DOCSLIB.ORG

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document for Endothall

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document for Endothall United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738-R-05-008 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances September 2005 Agency (7508C) Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Endothall i Reregistration Eligibilit y Decision (RED) Document for Endothall List B Case Number 2245 Approved by: Date: Debra Edwards, Ph. D. Director Special Review and Reregistration Division ii Table of Contents Endothall Reregistration Eligibility Decision Team.............................................................i Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations ................................................................................ ii Abstract ...............................................................................................................................iv I. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1 II. Chemical Overview........................................................................................................ 2 A. Endothall and Salts Nomenc lature ............................................................................. 3 B. Use Sites..................................................................................................................... 3 C. Formulations ............................................................................................................... 3 D. Methods of application............................................................................................... 3 E. Use rates ..................................................................................................................... 4 F. Annual usage ............................................................................................................... 4 G. Tolerances in Use Profile ........................................................................................... 4 H. Technical Registrant ................................................................................................... 5 III. Summary of Risk Assessment ...................................................................................... 5 A. Human Health Risk Assessment ................................................................................ 5 1. Hazard Profile ......................................................................................................... 5 2. Dietary Risk (Food) ................................................................................................ 7 a. Acute Dietary Risk (Food ................................................................................... 8 b. Chronic Dietary Risk (Food) .............................................................................. 8 3. Cancer Dietary Risk (Food) .................................................................................. 10 4. Drinking Water Dietary Risk ................................................................................ 10 a. Aquatic Uses ..................................................................................................... 10 b. Terrestrial Uses ................................................................................................. 12 5. Chronic Risk from Food Plus Drinking Water ..................................................... 12 6. Residential Risk .................................................................................................... 13 7. Aggregate Risk...................................................................................................... 14 8. Occupational Risk................................................................................................. 14 a. Occupational Handler Summary....................................................................... 15 i. Terrestrial Applications ................................................................................. 15 ii. Aquatic Applications .................................................................................... 15 iii. Cooling Tower (Biocide) Applications ....................................................... 16 b. Post-application Occupational Risk .................................................................. 16 9. Human Incident Summary.................................................................................... 17 B. Ecological Risk......................................................................................................... 17 1. Environmental Fate and Transport........................................................................ 17 2. Terrestrial Organism Risk..................................................................................... 18 a. Risks from Use of Endothall N, N-dimethylalkylamine Salt............................ 18 3. Aquatic Organism Risk......................................................................................... 19 a. Risks from Use of Endothall N, N-dimethylalkylamine Salt............................ 19 b. Risks from Use of Endothall Dipotassium Salt ................................................ 20 c. Risks from Endothall Acid ................................................................................ 20 4. Risk to Endangered Species.................................................................................. 21 a. Risks from Use of Endothall N, N-dimethylalkylamine Salt............................ 21 b. Risks from Use of Endothall Dipotassium Salt ................................................ 22 iii IV. Risk Management, Reregistration, and Tolerance Reassessment Decision............... 22 A. Determination or Reregistration Eligibility............................................................. 22 B. Public Comments and Responses............................................................................. 23 C. Regulatory Position.................................................................................................. 23 1. Food Quality Protection Act Findings .................................................................. 23 a. "Risk Cup" Determination ................................................................................ 23 b. Determination of Safety to U.S. Population (Including Infants and Children) 24 c. Endocrine Disruptor Effects.............................................................................. 24 d. Cumulative Risks .............................................................................................. 25 2. Tolerance Summary.............................................................................................. 25 a. Tolerances Currently Listed and Tolerance Reassessme nt ............................... 27 D. Regulatory Rationale................................................................................................ 28 a. Dietary Risk Mitigation (food and drinking water) .......................................... 28 1. Human Health Risk Management......................................................................... 29 a. Occupational Risk Mitigation ........................................................................... 29 b. Residential Risk Mitigation .............................................................................. 29 2. Environmental Risk Management......................................................................... 30 a. Dipotassium Salt ............................................................................................... 30 b. N, N-dimethylalkylamine Salt .......................................................................... 30 3. Significance of Endothall Use............................................................................... 30 4. Other Labeling Requirements ............................................................................... 31 5. Threatened and Endangered Species Considerations............................................ 32 a. The Endangered Species Program..................................................................... 32 b. General Risk Mitigation.................................................................................... 32 V. What Registrants Need to Do....................................................................................... 33 A. Manufacturing Use Products.................................................................................... 34 1. Additional Generic Data Requirements ................................................................ 34 2. Labeling for Technical and Manufacturing Use Products .................................... 35 B. End-Use products ..................................................................................................... 36 1. Additional Product-Specific Data Requirements .................................................. 36 2. Labeling for End-Use Products............................................................................. 36 a. Label Changes Summary Table ........................................................................ 36 VI. Appendices.................................................................................................................. 47 A. Table of Use Patterns for Endothall ............................................................................. 48 B.Generic Data Requirements and Studies Used to Make the Reregistration Decision63 C. Technical Support Documents ................................................................................. 70 D. Bibliography............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pesticide Use in Alaska 1978
    t PESTICIDE USE IN ALASKA 1978 David P. Bleicher Entomology Research Technician Peter C. Scorup Agronomy Technician and William W. Mitchell Professor, Agronomy AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Circular 40 James V. Drew, Director December, 1980 UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA Dr. Jay B a rto n................................................................................................................................ President Dr. Howard A. C u tler..................................................... Chancellor, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Dr. F. Lawrence B e n n e............................................................. tt Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs Dr. Keith B. M a th e r ............................................. Vice Chancellor for Research and Advanced Study Dr. James V. D rew .................. Dean, School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management, and Director, Agricultural Experiment Station BOARD OF REGENTS Edward B. Rasmuson, President Jeffrey J. Cook, Vice-President Donald B. Abel, Jr., Secretary Herbert C. Lang, Treasurer Mildred Banfield Tim Burgess Dr. Hugh B. Fate, Jr., Past President Margaret J . Hall Sam Kito, Jr. Thomas J. Miklautsch Sharilyn I. Mumaw John T. Shively Dr. Jay Barton, Ex Officio Member The Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of Alaska provides station publica­ tions and equal educational and employment opportunities to all, regardless of race, color, reli­ gion, national origin, sex, age, disability, or status as a Vietnam era or disabled veteran. In order to simplify terminology, trade names of products or equipment may have been used in this publication. No endorsement of products or firms mentioned is intended, nor is criticism implied of those not mentioned. Material appearing herein may be reprinted provided no endorsement of a commercial pro­ duct is stated or implied. Please credit the researchers involved and the Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Miscp55.Pdf (7.157Mb Application/Pdf)
    CLOQUET FORESTRY CENTER RESEARCH PAPERS AND REPORTS FOR THE SEVENTY-FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM 1912 ·1987 -· ' . ~.:• ·. ., .,. MINNESOTA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 55·1988 ~ Cloquet Forestry Center Research Papers and Reports for the 75-Year Period from 1912-1987 Alvin A. Aim Professor, Department of Forest Resources College of Forestry University of Minnesota Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication 55-1988 St. Paul, Minnesota This Miscellaneous Publication of the Minnesota Agrlcuhural Experiment Station Ia Intended for a very specialized audience. Initial distribution was made by the Cloquet Forestry Center of the College of Forestry, University of Minnesota. Copies will be available only until the Initial printing of the publication Ia exhausted. For copies write: Alvin Aim, Cloquet Forestry Center, 175 University Road, Cloquet, Minnesota 55720. PREFACE This paper provides a listing of reports, theses, and journal articles covering work conducted or materials and services provided at the University of Minnesot a, College of Forestry, Cloquet Forestry Center. The listing covers a 75-year period from 1912 to 1987. A total of 652 papers are listed. Although considerable effort was made to make the list as complete as possible it may be that there are some omissions . Hopefully, readers of the list will assist in providing any additional citations or changes that can be inserted in a future update . The listing is divided into two sections . Section I is in alphabetical sequence by author's last name. Section II provides a cross reference by subject matter with citation numbers referring to the Section I alphabetical listing. A chronological listing from 1912 to 1960 was compiled by Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • This File Was Created by Scanning the Printed Publication
    1974 USDA FOREST SERVICE GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-24 This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. PACIFIC NORTHWEST , FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE PORTLAND, OREGON ABSTRACT Forest land generally produces considerable woody material other than that which is harvested as timber, needed for recycling of nutrients to the soil , or for sheltering wildlife and young forest seedlings. Excess forest residues, both living and dead, 'are often subject to treatment to reduce fire hazard, to eliminate obstruction to use and protection of the forest, and to remove unsightly accumulations of residue remaining after logging, road construction, or land clearing, or from thinning and pruning. The effects of these residues and of their treatment are frequently important , generally unmeasured, and are only poorly known. In this compendium, 27 research scientists have summarized the present state of knowledge of the effects of forest residues and residue treatments on the components of the forest environment: soil, water, air, fire, scenery, plant and forest growth, animal habitat, insects, and disease. In addition, they have questioned some current practices and have identified areas for research attention where current knowledge is lacking. Keywords: Environmental effects; forest residues--brush, slash; forest residue treatment--mechanical , prescribed burning; silviculture; coni ferae; Pacific Northwest; recommended research; fuel management. Mention of companies or products by name does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nor does it imply approval of the product to the exclusion of others which may also be suitable.
    [Show full text]
  • Or Only 2 Weeks, but in Very Dry Soils It Remained Active for Il/2 Years (142)
    Item D Number 03519 G Not Scanned Author Romancier, Robert M. CorpOratB Author Georgia Forest Research Council Report/Article TitlB 2'4'D' 2.4'5-T> and Related Chemicals for Woody Plant Control in the Southeastern United States Journal/Book Title Year Month/Day Color D Number of Images 46 Descrlpton Notes Monday, December 31, 2001 Page 3619 of 3802 2, 4-D, 2, 4, 5-T, AND RELATED CHEMICALS FOR WOODY PLANT CONTROL IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES BY ROBERT M. ROMANCIER REPORT NUMBER 16 GEORGIA FOREST RESEARCH COUNCIL MACON, GEORGIA 1965 2, 4-D, 2, 4, 5-T, AND RELATED CHEMICALS FOR WOODY PLANT CONTROL IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES BY ROBERT M. ROMANCIER SOUTHEASTERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA REPORT NUMBER 16 GEORGIA FOREST RESEARCH COUNCIL MACON, GEORGIA 1965 THE AUTHOR: Robert M. Romancier, a native of Springfield, Massa- chusetts, has degrees in forestry from the University of Massachusetts and Yale University. Since joining the U. S. Forest Service in 1957, he has served at field locations maintained by the Southeastern Forest Ex- periment Station at Franklin, Virginia, Macon, Georgia, and Charleston, South Carolina. At these centers, Roman- cier worked primarily in forest management research, especially on problems of pine regeneration and also the uses of fire and chemicals in hardwood control. Early in 1965 Romancier moved to Station headquarters in Asheville, North Carolina, where he is serving as a staff assistant in the Timber Management Research Office. THE COVER: Georgia Forestry Commission photo. The use of tractor-mounted mist blowers is one of the latest and most popular techniques in the application of herbicides for woody plant control in the Southeastern United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Item N Number °3632 D N0t Scanned
    3632 item n Number ° D n0t scanned Author House, W.B. Corporate Author Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri Report/Article TltlB Assessment of Ecological Effects of Extensive or Repeated Use of Herbicides Journal/Book Title Year Month/Day Color D Number of Images 386 DescrlOtOU NOtBS Project monitored by the Department of the Army under contract no. DAHC15-68-C-0119; ARPA Order No. 1086 Monday, December 31, 2001 Page 3632 of 3802 UNCLASSIFIED AD 824 314 ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF EXTENSIVE OR REPEATED USE bF H2RBICIDES: FINAL REPORT Midwest Research Institute Kansas City, Missouri Processed for. .. DEFENSE DOCUMENTATION CENTER DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY FOR FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE / NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS / INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY UNCLASSIFIED ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF EXTENSIVE OR REPEATED USE OF HERBICIDES FINAL REPORT 15 August - 1 December 1967 Contract No. DAHC15-68-C-0119 MRI Project No. 3103-B Sponsored by Advanced Research Projects Agency ARPA Order No. 1086 MIDV i: '':«'; RIL.GF-1- '< ;H iNi.-iTITUTH 42S VOLKER BOULEVARD/KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 6411O/AC 816 LO 1-O2O2 This research was supported by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense and was monitored by Department of Army under Contract No. DAHCl5-68-C-Oll9._ Reproduced by the CLEARINGHOUSE | for Federal Scientific & Technical > Information Springfield Va. 221S1 Disclaimer: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an of- ficial position of the Department of Army, unless so designated "by other authorized documents. WST., ) AVAIL ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF EXTENSIVE OR REPEATED USE OF HERBICIDES by W.
    [Show full text]
  • Fate of Foodborne Bacteria in Pesticide Formulations
    FATE OF FOODBORNE BACTERIA IN PESTICIDE FORMULATIONS A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies The University of Manitoba by Tat Yee Guan In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Food Science Department May 2000 tr¡$onat t-iorav nationare t*t åfåiffil:" Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibiiographicservices servicesbibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa OÑ K1A oN4 ottawa ON K1A oN4 Canada Canada Yout l¡\e Volrc ñfércnce Our l¡le Notrc élércnce The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic fonnats. la forme de microfiche/fiIm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copynght in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial exfracts frorn it Ni la thèse ni des exfiaits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son perrnission. autorisation. 0-612-51719-5 Canadä THE I]NÑTRSITY OF MANITOBA FACULTY OF GRADUATE STIIDIES ***** C OPYRIGHT PERMISSION PAGE Fate of Foodborne Bacteria in Pesticide Formulations BY Tat Yee Guan A Thesis/Practicum submiffed to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The Universify of Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science TAT YEE GUAN O 2OOO Permission has been granted to the Library of The University of Manitoba to lend or sell copies of this thesis/practicum, to the National Library of Canada to microfilm this thesis/practicum and to lend or sell copies of the fiIm, and to Dissertations Abstracts International to publish an abstract of this thesis/practicum.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Pesticides- Generalities
    N° 42415 N° THESE EN COTUTELLE présentée à L’Université Libanaise Ecole Doctorale des Sciences et Technologie Spécialité :Sciences de la terre et de l’environnement ET L’Université de Lille, Sciences et technologies Ecole Doctorale des Sciences et Technologie Spécialité :Chimie organique, minérale, industrielle Pour obtenir le grade de DOCTEUR par CHBIB Chaza Pollution des sols et des eaux souterraines par les pesticides dans la région d’Akkar au nord du Liban : Evaluation des risques sanitaires. Thèse soutenue publiquement le 6 Novembre 2017 Membre du Jury M. Fawaz El OMAR, Professeur, Université Libanaise Président M. Chadi ABDALLAH, Chercheur ,CNRS-Liban Rapporteur M. Serge CHIRON, Directeur de recherche IRD, Université de Montpellier Rapporteur M. Laurent QUILLET, Maître de conférences HDR, Université de Rouen Examinateur M. Baghdad OUDDANE, Professeur, Université de Lille Directeur de thèse M. Moomen BAROUDI, Professeur, Université Libanaise Directeur de thèse Mme. Sopheak NET-DAVID, Maître de conférences HDR, Université de Lille Co-encadrement M. Mhammad Fouad ZIADE, Maître de conférences, Université Libanaise Co-encadrement Chaza CHBIB; Pollution des sols et des eaux souterraines par les pesticides dans la région d’AKKAR au nord du Liban : Evaluation des risques sanitaires. II Dedications To Mom and dad, To my lovely sisters, and to my brother… Who always encouraged me to go any adventure especially this one Chaza CHBIB; Pollution des sols et des eaux souterraines par les pesticides dans la région d’AKKAR au nord du Liban : Evaluation des risques sanitaires. III Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication.
    [Show full text]
  • Item D Number 04950 Journal/Book Title Year Color Number of Images
    Item D Number 04950 D NotScannflI| Author Hood> Ronald D. Veterans Administration Central Office, Department of M Report/Article TltlB Cacodylic Acid: Agricultural Uses, Biologic Effects, and Environmental Fate Journal/Book Title Year 1985 Month/Day December Color D Number of Images ° Descriptor Notes Friday, February 22, 2002 Page 4950 of 5115 Cacodylic Acid: Agricultural Uses, Biologic Effects, and Environmental Fate Ronald D. Hood, Ph.D. Department of Biology The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, Alabama and R. D. Hood and Associates Consulting Toxicologists Northport, Alabama December 1985 Veterans Administration Central Office Department of Medicine and Surgery Agent Orange Projects Office Washington, D.C. 20420 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Preface The intent of this monograph is to provide a single source of information on cacodylic acid (CA) and its sodium salt (NaCA). These two compounds were the active ingredients in Agent Blue, one of the group of herbicides used in Vietnam to defoliate hiding places, supply lines, and staging areas held by the opposing forces. Along with the phenoxy herbicides such as Agent Orange, Agent Blue was used experimentally in the early to mid-1960's and more extensively from 1965 to 1970. As with the phenoxy herbicides, these organic arsenicals had been widely used in agriculture and forestry for many years with no known risk to human health. But as with Agent Orange, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent, there has been an expression of concern on the part of some veterans of the Vietnam conflict that exposure to these chemicals might have a potential for adverse health effects.
    [Show full text]
  • By: Danielle Vienneau
    An Assessrnent of the Available Information on Environmental Impacts of Chernical Pesticides Used in the CARICOM States of the Caribbean Region By: Danielle Vienneau Submitted in partial fulfillrnent of the requirernents for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies at Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia July 18, 1997 @ Copyright by Danielle Vienneau, 1997 Nationai u~rary uiwnrneque nauur iaia 1*1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, nie Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 OttawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence ailowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in rnicroform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronîque. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. 3.0 Country Information and Model Island Characteristics ............39 3.1 Introduction .............................................. 39 3.2 Summary of the CARICOM Countries .......................... 39 3.2.1 Climate .............................................39 3.2.2 Country Sire and Land Use ............................. 40 3.3.2 Agricultural Production .................................40 3.3.4 Irrigation ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • FIFRA ER for EPA Oscs
    Welcome to the CLU-IN Internet Seminar CEC Training for OSCs...Pesticide Emergencies (FIFRA ER for EPA OSCs) Sponsored by: EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Delivered: November 13, 2013, 1:00 PM - 4:00 PM, EST (18:00-21:00 GMT) Instructors: • Kathy Halbur, EPA Region 5 ([email protected]) • Dan Heister, EPA Region 10 ([email protected]) • Jim Mullins, Tetra Tech, Inc. ([email protected]) • Bob Whittier, EPA Region 10 ([email protected]) Moderators: • Jean Balent, U.S. EPA Technology Innovation and Field Services Division ([email protected]) Visit the Clean Up Information Network online at www.cluin.org Seminar Homepage Join the Download Slides seminar online Feedback Housekeeping • Entire broadcast offered live via Adobe Connect – participants can listen and watch as the presenters advance through materials live – Some materials may be available to download in advance, you are recommended to participate live via the online broadcast • Audio is streamed online through by default – Use the speaker icon to control online playback – If on phones: all lines will be globally muted • Q&A – use the Q&A pod to privately submit comments, questions and report technical problems • This event is being recorded and shared via email shortly after live delivery • Archives accessed for free http://cluin.org/live/archive/ New online broadcast screenshot Enlarge presentation Control online audio Information View about Sponsors & Submit Speakers presentation live private questions, online here comments or report technical problems Instructor Bio Bob Whittier is an OSC in EPA’s Region 10’s field office in Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Pesticide Safety Education Manual
    Information is out of date. Visit http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/Pesticides/Licensing/Pages/ExamsStudy... for current study materials and information. Oregon Pesticide Safety Education Manual A Guide to the Safe Use and Handling of Pesticides Myron Shenk, Editor and Co-author Pesticide Safety Education Program Coordinator Integrated Plant Protection Center Oregon State University Development and production of this manual was partially funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Pesticide Safety Education Program and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EM 8850 Reprinted April 2008 Information is out of date. Visit http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/Pesticides/Licensing/Pages/ExamsStudy... for current study materials and information. ii ___________________________________________________________Oregon Pesticide Safety Education Manual Information is out of date. Visit http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/Pesticides/Licensing/Pages/ExamsStudy... for current study materials and information. Acknowledgments The Oregon Pesticide Safety Education Manual was adapted from the Oregon Pesticide Applicator Manual, EM 8532, published in 1992, edited by Terry L. Miller. While primary revision was under the supervision of Myron Shenk, Pesticide Safety Education Program Coordinator, Oregon State University Extension Service, many other persons were consulted and contributed significantly to the task. They include: Roland Maynard, Laurie Gordon, Janet Fults, and Dale Mitchell, Oregon Department of Agriculture Marilyn Schuster, Garnet Cook, and
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticides, Uses and Effects Of
    PESTICIDES, USES AND EFFECTS OF Paul C. Jepson Oregon State University I. Classification and Uses cides. Benefits that include improved yield, crop quality, II. Efficiency and food safety and reductions in vector-borne disease III. Ecotoxicology and Management incidence have driven, and will continue to drive, their use. The earlier synthetic organic compounds were, however, flawed in their environmental behavior. They were persistent, they had a very broad spectrum of GLOSSARY toxicological activity, and they displayed a tendency to be magnified in concentration through food chains, pesticide A chemical substance used for controlling, such that damage was inflicted to animal populations preventing, destroying, or mitigating a pest or- that lived beyond the treated area in habitats that were ganism. not intentionally contaminated. The discovery of some of these limiting impacts was only made possible through technical advances in, for example, analytical PESTICIDES HAVE BEEN IN RECORDED USE since chemistry and conceptual advances where, for example, 1000 B.C. Arsenic was in regular use as a garden insecti- the ability to predict environmental behavior from cide in China by A.D. 900 and chemicals of one form chemical properties only developed after pesticides had or another have protected humans and their crops and been in use for decades. New pesticide discoveries are livestock throughout the development of modern civili- no longer accompanied by the marvel and optimism zation. In comparison with this long time scale, we are that characterized the first synthetic insecticides. Our still in the earliest phases of the use of synthetic organic ability to exploit these materials has, however, advanced pesticides, which were first used over large areas in the considerably in recent years, and the chemicals them- 1940s.
    [Show full text]