DOCSLIB.ORG

Pesticide Data Program—Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2017 Iii Figures Page No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pesticide Data Program—Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2017 Iii Figures Page No United States Department of Agriculture December 2018 Dear Reader: We are pleased to present the Pesticide Data Program’s (PDP) 27th Annual Summary for calendar year 2017. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), conducts this program each year to collect data on pesticide residues in food. This report shows that when pesticide residues are found on foods, they are nearly always at levels below the tolerances set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Over 99 percent of the products sampled through PDP had residues below the EPA tolerances. Ultimately, if EPA determines a pesticide is not safe for human consumption, it is removed from the market. The PDP tests a wide variety of domestic and imported foods, with a strong focus on foods that are consumed by infants and children. EPA relies on PDP data to conduct dietary risk assessments and to ensure that any pesticide residues in foods remain at safe levels. USDA uses the data to better understand the relationship of pesticide residues to agricultural practices and to enhance USDA’s Integrated Pest Management objectives. USDA also works with U.S. growers to improve agricultural practices. The PDP is not designed for enforcement of EPA pesticide residue tolerances. Rather, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for enforcing EPA tolerances. PDP provides FDA and EPA with monthly reports of pesticide residue testing and informs the FDA if residues detected exceed the EPA tolerance or have no EPA tolerance established. The PDP works with State agencies representing all census regions of the country and approximately half of the U.S. population. In 2017, samples were collected and analyzed in California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. For more information about PDP, please visit our website at https://www.ams.usda.gov/ datasets/pdp. For more information about pesticides and food, please visit EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol and FDA’s website at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Pesticides. Agricultural Marketing Service 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-0201 Voice (202) 720-8998 Fax (202) 720-7135 An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Contents Page No. Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vii Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... ix Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................ xi Section I--Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 Section II--Sampling Operations............................................................................................... 4 Conceptual Framework.................................................................................................... 4 Sampling Procedures....................................................................................................... 5 2017 Sampling Operations.............................................................................................. 6 Fresh and Processed Commodities.................................................................................. 8 Honey............................................................................................................................... 10 Milk................................................................................................................................. 11 Bottled Water................................................................................................................... 11 Sampling Limitations...................................................................................................... 11 Section III--Laboratory Operations......................................................................................... 12 Overview.......................................................................................................................... 12 Fresh and Processed Commodities.................................................................................. 14 Honey............................................................................................................................... 14 Milk.................................................................................................................................. 14 Bottled Water.................................................................................................................... 14 Quality Assurance Program............................................................................................. 15 Section IV--Database Management.......................................................................................... 16 Electronic Data Path........................................................................................................ 17 Data Reporting................................................................................................................ 17 Online Database Search Tool.......................................................................................... 17 Section V--Sample Results and Discussion.............................................................................. 17 Overview......................................................................................................................... 17 Import Versus Domestic Residue Comparisons.............................................................. 19 Postharvest Applications................................................................................................. 20 Discussion of Results ..................................................................................................... 20 Special Projects............................................................................................................... 21 Environmental Contaminants.......................................................................................... 21 Tolerance Violations........................................................................................................ 22 Pesticide Data Program—Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2017 iii Figures Page No. 1 Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Program Operations Support and Data Users................... 2 2 Program Participants........................................................................................................... 3 3 Commodity Origin.............................................................................................................. 9 4 Origin of Selected Fresh Commodity: Snap Peas............................................................. 11 5 Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Data Pathway..................................................................... 18 Tables 1 Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Commodity Collection Schedule for 2017........................ 6 2 Distribution of Samples Collected by Each Participating State.......................................... 7 3 Acceptable Products for Collected Commodities................................................................ 8 4 Quantile Estimates for Lettuce/Imidacloprid....................................................................... 12 5 Sample Preparation Steps for Analysis................................................................................ 13 Appendixes A-K Appendix A Commodity History Appendix B Distribution of Residues by Pesticide in Fruit and Vegetables Appendix C Distribution of Residues by Pesticide in Honey Appendix D Distribution of Residues by Pesticide in Milk Appendix E Distribution of Residues by Pesticide in Bottled Water Appendix F Distribution of Residues for Environmental Contaminants Appendix G Sample Origin by State or Country Appendix H Import Versus Domestic Pesticide Residue Comparisons Appendix I Pesticide Residues by Commodity Appendix J Number of Pesticides Detected per Sample Appendix K Samples Reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as Exceeding the Tolerance or Without Established Tolerance Pesticide Data Program—Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2017 v Acknowledgements The States participating in the Pesticide Data Website: Program (PDP) deserve special recognition for their contributions to the program. The dedication http://www.ams.usda.gov/pdp and flexibility of sample collectors allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Participating State Agencies Marketing Service (AMS) to adjust sampling protocols when responding to changing trends California Department of Food and Agriculture in commodity distribution and availability. PDP California Department of Pesticide Regulation acknowledges the contributions of the State Colorado Department of Agriculture laboratories in providing testing services to the Florida Department of Agriculture and program and the USDA National Agricultural Consumer Services Statistics Service for providing statistical support. Maryland Department of Agriculture PDP also acknowledges the exceptional support Michigan Department of Agriculture and of the Health Effects Division staff of the U.S. Rural Development Environmental Protection Agency, Office of New York Department of Agriculture and Pesticide Programs, and the U.S. Food and Markets Drug Administration, Center
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Validation Report 28
    EURL for Cereals and Feeding stuff National Food Institute Technical University of Denmark Validation Report 28 Determination of pesticide residues in hay by LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS (QuEChERS method) Susan Strange Herrmann Mette Erecius Poulsen February 2018 Page 2 of 67 CONTENT: 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Principle of analysis......................................................................................................................... 3 3. Validation design ............................................................................................................................. 4 4. Calibration curves............................................................................................................................ 4 5. Validation parameters...................................................................................................................... 4 6. Criteria for the acceptance of validation results ............................................................................. 5 7. Results and conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 6 9. References ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Appendix 1a. GCMSMS transitions used for validation of pesticides in Hay ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bottle Bioassays of Field Collected Mosquitoes for Level of Etofenprox Resistance in Central Massachusetts 2019 Update
    BOTTLE BIOASSAYS OF FIELD COLLECTED MOSQUITOES FOR LEVEL OF ETOFENPROX RESISTANCE IN CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS 2019 UPDATE FRANK H. CORNINE III Central Mass. Mosquito Control Project 111 Otis Street Northborough, MA 01532 (508) 393-3055 • www.cmmcp.org • [email protected] ABSTRACT Using protocols and supplies distributed from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CMMCP conducted bottle bioassays on locally collected adult mosquitoes against the active ingredient etofenprox. The overwhelming majority of these specimens were of the species Coquillettidia perturbans. Resistance to etofenprox was examined because the primary adulticide product of CMMCP is Zenivex® E4, of which etofenprox is the sole active ingredient. Results from these ongoing bottle bioassays are given to the CDC in an effort to help expand the understanding of pesticide resistance in mosquitoes of the United States. BACKGROUND Although examples of pesticide resistance have been well documented, Pesticide resistance in this age of vector- the scope of the issue and its real world borne disease can hamper the ability of impact on public health control activities public health officials to successfully is not known. This is partially due to control threats. Potential resistance may varying levels of resistance surveillance also lead to the reemergence of several programs that currently exist. This factor diseases that would have been otherwise is shown in Massachusetts where some contained through control measures organized mosquito control agencies (Brogdon 1998). Current resistance in conduct zero resistance surveillance, select mosquito populations may be the while others have limited to well- result of historical insecticide use in the developed programs collecting data on agricultural and pest control industries pesticide resistance in mosquitoes.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Specifications and Evaluations for Public
    WHO SPECIFICATIONS AND EVALUATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PESTICIDES ETOFENPROX 2-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropyl 3-phenoxybenzyl ether TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE DISCLAIMER 3 INTRODUCTION 4 PART ONE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ETOFENPROX ETOFENPROX INFORMATION 6 ETOFENPROX TECHNICAL MATERIAL (JULY 2007) 7 ETOFENPROX WETTABLE POWDER (JULY 2007) 8 ETOFENPROX EMULSION, OIL IN WATER (JULY 2007) 10 PART TWO 2006 EVALUATION REPORT FOR ETOFENPROX 14 SUPPORTING INFORMATION 18 ANNEX 1: HAZARD SUMMARY PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSER 22 ANNEX 2: REFERENCES 27 Page 2 of 29 Disclaimer1 WHO specifications are developed with the basic objective of promoting, as far as practicable, the manufacture, distribution and use of pesticides that meet basic quality requirements. Compliance with the specifications does not constitute an endorsement or warranty of the fitness of a particular pesticide for a particular purpose, including its suitability for the control of any given pest, or its suitability for use in a particular area. Owing to the complexity of the problems involved, the suitability of pesticides for a particular purpose and the content of the labelling instructions must be decided at the national or provincial level. Furthermore, pesticides which are manufactured to comply with these specifications are not exempted from any safety regulation or other legal or administrative provision applicable to their manufacture, sale, transportation, storage, handling, preparation and/or use. WHO disclaims any and all liability for any injury, death, loss, damage or other prejudice of any kind that may be arise as a result of, or in connection with, the manufacture, sale, transportation, storage, handling, preparation and/or use of pesticides which are found, or are claimed, to have been manufactured to comply with these specifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Eupt-Fv17- Target Pesticide List
    EUPT-FV17- TARGET PESTICIDE LIST MRRL Pesticide (mg/Kg) 3-hydroxy-carbofuran 0.01 Acephate 0.01 Acetamiprid 0.01 Acrinathrin 0.01 Aldicarb 0.01 Aldicarb Sulfone 0.01 Aldicarb Sulfoxide 0.01 Azinphos-methyl 0.01 Azoxystrobin 0.01 Benfuracarb 0.01 Benomyl 0.01 Bifenthrin 0.01 Bitertanol 0.01 Boscalid 0.01 Bromopropylate 0.01 Bromuconazole 0.01 Bupirimate 0.01 Buprofezin 0.01 Cadusafos 0.006 Carbaryl 0.01 Carbendazim 0.01 Carbofuran 0.01 Carbosulfan 0.01 Chlorfenapyr 0.01 Chlorfenvinphos 0.01 Chlorobenzilate 0.01 Chlorothalonil 0.01 Chlorpropham (only parent compound) 0.01 Chlorpyrifos 0.01 Chlorpyrifos-methyl 0.01 Clofentezine (only parent compound) 0.01 Clothianidin 0.01 Cyfluthrin (cyfluthrin incl. other mixtures of constituent isomers (sum of isomers)) 0.01 Cypermethrin (cypermethrin incl. other mixtures of constituent isomers (sum of isomers)) 0.01 Cyproconazole 0.01 Cyprodinil 0.01 Deltamethrin 0.01 Demeton-S-methylsulfone 0.006 Desmethyl-pirimicarb 0.01 Diazinon 0.01 Dichlofluanid (only parent compound) 0.01 Dichlorvos 0.01 Dicloran 0.01 Dicofol 0.01 Diethofencarb 0.01 Difenoconazole 0.01 Diflubenzuron 0.01 Dimethoate 0.003 Dimethomorph 0.01 Dimethylaminosulfotoluidide (DMST) 0.01 Diniconazole 0.01 Diphenylamine 0.01 Endosulfan alpha 0.01 Endosulfan beta 0.01 Endosulfan sulfate 0.01 EPN 0.01 Epoxiconazole 0.01 Ethion 0.01 Ethirimol 0.01 Ethoprophos 0.008 Etofenprox 0.01 Fenamidone 0.01 Fenamiphos 0.01 Fenamiphos sulfone 0.01 Fenamiphos sulfoxide 0.01 Fenarimol 0.01 Fenazaquin 0.01 Fenbuconazole 0.01 Fenhexamid 0.01 Fenitrothion 0.01
    [Show full text]
  • Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List Fair Trade USA® Agricultural Production Standard Version 1.1.0
    Version 1.1.0 Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List Fair Trade USA® Agricultural Production Standard Version 1.1.0 Introduction Through the implementation of our standards, Fair Trade USA aims to promote sustainable livelihoods and safe working conditions, protection of the environment, and strong, transparent supply chains.. Our standards work to limit negative impacts on communities and the environment. All pesticides can be potentially hazardous to human health and the environment, both on the farm and in the community. They can negatively affect the long-term sustainability of agricultural livelihoods. The Fair Trade USA Agricultural Production Standard (APS) seeks to minimize these risks from pesticides by restricting the use of highly hazardous pesticides and enhancing the implementation of risk mitigation practices for lower risk pesticides. This approach allows greater flexibility for producers, while balancing controls on impacts to human and environmental health. This document lists the pesticides that are prohibited or restricted in the production of Fair Trade CertifiedTM products, as required in Objective 4.4.2 of the APS. It also includes additional rules for the use of restricted pesticides. Purpose The purpose of this document is to outline the rules which prohibit or restrict the use of hazardous pesticides in the production of Fair Trade Certified agricultural products. Scope • The Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List (PRPL) applies to all crops certified against the Fair Trade USA Agricultural Production Standard (APS). • Restrictions outlined in this list apply to active ingredients in any pesticide used by parties included in the scope of the Certificate while handling Fair Trade Certified products.
    [Show full text]
  • Household Insects – Homeowners ` CAUTION: All Insecticides Are Toxic to Some Degree; Therefore, Care Should Be Exercised in Their Use
    Household Insects – Homeowners ` CAUTION: All insecticides are toxic to some degree; therefore, care should be exercised in their use. The manufacturer’s directions on the label in the use of the material must be followed explicitly. Insect Threats Insecticides and Treatment* Remarks Ants Feed on foods and Baits (active ingredient and Remove food and clean up the area. Place (several may damage product): bait where ants occur or congregate. May species) clothing; may also sodium tetraborate decahydrate use several different baits at the same time sting, causing severe (Amdro Kills Ants Liquid Bait, Terro to discover one that ants will consume. reaction to some Liquid Ant Baits); Care should be taken not to contaminate people. hydramethylnon (Amdro Kills Ants foodstuffs. Also treat nests in yard. Follow Bait Stations and Stakes); label. orthoboric acid (Terro Perimeter Ant Bait); fipronil (Combat Max Ant Killing Bait Stations and Gel); abamectin (Raid Max Double Control Ant Baits, Raid Ant Baits III); dinotefuran (Hot Shot Ultra Clear Roach & Ant Gel Bait, Hot Shot Ultra Liquid Ant Bait); spinosad (Ortho Home Defense Liquid Ant Bait); thiamethoxam (Raid Precision Placement Ant Bait Gel) Crack and crevices: Follow label. prallethrin, esfenvalerate, pyrethrins, pyrethrum, permethrin, tetra- methrin, phenothrin, beta-cyfluthrin, cyfluthrin Indoor space: prallethrin, esfenvalerate, pyrethrins, pyrethrum, permethrin, tetramethrin, phenothrin, cyfluthrin, bifenthrin Outdoor barrier: prallethrin, esfenvalerate, permethrin, beta-cyfluthrin, cyfluthrin, bifenthrin, malathion, carbaryl Outdoor broadcast: hydramethylnon, pyriproxyfen, beta-cyfluthrin, esfenvalerate, bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, malathion, carbaryl *Labels on insecticides should state “material may be used in the household” and should be registered by the EPA for that purpose. Household Insects – Homeowners ` CAUTION: All insecticides are toxic to some degree; therefore, care should be exercised in their use.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • A Toxic Eden: Poisons in Your Garden an Analysis of Bee-Harming Pesticides in Ornamental Plants Sold in Europe
    A TOXIC EDEN: POISONS IN YOUR GARDEN AN ANALYSIS OF BEE-HARMING PESTICIDES IN ORNAMENTAL PLANTS SOLD IN EUROPE A TOXIC EDEN: POISONS IN YOUR GARDEN AN ANALYSIS OF BEE-HARMING PESTICIDES IN ORNAMENTAL PLANTS SOLD IN EUROPE April 2014 Technical Report 1 A TOXIC EDEN: POISONS IN YOUR GARDEN AN ANALYSIS OF BEE-HARMING PESTICIDES IN ORNAMENTAL PLANTS SOLD IN EUROPE A TOXIC EDEN: POISONS IN YOUR GARDEN An analysis of bee-harming pesticides in ornamental plants sold in Europe Summary and recommendations by Greenpeace 3 1. Introduction 5 2. Materials & Methods 6 2.1 Overview of Results 6 2.2 Bee-harming pesticides 8 2.3 The maximum concentrations of bee-harming pesticides detected 10 2.4 Most frequently detected pesticides 11 2.5 Authorization status of the detected pesticides 14 2.6 Pesticide residue categories 16 2.7 Manufacturer/Authorization Holder of the bee-harming pesticides 17 3. Annex 18 4. Literature 41 For more information contact: [email protected] Written by: Wolfgang Reuter, ForCare, Freiburg - Germany Dipl.-Biol., Fach-Toxikologe Layout by: Juliana Devis Cover image by: Axel Kirchhof Greenpeace International Ottho Heldringstraat 5 1066 AZ Amsterdam The Netherlands greenpeace.org © Greenpeace / Herman van Bekkem © Greenpeace 2 A TOXIC EDEN: POISONS IN YOUR GARDEN AN ANALYSIS OF BEE-HARMING PESTICIDES IN ORNAMENTAL PLANTS SOLD IN EUROPE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDatIONS BY GREENPEACE © Greenpeace / Christine Gebeneter Current industrial agriculture relies on diverse synthetic chemical inputs, ranging from synthetic fertilisers through to toxic pesticides. These pesticides are designed to address insect and fungal pests as well as control weed plant species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Insecticides Act, 1968 (Act No.46 of 1968)
    The Insecticides Act, 1968 (Act No.46 of 1968) An Act to regulate the import, manufactures, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith. [2 nd September 1968] Be it enacted by Parliament in the Nineteenth Year of the Republic of India as follows: 1. Short title, extent and commencement. * a. This Act may be called the Insecticides Act, 1968. b. It extends to the whole of India. c. It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different States and for different provisions of Act. 2. Application of other laws not barred * The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. 3. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- a. "animals" means animals useful to human beings and includes fish and fowl, and such kinds of wild life as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify, being kinds which in its opinion, it is desirable to protect or preserve; b. "Board" means the Central Insecticides Board constituted under Sec.4; c. "Central Insecticides Laboratory" means the Central Insecticides Laboratory established, or as the case may be, the institution specified under Sec.16; d. "Import" means bringing into any place within the territories to which this Act extends from a place outside those territories; e. "Insecticide" means- i.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex 1 –Prohibited Material List (Draft)
    Annex 1 –Prohibited Material List (Draft) All agro chemicals, especially pesticides, can be potentially hazardous in some form or other to human and animal health as well to the environment and therefore should be used only under caution. FI recommends use of other methods like proper choice of crops and variety, suitable cultivation practices and biological material for pest control (which constitutes Integrated Pest Management), before a chemical pesticide is used for pest control. There are a number of chemicals (both of biological origin or no-biologic origin) that have pesticidal properties. Not all of them are approved for use in agriculture or have now become obsolete. There are a huge number of such chemicals and may not be listed in the Red or Amber list. It is therefore important to note that only chemicals that have been approved for use in agriculture and not listed in the Red list are used. Hazard criteria for identification of Highly Hazardous Pesticides Hazard criteria Measure (hazard classifications used) Conventions Persistent organic pollutant (POP) (Stockholm Convention) Ozone depleting (Montreal Protocol) Rotterdam Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Convention High acute toxicity Extremely or highly hazardous (WHO Class 1a and 1b) Very toxic by inhalation (GHS classification) Long term toxic effect or Known or probable human carcinogens ( US EPA, GHS & IARC) chronic exposure Known or presumed to be mutagenic to humans (GHS) Known or presumed to impair fertility in humans or be toxic for reproduction (GHS) : (Reprotoxic) Potential endocrine disruptors (EU) Suspected human carcinogen and suspected reproductive toxin (GHS) Environmental concern Very bio-accumulative Very persistent in water, soil or sediment Very toxic to aquatic organisms – Daphnia waterflea toxicity value highly toxic to bees (US EPA) The list proposed here, also contains materials that appear in the current version.
    [Show full text]
  • NQA-54.0003 – Pesticide Residue Analysis by Electrospray LC-MS/MS
    Technical Datasheet Analysis Name: Pesticide Residue Analysis by Electrospray LC-MS/MS Method Number: NQA-54.0003 Scope of Application: This method is not suitable to determine black pepper, clove, cumin seed, ginger extract, ginger powder, rosemary, ground rosemary, white pepper, peppercorn, nutmeg, and oleoresin Description: QuEChERS is an extraction method for the analysis of pesticide residues in a large variety of food products. The extracts obtained by this procedure are analyzed by Electrospray ionization LC-MS/MS Sample Weight 50 g Required: Method Reference: Determination of pesticide residues using GC-MS and/or LC- MS/MS following acetonitrile extraction/partitioning and cleanup by dispersive SPE-QuEChERS-method. EN 15662, November 2008. FDA Pesticide Analytical Manual Volume I. Guidance document on analytical quality control and validation procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed. SANTE/11945/2015. Analytical Platform: LC/MS/MS Special Information: QL may vary based on matrix effects Some pesticides may be reported as "Not Determinable" if interferences or matrix effects prevent detection/quantitation TDS-NQA-54.0003-1 1/5/2021 Analyte Reported Alias Unit of Limit of Reproducibility Measure Quantification mg/kg ≤20% 2,4,5-T 0.01 - 0.1 2,4,5-TP Silvex, Fenoprop mg/kg 0.01 - 0.1 ≤20% 2,4-D mg/kg 0.01 - 0.1 ≤20% 2,4-DB mg/kg 0.01 - 0.1 ≤20% Abamectin mg/kg 0.01 - 0.1 ≤20% Acephate mg/kg 0.01 - 0.1 ≤20% Acequinocyl mg/kg 0.01 - 0.1 ≤20% Acetamiprid mg/kg 0.01 - 0.1 ≤20% Acibenzolar-S- mg/kg ≤20% 0.01 - 0.1 methyl
    [Show full text]
  • A Quick Reference Guide to Pesticides for Pest Management Professionals Working in and Around Structures 2020
    W 658 A Quick Reference Guide to Pesticides for Pest Management Professionals Working in and Around Structures 2020 A Quick Reference Guide to Pesticides for Pest Management Professionals Working in and Around Structures Karen Vail, Professor, and Jennifer Chandler, Research Specialist III, Entomology and Plant Pathology This publication provides a quick reference to pesticides and methods for the pest management professional to use in solving pest management problems in and around structures. A thorough description of pest identification including images, inspection and detection techniques, exclusion, sanitation, other environmental modifications, and pesticide formulations can be found in the following UT Extension publications (https://ag.tennessee.edu/PSEP/Forms/F818.pdf): Vail, K.M., G. Burgess, R. Gerhardt and C. Harper [eds.]. 2007. PB 1673 General Pest and Rodent Control Pesticide Applicator Licensing Manual (GRC). pp. 130. Vail, K., G. Burgess, R. Gerhardt and C. Jones [eds.]. 2002. PB 1685 Public Health Mosquito Control: The Tennessee Mosquito Control Handbook (Pesticide Applicator Licensing Manual). pp. 54. Vail, K., D. Hensley, G. Burgess, C. Pless and A. Taylor [eds.]. 2014. PB 1703 Wood-Destroying Organisms Licensing Manual. pp. 76. Vail, K.M., E. Burgess, R. Gerhardt, and Craig Harper. 2006. PB 1732 Industrial, Institutional, Structural and Health Related Pest Management Certification Manual (Category 7). pp. 105. Vail, K.M., E.E. Burgess, R. Gerhardt, C. Jones, J. Skinner and C. Harper. 2003. PB 1733. Public Health Pest Control (Category 8). pp. 99. Further references for household pest identification: Manuals: Bennett, G.W., J.M. Owens, & R.M. Corrigan. 2011. Scientific Guide to Pest Management Operations, seventh edition Cleveland, OH: Questex Publishing.
    [Show full text]