DOCSLIB.ORG

Cannabis Science Task Force Recommendations: Laboratory Quality Standards for Pesticides in Cannabis Plants and Products

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cannabis Science Task Force Recommendations: Laboratory Quality Standards for Pesticides in Cannabis Plants and Products Cannabis Science Task Force Recommendations: Laboratory Quality Standards for Pesticides in Cannabis Plants and Products June 2020 Publication 20-03-005 Publication and Contact Information This document is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/2003005.html. For more information contact: Environmental Assessment Program Washington State Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: 360-407-6764 Washington State Department of Ecology — www.ecology.wa.gov • Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000 • Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 • Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300 • Central Regional Office, Union Gap 509-575-2490 • Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 Any use of product or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the author or the Department of Ecology. To request ADA accommodation, including materials in a format for the visually impaired, call Ecology at 360-407-6764 or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/accessibility. People with impaired hearing may call Washington Relay Service at 711. People with speech disability may call 877-833- 6341. Cannabis Science Task Force Recommendations: Laboratory Quality Standards for Pesticides in Cannabis Plants and Products by Sara Sekerak Environmental Assessment Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington Publication 20-03-005 Page 1 Acknowledgements Members of the Cannabis Science Task Force steering committee and working groups have contributed countless hours of expertise to develop science-based laboratory quality standards. The collective efforts and recommendations of the Cannabis Science Task Force are detailed in this report. Contributing members from the cannabis science community include: • Amber Wise, Medicine Creek Analytics • Nick Mosely, Confidence Analytics • Jeff Doughty, Capitol Analysis Group • Ben Hart, Testing Technologies • Julie Kowalski, Trace Analytics • Kyle Shelton, Medicine Creek Analytics • Matthew Hall, Praxis • Tania Sasaki, Confidence Analytics • Jay Burns, Treeline Analytics • Steve Loague, Integrity Labs • Taber Salewsky, Praxis Laboratory Contributing members from Washington State agencies include: • Shelly Rowden, DOH • Caroline West, DOH • Steve Officer, DOH • Steve LaCroix, DOH • Kendra Hodgson, WSLCB • Nicholas Poolman, WSLCB • Brad White, WSDA • Mike Firman, WSDA • Qingfen Gu, WSDA • Annette Hoffmann Ph.D., Ecology • Jessica Archer, Ecology • John Weakland, Ecology • Ryan Zboralski, Ecology • Sara Sekerak, Ecology The following Department of Ecology staff provided report reviews, report editing, publications, and communications. • Alyssa Peter • Tara-Lyn Poole • Jennifer Carlson • Rebecca Wood • Joan LeTourneau • Diana Ruth Olegre • Jimmy Norris Publication 20-03-005 Page 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 4 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Background ................................................................................................................................... 7 The Need for Appropriate Laboratory Quality Standards ............................................................. 8 Standards and the Current Authority ........................................................................................... 10 Formation of the Cannabis Science Task Force ............................................................................. 11 Steering Committee ..................................................................................................................... 11 Workgroups ................................................................................................................................. 12 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 14 Discussion of Recommendations .................................................................................................... 16 Recommended Laboratory Quality Standards ............................................................................ 16 Defining the Client ...................................................................................................................... 18 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Definitions....................................................................................................................................... 20 References ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 24 List of Figures Figure 1. Comparison of current regulating authority design and future design under RCW 69.50.348. .......................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2. Timeline for Task Force deliverables, policy and rule updates, and transfer of cannabis laboratory accreditation to Ecology. .................................................................................. 8 Figure 3. Product standards, laboratory quality standards, and accreditation standards.. .................. 9 Publication 20-03-005 Page 3 Executive Summary Although it is required that cannabis products sold in Washington State be tested for harmful substances and potency, the science needed to develop adequate testing protocols has not caught up to the industry. To protect consumers and to deliver more accurate laboratory results, the Legislature created the Cannabis Science Task Force (Task Force) to develop acceptable laboratory quality standards under the provisions of House Bill 2052 (2019). The Task Force members are professionals with The Washington State Department of expertise in chemistry, laboratory quality assurance Ecology (Ecology) prepared this report and quality control, and state government policy. They to the Legislature on behalf on the represent the Washington State departments of Cannabis Science Task Force (Task Agriculture (WSDA), Health (DOH), and Ecology Force) as required by RCW (Ecology), as well as the Liquor and Cannabis Board 43.21A.735(6), which states: (WSLCB) and cannabis testing laboratories. “The cannabis science task force must submit a report to To strengthen testing protocols for pesticides in the relevant committees of the cannabis plants and products, the Task Force legislature by July 1, 2020, recommends: that includes the findings and • Using existing agricultural method validation recommendations for protocols and method performance measures laboratory quality standards developed by the United States Department of for pesticides in plants for Agriculture (USDA), adapted to cannabis plants and marijuana product testing products. laboratories. The report must • include, but is not limited to, Establishing an interagency cooperative team recommendations relating to staffed by WSLCB, WSDA, and DOH to maintain the the following: adopted protocols and provide technical assistance to cannabis laboratories. (a) Appropriate approved • testing methods. Performing regulatory updates to facilitate these recommendations. (b) Method validation protocols. Consumer protections rely on assurances that (c) Method performance laboratories can accurately test cannabis products to criteria. meet Washington state standards. Typically, the (d) Sampling and development of testing protocols relies on a depth of homogenization protocols. federal expertise and resources available to conduct (e) Proficiency testing. research, coordinate standardization, and apply risk- management strategies. In this case, states have (f) Regulatory updates related legalized cannabis without federal support, so this to (a) through (e) of this subsection, by which traditional framework does not exist. agencies, and the timing of Adequate and up-to-date testing protocols are needed these updates.” to provide critical guidance to cannabis testing laboratories and to leverage Ecology’s laboratory accreditation model. Ecology currently administers its established accreditation program for more than 400 drinking water and environmental laboratories in Washington and across the country. Accreditation is an essential piece of a robust quality assurance program. Accreditation uses Publication 20-03-005 Page 4 established testing protocols to verify that a laboratory meets the criteria necessary to conduct specific testing practices. For cannabis, it is key that Washington’s regulatory agencies establish and maintain up-to-date testing protocols to fill the gap left by the lack of a federal cannabis testing framework. For Ecology to take over lab accreditation, regulatory changes must occur to allow its cannabis laboratory accreditation to function as it does for other state and federal regulatory programs (Figure 1). These regulatory changes are critical to ensure that laboratory quality standards
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries
    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments of Teresa Homan with Attachments
    Teresa Homan Watertown, SD 57201 I am a landowner in Deuel County, South Dakota. Our land boarders the Deuel Harvest Wind Project in Deuel county, Docket # EL 18-053. There are 112 towers cited in the project, with 9 towers within a mile of our property. We have spent over three decades developing this property to enhance wildlife and for the enjoyment of our family. Can you imagine how we felt when we found we have a population of eastern bluebirds? We have yellow warblers, which by the way feed on the web worms that form in our trees. We have orioles, cedar waxwings, brown thrashers, rose breasted grosbeaks, gold finches, purple finches, robins, blue jays, nuthatches, eastern kingbirds, bitterns, dark eyed juncos, red winged blackbirds, morning doves, owls, cow birds, northern mocking birds, grey cat birds, wood thrushes, tufted titmouse, king fishers, indigo buntings, scarlet tanagers, bobolinks, meadowlarks, many woodpeckers, turkeys, turkey vultures, even humming birds and bald eagles. There are more, just to numerous to list. Many of these birds we have seen for the first time in our lives on this property in the past 1 O years. Not only are these birds beautiful and fun to watch, they have their purpose in the ecosystem. We also see northern long eared bats, that are on the endangered list in South Dakota. These birds are making a come back after the use of insecticides that nearly wiped out many. In the 1940's the insecticide DDT was introduced for public use, it is now banned from sale. In 1976 the herbicide Roundup was introduced to the public.
    [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]
  • Genetically Modified Baculoviruses for Pest
    INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS This page intentionally left blank INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS EDITED BY LAWRENCE I. GILBERT SARJEET S. GILL Amsterdam • Boston • Heidelberg • London • New York • Oxford Paris • San Diego • San Francisco • Singapore • Sydney • Tokyo Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier Academic Press, 32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BU, UK 30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA 525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA ª 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved The chapters first appeared in Comprehensive Molecular Insect Science, edited by Lawrence I. Gilbert, Kostas Iatrou, and Sarjeet S. Gill (Elsevier, B.V. 2005). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (þ44) 1865 843830, fax (þ44) 1865 853333, e-mail [email protected]. Requests may also be completed on-line via the homepage (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissions). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Insect control : biological and synthetic agents / editors-in-chief: Lawrence I. Gilbert, Sarjeet S. Gill. – 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 (alk. paper) 1. Insect pests–Control. 2. Insecticides. I. Gilbert, Lawrence I. (Lawrence Irwin), 1929- II. Gill, Sarjeet S. SB931.I42 2010 632’.7–dc22 2010010547 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 Cover Images: (Top Left) Important pest insect targeted by neonicotinoid insecticides: Sweet-potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci; (Top Right) Control (bottom) and tebufenozide intoxicated by ingestion (top) larvae of the white tussock moth, from Chapter 4; (Bottom) Mode of action of Cry1A toxins, from Addendum A7.
    [Show full text]
  • Development and Validation of a Method for the Simultaneous
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by UGD Academic Repository American Journal of Applie d Chemistry 2014; 2(4): 46-54 Published online August 10, 2014 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ajac) doi: 10.11648/j.ajac.20140204.11 ISSN: 2330-8753 (Print); ISSN: 2330-8745 (Online) Development and validation of a method for the simultaneous determination of 20 organophosphorus pesticide residues in corn by accelerated solvent extraction and gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detection Vesna Kostik *, Biljana Gjorgeska, Bistra Angelovska Medical Faculty, Department of Pharmacy, University “Goce Delchev”, Shtip, Republic of Macedonia Email address: [email protected] (V. Kostik), [email protected] (B. Gjorgeska), [email protected] (B. Angelovska) To cite this article: Vesna Kostik, Biljana Gjorgeska, Bistra Angelovska. Development and Validation of a Method for the Simultaneous Determination of 20 Organophosphorus Pesticide Residues in Corn by Accelerated Solvent Extraction and Gas Chromatography with Nitrogen Phosphorus Detection. American Journal of Applied Chemistry. Vol. 2, No. 4, 2014, pp. 46-54. doi: 10.11648/j.ajac.20140204.11 Abstract: The method for simultaneous determination of 20 organophosphorus pesticide residues in corn samples has been developed and validated. For the extraction of organophosporus pesticide residues from the samples, the accelerated solvent technique with the mixture of dichloromethane: acetone (1:1, V/V ) was used. Clean up was done using liquid – liquid extraction with n – hexane, followed by solid phase extraction on primary secondary amine adsorbent, and elution with the mixture of acetone: toluene (65:35). The determination of the pesticides was carried out by gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detection.
    [Show full text]
  • 422 Part 180—Tolerances and Ex- Emptions for Pesticide
    Pt. 180 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–16 Edition) at any time before the filing of the ini- 180.124 Methyl bromide; tolerances for resi- tial decision. dues. 180.127 Piperonyl butoxide; tolerances for [55 FR 50293, Dec. 5, 1990, as amended at 70 residues. FR 33360, June 8, 2005] 180.128 Pyrethrins; tolerances for residues. 180.129 o-Phenylphenol and its sodium salt; PART 180—TOLERANCES AND EX- tolerances for residues. 180.130 Hydrogen Cyanide; tolerances for EMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEM- residues. ICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 180.132 Thiram; tolerances for residues. 180.142 2,4-D; tolerances for residues. Subpart A—Definitions and Interpretative 180.145 Fluorine compounds; tolerances for Regulations residues. 180.151 Ethylene oxide; tolerances for resi- Sec. dues. 180.1 Definitions and interpretations. 180.153 Diazinon; tolerances for residues. 180.3 Tolerances for related pesticide chemi- 180.154 Azinphos-methyl; tolerances for resi- cals. dues. 180.4 Exceptions. 180.155 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid; tolerances 180.5 Zero tolerances. for residues. 180.6 Pesticide tolerances regarding milk, 180.163 Dicofol; tolerances for residues. eggs, meat, and/or poultry; statement of 180.169 Carbaryl; tolerances for residues. policy. 180.172 Dodine; tolerances for residues. 180.175 Maleic hydrazide; tolerances for resi- Subpart B—Procedural Regulations dues. 180.176 Mancozeb; tolerances for residues. 180.7 Petitions proposing tolerances or ex- 180.178 Ethoxyquin; tolerances for residues. emptions for pesticide residues in or on 180.181 Chlorpropham; tolerances for resi- raw agricultural commodities or proc- dues. essed foods. 180.182 Endosulfan; tolerances for residues. 180.8 Withdrawal of petitions without preju- 180.183 Disulfoton; tolerances for residues.
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,852,618 B2 Clough (45) Date of Patent: Oct
    USOO8852618B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,852,618 B2 Clough (45) Date of Patent: Oct. 7, 2014 (54) INSECTICIDAL MIXTURE CONTAINING CA 2429218 A1 6, 2002 GAMMA-CYHALOTHRN CH 689326 A5 4f1995 EP O237227 A1 9, 1987 EP 0771526 A2 5, 1997 (75) Inventor: Martin Stephen Clough, Bracknell EP O988788 A1 3f2000 (GB) FR 272O230 A1 12/1995 JP 63. 126805 A2 5, 1988 (73) Assignee: Syngenta Limited, Guildford (GB) JP 63126805 A2 5, 1988 JP 63126805 5, 1998 c - r WO WO 86 O7525 A1 12, 1986 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this WO WO 93 03618 A2 3, 1993 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 WO WO95 229O2 A1 8/1995 U.S.C. 154(b) by 824 days. WO WO9533380 A1 12, 1995 WO WO 96 16543 A2 6, 1996 (21) Appl. No.: 12/633,063 WO WO97 06687 A1 2/1997 WO WO974O692 A1 11, 1997 (22) Filed: Dec.a V88, 2009 WO WOOOO2453 A1 1, 2000 OTHER PUBLICATIONS (65) Prior Publication Data US 201O/OO81714 A1 Apr. 1, 2010 Canadian Office Action (Applin. No. 2,452,515 filed: Jul. 10, 2002) mailing date Oct. 1, 2010 (pp. 1-2). Related U.S. Application Data Allen et al. Transgenic & Conventional Insect & Weed Control Sys tems; Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, vol. 2, 1065 (62) Division of application No. 10/484.745, filed as 1068 (1999), USA. application No. PCT/GB02/03181 on Jul. 10, 2002, Anonymous; Pesticide Mixtures for Control of Insect and Acarid now Pat. No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Processing on 14 C-Chlofenvinphos Residues In
    EG0800342 The Effect of Processing on 14C- Chlorfenvinphos Residues in Maize Oil and Bioavailability of its Cake Residues on Rats F. Mahdy, S. El-Maghraby National Research Centre, Dokki, Giza, Egypt ABSTRACT Maize seed obtained from 14C-chlorfenvinphos treated plants contained 0.12 % of the applied dose. The insecticide residues in crude oil, methanol and coke amounted to 10 %, 6 % and 69 %, respectively of original residues inside the seeds.The 14C-activity in the crude oil could be a gradual reduced by the refining processes. The alkali treatment and bleaching steps are more effective steps in the refining processes remove about (63 %). The refined oil contained only about 17 % of the 14C-residues originally present. The major residues in processed oil contain parent compound, in addition to five metabolites of the insecticide. When rats fed the extracted seeds (cake), the bound residues were found to be considerably bioavailable. After feeding rats for 5 days with the cake, a substantial amount of 14C-residues was eliminated in the urine (59.5 %), while about 20 % was excreted in the feces. About 15 % of the radioactivity was distribution among various organs. Keywords: 14C-chlorfenvinphos, maize oil, refining processes, residues, bioavailability. INTRODUCTION Pesticides are of interest as residues because of their widespread use in a variety of crops for field and post-harvest protection and because with their degradation products, they could be a potential health hazard. Past investigations suggest that most organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticide in edible oils can be reduced considerably by a chemical refining process, but pyrethroid pesticides remain to a certain extent (1-6).
    [Show full text]
  • Approved Uses of Registered Insecticides (Crop Based)
    Approved uses of registered insecticides (Crop based) Dosage / ha Formulation Spray fluid Crop Insecticide Common name of the pest a.i (gm) (gm/ml) (Liter) Bifenthrin 8 SC Mites 60 7.5ml/lit 10 lit/tree Carbofuran 3 CG Woolly aphid 5/tree 166/tree _ Chlorpyrifos 20 EC Aphid 0.0005 3750-5000 1500-2000 Dimethoate 30 EC Stem borer 0.0003 1485-1980 1500-2000 Red spider mite and two spotted Fenazaquin 10 EC 40 400 1000 mite Hexythiazox 5.45 W/W EC European Red Mite 0.00002 0.0004 10ltr./tree Malathion 50 EC Sanjose scale, Wooly aphid 0.0005 1500-2000 1500-2000 Sanjose scale 0.0007 4200-5600 1500-2000 Oxydemeton – Methyl 25 EC Apple Wooly Aphid 0.00025 1500-2000 1500-2000 100-150gm/ Phorate 10 CG Woolly aphid 10- 15/ plant _ plant European red Mite, Two spotted Propargite 57 EC 2.85-5.7 /tree 5-10 ml/tree 10 lit/tree mite Quinalphos 25 EC Wooly Aphid 0.0005 3000-4000 500-1000 European Red Mite & Red Spider Spiromesifen 22.9 SC 72(0.03) 300 1000 mite As per size of Thiacloprid 21.7 SC Thrips 0.01- 0.012 0.04-0.05 tree Apricot Dimethoate 30 EC Aphid 0.0003 1485-1980 1500-2000 Carbofuran 3 CG Shoot fly 1500 50000 _ Dimethoate 30 EC Milky weed bug 180-200 594-660 500-1000 Bajra Shoot fly 3000 30000 _ Phorate 10 CG White grub 2500 25000 _ Banana Carbofuran 3 CG Rhizome weevil 1 g/ suckers 33g/sucker _ Aphid 50g/suckers 166g/sucker _ Nematode 1.5g/suckers 50g/suckers _ Dimethoate 30 EC Aphid, Lace wing bug 0.0003 1485-1980 1500-2000 Tingyi bug 0.00025 1500-2000 1500-2000 Oxydemeton – Methyl 25 EC Aphids 0.0005 3000-4000 1500-2000 2.5 -1.25/ 25 -12.5/ Phorate 10 CG Aphid _ plant plant Quinalphos 25 EC Tingid bug 0.0005 3000-4000 500-1000 Phosalone 35 EC Aphid 500 1428 500-1000 Aphid 1000 33300 _ Barely Carbofuran 3 CG Jassid 1250 41600 _ Cyst nematode 1000 33300 _ Phorate 10 CG Aphid 1000 10000 _ Beans Chlorpyrifos 20 EC Pod borer , Black bug 600 3000 500-1000 Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC Pod borers 25 125 500 Chlorpyrifos 1.5 DP Helicoverpa armigera 375 25000 _ Azadirachtin 0.03 (300 PPM) Pod Borer _ _ _ Bacillus thuringiensis Var.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Name Federal P Code CAS Registry Number Acutely
    Acutely / Extremely Hazardous Waste List Federal P CAS Registry Acutely / Extremely Chemical Name Code Number Hazardous 4,7-Methano-1H-indene, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro- P059 76-44-8 Acutely Hazardous 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10- hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide P050 115-29-7 Acutely Hazardous Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- P197 17702-57-7 Acutely Hazardous 1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea P026 5344-82-1 Acutely Hazardous 1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea 5344-82-1 Extremely Hazardous 1,1,1-Trichloro-2, -bis(p-methoxyphenyl)ethane Extremely Hazardous 1,1a,2,2,3,3a,4,5,5,5a,5b,6-Dodecachlorooctahydro-1,3,4-metheno-1H-cyclobuta (cd) pentalene, Dechlorane Extremely Hazardous 1,1a,3,3a,4,5,5,5a,5b,6-Decachloro--octahydro-1,2,4-metheno-2H-cyclobuta (cd) pentalen-2- one, chlorecone Extremely Hazardous 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine 57-14-7 Extremely Hazardous 1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-1,4,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro-1,4-endo-endo-5,8- dimethanonaph-thalene Extremely Hazardous 1,2,3-Propanetriol, trinitrate P081 55-63-0 Acutely Hazardous 1,2,3-Propanetriol, trinitrate 55-63-0 Extremely Hazardous 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-Octachloro-4,7-methano-3a,4,7,7a-tetra- hydro- indane Extremely Hazardous 1,2-Benzenediol, 4-[1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino)ethyl]- 51-43-4 Extremely Hazardous 1,2-Benzenediol, 4-[1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino)ethyl]-, P042 51-43-4 Acutely Hazardous 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 96-12-8 Extremely Hazardous 1,2-Propylenimine P067 75-55-8 Acutely Hazardous 1,2-Propylenimine 75-55-8 Extremely Hazardous 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,8-Octachloro-1,3,3a,4,7,7a-hexahydro-4,7-methanoisobenzofuran Extremely Hazardous 1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O- [(methylamino)-carbonyl]oxime 26419-73-8 Extremely Hazardous 1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O- [(methylamino)-carbonyl]oxime.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyantraniliprole
    PUBLIC RELEASE SUMMARY on the Evaluation of the New Active Constituent Cyantraniliprole in the Product DuPont Exirel Insecticide APVMA Product Number 64103 OCTOBER 2013 © Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority 2013 ISSN: 1443-1335 (electronic) ISBN: 978-1-922188-50-2 (electronic) Ownership of intellectual property rights in this publication Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). Creative Commons licence With the exception of the Coat of Arms and other elements specifically identified, this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence. This is a standard form agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode. The APVMA’s preference is that you attribute this publication (and any approved material sourced from it) using the following wording: Source: licensed from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence. In referencing this document the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority should be cited as author, publisher and copyright owner. Use of the Coat of Arms The terms under which the Coat of Arms can be used are set out on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website (see www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines).
    [Show full text]
  • The List of Extremely Hazardous Substances)
    APPENDIX A (THE LIST OF EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES) THRESHOLD REPORTABLE INVENTORY RELEASE QUANTITY QUANTITY CAS NUMBER CHEMICAL NAME (POUNDS) (POUNDS) 75-86-5 ACETONE CYANOHYDRIN 500 10 1752-30-3 ACETONE THIOSEMICARBAZIDE 500/500 1,000 107-02-8 ACROLEIN 500 1 79-06-1 ACRYLAMIDE 500/500 5,000 107-13-1 ACRYLONITRILE 500 100 814-68-6 ACRYLYL CHLORIDE 100 100 111-69-3 ADIPONITRILE 500 1,000 116-06-3 ALDICARB 100/500 1 309-00-2 ALDRIN 500/500 1 107-18-6 ALLYL ALCOHOL 500 100 107-11-9 ALLYLAMINE 500 500 20859-73-8 ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE 500 100 54-62-6 AMINOPTERIN 500/500 500 78-53-5 AMITON 500 500 3734-97-2 AMITON OXALATE 100/500 100 7664-41-7 AMMONIA 500 100 300-62-9 AMPHETAMINE 500 1,000 62-53-3 ANILINE 500 5,000 88-05-1 ANILINE,2,4,6-TRIMETHYL- 500 500 7783-70-2 ANTIMONY PENTAFLUORIDE 500 500 1397-94-0 ANTIMYCIN A 500/500 1,000 86-88-4 ANTU 500/500 100 1303-28-2 ARSENIC PENTOXIDE 100/500 1 THRESHOLD REPORTABLE INVENTORY RELEASE QUANTITY QUANTITY CAS NUMBER CHEMICAL NAME (POUNDS) (POUNDS) 1327-53-3 ARSENOUS OXIDE 100/500 1 7784-34-1 ARSENOUS TRICHLORIDE 500 1 7784-42-1 ARSINE 100 100 2642-71-9 AZINPHOS-ETHYL 100/500 100 86-50-0 AZINPHOS-METHYL 10/500 1 98-87-3 BENZAL CHLORIDE 500 5,000 98-16-8 BENZENAMINE, 3-(TRIFLUOROMETHYL)- 500 500 100-14-1 BENZENE, 1-(CHLOROMETHYL)-4-NITRO- 500/500 500 98-05-5 BENZENEARSONIC ACID 10/500 10 3615-21-2 BENZIMIDAZOLE, 4,5-DICHLORO-2-(TRI- 500/500 500 FLUOROMETHYL)- 98-07-7 BENZOTRICHLORIDE 100 10 100-44-7 BENZYL CHLORIDE 500 100 140-29-4 BENZYL CYANIDE 500 500 15271-41-7 BICYCLO[2.2.1]HEPTANE-2-CARBONITRILE,5-
    [Show full text]