This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest to change the section "Pharmacology" to "Toxicology". Reason: brodifacoum is used only in biocidal (rodenticidal) context, it has no pharmacologic relevance other than its toxicity. Since the only use of it is that of a poison per se, it is appropriate to discuss its dynamics and kinetics in organism as toxodynamics and toxokinetics, forming toxicology of the substance.
I therefore change the name of the section to "Toxicology".
I also add some toxicological values (half-life, LD50 values, LC50 value, estimated fatal dose for a human) from the sources quoted ( http://www.inchem.org/ ). -- 84.163.124.102 00:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
"Rückfragen beim Hersteller haben ergeben, dass die Erkenntnis des schnellen Eintrocknens der Tiere auf Anwendungsbeobachtungen beruht und abhängig von den äußeren Bedingungen zu sehen ist."
which means
"A query by manufacturer brought, that the knowledge of fast drying of the animals [animal corpses] is based on application observations, and is seen dependant on external conditions".
So there are no real scientific observations/studies of this phenomenon yet, or I found none of the kind. I have thus no objections against removing the claim from the article, if it interferes somehow with the NPOW or objectivity of the article.--
Spiperon 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I observed this also in practice, when I used difethialone and brodifacoum baits against rats and mice, I found after some weeks, by cleanup of the area where rodents were active prior to baiting, multiple dry carcasses, with no signs of decay. The bodies were just like dryied in an exsiccator, perfectly conserved. When I first observed this, I was surprised, because the use of zinc phosphide or warfarin resulted often to decaying, badly smelling bodies all over the place. I think, that an association of an anticoagulant with an antibiotic (sulfaquinoxaline) results also to more likely dry-mummification, because of the reduction of the biggest internal reservoir of the bacteria -- the intestinal microflora. But I don't have any relevant scientific sources to support this thesis yet. Only claims supporting this I found so far are in descriptions of the rodenticidal products containing 2nd gen. anticoagulants by their manufacturers, in german. In general, claims of manufacturers are not reliable source of objective information in regard to its necessary bias, but my observations support them, so I simply accept it.-- Spiperon 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned in the article somewhere that Brodifacoum is not regarded as a humane way to kill animals. I didn't put this in myself as I wasn't sure if it had a good enough reference (nor was I sure how to reference it.) I found this paper - The Humaneness of Rodent Pest Control - G Mason, K E Littin - at the following address, which seems to describe anticoagulants as inhumane for rodent pest control. http://www.helpinganimals.com/pdfs/TheHumanenessOfRodentControlAnimal%20Welfare-2003.pdf Jatoo ( talk) 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
WTF? This has almost nothing to do with the main article. I don't think it belongs here. --- Zizanie13 ( talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have found contradictory LD50s for cats.
The article states 0.25mg/kg bodyweight, which agrees with the stated source http://www.inchem.org/documents/pds/pds/pest57_e.htm
but these sources state 25mg/kg:
http://msds.orica.com/pdf/shess-en-cds-010-000000020872.pdf
25mg/kg seems surprisingly high and weirdly coincidental to be exactly 100x the minimum dog level so it may be a typo (rather shabby in an MSDS!)
Does anyone know for sure which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.55.68 ( talk) 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This source says c. 25 mg/kg (cat); here LD50 oral (cat) estimated as 25 mg/kg; but in here it is 0.25 mg/kg. This pdf says "Published LD50 values of brodifacoum for cats vary widely, from 25 mg kg-1 (Rammell et al., 1984;Godfrey, 1985) to 0.25 mg kg-1(Haydock and Eason, 1997).". Now what information should be used?-- RicHard-59 ( talk) 11:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I removed the line about vitamin C being used as an antidote. While there is a reference given for it in the safety sheet, I'm not aware of vitamin C being used clinically. Please correct me if is indeed used. Andrew73 ( talk) 18:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Article seems to infer material takes some little time to kill. Days? Weeks? Manifestly, the longer it takes to kill, the very much less efficacious a poison it is. Not much use if a pregnant rat could still deliver another litter, say.
Causes unconsciousness. So death is effected how, typically? Starvation? Predation? Low blood pressure?
Anyone have any idea why pests can't be poisoned rather more humanely, and quickly, the way humans overwhelmingly choose to euthanase themselves? That is, with benzodiazepines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.120.236 ( talk) 03:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Several news organizations report that a lab report confirmed the existence of the rat poison in the inmates' food. Unless counterevidence turns up, we should go with the weight of the sources. HGilbert ( talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
But do you understand the difference between a piece of meat (smuggled out by a prisoner) and a human being poisoned? That would be like yourself if you bought a burger from McDonalds, put poison in after leaving and coming back saying you'll sue, any court case would need proof YOU were poisoned and not just the piece of MEAT. That would be proven with blood or urine.
Do you get where i am coming from?
The way the page is currently it suggests that further tests have already been carried out. I mean one extra sentence could clear that up, i dont see why that is a major problem. Disappeared353 ( talk) 08:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
IUPAC name - the IUPAC name is inconsistent with the structure shown; the IUPAC name is a different tautomer. This needs an explanation. Chemical synthesis - it would be better to say brodifacoum is a member rather than derivative of the 4-hydroxycoumarin (no -) group. Is the commercial product a pure stereoisomer? If so, the structure and name should indicate it. If not, why is a stereospecific synthesis given? It doesn't make sense to say compound 1 is the starting ester then describe how it is made from another ester. I suggest something like: Compound 1 can be made by a simple Wittig condensation of ethyl chloroacetate with 4'-bromobiphenylcarboxaldehyde. I recommend "reaction" instead of "then reacted". "addition of" should be deleted. Toxicology - Why is "T+" & "N" shown? Is this part of some designation system? If so, explain. "resorptivity" should presumably be "absorptivity". Brand names - d-CON (and maybe many of the others) no longer uses brodifacoum. See cen.acs.org/articles/92/i23/Maker-Rat-Poison-d-CON.html. Treatment for humans - Should "all 3-6 hours" be "every 3-6 hours"? Poisoning case reports - Should "Contrac" be "Contac"? References - 12 is missing a space. 13 appears to be missing a g. Categories - Brodifacoum is not a drug. (from 4-hydroxycoumarins entry: "The second-generation vitamin K antagonist agents, used only in this fashion as poisons (because their duration of action is too long to be used as pharmaceuticals) include..." 69.72.92.1 ( talk) 05:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brodifacoum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest to change the section "Pharmacology" to "Toxicology". Reason: brodifacoum is used only in biocidal (rodenticidal) context, it has no pharmacologic relevance other than its toxicity. Since the only use of it is that of a poison per se, it is appropriate to discuss its dynamics and kinetics in organism as toxodynamics and toxokinetics, forming toxicology of the substance.
I therefore change the name of the section to "Toxicology".
I also add some toxicological values (half-life, LD50 values, LC50 value, estimated fatal dose for a human) from the sources quoted ( http://www.inchem.org/ ). -- 84.163.124.102 00:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
"Rückfragen beim Hersteller haben ergeben, dass die Erkenntnis des schnellen Eintrocknens der Tiere auf Anwendungsbeobachtungen beruht und abhängig von den äußeren Bedingungen zu sehen ist."
which means
"A query by manufacturer brought, that the knowledge of fast drying of the animals [animal corpses] is based on application observations, and is seen dependant on external conditions".
So there are no real scientific observations/studies of this phenomenon yet, or I found none of the kind. I have thus no objections against removing the claim from the article, if it interferes somehow with the NPOW or objectivity of the article.--
Spiperon 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I observed this also in practice, when I used difethialone and brodifacoum baits against rats and mice, I found after some weeks, by cleanup of the area where rodents were active prior to baiting, multiple dry carcasses, with no signs of decay. The bodies were just like dryied in an exsiccator, perfectly conserved. When I first observed this, I was surprised, because the use of zinc phosphide or warfarin resulted often to decaying, badly smelling bodies all over the place. I think, that an association of an anticoagulant with an antibiotic (sulfaquinoxaline) results also to more likely dry-mummification, because of the reduction of the biggest internal reservoir of the bacteria -- the intestinal microflora. But I don't have any relevant scientific sources to support this thesis yet. Only claims supporting this I found so far are in descriptions of the rodenticidal products containing 2nd gen. anticoagulants by their manufacturers, in german. In general, claims of manufacturers are not reliable source of objective information in regard to its necessary bias, but my observations support them, so I simply accept it.-- Spiperon 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned in the article somewhere that Brodifacoum is not regarded as a humane way to kill animals. I didn't put this in myself as I wasn't sure if it had a good enough reference (nor was I sure how to reference it.) I found this paper - The Humaneness of Rodent Pest Control - G Mason, K E Littin - at the following address, which seems to describe anticoagulants as inhumane for rodent pest control. http://www.helpinganimals.com/pdfs/TheHumanenessOfRodentControlAnimal%20Welfare-2003.pdf Jatoo ( talk) 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
WTF? This has almost nothing to do with the main article. I don't think it belongs here. --- Zizanie13 ( talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have found contradictory LD50s for cats.
The article states 0.25mg/kg bodyweight, which agrees with the stated source http://www.inchem.org/documents/pds/pds/pest57_e.htm
but these sources state 25mg/kg:
http://msds.orica.com/pdf/shess-en-cds-010-000000020872.pdf
25mg/kg seems surprisingly high and weirdly coincidental to be exactly 100x the minimum dog level so it may be a typo (rather shabby in an MSDS!)
Does anyone know for sure which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.55.68 ( talk) 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This source says c. 25 mg/kg (cat); here LD50 oral (cat) estimated as 25 mg/kg; but in here it is 0.25 mg/kg. This pdf says "Published LD50 values of brodifacoum for cats vary widely, from 25 mg kg-1 (Rammell et al., 1984;Godfrey, 1985) to 0.25 mg kg-1(Haydock and Eason, 1997).". Now what information should be used?-- RicHard-59 ( talk) 11:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I removed the line about vitamin C being used as an antidote. While there is a reference given for it in the safety sheet, I'm not aware of vitamin C being used clinically. Please correct me if is indeed used. Andrew73 ( talk) 18:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Article seems to infer material takes some little time to kill. Days? Weeks? Manifestly, the longer it takes to kill, the very much less efficacious a poison it is. Not much use if a pregnant rat could still deliver another litter, say.
Causes unconsciousness. So death is effected how, typically? Starvation? Predation? Low blood pressure?
Anyone have any idea why pests can't be poisoned rather more humanely, and quickly, the way humans overwhelmingly choose to euthanase themselves? That is, with benzodiazepines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.120.236 ( talk) 03:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Several news organizations report that a lab report confirmed the existence of the rat poison in the inmates' food. Unless counterevidence turns up, we should go with the weight of the sources. HGilbert ( talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
But do you understand the difference between a piece of meat (smuggled out by a prisoner) and a human being poisoned? That would be like yourself if you bought a burger from McDonalds, put poison in after leaving and coming back saying you'll sue, any court case would need proof YOU were poisoned and not just the piece of MEAT. That would be proven with blood or urine.
Do you get where i am coming from?
The way the page is currently it suggests that further tests have already been carried out. I mean one extra sentence could clear that up, i dont see why that is a major problem. Disappeared353 ( talk) 08:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
IUPAC name - the IUPAC name is inconsistent with the structure shown; the IUPAC name is a different tautomer. This needs an explanation. Chemical synthesis - it would be better to say brodifacoum is a member rather than derivative of the 4-hydroxycoumarin (no -) group. Is the commercial product a pure stereoisomer? If so, the structure and name should indicate it. If not, why is a stereospecific synthesis given? It doesn't make sense to say compound 1 is the starting ester then describe how it is made from another ester. I suggest something like: Compound 1 can be made by a simple Wittig condensation of ethyl chloroacetate with 4'-bromobiphenylcarboxaldehyde. I recommend "reaction" instead of "then reacted". "addition of" should be deleted. Toxicology - Why is "T+" & "N" shown? Is this part of some designation system? If so, explain. "resorptivity" should presumably be "absorptivity". Brand names - d-CON (and maybe many of the others) no longer uses brodifacoum. See cen.acs.org/articles/92/i23/Maker-Rat-Poison-d-CON.html. Treatment for humans - Should "all 3-6 hours" be "every 3-6 hours"? Poisoning case reports - Should "Contrac" be "Contac"? References - 12 is missing a space. 13 appears to be missing a g. Categories - Brodifacoum is not a drug. (from 4-hydroxycoumarins entry: "The second-generation vitamin K antagonist agents, used only in this fashion as poisons (because their duration of action is too long to be used as pharmaceuticals) include..." 69.72.92.1 ( talk) 05:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brodifacoum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)