You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.


    Comparison of Environmental Protection Agency and Company Laboratory Efficacy Data for Federally Registered Rat and Mouse Toxicants

    Published: 0

      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (188K) 13 $25   ADD TO CART
    Complete Source PDF (2.9M) 197 $55   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word


    The authors compared the efficacy data for federally registered rat and mouse anticoagulant toxicants tested both by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Terrestrial and Aquatic Biology Unit and by company laboratories. We chose ready-to-use dry-bait products, liquid-bait products, and tracking powder products evaluated according to the same laboratory test protocols. The data, which included 203 tests, were analyzed in two ways. First, we made comparisons based on the mean percentage acceptance or the mean percentage mortality for the different combinations of active ingredient (or pesticide grouping) and test species (Norway rat or house mouse). Products averaged better in company tests than in EPA tests in 11 out of the 16 comparisons. Second, we determined the amount of agreement between 54 matched sets of EPA and company data. We found agreement in 37 of the comparisons. In the 17 cases where agreement was not found, the products failed company tests but passed EPA tests in 3 cases and passed company tests but failed EPA tests in 14 cases. After comparing the results with our previous work, we discuss the reasons for the differences between the EPA and company data and the steps that are being taken or should be taken to reduce these differences.


    vertebrate pest control, laboratory testing, evaluation, rodenticides, dry baits, liquid baits, tracking powders, anticoagulants, Rattus norvegicus, Mus musculus

    Author Information:

    Peacock, DB
    Biologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Registration Division, Washington, D.C.,

    Palmateer, SD
    Supervisory biologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Benefits and Field Studies Division, Terrestrial and Aquatic Biology Unit, Beltsville, Md.

    Committee/Subcommittee: E35.17

    DOI: 10.1520/STP35155S