The Biologic and Economic Assessment of Toxaphene
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I ~ 12.8 ~11k§, 1.0 ~ Eli 1.0 IiiW .2 Ii.i a.:.: ~ w ~ &<.... "" ... ~ 1.1 ..... ~ 1.1 --- I . III" 1.2~ 111/11.4 111111.6 111111.25 1/1/11.4 111111.6 • I MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-I%3-A '. COOPERATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT THE BIOLOGIC AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF TOXAPHENE ~ c:r: 0::: co ::; .., '-' CD ::; 0) co ::::; CL 0 f3 C\1 -J -l ~ ::::> z: -:; c:::c tr) 0 -J UNITED STATES IN COOPERA T/ON WITH TECHNICAL BULLETIN DEPARTMENT OF STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS NUMBER 1652 AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE OTHER STATE AGENCIES U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY THE BIOLOGIC AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF TOXAPHENE A report of the Toxaphene assessment team to the rebuttable presumption against registration of Toxaphene Submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency on Seotember 12, 1977 and November 30, 1978 UNITED STATES IN COOPERA TlON WITH TECHNiCAL BUllETIN DEPARTMENT OF STATE ACRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS NUMBER 1652 AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE OTHER STATE AGENCIES U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PREFACE This report is a joint project of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Land-Grant Universities, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and is the seventh in a series of reports recently prepared by a team of scientists from these m.'ganizations in order to provide sound, current scientific information on the benefits of, and exposure to, toxaphene. The report is a scientific presentation to be used in connection with other data as a portion of the total body of knowledge in a final benefit/risk assessment under the Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration Process in connection with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. This report is a slightly edited version of the two reports submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency on September 12, 1977 and November 30, 1978. The editing has been limited in order to maintain the accuracy of the information in the original reports. Sincere appreciation is extended to the Assessment Team Members and to all others who gave so generously of their time in the development of information and in the preparation of the report. Toxaphene Assessment Team Paul W. Bergman Entomologist USDA, SEA, ES Washington, D. C. Alexander C. Davis Entomologist Cornell University Geneva, New York Walter L. Ferguson Economist USDA, ESS Washington, D. C. Stanford N. Fertig Chief, Pesticide Impact USDA, SEA, AR Assessment Staff Beltsville, Maryland Frederick W. Honing Entomologist USDA, FS Washington, D. C. Richard L. Ridgway National Research USDA. SEA, AR Program Leader Beltsville. Maryland Robert C. Riley Entomologist USDA. SEA. CR Washington, D. C. Glen O. Schubert Veterinarian USDA, APHIS Hyattsville. Maryland Paul H. Schwartz. Jr. Team Leader. USDA, SEA, AR National Research Beltsville. Maryland Program Leader Issued June 1981 ii Norman H. Starler Economist USDA, ES S (formerly) Washington, D. C. Harrie .M. Taft, Jr. Entomologist USDA, SEA, AR (deceased) Florence, South Carolina ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation is expressed to the following for their assistance in providing information on the uses of toxaphene, acr.eage treated, production costs, comparative efficiency of toxaphene and available alternative insecticides, the losses associated with inadequate control of the various insect pests, and other related information. U. S. Department of Agriculture SEA, AR: B. A. Butt, F. P. Cuthbert, Jr. ESS: H. W. Delvo, W. A. Quinby C. R. Gentry, R. L. Harris J. C. Tinney P. C. Kearney, J. A. Onsager C. R. Parencia, A. W. Taylor FS: R. Stewart U. S. Environmental Protection Agency OPP: M. Dow, G. O'Mal'a, J. Palmisano, M. McWhorter State Coordinators Alabama: F. Gilliland Montana: G. Jensen Arizona: L. Moore Nebraska: E. A. Dickason Arkansas: G. Barnes Nevada: H. G. Smith J. G. Burleigh New Hampshire: J. S. Bowman California: E. Swift' G. T. Fisher Connecticut: M. G. Savos New Mexico: E. Huddleston Delaware: W. E. McDaniel New York: A. A. Muka Georgia: W. R. Lambert III North Carolina: R. L. Robertson B. P. Singh North Dakota: J. T. Schulz Hawaii: J. Hylin Ohio: R. E. Treece Idaho: G. P. Carpenter Oklahoma: S. Coppock Illinois: S. Moore III K. We Hawxby Indiana: D. Matthew Oregon: J. Capizzi Iowa: H. J. Stockdale Pennsylvania: S. G. Gesell Kansas: L. Brooks Rhode Island: L. Pearson Louisiana: J. L. Bagent South Carolina: J. C. French J. S. Roussel South Dakota: B. H. Kantack Maine; J. B. Dimond Tennessee: C. J. Southards Maryland: W. C. Harding, Jr. Vermont: G. B. MacCollou Michigan: N. Fe Sloan Virginia: N. E. Lau Minnesota: L. K. Cutkomp Washington: R. Maxwell J. A. Lofgren West Virginia: J. F. Baniecki Mississippi: D. F. Young, Jr. D. O. Quinn Missouri: M. L. Fairchild Wisconsin: E. H. Fisher Wyoming: E. W. Spackman iii SUMMARY Toxaphene has been used as a pesticide since 1947, and has 277 commodity and other site registrations. About 33 million pounds are currently used on about 4.9 million acres of crops and about 17 million head of beef cattle. State and Federal agencies recommend or use toxaphene for control of 167 insect pests on 44 com modities, 40 of which have no equally effective and safe alternative in one or more States. The need for toxaphene on the remaining commodities is considered useful. Toxaphene + methyl parathion used on cotton increases the interval between applica tions by about 2 days. When methyl parathion is used alone, it must be applied every 3 to 5 days. Toxaphene is one of the least toxic of the insecticides to honeybees and other pollinating insects of crops. Literature relating to the impact of toxaphene on the biological and physical environments was reviewed and interpreted. We attempted to determine the rates at which toxaphene is moving into the physical environment and disappearing from it. This information is critical for an assessment of biological effect. Volatilization represents a major pathway by which toxaphene moves into the air from water and soil. Toxaphene volatilizes from water rapidly. Our studies show that it probably has a half-life of less than 2 min in the surface layer of water. The rate at which it moves to the surface layer of water is controlled by several factors, including rate of diffusion and rate of desorption. Our studies showed that most of the toxaphene disappeared rapidly from lakes; however, a very small amount remained in the lake for a fairly long period of time. Toxaphene enters water primarily through surface runoff. Sediment carries al most all of the toxaphene in the surface runoff. It is possible to measure toxaphene yields of runoff in sediment and to obtain rough estimates of the time that it takes for toxaphene concentrations to be reduced to biologically inactive levels once the sediment contaminated with toxaphene is introduced into the water. These time periods are usually relatively short, varying from a few days to a few months depending upon the size of the surface area of the body of water, the organic matter in the water, the sediment load, and the toxaphene conce!1tration in the sediment. Toxaphene evaporates readily from the surface of soil providing the surface of the soil is not dry. The process of volatilization is almost stopped if the soil is cultivated or if the toxaphene is mixed with the soil. Toxaphene will undergo anaer obic degradation in the soil, however, which is extensive if the soil is high in humus or organic matter. Toxaphene is probably present in the air for only a short period of time. The half-life of a compound like toxaphene is apt to be very short--probably less than a day--in the air. It is degraded by complex chemical reactions consisting primarily of photochemical oxidation. Toxaphene undergoes little bioaccumulation in the envi ronment. It does not bioaccumulate in birds that eat fish; however, the greatest bioaccumulation occurs when fish are exposed to water containing toxaphene. Such bioaccumulation rates are generally less than 10,000. The results of the National Pesticide Monitoring Program, initiated in June 1967, showed that toxaphene residues rarely occurred in the samples checked. It is found far less frequently than persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides. iv Toxaphene occurred about 9 times per 1,000 samples for the period 1966-74 in the total diet study, whereas dieldrin was found with a frequency of 258 times per 1,000 samples and DDT 150 times per 1,000 samples. Toxaphene was used more heavily on agricultural crop lands than was dieldrin or DDT. When toxaphene was fed to cattle and sheep at 100 p/m for 16 weeks, the con centrations in sheep remained at approximately the same level during each week through the 16th week. Concentrations increased blightly each week in the body fat of cattle. In both species, residue levels were dependent upon concentrations in the diet. When toxaphene was eliminated from the diet, it was rapidly excreted from the body. Toxaphene residues in the fat declined rapidly at first and then slowly tapered off and returned to near zero levels within 8 weeks after toxaphene was discontinued in the feed. This indicated that toxaphene was readily metabolized in the body and excreted. Toxaphene apparently undergoes extensive dechlorination. In the dechlorination of toxaphene in rats, the only identified metabolite was the chloride ion, which appears almost entirely in the urine and accounted for about half of the admin istered dose. About 50 percent of the chloride ion in both toxaphene and table salt was eliminated from the body in about 2 to 3 days. The extensive metabolic dechlorination of toxaphene in rats differs from that of many chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides and environmental pollutants.