Talk:Brodifacoum

Medicine: Toxicology Start‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Chemicals Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology

I suggest to change the section "Pharmacology" to "Toxicology". Reason: brodifacoum is used only in biocidal (rodenticidal) context, it has no pharmacologic relevance other than its toxicity. Since the only use of it is that of a poison per se, it is appropriate to discuss its dynamics and kinetics in organism as toxodynamics and toxokinetics, forming toxicology of the substance.

I therefore change the name of the section to "Toxicology".

I also add some toxicological values (half-life, LD₅₀ values, LC₅₀ value, estimated fatal dose for a human) from the sources quoted ( http://www.inchem.org/ ). --84.163.124.102 00:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Great stuff. I do wonder about this statement though (which I edited for clarity): "Dehydrated bodies also dry out more readily, possibly leaving an odorless, mummified carcass." Does anyone know about this? Is the dehydration caused by brodifacoum really significant enough to affect the manner of decomposition? It would be great to have a reference to back this up. Cheers -- FirstPrinciples 08:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I mailed a producer of a 2nd gen. anticoagulant rodenticide bait (specifically, difethialone baits, not brodifacoum, but difethialone and brodifacoum are very closely akin), that claims the drying-mummification in their product prospects and they mailed me back:

"Rückfragen beim Hersteller haben ergeben, dass die Erkenntnis des schnellen Eintrocknens der Tiere auf Anwendungsbeobachtungen beruht und abhängig von den äußeren Bedingungen zu sehen ist."
which means
"A query by manufacturer brought, that the knowledge of fast drying of the animals [animal corpses] is based on application observations, and is seen dependant on external conditions".
So there are no real scientific observations/studies of this phenomenon yet, or I found none of the kind. I have thus no objections against removing the claim from the article, if it interferes somehow with the NPOW or objectivity of the article.--Spiperon 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fact, most 2nd generation anticoagulants (most pronounced is this mummification by bromadiolone, brodifacoum and difethialone) cause dehydration (which is caused by the hypovolemia and capillary damage, leading to blood/plasma leakage and subsequent intesticial fluid compensation of progressive hypovolemia, and if the rodent doesn't drink water copiously, the dehydration thus obtained is quite significant and progressive; with damaged, leaking capillaries, the whole body becomes "leaking" and fast-drying in dry air) as far as I know, that results to prone drying of the carcass, as long as the surroundings are dry, not moist.

I observed this also in practice, when I used difethialone and brodifacoum baits against rats and mice, I found after some weeks, by cleanup of the area where rodents were active prior to baiting, multiple dry carcasses, with no signs of decay. The bodies were just like dryied in an exsiccator, perfectly conserved. When I first observed this, I was surprised, because the use of zinc phosphide or warfarin resulted often to decaying, badly smelling bodies all over the place. I think, that an association of an anticoagulant with an antibiotic (sulfaquinoxaline) results also to more likely dry-mummification, because of the reduction of the biggest internal reservoir of the bacteria -- the intestinal microflora. But I don't have any relevant scientific sources to support this thesis yet. Only claims supporting this I found so far are in descriptions of the rodenticidal products containing 2nd gen. anticoagulants by their manufacturers, in german. In general, claims of manufacturers are not reliable source of objective information in regard to its necessary bias, but my observations support them, so I simply accept it.--Spiperon 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humaneness

I think it should be mentioned in the article somewhere that Brodifacoum is not regarded as a humane way to kill animals. I didn't put this in myself as I wasn't sure if it had a good enough reference (nor was I sure how to reference it.) I found this paper - The Humaneness of Rodent Pest Control - G Mason, K E Littin - at the following address, which seems to describe anticoagulants as inhumane for rodent pest control. http://www.helpinganimals.com/pdfs/TheHumanenessOfRodentControlAnimal%20Welfare-2003.pdf Jatoo (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anticoagulants are quite consensually considered to be a "humane" method of exterminating vermin. What is a "humane way to kill", anyway?--(84.163.124.2 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)— Reassesed today--84.163.125.4 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Pit Bull Story

WTF? This has almost nothing to do with the main article. I don't think it belongs here. ---Zizanie13 (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been removed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LD50 for cats: 0.25 or 25 mg/kg?

I have found contradictory LD50s for cats.

The article states 0.25mg/kg bodyweight, which agrees with the stated source http://www.inchem.org/documents/pds/pds/pest57_e.htm

but these sources state 25mg/kg:

http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pim077.htm#SubSectionTitle:7.2.2%20%20Relevant%20animal%20data

http://msds.orica.com/pdf/shess-en-cds-010-000000020872.pdf

25mg/kg seems surprisingly high and weirdly coincidental to be exactly 100x the minimum dog level so it may be a typo (rather shabby in an MSDS!)

Does anyone know for sure which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.55.68 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: http://www.liphatech.com/vetguide.html http://www.the-piedpiper.co.uk/th15(k).htm http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/rodent/rodent_A_L/brodifacoum/brodif_prf_0185.html

These all seem to indicate as well that the LD50 for a cat is extremely high. Indicating that baits of 0.005% would require consumption of a kilogram of bait to reach the LD50, or that the direct LD50 is in the range of 25mg/kg. I'm going to make the change, and use the data from the cornell.edu as source material, backed up by the inchem source indicating 25mg/kg, and finally the sources referenced by the liphatech.com source material. --Puellanivis (talk) 22:22, 6 July, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen half a dozen sources noting that LD50 for cats is VERY high for this, although reports of cat deaths from eating it are still known. But 25 mg/kg as a single dose appears to be correct. S B H arris 02:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity in cats

This source says c. 25 mg/kg (cat); here LD50 oral (cat) estimated as 25 mg/kg; but in here it is 0.25 mg/kg. This pdf says "Published LD50 values of brodifacoum for cats vary widely, from 25 mg kg-1 (Rammell et al., 1984;Godfrey, 1985) to 0.25 mg kg-1(Haydock and Eason, 1997).". Now what information should be used?--RicHard-59 (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here] is also 25 mg/kg.--RicHard-59 (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to: cats (oral) 0,25 mg/kg — 25 mg/kg with appr. refs.--RicHard-59 (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin C

I removed the line about vitamin C being used as an antidote. While there is a reference given for it in the safety sheet, I'm not aware of vitamin C being used clinically. Please correct me if is indeed used. Andrew73 (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. 1. The reference is not a "safety sheet" but the FAO/WHO poison data sheet, that being quite a difference; 2. the source quoted nor the text in the article did postulate an antidotal use of vitamin C, it is mentioned only as an adjunct to the causal therapy, i.e. vitamin K₁ ± coagulation factors concentrate IV; 3. you are not aware of vitamin C being used clinically? How often do you treat brodifacoum toxicoses (not meaning overdoses of Coumadin and the like)? Cheers,--134.3.94.175 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is its efficacy vis-à-vis other poisons? Causes death how? What time-frame? How humanely? Why not use a human euthanasia agent?

Article seems to infer material takes some little time to kill. Days? Weeks? Manifestly, the longer it takes to kill, the very much less efficacious a poison it is. Not much use if a pregnant rat could still deliver another litter, say.

Causes unconsciousness. So death is effected how, typically? Starvation? Predation? Low blood pressure?

Anyone have any idea why pests can't be poisoned rather more humanely, and quickly, the way humans overwhelmingly choose to euthanase themselves? That is, with benzodiazepines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.120.236 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rats are Ungeziefer