DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Health Assessment: Highway 36 Corridor Exposure Investigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Health Assessment: Highway 36 Corridor Exposure Investigation Final Public Health Assessment Highway 36 Corridor Exposure Investigation October 2014 Prepared by the Environmental Health Assessment Program Oregon Health Authority; Public Health Division i Funded under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (Grant no. 280603) ii Oregon Health Authority - Highway 36 Public Health Assessment October 2014 Foreword The Oregon Health Authority (OHA), in cooperation with state and federal partners, prepared this Public Health Assessment (PHA). The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and its Oregon cooperative agreement partner, the Environmental Health Assessment Program (EHAP), conduct public health assessments to evaluate environmental data and community concerns. Contained within this PHA are the results of the Highway 36 Corridor Exposure Investigation (EI). The EI was conducted in response to resident’s concerns about potential exposures from pesticide applications occurring on forestlands near their homes and schools. At an April 2011 Board of Forestry meeting, several residents announced the results of a community- led, urine sampling effort. The results showed elevated levels of atrazine and 2,4-D in their urine. The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) notified the Pesticide Analytic and Response Center (PARC) of the results. As co-chair of PARC, OHA joined a multi-agency workgroup to develop the Highway 36 Corridor Exposure Investigation (EI) in order to determine if people are being exposed to pesticides in the Highway 36 corridor, and if so, the health implications of these exposures. For the purposes of this document, the following definitions apply: Public Health Assessment (PHA): A PHA is an evaluation tool of choice when a site contains multiple contaminants and multiple, potential pathways of exposure. PHAs are conducted in an effort to determine whether a community is being exposed to environmental contaminants at levels that could harm human health. PHAs are not the same as medical exams, community health studies1, or epidemiological studies2. A PHA is focused on a specific site or community and its findings are not intended to be generalizable to other sites or communities. Sometimes critical data needed for a PHA are missing or not available. In such cases, ATSDR may conduct an Exposure Investigation (EI). Exposure Investigation (EI): An EI is one approach used to better characterize past, current and possible future human exposures and to evaluate both existing and possible exposure-related health effects. An EI involves the collection and analysis of environmental data and, when appropriate, biologic data (such as urine or blood). The goal of an EI is to determine whether people have been, or are being, exposed to hazardous substances. An EI is one of several possible approaches to characterize past, current and possible future human exposures to environmental contaminants. An EI is not an epidemiological study or experiment. As such, some components of other types of studies, such as control groups, are not included in an EI. 1 A community health study (CHS) requires careful methods of measuring exposure and illness. Diseases can be caused by many different factors. It may be difficult to determine if a disease is caused by exposure to contaminants and not due to these other factors. A CHS presents many challenges and they are rarely conducted in small communities. 2 Epidemiology (epi) is the study of the incidence, distribution and determinants of disease. Various methods can be used to carry out epi investigations, including descriptive studies used to study distribution and analytical studies to study determinants. The four most common types of epidemiological studies are 1) a cohort study, 2) a case-control study, 3) an occupational epi study, and 4) a cross-sectional study. iii Oregon Health Authority - Highway 36 Public Health Assessment October 2014 This PHA reports on the results of the Highway 36 Corridor EI to date. It contains an analysis of information and data (qualitative, biologic and environmental) collected between April 2011 and September 2012. The EI findings are nested within the broader public health assessment process that ATSDR uses. Therefore, it is important to note that this PHA is the tool used to communicate the EI findings. OHA serves as the lead agency for coordinating and implementing this investigation. Three other state agencies (which are members of PARC), and two federal agencies are involved in this effort. These agencies are: • Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA); Administrator of PARC • Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF); PARC Member Agency • Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); PARC Member Agency • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) headquarters (Atlanta, GA) and Region 10 office (Seattle, WA) • National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) laboratory (Atlanta, GA) • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) o EPA Region 10 (Seattle, WA) o EPA Office of Pesticides Programs (Washington, DC) • PARC consultants from the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) and Oregon State University (OSU) also provide technical assistance and consultation for this investigation. This group of agencies has provided input into the EI according to their areas of expertise and legal authority. For example, DEQ and EPA were responsible for collecting environmental data, and were key partners when writing pieces of the report related to the environmental samples. Each agency has reviewed the report and provided input, feedback and edits to the sections relevant to their agency. In addition, the group as a whole met several times to discuss issues as they arose and arrived at agreement on how to report the EI results. Funding and other staff resources used to conduct this EI was contributed by all state and federal agencies involved. OHA Public Health Division (OHA/PHD) houses the Environmental Health Assessment Program (EHAP), which is the ATSDR-cooperative agreement program funded to carry out ATSDR’s work in Oregon. EHAP staff are the primary authors of this report. iv Oregon Health Authority - Highway 36 Public Health Assessment October 2014 Purpose and Statement of Issues This PHA reports on the available information and data collected to date for the Highway 36 Corridor EI. The Highway 36 Corridor is located in western Lane County, Oregon. The EI is a multi-agency response to several community members’ requests to investigate possible exposures to pesticides and herbicides used in industrial forestland applications near their residences and schools. The purpose of the EI is to fill important data gaps by collecting and analyzing available information and environmental, biologic and qualitative data to answer the following questions: 1. Are residents in the Highway 36 Corridor being exposed to pesticides from local application practices? 2. If residents are being exposed: a. To what pesticides are they being exposed? b. To what levels are they being exposed? c. What are potential source(s) of the pesticides to which they are exposed? d. What are potential routes (pathways) of residents’ exposures? e. What health risks are associated with these exposures? As described in the “Background” and “Community Concerns” sections of this report, several Highway 36 Corridor residents are concerned about how these herbicide applications may be affecting their health. Therefore, this EI focuses on collecting and evaluating data on herbicides that are used in this area. Because “pesticide” is a more inclusive and commonly understood term, we use “pesticide” from this point forward to refer to herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides and similar products regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). v Oregon Health Authority - Highway 36 Public Health Assessment October 2014 Table of Contents Foreword .................................................................................................................................................... iii Purpose and Statement of Issues ................................................................................................................. v List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... viii Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Investigation Area ................................................................................................................................. 12 Recruitment Area .................................................................................................................................. 12 Site Description ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Investigation History ............................................................................................................................. 13 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Exposure Pathway Analysis .................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Response of Multiple Herbicide Resistant Strain of Diazotrophic Cyanobacterium, Anabaena Variabilis , Exposed to Atrazine and DCMU
    Indian Journal of Experimental Biology Vol. 49, April 2011, pp.298-303 Response of multiple herbicide resistant strain of diazotrophic cyanobacterium, Anabaena variabilis , exposed to atrazine and DCMU Surendra Singh, Pallavi Datta * & Archna Tirkey Algal Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur 482 001, India Received 1 June 2010; revised 24 January 2011 Effect of two photosynthetic inhibitor herbicides, atrazine (both purified and formulated) and [3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)- 1,1-dimethyl urea] (DCMU), on the growth, macromolecular contents, heterocyst frequency, photosynthetic O 2 evolution and dark O 2 uptake of wild type and multiple herbicide resistant (MHR) strain of diazotrophic cyanobacterium A. variabilis was studied. Cyanobacterial strains showed gradual inhibition in growth with increasing dosage of herbicides. Both wild type and MHR strain tolerated < 6.0 mg L -1 of atrazine (purified), < 2.0 mg L -1 of atrazine (formulated) and < 0.4 mg L -1 of DCMU indicating similar level of herbicide tolerance. Atrazine (pure) (8.0 mg L -1) and 4.0 mg L -1 of atrazine (formulated) were growth inhibitory concentrations (lethal) for both wild type and MHR strain indicating formulated atrazine was more toxic than the purified form. Comparatively lower concentrations of DCMU were found to be lethal for wild type and MHR strain, respectively. Thus, between the two herbicides tested DCMU was more growth toxic than atrazine. At sublethal dosages of herbicides, photosynthetic O 2 evolution showed highest inhibition followed by chlorophyll a, phycobhiliproteins and heterocyst differentiation as compared to carotenoid, protein and respiratory O 2 uptake. Keyword s: Atrazine, Cyanobacteria, DCMU, Herbicides, Mutants, Photosynthesis In modern agriculture weed control by herbicides is a tolerate or resist toxic actions of various rice field common practice to increase in crop productivity 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Fate of Imidazolinone Herbicides and Their Enantiomers
    Title Environmental Fate of Imidazolinone Herbicides and Their Enantiomers in Soil and Water Mohammadkazem Ramezani B.Sc. Agronomy, M.Sc. Weed Science This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy of the University of Adelaide School of Agriculture, Food & Wine The University of Adelaide Waite Campus, South Australia 2007 Declaration This work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library, being made available for loan and photocopying. Mohammadkazem Ramezani ii Abstract Imidazolinones represent a new class of herbicides with low mammalian toxicity that can be used at low application rates, either pre- or post-emergence for the control of a wide range of weeds in broadleaf and cereal crops, and non-crop situations. All imidazolinone herbicides are chiral, containing two enantiomers that derive from the chiral centre of the imidazolinone ring. The inhibitory activity of the R(+) enantiomer is nearly eight times greater than that of the S(-) enantiomer. The use of imidazolinone herbicides has increased in recent years in Australia owing to increased popularity of pulses and the introduction of imidazolinone-tolerant canola and wheat. Concerns have been raised about the potential carry over damage to the subsequent crops grown in rotation with legumes and herbicide tolerant crops.
    [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]
  • Efficacy of Imazapic/Imazapyr and Other Herbicides in Mixtures for The
    Efficacy of imazapic/imazapyr and other herbicides in mixtures for the control of Digitaria insularis prior to soybean sowing Efectividad de imazapic/imazapyr y otros herbicidas en mezclas para el control de Digitaria insularis en pre-siembra de soya Alfredo Junior Paiola Albrecht1, Leandro Paiola Albrecht1, André Felipe Moreira Silva²*, Romulo Augusto Ramos³, Everson Pedro Zeny³, Juliano Bortoluzzi Lorenzetti4, Maikon Tiago Yamada Danilussi4, and Arthur Arrobas Martins Barroso4 ABSTRACT RESUMEN Herbicide mixtures, use of multiple sites of action, and other Las mezclas entre herbicidas, el uso de múltiples sitios de acción weed management practices are necessary to avoid cases of y otras prácticas de manejo de malezas son necesarias para biotype resistance. The aim of this study was to evaluate the evitar otros casos de resistencia de biotipos. El objetivo de este efficiency of imazapic/imazapyr and other herbicides in mix- estudio fue evaluar la eficiencia de imazapic/imazapyr y otros tures to control Digitaria insularis at burndown before soybean herbicidas en mezclas para controlar Digitaria insularis en la sowing. This field research was conducted in Umuarama, State desecación antes de la siembra de soya. Esta investigación de of Parana (PR), Brazil, in the 2018/19 soybean season. The ex- campo se realizó en Umuarama, Estado de Paraná (PR), Brasil, periment was conducted in a randomized block experimental en la cosecha de soya de 2018/19. El experimento se realizó en design with four replicates and 11 treatments composed of the un diseño experimental de bloques al azar, con cuatro repe- application of glyphosate, clethodim, haloxyfop, imazapic/ ticiones y 11 tratamientos, compuestos por la aplicación de imazapyr, glufosinate, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), glifosato, cletodim, haloxifop, imazapic/imazapir, glufosinato, dicamba, triclopyr, and saflufenacil, in mixtures.
    [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]
  • Aminopyralid Ecological Risk Assessment Final
    Aminopyralid Ecological Risk Assessment Final U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Washington, D.C. December 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers about 247.9 million acres in 17 western states in the continental United States (U.S.) and Alaska. One of the BLM’s highest priorities is to promote ecosystem health, and one of the greatest obstacles to achieving this goal is the rapid expansion of invasive plants (including noxious weeds and other plants not native to an area) across public lands. These invasive plants can dominate and often cause permanent damage to natural plant communities. If not eradicated or controlled, invasive plants will jeopardize the health of public lands and the activities that occur on them. Herbicides are one method employed by the BLM to control these plants. In 2007, the BLM published the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (17-States PEIS). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 17-States PEIS allowed the BLM to use 18 herbicide active ingredients available for a full range of vegetation treatments in 17 western states. In the ROD, the BLM also identified a protocol for identifying, evaluating, and using new herbicide active ingredients. Under the protocol, the BLM would not be allowed to use a new herbicide active ingredient until the agency 1) assessed the hazards and risks from using the new herbicide active ingredient, and 2) prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act to assess the impacts of using new herbicide active ingredient on the natural, cultural, and social environment.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Weed Control-Pasture and Range-SDSU
    iGrow.org 2017 Weed Control Pasture and Range Paul O. Johnson | SDSU Extension Weed Science Coordinator David Vos | SDSU Ag Research Manager Jill Alms | SDSU Ag Research Manager Leon J. Wrage | SDSU Distinguished Professor Emeritus Department of Agronomy, Horticulture and Plant Science College of Agriculture & Biological Sciences | agronomy Table of Contents Accurate (metsulfuron) . 13 Latigo (dicamba+2,4-D) . 5 Amber (triasulfuron) . 14 Milestone (aminopyralid) . 8 Banvel (dicamba) . 4 Opensight (aminopyralid+metsulfuron) . 9 Brash (dicamba+2,4-D) . 5 Overdrive (dicamba+diflufenzopyr) . 6 Brush-Rhap (dicamba+2,4-D) . 5 Paraquat (paraquat) . 17 Capstone (aminopyralid+triclopyr) . 10 Para-Shot (paraquat) . 17 Chaparral (aminopyralid+metsulfuron) . 9 Parazone (paraquat) . 17 Chisum (metsulfuron+chlorsulfuron) . 13 PastureGard HL (triclopyr+fluroxypyr) . 11 Cimarron Max (metsulfuron+dicamba + 2,4-D) . 13 Plateau (imazapic) . 12, 16 Cimarron Plus (metsulfuron+chlorsulfuron) . 13 QuinStar (quinclorac) . 15 Cimarron Xtra (metsulfuron+chlorsulfuron) . 14 RangeStar (dicamba+2,4-D) . 5 Clarity (dicamba) . 4 Rave (triasulfuron+dicamba) . .15 Clash (dicamba) . 4 Remedy Ultra (triclopyr) . .11 Clean Slate (clopyralid) . 10 Rifle (dicamba) . 4 Comet (fluroxypyr) . 11 Rifle-D(dicamba+2,4-D) . 5 Commando (clopyralid+2,4-D) . 10 Scorch (dicamba+2,4-D+fluroxypyr) . 6 Crossbow, Crossbow L (triclopyr+2,4-D) . 11 Spike (tebuthiuron) . 15 Crossroad (triclopyr+2,4-D) . 11 Spur (clopyralid) . 10 Curtail (clopyralid+2,4-D) . 10 Sterling Blue (dicamba) . 4 Cutback (clopyralid+2,4-D) . 10. Surmount (picloram+fluroxypyr) . 8 Cyclone (paraquat) . 17 Stinger (clopyralid) . 10 Detail (saflufenacil) . 12 Telar (chlorsulfuron) . 14 Detonate (dicamba) . 4 Tie Down (triasulfuron+dicamba) . 15 Devour (paraquat) . 17 Tordon (picloram) . 6 Diablo (dicamba) .
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7,943,644 B2 Uhr Et Al
    USOO794364.4B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7,943,644 B2 Uhr et al. (45) Date of Patent: May 17, 2011 (54) STABILIZATION OF IODINE-CONTAINING (56) References Cited BOCDES BY MEANS OF SPECIAL AZOLE COMPOUNDS U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 2,739,922 A * 3/1956 Shelanski ..................... 524,548 (75) Inventors: Hermann Uhr, Leverkusen (DE); 4,276,211 A 6/1981 Singer et al. ... 260/29.6 MN Johannes Kaulen, Odenthal (DE); 4.297.258 A 10/1981 Long, Jr. .............. 260f29.6 MN Thomas Jaetsch, Köln (DE); Peter 4,552,885. A 1 1/1985 Gabriele et al. .............. 514/316 Spetmann, Leverkusen (DE) 5,051,256 A * 9/1991 Barnes ........... ... 424/402 6,143,204. A 1 1/2000 Lutz et al. ...... ... 252/384 rsr rr 6.353,021 B1 3/2002 Gaglani et al. ... 514,478 (73) Assignee: NNESS putschland GmbH, 6,472,424 B1 10/2002 Gaglani et al. ... 514,478 everkusen (DE) 6,946,427 B2* 9/2005 Lutz et al. ...... ... 504,140 c - 2006/00 13833 A1 1/2006 Bartko ........... ... 424/400 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this 2007/0128246 A1* 6/2007 Hossainy et al. ............. 424/423 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 18 days. FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS WO 98.22543 5, 1998 (21) Appl. No.: 12/281,163 WO 99.291.76 6, 1999 WO OOf 16628 3, 2000 (22) PCT Filed: Feb. 21, 2007 WO 2007 O28527 3, 2007 (86). PCT No.: PCT/EP2007/001480 OTHER PUBLICATIONS S371 (c)(1), Nomiya, Kenji, et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Aminopyralid Toxicity and Fate for Application to Sensitive Areas of Rights-Of-Way
    Summary of Aminopyralid Toxicity and Fate for Application to Sensitive Areas of Rights-of-Way The following summary addresses use of the herbicide aminopyralid in Sensitive Areas of Rights-of-Way in Massachusetts. The review was jointly conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Office of Research and Standards (ORS) and the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR) in accordance with the cooperative agreement issued between the two agencies in 1987 and updated in 2011 pursuant to the provisions of Section 4(1)(E) of 333 CMR 11.00 Rights-of-Way Management Regulations. The conclusions summarized in this memo are based upon several sources of information, including a comprehensive review of this herbicide by the USDA Forest Service (Durkin 2007), scientific documents contained in the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) docket of information for aminopyralid to support pesticide registration decisions and the results of literature searches for recent pertinent studies on this chemical. As aminopyralid is a relatively new product, very little primary information was found in the literature that was pertinent to the scope of this review and therefore the review was primarily based on information provided by the secondary summary documents described above. The purpose of this review is to ascertain the suitability of this product for use within sensitive areas of rights-of-way, based upon consideration of available information on the potential toxicity of the active ingredient aminopyralid as well as its fate and transport in the environment. Aminopyralid (2-pyridine carboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,6-dichloro-2-pyridine carboxylic acid) is a pyridine carboxylic acid herbicide manufactured by Dow AgroSciences LLC (DAS) for use in controlling annual and perennial broadleaf weeds.
    [Show full text]
  • Increasing the Efficacy and Safety of Butachlor and Its 2,4-D Mixture in Direct Wet-Seeded Rice (Oryza Sat/Val.)
    Trans. Nat. Acad. Science & TechnoL 1984.6:43-50 INCREASING THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF BUTACHLOR AND ITS 2,4-D MIXTURE IN DIRECT WET-SEEDED RICE (ORYZA SAT/VAL.) Ponciano M. Halos* and R.W. Schumacher** "'Monsanto Philippines, Inc. "'"'Monsanto Singapore Company (Pte.) Ltd. ABSTRACT On pre-germinated wet seeded rice, the 24 days before seeding (DBS) treatments for butachlor (1 kg. aj./ha.) and 6-8 DBS treatment for the butachlor + 2,4-D combination (0.15 + 0.5 kg. a.i./ha.) provided improved crop safely, bet­ ter control of grasses, sedges and broadleaves and higher yields compared with the 6-9 days after seeding herbicide treatments. Screen (R) solution, when properly coated on seeds before germination prior to sowing at 1.3 ml./kg. and at higher concentrations effectively served as rice seed safener in field plots treated with the increased concentrations of 2 kg. a.i./ha. butachlor and 1 + 0.67 kg. a.i./ha. butachlor + 2,4-D even when these herbicides were applied at 2 days before seeding. futroduction Direct seeding of pre-germinated rice under puddled condition offers several advantages over transplanting. These include dramatic reduction in production costs and manpower requirements and increased frequency of planting. The latter is especially relevant in the "Kabsaka Program" on 235,000 hectares in Iloilo wherein two rice plantings are targeted per wet season to realize increased income for the farmers. This necessitates direct seeding as the practical approach due to the time constraints within the seven months wet period. Also, with the opening up of the Magat River Irrigation Project in Northem Luzon, there will be very limited time to plant the additional 75-80 thousand hectares.
    [Show full text]