N,N,N',N'-tetramethyltrimethylenediamine

Toxicity to other above-ground organisms

Administrative data

Endpoint:

toxicity to other above-ground organisms

Adequacy of study:

other information

Reliability:

4 (not assignable)

Data source

Reference

Title:

No information

Author:

The Acute Oral Toxicity, Repellency, and hazard Potential of 998 chemicals to one or more Species of Wild and domestic Birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research center. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Springer-Verlag 1983.

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

N,N,N',N'-tetramethyltrimethylenediamine

EC Number:

203-818-8

EC Name:

N,N,N',N'-tetramethyltrimethylenediamine

Cas Number:

110-95-2

Molecular formula:

C7H18N2

IUPAC Name:

N,N,N',N'-tetramethyltrimethylenediamine

Constituent 2

Reference substance name:

N,N'-tetramethyltrimethylenediamine

IUPAC Name:

N,N'-tetramethyltrimethylenediamine

Test organisms

Test organisms (species):

other: Redwing, Starling, and Coturnix.

Results and discussion

Any other information on results incl. tables

RS-Freetext:
It was shown that redwings were significantly more sensitive than  starlings, and that starlings and coturnix were not different. The  difference in toxicological sensitivity between redwings and starlings  was 2.1x and the difference between coturnix and redwings was 1.4x.

Tetramethylpropanediamine:
LD50 (mg/Kg) = +100
Redwing: R50 (mg/Kg) = +1
Coturnix: LD50 (mg/Kg) = +316 (m)

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:

CL-Freetext:
Statistical comparisons of the correlation between redwings LD50'S and R50'S were made to determine the validity of observations made over the past 20 years indicating that avian repellent activity appears to increase with increasing acute oral toxicity.
Thus the data indicate that gross acute toxicity, as defined by the LD50, is not positively related to gross repellency as defined by the R50, at least over the small range examined.

The repellency/toxicity index or acute avian hazard index was calculated for 377 chemicals where one or both R50 and LD50 were only known. Those chemicals for which the LD50 and R50 were only known to exceed some value could not be used in subsequent calculations since no meaningful value or trend could be determined by the index.

It is the first time, to our knowledge, that an attempt has been made to equate potential hazards to an index that combines the toxicity of a compound with a behavioural measure that predicts how much of the chemical could potentially be consumed in a field situation.
Thus, field application of a highly toxic chemical that is aversive to birds could have the same or less likelihood of inducing acute avian poisoning as a less toxic chemical that was more readily accepted.