UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

							     

						  	PC Code: 004003, 004004, 004005, 004007			    		DP Barcode:
337994 

  	Date: April 4, 2007

MEMORANDUM	

SUBJECT:	Response to Comments (Phase 3) and Revised Environmental Fate
and Ecological Risk Assessment in Support of the Reregistration of the
Allethrins

TO:		Molly Clayton, Chemical Review Manager

		Michael Goodis, Risk Manager  

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

FROM:	Melissa A. Panger, Ph.D., Biologist

		Cheryl Sutton,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Ph.D., Environmental Scientist

Environmental Risk Branch IV

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

APPROVED

BY:		Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief

		Environmental Risk Branch IV

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

             

                               

OPP received Phase 3 comments from The California Regional Water Quality
Control Board – San Francisco Bay Region (CRWQCB), the California
Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), and the registrant (Valent
BioSciences Corporation) on the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk
Assessment in Support of the Reregistration of the Allethrins.  None of
the registrant’s comments were applicable to the environmental fate
and ecological risk assessment for the allethrins.  The CRWQCB and CASQA
comments relating to the environmental fate and ecological risk
assessment, EFED’s responses, and the revised risk assessment are
provided below.  

A.  CRWQCB COMMENTS:

1.  CRWQCB Comment:

Water quality criteria should be used to assess risks.  Water quality
criteria are typically lower than the toxicity reference values used by
U.S. EPA in pesticide environmental risk assessment… (this) gap can
lead to water quality impairment, TMDLs, and NPDES permit compliance
problems…U.S. EPA’s registration actions should be consistent with
the Clean Water Act… The simplest way to do this is for U.S. EPA to
use values developed in accordance with U.S. EPA’s own water quality
criteria development methods as the basis for its assessment of the
potential for estimated environmental concentrations of pesticides to
cause harm to aquatic ecosystems.

EPA Response 

There are currently no TMDLs or NPDES permit requirements for the
allethrins.  Therefore, there is no potential for compliance problems at
this time.  The decision to advance the allethrins for consideration in
establishing a Water Quality Criteria (WQC) lies within the purview of
Office of Water (OW).  The OPP stands ready to collaborate with the OW
within the confines of Confidential Business Information (CBI).

2.  CRWQCB Comment:

Temperature needs to be considered.  Pyrethroids have negative
temperature coefficients of toxicity… Because many of the nation’s
surface waters have temperatures lower than the laboratory temperatures
used for aquatic toxicity testing, U.S. EPA should consider the effects
of temperature in its risk assessment

EPA Response 

Sufficient data to establish the potential effects of water temperature
on the toxicity of the allethrins to aquatic organisms is not available.
There are data available, however, to suggest that a variety of
organisms are more sensitive to pyrethroids (in general) at lower
temperatures (which is likely due to enhanced detoxification at higher
temperatures) (e.g., Cremlyn 1978; Hill 1985; Li, et al. 2006).  We
agree to include the following statement in the uncertainties section of
an amended environmental risk assessment for the allethrins:

A variety of terrestrial and aquatic organisms are more sensitive to
pyrethroids at lower temperatures (i.e., pyrethoids have negative
temperature coefficients of toxicity) (e.g., Cremlyn 1978; Hill 1985;
Li, et al. 2006); however, the magnitude of the effects of temperature
on allethrin toxicity is not known at this time.  

3.  CRWQCB Comment:

Improved modeling methods are needed for all pesticides.  … (W)e urge
that (the Agency) initiate as soon as possible the development of a
model or alternative approach to urban aquatic risk assessment that will
serve OPP’s needs… We suggest that OPP emphasize development of
empirical models, which are easier to develop and have more realistic
data requirements than the mechanistic models that OPP typically uses. 
The National Academies of Science discussed the usefulness of and
recommended consideration of less complicated  - and less costly –
empirical models to report on TMDLs, which we recommend you consider in
development of an urban runoff modeling approach.

…Completing down-the-drain assessments will be more useful if U.S. EPA
improves the methodology to recognize that many sewage treatment plants
are not afforded significant dilution credit for their discharges. 
Down-the-drain assessment methods need to be improved to address sewage
sludge… disposal and reuse… The Office of Water’s Office of
Wastewater Management has the capabilities to assist OPP with
development of an improved wastewater discharge modeling methodology…

EPA Response 

We appreciate CRWQCB’s comments on ways to improve OPP’s modeling
efforts for assessing risks to aquatic organisms, especially those at
potential risk from urban pesticide uses.  OPP is currently working on
methods for assessing potential terrestrial and aquatic risks associated
with urban pesticide uses.  OPP will give consideration to the
recommendation of developing empirical models when evaluating storm
water discharges and/or urban runoff.  Regarding the
“down-the-drain” model, it was developed and is maintained by the
OPPTS; EFED will forward this comment to them for their consideration. 
OPP does not believe, however, that any of the proposed changes would
alter our risk conclusions for the allethrins because of the limited
exposures expected from current use patterns.

4.  CRWQCB Comment:

  

Cumulative risks and synergism need to be evaluated.  Cumulative effects
with other pyrethroids and other pesticides need to be evaluated… U.S.
EPA should evaluate whether estimated environmental concentrations of
PBO… could synergize pyrethroid toxicity in the water column and
sediments.

EPA Response 

As noted by the CRWQCB, EFED did consider the potential increased
toxicity of allethrins when mixed with other pesticides and PBO (e.g.,
see pp. 8, 33, and 43 of our assessment).  However, as concluded in the
RED chapter, even with the potential for increased toxicity when mixed
with other chemicals, the allethrin uses are not expected to produce
water concentrations that would result in risk (p. 43).  Therefore,
additional data on the potential synergistic effects of mixtures would
not likely change our risk conclusions for the allethrins.

5.  CRWQCB Comment:

Risk reduction measures for the allethrins:

Allow only localized, spot, and crack-and-crevice outdoor treatments.

Prohibit outdoor applications of the allethrins during rain and when
rain is imminent.

Add product stewardship language to the labels.

EPA Response 

EFED defers the response to these comments to SRRD since they relate to
label issues.  Related to the first risk reduction measure (listed
above), however, please note that the EFED RED chapter already includes
the following paragraph (p. 20):

Although current label uses include multiple large-scale outdoor uses,
they are not being supported and are thus not considered in this risk
assessment.  This is based on the technical registrant’s written
intention to modify the labels to remove these uses as follows (2/2/06
letter and follow-up emails to Molly Clayton, SRRD from Janice Sharp,
VBC):  1) All food handling establishment uses will be deleted and the
labels will be modified to read “For residential use only.” 2) Uses
on boat/ship hulls will be deleted.  3) Kennels/stables and commercial
premise uses (outdoor and area sprays) will be deleted or limited to
spot treatments. 4) Outdoor ornamental use sites will be specified and
will be limited to spot use. 5) Outdoor mosquito adulticide use will be
deleted or limited to localized spray. 6) Commercial area space spray
uses will be deleted or limited to localized treatments. 7) Perimeter
spray uses will be limited to localized treatments. 8) Uses in or on
drainage systems, golf course turf, wide area/general outdoor treatment,
airports/landing fields, uncultivated agricultural areas, and paved
areas such as sidewalks and roads will all be deleted.  Therefore, the
allethrins are unlike all other pyrethroids previously assessed by OPP,
because their outdoor uses are limited to small-scale residential uses,
and no large-scale outdoor uses (e.g., agricultural or public
health/mosquito abatement) will be supported.

6.  CRWQCB Comment:

If U.S. EPA does not require the data discussed as data gaps below prior
to reregistration of the allethrins, we request that these items be
included in the Data Call-In (DCI) that the U.S. EPA intends to prepare
for the pyrethoids… Our sister agency in the California Environmental
Protection Agency, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation
(DPR), has initiated a data requirements process for pyrethroids called
re-evaluation… We recommend that U.S. EPA coordinate with DPR in
developing current and future data requirements for pyrethoids.  We ask
U.S. EPA to request, obtain, and review all data submitted to DPR…

EPA Response 

EFED would appreciate the opportunity to consider the DPR data discussed
above when available.  EFED defers the response to the comment regarding
the DCI to SRRD since it relates to a request for data.

7.  CRWQCB Comment:

Aquatic toxicity data gaps.  … It is important that all data gaps be
filled and that U.S. EPA obtain all aquatic toxicity data necessary to
develop water quality criteria in accordance with U.S. EPA methods…
Because pyrethroids partition into sediments in surface water
ecosystems, sediment toxicity data are necessary for evaluation of
environmental risks.  Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity data for various
pyrethroids were published in 2006….  It is unfortunate that these
data do not include data for the allethrins.  When data are obtained for
the allethrins, Hyalella azteca appears to be the appropriate species
for U.S. EPA to consider because the published literature suggests that
Chironomus tentans is less sensitive to pyrethroids…

	

EPA Response 

The decision to advance the allethrins for consideration in establishing
WQC lies within the purview of Office of Water (OW).  Regarding the
other data gaps noted in the CRWQCB comments, OPP noted the aquatic
toxicity data gaps in the allethrins RED environmental fate and effects
chapter (e.g., see p. 5).  Because additional toxicity data are not
likely to change current risk conclusions (due to the limited uses of
the allethrins), EFED recommended to SRRD that the request for toxicity
data on freshwater animals (chronic) and estuarine/marine organisms
(acute and chronic) be held in reserve until additional information
becomes available that those data would be useful for assessment
purposes.  OPP will consider the potential increased sensitivity of
Hyalella azteca to pyrethroids when compared to Chironomus tentans in
any future requests for allethrins sediment toxicity data.

8.  CRWQCB Comment:

Additional environmental fate data.  What appears to be the most
important environmental endpoint – toxicity to sediment dwelling
organisms – cannot be assessed due to the lack of environmental fate
data for allethrins in aquatic sediments… other critical data gaps
include fate on surface soil, fate in aerobic and anaerobic aquatic
environments, and fish bioaccumulation.

EPA Response 

These environmental fate data gaps were noted in the allethrins RED
environmental fate and effects chapter (e.g., see pp. 6 and 8).  EFED
defers the response to this comment to SRRD since it relates to a
request for data.  

9.  CRWQCB Comment:

Data gaps for the allethrins in include the following:

	Chemical analytical methods

	Data to support sewer discharge and urban runoff modeling

	Data to support wastewater discharge modeling

	Surface water monitoring data

Data sufficient to support assessment of environmental risks from
important pyrethroid isomers and degradates

Data to support selection of appropriate minimum time between
application and forecast rainfall.

EPA Response 

EFED defers the response to these comments to SRRD since they relate to
requests for data.

B.  CASQA COMMENTS:

1.  CASQA Comment:

The USEPA preliminary environmental risk assessment finds that the
allethrins have the potential to cause significant risks to aquatic
organisms in water bodies receiving urban runoff, but concludes (without
urban runoff modeling) that these risks are currently unlikely because
outdoor uses of the allethrins are currently minimal.  We are concerned
with the potential that outdoor uses might increase as market
preferences change, or as regulatory requirements increase for competing
active ingredients.

EPA Response 

Any potential risks associated with changes in use patterns for the
allethrins would be addressed during registration review.

2.  CASQA Comment:

We are also concerned that USEPA is proceeding with the reregistration
of the allethrins in the absence of much of the required environmental
fate and aquatic toxicity data.  Extensive gaps in these fundamental
data sets preclude a full evaluation of risks that may have implications
for Clean Water Act compliance.  Among data needed for allethrins risk
assessment and risk reduction measure design include:

	Environmental fate and aquatic toxicity data

Aquatic sediment data (including toxicity studies performed at a range
of typical surface water temperatures)

Environmental fate and aquatic toxicity for environmentally relevant
isomers and degradates

	Data to support urban runoff modeling

Data to support selection of appropriate minimum time between outdoor
application and forecast rainfall

EPA Response 

Please see EPA’s responses to A.2., A.7., A.8., and A.9., above.

3.  CASQA Comment:

We urge that OPP immediately initiate development of a model (i.e.,
urban runoff model) that will serve its needs.

EPA Response 

Please see EPA’s response to A.3., above.

4.  CASQA Comment:

Risk management measures for the allethrins:

Limit allethrins outdoor applications to spot, localized, and
crack-and-crevice treatments

Prohibit outdoor applications of the allethrins during rain and when
rain is imminent

Add stewardship language intended to reduce urban runoff of the
allethrins

Use icons to communicate water quality stewardship concepts.

EPA Response 

Please see EPA’s response to A.5., above.

5.  CASQA Comment:

… (C)ontinued significant efforts are needed from USEPA to better
integrate surface water quality protection into its pesticide
registration and regulatory review programs.  Coordination between USEPA
offices in reviewing pesticide ingredients is essential to Clean Water
Act implementation; it also provides an appropriate method of meeting
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’s goals of
preventing unreasonable adverse impacts from pesticide use.

EPA Response 

Please see EPA’s response to A.1., above.

REFERENCES:

Cremlyn, R.  (1978). Pesticides: Preparation and Mode of Action, John
Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

Hill, I.R. (1985).  Effects on non-target organisms in terrestrial and
aquatic environments. In: J.P. Leahey, Editor, The Pyrethroid
Insecticides, Taylor and Francis, London, UK.

Li, Haiping, Tao Feng, Pei Liang, Xueyan Shi, Xiwu Gao and Hui Jiang
(2006).  Effect of temperature on toxicity of pyrethroids and
endosulfan, activity of mitochondrial Na+–K+-ATPase and
Ca2+–Mg2+-ATPase in Chilo suppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae).  Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 86(3): 151-156.





Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Reregistration
of the Allethrins

 



	Melissa Panger, Ph. D. 

Cheryl A. Sutton,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Ph.D.

	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch IV

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507C

Washington, DC 20460

Reviewed by:

R. David Jones, Ph.D.                       

	

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TOC \o "1-5" \u  I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	  PAGEREF _Toc137880165 \h  5 

A.	Nature of Chemical Stressor	  PAGEREF _Toc137880166 \h  5 

B.	Potential Risks to Non-target Organisms	  PAGEREF _Toc137880167 \h  5


C.	Conclusions – Exposure Characterization	  PAGEREF _Toc137880168 \h 
6 

D.	Conclusions – Effects Characterization	  PAGEREF _Toc137880169 \h 
5 

E.	Uncertainties and Data Gaps	  PAGEREF _Toc137880170 \h  7 

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION	  PAGEREF _Toc137880171 \h  9 

A.	Stressor Source and Distribution	  PAGEREF _Toc137880172 \h  11 

1.	Source and Intensity	  PAGEREF _Toc137880173 \h  11 

2.	Physical/Chemical/Fate and Transport Properties	  PAGEREF
_Toc137880174 \h  11 

3.	Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action	  PAGEREF _Toc137880175 \h 
11 

4.	Overview of Pesticide Usage	  PAGEREF _Toc137880176 \h  12 

B.	Receptors	  PAGEREF _Toc137880177 \h  12 

1.	Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects	  PAGEREF _Toc137880178 \h  12 

2.	Ecosystems at Risk	  PAGEREF _Toc137880179 \h  14 

C.	Assessment Endpoints	  PAGEREF _Toc137880180 \h  14 

D.	Conceptual Model	  PAGEREF _Toc137880181 \h  15 

1.	Risk Hypotheses	  PAGEREF _Toc137880182 \h  16 

2.	Diagram	  PAGEREF _Toc137880183 \h  16 

E.	Analysis Plan	  PAGEREF _Toc137880184 \h  17 

1.	Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps and Methods	  PAGEREF
_Toc137880185 \h  17 

2.	Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses and Conceptual Model	  PAGEREF
_Toc137880186 \h  18 

a.	Measures of Exposure	  PAGEREF _Toc137880187 \h  18 

b.	Measures of Effect	  PAGEREF _Toc137880188 \h  18 

III. Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc137880189 \h  20 

A. Use Characterization	  PAGEREF _Toc137880190 \h  20 

B.	Exposure Characterization	  PAGEREF _Toc137880191 \h  22 

1.	Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization	  PAGEREF
_Toc137880192 \h  22 

2.	Measures of Aquatic Exposure	  PAGEREF _Toc137880193 \h  27 

a.	Aquatic Exposure Modeling	  PAGEREF _Toc137880194 \h  27 

b.	Aquatic Exposure Monitoring and Field Data	  PAGEREF _Toc137880195 \h
 29 

3.	Measures of Terrestrial Exposure	  PAGEREF _Toc137880196 \h  29 

a.	Terrestrial Exposure Modeling	  PAGEREF _Toc137880197 \h  29 

C.	Ecological Effects Characterization	  PAGEREF _Toc137880198 \h  30 

1.	Aquatic Effects Characterization	  PAGEREF _Toc137880199 \h  32 

a.	Aquatic Organisms	  PAGEREF _Toc137880200 \h  32 

2.	Terrestrial Effects Characterization	  PAGEREF _Toc137880201 \h  33 

a.	Terrestrial Animals	  PAGEREF _Toc137880202 \h  33 

(1)	Birds	  PAGEREF _Toc137880203 \h  33 

(2)	Mammals	  PAGEREF _Toc137880204 \h  34 

(3)	Terrestrial Invertebrates	  PAGEREF _Toc137880205 \h  34 

b.	Terrestrial Plants	  PAGEREF _Toc137880206 \h  35 

IV. Risk Characterization	  PAGEREF _Toc137880207 \h  35 

A.	Risk Estimation – Integration of Exposure and Effects Data	 
PAGEREF _Toc137880208 \h  36 

B.	Risk Description	  PAGEREF _Toc137880209 \h  42 

1.  Risks to Aquatic Animals	  PAGEREF _Toc137880210 \h  42 

2.  Risks to Terrestrial Organisms	  PAGEREF _Toc137880211 \h  43 

3.  Plants	  PAGEREF _Toc137880212 \h  44 

4.  Review of Incident Data	  PAGEREF _Toc137880213 \h  44 

5.  Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species Concerns	 
PAGEREF _Toc137880214 \h  44 

a.  Action Area	  PAGEREF _Toc137880215 \h  44 

b.  Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk	  PAGEREF _Toc137880216 \h  45 

C.	Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths,
and Data Gaps	  PAGEREF _Toc137880217 \h  46 

V.  Literature Cited	  PAGEREF _Toc137880218 \h  49 

 

LIST OF FIGURES:

FIGURE 1:  Conceptual plan diagram depicting sources of exposure,
potential receptors and adverse effects from the supported uses of
allethrins …………………………………...17

LIST OF TABLES:

TABLE 1: Composition of the
allethrins……………………………………………………
…...10

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 TABLE 2: Taxonomic groups and test species
evaluated for ecological effects in 

screening-level risk
assessments……………………………………………………
……14

TABLE 3:  Acute and chronic measures of
effect……………………………………………….20

TABLE 4:  Typical application rates for the main outdoor allethrin uses
(based on current 

labels and information provided at the 11/30/2005 SMART meeting with
OPP……………………………………………………………
…………………….…...22 

TABLE 5: Physical/chemical and environmental fate properties for the
allethrin 

	compounds based on submitted data
……………….………………..…………………..24 

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 TABLE 6: Summary of specific assessment and
measurement endpoints used in this 

assessment……………………………………………………
…………………………..31

TABLE 7:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Summary of submitted toxicity studies for
aquatic organisms exposed to 

allethrins……………………………………………………
…………………………….33

TABLE 8:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Summary of submitted toxicity studies for
terrestrial organisms exposed to
allethrins……………………………………………………
…………………………….35

TABLE 9:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Agency levels of concern
(LOC)…………………………………………………………
………………………….36

TABLE 10:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  Listed species risks associated with
direct or indirect effects due to 

applications of allethrins for all residential, outdoor uses
………………...…………….46

LIST OF APPENDICES:

APPENDIX A: Environmental Fate Study
Summaries……………………………………….…54

APPENDIX B: Chemical Structure of the Allethrin
Isomers……………………………………57

APPENDIX C: Summary of Submitted Toxicity Studies for Animals Exposed to


Allethrins……………………………………………………
……………………………58

APPENDIX D: Summary of Toxicity Studies from ECOTOX for Animals Exposed
to 

Allethrins……………………………………………………
……………………………62

APPENDIX E: List of ECOTOX References for Allethrins Categorized as
‘Acceptable 

for ECOTOX and
OPP’…………………………………………………………
……….67

APPENDIX F: List of ECOTOX References for Allethrins Categorized as
‘Acceptable 

for ECOTOX but not
OPP’…………………………………………………………
……70

APPENDIX G: List of ECOTOX References for Allethrins Categorized as
‘Excluded 

by
ECOTOX’………………………………………………………
…………………….73

APPENDIX H: Rat Acute Oral Toxicity Data for Formulated Products
Containing 

Allethrins: Based on Data from the OPP Integrative Hazard Assessment
Database
(IHAD)…………………………………………………………
………………………...86

APPENDIX I:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 T-REX (Version 1.2.3) Input Parameters
and Outputs for Allethrins at 

Various Application Rates
…………………………………………………………..….
.92

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nature of Chemical Stressor

The allethrin isomers, nonsystemic insecticides and acaricides that are
Type I pyrethroids, are a group of compounds that is undergoing
re-registration (as the active ingredient in a manufacturing use product
and multiple end-use products) by the technical registrants Valent
BioSciences Corporation and Sumitomo.  The allethrins are axonic poisons
that block the closing of the sodium gates in the axonal membrane, and,
thus, prolong the return of the membrane potential to its resting state
leading to hyperactivity of the nervous system which can result in
paralysis and/or death.  The allethrin compounds, which include
bioallethrin, esbiothrin, esbiol, and pynamin forte, are the active
ingredients in the allethrin end-use products that are considered in
this assessment.  Common product forms include wasp and hornet aerosols;
yard and patio foggers; flying insect killer aerosols; total release
aerosols (indoor foggers); mosquito repellants (mats and coils); space
sprays; pet shampoos/dips; and crawling insect killer aerosols.  The
allethrins are registered for both indoor and outdoor uses.  They are
typically combined with residual pyrethroids (e.g., permethrin,
tralomethrin, resmethrin, deltamethrin, sumithrin, esfenvalerate) or
insecticide synergists (e.g., piperonyl butoxide, MGK-264) which can
increase the toxicity of the allethrins.  Although the potential effects
of adding piperonyl butoxide to allethrin products are discussed, this
assessment considers only allethrin active ingredients.

Allethrin, first synthesized in 1949, was the first pyrethroid
developed, and it differs from more recently developed pyrethroids in
its photo-lability.  The more-recently developed pyrethroids have
structural modifications (i.e., alterations to the isobutenyl group
attached to the cyclopropane moiety) that make them more persistent than
the early generation pyrethroids, such as allethrin.  Therefore,
allethrin is among the least persistent of all pyrethroids and is less
persistent than permethrin, cypermethrin, cyfluthrin, cyhalothrin,
deltamethrin, fenvalerate, tefluthrin, and tralomethrin (ASTDR, 2003).

Conclusions – Effects Characterization

	The allethrins are considered very highly toxic to freshwater fish and
freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis.    SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1 Chronic toxicity data are lacking for freshwater animals, and
neither acute nor chronic toxicity data are available for any
estuarine/marine organism.  On an acute exposure basis, the allethrins
are practically nontoxic to birds, moderately toxic to mammals, and
moderately toxic to honey bees.  Chronic toxicity data for terrestrial
animals are only available for mammals.  These data show, based on a
reproductive study with laboratory rats, allethrin can significantly
decrease parental body size and increase liver weights at 130 mg/kg-bw
(NOAEL = 13 mg/kg-bw).    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 No guideline data were
submitted to evaluate the risk of allethrin exposure to non-target
plants; however, the allethrins are not expected to induce phytotoxic
effects because of their neural toxic mode of action and a lack of
phototoxic effects in efficacy studies provided by the registrant.  

Conclusions – Exposure Characterization 

The allethrins are low or moderately volatile compounds that are
slightly persistent in aerobic soil and that are expected to have low
mobility in most soils, but may be slightly more mobile in soils with
low organic carbon content (such as coarse sands).  They are stable to
hydrolysis at pH 5 and 7, but undergo fairly rapid hydrolysis (half-life
of 4.3 days) at pH 9.  The allethrins are expected to photodegrade
fairly quickly in clear and shallow water, but it is unknown if they
will photodegrade on surface soil.  Information on metabolism in
anaerobic soil or in either aerobic aquatic or anaerobic aquatic
environments is not available, as data were not submitted.  The
persistence of the allethrins in the field is also unknown, as data on
the field dissipation of the compounds were not submitted.  Likewise,
the potential for bioaccumulation of the allethrins in fish is not
known, as such data were not submitted.  While estimates based on
physical/chemical properties indicate a low potential for
bioaccumulation, data submitted for the structurally similar compound
pyrethrin 1 indicate that there may be a high potential for
bioaccumulation. 

	While there is some potential for the allethrins to reach surface water
through spray drift when applied as an outdoor spray or fogger, exposure
is likely to be minimal based on the supported uses.  Similarly, because
the allethrins may be slightly persistent in the environment, there is
some potential for them to be present in field runoff (mainly bound to
eroding sediments) and eventually reach surface water bodies.  However,
again, the potential is reduced since uses are mainly spot treatments,
which should result in very low total application rates for a given time
and place of use.  For groundwater, the potential for contamination is
also considered minimal, based on supported uses and the tendency for
the compounds to adsorb to surface soils, although there is a slightly
higher (yet likely still minimal) potential for groundwater
contamination when the allethrins are used on low organic matter soils
or on neutral or acidic sandy soils over shallow aquifers.	

	There is a potential for the allethrins to reach surface water from
indoor uses, namely pet shampoo and dip uses, which could lead to
releases of allethrin to surface waters through household wastewater. 
Based on estimations of allethrin concentrations in treated wastewater,
made using conservative assumptions, risk to freshwater organisms from
pet shampoo and dip uses cannot be dismissed.  Given the lack of chronic
toxicity data for aquatic organisms, it could not be determined whether
chronic LOCs may be reached.

	Generally, the exposure of a pesticide is determined in the form of
Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) and a quantitative risk
quotient is calculated based on the exposure and toxicity of the
pesticide.  Because the uses assessed here, unlike all other pyrethroids
previously assessed by OPP, are limited to small-scale, outdoor
residential uses, standard EECs could not be calculated using the tools
that OPP typically relies on (although the tools are used for risk
characterization).  The potential risk to the environment from allethrin
use was instead assessed by considering toxicity data, qualitative
information on exposure, environmental fate properties, and quantitative
information on use.  

Potential Risks to Non-target Organisms 

	Although there are uncertainties regarding the extent of use in
residential settings, the cumulative exposure from the supported outdoor
uses (i.e., spot treatments) is not likely to be substantial.  For
example, it would require the amount of a.i. in a large number of cans
of wasp and hornet spray, applied at the same time over an acre, to
reach the acute endangered species LOC for birds (293 cans/acre),
mammals (211 cans), and terrestrial invertebrates (95 cans/acre). 
Additionally, if the product were sprayed directly into a standard farm
pond, it would require 47.5 and 176.5 cans to reach an exposure
concentration equal to the toxic endpoints of concern for freshwater
invertebrates (LC50 = 2.1 ppb) and freshwater fish (LC50 = 7.9 ppb).  

	Therefore, based on the analysis in this assessment, the supported
outdoor allethrin uses are expected to result in exposure levels below
Agency acute LOCs for non-target organisms in both aquatic and
terrestrial environments.  Therefore, the likelihood of adverse effects
from acute exposure is concluded to be low.  The likelihood of adverse
effects from chronic exposure to mammals is also considered low,
however, the potential risk to all other taxa from chronic exposure to
allethrins cannot be assessed at this time due to a lack of data. 
Additionally, the potential risk to aquatic organisms from acute
exposure in surface water resulting from indoor uses (e.g., pet shampoos
being washed down the drain) could not be dismissed.

Uncertainties and Data Gaps

An uncertainty in this assessment relates to estimating the
environmental exposures that will result from the use of the allethrins.
 Standard EECs could not be calculated because use rates typically
reported for agricultural chemicals (i.e., lb a.i./acre) are not
applicable for allethrin end use products, and, in most cases, maximum
application rates cannot be calculated based on the label.  Even if
standard application rates were available, it is not feasible to
estimate exposure, given the use types (e.g., foggers, wasp nest sprays,
etc.), or the magnitude of use in a given area (e.g., a neighborhood or
campsite) at a given time, without excessive assumptions.  Also, the
allethrins do not have agricultural uses and cannot be modeled using the
standard Agency scenarios generated for agricultural crops or turf.  

	Although this assessment focuses on esbiol, esbiothrin, bioallethrin,
and pynamin forte, data from all of the allethrin compounds (including
allethrin) were bridged.  This data bridging was conducted since the
allethrin compounds are structurally nearly identical except in the
ratios and amounts of the two major isomers covered in the Bioallethrin
Registration Standard (d-trans chrysanthemic acid ester of
d-allethrolone and d-trans chrysanthemic acid ester of l-allethrolone).
The registrant has reported that the d-trans d- isomer is more
insecticidally active than the other  main allethrin isomers, however,
no side-by-side comparisons of the main isomers are available.
Additionally, no information is available regarding the toxicity of
d-trans (relative to the other allethrin isomers) to non-insect taxa. 
Because of these uncertainties and the fact that the available toxicity
data for different taxa are mixed as to whether the allethrins with the
higher percentages of d-trans are more toxic than allethrins with lower
percentages, we assume in this assessment that all of the allethrins are
equipotent in the absence of conclusive evidence suggesting otherwise. 
Additionally, to more fully characterize the environmental fate and
transport of the allethrins, some of the data for the structurally
similar but naturally occurring compound pyrethrin 1 have been
considered in addition to the submitted data for the allethrins.  Using
surrogate data in the absence of direct data on the active ingredient
being assessed decreases confidence in the assessment.

Many end-use products that contain an allethrin also contain other
residual pyrethroids or insecticide synergists, such as piperonyl
butoxide.   Piperonyl butoxide is known to increase the sensitivity of
aquatic and terrestrial taxa to pyrethroids (Adams, 1998; Casida and
Quistad, 1995; Federle and Collins, 1976)., however, the magnitude of
its synergistic effects when mixed with allethrins is not known.  

Additionally, the allethrins can cause paralysis in animals at lower
concentrations than those resulting in mortality, and such paralysis
could lead to death not directly related to the toxicity of the compound
(e.g., via predation).  Therefore, the acute endpoints used in this
assessment which do not account for such sub-lethal effects (i.e., LC50
or LD50) may not be conservative in this respect.  

A variety of terrestrial and aquatic organisms are more sensitive to
pyrethroids at lower temperatures (i.e., pyrethoids have negative
temperature coefficients of toxicity) (e.g., Cremlyn 1978; Hill 1985;
Li, et al. 2006); however, the magnitude of the effects of temperature
on allethrin toxicity is not known at this time.  

No allethrin toxicity data are available for estuarine/marine animals. 
Data are also lacking on chronic toxicity for all taxa except mammals
(i.e., birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, aquatic invertebrates, or
terrestrial invertebrates).  Furthermore, no guideline data were
submitted to evaluate the effects of allethrin exposure on plants.  

The environmental fate database for the allethrins is extremely sparse,
with a single acceptable study (mobility) submitted to date.  Data gaps
include photodegradation on soil, aquatic metabolism (both aerobic and
anaerobic), and bioaccumulation in fish.  The hydrolysis study
(classified “supplemental”) did not identify two major degradates
present in the pH 9 systems at the end of study, and was not of
sufficient duration to establish patterns of formation and decline of
the degradates.  The aqueous photolysis study is classified
“uncceptable”.  Also, the two submitted aerobic soil metabolism
studies, each of which were scientifically valid on their own and
provide some useful information on the persistence of these compounds,
are both classified “supplemental” due to discrepancies between the
results of the two studies.  Bridging data for the structurally similar
but naturally occurring compound pyrethrin 1 indicate that the potential
for bioaccumulation in fish may be high, but also indicate that
photolysis of the allethrins should occur rapidly in water under ideal
conditions where there is sufficient light penetration into clear,
shallow water. 

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the environmental fate and
ecological risks for the reregistration of the allethrin compounds (the
‘allethrins’) which include bioallethrin (also referred to as
d-trans allethrin; PC Code: 004003), esbiothrin [PC Code: 004007
(formerly 004003/004004)], esbiol (also referred to as s-bioallethrin;
PC Code: 004004), and pynamin forte (PC Code: 004005).  The
‘allethrins’ also include allethrin (PC Code: 004001) and allethrin
coil (004002), but all uses of allethrin and allethrin coil have been
withdrawn or cancelled; therefore, this assessment focuses on
bioallethrin, esbiothrin, esbiol, and pynamin forte.

The allethrin compounds are composed of mixtures of eight stereoisomers
(see Table 1).  The Bioallethrin Registration Standard covers two active
ingredients (d-trans chrysanthemic acid ester of d-allethrolone and
d-trans chrysanthemic acid ester of l-allethrolone) which are active
ingredients in the compounds assessed here (bioallethrin, esbiothrin,
esbiol, and pynamin forte) (USEPA 1987).  Additionally, there are up to
six other stereoisomers present in each compound that are considered
manufacturing impurities from the production of the active ingredients
[see 1/23/97 W. Smith memo (D222638)].  In the absence of conclusive
evidence suggesting otherwise, we assume all of the allethrin
stereoisomers have similar toxicities. 

	Since the allethrin compounds are nearly identical except in the ratios
and amounts of the major isomers, which are assumed to be equipotent,
the ecological and environmental fate data for the allethrins will be
bridged (i.e., used interchangeably) for this assessment.  This follows
a Toxicology Branch (HED) decision regarding a data call-in in 1984 and
1985 to allow Roussel Uclaf (a manufacturer of allethrin products at
that time) to use esbiothrin as a representative to satisfy the testing
requirements for esbiothrin, bioallethrin, and esbiol [see 11/12/86 P.
Hurley memo (TXR No.: 0052388)].  Pynamin forte was excluded from the
Bioallethrin Registration Standard because it was being tested by
another registrant (Sumitomo).   Allethrin was not included in the
Registration Standard because it was going to be cancelled by the
registrant (1986 Hurley memo).  Therefore, although the current
assessment focuses on esbiol, esbiothrin, bioallethrin, and pynamin
forte, data from all of the allethrin compounds (including allethrin)
will be bridged and utilized here.  Additionally, to more fully
characterize the environmental fate and transport of the allethrins in
spite of numerous data gaps, some of the data for the structurally
similar but naturally occurring compound pyrethrin 1 have been utilized
in the assessment in addition to the submitted data for the allethrins. 
This data bridging was conducted because of the high structural
similarity between the allethrins, which are synthetic pyrethroids, and
the naturally occurring pyrethrins.  

TABLE 1: Composition of the allethrins1.

ISOMER	Allethrin [PC Code(s)]

	Esbiol [004004]	Esbiothrin 

≥46.5%	36.5%	18%

d-trans chrysanthemic acid of l-allethrolone	5%	21%	≥46.5%	36.5%	18%

d-cis chrysanthemic acid of d-allethrolone	-3	-	-	9%	4.5%

d-cis chrysanthemic acid of l-allethrolone	-	-	-	9%	4.5%

l-trans chrysanthemic acid of d-allethrolone	-	-	-	-	18%

l-trans chrysanthemic acid of l-allethrolone	-	-	-	-	18%

l-cis chrysanthemic acid of d-allethrolone	-	-	-	-	4.5%

l-cis chrysanthemic acid of l-allethrolone	-	-	-	-	4.5%

1 Adapted from 1/23/97 W. Smith memo (D222638)

2 Most insecticidally active isomer

3 Indicates <2%

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 As insecticides registered prior to 1984 and
marketed in the United States, EPA is required under the Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to ensure that the
allethrins meet current scientific and regulatory standards.  This
process is called reregistration and it involves assessing the
allethrins’ potential to cause adverse effects to the environment. 
Potential effects to Federally listed endangered and threatened species
are also considered under the Endangered Species Act in order to ensure
that the allethrins’ reregistrations are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such listed species or adversely modify their
habitat.  To these ends, this assessment follows EPA guidance on
conducting ecological risk assessments (USEPA 1998) and the Office of
Pesticide Program’s policies for assessing risk to non-target and
listed organisms (USEPA 2004).

Among the end products of the EPA pesticide reregistration process is a
determination of whether a product is eligible for reregistration and,
if so, a description of how the product may be used.  A label represents
the legal document which stipulates how and where a given pesticide may
be used.  End-use labels describe the formulation type, acceptable
methods of application, where the product may be applied, and any
restrictions on how applications may be conducted.  Thus, the use, or
potential use, described by the pesticide’s labels is considered
“the action” being assessed.  This assessment is in support of the
reregistration eligibility decision (RED) on the allethrins.

Stressor Source and Distribution

Source and Intensity

The allethrin isomers, nonsystemic insecticides and acaricides that are
Type I pyrethroids, are a group of compounds that is undergoing
re-registration (as the active ingredient in a manufacturing use product
and multiple end-use products) by the technical registrants Valent
BioSciences Corporation and Sumitomo.  The allethrin compounds, which
include bioallethrin, esbiothrin, esbiol, and pynamin forte, are the
active ingredients in the allethrin end-use products that are considered
in this assessment.  Allethrins typically make up less than 1% of
end-use products.  Common product forms include wasp and hornet
aerosols; yard and patio foggers; flying insect killer aerosols; total
release aerosols (indoor foggers); mosquito repellants (mats and coils);
space sprays; pet shampoos and dips; and crawling insect killer
aerosols.  The allethrins are registered for both indoor and outdoor
uses.  Outdoor uses are used in a geographically limited area and are
limited to foggers and spot treatments that are typically packaged as
small, hand-held units and mosquito repellents (mats and coils).  Based
on information provided by the technical registrants, allethrins outdoor
use generally totals less than 10,000 pounds active ingredient per year.
 

Physical/Chemical/Fate and Transport Properties

	The allethrins are low or moderately volatile compounds that are
slightly persistent in aerobic soil and that are expected to have low
mobility in most soils.  They are stable to hydrolysis at pH 5 and 7,
but undergo fairly rapid hydrolysis (half-life of 4.3 days) at pH 9. 
The allethrins are expected to photodegrade fairly quickly in clear,
shallow water, but it is unknown how quickly they photodegrade on
surface soil.  Information on metabolism in anaerobic soil or in either
aerobic aquatic or anaerobic aquatic environments, persistence of the
allethrins on the field, and the potential for bioaccumulation in fish
is not available.  While estimates based on physical/chemical properties
indicate a low potential for bioaccumulation, data submitted for the
structurally similar compound pyrethrin 1 indicate that there may be a
high potential for bioaccumulation.  Separate data were not reported for
all of the allethrin stereoisomers and the submitted fate studies were
conducted using d-trans allethrin.  For environmental fate study
summaries, see APPENDIX A.

 

Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action

The allethrins are broad spectrum, nonsystemic insecticides and
acaricides used to control a variety of crawling and flying insects,
mites and spiders.  The allethrins are synthetic compounds (pyrethroids)
that duplicate the activity of naturally occurring plant pyrethrins. 
Allethrin, first synthesized in 1949, was the first pyrethroid
developed.  The allethrins are Type I pyrethroids that resemble the
insecticide dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) in their mode of
action.  They are axonic poisons that block the closing of the sodium
gates in the nerve cell axon’s (axonal) membrane, and, thus, prolong
the return of the membrane potential to its resting state.  This leads
to hyperactivity of the nervous system which can then lead to paralysis
and/or death.  Products that contain one of the allethrins usually also
contain other pesticides and/or a synergist (e.g., piperonyl butoxide). 
The addition of other pesticides and/or a synergist enhances the
toxicity of a formulation.  Although the potential effects of adding
piperonyl butoxide to allethrin products are discussed, this assessment
considers only allethrin active ingredients.

Overview of Pesticide Usage

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The main use for the allethrins is as a knockdown
agent (defined here as an agent that causes rapid paralysis that may be
reversible and that may or may not lead to death) against a variety of
flying and crawling insects, mites and spiders, but they can also
function as insecticides when used at higher rates.  Formulations that
contain an allethrin are typically mixed with other killing agents
(e.g., permethrin, tralomethrin, resmethrin, deltamethrin, sumithrin,
esfenvalerate) or synergists (e.g., piperonyl butoxide, MGK-264), and
the allethrin typically makes up < 1% of the formulation.  Outdoor uses
of the allethrins are limited to localized space and contact sprays,
perimeter treatments, ornamental applications against crawling and
flying insects, and as a direct spray, wipe-on, dust-on or dip to
animals (not intended for food).  Typical formulations for the above
uses include pressurized liquids, ready-to-use liquid sprays, pet
shampoos and dips, mosquito coils and mats, emulsifiable concentrates,
liquid concentrates, and dusts.  Application methods include aerosol
cans, foggers, mosquito coils, trigger sprayers, foams, shampoos, and
bait stations.  

Allethrins are different from all other pyrethroids previously assessed
by OPP because their outdoor uses are limited strictly to small-scale
residential uses (i.e., there are no large-scale allethrin uses such as
agricultural or public health/mosquito abatement uses).  Furthermore,
allethrin, as an early-generation pyrethroid, differs structurally from
more-recently developed pyrethroids which have structural modifications
(i.e., alterations to the isobutenyl group attached to the cyclopropane
moiety) that make them more persistent than the early generation
pyrethroids.  Therefore, allethrin is among the least persistent of all
pyrethroids and is less persistent than permethrin, cypermethrin,
cyfluthrin, cyhalothrin, deltamethrin, fenvalerate, tefluthrin, and
tralomethrin (ASTDR, 2003).  Standard use rates typically reported for
agricultural chemicals (i.e., lb/acre) are not applicable for allethrin
end use products, and, in most cases, maximum application rates cannot
be calculated from label language. 

	

Receptors

Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 2 gives examples of taxonomic groups and
species tested to help understand potential ecological effects of
pesticides to non-target organisms.  Within each of these very broad
taxonomic groups, a measure of effect from either acute or chronic
exposure is selected from the available test data.  No toxicity studies
for the allethrins on estuarine/marine animals (fish or invertebrates)
have been submitted.  Additionally, other than for mammals, no chronic
toxicity studies have been submitted.  No guideline toxicity studies for
the allethrins on plants (aquatic, semi-aquatic, or terrestrial) have
been submitted, however, a packet of efficacy studies that showed no
phytotoxic effects to plants was provided by the registrant.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 TABLE 2.  Taxonomic groups and test species
evaluated for ecological effects in screening-level risk assessments.

Taxonomic Group	Example(s) of Representative Species

Birds1	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos)

Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Mammals	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Laboratory rat
(Rattus norvegicus)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Insects	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Honey bee (Apis
mellifera L.)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Freshwater fish2		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Bluegill
sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Freshwater invertebrates	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Water flea (Daphnia magna)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Estuarine/marine fish	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Terrestrial plants3	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Monocots
– corn (Zea mays)

Dicots – soybean (Glycine max)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Aquatic plants and algae	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Duckweed (Lemna gibba) 

Green algae (Selenastrum capricornutum)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 1 Birds represent surrogates for amphibians
(terrestrial phase) and reptiles.

2 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for amphibians (aquatic phase).

3 Four species of two families of monocots, of which one is corn; six
species of at least four dicot families, of which one is soybeans.

Ecosystems at Risk

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The ecosystems potentially at risk include the
areas adjacent to the application sites and water bodies adjacent to the
application sites and downstream.  In addition organisms that use the
application site as part of its habitat (e.g., birds foraging for
insects within application areas) are also considered to be part of the
ecosystems potentially at risk.

Assessment Endpoints

FIFRA Part 158 guideline toxicity tests (CFR 40 §158.202, 2002) are
intended to determine pesticidal effects on a variety of organisms,
including birds, mammals, fish, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates,
and plants.  These tests include both short-term and long-term exposure
periods and evaluate the survival, reproduction, and/or growth of
laboratory species.  The studies, when available, are used to evaluate
the potential of a pesticide to cause adverse effects, to determine
whether further testing is required, and to determine the need for
precautionary label statements to minimize the potential adverse effects
to non-target animals and plants (CFR 40 §158.202, 2002). 

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Assessment endpoints are intended to represent
valued attributes of the environment that if detrimentally altered could
pose a risk to the environment.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The assessment
endpoints of this ecological risk assessment include terrestrial and
aquatic animal and plant mortality following acute exposure to allethrin
and terrestrial and aquatic animal reproduction, growth and survival
effects from chronic exposure to allethrin.  Surrogate species are used
to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the
United States.  For mammals, acute studies are usually limited to the
Norway rat or the house mouse.  Usually data from estuarine/marine
testing is limited to a crustacean, a mollusk, and a fish.  The
assessment of risk or hazard makes the assumption that avian toxicity is
similar to terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles, unless more
appropriate data are available.  The same assumption is made for fish
and aquatic-phase amphibians.  The most sensitive toxicity endpoints are
used from surrogate test species to estimate treatment-related direct
effects on mortality and reproductive and growth assessment endpoints.  

The endpoints are typically derived from registrant-submitted studies
which have undergone review and were classified as “acceptable”
(conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be
scientifically valid) or “supplemental”(conditions deviated from
guidelines but the results are considered to be scientifically valid). 
For more details on EFED’s study classification system and study
guidelines, see USEPA 2004. 

Assessment endpoints can also be derived from the open literature.   
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Guidelines for incorporation of open literature into
ecological risk assessments are described in USEPA (2004).  Toxicity
data from the open literature are identified via the ECOTOX search
engine, maintained by EPA/ORD.  In order to be included in the ECOTOX
database, papers must meet several criteria (again, see USEPA 2004 for
details).  Data that pass the ECOTOX screen are evaluated relative to
the data provided by the registrant, and may be incorporated
qualitatively or quantitatively into the risk assessment.  Specific
studies may warrant inclusion in the risk assessment when:

	(1) tested endpoints are more sensitive than those in registrant data; 

	(2) the test data are based on under represented taxa; 

(3) the data include ecologically relevant endpoints not normally
evaluated in registrant studies

Although all endpoints are measured at the individual level, they
provide insight about the potential for adverse effects at higher levels
of biological organization (e.g. populations and communities).  For
example, pesticide effects on individual survivorship have important
implications for both population rates and habitat carrying capacity.

This assessment does not take into account atmospheric transport in
estimating environmental concentrations, nor does it account for
ingestion of allethrin residues by animals in drinking water or
contaminated grit, ingestion through preening activities, or uptake
through inhalation or dermal absorption by terrestrial animals. 
Exposure to terrestrial animals is based primarily on dietary
consumption of foliar residues while aquatic assessments assume that all
major potential routes of direct exposure are accounted for. 

Conceptual Model

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The conceptual model used to depict the potential
ecological risk associated with the allethrins is fairly generic and
assumes that as broad spectrum, nonsystemic insecticides and acaricides,
the allethrins are capable of affecting terrestrial and aquatic animals
provided environmental concentrations are sufficiently elevated as a
result of proposed label uses.  Additionally, based on a preliminary
risk screening and past assessments indicating that (as a pyrethroid)
the allethrins are highly toxic to aquatic organisms and some
terrestrial taxa (i.e., terrestrial invertebrates), the hypothesis for
the risks of allethrins to non-target organisms (depicted in Figure 1)
focuses on aquatic and terrestrial environments.  Therefore, potential
exposure as a result of direct applications, spray drift, disposal of
pet shampoo/dip down the drain, and runoff will be considered.  

Risk Hypotheses

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 For this assessment, the risk to non-target
organisms is based on potential effects from the application of the
allethrins to the environment.  The following risk hypothesis is
presumed for this screening level assessment:

Based on mode of action and the sensitivity of non-target aquatic and
terrestrial species, the outdoor, residential uses of allethrins [i.e.,
wasp and hornet aerosols; yard and patio foggers; flying insect killer
aerosols; mosquito repellants (mats and coils); and pet shampoos/dips]
have the potential to reduce survival, reproduction, and/or growth in
terrestrial and aquatic animals through spray drift and/or runoff and/or
disposal of pet shampoo/dip residue down the drain.

In order for a chemical to pose an ecological risk, it must reach
non-target organisms at concentrations found to cause adverse effects. 
The assessment of ecological exposure pathways in this assessment
includes an examination of the source and potential migration pathways
to allethrin exposure, and the determination of potential adverse
effects on non-target species.

Diagram

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Application methods for the outdoor uses of the
allethrins involve aerosol cans, foggers, mosquito coils and mats,
trigger sprayers, foams, shampoos/dips, and bait stations.  Ecological
receptors that may potentially be exposed to allethrins include
terrestrial and semi-aquatic wildlife (i.e., mammals, birds, amphibians,
terrestrial invertebrates, and reptiles).  In addition, aquatic
receptors (e.g., freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates,
and amphibians) may also be exposed as a result of potential movement of
allethrins via spray drift and/or runoff from the site of application to
aquatic environments and/or disposal of pet shampoo/dip residue down the
drain.  The assessment following the process depicted in Figure 1 forms
the basis for identifying potential endpoints, stressors, and ecological
effects associated with allethrin use.

 

 

Analysis Plan

Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps and Methods

Most of the standard methods used by the Agency for assessing
environmental risk are established for large-scale uses such as
applications to agricultural fields or public health uses.  Because the
allethrin uses assessed here are limited to spot treatments (e.g.,
spraying a wasp hive), perimeter treatments (e.g., burning coils or mats
or using a fogger in a camp site or residential backyard), ornamental
applications against crawling and flying insects (e.g., spraying hedges
with an aerosol can), and applications to animals (e.g., using a shampoo
or dip), a quantitative risk assessment is not feasible.  Therefore, the
potential risk to the environment from allethrin use is assessed
qualitatively by considering uses, application methods, environmental
fate properties, and toxicity data.

Since the allethrin compounds are structurally nearly identical except
in the ratios and amounts of the major isomers, which are assumed to be
equipotent, the ecological effects data for all of the allethrins were
bridged for this assessment.  No allethrin toxicity data are available
for estuarine/marine animals.  Although these data could be required
under guideline requirements (most notably for aquatic organisms), it is
unlikely that they would alter the conclusions in this risk assessment,
since potential environmental exposure is expected to be low based on
the uses assessed.  Data are also lacking for chronic exposure for all
taxa except mammals (i.e., birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, aquatic
invertebrates, or terrestrial invertebrates).  Therefore, in the absence
of data, we assume that there is the potential for adverse effects to
non-mammalian taxa from chronic exposure to allethrin.  

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 No guideline plant studies were submitted. 
However, based on the allethrins’ neural toxic mode of action and lack
of phototoxic effects in efficacy studies provided by the registrant, it
is unlikely that the allethrins pose a phytotoxic concern to plants.

	The environmental fate database for the allethrins is comprised mainly
of submitted environmental fate data for the most insecticidally active
isomer, d-trans allethrin, plus physical/chemical property information
provided for some of the allethrin compounds.  Thus, the data were
bridged for all of the allethrin compounds based on information
available on a limited, although structurally similar, few. 

Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses and Conceptual Model

Measures of Exposure

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Agency measures of exposure are typically based on
terrestrial and aquatic models that estimate environmental
concentrations of the chemical being assessed using labeled application
rates and methods for large-scale uses (e.g., agricultural and public
health uses).  However, because the uses assessed here are limited to
small-scale, residential uses, exposure will not be quantitatively
estimated, but instead will be presented qualitatively based on
potential allethrin use patterns, fate properties, and toxicity. 
Limited quantitative exposure analysis was conducted for illustrative
purposes in further characterizing potential risks.

The environmental fate database for the allethrins is extremely sparse,
with a single acceptable study (mobility) (see, ‘Data Gaps’).  Data
gaps have been minimized, where possible, with data bridged from
pyrethrin I or with information available from studies which are
classified as “supplemental”.

   

Measures of Effect

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of
registrant-submitted guideline studies conducted with a limited number
of surrogate species.  The test species are not intended to be
representative of the most sensitive species but rather are selected
based on their ability to thrive under laboratory conditions.  The acute
measures of effect routinely used for listed and non-listed animals in
screening level assessments are the LD50, LC50 or EC50, depending on
taxa (see Table 3).  LD stands for "Lethal Dose", and LD50 is the amount
of a material, given all at once, that is estimated to cause the death
of 50% of a group of test organisms.  LC stands for “Lethal
Concentration” and LC50 is the concentration of a chemical that is
estimated to kill 50% of a sample population.  EC stands for
“Effective Concentration” and the EC50 is the concentration of a
chemical that is estimated to produce some measured effect in 50% of the
test population.  Endpoints for chronic measures of exposure for listed
and non-listed animals are the NOAEL or NOAEC.  NOAEL stands for “No
Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level” and refers to the highest tested dose
of a substance that has been reported to have no harmful (adverse)
effects on a test population.  The NOAEC (i.e.,
“No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Concentration”) is the highest test
concentration at which none of the observed results were statistically
different from the control.  For non-listed plants, only acute exposures
are assessed (i.e., EC25 for terrestrial plants and EC50 for aquatic
plants).   For endangered terrestrial plants the EC5 or NOAEC is used
(see Table 3).

Consistent with EPA test guidelines, the registrants have provided a
suite of ecological effect data that comply with good laboratory testing
requirements.  However, significant data gaps have been identified
(i.e., no allethrin toxicity data are available for estuarine/marine
animals or plants, and chronic exposure data are lacking for birds,
fish, aquatic invertebrates, and terrestrial invertebrates).

TABLE 3.  Acute and chronic measures of effect.   tc "TABLE 4.  Acute
and chronic measures of effect.  " \f D  

TAXA	ASSESSMENT	MEASURE OF EFFECT

Aquatic Animals (Freshwater fish and inverts. and estuarine/marine fish
and inverts.)	Acute	Lowest tested EC50 or LC50 (acute toxicity tests)

	Chronic	Lowest NOAEC (early life-stage or full life-cycle tests)

Terrestrial Animals

Birds	Acute	Lowest LD50 (single oral dose) and LC50 (subacute dietary)

	Chronic	Lowest NOAEC (21-week reproduction test)

Terrestrial Animals

Mammals	Acute	Lowest LD50 (single oral dose test)

	Chronic	Lowest NOAEC (two-generation reproduction test)

Plants

Terrestrial non-endangered (monocots and dicots)	Acute	Lowest EC25
(seedling emergence and vegetative vigor)

Plants

Terrestrial endangered (monocots and dicots)	Acute	Lowest EC5 or NOAEC
(seedling emergence and vegetative vigor)

Plants

Aquatic (vascular and algae)	Acute	Lowest EC50



III. Analysis

A. Use Characterization

	Allethrin, first synthesized in 1949, was the first synthetic
pyrethroid developed.  The main use for the allethrins is as a knockdown
agent against wasps, hornets, roaches, ants, fleas and mosquitoes, but
they can also function as insecticides (i.e., killing agents) when used
at higher rates.  They are typically combined with residual pyrethroids
(e.g., permethrin, tralomethrin, resmethrin, deltamethrin, sumithrin,
esfenvalerate) or synergists (e.g., piperonyl butoxide, MGK-264) which
can increase the toxicity of the allethrins.  Based on written
information provided by the technical registrant (Valent BioSciences
Corp.; VBC) for the 11/30/2005 SMART meeting with OPP, as well as a
series of written follow-up communications with the Special Review and
Reregistration Division (SRRD/OPP) during December 2005 to February
2006, the allethrins are used: domestically (indoors) as space, general
surface, spot and crack & crevice applications against crawling and
flying insects, on house plants, and on pets and pet premises; outdoors
as localized space and contact spray, perimeter treatments, and
ornamental applications against crawling and flying insects;
commercially/industrially/ institutionally as space, general surface,
spot and crack & crevice applications in food and non-food use areas,
and on indoor plants against crawling and flying insects; in commercial
greenhouses as a space and/or contact spray against various plant pests
on ornamentals; on animals not intended for food as a direct spray,
wipe-on, dust-on or dip, in and around pet premises and in livestock
structures as a space spray and/or premise treatment as a general
surface, spot, and/or crack & crevice treatment when food/feed animals
are not present.  

	Typical formulations for the above uses include pressurized liquids,
ready-to-use liquid sprays, mosquito coils and mats, emulsifiable
concentrates, liquid concentrates, dusts, and shampoos/dips. 
Application methods include aerosol cans, foggers, mosquito coils and
mats, trigger sprayers, foams, shampoos/dips, and bait stations.  Use
rates typically reported for agricultural chemicals (i.e., lb a.i./acre)
are not applicable for the allethrin end use products.  Label use rates
are reported, for example, as duration per area for sprays (e.g., “20
seconds/1000 cu ft” or “spray 6-8 seconds into nest hole”) or
“spray until wet.”  

Although current label uses include multiple large-scale outdoor uses,
they are not being supported and are thus not considered in this risk
assessment.  This is based on the technical registrant’s written
intention to modify the labels to remove these uses as follows (2/2/06
letter, follow-up emails to Molly Clayton, SRRD from Janice Sharp, VBC,
and phase 1 error correction comments from VBC):  1) Uses on boat/ship
hulls will be deleted.  2) Kennels/stables and commercial premise uses
(outdoor and area sprays) will be deleted or limited to spot treatments.
3) Outdoor ornamental use sites will be specified and will be limited to
spot use. 4) Outdoor mosquito adulticide use will be deleted or limited
to localized spray. 5) Outdoor commercial area space spray uses will be
limited to localized treatments. 6) Perimeter spray uses will be limited
to localized treatments. 7) Uses in or on drainage systems, golf course
turf, wide area/general outdoor treatment, airports/landing fields,
uncultivated agricultural areas, and paved areas such as sidewalks and
roads will all be deleted.  Therefore, the allethrins are unlike all
other pyrethroids previously assessed by OPP, because their outdoor uses
are limited to small-scale residential uses, and no large-scale outdoor
uses (e.g., agricultural or public health/mosquito abatement) will be
supported.

	Although maximum use rates cannot be calculated from current labels,
some information is available on application rates for the most common
outdoor uses (see Table 4).

TABLE 4: Application rates for the main outdoor allethrin uses (based
on current labels and information provided at the 11/30/2005 SMART
meeting with OPP).

Use/Application Method1	Application2	Target Area	Metric Rate	Converted
Rate3, 4

Wasp and hornet nest/aerosol spray	3 sec spray, 20 g product/sec
discharge rate, 0.26% w/w bioallethrin (Reg. No.: 13283-13)	Wasp/hornet
nest

(1000 cm2)	156 mg a.i./m2

	0.00032 lb a.i./ft2 

(13.76 lb a.i./A)

Yard and patio/fogger	3 sec spray, 6 g product/sec discharge rate, 0.15%
w/w bioallethrin	4 x 4 m2	1.7 mg a.i./m2

	0.00000034 lb a.i./ft2 

(0.0148 lb a.i./A)

Mosquito repellant/mat 	1.6 g pad impregnated with 22% pynamin forte,
350 mg a.i. evolves over 4 hr (1.46 mg a.i./min)	4 x 4 m2	0.091 mg
a.i./m2/min

(0.0000002 lb/

	0.00000002 lb a.i./ft2/

min

1 The uses and application methods were chosen because they represent
the most common outdoor uses of the allethrin products based on
information provided by the registrant in the SMART meeting
(11/30/2005).  Coils also represent one of the most common uses,
however, mats have higher application rates than coils, therefore, only
the estimated mat typical application rates were provided by the
registrant.

2 The application information represents ‘typical’, and not
necessarily maximum, use rates based on information provided by the
registrant.  However, in cases when end-use products for specific uses
contain a range of allethrin percentages (e.g., yard and patio foggers
typically contain 0.1 – 0.15 % bioallethrin) as provided by the
registrants, the higher end of the range was used in the calculations,
unless a higher % a.i. was found in a search of OPP’s Pesticide
Product Label System (PPLS).  In the cases where a higher % a.i. was
found on a label for a similar product, it is identified by the EPA
registration number. 

3 The rates are based on the assumption that all of the material applied
will fall on the target area, however, in reality some of the material
is expected to remain airborn and to be dispersed by wind away from the
target area. 

4 The ‘a.i.’ in the calculations refers to the amount of the
specific allethrin used in each product (i.e., for ‘wasp and hornet
nest’ and ‘yard and patio’ uses it refers to the amount of
bioallethrin, and for the ‘mats’ it refers to pynamen forte);
therefore, the application rate specifically for d-trans chrysanthemic
will be lower than the application rates presented.

Exposure Characterization

Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

	The physical/chemical and the environmental fate properties for the
allethrins are presented in Table 5.  The majority of the data reported
are for the isomer, d-trans chrysanthemic acid of d-allethrolone
(d-trans allethrin).  Based on these data, the allethrins are low to
moderately volatile compounds that are slightly persistent in aerobic
soil and are expected to have low mobility in most soils.  The main
transformation products of the allethrins are bound or nonextractable
residues (maximum of >40% in an aerobic soil metabolism study), CO2
(maximum of 71% in an aerobic soil metabolism study), allethrolone
(maximum of 18.9% in the hydrolysis study), and dihydroxy-allethrolone
(maximum of 34.9% in the photolysis study).  Two major degradates in the
hydrolysis study (pH 9 only) were not identified, but were present at
maximums of approximately 35% and 29%.  Structures of the parent
compound stereoisomers are presented in APPENDIX B.  

TABLE 5: Physical/chemical and environmental fate properties for the
allethrin compounds based on submitted data.

Property	Value	Source and/or Comments

Chemical Name	[(4'RS)-3-allyl-2-methyl-4-oxocyclopent-2-enyl
(1R)-trans-chrysanthemate;

me: 
[1R-[α(S*),3ρ]]-2,2-dimethyl-3-2(2-methyl-1-propenyl)cyclopropanecarbo
xylic acid 2-methyl-4-oxo-3-(2-propenyl)-2-cylcopenten-1-yl ester
d-trans allethrin is the most insecticidally active isomer and is
present at 72% in esbiothrin, >46.5% in bioallethrin, >90% in esbiol,
and 36% in pynamin forte

Molecular Weight	302.4	Product Chemistry Data Reviews 

Solubility in Water (20C)	4.6 mg/L

                    5.0 mg/L	Bioallethrin, Esbiothrin, Esbiol Product
Chemistry Data Reviews (d-trans allethrin); 42193303(Esbiol)

41115302; Pynamin Forte Product Chemistry Data Review

Vapor Pressure (25C)	3.3 X 10-4 mm Hg

1.24 X 10-6 mm Hg	Bioallethrin, Esbiothrin, Esbiol Product Chemistry
Data Reviews (d-trans allethrin); 42193303(Esbiol)

41115307; Pynamin Forte Product Chemistry Data Review 

Hydrolysis Half-life (pH 5, 7, 9; 25C)	stable at pH 5, 7;

half-life of 4.3 days at pH 9	MRID 41504401; study on d-trans allethrin

Aqueous Photolysis Half-life (pH 5)	photolyzes at unknown rate	MRID
41504402; study on d-trans allethrin; half-life could not be calculated
and study was classified unacceptable

Soil Photolysis Half-life	No data	--

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days)	Reported half-lives of
16.9-22.0 days (acid-labeled moiety) and 40.1-42.5 days (alcohol-labeled
moiety)	MRIDs 42336501, 42336502; study on d-trans allethrin

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days)	No data	--

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days) 	No data	--

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days)	No data	--

Organic Carbon-Normalized Soil Partition Coefficient (Koc)	1409, 1358,
1134, 1718	MRID 41900401; study on d-trans allethrin; values indicate
low mobility in soil based on the McCall Classification

Soil Adsorption Coefficient (Kd; mL/g)	4.1, 6.2, 15.8, 25.9 	MRID
41900401; study on d-trans allethrin

Log Kow (pH 7)	>5

4.95

	Bioallethrin, Esbiothrin Product Chemistry Data Reviews (d-trans
allethrin)

41115302; Pynamin Forte Product Chemistry Data Review

Henry’s Law Constant	No data	--

Bioconcentration Factor in Fish (BCF)	No data	--



	The environmental fate database for the allethrins is extremely sparse,
with a single acceptable study (mobility).  The submitted hydrolysis
study is classified as “supplemental” and the submitted aqueous
photolysis study is classified “unacceptable.”  However, it is known
that the synthetic pyrethroids as a class tend to photodegrade fairly
quickly under ideal conditions.  Furthermore, as an early-generation
pyrethroid, allethrin is one of the least persistent pyrethroids.  The
two submitted aerobic soil metabolism studies, which are considered
scientifically valid individually, are both classified
“supplemental” due to discrepancies between the results of the two
studies.  Results do indicate that aerobic metabolism will be a
significant degradation process for these compounds.  To attempt to more
fully characterize the environmental fate and transport of the synthetic
allethrins, EFED has considered some of the data for the structurally
similar but naturally occurring compound pyrethrin 1 in addition to the
data submitted for the allethrins.  This data bridging was conducted
because of the high structural similarity between the allethrins, which
are synthetic pyrethroids, and the naturally occurring pyrethrins.  

	The allethrins are stable to hydrolysis at pH 5 and 7, but undergo
fairly rapid hydrolysis (half-life of 4.3 days) at pH 9, with
degradation to major degradates including two unidentified compounds. 
This is more rapid than, but somewhat similar to, the hydrolysis rates
observed for pyrethrin 1.  In submitted studies for that compound,
pyrethrin 1 was stable to hydrolysis at pH 5 and 7, and hydrolyzed at pH
9 with a DT50 of 14 days (MRID 43188201) and a calculated half-life of
17 days (MRID 43567502).  In the allethrins study at pH 9, the major
degradates were allethrolone (maximum of 18.9% at 171 hours; still
present at 18.8% at 390 hours or study termination); the unidentified
compound “1A” (maximum of  34.9% at 390 hours); and the unidentified
compound “2A” (maximum of  28.7% at 171 hours; still present at
24.0% at 389.5 hours or study termination).  

	Based on available information, aqueous photolysis is a potential
degradation pathway for the allethrins, as for synthetic pyrethroids, if
the compounds reach surface water and are present in an unsorbed state
in clear and shallow surface water.  Under such conditions, the
allethrins are expected to photodegrade fairly quickly in water based on
the known photolability of synthetic pyrethroids (HSDB, 2006).  However,
the submitted aqueous photolysis study (MRID 41504402) was classified
not acceptable, and an accurate photodegradation half-life cannot be
calculated from the data provided (which were also insufficient to show
the patterns of formation and decline for the degradates).  The
conclusion of rapid photodegradation is passably consistent with the
rapid degradation observed for pyrethrin 1, which underwent
photo-initiated isomerization (to the (E)-isomer) with an observed
half-life of approximately 1 hour in sterile aqueous 0.01 M buffer
solutions (pH 7) (MRIDs 43096601, 43567601).  In that study, the overall
calculated half-life of dissipation of pyrethrin 1 and its (E)-isomer
was 12 hours.  

	However, direct photolytic degradation of pesticides in turbid and/or
deeper waters in the environment may be limited by the attenuation of
sunlight, and the half-life may be greatly extended under such
conditions (e.g., it is 124X longer in PRZM/EXAMS simulations since
conditions are not ideal as in laboratory studies).  Thus, caution must
be used in extrapolating laboratory photolysis data (obtained under
optimal conditions) to the environment.  Also, adsorption of the
allethrins to suspended particles in the water column will decrease the
amount available for photolytic degradation.  Additionally, the
co-presence of the pesticide trifluralin has been observed to
photostabilize the allethrins (Dureja et al., 1984).  In the allethrins
study, the major degradates were allethrolone (maximum of  9.8% at 72
and 120 hours, study termination) and dihydroxy-allethrolone (maximum of
 34.9% at 120 hours).

It is not known whether the allethrins will photodegrade on surface
soil; data were not submitted.  In aerobic soil, the allethrins
biodegraded with half-lives of 16.9-22.0 days (acid-labeled moiety; MRID
42336501) and 40.1-42.5 days (alcohol-labeled moiety; MRID 42336502). 
Although the two studies have discrepancies between the reported
half-lives, the data indicate that aerobic metabolism will be a
significant degradation process for these compounds.  Based on a
published classification scheme of persistence in soil (Goring et al.,
1975), the allethrins are expected to be slightly persistent in aerobic
soil.  In the acid-labeled moiety study, 39% of the applied d-trans
allethrin had mineralized to CO2 by 6 months, and bound residues
accounted for greater than 40% of the applied by that time.  In the
alcohol-labeled moiety study, CO2 was 71% of the applied by 6 months and
bound residues accounted for a maximum of 19% of the applied by 4
months.  The conclusion that aerobic metabolism will occur readily and
will be a significant degradation pathway for the allethrins is passably
consistent with the expected rapid degradation of pyrethrin 1, which was
metabolized in aerobic soil with a half-life of 10 days, yielding
similar levels of CO2 and bound residues as those seen in the
acid-labeled d-trans allethrin study.  It is also consistent with the
increased persistence expected of the allethrins relative to pyrethrin 1
due to the presence of a more stable side chain in the former (Worthing,
1979). 

Information on metabolism in anaerobic soil or in either aerobic aquatic
or anaerobic aquatic environments is not available, as data were not
submitted.  The persistence of the allethrins in the field is also
unknown, as data on the field dissipation of the compounds were not
submitted.

	The allethrins are expected to have low mobility in most soils. 
However, because adsorption of the compound is correlated with organic
carbon content, they are likely to be somewhat more mobile in soils with
lower organic matter content, such as coarse sand soils.  In an
acceptable batch equilibrium study, Koc values ranged from 1134 to 1718
(MRID 41900401).  Based on the McCall Classification, these Koc values
indicate that d-trans allethrin can be expected to have low mobility in
soil. 

	The persistence of the allethrins in the field is not known, as data
for terrestrial field dissipation and aquatic field dissipation studies
are not available for the allethrins.  Due to data waivers, such data
are also not available for pyrethrin 1.

	The potential for bioaccumulation of the allethrins in fish is not
known; data were not submitted.  Based on a log Kow of 4.78 and using a
regression-derived equation, an estimated bioconcentration factor (BCF)
of 20 has been calculated for the allethrins (HSDB, 2006).  Based on a
published classification scheme (Franke et al., 1994), this estimated
BCF value indicates a low potential for bioaccumulation of the
allethrins in aquatic organisms (HSDB, 2006).  However, data submitted
for pyrethrin 1 indicate that there may be a high potential for
bioaccumulation.  Pyrethrin 1 residues accumulated in bluegill sunfish
continuously exposed to the compound for 28 days under laboratory
flow-through conditions.  Mean bioconcentration factors were 127x for
the edible tissue, 873x for the nonedible tissue, and 471x for the whole
fish (pyrethrin 1 MRIDs 43302301, 43884102).  In that study, 77% of the
accumulated [14C] residues were eliminated from the edible tissues, 66%
from the nonedible tissues, and 68% from the whole fish by day 1.  By
day 14, residues in edible tissues were below the detection limit (1
ppb) and were close to the detection limit (average = 1.29 ppb) in
viscera.

	While there is some potential for the allethrins to reach surface water
through spray drift when applied as an outdoor spray or fogger, it is
likely to be minimal based on the supported uses.  Similarly, because
the allethrins may be slightly persistent in the environment, there is
some potential for them to be present in field runoff (mainly bound to
eroding sediments) and eventually reach surface water bodies.  However,
again, the potential is reduced since uses are mainly spot treatments,
which should result in very low total application rates for a given time
and place of use.  For groundwater, the potential for contamination is
also considered minimal, based on supported uses and the tendency for
the compounds to adsorb to surface soils.  There is a slightly higher
(yet likely still minimal) potential for groundwater contamination when
the allethrins are used on low organic matter soils or on neutral or
acidic sandy soils over shallow aquifers.	

Measures of Aquatic Exposure

Aquatic Exposure Modeling

The allethrins have both indoor and outdoor residential (urban) uses. 
For indoor uses that may result in pesticide residues in wastewater
(treatments to pets, clothing, etc.), it is assumed that wash water
containing pesticide residue flows into a building drain and passes
through a sanitary sewer and publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
before being discharged to surface water.  For outdoor urban uses in
general (applications to home lawns, gardens, parks, etc.), it is
assumed that runoff water from rain and/or lawn watering may remove
pesticide to storm sewers and then directly to surface water.  

In general, outdoor urban uses are comprised of multiple, relatively
small, temporally and spatially variable applications; urban scenarios
relevant to this use pattern have not been developed for models used by
EFED.  While runoff in urban areas may be impacted by pesticides in
runoff (water or sediment) or inadvertent application to impermeable
surfaces (driveways, sidewalks or road surfaces adjacent to lawns),
aquatic exposure modeling was not conducted due to the use pattern and
the low overall volume of usage.  

In general, the potential for the allethrins to reach surface water is
considered minimal based on the supported outdoor uses (inclusive of use
type, formulations, and application type and rates).  Although current
label uses include multiple large-scale outdoor uses (such as golf
course turf, wide area/general outdoor treatment, airports/landing
fields, uncultivated agricultural areas, and paved areas such as
sidewalks and roads), these uses are not being supported by the
registrant.(as discussed previously in the “Use Characterization”
section).

	To assess indoor uses, namely pet shampoo and dip uses, which could
lead to releases of allethrin to surface waters through household
wastewater, OPP considered the Down-the-Drain model of the EPA/OPPT
modeling system “Exposure and Fate Assessment Screening Tool (E-FAST)
v.2.0.”  The Down-the-Drain model is a screening-level model that was
developed to address human and ecological exposures and risks resulting
from chemical releases (from disposal of consumer products) in household
wastewater.  The model estimates concentrations in surface water and
also estimates aquatic exposure and human exposure from ingesting
drinking water and fish that may have become contaminated by household
wastewater releases.  The model uses data from various EPA water-related
information systems.  It assumes that household wastewater undergoes
treatment at a local wastewater treatment facility and that treated
effluent is subsequently discharged into surface waters.

	Model inputs include 1) physical/chemical and fate inputs: chemical
name/chemical ID, bioconcentration factor (BCF), and the percentage of
compound removed during wastewater treatment; and 2) consumer disposal
inputs: production volume (mass of chemical produced annually) or
estimate of the mass that is discharged annually into wastewater by
consumers,  exposure duration (the number of years that a product would
be used by a person; default of 57 years), and the concentration of
concern (threshold concentration in µg/L below which adverse effects on
aquatic life are expected to be minimal).  The model assumes that the
chemical is discharged all 365 days per year.  It estimates a “total
daily per capita release of a chemical in household wastewater” and
then calculates the screening-level estimate of the time-averaged
surface water concentration (high-end and median) of a chemical
substance released by a wastewater treatment facility receiving
household wastewater (assuming all received waters are from residential
use).  The model calculates concentrations under four receiving stream
flow conditions (using the 10th and 50th percentile stream dilution
factors) for streams to which wastewater treatment facilities discharge.

	This model was used by OPP to characterize potential exposure rather
than to directly assess exposure from pet shampoo and dip uses, as most
input parameters are not available.  For example, the
registrant-provided 7-year usage data for the United States (1998-2004)
which indicate that household pet usage (in shampoos and dips) was zero
each year.  However, numerous pet shampoo/dip products currently on the
market do contain allethrins, and pet shampoo and dip use remains a
supported use.  Therefore, estimates of surface water concentrations
from pet shampoo/dip use were calculated using multiple conservative
assumptions (see below). 

Aquatic Exposure Monitoring and Field Data

	Monitoring data for the allethrins are not available from the U.S.
Geological Survey’s National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program,
as the compounds were not included as analytes in that program. 
Additionally, a review of data from the Surface Water Database of
California Department of Pesticide Regulation indicated that there were
no detections of the allethrins.  However, neither program was designed
to document the existence of pesticides in various aquatic environments
for as many pesticides as possible.  Therefore, selected monitoring
sites were likely not specifically targeted for allethrins use.  Also,
the sampling design for these monitoring studies was not intended to
capture the peak concentrations.

The results of a monitoring study sponsored by the San Diego Region
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Education and Outreach Project was
located which included allethrin as an analyte, along with other
chemicals (2004-2005 Water and Sediment Quality Monitoring Data Summary
for Chollas Creek, Final report, 2006).  The study took place in the
Chollas Creek Watershed which is located within a highly urbanized area
of San Diego County having a predominately residential land use (67%
residential, 5% commercial, 7% industrial use, 4% roadways, and 16% open
space).  Chollas Creek discharges to San Diego Bay and consists of two
main tributaries, the North and South Fork.  The study included four
monitoring sites (three on the southern fork and one on the northern
fork of Chollas Creek).  Sampling of urban runoff was conducted after
four storm events (> 0.1 inches of rainfall) during 2004 and 2005
(10/17/2004, 10/27, 2004, 2/11/2005 and 2/18/2005).  During the testing
period, no allethrin was detected (i.e., in all cases allethrin
concentrations were below the method detection limit of 5 ng/L),
although the sampling design was not intended to capture peak
concentrations of allethrin.  

Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

Terrestrial Exposure Modeling

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The application methods for the allethrins include
aerosol cans, foggers, mosquito coils, mats, trigger sprayers, foams,
shampoos, and bait stations.  Therefore, there is a potential for
terrestrial exposure to non-target organisms through direct application
or spray drift.  EEC values used for terrestrial exposure are typically
derived from the Kenaga nomograph (  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Hoerger and
Kenaga, 1972), as modified by Fletcher et al. (1994), using the T-REX
model (version 1.2.3, 8/08/2005); however, the allethrins do not have
agricultural uses and cannot be modeled using the standard terrestrial
model generated for agricultural crops or turf.  Also, EFED does not
currently have standard models for small-scale outdoor urban uses. 
Therefore, terrestrial exposure modeling was not used to directly
calculate standard risk quotients for the allethrins; instead, T-REX was
used to help characterize expected exposure to terrestrial animals.  The
potential for the allethrins to reach non-target terrestrial organisms
at levels approaching effect concentrations is considered minimal based
on the supported uses (inclusive of use type, formulations, and
application type and rates).  

Ecological Effects Characterization

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 APPENDICES C and D list the ecological effect
studies considered for this assessment (i.e., studies submitted by
registrants, and studies available through the open literature that pass
the ECOTOX and OPP criteria for inclusion).  Citations for all of the
ECOTOX references identified for the allethrins are found in APPENDICES
E – G.  Studies identified by ECOTOX that did not pass the ECOTOX
and/or OPP screening were rejected for the following reasons: the study
did not report toxicity data, the duration of exposure, the species, or
results from a contaminant of concern; the study involved in vitro
analyses, bacteria, human health, inhalation, a mixture of chemicals,
modeled data, or data from a secondary source; or the study was a
methods paper, an abstract, a review paper, or was in a foreign language
(APPENDICES F and G).

None of the endpoints from the open literature that passed the ECOTOX
and OPP criteria for inclusion were more sensitive than the most
sensitive endpoints from the submitted studies for each taxon considered
or filled any of the identified data gaps.  See Table 6 for the
assessment endpoints considered in this assessment.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 TABLE 6. Summary of specific assessment endpoints
considered in this assessment.

TAXA	MEASUREMENT ENDPOINT

Survival, growth and/or reproduction of:	Species	Chemical/

PC Code	Toxicity



Freshwater Fish	Acute

	Perca flavescens

Yellow Perch	Esbiol/004004 	LC50 = 7.8 ppb

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 

	Chronic

	Not Available	N/A	Not Available

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Freshwater Invertebrates	Acute

	Pteronarcys californica

Stonefly	Allethrin/004001	LC50 = 2.1 ppb

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 

	Chronic

	Not Available	N/A	Not Available

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates
Acute/Chronic

	Not Available	N/A	Not Available

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Freshwater Plants	Chronic

	Not Available	N/A	Not Available

Birds	Acute

	Anas platyrhynchos

Duck

Colinus virginianus

Quail	Pynamin Forte/004005

Bioallethrin/004003	LC50 = >5,620 mg/kg-diet

LD50 = 2030 mg/kg-bw

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 

	Chronic

	N/A	Not Available	N/A  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 

Mammals	Acute

	Laboratory rat	Esbiothrin/004007	LD50 = 378 mg/kg-bw  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1 

	Chronic

	Laboratory rat	Pynamin forte/004005	NOAEL = 13 mg/kg-bw  SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1 

Terrestrial Invertebrates	Acute

	 Apis mellifera

Honey Bee	Allethrin/004001	LD50 = 3.4 µg/bee

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 



On an acute exposure basis, the allethrins are very highly toxic to
freshwater fish (yellow perch: LC50 = 7.8 ppb) and freshwater
invertebrates (stonefly: EC50 = 2.1 ppb); practically nontoxic to birds
(northern bobwhite quail: LD50 = 2030 mg/kg bw); moderately toxic to
mammals (LD50 = 378 mg/kg-bw); and moderately toxic to honey bees (LD50
=3.4 µg/bee; contact).  Due to a lack of data, allethrin toxicity to
plants and estuarine/marine animals could not be determined.  Chronic
toxicity data are only available for mammals, and, therefore the effects
of chronic exposure to the allethrins could not be determined for birds,
reptiles, amphibians, fish, aquatic invertebrates, or terrestrial
invertebrates.  Table 7 summarizes the most sensitive endpoints used in
the risk assessment for aquatic animals, and Table 8 provides a summary
of the most sensitive ecological toxicity endpoints used in the hazard
assessment of terrestrial animals. 

Aquatic Effects Characterization

Aquatic Organisms

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The allethrins are considered very highly toxic to
freshwater fish (LC50 = 7.8 ppb; esbiol; MRID 40098001) and freshwater
invertebrates (LC50 = 2.1 ppb; allethrin; MRID 40098001) on an acute
exposure basis (Table 7).  No chronic exposure data for freshwater
animals (vertebrate or invertebrate) are available for the allethrins
and no acute or chronic exposure data are available for any
estuarine/marine fish or invertebrate.  

Toxicity data are also lacking for vascular and nonvascular aquatic
plants.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 However, because of the allethrins’
neural toxic mode of action, the allethrins are not expected to induce
phytotoxic effects.  Additionally, data from efficacy studies provided
by the registrant did not show any evidence of phytotoxic effects to
plants.

TABLE 7:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Summary of submitted toxicity studies
for aquatic organisms exposed to allethrins.

SPECIES	CHEM./

(PC CODE)	END-POINT	DUR-ATION (hrs)	CONC. MEAN (ppb)	EXPO-SURE TYPE1
CATEGORY	MRID #

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Freshwater Fish

Perca flavescens

Yellow Perch	Esbiol/ 004004	LC50	96	7.8

(6.5 – 9.4)	S	Supplemental	40098001

Oncorhynchus kisutch

Coho Salmon	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	9.4

(7.91 –11.2)	F	Supplemental	122546

Oncorhynchus mykiss

 Rainbow Trout	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	9.7

(8.0 – 11.6)	F	Supplemental	40098001

Ictalurus punctatus

Channel Catfish	Esbiol/

004004	LC50	96	14.6

(10.1 –21.0)	F	Supplemental	40098001

Salvelinus namaycush

Lake Trout	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	17.3

(14.9 –20.0)	S	Supplemental	40098001

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Lepomis macrochirus

Bluegill Sunfish	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	22.5

(20.5 –24.7)	F	Supplemental	40098001

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Pimephales promelas

Fathead Minnow	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	48.0

(34.9 –66.0)	F	Supplemental	40098001

Freshwater Invertebrates

Pteronarcys californica

Stonefly	Allethrin/

004001	LC50	96	2.1

(1.5 – 2.9)	S	Supplemental	40098001

Gammarus fasciatus

Scud	Allethrin/

004001	LC50	96	8

(5.0 – 12.0)	S	Supplemental	40098001

Daphnia pulex

Waterflea	Esbiothrin/

004007	EC50	48	8.9

(7.5 – 11)	S	Acceptable	43235801

Simocephalus serrulatus

Waterflea	Allethrin/

004001	EC50	48	56

(40.0 -78.0)	S	Supplemental	40098001

1 Exposure type refers to the conditions under which the study was
conducted; ‘S’ refers to static conditions, and ‘F’ refers to
flow-through conditions.

Terrestrial Effects Characterization

Terrestrial Animals

Birds

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The allethrins are considered practically nontoxic
to birds on an acute oral exposure basis [LD50 = 2030 mg/kg-bw (bobwhite
quail); bioallethrin; MRID: 123339] and on a subacute dietary exposure
basis [LC50 >5,620 mg/kg-diet (mallard duck); pynamin forte; MRID:
27548] (Table 8).  No chronic toxicity data on birds are available for
the allethrins.

Mammals

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The allethrins are considered moderately toxic to
mammals on an acute oral exposure basis [LD50 = 378 mg/kg-bw (Laboratory
rat); esbiothrin; MRID: 00151449] (Table 8).  To explore the potential
increased toxicity of allethrins after acute exposure when mixed with
the synergist piperonyl butoxide, we reviewed the available acute rat
oral toxicity data in the OPP Integrative Hazard Assessment Database
(IHAD).  IHAD contains data submitted to OPP by the registrants on the
toxicity of formulated products to mammals.  Based on our review of the
available data, no increase in toxicity to mammals from allethrins mixed
with piperonyl butoxide, compared to allethrin alone, could be
determined (i.e., most LD50’s were higher than the highest
concentration tested) (see APPENDIX H).

In a 2-generation reproduction study (MRID 41246801) pynamin forte (PC
Code: 004005) was administered to laboratory rats at various dietary
concentrations.  There was no effect upon reproductive indices.  The
parental NOAEL = 200 ppm (13 mg/kg-bw in males and 15 mg/kg-bw in
females) and the parental LOAEL = 2000 ppm (130 mg/kg-bw in males and
145 mg/kg-bw in females) based on reductions in body weights, body
weight gains, increases in absolute and relative liver weights, and
hepatocellular hypertrophy.  The offspring NOAEL is 200 ppm (15
mg/kg-bw) and the LOAEL for offspring toxicity is 2,000 ppm (145
mg/kg-bw) based on reductions in pup body weights of the F2 generation.

Terrestrial Invertebrates

The allethrins are considered moderately toxic to honey bees (Apis
mellifera) on an acute contact exposure basis [LD50 = 3.4 µg/bee;
allethrin; MRID: 162751] (Table 8).  Based on oral exposure,   SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 a study of honey bees indicated toxic effects (LD50)
when adults were fed concentrations of 9.1 µg/bee (allethrin; MRID:
162751).  Sub-lethal effects include paralysis (‘knockdown’) at
concentrations as low as 7.7 ppb (EC50 measured 1 hr after exposure) for
adult mosquitoes (Culex spp.) exposed to esbiothrin for 10 seconds in a
wind tunnel (ECOTOX number: 69764).

TABLE 8:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Summary of submitted toxicity studies
for terrestrial organisms exposed to allethrins.

SPECIES	CHEM./

(PC CODE)	END-POINT	DUR-ATION (Days)	CONC. MEAN 	EXPO-SURE TYPE	CATEGORY
MRID #

Birds

Colinus virginianus

Bobwhite Quail	Bioallethrin/

004003	LD50	14	2030

Mg/kg-bw

(1504 – 2738)	N/A	Acceptable	123339

Anas platyrhynchos

Mallard Duck	Pynamin Forte/

004005	LC50	8	>5,620 mg/kg-diet	N/A	Acceptable	27548

Mammals

Laboratory rat	Esbiothrin/ 004007	LD50	14	378 mg/kg-bw	N/A	Acceptable
00151449

Laboratory rat	Pynamin Forte/

004005	NOAEL	2 generation	13 mg/kg-bw	N/A	Acceptable	41246801

Terrestrial Invertebrates

Apis mellifera

Honey Bee	Allethrin/

004001	LD50	1 

	3.4 µg/bee	Contact	Supplemental	162751



Terrestrial Plants

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 No guideline data were submitted to evaluate the
risk of allethrin exposure to non-target terrestrial plants.  Although
no guideline terrestrial plant data were submitted, the allethrins are
not expected to induce phytotoxic effects because of their neural toxic
mode of action.  Additionally, as mentioned previously, risks to plants
are also considered low given there is no evidence of phytotoxic effects
in the efficacy studies provided by the registrant.

IV. Risk Characterization

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Risk characterization is the integration of
exposure and ecological effect characterizations to determine the
likelihood of adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial organisms from
supported uses of allethrins.  At a screening level, the potential for
adverse effects is estimated for individuals; however, it is reasonable
to believe that potential effects to individuals will have repercussions
at higher levels of biological organization.  For the assessment of
pesticide risks, the deterministic risk quotient (RQ) method is
typically used to compare exposure and measured toxicity values.  EECs
are divided by acute and chronic toxicity values.  The resulting RQs are
then compared to the Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs) (USEPA 2004)
(see Table 9).  These criteria are used to indicate when a pesticide’s
use, as proscribed on the label, has the potential to cause adverse
effects to non-target organisms.  However, because EECs could not be
estimated in this assessment due to the nature of the uses and their
application rates, standard RQs could not be calculated.  Therefore,
environmental risks are primarily assessed qualitatively. 

TABLE 9.  Agency levels of concern (LOC).  tc "TABLE 11.  Agency levels
of concern (LOC). " \f D  

Risk	Description	RQ	Taxa

Acute	Potential for acute risk to non-target organisms which may warrant
regulatory action in addition to restricted use classification	acute RQ
> 0.5	aquatic animals, mammals, birds

Acute Restricted Use	Potential for acute risk to non-target organisms,
but may be mitigated through restricted use classification	acute RQ >
0.1	aquatic animals



acute RQ > 0.2	mammals and birds

Acute Endangered Species	Endangered species may be potentially affected
by use	acute RQ > 0.05	aquatic animals



acute RQ > 0.1	mammals and birds

Chronic	Potential for chronic risk may warrant regulatory action,
endangered species may potentially be affected through chronic exposure
chronic RQ > 1	all animals

Non-Endangered and Endangered Plant 	Potential for effects in
non-endangered and endangered plants	RQ > 1	all plants



Risk Estimation – Integration of Exposure and Effects Data

	Considering only toxicological parameters, the allethrins pose a
potential of mortality in non-target aquatic animals and terrestrial
invertebrates after acute exposure.  Birds (and, thus, reptiles and
terrestrial-phase amphibians), mammals, and plants are less likely to be
subject to mortality from the use of allethrins given that allethrins
are practically nontoxic to birds and mammals on an acute exposure
basis.  However, for there to be a likelihood of adverse effects,
non-target organisms must be exposed to the allethrins at concentrations
high enough to cause an adverse effect.  Generally, the exposure of a
pesticide is determined in the form of an estimated environmental
concentration and a quantitative risk quotient is calculated based on
the exposure and toxicity of the pesticide.

	In this assessment, standard EECs could not be directly calculated
without using major assumptions using the tools that OPP typically
relies on (although the tools are used to characterize risks – see
below).  The difficulty in calculating standard EECs is due to a
multitude of factors including non-standard use rates (e.g., “20
seconds/1000 cu ft”, “spray 6-8 seconds into nest hole”, “spray
as needed”, or “spray until wet) and estimations of the magnitude of
use in a given area (e.g., a neighborhood or campsite) at a given time.
For similar reasons ecological risks cannot be assessed in the standard
way through comparison of RQs and Levels of Concern (LOCs).  The
approach used in this risk assessment is to use available tools and
information to determine the amount of allethrin use in outdoor and
indoor environments that would result in exceedances of LOCs.

Information regarding exposure includes the following factors: 1) small
amounts are used outdoors at one time, 2) most outdoor uses are limited
to spot treatments, and 3) methods of application (i.e., spray cans,
coils, foggers) do not promote large spatial applications. 
Additionally, based on submitted data, there is a tendency for
allethrins to sorb to surface soils, particularly in soils that are not
low in organic matter.  Furthermore, synthetic pyrethroids as a class
tend to photodegrade fairly quickly, and, as an early-generation
pyrethroid, allethrin is one of the least persistent pyrethroids.  

Although there are uncertainties regarding the extent of use in
residential settings, the cumulative exposure from spot treatments is
not likely to be substantial.  Additionally, based on SMART meeting
information provided by the technical registrants, allethrins outdoor
use generally totals less than 10,000 pounds active ingredient per year
nationally.  

	Outdoor Uses

As an example of the low use rates and, thus, limited exposure expected
from the supported uses, we evaluated a product designed to kill wasps
and ants [Rainbow Wasp and Ant Spray (EPA Reg. No.: 13283-13].  At the
highest calculated use rate [0.00032 lbs/ft2 (see Table 4])], the
equivalent rate per acre is 13.76 lbs a.i./acre.  However, to actually
apply this amount would take a considerable amount of product.  For
example, a can of this product contains 340 g of product and 0.884 g
a.i. (0.26% allethrin).  A single 3-sec application on a target area of
1,000 cm2 (the typical application rate and the estimated size of a
hive) at a discharge rate of 20g of product/sec results in 0.156 g of
a.i/application.  Based on this, and if an entire acre were sprayed at
the rate used on the hive, it would require 7,242 cans of product to
reach the 13.76 lbs a.i./acre rate.  

Another example to illustrate the limited exposure expected from low
allethrin application rates involves using T-REX to model exposure
concentrations.  This is used strictly for illustrative purposes since
the applications modeled do not necessarily reflect maximum use rates,
T-REX was developed for large-scale (e.g., agricultural) uses, and T-REX
was not developed to model exposure concentrations from common
residential application methods such as those associated with allethrins
(e.g., hand-held aerosol spray cans).  

Using the highest estimated use rate for Rainbow Wasp and Ant spray
(13.8 lb a.i./acre), several of the calculated avian RQs using T-REX are
higher than the acute risk and/or the acute endangered species LOCs (RQs
range from 2.58 for a 20g bird that eats short grass to 0.02 for a
1,000g bird that eats fruits and pods) using upper bound Kenaga values
(see APPENDIX I).  Using mean Kenaga values results in some RQs above
the acute endangered species LOC, but only one RQ is above the acute
risk LOC (RQs range from 0.91 for a 20g bird that eats short grass to
0.01 for a 1,000g bird that eats fruits and pods).  However, this
application rate is not realistic, because it would require roughly
7,242 cans to reach the 13.8 lb a.i./acre application rate.  In fact,
for any of the avian RQs to reach the acute risk LOC of 0.5 requires an
application rate of 2.7 lb a.i./acre (1,421 cans) using upper bound
Kenaga values, and the only ‘weight/food category’ that exceeds this
LOC at this application rate is a 20g bird that eats short grass. 
Additionally, for any of the avian RQs to reach the acute endangered
species LOC of 0.1, using upper bound Kenaga values, requires an
application rate of 0.5 lb a.i./acre (263 cans), and, again, the only
avian ‘weight/food category’ that exceeds this LOC at this
application rate is a 20g bird that eats short grass.  

Furthermore, an adult bobwhite quail weighing 206.4 g (MRID 123339)
would have to be gavaged with almost half a can of wasp spray [160 g
(5.6 ounces) of product], more than 75% of its body weight, to reach the
LD50 concentration of 2030 mg a.i./kg-bw.  For most birds, if their
entire daily diet was made up solely of the wasp spray, their allethrin
exposure levels would not reach the avian LD50 value; the exception is
for 20 g birds [20 g birds eat 22.8 g diet/day = 2,964 mg a.i./kg-bw;
100 g bird eats 64.9 g diet/day = 1687 mg a.i./kg b-w; 1000 g bird eats
291 g diet/day = 757 mg a.i./kg b-w].  Again, these are unrealistic
scenarios, but they are provided to illustrate the low risk to birds
from allethrin use.

For mammals, using T-REX, an application rate of 0.4 lb a.i./acre (211
cans of wasp and hornet spray) is required for an RQ to exceed the acute
endangered species LOC of 0.1 using upper bound Kenaga values.  The only
food/size category that exceeds the acute endangered species LOC at this
use rate is the ‘short grass/15g mammal’ category.  Again, using
upper bound Kenaga values, the chronic endangered species LOC of 1 is
exceeded at an application rate of 0.13 lb a.i./acre (69 cans) for
dose-based calculations and 1.1 lb a.i./acre (580 cans) for
dietary-based calculations.  The only categories that exceed the LOC at
these application rates are the ‘short grass’ and ‘short grass/15g
mammal’ categories, respectively.

Considering the limitations discussed above, T-REX can also be used to
illustrate expected concentrations on terrestrial invertebrates.  Based
on an average fresh weight per honey bee of 128 milligrams, the LD50 of
honey bees (3.9 µg/bee) can be multiplied by 7.8 to determine the ppm
toxicity (Mayer and Johansen, 1990).  Therefore, the contact LD50 of 3.4
µg/bee for allethrins can be converted to 26.5 ppm.  Using the
‘fruits/pods/seeds/large insects’ category in T-REX as a surrogate
for bees and an application rate of 13.8 lb a.i./acre results in an EEC
for bees of 207 ppm using upper bound Kenaga values.  This equates to an
RQ of 7.8.  The Agency does not currently have standard LOCs for
terrestrial invertebrates.  For illustration purposes, we use the LOCs
for other terrestrial animals here (i.e., acute risk LOC = 0.5; acute
endangered species LOC = 0.1).  Using upper bound Kenaga values, the
application rate needed to reach the acute risk LOC for bees is 3.5 lb
a.i./acre (1,842 cans), and the application rate needed to reach the
endangered species LOC is 0.18 lb a.i./acre (95 cans).

As above, for illustrative purposes, we determined the aquatic exposure
that would result from spraying a can of Rainbow Wasp and Ant Spray (EPA
Reg. No.: 13283-13), directly into the standard pond used in OPP aquatic
exposure model standard scenarios.  Based on a pond volume of 20 million
liters and a total of 0.884 g of allethrin (a.i.), and assuming no
degradation or sorption, the resulting concentration in the pond would
be 0.0442 ppb.  In order to achieve an exposure concentration equal to
the toxic endpoints of concern for freshwater invertebrates (LC50 = 2.1
ppb) and freshwater fish (LC50 = 7.9 ppb), it would require the direct
spraying of approximately 48 and 179 cans, respectively.  To exceed the
acute endangered species LOC of 0.05 for aquatic animals would require
the simultaneous release into a standard farm pond of 2.4 cans (for
freshwater invertebrates) and 9 cans (for freshwater fish).   

It would require the simultaneous release of even more bottles of pet
shampoo containing allethrin into a pond of a similar volume to reach an
exposure concentration equal to the toxic endpoints of concern for
freshwater animals.  A ‘super size’ bottle (21.6 fluid ounces) of
Hartz Control Flea and Tick Conditioning Shampoo for Dogs (EPA Reg. No.:
2596-124) contains 0.109% allethrin (a.i.).  Assuming a conservative
specific gravity for shampoo of 1.2 g/ml, a 21.6 ounce bottle of shampoo
contains 766.6 g of product, including 0.836 g a.i.  Therefore, a bottle
of this dog shampoo contains less active ingredient than a can of the
wasp and hornet spray used in the example above and correspondingly
higher numbers of bottles of shampoo would have to be released into into
the pond to result in risk exceedances.

The application rates for outdoor foggers and mats/coils are
considerably lower than the rates for wasp and hornet sprays (Table 4),
but foggers and mats/coils are meant to cover a wider area than wasp and
hornet sprays, and, therefore, we consider them here (our discussion is
limited to foggers since they have a higher application rate than
mats/coils).  In a search of the Pesticide Product Information System
(PPIS), we found one product label for an outdoor fogger that stipulated
an application rate on a per acre basis; the label for Whitmire PT 566
HC Insect Fogger (0.25% a.i.) (Reg No.: 499-GRG) states to apply the
product at 60 – 80 sec/acre for ‘Outdoor Ground Application’. 
Using the fogger application rate from the SMART meeting (i.e., 6 g
product/sec discharge rate) equates to 480 g of product/acre for an 80
sec discharge which results in an application rate of 0.0026 lb
a.i./acre (1.2 g a.i./acre).

For birds, using T-REX and upper bound Kenaga values, all acute RQs (for
all weights/food categories) equal 0 at an application rate of 0.0026 lb
a.i./acre.  For any of the avian RQs to reach the acute endangered
species LOC of 0.1, using upper bound Kenaga values, an application rate
of 0.5 lb a.i./acre (192 applications) is required, and the only avian
‘weight/food category’ that exceeds this LOC at this application
rate is a 20g bird that eats short grass.

For mammals, an application rate of 0.4 lb a.i./acre (154 applications
of Whitmore PT 566 HC Insect Fogger) is required for an RQ to exceed the
acute endangered species LOC of 0.1, using upper bound Kenaga values. 
Again, using upper bound Kenaga values, the chronic endangered species
LOC of 1 is exceeded at an application rate of 0.13 lb a.i./acre (50
applications) for dose-based calculations and 1.1 lb a.i./acre (424
applications) for diet-based calculations.  

 

For bees, the ‘Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects’ EEC from T-REX
equals 0.04 ppm for an application rate of 0.0026 lb a.i./acre. 
Converting the contact LD50 of 3.4 µg/bee for allethrins to 26.5 ppm
(see above) equals an RQ of 0.0015.  Using the acute endangered species
LOC for other terrestrial animals (i.e., LOC = 0.1) and upper bound
Kenaga values, the application rate needed to reach the endangered
species LOC is 0.18 lb a.i./acre (69 applications).

The highest per acre application rate we found for an allethrin outdoor
fogger in our search of the PPIS was for Raid Yard Guard Outdoor Fogger
Formula VII (Reg. No.: 4822-394).  This product (0.14% a.i.) is a total
release fogger (i.e., the contents of the entire can are released during
one application; up to 765 g of product/can) which equates to 1.07 g
a.i./application (i.e., 1 can).  The label on the product states,
“kills bugs up to 20 ft away”, therefore, a conservative target area
for one can is 15 ft x 15 ft (225 ft2).  If a can was released every 225
ft2 until an acre was covered, which would require 194 cans, this would
result in an application rate of 0.466 lb a.i./acre.  Using T-REX, this
is below the rate that would result in RQs above the acute avian
endangered species LOC.  For terrestrial invertebrates, the application
rate needed to reach the endangered species LOC is 0.18 lb a.i./acre (75
cans).  For mammals, this application rate (0.466 a.i./acre, requiring
194 cans) is slightly higher than the application rate (0.4 lb
a.i./acre, requiring 167 cans) that exceeds the acute endangered species
LOC.  To exceed the chronic endangered species LOC for mammals requires
an application rate of 0.13 lb a.i./acre (54 cans) for dose-based
calculations, and 1.1 lb a.i./acre (459 cans) for diet-based
calculations. 

	Based on qualitative information and considering the examples above,
although the allethrins may be slightly persistent in the environment,
the supported outdoor allethrin uses are expected to result in exposure
levels below Agency acute LOCs for non-target organisms in both aquatic
and terrestrial environments.  Therefore, the likelihood of adverse
effects from acute exposure is concluded to be low.  The likelihood of
adverse effects from chronic exposure to mammals is also considered low,
however, the potential risk to all other taxa from chronic exposure to
allethrins cannot be assessed at this time due to a lack of data.

	Indoor Uses

Because there is potential for discharge of allethrins into surface
water from indoor uses, resulting from discharge of effluent from
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) in a municipality in which
allethrin-containing pet shampoos or dips were used, EECs are estimated
using multiple conservative assumptions and the USEPA OPPT
Down-the-Drain component of the E-FAST model.  

It was assumed that the water flowing through the treatment works was
maintained at a neutral pH (7), although a range of pH 5.8- 10.3 is
possible (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/gwstudy.pdf" 
http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/gwstudy.pdf ) and alkaline
pH’s are likely at plants using certain water treatment processes. 
Maintenance at a neutral pH would preclude any hydrolysis, but
maintenance at an alkaline pH would result in rapid hydrolysis of
allethrin.  

It was also assumed that biodegradation would be insignificant during
the time the compounds were in residence at the treatment plant, and
that adsorption to the biofilm and organic solids would also be
negligible during that time.  Both of these assumptions are conservative
since allethrin is known to biodegrade in aerobic soil and has a
tendency to bind to soil organic matter.

	Given the use of a dog shampoo containing 0.1% allethrin at a rate of 2
ounces (59 mL) by a family of four, it is estimated (assuming there are
0.059 g of allethrin in the 59 mL of shampoo) that the concentration in
the total waste stream from the single home on the day of use would be
0.038 mg/L or 38 µg/L.  This value was calculated based on the
assumption (taken from the Down-the-Drain component of the E-FAST model)
that the 50th percentile per capita daily indoor water usage is 388 L
per person, or 1552 liters per day for a family of four.  This value
would then be further diluted by wastewater flows from other households
not using an allethrin pet shampoo or dip as well as wastewater from
other sources (light commercial processes, restaurants, hospitals,
businesses, etc.).  The American Water Works Association estimates that
total per capita wastewater production for municipalities is about 689
L/person/day.  Thus, a recalculation of the above would yield an
effective single household allethrin concentration of only 21.2 µg/L
rather than 38 µg/L.

	It was then estimated that in a typical 50,000 person municipality, the
number of dogs that must be washed on a given day to reach the
endangered species LOC (i.e., 2.1 µg/L X 0.05 = 0.105 µg/L) for
freshwater invertebrates, based on the acute toxicity threshold of 2.1
µg/L, would be: 

Number of dogs = [(0.105 µg/L)(50,000 people)(689 L total
wastewater/person)]/59,000 µg/dog = 61 dogs.

	Thus, if 61 dogs were washed on a given day in a municipality of 50,000
people there would be sufficient allethrin in the untreated municipal
wastewater discharge from the POTW (diluted by all wastewater sources
and all non-dog washing households, but not accounting for streamflow
dilution in the environment) to reach the endangered species threshold
for freshwater invertebrates.  Making a conservative assumption to take
into account the effect of wastewater treatment in removing allethrin
from wastewater discharged from the POTW (i.e. 10% of all allethrin in
the municipal waste stream is removed by the POTW processes), the number
of dog-washings in a given day needed to exceed the endangered species
LOC for freshwater invertebrates increases to approximately 68.  Given
the lack of data for chronic toxicity, it could not be determined
whether chronic LOCs may be reached.

	As stated previously, these assumptions are consertvative.  There is a
high potential for allethrin to adsorb to solids or undergo microbial
biodegradation in the POTW facility, and there will be dilution of the
effluent in both the mixing zone and downstream of the effluent
discharge area.  The pH of the effluent leaving the plant will also play
a role in the final allethrin concentration in the receiving waters; an
alkaline pH will lead to rapid hydrolysis of the compound.  Each of
these factors will decrease the concentration of allethrin in the
surface water, and thereby decrease the chance of reaching the acute
toxic level of concern for freshwater organisms.  However, it remains an
uncertainty as to how much each of the factors will affect the
concentration of allethrin in the effluent and downstream surface
waters.  

	A cursory search of the stream dilution ratios for discharge into
streams (effluent flow vs. receiving stream flow) for National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits for wastewater treatment
facilities in various states indicates that ratios of 1:1 to 1:3, based
on the 7Q10 streamflow (the lowest seven day stream flow expected every
ten years) are commonly required.  Thus, a concentration in the effluent
(still assuming no hydrolysis, sorption or microbial degradation) of
21.2 µg/L would be diluted to between 7.06 - 10.6 µg/L, with even
greater dilution occurring during higher volume streamflow periods. 
However, because the resulting concentrations are still above the
freshwater invertebrates acute toxicity threshold of  2.1 µg/L and
endangered species threshold of 0.105 µg/L, as well as the freshwater
fish acute toxicity threshold of 7.8 µg/L, risks from pet shampoo and
dip uses cannot be dismissed.

Risk Description

1.  Risks to Aquatic Animals

The allethrins are considered very highly toxic to freshwater fish and
invertebrates on an acute exposure basis.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
However, the outdoor uses of allethrins should not pose an acute risk to
aquatic animals (fish, aquatic-phase amphibians, and invertebrates), in
large part because exposure levels are not expected to reach thresholds
where adverse effects would be likely for such uses.  Although
estimation procedures include multiple conservative assumptions, an
acute risk to aquatic animals from indoor uses cannot be dismissed at
this time.

Chronic toxicity data are lacking for all aquatic taxa, and in the
absence of toxicological data, the Agency typically presumes there is a
risk.  Furthermore, given that allethrins would be expected to sorb to
sediments and not be subject to chemolytic or metabolic degradation
[once sorbed] based on their fate properties, there is an uncertainty
regarding the potential chronic effects to benthic fauna like
chironomids or Hexagenia (which consume soil).  Therefore, the potential
risks from chronic exposure to aquatic animals cannot be dismissed at
this time.

In addition to uncertainties related to the data gaps discussed
previously and an inability to model environmental concentrations,
another factor that adds uncertainty to this assessment is that many
end-use products that contain an allethrin also contain piperonyl
butoxide (a synergist) or other residual pyrethroids which increase the
killing efficiency of the formulations.  Piperonyl butoxide blocks the
metabolic pathway that would breakdown allethrin and thus extends
potential exposure.  Allethrin is primarily used as a knockdown agent on
target species and the addition of a synergist contributes to the
toxicity of the formulations (Casida and Quistad, 1995).  A study by
Federle and Collins (1976) found that water beetles (Peltodytes spp.)
were 15 times more sensitive to allethrin when it was mixed with
piperonyl butoxide than when it was used alone (the 96-hr LC50 for
allethrin was 45 ppb without piperonyl butoxide, but was 3 ppb with
piperonyl butoxide).  Additionally, a variety of terrestrial and aquatic
organisms are more sensitive to pyrethroids at lower temperatures (i.e.,
pyrethoids have negative temperature coefficients of toxicity) (e.g.,
Cremlyn 1978; Hill 1985; Li, et al. 2006); however, the magnitude of the
effects of temperature on allethrin toxicity is not known at this time. 
However, even with the potential for increased toxicity with piperonyl
butoxide and lower temperatures, the outdoor, residential spot (e.g.,
wasp and hornet sprays) and parameter treatments (i.e., coils and mats)
are not expected to reach water concentrations that would result in
risk.  An acute risk to aquatic animals from indoor uses cannot be
dismissed at this time. 

		

2.  Risks to Terrestrial Organisms

On an acute exposure basis, the allethrins are practically nontoxic to
birds, moderately toxic to mammals, and moderately toxic to honey bees. 
Chronic toxicity data for terrestrial animals are only available for
mammals.  These data show that in reproductive tests in laboratory rats,
there were no effects on reproductive parameters at the highest level
tested (387 mg/kg-bw), however, the allethrins significantly reduced
parent body weight and increased liver weight at 130 mg/kg-bw (NOAEL =
13 mg/kg-bw).  We conclude that the outdoor uses of allethrins should
not pose an acute risk to terrestrial animals or a chronic risk to
mammals, in large part because exposure levels are not expected to reach
thresholds where adverse effects would be likely for such uses.  

Piperonyl butoxide has been shown to increase the sensitivity of
terrestrial invertebrates to allethrins.  Adams (1998) reports that the
LD50 for the flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) exposed to allethrin is
0.388 mg/0.03 mL dose, while the LD50 for this same species is 0.097
mg/0.03 mL dose when exposed to allethrin and piperonyl butoxide (making
allethrin mixed with piperonyl butoxide 4 times more toxic than
allethrin alone).  Flour beetles were 2.5 times more sensitive to
bioallethrin when it was mixed with piperonyl butoxide (LD50 = 0.151
mg/0.03 mL dose) than when the insects were exposed to only bioallethrin
(LD50 = 0.059 mg/0.03 mL dose).  Results were even more extreme with
pyrethrin-resistant grain weevils (Sitophilus granaries).  Grain weevils
were 66.2 times more sensitive to allethrin mixed with piperonyl
butoxide (LD50 = 47.9 mg/0.03 mL dose) than to allethrin alone (LD50 =
0.724 mg/0.03 mL dose); and 152 times more sensitive to bioallethrin
mixed with piperonyl butoxide (LD50 = 43.7 mg/0.03 mL dose) than to
bioallethrin alone (LD50 = 0.288 mg/0.03 mL dose).

Although risks from acute exposure to non-target terrestrial animals
(even terrestrial invertebrates which are more sensitive to allethrins
than birds and mammals) are not expected because of low use rates, these
factors add uncertainties to our conclusions.  Furthermore, the lack of
data on effects from chronic exposure to allethrins for non-mammalian
terrestrial animals precludes a conclusion regarding the potential for
chronic risk to birds and terrestrial invertebrates.  Therefore, a risk
to these taxa from chronic exposure to allethrins is presumed.

3.  Plants

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 No guideline data were submitted to evaluate the
risk of allethrin exposure to non-target plants, however, the allethrins
are not expected to induce phytotoxic effects because of their neural
toxic mode of action.  Furthermore, a packet of efficacy studies
provided by the registrant showed no phytotoxic effects.

4.  Review of Incident Data

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 A search of the EIIS (Environmental Incident
Information System) database for ecological incidents (run on Dec. 2,
2005) identified a total of one ecological incident involving an
allethrin (allethrin; PC Code: 004001) (Incident no.: I012970-013).  The
allethrin involved in the incident is no longer registered (i.e., all of
its uses have been cancelled).  The incident occurred on a fish farm in
Ventura County, CA, in Dec. 2000, and it involved the death of 13,000
rainbow trout.  The reported cause of the incident was an act of
sabotage (i.e., it was the result of intentional misuse).  The certainty
index was reported as “highly probable” and it was reported that,
“(t)here seemed to be no doubt about the cause of the fish kill,”
although no tissue or water samples were reported.  Because the number
of documented kills in EIIS is believed to be a very small fraction of
total mortality caused by pesticides for a variety of reasons, absence
of reports does not necessarily provide evidence of an absence of
incidents given the nature of the incident reporting.  

5.  Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species Concerns

	a.  Action Area

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 For listed species assessment purposes, the action
area is considered to be the area affected directly or indirectly by the
Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.
 At the initial screening-level, the risk assessment considers broadly
described taxonomic groups and conservatively assumes that listed
species within those broad groups are located on or adjacent to the
treated site and aquatic organisms are assumed to be located in a
surface water body adjacent to the treated site.  The assessment also
assumes that the listed species are located within an assumed area which
has the relatively highest potential exposure to the pesticide, and that
exposures are likely to decrease with distance from the treatment area. 


If the assumptions associated with the screening-level action area
result in RQs that are below the listed species LOCs, a "no effect"
determination conclusion is made with respect to listed species in that
taxa, and no further refinement of the action area is necessary. 
Furthermore, RQs below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic
group indicate no concern for indirect effects upon listed species that
depend upon the taxonomic group covered by the RQ as a resource. 
However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in
excess of the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a
potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists and may be associated
with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group
or may extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon
that taxonomic group as a resource.  In such cases, additional
information on the biology of listed species, the locations of these
species, and the locations of use sites could be considered to determine
the extent to which screening assumptions regarding an action area apply
to a particular listed organism.  These subsequent refinement steps
could consider how this information would impact the action area for a
particular listed organism and may potentially include areas of exposure
that are downwind and downstream of the pesticide use site.

	b.  Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The Level I screening assessment process for
listed species uses the generic taxonomic group-based process to make
inferences on direct effect concerns for listed species.  The first
iteration of reporting the results of the Level I screening is a listing
of pesticide use sites and taxonomic groups for which RQ calculations
reveal values that meet or exceed the listed species LOCs (for more
information see, USEPA 2004).  Specific levels of concern could not be
evaluated for the supported use of allethrin because RQs were not
calculated in this assessment, however, acute risks from allethrin
outdoor uses to listed species are not expected due to low application
rates and the types of uses being assessed (see Table 10).  The
potential for acute risk to aquatic animals from indoor uses, however,
cannot be dismissed because of the potential for exposure via
wastewater.  Furthermore, the potential for chronic risk to any listed
animal cannot be dismissed at this time because of a lack of available
data.  

Table 10.  Listed species acute risks associated with direct or
indirect effects due to applications of allethrins for all residential
uses (indoor or outdoor)1.

Listed Taxon	Direct Effects	Indirect Effects2

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants – monocots	None3	Possible2

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants - dicots	None3	Possible

Insects	None	Possible

Birds	No acute/ Possible chronic2 	Possible

Terrestrial phase amphibians	No acute/ Possible chronic2	Possible

Reptiles	No acute/ Possible chronic2	Possible

Mammals	None	Possible

Aquatic vascular plants	None3	Possible

Freshwater fish	Possible acute/ Possible chronic2 	Possible

Aquatic phase amphibians	Possible acute/ Possible chronic2	Possible

Freshwater crustaceans	Possible acute/ Possible chronic2	Possible

Mollusks	Possible acute/ Possible chronic2	Possible

Marine/estuarine fish	Possible acute/ Possible chronic4	Possible

Marine/estuarine crustaceans	Possible acute/ Possible chronic4	Possible

1Although, LOCs were not calculated, exposures are expected to be below
all Agency acute LOCs for all outdoor uses.

2 Because of a lack of chronic data for all taxa except mammals, the
potential for chronic direct effects or indirect effects cannot be
dismissed.

3 No guideline data were submitted to evaluate the risk of allethrin
exposure to non-target plants, however, the allethrins are not expected
to induce phytotoxic effects because of their neural toxic mode of
action.

4 No acute or chronic data are available.

Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths, and
Data Gaps

	Although this assessment focuses on esbiol, esbiothrin, bioallethrin,
and pynamin forte, data from all of the allethrin compounds (including
allethrin) were bridged, since the allethrin compounds are nearly
identical except in the ratios and amounts of the major isomers in the
mixtures, and we assume that the isomers are equipotent due to a lack of
conclusive data demonstrating otherwise.  Additionally, to more fully
characterize the environmental fate and transport of the allethrins,
some of the data for the structurally similar but naturally occurring
compound pyrethrin 1 have been considered in addition to the submitted
data for the allethrins.  Using surrogate data in the absence of direct
data on the active ingredient being assessed decreases confidence in the
assessment.  

Another major uncertainty in this assessment is that standard use rates
typically reported for agricultural chemicals (i.e., lb a.i./acre) are
not applicable for allethrin end use products, and, in most cases,
maximum application rates cannot be calculated from label language.  For
example, label use rates are reported as duration per area for sprays
(e.g., “20 seconds/1000 cu ft” or “spray 6-8 seconds into nest
hole”), “spray as needed”, or “spray until wet”.

The allethrins do not have agricultural uses and cannot be modeled using
the standard Agency scenarios generated for agricultural crops or turf. 
This comprises an uncertainty in this risk assessment, as EECs could not
be calculated for residential (urban), outdoor uses.  However, the
potential for the allethrins to reach non-target areas in concentrations
large enough to cause environmental risk is considered minimal based on
the supported uses (inclusive of use type, formulations, and application
type and rates).  While it is likely that pesticide in runoff in urban
areas is impacted by inadvertent application of lawn-care products to
impermeable surfaces or other treatments that could result in runoff
(driveways, sidewalks or road surfaces adjacent to lawns), a standard
method for assessing exposure from such uses has not been developed, and
data on deposition/degradation/resuspension and washoff from impermeable
surfaces are not available.  

Many end-use products that contain an allethrin also contain synergists
like   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 piperonyl butoxide or other residual
pyrethroids.  Piperonyl butoxide has been shown to enhance the toxicity
of the formulations and can increase the sensitivity of aquatic and
terrestrial taxa to pyrethroids (Adams, 1998; Casida and Quistad, 1995;
Federle and Collins, 1976), however, the magnitude of its effects when
mixed with allethrins is not known.  

Additionally, the allethrins can cause paralysis in animals at lower
concentrations than those causing death, and such paralysis could lead
to mortality not directly related to the toxicity of the compound (e.g.,
predation).  Therefore, the acute endpoints used in this assessment
which do not account for such sub-lethal effects may not be conservative
in this respect.  

A variety of terrestrial and aquatic organisms are more sensitive to
pyrethroids at lower temperatures (i.e., pyrethoids have negative
temperature coefficients of toxicity) (e.g., Cremlyn 1978; Hill 1985;
Li, et al. 2006); however, the magnitude of the effects of temperature
on allethrin toxicity is not known at this time.  

No allethrin toxicity data are available for estuarine/marine animals. 
Data are also lacking for chronic exposure for all taxa except mammals. 
Furthermore, no guideline data were submitted to evaluate the risk of
allethrin exposure to plants.  As noted above, no phytotoxicity data are
available, but risks to plants are not expected, due to the mode of
action of allethrins.  

The environmental fate database for the allethrins is extremely sparse,
with a single acceptable study (mobility) submitted to date.  Data gaps
include photodegradation on soil, aquatic metabolism (both aerobic and
anaerobic), and bioaccumulation in fish.  The aqueous photolysis study
was not acceptable, but provides some information on the expected rate
of photodegradation.  The hydrolysis study was classified
“supplemental”.  Also, the two submitted aerobic soil metabolism
studies, while scientifically valid on an individual basis, are both
classified “supplemental” due to discrepancies between the results
of the two studies.  Bridging data for the structurally similar but
naturally occurring compound pyrethrin 1 indicate that the potential for
bioaccumulation in fish may be high, but also indicate that photolysis
of the allethrins should occur rapidly in shallow clear water. 

	Despite these assumptions and uncertainties, the supported outdoor
allethrin uses are expected to result in exposure levels below Agency
acute LOCs for non-target organisms in both aquatic and terrestrial
environments.  Therefore, the likelihood of adverse effects from acute
exposure is concluded to be low.  The likelihood of adverse effects from
chronic exposure to mammals is also considered low, however, the
potential risk to all other taxa from chronic exposure to allethrins
cannot be assessed at this time due to a lack of data.  Additionally,
the potential risk to aquatic organisms from acute exposure in surface
water resulting from indoor uses (e.g., pet shampoos being washed down
the drain) could not be dismissed.

V.  Literature Cited

2004-2005 Water and Sediment Quality Monitoring Data Summary for Chollas
Creek, Final Report. (2006).  Response to Monitoring in Chollas Creek,
Investigation Order No. R9-2004-0277.  Proposition 13, PRISM Grant
Agreement No. 04-17-559-0.  San Diego Region Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) Education and Outreach Project.   

Adams, M. (1998).  The use of piperonyl butoxide in grain protection. 
In Piperonyl Butoxide.  Edited by D. Glynne Jones.  Academic Press; San
Diego, CA. Pp. 261 – 282.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2003).
Toxicological Profile for Pyrethrins and Pyrethroids.  Atlanta, GA; US
Department of Health and Human Services.  Public Health Service.

Casida, J.E., and G. B. Quistad (1995).  Pyrethrum Flowers: Production,
Chemistry, Toxicology, and Uses. Oxford Univ. Press; New York.  Pp. 356.

Cremlyn, R.  (1978). Pesticides: Preparation and Mode of Action, John
Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

Dureja P., J.E. Casida, and L.O. Ruzo (1984).  Dinitroanilines as
photostabilizers for pyrethroids.  J Agric Food Chem, 32: 246-50.

Federle, P. F., and W. J. Collins (1976). Insecticide toxicity to three
insects from Ohio ponds. Ohio J. Sci., 76: 19-24.

Franke C., G. Studinger, G. Berger, S. Bohling, U. Bruckman, D.
Cohors-Fresenborg, and U. Johncke (1994). The assessment of
bioaccumulation. Chemosphere 29: 1501-14.

Goring, C.A.I., D.A. Laskowki, J.H. Hamaker, and R.W. Meikle (1975). 
Principles of pesticide degradation in soil.  In Environmental Dynamics
of Pesticides, R. Haque and V.H. Freed, eds.  Plenum Press; New York. 
Pp. 135-172

Hazardous Substances DataBank (  HYPERLINK "http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov" 
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov  ). 2006.  Entries for allethrin, resmethrin
and cypermethrin.

Hill, I.R. (1985).  Effects on non-target organisms in terrestrial and
aquatic environments. In: J.P. Leahey, Editor, The Pyrethroid
Insecticides, Taylor and Francis, London, UK.

USEPA: 2004.  Overview of the ecological Risk assessment Process in the
Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protetion Agency:
Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations.  Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances; Office of Pesticide
Programs; Washington, DC.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga (1972).  Pesticide
residues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for
estimation of their magnitude in the environment.  In F. Coulston and F.
Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology,
and Technology, Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany. Pp. 9-28.

Li, Haiping, Tao Feng, Pei Liang, Xueyan Shi, Xiwu Gao and Hui Jiang
(2006).  Effect of temperature on toxicity of pyrethroids and
endosulfan, activity of mitochondrial Na+–K+-ATPase and
Ca2+–Mg2+-ATPase in Chilo suppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae).  Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 86(3): 151-156.

Mayer, D., and C. Johansen (1990). Pollinator Protection: A Bee &
Pesticide Handbook. Wicwas Press; Cheshire, Conn. Pp. 161.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 U.S. EPA.  (2004).  Overview of the Ecological
Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Endangered and Threatened Species
Effects Determinations, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C.  100 pgs. 
January 23.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 USEPA Memo: 1-23-1997.  Allethrin Stereoisomers:
AgrEvo Environmental Health (AEH) Rebuttal of Agency requirements
Concerning the Test Substance for Plant Metabolism Studies.  From
William O. Smith (HED) to Paula Deschamp (HED).  DP Barcode - 222638.

USEPA: 1987.  Bioallethrin, Toxicology Chapter of the Registration
Standard.  From Pamela Hurley (HED) to Richard King (RD) through Robert
Zendziah (HED) and William Burnam (HED). Record No.: 005862.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 USEPA Memo: 11-12-1986.  Bioallethrin Registration
Standard: Selection of Isomers To Be Included in the Standard.  From
Pamela Hurley (HED) to Richard King (RD) through Edwin Budd (HED),
Robert Zendzian (HED) and William Burman (HED).  TXR # - 0052388.

Worthing, C. R. (ed.) (1979).  Pesticide Manual. 6th ed. British Crop
Protection Council, l979; Worcestershire, England. Pp.7.

Environmental Fate   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MRID Studies Cited in the RA

MRID 41504401

Estigoy, L., K. Shepler, and L.O. Ruzo.  1990.  Hydrolysis of
[alc-14C]-d-trans-allethrin at pH 5, 7 and 9.  PTRL Report No. 196W-1. 
Unpublished study performed by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research
Laboratory-West, Richmond, CA, and submitted by Sumitomo Chemical
Company, Ltd., Osaka, Japan.

MRID 41504402

Chari, S., K. Shepler, and L.O. Ruzo.  1990.  Sunlight photodegradation
of [alc-14C]-d-trans-allethrin in a buffered aqueous solution at pH 5. 
PTRL Report No. 197W-1.  Unpublished study performed by Pharmacology and
Toxicology Research Laboratory, Richmond, CA, and submitted by Sumitomo
Chemical Company, Ltd., Osaka, Japan.

MRID 41900401

Dykes, J.  1990.  Soil/sediment adsorption-desorption with
14C-allethrin.  ABC Final Report No. 38539.  Unpublished study performed
by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, MO, and
submitted by Roussel Bio Corporation, Lincoln Park, NJ, for Sumitomo
Chemical Company, Ltd., Osaka, Japan.

MRID 42336501

Schmidt, J.M.  1992a.  Aerobic soil metabolism study of
[Acid-14C]-d-trans-Allethrin.  Project No. 38484.  Unpublished study
performed by ABC Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, MO, and submitted by
Sumitomo Chemical Company, Ltd., Osaka, Japan.

MRID 42336502

Schmidt, J.M.  1992b.  Aerobic soil metabolism study of
[Alc-14C]-d-trans-Allethrin.  Project No. 38484.  Unpublished study
performed by ABC Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, MO, and submitted by
Sumitomo Chemical Company, Ltd., Osaka, Japan.

	

Ecological Effects   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MRID Studies Cited in the RA

MRID: 27546

Raltech Scientific Services, Incorporated (1979). Aquatic Inverte- brate
Toxicity Study--Daphnia: RT No. 8084240. (Unpublished study received Dec
13, 1979 under 1021-1422; submitted by McLaughlin, Gormley, King Co.,
Minneapolis, Minn.; CDL:241520-B). 

MRID: 27548

Beavers, J.B.; Fink, R.; Brown, R. (1978). Final Report: Eight-Day
Dietary LC50--Mallard Duck: Project No. 163-104. (Unpublished study
received Dec 13, 1979 under 1021-1422; prepared by Wild- life
International, Ltd. in cooperation with Washington College, submitted by
McLaughlin, Gormley, King Co., Minneapolis, Minn.; CDL:241520-D). 

MRID: 31368

Rausina, G. (1974). Report to McLaughlin Gormley King Company: Four- Day
Static Fish Toxicity Studies with X-2840-74 in Rainbow Trout and
Bluegills: IBT No. 621-05281. (Unpublished study received Dec 17, 1975
under 1021-88; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Lab- oratories, Inc.,
submitted by McLaughlin, Gormley, King Co., Minneapolis, Minn.;
CDL:221996-M).

MRID: 31369

Fletcher, D. (1974). Report to McLaughlin Gormley King Company: 8- Day
Dietary LCI50^ Study with X-2840-74 in Mallard Ducklings: IBT No.
651-05280. (Unpublished study received Dec 17, 1975 un- der 1021-88;
prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by
McLaughlin, Gormley, King Co., Minneapolis, Minn.; CDL:221996-N).

MRID: 47080

Fletcher, D. (1973). Report to McLaughlin Gormley King Company: 8-Day
Dietary LCI50^ Study with S-Bioallethrin in Bobwhite Quail: IBT No.
651-02851. (Unpublished study received Apr 11, 1973 under unknown amdin.
no.; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by
McLaughlin, Gormley, King Co., Minneapolis, Minn.; CDL:133033-A). 

MRID: 49254

Atkins, E.L., Jr.; Anderson, L.D. (1967). Toxicity of Pesticides and
Other Agricultural Chemicals to Honey Bees: Laboratory Studies. By Univ.
of California--Riverside, Dept. of Entomology. River- side, Calif.: UC,
Agricultural Extension Service. (M-16; sub- mitter report no. 22259,
also~In~unpublished submission received Mar 22, 1976 under 3125-71;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp, Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:224114-K). 

MRID: 55509

Fletcher, D. (1974). Report to Mc Laughlin Gormley King Company: 8-Day
Dietary LCI50^ Study with X-2840-74 in Mallard Ducklings: IBT No.
651-05280. (Unpublished study received Dec 17, 1975 under 1021-88;
prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by
McLaughlin, Gormley, King Co., Minneapolis, Minn.; CDL:221996-N). 

MRID: 122546

Mauck, W.; Olson, L.; Marking, L. (1976). Toxicity of natural pyrethrins
and five pyrethroids to fish. Archives of Environ- mental Contamination
and Toxicology 4:18-29. (Also In unpub- lished submission received Feb
11, 1977 under 1021-24; submitted by McLaughlin Gormley King Co.,
Minneapolis, MN; CDL:228070-A). 

MRID: 123339

Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Grimes, J.; et al. (1978). Acute Oral LD50:
Bobwhite Quail: D-Trans Allethrin, Technical: Project No. 163- 106.
Final rept. (Unpublished study received Feb 8, 1979 under 1021-1217;
prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by McLaughlin
Gormley King Co., Minneapolis, MN; CDL:238863-A). 

 

MRID: 162751

Stevenson, J. (1968) Laboratory studies on the acute contact and oral
toxicities of insecticides to honeybees. Ann. appl. Biol. 61:467-472. 

MRID: 40098001

Mayer, F.L., and M.R. Ellersieck (1986). Manual of Acute Toxicity:
Interpretation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of
Freshwater Animals. United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 160.

MRID: 151449	

Glomot, R. (1979). Esbiothrin: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in the Rat:
Ref. RU-EBT-79828/A and Ref. 79.828. Unpublished study prepared by
Roussel Uclaf. 27 p.

MRID: 41246801	

Hoberman, A. (1989). Reproductive Effects of Pynamin Forte Administered
Orally in Feed to Crl:COBS CD (SD)BR Rats for Two Genera- tions: Argus
Research Laboratories Protocol 1119-002. Unpub- lished study prepared by
Argus Research Laboratories, Inc. 1203 p. 



APPENDIX A:

Environmental Fate Study Summaries

Hydrolysis

	Cyclopentenyl ring-labeled [3-14C]d-trans allethrin
[(4'RS)-3-allyl-2-methyl-4-oxocyclopent-2-enyl
(1R)-trans-chrysanthemate] transformed rapidly with a half-life of 4.3
days in sterile aqueous pH 9 buffered solutions that were incubated at
25 C in the dark for up to 16 days; the compound was essentially stable
in pH 5 and 7 solutions incubated under similar conditions for 32 days
(MRID 41504401).  At pH 9, [14C] d-trans allethrin was 98.6-99.2% of the
applied radioactivity immediately posttreatment, 64.2-64.4% at 48 hours,
39.8-41.1% at 101.5 hours, and 8.0% at 389.5 hours.  Three major
degradates were identified in the pH 9 solutions.  Allethrolone was
present at 11.0% by 48 hours, was a maximum of 18.9% of the applied at
171 hours and was still present at 18.8% at 389.5 hours (study
termination).  Compound 1A was present at 17.4% by 101.5 hours, and a
maximum of 34.9% at 389.5 hours.  Compound 2A was present at 15.5% by 48
hours, was a maximum of 28.7% at 171 hours, and was 24.0% of the applied
by 389.5 hours.  Unidentified compounds were generally <1.6% throughout
the study, but were a total of 9.05% at 389.5 days.  Although structures
were presented for compounds 1A and 2A, the chemical names were not
provided.  Both compounds were identified as isomeric bicyclic ketones. 
This study is classified as supplemental, as the pH 9 experiment was not
conducted for a sufficient length of time to identify the patterns of
formation and decline for the degradates, one of which was at its
maximum at the end of the study period.  

Aqueous Photolysis

	Cyclopentenyl ring-labeled [3-14C]d-trans allethrin
[(4'RS)-3-allyl-2-methyl-4-oxocyclopent-2-enyl
(1R)-trans-chrysanthemate; radiochemical purity 99.3%, specific activity
44.2 mCi/mMol, Sumitomo] degraded with a half-life of approximately 48
hours in a buffered (pH 5) aqueous solution that was maintained at 25 oC
while irradiated outdoors in California (37.45(N, 122.26(W; during
December 1989 and January 1990) for 48 hours (MRID 41504402).  Two major
degradates were identified in the irradiated solutions.  Allethrolone
ranged from 2.4 to 3.7% of the applied with no discernable pattern
between 3 and 48 hours posttreatment, and was 9.8% at 72 and 120 hours. 
Dihydroxy-allethrolone was 6% and 6.1% of the applied at 24 and 48 hours
posttreatment, respectively, then was 22.4% at 72 hours, and 34.9% at
120 hours.  In the dark controls, allethrolone was <1.6% of the applied
(maximum at 120 hours), and dihydroxy-allethrolone was not detected.  Up
to 27 "unknowns," totaling a maximum of 37.6% of the applied, were
isolated from the irradiated and dark control solutions; no single
unknown was present at >10%.  14CO2 totaled 3.8 and 4.9% of the applied
from the irradiated and dark control solutions at 48 hours,
respectively; and was 2.4 and 2.1% from the irradiated and dark control
solutions at 120 hours, respectively.  This study is classified as
unacceptable, as an accurate photodegradation half-life cannot be
calculated from the data provided.  The experiment was conducted in two
parts, and insufficient information was provided to allow the data to be
combined.  Neither experiment was in itself sufficient to meet data
requirements.  The 48-hour exposure experiment was terminated before the
half-life of bioallethrin occurred; the 120-hour experiment was sampled
only at 72 and 120 hours, and the application rate was not confirmed. 
Also, the results of the dark control (pH 5) solutions are not in
agreement with those of the submitted hydrolysis study (MRID 41504401),
in which it was demonstrated that bioallethrin is stable to hydrolysis
at pH 5.  In this photolysis study, however, (unexplained) degradation
was observed in the pH 5 dark control solutions.  Thus, it could not be
confirmed that the degradation observed in the irradiated samples was
due solely to photodegradation, and a corrected (to account for
hydrolysis) photodegradation half-life could not be determined.  It is
most probable that the apparent “degradation” observed in the dark
controls, which did not follow a discernable pattern, was actually due
to material loss.  While the study is somewhat useful in that it shows
that photodegradation of the compound likely occurs rapidly in water,
the data obtained in the studies was insufficient to show the patterns
of formation and decline for the degradates. 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

	The biodegradation of acid-labeled and alcohol-labeled [3-14C]d-trans
allethrin [(4'RS)-3-allyl-2-methyl-4-oxocyclopent-2-enyl
(1R)-trans-chrysanthemate was studied separately at 1.5 ppm (approx. 26
times the maximum field rate) in aerobic sandy loam soils that were
incubated in darkness for 6 months at 25 C while maintained at 75% of
0.33 bar moisture content.  Both studies were initially classified as
unacceptable due to discrepancies in the degradation rates between the
studies.  For the purposes of assessing risks, however, and because each
study is scientifically valid on an individual basis, the studies are
now classified as “supplemental.”  Under the persistence scale of
Goring et al. (1994), half-lives from both studies indicate that the
allethrins will be slightly persistent in soil.

	The acid-labeled d-trans allethrin degraded with a half-life of
16.9-22.0 days (MRID 42336501).  The major degradate (1R,
3R)-2,2-dimethyl-3- carboxycyclopropanecarboxylic acid (COOH-CA), which
was present at day 1, was a maximum of 31.0% of the applied at 2 months
and decreased to 26.5% by 6 months.  The major degradate CO2 38.7% of
the applied by 6 months, and bound residues accounted for >40% of the
applied by that time.  The minor degradate (1R, 3R)-2,2-dimethyl-3-
(2-methylprop-1-enyl)cyclopropanecarboxylic acid (d-t-CRA) was present
at day 1, was a maximum of 6.0% of the applied at 4 months and was 3.01%
at 6 months.

	The alcohol-labeled d-trans allethrin degraded with a half-life of
40.1-42.5 (MRID 42336502).  The major degradate
4-allyl-2-hydroxy-3-methyl-5-oxocyclopentene (dl-ALON) was present at
day 0, was a maximum of 27.6% of the applied by day 7, and was 7.04% by
6 months.  The major degradate CO2 was present at approximately 71% of
the applied at 6 months.  Bound residues accounted for a maximum of
19.4% of the applied by 4 months.  

Leaching & Adsorption/Desorption

	The mobility of cyclopentenyl ring-labeled [3-14C]d-trans allethrin
[(4'RS)-3-allyl-2-methyl-4-oxocyclopent-2-enyl (1R)-trans-chrysanthemate
was studied in silt loam, clay loam, sandy loam, and sand soils in a
batch equilibrium experiment (MRID 41900401).  The soils were
equilibrated in 1:20 (w:v) soil:0.01 M calcium chloride solution
slurries in the dark for 24 hours at 25oC.  Freundlich Kads values were
4.1 mL/g for the sand soil, 6.2 mL/g for the sandy loam soil, 15.8 mL/g
for the silt loam soil, and 25.9 mL/g for the clay loam soil; respective
Koc values were 1409, 1358, 1134, and 1718.  Based on the McCall
Classification, these Koc values indicate that d-trans allethrin can be
expected to have low mobility in soil.  Freundlich Kdes values were 9.3
mL/g for the sand soil, 8.8 mL/g for the sandy loam soil, 22.1 mL/g for
the silt loam soil, and 37.0 mL/g for the clay loam soil; Koc values for
desorption ranged from 1592 to 3212.  This study is classified as
acceptable and provides adequate data for the risk assessment.

APPENDIX B:

Chemical Structure of the Allethrin Isomers

d-trans chrysanthemic acid of d-allethrolone (most insecticidally active
isomer)

d-trans chrysanthemic acid of l-allethrolone

l-trans chrysanthemic acid of d-allethrolone

l-trans chrysanthemic acid of l-allethrolone

d-cis chrysanthemic acid of d-allethrolone

d-cis chrysanthemic acid of l-allethrolone

l-cis chrysanthemic acid of d-allethrolone

l-cis chrysanthemic acid of l-allethrolone

APPENDIX C: 

Summary of Submitted Toxicity Studies for Animals Exposed to Allethrins

Aquatic Organisms:

SPECIES	CHEM./

(PC CODE)	END-POINT	DUR-ATION (hrs)	CONC. MEAN (ppb)	EXPO-SURE TYPE
CATEGORY	MRID #

Freshwater Fish

Salmo gairdneri

Rainbow Trout	Allethrin/

004001	LC50	96	19.0	Static (S)	Supplemental1	40098001

	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	13.9

(11.8 – 17.9)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	17.5

(13.1 – 23.4)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	9.7

(8.0 – 11.6)	Flow-through (F)	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	--	S	Invalid2	31368

Oncorhynchus mykiss

Steelhead Trout	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	17.5

(13.1 – 23.4)	S	Supplemental	122546



LC50	96	9.7

(8.0 – 11.6)	F	Supplemental	122546

Oncorhynchus kisutch

Coho Salmon	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	22.2

(20.6 – 23.9)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	2.6*

(1.8 – 3.5)	F	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	22.2

(20.6 – 23.9)	S	Supplemental	122546



LC50	96	9.4 

(7.91 – 11.2)	F	Supplemental	122546

Salvelinus namaycush

Lake Trout	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	17.3

(14.9 – 20.0)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	16.0*

(14.3 – 17.8)	F	Supplemental	40098001

Esox lucius

Northern Pike	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	3.3*

(3.0 – 3.6)	F	Supplemental	40098001

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Lepomis macrochirus

Bluegill Sunfish	Allethrin/

004001	LC50	96	56.0	S	Supplemental	40098001

	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	47.0

(39.8 – 55.5)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	47.0

(40.0 – 55.2)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	35.0

(31.4 – 39.0)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	56.0

(47.3 – 66.3)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	56

(44.5 – 70.5)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	60.0

(52.1 – 69.1)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	49.0

(42.7 – 56.2)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	49.0

(42.7 – 56.2)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	42.5

(33.4 – 54.1)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	22.5

(20.5 – 24.7)	F	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	40.0

(36.0 – 44.4)	7 day degra	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	34.3

(30.8 – 38.2)	7 day degra	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	74.0

(64.5 – 85.9)	7 day degra	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	--	S	Invalid2	31368

	Esbiol/

004004	LC50	96	23.6

(18.8 – 29.6)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	27.6

(24.5 – 31.1)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	39.0

(33.5 – 45.4)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	30.0

(25.4 – 35.4)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	36.0

(32.2 – 40.3)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	>25	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	>25	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	33.8

(30.4 – 37.6)	7 day degra	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	44.3

(38.2 – 51.3)	7 day degra	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	53.8

(42.9 – 67.4)	7 day degra	Supplemental	40098001

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Pimephales promelas

Fathead Minnow	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	48.0

(34.9 – 66.0)	F	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	69.0

(53.8 – 88.4)	F	Supplemental	40098001

	Esbiol/

004004	LC50	96	80.0

(65.9 – 97.1)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	53.0

(35.8 – 78.3)	F	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	80.0

(65.9 – 97.1)	S	Supplemental	122546

Catostomus commersoni

White Sucker	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	12.4*

(10.5 – 14.6)	F	Supplemental	40098001

Ictalurus punctatus

Channel Catfish	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	>30.0	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	27.0

(22.4 – 32.6)	F	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	>30.1	S	Supplemental	122546



LC50	96	27.0

(22.4 – 32.6)	F	Supplemental	122546

	Esbiol/

004004	LC50	96	14.6

(10.1 – 21.0)	F	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	14.6

(10.1 – 21.1)	F	Supplemental	122546

Perca flavescens

Yellow Perch	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	9.9*

(9.17 – 10.7)	F	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	9.9*

(9.17 – 10.7)	F	Supplemental	122546

	Esbiol/

004004	LC50	96	7.8

(6.5 – 9.4)	S	Supplemental	40098001



LC50	96	7.8

(6.5 – 9.3)	S	Supplemental	122546

Micropterus dolomieui

Smallmouth Bass	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	7.7*

(5.8 – 10.2)	F	Supplemental	40098001

Micropterus salmoides

Largemouth Bass	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	>12*	F	Supplemental	40098001

Freshwater Invertebrates

Daphnia pulex

Waterflea	Allethrin/

004001	EC50	48	21.0 

(19.0 -35.0)	S	Supplemental	40098001

	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	96	33

(10.0 – 70.0)	S	Invalid3	27546

	Esbiothrin/

004007	EC50	48	8.9

(7.5 – 11)	S	Acceptable	43235801

Simocephalus serrulatus

Waterflea	Allethrin/

004001	EC50	48	56 

(40.0 -78.0)	S	Supplemental	40098001

Gammarus fasciatus

Scud	Allethrin/

004001	LC50	96	84

(5.0 – 12.0)	S	Supplemental	40098001

Pteronarcys californica

Stonefly	Allethrin/

004001	LC50	96	2.15

(1.5 – 2.9)	S	Supplemental	40098001

* Refers to data from fingerlings

1 Although results from Mayer and Ellersieck (1986) (MRID: 40098001)
have traditionally been considered ‘core’ or ‘acceptable’ by
EFED, EFED is currently re-evaluating the data from these studies to
determine if they meet current guideline requirements.  Until this is
completed, data from this volume will be considered ‘supplemental’.

2 These studies are deemed ‘invalid’ because they were performed by
Industrial BIO-TEST Laboratories, Inc., prior to 1976 when it was
determined that the laboratory falsified test results.

3 This study is invalid because: more than 10% of the controls died
during testing; the temperature during the study varied more than 1o C
(range: 17 – 21o C); information regarding pH, DO, and the actual
concentration of the chemical in test treatments was not provided; the
amount of a.i. in the technical was not provided.

- Italicized data are assumed to be duplicates (i.e., they are also
reported in Mayer and Ellersieck 1986, MRID 40098001)

4 In the Allethrin data table in Mayer and Ellersieck (1986), the 96-hr
LC50 for Gammarus fasciatus is listed as 11 µg/L with a 95% CI of 8.0 -
15.0 µg/L.  However, based on the original data source (Sanders, 1972;
ECOTOX ref.: 887), this is the LC50 for pyrethrum (and not allethrin). 
The LC50 for allethrin should be 8 µg/L with a 95% CI of 5 - 12 µg/L. 

5 In the Allethrin data table in Mayer and Ellersieck (1986), the 96-hr
LC50 for Pteronarcys californica is listed as 5.6 µg/L with a 95% CI of
4.9 – 6.4 µg/L.  However, based on the original data source (Sanders
and Cope, 1968; ECOTOX ref.: 889), this is the 48-hr LC50.  The 96-hr
LC50 for allethrin should be 2.1 µg/L with a 95% CI of 1.5 – 2.9
µg/L. 

Terrestrial Organisms:

SPECIES	CHEM./

(PC CODE)	END-POINT	DUR-ATION (days)	CONC. MEAN 	EXPO-SURE TYPE	CATEGORY
MRID #

Birds

Colinus virginianus

Bobwhite Quail	Esbiol/ 004004	LC50	8	>5,000 mg/kg-diet	N/A	Invalid1
47080

	Bioallethrin/

004003	LD50	14	2030 

mg/kg-bw

(1504 – 2738)	N/A	Acceptable	123339

Anas platyrhynchos

Mallard Duck	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	8	>5,000 mg/kg-diet	N/A	Invalid1	55509



LC50	8	>5,000 mg/kg-diet	N/A	Invalid1	31369

	Pynamin Forte/

004005	LC50	8	>5,620 mg/kg-diet	N/A	Acceptable	27548

Mammals

Laboratory rat	Esbiothrin/ 004007	LD50	14	378 mg/kg-bw	N/A	Acceptable
00151449

Laboratory rat	Pynamin Forte/

004005	NOAEL	2 generation	13 mg/kg-bw	N/A	Acceptable	41246801

Terrestrial Invertebrates

Apis mellifera

Honey Bee	Allethrin/

004001	LD50	1 

(24 hr)	3.4 µg/bee	Contact	Supplemental	162751



LD50	1 

(24 hr)	4.6 µg/bee	Oral	Invalid2	162751



LD50	1 

(24 hr)	9.1 µg/bee	Oral	Supplemental	162751



LD50	2

(48 hr)	> 10 µg/bee	Contact	Supplemental	49254

1 These studies are deemed ‘invalid’ because they were performed by
Industrial BIO-TEST Laboratories, Inc., prior to 1976 when it was
determined that the laboratory falsified test results.

2 The results from several studies are reported; the data from 1965 are
classified as invalid because of   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 the high rate of
control mortality noted in that year.

APPENDIX D:

Summary of Toxicity Studies from ECOTOX for Animals Exposed to
Allethrins

Aquatic Organisms:

SPECIES	CHEM./

(PC CODE)	END-POINT	DUR-ATION (hrs)	CONC. MEAN (ppb)	EXPO-SURE TYPE
CATEGORY	REFERENCE/ECOTOX NO.

Freshwater Invertebrate

Peltodytes spp.

Crawling Water Beetle	Allethrin/

004001	LC50	96	50.0	Static	Supplemental	Federle and Collins (1976)/7775

Gammarus lacustris

Scud	Allethrin/

004001	LC50	96	11

(8.0 – 15.0)	Static	Supplemental	Sanders (1969)/885

Notonecta undulate

Backswimmer	Allethrin/

004001	LC50	48	> 20	Static	Supplemental	Mills et al. (1969)/4807

Notonecta undulate

Backswimmer	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	48	> 20	Static	Supplemental	Mills et al. (1969)/4807

Aedes aegypti

Mosquito (larvae)	Bioallethrin/

004003	LC50	24	24 (at 20o C)

40 (at 30o C)	Static	Supplemental	Cutkomp and Subramanyam (1986)/12051

Chironomus riparius

Midge	Allethrin/

004001	LC50	24	41.9 

(38.6 - 45.3)	Static	Supplemental	Estenik and Collins (1979)/6830

Chironomus tentans

Midge (3rd or 4th instar)	Allethrin/

004001	LC50	24	11.5	Static	Supplemental	Karnak and Collins (1974)/6267

Terrestrial Invertebrate

Spodoptera littoralis

Cotton Leafworm (3rd instar)	Allethrin/

004001	LD50	24	31.1 µg/g	Topical	Supplemental	El-Sebae et al.
(1985)/70687 (duplicated under 81547)

Aedes taenorhynchus

Mosquito (adult)	Esbiothrin 004007 	EC50 (knock-down)

LC50	1

24	10.4 

(7.4 – 13.1)

81.8 

(69.2 – 96.4)

	Exposed to 0.5 ml of each dilution for 10 seconds in wind tunnel
Supplemental	Floore et al. (1992)/69764

Culex quinquefasciatus

Mosquito (adult)	Esbiothrin 004007	EC50 (knock-down)

LC50	1

24	7.7 

(4.8 – 10.1)

95.5

(65.7 -122)

	Exposed to 0.5 ml of each dilution for 10 seconds in wind tunnel
Supplemental	Floore et al. (1992)/69764

Mammal

Mouse

(species not identified)	Allethrin/

004001	LD50	24	920 mg/kg bw	Oral	Supplemental	El-Sebae et al.
(1985)/70687 (duplicated under 81547)



The remaining studies identified by ECOTOX that were ‘Acceptable for
ECOTOX and OPP’ were not considered for assessment endpoints because: 

REASON FOR NOT BEING CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS	TAXA	CHEM./

(PC CODE)	REFERENCE/ECOTOX NO.	COMMENTS

The data were already considered in the submitted data	Freshwater fish
and invertebrates	Allethrin/

004001 and

Bioallethrin/

004003	Mayer and Ellersieck (1986)/6797	MRID: 40098001

The data are duplicated in Mayer and Ellersieck (1986)	Freshwater
invertebrates	Allethrin/

004001	Sanders (1972)/887	--

	Freshwater invertebrates	Allethrin/

004001	Sanders and Cope (1968)/889	--

The studies were rejected upon further evaluation:	Rats	Allethrin/

004001	Carpenter et al. (1950)/81170	Vehicle used in dosing (Deo-base)
showed toxic effects – mortality

	Tobacco budworm	Allethrin/

004001	McCutchen, et al. (1997)/74124	The allethrin toxicity data
reported, without the addition of Baculoviruses, are secondary data

The study is scientifically valid but the study design is substantially
different from guidelines and the results could not be adequately
compared to  standard acute or chronic endpoints (these studies were
considered in the Risk Description section of the assessment)	Aedes
aegypti Mosquitoes (adult)	Esbiothrin/

004007 and Bioallethrin/

004003	Birley et al. (1987)/80904	Coils (0.044 and 0.099% esbiothrin;
and 0.20% bioallethrin) were tested in the laboratory and field (huts in
Kenya) for knockdown and bite-inhibition.  In the cylinder test, 95%
were knocked-down (KT95) in 3.55 minutes (KT50 – 2.44 min); in the 25
m3 room test, the KT95 was 13.0 minutes (KT50 – 9.3 min) (both,
bioallethrin coils)

	Culex quinquefasciatus, Aedes aegypti, and Anopheles stephensi

Mosquitoes (adult)	Bioallethrin/

004003, Esbiothrin/ 004007, and Allethrin/ 004001	Amalraj et al.
(1996)/81346	Coils and mats (4% allethrin, 2% bioallethrin, and 1%
esbiothrin) tested in laboratory (2’ 2’ 2’ m chamber).  Quickest
LT50 = 0.001 hr (allethrin mat, Aedes sp. and Anopheles sp.).  Knockdown
time also reported.

	Aedes 

Mosquitoes (adult)	Bioallethrin/

004003	Warui (1992)/70105	Various conc. tested in mats (0.0002, 0.2,
2.0, 20, 30, and 60 mg a.i./mat) in laboratory chamber. Percentages
knocked-down after 45 min = 6.3, 56, 85.4, 87.6, 95.4, and 94.6 at each
conc. level, respectively.

	Culex quinquefasciatus

Mosquitoes (adult)	Esbiothrin 004007, and Pynamin Forte/004005	Ammen et
al. (1993)/81166	Coils and mats (0.22% pynamin forte, 0.12% esbiothrin)
were tested in laboratory – 1 g product burned for 30 min before
mosquitoes exposed, mosquitoes exposed for 18 min, mortality measured at
24 hr.  Esbiothrin – 36%, and pynamin forte – 22% mortality
(knockdown also reported)

	Culex quinquefasciatus

and Anophales

Mosquitoes

(Adults)	Allethrin/

004001	Sharma et al. (1993)	Measured number of mosquitoes caught around
adult male lying on a cot in room in India.  Statistically significantly
fewer mosquitoes were caught in room with heated allethrin (4%) mat when
compared to control.

	Aedes aegypti

Mosquito

 (Adult female)	Allethrin/

004001	Vartak and Sharma (1993)/80899	A mat with 80 mg of allethrin was
burned in 60 x 60 x 60 cm chamber.  KT50 min = 22.91 (therefore 50 %
were knocked down by 23 min).

	Rat

(adult males)	Allethrin/

004001	Stein et al. (1987)/81175	Rats trained for behavioral tests
before exposure; during testing, injected (IP) immediately before
testing at various conc. (highest dose – 32 mg/kg bw) for
dose-response test.  Dose-dependent response suppression observed.  In
time course experiment (dose = 16 mg/kg bw), operant response
suppression evident immediately following injection; effects disappeared
by 15 min after injection. 

	Mice 

(neonates)	Bioallethrin/ 004003	Erikksson and Nordberg (1990)/81177
Neonates exposed to 0.7 mg/kg bw for 7 days (once a day, gavage) on days
10 – 16; tested 24 hr after last treatment.  Increases in muscarinic
cholinergic receptor density in the cortex at lowest rate tested (0.71
mg/kg bw)

	Mice

(neonates and adults, males and females)	Bioallethrin/ 004003	Erikksson
and Fredriksson (1991)/81176	Neonates exposed to 0.7 mg/kg bw for 7 days
(once a day, gavage) on days 10 – 16; tested at 4 months on age. 
Decreases in MAChR (muscarinic cholinergic receptors in the brain)
density and behavior (locomotion, rearing and total activity) reported
at 4 months.  Concluded that, “… disturbances of the cholinergic
system during rapid development in the neonatal mouse can lead to
permanent changes…” (p. 78)

	Mice

(neonates and adults, males)	Bioallethrin/ 004003	Talts et al.
(1998)/80906	Neonates exposed to 0.7 mg/kg bw for 7 days (once a day,
gavage) on days 10 – 16; repeated at 5-months of age (for 7 days). 
Behavioral effects/changes in MAChR density noted when tested at 5 and 7
months in groups exposed neonatally and neonatally/5-months (no effects
noted in controls and groups dosed only as adults); effects more extreme
in group dosed neonatally and at 5 months.

	Mice

(neonates and adults, males and females)	Bioallethrin/ 004003	Ahlbom et
al. (1994)/80905	Neonates exposed to 0.7 mg/kg bw for 7 days (once a
day, gavage at various conc. – 0.21, 0.42, 0.70, 4.2 mg/kg bw) on days
10 – 16; tested at 4 months on age.  Effects seen at all treatment
levels (behavior and MAChR density).

	Mice

(neonates and adults, males and females)	Esbiol/004004	Pauluhn and
Schmuck (2003)/ 80907	Neonates exposed to 0.7 mg/kg bw for 7 days (once
a day, gavage) on days 10 – 16; exposed to different temperatures (21,
25, and 30o C); tested at 4 months on age.  Changes in MAChR (muscarinic
cholinergic receptors in the brain) density and body and brain weights. 
Effects greater at lower temperatures.

	Rat 

(Adult Sprague-Dawley)	Allethrin/

004001	Hossain et al. (2004)/80710	Rats injected with 20, 35, or 60
mg/kg of a.i.  Tested until 180 min after exposure.  Clinical symptoms
only seen at 60 mg/kg (tremors, diarrhea); release of acetylcholine
(Ach) from hippocampus increased at 20 and 35 mg/kg, peaked at 60 min,
and returned to normal by 180 min.  Release of ACh decreased at 60 mg/kg
level and did not return to normal levels.

	Mice

(Adult)	Allethrin/

004001	Lawrence and Casida (1982)/72270	Mouse brains directly injected. 
LD50  = 290 µg/g brain wt (can be converted to mg/kg bw by multiplying
by 1.4 x 10 -2 = 4.06 mg/kg bw).



APPENDIX E:

List of ECOTOX References for Allethrins Categorized as ‘Acceptable
for ECOTOX and OPP’

Ahlbom, J., Fredriksson, A., and Eriksson, P. (1994). Neonatal Exposure
to a Type-L Pyrethroid (Bioallethrin) Induces Dose-Response Changes in
Brain Muscarinic Receptors and Behaviour in Neonatal and Adult Mice. 
Brain Res. 645: 318-324.

EcoReference No.: 80905

Amalraj, D. D., Sivagnaname, N., Boopathidoss, P. S., and Das, P. K.
(1996). Bioefficacy of Mosquito Mat, Coil and Dispenser Formulations
Containing Allethrin Group of Synthetic Pyrethroids Against Mosquito
Vectors.  J.Commun.Dis. 28: 85-93.

EcoReference No.: 81346

Ameen, M. U., Banu, N. N., Hossain, M. I., and Ahmed, T. U. (1993).
Laboratory Evaluation of Some Smoke Producing Repellents Against Culex
quinquefasciatus (Say) (Diptera:  Culicidae).  Bangladesh J.Zool. 21:
1-10.

EcoReference No.: 81166

Birley, M. H., Mutero, C. M., Turner, I. F., and Chadwick, P. R. (1987).
The Effectiveness of Mosquito Coils Containing Esbiothrin Under
Laboratory and Field Conditions.  Ann.Trop.Med.Parasitol. 81: 163-171.

EcoReference No.: 80904

Carpenter, C. P., Weil, C. S., Pozzani, U. C., and Smyth, H. F. Jr.
(1950). Comparative Acute and Subacute Toxicities of Allethrin and
Pyrethrins.  A.M.A.Arch.Ind.Hyg.Occup.Med. 2: 420-432.

EcoReference No.: 8117.

Cutkomp, L. K. and Subramanyam, B. (1986). Toxicity of Pyrethroids to
Aedes aegypti Larvae in Relation to Temperature.  J.Am.Mosq.Control
Assoc. 2: 347-349.

EcoReference No.: 12051

El-Sabae, A. H., Enan, E. E., Daoud, A. S., and Zeid, M. I. (1985).
Selective Toxicity of Synthetic Pyrethroids and Some Synergists to Mice
and Cotton and Leafworm in Relation to Mice Biochemical Enzymes
Activities.  Meded.Fac.Lanbouwwet.Rijsuniv.Gent 50: 939-950.

EcoReference No.: 81547

El-Sebae, A. H., Enan, E. E., Daoud, A. S., and Zeid, M. I. (1985).
Selective Toxicity of Synthetic Pyrethroids and Some Synergists to Mice
and Cotton Leafworm in Relation to Some Biochemical Enzymes Activities. 
Meded.Fac.Landbouwkd.Rijksuniv.Gent 50: 939-950.

EcoReference No.: 70687

Eriksson, P. and Fredriksson, A. (1991). Neurotoxic Effects of Two
Different Pyrethroids, Bioallethrin and Deltamethrin, on Immature and
Adult Mice:  Changes in Behavioral and Muscarinic Receptor Variables . 
Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 108: 78-85.

EcoReference No.: 81176

Eriksson, P. and Nordberg, A. (1990). Effects of Two Pyrethroids,
Bioallethrin and Deltamethrin, on Subpopulations of Muscarinic and
Nicotinic Receptors in the Neonatal Mouse Brain. 
Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 102 : 456-463.

EcoReference No.: 81177

Estenik, J. F. and Collins, W. J. (1979). In Vivo and In Vitro Studies
of Mixed-Function Oxidase in an Aquatic Insect, Chironomus riparius. 
In: M.A.Q.Khan, J.J.Lech, and J.J.Menn (Eds.), Pesticide and Xenobiotic
Metabolism in Aquatic Organisms, ACS (Am.Chem.Soc.) Symp.Ser.99 349-370
(Author Communication Used).

EcoReference No.: 6830.

Federle, P. F. and Collins, W. J. (1976). Insecticide Toxicity to Three
Insects from Ohio Ponds.  Ohio J.Sci. 76: 19-24.

EcoReference No.: 7775

Floore, T. G., Rathburn, C. B. Jr., Boike, A. H. Jr., Coughlin, J. S.,
and Greer, M. J. (1992). Comparison of the Synthetic Pyrethroids
Esbiothrin and Bioresmethrin with Scourge and Cythion Against Adult
Mosquitoes in a Laboratory Wind Tunnel.  J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 8:
58-60.

EcoReference No.: 69764

Hossain, M. M., Suzuki, T., Sato, I., Takewaki, T., Suzuki, K., and
Kobayashi, H. (2004). The Modulatory Effect of Pyrethroids on
Acetylcholine Release in the Hippocampus of Freely Moving Rats. 
Neurotoxicology 25: 825-833.

EcoReference No.: 80710

Karnak, R. E. and Collins, W. J. (1974). The Susceptibility to Selected
Insecticides and Acetylcholinesterase Activity in a Laboratory Colony of
Midge Larvae, Chironomus tentans (Diptera:  Chironomidae). 
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 12: 62-69.

EcoReference No.: 6267

Lawrence, L. J. and Casida, J. E. (1982). Pyrethroid Toxicology:  Mouse
Intracerebral Structure-Toxicity Relationships.  Pestic.Biochem.Physiol.
18: 9-14.

EcoReference No.: 72270

Mayer, F. L. Jr. and Ellersieck, M. R. (1986). Manual of Acute Toxicity:
Interpretation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of
Freshwater Animals.  Resour.Publ.No.160, U.S.Dep.Interior, Fish
Wildl.Serv., Washington, DC 505 p. (USGS Data File).

EcoReference No.: 6797

McCutchen, B. F., Hoover, K., Preisler, H. K., Betana, M. D., Herrmann,
R., Robertson, J. L., and Hammock, B. D. (1997). Interactions of
Recombinant and Wild-Type Baculoviruses with Classical Insecticides and
Pyrethroid-Resistant Tobacco Budworm (Lepidoptera:  Noctuidae). 
J.Econ.Entomol. 90: 1170-1180.

EcoReference No.: 74124

Mills, G. D. Jr., J.H.Fales, and Durbin, C. G. Jr. (1969). Comparison of
the Effect of Six Pyrethroids Against a Backswimmer, Notonecta undulata
Say.  Mosq.News 29: 690-691.

EcoReference No.: 4807

Mills, G. D. Jr., J.H.Fales, and Durbin, C. G. Jr. (1969). Comparison of
the Effect of Six Pyrethroids Against a Backswimmer, Notonecta undulata
Say.  Mosq.News 29: 690-691.

EcoReference No.: 4807

Pauluhn, J. and Schmuck, G. (2003). Critical Analysis of Potential Body
Temperature Confounders on Neurochemical Endpoints Caused by Direct
Dosing and Maternal Separation in Neonatal Mice:  A Study of
Bioallethrin and Deltamethrin Interactions with Temperature on Brain
Muscarinic Receptors.  J.Appl.Toxicol. 23: 9-18.

EcoReference No.: 80907

Sanders, H. O. (1969). Toxicity of Pesticides to the Crustacean Gammarus
lacustris.  Tech.Pap.No.25, U.S.D.I., Bur.Sports Fish.Wildl., Fish
Wildl.Serv., Washington, D.C. 18 p. (Author Communication Used)(Used
with Reference 732) (Publ in Part As 6797).

EcoReference No.: 885

Sanders, H. O. (1972). Toxicity of Some Insecticides to Four Species of
Malacostracan Crustaceans.  Tech.Pap.No.66, Bur.Sports Fish.Wildl., Fish
Wildl.Serv., U.S.D.I., Washington, D.C. 19 p. (Publ in Part As 6797).

EcoReference No.: 887

Sanders, H. O. and Cope, O. B. (1968). The Relative Toxicities of
Several Pesticides to Naiads of Three Species of Stoneflies. 
Limnol.Oceanogr. 13: 112-117 (Author Communication Used) (Publ in Part
As 6797).

EcoReference No.: 889

Sharma, V. P., Nagpal, B. N., and Srivastava, A. (1993). Effectiveness
of Neem Oil Mats in Repelling Mosquitoes.  Trans.R.Soc.Trop.Med.Hyg. 87:
626.

EcoReference No.: 80709

Stein, E. A., Washburn, M., Walczak, C., and Bloom, A. S. (1987).
Effects of Pyrethroid Insecticides on Operant Responding Maintained by
Food.  Neurotoxicol.Teratol. 9: 27-31.

EcoReference No.: 81175

Talts, U., Fredriksson, A., and Eriksson, P.  (1998). Changes in
Behavior and Muscarinic Receptor Density After Neonatal and Adult
Exposure to Bioallethrin.  Neurobiol.Aging 19: 545-552.

EcoReference No.: 80906

Vartak, P. H. and Sharma, R. N. (1993). Vapour Toxicity & Repellence of
Some Essential Oils & Terpenoids to Adults of Aedes aegypti (L)
(Diptera:  Culicidae).  Indian J.Med.Res.Sect.A 97:  122-127.

EcoReference No.: 80899

Warui, C. M. (1992). A Laboratory Evaluation of Pyrethrins and
Bioallethrin in Vaporising Mats for Mosquito Control.  Pyrethrum Post
18: 131-139.

EcoReference No.: 70105

APPENDIX F:

List of ECOTOX References for Allethrins Categorized as ‘Acceptable
for ECOTOX but not OPP’

The most common reasons why a study was excluded by OPP were that it did
not include an endpoint and/or a control.  Other reasons for exclusion
included: the study did not report the duration of exposure, the study
did not provide results on a contaminant of concern, the study reported
the results from a mixture of chemicals, the study was in a foreign
language, or the study results were from a secondary source.

Amalraj, D. D., Kalyanasundaram, M., and Das, P. K. (1992). Evaluation
of EMD Vaporizers and Bioallethrin Vaporizing Mats Against Mosquito
Vectors.  Southeast.Asian J.Trop.Med.Public Health 23: 474-478.

EcoReference No.: 80712

Cole, L. M. and Casida, J. E. (1983). Pyrethroid Toxicology in the Frog.
 Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 20: 217-224.

EcoReference No.: 12018

Cope, O. B. (1965). Sport Fishery Investigations.  In: Fish and
Wildl.Serv.Cicr.226, Effects of Pesticides on Fish and Wildlife - 1964
Research Findings of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
51-63 (Publ in Part As 6797).

EcoReference No.: 2871

Eriksson, P. (1991). DDT and Pyrethroids - Ecotoxicological
Considerations.  Comp.Biochem.Physiol.C 100: 269-270.

EcoReference No.: 81203

Gaaboub, I. A. and Abu-Hashish, T. A. (1981). Susceptibility of Egyptian
Culex pipiens L. to Six Synthetic Pyrethroids.  Insect Sci.Appl. 1:
297-301.

EcoReference No.: 14708

Gill, S. S. (1977). Larvicidal Activity of Synthetic Pyrethroids Against
Aedes albopictus (Skuse).  Southeast Asian J.Trop.Med.Public Health 8:
510-514.

EcoReference No.: 70142

Gupta, A., Nigam, D., Gupta, A., Shukla, G. S., and Agarwal, A. K.
(1999). Effect of Pyrethroid-Based Liquid Mosquito Repellent Inhalation
on the Blood-Brain Barrier Function and Oxidative Damage in Selected
Organs of Developing Rats.  J.Appl.Toxicol. 19: 67-72.

EcoReference No.: 76704

Hashimoto, Y. and Fukami, J. I. (1969). Toxicity of Orally and Topically
Applied Pesticide Ingredients to Carp, Cyprinus carpio Linne.  Sci.Pest
Control (Botyu-Kagaku) 34: 63-66.

EcoReference No.: 9038

Itoh, T., Marijani, J. H., Keto, A. J., and Matsushita, T. (1988).
Control of Anopheles Mosquitoes by Ultra-Low Volume Applications of
d-Allethrin and d-Phenothrin in Combination with Larvicidings of
Fenitrothion in Tanzania.  J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 4: 563-564.

EcoReference No.: 80707

Jamnback, H. and Frempong-Boadu, J. (1966). Testing Blackfly Larvicides
in the Laboratory and in Streams.  Bull.W.H.O. 34: 405-421.

EcoReference No.: 2837

Jones, K. H., Sanderson, D. M., and Noakes, D. N. (1968). Acute Toxicity
Data for Pesticides (1968).  World Rev.Pest Control 7: 135-143.

EcoReference No.: 70074

Krishna, D., Murty, U. S., Sriram, K., Jamil, K., and Reddy, P. J.
(1993). Vapour Toxicity of Aerosol Formulation, Allethrin on Culex
quinquefasciatus (Diptera:  Culicidae), Say & Musca domestica (Diptera:
Muscidae) N.  Indian J.Med.Res.Sect.A 97: 212-214.

EcoReference No.: 80910

Liu, W., Todd, R. G., and Gerberg, E. J. (1986). Effect of Three
Pyrethroids on Blood Feeding and Fecundity of Aedes aegypti. 
J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 2: 310-313.

EcoReference No.: 64805

Lukwa, N. and Manokore, V. (1997). Biological Activity of Permethrin,
Phenothrin/Allerthrin and d-Phenothrin on Periplaneta americana and
Blattella germanica Cockroaches.  East Afr.Med.J. 74: 252-254.

EcoReference No.: 72918

Martin, R. L., Pittendrigh, B., Liu, J., Reenan, R., Ffrench-Constant,
R., and Hanck, D. A. (2000). Point Mutations in Domain III of a
Drosophila neuronal Na Channel Confer Resistance to Allethrin.  Insect
Biochem.Mol.Biol. 30: 1051-1059.

EcoReference No.: 59557

Mauck, W. L., Olson, L. E., and Marking, L. L. (1976). Toxicity of
Natural Pyrethrins and Five Pyrethroids to Fish. 
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol.  4: 18-29 (Author Communication Used) (Publ
in Part As 6797).

EcoReference No.: 835

Mulla, M. S. (1980). New Synthetic Pyrethroids - Effective Mosquito
Larvicides.  Proc.Pap.Annu.Conf.Calif.Mosq.Vector Control Assoc. 48:
92-93.

EcoReference No.: 66468

Nishimura, M., Obana, N., Yagasaki, O., and Yanagiya, I. (1984).
Involvement of Adrenergic and Serotonergic Nervous Mechanisms in
Allethrin-Induced Tremors in Mice.  J.Toxicol.Sci. 9: 131-142.

EcoReference No.: 80751

Office of Pesticide Programs (2000). Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database
(Formerly:  Environmental Effects Database (EEDB)).  Environmental Fate
and Effects Division, U.S.EPA, Washington, D.C.

EcoReference No.: 344

Rongsriyam, Y., Prownebon, S., and Hirakoso, S. (1968). Effects of
Insecticides on the Feeding Activity of the Guppy, a Mosquito-Eating
Fish, in Thailand.  Bull.W.H.O. 39: 977-980.

EcoReference No.: 3663

Sabaliunas, D., Lazutka, J., Sabaliuniene, I., and Soedergren, A.
(1998). Use of Semipermeable Membrane Devices for Studying Effects of
Organic Pollutants:  Comparison of Pesticide Uptake by Semipermeable
Membrane Devices and Mussels.  Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 17: 1815-1824.

EcoReference No.: 80708

Satoh, T. (1991). Release of Liver Microsomal BETA-Glucuronidase from
Hepatocytes In Vitro and In Vivo by Organophosphates and Hepatotoxic
Agents.  J.Toxicol.Sci. 16: 133-142.

EcoReference No.: 80752

Senbo, S., Akik, S., Kawada, H., Ito, T., and Abe, Y. (1992). The
Influence of Smoke Density on Knockdown Efficacy of Mosquito Coil
Against Adults of Culex pipiens pallens.  Jpn.J.Sanit.Zool. 43: 71-76.

EcoReference No.: 81201

Shinjo, G., Yamaguchi, T., Tsuda, S., Yoshida, K., and Okuno, Y. (1981).
A Study on the Insecticidal Activity of d-Tetramethrin. 
Jpn.J.Sanit.Zool. 32: 221-228.

EcoReference No.: 81200

Sun, F. (1987). Evaluating Acute Toxicity of Pesticides to Aquatic
Organisms: Carp, Mosquito Fish and Daphnids.  Plant Prot.Bull.(Chih Wu
Pao Hu Hsueh Hui Hui K'an) 29: 385-396 (CHI) (ENG ABS).

EcoReference No.: 13451

Talts, U., Talts, J. F., and Eriksson, P. (1998). Differential
Expression of Muscarinic Subtype mRNAs After Exposure to Neurotoxic
Pesticides.  Neurobiol.Aging 19: 553-559 .

EcoReference No.: 80912

Ujihara, K., Mori, T., Iwasaki, T., Sugano, M., Shono, Y., and Matsuo,
N. (2004). Metofluthrin:  A Potent New Synthetic Pyrethroid with High
Vapor Activity Against Mosquitoes.  Biosci.Biotechnol.Biochem. 68:
170-174.

EcoReference No.: 80911

Verschoyle, R. D. and Barnes, J. M. (1972). Toxicity of Natural and
Synthetic Pyrethrins to Rats.  Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 2: 308-311.

EcoReference No.: 70627

Yamaguchi, T., Shinjo, G., Tsuda, S., Yoshida, K., Inaba, E., and Okuno,
Y. (1981). Insecticidal Activity of a New Synthetic Pyrethroid
"Terallethrin".  Jpn.J.Sanit.Zool. 32: 59-66.

EcoReference No.: 81202

Yap, H. H., Lee, Y. W., Zairi, J., Jahangir, K., and Adanan, C. R.
(2001). Indoor Thermal Fogging Application of Pesguard FG 161, a Mixture
of d-Tetramethrin and Cyphenothrin, Using Portable Sprayer Against
Vector Mosquitoes in the Tropical Environment.  J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc.
17: 28-32.

EcoReference No.: 80753

Yap, H. H., Tan, H. T., Yahaya, A. M., Baba, R., Loh, P. Y., and Chong,
N. L. (1990). Field Efficacy of Mosquito Coil Formulations Containing
d-Allethrin and d-Transallethrin Against Indoor Mosquitos Especially
Culex quinquefasciatus Say.  Southeast.Asian J.Trop.Med.Public Health
21: 558-563.

EcoReference No.: 80909

APPENDIX G:

List of ECOTOX References for Allethrins Categorized as ‘Excluded by
ECOTOX’

The most common reason why a study was excluded by EXOTOX was that it
involved in vitro analyses.  Other reasons for exclusion included: no
toxicity data were reported, the study is a methods paper, the study did
not report the duration of exposure, the study subjects were bacteria,
the study involved human health, the exposure route involved inhalation,
the species was not reported, the study did not provide results on a
contaminant of concern, the reference is for an abstract, the reference
is for a review paper, the study reported the results from a mixture of
chemicals, the study is in a foreign language, the reported results are
from modeled data, or the study results are from a secondary source.

Abalis, I M, Eldefrawi, M E, and Eldefrawi, A T (1986). Effects of
insecticides on GABA-induced chloride influx into rat brain microsacs. 
Journal Of Toxicology And Environmental Health 18: 13-23.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO. 

Abbassy, M A, Eldefrawi, M E, and Eldefrawi, A T (1982). Allethrin
interactions with the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor channel.  Life
Sciences 31: 1547-1552.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Abbassy, M. A., Eldefrawi, M. E., and Eldefrawi, A. T. (1983).
Pyrethroid action on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor/channel. 
Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 19: 299-308.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Akkermans, L. M. A., van den Bercken, J., and Versluijs-Helder, M.
(1975). Comparative effects of DDT, allethrin, dieldrin and
aldrin-transdiol on sense organs of Xenopus laevis.  Pesticide
Biochemistry and Physiology 5: 451-457.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Al-Rajhi, Deifalla H. (1990). Properties of Ca2+ + Mg2+-ATPase from rat
brain and its inhibition by pyrethroids.  Pesticide Biochemistry and
Physiology 37: 116-120.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

ANDO, T., KOSEKI, N., YASUHARA, I., MATSUO, N., and ISHIWATARI, T.
(1992). Synthesis of fluorinated pyrethroids: Conversion of pyrethroid
metabolites into some insecticidal fluorinated derivatives.  BIOSCI
BIOTECHNOL BIOCHEM; 56: 1581-1583.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

ANON (1985). REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
PESTICIDES INDUSTRY FOR THE SEVENTH FIVE YEAR PLAN.  PESTICIDES
(BOMBAY); 19 (9). 1985 (RECD. 1986). 11-20.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

AZMI MA, NAQVI, S. NH, KHAN MF, AKHTAR, K., and KHAN FY (1998).
Comparative toxicological studies of RB-a (Neem extract) and coopex
(Permethrin+Bioallethrin) against Sitophilus oryzae with reference to
their effects on oxygen consumption and got, Gpt activity.  TURKISH
JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY; 22: 307-310 .

Rejection Code:  NO MIXTURE.

Birdie, N. S., Banerji, R. K., and Chauhan, A. K. (1986(Recd1987)). GAS
LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHIC SEPARATION OF PYRETHRINS FROM SOME SYNTHETIC
PYRETHROIDS IN FORMULATIONS.  Pyrethrum Post 16 .

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

BLADE RJ, BURT PE, HART RJ, and MOSS, M. DV (1985). THE ACTION OF
INSECTICIDAL ISOBUTYLAMIDE COMPOUNDS ON THE INSECT NERVOUS SYSTEM. 
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON NEUROPHARMACOLOGY AND PESTICIDE ACTION HELD
AT NEUROTOX '85, BATH, ENGLAND, MAR. 31-APR. 4, 1985. PESTIC SCI; 16:
554.

Rejection Code:  ABSTRACT.

Bragieri, Matteo, Liverani, Alessandra, Zanotti, Maria Cristina,
Borzatta, Valerio, Fiori, Jessica, Cavrini, Vanni, and Andrisano,
Vincenza (2004). GC-FID/MS method for the impurity profiling of
synthetic d-allethrin.  J Sep Sci 27: 89-95.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Bramwell, A. F., Crombie, L., Hemesley, P., Pattenden, G., Elliott, M.,
and Janes, N. F. (1969). Nuclear magnetic resonance spectra of the
natural pyrethrins and related compounds.  Tetrahedron 25: 1727-1741.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

BRIDGES, P M (1957). Absorption and metabolism of [14C] allethrin by the
adult housefly, Musca domestica L.  The Biochemical Journal 66: 316-320.

Rejection Code:  NO METABOLISM.

Brooks, J. E., Savarie, P. J., and Bruggers, R. L. (1998). The Toxicity
of Commercial Insecticide Aerosol Formulations to Brown Tree Snakes. 
Snake 28: 23-27.

Rejection Code:  MIXTURE.

Brooks, Matthew W. and Clark, J. Marshall (1987). Enhancement of
norepinephrine release from rat brain synaptosomes by alpha cyano
pyrethroids.  Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 28: 127-139.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Bullivant, Michael J. and Pattenden, Gerald (1973). Photolysis of
bio-allethrin.  Tetrahedron Letters 14: 3679-3680.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Burr, Steven A and Ray, David E (2004). Structure-activity and
interaction effects of 14 different pyrethroids on voltage-gated
chloride ion channels.  Toxicological Sciences: An Official Journal Of
The Society Of Toxicology 77: 341-346.

Rejection Code:  QSAR.

CASIDA JE and RUZO LO (1986). REACTIVE INTERMEDIATES IN PESTICIDE
METABOLISM PERACID OXIDATIONS AS POSSIBLE BIOMIMETIC MODELS.  ISSX
(INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF XENOBIOTICS) FIRST EUROPEAN
MEETING ON FOREIGN COMPOUND METABOLISM, MALTA, ITALY, 1985. XENOBIOTICA;
16: 1003-1016.

Rejection Code:  QSAR.

Cassano, G., Bellantuono, V., Ardizzone, C., and Lippe, C. (2003).
Pyrethroid Stimulation of Ion Transport Across Frog Skin. 
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 22: 1330-1334.

Rejection Code :  IN VITRO.

Chalmers, Alison E. and  Osborne, Michael P. (1986). The crayfish
stretch receptor organ: A useful model system for investigating the
effects of neuroactive substances :  I. The effect of DDT and
pyrethroids.  Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 26: 128-138.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Chambers, J (1980). An introduction to the metabolism of pyrethroids. 
Residue Reviews 73: 101-124.

Rejection Code:  REVIEW.

CHANG J-Y and LIN J-M (1998). Aliphatic aldehydes and allethrin in
mosquito-coil smoke.  CHEMOSPHERE; 36: 617-624.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Cheng, V., Lee, H. R., and Chen, C. S. (1992). Morphological changes in
the respiratory system of mice after inhalation of mosquito-coil smoke. 
Toxicology Letters 62: 163-177.

Rejection Code:  INHALE.

Choi, Jin-Sung and Soderlund, David M. ( Structure-activity
relationships for the action of 11 pyrethroid insecticides on rat Nav1.8
sodium channels expressed in Xenopus oocytes.  Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology In Press, Corrected Proof.

Rejection Code:  QSAR.

Chung, E and Van Woert, M H (1984). DDT myoclonus: sites and mechanism
of action.  Experimental Neurology 85: 273-282.

Rejection Code:  NO COC.

Clark, J. Marshall and Matsumura, F. (1982). Two different types of
inhibitory effects of pyrethroids on nerve Ca- and Ca + Mg-ATPase
activity in the squid, Loligo pealei.  Pesticide Biochemistry and
Physiology 18: 180-190.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Cory-Slechta, D. A. (1994). Neurotoxicant-Induced Changes in
Schedule-Controlled Behavior.  In: L.W.Chang (Ed.), Principles of
Neurotoxicology, Chapter 26, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, NY 313-344.

Rejection Code:  REVIEW.

De With K and Wolf, H. U. (1996). INVESTIGATION OF SEVEN COMMONLY USED
PYRETHROIDS IN THE IN-VITRO PORCINE BRAIN TUBULIN ASSEMBLY ASSAY.  37th
Spring Meeting of the German Society for Experimental and Clinical
Pharmacology and Toxicology, Mainz, Germany, March 12-14, 1996.
Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology 353 : R123.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Di Muccio, A., Barbini, D. A., Generali, T., Pelosi, P., Ausili, A.,
Vergori, F., and Camoni, I. ( Clean-up of aqueous acetone vegetable
extracts by solid-matrix partition for pyrethroid residue determination
by gas chromatography-electron-capture detection.  Journal of
Chromatography A, 765 (1) pp. 39-49, 1997.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Di Muccio, A., Pelosi, P., Barbini, D. A., Generali, T., Ausili, A., and
Vergori, F. ( Selective extraction of pyrethroid pesticide residues from
milk by solid-matrix dispersion.  Journal of Chromatography A, 765 (1)
pp. 51-60, 1997.

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

Diel, F., Horr, B., Borck, H., Savtchenko, H., Mitsche, T., and Diel, E.
( Pyrethroids and piperonyl-butoxide affect human T-lymphocytes in
vitro.  Toxicology Letters [Toxicol. Lett.]. Vol. 107, no. 1-3, pp.
65-74. 30 Jun 1999.

Rejection Code:  HUMAN HEALTH.

Doherty, J D, Morii, N, Hiromori, T, and Ohnishi, J (1988). Pyrethroids
and the striatal dopaminergic system in vivo.  Comparative Biochemistry
And Physiology. C, Comparative Pharmacology And Toxicology 91: 371-375.

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

Doherty, J. D., Salem, N. Jr, Lauter, C. J., and Trams. E.G. ( Mn
super(2+) and Ca super(2+) ATPases in Lobster Axon Plasma Membranes and
their Inhibition by Pesticides.  Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology, C. Vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 185-190. 1981.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Eitzer, B D (1991). Cycling of indoor air concentrations of
d-trans-allethrin following repeated pesticide applications.  Bulletin
Of Environmental Contamination And Toxicology 47: 406-412.

Rejection Code:  SURVEY.

ELLIOTT, M. (1989). THE PYRETHROIDS EARLY DISCOVERY RECENT ADVANCES AND
THE FUTURE.  PESTIC SCI; 27: 337-352.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

Elliott, M, Janes, N F, Pulman, D A, Gaughan, L C, Unai, T, and Casida,
J E ( Radiosynthesis and metabolism in rats of the 1R isomers of the
insecticide permethrin.  Journal Of Agricultural And Food Chemistry 24:
270-276.

Rejection Code:  NO METABOLISM.

ENZ, A. and POMBO-VILLAR, E. (1997). Class II pyrethroids:
Non-inhibitors calcineurin.  BIOCHEMICAL PHARMACOLOGY; 54: 321-323.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

ERDMANN, F., BROSE, C., and SCHUETZ, H. (1990). A TLC screening program
for 170 commonly used pesticide using the corrected Rf value (Rcf
value).   INT J LEG MED; 104: 25-32.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

ERIKSSON, P. (1989). EFFECTS OF TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF PYRETHROIDS ON
SUBPOPULATIONS OF MUSCARINIC RECEPTORS IN THE NEONATAL MOUSE BRAIN. 
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON SUBTYPES OF MUSCARINIC RECEPTORS,
WIESBADEN, WEST GERMANY, JULY 20-22, 1989. TRENDS PHARMACOL SCI; 0: 104.

Rejection Code:  ABSTRACT.

ERIKSSON, P., FREDRIKKSON, A., and NORDBERY, A. (1991). NEONATAL
EXPOSURE TO PYRETHROIDS AND NICOTINE INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CHOLINERGIC RECEPTOR SUBTYPES AND BEHAVIOR IN YOUNG AND ADULT MICE. 
EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL NEUROTOXICOLOGY CONFERENCE ON THE ROLE OF TOXICANTS
IN NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, USA, OCTOBER 1-4,
1990. NEUROTOXICOLOGY (LITTLE ROCK); 12 (1). 1991. 133-134.

Rejection Code:  ABSTRACT.

Eriksson, P, Johansson, U, Ahlbom, J, and Fredriksson, A (1993).
Neonatal exposure to DDT induces increased susceptibility to pyrethroid
(bioallethrin) exposure at adult age.--Changes in cholinergic muscarinic
receptor and behavioural variables.  Toxicology 77: 21-30.

Rejection Code:  MIXTURE.

Eriksson, P. and Talts, U. ( Neonatal exposure to neurotoxic pesticides
increases adult susceptibility: A review of current findings. 
Neurotoxicology [Neurotoxicology]. Vol. 21, no. 1-2, pp. 37-48. Feb-Apr
2000.

Rejection Code:  REVIEW.

Fakata, K L, Swanson, S A, Vorce, R L, and Stemmer, P M (1998).
Pyrethroid insecticides as phosphatase inhibitors.  Biochemical
Pharmacology  55: 2017-2022.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

FEINSTEIN, L (1952). A new reaction and color test for allethrin and
pyrethrins.  Science 115: 245-246.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Ferrari, Federico, Sanusi, Astrid, Millet, Maurice, and Montury, Michel
(2004). Multiresidue method using SPME for the determination of various
pesticides with different volatility in confined atmospheres. 
Analytical And Bioanalytical Chemistry 379: 476-483.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Ford, Martyn G, Hoare, Neil E, Hudson, Brian D, Nevell, Thomas G, and 
Banting, Lee (2002). QSAR studies of the pyrethroid insecticides. Part
3. A putative pharmacophore derived using methodology based on molecular
dynamics and hierarchical cluster analysis.  Journal Of Molecular
Graphics & Modelling 21: 29-36 .

Rejection Code:  QSAR.

FREY, J. and NARAHASHI, T. (1990). PYRETHROID INSECTICIDES BLOCK CALCIUM
AND NMDA-ACTIVATED CURRENTS IN CULTURED MAMMALIAN NEURONS. 
THIRTY-FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BIOPHYSICAL SOCIETY, BALTIMORE,
MARYLAND, USA, FEBRUARY 18-22, 1990. BIOPHYS J; 57 (2 PART 2). 1990.
520A. AB - BIOSIS COPYRIGHT: BIOL ABS. RRM ABSTRACT RAT HIPPOCAMPAL
NEURON RAT NEOCORTICAL NEURON DELTAMETHRIN ALLETHRIN FENVALERATE
INSECTICIDE N METHYL-D-ASPARTATE.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Furuta, R., Nakazawa, H., and Doi, T. (1991). Determination of
pyrethroidal insecticides by titration.  Agric Biol Chem 55 : 819-824.

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

Gammon, Derek W. (1985). Correlations between in vitro and in vivo
mechanisms of pyrethroid insecticide action.  Fundamental and Applied
Toxicology 5: 9-23.

Rejection Code:  QSAR.

Garey, J. and Wolff, M. S. ( Estrogenic and Antiprogestagenic Activities
of Pyrethroid Insecticides.  Biochemical and Biophysical Research
Communications [Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.]. Vol. 251, no. 3, pp.
855-859. 29 Oct 1998.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Garg, Pankaj and Garg, Prahlad (2004). Mosquito coil (allethrin)
poisoining in two brothers.  Indian Pediatrics 41: 1177-1178.

Rejection Code:  HUMAN HEALTH.

Garrett, Neil E., Stack, H. Frank, and Waters, Michael D. (1986).
Evaluation of the genetic activity profiles of 65 pesticides.  Mutation
Research/Reviews in Genetic Toxicology 168: 301-325.

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

Ginsburg, K and Narahashi, T (1999). Time course and temperature
dependence of allethrin modulation of sodium channels in rat dorsal root
ganglion cells.  Brain Research 847: 38-49.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Ginsburg, K S and Narahashi, T (1993). Differential sensitivity of
tetrodotoxin-sensitive and tetrodotoxin-resistant sodium channels to the
insecticide allethrin in rat dorsal root ganglion neurons.  Brain
Research 627: 239-248.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Go, V., Garey, J., Wolff, M. S., and Pogo BGT* ( Estrogenic potential of
certain pyrethroid compounds in the MCF-7 human breast carcinoma cell
line.  Environmental Health Perspectives [Environ. Health Perspect.].
Vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 173-177. Mar 1999.

Rejection Code:  HUMAN HEALTH.

Grosman, Nina and Diel, Friedhelm (2005). Influence of pyrethroids and
piperonyl butoxide on the Ca(2+)-ATPase activity of rat brain
synaptosomes and leukocyte membranes.  International Immunopharmacology
5: 263-270.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Gupta, A., Nigam, D., Gupta, A., Shukla, G. S., and Agarwal, A. K.
(1999). Effect of Pyrethroid-Based Liquid Mosquito Repellent Inhalation
on the Blood-Brain Barrier Function and Oxidative Damage in Selected
Organs of Developing Rats.  J.Appl.Toxicol. 19: 67-72.

Rejection Code:  INHALE.

Gusovsky, F, Padgett, W L, Creveling, C R, and Daly, J W (1992).
Interaction of pumiliotoxin B with an "alkaloid-binding domain" on the
voltage-dependent sodium channel.  Molecular Pharmacology 42: 1104-1108.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Gusovsky, F, Secunda, S I, and Daly, J W (1989). Pyrethroids:
involvement of sodium channels in effects on inositol phosphate
formation in guinea pig synaptoneurosomes.  Brain Research  492: 72-78.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Herrera, A and Laborda, E (1988). Mutagenic activity in synthetic
pyrethroids in Salmonella typhimurium.  Mutagenesis 3: 509-514.

Rejection Code:  BACTERIA.

Hoffmann, Michael P., Gardner, Jeffrey, and Curtis, Paul D (2003).
Fiber-supported pesticidal compositions.  41 pp.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

Holan, G, O'keefe, D F, Virgona, C, and Walser, R (1978). Structural and
biological link between pyrethroids and DDT in new insecticides.  Nature
272: 734-736.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Hossain, Muhammad Mubarak, Suzuki, Tadahiko, Sato, Itaru, Takewaki,
Tadashi, Suzuki, Koichi, and Kobayashi, Haruo (2005). Neuromechanical
effects of pyrethroids, allethrin, cyhalothrin and deltamethrin on the
cholinergic processes in rat brain.  Life Sciences 77: 795-807.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Hour, T. C., Chen, L., and Lin, J. K. (1998). Comparative investigation
on the mutagenicities of organophosphate, phthalimide, pyrethroid and
carbamate insecticides by the Ames and lactam tests.  Mutagenesis 13:
157-166.

Rejection Code:  BACTERIA.

IHARA, H. (1995). MODE OF ACTION OF DELTA-ENDOTOXIN FROM BACILLUS
THURINGIENSIS VAR. AIZAWAI AU  - HIMENO M.  CLARK, J. M. (ED.). ACS
SYMPOSIUM SERIES, 591. MOLECULAR ACTION OF INSECTICIDES ON ION CHANNELS;
207TH NATIONAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, SAN DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA, USA, MARCH 13-17, 1994. X+356P. AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY:
WASHINGTON, DC, USA. ISBN 0-8243-3165-6.; 0: 330-343.

Rejection Code:  BACTERIA.

ISHIDATE, M. JR, HARNOIS MC, and SOFUNI, T. (1988). A COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF DATA ON THE CLASTOGENICITY OF 951 CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES TESTED
IN MAMMALIAN CELL CULTURES.   MUTAT RES; 195: 151-213.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Isobe, Naohiko, Matsuo, Masatoshi, and Miyamoto, Junshi (1984). Novel
photoproducts of allethrin.  Tetrahedron Letters 25: 861-864.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Jantan, I., Zaki, Z. M., Ahmad, A. R., and Ahmad, R. (1999). Evaluation
of smoke from mosquito coils containing Malaysian plants against Aedes
aegypti.  Fitoterapia 70: 237-243. Rejection Code:  NO TOXICANT.

JOHANSSON, U., EBENDAL, T., and ERIKSSON, P. (1995). INCREASED
EXPRESSION OF MUSCARINIC RECEPTOR SUBTYPE M4 MRNA IN MICE EXPOSED
NEONATALLY TO DDT AND RECEIVING BIOALLETHRIN AS ADULTS.  25TH ANNUAL
MEETING OF THE SOCIETY FOR NEUROSCIENCE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, USA,
NOVEMBER 11-16, 1995. SOCIETY FOR NEUROSCIENCE ABSTRACTS; 21: 751.

Rejection Code:  ABSTRACT.

Johansson, U. and Eriksson, P. (1994). Muscarinic receptor subtype m4
mRNA expression is increased in Rejection Code:  MIXTURE.

Johansson, U., Fredriksson, A., and Eriksson, P. (1993). Increased
Susceptibility to Pyrethroid (Bioallethrin) Exposure in the Adult Mouse
Neonatally Exposed to DDT -- Alterations in Muscarinic Cholinergic
Receptors and Behavioral Variables.  Life Sci. 52: 590 (ABS).

Rejection Code:  ABSTRACT.

Johansson, Ulrika, Fredriksson, Anders, and Eriksson, Per (1995).
Bioallethrin causes permanent changes in behavioural and muscarinic
acetylcholine receptor variables in adult mice exposed neonatally to
DDT.  European Journal of Pharmacology: Environmental Toxicology and
Pharmacology 293: 159-166.

Rejection Code:  MIXTURE.

Joy, Robert M., Albertson, Timothy E., and Ray, David E. (1989). Type I
and type II pyrethroids increase inhibition in the hippocampal dentate
gyrus of the rat.  Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 98: 398-412.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

KACMAR, P., PISTL, J., and MIKULA, I. (1999). Immunotoxicology and
veterinary medicine.  ACTA VETERINARIA BRNO; 68: 57-79.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

KATSUDA, Y. (1999). Development of and future prospects for pyrethroid
chemistry. 

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Khan, A. R., Ahmad, I., Naqvi, S. N. H., Majeed, I., Hafeez, A., and
Jahan, M. ( Determination of toxicity of RB-a (crude methanolic extract
of ripe berries kernel of neem) and SDS (neem formulation) as compared
with Coopex (permethrin and bioallethrin) against adult Tribolium
castaneum (Herbst.).  Proceedings of Pakistan Congress of Zoology. Vol.
14, pp. 33-37. 1994.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Kimmel, E. C., Casida, J. E., and Ruzo, L. O. ( Identification of
mutagenic photoproducts of the pyrethroids allethrin and terallethrin. 
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry [J. AGRIC. FOOD CHEM.]. Vol.
30, no. 4, pp. 623-626. 1982.

Rejection Code:  BACTERIA.

Klunker, R (1990). The appearance of insecticide resistance in Blattella
germanica in the German Democratic Republic.  Angewandte Parasitologie
31: 79-93.

Rejection Code:  HUMAN HEALTH.

Krief, A., Dumont, W., Pasau, P., and Lecomte, Ph. (1989).
Stereoselective synthesis of methyl (1R) - and (1R) -hemicaronaldehydes
from natural tartaric acid: Application to the synthesis of
s-bioallethrin and deltamethrin insecticides S.  Tetrahedron 45:
3039-3052 .

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Laufer, J., Roche, M., Pelhate, M., Elliott, M., Janes, N. F., and
Sattelles, D. B. (1984). Pyrethroid insecticides: Actions of
deltamethrin and related compounds on insect axonal sodium channels. 
Journal of Insect Physiology 30: 341-349.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Leake, L. D., Buckley, D. S., Ford, M. G., and Salt, D. W. (1985).
Comparative Effects of Pyrethroids on Neurons of Target and Non-target
Organisms.  Neurotoxicology 6: 99-116.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Lees, G (1998). Effects of pyrethroid molecules on rat nerves in vitro:
potential to reverse temperature-sensitive conduction block of
demyelinated peripheral axons.  British Journal Of Pharmacology 123:
487-496.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Leibowitz, M D, Sutro, J B, and Hille, B (1986). Voltage-dependent
gating of veratridine-modified Na channels.  The Journal Of General
Physiology 87: 25-46.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

LEIBOWITZ MD, SUTRO JB, and HILLE, B. (1985). 4 LIPID-SOLUBLE TOXINS
MODIFY SODIUM CHANNEL GATING.  29TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BIOPHYSICAL
SOCIETY, BALTIMORE, MD., USA, FEB. 24-28, 1985. BIOPHYS J; 47: 32A.

Rejection Code:  ABSTRACT.

LEPINE FL (1991). Effects of ionizing radiation on pesticides in a food
irradiation perspective: A bibliographic review.  J AGRIC FOOD CHEM; 39:
2112-2118.

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

Li, Gwo-Chen, Wong, Sue-San, and Tsai, Mei-Chen (2002). Safety
evaluation and regulatory control of pesticide residues in Taiwan. 
Yaowu Shipin Fenxi 10: 269-277.

Rejection Code:  HUMAN HEALTH. 

Lisi, P. (1992). SENSITIZATION RISK OF PYRETHROID INSECTICIDES.  Contact
Dermatitis 26 : 349-350.

Rejection Code:  HUMAN HEALTH.

Liu, W. K., Wong, M. H., and Mui, Y. L. (1987). Toxic Effects of
Mosquito Coil (a Mosquito Repellent) Smoke on Rats:  I.  Properties of
the Mosquito Coil and Its Smoke.  Toxicol.Lett. 39: 223-230.

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

Lund, A E and Narahashi, T (1982). Dose-dependent interaction of the
pyrethroid isomers with sodium channels of squid axon membranes. 
Neurotoxicology 3: 11-24.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Luo, Ma and Bodnaryk, Robert P. (1988). The effect of insecticides on
(Ca2+ + Mg2+)-ATPase and the ATP-dependent calcium pump in moth brain
synaptosomes and synaptosome membrane vesicles from the bertha armyworm,
Mamestra configurata Wlk.  Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 30:
155-165.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Majeed, I., Ahmad, I., Naqvi, S. N. H., Khan, A. R., Tabassum, R., and
Qureshi, I. ( Determination of toxicity of neem extracts (NfC and N-7)
and Coopex 25 EC (permethrin + bioallethrin) on pulse beetle
Callosobruchus analis.  Proceedings of Pakistan Congress of Zoology.
Vol. 14, pp. 43-49. 1994.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

MATSUDA, K., OKIMOTO, H., HAMADA, M., NISHIMURA, K., and FUJITA, T.
(1993). Neurophysiological effects of insecticidal pyrethroids and
methoxychlor and of the anticalmodulin agent W-7.  COMP BIOCHEM PHYSIOL
C COMP PHARMACOL TOXICOL; 104: 181-186.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

MATSUO, N. (1998). Synthetic pyrethroids containing a C-C triple bond. 
PESTICIDE SCIENCE; 52: 21-28.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Matsuoka, A, Hayashi, M, and Ishidate, M Jr (1979). Chromosomal
aberration tests on 29 chemicals combined with S9 mix in vitro. 
Mutation Research 66: 277-290.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Miyake, S., Beppu, R., Yamaguchi, Y., Kaneko, H., and Ohkawa, H. (1998).
Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies specific to the chrysanthemic acid
moiety of pyrethroid insecticides.  Pesticide Science 54 : 189-194.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Miyamoto, J (1976). Degradation, metabolism and toxicity of synthetic
pyrethroids.   Environmental Health Perspectives 14: 15-28.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

MIYAMOTO, J. (1989). STEREOSELECTIVE METABOLISM AND TOXICOLOGY OF
PYRETHROIDS.  HOLMSTEDT, B., H. FRANK AND B. TESTA (ED.). CHIRALITY AND
BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM, TUEBINGEN, WEST GERMANY,
APRIL 5-8, 1988. XVI+283P. ALAN R. LISS, INC.: NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA.
ILLUS. ISBN 0-471-56226-2.; 0: 153-168.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

MOSS MO (1991). INFLUENCE OF AGRICULTURAL BIOCIDES ON MYCOTOXIN
FORMATION IN CEREALS.  CHELKOWSKI, J. (ED.). DEVELOPMENTS IN FOOD
SCIENCE, VOL. 26. CEREAL GRAIN: MYCOTOXINS, FUNGI AND QUALITY IN DRYING
AND STORAGE. XXII+607P. ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS B.V.: AMSTERDAM,
NETHERLANDS; (DIST. IN THE USA AND CANADA BY ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHING
CO., INC.: NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA). ILLUS. MAPS. ISBN 0-444-88554-4.; 0
(0). 1991. 281-295.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

Moya-Quiles, M R, Munoz-Delgado, E, and Vidal, C J (1993). Effects of
allethrin on the thermotropic properties of phospholipid vesicles. 
Biochemical Society Transactions 21: 107S.

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

Moya-Quiles, M R, Munoz-Delgado, E, and Vidal, C J (1994). Interactions
of the pyrethroid insecticide allethrin with liposomes.  Archives Of
Biochemistry And Biophysics 312: 95-100.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Murayama, K, Abbott, N J, Narahashi, T, and Shapiro, B I (1972). Effects
of allethrin and Condylactis toxin on the kinetics of sodium conductance
of crayfish axon membranes.  Comparative And General Pharmacology 3:
391-400.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

NAKAGAWA, S., TAKAISHI, N., INAMOTO, Y., MASUDA, S., and YAMASHITA, O.
(1987). INSECTICIDAL TRICYCLOALKANECARBOXYLIC ESTERS.  AGRIC BIOL CHEM;
51: 1355-1364.

Rejection Code:  QSAR.

Narahashi, T ( Cellular and molecular mechanisms of action of
insecticides: neurophysiological approach.  Neurobehavioral Toxicology
and Teratology 4: 753-758.

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

NARAHASHI, T (1962). Effect of the insecticide allethrin on membrane
potentials of cockroach giant axons.  Journal of Cellular And
Comparative Physiology 59: 61-65.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

NARAHASHI, T. (1986). MECHANISMS OF ACTION OF PYRETHROIDS ON SODIUM AND
CALCIUM CHANNEL GATING.  FORD, M. G., ET AL. (ED.). ELLIS HORWOOD SERIES
IN BIOMEDICINE: NEUROPHARMACOLOGY AND PESTICIDE ACTION; NEUROTOX '85,
BATH, ENGLAND, 1985. 512P. VCH PUBLISHERS, INC.: NEW YORK, NEW YORK,
USA; WEINHEIM, WEST GERMANY; ELLIS HORWOOD LTD.: CHICHESTER, ENGLAND
(DIST. IN THE USA AND CANADA BY VCH PUBLISHERS: DEERFIELD BEACH,
FLORIDA, USA) Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

Narahashi, T (1969). Mode of action of DDT and allethrin on nerve:
cellular and molecular mechanisms.  Residue Reviews 25: 275-288.

Rejection Code:  REVIEW.

Narahashi, T (1982). Modification of nerve membrane sodium channels by
the insecticide pyrethroids.  Comparative Biochemistry And Physiology.
C: Comparative Pharmacology 72: 411-414.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Narahashi, T (1981). Modulation of nerve membrane sodium channels by
chemicals.  Journal De Physiologie 77: 1093-1101.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

NARAHASHI, T. (1986). MULTIPLE TARGET SITES OF INSECTICIDES.  191ST
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY NATIONAL MEETING, NEW YORK, N.Y., USA, APR.
13-18, 1986. ABSTR PAP AM CHEM SOC; 191: NO PAGINATION.

Rejection Code:  ABSTRACT.

NARAHASHI, T (1962). Nature of the negative after-potential increased by
the insecticide allethrin in cockroach giant axons.  Journal Of Cellular
And Comparative Physiology 59: 67-76.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

NARAHASHI, T. (1996). Neuronal ion channels as the target sites of
insecticides.  PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY; 79: 1-14.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

NARAHASHI, T. (1994). ROLE OF ION CHANNELS IN NEUROTOXICITY.  CHANG, L.
W. (ED.). NEUROLOGICAL DISEASE AND THERAPY, 26. PRINCIPLES OF
NEUROTOXICOLOGY. XVIII+800P. MARCEL DEKKER, INC.: NEW YORK, NEW YORK,
USA; BASEL, SWITZERLAND. ISBN 0-8247-8836-2.; 0: 609-658.

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

Narahashi, T (1986). Toxins that modulate the sodium channel gating
mechanism.  Annals Of The New York Academy Of Sciences 479: 133-151.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

Narahashi, T (1991). Transmitter-activated ion channels as the target of
chemical agents.  Advances In Experimental Medicine And Biology 287:
61-73.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Narahashi, T and Anderson, N C (1967). Mechanism of excitation block by
the insecticide allethrin applied externally and internally to squid
giant axons.  Toxicology And Applied Pharmacology 10: 529-547 .

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Narahashi, T., Frey, J. M., Ginsburg, K. S., and Roy, M. L. (1992).
Sodium and GABA-activated channels as the targets of pyrethroids and
cyclodienes.  Toxicology Letters 64-65: 429-436.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

NARAYANAN KS and CHAUDHURI RK (1993). N ALKYL PYRROLIDONE REQUIREMENT
FOR STABLE WATER-BASED MICROEMULSIONS.  DEVISETTY, B. N., D. G. CHASIN
AND P. D. BERGER (ED.). ASTM (AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND
MATERIALS) SPECIAL TECHNICAL PUBLICATION, NO. 1146. PESTICIDE
FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION SYSTEMS: 12TH VOLUME; TWELFTH SYMPOSIUM,
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, USA, OCTOBER 16-17, 1991. VIII+381P. ASTM
(AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS): PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA, USA. ISBN 0-8031-1439-7.; 0 (0). 1993. 85-104.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Oortgiesen, Marga, van Kleef, Regina G. D. M., and Vijverberg, Henk P.
M. (1989). Effects of pyrethroids on neurotransmitter-operated ion
channels in cultured mouse neuroblastoma cells.  Pesticide Biochemistry
and Physiology 34: 164-173.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Orchard, I. (1980). The effects of pyrethroids on the electrical
activity of neurosecretory cells from the brain of Rhodnius prolixus. 
Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 13: 220-226.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

OSBORNE MP (1986). INSECT NEUROSECRETORY CELLS STRUCTURAL AND
PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS INDUCED BY INSECTICIDES AND RELATED COMPOUNDS. 
FORD, M. G., ET AL. (ED.). ELLIS HORWOOD SERIES IN BIOMEDICINE:
NEUROPHARMACOLOGY AND PESTICIDE ACTION; NEUROTOX '85, BATH, ENGLAND,
1985. 512P. VCH PUBLISHERS, INC.: NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA; WEINHEIM,
WEST GERMANY; ELLIS HORWOOD LTD.: CHICHESTER, ENGLAND (DIST. IN THE USA
AND CANADA BY VCH PUBLISHERS: DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA, USA) ILLUS. ISBN
0-89573-424-9; ISBN 3-527-26340-3.; 0 (0). 1986. 203-243.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Pang, G. F., Fan, C. L., Chao, Y. Z., and Zhao, T. S. (1994). Rapid
Method for the Determination of Multiple Pyrethroid Residues in Fruits
and Vegetables by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography.  J.Chromatogr.A
667: 348-353.

Rejection Code:  NO DURATION.

Payne, N B, Herzberg, G R, and Howland, J L (1973). Influence of some
insecticides on the ATPase of mouse liver mitochondria.  Bulletin Of
Environmental Contamination And Toxicology 10: 365-367.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

PEARSON HA, LEES, G., and WRAY, D. (1993). Calcium channel currents in
neurones from locust Schistocerca gregaria thoracic ganglia.  J EXP
BIOL; 177: 201-221. 

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Pichon, Y (1995). Pharmacological induction of rhythmical activity and
plateau action potentials in unmyelinated axons.  Journal Of Physiology,
Paris 89: 171-180.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Ramadan, Adel A., Bakry, Nabila M., Marei, Abdel-Salam M., Eldefrawi,
Amira T., and Eldefrawi, Mohyee E. ( 1988). Action of pyrethroids on
K+-stimulated calcium uptake by, and [3H]nimodipine binding to, rat
brain synaptosomes.  Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 32: 114-122.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Ramadan, Adel A., Bakry, Nabila M., Marei, Abdel-Salam M., Eldefrawi,
Amira T., and Eldefrawi, Mohyee E. (1988). Actions of pyrethroids on the
peripheral benzodiazepine receptor.  Pesticide Biochemistry and
Physiology 32: 106-113.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

RAMOS TOMBO GM and BELLUS, D. (1991). Chirality and crop protection. 

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Reddy, G. P. V. and Murthy, M. M. K. (1989). Integrated Pest Management
in Rice.  Pesticides 23: 32F-32I.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

Rickett, F E and Henry, P B (1974). Quantitative determination of the
enantiomeric purity of synthetic pyrethroids. II. S-Bioallethrin.  The
Analyst 99: 330-337.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Rojakovick, Arnold S. and March, Ralph B. (1976). Insecticide cyclic
nucleotide interactions :  I. Quinoxalinedithiol derivatives: A new
group of potent phosphodiesterase inhibitors.  Pesticide Biochemistry
and Physiology 6: 10-19.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

ROY ML and GINSBURG KS (1994). Recent advances in the study of mechanism
of action of marine neurotoxins. AU  - NARAHASHI T.  NEUROTOXICOLOGY
(LITTLE ROCK); 15: 545-554.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Rueegg, Willy T (2004). Synergistic herbicidal compositions comprising
insecticides.  380 pp.

Rejection Code:  NON-ENGLISH.

Rueegg, Willy T (2004). Synergistic herbicidal compositions comprising
insecticides.  380 pp. Rejection Code:  NON-ENGLISH.

Rueegg, Willy T (2004). Synergistic herbicidal compositions comprising
isoxazolinylsulfonylbenzoylpyrazole derivs. in combination with
insecticides.  49 pp.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

Ruegg, Willy T (2004). Selective synergistic herbicidal compositions. 
524 pp.

Rejection Code:  NON-ENGLISH.

Ruigt, G. Sf and Van, D. E. N. Bercken J (1986). Action of pyrethroids
on a nerve-muscle preparation of the clawed frog, Xenopus laevis. 
Pestic Biochem Physiol 25 : 176-187.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Saito Koichi, Tomigahara Yoshitaka, Ohe Norihisa , Isobe Naohiko,
Nakatsuka Iwao, and Kaneko Hideo ( Lack of Significant Estrogenic or
Antiestrogenic Activity of Pyrethroid Insecticides in Three in Vitro
Assays Based on Classic Estrogen Receptor alpha -Mediated Mechanisms. 
Toxicological Sciences [Toxicol. Sci.]. Vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 54-60. Sep
2000.

Rejection Code:  HUMAN HEALTH.

SATOH, T., SUZUKI, S., KAWAI, N., NAKAMURA, T., and HOSOKAWA, M. (1999).
Toxicological significance in the cleavage of
esterase-beta-glucuronidase complex in liver microsomes by
organophosphorus compounds.  CHEMICO-BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS; 119-120:
471-478.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Schneider, R P (1975). Mechanism of inhibition of rat brain (Na +
K)-adenosine triphosphatase by
2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT).  Biochemical
Pharmacology 24: 939-946.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

SCOTT JG (1988). PYRETHROID INSECTICIDES.  ISI ATLAS SCI PHARMACOL; 2:
125-128.

Rejection Code:  REVIEW.

Settlemire, C T, Huston, A S, Jacobs, L S, Havey, J C, and Howland, J L
(1974). Action of some insecticides on membranes of mouse liver
mitochondria.  Bulletin Of Environmental Contamination And Toxicology
11: 169-173.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Sherby, Shebl M., Eldefrawi, Amira T., Deshpande, Sharad S.,
Albuquerque, Edson X., and Eldefrawi, Mohyee E. (1986). Effects of
pyrethroids on nicotinic acetylcholine receptor binding and function. 
Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 26: 107-115.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Singh, M. (2003). Biochemical Changes due to the Toxic Effects of
Mosquito Repellent Mats on Mice.  J.Ecotoxicol.Environ.Monit. 13:
123-127 .

Rejection Code:  INHALE.

Sinha, C., Agrawal, A. K. *., Islam, F., Seth, K., Chaturvedi, R. K.,
Shukla, S., and Seth, P. K. ( Mosquito repellent (pyrethroid-based)
induced dysfunction of blood-brain barrier permeability in developing
brain.  International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience [Int. J.
Dev. Neurosci.]. Vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 31-37. Feb 2004.

Rejection Code:  INHALE.

SPERELAKIS, N. (1992). CHEMICAL AGENT ACTIONS ON ION CHANNELS AND
ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY OF THE HEART.  ACOSTA, D. JR. (ED.). TARGET ORGAN
TOXICOLOGY SERIES: CARDIOVASCULAR TOXICOLOGY, SECOND EDITION. XII+560P.
RAVEN PRESS: NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA. ILLUS. ISBN 0-88167-937-2.; 0:
283-338.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Stan, Hans-Jurgen (2000). Pesticide residue analysis in foodstuffs
applying capillary gas chromatography with mass spectrometric detection.
State-of-the-art use of modified DFG-multi-method S19 and automated data
evaluation.  Journal of Chromatography, A 892: 347-377.

Rejection Code :  CHEM METHODS.

Starkus, John G. and Narahashi, Toshio (1978). Temperature dependence of
allethrin-induced repetitive discharges in nerves.  Pesticide
Biochemistry and Physiology 9: 225-230.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Stelzer, K J and Gordon, M A (1984). Effects of pyrethroids on
lymphocyte membrane lipid packing order.   Journal Of Immunopharmacology
6: 389-410. 

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Stelzer, K J and Gordon, M A (1984). Effects of pyrethroids on
lymphocyte mitogenic responsiveness.  Research Communications In
Chemical Pathology And Pharmacology 46: 137-150.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Stelzer, K J and Gordon, M A (1988). Interactions of pyrethroids with
gramicidin-containing liposomal membranes.  Biochimica Et Biophysica
Acta 938:  114-120.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Stelzer, K J and Gordon, M A (1985). Interactions of pyrethroids with
phosphatidylcholine bilayers: comparisons in liposomal systems
exhibiting large or small radii of curvature.  Chemico-Biological
Interactions 54: 105-116.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Stelzer, K J and Gordon, M A (1985). Interactions of pyrethroids with
phosphatidylcholine liposomal membranes.  Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta
812:  361-368. Rejection Code:  METHODS.

STIMMANN MW and FERGUSON MP (1990). PROGRESS REPORT VICE PRESIDENT'S
TASK FORCE ON PEST CONTROL ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL PESTICIDE USE
CANCELLATIONS IN CALIFORNIA USA.  CALIF AGRIC; 44: 12-16.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

Sumer, S, Diril, N, and Izbirak, A (1990). The mutagenicity of some
insecticides in the Salmonella/microsome test system.  Mikrobiyoloji
Bulteni 24: 103-110.

Rejection Code:  BACTERIA.

Sumida, K., Saito, K., Ooe, N., Isobe, N., Kaneko, H., and Nakatsuka, I.
( Evaluation of in vitro methods for detecting the effects of various
chemicals on the human progesterone receptor, with a focus on pyrethroid
insecticides.  Toxicology Letters [Toxicol. Lett.]. Vol. 118, no. 3, pp.
147-155. 3 Jan 2001.

Rejection Code:  HUMAN HEALTH.

Takeno, K, Tsurukame, T, and Yanagiya, I (1983). Involvement of
cholinergic mechanism in the action of allethrin in insect CNS.  The
Journal Of Toxicological Sciences 8: 269-278.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Tasaki, I (1978). Further studies of periodic miniature response in
squid giant axons.  Japanese Journal Of Physiology 28: 89-108.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Tice, Colin M (2002). Selecting the right compounds for screening: use
of surface-area parameters.  Pest Management Science 58: 219-233.

Rejection Code:  CHEM METHODS. 

Tsuji, Ryozo, Kobayashi, Kumiko, Ikeda, Maya, Yoshioka, Takafumi,
Yamada, Tomoya, Seki, Takaki , Okuno, Yasuyoshi, Nakatsuka, Iwao,
Tsuruo, Yoshihiro, and Kishioka et, al. ( Lack of changes in brain
muscarinic receptor and motor activity of mice after neonatal inhalation
exposure to d-allethrin.  Journal Of Applied Toxicology: JAT 22:
423-429.

Rejection Code:  INHALE.

Ueda, K, Gaughan, L C, and Casida, J E ( Photodecomposition of
resmethrin and related pyrethroids.  Journal Of Agricultural And Food
Chemistry 22: 212-220.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Utunomiya, A., Hasegawa, K., and Mori, Y. (1997). Analysis of pyrethroid
pesticides, synergists and repellent in moth/mite-proofed household
products and their mutagenicity.  Japanese Journal of Toxicology and
Environmental Health [JAP.J.TOXICOL.ENVIRON.HEALTH] 43: 366-375.

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

Van den Bercken, J. (1977). The Action of Allethrin on the Peripheral
Nervous System of the Frog.  Pestic Sci 8: 692-699.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Van den Bercken, J., Akkermans, L. M. A., and Van der Zalm, J. M.
(1973). DDT-Like Action of Allethrin in the Sensory Nervous System of
Xenopus laevis.  Eur.J.Pharmacol. 21: 95-106.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Van den Bercken, J. and Vijverberg, H. P. M.  (1980). Voltage Clamp
Studies on the Effects of Allethrin and DDT on the Sodium Channels in
Frog Myelinated Nerve Membrane.  Proc.Soc.Chemical Industry Symp.,
Soc.Chem.Ind., London, England 79-85.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Vandewalle, M. and Madeleyn, E. (1970). Cyclopentanones--III :  A new
synthesis of (+/-) allethrolone.  Tetrahedron 26: 3551-3554.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

VARMA, J. and DUBEY NK (1999). Prospectives of botanical and microbial
products as pesticides of tomorrow.  CURRENT SCIENCE (BANGALORE); 76:
172-179.

Rejection Code:  BACTERIA.

Vashkov, V I, Volkov, Iu P, Volkova, A P, Zubova, G M, Polishchuk, L A,
Starkov, A V, and Shenkman, I A (1966). Pyrethrins and related
compounds. Insecticidal properties of allethrin.  Zhurnal Mikrobiologii,
Epidemiologii, i Immunobiologii 43: 114-117.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

Vijverberg, H P, van der Zalm, J M, and van der Bercken, J (1982).
Similar mode of action of pyrethroids and DDT on sodium channel gating
in myelinated nerves.  Nature 295: 601-603.

Rejection Code:  NO SPECIES.

VIJVERBERG, H. PM, DE WEILLE JR, RUIGT, G. SF, and VAN DEN BERCKEN J
(1986). THE EFFECT OF PYRETHROID STRUCTURE ON THE INTERACTION WITH THE
SODIUM CHANNEL IN THE NERVE MEMBRANE.  FORD, M. G., ET AL. (ED.). ELLIS
HORWOOD SERIES IN BIOMEDICINE: NEUROPHARMACOLOGY AND PESTICIDE ACTION;
NEUROTOX '85, BATH, ENGLAND, 1985. 512P. VCH PUBLISHERS, INC.: NEW YORK,
NEW YORK, USA; WEINHEIM, WEST GERMANY; ELLIS HORWOOD LTD.: CHICHESTER,
ENGLAND (DIST. IN THE USA AND CANADA BY VCH PUBLISHERS: DEERFIELD BEACH,
FLORIDA, USA) ILLUS. ISBN 0-89573-424-9; ISBN 3-527-26340-3.; 0 (0).
1986. 267-286.

Rejection Code:  QSAR. 

Vijverberg, Henk P. M.,  Ruigt, GeS. F., and van den Bercken, Joep
(1982). Structure-related effects of pyrethroid insecticides on the
lateral-line sense organ and on peripheral nerves of the clawed frog,
Rejection Code:  QSAR.

Waerngaard Lars and Flodstroem Sten ( Effects of tetradecanoylphorbol
acetate, pyrethroids and ddt in the v79.  Cell Biology and Toxicology
(1989), 5(1), 67-75 Coden: Cbtoe2; Issn: 0742-2091.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Wang, C M, Narahashi, T, and Scuka, M (1972). Mechanism of negative
temperature coefficient of nerve blocking action of allethrin.  The
Journal Of Pharmacology And Experimental Therapeutics 182: 442-453.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Wang, J H and Stelzer, A (1994). Inhibition of phosphatase 2B prevents
expression of hippocampal long-term potentiation.  Neuroreport 5:
2377-2380.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

WANG Y-Z (1991). SYNTHESIS AND ACTIVITY OF A NEW TYPE PYRETHROID JS-88. 
FOURTH CHEMICAL CONGRESS OF NORTH AMERICA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA,
AUGUST 25-30, 1991. ABSTR PAP AM CHEM SOC; 202: AGRO 15.

Rejection Code:  METHODS/ABSTRACT.

Warngard, L and Flodstrom, S (1989). Effects of tetradecanoyl phorbol
acetate, pyrethroids and DDT in the V79.  Cell Biology And Toxicology 5:
67-75.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

WATSON JE (1996). PESTICIDES AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION.  PEPPER, I. L.,
C. P. GERBA AND M. L. BRUSSEAU (ED.). POLLUTION SCIENCE. XXIV+397P.
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.: SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, USA; LONDON, ENGLAND, UK.
ISBN 0-12-550660-0.; 0: 253-266.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

WATSON, P. and FORD MG (1992). THE KINETICS OF INSECTICIDE FLUX ACROSS
ISOLATED INSECT CUTICLE.  MEETING OF THE PHYSICOCHEMICAL AND BIOPHYSICAL
PANEL OF THE SCI PESTICIDES GROUP, LONDON, ENGLAND, UK, MARCH 26, 1991.
PESTIC SCI; 34: 91-92.

Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Wild, A., Oberweis, A. L., and Ruehle, W. (1977). The Effect of the
Insecticides Allethrin, Lindane, and "Jacutin-Fogetten" Sublimate on the
Photosynthetic Electron Transport (Wirkung der Insektizide Allethrin,
Lindan und Jacutin-Fogetten-Sublimat auf den Photosynthetischen
Elektronentransport).  Z Pflanzenp 82: 161-172.

Rejection Code:  NON-ENGLISH.

Wing, K D and Hammock, B D (1979). Stereoselectivity of a
radioimmunoassay for the insecticide S-bioallethrin.  Experientia 35:
1619-1620.

Rejection Code:  METHODS.

Wing, K D, Hammock, B D, and Wustner, D A ( Development of an
S-bioallethrin specific antibody.  Journal Of Agricultural And Food
Chemistry 26: 1328-1333.

Rejection Code:  NO TOX DATA.

WORTHING CR (1991). THE PESTICIDE MANUAL A WORLD COMPENDIUM 9TH EDITION.
 WORTHING, C. R. (ED.). THE PESTICIDE MANUAL: A WORLD COMPENDIUM, 9TH
EDITION. XLVII+1141P. BRITISH CROP PROTECTION COUNCIL: FARNHAM, ENGLAND,
UK. ILLUS. ISBN 0-948404-42-6.; 0: XLVII+1141P.

Rejection Code:  ABSTRACT.

Wouter, W., Van den Bercken, J., and Van Ginneken, A. (1977).
Presynaptic Action of the Pyrethroid Insecticide Allethrin in the Frog
Motor End Plate.  Eur.J.Pharmacol. 43: 163-171.

Chem Codes:  Chemical of Concern: ATN,PYT  Rejection Code:  IN VITRO.

Yamamoto, I, Elliott, M, and Casida, J E (1971). The metabolic fate of
pyrethrin I, pyrethrin II, and allethrin.  Bulletin Of The World Health
Organization 44: 347-348.

Rejection Code:  NO METABOLISM.

Yang, X (1989). Study on inhibiting effect of 14 insecticides on
esterase of Culex tritaeniorhynchus from five geographic populations. 
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi = Zhonghua Liuxingbingxue Zazhi 10:
164-166.

Rejection Code:  NON-ENGLISH.

Yap, H. H., Chong, A. S. C., Adanan, C. R., Chong, N. L., Rohaizat, B.,
Malik, Y. A., and Lim, S. Y. (1997). Performance of ULV Formulations
(Pesguard 102/Vectobac 12AS) Against Three Mosquito Species. 
J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 13: 384-388.

Rejection Code:  BIOLOGICAL TOXICANT/MIXTURE.

APPENDIX H:

Rat Acute Oral Toxicity Data for Formulated Products Containing
Allethrins: Based on Data from the OPP Integrative Hazard Assessment
Database (IHAD)

The following table includes 6-pack rat oral studies on allethrin
formulations from studies that were deemed acceptable by HED reviewer:

PRODUCT NAME/

REGISTRATION NO.	ACTIVE INGREDIENTS/ PERCENT OF FORMULATED PRODUCT	RAT
LD50	MRID

RAID WASP & HORNET KILLER AD/ 04822-00451 and SPIN OUT SPRAY/
67690-00028	Chlorpyrifos 	                        0.25%

d-Trans-Allethrin                         0.20%

	>5,000 mg/kg	439144-07

4822-LRG RAID FIK FORMULA H1A/ 04822-00513 and RAID FLK FORMULA H1A/
04822-00513	Permethrin                                   0.10%

Tetramethrin                                0.35%

d-cis/trans allethrin                      0.10%	>5,000 mg/kg	44817404

D-PHENOTHRIN 2% INSECTICIDE AEROSOL/ 39398-00001 and NS 4/1 WB/
39398-00010	Sumithrin                                     1.00%

By-products of sumithrin             0.08%

Pynamin forte                              1.00%

By-products of allethrin               0.07%

Tetramethrin                                1.00%

By-products of tetramethrin         0.05%

Repellent                                      3.00%	>16 ml/kg	00054529

TC 96/ 00499-00412	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Pyrethrins                     
               1.00%

d-trans allethrin                            1.00%

Piperonyl butoxide                       4.00%

n-Octyl bicycloheptene 

     dicarboximide                         4.33%	4,890 mg/kg	430124-02

MULTICIDE FOGGING FORMULA 2170/ 01021-01402 and RAOG/ EVERCIDE®
Residual Pump Spray 2641/ 01021-01693	Neo-pynamin                       
       0.14%

Sumithrin                                     0.23%

MGK-264                                    2.00%

Piperonyl butoxide                      2.00%

d-trans allethrin                           0.23%	2,100 mg/kg	00111991

HARTZ 2 IN 1 FLEA KILLER FOR DOGS WITH ALLETHRIN/ 02596-00097 and HARTZ
2 IN 1 FLEA & TICK KILLER FOR CATS WITH ALLETHRIN/ 2596-00098	d-trans
Allethrin                           0.05%

3-phenoxybenzyl-2,2dimethyl-

      392-methylprop-l-enyl           0.05% cylopropanecarboxylate N-

      octyl bicycloheptane 

      dicarboximide                        0.19%

	>5,000 mg/kg	41657302

BENGAL INDOOR FOGGER 92/ 068543-00006	3-phenoxybenzyl-(1RS, 3RS;

      1RS, 3SR)-2,2-dimethyl-3-

      (2-methylprop-l-enyl)    

      cyclopropanecarboxylate       2.00%

d-trans allethrin                            1.50%

Piperonyl butoxide                       0.40%	> 5000 mg/kg	425098-03

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Chemsico Aerosol Spray A/ 09688-00112	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 Permethrin	                        0.20%						0.20

d-trans Allethrin	                        0.05%					0.05

n-alkyl (60% C14,  30% C16,   5% 

      C12 , 5% C 18) dimethyl benzyl

      ammonimum chlorides (40%) 

      and n-alkyl (50% C12,   30% C14

         17% C16, 3% C18) dimethyl

      ethylbenzyl ammonium 

      chlorides (40%)                     0.20%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
>5050 mg/kg	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 43748404

CHEMSICO WASP & HORNET KILLER T/ 09688-00117	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Tralomethrin                                0.01%

d-trans Allethrin                           0.05%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
>5050 mg/kg	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 440420-03

CHEMSICO AEROSOL INSECTICIDE LD/ 09688-00230	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
d-trans Allethrin	                        0.05%						0.05	

Lambda-Cyhalothrin	          0.01%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 > 5000 mg/kg	 
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 46466204.

DURSBAN WB05 III/ 62719-00197	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Chlorpyrifos        
                        0.49%

MGK-264                                     0.17%

Piperonyl butoxide                       0.10% 

d-trans allethrin                            0.05%	> 5000 mg/kg	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 43994303

BENGAL WATER-BASED WASP & HORNET KILLER/ 68543-00011	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1 Permethrin                                   0.10%

Piperonyl butoxide                       0.40%

d-trans-Allethrin	                        0.05%	> 5000 mg/kg	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 43338903

MULTICIDE SUMITHRIN 90% CONCENTRATE/ 01021-01383; MULTICIDE FOGGING
FORMULA 2170/ 01021-01402; BLACK FLAG PROFESSIONAL POWER HOUSE & GARDEN
INSECT KILLER-FORMULA "D”/ 69421-00013; and BLACK FLAG TRIPLE ACTIVE
BUG KILLER/ 69421-00014	Neo-pynamin                               1.00%

Sumithrin                                     1.67%

MGK-264                                    15.0%

Piperonyl butoxide                      15.0%

d-trans allethrin                           1.67%	2,100 mg/kg	00111991

BLACK FLAG ANT & ROACH KILLER FORMULA F/ 69421-00080	d-trans allethrin  
                         0.09%

Permethrin                                   0.24%

Piperonyl butoxide                       0.59%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 >
5000 mg/kg	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 426966-06

SBP-1382/BIOALLETHRIN AQUEOUS PRESSURIZED SPRAY/ 73049-00085	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 Resmethrin	                        0.20%

d-trans-Allethrin		          0.15%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 >5050 mg/kg
43261101

D-TRANS INTERMEDIATE 1808/ 01021-01026	d-trans Allethrin                
           0.2%

Piperonyl butoxide                      1.00%

Methoxychlor                              1.00%

2-Hydroxyethyl-n-octyl sulfide   0.95%

Petroleum distillate                      5.99%	11.3 ml/kg	00073659

BIORAM 7.5% - 12.5% INSECTICIDE CONCENTRATE/ 73049-00120	  SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1 d-trans-Allenthrin	         12.5% Permethrin                    
              7.50%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 4866 mg/kg	43260901

BIORAM 0.15% + 0.25% INSECTICIDE AQUEOUS PRESSURIZED SPRAY/ 73049-00121
d-trans-Allenthrin	          0.15% Permethrin                           
       0.25%	> 5 ml/kg	242582 (ACC. No.)

SBP-1382/ ESBIOTHRIN/ PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE INSECT. CONC. 5%-10%-40% FORM
I/ 73049-00137 and DS 205 INSECTICIDE/ 73049-00177	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Piperonyl butoxide	         40.0%

S-Bioallethrin		         10.0%

Resmethrin	                        05.0%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 2132
mg/kg	43261001

BUG STOMPER 4-3/ 74621-00002	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Resmethrin           
                      4.00%

d-trans allethrin                           3.00%	>   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1 5000 mg/kg	45267201

AMERICARE PET POUR-ON/ 04691-RLI	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Fenoxycarb       
                          5.00% 

N-Octyl bicycloheptene 

       Dicarboximide                      4.00%

Piperonyl butoxide                       2.00%

S-Bioallethrin                               0.80%

Permethrin, mixed cis,trans         0.80%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 > 5010
mg/kg	43658203

DS 530 INSECTICIDE/ 73049-00180 and ULTRATEC KD AC/ 73049-00184	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 S-Bioallethrin	                        0.15%

Deltamethrin                                0.02%

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 > 5050 mg/kg	44445904

DSP 0.25 - 2.5 - 25 AC/ 73049-00210	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Piperonyl
butoxide	         25.0%						25.00

S-Bioallethrin		         2.50%							  2.50

Deltamethrin		         0.25%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 >5000   mg/kg
45034504

DS 0.572 - 2.86 OB AC/ 73049-00354	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 S- Bioallethrin
                        2.86% 

Deltamethrin	                        0.57%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 5000
mg/kg	45066104

DS  105-OB Insecticide/ 73049-00390	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Deltamethrin		
         0.01%					0.01

S-Bioallethrin		          0.05%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 > 5000 mg/kg
45065705

DSP  515 Insecticide/ 73049-GIO	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Deltamethrin		    
     0.01%					0.005	

S-Bioallethrin		          0.10%					0.100

Piperonyl Butoxide	          0.50%	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 > 5000 mg/kg
45034604

RAID FORMULA 5 FLYING INSECT KILLER/ 04822-00284	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
D-cis/trans allethrin                     0.14%

3-phenoxybenzyl d-cis and 

      trans 2,2-dimethyl  3- (2-    

      methylpropenyl     

      cyclopropanecarboxylate       0.14%

Piperonyl Butoxide                      0.50%	> 5000 mg/kg	43751905

PYNAMIN FORTE MOSQUITO COIL/ 10308-00017	d-cis, trans allethrin         
           0.26%

Other isomers                               0.01%	> 5000 mg/kg	00141405



APPENDIX I:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 T-REX (Version 1.2.3) Input Parameters and Outputs
for Allethrins at Various Application Rates

Chemical Name:	ALLETHRIN

Use	Wasp and Hornet Spray

Application Rate 	13.76 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 	35 days 

Endpoints

Avian	Bobwhite quail 	LD50 (mg/kg-bw)	2030.00

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Dietary-based EECs  (ppm)	Kenaga Values	

Short Grass 	3302.40

Tall Grass 	1513.60

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects	1857.60

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	206.40

Avian Results	 

Dose-based RQs  

(Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD50)		Avian Acute RQs

		20 g	100 g	1000 g

Short Grass	2.57	1.15	0.37

Tall Grass		1.18	0.53	0.17

Broadleaf plants/sm insects	1.45	0.65	0.21

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	0.16	0.07	0.02

Mean Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Dietary-based EECs  (ppm)	Kenaga Values	

Short Grass 	1169.60

Tall Grass 	495.36

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects	619.32

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	96.32

Avian Results	 

Dose-based RQs  

(Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD50)		Avian Acute RQs

		20 g	100 g	1000 g

Short Grass	0.91	0.41	0.13

Tall Grass		0.39	0.17 	0.05

Broadleaf plants/sm insects		0.48	0.22	0.07

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	0.08	0.03	0.01

Chemical Name:	ALLETHRIN

Use	Wasp and Hornet Spray

Application Rate 	2.7 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 	35 days 

Endpoints

Avian	Bobwhite quail 	LD50 (mg/kg-bw)	2030.00

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Dietary-based EECs  (ppm)	Kenaga Values	

Short Grass 	648.00

Tall Grass 	297.00

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects	364.50

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	40.50

Avian Results	 

Dose-based RQs  

(Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD50)		Avian Acute RQs

		20 g	100 g	1000 g

Short Grass	0.50	0.23	0.07

Tall Grass		0.23	0.10	0.03

Broadleaf plants/sm insects	0.28	0.13	0.04

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	0.03	0.01	0.00

Chemical Name:	ALLETHRIN

Use	Wasp and Hornet Spray

Application Rate 	0.5 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 	35 days 

Endpoints

Avian	Bobwhite quail 	LD50 (mg/kg-bw)	2030.00

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Dietary-based EECs  (ppm)	Kenaga Values	

Short Grass 	120.00

Tall Grass 	55.00

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects	67.50

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	7.50

Avian Results	 

Dose-based RQs  

(Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD50)		Avian Acute RQs

		20 g	100 g	1000 g

Short Grass	0.09	0.04	0.01

Tall Grass		0.04	0.02	0.01

Broadleaf plants/sm insects	0.05	0.02	0.01

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	0.01	0.00	0.00

Chemical Name:	ALLETHRIN

Use	Wasp and Hornet Spray

Application Rate 	0.4 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 	35 days 

Endpoints

Mammal	Rat 	LD50 (mg/kg-bw)		378

 		NOAEL (mg/kg-bw)	13

		NOAEC (mg/kg-diet)	260

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Dietary-based EECs  (ppm)	Kenaga Values		

Short Grass 	96.00

Tall Grass 	44.00

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects	54.00

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	6.00

Mammalian Results	 

Dose-based RQs  

(Dose-based EEC)			Mammalian Acute RQs

		15 g	35 g	1000 g

Short Grass	0.11	0.09	0.05

Tall Grass		0.05	0.04	0.02

Broadleaf plants/sm insects	0.06	0.05	0.03

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	0.01	0.01	0.00

Seeds	0.00	0.00	0.00

Chemical Name:	ALLETHRIN

Use	Wasp and Hornet Spray

Application Rate 	0.13 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 	35 days 

Endpoints

Mammal	Rat 	LD50 (mg/kg-bw)		378

 		NOAEL (mg/kg-bw)	13

		NOAEC (mg/kg-diet)	260

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Dietary-based EECs  (ppm)	Kenaga Values	

Short Grass 	31.20

Tall Grass 	14.30

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects	17.55

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	1.95

Mammalian Results	 

Dose-based RQs  

(Dose-based EEC)			Mammalian Chronic RQs

		15 g	35 g	1000 g

Short Grass	1.04	0.89	0.48

Tall Grass		0.48	0.41	0.22

Broadleaf plants/sm insects	0.59	0.50	0.27

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	0.07	0.06	0.03

Seeds	0.01	0.01	0.01

Chemical Name:	ALLETHRIN

Use	Wasp and Hornet Spray

Application Rate 	1.1 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 	35 days 

Endpoints

Mammal	Rat 	LD50 (mg/kg-bw)		378

 		NOAEL (mg/kg-bw)	13

		NOAEC (mg/kg-diet)	260

Dietary-based RQs

(Dietary-based EEC)

Mammalian Chronic RQs

Short Grass		1.02

Tall Grass		0.47

Broadleaf plants/sm insects	0.57

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	0.06

	

Chemical Name:	ALLETHRIN

Use	Wasp and Hornet Spray

Application Rate 	0.18 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 	35 days 

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Dietary-based EECs  (ppm)	Kenaga Values	

Short Grass 	43.20

Tall Grass 	19.80

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects	24.30

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	2.70

Chemical Name:	ALLETHRIN

Use	Outdoor Fogger

Application Rate 	0.0026 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 	35 days 

Endpoints

Avian	Bobwhite quail 	LD50 (mg/kg-bw)	2030.00

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Dietary-based EECs  (ppm)	Kenaga Values	

Short Grass 	0.62

Tall Grass 	0.29

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects	0.35

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	0.04

Avian Results	 

Dose-based RQs  

(Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD50)		Avian Acute RQs

		20 g	100 g	1000 g

Short Grass	0.00	0.00	0.00

Tall Grass		0.00	0.00	0.00

Broadleaf plants/sm insects	0.00	0.00	0.00

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects	0.00	0.00	0.00

 The amount of diet eaten in a day for the different avian weight
classes were obtained from T-REX.

 PAGE   49 

 PAGE   2 

഍伍䙆䍉⁅䙏倍䕒䕖呎佉ⱎ倠卅䥔䥃䕄⁓乁ൄ佔䥘⁃啓
卂䅔䍎卅഍汁敬桴楲⁮灁汰捩瑡潩൮攨朮Ⱞ愠牥獯汯猠
牰祡‬慭ⱴ挠楯ⱬ映杯敧Ⱳ瀠瑥猠慨灭潯搯灩ഩ名牥敲
瑳楲污䔠癮物湯敭瑮൳䄍畱瑡捩䔠癮物湯敭瑮൳

옍



!

.

/

O

!

/

O

P

Î

Ï

å

æ

ú

û

 O

P

]

e

r

%

)

:

C

e

…

–

·

Ë

Í

Î

Ï

Ð

Ô

ã

ê

ð

ú

û

û

h„

@

h„

愀Ĥ摧䓬

摧䓬

摧䓬

j

@

 h

@

&

&

&

&

@

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

@

@

&

@

@

 hï#

 h3

Ff

 h

kd

@

 h§

 h§

 h§

üòüæÞæÖÉÖ¾±¾Ö¾Ö¾Ö¾Ö¾ªü üòü üò›üæÞæÖ
ü üò“üæÞæÖü‹ü›ü„ü hd.

 h

 h

  h

-



(

)

\

]

Ÿ

 

ã

ä

 

@

 

*

+

X

^

g

@

g

h

p

u

~

@

~



…

¢

«

@

«

¬

É

å

î

@

î

ï

ø

@

@

@

@

kdo

@

@

@

kd—

@

@

@

 h§

@

kd

	眹眺

	矱矲

G

瑹窮9Ā

h7

.鋭鋮

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

瑹㜌

(

)

7

?

@

N

Ë

Ì

Í

å

ö

D

Y

  h 

Ḇ

-

-

-

-

-

 h 

-

-

-

-

-

옍

-

-

Æ

Æ

Æ

옍

옍

摧䓬

Æ

Æ

Æ

옍

옍

摧䓬

옍

摧䓬

옍

옍

摧䓬

옍

옍

옍

옍

옍

옍

옍

옍

Æ

萏ː萑ﴰ␱㜀$␸䠀$葞ː葠ﴰ摧䓬

옍

옍

Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, Terrestrial-Phase Amphibians, Terrestrial
Invertebrates

Acute Effects

(Mortality)

Chronic Effects (Reduced Growth, Survival, Reproduction)

Spray Drift

Ingestion    Dermal Uptake

Ingestion    Dermal Uptake

FIGURE 1:  Conceptual plan diagram depicting sources of exposure,
potential receptors and adverse effects from the supported uses of
allethrins.

Public Owned Treatment Works (POTW)

Runoff 

Disposal of Shampoo/Dip 

Down Drain

Fish, Aquatic-Phase Amphibians, Aquatic Invertebrates

