derivation of combined species sensitivity distributions for acute … · 2019. 5. 20. ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Derivation of Combined Species Sensitivity Distributions for
Acute Toxicity of Pyrethroids to Aquatic Animals
DATA REQUIREMENT(S): OCSPP 835.SUPP
OCSPP 850.SUPP
AUTHOR(S): Jeffrey Giddings, Compliance Services International
Jeffrey Wirtz, Compliance Services International
David Campana, Compliance Services International
Michael Dobbs, Bayer CropScience
Gary Mitchell, FMC Corporation
STUDY COMPLETED ON: October 13, 2016
SPONSOR: Pyrethroid Working Group
Landis International, Inc.
P.O. Box 5126
Valdosta, GA 31603-5126
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION: Compliance Services International
7501 Bridgeport Way West
Lakewood, WA 98499
SPONSOR PROJECT ID: PWG-ERA-21
PAGE 1 of 51
Preface
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA/OPP) is
currently conducting a Registration Review of synthetic pyrethroids; the status of the review is
publicly available (EPA 2016). Separate publicly accessible dockets1 have been established by
EPA/OPP which provide detailed evaluation documents, including data call-ins, for each of these
pyrethroids.
The Pyrethroid Working Group (PWG) is a task force whose members include the six primary
registrants2 of the following nine synthetic pyrethroid active ingredients: bifenthrin, cyfluthrin,
cyhalothrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, permethrin, and tefluthrin.
The PWG is submitting this study in support of the Registration Review of these nine synthetic
pyrethroid active ingredients. It is understood that EPA/OPP may also rely upon this study in
support of the registration and/or registration review of other active ingredients. This study is
subject to the data compensation provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
1 Bifenthrin - EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0384, Cyfluthrin -EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0684, Cyhalothrin (gamma-cyhalothrin -
EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0479 and lambda-cyhalothrin - EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0480), Cypermethrin - EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0167, Deltamethrin - EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0637, Esfenvalerate - EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0301, Fenpropathrin -
EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0422, Permethrin - EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0039, Tefluthrin - EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0501. 2 AMVAC Chemical Corporation, BASF Corporation, Bayer CropScience LP, FMC Corporation, Syngenta Crop
Protection LLC, Valent U.S.A. Corporation
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 4 of 51
Executive Summary
The aquatic toxicity profiles of synthetic pyrethroid insecticides are remarkably similar, and
results for a large numbers of species can be combined across compounds in Species Sensitivity
Distributions (SSDs). Normalizing acute toxicity values (median lethal concentrations, LC50s)
for each species and each pyrethroid to the LC50 of the same pyrethroid to the freshwater
amphipod Hyalella azteca (the most sensitive species to all pyrethroids tested) enabled
expression of LC50s as Hyalella equivalents that can be pooled across pyrethroids. The resulting
normalized LC50s (geometric means for each species across pyrethroids) were analyzed using
SSDs. Based on tests with measured exposure concentrations, the 5th percentiles (Hazard
Concentrations, HC5s) of the SSDs were 4.8 Hyalella equivalents for arthropods (36 species)
and 256 Hyalella equivalents for fish (24 species). HC5 values are useful as effects metrics for
screening-level risk assessments, and the full SSDs can be integrated with estimated exposure
distributions for higher-level risk characterization. The combined pyrethroid SSDs provide a
more taxonomically representative and statistically robust basis for risk characterization than
data for the most sensitive single species, or SSDs based on data for a single pyrethroid alone,
and are especially useful for pyrethroids that have been tested with smaller numbers of species.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 5 of 51
Table of Contents STATEMENT OF NO DATA CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIM ..................................................... 2 GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE NON-COMPLIANCE STATEMENT............................... 3
Preface............................................................................................................................................. 4 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 6 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 7 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 8
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................. 9 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 10 2 Methods................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Selection of toxicity data for analysis ............................................................................ 11
2.2 Calculation of Hyalella equivalents ............................................................................... 12 2.3 Statistical analysis .......................................................................................................... 12
3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 12
4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 19 5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 21
6 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 22 References ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix A. Criteria for Data Evaluation, Key Value selection, and Species Final Value
selection ............................................................................................................................. 25 Data Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 25
Selection of Key Values............................................................................................................ 26 Selection of Species Final Values ............................................................................................. 28
Appendix B. Toxicity Data for Individual Pyrethroids ............................................................ 30
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 6 of 51
List of Tables Table 1. Geometric mean pyrethroid LC50 values (Hyalella equivalents) for arthropod
species used in SSD analysis. ........................................................................................... 13
Table 2. Geometric mean pyrethroid LC50 values (Hyalella eqivalents) for fish species
used in SSD analysis. ........................................................................................................ 15 Table 3. Results of lognormal regression analysis of combined pyrethroid SSDs based on
Hyalella equivalents.......................................................................................................... 16 Table 4. HC5 values (with 95% prediction intervals) for individual pyrethroids based on
HC5 from combined SSD. ................................................................................................ 21 Table 5. Pyrethroid acute toxicity values used in SSD analysis. References are listed in
Table 6. ............................................................................................................................. 31 Table 6. Index of references for data used in Hyalella azteca equivalent calculations. ............... 42
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 7 of 51
List of Figures Figure 1. The relative sensitivity (Hyalella equivalent LC50s) of crustaceans, insects,
fish, amphibians, and mollusks to pyrethroids, using data from tests with
measured concentrations. Horizontal lines in boxes indicate 25th, 50th (median),
and 75th percentiles; vertical bars indicate 10th and 90th percentiles (where data
were sufficient to calculate); individual points are values above the 90th percentile
or below the 10th percentile. .............................................................................................. 17 Figure 2. Species sensitivity distributions for arthropods based on Hyalella azteca
equivalents for all pyrethroids, using data from tests with measured
concentrations. Circles represent Hyalella azteca equivalents for individual
species. Solid line is model-fitted distribution; dashed lines indicate 95%
prediction interval. ............................................................................................................ 18
Figure 3. Species sensitivity distributions for fish based on Hyalella equivalents for all
pyrethroids, using data from tests with measured concentrations. Circles represent
Hyalella equivalents for individual species. Solid line is model-fitted distribution;
dashed lines indicate 95% prediction interval. ................................................................. 19 Figure 4. SSDs for arthropods for individual AIs derived using the combined SSD
approach based on Hyalella equivalents. Circles represent estimated LC50s for
individual species; X symbols represent observed LC50s plotted next to the
estimated LC50s for the same species. Solid lines are model-fitted distributions;
dashed lines indicate 95% prediction intervals. Only data from studies with TGAI
and measured exposure concentrations were included in this analysis. ........................... 20
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 8 of 51
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AI Active ingredient
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
HC5 Hazardous concentration for 5% of species
JPC Joint Probability Curve
LC50 Median lethal concentration
LOEC Lowest Observed Effect Concentration
NOEC No Observed Effect Concentration
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
PWG Pyrethroid Working Group
SFV Species Final Value
SSD Species Sensitivity Distribution
TGAI Technical grade active ingredient
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 9 of 51
1 Introduction Synthetic pyrethroids are a class of insecticides registered for agricultural, residential, and public
health uses for more than 35 years. These compounds are synthetic analogs of pyrethrins, which
are naturally occurring esters found in the flower of the pyrethrum plant, Tanacetum
cinerariifolium. Pyrethroids are highly toxic to insects and some other arthropod groups but have
relatively low toxicity to vertebrates. Commonly used pyrethroid active ingredients (AIs) include
bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, cyhalothrins, and
permethrin, among others, as well as various refined isomer mixtures of these compounds.
Because pyrethroids may enter surface waters through spray drift and surface runoff following
insecticide application, their toxicity to aquatic species has been extensively tested. The
Pyrethroid Working Group (PWG), a consortium of pyrethroid registrants, has worked for more
than a decade to obtain, evaluate, and compile relevant, reliable data on the toxicity of synthetic
pyrethroids to aquatic organisms. The PWG aquatic toxicity database contains endpoints and
supporting information from more than 1,100 open literature publications and registrant-
sponsored study reports. The database currently includes more than 5,300 records for 9
pyrethroids (and their isomer variants and degradates) and nearly 350 species (79 crustaceans, 99
insects, 86 fish, 31 mollusks, and 52 other species).
Examination of the extensive aquatic toxicity database for pyrethroids reveals remarkable
similarities in the toxicity profiles of different pyrethroid active ingredients (AIs) (Giddings and
Wirtz 2014). The relative sensitivity of crustaceans, insects, fish, mollusks, and aquatic plants to
pyrethroids is quite consistent across AIs. Species Sensitivity Distributions (SSDs) are a tool to
integrate toxicity data for multiple species for a variety of purposes in ecological risk assessment
and environmental regulation (Maltby et al. 2005; Posthuma et al. 2002; Van den Brink et al.
2006). The large number of species tested and the consistency of species sensitivities across
pyrethroids provides an opportunity to develop exceptionally robust and comprehensive SSDs
that combine data across the pyrethroids as a group. Combining the data across AIs broadens the
data available for individual pyrethroids and results in a more complete characterization of
species sensitivity. It is especially useful for AIs that have been tested with smaller numbers of
species.
The PWG has conducted risk assessments using combined pyrethroid SSDs for arthropods and
fish in two ways. First, the 5th percentiles (Hazard Concentration, HC5) of the combined SSDs
are used as benchmarks for risk characterization, specifically as the denominators of Risk
Quotients (EPA 2004) for acute risk to arthropods and fish. Second, the full SSDs for arthropods
and fish are integrated with distributions of model-derived exposure concentrations to generate
Joint Probability Curves (JPCs) depicting the magnitude and likelihood of effects on arthropod
and fish communities (ECOFRAM 1999). The combined SSDs are also useful for derivation of
water quality criteria for pyrethroids and for evaluation of potential toxicity of pyrethroid
mixtures in ambient water. The combined pyrethroid SSDs provide a more taxonomically
representative and statistically robust basis for risk characterization than data for the most
sensitive species or SSDs based on data for a single AI alone.
This report describes the selection of data for deriving combined pyrethroid SSDs, the steps in
the data analysis, and the resulting acute SSDs for arthropods and fish.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 10 of 51
2 Methods The approach for developing combined pyrethroid SSDs involved normalizing the acute toxicity
values (LC50s) for each species to the LC50 of the freshwater amphipod Hyalella azteca for the
same AI, and expressing the result as Hyalella equivalents. The data for H. azteca are ideal as the
basis for normalizing the toxicity data. The PWG conducted H. azteca acute toxicity tests with 9
PWG-supported pyrethroids (bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, lambda- and gamma-cyhalothrin,
cypermethrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, and permethrin) between 2012 and
2014 to fulfill data requirements for product registration. All of the tests were conducted in the
same laboratory following Good Laboratory Practices using the same test protocol, the same
stock of test organisms, and the same dilution water. As such, the H. azteca data provide a highly
reliable and consistent basis for comparison among AIs. Moreover, H. azteca has been found to
be the most sensitive species to all of the pyrethroids tested, and therefore plays a key role in
aquatic risk assessment.
2.1 Selection of toxicity data for analysis
Acute toxicity data were taken from the PWG pyrethroid aquatic toxicity database (Giddings and
Wirtz 2012; 2014; 2015). This database was compiled from reports provided by each of the
PWG member companies and from public documents (reports and peer-reviewed publications)
identified through a comprehensive literature search. Reports and publications (primary sources)
were evaluated using a set of objective criteria3, and only studies that met the evaluation criteria
were used in the analysis.
A single Key Value was selected for each study using a second set of criteria that included
measured endpoint (e.g., LC50 or EC50), exposure duration, measured response (mortality), life
stage (most sensitive), test conditions (most closely approximating standard test conditions
according to US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or other regulatory guidelines), and
exposure regime (flow-through preferred over static or static-renewal). If, after application of
Key Value selection criteria, multiple values remained (e.g., in studies with repeated trials, or
studies using test organisms from different sources), the geometric mean was calculated and used
as the Key Value for that study.
From the set of Key Values (one for each study), Species Final Values (SFVs) were selected for
each AI and each species. Criteria for selection of SFVs were similar to those used for selection
of Key Values. Key Values from studies with measured exposure concentrations were preferred
over nominal concentrations for SFVs. In cases where only one Key Value met the criteria for a
given test substance, that Key Value was identified as the SFV. When two or more Key Values
met the selection criteria equally, the geometric mean of the Key Values was calculated and used
as the SFV. A separate SFV was selected for the technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) and
for each formulation or formulation type. Differences between TGAI and formulation toxicity
were generally minimal (Giddings and Wirtz 2014), but only SFVs for TGAI were used in the
SSD analysis. A few SFVs were derived from “greater-than” LC50 values and these were used in
the analysis without the “greater-than” sign. All SFVs are shown in Table 5.
3 See Appendix A. for criteria for study evaluation, Key Value selection, and Species Final Value selection.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 11 of 51
More than half of the SFVs were endpoints based on nominal exposure concentrations, or
concentrations measured only in the stock solutions or only at test initiation. Data from studies
with measured exposure concentrations are considered more reliable than data from studies with
nominal concentrations, and were used in this analysis. However, because including all studies
(measured and nominal concentrations) more than doubled the number of species for which data
were available, we conducted a comparative SSD analysis for each taxon using both measured
and nominal SFVs.
2.2 Calculation of Hyalella equivalents
For each species and AI, the SFV LC50 (µg/L) was converted to Hyalella equivalents by
dividing the LC50 for that species by the 96-h LC50 for H. azteca. The number of resulting
Hyalella equivalents (see Table 5) for each species ranged from 1 (i.e., data available for only
one AI) to 9 (i.e., data available for all 9 AIs). The geometric mean of the 1 to 9 Hyalella
equivalents for each species was used to represent that species in the combined pyrethroid SSD.
The final sets of geometric mean Hyalella equivalents were the basis for the combined
pyrethroid SSDs.
2.3 Statistical analysis
Each set of geometric mean Hyalella equivalent LC50s (Table 1) was analyzed using the EPA
SSD Generator V1, available at http://www.epa.gov/caddis/da_software_ssdmacro.html. This
tool uses Microsoft Excel® functions to estimate the slope and intercept of a linear regression
model with log(LC50) (in this case, expressed as Hyalella equivalents) as the independent
variable and normalized species rank as the dependent variable. Species rank is expressed as a
percentile (p) using the Hazen relationship: p = (n-0.5)/N, where n is the rank of the species and
N is the total number of species. Hazen values are normalized using the Excel NORMINV()
function for use in the regression analysis. The prediction intervals for the concentration
corresponding to a given percentile (e.g., the HC5) are estimated using the method of Neter et al.
(1990).
3 Results The final sets of mean Hyalella equivalent LC50s are shown in Table 1 (arthropods) and Table 2
(fish). The individual Hyalella equivalents for each AI are presented in Table 5. Figure 1 shows
the distributions of Hyalella equivalent LC50s for crustaceans, insects, and fish, as well as for
amphibians and mollusks (which were not included in the SSDs; data shown in Table 5) for tests
with measured concentrations. The median Hyalella equivalent LC50 for crustaceans was nearly
2 orders of magnitude greater than the lowest LC50 (1 Hyalella equivalent for H. azteca). The
median for insects was 186 Hyalella equivalents, and the median for fish was 1700 Hyalella
equivalents. Data were available for only 2 amphibian species, both approximately 10,000
Hyalella equivalents. Mollusks ranged from 2200 to 1,000,000 Hyalella equivalents.
Individual SSDs for each taxon with prediction intervals and data points are shown in Figure 2
(arthropods) and Figure 3 (fish). The model parameters (lognormal regression intercept and
slope) and the estimated HC5 values and prediction intervals are shown in Table 3. The HC5 for
36 arthropod species (Figure 2) was 4.8 (95% prediction interval 2.8-8.3) Hyalella equivalents.
The HC5 for 24 fish species (Figure 3) was 256 (149-438) Hyalella equivalents. When SFVs
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 12 of 51
from tests with nominal concentrations were included, the HC5 for 93 arthropod species was 9.2
(5.4-16) Hyalella equivalents and the HC5 for 48 fish species was 174 (120-254) Hyalella
equivalents.
Table 1. Geometric mean pyrethroid LC50 values (Hyalella equivalents) for arthropod species used in SSD
analysis.
Measured and nominal Measured only
Species Geomean Na Rank Geomean Na Rank
Hyalella azteca 1.0 9 1 1.0 9 1
Menippe mercenaria 2.6 1 2
Gammarus lacustris lacustris 3.6 1 3
Crangonyx pseudogracilis 4.6 1 4
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus 6.2 1 5 6.2 1 2
Americamysis bahia 8.8 8 6 8.8 8 3
Chaoborus sp. 9.3 1 7 9.3 1 4
Acartia tonsa 10.7 1 8
Hexagenia bilineata 14.3 1 9 14.3 1 6
Palaemonetes pugio 20.8 5 10
Asellus aquaticus 21.1 4 11 86.7 1 14
Baetis rhodani 22.0 1 12 22.0 1 7
Cloeon dipterum 25.9 3 13 67.3 2 13
Procambarus blandingi 30.0 1 14
Procloeon sp. 46.5 2 15
Eurytemora affinis 46.5 2 16 46.5 2 9
Penaeus aztecus 48.6 1 17
Pseudodiaptomus forbesi 56.0 1 18 56.0 1 11
Isoperla quinquepunctata 57.0 1 19 57.0 1 12
Orconectes immunis 60.4 2 20 121.4 1 18
Gammarus pulex 68.4 5 21 55.7 4 10
Penaeus duorarum 86.8 3 22 44.9 2 8
Piona carnea 89.3 1 23
Corixa sp. 100.0 1 24 100.0 1 15
Diphetor hageni 101.8 1 25 101.8 1 16
Hyalella curvispina 104.9 1 26
Agrypnia varia 107.1 1 27
Aedes vexans 128.6 1 28
Culex restuans 130.4 1 29
Procambarus clarkii 154.6 3 30 112.7 1 17
Hydracarina 156.7 1 31 156.7 1 20
Chironomus dilutus 165.7 5 32 149.9 4 19
Chironomus riparius 170.9 2 33 12.3 1 5
Chironomus salinarius 171.6 3 34
Chydorus sp. 176.5 1 35
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 13 of 51
Measured and nominal Measured only
Species Geomean Na Rank Geomean Na Rank
Taenionema sp. 185.6 1 36 185.6 1 21
Serratella micheneri 194.8 1 37 194.8 1 23
Goeldichironomus holoprasinus 200.0 1 38
Temora longicornis 214.3 1 39
Oithona similis 250.0 1 40
Paratya australiensis 250.2 1 41
Aedes stimulans 282.1 1 42
Palaemon serratus 284.7 1 43
Diaptomus sp. 287.5 1 44
Baetis tricaudatus 292.0 1 45 292.0 1 24
Ceriodaphnia dubia 294.7 8 46
Marilia sp. 316.0 1 47 316.0 1 25
Daphnia magna 327.6 9 48 457.8 7 29
Glyptotendipes paripes 342.9 1 49
Chaoborus crystallinus 357.1 1 50
Trichoptera 360.0 1 51 360.0 1 27
Procladius sp. 394.1 1 52
Aedes trivittatus 428.6 1 53
Ischnura elegans 433.3 1 54 433.3 1 28
Aedes hendersoni 501.4 1 55
Uca pugilator 591.2 3 56 351.8 1 26
Tanypus grodhausi 647.1 1 57
Spicodiaptomus chelospinus 714.3 1 58
Hydropsyche sp. 731.6 3 59 185.8 1 22
Cricotopus sp. 755.6 1 60
Hexagenia sp. 780.0 1 61 780.0 1 30
Eretes sticticus 828.6 1 62
Aedes atropalpus 881.4 1 63
Fallceon quilleri 886.0 1 64 886.0 1 31
Aedes triseriatus 946.2 1 65
Cyclops sp. 1000.0 1 66 1000.0 1 32
Caenis sp. 1176.5 1 67
Culex pipiens 1261.8 4 68
Helicopsyche sp. 1264.0 1 69 1264.0 1 33
Simulium vitattum 1292.8 2 70
Enellagma sp. 1315.9 3 71
Culex quinquefasciatus 1380.0 6 72
Chironomus decorus 1435.6 2 73
Aedes aegypti 1618.8 5 74
Chironomus utahensis 1705.9 1 75
Heptageniidae 1886.4 3 76
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 14 of 51
Measured and nominal Measured only
Species Geomean Na Rank Geomean Na Rank
Acartia clausi 1964.3 1 77
Anopheles stephensi 2222.3 1 78
Aedes albopictus 2387.8 3 79
Pseudocalanus elongatus 2446.4 1 80
Brachycentrus americanus 2705.9 1 81
Hesperoperla pacifica 4705.9 1 82
Nectopsyche sp. 4726.0 1 83 4726.0 1 34
Moina micrura 5235.3 1 84
Chironomus thummi 8928.6 1 85
Coenagrion puella 8928.6 1 86
Corixa punctata 8928.6 1 87
Gyrinus natator 8928.6 1 88
Notonecta sp. 8928.6 1 89
Dicrotendipes californicus 10086.1 1 90
Hydrophilus sp. 10095.8 3 91
Ostracoda 11000.0 1 92 11000.0 1 35
Thamnocephalus platyurus 11400.0 1 93 11400.0 1 36 aNumber of AI LC50s (Hyalella equivalents) included in geometric mean for species.
Table 2. Geometric mean pyrethroid LC50 values (Hyalella eqivalents) for fish species used in SSD analysis.
Measured and nominal Measured only
Species Geomean Na Rank Geomean Na Rank
Acipenser brevirostris 171.4 1 1
Acipenser oxyrhynchus 171.4 1 2
Oncorhynchus clarki 179.6 2 3
Salmo salar 214.3 1 4
Hybopsis monacha 242.9 1 5
Oncorhynchus apache 244.3 1 6
Leuciscus idus 260.0 1 7 260.0 1 1
Alosa sapidissima 297.1 1 8
Menidia menidia 314.3 1 9 314.3 1 2
Etheostoma lepidum 387.1 1 10
Etheostoma fonticola 477.1 1 11
Notropis mekistocholis 594.3 1 12
Oncorhynchus mykiss 622.6 9 13 604.0 8 4
Salvelinus fontinalis 671.4 1 14 671.4 1 5
Cnesterodon decemmaculatus 767.9 1 15 767.9 1 6
Mugil cephalus 785.7 1 16 785.7 1 7
Xyrauchen texanus 850.0 1 17
Gambusia affinis 869.6 1 18 869.6 1 8
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 15 of 51
Measured and nominal Measured only
Species Geomean Na Rank Geomean Na Rank
Menidia beryllina 885.7 1 19 885.7 1 9
Oreochromis aureus 911.9 1 20 911.9 1 10
Ictalurus punctatus 1087.5 4 21 450.4 2 3
Pogonichthys macrolepidotus 1117.6 1 22
Melanotaenia duboulayi 1158.8 1 23
Lepomis macrochirus 1163.1 9 24 934.7 7 11
Sciaenops ocellatus 1218.6 1 25
Gasterosteus aculeatus 1333.3 1 26 1333.3 1 12
Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis 1428.6 1 27
Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 1428.6 1 28
Danio rerio 1978.0 4 29 2588.0 2 16
Pimephales promelas 2035.5 8 30 2063.2 7 13
Salmo trutta 2142.9 1 31 2142.9 1 14
Oncorhynchus kisutch 2428.6 1 32
Morone saxatilis 2552.9 1 33 2552.9 1 15
Cyprinodon bovinus 3000.0 1 34
Fundulus heteroclitus 3274.3 1 35
Ptychocheilus lucius 3485.7 1 36
Gila elegans 3571.4 1 37
Atherinops affinis 3614.3 1 38
Pollimyrus isidori 3714.3 1 39
Pseudaphritis urvillii 3910.7 1 40 3910.7 1 19
Cyprinodon variegatus 3932.3 7 41 4500.8 5 22
Galaxias maculatus 4178.6 1 42 4178.6 1 21
Cyprinus carpio 4959.2 4 43 3718.4 3 17
Oryzias latipes 7388.5 3 44 4666.7 1 23
Labeo rohita 9357.1 1 45
Poecilia reticulata 11253.3 4 46 3892.9 2 18
Oreochromis niloticus 16253.4 3 47 3928.6 1 20
Carassius auratus 30276.3 1 48 30276.3 1 24 aNumber of AI LC50s (Hyalella equivalents) included in geometric mean for species.
Table 3. Results of lognormal regression analysis of combined pyrethroid SSDs based on Hyalella equivalents.
Taxon Na Intercept Slope R2 HC5 (95% prediction interval)b
Tests with measured exposure concentrations
Arthropods 36 2.585 1.128 0.978 4.8 (2.8-8.3)
Fish 24 -1.558 2.040 0.936 256 (149-438)
Tests with measured and nominal exposure concentrations
Arthropods 93 2.326 1.070 0.978 9.2 (5.4-16)
Fish 48 -0.781 1.844 0.972 174 (120-254) aNumber of species in SSD. bHyalella equivalents.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 16 of 51
Figure 1. The relative sensitivity (Hyalella equivalent LC50s) of crustaceans, insects, fish, amphibians, and
mollusks to pyrethroids, using data from tests with measured concentrations. Horizontal lines in boxes
indicate 25th, 50th (median), and 75th percentiles; vertical bars indicate 10th and 90th percentiles (where data
were sufficient to calculate); individual points are values above the 90th percentile or below the 10th percentile.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 17 of 51
Figure 2. Species sensitivity distributions for arthropods based on Hyalella azteca equivalents for all
pyrethroids, using data from tests with measured concentrations. Circles represent Hyalella azteca
equivalents for individual species. Solid line is model-fitted distribution; dashed lines indicate 95% prediction
interval.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 18 of 51
Figure 3. Species sensitivity distributions for fish based on Hyalella equivalents for all pyrethroids, using data
from tests with measured concentrations. Circles represent Hyalella equivalents for individual species. Solid
line is model-fitted distribution; dashed lines indicate 95% prediction interval.
SSDs for individual pyrethroids were generated from the combined SSDs and compared with
data for each individual AI. Results for arthropods are shown in Figure 4. Observed AI LC50s
for individual species are represented by X symbols on these figures, and are generally consistent
with the LC50s estimated using Hyalella equivalents. The overall consistency of observed
LC50s with those estimated from Hyalella equivalents supports the accuracy of the combined
SSDs as applied to individual AIs. Due to the small number of species with acute toxicity data
for some AIs, derivation of SSDs from data for those AIs alone would have been impossible, but
the combined SSD allows HC5s to be estimated for all AIs and used for risk characterization.
4 Discussion The Hyalella equivalent HC5 values can be used to estimate the HC5 for a given AI (in µg/L)
from the H. azteca LC50 (in µg/L) for that AI. For example, for bifenthrin, the observed LC50
for H. azteca is 0.0005 µg/L; thus the arthropod HC5 for that AI (based on tests with measured
concentrations only) is estimated to be 0.0024 µg/L (i.e., 4.8 x 0.0005) and the fish HC5 is
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 19 of 51
estimated to be 0.128 μg/L. HC5 values derived for all AIs from the combined SSDs are shown
in Table 4.
The HC5 values are useful for calculating Risk Quotients (EPA 2004) in screening-level risk
assessments of individual AIs. The combined pyrethroid SSDs can also be used to derive full
SSDs for a given AI (as shown for arthropods in Figure 4), which can be integrated with
estimated exposure distributions to construct Joint Probability Curves (ECOFRAM 1999) for
refined risk characterization of individual AIs.
Figure 4. SSDs for arthropods for individual AIs derived using the combined SSD approach based on
Hyalella equivalents. Circles represent estimated LC50s for individual species; X symbols represent observed
LC50s plotted next to the estimated LC50s for the same species. Solid lines are model-fitted distributions;
dashed lines indicate 95% prediction intervals. Only data from studies with TGAI and measured exposure
concentrations were included in this analysis.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 20 of 51
Table 4. HC5 values (with 95% prediction intervals) for individual pyrethroids based on HC5 from combined
SSD.
Measured concentrations (ng/L)
Measured and nominal concentrations
(ng/L)
Pyrethroid Arthropods Fish Arthropods Fish
Bifenthrin 2.4 (1.4-4.2) 128 (75-219) 4.6 (2.7-8.0) 87 (60-127)
Cyfluthrin 2.6 (1.5-4.6) 140 (82-241) 5.1 (3.0-8.8) 96 (66-140)
λ-cyhalothrin 1.4 (0.84-2.5) 77 (45-131) 2.8 (1.6-4.8) 52 (36-76)
Cypermethrin 2.7 (1.6-4.6) 140 (83-245) 5.2 (3.0-9.0) 97 (67-142)
Deltamethrin 0.82 (0.47-1.4) 44 (25-74) 1.6 (0.92-2.7) 30 (20-43)
Esfenvalerate 4.1 (2.4-7.0) 218 (127-372) 7.8 (4.6-14) 148 (102-216)
Fenpropathrin 14 (8.1-24) 742 (432-1270) 27 (16-46) 505 (348-737)
Permethrin 34 (20-58) 1792 (1040-3066) 64 (38-112) 1218 (840-1778)
The HC5 for all animals is the basis for water quality standards in many countries (ANZECC
2000; CCME 2007; Crommentuijn et al. 2000; ECB 2003; RIVM 2001; Stephen et al. 1985).
Since many chemicals have been tested with relatively few animal species, some regulatory
schemes (e.g. Stephen et al. 1985) have established specific criteria for inclusion of species from
various taxonomic groups to ensure that the resulting water quality standards are broadly
protective. In the case of pyrethroids, arthropods are substantially more sensitive than other
animal taxa, and pooling all animals would result in a bimodal SSD that represents neither
arthropods nor other taxa. The resulting HC5 for all animals would be distorted by the relative
numbers of species in each taxon, and would not be a reliable indicator of the sensitivity of a
whole animal community. Given the large difference in sensitivity between arthropods and other
taxa, the HC5 for the most sensitive taxon would be a more appropriate basis for water quality
criteria.
The combined SSDs offer significant benefits for risk assessment of pyrethroids. Because the
combined SSDs include data for 36 arthropod species (93 species if nominal tests are included)
and 24 fish species (48 species if nominal tests are included), they provide a much broader
taxonomic representation than SSDs using data for single AIs alone. Moreover, the large
numbers of species included in the combined SSDs confer greater statistical precision in HC5
estimation. The combined SSDs also enable a broadly representive, statistically rigorous analysis
of AIs such as cyfluthrin, esfenvalerate, and fenpropathrin for which relatively few toxicity data
are available.
The similarity of toxicity profiles across AIs and the existence of a highly consistent dataset for
H. azteca makes this approach especially useful for pyrethroids, but a similar approach could be
applied to other classes of pesticides.
5 Conclusions The extensive aquatic toxicity database for 9 pyrethroids provides the basis for a combined
pyrethroid SSD based on Hyalella equivalents. The resulting SSDs, incorporating acute toxicity
data for large numbers of arthropod and fish species, can be used to estimate the HC5 for a given
AI from the observed H. azteca LC50 for that AI. The combined SSDs are more taxonomically
representative and statistically precise than SSDs based on the more limited datasets for
individual pyrethroid AIs. HC5 values calculated for individual AIs based on the combined SSDs
are useful for risk assessment and could be used in derivation of water quality criteria.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 21 of 51
6 Acknowledgements This work was funded by the Pyrethroid Working Group, whose members include AMVAC
Chemical Corporation, BASF Corporation, Bayer CropScience LP, FMC Corporation, Syngenta
Crop Protection, Inc., and Valent U.S.A.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 22 of 51
References
ANZECC. 2000. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality.
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and
Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.
CCME. 2007. A protocol for the derivation of water quality guidelines for the protection of
aquatic life. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Crommentuijn T, Sijm D, de Bruin J, van Leeuwen K, van de Plassche E. 2000. Maximum
permissible and negligible concentrations for some organic substances and pesticides. J
Environ Manage. 58:297-312.
ECB. 2003. Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of commission directive
93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances, commissioni regulation (EC)
No 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances, directive 98/8/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on
the market. Part II. Environmental risk assessment. European Chemicals Bureau,
European Commission Joint Research Center, European Communities.
ECOFRAM. 1999. Aquatic draft report. Washington, DC: Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk
Assessment Methods (ECOFRAM). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 450 p.
EPA. 2004. The Office of Pesticide Programs ecological assessment process: Addressing
potential impacts on listed species and critical habitat. Endangered Species Workshop.
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 2016. Pyrethroids and pyrethrins [Internet]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Accessible via http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/groups-pesticides-registration-
review#pyrethroid.
Giddings J, Wirtz J. 2012. Compilation and evaluation of aquatic toxicity data for synthetic
pyrethroids. Project Number: 07626. MRID 48970201. Compliance Services
International. Lakewood, WA.
Giddings J, Wirtz J. 2014. The toxicity of nine pyrethroid insecticides to aquatic organisms.
PWG Report - PWG-ERA-12. MRID 49327503. Compliance Services International.
Lakewood, WA.
Giddings J, Wirtz J. 2015. Compilation and evaluation of aquatic toxicity data for synthetic
pyrethroids: Data added since 2012. PWG Report - PWG-ERA-12a. MRID 49641101.
Compliance Services International. Lakewood, WA.
Maltby L, Blake N, Brock T, Van den Brink P. 2005. Insecticide species sensitivity distributions:
Importance of test species selection and relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Environ
Toxicol Chem. 24:379-388.
Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner M. 1990. Applied Linear Statistical Models, 3rd ed. Boston, MA:
Irwin.
Posthuma L, Traas T, Suter G. 2002. Species sensitivity distributions in risk assessment. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
RIVM. 2001. Guidance document on deriving environmental risk limits in the Netherlands.
National Institute of Public Health and the Environment. Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Stephen C, Mount D, Hansen D, Gentile J, Chapman G, Brungs W. 1985. Guidelines for
deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms
and their uses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 23 of 51
Van den Brink P, Blake N, Brock T, Maltby L. 2006. Predictive value of species sensitivity
distributions for effects of herbicides in freshwater ecosystems. Hum Ecol Risk Assess.
12:645-674.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 24 of 51
Appendix A. Criteria for Data Evaluation, Key Value selection, and Species Final Value selection
Data Evaluation
Each open-literature publication and company report was assigned a score of Acceptable (A),
Qualified (Q), or Unusable (U) according to criteria described below. Studies rated A met all
evaluation criteria. Studies rated Q were incomplete or unsatisfactory in some aspects, but met
the minimum criteria for the toxicity database. Most of the studies rated U were scientifically
sound but did not provide results for standard test endpoints and were therefore inconsistent with
the objectives of the database. Some studies were rated U based on reliability criteria described
below. Results from studies rated U were not incorporated into the database.
If a publication contained data on more than one study, each study was evaluated individually
according to the same criteria. Occasionally, studies within a single publication or report
received different ratings.
The criteria for rating each study consisted of the following 13 items:
1. Is the document the primary source for the test result? Secondary sources were usually
rated U. In some cases, a secondary source included sufficient detail to be rated Q if the
primary source could not be found. Duplicate sources were rated U.
2. Were the adverse effects caused by a single stressor? Studies with chemical mixtures or
multiple stressors were rated U.
3. Were acceptable controls included? Studies without acceptable controls, or in which
control performance was considered unacceptable, were rated U. Studies in which
controls were included but control performance was not reported were rated Q.
4. Was the duration of exposure reported? If the exposure duration was not reported, the
study was rated U. Studies with pulsed exposures were also rated U.
5. Were the effects reported for relevant endpoints (growth, reproduction and mortality)?
Studies that did not report results for these endpoints were rated U. Endpoints not used in
the database included bioaccumulation, biochemical parameters, environmental fate,
histopathology, toxicokinetics, and responses measured in field studies.
6. Was more than one dose/concentration level used? Definitive toxicity values (LC50s,
EC50s, or NOECs) could not be derived from studies without multiple dose levels, and
such studies were rated U. “Limit tests” in which only a single, high exposure
concentration was tested and found to cause no effect, were accepted.
7. Was the test species reported? If the test species was not clearly identified, the study was
rated U.
8. Was the chemical form of test material reported? Studies in which the test material was
ambiguous (e.g., it could not be determined whether the test material was technical grade
active ingredient or a formulation) were rated U. Studies in which the reported exposure
concentrations or endpoints were ambiguous (active ingredient or formulation) were also
rated U. Studies in which the test material was incompletely identified but concentrations
of active ingredient were reported or could be derived were rated Q.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 25 of 51
9. Were the test concentrations measured? Studies in which pyrethroid concentrations in the
exposure media (or at least the stock solutions) were not confirmed by chemical analysis
were rated Q.
10. Was a dose-response relationship evident? If no dose-response relationship was evident,
definitive toxicity values (LC50s, EC50s, or NOECs) could not be derived, and such
studies were rated U (except for limit tests as discussed in Item 6).
11. Were the statistics that were used described? If statistical methods used to derive toxicity
values were not indicated, the study was rated Q.
12. Were the number of replicates per dose level and organisms per replicate reported?
Studies that failed to report these aspects of experimental design were rated Q. Studies
using fewer than 5 organisms per dose level were rated U.
13. Were the test conditions reported (e.g., pH, temperature, organism age, etc.)? Studies that
failed to report test conditions were rated Q.
Studies that satisfied all 13 rating criteria were rated A. Studies that did not satisfy all criteria but
did not trigger a rating of U for any criterion received a rating of Q, except when so much
information was lacking that the study was considered unreliable. Professional judgment was
used to determine whether so many criteria were unsatisfactory that a rating of U was warranted.
Studies that received a rating of U provided no usable information for the database because they
satisfied an insufficient number of the criteria or fit one of the rejection categories. The rating
that each study received, along with the scoring rationale, was noted on its respective rating form
and in the bibliography.
Selection of Key Values
After all reports and open literature publications were reviewed and evaluated, and data were
entered into the Pyrethroid Toxicity Database, a two-step process was used to select specific data
for use in risk assessment. In the first step, a single result from each usable study (i.e., a study
rated “A” or “Q” but not “U”) was designated as the Key Value for that study. In the second step
all Key Values for a species were examined, and a single Species Final Value (SFV) was
selected (as described in the next section).
A single Key Value was selected for each study. Many reports, especially in the open literature,
included results for multiple studies. The parameters identifying an individual study were:
1. test species;
2. test substance (either the technical grade active ingredient (TGAI), a specific formulation,
isomer or enantiomer, or a degradate); and
3. exposure medium type (water, water-sediment, or sediment).
If the database contained only a single record for an individual study, that result was designated
as the Key Value for the study. If the database contained multiple records for an individual study,
one record was selected as the Key Value. The criteria for selection of Key Values were as
follows:
1. Endpoint. The database included median lethal concentrations (LC50s), median effect
concentrations (EC50s), No Observed Effect Concentrations (NOECs), and Lowest
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 26 of 51
Observed Effect Concentrations (LOECs) test endpoints. Multiple endpoints were
reported for some studies. When multiple endpoints were reported for acute toxicity tests,
the LC50 was selected as the Key Value, except for tests with cladocerans and algae,
where the EC50 was selected. NOECs were selected as Key Values for chronic tests. If
the preferred endpoint was not reported, an alternative endpoint was selected as the Key
Value.
2. Exposure duration. For acute tests (except with cladocerans), a 96-h exposure duration
was preferred. A 48-h exposure duration was preferred for cladocerans. If the result for
the preferred duration was not reported, then the longest reported duration less than the
preferred duration was selected. If no values less than the preferred duration were
reported, then the shortest reported duration was selected. For chronic tests, the longest
exposure duration was selected.
3. Measurement. Survival (mortality) was preferred for acute tests, except for cladocerans
and algae. Immobilization was the preferred measurement for acute tests with
cladocerans. Growth rate was the preferred measurement for tests with algae. If the
preferred measurement was not reported, an alternative measurement was selected as the
Key Value. For chronic tests, the most sensitive measurement (i.e., the measurement
associated with the lowest NOEC) was selected.
4. Life stage. When a study reported results for more than one life stage, the result for the
most sensitive life stage was selected as the Key Value.
5. Test conditions. When a study was repeated under different test conditions (e.g.,
temperature or dissolved organic carbon concentration), the result for the condition most
closely approximating standard test conditions (according to FIFRA or other test
guidelines) was selected as the Key Value.
6. Finite values. In a few cases, results for an individual study included “greater than” or
“less than” values as well as finite values. In these cases, the finite values were preferred.
If no finite value was reported, the largest “greater than” value or the smallest “less than”
value was selected as the Key Value.
7. Flow. A few studies used more than one exposure system (flow-through, renewal, or
static). In these cases, flow-through exposure was preferred, and renewal exposure was
second in preference.
8. Mixtures. A few studies involved pyrethroids in mixtures with synergists or other active
ingredients. Results for mixtures were rated “U” and, therefore, not selected as Key
Values.
These criteria were applied in the order shown above. An exception was made for chronic tests,
where criteria 3 and 4 were applied before criterion 2; that is, the most sensitive measured
endpoint or life stage was selected, even if that result was not associated with the longest
reported exposure duration. This is consistent with regulatory interpretation of NOEC values
from chronic tests.
If, after all criteria had been applied, multiple values remained (e.g., in studies with repeated
trials, or studies using test organisms from different populations), the geometric mean of the
remaining values was calculated. In these cases, a record was added to the database showing the
geometric mean, and this record was selected as the Key Value for the study.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 27 of 51
Selection of Species Final Values
SFVs were selected from the Key Values for each species. A separate SFV was selected for the
TGAI, each formulation (or formulation type), each isomer or enantiomer, and each degradate.
SFVs were selected for each medium (water, water-sediment, and sediment). Both acute and
chronic SFVs were selected. In cases where only one Key Value existed for a given test
substance/medium/duration combination, that Key Value was identified as the SFV. When more
than one Key Value existed, one value was identified as the SFV. Criteria for selection of SFVs
are described below. To a large extent, these criteria were similar to those used for selection of
Key Values.
1. Endpoint. When multiple Key Values existed for acute toxicity, an LC50 was selected as
the SFV, except for cladocerans and algae, where an EC50 was selected. NOECs were
selected as SFVs for chronic toxicity. If the Key Values did not include the preferred
endpoint, an alternative endpoint was selected as the SFV.
2. Exposure duration. For acute toxicity (except with cladocerans), a 96-h Key Value was
preferred. A 48-h Key Value was preferred for cladocerans. If the Key Values did not
include the preferred exposure duration, then the longest duration less than the preferred
duration was selected. If no values less than the preferred duration were available, then
the shortest duration was selected. For chronic tests, the longest exposure duration was
selected.
3. Flow. Key Values representing flow-through exposure were preferred. Key Values from
renewal exposure systems were the second preference. If no flow-through or renewal Key
Values existed, a Key Value from a static test was accepted as the SFV.
4. Measured concentrations. Key Values representing studies in which exposure
concentrations were analytically confirmed were preferred.
5. Fish chronic toxicity tests. Full life-cycle tests were preferred over early life stage tests
for fish because they are of longer duration and include all aspects of the fish life cycle.
6. Acute tests with mollusks. Embryo-larval tests were preferred over shell deposition tests
for mollusks to reflect EPA’s presumption that embryo-larval tests are more sensitive
than shell deposition tests.
7. Finite values. When Key Values included “greater than” or “less than” values as well as
finite values, the finite values were preferred. If no Key Value was a finite value, the
largest “greater than” value or the smallest “less than” value was selected.
8. Relevant test conditions. If Key Values existed for more than one test condition, the
condition considered most similar to standard test conditions or relevant to natural
conditions was selected.
These criteria were applied in the order shown above. When two or more Key Values met the
above criteria equally, the studies from which the Key Values were derived were re-examined to
see if one study could be considered more reliable than the others, based on the criteria used in
initial study evaluation. For example, a Key Value from a study rated “A” was selected over a
Key Value from a study rated “Q.” Professional judgment was applied, and the rationale for the
SFV was documented.
If, after application of the selection criteria and consideration of study reliability, more than one
equally-acceptable Key Value remained, the geometric mean of the remaining Key Values was
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 28 of 51
used as the SFV. In these cases, a record was added to the database showing the geometric mean,
and this record was selected as the SFV.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 29 of 51
Appendix B. Toxicity Data for Individual Pyrethroids
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 30 of 51
Ta
ble
5.
Py
reth
roid
acu
te t
oxic
ity
va
lues
use
d i
n S
SD
an
aly
sis.
Ref
eren
ces
are
lis
ted
in
Ta
ble
6.
Sp
ecie
s C
om
mo
n n
am
e
Py
reth
roid
M
/Na
LC
50
(μ
g/L
) H
ya
lell
a
equ
iva
len
ts
Ref
eren
ce
Art
hro
po
ds
Aca
rtia
cla
usi
co
pep
od
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
1
.1
19
64
23
3
Aca
rtia
to
nsa
co
pep
od
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
S
0.0
06
11
12
4
Aed
es a
egyp
ti
mo
squit
o
Cyfl
uth
rin
N
3
.0
55
45
46
1,4
62
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
S
1.0
1
78
6
C3
55
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.6
4
37
84
46
1
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
N
1
.9
64
55
46
1,4
62
Per
met
hri
n
N
0.3
2
46
18
Aed
es a
lbo
pic
tus
mo
squit
o
Bif
enth
rin
N
5
.2
10
400
6
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
2
.6
46
43
6
Per
met
hri
n
N
2.0
2
82
6,4
52
Aed
es a
tro
pa
lpu
s m
osq
uit
o
Per
met
hri
n
N
6.1
7
88
1
29
Aed
es h
end
erso
ni
mo
squit
o
Per
met
hri
n
N
3.5
1
50
1
29
Aed
es s
tim
ula
ns
mo
squit
o
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.16
28
2
76
Aed
es t
rise
ria
tus
mo
squit
o
Per
met
hri
n
N
6.6
2
94
6
29
Aed
es t
rivi
tta
tus
mo
squit
o
Per
met
hri
n
N
3.0
4
29
16
8
Aed
es v
exa
ns
mo
squit
o
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.07
2
12
9
76
Ag
ryp
nia
va
ria
cad
dis
fly
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.06
0
10
7
C3
30
Am
eric
am
ysis
ba
hia
m
ysi
d
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.00
39
7
7.9
C
11
0
Cyfl
uth
rin
M
0
.00
24
6
4.5
C
22
2
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.00
49
8.7
C
32
0,C
37
0
Del
tam
ethri
n
M
0.0
037
22
C4
07
Esf
envale
rate
M
0
.00
46
5.4
C
54
5
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
M
0.0
19
6.6
C
61
6
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.00
41
14
C0
24
Per
met
hri
n
M
0.0
75
11
C8
23
An
op
hel
es s
tep
hen
si
mo
squit
o
Per
met
hri
n
N
15
.6
22
22
18
2
Ase
llu
s a
qu
ati
cus
iso
po
d
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
I 0
.00
9
16
C3
26
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 31 of 51
Sp
ecie
s C
om
mo
n n
am
e
Py
reth
roid
M
/Na
LC
50
(μ
g/L
) H
ya
lell
a
equ
iva
len
ts
Ref
eren
ce
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.0
02
12
34
7
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.02
6
87
C0
22
Per
met
hri
n
MS
0
.08
5
12
C8
27
Ba
etis
rh
od
an
i m
ayfl
y
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.01
23
22
C3
25
Ba
etis
tri
cau
da
tus
mayfl
y
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.14
6
29
2
62
0
Bra
chyc
entr
us
am
eric
an
us
cad
dis
fly
E
sfenvale
rate
N
2
.3
27
06
40
6
Ca
enis
sp
. m
ayfl
y
Esf
envale
rate
M
S
1.0
1
17
6
56
6
Cer
iod
ap
hn
ia d
ub
ia
wat
er f
lea
Bif
enth
rin
N
0
.14
2
28
4
24
5
Cyfl
uth
rin
N
0
.34
4
62
5
24
5
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.68
3
12
20
24
5
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.0
36
21
3
48
6
Esf
envale
rate
N
0
.25
29
4
24
5
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
N
0
.20
66
7
24
5
Per
met
hri
n
N
0.2
5
36
24
5
Ch
ao
bo
rus
crys
tall
inu
s p
han
tom
mid
ge
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
S
0.2
0
35
7
C3
55
Ch
ao
bo
rus
sp.
phan
tom
mid
ge
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.00
28
9
C0
22
Ch
iro
no
mu
s d
eco
rus
mid
ge
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.5
4
32
06
4,5
Per
met
hri
n
N
4.5
6
43
2
Ch
iro
no
mu
s d
ilu
tus
mid
ge
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.06
9
13
8
61
8
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.60
10
73
58
2
Esf
envale
rate
N
0
.21
24
7
43
5
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.03
79
12
6
53
9
Per
met
hri
n
M
0.1
89
27
53
9
Ch
iro
no
mu
s ri
pa
riu
s m
idge
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.00
69
12
C3
36
Per
met
hri
n
N
16
.6
23
71
83
Ch
iro
no
mu
s sa
lin
ari
us
mid
ge
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.06
5
11
6
3
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.7
1
41
76
3
Per
met
hri
n
N
0.0
73
10
3
Ch
iro
no
mu
s th
um
mi
mid
ge
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
S
5.0
8
92
9
C3
55
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 32 of 51
Sp
ecie
s C
om
mo
n n
am
e
Py
reth
roid
M
/Na
LC
50
(μ
g/L
) H
ya
lell
a
equ
iva
len
ts
Ref
eren
ce
Ch
iro
no
mu
s u
tah
ensi
s m
idge
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.2
9
17
06
4
Ch
ydo
rus
sp.
wat
er f
lea
Esf
envale
rate
M
S
0.1
5
17
6
56
6
Clo
eon
dip
teru
m
mayfl
y
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.02
36
C3
62
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.03
8
12
7
C0
22
Clo
eon
dip
teru
m
mayfl
y
Per
met
hri
n
MS
0
.02
7
4
C8
27
Co
ena
gri
on
pu
ella
d
amse
lfly
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
N
5
.0
89
29
C3
30
Co
rixa
pu
nct
ata
w
ater
bo
atm
an
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
M
S
5.0
8
92
9
C3
55
Co
rixa
sp
. w
ater
bo
atm
an
L
am
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.03
10
0
C0
22
Cra
ng
on
yx p
seu
do
gra
cili
s sh
rim
p
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.00
26
4.6
C
33
0
Cri
coto
pu
s sp
. m
idge
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.1
3
75
6
5
Cu
lex
pip
ien
s m
osq
uit
o
Bif
enth
rin
N
4
.3
85
32
45
0
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.05
7
10
2
76
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.8
7
51
08
45
0
Per
met
hri
n
N
4.0
5
71
16
8
Cu
lex
qu
inq
uef
asc
iatu
s m
osq
uit
o
Bif
enth
rin
N
1
0.7
2
14
20
73
Cyfl
uth
rin
N
3
.4
62
72
73
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.31
56
2
13
4,1
35
,18
4
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.0
98
57
6
11
3,1
35
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
N
0.2
7
93
13
4
Per
met
hri
n
N
11
.9
17
05
13
5,1
36
,18
3,1
84,
45
0
Cu
lex
rest
ua
ns
mo
squit
o
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.07
3
13
0
76
Cycl
op
oid
co
pep
od
Esf
envale
rate
M
S
0.5
8
68
2
56
6
Cyc
lop
s sp
. co
pep
od
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.30
10
00
C0
22
Da
ph
nia
ma
gna
w
ater
fle
a
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.11
22
0
C1
08
Cyfl
uth
rin
M
0
.16
29
1
C2
29
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.30
53
6
C3
51
Del
tam
ethri
n
M
0.5
6
32
94
C4
21
Esf
envale
rate
M
0
.24
28
2
C5
04
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
N
0.5
3
18
3
C6
12
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 33 of 51
Sp
ecie
s C
om
mo
n n
am
e
Py
reth
roid
M
/Na
LC
50
(μ
g/L
) H
ya
lell
a
equ
iva
len
ts
Ref
eren
ce
Gam
ma-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.06
7
77
8
C0
48
,C0
49
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.05
1
17
0
C0
49
Per
met
hri
n
N
0.3
9
56
C8
22
,C8
43
,
C8
48
,C8
49
,C8
57
Dia
pto
mu
s sp
. m
icro
crust
acea
n
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.16
28
8
C3
30
Dic
rote
nd
ipes
ca
lifo
rnic
us
mid
ge
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
1.7
1
00
86
5
Dip
het
or
ha
gen
i m
ayfl
y
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.05
1
10
2
62
0
En
ella
gm
a s
p.
dam
self
ly
Bif
enth
rin
N
1
.1
22
00
19
3
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
1
.4
25
00
19
3
Per
met
hri
n
N
2.9
4
14
19
3
Ere
tes
stic
ticu
s b
eetl
e P
erm
ethri
n
N
5.8
8
29
93
Eu
ryte
mo
ra a
ffin
is
cop
epod
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.01
67
33
62
1
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.01
94
65
62
1
Fa
llce
on
qu
ille
ri
mayfl
y
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.44
3
88
6
62
0
Ga
mm
aru
s la
cust
ris
lacu
stri
s am
phip
od
P
erm
ethri
n
N
0.0
25
3.6
C
85
8
Ga
mm
aru
s p
seu
do
lim
na
eus
am
phip
od
G
am
ma-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.00
05
3
6.2
C
05
4
Ga
mm
aru
s p
ule
x am
phip
od
B
ifen
thri
n
M
0.1
1
22
0
C1
23
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.00
9
16
C3
62
Esf
envale
rate
M
S
0.1
32
15
5
33
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.01
3
43
C0
62
Per
met
hri
n
M
0.4
4
63
54
2
Gly
pto
ten
dip
es p
ari
pes
m
idge
Per
met
hri
n
N
2.4
3
43
2
Go
eld
ich
iro
no
mu
s h
olo
pra
sinu
s m
idge
Per
met
hri
n
N
1.4
2
00
2
Gyr
inu
s n
ata
tor
wh
irli
gig
bee
tle
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
S
5.0
8
92
9
C3
55
Hel
ico
psy
che
sp.
cad
dis
fly
B
ifen
thri
n
M
0.6
3
12
64
62
0
Hep
tagen
iid
ae
mayfl
y
Bif
enth
rin
N
2
.30
46
00
19
3
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
1
.30
23
21
19
3
Per
met
hri
n
N
4.4
0
62
9
19
3
Hes
per
op
erla
pa
cifi
ca
sto
nefl
y
Esf
envale
rate
N
4
.00
47
06
40
6
Hex
ag
enia
bil
inea
ta
mayfl
y
Per
met
hri
n
M
0.1
0
14
C8
24
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 34 of 51
Sp
ecie
s C
om
mo
n n
am
e
Py
reth
roid
M
/Na
LC
50
(μ
g/L
) H
ya
lell
a
equ
iva
len
ts
Ref
eren
ce
Hex
ag
enia
sp
. m
ayfl
y
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.39
78
0
C1
23
Hya
lell
a a
ztec
a
am
phip
od
B
ifen
thri
n
M
0.0
005
0
1.0
C
13
6
Cyfl
uth
rin
M
0
.00
05
5
1.0
C
25
3
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.00
05
6
1.0
C
38
7
Del
tam
ethri
n
M
0.0
001
7
1.0
C
45
4
Esf
envale
rate
M
0
.00
08
5
1.0
C
53
7
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
M
0.0
029
1.0
C
62
3
Gam
ma-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.00
00
86
1
.0
C0
75
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.00
03
0
1.0
C
07
2
Per
met
hri
n
M
0.0
070
1.0
C
86
8
Hya
lell
a c
urv
isp
ina
am
phip
od
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
M
I 0
.05
9
10
5
60
3
Hyd
raca
rina
wat
er m
ite
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.04
7
15
7
C0
22
Hyd
rop
hil
us
sp.
wat
er s
cavenger
bee
tle
Bif
enth
rin
N
5
.4
10
800
19
3
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
8
.3
14
821
19
3
Per
met
hri
n
N
45
.0
64
29
19
3
Hyd
rop
sych
e sp
. ca
dd
isfl
y
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.09
3
18
6
62
0
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
1
.4
25
00
19
3
Per
met
hri
n
N
5.9
8
43
19
3
Isch
nu
ra e
leg
an
s d
amse
lfly
L
am
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.13
43
3
C0
22
Iso
per
la q
uin
qu
epu
nct
ata
st
onefl
y
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.02
85
57
62
0
Ma
rili
a s
p.
cad
dis
fly
B
ifen
thri
n
M
0.1
58
31
6
62
0
Men
ipp
e m
erce
na
ria
st
one
crab
P
erm
ethri
n
N
0.0
18
2.6
2
2
Mo
ina
mic
rura
cl
ado
cera
n
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.8
9
52
35
48
7
Nec
top
sych
e sp
. ca
dd
isfl
y
Bif
enth
rin
M
2
.4
47
26
62
0
No
ton
ecta
sp
. w
ater
bu
g
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
S
5.0
8
92
9
C3
55
Oit
ho
na
sim
ilis
co
pep
od
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.14
25
0
23
3
Orc
on
ecte
s im
mu
nis
cr
ayfi
sh
Per
met
hri
n
N
0.2
1
30
34
3
Orc
on
ecte
s sp
. cr
ayfi
sh
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.06
8
12
1
C3
29
Ost
raco
da
ost
raco
d
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
3
.3
11
000
C0
22
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 35 of 51
Sp
ecie
s C
om
mo
n n
am
e
Py
reth
roid
M
/Na
LC
50
(μ
g/L
) H
ya
lell
a
equ
iva
len
ts
Ref
eren
ce
Pa
laem
on
ser
ratu
s co
mm
on p
raw
n
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.0
48
28
5
58
3
Pa
laem
on
etes
pug
io
gra
ss s
hri
mp
B
ifen
thri
n
MS
0
.01
3
26
40
2
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.01
9
34
59
6
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.0
050
30
59
6
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
I 0
.00
62
21
59
6
Per
met
hri
n
N
0.0
50
7.1
3
42
Pa
raty
a a
ust
rali
ensi
s sh
rim
p
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.0
43
25
0
48
6
Pen
aeu
s a
ztec
us
bro
wn s
hri
mp
P
erm
ethri
n
N
0.3
4
49
C8
26
Pen
aeu
s d
uo
raru
m
pin
k s
hri
mp
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.03
6
64
C3
21
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
N
0.9
4
32
4
C6
17
Per
met
hri
n
M
0.2
2
31
17
8
Pio
na
ca
rnea
w
ater
mit
e
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
S
0.0
50
89
C3
55
Pro
cam
ba
rus
bla
nd
ing
i cr
ayfi
sh
Per
met
hri
n
N
0.2
1
30
C8
09
Pro
cam
ba
rus
cla
rkii
re
d s
wam
p c
rayfi
sh
Cyfl
uth
rin
M
0
.06
2
11
3
C2
23
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
N
0
.16
53
3
51
2
Per
met
hri
n
N
0.4
3
61
C8
52
Pro
cla
diu
s sp
. m
idge
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.0
67
39
4
4
Pro
clo
eon
sp
. m
ayfl
y
Bif
enth
rin
N
0
.08
4
16
9
45
1
Per
met
hri
n
N
0.0
90
13
45
1
Pse
ud
oca
lan
us
elo
nga
tus
cop
epod
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
1
.37
24
46
23
3
Pse
ud
od
iap
tom
us
forb
esi
cop
epod
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.01
68
56
62
1
Ser
rate
lla
mic
hen
eri
mayfl
y
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.09
74
19
5
62
0
Sim
uli
um
vit
att
um
st
rip
ed b
lack
fly
B
ifen
thri
n
N
1.3
2
60
0
19
3
Per
met
hri
n
N
4.5
6
43
19
3
Sp
ico
dia
pto
mu
s ch
elo
spin
us
cala
no
id c
op
epod
P
erm
ethri
n
N
5.0
7
14
97
Ta
enio
nem
a s
p.
sto
nefl
y
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.09
3
18
6
62
0
Ta
nyp
us
gro
dh
au
si
mid
ge
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
0.1
1
64
7
5
Tem
ora
lo
ng
ico
rnis
co
pep
od
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
0
.12
21
4
23
3
Th
am
no
cep
ha
lus
pla
tyu
rus
fair
y s
hri
mp
B
ifen
thri
n
M
5.7
1
14
00
C1
23
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 36 of 51
Sp
ecie
s C
om
mo
n n
am
e
Py
reth
roid
M
/Na
LC
50
(μ
g/L
) H
ya
lell
a
equ
iva
len
ts
Ref
eren
ce
Tri
cho
pte
ra
cad
dis
fly
B
ifen
thri
n
M
0.1
8
36
0
C1
23
Uca
pu
gil
ato
r fi
dd
ler
crab
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.19
7
35
2
C3
24
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
N
5.2
1
79
3
C6
15
Per
met
hri
n
N
2.3
3
28
C8
26
,C8
54
Fis
h
Aci
pen
ser
bre
viro
stri
s sh
ort
no
se s
turg
eon
P
erm
ethri
n
N
1.2
1
71
53
7
Aci
pen
ser
oxy
rhyn
chu
s A
tlanti
c st
urg
eon
P
erm
ethri
n
N
1.2
1
71
53
7
Alo
sa s
ap
idis
sim
a
Am
eric
an s
had
P
erm
ethri
n
N
2.1
2
97
53
7
Ath
erin
op
s a
ffin
is
top
smel
t P
erm
ethri
n
MS
2
5.3
3
61
4
77
Ca
rass
ius
au
ratu
s go
ldfi
sh
Per
met
hri
n
M
21
2
30
276
21
2
Cn
este
rod
on
dec
emm
acu
latu
s te
n-s
po
tted
liv
ebea
rer
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.43
76
8
41
2
Cyp
rin
od
on
bo
vin
us
Leo
n S
pri
ng
s p
up
fish
P
erm
ethri
n
MS
2
1
30
00
17
6
Cyp
rin
od
on
va
rieg
atu
s sh
eep
shea
d m
inno
w
Bif
enth
rin
M
1
7.8
3
56
00
C1
09
Cyfl
uth
rin
N
4
.1
73
64
C2
09
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
3
.4
61
07
C3
75
Del
tam
ethri
n
M
0.4
8
28
24
C4
04
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
N
3.1
1
06
9
C6
19
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.81
27
00
C0
10
Per
met
hri
n
M
7.8
1
11
4
17
8
Cyp
rin
us
carp
io
carp
C
yfl
uth
rin
M
5
.6
10
127
C2
59
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
1
.3
23
69
20
2,C
304
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
2.0
1
17
65
61
Per
met
hri
n
M
15
21
43
C8
03
Da
nio
rer
io
zeb
rafi
sh
Bif
enth
rin
N
3
.2
64
00
52
3
Gam
ma-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.27
31
40
C0
66
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.64
21
33
C0
06
Per
met
hri
n
N
2.5
3
57
52
3
Eth
eost
om
a f
on
tico
la
fou
nta
in d
arte
r P
erm
ethri
n
N
3.3
4
77
53
6
Eth
eost
om
a l
epid
um
gre
enth
roat
dar
ter
Per
met
hri
n
N
2.7
3
87
53
6
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 37 of 51
Sp
ecie
s C
om
mo
n n
am
e
Py
reth
roid
M
/Na
LC
50
(μ
g/L
) H
ya
lell
a
equ
iva
len
ts
Ref
eren
ce
Fu
nd
ulu
s h
eter
ocl
itu
s m
um
mic
ho
g
Per
met
hri
n
MS
2
2.9
3
27
4
56
9
Ga
laxi
as
ma
cula
tus
com
mo
n j
oll
yta
il
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
2
.3
41
79
48
Ga
mb
usi
a a
ffin
is
mo
squit
ofi
sh
Per
met
hri
n
M
6.1
8
70
21
2
Ga
ster
ost
eus
acu
lea
tus
thre
e-sp
ined
sti
ckle
bac
k
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.4
13
33
C0
05
Gil
a e
leg
an
s B
on
yta
il c
hub
P
erm
ethri
n
MS
2
5
35
71
53
5
Hyb
op
sis
mo
na
cha
sp
otf
in c
hub
P
erm
ethri
n
N
1.7
2
43
56
4
Icta
luru
s p
un
cta
tus
chan
nel
cat
fish
C
yfl
uth
rin
N
2
.0
36
36
22
7
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.16
53
3
C0
04
Per
met
hri
n
M
2.7
3
80
21
2
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
N
5.5
1
89
7
C6
11
La
beo
ro
hit
a
Ind
ian m
ajo
r ca
rp
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
5
.2
93
57
15
0
Lep
om
is m
acr
och
iru
s b
lueg
ill
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.26
52
0
C1
06
Cyfl
uth
rin
M
1
.00
18
15
C2
43
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
1
.78
31
79
C3
01
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
1.4
0
82
35
C4
48
Esf
envale
rate
M
0
.62
73
5
C7
01
,C5
24
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
N
2.2
7
59
C6
10
Gam
ma-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.04
7
55
0
C0
44
,C0
45
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.21
70
0
C0
02
Per
met
hri
n
M
5.1
7
35
21
2
Leu
cisc
us
idu
s go
lden
orf
e
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.07
8
26
0
C0
03
Mel
an
ota
enia
du
bo
ula
yi
rain
bo
w f
ish
D
elta
met
hri
n
N
0.2
0
11
59
48
6
Men
idia
ber
ylli
na
in
land
sil
ver
sid
es
Per
met
hri
n
M
6.2
8
86
C8
44
Men
idia
men
idia
A
tlanti
c si
lver
sid
e
Per
met
hri
n
M
2.2
3
14
17
8
Mo
ron
e sa
xati
lis
stri
ped
bas
s E
sfenvale
rate
M
2
.2
25
53
41
6
Mu
gil
cep
ha
lus
stri
ped
mull
et
Per
met
hri
n
M
5.5
7
86
17
8
No
tro
pis
mek
isto
cho
lis
Cap
e F
ear
shin
er
Per
met
hri
n
N
4.2
5
94
56
4
On
corh
ynch
us
ap
ach
e A
pac
he
tro
ut
Per
met
hri
n
MS
1
.7
24
4
53
5
On
corh
ynch
us
cla
rki
hen
sha
wi
Laho
nta
n t
rout
Per
met
hri
n
MS
1
.6
22
6
53
5
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 38 of 51
Sp
ecie
s C
om
mo
n n
am
e
Py
reth
roid
M
/Na
LC
50
(μ
g/L
) H
ya
lell
a
equ
iva
len
ts
Ref
eren
ce
On
corh
ynch
us
cla
rki
sto
mia
s G
reen
bac
k c
utt
hro
at
Per
met
hri
n
MS
1
.0
14
3
53
5
On
corh
ynch
us
kisu
tch
co
ho
sal
mo
n
Per
met
hri
n
N
17
24
29
C8
06
On
corh
ynch
us
myk
iss
rain
bo
w t
rout
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.10
20
0
C1
07
Cyfl
uth
rin
M
0
.25
45
7
C2
41
,C2
44
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
0
.88
15
77
48
,202
,C3
02,
C3
44
Del
tam
ethri
n
M
0.1
5
88
2
C4
28
Esf
envale
rate
M
0
.15
17
6
C5
41
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
N
2.3
7
93
C6
18
Gam
ma-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.11
12
87
C0
43
,C0
46
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.27
90
6
C0
01
,C0
46
,C0
69
Per
met
hri
n
M
4.7
6
77
21
2,C
801
,C8
21
Ore
och
rom
is a
ure
us
tila
pia
P
erm
ethri
n
M
6.4
9
12
78
Ore
och
rom
is n
ilo
ticu
s N
ile
tila
pia
C
yfl
uth
rin
N
2
1
38
309
44
7
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
2
.2
39
29
20
2
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
4.9
2
85
29
48
3
Ory
zia
s la
tip
es
med
aka
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
3
0.8
5
50
00
44
2
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
1
.4
46
67
C0
08
Per
met
hri
n
MS
1
1.0
1
57
1
16
6
Pim
eph
ale
s p
rom
ela
s fa
thea
d m
inno
w
Bif
enth
rin
M
0
.78
15
60
50
7
Cyfl
uth
rin
M
1
.2
22
00
61
7
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
1
.0
18
52
C3
42
,C3
43
Del
tam
ethri
n
M
0.6
3
37
06
C4
12
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
M
2.4
8
28
C6
14
Gam
ma-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.34
39
53
C0
67
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.50
16
73
C0
07
,C0
20
Per
met
hri
n
M
16
22
86
59
Po
ecil
ia r
etic
ula
ta
gup
py
Del
tam
ethri
n
N
5.1
3
01
48
22
5
Gam
ma-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
0
.17
19
77
C0
68
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
2
.3
76
67
C0
09
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 39 of 51
Sp
ecie
s C
om
mo
n n
am
e
Py
reth
roid
M
/Na
LC
50
(μ
g/L
) H
ya
lell
a
equ
iva
len
ts
Ref
eren
ce
Per
met
hri
n
N
24
6
35
100
16
Po
ecil
iop
sis
occ
iden
tali
s o
ccid
enta
lis
Gil
a to
pm
inno
w
Per
met
hri
n
N
10
14
29
53
6
Po
go
nic
hth
ys m
acr
ole
pid
otu
s S
acra
mento
sp
litt
ail
Esf
envale
rate
N
0
.95
11
18
55
9
Po
llim
yru
s is
ido
ri
elep
han
t fi
sh
Per
met
hri
n
N
26
37
14
23
7
Pse
ud
ap
hri
tis
urv
illi
i b
lennie
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
M
2
.19
39
11
48
Pty
cho
chei
lus
luci
us
Co
lora
do
pik
emin
no
w
Per
met
hri
n
MS
2
4.4
3
48
6
53
5
Sa
lmo
sa
lar
Atl
anti
c sa
lmo
n
Per
met
hri
n
N
1.5
2
14
C8
08
Sa
lmo
tru
tta
bro
wn t
rout
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
1
.2
21
43
20
2
Sa
lvel
inu
s fo
nti
na
lis
bro
ok t
rout
Per
met
hri
n
M
4.7
6
71
C8
05
Sca
ph
irh
ynch
us
pla
tory
nch
us
sh
oveln
ose
stu
rgeo
n
Per
met
hri
n
N
10
14
29
53
6
Sci
aen
op
s o
cell
atu
s re
d d
rum
P
erm
ethri
n
MS
8
.53
12
19
56
9
Xyr
au
chen
tex
an
us
razo
rbac
k s
uck
er
Per
met
hri
n
MS
5
.95
85
0
53
5
Mo
llu
sks
(no
t in
clu
ded
in
SS
D a
na
lysi
s)
Cra
sso
stre
a g
iga
s P
acif
ic o
yst
er
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
2
27
0
40
535
71
C3
23
Lam
bd
a-c
yhal
oth
rin
M
5
90
19
666
67
C0
23
Per
met
hri
n
M
10
50
15
000
0
C8
25
Cra
sso
stre
a v
irg
inic
a
Eas
tern
oyst
er
Bif
enth
rin
M
2
85
57
000
0
C1
14
Cyfl
uth
rin
M
3
.4
62
18
C2
05
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
M
3
70
66
071
4
C3
22
Del
tam
ethri
n
M
8.2
4
82
35
C4
05
Esf
envale
rate
M
1
0
11
765
C5
43
Fen
pro
pat
hri
n
M
12
5
43
103
C6
13
Per
met
hri
n
N
10
000
14
285
71
61
4
Dre
isse
na
po
lym
orp
ha
ze
bra
muss
el
Cyfl
uth
rin
N
1
00
00
0
18
181
818
2
22
7
Ell
ipti
o c
om
pla
na
ta
mu
ssel
Per
met
hri
n
M
20
0
28
571
43
6
La
mp
sili
s ca
rdiu
m
pla
in p
ock
etb
oo
k
Per
met
hri
n
MS
1
4.9
2
12
9
34
0
La
mp
sili
s fa
scio
la
mu
ssel
Per
met
hri
n
M
20
0
28
571
43
6
La
mp
sili
s si
liq
uo
idea
m
uss
el
Per
met
hri
n
M
20
0
28
571
43
6,4
37
Lep
tod
ea f
rag
ilis
fr
agil
e p
aper
shell
P
erm
ethri
n
MS
3
51
5
50
214
3
34
0
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 40 of 51
Sp
ecie
s C
om
mo
n n
am
e
Py
reth
roid
M
/Na
LC
50
(μ
g/L
) H
ya
lell
a
equ
iva
len
ts
Ref
eren
ce
Lig
um
ia s
ub
rost
rata
p
ond
mu
ssel
P
erm
ethri
n
MS
1
74
0
24
857
1
34
0
Lym
na
ea a
cum
ina
ta
snai
l D
elta
met
hri
n
N
44
5
26
174
82
17
1,1
72
Lym
na
ea p
ereg
ra
snai
l C
yp
erm
eth
rin
M
S
5.0
8
92
9
C3
55
Lym
na
ea s
tag
na
lis
snai
l C
yp
erm
eth
rin
N
1
00
17
857
1
C3
30
Mer
cen
ari
a m
erce
na
ria
har
d c
lam
P
erm
ethri
n
N
76
50
10
928
57
61
4
Ob
liq
ua
ria
ref
lexa
th
reeh
orn
war
tyb
ack
C
yfl
uth
rin
N
1
00
00
18
181
818
22
7
Po
ma
cea
pa
ludo
sa
app
le s
nai
l E
sfenvale
rate
M
1
.9
22
12
55
0
Utt
erb
ack
ia i
mb
ecil
lis
pap
er p
ond
shel
l P
erm
ethri
n
MS
1
71
4
24
485
7
34
0
Vil
losa
co
nst
rict
a
mu
ssel
Per
met
hri
n
M
20
0
28
571
43
6
Vil
losa
del
um
bis
m
uss
el
Per
met
hri
n
M
20
0
28
571
43
6
Oth
er i
nve
rteb
rate
s (n
ot
incl
ud
ed i
n S
SD
ana
lysi
s)
Du
ges
ia s
p.
pla
nar
ian
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
N
1
00
17
857
1
C3
30
Po
lyce
lis
sp.
pla
nar
ian
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
N
1
00
17
857
1
C3
30
Hyd
ra a
tten
ua
ta
fres
hw
ater
po
lyp
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
M
S
13
500
24
107
143
59
7
Erp
ob
del
la o
cto
cula
ta
leec
h
Cyp
erm
eth
rin
N
2
0
35
714
C3
30
Tu
bif
ex s
p.
tub
ifex w
orm
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
N
1
00
17
857
1
C3
30
Am
ph
ibia
ns
(no
t in
clud
ed i
n S
SD
an
aly
sis)
Bu
fo a
mer
ica
nu
s A
mer
ican t
oad
P
erm
ethri
n
N
10
0
14
286
20
Bu
fo a
ren
aru
m
So
uth
Am
eric
an t
oad
D
elta
met
hri
n
N
4.4
2
57
06
17
3
Bu
fo b
ore
as
bo
rea
s b
ore
al t
oad
P
erm
ethri
n
N
10
14
29
53
6
Hyp
sib
oa
s p
ulc
hel
lus
Mo
nte
vid
eo t
reef
rog
C
yp
erm
eth
rin
M
S
48
0
85
660
7
52
6
Ra
na
ca
tesb
eia
na
b
ull
fro
g
Per
met
hri
n
M
11
5
16
429
21
2
Ra
na
cla
mit
an
s gre
en f
rog
P
erm
ethri
n
N
10
0
14
286
20
Ra
na
pip
ien
s le
op
ard
fro
g
Per
met
hri
n
N
10
0
14
286
20
Ra
na
sp
. fr
og
E
sfenvale
rate
M
7
.3
85
76
11
7
Ra
na
sp
hen
oce
ph
ala
so
uth
ern l
eop
ard
fro
g
Per
met
hri
n
MS
1
8.2
2
60
0
35
4
Ra
na
syl
vati
ca
wo
od
fro
g
Per
met
hri
n
N
10
0
14
286
20
a M=
mea
sure
d,
N=
no
min
al,
MS
=m
easu
red
sto
ck s
olu
tio
ns,
MI=
mea
sure
d i
nit
ial
exp
osu
re s
olu
tio
ns.
MS
and
MI
are
con
sid
ered
no
min
al
in t
he
SS
D a
nal
ysi
s.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 41 of 51
Table 6. Index of references for data used in Hyalella azteca equivalent calculations.
Reference Citation
2 Ali A. 1981. Laboratory evaluation of organophosphate and new synthetic pyrethroid insecticides
against pestiferous chironomid midges of central Florida. Mosq. News 41(1):157-161.
3 Ali A, Majori G, Ceretti G, D'Andrea F, Scattolin M, Ferrarese U. 1985. A chironomid (Diptera:
Chironomidae) midge population study and laboratory evaluation of larvicides against midges
inhabiting the lagoon of Venice, Italy. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1(1):63-68.
4 Ali A, Mulla MS. 1978. Declining field efficacy of chlorpyrifos against chironomid midges and
laboratory evaluation of substitute larvicides. J. Econ. Entomol. 71(5):778-782.
5 Ali A, Mulla MS. 1980. Activity of organophosphate and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides against
pestiferous midges in some southern California flood control channels. Mosq. News 40:593-597.
6 Ali A, Nayar JK, Xue R-D. 1995. Comparative toxicity of selected larvicides and insect growth
regulators to a Florida laboratory population of Aedes albopictus. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.
11(1):72-76.
16 Baser S, Erkoc F, Selvi M, Kocak O. 2003. Investigation of acute toxicity of permethrin on guppies
Poecilia reticulata. Chemosphere 51(6):469-474.
18 Beard CB, Kloter KO, Carroll MK, Magnuson LJ, Trapido H. 1985. Response of domestic and
peridomestic strains of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, to
organophosphate, organochlorine, and pyrethroid insecticides. J. Med. Entomol. 22(3):276-280.
20 Berrill M, Bertram S, Wilson A, Louis S, Brigham D, Stromberg C. 1993. Lethal and sublethal
impacts of pyrethroid insecticides on amphibian embryos and tadpoles. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
12:525-539.
22 Borthwick PW, Walsh GE. 1981. Initial toxicological assessment of Ambush, Bolero, Bux,
Dursban, Fentrifanil, Larvin, and Pydrin: static acute toxicity tests with selected estuarine algae,
invertebrates, and fish. EPA 600/4-81-076, U.S.EPA, Gulf Breeze, FL.
29 Cilek JE, Craig Jr. GB, Knapp FW. 1995. Comparative susceptibility of larvae of three Aedes
species to malathion and permethrin. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 11(4):416-418.
33 Cold A, Forbes VE. 2004. Consequences of a short pulse of pesticide exposure for survival and
reproduction of Gammarus pulex. Aquat. Toxicol. 67:3(287-299).
48 Davies PE, Cook LSJ, Goenarso D. 1994. Sublethal responses to pesticides of several species of
Australian freshwater fish and crustaceans and rainbow trout. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13(8):1341-
1354.
59 Geiger DL, Call DJ, Brooke LT. 1988. Acute toxicities of organic chemicals to fathead minnows
(Pimephales promelas), Vol. 4. Center for Lake Superior Environmental Stud., Univ. Wisconsin-
Superior, Superior, WI.
61 Ghillebaert F, Prodorutti D, Chaillou C, Roubaud P. 1996. Deltamethrin lethal multifactorial activity
toward carp larva related to pH, calcium, and humic acid concentrations. Ecotox. Environ. Saf.
35:24-37.
73 Halliday WR, Georghiou GP. 1985. Cross-resistance and dominance relationships of pyrethroids in
a permethrin-selected strain of Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Econ. Entomol.
78:1227-1232.
76 Helson BV, Surgeoner GA. 1986. Efficacy of cypermethrin for the control of mosquito larvae and
pupae, and impact on non-target organisms, including fish. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2(3):269-
275.
77 Hemmer MJ, Middaugh DP, Comparetta V. 1992. Comparative acute sensitivity of larval topsmelt,
Atherinops affinis, and inland silverside, Menidia beryllina, to 11 chemicals. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 11(3):401-408.
78 Herzberg AM. 1988. Toxicity and accumulation of permethrin in the tilapia Oreochromis aureus.
Isr. J. Aquacult. Bamidgeh 40(1):35-39.
83 Ibrahim H, Kheir R, Helmi S, Lewis J, Crane M. 1998. Effects of organophosphorus, carbamate,
pyrethroid and organochlorine pesticides, and a heavy metal on survival and cholinesterase activity
of Chironomus riparius Meigen. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 60(3):448-455.
93 Jeyasingam DNT, Thayumanavan B, Krishnaswamy S. 1978. The relative toxicities of insecticides
on aquatic insect Eretes sticticus (Linn.) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). J. Madurai Univ. 7(1):85-87.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 42 of 51
Reference Citation
97 Kader HA, Thayumanavan B, Krishnaswamy S. 1976. The relative toxicities of ten biocides on
Spicodiaptomus chelospinus Rajendran. Comp. Physiol. Ecol. 1(3):78-82.
113 Magnin M, Marboutin E, Pasteur N. 1988. Insecticide resistance in Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera:
Culicidae) in West Africa. J. Med. Entomol. 25(2):99-104.
117 Materna EJ, Rabeni CF, La Point TW. 1995. Effects of the synthetic pyrethroid insecticide,
esfenvalerate, on larval leopard frogs (Rana spp.). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14(4): 613-622.
124 Medina M, Barata C, Telfer T, Baird DJ. 2002. Age- and sex-related variation in sensitivity to the
pyrethroid cypermethrin in the marine copepod Acartia tonsa Dana. Arch. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 42(1):17-22.
134 Mulla MS, Darwazeh HA, Ede L. 1982. Evaluation of new pyrethroids against immature
mosquitoes and their effects on nontarget organisms. Mosq. News 42(4):583-590.
135 Mulla MS, Navvab-Gojrati HA, Darwazeh HA. 1978. Biological activity and longevity of new
synthetic pyrethroids against mosquitoes and some nontarget insects. Mosq. News 38(1):90-96.
136 Mulla MS, Navvab-Gojrati HA, Darwazeh HA. 1978. Toxicity of mosquito larvicidal pyrethroids to
four species of freshwater fishes. Environ. Entomol. 7(3):428-430.
150 Philip GH, Reddy PM, Sridevi G. 1995. Cypermethrin-induced in vivo alterations in the
carbohydrate metabolism of freshwater fish, Labeo rohita. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 31(2):173-178.
166 Rice PJ, Drewes CD, Klubertanz TM, Bradbury SP, Coats JR. 1997. Acute toxicity and behavioral
effects of chlorpyrifos, permethrin, phenol, strychnine, and 2,4-dinitrophenol to 30-day-old Japanese
medaka (Oryzias latipes). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16(4): 696-704.
168 Rubio-Moran R, Rowley WA, Coats JR. 1981. Effect of permethrin and malathion on Aedes
trivittatus and Culex pipiens pipiens. Iowa State J. Res. 55(3):235-244.
171 Sahay N, Agarwal RA. 1997. MGK-264 pyrethroid synergism against Lymnaea acuminata.
Chemosphere 35(5):1011-1021.
172 Sahay N, Singh DK, Agarwal RA. 1991. Synergistic effect of piperonyl butoxide on the toxicity of
synthetic pyrethroids in the snail Lymnaea acuminata. J Med and Appl Malacol 3:107-111.
173 Salibian A. 1992. Effects of deltamethrin on the South American toad, Bufo arenarum, tadpoles.
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 48(4):616-621.
176 Sappington LC, Mayer FL, Dwyer FJ, Buckler DR, Jones JR, Ellersieck MR. 2001. Contaminant
sensitivity of threatened and endangered fishes compared to standard surrogate species. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 20(12):2869-2876.
178 Schimmel SC, Garnas RL, Patrick Jr JM, Moore JC. 1983. Acute toxicity, bioconcentration, and
persistence of AC 222,705, benthiocarb, chlorpyrifos, and fenvalerate, methyl parathion, and
permethrin in the estuarine environment. J. Agric. Food Chem. 31(1):104-113.
182 Scott JG, Georghiou GP. 1986. Malathion-specific resistance in Anopheles stephensi from Pakistan.
J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2(1):29-32.
183 Scott JG, Mellon RB, Kirino O, Georghiou GP. 1986. Insecticidal activity of substituted benzyl
dichlorovinylcyclopropanecarboxylates on susceptible and KDR-resistant strains of the southern
house mosquito. J. Pestic. Sci. 11(3):475-477.
184 Setakana P, Tan KH. 1991. Insecticide resistance and multi-resistance in two strains of Culex
quinquefasciatus Say larvae in Penang, Malaysia. Mosquito-Borne Dis. Bull. 8(2):40-44.
193 Siegfried BD. 1993. Comparative toxicity of pyrethroid insecticides to terrestrial and aquatic
insects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12(9):1683-1689.
202 Stephenson RR. 1982. Aquatic toxicology of cypermethrin. I. Acute toxicity to some freshwater fish
and invertebrates in laboratory tests. Aquat. Toxicol. 2(3):175-185.
212 Thurston RV, Gilfoil TA, Meyn EL, Zajdel RK, Aoki TL, Veith GD. 1985. Comparative toxicity of
ten organic chemicals to ten common aquatic species. Water Res. 19(9):1145-1155.
225 Viran R, Erkoc FU, Polat H, Kocak O. 2003. Investigation of acute toxicity of deltamethrin on
guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 55(1):82-85.
227 Waller DL, Rach JJ, Cope WG, Marking LL, Fisher SW, Dabrowska H. 1993. Toxicity of candidate
molluscicides to zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and selected nontarget organisms. J Great
Lakes Res 19(4):695-702.
233 Willis KJ, Ling N. 2004. Toxicity of the aquaculture pesticide cypermethrin to planktonic marine
copepods. Aquaculture Research 35(3):263-270.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 43 of 51
Reference Citation
237 Yameogo L, Tapsoba JM, Calamari D. 1991. Laboratory toxicity of potential blackfly larvicides on
some African fish species in the Onchocerciasis Control Programme Area. Ecotox. Environ. Saf.
21(3):248-256.
245 Wheelock CE, Miller JL, Miller MJ, Gee SJ, Shan G, Hammock BD. 2004. Development of toxicity
identification evaluation procedures for pyrethroid detection using esterase activity. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 23(11):2699-2708.
340 Milam CD, Farris JL, Dwyer FJ, Hardesty DK. 2005. Acute toxicity of six freshwater mussel
species (glochidia) to six chemicals: implications for daphnids and Utterbackia imbecillis as
surrogates for protection of freshwater mussels (Unionidae). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
48:166-173.
342 DeLorenzo ME, Serrano L, Chung KW, Hoguet J, Key PB. 2006. Effects of the insecticide
permethrin on three life stages of the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. Ecotox. Environ. Saf.
64:122-127.
343 Paul EA, Simonin HA. 2006. Toxicity of three mosquito insecticides to crayfish. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 76:614-621.
347 Thybaud E, Le Bras S, Cosson RP. 1987. Comparative study of the susceptibility of Asellus
aquaticus L. (Crustacea, Isopoda) to some insecticides and heavy metals [trans. from French]. Acta
Oecologica Oecol. Applic. 8(4):355-361.
354 Bridges CM, Dwyer FJ, Hardesty DK, Whites DW. 2002. Comparative contaminant toxicity: are
amphibian larvae more sensitive than fish? Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 69:562-569.
402 Harper HE, Pennington PL, Hoguet J, Fulton MH. 2008. Lethal and sublethal effects of the
pyrethroid, bifenthrin, on grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) and sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon
variegatus). J Environ Sci Health, Part B. 43:476-483.
406 Palmquist KR, Jenkins JJ, Jepson PC. 2008. Clutch morphology and the timing of exposure impact
the susceptibility of aquatic insect eggs to esfenvalerate. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(8):1713-1720.
412 Carriquiriborde P, Diaz J, Mungi H, Bonetto C, Ronco AE. 2007. Impact of cypermethrin on stream
fish populations under field-use in biotech-soybean production. Chemosphere 68:613-621.
416 Geist J, Werner I, Eder KJ, Leutenegger CM. 2007. Comparisons of tissue-specific transcription of
stress response genes with whole animal endpoints of adverse effect in striped bass (Morone
saxatilis) following treatment with copper and esfenvalerate. Aquat. Toxicol. 85:28-39.
435 Belden JB, Lydy MJ. 2006. Joint toxicity of chlorpyrifos and esfenvalerate to fathead minnows and
midge larvae. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 25(2)623-629.
436 Bringolf RB, Cope WG, Eads CB, Lazaro PR, Barnhart MC, Shea D. 2007. Acute and chronic
toxicity of technical-grade pesticides to glochidia and juveniles of freshwater mussels (Unionidae).
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26(10):2086-2093.
437 Bringolf RB, Cope WG, Barnhart MC, Mosher S, Lazaro PR, Shea D. 2007. Acute and chronic
toxicity of pesticide formulations (atrazine, chlorpyrifos, and permethrin) to glochidia and juveniles
of Lampsilis siliquoidea. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26(10):2101-2107.
442 Kim Y, Jung J, Oh S, Choi K. 2008. Aquatic toxicity of cartap and cypermethrin to different life
stages of Daphnia magna and Oryzias latipes. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part B 43:56-64.
447 Benli ACK. 2005. Investigation of acute toxicity of cyfluthrin on tilapia fry (Oreochromis niloticus
L. 1758). Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 20:279-282.
450 Hardstone MC, Leichter C, Harrington LC, Kasai S, Tomita T, Scott JG. 2007. Cytochrome P450
monooxygenase-mediated permethrin resistance confers limited and larval specific cross-resistance
in the southern house mosquito, Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 89:175-
184.
451 Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Hunt JW, Connor V, Richard N, Tjeerdema RS. 2006. Identifying
primary stressors impacting macroinvertebrates in the Salinas River (California, USA): Relative
effects of pesticides and suspended particles. Environ. Pollut. 141:402-408.
452 Ponlawat A, Scott JG, Harrington LC. 2005. Insecticide susceptibility of Aedes aegypti and Aedes
albopictus across Thailand. J. Med. Entomol. 2005. 42(5):821-825.
461 Rodriguez MM, Bisset JA, Fernandez D. 2007. Levels of insecticide resistance and resistance
mechanisms in Aedes aegypti from some Latin American countries. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.
23(4):420-429.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 44 of 51
Reference Citation
462 Rodriguez MM, Bisset JA, De Armas Y, Ramos F. 2005. Pyrethroid insecticide-resistant strain of
Aedes aegypti from Cuba induced by deltamethrin selection. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.
21(4):437-445.
483 Yildirim MZ, Benli ACK, Selvi M, Ozkul A, Erkoc F, Kocak O. 2006. Acute toxicity, behavioral
changes, and histopathological effects of deltamethrin on tissues (gills, liver, brain, spleen, kidney,
muscle, skin) of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) fingerlings. Environ. Toxicol. 21(6):614-
620.
486 Thomas CR, Hose GC, Warne M St, Lim RP. 2008. Effects of river water and salinity on the
toxicity of deltamethrin to freshwater shrimp, cladoceran, and fish. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
55(4):610-618.
487 Leboulanger C, Bouvy M, Pagano M, Dufour RA, Got P, Cecchi P. 2009. Responses of planktonic
microorganisms from tropical reservoirs to paraquat and deltamethrin exposure. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 56(1):39-51
507 Guy D. 2000. Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory Report [fathead minnow]. Aquatic Toxicology
Laboratory Report. State of California Department of Fish and Game Pesticide Investigation Unit.
Report P-2161-1.
512 Barbee GC, Stout MJ. 2009. Comparative acute toxicity of neonicotinoid and pyrethroid insecticides
to non-target crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) associated with rice crayfish crop rotations. Pestic.
Manag. Sci. 65:1250-1256.
523 Zhang ZY, Yu XY, Wang DL, Yan HJ, Liu XJ. 2009. Acute toxicity to zebrafish of two
organophosphates and four pyrethroids and their binary mixtures. Pest Manag. Sci. 66:84-89.
526 Agostini MG, Natale GS, Ronco AE. 2010. Lethal and sublethal effects of cypermethrin to
Hypsiboas pulchellus tadpoles. Ecotox. 19:1545-1550.
535 Dwyer FJ, Sappington LC, Buckler DR, Jones SB. 1995. Use of surrogate species in assessing
contaminant risk to endangered and threatened fishes; Final report - September 1995. EPA/600/R-
96/029, U.S. EPA, Gulf Breeze, FL.
536 Dwyer FJ, Hardesty DK, Henke CE, Ingersoll CG, Whites DW, Mount DR, Bridges CM. 1999.
Assessing contaminant sensitivity of endangered and threatened species: Toxicant classes.
EPA/600/R-99/098, U.S. EPA, Gulf Breeze, FL.
537 Dwyer FJ, Hardesty DK, Ingersoll CG, Whites DW. 1999. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of
American shad, Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon: Interim Report - April, 1999. USGS,
Columbia, Missouri.
539 Harwood AD, You J, Lydy MJ. 2009. Temperature as a toxicity identification evaluation tool for
pyrethroid insecticides: Toxicokinetic confirmation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28:1051-1058.
542 McLoughlin N, Yin D, Maltby L, Wood RM, Yu H. 2000. Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity
of two crustacean biochemical biomarkers. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19:2085-2092.
550 Call DJ. 1993. Validation study of a protocol for testing the acute toxicity of pesticides to
invertebrates using the apple snail (Pomacea paludosa). Lake Superior Research Institute, Superior,
WI.
559 Teh SJ, Zhang GH, Kimball T, Teh FC. 2004. Lethal and sublethal effects of esfenvalerate and
diazonon on splittail larvae. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 39:243-253.
564 Dwyer FJ, Hardesty DK, Ingersoll CG, Whites DW. 1999. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of
Cape Fear shiner and spotfin chub. Interim Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
566 Lozano SJ, Brazner JC, Knuth ML, Heinis LJ, Sargent KW, Tanner DK, Anderson LE, O'Halloran
SL, Bertelsen SL, Jensen DA, Kline ER, Balcer MD, Stay FS, Siefert RE. 1989. Effects, persistence
and distribution of esfenvalerate in littoral enclosures. Environmental Research Laboratory, ORD,
USEPA, Duluth, MN. #1989-56.
569 Parent LM, DeLorenzo ME, Fulton MH. 2011. Effects of the synthetic pyrethroid insecticide,
permethrin, on two estuarine fish species. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part B 46:615-622.
582 Mehler WT, Du J, Lydy MJ, You J. 2011. Joint toxicity of a pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin and
a heavy metal lead to the benthic invertebrate, Chironomus dilutus. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
30:2838-2845.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 45 of 51
Reference Citation
583 Oliveira C, Almeida J, Guilhermino L, Soares A, Gravato C. 2012. Acute effects of deltamethrin on
swimming velocity and biomarkers of the common prawn Palaemon serratus. Aquat. Toxicol. 124-
125:209-216.
596 DeLorenzo M, Key P, Chung K, Sapozhnikova Y, Fulton M. 2014. Comparative toxicity of
pyrethroid insecticides to two estuarine crustacean species, Americamysis bahia and Palaemonetes
pugio. Environ. Toxicol. 29(10):1099-1106.
597 Demetrio P, Bulus G, Bonetto C, Ronco A. 2012. Effects of pesticide formulations and active
ingredients on the coelenterate Hydra attenuata (Pallas, 1766). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
88:15-19.
603 Mugni H, Paracampo A, Marrochi N, Bonetto C. 2013. Acute toxicity of cypermethrin to the non
target organism Hyalella curvispina. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 35:88-92.
614 Garcia RN, Chung KW, Key PB, Burnett LE, Coen LD, DeLorenzo ME. 2014. Interactive effects of
mosquito control insecticide toxicity, hypoxia, and increased carbon dioxide on larval and juvenile
Eastern oysters and hard clams. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 66:450-462.
617 de Perre C, Williard K, Schoonover J, Young B, Murphy T, Lydy M. 2015. Assessing the fate and
effects of an insecticidal formulation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 34:197-207.
618 Ding Y, Landrum PF, You J, Harwood A, Lydy MJ. 2012. Use of solid phase microextraction to
estimate toxicity: Relating fiber concentrations to toxicity - Part I. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31:2159-
2167.
620 Weston D, Schlenk D, Riar N, Lydy M, Brooks M. 2015. Effects of pyrethroid insecticides in urban
runoff on chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and their invertebrate prey. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. In
press.
621 Weston D, Asbell A, Lesmeister S, Teh S, Lydy M. 2014. Urban and agricultural pesticide inputs to
a critical habitat for the threatened Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus). Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 33:920-929.
C001 Hill RW. 1984. PP321: determination of acute toxicity to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Brixham
Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/B/2405.
C002 Hill RW. 1984. PP321: determination of acute toxicity to bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus).
Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/B/2406.
C003 Kent SJ, Shillabeer N. 1997. Lambda-cyhalothrin: acute toxicity to golden orfe (Leuciscus idus).
Zeneca Ltd., Brixham Devon, UK, Rept No BL/6142/B.
C004 Long KWJ, Shillabeer N. 1997. Lambda-cyhalothrin: acute toxicity to channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus). Zeneca Ltd., Brixham Devon, UK, Rept No BL/6147/B.
C005 Long KWJ, Shillabeer N. 1997. Lambda-cyhalothrin: acute toxicity to the three-spined stickleback
(Gasterosteus aculeatus). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/6146/B.
C006 Kent SJ, Shillabeer N. 1997. Lambda-cyhalothrin: acute toxicity to zebra danio (Brachydanio rerio).
Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL6144/B.
C007 Kent SJ, Shillabeer N. 1997. Lambda-cyhalothrin: acute toxicity to fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/6246/B.
C008 Kent SJ, Shillabeer N. 1997. Lambda-cyhalothrin: acute toxicity to Japanese rice fish (Oryzias
latipes). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/6145/B.
C009 Kent SJ, Shillabeer N. 1997. Lambda-cyhalothrin: acute toxicity to the guppy (Poecilia reticulata).
Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/6143/B.
C010 Hill RW. 1985. PP321: determination of acute toxicity to sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon
variegatus). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/B/2615.
C020 Tapp JF, Maddock BG, Harland BJ, Stembridge HM, Gillings E. 1990. Lambda-cyhalothrin (Karate
PP321): determination of chronic toxicity to fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) full lifecycle.
Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/B/3476.
C022 Hamer MJ, Ashwell JA, Gentle WE. 1998. Lambda-cyhalothrin: acute toxicity to aquatic
arthropods. Zeneca Agrochemicals, Jealott's Hill, UK, Rept. No. RJ2437B.
C023 Thompson RS. 1985. PP321: determination of the acute toxicity to larvae of the Pacific oyster
(Crassostrea gigas). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/B/2643.
C024 Thompson RS. 1985. PP321: determination of acute toxicity to mysid shrimps (Mysidopsis bahia).
Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/B/2635.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 46 of 51
Reference Citation
C043 Marino TA, Rick DL. 2000. XR-225: an acute toxicity study with the rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus
mykiss. Dow Chemical Company Study No. 001073.
C044 Marino TA, Rick DL. 2001. XR-225: an acute toxicity study with the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis
macrochirus Rafinesque. Dow Chemical Company Study No. 001074(A).
C045 Marino TA, Rick DL. 2001. XR-225 and lambda-cyhalothrin: an acute toxicity study with the
bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque. Dow Chemical Company Study No. 001074.
C046 Machado MW. 2001. XR-225 and lambda-cyhalothrin: an acute toxicity study with the rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under flow-through conditions. Springborn Laboratories Study No.
12550-6140.
C048 Marino TA, Rick DL. 2000. XR-225 insecticide: an acute toxicity study with the daphnia, Daphnia
magna Straus. Dow Chemical Company Study No. 001075.
C049 Machado MW. 2001. XDE-225 and lambda-cyhalothrin: comparative toxicity to daphnids (Daphnia
magna) under static-renewal conditions. Springborn Laboratories Study No. 12550-6139.
C054 Henry KS, McClymont EL, Najar JR. 2003. XDE-225: toxicity testing with various life stages of the
amphipod, Gammarus pseudolimnaeus. Dow Chemical Company Study No. 021119.
C062 Hamer MJ, Farrelly E, Hill IR. 1985. PP321: toxicity to Gammarus pulex. ICI Plant Protection
Division Report No. RJ0414B.
C066 Sewell IG, Mckenzie J. 2006. Gamma-Cyhalothrin: Acute toxicity to zebra fish (Brachydanio
rerio). Dow Chemical Company Study No. 50608 Safepharm Laboratories Study No. 2119/0015.
C067 Sewell IG, Mckenzie J. 2006. Gamma-Cyhalothrin: Acute toxicity to fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas). Dow Chemical Company Study No. 50607 Safepharm Laboratories Study No.
2119/0014.
C068 Sewell IG, Mckenzie J. 2006. Gamma-Cyhalothrin: Acute toxicity to guppy (Poecilia reticulata).
Dow Chemical Company Study No. 50606 Safepharm Laboratories Study No. 2119/0013.
C069 Tapp JF, Sankey SA, Caunter JE, Harland BJ. 1989. Lambda-cyhalothrin: Determination of acute
toxicity to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK,
Rept No BL/B/3604.
C072 Bradley MJ. 2013. Lambda-cyhalothrin: acute toxicity to freshwater amphipods (Hyalella azteca)
under flow-through conditions. Smithers Viscient Study No. 13656.6166.
C075 Bradley MJ. 2014. Gamma-cyhalothrin - Acute toxicity to freshwater amphipods (Hyalella azteca)
under flow-through conditions. Smithers Viscient Study No. 13656.6184.
C106 Surprenant DC. 1985. Acute toxicity of 14C-FMC-54800 to bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) under
flow-through conditions. Springborn Bionomics Report BW-85-2-1730.
C107 Surprenant DC. 1985. Acute toxicity of 14C-FMC 54800 to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) under
flow-through conditions. Springborn Bionomics Report BW-85-2-1732.
C108 Surprenant DC. 1985. Acute toxicity of 14C-FMC 54800 to Daphnia magna under flow-through
conditions. Springborn Bionomics Report BW-85-2-1731.
C109 Barrows ME. 1986. Acute toxicity of FMC 54800 to sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus).
Battelle (FMC Study No. A85-1874).
C110 Barrows ME. 1986. Acute toxicity of FMC 54800 to mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahiai). Battelle
(FMC Study No. A85-1875).
C114 Ward GS. 1987. Acute toxicity of FMC 54800 technical to embryos and larvae of the eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica). ESE No. 87-318-0200-2130.
C123 Hooftman RN, Rooseboom-Reimers A, Verhoof LRCW. 2002. Static acute toxicity tests with the
insecticide bifenthrin technical and six arthropod species. TNO Study No. 01 - 2424/01.
C136 Bradley MJ. 2013. Bifenthrin - Acute toxicity to freshwater amphipods (Hyalella azteca) under
flow-through conditions. Smithers Viscient Study No. 13656.6164.
C205 Carr RS. 1986. The oyster shell deposition test to assess the acute effects of Baythroid on the eastern
oyster, (Crassostrea virginica). Battelle New England Marine Research Laboratory Project No. N
07780100.
C209 Barrows BA. 1984. The static acute toxicity of cyfluthrin technical to the sheepshead minnow,
Cyprinodon variegatus. Biospherics Project No. 84E-060SHM.
C222 Surprenant DC. 1987. Acute toxicity of Baythroid to mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) under flow-
through conditions. Springborn Bionomics Report BW-87-1-2277.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 47 of 51
Reference Citation
C223 Surprenant DC. 1990. Acute toxicity of 14C-Baythroid to crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) under
flow-through conditions. Springborn Laboratories Report No. 87-7-2434.
C229 Burgess D. 1990. Acute flow-through toxicity of 14C-cyfluthrin to Daphnia magna. Analytical Bio-
Chemistry Laboratories Rept. 37684.
C241 Bowers LM. 1994. Acute toxicity of 14C-cyfluthrin to the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
under flow-through conditions. Miles Project No. BD812202.
C243 Gagliano GG. 1994. Acute toxicity of 14C-cyfluthrin to the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) under
flow-through conditions. Miles Project No. BD810301.
C244 Gagliano GG. 1994. Acute toxicity of 14C-cyfluthrin to the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
under flow-through conditions. Miles Project No. BD812201.
C253 Bradley MJ. 2013. Cyfluthrin - Acute toxicity to freshwater amphipods (Hyalella azteca) under
flow-through conditions. Smithers Viscient Study No. 13656.6168.
C259 Nieden D. 2004. Acute toxicity of cyfluthrin (tech.) to fish (Cyprinus carpio). Bayer CropScience
EBBDU004.
C301 Hill RW. 1980. Determination of the acute toxicity of cypermethrin (PP383) to bluegill sunfish
(Lepomis macrochirus). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/B/2011.
C302 Hill RW. 1980. Determination of the acute toxicity of cypermethrin (PP383) to rainbow trout
(Salmo gairdneri). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/B/2006.
C304 Hill RW. 1981. Determination of the acute toxicity of cypermethrin (PP383) to mirror carp
(Cyprinus carpio). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/B/2032.
C320 Jaber MJ. 1981. The acute and chronic toxicity of cypermethrin to mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis
bahia). ICI Americas Inc Rept No TMUE0005B.
C321 Jaber MJ. 1981. The acute toxicity of cypermethrin to pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum). ICI
Americas Inc Rept No TMUE004B.
C322 Jaber MJ. 1981. The acute toxicity of cypermethrin to eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica). ICI
Americas Inc Rept No TMUE0009B.
C323 Thompson RS. 1981. Investigation of the acute toxicity of PP383 to larvae of the Pacific oyster
(Crassostrea gigas). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/B/2088.
C324 Jaber MJ. 1981. The acute toxicity of cypermethrin to fiddler crabs (Uca pugilator). ICI Americas
Inc Rept. No TMUE0003B.
C325 Edwards PJ, Brown SM, Hamer MJ, Bull JM. 1980. Cypermethrin: acute toxicity to the mayfly,
Baetis rhodani. ICI Plant Protection Division, Report No. RJ0173B.
C326 Hamer MJ, Arnold JA, Hill IR. 1982. Cypermethrin: toxicity to Daphnia magna, Cloeon dipterum
and Asellus aquaticus in the presence and absence of soil. ICI Plant Protection Division, Report No.
RJ0251B.
C329 Jaber MJ. 1981. The acute toxicity of cypermethrin to crayfish (Orconectes sp). ICI Americas Inc
Rept. No TMUE0008B.
C330 Farrelly E, Prevo LJD. 1996. Cypermethrin and nonylphenol: acute toxicity to aquatic invertebrates.
Zeneca Agrochemicals Jealott's Hill Report No. TMJ3563A.
C336 Rapley JH, Hamer MJ. 1996. Cypermethrin: toxicity to Chironomus riparius and Hyalella azteca.
Zeneca Agrochemicals Jealott's Hill Report No. RC0002.
C342 IT Corporation. 1989. Static acute toxicity test of FMC 45806 (cypermethrin) using fathead
minnow. IT Corporation. A1989-2854.
C343 Balog GE. 1989. Static acute toxicity test of FMC 45806 (cypermethrin) using fathead minnow. IT
Corporation. A1989-2904.
C344 Vaishnav DD, Yurk JJ. 1990. Cypermethrin (FMC 45806) : Acute toxicity to rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) under flow-through test conditions. ESE Project ID 3903026-0750-3140.
C351 Thorpe E. 1982. WL 85871 and cypermethrin: a comparison of their acute toxicity to Salmo
gairdneri, Daphnia magna and Selenastrum capricornutum. Shell Research Limited Rept. No.
SBGR.81.277.
C355 Stephenson RR. 1980. The acute toxicity of WL 43467 to some freshwater invertebrates in static
water tests. Shell Toxicology Lab (Tunstall) Rept. No. TLGR.80.040.
C362 Stephenson RR. 1980. The acute toxicity of cypermethrin to the freshwater shrimp and larvae of the
mayfly in continuous flow tests. Shell Toxicology Lab (Tunstall) Rept. No. TLGR.80.079.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 48 of 51
Reference Citation
C370 Ward TJ, Boeri RL, Palmieri MA. 1992. Acute toxicity of FMC 56701 technical and cypermethrin
technical to the mysid, Mysidopsis bahia. EnviroSystems Study No. 91186-FMC.
C375 Yurk JJ, Chandler AB. 1992. Amended Final Report: FMC 45806: acute toxicity to sheepshead
minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) under flow-through conditions. ESE Laboratory Project ID
3903026-0350-3140.
C387 Bradley MJ. 2013. Cypermethrin - Acute toxicity to freshwater amphipods (Hyalella azteca) under
flow-through conditions. Smithers Viscient Study No. 13656.6171.
C404 Sousa J. 1990. Acute toxicity of deltamethrin active ingredient to sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon
variegatus) under flow-through conditions. Springborn Laboratories Rept No. 90-01-3190.
C405 Dionne E. 1990. Acute toxicity of deltamethrin active ingredient to eastern oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) under flow-through conditions. Springborn Laboratories Rept No. 89-11-3148.
C407 Lelievre M. 1991. Deltamethrin: acute toxicity to mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) under static
renewal conditions. Springborn Laboratories Rept No. 91-7-3826.
C412 Dionne E. 1993. Deltamethrin: the chronic toxicity to the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)
during a full life-cycle exposure. Springborn Laboratories Rept No. 93-1-4607.
C421 Putt A. 1999. Deltamethrin [14C-labelled] - Acute toxicity to daphnids (Daphnia magna) under
flow-through conditions. Springborn Laboratories Study No. 10824.6141.
C428 Sousa J. 1990. (LX 165-08, deltamethrin technical) - acute (28-day) toxicity to rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) under flow-through conditions. Springborn Laboratories Report No. 90-02-
3238.
C448 McAllister WA, Swigert JP, Bowman J. 1986. Acute toxicity of deltamethrin to bluegill sunfish
(Lepomis macrochirus). Analytical Bio-Chemistry Report #33980.
C454 Bradley MJ. 2013. Deltamethrin - Acute toxicity to freshwater amphipods (Hyalella azteca) under
flow-through conditions. Smithers Viscient Study No. 13656.6170.
C504 Baer KN. 1992. Static-renewal, acute, 48-hour EC50 of DPX-YB656-59 (technical Asana®) to
Daphnia magna. Haskell Laboratory Report No. 490-92.
C524 Baer KN. 1991. Static, acute, 96-hour LC50 of DPX-Y4306-90 to bluegill sunfish (Lepomis
macrochirus). Haskell Laboratory Report No. 322-91.
C537 Bradley MJ. 2013. Esfenvalerate - Acute toxicity to freshwater amphipods (Hyalella azteca) under
flow-through conditions. Smithers Viscient Study No. 13656.6169.
C541 Brougher DS, Kendall TZ, Gallager SP, Krueger HO. 2012. Esfenvalerate (DPX-YB656) technical:
A 96-hour flow through toxicity test with the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). DuPont Report
Number 33548.
C543 Palmer SJ, Brougher DS, Kendall TZ, Gallager SP, Krueger HO. 2012. Esfenvalerate (DPX-
YB656) technical: a 96-hour shell deposition test with the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica).
DuPont Report Number 34131.
C545 Brougher DS, Martin KH, Gallager SP, Krueger HO. 2013. Esfenvalerate (DPX-YB656) technical:
a 96-hour flowthrough acute toxicity test with the saltwater mysid (Americamysis bahia). DuPont
Report Number 33550.
C610 Sousa JV, LeBlanc GA. 1981. Acute toxicity of S-3206 TG to bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus).
EG&G Bionomics Report #BW-81-8-988.
C611 Sousa JV, LeBlanc GA. 1981. Acute toxicity of S-3206 TG to channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus).
EG&G Bionomics Report #BW-81-8-989.
C612 EG&G Bionomics. 1981. Acute toxicity of S-3206 TG to the water flea (Daphnia magna). EG&G
Bionomics Report #BW-81-8-996.
C613 Dionne E. 1988. Acute toxicity of Danitol technical to eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica).
Springborn Life Sciences Report No. 87-9-2465.
C614 Surprenant DC. 1990. The chronic toxicity of fenpropathrin to the fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas). Springborn Laboratories Report #89-1-2913.
C615 Ward GS, Miller AG, Shuba PJ. 1981. Acute toxicity of S-3206 T.G. to fiddler crabs (Uca
pugilator). EG&G Bionomics Report #BP-81-7-112.
C616 Hoberg JR. 1987. Acute toxicity of 14C-Danitol technical to mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia).
Springborn Life Sciences Report No. 87-8-2470.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 49 of 51
Reference Citation
C617 Ward GS, Miller AG, Shuba PJ. 1981. Acute toxicity of S-3206 T.G. to pink shrimp (Penaeus
duorarum). EG&G Bionomics Report #BP-81-7-124.
C618 Sousa JV, LeBlanc GA. 1981. Acute toxicity of S-3206 TG to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri).
EG&G Bionomics Report #BW-81-8-987.
C619 Ward GS, Miller AG, Shuba PJ. 1981. Acute toxicity of S-3206 T.G. to sheepshead minnows
(Cyprinodon variegatus). EG&G Bionomics Report #BP-81-7-114.
C623 Bradley MJ. 2013. Fenpropathrin TG - Acute toxicity to freshwater amphipods (Hyalella azteca)
under flow-through conditions. Smithers Viscient Study No. 13656.6165.
C701 Forbis AD, Georgie L, Burgess D. 1985. Acute toxicity of MO70616 technical to bluegill sunfish
(Lepomis macrochirus). Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories Rept. #33174.
C801 Hill RW, Maddock BG, Hart B. 1976. PP557: determination of the acute toxicity of PP557 to
rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No
BL/B/1700.
C803 Hill RW, Maddock BG, Hart B, Cornish SK. 1976. Determination of the acute toxicity of PP 557 to
mirror carp (Cyprinus carpio). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No
BL/B/1715.
C805 Hill RW, Maddock BG, Hart B, Cornish SK. 1976. Determination of acute toxicity of PP557 to
brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No
BL/B/1712.
C806 Buccafusco RJ. 1976. Acute toxicity of PP-557 technical to coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).
EG&G Bionomics. PP557/0402.
C808 Buccafusco RJ. 1976. Acute toxicity of PP-557 technical to Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). EG&G
Bionomics. PP557/0401.
C809 Buccafusco RJ. 1977. Acute toxicity of permethrin technical (PP 557) to crayfish (Procambarus
blandingi). EG&G Bionomics. PP557/0429.
C821 Tapp JF, Sankey SA, Caunter JE, Cree AJ. 1990. Permethrin: determination of the 21 day LC50 to
rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No
BL3762B.
C822 Doma S, Evered P. 1977. PP557: acute toxicity and reproduction studies on first instar and ephippia
of Daphnia magna. Jealott's Hill Research Station Report No. TMJ1455B.
C823 Thompson RS. 1986. Permethrin: determination of acute toxicity to mysid shrimps (Mysidopsis
bahia). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No BL/B/2921.
C824 Forbis A, McAllister W. 1980. Dynamic acute toxicity of 14C-permethrin to mayfly nymphs
(Hexagenia bilineata) in a flow-through diluter system. Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories
Rept. #23648.
C825 Thompson RS, Hill RW, Cornish SK. 1977. Investigation of the acute toxicity of PP 557 to the
Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas). Brixham Environmental Laboratory, Brixham, UK, Rept No
BL/B/1796.
C826 Heitmuller T. 1977. Acute toxicity of PP557 to brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) and fiddler crabs
(Uca pugilator). EG&G Bionomics. PP557/0428.
C827 Hamer MJ, Arnold J, Hill IR. 1982. Permethrin: toxicity to Daphnia magna, Cloeon dipterum and
Asellus aquaticus in the presence and absence of soil. RJ0246B.
C843 Surprenant DC. 1979. Acute toxicity of FMC 33297 to the water flea (Daphnia magna). EG&G
Bionomics BW-79-12-574.
C844 Ward GS, Rabe BA. 1989. Acute toxicity of permethrin technical to inland silversides (Menidia
beryllina) under flow-through conditions. Hunter/ESE 93008-0200-2130.
C848 Aquatic Environmental Sciences. 1976. Acute toxicity of FMC 33297 ACT 29.11,.12 to bluegill
sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque and the water flea, Daphnia magna Straus. Union
Carbide Corporation. ACT 029.11-12.
C849 LeBlanc G. 1976. Acute toxicity of FMC-33297 technical to Daphnia magna. EG&G Bionomics.
ACT 083.12.
C852 Bentley RE. 1975. Acute toxicity of FMC-33297 technical to bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and crayfish (Procambarus clarkii). EG&G Bionomics. NCT
607.61.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 50 of 51
Reference Citation
C854 Bionomics. 1975. Acute toxicity of FMC 33297 technical (95.7%) to eastern oysters (Crassostrea
virginica), pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum), and fiddler crabs (Uca pugilator). EG&G Bionomics.
NCT 619.61.
C857 Bentley RE. 1975. Acute toxicity of FMC-33297 technical to water flea (Daphnia magna). EG&G
Bionomics. NCT 624.61.
C858 Alsager DE. 1975. Acute toxicity of insecticide FMC-33297 to the freshwater invertebrate
Gammarus lacustris lacustris. Canadian Biological Sciences Consultants TR-108-75.
C868 Bradley MJ. 2013. Permethrin - Acute toxicity to freshwater amphipods (Hyalella azteca) under
flow-through conditions. Smithers Viscient Study No. 13656.6167.
Report Number: PWG-ERA-21 Page 51 of 51