DOCSLIB.ORG

PESTICIDES Criteria for a Recommended Standard

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PESTICIDES Criteria for a Recommended Standard CRITERIA FOR A RECOMMENDED STANDARD OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE DURING THE MANUFACTURE AND FORMULATION OF PESTICIDES criteria for a recommended standard... OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE DURING THE MANUFACTURE AND FORMULATION OF PESTICIDES * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service Center for Disease Control National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health July 1978 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 DISCLAIMER Mention of company names or products does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-174 PREFACE The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 emphasizes the need for standards to protect the health and provide for the safety of workers occupationally exposed to an ever-increasing number of potential hazards. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has implemented a formal system of research, with priorities determined on the basis of specified indices, to provide relevant data from which valid criteria for effective standards can be derived. Recommended standards for occupational exposure, which are the result of this work, are based on the effects of exposure on health. The Secretary of Labor will weigh these recommendations along with other considerations, such as feasibility and means of implementation, in developing regulatory standards. Successive reports will be presented as research and epideiriologic studies are completed and as sampling and analytical methods are developed. Criteria and standards will be reviewed periodically to ensure continuing protection of workers. The contributions to this document on pesticide manufacturing and formulating industries by NIOSH staff members, the review consultants, the reviewer selected by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), other Federal agencies, and by Robert B. O'Connor, M.D., NICSH consultant in occupational medicine, are gratefully acknowledged. iii The views expressed and conclusions reached in this document, together with the recommendations for a standard, are those of NIOSH. They are not necessarily those of the consultants, the reviewer selected by the ACGIH, or other Federal agencies that evaluated the document. The comments from the review consultants and other reviewers have been considered carefully and, together with the criteria document, have been sent to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for consideration in setting occupational safety and health standards. The review consultants. Federal agencies, and professional society to which this document was submitted are listed on pages vi, vii, and viii. - D. ational Institute Safety and Health The Division of Criteria Documentation and Standards Development, Nationa Institute for Occupational Safety an CL (-J Health, had primary responsibility for the development of the criteria and recommended standard for pesticides. Jimmy L. Perkins of this Division served as criteria manager. JRB Associates, Inc., developed the basic information for consideration by NIOSH staff and consultants under contract No. 210-77-0006. The Division review of this document was provided by Jon R. ilay, Ph.D. (Chairman), J. Henry Wills, Ph.D., Charles C. Hassett, Ph.D., Clara H. Williams, Ph.D., David Brown and A. Blair Smith, M.D. (Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies), and James Gideon (Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering) . v REVIEW CONSULTANTS ON PESTICIDES Dennis Chamot, Ph.D. Department for Professional Employees AFL/Cl 0 Washington, D.C. 20006 Frank Lyman, a.D. Consultant in Medical Toxicology North Beach, New Jersey 08008 Keith Long, Ph.D. Institute of Agricultural Medicine University of Iowa Oakdale, Iowa 52319 Keith Maddy, D.V.M., M.P.H., Ph.D. The Pesticide Worker Health and Safety Unit California Department of Food and Agriculture Sacramento, California 95814 William steffan Supervising Industrial Hygiene Engineer Occupational Health Branch Public Health Division State Department of Health Berkeley, California 94704 John Tobin, M.D. American Cyanamid Company Wayne, New Jersey 07470 Stever. Wodka International Representative Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union Washington, D.C. 20036 vi FEDERAL AGENCIES Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service Department of Defense Department of the Army Army Environmental Hygiene Agency Department of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Navy Environmental Health Center Department of the Air Force Office of the Surgeon General Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Food and Drug Administration National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Environmental Protection Agency Health Effects Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development Office of Pesticide Proarams PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists William Poppendorf, Ph.D. University of California at Berkeley vili CONTENTS Page PREFACE iii REVIEW CONSULTANTS ON PESTICIDES vi FEDERAL AGENCIES vii PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY viii I. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A STANDARD FOR PESTICIDE MANUFACTURING AND FORMULATING INDUSTRIES Section 1 - Medical 6 Section 2 - Labeling and Posting 11 Sect ion 3 - Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment 13 Section 4 - Informing Employees of Hazards from Pe sticides 19 Section 5 - Work Practices 21 Section 6 - Sanitation and Personal Hygiene 29 Section 7 - Engineering Controls 3 3 Section 8 - Monitoring and Recordkeeping 33 II. INTRODUCTION 35 III. HEALTH HAZARDS FROM EXPOSURE IN PESTICIDE MANUFACTURE AND FORMULATION 39 Industry Characteristics and Extent of Exposure 43 Pesticide Properties and Worker Exposure Routes 49 General Toxicologic Effects of Pesticides 60 Human Health Effects 73 Effects in Experimental Animals 131 IV. ENGINEERING CONTROLS 204 Manufacturing Processes 206 Formulating Processes 2 09 Equipment and Process Controls 215 IX CONTENTS (Continued) Page V. WORK PRACTICES 2 33 Monitoring 234 Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment 251 Housekeeping, Hygiene, and Sanitation 270 Emergency Procedures 275 Maintenance 279 Support of Work Practices 282 VI. DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDARD 291 Need for the Standard 291 Relationship to Other Standards 292 Form of the Standard 295 Basis for the Recommended Standard 298 VII. RESEARCH NEEDS 311 VIII. REFERENCES 313 IX. APPENDIX I - Classification of Pesticides 343 X. APPENDIX II - Methods for Biochemical Determination of Cholinesterase Activity in Blood 371 XI. APPENDIX III - OSHA Exposure Limits for Certain Pesticides 378 XII. APPENDIX IV - NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limits for Certain Pesticides 381 XIII. APPENDIX V - Material Safety Data Sheet 384 XIV. TABLES AND FIGURES 391 x I. 'RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A STANDARD FOR PESTICIDE MANUFACTURING AND FORMULATING INDUSTRIES The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that employee exposure to pesticides in manufacturing and formulating workplaces be controlled by adherence to the following sections. The recommended standard is designed to protect the health and safety of employees in pesticide manufacturing and formulating facilities over their working lifetime. Compliance with. all sections of the recommendations will establish an increased level of control over the workplace environment of pesticide manufacturers and formulators and should thus prevent or greatly reduce adverse effects of pesticides on the health and safety of employees. Sufficient technology exists to permit compliance with the recommended standard. The criteria and standard will be subject to review and revision, as necessary. Environmental (workplace air) limits are not included in the recommended standard. Such values have been promulgated for many pesticides by The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and NIOSH has previously recommended such limits individually for various pesticides (see Appendices III and IV). NIOSH recommends compliance with promulgated environmental limits and adoption of new environmental limits in those cases where the NIOSH recommended environmental limits 1 differ from those already promulgated. These include the limits recommended for substances such as parathion, methyl parathion, creosote, ethylene dibromide, and dinitro-o-cresol. In this document, emphasis has been placed or, work practices, engineering controls, and medical surveillance programs to protect workers from the adverse effects of pesticide exposure in manufacturing and formulating operations. Anumber of factors led NIOSH to this decision. First, workers in pesticide manufacturing and formulating operations are exposed to a large number of different chemicals and substances. Sampling and analytical methods to determine airborne exposure levels for each substance would need to be highly sophisticated. Second, exposure via other routes, especially dermal, has proven to be of critical importance for many pesticides. The relationship between dermal exposure hazards and airborne levels is scientifically tenuous, and adherence to environmental (workplace air) limits does not always protect the employee from significant dermal exposure. Third, NIOSH believes that immediate action is needed to protect workers in pesticide manufacturing and formulating plants. The time required to evaluate all the documented toxic effects and to establish scientifically valid environmental (workplace air) limits for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Adverse Effects of Organophosphorus Pesticides on the Liver: a Brief Summary of Four Decades of Research
    Karami-Mohajeri S, et al. Adverse effects of OPs on the liver: a brief research summary Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 2017;68:261-275 261 Review DOI: 10.1515/aiht-2017-68-2989 Adverse effects of organophosphorus pesticides on the liver: a brief summary of four decades of research Somayyeh Karami-Mohajeri1,2, Ahmad Ahmadipour2, Hamid-Reza Rahimi1,2, and Mohammad Abdollahi3,4 Pharmaceutics Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology1, Department of Toxicology and Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy2, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Center3, Department of Toxicology and Pharmacology4, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran [Received in May 2017; Similarity Check in May 2017; Accepted in December 2017] Organophosphorus pesticides (OPs) are widely used volatile pesticides that have harmful effects on the liver in acute and chronic exposures. This review article summarises and discusses a wide collection of studies published over the last 40 years reporting on the effects of OPs on the liver, in an attempt to propose general mechanisms of OP hepatotoxicity and possible treatment. Several key biological processes have been reported as involved in OP-induced hepatotoxicity such as disturbances in the antioxidant defence system, oxidative stress, apoptosis, and mitochondrial and microsomal metabolism. Most studies show that antioxidants can attenuate oxidative stress and the consequent changes in liver function. However, few studies have examined the relationship between OP structures and the severity and mechanism of their action. We hope that future in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials will answer the remaining questions about the mechanisms of OP hepatotoxicity and its management.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Resistance to Auxinic Herbicides: Historical Perspectives, Mechanisms of Resistance, and Implications for Broadleaf Weed Management in Agronomic Crops J
    Weed Science 2011 59:445–457 Evolution of Resistance to Auxinic Herbicides: Historical Perspectives, Mechanisms of Resistance, and Implications for Broadleaf Weed Management in Agronomic Crops J. Mithila, J. Christopher Hall, William G. Johnson, Kevin B. Kelley, and Dean E. Riechers* Auxinic herbicides are widely used for control of broadleaf weeds in cereal crops and turfgrass. These herbicides are structurally similar to the natural plant hormone auxin, and induce several of the same physiological and biochemical responses at low concentrations. After several decades of research to understand the auxin signal transduction pathway, the receptors for auxin binding and resultant biochemical and physiological responses have recently been discovered in plants. However, the precise mode of action for the auxinic herbicides is not completely understood despite their extensive use in agriculture for over six decades. Auxinic herbicide-resistant weed biotypes offer excellent model species for uncovering the mode of action as well as resistance to these compounds. Compared with other herbicide families, the incidence of resistance to auxinic herbicides is relatively low, with only 29 auxinic herbicide-resistant weed species discovered to date. The relatively low incidence of resistance to auxinic herbicides has been attributed to the presence of rare alleles imparting resistance in natural weed populations, the potential for fitness penalties due to mutations conferring resistance in weeds, and the complex mode of action of auxinic herbicides in sensitive dicot plants. This review discusses recent advances in the auxin signal transduction pathway and its relation to auxinic herbicide mode of action. Furthermore, comprehensive information about the genetics and inheritance of auxinic herbicide resistance and case studies examining mechanisms of resistance in auxinic herbicide-resistant broadleaf weed biotypes are provided.
    [Show full text]
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA
    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
    [Show full text]
  • Atrazine Active Ingredient Data Package April 1, 2015
    Active Ingredient Data Package ATRAZINE Version #5 (May 14, 2015) Long Island Pesticide Pollution Prevention Strategy Active Ingredient Assessment Bureau of Pest Management Pesticide Product Registration Section Contents 1.0 Active Ingredient General Information – Atrazine .................................................................... 3 1.1 Pesticide Type ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Primary Pesticide Uses .............................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Registration History .................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Environmental Fate Properties ................................................................................................. 3 1.5 Standards, Criteria, and Guidance ............................................................................................ 4 2.0 Active Ingredient Usage Information ........................................................................................ 5 2.1 Reported Use of Atrazine in New York State ............................................................................ 5 2.2 Overall Number and Type of Products Containing the Active Ingredient ................................ 7 2.3 Critical Need of Active Ingredient to Meet the Pest Management Need of Agriculture, Industry, Residents, Agencies, and Institutions ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Herbicide Mode of Action Table High Resistance Risk
    Herbicide Mode of Action Table High resistance risk Chemical family Active constituent (first registered trade name) GROUP 1 Inhibition of acetyl co-enzyme A carboxylase (ACC’ase inhibitors) clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Agixa®*, Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold* Decision®*, Hoegrass®), Aryloxyphenoxy- fenoxaprop (Cheetah®, Gold*, Wildcat®), fluazifop propionates (FOPs) (Fusilade®), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) Cyclohexanediones (DIMs) butroxydim (Factor®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) Phenylpyrazoles (DENs) pinoxaden (Axial®) GROUP 2 Inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS inhibitors), acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) Imidazolinones (IMIs) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, Lightning®*, Midas®* OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) Pyrimidinyl–thio- bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) benzoates Sulfonylureas (SUs) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*, Trimac Plus®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron (Logran®, Logran® B-Power®*), tribenuron (Express®),
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Chlorpyrifos Oxon on M2 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor Trafficking”
    EFFECT OF CHLORPYRIFOS OXON ON M2 MUSCARINIC ACETYLCHOLINE RECEPTOR REGULATION BY ELMAR MABUNGA UDARBE Doctor of Veterinary Medicine University of the Philippines Los Baños College, Laguna, Philippines 1999 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE July, 2004 EFFECT OF CHLORPYRIFOS OXON ON M2 MUSCARINIC ACETYLCHOLINE RECEPTOR REGULATION Thesis Approved: DR. CAREY N. POPE Thesis Advisor DR. CYRIL C. CLARKE DR. CHARLOTTE C. OWNBY DR. DORIS K. PATNEAU DR. AL CARLOZI Dean of Graduate College ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincerest gratitude goes to my major advisor, Dr. Carey N. Pope for the intelligent supervision, for providing inspiration to do this work. I am also thankful to my committee members, Dr. Cyril Clarke, Dr. Charlotte Ownby and Dr. Doris Patneau for helpful comments on the content and form of this manuscript. I am indebted to the Fulbright-Philippine Agriculture Scholarship Program (FPASP) and the Philippine American Education Foundation (PAEF) whose exchange program deepened my understanding of the U.S. culture and its people and allowed me to promote mutual understanding between the U.S. and the Philippines. I am grateful to the University of the Philippines in Mindanao (UPMINDANAO) for supporting my pursuit for graduate studies, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Oklahoma State University Board of Regents and Dr. Sidney Ewing, Wendell H. and Nellie G. Krull Endowed professor for the financial assistance. I am also thankful to the following: Ms. Sharon Baker for doing the preliminary work on the project; Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Acifluorfen Sorption, Degradation, and Mobility in a Mississippi Delta Soil
    Acifluorfen Sorption, Degradation, and Mobility in a Mississippi Delta Soil L. A. Gaston* and M. A. Locke ABSTRACT repulsion effects, acifluorfen is sorbed by soil or soil Potential surface water and groundwater contaminants include her- constituents (Pusino et al., 1991; Ruggiero et al., 1992; bicides that are applied postemergence. Although applied to the plant Pusino et al., 1993; Gennari et al., 1994b; NeÁgre et al., canopy, a portion of any application reaches the soil either directly 1995; Locke et al., 1997). Although the extent of sorp- or via subsequent foliar washoff. This study examined sorption, degra- tion in soil is generally proportional to OC content dation, and mobility of the postemergence herbicide acifluorfen (5-[2- (Gennari et al., 1994b; NeÁgre et al., 1995; Locke et al., chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid) in Dundee 1997), sorption likely involves processes other than par- silty clay loam (fine-silty, mixed, thermic, Aeric Ochraqualf) taken titioning between aqueous and organic matter phases. from conventional till (CT) and no-till (NT) field plots. Homogeneous In particular, acifluorfen forms complexes with divalent surface and subsurface samples were used in the sorption and degrada- tion studies; intact soil columns (30 cm long and 10 cm diam.) were and trivalent cations (Pusino et al., 1991; Pusino et al., used in the mobility study. Batch sorption isotherms were nonlinear 1993) that may be sorbed or precipitated. Complex for- (Freundlich model) and sorption paralleled organic C (OC) content. mation and subsequent sorption may partially account All tillage by depth combinations of soil exhibited a time-dependent for increased acifluorfen sorption with decreasing soil approach to sorption equilibrium that was well described by a two- pH or increasing cation exchange capacity (Pusino et site equilibrium±kinetic model.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomenclature of Commonly Available Herbicides in India
    NOMENCLATURE OF COMMONLY AVAILABLE HERBICIDES IN INDIA Prior to the widespread use of chemical herbicides, mechanical control and cultural controls, such as altering soil pH, salinity, or fertility levels were used to control weeds. The first widely used herbicide was 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, often abbreviated 2,4-D which kills many broadleaf plants while leaving grasses largely unaffected (high doses of 2,4-D at crucial growth periods can harm grass crops such as maize or cereals). The low cost of 2,4-D has led to continued usage today and it remains one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world. In 1950s triazine family of herbicides, which includes atrazine was introduced. Atrazine does not break down readily (within a few weeks) after being applied to soils of above neutral pH. Atrazine is said to have carryover, a generally undesirable property for herbicides. Glyphosate, frequently sold under the brand name Roundup, was introduced in 1974 for non- selective weed control. It is now a major herbicide in selective weed control in growing crop plants due to the development of crop plants that are resistant to it. Many modern chemical herbicides for agriculture are specifically formulated to decompose within a short period after application. This is desirable as it allows crops which may be affected by the herbicide to be grown on the land in future seasons. However, herbicides with low residual activity (i.e., that decompose quickly) often do not provide season-long weed control. List of herbicides with their common name
    [Show full text]
  • 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–18 Edition) § 455.61
    § 455.61 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–18 Edition) from: the operation of employee show- § 455.64 Effluent limitations guidelines ers and laundry facilities; the testing representing the degree of effluent of fire protection equipment; the test- reduction attainable by the applica- ing and emergency operation of safety tion of the best available tech- showers and eye washes; or storm nology economically achievable water. (BAT). (d) The provisions of this subpart do Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 not apply to wastewater discharges through 125.32, any existing point from the repackaging of microorga- source subject to this subpart must nisms or Group 1 Mixtures, as defined achieve effluent limitations rep- under § 455.10, or non-agricultural pes- resenting the degree of effluent reduc- ticide products. tion attainable by the application of the best available technology economi- § 455.61 Special definitions. cally achievable: There shall be no dis- Process wastewater, for this subpart, charge of process wastewater pollut- means all wastewater except for sani- ants. tary water and those wastewaters ex- § 455.65 New source performance cluded from the applicability of the standards (NSPS). rule in § 455.60. Any new source subject to this sub- § 455.62 Effluent limitations guidelines part which discharges process waste- representing the degree of effluent water pollutants must meet the fol- reduction attainable by the applica- lowing standards: There shall be no dis- tion of the best practicable pollut- charge of process wastewater pollut- ant control technology (BPT). ants. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point § 455.66 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
    [Show full text]
  • Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station
    ORTMAL DO ;10T REMOVE 7.9 m FILE Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station Oregon State University, Corvallis I FIELD APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES--AVOIDING DANGER TO FISH Erland T. Juntunen Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon and Logan A. Norris Pacific Northwest Forestry Sciences Laboratory and Range Experiment Station Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture Corvallis, Oregon April, 1972 Trade names are used in this publication solely to provide specific information. No endorsement of products is intended nor is criticism implieLl to products mentioned or omitted. Recommendations are not made concerning safe use of products nor is any guarantee or warranty of results or effects of the products intended or implied. ii Chemical weed and brush control with herbicides is an important land management practice in modern agriculture and forestry. In some cases, herbicides are applied directly to bodies of water for aquatic weed control. More commonly, herbicides are applied to lands adjacent to waterways for general weed and brush control. The responsible applicator will avoid damage to fishery resources by being fully aware of a particular herbicides potential hazard to fish. Herbicide applications should be considered hazardous to fish when there is the probability fish will be exposed to herbicide concen- trations which are harmful. This bulletin offers information that will aid in selecting the particular herbicides and formulations of least hazard to fish considering the toxicity of the herbicide and the poten- tial for its entry into streams, lakes, or ponds. Entry of Herbicides into the Aquatic Environment In aquatic weed control, the effective concentration of herbicide in the water depends on the rate of application, the rate of the spread of the chemical, the size and chemical composition of the body of water, the rate of degradation or adsorption of the chemical on sediments, and the rate of mixing of treated water with untreated water.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Residue Method I for Agricultural Chemicals by LC-MS (Agricultural Products)
    Multi-residue Method I for Agricultural Chemicals by LC-MS (Agricultural Products) 1. Analytes See Table 2 or 3. 2. Instruments Liquid chromatograph-mass spectrometer (LC-MS) Liquid chromatograph-tandem mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS) 3. Reagents Use the reagents listed in Section 3 of the General Rules except for the following. 0.5 mol/L Phosphate buffer (pH 7.0): Weigh 52.7 g of dipotassium hydrogenphosphate (K2HPO4) and 30.2 g of potassium dihydrogenphosphate (KH2PO4), dissolve in about 500 mL of water, adjust the pH to 7.0 with 1 mol/L sodium hydroxide or 1 mol/L hydrochloric acid, and add water to make a 1 L solution. Reference standards of agricultural chemicals: Reference standards of known purities for each agricultural chemical. 4. Procedure 1) Extraction i) Grains, beans, nuts and seeds Add 20 mL of water to 10.0 g of sample and let stand for 15 minutes. Add 50 mL of acetonitrile, homogenize, and filter with suction. Add 20 mL of acetonitrile to the residue on the filter paper, homogenize, and filter with suction. Combine the resulting filtrates, and add acetonitrile to make exactly 100 mL. Take a 20 mL aliquot of the extract, add 10 g of sodium chloride and 20 mL of 0.5 mol/L phosphate buffer (pH 7.0), and shake for 10 minutes. Let stand, and discard the separated aqueous layer. Add 10 mL of acetonitrile to an octadecylsilanized silica gel cartridge (1,000 mg) and discard the effluent. Transfer the acetonitrile layer to the cartridge, elute with 2 mL of acetonitrile, collect the total eluates, dehydrate with anhydrous sodium sulfate, and filter out the anhydrous sodium sulfate.
    [Show full text]