, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 90–96 | Cite as

Use of anticoagulant rodenticides by pest management professionals in Massachusetts, USA

  • Kristin MemmottEmail author
  • Maureen Murray
  • Allen Rutberg


Secondary exposure to chemical rodenticides, specifically second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs), poses a threat to non-target wildlife including birds of prey. Federal regulations in the United States currently limit homeowner access to SGARs as a way of minimizing this threat. With legal access to SGARs, pest management professionals (PMPs) represent a potential linkage to non-target exposure. There is limited research focused on rodent control practices, chemical rodenticide preferences, level of concern and awareness, or opinions on rodenticide regulations as they relate to PMPs. An online survey was sent to PMP companies across Massachusetts, USA, between October and November 2015. Thirty-five responses were obtained, a 20 % response rate. The preferred rodent control method among responding PMP companies was chemical rodenticides, specifically the SGAR bromadiolone. Respondents varied in their level of concern regarding the impact of chemical rodenticides on non-target species and showed a low level of awareness regarding SGAR potency and half-life. All responding companies reported using integrated pest management (IPM) strategies, with nearly all utilizing chemical rodenticides at some point. Enhanced education focused on SGAR potency, bioaccumulation potential, exposure routes, and negative impacts on non-target wildlife may improve efforts made by PMPs to minimize risk to wildlife and decrease dependence on chemical rodenticide use. Future studies evaluating use of anticoagulant rodenticide (ARs) by PMPs and the association with AR residues found in non-target wildlife is necessary to determine if current EPA regulations need to be modified to effectively reduce the risk of SGARs to non-target wildlife.


Rodent control Anticoagulant rodenticide Birds of prey Secondary poisoning Bromadiolone Pest management professionals 



Special thanks to the Massachusetts Pesticide Board for providing feedback and access to public licensing records, Jef C. Taylor for valuable insight, and to all survey participants.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Tufts University Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

10646_2016_1744_MOESM1_ESM.docx (131 kb)
Supplementary Information


  1. Albert CA, Wilson LK, Mineau P, Trudeau S, Elliott JE (2010) Anticoagulant rodenticides in three owl species from western Canada, 1988–2003. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 58:451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartos M, Dao S, Douk D, Falzone S, Gumerlock E, Hoekstra S, Longcore T (2012) Use of anticoagulant rodenticides in single-family neighborhoods along an urban-wildland interface in California. Cities Environ 4:12Google Scholar
  3. Boyle CM (1960) Case of apparent resistance of Rattus norvegicus Berkenhout to anticoagulant poisons. Nature 188:517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015) Integrated pest management. The official website of the executive office for administration and finance. Accessed 18 Feb 2016
  5. Eason CT, Murphy EC, Wright GR, Spurr EB (2002) Assessment of risks of brodifacoum to non-target birds and mammals in New Zealand. Ecotoxicology 11:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Huckle KR, Hutson DH, Warburton PA (1988) Elimination and accumulation of the rodenticide flocoumafen in rats following repeated oral administration. Xenobiotica 18:1465–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hughes J, Sharp E, Taylor MJ, Melton L, Hartley G (2013) Monitoring agricultural rodenticide use and secondary exposure of raptors in Scotland. Ecotoxicology 22:974–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lambert O, Pouliquen H, Larhantec M, Thorin C, L’Hostis M (2007) Exposure of raptors and waterbirds to anticoagulant rodenticides (difenacoum, bromadiolone, coumatetralyl, coumafen, brodifacoum): epidemiological survey in Loire Atlantique (France). Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 79:91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Langford KH, Reid M, Thomas KV (2013) The occurrence of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in non-target raptor species in Norway. Sci Total Environ 450:205–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leung LKP, Clark NM (2005) Bait avoidance and habitat use by the roof rat, Rattus rattus, in a piggery. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 55:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu J, Xiong K, Ye X, Zhang J, Yang Y, Ji L (2015) Toxicity and bioaccumulation of bromadiolone to earthworm Eisenia fetida. Chemosphere 135:250–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lund M (1972) Rodent resistance to the anticoagulant rodenticides, with particular reference to Denmark. Bull World Health Organ 47:611Google Scholar
  13. Mcdonald RA, Harris S (2000) The use of fumigants and anticoagulant rodenticides on game estates in Great Britain. Mammal Rev 30:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mendenhall VM, Pank LF (1980) Secondary poisoning of owls by anticoagulant rodenticides. Wildl Soc Bull 8:311–315Google Scholar
  15. Morzillo AT, Mertig AG (2011) Linking human behaviour to environmental effects using a case study of urban rodent control. Int J Environ Studies 68:107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Murray M, Tseng F (2008) Diagnosis and treatment of secondary anticoagulant rodenticide toxicosis in a red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). J Avian Med Surg 22:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murray M (2011) Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure and toxicosis in four species of birds of prey presented to a wildlife clinic in Massachusetts, 2006-2010. J Zoo Wildl Med 42:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prichard A (2013) Memorandum: second generation anticoagulant rodenticide assessment. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 18 Feb 2016
  19. Qualtrics LLC (2015) Qualtrics. Accessed 18 Feb 2016
  20. Radvanyi A, Weaver P, Massari C, Bird D, Broughtont E (1988) Effects of chlorophacinone on captive kestrels. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 41:441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rattner BA, Horak KE, Lazarus RS, Schultz SL, Knowles S, Abbo BG, Volker SF (2015) Toxicity reference values for chlorophacinone and their application for assessing anticoagulant rodenticide risk to raptors. Ecotoxicology 24:720–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ruiz-Suárez N, Henríquez-Hernández LA, Valerón PF, Boada LD, Zumbado M, Camacho M, Almeido-González M, Luzardo OP (2014) Assessment of anticoagulant rodenticide exposure in six raptor species from the Canary Islands (Spain). Sci Total Environ 485:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salim H, Noor HM, Hamid NH, Omar D, Kasim A, Abidin CMRZ (2014) Secondary poisoning of captive barn owls, Tyto alba javanica, through feeding with rats poisoned with chlorophacinone and bromadiolone. J Oil Palm Res 26:62–72Google Scholar
  24. Savarie PJ, Hayes DJ, McBride RT, Roberts JD (1979) Efficacy and safety of diphacinone as a predacide. In: Kenaga EE (ed) Avian and Mammalian Wildlife Toxicology. STP 693 American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sarwar M (2015) The rodents (mammalia: rodentia)–gnawing away on crops and options for the integrated pest management at field. Am J Mark Res 1:136–141Google Scholar
  26. Serieys LE, Armenta TC, Moriarty JG, Boydston EE, Lyren LM, Poppenga RH, Crooks KR, Wayne RK, Riley SPD (2015) Anticoagulant rodenticides in urban bobcats: exposure, risk factors and potential effects based on a 16-year study. Ecotoxicology 24:844–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith RH, Cox PR, Rampaud M (1990) Rodenticide ecotoxicology: systems analysis and simulation. Proc Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conf 14:47–45Google Scholar
  28. Stansley W, Cummings M, Vudathala D, Murphy LA (2014) Anticoagulant rodenticides in red-tailed hawks, Buteo jamaicensis, and great horned owls, Bubo virginianus, from New Jersey, USA, 2008–2010. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 92:6–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stenseth NC, Leirs H, Skonhoft A, Davis SA, Pech RP, Andreassen HP et al. (2003) Mice, rats, and people: the bio-economics of agricultural rodent pests. Front Ecol Environ 1:367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stone WB, Okoniewski JC, Stedelin JR (2003) Anticoagulant rodenticides and raptors: recent findings from New York, 1998–2001. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 70:0034–0040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tosh DG, Shore RF, Jess S, Withers A, Bearhop S, Montgomery WI, McDonald RA (2011) User behaviour, best practice and the risks of non-target exposure associated with anticoagulant rodenticide use. J Environ Manage 92:1503–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA (2008) Risk mitigation decision for ten rodenticides. USEPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955-0764. Accessed 18 Feb 2016
  33. Watt BE, Proudfoot AT, Bradberry SM, Vale JA (2005) Anticoagulant rodenticides. Toxicol Rev 24:259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Animals and Public PolicyCummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts UniversityNorth GraftonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Infectious Disease and Global Health, Wildlife ClinicCummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts UniversityNorth GraftonUSA

Personalised recommendations