DOCSLIB.ORG

Etude D'outils D'évaluation De La Contamination Chimique Dans Les

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Etude D'outils D'évaluation De La Contamination Chimique Dans Les Département Océanographie et Dynamique des Ecosystèmes Unité Littoral Laboratoire Environnement Ressources de Normandie F. MENET-NEDELEC, J.-L. GONZALEZ1, M.-P. HALM-LEMEILLE, M. REPECAUD2, J.-V. FACQ3, F. MAHEUX, O. PIERRE-DUPLESSIX et B. SIMON 1 Laboratoire de Biogéochimie des Contaminants Métalliques, Unité Biogéochimie et Ecotoxicologie, Département Ressources Biologiques et Environnement, Ifremer 2 Laboratoire Détection, Capteurs et Mesures, Unité Recherches et Développements Technologiques, Département Recherches physiques et Ecosystèmes de fond de Mer, Ifremer 3 Laboratoire Comportement des Structures en Mer, Unité Recherches et Développements Technologiques, Département Recherches physiques et Ecosystèmes de fond de Mer, Ifremer Rapport Ifremer ODE/UL/LERN/18-02 Mars 2018 Etude d’outils d’évaluation de la contamination ChimiqUe dans les eaux de la ManchE ECUME Image fournie par J-V Facq, Ifremer RAPPORT FINAL SCIENTIFIQUE ET TECHNIQUE Travaux réalisés à l’aide du co-financement de l’AESN – Service Littoral et Mer (convention n°1053125) Fiche documentaire Numéro d'identification du rapport : RST/ODE/UL/LERN/18-02 Date de publication : Mars 2018 Diffusion : libre restreinte: interdite : Nombre de pages : 53 + Annexes Validé par : Marie-Pierre HALM-LEMEILLE Bibliographie: Oui Adresse électronique : [email protected] Illustration(s) : Figures et Tableaux Adresse Web : wwz.ifremer.fr/lern/ Langue du rapport : Français Titre et sous-titre du rapport : Etude d’outils d’évaluation de la contamination chimique dans les eaux de la Manche – ECUME Rapport intermédiaire Rapport définitif : Oui Auteurs principaux : Organisme / Direction / laboratoire F. MENET-NEDELEC, M.-P. HALM-LEMEILLE, F. MAHEUX, O. PIERRE- IFREMER/ODE/UL/LER/N DUPLESSIX et B. SIMON J.-L. GONZALEZ IFREMER/RBE/BE/LBCM M. REPECAUD IFREMER/REM/RDT/LDCM J.-V. FACQ IFREMER/REM/RDT/LCSM Coordination de la rédaction : Florence MENET-NEDELEC Composition/traitement de données/mise en page : Florence MENET- NEDELEC Collaborateur(s) : Organisme / Direction / laboratoire Référés/relecture : J.-L. Gonzalez IFREMER/RBE/BE/LBCM M.-P. Halm-Lemeille IFREMER/ODE/UL/LER/N Cadre de la recherche : Etude ECUME - Etude d’outils d’évaluation de la contamination chimique dans les eaux de la Manche Convention Agence de l’Eau Seine-Normandie Programme : PG05 Dynamique, évaluation et surveillance des écosystèmes Convention : OUI côtiers Projet : P305-0027 ECUME Partenariats : SMEL – Synergie Mer et Littoral Résumé : L’étude ECUME était une opération destinée à tester localement dans les eaux côtières du littoral normand, des outils développés nationalement lors de nombreux travaux, et pressentis pour être utilisés lors des prochaines campagnes d’évaluation de la qualité chimique des masses d’eau littorales pour la DCE. Ceci afin de déterminer la méthode la plus adaptée et opérationnelle de les déployer, et comparer leurs résultats entre eux et par rapport aux connaissances actuelles des niveaux de contamination. Trois sites ont été choisis : Chausey, baie des Veys et estuaire de Seine. Les résultats des analyses chimiques dans l’eau de mer grâce aux DGT, POCIS, SBSE, et dans les moules ont permis de confirmer le contraste du niveau de contamination en éléments traces métalliques et en polluants organiques entre les trois sites de l’étude, avec une contamination croissante de Chausey, à la baie des Veys, à l’estuaire de Seine dans l’eau, les moules, et grâce aux biomarqueurs. Parmi les trois biomarqueurs testés, la stabilité lysosomale et le dénombrement des micronoyaux se sont avérés les plus intéressants. Enfin, un bilan opérationnel ainsi qu’une synthèse des travaux en cours à l’échelle nationale sont présentés. Ce premier reste mitigé avec la nécessité de revoir notamment la méthode de mouillage dans les eaux littorales normandes. Mots-clés : Contamination chimique ; Chausey ; Baie des Veys ; Estuaire de Seine ; DGT ; POCIS ; SBSE ; Biomarqueurs ; Stabilité lysosomale ; Micronoyaux ; Activité catalase ; Métaux ; Pesticides ; Substances pharmaceutiques ; HAP ; PCB ; Phtalates ; Alkylphénols Remerciements Les auteurs souhaitent adresser leurs sincères remerciements à tous les contributeurs extérieurs du projet : . S. Petinay O. Basuyaux, J-L. Blin, et S. Pien de Synergie Mer et Littoral (SMEL) pour les plongées ; . H. Budzinski et N. Tapie du Laboratoire de Physico- et Toxico-Chimie de l’environnement (LPTC) de l’UMR CNRS 5805 EPOC, pour la fourniture et analyse des POCIS ; . J. Guyomarch du CEDRE pour les analyses par SBSE ; . J. Couteau de TOXEM pour les analyses des biomarqueurs dans les moules. 4 Rapport scientifique et technique ECUME Sommaire Sommaire Liste des Figures ............................................................................................................................. 6 Liste des Tableaux .......................................................................................................................... 7 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 9 I.1 Contexte et objectifs ............................................................................................................................. 9 I.2 Présentation des outils ........................................................................................................................ 10 I.2.1 Encagement de moules .................................................................................................................................... 10 I.2.2 Echantillonneurs passifs ................................................................................................................................... 11 I.2.2.1 POCIS – Echantillonneur intégratif pour les contaminants organiques polaires ................................ 11 I.2.2.2 DGT – Gradient diffusif en couche mince pour les métaux ................................................................ 12 I.2.2.3 SBSE – Extraction par sorption sur barreaux pour les composés hydrophobes ................................. 13 I.2.3 Biomarqueurs ................................................................................................................................................... 13 I.2.3.1 Généralités ......................................................................................................................................... 13 I.2.3.2 Stabilité de la membrane lysosomale ................................................................................................ 14 I.2.3.3 Test des micronoyaux ........................................................................................................................ 15 I.2.3.4 Activité catalase ................................................................................................................................. 15 II. MATERIEL ET METHODES .............................................................................................................. 16 II.1 Sites ateliers sélectionnés .................................................................................................................... 16 II.1.1 Critères de sélection ......................................................................................................................................... 16 II.1.2 Synthèse des connaissances du niveau de contamination dans l’archipel Chausey ......................................... 19 II.1.3 Synthèse des connaissances du niveau de contamination dans la baie des Veys ............................................. 20 II.1.4 Synthèse des connaissances du niveau de contamination dans l’estuaire de Seine ......................................... 21 II.2 Déploiement des outils dans la Manche ............................................................................................... 23 II.2.1 Contraintes opérationnelles ............................................................................................................................. 23 II.2.2 Localisation des sites de mouillage .................................................................................................................. 24 II.2.3 Développement de supports sur bouée de balisage ......................................................................................... 25 II.2.4 Mouillage « standard » .................................................................................................................................... 25 II.3 Stratégie de déploiement des outils ..................................................................................................... 26 II.3.1 Encagement de moules .................................................................................................................................... 26 II.3.2 Echantillonneurs passifs (DGT, POCIS, SBSE) .................................................................................................... 27 II.3.3 Calendrier du déploiement en mer ................................................................................................................... 28 II.4 Analyses .............................................................................................................................................. 29 II.4.1 Mesures in situ ................................................................................................................................................. 29 II.4.2 Contaminants dans l’eau .................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genetically Modified Baculoviruses for Pest
    INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS This page intentionally left blank INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS EDITED BY LAWRENCE I. GILBERT SARJEET S. GILL Amsterdam • Boston • Heidelberg • London • New York • Oxford Paris • San Diego • San Francisco • Singapore • Sydney • Tokyo Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier Academic Press, 32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BU, UK 30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA 525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA ª 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved The chapters first appeared in Comprehensive Molecular Insect Science, edited by Lawrence I. Gilbert, Kostas Iatrou, and Sarjeet S. Gill (Elsevier, B.V. 2005). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (þ44) 1865 843830, fax (þ44) 1865 853333, e-mail [email protected]. Requests may also be completed on-line via the homepage (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissions). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Insect control : biological and synthetic agents / editors-in-chief: Lawrence I. Gilbert, Sarjeet S. Gill. – 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 (alk. paper) 1. Insect pests–Control. 2. Insecticides. I. Gilbert, Lawrence I. (Lawrence Irwin), 1929- II. Gill, Sarjeet S. SB931.I42 2010 632’.7–dc22 2010010547 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 Cover Images: (Top Left) Important pest insect targeted by neonicotinoid insecticides: Sweet-potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci; (Top Right) Control (bottom) and tebufenozide intoxicated by ingestion (top) larvae of the white tussock moth, from Chapter 4; (Bottom) Mode of action of Cry1A toxins, from Addendum A7.
    [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]
  • Onion Production, Maggot Control, and Cyromazine
    Onion Production, Maggot Control, and Cyromazine Cyromazine (Trigard®) is currently undergoing re-evaluation at EPA/OPP. The Preliminary Risk Assessment conducted by the Environmental Fate & Effects Division of OPP indicates a high risk to birds from onion seed treatment with cyromazine. BEAD needs assistance to better characterize the use of cyromazine in commercial bulb onion production. From the Old Crop Profiles: cyromazine is used on onion seed to control onion maggots and/or seed corn maggots. Is this still correct? Cyromazine is not widely used as a seed treatment for onion seed planted in the western US. 1. Since this is a seed treatment, what percentage of commercial onion growers (or how many acres) is planting seed? How many growers (or acres) plant seedlings? At least 90% of US dry bulb storage onion acreage is seeded. In Washington State in 2013, 20,500 acres were seeded and only approximately 500 acres transplanted. In California, nearly all dehydrator onions are seeded. 2. Are there data to indicate how many acres are using cyromazine seed treatment and how many acres are using the alternative treatments each year? The California Pesticide Use Report for 2011 contains 12 records (see attached) of onion seed treatment with cyromazine (Trigard OMC) for a total of 474.3 lbs active ingredient. It is not known if the seed treated in California was planted in California or the western states. In addition, if seed planted in California were treated out-of-state it would not appear in the database. Regarding cyromazine seed treatment on onions, David Belles from Syngenta Crop Protection stated, “It is treated on onion for export to Canada because we don’t have Regard labeled in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyromazine) During Woolscouring and Its Effects on the Aquatic Environment the Fate of Vetrazin® (Cyromazine) During
    Lincoln University Digital Thesis Copyright Statement The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the thesis and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the thesis. THE FATE OF VETRAZIN@ (CYROMAZINE) DURING WOOLSCOURING AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT THE FATE OF VETRAZIN® (CYROMAZINE) DURING WOOLSCOURING AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY at LINCOLN UNIVERSITY P.W. Robinson 1995 " ; " i Abstract of a thesis submitted in partial fulfllment of the requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE FATE OF VETRAZIN® (CYROMAZINE) DURING WOOLSCOURING AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT by P.W. Robinson A number of ectoparasiticides are used on sheep to protect the animals from ill health associated with infestations of lice and the effects of fly-strike. Most of the compounds currently in use are organophosphate- or pyrethroid-based and have been used for 15-20 years, or more. In more recent times, as with other pest control strategies, there has been a tendency to introduce 'newer' pesticides, principally in the form of insect growth regulators (IGRs).
    [Show full text]
  • Insecticide and Growth Regulator Effects on the Leafminer, Liriomyza Trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae), in Celery and Observations on Parasitism
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 21 Number 2 - Summer 1988 Number 2 - Summer Article 1 1988 June 1988 Insecticide and Growth Regulator Effects on the Leafminer, Liriomyza Trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae), in Celery and Observations on Parasitism E. Grafius Michigan State University J. Hayden Michigan State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Grafius, E. and Hayden, J. 1988. "Insecticide and Growth Regulator Effects on the Leafminer, Liriomyza Trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae), in Celery and Observations on Parasitism," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 21 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol21/iss2/1 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Grafius and Hayden: Insecticide and Growth Regulator Effects on the Leafminer, <i>Lir 1988 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 49 INSECTICIDE AND GROWTH REGULATOR EFFECTS ON THE LEAFMINER, LIRIOMYZA TRIFOLII (DIPTERA: AGROMYZIDAE), IN CELERY AND OBSERVATIONS ON PARASITISM E. Grafius and 1. Haydenl ABSTRACT The effects of different insecticides were compared on survival and development of the leafminer, L. trifolii, in celery in Michigan and parasitism was assessed in this non­ resident population. Avermectin, thiocyclam, and cyromazine effectively controlled L. trifolii larvae or prevented successful emergence as adults. Moderate to high levels of resistance to permethrin and chlorpyrifos were present. Avermectin caused high mortality of all larval stages and no adults successfully emerged.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Resistance in Bed Bugs Everywhere!!!!!
    2/24/2018 Pesticide Resistance in Bed bugs were virtually eradicated from the U.S. in Bed Bugs the post WWII era due to DDT and other powerful Shujuan (Lucy) Li insecticides. University of Arizona Alvaro Romero New Mexico State University 2 By the 1960s, bed bugs had developed resistance Public housing Apartments to DDT, methoxychlor and analogues, BHC, Schools dieldrin and analogues , and pyrethrins ( Busvine 1958, Hospitals Nursing homes Cwilich & Mer 1957, Mallis and Miller 1964 ) . Homes Transportation Child care Medical facilities Hotels & motels Health care facilities Airports Movie theaters Department stores Products, vendors, or commercial services mentioned or pictured in this seminar are for Everywhere!!!!! illustrative purposes only and are not meant to be endorsements. 3 4 University of Arizona; Arizona Pest Management Center 1 2/24/2018 Possible reasons for treatment failure? Missed some Clutter Reintroduction Have you seen these after treatments? 5 6 Dose - response assays for field - collected strains Bed bugs survived direct insecticide sprays 99 deltamethrin 90 Ft. Dix F1 50 ) e l a c 10 s t CIN1 i b o 1.0 r p ( y t i l a t r 99 - cyhalothrin o m e 90 g a t n Resistance ratio (RR) at least 6,000 !!! e c Ft. Dix r 50 e P 10 CIN1 Suspend® ( Deltamethrin ) 1.0 10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 Treatment (mg active ingredient/cm 2 ) Products, vendors, or commercial services mentioned or pictured in this seminar are for illustrative purposes only and are not meant Romero et al.
    [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]
  • How to Reduce Bee Poisoning from Pesticides
    PNW 591 December 2006 How to ReduceReduce BeeBee PoisoningPoisoning from pesticides H. Riedl E. Johansen L. Brewer J. Barbour A Pacific Northwest Extension publication Oregon State University • University of Idaho • Washington State University Contents Pollinators are essential to Pacific Northwest agriculture .......................................................................1 Rules to protect bees ..............................................................................................................................1 Causes of bee poisoning in the Pacific Northwest .................................................................................2 Investigating a suspected bee poisoning ................................................................................................2 Signs and symptoms of bee poisoning ...................................................................................................2 Honey bees .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Managed solitary bees ................................................................................................................................... 3 Ways to reduce bee poisoning ...............................................................................................................3 Beekeeper–grower cooperation ..................................................................................................................... 3 What pesticide
    [Show full text]
  • Usive Use Period for Spinetoram
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION OCT 1 8 2016 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Review ofa Request for an Extension ofthe Exclusive Use Period for Spinetoram FROM: Caleb Hawkins, Biologist /J. I. ~~ Biological Analysis Branch ~' Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 503P) THRU: Monisha Kaul, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) TO: Carlyn Petrella, Biologist Invertebrate Branch II (IVB2) Registration Division (7505P) BEAD Product Review Panel date: August 24, 2016 SUMMARY When a new pesticide active ingredient is registered, the original data submitter has a 10-year period following the date ofregistration during which they retain exclusive use ofthe data. FIFRA allows for an extension of that exclusive-use period for up to three years if minor uses that meet certain criteria are registered. A one-year extension is allowed for every three qualifying minor uses. Dow AgroSciences submitted a petition to EPA requesting that, under FIFRA Section 3(c)(l)(F)(ii), the exclusive use period for data supporting the active ingredient spinetoram be extended for three years. Because three minor uses must meet the criteria for each one-year extension, nine registered minor uses are required to meet the criteria for a three-year extension. Supporting information was submitted for nine crops that the registrant identified as minor uses meeting the criteria established for extension of exclusive use. BEAD evaluated the available data on the number ofacres ofproduction for each of the crops listed by the registrant to assess whether the crops meet the definition ofminor use per FIFRA Section 2(11)(1) and then applied the benefits-related criteria for extension ofexclusive use expressed in FIFRA Section 3(c)(l)(F)(ii) to the crops proposed by the registrant.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis Science Task Force Recommendations: Laboratory Quality Standards for Pesticides in Cannabis Plants and Products
    Cannabis Science Task Force Recommendations: Laboratory Quality Standards for Pesticides in Cannabis Plants and Products June 2020 Publication 20-03-005 Publication and Contact Information This document is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/2003005.html. For more information contact: Environmental Assessment Program Washington State Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: 360-407-6764 Washington State Department of Ecology — www.ecology.wa.gov • Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000 • Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 • Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300 • Central Regional Office, Union Gap 509-575-2490 • Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 Any use of product or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the author or the Department of Ecology. To request ADA accommodation, including materials in a format for the visually impaired, call Ecology at 360-407-6764 or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/accessibility. People with impaired hearing may call Washington Relay Service at 711. People with speech disability may call 877-833- 6341. Cannabis Science Task Force Recommendations: Laboratory Quality Standards for Pesticides in Cannabis Plants and Products by Sara Sekerak Environmental Assessment Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington Publication 20-03-005 Page 1 Acknowledgements Members of the Cannabis Science Task Force steering committee and working groups have contributed countless hours of expertise to develop science-based laboratory quality standards. The collective efforts and recommendations of the Cannabis Science Task Force are detailed in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Choice of Optimal Biocide Combination to Control Flies (Diptera: Muscidae)
    Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine 2015, Vol 22, No 2, 243–246 ORIGINAL ARTICLE www.aaem.pl Choice of optimal biocide combination to control flies (Diptera: Muscidae) Mihaela Kavran1, Marija F Zgomba1, Aleksandra M Ignjatovic-Ćupina1, Sanja D Lazić1, Dušan V Petrić1 1 University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Agriculture, Department for Plant and Environmental Protection, Novi Sad, Serbia Kavran M, Zgomba MF, Ignjatovic-Ćupina AM, Lazić SD, Petrić DV. Choice of optimal biocide combination to control flies (Diptera: Muscidae). Ann Agric Environ Med. 2015; 22(2): 243–246. doi: 10.5604/12321966.1152073 Abstract Introduction. Flies – by feeding on decaying matter, human waste and food – have been implicated in the spread of numerous animal and human diseases. Excessive fly populations are generally associated with livestock units and domestic waste due to decaying organic matter. A large number of flies cause extreme disturbance in the behavior of the host, resulting in skin irritation, lesions, wounds, and secondary infections are likely to appear. Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of combined applications of larvicide (cyromazine) and adulticides (acetamiprid in formulation with pheromone and thiamethoxam) on the suppression of fly populations. Materials and methods. The study was conducted on a pig farm. The piglet farms are one of the most favorable places for fly breeding. Three units were used for biocide applications and a fourth unit as the control where biocides were not applied. The monitoring of pre- and post-treatment of adult fly populations was carried out by glued cardboards. The cards were hung on metal rods above piglet’s cage.
    [Show full text]
  • IRAC's Insecticide Mode of Action Classification1
    PI-83 IRAC's Insecticide Mode of Action Classification1 Frederick M. Fishel2 This guide explains the rationale behind the insecticides as early as 1914, and there are many Insecticide Resistance Action Committee's (IRAC) known instances today where resistance is a problem. insecticide and acaricide mode-of-action classification and provides a listing of those Resistance has not only occurred with insecticide common names with their groupings and insecticides, but also with other pesticides, such as primary modes of action for insecticides currently fungicides, herbicides, and rodenticides. registered in Florida. Complicating the understanding and management of resistance is the problem of knowing which type of What is IRAC? resistance is present in a given pest population. For example, some pest populations are known to have IRAC has groups in several countries, including cross-resistance. That is, they are not effectively the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Spain, India, controlled with pesticides having the same mode of and Australia. An IRAC group's purpose is to action which generally target the same site within the provide agricultural producers and crop-protection pest. For example, both the carbamate and professionals with information on resistance organophosphate insecticides target acetylcholine management. Members of an IRAC group are esterase although each group of insecticides is generally professionals who are actively engaged in chemically different from one another. The greatest the insecticide and acaricide manufacturing industry. resistance concern arises when multiple-resistance is Some university researchers also participate. confirmed. Multiple-resistance is the situation of a pest population that is resistant to pesticides having Resistance to Pesticides different modes of action.
    [Show full text]