2611-1: Prohibited Pesticides for NOP Residue Testing

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

2611-1: Prohibited Pesticides for NOP Residue Testing United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW. NOP 2611-1 Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2646-South Building Effective Date: July 22, 2011 National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 3 Prohibited Pesticides for NOP Residue Testing 1-Naphthol Cyhalothrin, Total (Cyhalothrin-L + 3-Hydroxycarbofuran R157836 epimer) 5-Hydroxythiabendazole Cypermethrin Acephate Cyprodinil Acetamiprid Cyromazine Acetochlor DCPA Aldicarb DDD o,p' Aldicarb sulfone DDD p,p' Aldicarb sulfoxide DDE o,p' Allethrin DDE p,p' Atrazine DDT o,p' Azinphos methyl DDT p,p' Azoxystrobin DEF (Tribufos) Bendiocarb Deltamethrin (includes parent BHC alpha Tralomethrin) Bifenazate Diazinon Bifenthrin Diazinon oxygen analog Bitertanol Dichlorvos (DDVP) Boscalid Dicloran Bromacil Dicofol o,p' Buprofezin Dicofol p,p' Captan Dieldrin Carbaryl Difenoconazole Carbendazim (MBC) Diflubenzuron Carbofuran Dimethoate Chlorantraniprole Dimethomorph Chlordane cis Dinotefuran Chlordane trans Diphenamid Chlorfenapyr Diphenylamine (DPA) Chlorothalonil Disulfoton Chlorpropham Disulfoton sulfone Chlorpyrifos Diuron Chlorpyrifos methyl Endosulfan I Clofentezine Endosulfan II Clopyralid Endosulfan sulfate Clothianidin Endrin Coumaphos Esfenvalerate+Fenvalerate Total Cyazofamid Ethephon Cycloate Ethion Cyfluthrin Ethoprop Ethoxyquin Original Issue Date: 01/31/11 Authorized Distribution: Public File Name: NOP 2611-1 Prohib PesticidesRev01 07 22 11 United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW. NOP 2611-1 Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2646-South Building Effective Date: July 22, 2011 National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 3 Etoxazole Mevinphos Total Famoxadone MGK-264 Fenamidone Myclobutanil Fenamiphos Naled Fenamiphos sulfone Napropamide Fenamiphos sulfoxide Nonachlor cis Fenarimol Nonachlor trans Fenbuconazole Norflurazon Fenhexamid Norflurazon desmethyl Fenpropathrin Omethoate Fenpyroximate O-Phenylphenol Fenthion Oxadixyl Fipronil Oxamyl Flonicamid Oxamyl oxime Fludioxonil Oxydemeton methyl sulfone Fluoxastrobin Parathion methyl Fluridone Pendimethalin Flutolanil Pentachloroaniline (PCA) Fluvalinate Pentachlorobenzene (PCB) Folpet Pentachlorophenyl methyl sulfide Fonofos Permethrin Total Formetanate hydrochloride Phenmedipham Heptachlor epoxide Phorate sulfone Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Phorate sulfoxide Hexaconazole Phosalone Hexythiazox Phosmet Hydroprene Piperonyl butoxide Imazalil Pirimicarb Imidacloprid Pirimiphos methyl Indoxacarb Prallethrin Iprodione Prochloraz Iprodione metabolite isomer Procymidone Lindane (BHC gamma) Prometryn Linuron Pronamide Malathion Propargite Malathion oxygen analog Propiconazole Metalaxyl Pymetrozine Methamidophos Pyraclostrobin Methidathion Pyridaben Methiocarb Pyrimethanil Methomyl Pyriproxyfen Methoxychlor Total Quinoxyfen Methoxyfenozide Quintozene (PCNB) Metolachlor Resmethrin Metribuzin Simazine Original Issue Date: 01/31/11 Authorized Distribution: Public File Name: NOP 2611-1 Prohib PesticidesRev01 07 22 11 United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW. NOP 2611-1 Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2646-South Building Effective Date: July 22, 2011 National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250 Page 3 of 3 Spinetoram Thiamethoxam Spiromesifen Total (parent + enol Thiobencarb metabolite) Thiodicarb Sulfentrazone Triadimefon Tebuconazole Triadimenol Tebufenozide Trifloxystrobin Tetrachlorvinphos Triflumizole Tetradifon Trifluralin Tetrahydrophthalimide (THPI) Vinclozolin Thiabendazole Thiacloprid References NOP Program Handbook: Guidance and Instructions for Accredited Certifying Agents and Certified Operations NOP 2610: Sampling Procedures for Residue Testing. July 22, 2011. NOP 2611: Laboratory Selection Criteria for Pesticide Residue Testing. July 22, 2011. Original Issue Date: 01/31/11 Authorized Distribution: Public File Name: NOP 2611-1 Prohib PesticidesRev01 07 22 11 .
Recommended publications
  • Restricted Use Product Summary Report
    Page 1 of 17 Restricted Use Product Summary Report (January 19, 2016) Percent Active Registration # Name Company # Company Name Active Ingredient(s) Ingredient 4‐152 BONIDE ORCHARD MOUSE BAIT 4 BONIDE PRODUCTS, INC. 2 Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2) 70‐223 RIGO EXOTHERM TERMIL 70 VALUE GARDENS SUPPLY, LLC 20 Chlorothalonil 100‐497 AATREX 4L HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 42.6 Atrazine 100‐585 AATREX NINE‐O HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 88.2 Atrazine 100‐669 CURACRON 8E INSECTICIDE‐MITICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 73 Profenofos 100‐817 BICEP II MAGNUM HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 33; 26.1 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐827 BICEP LITE II MAGNUM HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 28.1; 35.8 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐886 BICEP MAGNUM 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 33.7; 26.1 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐898 AGRI‐MEK 0.15 EC MITICIDE/INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 2 Abamectin 100‐903 DENIM INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 2.15 Emamectin benzoate 100‐904 PROCLAIM INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 5 Emamectin benzoate 100‐998 KARATE 1EC 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 13.1 lambda‐Cyhalothrin 100‐1075 FORCE 3G INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 3 Tefluthrin Acetochlor; Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl‐ 100‐1083 DOUBLEPLAY SELECTIVE HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 16.9; 67.8 , S‐ethyl ester 100‐1086 KARATE EC‐W INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 13.1 lambda‐Cyhalothrin 100‐1088 SCIMITAR GC INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION,
    [Show full text]
  • US 2014/0116112 A1 HUMPHREY Et Al
    US 201401 16112A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2014/0116112 A1 HUMPHREY et al. (43) Pub. Date: May 1, 2014 (54) METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE Publication Classification PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF CONTAMINANTS IN A SAMPLE (51) Int. Cl. GOIN30/72 (2006.01) (71) Applicant: K & D LABORATORIES, INC., Lake (52) U.S. Cl. Oswego, OR (US) CPC .................................. G0IN30/7206 (2013.01) USPC ......................................................... T3/23.37 (72) Inventors: David Kent HUMPHREY, Reno, NV (US); Nicholas Joseph GEISE, Portland, OR (US) (57) ABSTRACT (73) Assignee: K & D LABORATORIES, INC., Lake Oswego, OR (US) Methods are provided for rapidly determining the presence or absence of large numbers of contaminants in a test sample, (21) Appl. No.: 13/830,388 Such as a raw material intended for use in the preparation of a nutraceutical. The disclosed methods employ gas chromatog (22) Filed: Mar 14, 2013 raphy-mass spectrometry techniques together with the spe cific use of software in combination with a database to ana Related U.S. Application Data lyze data collected after ionization of the sample and (60) Provisional application No. 61/718,607, filed on Oct. determine the presence or absence of the contaminants in the 25, 2012. sample. US 2014/01161 12 A1 May 1, 2014 METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE 0007. In one embodiment, methods for detecting the pres PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ence or absence of a plurality of contaminants in a sample are CONTAMINANTS IN A SAMPLE provided, such methods comprising: (a) extracting the sample with a water-miscible solvent in the presence of a high con REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS centration of salts to provide a sample extract; (b) shaking and centrifuging the sample extract to provide a Supernatant; (c) 0001.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Hop Management Guide 2018
    2018 Michigan Hop Management Guide This material is based upon work supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 2015-09785. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2 Table of Contents Growth Stages………………………………………………………………………………………3 Weed Management………………………………………………………………………….4-5 Herbicides………………..……………………………………………………………………….6-7 Fungicides……………………………..………………………………………………………….8-9 Insecticides…………………………..………………………………………………………10-11 Miticides…………………………………………………………………………………………….12 Pesticide Toxicity to Beneficial Insects…………………………………………..13-14 Nutrient Management Considerations…………………………………………15-19 Scouting Calendar………………………………………………………………………………20 Information presented here does not supersede the label directions. To protect yourself, others, and the environment, always read the label before applying any pesticide. Although efforts have been made to check the accuracy of information presented, it is the responsibility of the person using this information to verify that it is correct by reading the corresponding pesticide label in its entirety before using the product. The information presented here is intended as a guide for Michigan hop growers in selecting pesticides and is for educational purposes only. Labels can and do change. For current label and MSDS information, visit one of the following free online databases: greenbook.net, cdms.com, and agrian.com The efficacies of products listed have not been evaluated on hop in Michigan. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by Michigan State University Extension or bias against those not mentioned. This information was compiled by Erin Lizotte and Dr. Robert Sirrine with assistance from Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Carpenter Ants and Control in Homes Page 1 of 6
    Carpenter Ants and Control in Homes Page 1 of 6 Carpenter Ants and Control in Homes Fact Sheet No. 31 Revised May 2000 Dr. Jay B Karren, Extension Entomologist Alan H. Roe, Insect Diagnostician Introduction Carpenter ants are members of the insect order Hymenoptera, which includes bees, wasps, sawflies, and other ants. Carpenter ants can be occasional pests in the home and are noted particularly for the damage they can cause when nesting in wood. In Utah they are more of a nuisance rather than a major structural pest. Carpenter ants, along with a number of other ant species, utilize cavities in wood, particularly stumps and logs in decayed condition, as nesting sites. They are most abundant in forests and can be easily found under loose bark of dead trees, stumps, or fallen logs. Homeowners may bring them into their homes when they transport infested logs from forests to use as firewood. Description Carpenter ants include species that are among the largest ants found in the United States. They are social insects with a complex and well-defined caste system. The worker ants are sterile females and may occur in different sizes (majors and minors). Members of the reproductive caste (fertile males and females) are usually winged prior to mating. All ants develop from eggs deposited by a fertilized female (queen). The eggs hatch into grub-like larvae (immatures) which are fed and cared for by the workers. When fully grown, the larvae spin a cocoon and enter the pupal stage. The pupal stage is a period of transformation from the larva to adult.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Influencing Pesticide Resistance in Psylla Pyricola Foerster and Susceptibility Inits Mirid
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF: Hugo E. van de Baan for the degree ofDoctor of Philosopbv in Entomology presented on September 29, 181. Title: Factors Influencing Pesticide Resistance in Psylla pyricola Foerster and Susceptibility inits Mirid Predator, Deraeocoris brevis Knight. Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: Factors influencing pesticide susceptibility and resistance were studied in Psylla pyricola Foerster, and its mirid predator, Deraeocoris brevis Knight in the Rogue River Valley, Oregon. Factors studied were at the biochemical, life history, and population ecology levels. Studies on detoxification enzymes showed that glutathione S-transferase and cytochrome P-450 monooxygenase activities were ca. 1.6-fold higherin susceptible R. brevis than in susceptible pear psylla, however, esterase activity was ca. 5-fold lower. Esterase activity was ca. 18-fold higher in resistant pear psylla than in susceptible D. brevis, however, glutathione S-transferase and cytochrome P-450 monooxygenase activities were similar. Esterases seem to be a major factor conferring insecticideresistance in P. Pvricola. Although the detoxification capacities of P. rivricola and D. brevis were quite similar, pear psylla has developed resistance to many insecticides in the Rogue River Valley, whereas D. brevis has remained susceptible. Biochemical factors may be important in determining the potential of resistance development, however, they are less important in determining the rate at which resistance develops. Computer simulation studies showed that life history and ecological factors are probably of greater importancein determining the rate at which resistance develops in P. pvricola and D. brevis. High fecundity and low immigration of susceptible individuals into selected populations appear to be major factors contributing to rapid resistance development in pear psylla compared with D.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying the Cause of Sediment Toxicity in Agricultural Sediments: the Role of Pyrethroids and Nine Seldom-Measured Hydrophobic Pesticides ⇑ Donald P
    Chemosphere 90 (2013) 958–964 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Chemosphere journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere Identifying the cause of sediment toxicity in agricultural sediments: The role of pyrethroids and nine seldom-measured hydrophobic pesticides ⇑ Donald P. Weston a, , Yuping Ding b, Minghua Zhang c, Michael J. Lydy b a Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, 1005 Valley Life Sciences Bldg., Berkeley, CA 94720-3140, USA b Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center and Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, 171 Life Sciences II, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA c Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA highlights " Monitoring fails to test for many agricultural pesticides used in any given area. " Nine seldom-analyzed pesticides (e.g., abamectin) were tested for in sediments. " One-quarter of the sediment samples were toxic to the amphipod, Hyalella azteca. " The seldom-analyzed pesticides may have contributed to toxicity in a few samples. " Pyrethroid insecticides were responsible for the vast majority of toxicity. article info abstract Article history: Few currently used agricultural pesticides are routinely monitored for in the environment. Even if Received 10 January 2012 concentrations are known, sediment LC50 values are often lacking for common sediment toxicity testing Received in revised form 16 May 2012 species. To help fill this data gap, sediments in California’s Central Valley were tested for nine hydropho- Accepted 27 June 2012 bic pesticides seldom analyzed: abamectin, diazinon, dicofol, fenpropathrin, indoxacarb, methyl para- Available online 23 July 2012 thion, oxyfluorfen, propargite, and pyraclostrobin. Most were detected, but rarely at concentrations acutely toxic to Hyalella azteca or Chironomus dilutus.
    [Show full text]
  • COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances
    COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances revised 2/4/2021 IARC list 1 are Carcinogenic to humans list compiled by Hector Acuna, UCSB IARC list Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans IARC list Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans If any of the chemicals listed below are used in your research then complete a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the product as described in the Chemical Hygiene Plan. Prop 65 known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity Material(s) not on the list does not preclude one from completing an SOP. Other extremely toxic chemicals KNOWN Carcinogens from National Toxicology Program (NTP) or other high hazards will require the development of an SOP. Red= added in 2020 or status change Reasonably Anticipated NTP EPA Haz list COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances CAS Source from where the material is listed. 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10- hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide Acutely Toxic Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- Acutely Toxic 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (Methyl-CCNU) Prop 65 KNOWN Carcinogens NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) IARC list Group 2A Reasonably Anticipated NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) (Lomustine) Prop 65 1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea Acutely Toxic 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane IARC list Group 2B 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Prop 65 IARC list Group 2B 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p -chloropheny)ethylene (DDE) Prop 65 1,1-Dichloroethane
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Impact of Pesticide Use on Health in Developing Countries
    Impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries Proceedings of a symposium held in Ottawa, Canada, 1 7-20 September 1990 IDRC CRDI International Development Research Centre Centre de recherches pour le devetoppement international 1 March 1993 Dear Reader/Librarian, IDRC is a public corporation created by the Canadian parliament in 1970 to help developing countries find viable solutions to their problems through research. At the 1992 Earth Summit, IDRC's mandate was broadened to emphasize sustainable development issues. As part of IDRC's strengthened commitment to global action and harüony, we are pleased to send you a complimentary copy of our most recent publication: The impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries (March 1993, 352 pages, 0-88936-560-1, $17.95). The first part of this book presents a brief survey of the global situation and the results of twelve epidemiological studies carried out by researchers from Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. These focus on poisonings resulting from organophosphates, herbicides, and pyrethroids. The second part illustrates the role of the process of development, production, spraying techniques and legislation in protecting the health of workers. A discussion of the benefits and modalities of access to pertinent information for the prevention of pesticide poisonings is provided in the third section. Finally, in the fourth section, consideration is given to the advantages and disadvantages of certain alternatives to the use of synthetic pesticides in agriculture and public health, such as botanical pesticides and integrated pest management strategies. We hope this book is a valuable addition to your collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodegradation of Dicofol by Microbacterium Sp. D-2 Isolated
    Lu et al. Appl Biol Chem (2019) 62:72 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13765-019-0480-y ARTICLE Open Access Biodegradation of dicofol by Microbacterium sp. D-2 isolated from pesticide-contaminated agricultural soil Peng Lu* , Hong‑ming Liu and Ai‑min Liu Abstract Dicofol is an organochlorine insecticide widely used to prevent pests worldwide. Consequently, serious environmen‑ tal problems have arisen from the application of dicofol. Bioremediation is an efective solution for dicofol persistence in the environment. In this study, a bacterial strain D‑2, identifed to genus Microbacterium, capable of degrading dicofol was isolated from dicofol‑contaminated agricultural soil. This represents the frst dicofol degrading bacterium isolated from this genus. Microbacterium sp. D‑2 degraded 50 mg/L dicofol within 24 h at a rate of 85.1%. Dicofol was dechlorinated by D‑2 and the further degradation metabolite was indentifed as p,p′‑dichlorobenzophenone(DCBP). Soils inoculated with Microbacterium sp. D‑2 degraded 81.9% of the dicofol, while soils without D‑2 only degraded 20.5% of the dicofol present. This fnding suggests that strain D‑2 has great potential in bioremediation of dicofol‑ contaminated soils. Keywords: Dicofol, Biodegradation, Microbacterium sp. D‑2, Bioremediation Introduction cause acute poising of fsh and shrimp, endocrine dis- Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) are broad spectrum ruptive properties, and chronic toxicity to other organ- insecticides with high toxicity and long residual periods isms [10–13]. Terefore, it is believed that DCF would [1]. Tey have been widely used in the control of agricul- exert a negative infuence on both animals [14, 15] and tural pests, antisepsis in industrial production and the humans [16].
    [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]
  • Pesticides EPA 738-R-06-004 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances June 2006 Agency (7508C) ______Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Pyrethrins
    United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738-R-06-004 Environmental Protection And Toxic Substances June 2006 Agency (7508C) _________________________________________________________________ Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Pyrethrins List B Case No. 2580 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document for Pyrethrins Approved by: /S/ . Debra Edwards, Ph. D. Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Date: June 7, 2006 . Page 2 of 108 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 7 I. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 11 II. Chemical Overview........................................................................................................... 12 A. Regulatory History...................................................................................................... 12 B. Chemical Identification .............................................................................................. 13 C. Use Profile.................................................................................................................... 16 1. Pyrethrins Use Profile................................................................................................. 16 III. Summary of Pyrethrins Risk Assessments ............................................................... 17 A. Human Health Risk Assessment...............................................................................
    [Show full text]