# Pine Phenols -> Snakes



## Vixen (Jun 10, 2008)

Just been wondering the last few days, we all know the phenols in pine and cedar are bad for rodents as some can be allergic and it makes their liver work overtime because of it in their system.

So can feeding rodents that have been on pine have an effect on the snake eating it? Over time would it accumulate in the snake also?


----------



## Vixen (Jun 18, 2008)

b u m p


----------



## pete12 (Jun 18, 2008)

:shock:


----------



## Duke (Jun 18, 2008)

I don't think phenols in wood will be of any real worry. Wait, how do phenols get into wood, anyway? The treatment?

Well basically I can't see how phenols can leech out of wood, into a rodent, unless they're licking the wood, or you use harsh cleaners on the wood.

As for bio-accumulation, I also don't think it'll be a problem. In minute doses most animals should be able to dispose of it. It's not like it contains heavy metals or anything like that.

I've handled phenols in chemistry pracs, and I haven't freaked out. And that's near 100% phenol, not trace amounts that _may_ come out of products.


----------



## Vixen (Jun 18, 2008)

Heres a link with a bit of info

http://www.cavyrescue.co.uk/rat-article29.shtml

Goes into studies that have been done and the affects on rodents, its proven it causes liver damage and lung damage over time because they are kept on it their entire lives. 

So young animals that are used for food might not be a problem, but what about larger animals who have been months on it?



And pete12 what is that look for, if you dont know anything about this and have nothing to contribute dont reply


----------



## dunno103 (Jun 18, 2008)

Did you dip your finger or hand into a phenol Duke and not wash it for a long time, or have a drink of it?

My 1st yr Org. chem lecturer said theres 2 tests for a phenol, the second best is dipping your finger in it and leave it for 2 weeks....

VB I would be careful using adults have been kept on it all their life.

Didn't read article, but if it accumulates in liver and lungs then definately no.

Cheers


----------



## slim6y (Jun 18, 2008)

Not all phenols are bad phenols


----------



## Duke (Jun 18, 2008)

Thanks for that VixenBabe. Now I understand the situation better. I was gonna say "If you're worried about your rats being "infected" what about your snake that stays in a wooden enclosure?"

But this is dealing with wooden shavings, am I right?

Also I didn't think of the breeders that would have the chronic exposure.

Well that's all my scientific input... I guess unless you can find a healthier alternative, or know exactly what's in the wood i.e. hack your own trees down and shave them yourself lol.
I still don't think anything that happens to the rats will affect your snakes.
The symptons stated in the link you provided seem like it's only due to direct contact with the chemicals, and the body working harder to combat it. None of the symptoms seem like they will be passed on to the eater.


----------



## slim6y (Jun 18, 2008)

Actually, I was just thinking (off the top of my head) you can help prevent the release of phenols by 1) painting, 2) oiling - such as linseed oil and or 3) treating - the latter of which may be unsuitable for animal housing.

I'm unsure of the half life of phenols in the rat system - and I am unsure of the effect of pine phenols on snakes. As I was equally unaware of pine phenols' effect on rodents.

But rodents shouldn't really be running round on untreated wood anyway - should they? After all they go to the toilet on the wood and the wood would soon rot if left untreated... 

Bah... i'm tired and know little on the subject - just wanted to give some influence on your discussion to see how it unfolds... I'm happy for anyone to argue any point I've made and be as critical as they want!


----------



## Vixen (Jun 18, 2008)

Were talking about wood shavings just incase anyone thinks otherwise


----------



## slim6y (Jun 18, 2008)

VixenBabe said:


> Were talking about wood shavings just incase anyone thinks otherwise



Lucky you said that just in case someone was thinking otherwise


----------



## Pythonking (Jun 19, 2008)

Pine, cedar and other phenol-containing woods have toxins which can cause significant health problems in a variety of herps and other animals. 

Biomagnification is a reality.


----------



## slim6y (Jun 19, 2008)

I've just read part of the article and I'm already wondering about it:

But... Bio-magnification will only occur if you feed lots and lots - for example - if small bottom dwelling fish eat mercury laden plants, then larger fish eat lots of the smaller fish and build up mercury toxicity in them and then larger fish such as tuna or sharks eat lots of the larger fish that ate lots of the smaller fish that contained mercury and therefore tuna and sharks have high mercury levels...

Snakes don't eat a lot of rats that eat a lot of wood shavings to get bio-accumulation.

On top of this there's no mention of the biological half life of these compounds.

And to double my worries about scientific basis the report looks like it came from a report between 1993 and 2003.

So - my summary seems to suggest that rats on soft wood beddings are less likely to be healthy - but if I missed it, please point it out to me, do the toxins affect other animals that eat them? Do the toxin, which are aromatic to say the least just volatalise anyhow? 

The studies certainly only show increases hepatic function but no evidence (by the looks of things) of stored toxins.

This is no different (in my mind) than humans taking aspirin - the liver has to work much harder to break down the aspirin so invariably the hepatic function is increased because of this.

So my initial, but not clearly informed thoughts are that mice and rats kept on softwood beddings will not harm your snake - though, a study should be conducted to prove this.

*bags not*


----------



## Duke (Jun 19, 2008)

slim6y said:


> Do the toxin, which are aromatic to say the least just volatalise anyhow?
> 
> The studies certainly only show increases hepatic function but no evidence (by the looks of things) of stored toxins.
> 
> ...



That's my guess, too.

I'm trying to dig up some more info.

Found this so far:
http://www.inchem.org/documents/hsg/hsg/hsg88_e.htm

The bioconcentration factors of phenol in various types of water 
organisms are low; the compound is therefore not expected to 
bioaccumulate significantly.
Phenol is moderately toxic for manunals. The oral LD50 in rodents 
ranged from 300 to 600 mg/kg body weight, while the dermal LD50 for 
rats and rabbits ranged from 670 to 1400 mg/kg body weight, and the 8-h 
LC50 for rats was more than 900 mg/m3 . Clinical symptoms after short-
term exposure are neuromuscular hyperexcitability, necrosis of the skin 
and mucous membranes, and effects on the lungs, kidneys, and liver. 

In short-term animal studies, toxic effects in the rat kidney have been 
reported at oral dose levels of 40 mg or more/kg body weight per day. 
In a limited 14-day study on rats, an oral no-observed- adverse-effect 
level (NOAEL) of 12 mg/kg body weight per day was found on the basis of 
kidney effects. In two multiple dose reproductive toxicity studies on 
rats, NOAELs of 40 mg/kg body weight per day and 60 mg/kg body weight 
per day, respectively, were found. 


And this is the key point from the report:
* Phenol is not expected to bioaccumulate significantly*. It is toxic for 
aquatic organisms, and an environmental concern level of 0.02 µg/litre 
is suggested for water. *Adequate data on plants and terrestrial 
organisms are lacking. *

Intercompartmental transport of phenol mainly occurs by wet deposition 
and by leaching through soil. Generally, the compound is not likely to 
persist in the environment. *Because exposure data are scarce, firm 
conclusions cannot be drawn with regard to the extent of the risk for 
either aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems*. However, in view of the 
derived environmental concern level for water, it is reasonable to 
assume that aquatic organisms may be at risk in any surface or sea 
waters that are contaminated with phenol.


----------



## slim6y (Jun 19, 2008)

What's a manunal?


----------



## euphorion (Jun 19, 2008)

as far as my knowledge of trophic structures go i would agree with slim6y, any contaminants would accumulate at a higher concentration when consumed by higher trophic levels. such as can be seen with mercury in tuna these days. my personal opinion would be to only feed your treasured animals with the highest quality food available, its not worth the risk, i mean we often see poor health in animals fed on a diet of poor quality rodents dont we? 

oh and with the biological half-life of the phenols... this doesnt make sense in my mind... wouldn't that indicate that the chemical structure of the phenols is radiogenically unstable in the first place? mmmm, McRadiation poisoning


----------



## slim6y (Jun 19, 2008)

shooshoo said:


> as far as my knowledge of trophic structures go i would agree with slim6y, any contaminants would accumulate at a higher concentration when consumed by higher trophic levels. such as can be seen with mercury in tuna these days. my personal opinion would be to only feed your treasured animals with the highest quality food available, its not worth the risk, i mean we often see poor health in animals fed on a diet of poor quality rodents dont we?
> 
> oh and with the biological half-life of the phenols... this doesnt make sense in my mind... wouldn't that indicate that the chemical structure of the phenols is radiogenically unstable in the first place? mmmm, McRadiation poisoning



NO!!!

Your body can effectively remove toxins - the rate at which it removes half of the original dose of a toxin/drug etc is the biological half life of particular toxins/enzymes etc...

And ALL carbon forms have a radioactive isotope of C-14 at around 5%... yep, you're made up of about 5% radioactive materials... The half life of C-14 is some 6000 years - this is how carbon dating was originally used - though it has NOTHING to do with biological half life.


----------

