DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Environmental Core Assessment Group (Environmental CAG)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Environmental Core Assessment Group (Environmental CAG) 3 CONTENTS PARTICIPANTS................................................................................................................................. vii ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................ xix 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 1 2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Modifications to the agenda ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Joint Meeting on Pesticides............................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Toxicological criteria for estimating guidance values for dietary and non-dietary exposure to pesticides............................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Report of the Environmental Core Assessment group (Environmental CAG)............................ 6 2.5 Data requirements for estimating ADIs and MRLs....................................................................... 7 2.5.1 Toxicological evaluation of pesticide exposure by the Core Assessment Group ..................... 7 2.5.2 Evaluation of pesticide residues by the FAO Panel .................................................................. 11 2.6 Assessment of acute dietary risk ................................................................................................... 12 2.7 Consultation on Application of Risk Analysis to Food Standards Issues - JMPR response to specific recommendations.................................................................................. 14 2.8 Residues ......................................................................................................................................... 17 2.8.1 Definitions of pesticide residues ................................................................................................ 17 2.8.2 JMPR approach to estimating Extraneous Residue Limits (ERLs).......................................... 21 2.8.3 MRLs at or about the limit of determination for multi-component residues............................ 23 2.9 JMPR evaluations .......................................................................................................................... 26 2.9.1 Use of data by the JMPR............................................................................................................ 26 2.9.2 Use of JMPR Evaluations by regulatory authorities ................................................................. 27 2.9.3 Shortening JMPR reports on compounds - Section on residue and analytical aspects............ 27 2.10 Dietary intake of pesticide residues ............................................................................................ 30 2.11 Issues relevant to the establishment of guidelines for drinking-water quality .......................... 30 3. SPECIFIC PROBLEMS ................................................................................................................. 30 4. EVALUATION OF DATA FOR ACCEPTABLE DAILY INTAKE FOR HUMANS AND MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS1.............................................................................. 31 4.1 Abamectin (T)............................................................................................................................... 31 4.2 Aldicarb (T)....................................................................................................................................32 4.3 Azinphos-methyl (R) .................................................................................................................... 32 4.4 Benomyl (T,E)** .......................................................................................................................... 34 4.5 Bentazone (R) ............................................................................................................................... 40 4.6 Bifenthrin (R)................................................................................................................................ 41 1 T = Toxicology * New compound R = Residue and analytical aspects ** Evaluation in periodic review programme E = Evaluation of effects on the environment 4 4.7 Buprofezin (R) .............................................................................................................................. 43 4.8 Captan (T) ..................................................................................................................................... 52 4.9 Carbendazim (T,E)** ................................................................................................................... 54 4.10 Cartap (T,R)**............................................................................................................................. 57 4.11 Chlorpyrifos (R)........................................................................................................................... 58 4.12 Dithianon (R) ............................................................................................................................... 60 4.13 Dithiocarbamates (R)................................................................................................................... 62 4.14 Ethephon (T)................................................................................................................................ 62 4.15 Fenarimol (T,R,E)*...................................................................................................................... 63 4.16 Fenpropimorph (R)*.................................................................................................................... 77 4.17 Fenpyroximate (T,R)* ................................................................................................................. 86 4.18 Fenthion (T,R,E)**...................................................................................................................... 94 4.19 Flusilazole (T).............................................................................................................................124 4.20 Folpet (T) ....................................................................................................................................127 4.21 Haloxyfop (T,R)* .......................................................................................................................130 4.22 Iprodione (T)...............................................................................................................................143 4.23 Metalaxyl (R)..............................................................................................................................145 4.24 Metiram (R)* ..............................................................................................................................147 4.25 Monocrotophos (T).....................................................................................................................156 4.26 Parathion (T,R)** .......................................................................................................................156 4.27 Parathion-methyl (T)** ..............................................................................................................162 4.28 Penconazole (R)..........................................................................................................................165 4.29 Piperonyl butoxide (T)** ...........................................................................................................168 4.30 Profenofos (R).............................................................................................................................172 4.31 Quintozene (T,R)**....................................................................................................................173 4.32 Thiophanate-methyl (T,E)**......................................................................................................185 4.33 Triadimefon (R) ..........................................................................................................................189 4.34 Triadimenol (R) ..........................................................................................................................190 4.35 Vinclozolin (T) ...........................................................................................................................191 5. RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................195 6. FUTURE WORK ...........................................................................................................................197 6.1 1995 Meeting ................................................................................................................................197 6.2 1996 Meeting ................................................................................................................................198 7. REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................199 CORRECTIONS TO REPORT OF 1994 JMPR..............................................................................205 ANNEX I ADIs and MRLs................................................................................................................209
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]
  • Ingleby Prohibited Pesticides May 2018
    1[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Acaricides Cyhexatin Acaricide Parathion-ethyl Acaricide/Insecticide Tetradifon Acaricide Tebufenpyrad Acaricide Fumigants 1,2-Dibromoethane Fumigant 1,2-dichloroethane Fumigant Fungicides 2-Aminobutane (aka sec-butylamine) Fungicide Allyl alcohol Fungicide Benomyl Fungicide Binapacryl Fungicide Bitertanol Fungicide Blasticidin-S Fungicide Cadmium Fungicide Captafol Fungicide Chloranil Fungicide Chloromethoxypropyl-mercuric-acetate (CPMA) Fungicide Chlozolinate Fungicide Di(phenylmercury)dodecenylsuccinate (PMDS) Fungicide Diammonium ethylenebis Fungicide DNOC Fungicide / Herbicide /Insecticide Edifenphos Fungicide Fenarimol Fungicide Fentin acetate Fungicide Flusilazole Fungicide Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Fungicide Hexaconazole Fungicide Iminoctadine Fungicide Leptophos Fungicide Maneb Fungicide Mercuric oxide Fungicide Mercurous chloride (calomel) Fungicide Mercury compounds Fungicide Nickel bis Fungicide Nuarimol Fungicide Oxadixyl Fungicide Penconazole Fungicide Ingleby Farms & Forests May 2018 Prohibited Active Ingredients 2[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Fungicides (continued) Phenylmercury acetate Fungicide/Herbicide Phenylmercuric oleate [PMO] Fungicide Prochloraz Fungicide Procymidone Fungicide Propineb Fungicide Pyrazophos Fungicide Pyrifenox Fungicide Tecnazene Fungicide Tricyclazole Fungicide Tridemorph Fungicide Vinclozolin Fungicide Zineb Fungicide Herbicides 2,4,5-T Herbicide Acifluorfen Herbicide Alachlor Herbicide Arsenic
    [Show full text]
  • THE PESTICIDES and TOXIC CHEMICALS ACT, 2008 No. 12 Of
    ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA THE PESTICIDES AND TOXIC CHEMICALS ACT, 2008 No. 12 of 2008 [ Printed in the Official Gazette Vol. XXIX No. 10 dated 12th February , 2009. ] ________ Printed at the Government Printing Office, Antigua and Barbuda, by Eric T. Bennett, Government Printer — By Authority, 2009. 800—2.09 [ Price$11.70 ] The Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Act, 2008. No. 12 of 2008 No. 12 of 2008 The Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Act, 2008. THE PESTICIDES AND TOXIC CHEMICALS ACT, 2008 ARRANGEMENT Sections 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Establishment and constitution of the Board. 4. Functions and duties of the Board. 5. Registrar of Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals. 6. Licence to exterminate. 7. Analysts, inspectors, medical examiners and others. 8. Controlled product. 9. Offences in regard to prohibited substance or product. 10. Regulation of prohibited substance or product. 11. Powers of inspectors. 12. Analysis. 13. Medical examiners. 14. Detention and forfeiture of articles seized. 15. Regulations. 16. Offences by corporations. 17. Evidence and sufficiency of proof. 18. Record keeping and reporting. 19. Confidentiality. 20. Notice of non-compliance. 21. Right of appeal. 22. Penalties. 23. Immunity. 24. Indemnity. 25. Application to the State. 26. Repeal. The Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Act, 2008. No. 12 of 2008 Schedules Schedule 1 – Constitution of the Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Control Board Schedule 2 – Controlled products Schedule 3 – Prohibited Products No. 12 of 2008 The Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Act, 2008. [L.S.] I Assent, Louise Lake-Tack, Governor-General. 31st December, 2008 ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA THE PESTICIDES AND TOXIC CHEMICALS ACT, 2008 No.
    [Show full text]
  • Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Ten Insecticides, Used in Date Palm
    Hellenic Plant Protection Journal 11: 62-70, 2018 DOI 10.2478/hppj-2018-0009 Lethal and sublethal eff ects of ten insecticides, used in date palm production in Saudi Arabia, on the parasitoid Trichogramma cacoeciae M. Jamal Hajjar* and M. Al-Masoud Summary Lethal and sublethal eff ects of ten insecticides commonly used in date palm production in Saudi Arabia were assessed in the laboratory against adults of Trichogramma cacoeciae, an impor- tant egg parasitoid of the dried fruit moth Ephestia calidella. Bioassays were conducted according to the standard protocol of the International Organization for Biological Control IOBC/WPRS/Working Group ‘Pesticides and Benefi cial Organisms’. Our results showed that cypermethrin, deltamethrin, mal- athion, phenthoate, methomyl, and carbosulfan were moderately harmful (IOBC Class 3) to the par- asitoid. The botanical insecticides azadirachtin and matrine were moderately harmful (IOBC Class 3) and slightly harmful (IOBC Class 2), respectively. The insect growth regulator pyriproxyfen was slight- ly harmful, whereas bistrifl uron was harmless (IOBC Class 1). Regarding sublethal eff ects, the parasit- ism ratios compared to control were reduced by pyriproxyfen and azadirachtin to 49.0% and 58.0%, re- spectively; hence they are classifi ed as slightly harmful insecticides (IOBC Class 2). Bistrifl uron and ma- trine were harmless (IOBC Class 1) as parasitism ratios were reduced by 9.2% and 27.6%, respective- ly. Longevity of adults exposed to bistrifl uron and matrine (3.6 and 3.3 days, respectively) and to py- riproxyfen and azadirachtin (1.7 and 1.3 days, respectively) was signifi cantly lower than that in con- trol (4.67 days).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Health Criteria 63 ORGANOPHOSPHORUS
    Environmental Health Criteria 63 ORGANOPHOSPHORUS INSECTICIDES: A GENERAL INTRODUCTION Please note that the layout and pagination of this web version are not identical with the printed version. Organophophorus insecticides: a general introduction (EHC 63, 1986) INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA 63 ORGANOPHOSPHORUS INSECTICIDES: A GENERAL INTRODUCTION This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, or the World Health Organization. Published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization World Health Orgnization Geneva, 1986 The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization. The main objective of the IPCS is to carry out and disseminate evaluations of the effects of chemicals on human health and the quality of the environment. Supporting activities include the development of epidemiological, experimental laboratory, and risk-assessment methods that could produce internationally comparable results, and the development of manpower in the field of toxicology. Other activities carried out by the IPCS include the development of know-how for coping with chemical accidents, coordination
    [Show full text]
  • PESTICIDES Criteria for a Recommended Standard
    CRITERIA FOR A RECOMMENDED STANDARD OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE DURING THE MANUFACTURE AND FORMULATION OF PESTICIDES criteria for a recommended standard... OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE DURING THE MANUFACTURE AND FORMULATION OF PESTICIDES * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service Center for Disease Control National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health July 1978 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 DISCLAIMER Mention of company names or products does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-174 PREFACE The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 emphasizes the need for standards to protect the health and provide for the safety of workers occupationally exposed to an ever-increasing number of potential hazards. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has implemented a formal system of research, with priorities determined on the basis of specified indices, to provide relevant data from which valid criteria for effective standards can be derived. Recommended standards for occupational exposure, which are the result of this work, are based on the effects of exposure on health. The Secretary of Labor will weigh these recommendations along with other considerations, such as feasibility and means of implementation, in developing regulatory standards. Successive reports will be presented as research and epideiriologic studies are completed and as sampling and analytical methods are developed. Criteria and standards will be reviewed periodically to ensure continuing protection of workers. The contributions to this document on pesticide manufacturing and formulating industries by NIOSH staff members, the review consultants, the reviewer selected by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), other Federal agencies, and by Robert B.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Residues : Maximum Residue Limits
    THAI AGRICULTURAL STANDARD TAS 9002-2013 PESTICIDE RESIDUES : MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives ICS 67.040 ISBN UNOFFICAL TRANSLATION THAI AGRICULTURAL STANDARD TAS 9002-2013 PESTICIDE RESIDUES : MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives 50 Phaholyothin Road, Ladyao, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Telephone (662) 561 2277 Fascimile: (662) 561 3357 www.acfs.go.th Published in the Royal Gazette, Announcement and General Publication Volume 131, Special Section 32ง (Ngo), Dated 13 February B.E. 2557 (2014) (2) Technical Committee on the Elaboration of the Thai Agricultural Standard on Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticide 1. Mrs. Manthana Milne Chairperson Department of Agriculture 2. Mrs. Thanida Harintharanon Member Department of Livestock Development 3. Mrs. Kanokporn Atisook Member Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public Health 4. Mrs. Chuensuke Methakulawat Member Office of the Consumer Protection Board, The Prime Minister’s Office 5. Ms. Warunee Sensupa Member Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Health 6. Mr. Thammanoon Kaewkhongkha Member Office of Agricultural Regulation, Department of Agriculture 7. Mr. Pisan Pongsapitch Member National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards 8. Ms. Wipa Thangnipon Member Office of Agricultural Production Science Research and Development, Department of Agriculture 9. Ms. Pojjanee Paniangvait Member Board of Trade of Thailand 10. Mr. Charoen Kaowsuksai Member Food Processing Industry Club, Federation of Thai Industries 11. Ms. Natchaya Chumsawat Member Thai Agro Business Association 12. Mr. Sinchai Swasdichai Member Thai Crop Protection Association 13. Mrs. Nuansri Tayaputch Member Expert on Method of Analysis 14.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2018 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues in Food
    SCIENTIFIC REPORT ADOPTED: 24 February 2020 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6057 The 2018 European Union report on pesticide residues in food European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Paula Medina-Pastor and Giuseppe Triacchini Abstract Under EU legislation (Article 32, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005), EFSA provides an annual report which analyses pesticide residue levels in foods on the European market. The analysis is based on data from the official national control activities carried out by EU Member States, Iceland and Norway and includes a subset of data from the EU-coordinated control programme which uses a randomised sampling strategy. For 2018, 95.5% of the overall 91,015 samples analysed fell below the maximum residue level (MRL), 4.5% exceeded this level, of which 2.7% were non-compliant, i.e. samples exceeding the MRL after taking into account the measurement uncertainty. For the subset of 11,679 samples analysed as part of the EU-coordinated control programme, 1.4% exceeded the MRL and 0.9% were non-compliant. Table grapes and sweet peppers/bell peppers were among the food products that most frequently exceeded the MRLs. To assess acute and chronic risk to consumer health, dietary exposure to pesticide residues was estimated and compared with health-based guidance values. The findings suggest that the assessed levels for the food commodities analysed are unlikely to pose concern for consumer health. However, a number of recommendations are proposed to increase the efficiency of European control systems (e.g. optimising traceability), thereby continuing to ensure a high level of consumer protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Organophosphorus Pesticides Residues in Cooked Capsicum Annuum Verônica O
    A publication of CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS VOL. 44, 2015 The Italian Association of Chemical Engineering Online at www.aidic.it/cet Guest Editors:RiccardoGuidetti,LuigiBodria, Stanley Best Copyright © 2015, AIDIC ServiziS.r.l., ISBN 978-88-95608-35-8;ISSN 2283-9216 Organophosphorus Pesticides Residues in Cooked Capsicum annuum Verônica O. Figueiredo*a, Joyce A. T. Mirandaa, Luciléia G. T. Colaresa, José Luiz V. de Carvalhob, Izabela M. Castrob, Lucia Maria J. de Carvalhoa aRio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil bEmbrapa Food Technology, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, [email protected] Food is the basic necessity of life and food contaminated with pesticides is associated with severe effects on the human health. It is interesting to know the processing effects on pesticide residue, thus, this work aimed to evaluate the residual concentrations of organophosphorus in Capsicum annuum after different cooking times. The extraction of analytes was performed according to QuEChERS method and GC/FTD was used for the determination of OP pesticides. The reduction of OP concentrations demonstrated values in the range 4.8- 70.4% but the most OP molecules showed 60% of reduction. The study showed the importance of the assessment of pesticide residues in plant foods thermally processed. 1. Introduction Pesticide residues in vegetables are a major concern to consumers due to their negative health effects. The presence of their residues in foods can be a means to human exposure. It’s important assuring the consumers food safety, thus the control of contaminating compounds is necessary (Jácome et al., 2014). Organophosphorus (OP) insecticides are widely used in different crops.
    [Show full text]
  • Agro-Chemical Technical with Brand Name, Application
    AGRO-CHEMICAL TECHNICAL WITH BRAND NAME, APPLICATION, DOSE AND MODE OF ACTION INSECTICIDES / ACARICIDES / MITICIDES Technical Brand Name Application Dose / Acre Mode of Action ✓ Red mite of strawberry, cotton, cucumber, potato, 50-100 1. Abamectin 1.8% EC Vertimec (Syngenta), Tagmec 1.9 EC (Tropical), ABC 1.85% EC (KR) soybean, tomato and sweet melon ml/acre, 5-10 Chloride channel activators group. Acaricide ✓ Leaf miners of sugarbeet ml/pump Starthene (Swal), Orthene (Arysta), Missile (Devidayal), Megastar (MIL), ✓ It is particularly effective on severe infestations of Lancer (UPL), Oval (PI Ind.), Rasayan Phate (KR), Acefex (Excel), sucking and chewing insects of tobacco, sugarcane, Kingmax (Vimax), Asataf (TATA), Accent 787 (Sumil), Miltaf (IIL), Bheem cotton, chilies, vegetables, fruits and cereals. 300-400 (Kilpest), Tagace (Tropical), Lucid (Cheminova), Lion (SuperCSL), Sritaf ✓ It has low toxicity to mammals and does not harm gm/acre A versatile organophosphate group insecticide 2. Acephate 75% SP (Crystal), Ortain (Coromandel), Hilphate (HIL), Ample (Advance), Rythane beneficial insects. It is easy to use, being soluble in 20-25 with both contact and systemic action. (Ramcides), Corohamp (CAPL), Topsis (Atul), Molphate (GP), Top‘O’Top water. gm/pump (CGI), King Phate (KCS), Acesul (Sulphur Mills), Vega (PCCPL), Pace ✓ Green & Brown Leafhoppers, Brown Plant Hoppers (Nagarjuna), Topsis (Atul), Tremor (BioStadt), Ace (Canary), Willace ✓ ,L,L 5M58L TYF T0T0LIF H[JL R];LIF HLJFTGF lGI\+6 (Willowood), Chettak (GSP), Archa (Amber), Bhoochal 75 (AOL) DF8[P ✓ It targets Stem borer, leaf folder & BPH on Paddy. ✓ It has strong systemic molecule and is highly soluble and longer Belongs to the Organophosphates insecticide 3.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORTS and STUDIES No
    CL$ tMPk I IL)flO rIJIJLInr.L1 um I ru r4pI I iur WUNLUNtL T 1 WUIILL) IN I nNINA1 UNAL INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AGRICULTURE EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION METEOROLOGICAL MARITIME ATOMIC ENERGY PROGRAMME ORGANIZATION SCIENTIFIC AND ORGAN1ZATION ORGANZATrON AGENCY OF THE UNITED CULTURAL GENEVA NAIROBI NATI ONS ORGANIZATION GENE VA LONDON VIENNA ROME PARIS 9 () -, - IMO/FAO/IJNESCO/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP JOINT GROUP OF EXPERTS ON THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF MARINE POLLUTION - GESAMP - REPORTS AND STUDIES No. 35 The Evaluation of the Hazards of Harmful Substances Carried by Ships: Revision of GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 17 Oon INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION P}/12 j Lfl Reports and Studies No.35 IMO/FAO/Unesco/WNO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP); THE EVALUATION OF THE HAZARDS OF HARMFUL SUBSTANCES CARRIED BY SHIPS; REVISION OF GESAMP REPORTS AND STUDIES NO.17 IMO, 1989 &t This report is an updated and revised version of an earlier report on tne evaluation of ttie uazards of marmfut substances carried by snips (CESAMP Reports and Studies No.17) wicn was published by 1110 in 1982. 967 SV / :i en NOTES I CESAMP is an advisory body consisting of specialized experts nominated by the sponsoring agencies (1140, FAO, Unesco, WMO, WHO, IAEA, UN, UNEP). Its principal task is to provide scientific advice on marine pollution problems to the sponsoring agencies and to the Intergovernmental. Oceanographic Commission (lOG). 2 This report is available in English from any of tue sponsoring agencies. 3 The report contains views expressed by members of GESAMP wuo act in their individual capacities; trieir views may not necessarily correspond with those of the sponsoring agencies.
    [Show full text]