Canine Flea & Tick Control Comparison

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Canine Flea & Tick Control Comparison Product Active Ingredients Age Kills Fleas Adult Kills Flea Eggs Kills Flea Larva Kills Ticks (Multiple Species) Lice Sarcoptic mange Biting Flies Mosquitoes Heartworm Ear Mites Dosage Topical Application 22.1% Amitraz CERTIFECT™ 9.8% Fipronil 8 weeks X X X X X X Once per month 8.8% (S)-Methoprene 6.01% Fipronil ® 8 weeks Once per month EFFITIX 44.88% Permethrin X X X X X X X X 9.8% Fipronil ® 8 weeks Once per month FRONTLINE Plus for Dogs 8.8% (S)-Methoprene X X X X X X 50.0% Etofenprox 9.10% Piperonyl Butoxide Flea & Tick Spot On for Dogs 0.91% N-Octyl Bicycloheptene Dicarbozimide (MGK 264®) 6 months X X X X Once per month (Bio Spot Active Care™) 0.45% Pyriproxyfen (Nylar®) 0.23% (S)-Methoprene ® 30.0% Etofenprox Flea & Tick SpotOn for Dogs 3.6% (S)-Methoprene 12 weeks X X X X Once per month (Adams™) 5.0% Piperonyl Butoxide 8.8% Imidacloprid K9 advantix® II 44.0% Permethrin 7 weeks X X X X X X X Once per month 0.44% Pyriproxyfen 50.0% Permethrin ® 12 weeks Once per month LIBERTY 50 Plus IGR 1.20% Pyriproxyfen X X X X X X 9.8% Fipronil 12 weeks Once per month PARASTAR™ plus 5.2% Cyphenothrin X X X X revolution™ Selemectin 6 weeks X X X* X X X X Once per month 9.8% Fipronil 8 weeks Once per month Spectra Sure™ IGR for Dogs 8.8% (S)-Methoprene X X X X X X 9.8% Fipronil 12 weeks Once per month Spectra Sure™ Plus for Dogs 8.8% Cyphenothrin X X X X X X 40% Cyphenothrin 12 weeks Once per month TriForce™ Canine 2.0% Pyriproxyfen X X X X X Collar 4.5% Flumethrin ® 12 weeks Every 8 months seresto for Dogs 10% Cyphenothrin X X X X X X PREVENTIC® Dog Tick Collar 9% Amitraz 12 weeks X Every 3 months Shampoo, Sprays and Dips 0.50% Etofenprox ADAMS™ plus Flea & Tick 0.27% (S)-Methoprene 10 weeks X X X X Once per month 1.75% Piperonyl Butoxide Canine Flea & Tick Control Comparison Product Active Ingredients Age Kills Fleas Adult Kills Flea Eggs Kills Flea Larva Kills Ticks (Multiple Species) Lice Sarcoptic mange Biting Flies Mosquitoes Heartworm Ear Mites Dosage 0.10% (S)-Methoprene 7-10 days 0.15% Pyrethrins 12 weeks ADAMS™ plus Flea/Tick Shampoo X X X X as needed 1.88% Piperonyl Butoxide 0.97% Pyrethrins 7 days 12 weeks ADAMS™ Pyrethrin Dip 3.74% Piperonyl Butoxide X X X X X as needed 0.15% Pyrethrins 7 days ® 12 weeks Ecto-Soothe 3X 1.50% Piperonyl Butoxide X X as needed 0.112% Pyrethrins 0.100% Piperonyl Butoxide Repeat every 6 months Flea & Tick Spray for Dogs 0.479% N-Octyl Bicycloheptene Dicarboximide (MGK 264®) X X X 2 weeks 0.125% 2-[1-Methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy) ethoxy] pyridine 0.15% Pyrethrins 1.50% Piperonyl Butoxide Repeat every ® 12 weeks Flys-Off Mist 0.50% N-Octyl Bicycloheptene Dicarboximide (MGK 264®) X X X 9 days 0.50% Di-n-Propyl Isocinchomeronate FRONTLINE® Spray 0.29% Fipronil 8 weeks X X X X Once a month 0.12% d-trans Allethrin 14 days ® 12 weeks Mycodex Flea & Tick Shampoo 0.50% Piperonyl Butoxide X as needed 0.15% Pyrethrin 7 days 0.30% Piperonyl Butoxide 12 weeks VF Flea & Tick Shampoo X X as needed 0.479% N-Octyl Bicycloheptene Dicarboximide (MGK 264®) Oral Medication 4 weeks and One time; ® Nitenpyram Capstar over 2 lbs X repeat as needed 8 weeks and ® Afoxolaner Once a month NexGard over 4 lbs X X Sentinel® Spectrum® Milbemycin Oxime (treats/controls tapeworms, whipworms, roundworms, Lufenuron 6 weeks X X Once a month hookworms) Praziquantel *Only controls one species of tick..

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Global Insecticide Use for Vector-Borne Disease Control
WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2 GLOBAL INSECTICIDE USE FOR VECTOR-BORNE DISEASE CONTROL M. Zaim & P. Jambulingam DEPARTMENT OF CONTROL OF NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES (NTD) WHO PESTICIDE EVALUATION SCHEME (WHOPES) First edition, 2002 Second edition, 2004 Third edition, 2007 © World Health Organization 2007 All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use. The named authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication. CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements i Introduction 1 Collection of information 2 Data analysis and observations on reporting 3 All uses in vector control 6 Malaria vector control 22 Dengue vector control 38 Chagas disease vector control 48 Leishmaniasis vector control 52 Other vector-borne disease control 56 Selected insecticides – DDT 58 Selected insecticides – Insect growth regulators 60 Selected insecticides – Bacterial larvicides 62 Country examples 64 Annex 1.
[Show full text]
United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 5,152,096 Rudolph 45 Date of Patent: Oct
III USOO5152096A United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 5,152,096 Rudolph 45 Date of Patent: Oct. 6, 1992 (54) BAIT STATION (56) References Cited (75) Inventor: Robin R. Rudolph, Grain Prairie, U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS Tex. 3,972,993 8/1976 Kobayashi et al................ 43/124 X 4,793,093 12/1988 Gentile ............................... 43/132.1 (73) Assignee: Sandoz Ltd., Basel, Switzerland 4,999,346 3/1991 Rudolph .............................. 514/120 21 Appl. No.: 808,054 5,057,316 10/1991 Gunner et al. ................. 43/132.1 X 22 Filed: Dec. 12, 1991 Primary Examiner-Richard K. Seidel Assistant Examiner-Patty E. Hong Related U.S. Application Data Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Allen E. Norris 63 Continuation of Ser. No. 713,480, Jun. 11, 1991, aban 57) ABSTRACT doned. A bait station device for the control of ants, especially (51) Int. Cl. ............................................... A0M 1/20 of Pharaoh's or Sugar Ant. (52 U.S. C. ......................................... 43/131; 43/124 58) Field of Search ....................... 43/124, 131, 132.1 5 Claims, 1 Drawing Sheet U.S. Patent Oct. 6, 1992 5,152,096 DSN a- 5,152,096 1. 2 enting the ants with a combination of an insect growth BAIT STATION regulant (IGR) bait and insecticide bait in such a way that the worker ants have to forage their way through This is a continuation of application Ser. No. the IGR bait to reach the insecticide bait. 07/713,480, filed Jun. 11, 1991, now abandoned. 5 In this way foraging worker ants will transport back The present invention concerns a bait station device to nests for feeding of the colony IGR bait and upon for the control of ants, especially of Pharaoh's or Sugar exhausting the available IGR bait will themselves ingest Ant.
[Show full text]
Evaluation of Fluralaner and Afoxolaner Treatments to Control Flea
Dryden et al. Parasites & Vectors (2016) 9:365 DOI 10.1186/s13071-016-1654-7 RESEARCH Open Access Evaluation of fluralaner and afoxolaner treatments to control flea populations, reduce pruritus and minimize dermatologic lesions in naturally infested dogs in private residences in west central Florida USA Michael W. Dryden1*, Michael S. Canfield2, Kimberly Kalosy1, Amber Smith1, Lisa Crevoiserat1, Jennifer C. McGrady1, Kaitlin M. Foley1, Kathryn Green2, Chantelle Tebaldi2, Vicki Smith1, Tashina Bennett1, Kathleen Heaney3, Lisa Math3, Christine Royal3 and Fangshi Sun3 Abstract Background: A study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of two different oral flea and tick products to control flea infestations, reduce pruritus and minimize dermatologic lesions over a 12 week period on naturally infested dogs in west central FL USA. Methods: Thirty-four dogs with natural flea infestations living in 17 homes were treated once with a fluralaner chew on study day 0. Another 27 dogs living in 17 different homes were treated orally with an afoxolaner chewable on day 0, once between days 28–30 and once again between days 54–60. All products were administered according to label directions by study investigators. Flea populations on pets were assessed using visual area counts and premise flea infestations were assessed using intermittent-light flea traps on days 0, 7, 14, 21, and once between days 28–30, 40–45, 54–60 and 82–86. Dermatologic assessments were conducted on day 0 and once monthly. Pruritus assessments were conducted by owners throughout the study. No concurrent treatments for existing skin disease (antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, anti-fungals) were allowed.
[Show full text]
Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries
Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
[Show full text]
4. Chemical and Physical Information
PYRETHRINS AND PYRETHROIDS 131 4. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL INFORMATION 4.1 CHEMICAL IDENTITY The naturally-occurring pyrethrins, extracted from chrysanthemum flowers, are esters of chrysanthemic acid (Pyrethrin I, Cinerin I, and Jasmolin I) and esters of pyrethric acid (Pyrethrin II, Cinerin II, and Jasmolin II). In the United States, the pyrethrum extract is standardized as 45–55% w/w total pyrethrins. The typical proportion of Pyrethrins I to II is 0.2:2.8, while the ratio of pyrethrins:cinerins:jasmolins is 71:21:7 (Tomlin 1997). Information regarding the chemical identity of the pyrethrins is presented in Table 4-1. Pyrethroids are synthetic esters derived from the naturally-occurring pyrethrins. One exception to the axiom that all pyrethroids are esters of carboxylic acids is noteworthy. There is a group of oxime ethers that exhibits insecticidal activity similar in nature to the pyrethrins and pyrethroid esters (Davies 1985). Little data exist regarding these compounds, and no commercial products have been produced. Commercially available pyrethroids include allethrin, bifenthrin, bioresmethrin, cyfluthrin, cyhalothrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate (fenvalerate), flucythrinate, flumethrin, fluvalinate, fenpropathrin, permethrin, phenothrin, resmethrin, tefluthrin, tetramethrin, and tralomethrin. Information regarding the chemical identity of pyrethroids is shown in Table 4-2. With the exception of deltamethrin, pyrethroids are a complex mixture of isomers rather than one single pure compound. For pyrethroids possessing the cyclopropane moiety, isomerism about the cyclopropane ring greatly influences the toxicity of these insecticides. The presence of two chiral centers in the ring results in two pairs of diastereomers. The diastereomers and their nonsuperimposable mirror images (enantiomers) are illustrated in Figure 4-1.
[Show full text]
MP144: Ornamental Insect Control for Homeowners
ORNAMENTAL INSECT CONTROL FOR HOMEOWNERS OUTDOOR ORNAMENTAL INSECT CONTROL Amount Formulation Pest Insecticide and Formulation* Per Gallon Spray Remarks and Precautions Aphid acephate Follow label directions. acetamiprid Follow label directions. beta-cyfluthrin 0.0015% + imidacloprid 0.012% ready to use Follow label directions. (Bayer Advanced Dual Action Rose & Flower Insect Killer Ready-To-Use) bifenthrin Follow label directions. cyfluthrin Follow label directions. dinotefuran (Ortho Tree & Shrub Insect Control Plus Per label directions. Miracle-Gro Plant Food Concentrate 0.43%, Ortho Tree & Shrub Insect Control Granules 2.0%) horticultural oils 1%-2% Follow label directions. imidacloprid (Bayer Advanced) Follow label directions. insecticidal soap 1%-2% Thorough coverage is necessary. Spray must contact pests to be effective. Repeat spray three times at 5- to 7-day intervals. malathion (various) Follow label directions. pyrethrin/pyrethrum Follow label directions. pyrethroids (various) ready to use and concentrate Follow label directions. Azalea Leaf Miner acephate (Orthene TTO) 1 tsp Per label directions. beta-cyfluthrin 0.0015% + imidacloprid 0.012% ready to use Follow label directions. (Bayer Advanced Dual Action Rose & Flower Insect Killer Ready-To-Use) dinotefuran (Ortho Tree & Shrub Insect Control Plus Per label directions. Miracle-Gro Plant Food Concentrate 0.43%, Ortho Tree & Shrub Insect Control Granules 2.0%) imidacloprid (Bayer Advanced) Bagworm Bacillus thuringiensis 2 tsp Per label directions. (Biotrol WP, Thuricide, Sok-Bt) beta-cyfluthrin 0.0015% + imidacloprid 0.012% ready to use Follow label directions. (Bayer Advanced Dual Action Rose & Flower Insect Killer Ready-To-Use) malathion (various) Per label directions. In winter, hand-pick and burn if only a few bagworms are present.
[Show full text]
Evaluation of Indoxacarb and Fipronil (S)-Methoprene Topical Spot-On
Dryden et al. Parasites & Vectors 2013, 6:366 http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/6/1/366 RESEARCH Open Access Evaluation of indoxacarb and fipronil (s)-methoprene topical spot-on formulations to control flea populations in naturally infested dogs and cats in private residences in Tampa FL. USA Michael W Dryden1*, Patricia A Payne1, Vicki Smith1, Monica Chwala1, Emery Jones1, Jacob Davenport1, Gabrielle Fadl1, Maria F Martinez-Perez de Zeiders1, Kathleen Heaney2, Pamela Ford2 and Fangshi Sun2 Abstract Background: A study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of two different spot-on topical flea products to control flea infestations on naturally infested dogs and cats in Tampa, FL USA. Methods: Thirty-two dogs and 3 cats with natural flea infestations living in 18 homes were treated topically with a 19.53% w/w spot-on formulation of indoxacarb. Another thirty dogs and 2 cats living in 19 different homes were treated topically with either fipronil (9.8% w/w)/(s)-methoprene (8.89% w/w) or fipronil (9.8% w/w)/(s)-methoprene (11.8% w/w), respectively. All products were applied according to label directions by study investigators on day 0 and again between days 28 and 30. Flea populations on pets were assessed using visual area counts and premise flea infestations were assessed using intermittent-light flea traps on days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28–30, 40–45, and 54–60. Results: A single application of the indoxacarb or fipronil (s)-methoprene formulations reduced flea populations on pets by 97.8% and 85.5%, respectively within 7 days.
[Show full text]
Pests of the Flower Garden Phillip E
Pests of the Flower Garden Phillip E. Sloderbeck Entomologist Southwest Area Office This publication is meant to help ent names. One of the more popular prey, predators and parasites. It is im- gardeners select insecticides for use groups of insecticides labeled for portant to select and use insecticides in flower gardens. It lists some of the home use are the pyrethroids, which carefully. common pests associated with flow- come in a variety of names such as When selecting insecticides, buy in ers and some of the active ingredients bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, permethrin and quantities that can be used in a reason- found in insecticides labeled for use esefenvalerate. Many of these com- able amount of time. Look for prod- on ornamental plants. The list contains pounds end in “-thrin,” but not all. ucts that can be used for more than common active ingredients for each Many have a broad spectrum, but the one pest. For example, if a gardener pest from the Kansas pesticide data- lists of pests controlled by each pyre- has problems with aphids and mealy- base. Other effective materials may throid varies. bugs, it might be best to buy a product also be available. Gardeners should Remember that to be a pest, insects that controls both rather than buying check labels carefully and visit local have to be present in substantial num- separate products for each pest. Re- retail outlets to determine which prod- bers. Spotting one or two insects in a member that if it is necessary to treat ucts are best suited for a particular garden should not trigger an insecti- pests several times during the season, pest problem.
[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]
Resistance to Juvenile Hormone and an Insect Growth Regulator In
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 87, pp. 2072-2076, March 1990 Agricultural Sciences Resistance to juvenile hormone and an insect growth regulator in Drosophila is associated with an altered cytosolic juvenile hormone-binding protein (insecticide resistance) LIRIM SHEMSHEDINI* AND THOMAS G. WILSONt Department of Zoology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405 Communicated by Robert L. Metcalf, December 26, 1989 ABSTRACT The Met mutant ofDrosophila melanogaster is suggesting a target-site insensitivity mechanism of resis- highly resistant tojuvenile hormone Im (JH III) or its chemical tance. analog, methoprene, an insect growth regulator. Five major mechanisms ofinsecticide resistance were examined in Met and susceptible Met+ flies. These two strains showed only minor EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES differences when penetration, excretion, tissue sequestration, JHs and Insects. JH III (Sigma) and [3H]JH III (New or metabolism of [3H]JH m was measured. In contrast, when England Nuclear; specific activity, 11.9 Ci/mmol; 1 Ci = 37 we examined JH III binding by a cytosolic binding protein from GBq) were racemic mixes. [3H]Methoprene (R isomer, 83.9 a JH target tissue, Met strains had a 10-fold lower binding Ci/mmol) was a generous gift of G. Prestwich (Stony Brook, affmity than did Met+ strains. Studies using deficiency-bearing NY). Each was stored in a stock solution in hexane at -20'C. chromosomes provide strong evidence that the Met locus con- Purity was monitored periodically by thin-layer chromatog- trols the binding protein characteristics and may encode the raphy. Breakdown was almost negligible over a 1-year period protein. These studies indicate that resistance in Met flies under these conditions.
[Show full text]
Scanned Document
cc: Eric Bohnenblust Alexandra Dunn Cheryl Dunton Michael Goodis Arnold Layne Anna Lowit Autumn Metzger Jennifer Saunders OPP Docket FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel: Robert E. Chapin, PhD Joseph Shaw, PhD Sonya K. Sobrian, PhD Clifford P. Weisel, PhD Raymond S.H. Yang, PhD FQPA Science Review Board Members: Arthur Appel, PhD Michael J. Daniels, ScD Marion Ehrich, PhD Jerome Hogsette, PhD Eric Kwok, PhD Lisa Murphy, VMD Weste Osbrink, PhD Michael K. Rust, PhD Jeffrey G Scott, PhD Keith Shockley, PhD Daniel E. Snyder, DVM, PhD Larisa Vredevoe, PhD 2 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes and Final Report No. 2019-02 Peer Review on EPA Office of Pesticide Programs’ Proposed Guidelines for Efficacy Testing of Topically Applied Pesticides Used Against Certain Ectoparasitic Pests on Pets June 11-14, 2019 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Held at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Conference Center Lobby Level One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.) 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202 3 Page Blank 4 NOTICE The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) is a federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and established under the provisions of FIFRA as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. The FIFRA SAP provides advice, information, and recommendations to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues regarding the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. The SAP serves as a primary scientific peer review mechanism of the EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), and is structured to provide balanced expert assessment of pesticide and pesticide-related matters facing the Agency.
[Show full text]
BACWA Methoprene Comment Letter
December 22, 2020 Cody Kendrick Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket Center (28221T) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460–0001 Subject: Methoprene – Combined Final Work Plan and Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision (EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0586) Dear Mr. Kendrick: On behalf of the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA), we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Combined Final Work Plan and Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision (PID) for methoprene. BACWA’s members include 55 publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities (“POTWs”) and collection system agencies serving 7.1 million San Francisco Bay Area residents. We take our responsibilities for safeguarding receiving waters seriously. BACWA is especially interested in pesticides that are used in manners that have transport pathways to the sanitary sewer, as even the most sophisticated wastewater treatment plants cannot fully remove complex chemicals like pesticides. BACWA has a strong interest in methoprene due to use in pet flea control and abandoned swimming pool products. The purposes of this letter are: (1) to request that the qualitative discussion of sewer discharges in the Proposed Interim Decision be replaced with a quantitative (i.e., modeled) down-the-drain evaluation addressing discharges of methoprene to the sewer due to companion animal treatments and (2) to request that the PID require registrants to include the same swimming discharge instructions on methoprene products that are being required by EPA on all other pool products (e.g., lithium hypochlorite, copper, chlorine, halohydantoins, terbuthylazine, inorganic halides, zinc salts, boric acid/sodium salts) as suggested by BPPD’s own risk assessors.1 1 Jones, R.S., Risk Assessment Branch, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (2020).
[Show full text]