DOCSLIB.ORG

Pesticide Use in US Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pesticide Use in US Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture: Service Economic 21 Selected Crops, 1960-2008 Information Bulletin Number 124 Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo May 2014 Richard Nehring Craig Osteen Seth Wechsler Andrew Martin Alex Vialou United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service www.ers.usda.gov Access this report online: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib124.aspx Download the charts contained in this report: • Go to the report’s index page www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib124.aspx • Click on the bulleted item “Download eib124.zip” • Open the chart you want, then save it to your computer Recommended citation format for this publication: Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, Richard Nehring, Craig Osteen, Seth Wechsler, Andrew Martin, and Alex Vialou. Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture: 21 Selected Crops, 1960-2008, EIB-124, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May 2014. Cover images: Shutterstock. Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture: Service 21 Selected Crops, 1960-2008 Economic Information Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Richard Nehring, Bulletin Number 124 Craig Osteen, Seth Wechsler, Andrew Martin, May 2014 and Alex Vialou Abstract Pesticide use has changed considerably over the past five decades. Rapid growth char- acterized the first 20 years, ending in 1981. The total quantity of pesticides applied to the 21 crops analyzed grew from 196 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients in 1960 to 632 million pounds in 1981. Improvements in the types and modes of action of active ingredients applied along with small annual fluctuations resulted in a slight down- ward trend in pesticide use to 516 million pounds in 2008. These changes were driven by economic factors that determined crop and input prices and were influenced by pest pressures, environmental and weather conditions, crop acreages, agricultural practices (including adoption of genetically engineered crops), access to land-grant extension personnel and crop consultants, the cost-effectiveness of pesticides and other practices in protecting crop yields and quality, technological innovations in pest management systems/ practices, and environmental and health regulations. Emerging pest management policy issues include the development of glyphosate-resistant weed populations associated with the large increase in glyphosate use since the late 1990s, the development of Bt-resistant western corn rootworm in some areas, and the arrival of invasive or exotic pest species, such as soybean aphid and soybean rust, which can influence pesticide use patterns and the development of Integrated Pest Management programs. Acknowledgments The authors thank Marc Ribaudo and James MacDonald, USDA, Economic Research Service; Sheryl Kunickis, David Epstein, Julius Fajardo, and Teung Chin, USDA, Office of Pest Management Policy; Cynthia Doucoure, U.S. EPA; Scott Swinton, Michigan State University; and David Shaw, Mississippi State University. We are grateful to Dale Simms for valuable editorial assistance and Cynthia A. Ray for graphics and layout. Contents Summary .....................................................................iii Introduction ....................................................................1 Data ........................................................................2 Box 1—Agricultural Pests and Pesticides ...........................................2 Economic Factors Influencing Pesticide Use. .6 Farmers’ Choice of Pesticides ....................................................7 Box 2—Pesticide Expenditures ...................................................9 Trends in Pesticide Use ..........................................................11 Early Growth Driven by Herbicide Adoption for Major Crops ..........................11 Herbicide Adoption Driven by Relative Prices ......................................15 Stabilization of Herbicide Use and Decline in Insecticide Use Driven by Demand and Supply Factors ...........................................................16 Box 3—Pesticide Prices and Relative Price Trends ...................................17 Herbicide-Tolerant Crops Transform Herbicide Mix ..................................19 Insecticide Use Declines as Herbicides Grow .......................................22 Fungicides Used Mainly on Fruits and Vegetables ...................................26 Cotton and Potatoes Are Major Users of Other Pesticides ..............................26 Five Major Crops Account for Four-Fifths of Pesticides Use ............................27 Pesticide Quality .............................................................27 Box 4—Quality Adjustment of Pesticides ..........................................28 Conclusion ....................................................................30 References ....................................................................32 Appendix 1—Human Health Effects and Pesticide Regulation .........................40 Appendix 2—Data Sources ......................................................42 Appendix 3—The Economics of Pesticide Use .......................................59 Appendix 4—Trends in Pesticide Use on Five Major Crops ............................62 Corn Pesticide Trends .........................................................62 Soybean Pesticide Trends .......................................................66 Cotton Pesticide Trends ........................................................69 Potato Pesticide Trends ........................................................72 Wheat Pesticide Trends ........................................................74 ii Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture: 21 Selected Crops, 1960-2008, EIB-124 Economic Research Service/USDA United States Department of Agriculture A report summary from the Economic Research Service May 2014 United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture: Service Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture: Economic 21 Selected Crops, 1960-2008 Information Bulletin Number 124 Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo May 2014 Richard Nehring Craig Osteen Seth Wechsler Andrew Martin Alex Vialou 21 Selected Crops, 1960-2008 Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Richard Nehring, Craig Osteen, Seth Wechsler, Andrew Martin, and Alex Vialou What Is the Issue? Find the full report at www.ers.usda. Pesticides—including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides—have contributed to substantial gov/publications/eib- increases in crop yields over the past five decades. Properly applied, pesticides contribute to higher economic-information- yields and improved product quality by controlling weeds, insects, nematodes, and plant pathogens. bulletin/eib-124.aspx In addition, herbicides reduce the amount of labor, machinery, and fuel used for mechanical weed control. However, because pesticides may possess toxic properties, their use often prompts concern about human health and environmental consequences. The examination of pesticide use trends is critical for informed pesticide policy debate and science-based decisions. This report analyzes pesticide use trends using a new pesticide database compiled from USDA and proprietary data, focusing on 21 crops. What Did the Study Find? Total pesticide use, as well as the specific active ingredients used (for example, with novel target sites of action or improved toxicological profiles), has changed considerably over the past five decades. Pesticide use on the 21 crops analyzed in this report rose rapidly from 196 million pounds of active ingredient (a.i.) in 1960 to 632 million pounds in 1981, largely because of the increased share of planted acres treated with herbicides to control weeds. In addition, the total planted acreage of corn, wheat, and, in particular, soybeans increased from the early 1960s to early 1980s, which further increased herbicide use. Most acres planted with major crops (particularly corn and soybeans) were already being treated with herbicides by 1980, so total pesticide use has since trended slightly downward driven by other factors, to 516 million pounds in 2008 (the most recent year for which we have enough complete data). The rapid adoption of herbicides was mainly driven by relative price declines that helped reduce the cost of herbicides relative to other pest control practices and encouraged substitution of herbi- cides for labor, fuel, and machinery use in mechanical
Load more

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]
  • Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs During 2020–2024
    IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024 Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Acetaldehyde (CAS No. 75-07-0) ................................................................................................. 3 Acrolein (CAS No. 107-02-8) ....................................................................................................... 4 Acrylamide (CAS No. 79-06-1) .................................................................................................... 5 Acrylonitrile (CAS No. 107-13-1) ................................................................................................ 6 Aflatoxins (CAS No. 1402-68-2) .................................................................................................. 8 Air pollutants and underlying mechanisms for breast cancer ....................................................... 9 Airborne gram-negative bacterial endotoxins ............................................................................. 10 Alachlor (chloroacetanilide herbicide) (CAS No. 15972-60-8) .................................................. 10 Aluminium (CAS No. 7429-90-5) .............................................................................................. 11
    [Show full text]
  • Chem7988.Pdf
    This article was originally published in a journal published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues that you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator. All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial Chemosphere 67 (2007) 2184–2191 www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere Assessment of pesticide contamination in three Mississippi Delta oxbow lakes using Hyalella azteca M.T. Moore *, R.E. Lizotte Jr., S.S. Knight, S. Smith Jr., C.M. Cooper USDA-ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory, P.O. Box 1157, Oxford, MS 38655, United States Received 8 September 2006; received in revised form 27 November 2006; accepted 8 December 2006 Available online 26 January 2007 Abstract Three oxbow lakes in northwestern Mississippi, USA, an area of intensive agriculture, were assessed for biological impairment from historic and current-use pesticide contamination using the amphipod, Hyalella azteca. Surface water and sediment samples from three sites in each lake were collected from Deep Hollow, Beasley, and Thighman Lakes from September 2000 to February 2001. Samples were analyzed for 17 historic and current-use pesticides and selected metabolites.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Insecticide Residue Analyses in Cucumbers Sampled from Çanakkale Open Markets1 Çanakkale Açık Pazarlarından Örneklenen Hıyarlarda Insektisit Kalıntı Analizleri
    Türk. entomol. derg., 2020, 44 (4): 449-460 ISSN 1010-6960 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.16970/entoted.767482 E-ISSN 2536-491X Original article (Orijinal araştırma) Insecticide residue analyses in cucumbers sampled from Çanakkale open markets1 Çanakkale açık pazarlarından örneklenen hıyarlarda insektisit kalıntı analizleri Hayriye ÇATAK2 Osman TİRYAKİ3* Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate four insecticide residues in cucumbers with the aid of QuEChERS 2007.1 method. For method verification assessment, pesticide-free cucumber matrix was spiked with 0.1, 1 and 10 times of MRL for each pesticide. The QuEChERS-LC-MS/MS analytical method revealed that the detection limits of the insecticides were below the MRLs and the overall recovery of method was 97.7%. These figures were within the SANTE recovery limits (60-140%) and the values specified for the repeatability (≤20%). Cucumbers were collected from six different stands (A-F) at Çanakkale open markets for 6 weeks between 23 November and 28 December 2018. Residues of each sampling time and each stand were assessed. Acetamiprid residue of 257g and 236 µg/kg were detected in week 5 from stand B and in week 2 from stand E, respectively. These values are close to MRL (300 µg/kg). Formetanate hydrochloride residue of the week 3 from stand F (36.3 µg/kg) was more than MRL of 10 µg/kg. Pirimiphos methyl and chlorpyrifos residues were not detected in cucumbers. Theoretical maximum daily intake assessment showed that there was no chronic exposure risk for these four pesticides through cucumber consumption. Keywords: Cucumber, insecticide residues, QuEChERS, risk assessment, toxicology Öz Bu çalışma hıyarlarda dört insektisit kalıntısını QuEChERS 2007.1 yöntemi ile belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştır.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Commonly Used Fruits and Vegetables in Kuwait
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Commonly Used Fruits and Vegetables in Kuwait Mustapha F. A. Jallow *, Dawood G. Awadh, Mohammed S. Albaho, Vimala Y. Devi and Nisar Ahmad Environment and Life Sciences Research Center, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, P.O. Box 24885, Safat 13109, Kuwait; [email protected] (D.G.A.); [email protected] (M.S.A.); [email protected] (V.Y.D.); [email protected] (N.A.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +965-249-8984 Received: 1 May 2017; Accepted: 12 July 2017; Published: 25 July 2017 Abstract: The presence of pesticide residues in primary and derived agricultural products raises serious health concerns for consumers. The aim of this study was to assess the level of pesticide residues in commonly consumed fruits and vegetables in Kuwait. A total of 150 samples of different fresh vegetables and fruits were analyzed for the presence of 34 pesticides using the quick easy cheap effective rugged and safe (QuEChERS) multi-residue extraction, followed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Pesticide residues above the maximum residue limits (MRL) were detected in 21% of the samples and 79% of the samples had no residues of the pesticides surveyed or contained residues below the MRL. Multiple residues were present in 40% of the samples with two to four pesticides, and four samples were contaminated with more than four pesticide residues. Of the pesticides investigated, 16 were detected, of which imidacloprid, deltamethrin, cypermethrin, malathion, acetamiprid, monocrotophos, chlorpyrifos-methyl, and diazinon exceeded their MRLs.
    [Show full text]
  • California Proposition 65 Toxicity List
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1986 CHEMICALS KNOWN TO THE STATE TO CAUSE CANCER OR REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY 4-Mar-05 The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 requires that the Governor revise and Chemical Type of Toxicity CAS No. Date Listed A-alpha-C (2-Amino-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole) cancer 26148685 1-Jan-90 Acetaldehyde cancer 75070 1-Apr-88 Acetamide cancer 60355 1-Jan-90 Acetazolamide developmental 59665 20-Aug-99 Acetochlor cancer 34256821 1-Jan-89 Acetohydroxamic acid developmental 546883 1-Apr-90 2-Acetylaminofluorene cancer 53963 1-Jul-87 Acifluorfen cancer 62476599 1-Jan-90 Acrylamide cancer 79061 1-Jan-90 Acrylonitrile cancer 107131 1-Jul-87 Actinomycin D cancer 50760 1-Oct-89 Actinomycin D developmental 50760 1-Oct-92 Adriamycin (Doxorubicin hydrochloride) cancer 23214928 1-Jul-87 AF-2;[2-(2-furyl)-3-(5-nitro-2-furyl)]acrylamide cancer 3688537 1-Jul-87 Aflatoxins cancer --- 1-Jan-88 Alachlor cancer 15972608 1-Jan-89 Alcoholic beverages, when associated with alcohol abuse cancer --- 1-Jul-88 Aldrin cancer 309002 1-Jul-88 All-trans retinoic acid developmental 302794 1-Jan-89 Allyl chloride Delisted October 29, 1999 cancer 107051 1-Jan-90 Alprazolam developmental 28981977 1-Jul-90 Altretamine developmental, male 645056 20-Aug-99 Amantadine hydrochloride developmental 665667 27-Feb-01 Amikacin sulfate developmental 39831555 1-Jul-90 2-Aminoanthraquinone cancer 117793 1-Oct-89 p -Aminoazobenzene cancer
    [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]
  • EUPT-CF10-Webinar
    Results of EUPT-CF10 Incurred and spiked pesticides in rye Mette Erecius Poulsen Holte, 20 September 2016 PTs on cereals/feed 2016 EUPT-CF10 Test material Rye flour Participants 178 (160) Compulsory target pesticides 134 Voluntary target pesticides 7 Incurred pesticides 10 Spiked pesticides 8 Total no. of pesticides 18 National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark Advisory Group Quality Group Amadeo R. Fernández-Alba Antonio Valverde André de Kok Stewart Reynolds Antonio Valverde Magnus Jezussek Michelangelo Anastassiades Miguel Gamón Organising team at EURL Philippe Gros Mette Erecius Poulsen Ralf Lippold Susan Strange Herrmann Sonja Masselter Parvaneh Hajeb Stewart Reynolds Merete B. Ludwigsen Tuija Pihlström Lisbet Pilhkjær Finbarr Oregan Jens-Ole Frimann National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark Activity Dates Announcement Calendar December 2015 Target Pesticide List EUPT-Registration Website 11 January 2016 Deadline for registration 1 February 2016 Release of Specific Protocol 29 February 2016 Distribution of Test items 7 March 2016 Deadline for Receipt and Acceptance of Test Materials within 24 hr on reciept 11 April 2016 Deadline for Result Submission at 13.00 CET Deadline for submission of additional method information for 15 April 2015 false negative results Preliminary Report (only compilation of results) 30 May 2015 Final Report December 2015 National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark Target list - new pesticides and voluntary compounds
    [Show full text]
  • 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–18 Edition) § 455.61
    § 455.61 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–18 Edition) from: the operation of employee show- § 455.64 Effluent limitations guidelines ers and laundry facilities; the testing representing the degree of effluent of fire protection equipment; the test- reduction attainable by the applica- ing and emergency operation of safety tion of the best available tech- showers and eye washes; or storm nology economically achievable water. (BAT). (d) The provisions of this subpart do Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 not apply to wastewater discharges through 125.32, any existing point from the repackaging of microorga- source subject to this subpart must nisms or Group 1 Mixtures, as defined achieve effluent limitations rep- under § 455.10, or non-agricultural pes- resenting the degree of effluent reduc- ticide products. tion attainable by the application of the best available technology economi- § 455.61 Special definitions. cally achievable: There shall be no dis- Process wastewater, for this subpart, charge of process wastewater pollut- means all wastewater except for sani- ants. tary water and those wastewaters ex- § 455.65 New source performance cluded from the applicability of the standards (NSPS). rule in § 455.60. Any new source subject to this sub- § 455.62 Effluent limitations guidelines part which discharges process waste- representing the degree of effluent water pollutants must meet the fol- reduction attainable by the applica- lowing standards: There shall be no dis- tion of the best practicable pollut- charge of process wastewater pollut- ant control technology (BPT). ants. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point § 455.66 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
    [Show full text]
  • Restricted Use Chemicals by Product Name 09/14/2016
    Plant Health - Pesticide and Fertilizer Section 8995 E. Main St. , Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 Phone: Phone (614) 728-6396Fax: Fax (614) 728-4221 Governor: John R. Kasich Lt. Governor: Mary Taylor www.agri.ohio.gov [email protected] Director: David T. Daniels Page 1 of 33 Restricted Use Chemicals by Product Name 09/14/2016 Registered Thru: 6/30/2017 12:00:00 AM Product_name Active_Ingredients Company_Name EPA_Number Private Commercial AATREX 4L HERBICIDE INC Atrazine (ANSI) SYNGENTA CROP 100-497 1, 3, 4, 7 2C, 4A, 6A PROTECTION LLC AATREX NINE-O HERBICIDE INC Atrazine (ANSI) SYNGENTA CROP 100-585 1, 3, 4, 7 2C, 4A, 5, 6A, 8 PROTECTION LLC ABACUS AGRICULTURAL MITICIDE/ INSECTICIDE Abamectin ROTAM NORTH 83100-4-83979 3 1, 2A, 2B AMERICA INC ABACUS V Abamectin ROTAM NORTH 83100-32-83979 3 1, 2B, 2C AMERICA INC ABAMECTIN 0.15EC SELECT Abamectin PRIME SOURCE, LLC 89442-20 None None ABAMEX MITICIDE-INSECTICIDE Abamectin (ANSI) NUFARM AMERICAS 228-734 3 2A, 2B INC 228 ABBA 0.15 MAKHTESHIM-AGAN OF 66222-191 None None NORTH AMER INC ABBA 0.15 EC MITICIDE INSECTICIDE Abamectin MAKHTESHIM-AGAN OF 66222-139 3 1, 2A NORTH AMER INC ABBA ULTRA MITICIDE INSECTICIDE Abamectin (ANSI) MAKHTESHIM-AGAN OF 66222-226 3 2B NORTH AMER INC ACELLUS AZT Acetochlor; Atrazine GROWMARK INC 62719-671-534 1, 2 2C ACELLUS AZT LITE Acetochlor; Atrazine GROWMARK INC 62719-670-534 1, 2 2C ACETO BIFENTHRIN 2 EC Bifenthrin ACETO AGRICULTURAL 2749-556 1, 3 2A, 2B CHEMICALS CORP ACURON HERBICIDE Atrazine; S-metolachlor; Mesotrione; SYNGENTA CROP 100-1466 1, 2 2C Bicyclopyrone
    [Show full text]
  • Reduction of Nitroaromatic Pesticides with Zero-Valent Iron
    Chemosphere 54 (2004) 255–263 www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere Reduction of nitroaromatic pesticides with zero-valent iron Young-Soo Keum, Qing X. Li * Department of Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering, University of Hawaii, 1955 East-West Road, Ag Sci 218, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA Received 5 February 2003; received in revised form 4 June 2003; accepted 4 August 2003 Abstract Reduction of eleven nitroaromatic pesticides was studied with zero-valent iron powder. Average half-lives ranged from 2.8 to 6.3 h and the parent compounds were completely reduced after 48–96 h. The di-nitro groups of the 2,6- dinitroaniline herbicides were rapidly reduced to the corresponding diamines, with a negligible amount of partially reduced monoamino or nitroso products. Low levels of de-alkylated products were observed after 10 days. The nitro group of the organophosphorus insecticides was reduced dominantly to the monoamines but in a slower rate than the 2,6-dinitroanilines. A trace amount of oxon products was found. Reduction of nitro to amino was also the predominant reaction for the diphenyl ether herbicides. Aromatic de-chlorination and de-alkylation were minor reactions. These amine products were more stable than the parent compounds and 60% or more of the amines were detected after two weeks. Humic acid decreased the reduction rates of pendimethalin, and dichlone (a known quinone redox mediator) counteracted the effect of humic acid on the reactivity. Storage of iron powder under air decreased the reactivity very rapidly due to iron oxidation. Repeated use of iron powder also showed similar results. The reduced activity of air- oxidized iron was recovered by purging with hydrogen, but not nitrogen.
    [Show full text]