DOCSLIB.ORG

A List of Australia's Most Dangerous Pesticides

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A List of Australia's Most Dangerous Pesticides A list of Australia’s most dangerous pesticides July 2010 Jo Immig, Coordinator, National Toxics Network organic pollutant on the basis of its persistence, Introduction toxicity, ability to bio-accumulate and be transported long distances. It found endosulfan Over 8000 pesticide and veterinary products are was “likely, as a result of its long-range registered for use in Australian agriculture, environmental transport, to lead to significant horticulture, livestock, forestry, commercial adverse human health and environmental effects, premises, parks, homes and gardens. This such that global action is warranted”.ii document lists some of Australia’s most Endosulfan has been detected in air, water, dangerous pesticides. More than 80 of these are sediment, and biota thousands of kilometers from prohibited in the United Kingdom, France, iii use areas and in the tissue and blood of Arctic Germany and the other 24 member countries of and Antarctic wildlife including seals and whales. the European Union. Endosulfan was prohibited from use in the In Europe, pesticides have to be proven safe – in European Union (EU) following reassessment terms of human health, residues in the food chain because there was insufficient information about and the environment – in order to be allowed on its environmental fate and ecotoxicology, operator the European market. It is the responsibility of exposure under indoor conditions and the route industry to provide the data showing that a and rate of degradation of endosulfan in soil and pesticide can be used safely. water/sediment systems.iv Endosulfan is listed in Australia does not have the same system as the EU Water Policy’s Annex X as a priority Europe and our national regulator, the Australian substance for control of pollution in the aquatic Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority environment.v It is also included in the List of (APVMA) does not apply the same precautionary Chemicals for Priority Action by the OSPAR approach. Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North-East Atlantic because of This list also includes 17 pesticides that are vi its pollution of the marine environment. known, likely or probable carcinogens, and 48 pesticides flagged as potential endocrine In June 2010, the United States Environmental (hormone) disruptors. More than 20 of the listed Protection Agency (US EPA) announced it would pesticides are classified as either extremely or terminate all uses of endosulfan on the basis of its highly hazardous by the World Health unacceptable neurological and reproductive risks Organisation. Three of the pesticides are subject to agricultural workers and wildlife.vii Although to actions by International Conventions but are still already a restricted use pesticide, a human health used in Australia. risk assessment found that handler risks were “of concern for most use scenarios, even with Some examples maximum personal protective equipment or engineering controls, such as closed Endosulfan mixing/loading systems or enclosed cabs.”viii Despite its ban in more than 60 countries, including New Zealand,i because of health and The APVMA began a review of endosulfan in 1995 environment concerns, endosulfan remains and issued its final report in 2005. A key concern registered in Australia for a wide variety of uses, of the review “was to prevent cattle from ingesting ix including many fruits, vegetables, field crops, nuts endosulfan residues”. As a result of the review, and cotton. the APVMA made a number of changes to endosulfan products: declaring them to be Endosulfan is in the final stages of assessment restricted chemical products; requiring users to under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent undertake specified training and keep records of Organic Pollutants (POPs). In October 2009, the use; restricting the number of applications per United Nations POPs Review Committee season in some crops; mandatory buffer zones for concluded that endosulfan was a persistent © WWF-Australia. National Toxics Network. All rights reserved. spraying and neighbourhood notification before variety of crops including wheat, oats, barley, rye, application (in cotton only).x triticale, lupin, sugar cane, cotton, coffee, citrus, apples and pears, pawpaw, pineapples, bananas, The APVMA continues to support the registration grapes, asparagus, peas, cut flowers and various of endosulfan. Its current position is that “on the seed crops. It is also registered as a cotton basis of the available evidence, endosulfan can be defoliant, for controlling weeds and algae in and used safely in accordance with the conditions xi around water bodies and in marine antifouling outlined on product labels.” xvi paints. Endosulfan has been identified as an endocrine The APVMA began a review of diuron in 2002 disruptor however the APVMA considers “the because of concerns about human health and endocrine disrupting potential of endosulfan is not environmental risks, particularly because of its a significant risk to public health under the existing detection in the Great Barrier Reef. In 2005 the management controls and health standards”.xii APVMA released preliminary review findings, The APVMA has identified endosulfan in its including that: priority list of chemicals to be assessed for spray • diuron is posing an unacceptable risk to drift risks due to human health, environmental, corals, seagrass and dugongs in the Great residue and trade concerns. Barrier Reef; diuron is posing an unacceptable risk to the Atrazine • environment from 13 of its 22 registered Atrazine is one of the most widely used herbicides uses.xvii in Australian agriculture. It is used to control weeds in sorghum, maize, and sugar cane crops, The APVMA made a number of preliminary and is also used in pine and eucalypt plantations recommendations to change the way diuron can and on triazine-tolerant canola crops.xiii be used but none have yet been implemented. The review has not been completed. Diuron has The APVMA conducted a review of atrazine from subsequently been added to the APVMA’s list of 1995 to 2008 due to concerns for human and priority pesticides for spray drift risk assessment animal carcinogenicity, environmental impacts, due to environmental concerns. including the potential for atrazine to contaminate ground and surface water, and residue The EU originally withdrew diuron under its uncertainties. The review affirmed atrazine’s REACH re-assessment process. Risks to approval in Australia and made relatively minor operators, groundwater and birds and mammals changes to label instructions; updated information were deemed unacceptable on the basis of the xviii on withholding periods; and required additional available scientific information. However, a information on weed resistance reporting. further review was undertaken based on additional confidential data provided by the main registrant, The APVMA has identified atrazine in its priority and a recommendation to re-include diuron was list of chemicals to be assessed for spray drift accepted for limited uses under strict conditions. risks due to human health and environmental Diuron application in the EU is now limited to concerns. ground in strip-band application under rows, xix Atrazine was prohibited in the European Union in avoiding drift by using low pressure and shields. 2003 following re-assessment under the REACH These conditions address operator safety and the system. The scientific review concluded that protection of aquatic organisms and non-target atrazine and its breakdown products presented a plants. xiv risk to EU groundwater quality standards. Diuron is a known/likely human carcinogen and The US EPA is currently re-evaluating atrazine has been identified as a suspected endocrine because of “the new body of scientific information disruptor. as well as the documented presence of atrazine in Chlorpyrifos both drinking water sourced and other bodies of xv Chlorpyrifos is an insecticide used on a wide water”. range of Australian fruit and vegetable crops, Atrazine is a suspected endocrine/reproductive sugar cane, cotton, cereals and pastures, in disrupter. termite management, home gardens and domestic pests. The APVMA initiated a review of Diuron chlorpyrifos in 1996 because of its human toxicity, Diuron is a broad-spectrum residual herbicide and acute toxicity to birds, water pollution potential and algaecide used in Australia to control weeds in a other factors.xx After 14 years, the review is still ongoing. In 2000, the APVMA released interim findings that the home and garden uses of chlorpyrifos with concentrations of greater than 50g/L could no longer be supported because of acute toxicity concerns. The APVMA also found that there was inadequate residue data for the use of chlorpyrifos in some commodities. In 2009 the APVMA released further findings and recommended a number of use restrictions, as well as extending the withholding periods for products sprayed with chlorpyrifos.xxi It is unclear which, if any, of these recommendations have been implemented. The APVMA has identified chlorpyrifos in its priority list of chemicals to be assessed for spray drift risks due to human health and environmental concerns. In the EU, chlorpyrifos is authorised but only for for limited purposes. Chlorpyrifos is also registered in the United States but its use there is more restricted compared to Australia. For example, chlorpyrifos is not permitted for use on tomatoes or for post bloom use on apples, home gardens and lawns, inside homes for crack and crevice treatments, post construction termite treatments for barriers and spot treatments, or for any area where children could be exposed to it such as schools and parks.xxii In 2009, the US EPA announced plans to introduce additional limitations on the use of chlorpyrifos to protect 28 species of endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead fish in four US States, following assessment under the US Endangered Species Act.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Characterization of Residential Pest Control Products Used in Inner City Communities in New York City
    Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2010), 1–11 r 2010 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved 1559-0631/10 www.nature.com/jes Characterization of residential pest control products used in inner city communities in New York City MEGAN K. HORTONa, J. BRYAN JACOBSONb, WENDY MCKELVEYb, DARRELL HOLMESa, BETTY FINCHERc, AUDREY QUANTANOc, BEINVENDIDA PAEZ DIAZc, FAYE SHABBAZZc, PEGGY SHEPARDc, ANDREW RUNDLEa AND ROBIN M. WHYATTa aColumbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA bNew York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, New York, USA cWest Harlem Environmental Action, New York, New York, USA The Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH) previously reported widespread residential insecticide use in urban communities in New York City. Research suggests that pyrethroids are replacing organophosphates (OPs) in response to 2000–2001 US EPA pesticide regulations restricting OP use. A systematic assessment of active ingredients used for residential pest control is lacking. We queried a database of pesticide applications reported by licensed applicators between 1999 and 2005 and surveyed pest control products available in 145 stores within 29 zip codes in the CCCEH catchment area including Northern Manhattan and the South Bronx. Pyrethroids, pyrethrins, piperonyl butoxide, and hydramethylnon were the most common insecticide active ingredients reported as used by licensed pesticide applicators within the 29 zip codes of the CCCEH catchment area between 1999 and 2005. Use of certain pyrethroids and some non-spray insecticides such as fipronil and boric acid increased significantly by year (logistic regression, OR41.0, Po0.05), whereas use of OPs, including chlorpyrifos and diazinon decreased significantly by year (logistic regression, ORo1.0, Po0.05).
    [Show full text]
  • ACTION: Original DATE: 08/20/2020 9:51 AM
    ACTION: Original DATE: 08/20/2020 9:51 AM TO BE RESCINDED 3745-100-10 Applicable chemicals and chemical categories. [Comment: For dates of non-regulatory government publications, publications of recognized organizations and associations, federal rules, and federal statutory provisions referenced in this rule, see paragraph (FF) of rule 3745-100-01 of the Administrative Code titled "Referenced materials."] The requirements of this chapter apply to the following chemicals and chemical categories. This rule contains three listings. Paragraph (A) of this rule is an alphabetical order listing of those chemicals that have an associated "Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)" registry number. Paragraph (B) of this rule contains a CAS registry number order list of the same chemicals listed in paragraph (A) of this rule. Paragraph (C) of this rule contains the chemical categories for which reporting is required. These chemical categories are listed in alphabetical order and do not have CAS registry numbers. (A) Alphabetical listing: Chemical Name CAS Number abamectin (avermectin B1) 71751-41-2 acephate (acetylphosphoramidothioic acid o,s-dimethyl ester) 30560-19-1 acetaldehyde 75-07-0 acetamide 60-35-5 acetonitrile 75-05-8 acetophenone 98-86-2 2-acetylaminofluorene 53-96-3 acifluorfen, sodium salt [5-(2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy)-2- 62476-59-9 nitrobenzoic acid, sodium salt] acrolein 107-02-8 acrylamide 79-06-1 acrylic acid 79-10-7 acrylonitrile 107-13-1 [ stylesheet: rule.xsl 2.14, authoring tool: RAS XMetaL R2_0F1, (dv: 0, p: 185720, pa:
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,852,618 B2 Clough (45) Date of Patent: Oct
    USOO8852618B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,852,618 B2 Clough (45) Date of Patent: Oct. 7, 2014 (54) INSECTICIDAL MIXTURE CONTAINING CA 2429218 A1 6, 2002 GAMMA-CYHALOTHRN CH 689326 A5 4f1995 EP O237227 A1 9, 1987 EP 0771526 A2 5, 1997 (75) Inventor: Martin Stephen Clough, Bracknell EP O988788 A1 3f2000 (GB) FR 272O230 A1 12/1995 JP 63. 126805 A2 5, 1988 (73) Assignee: Syngenta Limited, Guildford (GB) JP 63126805 A2 5, 1988 JP 63126805 5, 1998 c - r WO WO 86 O7525 A1 12, 1986 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this WO WO 93 03618 A2 3, 1993 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 WO WO95 229O2 A1 8/1995 U.S.C. 154(b) by 824 days. WO WO9533380 A1 12, 1995 WO WO 96 16543 A2 6, 1996 (21) Appl. No.: 12/633,063 WO WO97 06687 A1 2/1997 WO WO974O692 A1 11, 1997 (22) Filed: Dec.a V88, 2009 WO WOOOO2453 A1 1, 2000 OTHER PUBLICATIONS (65) Prior Publication Data US 201O/OO81714 A1 Apr. 1, 2010 Canadian Office Action (Applin. No. 2,452,515 filed: Jul. 10, 2002) mailing date Oct. 1, 2010 (pp. 1-2). Related U.S. Application Data Allen et al. Transgenic & Conventional Insect & Weed Control Sys tems; Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, vol. 2, 1065 (62) Division of application No. 10/484.745, filed as 1068 (1999), USA. application No. PCT/GB02/03181 on Jul. 10, 2002, Anonymous; Pesticide Mixtures for Control of Insect and Acarid now Pat. No.
    [Show full text]
  • Ants in the Home Fact Sheet No
    Ants in the Home Fact Sheet No. 5.518 Insect Series|Home and Garden by W.S. Cranshaw* Almost anywhere in the state one the nest, tend the young and do other Quick Facts travels, ants will be the most common necessary colony duties. Many kinds of insects that can be found in yards, gardens, ants produce workers that are all the • Most ants that are found in fields and forests. Tremendous numbers same size (monomorphic); some, such as homes nest outdoors and of ants normally reside in a typical house field ants, have workers that vary in size enter homes only to search lot, although most lead unobserved lives (polymorphic). for food or water. underground or otherwise out of sight. Each colony contains one or, sometimes, Often it is only when they occur indoors or a few queens (Figure 1). These are fertile • Almost all ants are workers, produce their periodic mating swarms that females that are larger than workers and wingless females that search they come to human attention. dedicated to egg production. The minute for food and maintain the Overall, the activities of ants are quite eggs are taken from the queen and tended colony. beneficial. Many feed on other insects, by the workers. Upon egg hatch, the • A small proportion of an including pest insects. Ant scavenging pale-colored, legless larvae are fed and helps to recycle organic matter and their protected by the workers. When full-grown, ant colony are winged tunneling is useful in aerating and mixing ant larvae produce a smooth silken cocoon reproductive forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Transfer of Ingested Insecticides Among Cockroaches: Effects of Active Ingredient, Bait Formulation, and Assay Procedures
    HOUSEHOLD AND STRUCTURAL INSECTS Transfer of Ingested Insecticides Among Cockroaches: Effects of Active Ingredient, Bait Formulation, and Assay Procedures 1 2 1, 3 GRZEGORZ BUCZKOWSKI, ROBERT J. KOPANIC, JR., AND COBY SCHAL J. Econ. Entomol. 94(5): 1229Ð1236(2001) ABSTRACT Foraging cockroaches ingest insecticide baits, translocate them, and can cause mor- tality in untreated cockroaches that contact the foragers or ingest their excretions. Translocation of eight ingested baits by adult male Blattella germanica (L.) was examined in relation to the type of the active ingredient, formulation, and foraging area. Ingested boric acid, chlorpyrifos, Þpronil, and hydramethylnon that were excreted by adults in small dishes killed 100% of Þrst instars within 10 d and Ͼ50% of second instars within 14 d. Residues from these ingested baits were also highly effective on nymphs in larger arenas and killed 16Ð100% of the adults. However, when the baits and dead cockroaches were removed from the large arenas and replaced with new cockroaches, only residues of the slow-acting hydramethylnon killed most of the nymphs and adults, whereas residues of fast acting insecticides (chlorpyrifos and Þpronil) killed fewer nymphs and adults. Excretions from cockroaches that ingested abamectin baits failed to cause signiÞcant mortality in cockroaches that contacted the residues. These results suggest that hydramethylnon is highly effective in these assays because cockroaches that feed on the bait have ample time to return to their shelter and defecate insecticide-laden feces. The relatively high concentration of hydramethylnon in the bait (2.15%) and its apparent stability in the digestive tract and feces probably contribute to the efÞcacy of hydra- methylnon.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Affecting Secondary Kill of the German Cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) by Gel Baits
    Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Urban Pests 153 William H Robinson and Dániel Bajomi (editors), 2008 Printed by OOK-Press Kft., H-8200 Veszprém, Pápai út 37/a, Hungary FACTORS AFFECTING SECONDARY KILL OF THE GERMAN COCKROACH (DICTYOPTERA: BLATTELLIDAE) BY GEL BAITS 1CHANGLU WANG, 2 X. YANG, 1M.A. EL-NOUR, AND 1G.W. BENNETT Center for Urban and Industrial Pest Management, Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA 2Guangxi Department of Forestry, Nanning, Guangxi 530022, China Abstract Secondary kill of the German cockroach, Blattella germanica (L)., by baits was reported to increase the overall control efficacy of bait products. However, most studies have been based on laboratory strains and small nymphs. We compared the secondary kill of four cockroach gel baits against various developmental stages of a laboratory (Jwax) and a field (Dorie) strain B. germanica. The four baits were: 0.35% acetamiprid (Transport), 0.01% fipronil (Maxforce FC), 2.15% hydramethylnon (Maxforce), and 0.6% indoxacarb (Advion). In addition, the secondary kill by acetamiprid, hydramethylnon, and indoxacarb was evaluated against mixed-stage cockroach populations. All baits exhibited secondary kill against various developmental stages of B. germanica. The levels of secondary mortality decreased from 100% in the first instars to as low as 12.1% in adult males. The field strain was much less susceptible than the laboratory strain, with only 9.2-16.6% secondary mortality among the 3rd- 4th instars. Acetamiprid caused significantly lower secondary mortality of the laboratory strain first instars than fipronil, hydramethylnon, and indoxacarb. In an experiment evaluating direct and secondary kill against mixed-stage populations (100 total per experimental arena), the direct kill by acetamiprid, hydramethylnon, and indoxacarb was 40.0, 74.0, and 98.5%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • High Hazard Chemical Policy
    Environmental Health & Safety Policy Manual Issue Date: 2/23/2011 Policy # EHS-200.09 High Hazard Chemical Policy 1.0 PURPOSE: To minimize hazardous exposures to high hazard chemicals which include select carcinogens, reproductive/developmental toxins, chemicals that have a high degree of toxicity. 2.0 SCOPE: The procedures provide guidance to all LSUHSC personnel who work with high hazard chemicals. 3.0 REPONSIBILITIES: 3.1 Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) shall: • Provide technical assistance with the proper handling and safe disposal of high hazard chemicals. • Maintain a list of high hazard chemicals used at LSUHSC, see Appendix A. • Conduct exposure assessments and evaluate exposure control measures as necessary. Maintain employee exposure records. • Provide emergency response for chemical spills. 3.2 Principle Investigator (PI) /Supervisor shall: • Develop and implement a laboratory specific standard operation plan for high hazard chemical use per OSHA 29CFR 1910.1450 (e)(3)(i); Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories. • Notify EH&S of the addition of a high hazard chemical not previously used in the laboratory. • Ensure personnel are trained on specific chemical hazards present in the lab. • Maintain Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all chemicals, either on the computer hard drive or in hard copy. • Coordinate the provision of medical examinations, exposure monitoring and recordkeeping as required. 3.3 Employees: • Complete all necessary training before performing any work. • Observe all safety
    [Show full text]
  • Household Insects – Homeowners ` CAUTION: All Insecticides Are Toxic to Some Degree; Therefore, Care Should Be Exercised in Their Use
    Household Insects – Homeowners ` CAUTION: All insecticides are toxic to some degree; therefore, care should be exercised in their use. The manufacturer’s directions on the label in the use of the material must be followed explicitly. Insect Threats Insecticides and Treatment* Remarks Ants Feed on foods and Baits (active ingredient and Remove food and clean up the area. Place (several may damage product): bait where ants occur or congregate. May species) clothing; may also sodium tetraborate decahydrate use several different baits at the same time sting, causing severe (Amdro Kills Ants Liquid Bait, Terro to discover one that ants will consume. reaction to some Liquid Ant Baits); Care should be taken not to contaminate people. hydramethylnon (Amdro Kills Ants foodstuffs. Also treat nests in yard. Follow Bait Stations and Stakes); label. orthoboric acid (Terro Perimeter Ant Bait); fipronil (Combat Max Ant Killing Bait Stations and Gel); abamectin (Raid Max Double Control Ant Baits, Raid Ant Baits III); dinotefuran (Hot Shot Ultra Clear Roach & Ant Gel Bait, Hot Shot Ultra Liquid Ant Bait); spinosad (Ortho Home Defense Liquid Ant Bait); thiamethoxam (Raid Precision Placement Ant Bait Gel) Crack and crevices: Follow label. prallethrin, esfenvalerate, pyrethrins, pyrethrum, permethrin, tetra- methrin, phenothrin, beta-cyfluthrin, cyfluthrin Indoor space: prallethrin, esfenvalerate, pyrethrins, pyrethrum, permethrin, tetramethrin, phenothrin, cyfluthrin, bifenthrin Outdoor barrier: prallethrin, esfenvalerate, permethrin, beta-cyfluthrin, cyfluthrin, bifenthrin, malathion, carbaryl Outdoor broadcast: hydramethylnon, pyriproxyfen, beta-cyfluthrin, esfenvalerate, bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, malathion, carbaryl *Labels on insecticides should state “material may be used in the household” and should be registered by the EPA for that purpose. Household Insects – Homeowners ` CAUTION: All insecticides are toxic to some degree; therefore, care should be exercised in their use.
    [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]
  • 2017 Fire Ant Control Materials for Alabama Homeowners
    ANR-0175-A 2017 Fire Ant Control Materials for Alabama Homeowners any products for the control of fire ants are now on the market. Each year new products are introduced and old products may have new names. The products mentioned in this publication were found on the shelves M of various lawn and garden centers, farmers cooperatives, and hardware stores during a spring 2017 survey of 21 stores in Alabama. They are intended for homeowners to use on lawns. Costs reflect average retail prices from the survey. Other materials may be available. Read the label to make sure a particular chemical is registered for your site. This publication is a supplement to other publications and Web sites about fire ant biology and management. These resources can help you choose an approach to fire ant control that is low-cost, environmentally friendly, and perhaps less frustrating than what you are doing now. The following resource is recommended: Fire Ant Control: The Two-step Method and Other Approaches, found at http://articles.extension.org/fire_ants. Broadcast treatments involve applying the fire ant control chemical across the infested area. One advantage of broadcast treatments is that colonies may be controlled before mounds appear above the turf. Therefore, the need for continual treatment of visible mounds may be reduced. Broadcast baits (Table 1) are perceived as food and picked up by the worker ants and carried back to the nest, where they eventually reach the queen. In contrast, broadcast granular insecticides (Table 2) work by forming a relatively long-lasting insecticidal barrier on the soil surface.
    [Show full text]
  • The 10 Most Common Toxicoses in Dogs
    Toxicology Brief managing common poisonings in companion animals PEER-REVIEWED The 10 most common toxicoses in dogs Irina Meadows, DVM, and Sharon Gwaltney-Brant DVM, PhD ogs are usually exposed to potentially toxic house- Chocolate hold products and medications accidentally. But 2 Chocolate contains two types of Dsometimes well-intentioned owners unknowingly methylxanthine, theobromine and caf- give their dogs harmful products and medications. To help feine, with their amounts varying de- prepare you for patients with theses toxicoses, we com- pending on the type of chocolate. For piled this list of the 10 most common hazards to dogs, example, milk chocolate contains about based on the number of calls we have received at the 60 mg/oz methylxanthine, dark chocolate about 150 mg/oz, ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center (APCC) between 2001 and baking chocolate about 450 mg/oz.3 and 2005.1 Clinical signs of chocolate ingestion range from GI upset to cardiovascular effects (e.g. tachycardia, hypertension or hy- Ibuprofen potension, arrhythmias) to CNS signs (e.g. agitation, pacing, hy- 1 Ibuprofen, a nonsteroidal anti- peractivity, tremors, seizures). The toxicity depends on the inflammatory drug with analgesic, anti- type of chocolate, the amount ingested, the size of the animal, inflammatory, and antipyretic effects,2 is and the animal’s sensitivity to methylxanthines. Mild stimula- available in a variety of strengths. The tion such as hyperactivity, agitation, and restlessness may most common over-the-counter occur in dogs ingesting around 20 mg/kg methylxanthine. strength is 200 mg, but the prescription-strength tablets can Cardiotoxicosis may occur in dogs ingesting 40 mg/kg, and contain up to 800 mg ibuprofen.
    [Show full text]
  • Hazard Assessment of Alternatives to Dicofol
    Journal of Environmental Protection, 2010, 1, 231-241 231 doi:10.4236/jep.2010.13028 Published Online September 2010 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jep) Hazard Assessment of Alternatives to Dicofol Ana I. Sánchez1*, M. Dolores Hernando1, Juan J. Vaquero2, Eloy García3,4, José M. Navas5 1Parque Científico Tecnológico, University of Alcala, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain; 2Department of Organic Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Alcala, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain; 3Department of Analytical Chemistry and Engineering Chem- istry, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Alcala, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain; 4IMDEA Water Foundation, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain; 5Department of Environment, Spanish National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Madrid, Spain. Email: [email protected] Received April 21st, 2010; revised May 12th, 2010; accepted May 22nd, 2010. ABSTRACT Dicofol was listed by International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) as requiring immediate and urgent considera- tion and thus was considered as a new candidate by Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee (POPRC) as a possible persistent organic pollutant (POP). Dicofol is structurally similar to DDT. It is persistent in food and water, highly toxic to aquatic life and causes egg-shell thinning in some bird species. High concern, due to the lack of dicofol measurements in the Arctic, proving long range transport and bioaccumulation in wild life species, supports further impact assessment of this product. Under Stockholm Convention, substances identified as POPs are regulated with the objective to protect the environment and the human health. According to this objective, the search of environmental and healthy alternatives is helpful. This paper discusses the use of three groups of chemicals currently applied as alterna- tives to dicofol.
    [Show full text]