensi-
tivity of birds having body weights that deviate from the tested average. For
chemicals for which the regression between body weight and toxicity is highly
statistically significant, the confidence in the estimated HD5(50%) for birds of
any chosen weight is high. For those chemicals for which the slope is different
from zero but not statistically significant, we opted to apply the covariate as
well. Using a distribution model without a covariate can lead to the erroneous
underestimation of the sensitivity of birds at either extreme of the weight axis
if the scaling relationship is real. Because our intent was to provide reference
values that are sufficiently protective of most birds regardless of size, we as-
sumed that the fitted scaling relationship was biologically real in all cases.
22 P. Mineau et al.

To generate a single LD50 value protective of birds in general regardless of

their weight, we first calculated HD5 values for birds of 20, 100, 200, or 1000
g. Those weights were chosen based on typical bird weights recorded from
casualties in pesticide field studies carried out in North America, primarily the
U.S. (CWS unpublished analysis). Although this weight range does not encom-
pass all bird species, it does account for the vast majority. The reference value
reported in this review is the lesser of the 5% threshold values calculated for
these four body weights. Most often, this was the value determined for birds of
20 g.

G. Derivation of Extrapolation Factors

As proposed by Luttik and Aldenberg (1997), we decided that a minimum of
four LD50 values were needed for determining the mean and standard deviation
parameters of the distribution. For pesticides with fewer data points, a different
approach is needed because the data are insufficient to fit to a distribution with-
out the parameters being estimated with unusually large errors. We must there-
fore predict the fifth percentile of the distribution through extrapolation from
the small data set using some predetermined factor or set of factors. Luttik and
Aldenberg (1995) presented one approach to derive such extrapolation factors.1
Their method assumes the following: (1) the mean of the logarithm of the avail-
able toxicity data is the best estimate of the mean of the distribution; (2) the
standard deviation is equal to a “generic” standard deviation that is calculated
from the pooled historical data sets for a large number of chemicals tested on
many species; and (3) species sensitivities are random across chemicals. Thus,
Luttik and Aldenberg determined that, if a single test species is available, an
extrapolation factor of 5.7 should be applied to the LD50 (unadjusted for body
weight scaling) to obtain the median estimated HD5 (to be indicated as
HD′5(50%)). This factor stays constant regardless of N, the number of species
for which test data are available.
There is, however, a serious impediment to the use of such a strategy for
regulatory or comparative purposes. Data available for any given pesticide (es-
pecially if the data are limited to one or a few species) are not necessarily a
random sample. As discussed earlier, we have found that only a few data points
are typically released, and these data may be biased to put a product in the best
light possible regarding its toxicity to nontarget species. Also, species com-
monly used for testing (e.g., the mallard duck and northern bobwhite) tend to
be at the “insensitive” side of the distribution already. We believe that to adopt
the strategy of a single “universal” extrapolation factor would be a strong incen-
tive to biased reporting. Several authors have found that species tend to differ

1
The word extrapolation factor is used here in place of the frequently used safety factor or assess-
ment factor. In contrast to the latter, which often are arbitrarily set at 10 or 100 to reflect a poten-
tially error-prone extrapolation, the extrapolation factors presented here are based on sound empiri-
cal data reflecting variability in interspecies susceptibility to chemicals.
 Pesticide Toxicity to Birds 23

in their sensitivity to pesticides in a predictable manner; some species are, on

average, more sensitive than others to pesticides (Baril et al. 1994; Joermann
1991; Schafer and Brunton 1979). To make use of these known relationships,
Baril and colleagues proposed that extrapolation factors should be tailored to
the actual species for which data are available. For example, a different extrapo-
lation factor would be applied to a single mallard LD50 value than to a northern
bobwhite or Japanese quail LD50. A simulation exercise (Baril and Mineau 1996;
this is an abstract only; data not published) showed that to ignore sensitivity
relationships in favor of a single (universal) extrapolation factor resulted in more
estimation errors.
We therefore opted to generate species-specific extrapolation factors from
our available data set. The calculated HD5(50%) values for all pesticides with
N greater or equal to 6 were used to derive extrapolation factors. All computed
HD5(50%) values were used regardless of the significance of the regression
statistics. As outlined earlier, the smaller of the HD5 values computed for
weights ranging between 20 and 1000 g was retained as our reference value,
and those reference values were used to calculate species- and pesticide-specific
extrapolation factors. A sample size of 6 or more ensured that both the parame-
ters of the distribution and the slope of the regression between body weight and
LD50 were relatively well characterized. Thus, the extrapolation factor specific
to a particular species or combination of test species is simply the ratios of the
computed HD5(50%) to the LD50s of the test species (or geometric mean of LD50
values in the case of a combination of species), averaged over all chemicals in
the database.
We propose that these extrapolation factors be used to estimate HD5(50%)
values (HD5(50%)) where N, the number of species tested is, 1–3. Two different
methods of combining the two or three available LD50 values were tried: taking
the smallest value, and taking the geometric mean of the values. Deriving ex-
trapolation factors from the geometric means of available LD50s was found to
lead to less estimation error (data not shown). The geometric mean was then
retained as the best way to combine two or three available data points to com-
pute extrapolation factors. We computed extrapolation factors for most of the
commonly tested species or combinations of those species (Table 1). Other fac-
tors computed for more rarely-tested species were derived as needed but are not
given here because of the smaller sample sizes used in their derivation.
The use of an extrapolation factor introduces another potentially significant
source of error in the estimation of the HD5(50%); this is the error resulting
from an individual species’ varying sensitivity relative to the population 5% tail.
Whereas some species appear to be reasonably “well behaved” by showing a
degree of sensitivity relative to the population tail that is consistent across chem-
icals (red-winged blackbird, red-billed quelea, Japanese quail), other species
tended to move extensively within the sensitivity distributions established for
each pesticide (chicken, mallard, European starling). For the latter species,
sometimes they were very sensitive and sometimes they were very insensitive
relative to the 5% percentile. The extrapolation factors were therefore ranked
 24

Table 1. Extrapolation factors ordered by increasing coefficients of variation.

Extrapolation Approximate 95th 5th

n factor C.V. percentile percentile

Red-winged blackbird 67.00 3.95 2.32 10.62 1.47

Red-billed quelea 22.00 3.63 2.68 10.92 1.20
Bobwhite quail and Japanese quail 36.00 8.05 3.18 27.97 2.32
Bobwhite quail and Japanese quail and mallard duck 32.00 8.94 3.64 34.85 2.29
Japanese quail 61.00 10.36 4.11 44.96 2.39
Japanese quail and mallard duck and house sparrow 46.00 8.37 4.26 37.51 1.87
Japanese quail and mallard duck 56.00 10.41 5.48 58.93 1.84
European starling and red-winged blackbird 57.00 5.63 5.57 32.37 0.98
P. Mineau et al.

Bobwhite quail and mallard duck 40.00 9.61 6.10 60.12 1.54
Bobwhite quail 42.00 8.61 7.19 63.08 1.17
Ring-necked pheasant 66.00 9.41 7.42 71.05 1.25
European starling 59.00 11.82 7.60 91.32 1.53
Mallard duck 67.00 10.38 10.89 114.00 0.95
Chicken 37.00 19.75 13.82 274.31 1.42

Approx. C.V. = (95th percentile − 5th percentile)/extrapolation factor.

95th percentile = extrapolation factor + 1.645 * SD.
5th percentile = extrapolation factor − 1.645 * SD.
 Pesticide Toxicity to Birds 25

on the basis of their approximate coefficient of variation, the lowest coefficient

being indicative of the lowest likelihood of making a large estimation error.
Given the possibility of applying more than one extrapolation factor, we chose
the one with the lowest approximate coefficient of variation. For example, al-
though an extrapolation factor based on the geometric mean of several species
is usually more “stable” and therefore less prone to serious error than a factor
based on a single species, it can be seen from Table 1 that extrapolating the
HD′5(50%) from a single Japanese quail LD50 value results in less error, on
average, than extrapolating from a combination of bobwhite and mallard data.
Nevertheless, using an extrapolation factor is clearly a “second-best” alternative
to curve-fitting LD50 data and deriving an actual HD5. In the example just given,
testing two species such as the northern bobwhite and mallard increases the
probability that unexpected chance variations in susceptibility will be uncov-
ered.
We believe that the approach of using reference values based on species-
specific extrapolation factors represents the most unbiased attempt to date to
compare the toxicity of pesticides for which many data points are available
with those about which we know very little. Because cholinesterase-inhibiting
pesticides represent a large group of chemicals with a uniform mode of toxic
action, they were analyzed separately from other pesticides, and specific extrap-
olation factors were derived for that group of compounds. However, when the
comparison was made between those compounds and a sample of noncholines-
terase inhibitors, we found that the computed mean extrapolation factors were
not significantly different (not shown) and a single set of factors for all pesti-
cides in the sample was therefore generated (see Table 1).
H. Procedure for Pesticides Having Low Acute Toxicity
In the case of pesticides of lower toxicity, limit values are often provided; e.g.,
LD50 > 2000 mg/kg. Ideally, one would like to take into consideration the condi-
tion of the test birds and any mortality at the limit dose. In trying to set a value
that is protective of 95% of bird species, it matters whether birds at the limit
dose were moribund, with possibly some mortality being seen already, or
whether there were no visible signs of toxicity in any of the individuals tested.
Unfortunately, this information was not uniformly available. The following
compromise procedure was therefore developed. (1) If, for any pesticide data
set, a toxicity data point with an exact value existed (rather than a limit), this
data point was used with the relevant species-specific extrapolation factor where
possible. (2) Otherwise, the relevant species-specific extrapolation factors were
applied separately to each available data point (treated as point estimates, ignor-
ing the > symbol) and the highest resulting HD′5 value was retained. Even then,
it is clear that the resulting HD′5 is probably an underestimate and that the
pesticide is likely less toxic than shown. However, given that the HD′5 thus
calculated is already very high, this underestimation is unimportant in the con-
text of a relative risk assessment. The acute toxicity of these pesticides is not
likely to be a concern.
 26

Table 2. Reference LD50 values for Cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides ordered alphabetically by common chemical name.

Compound CAS_RN n Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status

Acephate 30560-19-1 7 146.00 0.1809 4.7716 0.66 18.52 — E

AKTONTM 1757-18-2 2 1037.50 na na na 18.99 1 U
Aldicarb 116-06-3 10 2.82 0.2955 −0.6559 0.12 0.43 — E
Allyxycarb 6392-46-7 2 12.42 na na na 3.37 1 S
Aminocarb 2032-59-9 4 46.20 −0.3618 6.0268 0.33 6.59 — S
Azamethiphos 35575-96-3 2 39.30 na na na 3.98 2 E
Azinphos-ethyl 2642-71-9 1 — na na na 1.53 1 E
Azinphos-methyl 86-50-0 7 44.69 0.7806 −0.6793 0.00 2.28 — E
Bendiocarb 22781-23-3 4 16.24 −0.9475 8.3724 0.37 0.72 — E
Benfuracarb 82560-54-1 1 — na na na 4.23 1 E
BOMYLTM 122-10-1 2 5.36 na na na 0.25 1 U
Bromophos 2104-96-3 1 — na na na 491.14 1 S
Bromophos-ethyl 4824-78-6 5 300.00 0.8503 0.805 0.01 12.88 — E
P. Mineau et al.

Bufencarb 8065-36-9 8 32.95 0.1165 2.7226 0.71 3.09 — S

Butocarboxim 34681-10-2 1 — na na na 6.17 1 E
Butonate 126-22-7 3 158.00 na na na 40.00 1 S
Butoxycarboxim 34681-23-7 1 — na na na 18.58 1 E
Cadusafos 95465-99-9 2 123.05 na na na 6.33 2 E
Carbanolate 671-04-5 12 4.22 0.1412 0.8936 0.53 0.75 — S
Carbaryl 63-25-2 7 1870.50 0.8026 2.5147 0.06 30.05 — E
Carbofuran 1563-66-2 18 1.65 0.0423 0.257 0.82 0.21 — E
Carbophenothion 786-19-6 9 56.80 0.4054 1.431 0.12 2.00 — S
Carbosulfan 55285-14-8 2 51.00 na na na 9.52 1 E
Also tabled are the CAS registration numbers, the number of species values available, the median LD50, the slope, intercept and p value of the LD50 *weight regression,
the calculated or estimated HD5(50%) and, where used, the number of species from which an extrapolation factor was developed (see Table 1). The status follows the
nomenclature of the Pesticide Manual, 11th Ed.; E, in use; S, superseded; U, unknown.
Table 2. (Continued).

Compound CAS_RN n Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status

Chlorethoxyfos 54593-83-8 1 — na na na 3.25 1 E

Chlorfenvinphos 470-90-6 15 23.70 0.3635 1.8073 0.10 2.73 — E
Chlormephos 24934-91-6 3 100.00 na na na 25.10 1 E
Chlorphoxim 14816-20-7 2 100.00 na na na 11.61 1 S
Chlorpyrifos 2921-88-2 18 27.36 0.226 2.0941 0.09 3.76 — E
Chlorpyrifos methyl 5598-13-0 2 845.00 na na na 25.32 1 E
Chlorthion 500-28-7 3 280.00 na na na 70.89 1 S
Cloethocarb (Bas 2631) 51487-69-5 1 — na na na 0.43 1 S
Coumaphos 56-72-4 12 6.78 0.2179 0.7579 0.36 0.69 — E
Crotoxyphos 7700-17-6 2 423.10 na na na 14.23 1 S
Crufomate 299-86-5 2 182.50 na na na 25.32 1 S
Cyanophos 2636-26-2 1 — na na na 0.83 1 E
Demeton 8065-48-3 13 7.67 0.2357 0.6881 0.15 1.04 — S
Demeton-S-methyl 867-27-6 7 49.00 0.1396 3.0132 0.47 7.24 — E
Demeton-S- 17040-19-6 2 50.06 na na na 8.14 1 S
methylsulphon
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Dimidafos 1754-58-1 2 44.15 na na na 3.37 1 S

Diazinon 333-41-5 14 5.25 −0.2608 3.5883 0.29 0.59 — E
Dicapthon 2463-84-5 1 — na na na 4.13 1 S
Dichlofenthion 97-17-6 7 75.00 0.2685 3.327 0.57 7.54 — S
Dichlorvos (DDVP) 62-73-7 11 14.75 0.0493 2.2876 0.61 5.18 — E
Dicrotophos 141-66-2 15 2.83 0.1787 0.3645 0.32 0.42 — E
Diethofencarb 87130-20-9 2 2250.00 na na na 234.13 2 E
Dimethoate 60-51-5 10 29.50 0.1773 2.5296 0.37 5.78 — E
Dimetilan 644-64-4 4 27.20 0.1601 2.8008 0.83 0.92 — S
Dioxacarb 6988-21-2 5 115.00 0.7849 0.4173 0.09 3.36 — S
27

Dioxathion 78-34-2 2 258.50 na na na 25.50 1 S

Disulfoton 298-04-4 7 11.90 0.2019 1.2104 0.60 0.81 — E
 28

Table 2. (Continued).

Compound CAS_RN n Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status

EPN 2104-64-5 14 6.43 0.3624 0.604 0.33 0.53 — E

Ethamphos (ethamfen- 2 7.93 na na na 0.78 2 U
phos, ethamfenthion)
Ethiofencarb 29973-13-5 3 196.00 na na na 14.96 1 E
Ethion (diethion) 563-12-2 5 127.80 0.9169 −0.1551 0.18 1.06 — E
Ethoprop 13194-48-4 9 7.50 0.1086 1.3764 0.40 2.41 — E
Etrimfos 38260-54-7 1 — na na na 23.65 1 E
Famphur 52-85-7 3 2.70 na na na 0.45 1 E
Fenamiphos 22224-92-6 5 1.10 −0.0863 0.5444 0.66 0.43 — E
Fenchlorphos 299-84-3 4 487.42 0.6983 2.1557 0.15 12.23 — S
Fenitrothion 122-14-5 12 63.43 0.2707 3.0869 0.39 3.37 — E
Fenobucarb 3766-81-2 1 — na na na 31.12 1 E
Fensulfothion 115-90-2 14 0.73 0.2903 −1.8278 0.05 0.13 — S
P. Mineau et al.

Fenthion 55-38-9 23 5.62 0.2581 0.4784 0.07 0.87 — E

Fonofos 944-22-9 10 23.50 0.3442 1.293 0.07 3.86 — E
Formetanate 22259-30-9 4 31.75 −0.515 6.2418 0.06 8.77 — E
Fospirate 5598-52-7 2 34.75 na na na 3.37 1 S
Fosthiazate 98886-44-3 2 15.00 na na na 1.47 2 E
Furathiocarb 65907-30-4 1 — na na na 2.41 1 E
Heptenophos 23560-59-0 2 52.74 na na na 3.04 1 E
Isazofos 42509-80-8 3 11.10 na na na 0.51 2 E
Isocarbophos 24353-61-5 5 1.00 0.254 −1.1291 0.148 0.26 — U
Isofenphos 25311-71-1 6 10.96 0.0994 2.7255 0.86 0.44 — E
Isoprocarb 2631-40-5 1 — na na na 14.23 1 E
Leptophos 21609-90-5 5 268.84 1.2259 −1.5553 0.41 0.09 — S
Malathion 121-75-5 8 466.50 0.0323 6.0138 0.85 139.10 — E
Mephosfolan 950-10-7 1 — na na na 0.14 1 E
Table 2. (Continued).

Compound CAS_RN n Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status

Methacrifos 62610-77-9 1 — na na na 11.20 1 E

Methamidophos 10265-92-6 3 15.82 na na na 1.70 2 E
Methidathion 950-37-8 7 34.64 na na na 3.53 1 E
Methiocarb 2032-65-7 33 7.50 0.4708 0.0308 0.00 1.06 — E
Methocrotophos 25601-84-7 2 3.12 na na na 0.25 1 S
Methomyl 16752-77-5 13 23.69 0.0852 2.7336 0.50 8.46 — E
Methyl parathion 298-00-0 10 10.81 0.2021 1.3254 0.27 2.13 — E
Methyl trithion 953-17-3 1 — na na na 4.51 1 S
Mevinphos 7786-34-7 13 3.80 0.0254 0.9409 0.88 0.70 — E
Mexacarbate 315-18-4 16 5.64 −0.2586 3.2429 0.03 1.39 — S
Mobam 10793-30-1 8 255.00 0.2555 4.1803 0.34 30.31 — S
Monocrotophos 6923-22-4 23 2.51 −0.0312 1.0218 0.79 0.42 — E
Naled 300-76-5 7 64.90 na na na 1.72 1 E
Omethoate 1113-02-6 2 28.52 na na na 4.14 1 E
Oxamyl 23135-22-0 3 4.18 na na na 0.78 2 E
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Oxydemeton-methyl 301-12-2 11 53.90 −0.0452 4.1453 0.82 13.96 — E

Parathion 56-38-2 19 5.62 0.0797 1.2228 0.76 0.40 — E
Phenthoate 2597-03-7 2 259.00 na na na 23.17 1 E
Phorate 298-02-2 8 7.06 0.1817 0.4833 0.65 0.34 — E
Phosalone 2310-17-0 1 — na na na 106.27 1 E
Phosfolan 947-02-4 7 2.37 0.1034 0.8054 0.62 0.69 — S
Phosmet 732-11-6 5 435.80 1.1854 −1.5394 0.06 1.24 — E
Phosphamidon 297-99-4 15 4.24 0.1528 0.7174 0.32 1.08 — E
Phoxim 14816-18-3 12 32.21 0.6057 0.1756 0.01 1.71 — E
Pirimicarb 23103-98-2 8 20.52 0.1118 2.4285 0.50 6.78 — E
29

Pirimiphos-ethyl 23505-41-1 2 6.00 na na na 1.90 1 E

 30

Table 2. (Continued).

Compound CAS_RN n Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status

Pirimiphos-methyl 29232-93-7 2 470.00 na na na 13.51 1 E

Promecarb 2631-37-0 4 13.50 1.3541 −2.6021 0.15 0.94 — E
Propaphos 7292-16-2 1 — na na na 0.18 1 E
Propetamphos 31218-83-4 3 78.00 na na na 7.09 1 E
Propoxur 114-26-1 23 11.76 0.344 0.8344 0.02 1.31 — E
Prothiofos 34643-46-4 1 — na na na 13.65 1 E
Prothoate (trimethoate) 2275-18-5 2 55.95 na na na 5.52 1 S
Pyridaphention 119-12-0 1 — na na na 7.94 1 E
Pyrolan 87-47-8 1 — na na na 3.27 1 S
Quinalphos 13593-03-8 2 20.65 na na na 0.42 1 E
Schradan 152-16-9 3 19.00 na na na 2.02 1 S
Sulfotep 3689-24-5 2 150.00 na na na 50.63 1 E
Sulprofos 35400-43-2 5 47.00 −0.0883 4.8854 0.89 6.85 — E
P. Mineau et al.

Tebupirimfos 96182-53-5 1 — na na na 2.36 1 E

Temephos 3383-96-8 14 65.60 0.3163 2.6217 0.10 8.68 — E
Terbufos 13071-79-9 5 9.48 1.0277 −1.5328 0.32 0.16 — E
Tetrachlorvinphos 961-11-5 3 4750.00 na na na 25.32 1 E
Thiocarboxime 29118-87-4 5 12.00 −0.4141 5.2618 0.08 5.04 — S
Thiodicarb 59669-26-0 1 — na na na 234.96 1 E
Thiofanox 39196-18-4 3 1.20 na na na 0.12 1 E
Thiometon 640-15-3 2 61.75 na na na 5.07 1 E
Thionazin 297-97-2 8 2.77 −0.2254 2.2454 0.07 1.02 — S
Triazamate 112143-82-5 1 — na na na 0.93 1 E
Triazophos 24017-47-8 5 9.47 0.1991 1.0113 0.55 1.68 — E
Trichlorfon 52-68-6 12 60.73 0.3189 2.4757 0.06 13.36 — E
Trichloronat 327-98-0 10 18.50 0.4069 0.7989 0.30 0.73 — S
Table 2. (Continued).

Compound CAS_RN n Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status

Trimethacarb (LandrinTM) 12407-86-2 8 69.00 −0.1382 5.0938 0.56 16.28 — E

Vamidothion 2275-23-2 1 — na na na 3.72 1 E
Xylylcarb 2425-10-7 1 — na na na 6.20 1 E
NUMBERED EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTS:
PROBABLY NEVER MARKETED
2-Propargyloxyphenyl N- 3279-46-7 2 45.00 na na na 11.39 1
methylcarbamate
(HERCULES
9699)
3-(2-Butyl)-phenyl N- 25474-41-3 2 57.90 na na na 1.23 1
methyl carbamate
N-benzenesulfoate
(RE-11775)
3,4,5-Trimethylphenyl 2686-99-9 1 — na na na 4.50 1
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

methylcarbamate
(LandrinTM isomer 1)
3,5-Diisopropylphenyl 330-64-3 2 55.00 na na na 2.53 1
N-methylcarbamate
(HRS 1422)
3,5 Xylyl N-methylcar- 2655-14-3 1 — na na na 19.61 1
bamate
3-Propargyloxyphenyl 3692-90-8 2 40.48 na na na 3.80 1
N-methylcarbamate
(HERCULES 8717)
31
 32

Table 2. (Continued).

Compound CAS_RN n Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status

Diethyl 5-methylpyrazol- 108-34-9 1 — na na na 3.38 1

3yl phosphate
(Pyrazoxon)
m-Isopropylphenyl 64-00-6 2 11.31 na na na 1.42 1
N-methylcarbamate
(HERCULES 5727)
O,O-Diethyl naphtalene- 2668-92-0 2 261.86 na na na 6.00 1
1,8-dicarboximido-
oxyphosphonothioate
(BAY22408)
O,O-Dimethyl O-(3,5- 1 — na na na 3.64 1
dimethyl-4-methylthio-
P. Mineau et al.

phenyl)phosphoro-
thioate (Bayer 37342)
O,O-Dimethyl O-(4- 3254-63-5 2 0.90 na na na 0.07 1
methyl-mercaptophenyl)
phosphate (GC-6506)
O-Ethyl S-p-tolyl ethyl 333-43-7 2 3.34 na na na 0.43 1
phosphonodithioate
(BAY 38156)
Phenol, 3-(1-methyl- 7 13.30 0.0329 2.6034 0.94 1.20 —
ethyl)-4-(methylthio)-
methyl carbamate
(ACD 7029)
Table 2. (Continued).

Compound CAS_RN n Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status

Phosphonamidothioic 9 5.62 −0.2266 2.5104 0.41 0.51 —

acid, p-ethyl-O-[3-
methyl-4-(methylthio)-
phenyl]ester (BAY
HOL 0574)
Phosphoramidic acid, 9 13.30 0.0151 2.8043 0.30 4.33 —
ethyl-,2,4-dichloro-
phenyl ester (DOWCO
161)
Phosphorothioic acid, O- 7682-90-8 7 4.22 0.3415 0.035 0.00 0.91 —
(3-bromo-5,7-dimethyl-
pyrazolo[1,5-a]-
pirimidin-2-yl)O,O-
diethyl ester (BAY
75546)
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

INSUFFICIENT PRODUCT DATA

Dimethylvinphos 2274-67-1 — E
Isoxathion 18854-01-8 — E
Mecarbam 2595-54-2 — E
Metolcarb 1129-41-5 — E
Profenofos 41198-08-7 — E
Pyraclofos 77458-01-6 — E
Dialifos 10311-84-9 2 752.55 S
Formothion 2540-82-1 2 238.85 E
Pirimiphos-methyl 29232-93-7 1 — E
33
 34

Table 3. Reference LD50 values for pesticides that do not inhibit cholinesterase; the values are ordered by principal target pest and alphabetically by
common chemical name.

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

CHEMICALS PRIMARILY ACTIVE AGAINST

INSECTS AND OTHER INVERTEBRATES
2-(Octylthio)ethanol 3547-33-9 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 E Insecticide
Abamectin 71751-41-2 2 1042.30 — — — 42.80 2 E Acaricide
Acequinocyl (AKD-2023) 57960-19-7 2 2000.00 — — — 193.05 1 E Acaricide
Acetampirid 135410-20-7 1 — — — — 20.91 1 E Insecticide
Acetates of Z/E 8- 28079-04-1 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Insect pheromone
dodecenyl and Z (Z 8-dodecenyl)
8-dodecenol
Acrinathrin 101007-06-1 2 1625.00 — — — 156.09 2 E Acaricide insecticide
Aldrin 309-00-2 12 19.83 0.44 0.80 0.15 1.15 — S Insecticide
Allethrin 584-79-2 1 — — — — 192.68 1 E Insecticide
P. Mineau et al.

Alpha-Cypermethrin 67375-30-8 1 — — — — 9633.91 1 E Insecticide

Amitraz 33089-61-1 1 — — — — 41.83 1 E Insecticide acaricide
Azadirachtin 992-20-1 1 — — — — 261.32 1 U Miticide
Azocyclotin 41083-11-8 1 — — — — 17.42 1 E Acaricide
Bensultap 17606-31-4 4 192.00 1.35 −2.11 0.23 0.41 — E Insecticide
Benzene Hexachloride 608-73-1 1 — — — — 12.54 1 E Insecticide
Benzyl benzoate 120-51-4 1 — — — — 232.29 1 U Miticide
Beta-Cyfluthrin 68359-37-5 4 — — — — — E Insecticide
Bifenazate (D2341) 149877-41-8 1 — — — — 132.64 1 E Acaricide
Bifenthrin 82657-04-3 2 1975.00 — — — 204.71 2 E Insecticide
Also tabled are the CAS registration numbers, the number of species values available, the median LD50, the slope, intercept and p value of the LD50*weight regression,
the calculated or estimated HD5(50%) and, where used, the number of species from which an extrapolation factor was developed (see Table 1). The status follows the
nomenclature of the Pesticide Manual, 11th Ed.; E, in use; S, superseded; U, unknown.
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Binapacryl 485-31-4 2 717.50 — — — — — S Acaricide

Bioallethrin 548-79-2 1 — — — — 235.77 1 E Insecticide
(Depallethrin)
Bioallethron S-cyclo- 28434-00-6 3 5000.00 — — — 520.29 2 E Insecticide
pentenyl isomer
Bioethanomethrin (RU- 22431-62-5 1 — — — — — U Insecticide
11-679)
Bioresmethrin 28434-01-7 1 — — — — 506.33 1 E Insecticide
Bromopropylate 18181-80-1 2 2255.00 — — — 193.05 1 E Acaricide
BT 68038-71-1 1 — — — — 481.70 1 U Insecticide
Buprofezin 69327-76-0 3 2000.00 — — — 680.40 2 E Insecticide
Butoxypolypropylene 9003-13-8 1 — — — — 261.32 1 S Insecticide
glycol
Calcium polysulfide 1344-81-6 1 — — — — 65.04 1 E Insecticide
Calcium tetrathiocarba- 81510-83-0 1 — — — — 137.05 1 U Insecticide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

mate
CGA 50 439 61676-87-7 1 — — — — 78.09 1 E Acaricide, ixodicide
Chlordane 57-74-9 4 62.28 1.00 −1.63 0.44 0.09 — E Insecticide
Chlordecone 143-50-0 2 220.33 — — — 26.42 1 S Insecticide,
fungicide
Chlorfenapyr 122453-73-0 2 8.30 — — — 0.56 1 E Insecticide, acaricide
Chlorfluazuron 71422-67-8 1 — — — — 241.81 1 E Insecticide
Chlorofenizon 80-33-1 1 — — — — 444.02 1 S Acaricide
Citronella oil 8000-29-1 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Insecticide
Clofentezine 74115-24-5 2 5250.00 — — — 493.59 2 E Acaricide
35

Codiemone 33956-49-9 1 — — — — 249.71 1 E Insect pheromone

 36

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Copper salts of fatty 9007-39-0 1 — — — — 209.06 1 U Insecticide

acids & rosin acids
Cryolite 15096-52-3 1 — — — — 249.71 1 E Insecticide
Cycloprothrin 63935-38-6 2 3500.00 — — — 482.63 1 E Insecticide
Cyfluthrin 68359-37-5 4 — — — — 485.44 1 E Insecticide
Cyhalothrin 68085-85-8 1 — — — — 481.70 1 E Insecticide
Cyhexatin 13121-70-5 1 — — — — 57.43 1 E Acaricide
Cypermethrin 52315-07-8 3 10000.00 — — — 579.15 1 E Insecticide
Cyromazine 66215-27-8 4 2061.50 −0.13 8.25 0.63 604.60 — E Insect growth
regulator
DDT 50-29-3 5 1334.00 0.36 5.12 0.37 122.90 — E Insecticide
Deltamethrin 52918-63-5 5 1000.00 — — — 97.09 1 E Insecticide
Diafenthiuron 80060-09-9 2 1500.00 — — — 156.09 2 E Insecticide, acaricide
P. Mineau et al.

Dicofol 115-32-2 3 680.99 — — — 72.37 1 E Acaricide

Dieldrin 60-57-1 16 35.15 0.08 3.02 0.71 4.15 — S Insecticide
Dienochlor 2227-17-0 2 3087.95 — — — 243.97 2 E Insecticide
Diflubenzuron 35367-38-5 3 5000.00 — — — 952.56 1 E Insecticide
Dinitro-O-cresol 534-52-1 2 23.00 — — — 2.22 1 U Insecticide
Dipropyl isocinchomero- 136-45-8 1 — — — — 156.79 1 U Insecticide
nate
DUOMEEN T-E-9 2 1019.00 — — — 37.83 1 U Mosquito
(N-tallow-trimethylene control agent
diamines)
Endosulfan 115-29-7 6 52.42 0.34 2.23 0.17 9.53 — E Insecticide
Endrin 72-20-8 11 1.78 0.03 0.59 0.83 0.75 — S Insecticide
Esfenvalerate 66230-04-4 2 1478.51 — — — 131.24 2 E Insecticide
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Etofenprox 80844-07-1 1 — — — — 192.68 1 E Insecticide

Etoxazole 153233-91-1 1 — — — — 192.68 1 E Acaricide
Farnesol 4602-84-0 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Miticide
Fenazaquin 120928-09-8 2 1873.50 — — — 194.51 2 E Acaricide
Fenbutatin oxide 13356-08-6 5 — — — — 291.52 1 E Acaricide
Fenothiocarb 62850-32-2 2 1471.54 — — — 142.91 2 E Acaricide
Fenoxycarb 79127-80-3 1 — — — — 675.68 1 E Insecticide
Fenpyroximate 111812-58-9 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Acaricide
Fenvalerate 51630-58-1 2 5447.36 — — — 321.77 2 E Insecticide
Fipronil 120068-37-3 7 39.19 −0.37 7.22 0.65 1.47 — E Insecticide
Fluazuron 86811-58-7 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Ixodicide
Flubenzimine 37893-02-0 1 — — — — 431.67 1 S Acaricide
Flucycloxuron 94050-52-9 1 — — — — 192.68 1 E Acaricide,
insecticide
Flucythrinate 70124-77-5 2 2645.00 — — — 274.88 2 E Insecticide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Flufenoxuron 101463-69-8 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Insecticide

Fluvalinate 69409-94-5 1 — — — — 291.52 1 E Insecticide
Gossyplure (Hexadeca- 53042-79-8 1 — — — — 963.39 1 E Insect pheromone
dienyl acetate)
Halfenprox 111872-58-3 1 — — — — 218.82 1 E Acaricide
Heptachlor 76-44-8 7 125.00 −0.09 5.37 0.89 3.47 — E Insecticide
Hexaflumuron 86479-06-3 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Insecticide
Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 2 3620.27 — — — 482.63 1 E Acaricide
Hydramethylnon 67485-29-4 2 2169.00 — — — 222.90 2 E Insecticide
Imazethabenz-methyl 81405-85-8 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Insecticide
37

Imidacloprid 105827-78-9 7 35.36 −0.06 3.90 0.79 8.43 — U Insecticide

 38

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Isobenzan 297-78-9 7 3.16 0.41 −0.90 0.12 0.43 — S Insecticide

Isolan 119-38-0 1 — — — — 6.99 1 S Insecticide
Isomate-M 28079-84-1 1 — — — — 232.29 1 U Pheromone
Lambda-Cyhalothrin 91465-08-6 1 — — — — 428.14 1 E Insecticide
Limonene 138-86-3 1 — — — — 232.29 1 U Insecticide
Lindane 58-89-9 11 90.83 0.42 2.86 0.14 10.50 — E Insecticide
Lufenuron 103055-07-8 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Insecticide, acaricide
Methoprene 40596-69-8 1 — — — — 192.68 1 E Insect growth
regulator
Methoxychlor 72-43-5 4 — — — — 291.52 1 E Insecticide
Methyl chloroform 71-55-6 1 — — — — 291.52 1 U Insecticide
Methyl nonyl ketone 112-12-9 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 U Insecticide
Muscalure 27519-02-4 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Insect pheromone
N,N-Diethyl-M- 134-62-3 1 — — — — 159.70 1 U Insecticide
P. Mineau et al.

Toluamide
Napthalene 91-20-3 1 — — — — 312.43 1 S Insecticide
Neurolidol 7212-44-4 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Miticide
Nicotine 54-11-5 5 247.40 1.40 −1.89 0.06 1.04 — E Insecticide
Nicotine sulfate 65-30-5 10 75.00 0.37 2.82 0.19 6.94 — U Insecticide
Nitenpyram 120738-89-8 2 1687.00 — — — 165.48 2 E Insecticide
Novaluron 116714-46-6 1 — — — — 192.68 1 E Insecticide
Paradichlorobenzene 106-46-7 1 — — — — 186.76 1 U Insecticide
Permethrin 52645-53-1 5 — — — — 3127.53 1 E Insecticide
Phenol 2 310.20 — — — — — U Insecticide
Phenothrin [(1R)-trans- 26002-80-2 1 — — — — 291.52 1 E Insecticide
isomer]
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Piperonyl butoxide 51-03-6 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Insecticide

POE Isooctadecanol 52292-17-8 1 — — — — 192.68 1 U Insecticide
Polybutene 9003-29-6 1 — — — — 249.71 1 U Insecticide
Polychlorocamphanes 2 53.00 — — — — — U Insecticide
Potassium salt of oleic 143-18-0 1 — — — — 246.38 1 U Insecticide
acid
Potassium salts of fatty 10124-65-9 1 — — — — 291.52 1 U Insecticide
acids
Prallethrin 23031-36-9 2 1085.50 — — — 112.60 2 E Insecticide
Pymetrozine 123312-89-0 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Insecticide
Pyrethrin 8003-34-7 1 — — — — 963.39 1 E Insecticide
Pyridaben 96489-71-3 3 2250.00 — — — 279.50 2 E Acaricide,
insecticide
Pyrimidifen 105779-78-0 1 — — — — 42.87 1 E Acaricide,
insecticide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Pyriproxyfen 95737-68-1 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Insecticide

Resmethrin 10453-86-8 4 — — — — 60.32 1 E Insecticide
Rotenone 83-79-4 1 — — — — 211.95 1 E Insecticide
Ryanodine 15662-33-6 6 2.37 0.06 0.85 0.91 0.59 — S Insecticide
SD-16898 4 6.77 −0.23 3.30 0.36 3.14 — U Insecticide, acaricide
Silafluofen 105024-66-6 2 2000.00 — — — 193.05 1 E Insecticide
Sodium cyanide 143-33-9 6 8.99 −0.08 2.64 0.77 2.13 — E Insecticide, acaricide
Sulcofuron-sodium 3567-25-7 2 1558.00 — — — 149.96 2 E Insecticide
Sulfluramid 4151-50-2 1 — — — — 16.96 1 E Insecticide
SZI-121 162320-67-4 1 — — — — 193.05 1 E Acaricide
39

Tau-Fluvalinate 102851-06-9 1 — — — — 291.52 1 E Insecticide, acaricide

 40

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

TDE 72-54-8 1 — — — — 41.02 1 S Insecticide, mosquito

larvicide and
adulticide
Tebufenozide 112410-23-8 1 — — — — 249.71 1 E Insecticide
Tebufenpyrad 119168-77-3 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Acaricide
Teflubenzuron 83121-18-0 2 2125.00 — — — 220.74 2 E Insecticide
Tefluthrin 79538-32-2 3 734.00 — — — 178.63 2 E Insecticide
TEPA 545-55-1 7 29.90 −0.24 4.71 0.26 4.45 — U Insecticide, chemo-
sterilant
Tetradifon 116-29-0 4 — — — — 580.72 1 E Acaricide
Tetramethrin 7696-12-0 1 — — — — 276.01 1 E Insecticide
Thiocyclam 31895-21-3 1 — — — — 333.01 1 E Insecticide
Tobacco dust 8037-19-2 1 — — — — 249.71 1 U Insecticide
P. Mineau et al.

Toxaphene 8001-35-2 11 70.70 −0.32 6.26 0.21 10.40 — S Insecticide

Tralomethrin 66841-25-6 1 — — — — 291.52 1 E Insecticide
Transfluthrin 118712-89-3 1 — — — — — E Insecticide
Tridec-4-en-1-yl acetate 65954-19-0 2 2060.66 — — — 214.34 2 E Insecticide
Triflumuron 64628-44-0 2 2780.50 — — — 208.05 2 E Insecticide
Z-11-Hexadecanol 53939-28-9 1 — — — — 232.29 1 U Insecticide
ZXI 8901 160791-64-0 1 — — — — 32.53 1 E Insecticide
CHEMICALS PRIMARILY ACTIVE
AGAINST BACTERIA AND ALGAE OR
APPLIED AS FUMIGANTS
1,2-Benzenedicarbox- 643-79-8 1 — — — — 71.10 1 U Bactericide
aldehyde
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

1,3-dibromo-5,5- 77-48-5 1 — — — — 291.52 1 U Bactericide

dimethylhydantoin
(DBDMH)
2-(Hydroxymethyl) 34375-28-5 1 — — — — 202.44 1 U Bactericide
amino)ethanol
2-Benzyl-4-chlorophenol 120-32-1 1 — — — — 291.52 1 U Bactericide
4,4-Dimethyloxazolidine 51200-87-4 2 905.00 — — — 91.84 2 U Bactericide
4-Chloro-3,5-xylenol 88-04-0 1 — — — — 276.01 1 U Bactericide
Acrolein 107-02-8 2 14.06 — — — 1.37 2 E Herbicide, fungicide,
microbicide
ADBAC 68424-85-1 2 810.04 — — — 49.61 2 U Bactericide
Alkyl amine hydro- 91745-52-7 1 — — — — 114.87 1 U Bactericide
chloride
Alkyl amino-3-aminopro- 61791-64-8 1 — — — — 8.56 1 U Bactericide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

pane
Alkyl trimethyl ammo- 61789-18-2 1 — — — — 62.95 1 U Bactericide
nium chloride
Azadioxabicyclooctane 59720-42-2 1 — — — — 241.81 1 U Bactericide
BCDMH 16079-88-2 1 — — — — 187.84 1 U Bactericide
Benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 1 — — — — 71.66 1 U Bactericide
BHAP (Bromohydroxya- 2491-38-5 1 — — — — 76.89 1 U Bactericide
cetophenone)
Bioban P-1487 2224-44-4 1 — — — — 96.34 1 U Bactericide
Bis(bromoacetoxy)-2- 20679-58-7 1 — — — — 18.88 1 U Bactericide
butene
41
 42

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Bis(trichloromethyl) 3064-70-8 1 — — — — 216.76 1 U Bactericide

sulfone
Boric acid 10043-35-3 1 — — — — 291.52 1 U Pesticide
Bromonitrostyrene 7166-19-0 1 — — — — 48.17 1 U Bactericide
Bronopol 52-51-7 1 — — — — 49.04 1 E Bactericide
Busan 77 31512-74-0 1 — — — — 47.88 1 U Bactericide
Calcium hypochlorite 7778-54-3 2 803.50 — — — 41.32 2 U Algicide
Chlorhexidine diacetate 56-95-1 1 — — — — 233.80 1 U Bactericide
Chromic acid 7738-94-5 1 — — — — 19.05 1 U Preservative
Copper sulfate (basic) 1332-14-5 1 — — — — 47.12 1 U Antifoulant
Copper sulfate pentahy- 7758-99-8 1 — — — — 43.89 1 E Algicide
drate
Copper triethanolamine 82027-59-6 1 — — — — 192.68 1 U Bactericide
P. Mineau et al.

Cosan 145 97553-90-7 1 — — — — 156.79 1 U Preservative

Cuprous thiocyanate 1111-67-7 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Bactericide
Dazomet 533-74-4 3 383.50 — — — 53.33 1 E Fumigant
DBNPA 10222-01-2 2 220.43 — — — 22.91 2 U Bactericide
DCDIC 138-93-2 1 — — — — 309.34 1 U Bactericide
DCDMH (1,3-Dichloro- 118-52-5 1 — — — — 291.52 1 U Bactericide
5,5-dimethylhydantoin)
DDAC 7173-51-5 1 — — — — 12.62 1 U Bactericide
Dichloropropene/ 542-75-6, 556-61-6 1 — — — — 36.80 1 Fumigant, fungicide,
methylisothiocyanate nematicide
Diiodomethyl p-tolyl 20018-09-1 1 — — — — 291.52 1 U Preservative
sulfone
Dimethoxane 828-00-2 1 — — — — 184.09 1 U Bactericide
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Dioctyl dimethyl ammo- 5538-94-5 1 — — — — 20.35 1 U Algicide

nium chloride
Dithio-3-one,4,5-dichloro 1192-52-5 1 — — — — 28.69 1 U Bactericide
Dowicil 4080-31-3 2 1795.00 — — — 183.10 2 U Bactericide
DTEA 36362-09-1 1 — — — — 216.76 1 U Bactericide
Erioglaucine/tartrazine 3844-45-9 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 U Algicide
Formaldehyde 50-00-0 1 — — — — 91.75 1 E Fungicide,
bactericide
Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 1 — — — — 167.89 1 U Bactericide
Grotan 4719-04-4 1 — — — — 176.54 1 U Bactericide
Guanidine (dodine free 112-65-2 2 1391.87 — — — 141.62 2 E Bactericide
base)
Hydroxypropyl methane 30388-01-3 1 — — — — 45.66 1 U Bactericide
thiosulfonate
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Iodine 7553-56-2 1 — — — — 232.29 1 U Bactericide

Iodine complex 11096-42-7 1 — — — — 197.44 1 U Bactericide
Irgarol 28159-98-0 1 — — — — 261.32 1 U Bactericide
Isobardac 138698-36-9 1 — — — — 3.95 1 U Bactericide
Isocyanuric acid 108-80-5 1 — — — — 184.49 1 U Bactericide
Lithium hypochlorite 13840-33-0 1 — — — — 54.62 1 U Bactericide
Metaldehyde 108-62-3 3 196.00 — — — 16.93 1 E Molluscicide
Methyl bromide 74-83-9 1 — — — — 8.48 1 E Soil sterilant,
fumigant
Methyl isocyanate 556-61-6 1 — — — — 13.10 1 E Fungicide, nemati-
cide, fumigant
43
 44

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Methylisothiazolinone 26172-55-4 1 — — — — 7.91 1 U Bactericide

(Acticide 14)
Metronidazole 443-48-1 1 — — — — 481.70 1 U Bactericide
Mineral oil (including 8012-95-1 1 — — — — 261.32 1 U Bactericide
parafin oil)
MTI 82633-79-2 1 — — — — 17.65 1 U Preservative
Nemagon 96-12-8 2 111.40 — — — 16.58 1 S Nematicide
Nicosamide-olamine 1420-04-8 3 — — — — 232.29 1 E Molluscicide
Nitrapyrin 1929-82-4 1 — — — — 260.89 1 E Bactericide, nitrifica-
tion inhibitor
OBPA (DID 47) 58-36-6 2 5050.00 — — — 963.39 1 U Bactericide
Octhilinone 26530-20-1 1 — — — — 55.50 1 E Bactericide
Oxazolidine E 7747-35-5 1 — — — — 116.14 1 U Bactericide
P. Mineau et al.

Parachlorometacresol 59-50-7 1 — — — — 178.86 1 U Bactericide

PHMB 32289-58-0 1 — — — — 241.81 1 E Bactericide
PNMDC/DCDMC 137-41-7 1 — — — — 114.86 1 U Bactericide
Potassium azide 12136-44-6 3 20.80 — — — 1.60 1 U MISC
Potassium bromide 7758-02-3 1 — — — — 290.36 1 U Bactericide
Potassium dimethylthio- 128-03-0 1 — — — — 145.76 1 U Bactericide
carbamate
Pyrazole 85264-33-1 1 — — — — 88.15 1 U Bactericide
SDDC 128-04-1 1 — — — — 115.10 1 U Bactericide
Silver 7440-22-4 1 — — — — 261.32 1 U Bactericide
Sodium 2-mercaptoben- 2492-26-4 1 — — — — 249.71 1 U Bactericide
zothiolate
Sodium 2-phenylphenate 132-27-4 1 — — — — 116.14 1 U Bactericide
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Sodium bromide 7647-15-6 2 2200.00 — — — 228.87 2 U Bactericide

Sodium chlorite 7758-19-2 2 792.86 — — — 79.64 2 U Bactericide
Sodium dichloro-S-tri- 2893-78-9 2 1954.68 — — — 203.36 2 U Bactericide
azinetrione
Sodium dichloroisocyan- 51580-86-0 1 — — — — 206.27 1 U Bactericide
uratedihydrate
Sodium dodecylbenzene- 25155-30-0 1 — — — — 157.49 1 U Bactericide
sulfonate
Sodium hypochlorite 7681-52-9 2 2710.14 — — — 272.16 2 U Bactericide
Sodium omadine 15922-78-8 2 194.49 — — — 17.20 2 U Bactericide
Streptomycin 3810-74-0 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Bactericide
TBT methacrylate 26354-18-7 1 — — — — 192.68 1 U Antifoulant
TCMTB 21564-17-0 1 — — — — 76.75 1 U Bactericide
Tetraglycine hydroperi- 7097-60-1 1 — — — — 29.04 1 U Bactericide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

odide
THPS 55566-30-8 1 — — — — 29.58 1 U Bactericide
Tributyltin methacrylate 2155-70-6 1 — — — — 81.07 1 U Bactericide
Trichloro-s-triazinetrione 87-90-1 2 1480.87 — — — 146.48 2 U Bactericide
Trichloromelamine 7673-09-8 1 — — — — 246.38 1 U Bactericide
Triclosan 3380-34-5 2 1487.50 — — — 138.59 2 U Bactericide
Triethylhexahydro-s- 7779-27-3 2 472.52 — — — 47.49 2 U Preservative
triazine
Trimethoxysilyl quats 27668-52-6 1 — — — — 153.18 1 U Bactericide
Zinc naphthenate 12001-85-3 1 — — — — 261.32 1 U Preservative
Zinc oxide 1314-13-2 1 — — — — 65.74 1 U Preservative
45
 46

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

CHEMICALS PRIMARILY ACTIVE AGAINST FUNGI

2-Phenylphenol 132-27-4 1 — — — — 116.14 1 E Fungicide
3-lodo-2-propynyl butyl- 55406-53-6 1 — — — — 99.00 1 U Fungicide
carbamate
Anilazine 101-05-3 5 2000.00 0.19 6.73 0.21 614.90 — S Fungicide
Azaconazole 60207-31-0 2 731.00 — — — 48.26 1 E Fungicide
Azoxystrobin 131860-33-8 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Fungicide
Barium metaborate 13701-59-2 1 — — — — 145.64 1 U Fungicide
Benalaxyl 71626-11-4 2 6850.00 — — — 819.31 2 E Fungicide
Benomyl 17804-35-2 3 100.00 — — — 25.32 1 E Fungicide
Bis tributlytin oxide 56-35-9 1 — — — — 68.80 1 S Fungicide
Bitertanol 55179-31-2 3 2000.00 — — — 420.74 1 E Fungicide
Bromuconazol 116255-48-2 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Fungicide
P. Mineau et al.

Bupirimate 41483-43-6 2 3873.50 — — — 482.63 1 E Fungicide

Captafol 2425-06-1 1 — — — — 291.52 1 E Fungicide
Captan 133-06-2 3 100.00 — — — 25.32 1 E Fungicide
Carbendazim 10605-21-7 2 4681.99 — — — 491.11 2 E Fungicide
Carboxin 5234-68-4 5 2000.00 1.64 −1.95 0.04 3.44 — E Fungicide
Ceresan M 517-16-8 1 — — — — 33.48 1 S Fungicide
Chinomethionat (oxythio- 2439-01-2 3 500.00 — — — 126.58 1 E Acaricide, fungicide
quinox)
Chloroneb 2675-77-6 1 — — — — 481.70 1 S Fungicide
Chlorothalonil 1897-45-6 1 — — — — 193.05 1 E Fungicide
Chlozolinate 84332-86-5 3 4500.00 — — — 790.55 2 E Fungicide
Copper hydroxide 20427-59-2 3 3400.00 — — — 219.11 2 E Fungicide
Copper napthenate 1338-02-9 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Fungicide
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Copper oxychloride 1332-40-7 1 — — — — 45.95 1 E Fungicide

Cuprobame 7076-63-3 1 — — — — — S Fungicide
Cuprous oxide 1317-39-1 2 406.00 — — — 33.16 1 E Fungicide
Cycloheximide 66-81-9 3 9.38 — — — 1.85 2 S Fungicide
Cymoxanil 57966-95-7 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 E Fungicide
Cyproconazole 113096-99-4 1 — — — — 14.22 1 E Fungicide
Cyprodinil 121552-61-2 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Fungicide
Debacarb/carbendazim 62732-91-6 1 — — — — 96.34 1 E Fungicide
Dichlofluanid 1085-98-9 2 5000.00 — — — 482.63 1 E Fungicide
Dichlone 117-80-6 1 — — — — 192.68 1 S Fungicide
Dichloropropene 542-75-6 1 — — — — 17.65 1 E Fungicide
Dichlobutrazol 75736-33-3 1 — — — — 928.81 1 E Fungicide
Dicloran 99-30-9 3 900.00 — — — 139.61 2 E Fungicide
Diethofencarb 87130-20-9 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 E Fungicide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Difenoconazol 119446-68-3 1 — — — — 207.13 1 E Fungicide

Diflumetorim 130339-07-0 2 1430.00 — — — 85.04 1 E Fungicide
Dimethirimol 5221-53-4 1 — — — — 202.53 1 E Fungicide
Dimethomorph 110488-70-5 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Fungicide
Diniconazole 83657-24-3 2 1745.10 — — — 179.64 2 E Fungicide
Dinobuton 973-21-7 1 — — — — 7.59 1 E Acaricide, fungicide
Dinocap 39300-45-3 1 — — — — 249.71 1 E Fungicide, acaricide
Dithianon 3347-22-6 6 294.50 0.50 2.66 0.51 5.29 — E Fungicide
DMDM hydantoin 6440-58-0 1 — — — — 141.62 1 U Fungicide
Dodine (doguadine) 2439-10-3 1 — — — — 110.02 1 E Fungicide
Edifenphos 17109-49-8 1 — — — — 75.14 1 E Fungicide
47
 48

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Epoxiconazol 106325-08-0 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Fungicide

Ethirimol 23947-60-6 1 — — — — 202.53 1 E Fungicide
Etridiazole 2593-15-9 1 — — — — 65.04 1 E Fungicide
Fenaminosulf 140-56-7 3 17.80 — — — 4.52 1 S Fungicide
Fenarimol 60168-88-9 2 632.46 — — — 65.81 2 E Fungicide
Fenbuconazol 114369-43-6 2 2174.72 — — — 270.13 2 E Fungicide
Fenfuram 24691-80-3 1 — — — — 0.69 1 E Fungicide
Fenpiclonil 74738-17-3 2 1305.00 — — — 52.13 2 E Fungicide
Fenpropidin 67306-00-7 1 — — — — 39.21 1 E Fungicide
Fenpropimorph 67306-03-0 3 3949.68 — — — 419.73 1 E Fungicide
Fentin acetate 900-95-8 4 107.00 0.38 2.90 0.05 38.25 — E Fungicide
Fentin hydroxide 76-87-9 3 76.07 — — — 7.39 2 E Fungicide
Ferimzone 89269-64-7 1 — — — — 94.14 1 E Fungicide
P. Mineau et al.

Fluazinam 79622-59-6 2 2986.00 — — — 284.34 2 E Fungicide

Fludioxonil 131341-86-1 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Fungicide
Fluquinconazole 136426-54-5 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Fungicide
Flusilazole 85509-19-9 1 — — — — 153.18 1 E Fungicide
Flusulfamide 106917-52-6 1 — — — — 7.67 1 E Fungicide
Flutolanil 66332-96-5 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Fungicide
Flutriafol 76674-21-0 2 2808.00 — — — 481.70 1 E Fungicide
Folpet 133-07-3 2 1405.78 — — — 118.28 2 E Fungicide
Fosetyl-aluminium 39148-24-8 2 6498.50 — — — 785.42 2 E Fungicide
Fuberidazole 3878-19-1 2 424.28 — — — 47.78 1 E Fungicide
Furalaxyl 57646-30-7 1 — — — — 579.15 1 E Fungicide
Guazatine 13516-27-3 3 216.00 — — — 41.99 1 E Fungicide
Guazatine (triacetate) 57520-17-9 3 120.00 — — — 32.65 1 U Fungicide
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Hexaconazole 79983-71-4 1 — — — — 391.14 1 E Fungicide

Hymexazol 10004-44-1 3 1479.00 — — — 175.77 2 E Fungicide
Imazalil 35554-44-0 3 2000.00 — — — 49.23 1 E Fungicide
Imibenconazole 86598-92-7 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 E Fungicide
Iminoctadine triacetate 39202-40-9 1 — — — — 94.89 1 E Fungicide
Iprodione 36734-19-7 1 — — — — 158.40 1 E Fungicide
Isoprothiolane 50512-35-1 1 — — — — 428.29 1 E Fungicide
Kasugamycin 6980-18-3 1 — — — — 386.10 1 E Fungicide,
bactericide
Lignasan BLP 52316-55-9 1 — — — — 447.01 1 U Fungicide
Mancozeb 8018-01-7 3 6861.49 — — — 710.95 1 E Fungicide
Maneb 12427-38-2 4 — — — — 345.34 1 E Fungicide
Mepanipyrim 110235-47-7 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 E Fungicide
Mepronil 55814-41-0 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Fungicide
Mercuric chloride 7487-94-7 1 — — — — 4.10 1 E Fungicide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Metalaxyl 57837-19-1 1 — — — — 89.09 1 E Fungicide

Metalaxyl-M 70630-17-0 1 — — — — 137.03 1 E Fungicide
Metconazole 125116-23-6 1 — — — — 91.75 1 E Fungicide
Methylmercury dicyan- 502-39-6 2 35.00 — — — 5.11 1 S Fungicide
diamide
Metiram 9006-42-2 1 — — — — 249.71 1 E Fungicide
Myclobutanil 88671-89-0 1 — — — — 59.23 1 E Fungicide
Nabam 142-59-6 3 2120.00 — — — 204.63 1 E Fungicide
Nuarimol 63284-71-9 1 — — — — 73.46 1 E Fungicide
Ofurace 58810-48-3 1 — — — — — E Fungicide
49

Oxadixyl 77732-09-3 3 2000.00 — — — 149.07 2 E Fungicide

 50

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Oxine-copper 10380-28-6 3 618.00 — — — 115.69 2 E Fungicide

Oxytetracycline 79-57-2 1 — — — — 232.29 1 S Fungicide
Paranitrophenol 100-02-7 1 — — — — 67.02 1 U Fungicide
Pefurazoate 101903-30-4 2 3300.00 — — — 229.73 1 E Fungicide
Penconazole 66246-88-6 3 2424.00 — — — 193.41 2 E Fungicide
Pencycuron 66063-05-6 3 2000.00 — — — 277.77 2 E Fungicide
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) 87-86-5 3 504.00 — — — 50.79 2 U Insecticide, fungi-
cide, herbicide
Phenylmercuric acetate 62-38-4 4 145.86 2.19 −9.43 0.16 0.01 — E Fungicide
(PMA)
Prochloraz 67747-09-5 3 707.00 — — — 74.20 2 E Fungicide
Prochloraz-manganese 1 — — — — 202.31 1 U Fungicide
Procymidone 32809-16-8 2 5300.00 — — — 637.07 1 E Fungicide
P. Mineau et al.

Propamocarb 24579-73-5 2 2910.00 — — — 321.72 1 E Fungicide

Propiconazole 60207-90-1 4 2667.50 0.33 5.69 0.29 296.80 — E Fungicide
Propineb 12071-83-9 2 3000.00 — — — 482.63 1 E Fungicide
Pyrazophos 13457-18-6 2 295.53 — — — 26.53 1 E Fungicide
Pyrifenox 88283-41-4 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Fungicide
Pyrimethanil 53112-28-0 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Fungicide
Pyrithione 1121-30-8 2 126.93 — — — 25.32 1 S Fungicide
Quintozene 82-68-8 1 — — — — 255.45 1 E Fungicide
Sec-butylamine 13952-84-6 1 — — — — 12.66 1 E Fungicide
Silicate methoxyethyl 3 18.00 — — — 1.91 1 U Fungicide
mercury
Sodium tetrathioperoxo- 7345-69-9 1 — — — — 137.05 1 E Fungicide, insecti-
carbonate (GY-81) cide, nematicide
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Tebuconazole 107534-96-3 4 1494.00 0.32 5.97 0.19 347.30 — E Fungicide

Terrazole 2593-15-9 2 1100.00 — — — 99.72 2 E Fungicide
Thiabendazole 148-79-8 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Fungicide
Thiophanate-methyl 23564-05-8 1 — — — — 482.63 1 E Fungicide
Thiram 137-26-8 7 500.00 0.55 3.31 0.06 36.81 — E Fungicide
Tolclofos-methyl 57018-04-9 3 5000.00 — — — 485.06 2 E Fungicide
Tolylfluanid 731-27-1 4 — — — — 482.63 1 E Fungicide
Trans-1,2-bis(n- 1113-14-0 2 1560.00 — — — 192.68 1 U Fungicide
propylsulfonyl)ethene
(CHE 1843)
Triadimefon 43121-43-3 4 — — — — 385.36 E Fungicide
Triadimenol 55219-65-3 3 2000.00 — — — 555.54 2 E Fungicide
Triazoxide 72459-58-6 3 108.43 — — — 10.47 1 E Fungicide
Trichogramma harzianum 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Fungicide
Tricyclazole 41814-78-2 2 100.00 — — — 10.41 2 E Fungicide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Tridemorph 81412-43-3 2 1694.00 — — — 173.37 2 E Fungicide

Triflumizole 68694-11-1 1 — — — — 291.52 1 E Fungicide
Triforine 26644-46-2 5 — — — — 776.70 1 E Fungicide
Triticonazole 131983-72-7 6 — — — — 232.29 1 E Fungicide
Vinclozolin 50471-44-8 1 — — — — 291.52 1 E Fungicide
Zinc borate 12447-61-9 1 — — — — 261.32 1 U Fungicide
Zineb 12122-67-7 1 — — — — 212.54 1 E Fungicide
Zirame 137-30-4 4 88.73 −0.25 5.94 0.36 29.45 — E Fungicide
CHEMICALS PRIMARILY ACTIVE AGAINST PLANTS
2,3,6-TBA 50-31-7 2 1353.55 — — — 75.14 1 E Herbicide
51

2,4,5-T 93-76-5 1 — — — — 56.52 1 S Herbicide

 52

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

2,4-D 94-75-7 6 531.74 0.13 5.57 0.68 132.90 — E Herbicide

2,4-D Butotyl 1929-73-3 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
2,4-D Dimethylam- 2008-39-1 1 — — — — 58.07 1 E Herbicide
monium
2,4-D diolamine 5742-19-8 1 — — — — 69.11 1 U Herbicide
2,4-D Isooctyl ester 1928-43-4 1 — — — — 63.87 1 E Herbicide
2,4-D sodium 2702-72-9 1 — — — — 195.09 1 E Herbicide
2,4-D Tri-isopropylamine 32341-80-3 1 — — — — 47.04 1 U Herbicide
salt
2,4-DB 94-82-6 1 — — — — 178.40 1 E Herbicide
2,4-DP-p DMA salt 104786-87-0 1 — — — — 32.40 1 U Herbicide
2,4-DP Dimethylamine 53404-32-3 1 — — — — 32.40 1 U Herbicide
salt
6-Benzylaminopurine 1214-39-7 1 — — — — 185.71 1 E Plant growth
P. Mineau et al.

(N6-Benzuladenine) regulator
Acetochlor 34256-82-1 2 1133.37 — — — 96.27 2 E Herbicide
Acibenzolat (CGA 135158-54-2 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Plant activator
245704)
Acifluorfen-sodium 62476-59-9 2 1573.00 — — — 99.64 2 E Herbicide
Aclonifen 74070-46-5 1 — — — — 1447.88 1 E Herbicide
Alachlor 15972-60-8 1 — — — — 330.42 1 E Herbicide
Alloxydim-sodium 55634-91-8 1 — — — — 286.20 1 E Herbicide
Ametryn 834-12-8 2 3445.00 — — — 336.22 2 E Herbicide
Amidosulfuron 120923-37-7 3 2000.00 — — — 248.45 2 E Herbicide
Amitrole 61-82-5 2 3575.00 — — — 407.29 2 E Herbicide
Ammonium sulfamate 7773-06-0 1 — — — — 289.58 1 E Herbicide
Ancymidol 12771-68-5 1 — — — — 25.32 1 E Plant growth
regulator
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Anilofos 64249-01-0 1 — — — — 270.60 1 E Herbicide

Arsenic acid 7778-39-4 1 — — — — 4.23 1 U Herbicide
Asulam 3337-71-1 4 — — — — 1668.64 1 E Herbicide
Asulam sodium 2302-17-2 4 — — — — 425.80 1 E Herbicide
Atrazine 1919-24-9 2 7118.50 — — — 408.98 1 E Herbicide
Azafenidin 68049-83-2 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 E Herbicide
Azimsulfuron 120162-55-2 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 E Herbicide
Benazolin-ethyl 25059-80-7 2 4500.00 — — — 441.48 2 E Herbicide
Benazolin 3813-05-6 1 — — — — 984.56 1 E Herbicide
Benfluralin 1861-40-1 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Herbicide
Benfuresate 68505-69-1 2 21136.00 — — — 1869.35 2 E Herbicide
Benoxacor 98730-04-2 2 2075.00 — — — 215.78 2 E Herbicide safener
Bensulfuron-methyl 83055-99-6 1 — — — — 207.13 1 E Herbicide
Bensulide 741-58-2 1 — — — — 160.98 1 E Herbicide
Bentazon 50723-80-3 4 2029.00 0.91 2.41 0.14 32.40 — E Herbicide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Bifenox 42576-02-3 3 5000.00 — — — 407.29 2 E Herbicide

Bilanafos 35597-43-4 1 — — — — 253.16 1 E Herbicide
Bispyribac-sodium 125401-75-4 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Bromacil 314-40-9 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Bromoxynil 1689-84-5 2 208.50 — — — 21.68 2 E Herbicide
Bromoxynil-potassium 2961-68-4 1 — — — — 5.31 1 E Herbicide
Bromoxynil (butyrate) 3861-41-4 2 825.00 — — — 74.79 2 U Herbicide
Bromoxynil heptanoate 56634-95-8 1 — — — — 41.70 1 U Herbicide
Bromoxynil octanoate 1689-99-2 3 170.00 — — — 16.20 2 E Herbicide
Bromoxynil Phenol 1689-84-5 3 200.00 — — — 21.68 2 U Herbicide
53

Butachlor 23184-66-9 1 — — — — 447.01 1 E Herbicide

 54

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Butralin 33629-47-9 2 3625.00 — — — 416.66 2 E Herbicide

Butroxydim 138164-12-2 2 1610.50 — — — 162.61 2 E Herbicide
Cafenstrole 125306-83-4 1 — — — — 481.70 1 E Herbicide
Capric acid/pelargonic 143-07-7 1 — — — — 261.32 1 U Herbicide
acid
Carbetamide 16118-49-3 2 2000.00 — — — 212.54 1 E Herbicide
Chlomethoxyfen 32861-85-1 1 — — — — — E Herbicide
Chloramben 133-90-4 1 — — — — 159.40 1 E Herbicide
Chloramben-ammonium 1076-46-6 1 — — — — 192.68 1 U Herbicide
Chloramben-sodium 1954-81-0 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 U Herbicide
Chlorflurenol 2536-31-4 1 — — — — 1437.86 1 S Growth regulator
Chloridazon 1698-60-8 2 3000.00 — — — 351.36 2 E Herbicide
Chlorimuron-ethyl 90982-32-4 1 — — — — 241.81 1 E Herbicide
P. Mineau et al.

Chlormequat 7003-89-6 2 408.00 — — — 53.57 1 E Plant growth

regulator
Chlormequat chloride 999-81-5 5 555.00 −0.43 9.04 0.16 155.00 — E Herbicide
Chloroprop-sodium 53404-22-1 2 2334.00 — — — 218.55 2 U Growth regulator
Chloroxuron 1982-47-4 2 4519.00 — — — 293.24 1 S Herbicide
Chlorpropham 101-21-3 2 2000.00 — — — 193.05 1 E Herbicide
Chlorsulfuron 64902-72-3 1 — — — — 481.70 1 E Herbicide
Chlorthal-dimethyl 1861-32-1 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Chlorthiamid 1918-13-4 1 — — — — 25.32 1 E Herbicide
Cinmethylin 87818-31-3 1 — — — — 249.71 1 E Herbicide
Cinosulfuron 94593-91-6 2 2000.00 — — — 193.05 1 E Herbicide
Clethodim 99129-21-2 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Clodinafop-propargyl 105512-06-9 2 1727.50 — — — 177.51 2 E Herbicide
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Clofencet 129025-54-3 2 1707.00 — — — 174.99 2 E Plant growth

regulator
Clomazone 81777-89-1 2 2510.00 — — — 261.19 2 E Herbicide
Clopyralid 1702-17-6 2 1855.86 — — — 192.53 2 E Herbicide
Cloquintocet-mexyl 99607-70-2 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Herbicide safender
Cyanazine 21725-46-2 3 445.00 — — — 52.41 2 E Herbicide
Cyclanilide 113136-77-9 2 215.50 — — — 22.42 2 E Plant growth
regulator
Cycloate 1134-23-2 4 — — — — 249.71 1 E Herbicide
Cycloxydim 101205-02-1 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Herbicide
Cytokinin 525-79-1 1 — — — — 291.52 1 U Growth regulator
Daimuron 42609-52-9 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Dalapon-sodium 127-20-8 1 — — — — 286.58 1 E Herbicide
Daminozide 1596-84-5 1 — — — — 311.28 1 E Plant growth
regulator
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Desmedipham 13684-56-5 1 — — — — 258.67 1 E Herbicide

Dicamba 1918-00-9 2 936.55 — — — 62.26 2 E Herbicide
Dicamba-aluminum 1 — — — — 241.81 1 U Herbicide
Dicamba-diglycoamine 104040-79-1 1 — — — — 44.97 1 U Herbicide
Dicamba- 2300-66-5 1 — — — — 241.81 1 E Herbicide
dimethylammonium
Dicamba-potassium 10007-85-9 1 — — — — 31.94 1 E Herbicide
Dichlobenil 1194-65-6 4 499.61 0.54 2.75 0.39 9.33 — E Herbicide
Dichlorprop-P 15165-67-0 1 — — — — 41.06 1 E Herbicide
Diclofop-methyl 51338-27-3 2 7971.85 — — — 788.26 2 E Herbicide
55

Diflufenican 83164-33-4 2 3075.00 — — — 305.16 2 E Herbicide

 56

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Diflufenzopyr (BAS 654 109293-98-3 1 — — — — 541.43 1 E Herbicide

00 H)
Dikegulac-sodium 52508-35-7 1 — — — — 374.86 1 E Herbicide
Dimepiperate 61432-55-1 2 3500.00 — — — 193.05 1 E Herbicide
Dimethenamid (SAN 87674-68-8 1 — — — — 221.60 1 E Herbicide
582)
Dimethipin 55290-64-7 1 — — — — 84.78 1 E Herbicide, plant
growth regulator
Dinitramine 29091-05-2 2 5600.00 — — — 360.47 2 E Herbicide
Dinoseb 88-85-7 5 19.90 0.42 0.31 0.01 3.18 — S Herbicide
Dinoseb acetate 2813-95-8 2 16.66 — — — 2.29 1 S Herbicide
Dinoterb 1420-07-1 2 25.00 — — — — — E Herbicide
Diquat (dibromide) 85-00-7 3 184.87 — — — 17.81 1 E Herbicide
P. Mineau et al.

Disodium methane- 144-21-8 1 — — — — 72.82 1 E Herbicide

arsonate
Dithiopyr 97886-45-8 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Diuron 330-54-1 3 2000.00 — — — 193.04 2 E Herbicide
DMPA 299-85-4 1 — — — — 25.32 1 S Herbicide
DNOC 534-52-1 5 21.15 0.15 1.97 0.36 6.67 — E Herbicide
Endothall 145-73-3 2 326.72 — — — 29.20 2 E Herbicide, algicide,
plant growth
regulator
Endothall (dimethylal- 66330-88-9 1 — — — — 37.48 1 U Herbicide, algicide,
kylamine) plant growth
regulator
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Endothall (dipotassium 2164-07-0 1 — — — — 31.60 1 U Herbicide, algicide,

salt) plant growth
regulator
EPTC 759-94-4 3 1000.00 — — — 25.32 1 E Herbicide
Esprocarb 85785-20-2 1 — — — — 193.05 1 E Herbicide
Ethalfluralin 55283-68-6 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Ethametsulfuron-methyl 97780-06-8 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Ethephon 16672-87-0 4 1924.00 0.21 6.24 0.48 372.20 — E Herbicide
Ethidimuron 30043-49-3 4 513.21 0.78 2.69 0.03 59.64 — S Herbicide
Ethofumesate 26255-79-6 3 3464.10 — — — 472.79 2 E Herbicide
Fenchlorazole 103112-36-3 2 1333.84 — — — 25.84 1 S Herbicide
Fenclorim 3740-92-9 2 2750.00 — — — 48.26 1 E Herbicide safener
Fenoprop 93-72-1 2 9320.00 — — — 1091.75 1 S Herbicide
Fenoxaprop 95617-09-7 3 2510.00 — — — 440.07 2 S Herbicide
Fenoxaprop-ethyl 66441-23-4 3 2510.00 — — — 440.07 2 S Herbicide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Fenoxaprop-P 113158-40-0 3 — — — — 232.29 2 E Herbicide

Fenoxaprop-P-ethyl 71283-80-2 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Fenridazone-sodium 83588-43-6 1 — — — — 495.70 1 U Herbicide
Fenuron 101-42-8 4 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Ferric sulfate (see Fer- 10028-22-5 1 — — — — 261.32 1 U Herbicide
rous sulfate)
Ferrous sulfate heptahy- 7782-63-0 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
drate
Ferrous sulfate monohy- 17375-41-6 1 — — — — 249.71 1 U Herbicide
drate
57

Flamprop-M-methyl 63729-98-6 1 — — — — 447.88 1 E Herbicide

 58

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Flamprop-methyl 52756-25-9 3 1000.00 — — — 106.27 1 S Herbicide

Flamprop isopropyl 52756-22-6 2 1500.00 — — — 106.27 1 S Herbicide
Flazasulfuron 104040-78-0 1 — — — — 193.05 1 E Herbicide
Fluazifop-butyl 69806-50-4 1 — — — — 746.09 1 E Herbicide
Fluazifop-P-butyl 79241-46-6 1 — — — — 339.88 1 E Herbicide
Flumetralin 62924-70-3 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Growth regulator
Flumetsulam 98967-40-9 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Flumiclorac-pentyl 87546-18-7 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Fluometuron 2164-17-2 1 — — — — 192.68 1 E Herbicide
Fluoroglycofen 77501-60-1 1 — — — — 214.07 1 E Herbicide
Fluoroglycofen-ethyl 77501-90-7 1 — — — — 367.02 1 E Herbicide
Fluoxypyr-meptyl 81406-37-3 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Herbicide
Flupoxam 119126-15-7 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 E Herbicide
P. Mineau et al.

Flupyrsulfuron-methyl- 144740-54-5 1 — — — — 216.76 1 E Herbicide

sodium
Flurazole 72850-64-7 1 — — — — 291.52 1 E Herbicide safender
Fluridone 59756-60-4 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Flurochloridone 61213-25-0 1 — — — — 249.71 1 E Herbicide
Fluroxypyr 69377-81-7 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Herbicide
Flurprimidol 56425-91-3 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Plant growth
regulator
Fluxofenim 88485-37-4 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide safender
Fomesafen 72178-02-0 1 — — — — 481.70 1 E Herbicide
Forchlorfenuron 68157-60-8 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Plant growth
regulator
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Fosamine ammonium 25954-13-6 2 4791.29 — — — 498.10 2 E Herbicide

Furilazole 121776-33-8 1 — — — — 23.23 1 E Herbicide safender
Gibberellic acid 77-06-5 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Growth regulator
Glufosinate-ammonium 51276-47-2 4 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Glyphosate 1071-83-6 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Glyphosate-trimesium 81591-81-3 2 1487.50 — — — 144.33 2 E Herbicide
(sulfosate)
Halosulfuron-methyl 100784-20-1 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Haloxyfop 69806-34-4 1 — — — — 207.13 1 E Herbicide
Haloxyfop-P-methyl 72619-32-0 1 — — — — 134.61 1 E Herbicide
Haloxyfop ethoxyethyl 87237-48-7 1 — — — — 207.13 1 E Herbicide
(etotyl)
Hexaflurate 17029-22-0 3 193.00 — — — 18.59 1 S Herbicide
Hexazinone 51235-04-2 1 — — — — 261.44 1 E Herbicide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Hydrogen cyanamide 420-04-2 1 — — — — 28.74 1 E Herbicide, plant

growth regulator
ICIS-0748 81052-29-1 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Growth regulator
Imazamethabenz 100728-84-5 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Herbicide
Imazamethabenz-methyl 81405-85-8 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Herbicide
Imazamox 114311-32-9 1 — — — — 214.40 1 E Herbicide
Imazapic (AC 263,222) 104098-49-9 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Herbicide
Imazapyr 81334-34-1 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Herbicide
Imazaquine 81335-37-7 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Herbicide
Imazethapyr 81335-77-5 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Herbicide
Imazosulfuron 122548-33-8 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 E Herbicide
59
 60

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Indole-3-butyric acid 133-32-4 1 — — — — 249.71 1 E Plant growth regu-

lator
Ioxynil 1689-83-4 4 68.50 0.10 3.68 0.54 33.28 — E Herbicide
Ioxynil octanoate 3861-47-0 4 385.42 0.29 4.19 0.64 19.41 — E Herbicide
Isopropalin 33820-53-0 1 — — — — 232.29 1 S Herbicide
Isoproturon 34123-59-6 3 4543.04 — — — 313.40 2 E Herbicide
Isouron 55861-78-4 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Isoxaben 82558-50-7 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Isoxaflutole 141112-29-0 1 — — — — 207.13 1 E Herbicide
Karbutilate 4849-32-5 1 — — — — 579.15 1 S Herbicide
L-Lactic acid 50-21-5 1 — — — — 261.32 1 U Growth regulator
Lactofen 77501-63-4 1 — — — — 291.52 1 E Herbicide
Lenacil 2164-08-1 1 — — — — — E Herbicide
P. Mineau et al.

Linuron 330-55-2 3 505.00 — — — 65.07 2 E Herbicide

Maleic hydrazide potas- 51542-52-0 1 — — — — 216.76 1 E Plant growth
sium salt regulator
MCPA 94-74-6 2 377.00 — — — 39.23 2 E Herbicide
MCPA-thioethyl 25319-90-8 1 — — — — 289.58 1 E Herbicide
MCPA dimethylamine 2039-46-5 1 — — — — 55.54 1 U Herbicide
salt
MCPB-sodium 6062-26-6 1 — — — — 32.75 1 E Herbicide
MCPP Isooctyl ester 28473-03-2 1 — — — — 261.32 1 U Herbicide
Mecoprop 7085-19-0 1 — — — — 82.11 1 E Herbicide
Mecoprop-P 16484-77-8 2 2361.00 — — — 151.19 2 E Herbicide
Mecoprop dimethylamine 32351-70-5 1 — — — — 69.92 1 U Herbicide
salt
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Mefenpyr-diethyl 135590-91-9 1 — — — — 193.05 1 E Herbicide safener

Mefluidide 53780-36-2 1 — — — — 353.05 1 E Plant growth regula-
tor, herbicide
Mepiquat chloride 24307-26-4 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Plant growth
regulator
Metam-sodium 6734-80-1 1 — — — — 58.07 1 E Herbicide
Metamitron 41394-05-2 2 1027.72 — — — 176.82 1 E Herbicide
Metazachlor 67129-08-2 2 2255.00 — — — 233.15 2 E Herbicide
Methabenzthiazuron 18691-97-9 1 — — — — 96.53 1 E Herbicide
Methylarsonic acid 124-58-3 1 — — — — 49.36 1 E Herbicide
Metobromuron 3060-89-7 2 4036.00 — — — 137.93 1 E Herbicide
Metolachlor 51218-45-2 1 — — — — 241.81 1 E Herbicide
Metosulam 139528-85-1 2 2125.00 — — — 220.74 2 E Herbicide
Metribuzin 21087-64-9 2 459.86 — — — 42.01 2 E Herbicide
Metsulfuron 79510-48-8 1 — — — — 241.81 1 E Herbicide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Metsulfuron-methyl 74223-64-6 2 2510.00 — — — 261.19 2 E Herbicide

Molinate 2212-67-1 1 — — — — 214.16 1 E Herbicide
Monolinuron 1746-81-2 3 1690.00 — — — 181.27 2 E Herbicide
Monosodium methyl- 2163-80-6 1 — — — — 96.86 1 E Herbicide
arsonate
Napropamide 15299-99-7 1 — — — — 78.03 1 E Herbicide
Napthaleneacetic acid 2122-70-5 2 2302.92 — — — 238.67 2 E Growth regulator
Nicosulfuron 111991-09-4 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Herbicide
Nonanoic acid 112-05-0 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide, plant
growth regulator
61

Norflurazon 27314-13-2 2 1292.15 — — — 130.98 2 E Herbicide

 62

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Orbencarb 34622-58-7 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Herbicide

Oryzalin 19044-88-3 2 503.35 — — — 52.38 2 E Herbicide
Oxabentrinil 74782-23-3 3 2500.00 — — — 439.20 2 E Herbicide safener
Oxadiazon 19666-30-9 2 2274.16 — — — 192.89 2 E Herbicide
Oxasulfuron 144651-06-9 1 — — — — 216.76 1 E Herbicide
Oxyfluorfen 42874-03-3 1 — — — — 614.58 1 E Herbicide
Paclobutrazol 76738-62-0 2 4953.25 — — — 193.05 1 E Plant growth
regulator
Paraquat dichloride 1910-42-5 4 243.32 0.12 4.65 0.37 88.50 — E Herbicide
Pebulate 1114-71-2 1 — — — — 192.68 1 E Herbicide
Pentoxazone 110956-75-7 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Phenmedipham 13684-63-4 3 3107.23 — — — 299.93 1 E Herbicide
Phenyl-indole-3- 85977-73-7 1 — — — — 216.76 1 U Herbicide
P. Mineau et al.

thiobutyrate
Phthalanilic acid 4727-29-1 2 10700.00 — — — 1032.82 1 E Plant growth
regulator
Picloram 1918-02-1 3 2927.91 — — — 528.69 1 E Herbicide
Picloram-potassium 2545-60-0 3 2121.32 — — — 482.63 1 E Herbicide
Picloram TIPA 6753-47-5 1 — — — — 216.76 1 U Herbicide
Pretilachlor 51218-49-6 1 — — — — 965.25 1 E Herbicide
Primisulfuron-methyl 86209-51-0 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Herbicide
Prodiamine 29091-21-2 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Prohexadione-calcium 127277-53-6 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Plant growth
regulator
Prometon 1610-18-0 1 — — — — 262.95 1 E Herbicide
Propachlor 1918-16-7 1 — — — — 10.57 1 E Herbicide
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Propanil 709-98-8 1 — — — — 23.34 1 E Herbicide

Propaquizafop 111479-05-1 2 2099.00 — — — 218.18 2 E Herbicide
Propham 122-42-9 1 — — — — 193.05 1 E Herbicide
Propisochlor 86763-47-5 2 1344.00 — — — 66.41 1 E Herbicide
Propyzamide 23950-58-5 2 5733.87 — — — 733.08 1 E Herbicide
Prosulfocarb 52888-80-9 3 1650.00 — — — 232.82 1 E Herbicide
Prosulfuron 94125-34-5 2 1622.00 — — — 159.59 2 E Herbicide
Pyrazosulfuron-ethyl 93697-74-6 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Pyridate 55512-33-9 1 — — — — 160.51 1 E Herbicide
Pyriminobac-methyl 136191-56-5 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Pyrithiobac-sodium 123343-16-8 1 — — — — 185.71 1 E Herbicide
Quinclorac 84087-01-4 2 1974.68 — — — 205.46 2 E Herbicide
Quinmerac 90717-03-6 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Quizalofop 76578-12-6 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Herbicide
Quizalofop-ethyl 76578-14-8 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 U Herbicide
Quizalofop-P-ethyl 100646-51-3 2 2000.00 — — — 208.12 2 E Herbicide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Quizalofop-P-tefuryl 119738-06-6 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Herbicide

Rimsulfuron 122931-48-0 2 1623.16 — — — 160.75 2 E Herbicide
Sebuthylazine 7286-69-3 2 2732.05 — — — 334.37 1 S Herbicide
Sethoxydim 74051-80-2 2 3755.00 — — — 482.63 1 E Herbicide
Siduron 1982-49-6 1 — — — — 2584.20 1 E Herbicide
Simazine 122-34-9 2 7500.00 — — — 965.25 1 E Herbicide
Sodium arsenite 7784-46-5 5 48.00 1.05 −1.89 0.14 0.55 — U Herbicide,
insecticide
Sodium dimethylarsinate 124-65-2 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Sulcotrione 99105-77-8 2 1800.00 — — — 181.36 2 E Herbicide
63

Sulfentrazone 122836-35-5 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide

 64

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Sulfometuron-methyl 74222-97-2 1 — — — — 481.70 1 E Herbicide

TCA-sodium 650-51-1 1 — — — — 216.71 1 E Herbicide
Tebuthiuron 34014-18-1 2 750.00 — — — 73.58 2 E Herbicide
Terbacil 5902-51-2 1 — — — — 262.37 1 E Herbicide
Terbuthylazine 5915-41-3 2 1292.15 — — — 130.98 2 E Herbicide
Tetradec-11-en-1-yl 20711-10-8 1 — — — — 249.71 1 E Herbicide
acetate
Thenylchlor 96491-05-3 1 — — — — 232.29 1 E Herbicide
Thiazafluron 25366-23-8 1 — — — — 25.58 1 S Herbicide
Thiazopyr 117718-60-2 1 — — — — 222.18 1 E Herbicide
Thidiazuron 51707-55-2 1 — — — — 367.02 1 E Plant growth
regulator
Thifensulfuron 79277-67-1 1 — — — — 241.81 1 E Herbicide
P. Mineau et al.

Thifensulfuron-methyl 79277-27-3 2 2510.00 — — — 261.19 2 E Herbicide

Thiobencarb 28249-77-6 1 — — — — 225.09 1 E Herbicide
Tiocarbazil 36756-79-3 2 10000.00 — — — 1062.70 1 E Herbicide
Tralkoxydim 87820-88-0 2 3725.00 — — — 290.94 1 E Herbicide
Tri-allate 2303-17-5 1 — — — — 261.44 1 E Herbicide
Triapenthenol 76608-88-3 1 — — — — 482.63 1 S Plant growth
regulator
Triasulfuron 82097-50-5 2 2150.00 — — — 223.73 2 E Herbicide
Tribenuron 106040-48-6 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Tribenuron-methyl 101200-48-0 1 — — — — 261.32 1 E Herbicide
Tribufos 78-48-8 3 273.00 — — — 51.13 2 E Plant growth
regulator
Triclopyr BEE 64700-56-7 1 — — — — 91.76 1 U Herbicide
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Trifluralin 1582-09-8 4 — — — — 245.55 1 E Herbicide

Triflusulfuron 135990-29-3 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 E Herbicide
Triflusulfuron-methyl 126535-15-7 2 2250.00 — — — 234.13 2 E Herbicide
Trinexapac-ethyl 95266-40-3 1 — — — — 192.68 1 E Plant growth
regulator
Uniconazole 83657-17-4 2 1888.00 — — — 191.37 2 E Plant growth
regulator
Vernolate 1929-77-7 2 3445.00 — — — 336.22 2 E Herbicide
CHEMICALS PRIMARILY ACTIVE
AGAINST VERTEBRATES OR TESTED AS
VERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS
[(3-Amino-2,4,6- 1 — — — — 34.01 1 U Rodenticide
trichloro phenyl)
methylene]hydrazide
Benzenesulfonic acid 35944-73-1 7 3.16 0.28 −0.37 0.23 0.61 — U Rodenticide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

(Bay 98663) 1,3-di-

(fluorosulfonyl)cyclo-
pentane (PHILLIPS
2133)
1,3-Propanediol,2,2- 12712-28-6 6 8.75 0.38 0.11 0.29 0.90 — U Tested as vertebrate
bis(chloromethyl)- agent
sulfate (PHILLIPS
2605)
3-Chloro-P-toluidine 10 22.45 −0.02 2.88 0.97 0.30 — U Avicide
4-Aminopyridine 504-24-5 33 5.34 −0.01 1.68 0.92 1.79 — U Avicide
65

(Avitrol)
 66

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

5-(p-Chlorophenyl)- 4 8.52 1.14 −5.20 0.05 0.04 — U Rodenticide

3,7,10-trimethyl sila-
trane (D.M. 7537)
6-Aminonicotinamide 1 — — — — 0.77 1 U Rodenticide
Alpha-chloralose 15879-93-3 18 69.16 0.26 3.12 0.07 14.05 — E Rodenticide
Anthraquinone 84-65-1 3 2000.00 — — — 193.05 1 E Bird Repellent
BAY COE 3664 39457-24-4 9 5.62 0.28 0.34 0.15 1.11 — U Tested as
vertebrate agent
BAY COE 3675 39457-25-5 9 2.37 0.69 −2.03 0.00 0.38 — U Tested as
vertebrate agent
Brodifacoum 56073-10-0 8 9.1 −0.12 2.49 0.77 0.81 — E Rodenticide
Bromadiolone 28772-56-7 2 676.58 — — — 53.26 2 E Rodenticide
Bromethalin 63333-35-7 1 — — — — 0.83 1 E Rodenticide
P. Mineau et al.

Chlorophacinone 3691-35-8 6 25.45 −1.53 13.21 0.01 3.32 — E Rodenticide

Cholecalciferol (vitamin 67-97-0 1 — — — — 192.68 1 E Rodenticide
D3)
Coumatetralyl 5836-29-3 3 37.50 — — — 193.05 1 E Rodenticide
Difenacoum 56073-07-5 1 — — — — 9.32 1 E Rodenticide
Difethialone 104653-34-1 3 0.87 — — — 0.31 2 E Rodenticide
Flocoumafen 90035-08-8 4 51.25 −0.64 6.45 0.50 0.07 — E Rodenticide
Fluoroacetamide 640-19-7 2 9.46 — — — 1.42 1 E Rodenticide
Methyl anthralinate 134-20-3 2 1216.17 — — — 82.26 2 U Repellent
Metomidate 5377-20-8 11 74.97 0.11 3.91 0.52 24.05 — U Tested as
vertebrate agent
Metomidate HCl 35944-74-2 8 56.20 0.15 3.24 0.03 26.85 — U Tested as
vertebrate agent
Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

Pentobarbital-sodium 57-33-0 8 107.66 0.00 4.71 0.97 48.93 — U Soporific

Phencyclidine HCl 956-90-1 13 75.00 0.14 3.63 0.57 9.32 — U Tested as vertebrate
agent
Phosacetim 4104-14-7 12 16.61 0.19 2.00 0.68 0.41 — S Rodenticide
Pindone 83-26-1 1 — — — — 27.99 1 E Rodenticide
Polyethoxylated aliphatic 68131-40-8 3 2006.00 — — — 227.85 1 U Repellent
alcohols
Scilliroside 507-60-8 1 — — — — 1.35 1 S Rodenticide
Sodium fluoroacetate 62-74-8 55 5.46 0.18 0.82 0.01 0.85 — E Rodenticide
(compound 1080)
Sodium wafarin 129-0601 2 1310.50 — — — 115.97 2 U Rodenticide
Starlicide 7745-89-3 31 5.62 −0.08 2.82 0.73 0.43 — U Avicide
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Strychnine 57-24-9 17 6.00 0.15 1.47 0.36 1.04 — E Rodenticide

Terrtiary butylsulfenyl-di- 1 — — — — 108.01 1 U Rodenticide
methyl dithiocarbamate
TFM (4-Nitro-3-[trifluo- 88-30-2 1 — — — — 44.12 1 U Lampricide
romethyl]phenol)
Thallium sulfate 7446-18-6 4 40.48 0.10 3.10 0.70 8.93 — U Rodenticide
Warfarin 81-81-2 3 970.57 — — — 120.21 2 E Rodenticide
Zinc phosphide 1314-84-7 7 44.85 −0.34 5.40 0.15 5.45 — E Rodenticide
67
 68

Table 3. (Continued).

Chemical CAS_RN N Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Status Use

CHEMICALS WITH UNKNOWN SPECTRUM

OF ACTIVITY
Brofenprox 2 1942.00 — — — 201.99 2 E Unknown
Chloretazate 2 2150.00 — — — 207.53 1 U Unknown
Chloromethylmercury 115-09-3 1 — — — — 1.74 1 U Unknown
Cloxynil-sodium 1 — — — — 3.72 1 U Unknown
Dibromoitrilopropi- 2 184.11 — — — 18.96 2 U Unknown
P. Mineau et al.

onamide
Dichlorprop (racemic 7547-66-2 1 — — — — 48.65 1 E Unknown
acid)
Flumequine 42835-25-6 2 2500.00 — — — 96.53 1 U Unknown
Fluprimidol 1 — — — — 232.29 1 U Unknown
Hexachlorbenzol 1 — — — — 482.63 1 U Unknown
Propenamide 79-06-1 1 — — — — 19.26 1 U Unknown
Table 4. List of pesticides currently in use with HD5(50%) below 1 mg/kg.

Compound CAS_RN n Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Use Pattern

CHOLINESTERASE-INHIBITING INSECTICIDES
Thiofanox 39196-18-4 3 1.20 na na na 0.12 1
Terbufos 13071-79-9 5 9.48 1.0277 −1.5328 0.32 0.16 —
Propaphos 7292-16-2 1 — na na na 0.18 1
Carbofuran 1563-66-2 18 1.65 0.0423 0.257 0.82 0.21 —
Phorate 298-02-2 8 7.06 0.1817 0.4833 0.65 0.34 —
Parathion 56-38-2 19 5.62 0.0797 1.2228 0.76 0.40 —
Quinalphos 13593-03-8 2 20.65 na na na 0.42 1
Dicrotophos 141-66-2 15 2.83 0.1787 0.3645 0.32 0.42 —
Monocrotophos 6923-22-4 23 2.51 −0.0312 1.0218 0.79 0.42 —
Pesticide Toxicity to Birds

Aldicarb 116-06-3 10 2.82 0.2955 −0.6559 0.12 0.43 —

Fenamiphos 22224-92-6 5 1.10 −0.0863 0.5444 0.66 0.43 —
Isofenphos 25311-71-1 6 10.96 0.0994 2.7255 0.86 0.44 —
Famphur 52-85-7 3 2.70 na na na 0.45 1
Isazofos 42509-80-8 3 11.10 na na na 0.51 2
EPN 2104-64-5 14 6.43 0.3624 0.604 0.33 0.53 —
Diazinon 333-41-5 14 5.25 −0.2608 3.5883 0.29 0.59 —
69
 70

Table 4. (Continued).

Compound CAS_RN n Median Slope Intercept p HD5(50%) #_EF Use Pattern

Coumaphos 56-72-4 12 6.78 0.2179 0.7579 0.36 0.69 —

Mevinphos 7786-34-7 13 3.80 0.0254 0.9409 0.88 0.70 —
Bendiocarb 22781-23-3 4 16.24 −0.9475 8.3724 0.37 0.72 —
Oxamyl 23135-22-0 3 4.18 na na na 0.78 2
Disulfoton 298-04-4 7 11.90 0.2019 1.2104 0.60 0.81 —
Cyanophos 2636-26-2 1 — na na na 0.83 1
Fenthion 55-38-9 23 5.62 0.2581 0.4784 0.07 0.87 —
Triazamate 112143-82-5 1 — — — — 0.93 1
NONCHOLINESTERASE INHIBITORS
Phenylmercuric
P. Mineau et al.

acetate (PMA) 62-38-4 4 145.86 2.19 −9.43 0.16 0.01 — Fungicide

Flocoumafen 90035-08-8 4 51.25 −0.64 6.45 0.50 0.07 — Rodenticide
Chlordane 57-74-9 4 62.28 1.00 −1.63 0.44 0.09 — Insecticide
Difethialone 104653-34-1 3 0.87 — — — 0.31 2 Rodenticide
Bensultap 17606-31-4 4 192.00 1.35 −2.11 0.23 0.41 — Insecticide
Chlorfenapyr 122453-73-0 2 8.30 — — — 0.56 1 Insecticide, acaricide
Fenfuram 24691-80-3 1 — — — — 0.69 1 Fungicide
Brodifacoum 56073-10-0 8 9.1 −0.12 2.49 0.77 0.81 — Rodenticide
Bromethalin 63333-35-7 1 — — — — 0.83 1 Rodenticide
Sodium fluoracetate 62-74-8 55 5.46 0.18 0.82 0.01 0.85 — Rodenticide
 Pesticide Toxicity to Birds 71

III. Results and Discussion

Cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides are grouped together in Table 2; all others
are in Table 3. Pesticides are ordered alphabetically by their common chemical
names except when a trade name only is available. A few trade names and
synonyms are given to facilitate identification. All names follow the 11th Edi-
tion of the Pesticide Manual (Tomlin 1997) supplemented by the Nanogen In-
dex (Packer 1975; Walker 1989). Tomlin (1997) was also used to determine
whether any given product is still in commerce or is thought to no longer be
marketed (superseded entries).
One advantage of this process is that it allows us to identify which pesticides
currently in use are most toxic to birds and to start using some of the better
known products for which field studies or incident records exist as possible
“benchmarks” for equally toxic but more poorly known chemicals. From Tables
2 and 3, we arbitrarily selected those pesticides with an HD5(50%) less than 1
mg/kg (Table 4). Of the 34 pesticides identified, 24 are cholinesterase-inhibiting
insecticides. Of the remaining 10 products, 2 are insecticides including the very
new pyrrole insecticide chlorfenapyr, 2 are fungicides, and the rest are rodenti-
cides, including 3 of the second-generation coumarin anticoagulant products.
Interestingly, the cholinesterase inhibitor thought to be the most toxic to birds
is thiofanox (trade name Dacamox). According to the Pesticide Manual (Tomlin
1997), this granular and seed treatment insecticide is of only moderate toxicity
to birds with LD50 values of 109 mg/kg and 43 mg/kg in the mallard and the
bobwhite, respectively. However, this is one of those few cases where this data
source is in error. The values cited by Tomlin (1997) are in fact dietary LC50
values; the true acute toxicity values are lower by 1.5 to 2 orders of magnitude.
In an early review of bird-kill incidents by Grue and colleagues (1983), these
authors found that most incidents could be explained on the basis of pesticide
toxicity and the extent to which the pesticides were used in U.S. agriculture. In
a recent review of raptor incidents (Mineau et al. 1999), the higher proportion
of kills resulting from labeled uses of pesticides in Canada and the U.S. relative
to the U.K. was determined to be a result of the more permissive use of pesti-
cides highly toxic to birds in North America. Certainly, those individuals famil-
iar with pesticide bird-kill incidents throughout the world will recognize a num-
ber of compounds from Table 4 that keep coming back with depressing
regularity. We believe that we have laid the groundwork for a more comprehen-
sive review of those pesticides most hazardous to wild birds and for a fair
comparison between older products and newer replacements. Recognizing that
there are very few uses of pesticides that do not result in exposure to birds, we
urge regulatory authorities to consider avian acute toxicity more closely before
making regulatory decisions.
Acknowledgments
We thank all the individuals, companies, and institutions who volunteered data
for this effort. We also thank Charles Benbrook, and the Consumers Union as
well as the W. Alton Jones Foundation for the support necessary to perform the
72 P. Mineau et al.

time-consuming vetting of the database. A number of individuals demonstrated

an infinite degree of patience with this task, particularly Rob Kriz and Lynn
Schirml. We are grateful to Tom Aldenberg and Rick Bennett for comments on
an earlier draft of this paper. Over the years, we benefitted from many a discus-
sion with colleagues from around the world on this subject and, without being
able to thank them all, would like to acknowledge at least the OECD, SETAC,
and the USEPA for holding many of the forums where these discussions took
place.

Appendix 1. Comparison of the equations for the expected value and variance from a
sample with and without a covariate for bird weight. (A Fortran program to compute an
HD5 with body weight as a covariate is available by writing to the authors.)

Without covariate With covariate

Estimated expected value ȳ = ∑ yi/n ŷo = ȳ + b(xo − x̄)

Variance of estimated
expected value σ2 冋册
1
n
σ2 冋 1
+
(xo − x̄)2
n ∑ (xi − x̄)2 册
Variance estimate (s2) ∑ (yi − ȳ) /(n − 1)
2
∑ (yi − ŷ ) /(n −2)
i
2

Degrees of freedom n−1 n−2

b=
∑ y (x − x̄)
i i

∑ (x − x̄)i
2

ŷi = ȳ + b(xi − x̄)

x0 is the logarithm of the weight of the bird which you want to protect
ŷ0 is the expected value of the logarithm of the LD50 for the species of weight x0
σ is the standard deviation of the original log(LD50) data set
σ2 is the unknown true population variance of the original log(LD50) data set
s2 is the estimator of the variance

References
Aldenberg T, Slob W (1993) Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on
logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 25:48–63.
Baril A, Mineau P (1996) A distribution-based approach to improving avian risk assess-
ment (abstract). 17th Annual SETAC, Washington, DC.
Baril A, Jobin B, Mineau P, Collins BT. (1994) A consideration of inter-species variabil-
ity in the use of the median lethal dose (LD50) in avian risk assessment. Tech Rep
Series 216 Canadian Wildlife Service Headquarters, Hull, Québec.
Benbrook CM, Groth E, Halloran JM, Hansen MK, Marquardt S (1996) Pest Manage-
ment at the Crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY.
Dunning JB (1993) CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Fischer DL, Hancock GA (1997) Interspecies extrapolation of acute toxicity in birds:
body size scaling vs. phylogeny (abstract) 18th Annual SETAC. San Francisco, CA.
Grolleau G, Caritez JL (1986). Toxicité par ingestion forcée, de différents pesticides
 Pesticide Toxicity to Birds 73

pour la perdrix grise, Perdix perdix L. et la perdrix rouge, Alectoris rufa L. Gibier
Faune Sauvage 3:185–196.
Grue CE, Fleming WJ, Busby DG, Hill EF (1983) Assessing hazards of organophosphate
pesticides to wildlife. Trans N Am Wildl Nat Res Conf (Washington, DC) 48:200–
220.
Hart ADM, Thompson HM (1995) Significance of regurgitation in avian toxicity tests.
Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 54:789–796.
Hudson RH, Tucker RK, Haegele MA (1984) Handbook of Toxicity of Pesticides to
Wildlife. No. 153. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
DC.
Joermann G (1991) Comparative toxicity of pesticides to birds. Nachrbl Dtsch, Pflanzen-
schutzd (Stuttg) 43:275–279.
Kooijman SALM (1987) A safety factor for LC50 values allowing for differences in
sensitivity among species. Water Res 21:269–276.
Luttik R, Aldenberg T (1995) Extrapolation factors to be used in case of small samples
of toxicity data (with special focus on LD50 values for birds and mammals). RIVM
Report. National Institute of Public Health and Environment. Bilthoven, The Nether-
lands.
Luttik R, Aldenberg T (1997) Extrapolation factors for small samples of pesticide toxic-
ity data: special focus on LD50 values for birds and mammals. Environ Toxicol Chem
16:1785–1788.
Mineau P (1991) Difficulties in the regulatory assessment of cholinesterase-inhibiting
insecticides. In: Mineau P (ed) Cholinesterase Inhibiting Insecticides. Elsevier, Am-
sterdam, pp 277–299.
Mineau P, Jobin B, Baril A (1994) A critique of the avian 5-day dietary test (LC50) as
the basis of avian risk assessment. Tech Rep No. 215. Canadian Wildlife Service
Headquarters, Hull, Québec.
Mineau P, Collins BT, Baril A (1996) On the use of scaling factors to improve interspe-
cies extrapolation of acute toxicity in birds. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 24:24–29.
Mineau P, Fletcher MR, Glaser LC, Thomas NJ, Brassard C, Wilson LK, Elliott JE,
Lyon L, Henny CJ, Bollinger T, Porter SL (1999) Poisoning of raptors with organo-
phosphorus and carbamate pesticides with emphasis on Canada, U.S., and U.K. J
Raptor Res 33:1–37.
Newman MC, Ownby DR, Mezin LCA, Powell DC, Christensen TRL, Lerberg SB, An-
derson BA (2000) Applying species-sensitivity distributions in ecological risk assess-
ment: assumptions of distribution type and sufficient number of species. Environ Tox-
icol Chem 19:508–515.
Packer K (1975) Nanogen Index: A Dictionary of Pesticides and Chemical Pollutants.
Nanogens International, Freedom, CA.
Sample BE, Arenal CA (1999) Allometric models for interspecies extrapolation of wild-
life toxicity data. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 62:653–663.
Schafer EW, Brunton RB (1979) Indicator bird species for toxicity determinations: is the
technique usable in test method development? In: Beck JR (ed) Vertebrate Pest Con-
trol and Management Materials. American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia, pp 157–168.
Schafer EW Jr, Bowles WA Jr, Hurlbut J (1983) The acute oral toxicity, repellancy and
hazard potential of 998 chemicals to one or more species of wild and domestic birds.
Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 12:355–382.
 74 P. Mineau et al.

SETAC (1996) Report of the SETAC/OECD Workshop on Avian Toxicity Testing.

OECD, Paris.
Smith GJ (1987) Pesticide Use and Toxicology in Relation to Wildlife: Organophospho-
rus and Carbamate Compounds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Stephan CE, Rogers JW (1985) Advantages of using regression analysis to calculate
results of chronic toxicity tests. In: Bahner RC, Hansen DJ (eds) Aquatic Toxicology
and Hazard Assessment: 8th Symposium. STP 891. American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, pp 328–338.
Tomlin CDS (1997) The Pesticide Manual, 11th Ed. British Crop Protection Council,
Binfield, Berkshire, UK.
Tucker RK, Haegele MA (1971) Comparative acute oral toxicity of pesticides to six
species of birds. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 20:57–65.
Van Straalen NM, Denneman CAJ (1989) Ecotoxicological evaluation of soil quality
criteria. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 18:241–251.
Wagner C, Lokke H (1991) Estimation of ecotoxicological protection levels from NOEC
toxicity data. Water Res 25:1237–1242.
Walker SB (1989) Consolidated Index for the Updated Nanogen Index. Nanogens Inter-
national, Freedom, CA.

Manuscript received March 17, 2000; accepted July 10, 2000.

View publication stats