DOCSLIB.ORG

Glossary of Terms Relating to Pesticides

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Glossary of Terms Relating to Pesticides Pure Appl. Chem., Vol. 78, No. 11, pp. 2075–2154, 2006. doi:10.1351/pac200678112075 © 2006 IUPAC INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY CHEMISTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENT DIVISION* GLOSSARY OF TERMS RELATING TO PESTICIDES (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) Prepared for publication by GERALD R. STEPHENSON1,‡, IAN G. FERRIS2, PATRICK T. HOLLAND3, AND MONICA NORDBERG4 1Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada; 2FAO/IAEA Programme, Vienna, Austria; 3Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand; 4Karolinska Institutet, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden *Membership of the Chemistry and the Environment Division Committee during the preparation of this report (2004–2005) was as follows: President: K. D. Racke (USA); Secretary: P. T. Holland (New Zealand); Titular Members: E. Anklam (Belgium, 2002–2005); P. Dysseler (Belgium, 2000–2005); L. Klasinc (Croatia, 2002–2005); W. Klein (Germany, 1994–2005), L. McConnell (USA, 2004–2007); W. J. G. M. Peijnenburg (Netherlands, 2000–2005); N. Senesi (Italy, 2002–2005); R. D. Wauchope (USA, 2002–2007); Associate Members: W. R. Benson (USA, 2004–2005); R. Cantrill (USA, 2002–2005); O. Hertel (Denmark, 2004–2005); P. M. Huang (Canada, 2002–2005); W. Kordel (Germany, 2004–2005); Y. Shevah (Israel, 2000–2005); K. Tanaka (Japan, 2004–2005); National Representatives: P. S. Fedotov (Russia, 2002–2005); M. Fitzgerald (Australia, 2004–2005); S. H. Herve (Finland, 2004–2005); Y. H. Kim (Korea, 2002–2005); E. Resto (Puerto Rico, 2002–2005); T. Taveres (Brazil, 2004–2005). ‡Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected] Republication or reproduction of this report or its storage and/or dissemination by electronic means is permitted without the need for formal IUPAC permission on condition that an acknowledgment, with full reference to the source, along with use of the copyright symbol ©, the name IUPAC, and the year of publication, are prominently visible. Publication of a translation into another language is subject to the additional condition of prior approval from the relevant IUPAC National Adhering Organization. 2075 2076 G. R. STEPHENSON et al. Glossary of terms relating to pesticides (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) Abstract: The glossary contains definitions of more than 500 terms frequently used in relation to the chemistry, mode of action, regulation, and use of pesticides. A wide range of disciplines is involved in this field, and the glossary was developed as a step in facilitating communication among researchers, government regulatory authorities, and chemists in associated professional areas. The range of terms re- lates to pesticide residue analysis, sampling for analysis, good laboratory practice, metabolism, environmental fate, effects on ecosystems, computer simulation mod- els, toxicology, and risk assessment. The number of important, “pesticide-related” terms has more than doubled since 1996, when the first IUPAC glossary of this type was developed [1], an indication of how this field has become so integrated with many other scientific and regulatory disciplines. Keywords: IUPAC Chemistry and the Environment Division; glossary; pesticides; regulation; pesticide residue analysis; sampling for analysis; good laboratory prac- tice; metabolism; environmental fate; risk assessment. CONTENTS PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ALPHABETICAL ENTRIES ANNEX 1. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS OF NAMES OF INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL BODIES ANNEX 2. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS OF TERMS RELATED TO PESTICIDES ANNEX 3. SOURCES PREFACE Pesticides are a broad class of bioactive compounds important for food and crop production and for human health. The development, production, use, and regulation of pesticides encompass a very wide range of disciplines including synthetic chemistry, chemistry of formulations and residues, biological and environmental fate, soil and plant science, toxicology, ecotoxicology, and risk assessment. Biotechnology, good laboratory practice, and computer simulation modeling are also very important to this field. There is a high degree of interest within regional and national government authorities as well as within international organizations. Educational institutions, media for mass communication, non- governmental organizations (e.g., consumer associations, environmental groups, and the general pub- lic) are also concerned with the complex issues surrounding pesticides. The need for good communi- cation among all the groups involved with, or interested in, pesticides is obvious. This IUPAC project develops a new glossary on pesticide nomenclature, terminology, and definitions which will also be published electronically to assist in this process. It is an update of an earlier IUPAC glossary of terms related to pesticides that was published in 1996 [1]. The glossary has drawn on a wide variety of sources. Some of the general definitions have been put into a pesticide context. However, in all cases, the aim has been to preserve the core meaning. Definitions for a number of formulation terms are inconsistent between different authorities, and we © 2006 IUPAC, Pure and Applied Chemistry 78, 2075–2154 Glossary of terms relating to pesticides 2077 have largely followed those of the FAO. The definitions and recommended abbreviations for the most commonly used formulations of pesticides are provided. The full list of over 60 formulation types de- fined by GIFAP [2,62] is available. The modes of action for a few fungicides, insecticides, and herbi- cides are presented, as examples, but there is no intent to be all-inclusive in this area. Furthermore, as research continues, these mechanisms will be understood more precisely. Whenever accurate and help- ful, with respect to pesticides, definitions of terms in the online version of the IUPAC 1997 Compendium of Chemical Terminology [3] are used as the preferred definitions. Toxicology definitions are also consistent with those recommended by the IUPAC Commission on Toxicology in their very comprehensive glossary [4]. However, we have not been able to examine all potentially relevant IUPAC glossaries for IUPAC-approved definitions of terms that appear here. Terms related to pesticide risk as- sessment are consistent with those developed by OECD and IPCS to advance their efforts for interna- tional harmonization and understanding in that field. Widely used abbreviations are given in the body of the glossary and can be readily found through the alphabetically ordered definitions or via cross ref- erences. Separate lists of abbreviations and acronyms of terms and national or international bodies with direct relevance to pesticides are provided. This project demonstrates a long-term commitment by IUPAC to the periodical updating of glos- saries by incorporating user as well as expert feedback. This publication ensures transparency and is an important quality control mechanism. The Web-based INFOCRIS version provides a transition mecha- nism and means to gauge client use. In addition, extensive mark-up language procedures encourage reuse of the glossary by other information systems. See the FAO/IAEA Web site for an example [5]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to IUPAC for making funds available to facilitate the production of this glossary. We extend special appreciation to Carolyn Vickers, IPCS/WHO, and Richard Sigman, OECD, for their very valuable input in the preparation of this glossary. Furthermore, the active contributions of numerous other members of the Pesticide Glossary Working Group (not already listed on the cover page) are gratefully acknowledged. Members of this group include: I. Alleluia (IUPAC, Brazil), J. Bestari (Univ. of Guelph, Canada), E. Carazo (IUPAC, Costa Rica), P. Doyle (Syngenta, Canada), A. Felsot (IUPAC, USA), J. Gilmour (BCPC, UK), K. Gross-Helmert (Joint FAO/IAEA Programme, Austria), R. Gonzales (IUPAC, Chile), D. Hamilton (IUPAC, Australia), H. Jungblut (IUPAC, Germany), J. Linders (IUPAC, Netherlands), J. Outram (IUPAC, UK), R. Parker (IUPAC, USA), B. Rubin (IUPAC, Israel), and J. Unsworth (IUPAC, UK) Without the continuing efforts of these many participants from so many dif- ferent disciplines, this glossary could not have been possible. ALPHABETICAL ENTRIES abiotic Not associated with living organisms [3]. abiotic degradation Degradation of a pesticide via purely physical or chemical mechanisms. Examples include hydrolysis and photolysis. absorption 1. Penetration of a substance into an organism by various processes, some specialized, some in- volving expenditure of energy (active transport), some involving a carrier system, and others in- © 2006 IUPAC, Pure and Applied Chemistry 78, 2075–2154 2078 G. R. STEPHENSON et al. volving passive movement down an electrochemical gradient: In mammals, absorption is usually through the respiratory tract, or skin [6]. 2. The process of one material (absorbent) being retained by another (absorbate); this may be the physical solution of a gas, liquid, or solid in a liquid, attachment of dissolved molecules of a gas, vapor, liquid, or dissolved substance to a solid surface by physical forces, etc. In spectro- photometry, absorption of light at characteristic wavelengths or bands of wavelengths is used to identify the chemical nature of molecules, atoms, or ions and measure the concentrations of these species [3]. acaricide Pesticide used for the control of ticks or mites. accelerated degradation See enhanced degradation. acceptable daily intake (ADI) Estimate of the amount of a substance in food or drinking water, expressed on a body-mass
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative Herbicides in Turfgrass and Organic Agriculture
    1 Volume XXXII, Number 5/6, May/June 2010 Alternative Herbicides in Turfgrass and Organic Agriculture By William Quarles Photo courtesy of Marrone Bio Innovations number of alternative herbi- cides have been developed A and are now either commer- cially available, or waiting for EPA approval. Major markets for these herbicides include the turfgrass industry and organic agriculture. Demand for “green” herbicides in turfgrass is being driven both by environmental concerns and regula- tory action. For instance, a number of provinces in Canada have banned cosmetic application of chemical pesticides such as 2,4-D for broadleaf weed control on lawns. Cultural methods can relieve some weed pressures, but alternative herbicides can make weed manage- ment less labor intensive (Abu- Dieyeh and Watson 2009; Hashman 2011; Bailey et al. 2010; Boyetchko et al. 2009). In organic agriculture, weeds are Alternative herbicides can be effective. Pictured here is an irrigation chan- the number one pest management nel that has been treated with GreenMatch®, a reduced risk herbicide con- problem and conventional synthetic taining d-limonene. herbicides cannot be used. Current organic options include hand weed- commonly used lawn herbicides— weeds is to ignore or tolerate them. ing, cultivation, mulching and flam- 2,4-D, dicamba, and MCPP. About Some “weeds” are even aesthetically ing (Quarles 2004; Sivesind et al. 77% of the Canadian population is pleasing and break up the monoto- 2009). Alternative herbicides can benefiting from reduced exposure to ny of a “perfect” lawn. When lawn reduce or eliminate costs of hand synthetic lawn and garden pesti- weeds reach levels where they can- weeding (Evans and Bellinder 2009; cides (Ottawa 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Practices for Pesticide Applicators
    Standard Practices for Pesticide Applicators 10/09 Printed in Canada BK35 About WorkSafeBC WorkSafeBC (the Workers’ Compensation Board) is an independent provincial statutory agency governed by a Board of Directors. It is funded by insurance premiums paid by registered employers and by investment returns. In administering the Workers Compensation Act, WorkSafeBC remains separate and distinct from government; however, it is accountable to the public through government in its role of protecting and maintaining the overall well-being of the workers’ compensation system. WorkSafeBC was born out of a compromise between B.C.’s workers and employers in 1917 where workers gave up the right to sue their employers or fellow workers for injuries on the job in return for a no-fault insurance program fully paid for by employers. WorkSafeBC is committed to a safe and healthy workplace, and to providing return-to-work rehabilitation and legislated compensation benefits to workers injured as a result of their employment. WorkSafeBC Prevention Information Line The WorkSafeBC Prevention Information Line can answer your questions about workplace health and safety, worker and employer responsibilities, and reporting a workplace accident or incident. The Prevention Information Line accepts anonymous calls. Phone 604 276-3100 in the Lower Mainland, or call 1 888 621-7233 (621-SAFE) toll-free in British Columbia. To report after-hours and weekend accidents and emergencies, call 604 273-7711 in the Lower Mainland, or call 1 866 922-4357 (WCB-HELP) toll-free in British Columbia. Standard Practices for Pesticide Applicators WorkSafeBC Publications Many publications are available on the WorkSafeBC web site.
    [Show full text]
  • OGC Revisions Final Draft IPM Guidelines 4 19 21
    EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES April 2021 INTRODUCTION The East Bay Municipal Utility District (District) is responsible for implementing pest control management practices across approximately 57,000 acres of watershed lands and reservoirs in the East Bay and Sierra foothills. This includes multiple recreation areas, over 100 miles of rights-of-way along our aqueducts, facility grounds at hundreds of sites in five counties and other areas located throughout the District’s water source and service areas. Pests may include a wide range of both plant and animal species capable of creating a nuisance; however, the predominant pest addressed by the District is invasive vegetation. Within the District’s footprint, pests are managed for a number of reasons including but not limited to human health and safety, protection of infrastructure, regulatory requirements, fire risk reduction and preservation of habitat and biodiversity. The District is committed to using the most environmentally safe practices for pest control to ensure the health and safety of the public and District employees, and to protect potable water quality, natural resources and public and private property. The District established an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program in the 1990s to develop a consistent approach toward pest management throughout the District using a combination of physical, biological and cultural controls and includes the use and monitoring of pesticides, which predominantly consist of herbicides. The IPM program provides written guidance for determining the most appropriate pest control methods for a particular situation. Ever evolving IPM procedures and practices are developed with input from industry and academic experts and staff having pest management responsibilities to ensure they are implementable and effective.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of Electrolyzed Water in Degrading and Removing
    EFFICACY OF ELECTROLYZED WATER IN DEGRADING AND REMOVING PESTICIDE RESIDUES ON FRESH PRODUCE By HANG QI (Under the Direction of Yen-Con Hung) ABSTRACT Pure solution of diazinon, cyprodinil, and phosmet were treated with electrolyzed oxidizing (EO) water and electrolyzed reduced (ER) water. Lower pH, higher available chlorine content (ACC), and longer treatment time of EO water resulted in higher reductions of the three pesticides. ER water was effective in degrading phosmet, slightly effective in reducing diazinon, and ineffective in degrading cyprodinil. Soaking grapes in 12 mg/L mixed pesticide solution for 10 min was found to be the appropriate method for pesticide inoculation. EO water at 500 mL combined with 100 rpm shaking was determined to be the most effective way to wash 200 g contaminated grapes. Then, fresh grapes, spinach, and snap peas contaminated with the three pesticides were washed with EO water at different ACC and treatment time. The results showed both ACC and treatment time were significant (P ≤ 0.05) factors for EO water in removing the three pesticide residues on produce samples. EO water was more effective than ER water, diluted bleach, Vegwash and DI water. Finally, the effect of EO water treatment on produce quality was evaluated. No significant (P > 0.05) color and texture degradation was found for EO water treated produce samples. INDEX WORDS: Electrolyzed water, fresh produce, diazinon, cyprodinil, phosmet EFFICACY OF ELECTROLYZED WATER IN DEGRADING AND REMOVING PESTICIDE RESIDUES ON FRESH PRODUCE by HANG
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticides and Toxic Substances
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs TO: Jim Jones, Director Office of Pesticide Programs As you know, EPA has completed its assessment of the cumulative risks from the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition, the individual OPs have also been subject to review through the individual- chemical review process. The Agency’s review of individual OPs has resulted in the issuance of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) for 22 OPs, interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for 8 OPs, and a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for one OP, malathion.1 These 31 OPs are listed in Appendix A. EPA has concluded, after completing its assessment of the cumulative risks associated with exposures to all of the OPs, that: (1) the pesticides covered by the IREDs that were pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment (listed in Attachment A) are indeed eligible for reregistration; and 1 Malathion is included in the OP cumulative assessment. However, the Agency has issued a RED for malathion, rather than an IRED, because the decision was signed on the same day as the completion of the OP cumulative assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Degradates of Concern to the Drinking Water Community
    Pesticide Degradates of Concern to the Drinking Water Community Project #2938 Subject Area: High-Quality Water Web Report TO: Awwa Research Foundation Subscribers RE: Enclosed report, Pesticide Degradates of Concern to the Drinking Water Community The objectives of this project were to develop a priority list of pesticides and their degradates and adjuvants of potential concern and identify related research priorities. To meet these objectives, the research team collated data on the occurrence, properties, persistence and toxicity of pesticide degradates and adjuvants in soils, waters, and treatment processes; and held a workshop to discuss prioritization approaches and research needs. The information generated from the literature review and workshop recommendations has been summarized in the enclosed report and was used to develop a priority list of pesticide degradates. General research needs in four key areas were also identified at the workshop and are included in the report. Due to the technical nature of this project, the results are being made available to both subscribers and the research community through this electronic version of the report on AwwaRF’s web site. ©2008 AwwaRF. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ©2008 AwwaRF. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Pesticide Degradates of Concern to the Drinking Water Community ©2008 AwwaRF. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED About the Awwa Research Foundation The Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF) is a member-supported, international, nonprofit organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionals to provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers. The Foundation’s mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve this mission, the Foundation sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including supply and resources, treatment, monitoring and analysis, distribution, management, and health effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental History & Basics of Environmental Statutes Steve Mason
    Environmental History & Basics of Environmental Statutes Steve Mason 15th Annual OSC Readiness Training Program www.oscreadiness.org What is Environmental Law ? • Legal system of statutes, rules, guidelines, policies, and judicial/administrative interpretations addressing wide-ranging set of environmental issues and concerns • Minimizes, prevents, punishes, or remedies consequences of actions which damage or threaten environment, public health, and safety • Most environmental laws result from catastrophe 15th Annual OSC Readiness Training Program www.oscreadiness.org 1 Some Examples • EPCRA – Bhopal, India • CERCLA – Love Canal • CWA – Fires on the Cuyahuga River, Ohio • OPA – Exxon Valdez & Mega Borg • CAA Amendments (RMP) – Series of deadly explosions & releases in late ’80s 15th Annual OSC Readiness Training Program www.oscreadiness.org 2 It Can Get Confusing !!!!! 15th Annual OSC Readiness Training Program www.oscreadiness.org 3 Great Moments in History of Environmental Protection Decline of Roman Empire partly due to lead poisoning; used lead acetate to sweeten wine and turn pulp into sweet condiment; lead piping used to distribute water 1340s: Bubonic plague decimates Europe, creating first attempts to enforce public health and quarantine laws; cleanest residents executed for fear of intentionally spreading plague 15th Annual OSC Readiness Training Program www.oscreadiness.org 4 Great Moments in History of Environmental Protection 1589: Water closet invented by John Harington in England, but indifference to filth and
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide ER Course Agenda
    Pesticide ER Course Agenda • Introduction and video • Pesticides and Fed/State Regulations • Human Impacts • Hazard Recognition • Case Study – Wildlife Baiting Investigation – Break 3:00 – 3:15 • Environmental Impacts • Case Study – 15 Mile Creek • Analysis, Treatment, T&D • Scenario Exercises • Course Closing and Evaluation – Out by 5:30pm Pesticides And Federal/State Regulations 2 3 4 Definitions The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) specifies: A pesticide is any substance or mixture intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insect, rodent, nematode, fungi, or weeds or any other forms of life declared to be pests. (FIFRA) A pest is any form of plant or animal life or virus, bacteria, or other microorganism, except those on or in living man or animals. 5 CERCLA vs FIFRA “Mindset” OPP only EPA program that allows hazardous materials to be willfully introduced into the environment. CERCLA Response Normal Pesticide Application Hazardous substance, Released to environment pollutant/contaminant Will not cause unreasonable Release (or threat of ) harm to environment Pose health & environmental Discretionary threats Must protect Public Sampling guaranteed to find Health & Environment application Define nature/extent of problem-SAMPLE Residual expected—not waste Dispose of waste 6 Pesticide Classes Insecticide Miticide Herbicide Molluscicide Fungicide Slimicide Rodenticide Silvicide Nematicide Disinfectants Bactericide Homocide Predacide Fumigants Algicide Repellants
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Pest Management Plan for Bates School Wellesley, Massachusetts (#1 of 8 Wellesley Public Schools) 12/19/2001 OUTDOORS
    Integrated Pest Management Plan for Bates School Wellesley, Massachusetts (#1 of 8 Wellesley Public Schools) 12/19/2001 OUTDOORS 1) General School Information Bates School 116 Elmood Rd Wellesley, MA 02482 781-446-6260 Prepared by Sarah Little Dec 19, 2001 2) IPM Coordinator Dana Cotto Director of Buildings and Grounds (of Schools) 781-446-6210 x4517 [email protected] 3) School IPM Committee Amber Bock Principal Ted McGlone Head Custodian Anne Prinn Director, Nursing Services (of Schools) Lenny Izzo Environmental Health Specialist (Health Dept) Janet Bowser Director, Wellesley Natural Resources Commission Judy Curby Assistant Director, Department of Public Works 4) School IPM Policy The School Board, the Health Department, the Department of Public Works, and the Natural Resource Commission recognize the potentially serious risks inherent in using chemical pesticides in the school environment. It therefore supports the implementation of a comprehensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for all school buildings and grounds with the goal of controlling pests while preventing exposure of children to harmful pesticides. 1 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) will be defined as the coordinated use of physical, biological and cultural controls, and, in the face of a public health threat or substantial property damage, the use of least-toxic pest control chemicals. The goal of using IPM in Wellesley is to control pests without exposing people, property and the environment to harmful chemicals. Integrated Pest Management will be understood to involve the monitoring of pest populations, establishment of tolerance thresholds, modifications of habitats (to eliminate sources of food, water and harborage and entry), utilization of least-toxic controls, keeping of records and evaluation of performance on an ongoing basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Regulation
    OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR O L A STATE OF MINNESOTA EVALUATION REPORT Pesticide Regulation MARCH 2006 PROGRAM EVALUATION DIVISION Centennial Building – Suite 140 658 Cedar Street – St. Paul, MN 55155 Telephone: 651-296-4708 ● Fax: 651-296-4712 E-mail: [email protected] ● Web site: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us Program Evaluation Division Evaluation Staff The Program Evaluation Division was created James Nobles, Legislative Auditor within the Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) in 1975. The division’s mission, as set forth in law, Joel Alter is to determine the degree to which state agencies Valerie Bombach and programs are accomplishing their goals and David Chein objectives and utilizing resources efficiently. Jody Hauer Adrienne Howard Topics for evaluation are approved by the Daniel Jacobson Legislative Audit Commission (LAC), a Deborah Junod 16-member joint, bipartisan commission. The Carrie Meyerhoff division’s reports, however, are solely the John Patterson responsibility of OLA. Findings, conclusions, and Judith Randall recommendations do not necessarily reflect the Jan Sandberg views of the LAC or any of its members. Jo Vos John Yunker A list of recent evaluations is on the last page of this report. A more complete list is available at OLA's website (www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us), as This document can be made available in alternative are copies of evaluation reports. formats, such as large print, Braille, or audio tape, by calling 651-296-8976 Voice, or the Minnesota The Office of the Legislative Auditor also includes Relay Service at 651-297-5353 or 1-800-627-3529.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. EPA, Pesticide Product Label, MAGNACIDE S SLIMICIDE, 11/16
    ~I . .' .. lo/ol-/t. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NOV 1 6 1989 11,5. llalina Caravello Baker Perforc.ance Chemica Is, Inc. 3920 Essex Lane Bous ton, TX 77027 [Jear :~3. Caravello: Subject; l'.!nend;nent - Revis"," Lab(>ling /.lagnacide S Slimicide EPA Registrat.ion No. 10707-16 The labeliny referred to above, ~uL!'l.itted in connection \.,T1th registration und'.!r the Fe~et'a 1 Ins(~cticide, F'unl)icide, and HoJentlC"1 (";.~ Act, is acceptabl(> provided that. you: 1. Change • CORROSIVE. CAUSES EYE 1II1D SKIN DAM.\GE.· to read ·CORROSIVE. CAUSES EYE DAI-1AGE AND SKIN BURI!S.· A stamped copy of the lal""l is enclosed for your records. Sincerely yours, , r, \ .yr'\ n . \." '{ Joann" I. Hiller Acting Product Hanager 123) Fungicide-Herbicide Branch Registration Division (H750SC) Enclosure 50678:I:RObbins:RD-l :KENCO:ll/14/89:12/23/89:KA:sw:vo:ka COMCUItlIIMaS ~ .................................." ................ ..................................................................................... ~ ......••.............•...............•.•••••••...... ................. ...............•• ...•........•.... ............... - ................ ,. 132001 (12-70) OPFICIAL FILE COpy · -.. .' ~ ---.;:.....-'-..~-'-'-'-. - _. ... .. ~ .... limicide (Acrolein, Inhibited) EPA Reg. No. 10707 - 16 NDER PRESSURE EPA Est. 10707 - CA-5 RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE POISON For rClail sale to and use only by Certified Applicators or ,jcrsons under their direct supervision and only for those ACH OF CHILDREN uses covered by the Certified Applicator"s certification. NOTE TO PHYSICIANS WARNING SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS: Liquid Magnacide S SlimiciCk! is absorbed by the skin and is oartlcularly Irrilaling to any lesion and to the eyes. The vapors act prinCipally on the mucous membranes of the eyes and respiratory tracl. Because of the extreme lachrymatory warning effect. the.!=oncenlrahon toll!rable by man IS lar below the minimum lelhal ":oncentration.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 50/Thursday, March 14, 2019/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 50 / Thursday, March 14, 2019 / Notices 9329 other information, call (866) 208–3676 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room would be likely to cause significant (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., impact on the availability of the Monday through Friday, excluding legal pesticide for the use. Kimberly D. Bose, holidays. The telephone number for the In fiscal year 2018, maintenance fees Secretary. Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, were collected in one billing cycle. In [FR Doc. 2019–04670 Filed 3–13–19; 8:45 am] and the telephone number for the OPP late November of 2017, all holders of BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review either FIFRA section 3 registrations or the visitor instructions and additional FIFRA section 24(c) registrations were information about the docket available sent lists of their active registrations, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. along with forms and instructions for AGENCY responding. They were asked to identify II. Background which of their registrations they wished [EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0657; FRL–9987–82] This cancellation order follows an to maintain in effect, and to calculate Pesticide Maintenance Fee: Product October 19, 2018 Federal Register and remit the appropriate maintenance Cancellation Order for Certain Notice of Receipt of Requests from the fees. Most responses were received by Pesticide Registrations registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit III. the statutory deadline of January 15, to voluntarily cancel these product 2018.
    [Show full text]