&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington'DC 20460
EPA/600/R-99/008
September 1998
Pesticide Exposure and
Health Effects in Young
Children
Part I: Pesticide Data
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-99/008
September 1998
PESHCroE EXPOSURE AND HEALTH EFFECTS IN YOUNG CHILDREN
PARTI: PESTICIDE DATA
by
Gerry Akland
Analytical and Chemical Sciences
Research Triangle Institute
Post Office Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
Contract Number: 68-C5-0011
and
Brian A. Schumacher, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Environmental Sciences Division - Las Vegas
Characterization & Monitoring Branch
P. O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89193
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development (ORD), funded and performed the research described here. It has been peer
reviewed by the EPA and approved for publication. Mention of trade names does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
i, HI"
. y.;..f;
11
-------
Foreword
The mission of the National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) is to provide
scientific understanding, information and assessment tools that will quantify and reduce the
uncertainty in EPA's exposure and risk assessments for environmental stressors. These stressors
include chemicals, biologicals, radiation, and changes in climate, land use, and water use. The
Laboratory's primary function is to measure, characterize, and predict human and ecological
exposure to pollutants. Exposure assessments are integral elements in the risk assessment process
used to identify populations and ecological resources at risk. The EPA relies increasingly on the
results of quantitative risk assessments to support regulations, particularly of chemicals in the
environment. In addition, decisions on research priorities are influenced increasingly by
comparative risk assessment analysis. The utility of the risk-basked approach, however, depends
on accurate exposure information. Thus, the mission of NERL is to enhance the Agency's
capability for evaluating exposure of both humans and ecosystems from a holistic perspective.
The National Exposure Research Laboratory focuses on four major research areas:
predictive exposure modeling, exposure assessment, monitoring methods, and environmental
characterization. Underlying the entire research and technical support program of the NERL is its
continuing development of state-of-the-art modeling, monitoring, and quality assurance methods
to assure the conduct of defensible exposure assessments with known certainty. The research
program supports its traditional clients - Regional Offices, Regulatory Program Offices, ORD
Offices, and Research Committee - and ORD's Core Research Program in the areas of health risk
assessment, ecological risk assessment, and risk reduction.
Understanding and evaluating the nature of pesticide exposure to the pediatric population
(i.e., multiple pathway/multiple pesticide exposure) and potential health implications are of
national interest and is highly relevant to residents along the U.S./Mexico border. Initial efforts
will be focused on identifying potential sources of pesticides and examining innovative techniques
and methods for collecting, identifying, and quantifying pesticides in various matrices (e.g., air,
water, soil, dust, and urine). These efforts will be followed by a full-scale epidemiological study
that includes detailed biological monitoring of "high exposure" individuals and measurements of
their environmental exposure for levels of specific pesticide compounds to identify major
predictors and pathways of pesticide exposures to the children. The efforts described in this
report provide preliminary data concerning the most frequently used pesticides, quantities of
pesticides applied, and crop types, locations, and acreages to which the pesticides were applied by
year along the U.S./Mexico border.
Gary J. Foley
Director
National Exposure Research Laboratory
ill
-------
ii ;
, ,,, - : ;,,{, ,::; , ;.>. , ', ; ' : ,:: , Abstract
Understanding and evaluating the nature of pesticide exposure to the pediatric population
is qJTnational interest and highly relevant to U.S./Mexico border residents. To identify potential
exposure "areas "for future studies, the first step was to inventory and gather existing agricultural
aticf "gesticule usagei"'5ifonnation in counties witliin 100 kilometers of the U.S./Mexico border.
The resulting data and estimates'of past pesticiHe usage can be used to provide a relative measure
of exposure potential to residents living within the study area.
IllilN Jn i'.i ">, , ' ,1 IIH">< I « ",! <" H ' .','1' ' i ' '", i I'.'Hi, 'Ill,'1 , ',,11!" , ill' ,!! '! II" ,'i IN 4 i,r'', , ,'i ' UMI I ! » " , u IIL
TJie most agiculturajly active counties in the border region were Imperial county,
Callfbrnia, Cameron and Hidalgo counties, Texas, and Yuma county, Arizona. These 4 counties
yieiled 7O% of the total harvested acres for all 12 counties examined in this report The most
commonly grown crops in these four counties were cotton, citrus, and vegetables. As a result of
the intensive, large-scale agriculture in these counties, as well as in San Diego county, California,
the highest pesticide usage was also identified in these counties. In general, insecticides were the
most frequently applied pesticides with herbicides and fungicides ranked as the second and third
most frequently applied pesticide, respectively. Other pesticides, such as fumigants, were also
use3 in the border region.
.:*. i i .,' ;>
iv
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Abstract iv
Figure vi
Tables vti
Acknowledgments ix
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Pesticide Data Collection 4
2.1 Preliminary Assessment of Pesticide Usage along the Border 4
2.2 General Discussion of Pesticide Data 6
2.3 Methodology for Estimating Pesticide Usage 7
2.4 Limitations 8
Chapter 3 Results by State 10
3.1 California 10
3.2 Arizona 14
3.3 New Mexico 19
3.4 Texas 28
3.5 Comparison with Other Estimates of Pesticide Sales and/or Usage Data .... 32
Chapter 4 Conclusions 35
4.1 Data Availability 35
4.2 Pesticide Data Summary 35
4.3 Comparison with U.S. Geological Survey Data 43
References and Data Sources 45
Appendix
A Commonly-Used Pesticides by EPA Number and Pounds of Active Ingredient A-l
v
-------
Figures
if !!*."
1-1 U.S,/Mexico Border Regional Map
> !!
f't
;t iti
'
vi
::,:!; : E ;/,;
-------
Tables
2-1 States and Counties Identified as the Study Area 5
2-2 Availability of Pesticide Information Data by State 5
3-1 Acres of Cropland in California by County .11
3-2 Most Heavily-Used Pesticides in San Diego County, California: Pounds of Active
Ingredient Applied by Year .. .... 12
3-3 Most Heavily-Used Pesticides in Imperial County, California: Pounds of Active
Ingredient Applied by Year 13
3-4 Pesticide Use on Major Crops in California (1993) 14
3-5 Acres of Cropland in Arizona by County 15
3-6 Cochise County: Most Heavily-Used Pesticides by Year in Pounds of
Active Ingredient 16
3-7 Pima County: Most Heavily-Used Pesticides by Year in Pounds of
Active Ingredient 17
3-8 Yuma County: Most Heavily-Used Pesticides by Year in Pounds of
Active Ingredient 18
3-9 Pesticide Usage by Major Crop in Cochise County, Arizona, 1992-1995, in
Pounds of Active Ingredient 20
3-10 Pesticide Usage by Major Crop in Pima County, Arizona, 1992-1995, in
Pounds of Active Ingredient 21
3-11 Pesticide Usage by Major Crop in Yuma County, Arizona, 1992-1995, in
Pounds of Active Ingredient 22
3-12 Cochise County: Pounds of Active Ingredient by Major Farm Commodity 23
3-13 Pima County: Pounds of Active Ingredient by Major Farm Commodity 23
3-14 Yuma County: Pounds of Active Ingredient by Major Farm Commodity 23
3-15 Acres of Cropland in New Mexico by County 24
3-16 Dona Ana County: The Most Used Pesticides Based on 1996 Sales Data 26
3-17 Luna County: The Most Heavily-Used Pesticides Based on 1996 Sales Data 27
3-18 Estimate of Pesticide Usage for Dona Ana and Luna Counties (# A.I.) 27
3-19 Acres of Cropland in Texas by County 29
3 -20 Estimated Acres and Pesticide Usage by Major Crop Category for El Paso
County, Texas, 1992-1996 30
3-21 Estimated Acres and Pesticide Usage by Major Crop Category for Webb
County, Texas, 1992-1995 30
3-22 Estimated Acres and Pesticide Usage by Major Crop Category for Cameron
County, Texas, 1992-1995 31
3-23 Estimated Acres and Pesticide Usage by Major Crop Category for Hidalgo
County, Texas, 1992-1995 31
3-24 Major Pesticides Used on Crops in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties 32
3-25 Pesticide Sales Data (1992) Showing 20 Most Sold Pesticide Products from
Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy Counties, Texas 34
vii
-------
UllH '
A:
Tables (cont.)
' " > ";?i'iJ1;i y '
4-1 Summary Table of Acres and Estimated Total Pesticide Usage for Selected
4-2 Primary Pesticides Used along the US./Mexico Border .....".'"......" 38
4-3 Pounds of AJL per Acre by County and Year '. 40
4-4 Population Statistics for the Study Area Counties 43
4-5 Comparison of Estimates of Total Pesticides Applied in Border Counties
*': j:''^^.'0J'QMf6pcaIS'urvey'Estimates ".'. '. . .7.. .'.'."". .".'.'. ". ".".'.*:'.'. .' ". ... 44
viii
-------
Acknowledgments
Numerous dedicated public servants and researchers located within each of the states and
within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have provided invaluable guidance,
advice, and data that led to the accumulation of the following pesticide data. We especially wish
to thank Terry Lockamy at the Agricultural Extension Office in San Benito, Texas, for his caring
advice; Doug Henson and Chris Mertz of the New Mexico Department of Agriculture for their
assistance in locating sales data and agricultural statistics specific to New Mexico; Ambrose
Charles and Jeannette O'Hare of the Texas Department of Agriculture for their effort to complete
the 1992 Cameron and Hidalgo Pesticide Sales Survey; Dr. Larry Brown of the El Paso Extension
Office for his El Paso County data; Dr. Don Smith for his advice about pesticide usage on cotton;
Jay Johnson for information about growing vegetables commercially hi Texas; RoseMary Blanco
for providing and assisting us with the Arizona Pesticide data; Dr. Paul English for providing
California summary data; and Javier Balli of the U.S. EPA Region 6 for his thoughtful comments
and suggestions.
3.X
-------
fl,
i i'
If
(iai Ifi
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
The passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the
accompanying environmental side agreements commit the U.S. government and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to insure a safe environment as industrialization, trade,
and population growth occur along the U.S./Mexico border. Even before the passage of NAFTA,
many communities along the border were beset by infrastructure deficiencies, e.g., lack of public
drinking water, sewage system, and garbage disposal. These infrastructure deficiencies are a
direct result of the rapid growth along the border, especially over the past 15 years. During this
period, the population of the border region has doubled to more than six million people [1].
Economic growth has been accompanied by increased potential for water and air quality
degradation. Residents of these communities have strong concerns about their possible exposures
to environmental contaminants, including those which may be coming from across the border
(transboundary pollution), or from local sources, including traffic, refuse burning, and extensive
pesticide use throughout the agricultural areas.
There have been periodic reports of adverse health effects which reinforce the concerns of
the community. For example, in April 1991, there was a report of three anencephalic deliveries in
one Brownsville, Texas hospital during a 36-hour period. At this same hospital, six anencephalic
deliveries occurred between March 27 and May 7, 1991. Because of this unusual cluster, the
Texas Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'
collaborated in a comprehensive case-control study to define potential risk factors. Results of this
study were released in mid-summer 1992 [2]. However, the investigators were unable to
associate the higher number of neural tube defects with any environmental factors, although they
were careful to report that, in general, environmental data did not exist from which such
associations might be inferred. They encouraged increased environmental and health data
gathering along the border. In addition, they began an intervention/prevention effort based upon
folic acid supplements for women in the community of child bearing age.
In response to the need for data about actual human exposure to environmental
contaminants in the Valley, the U.S. EPA began an environmental monitoring program in
Cameron and Hidalgo Counties, Texas, in 1993 to investigate the potential for human contact
with environmental pollutants. Results of this scoping study are documented in the community
report [3] and in the scientific literature [4-9]. Even though the monitoring only covered a limited
portion of the year, at several locations in a predominantly agricultural area along the
U.S./Mexico border, detectable levels of pesticides were found in all media sampled (except
public drinking water) and in the biological samples collected from the adults participating in the
study. These results elevated the issues as to the extent to which exposures to pesticides, even at
very low levels, might be contributing to the potential health risks of the residents living along the
U.S./Mexico border. Of special concern are developing children whose behaviors and
developmental vulnerability may substantially increase the health risks from pesticide exposure. It
should be noted that pesticides are widely used to control the growth and spread of undesirable
-------
ill
insects, weeds, or biological organisms which could cause damage to crops, buildings, and/or
humans. Some pesticides are relatively non-toxic, including sulfur which is used as a fungicide on
many different crops. Others are more toxic arid some are long-lived, once applied to the
environment, such as DDT. Although approximately 85% of pesticide usage is for agricultural
puff bses [10], many pesticides are used in homes and for non-agricultural purposes.
Unfortunately, there are health effects which may be associated with exposures to pesticides, and
a re^en^ ]Nat jonai Academy of Sciences (MAS) report entitled Pesticides in the Diets of Infants
and Children emphasizes the need for further examination of possible associations between
pesticide exposures incurred by young children and adverse health effects [11].
' ' ' " '
»j& , i
M ;
.; : , . , k » , : ,.: , i,., > . ..... .. ., ,., ! , :F > ; <^; ...... , <', .A.-v ..... -'>\ > .
Understanding and evaluating the nature of pesticide exposure to the pediatric population
(i.e., multiple pathway/multiple pesticide exposure) and potential health implications are of
national interest and certainly relevant to border residents. As a result of discussions with the
state agencies and border communities, this project was identified as one of the priority areas for
the Environmental Health '"Workgroup of the Border XXI program. In a general way, the project
is a first step of a multi-phase program to assess the effects (if any) of multiple pathway, multiple
pesticide exposures on children's health. It is anticipated that the data will be useful to state
agencies to examine the estimated pesticide use data for the counties along the border with that
used in neighboring states.
3
The goal of this first phase of the program is to inventory and gather the data available in
each of the four border states, namely, Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. Data will be
obtained related to existing agricultural and pesticide usage practices in counties within 100
lafpmetersi:of |fie'"^S.Mexico "border figure' 1-1). 'These 'data will be summarized and examined
to ^rovide^d'etcnp^ive anaiyses of simple comparisons (e.g~* counties "of highest pesticide usage,
pesticides used most heavily in these counties, and major pesticide usage by crop) among counties
within each state. Additionally, pediatric health data (i.e., a very broad grouping of symptoms and
illnesses), for children 1 1 years old and younger, will be gathered from several health clinics and
hospitals within Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas counties within 100 kilometers of the
U«S./Mexico border. Both pesticide and health data will be shared with each state for use in
developing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps for graphical presentation of the results.
"If ,|, i;.,; jr.,
!,, til,, jiiiiiiisJ'i :,;'<',;'
';; tit;;; K i;!,j«" ' 41'" ,,; ;. ; .'"s iiX,;:'! ii f , .;Jjl .iijliiiiiii':,, .iLijiiliiiiiii ;,j ;«((;.' iii'I;ijilii';:,. ,". i
-------
Q.
CO
G)
CD
cn
CD
g
o
m
o
o
"x
CD
tt Q J 2 3 Q N
1
£ 2? m
03 c8 >. i-
o -o « m
§
«
o ^
0>
a
' ' r- i^
ttScS IS
o
CO
CO
O >, c
fc c .2 u, -
« 8 S5 S §
CO O OC CO "
I
o
'5p
o
PQ
o
CO
2
s
-------
Chapter!
Pesticide Data Collection
,|i !|.A , i. !>i,
M." *[: ,i"l-
Ill: i
Implementation of the project began with a meeting with officials in the State Health
Department, State 'Department of Agriculture, and other interested parties in each of the four
states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. During the meetings, the project was
introduced and the need for pesticide and health information was discussed together with
identifying the appropriate state and local contacts who could provide the local, county and state
data. These meetings served to make the state officials aware of the study and obtain their
approval and involvement in the study. Contact lists were developed to help expedite the field
logistics of data collection. The type of pesticide information of interest was discussed, including
the common names and chemical formulae of pesticides, when and where they were typically
applied, and the frequency and typical rates of application.
,/ r,'11, Ant1 "'.'lull:': '' ,: i:ii i 'i* ' 'ii111,: ' i * iir1 f ,t i ' ''Iw',' *: . I ' n1 : »"' 'n
Since this phase was designed to cast a broad net, information was sought in whatever
form and format available, depending on the capabilities of each state or data collection agency
(either at the state or federal level). In both New Mexico and Texas, actual pesticide usage or
complete sales data for all major agricultural counties were unavailable and, as a result, estimates
"wire derived from crop and acreage information and application rates available from California
and Arizona. [Note: The methodology for estimation of pesticide usage will be discussed in a
later section.]
As a result of the state contact meetings, the area for data collection was clearly defined in
each state. Based on discussions with the state officials in California and Arizona, each of the
border counties was to be included in the study area. Only two counties in New Mexico and four
counties in Texas were to be included in this phase of the project because the state officials felt
that they would adequately represent both the major agricultural areas within the state and the
Wfajority (-90%) of the population living along the border (Table 2-1).
2.1 Preliminary Assessment of Pesticide Usage along the Border
The existence and availability of the pesticide data were determined to be dependent on
the state specific regulations which permitted collection of the information either from sales or
actual usage reports submitted by the licensed distributor or pesticide applicator. For example,
Texas and New Mexico do not have state regulations which would require pesticide data
submission to the state authorities, so pesticide usage data are not available (fable 2-2).
Furthermore, each state (with the exception of California) indicated that records of non-
agricultural use of pesticides are non-existent. For the purposes of this project, it may be
: s«ffiqient|p assume that the estimate of non-agricultural pesticide use is approximately 15% of
the agricultural use, in units of pounds of active ingredient applied [ 12]. About 90% of all U. S.
households use pesticides with insecticides being 12 of the 14 most commonly used [13].
-------
Table 2-1. States and Counties Identified as the Study Area.
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
Cameron (580)*
Hidalgo (1,004)
Webb (2,148)
El Paso (648)
Dona Ana (2,436)
Luna (1,898)
Cochise (3,949)
Santa Cruz (792)*
Pima (5,880)
Yuma (3,529)
Imperial (2,672)
San Diego (2,691)
* numbers in brackets are approximate acres per county x 1000.
** No pesticide usage data were provided by Arizona for this county.
Table 2-2. Availability of Pesticide Information Data by State.
State
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA NEW MEXICO
TEXAS
Type of
data
years
applicator reports applicator reports sales data
1992-1995
format
units
computerized
Ibs/gal used
1991-1994
(1995 state-wide
data available in
hard copy)
computerized
active ingredient
in pounds
1996
sales data*
1992
hard copy
Ibs/gals sold
hard copy
Ibs/gals sold
* - sales data presented only as combined sales data for Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties.
The 1992 sales data was obtained from a survey of approximately 130 licensed pesticide
dealers identified as having potential sales within the three counties. According to Texas
Department of Agriculture (TDA) officials, the data collected appears to represent most of the
pesticide sales in the three counties.
Pesticide data assessment is complicated by how the data are reported. "Pounds of active
ingredient" is the metric for analysis. However, pesticide records, in the form of applicator
reports* are often only available for the amount of pesticide applied in pounds or gallons of
material which contains other ingredients than the pesticide, such as inert materials. Furthermore,
each pesticide manufacturer has its own EPA number for the pesticide, so there may be many
numbers for a specific pesticide. The Internet provides a link to a California EPA database which
-------
',( (,
;; R
. f i, 11
can, be searched^byEPA pesticide number to obtain the corresppnding pesticide label with pounds
ofiactive ingredient (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/epanum.htm). For example, Arizona
records indicate thatjn 1993? 3235 pounds of chemical number 10163-130 were applied in the
:: border TOimtiesl' By entering the EPA pesticide number 10163-130 'into the California'database, it
call He seen that the chemical nameis fhiodan (endosulfan) and the amount of active
ingredients is 50%. In this example, 1617.5 pounds of endosulfan were applied in 1993.
Actually, there were more pounds of endosulfan applied in 1993, since there are 5 EPA numbers
., listed, for endpsuifan (see Appendix) and our example only accounts for one of the five listings.
Where actual pesticide usage/application data were unavailable, state sales data were
cb'Bverted into amount of active ingredients for comparison. This "conversion" process was
performed to obtain pesticide usage estimates for the states of New Mexico and Texas.
I
nil i, , jrs,, ikioi ' , , in "ri1, / Mii. " , , ':'-' ./ , * >, ,'s \ r: -»
2.2 General Discussion of Pesticide Data
California has an extensive, computerized database starting in 1991 and continuing
through 1994. (Note: The electronic copy of validated 1995 county data should be available by
January 1998. Hard cppy reports are available [14,15]) The data are reported by tjfie pesticide
applicators to the State o£ £^jforn|a Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), the
infgnnatipn al|sw| pesticide usage to be tracked specifically by pesticide, by crop, and by year,
ancf the data are available in pounds of active ingredient (# A.I.). This information is made
available in reports provided by Cal EPA, such as the 1995 Pesticide Use Report by commodity
[14] and by chemical [15]. The tables and information present in this project report have been
compiled from the raw data by Impact Assessment Inc., a subcontractor to RTI. This
subcontractor Js familiar with the,. California Pesticide Database and has direct access to employees
of |he California Department of Health Services to address questions and resolve issues which
might arise.
Arizona also has a relatively complete, electronic information base for pesticide data with
a (|ata record fir l§92. thrppgh 1995. The pesticide data are reported by commercial applicators
to thet Arizona Department of Agriculture in pounds or gallons of pesticide used by crop, acres,
field location, date of application, pesticide used (EPA number), and amounts applied. To be
comparable for analysis, the available data must be converted to pounds of active ingredient, the
standard pesticide reporting unit.
New Mexico does not have nor maintain pesticide usage records. This is largely because
Nejy Mexico dges npt; have a sjafe. requirement for pesticide applicators to report usage.
However, pesticide sales information is reported to the New Mexico Department of Agriculture
(NMD A) annually by county (and by registered applicators identification number) for verification
of compliance with the federal requirement that restricted use chemicals can only be purchased by
licensed[applicators. These data are not stored, however, a copy of the most recent sales data
(1996) was obtained from the NMDA Bureau of Pesticide Management. As was the case with
the Arizona data, the New Mexico sales data are recorded by EPA number, product name, and
-------
quantity sold (in pounds or gallons). A conversion process as described above was followed to
convert the pounds or gallons of the product to pounds of active ingredient.
Texas, like New Mexico, does not have a legal requirement for the pesticide sales and
usage information to be maintained at the state level, nor has there been any systematic effort to
collect pesticide usage data. Pesticide usage data for Texas, as reported by federal agencies (such
as the U.S. Geological Survey), are the result of estimation procedures based on usage patterns in
neighboring states. However, one small project that collected pesticide sales data was undertaken
by the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) as part of the effort to understand the unusual
number of reported cases of neural tube defects occurring along the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
For this project, the TDA collected pesticide sales data for Cameron, Hidalgo and Willacy
counties hi 1992 through a survey of approximately 130 licensed pesticide dealers identified as
having potential sales within the three counties. (Note: TDA stated that the data collected
appears to represent most of the pesticide sales in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties.)
These sales data were reported by product name and total number or gallons of product sold.
TDA has made the total sales of the 20 most frequently sold pesticide products for the three
counties in 1992 available for inclusion in this report.
2.3 Methodology for Estimating Pesticide Usage
For California and Arizona, pesticide usage and crop acreage by county are available from
state computerized systems. The pesticide usage estimates for New Mexico and Texas are
estimated using pesticide usage information by crop (# AJ./acre) obtained from the Arizona data
and actual crop acreage grown within New Mexico and Texas. California usage patterns were
not used to estimate pesticide usage in New Mexico and Texas because California pesticide usage
patterns are higher than for the rest of the nation [16].
The process for estimating pesticide usage in New Mexico and Texas was done as follows.
First, the average usage rates of active ingredient per acre by crop categorycotton, vegetables,
orchard and other, where other is defined as everything but cotton, vegetables, or orchardwas
determined for Cochise, Puna, and Yuma counties in Arizona (Tables 3-12, 3-13, and 3-14).
Second, the number of acres by crop category in each border county for the study area in New
Mexico and Texas were obtained by year from 1992-1995, where available (Tables 3-15, 3-20,
and 3-21). Third, county agricultural extension agents in New Mexico and Texas were asked for
then- opinions as to how crops, farming practices, and other factors might be similar to like factors
in the three Arizona counties to be used for the pesticide usage estimations. Based on these
discussions, the usage rates for the Dofia Ana and Luna counties in New Mexico and for El Paso
and Webb counties in Texas were derived from the average rates of use shown for Cochise and
Pima counties (Tables 3-12 and 3-13). Yuma county rates (Table 3-14) were used to characterize
pesticide usage for Hidalgo and Cameron counties in Texas. Finally, the appropriate county's
average usage rate of active ingredients per acre by crop categories was multiplied by the number
of acres in that county to obtain the final estimated pesticide usage figures (Tables 3-18, 3-20, 3-
21, 3-23 and 3-24).
-------
liii
I
2.4 Limitations
i '< "i j i null i i i i . j . . . , i , 11 i . - 1-11
Any attempt to summarize and compare the pesticide use data across states inherently will
reflect the UmifatiQii.of what data may be available, the quality of the available data, and the extent
to which comparable methodologies exist for each state. The first issue of data availability
pertains only to California and Arizona (as discussed above). For the purposes of this report, it is
assumed that the quality of the data is sufficient for the project objectives. However, it is possible
to nble several apparent discrepancies, or errors, hi the raw data reported for Arizona, but the
consequences df the error are probably not significant. (Note: The data from California were
already pfe-prbcessed, so judgments about data quality are not possible.) For example, several
EPA numbers for pesticides reportedly used in Arizona on a specific crop for a specific year, did
n<|| s|pw enough digits to allow proper identification of the pesticide used, such as, 275-0,
instead of something like, 2-75.2659. in other cases, the label identification for the EPA number
indicated that the pesticide was a solid granular formulation but the reporting units were in
gallons. To the extent possible, formulations according to the registration label were followed, so
that if the label stated thatif wasi ina solid form, then pounds were the reported unit. Otherwise,
it was assumed that a liquid formulation was acceptable and the reporting unit was gallons.
To judge the issue of data comparability across states is difficult since the reporting
requirements differ for each state. For California, beginning in 1970, anyone who used restricted
use pesticides (RUPs) was required to file a pesticide use report with the county agricultural
cOfiirassionef. In addition, commercial pest control operators were required to report all
pesticides used, whether restricted or nonrestricted (Note: the criteria established by U.S. EPA
to designate a 'pesticide as a restricted material include: hazard to public health, farm workers,
domestic animals, Ebneybees, the environment, wildlife, or other crops.) In Arizona, commercial
pesticide applicators are required to submit pesticide usage reports. (Note: Arizona state officials
estimate that approximately 85% of the RUPs are applied by commercial applicators.) Data
comparability is further confounded due to differences among states in which chemicals should be
reported. For example, in California, data on spray adjuvants (including emulsifiers, wetting
agents, foam suppressarits, and other efficacy enhancers )"and petroleum products are included.
Examples of these types of chemicals include the "alkyls" and petroleum distillates. California
also includes in its database, items such as soap, fertilizers, disinfectants, etc., which are not
included in the Arizona data reports.
Other limitations and caveats include issues related to how chemicals are commonly
reported; i.e., by the chemical or trade name. For example, most farmers might report using
Lorsban orDursban, but the chemical name is chlorpyrifos. To summarize the total amount
of chlorpyrifos used in a given county, one must first know all the trade names (or corresponding
E?A numb'ers) ^'^t'tnetotaT rejects the" total "usage of tne'cltremicaf. Secondly, sales data (the'
comparison data used for New Mexico and Texas) are limited as accurate indicators of pesticide
usage because even though they may be purchased in one county, they could be used in another
county or several counties, depending on the location of the farms. In addition, even though the
pesticides may have been purchased in one year, they may actually be used in subsequent years. A
-------
third limitation relates to the possibility of chemicals being purchased in Mexico and used on
farms in the study area. No records of pesticide usage will thus exist when this situation occurs.
Other limiting factors associated with the data involve the difficulties related to use of an
EPA pesticide registration number for identifying the pesticide and amount of active ingredient.
A unique coding method for the pesticide, possibly the CAS number, would help identify each
compound. The actual amount of active ingredient of the applied or sold product would also help
control this problem. Coding problems were observed in the Arizona pesticide data, for example,
which might suggest that all databases with pesticide data are extremely difficult to manage and
analyze.
The large number of pesticides and formulations being used throughout the border region
(over 400 pesticides were used in 1995 in the Arizona counties, and over 800 in California) meant
that a paper saving criterion be used to summarize the most meaningful information and not get
overwhelmed by the magnitude of number of pesticides involved. This criterion was applied when
summarizing the most heavily used pesticides (see for example, Tables 3-6, 3-7, and 3-8.) In
these examples, an arbitrary number of 500 pounds of active ingredient was chosen as the minimal
tabled value. However, the totals shown in the tables included all identified pesticide values.
These limitations and caveats reveal the complexity and difficulty in accurately
determining the pesticide usage in each county within each state. However, despite these
limitations, the listing of pesticide use information (actual use or by estimation) can provide a
rough estimate of pesticide use over a large area, provide some rough comparison data by county,
and provide a measure of potential exposure for estimating potential human health and
environmental risks.
-------
?*,.
il"
I1"'"
ill1! { i
*r-a
I11*1 r i Pit i"
I' ,;;l,"
'.V^1'Chapter 3
Results by State
3.1 California
Crop data presented for Imperial and San Diego counties are based on the 1992 United
States I5e|)'artmfint of ^^^ultare (Usp^'si^ey of crop acreage [17]. Harvested crop lands in
j^^lgj 'cJo'u^ty'^^e'app'rojahiately four times greater than in Sari Diego county (Table 3-1).
The dominant crops raised in both counties included: hay, small grains, vegetables, and orchard
cropi (including nuts, citrus, and non-citrus fruits). Additionally, 6619 acres of cotton were
^t^^''iin^pJena]['lcburity. More acres were devoted to raising vegetables, hay, small grains, and
other field crops mlmpOTaTcounty wfifie 85% of the harvested cropland in San Diego county was
in orchards, especially citrus.
Along with the increased number of acres of crop land in Imperial county came the
mcreased use m irrigation, fertilization, arid pesticides (Table 3-1). A majority of the pesticides
used in Imperial cbunty~werie insecticides and herbicides with a proportionally smaller use of
fungicides. Similarly, in San Diego county, insecticides and herbicides were the most often used
pesticides but a much larger proportion (based on acres farmed) of fungicides were used, possibly
reflecting the increased use of fungicides on fresh and citrus fruits.
In San Diego county, the most heavily used pesticides were the fumigants - methyl
bromide and (^oroplcriii (Table 3,2). These fumigants are used extensively to control insects and
weeds prior to planting vegetable crops. Using the 1994 data as a reference point, pesticide use
oi|^vegetables consisted primarily of four compounds: methyl bromide (100%), metam sodium
(87.2%), chlorothalonil (100%), and chloropicrin (100%). In contrast, for fruit crops, the primary
pesticide usage consisted of applying sulfur (73.8%), Roundup (80%), and propargite (100%).
In Imperial county (Table 3-3), pesticide applications on cotton and fruit accounted for
less than 10 percent of the most heavily used pesticides. Vegetables, on the other hand,
accounted forover66% of the pesticide usage of metam sodium (98.9%), methyl bromide
(100%), methomyl (67%), and Dacthal (100%). The other major crops (i.e., hay and small
grains) accounted for over 60% usage of sulfur (66%), Trifluralin (93%), Malathion (88%),
EpTC (97%), chlorpyrifos (86%) and Dimethoate (80%).
The total pesticide usage for the harvested acres can be divided into three major
, categories: field crops, fruits and nuts, and vegetables and melons [16]. In California, the
in|ensity of pesticide use varies> from about 8 to 60 pounds of active ingredient per acre, a factor
increase of about 775 (Table 3^4). The most Intensive use of pesticides was found for fruit and
nut crops followed by vegetables and melons, with the least intensive pesticide usage occurring
where field crops were grown. It should be noted that included in these statewide total pounds of
pesticide used are pounds of chemicals not normally thought of as pesticides, such as the inert
materials added to the pesticide formulation, fertilizers, and disinfectants.
10
-------
Table 3-1. Acres of Cropland in California by County.
Imperial (1992)
San Diego (1992)
Harvested
Irrigated
Fertilized
Insecticides
Fungicides
Herbicides
405699
402395
395598
322478
24546
212286
71276
63915
56584
38052
11949
25842
Cotton
Hay
Grain
Vegetables
Orchards
(Citrus)
6619
244651
105152
76320
2969
1848
0
5480
349
4242
54025
18275
11
-------
.' : : 't II.';.;
!!!(',: : ' '&*''.$ ' .:,* "i" -t!-) I''!,'! ''....:;< : ,' :>*:. . > :' K' ' ' ''(>.. "' :>;,',, <
Table 3-2. Most Heavily-Used Pesticides in San Diego County, California: Pounds of
Active Ingredient Applied by Year.
1 ll III
Pesticide
Jvfetam Sodium
Sulfur
Chloropicrin
Chlorothalpnil
Methyl Bromide
Roundup
Propargite
%anpn ., , ,
Simazine
Acephate
TOTAL
.;.., ;",;, « ;. .n,;,,,
... . i
Pounds of A.I. Applied by year
Primary Use
Fungicide
Fungicide
Fumigant
Fungicide
Fumigant
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
', ' , ,;,; "
1991
' x* ' '.""
24676
135074
27188
505803
31883
X
11834
10676
X
747134
(69.8)**
1992
10408
75808
132004
26916
499750
32210
X
.x
8826
9967
795889
(37:3)
1993
50111
il
81394
100467
29751
1 :' "
475789
.;' -' 1'.. ', i. ..
30856
i! .
27246
]! , ,
X
X
795614
(38.1)
1994
43813
77727
99828
51554
i. , ,, ,:, ,i Ji.ii, |;r : , ., ; '
434214
28253
25563
X
X
X
760952
(54.3)
* X = less than lowest number shown in column.
**() = % of the sum of tabled entries in column to overall total pesticides used that given
year [14].
12
-------
Table 3-3. Most Heavily-Used Pesticides in Imperial County, California: Founds of Active
Ingredient Applied by Year.
Pounds of A.I.
Pesticide
Metam Sodium
Sulfur
Trifluralin
Malathion
EPIC
Methomyl
Dacthal
Chlorpyrifos
Dimethoate
Endosulfan
Linuron
Maneb
Methyl Bromide
TOTAL
Primary Use
Fungicide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Fumigant
1991
983422
2489597
303811
257352
259598
138544
220471
141170
144548
143117
X
X
X
5081630
(77.7)**
1992
1755879
3520508
132552
182039
186045
76394
340050
97062
X*
X
78985
X
137626
6507140
(85.7)
Applied by year
1993
1115498
2121163
149661
169643
143652
100638
157516
94151
X
X
159428
X
X
4211350
(68.2)
1994
1906805
1724271
217380
214289
157259
135844
129842
107145
79083
X
X
473622
199586
5345126
(81.3 est.)
* X = less than lowest number shown in column.
** ( ) = % of the sum of tabled entries in column to overall total pesticides used [14].
13
-------
'ii i ii , ,,'isni"!
Table 3-4. Pesticide Use on Major Crops in California (1993).'
Crop
, , .,.,.:. ,,11.,.,,: ,.,, ,,,,'. ;.,:,, ,;,,,,,. [Intensity of
Harvested Pesticide Use Pesticide Use
Acreage (Total Founds) (#A.I/acre)
Field Crops
": '. ' IP *." . i.i.1- j .' , ,
Fruits & Nuts
Vegetables & Melons
4182800
1995200
1005700
32230242
,» ' »' ' , , !! " ; '" ' ' "1" ,,." i " '
118617779
27175195
'"' 7/70
59.45
'' 27.02
* talcen fqm [16], pp. 18-19.
34, ,, , Arizona ,.(| , _ ^ ^ , '_ | , , ^ , ^ , .....^ ; , _ .... ,( ^ . _ .. , , ,
Crop data presented for the four counties in Arizona along the U.S./Mexico border are
based on the 1,992 ,"US-DA survey of crop acreage [17]. Only 1202 acres of cropland were
haofested in Santa Cruz county and these acres were mostly associated with growing hay. Due to
the lack of anypesticide data from Santa Cruz county and the small acreage devoted to
agriculture, no discussion of pesticide usage in this county will be presented.
Yuma county has the greatest total acres devoted to agriculture, more than double the
acreage of the other three counties combined (Table 3-5). To further demonstrate this size
difference in agricultural land use, in Yuma county, more acres are devoted solely to raising
vegetable crops than are harvested for all commodities in Cochise and Pima counties. Vegetable
crops accounted for about 14%, 2%, and 36% of the harvested acres in Cochise, Pima, and Yuma
counties, respectively. Cotton was the primary commodity grown in Pima county (61% of the
harvested acres) with cotton accounting for 23% and 14% of the harvested crops in Cochise and
Yuma counties, respectively. Hay was the dominant crop harvested (25% of the total) in Cochise
county. Orchard crops accounted of approximately 16%, 22%, and 14% of the harvested acres in
Cochise, Pima, and Yuma counties, respectively.
Similar to agricultural pesticide usage in California, the majority of the pesticides used in
the three Arizona counties were insecticides and herbicides with proportionally smaller uses of
fungicides. Interestingly, in contrast to California, no fumigants were used at rates greater than
500 pounds of active ingredient (#A.I.) in Arizona.
Along with the increased number of acres of crop land in Yuma county, there is an
increased use of pounds of active ingredient of pesticides, with Yuma county applying about 37
and 13 times as much #A.I. of pesticides as Cochise and Pima counties, respectively, averaged
over the years I09'2-1005I The insecticides - Lannate, Lorsban, Thiodan, Dimethoate, Malathion,
Orthene and the herbicide - Prometryn, are used commonly throughout all three counties (Tables
1 'I!1'!"' '"I'
, ill'i'!,' :!li .
14
-------
Table 3-5. Acres of Cropland in Arizona by County.
Arizona
Harvested
Irrigated
Fertilized
Insecticides
Fungicides
Herbicides
Cotton
Hay
Grain
Vegetables
Orchards
Cochise
1992
42546
42215
30251
14003
6655
21023
9678
10484
9144
5969
6943
Pima
1992
24861
24851
22589
20992
56
15412
15160
1137
2579
534
5441 (est)
Santa Cruz
1992
1202
1201
501
1126
0
735
0
985
0
25
233
Yuma
1992
188887
188198
NA*
153558
24723
106383
27210
45999
51011
68963
26206
* NA = not available.
15
-------
a '
iii'i
; , "in ui
i i i
i i
Table 3-6. Cochise County: Most Heavily-Used Pesticides by
Ingredient.
n i i i in in
i i i
Pesticide
Lannate
Lorsban
Dithane
^ Thiodan
Dimethpate
Pennethrins
Cppper Hydroxide
Sulfur
Butylate
Malathion
Carbofuran
Orthene
thimet ' ' " "" "
DiSyston
Atrazine
'Pi" 'n ' ,i , ; 1 T , ''111 -I1
Prpmetryn
EPTC
h TOTALS,,, '.1 '." \ "
Max (8) pesticides
Insecticides
, ' ,,,,'c i niii11 , N nil
Herbicides
Fungicides
, i
I i
Year in Pounds of Active
Year ' '
Primary Use
Insecticide
1
Insecticide
Fungicide
Insectic|de
Insecticide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
, I1! ' i,
Herbicide
Herbicide
;; ' ,;
1992
3153.6
2284.0
2029.6
1875,0
1864.0
1206.9
1168.5
702.0
< '
<
.<,. ,
<
<
<
, <
<
14283.6
14283.6
10383.5
(72.7%)**
0
(5%)
3900.1
(27.3%)
1993
2314.0
1943.0
1649.0
3201,0
1252.Q
1305.6
[ <;
2220.0
4080.3
2172.0
1352.5
1659.9
585.0
640.0
<
900.0
745.0
26019.3
19239,2
11289.9
(58.7%)
4080.3
(21.2%)
3869.0
(20.1%)
* < = less than 500 pounds active ingredient.
**() = % of total used within pesticide type, insecticide, herbicide,
: er ":
16
i" * * 'i ! ', " I11''1 "If1 '": I;:'- ''' ,"'!,'
1994
,,,... 885,6
38310
1725.0
, ,,,,,, ,, 963,0 ,
.of f . ',. ' .,,
<*
1507^0
] ;
-------
Table 3-7. Pima County: Most Heavily-Used Pesticides by Year in Pounds of Active
Ingredient.
Year
Pesticide
Orthene
Lannate
Lorsban
Dimethoate
Thiodan
Dithane
Diazinon
Prometryn
Diuron
Malathion
Cyanazine
Vydate
Surflan
Treflan
Parathion
TOTAL
Max (10)
pesticides
Primary use
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticides
Herbicides
Fungicides
1992
11077.0
7465.5
1793.0
1153.4
1544.0
2010.0
737.0
515.6
1412.0
1952.0
<
<
<
<
<
29659.5
29659.5
25721.9
(86.7%)**
1927.6
(6.5%)
2010
(6.8%)
1993
10800.0
945.0
7704.0
30399.5
4959.0
769.5
<
7800.0
4043.6
5160.0
1324.0
<
<
775.0
<
74679.6
73904.6
59967.5
(81.1%)
13942.6
(18.9%)
0
1994
10872.0
1700.1
13616.0
3497.0
<*
<
<
2976.0
1656.0
7456.0
<
1232.0
3840
<
770.0
47615.1
47615.1
39143.1
(82.2%)
8472.0
(17.8%)
0
1995
10687.5
2900.7
10784.0
2532.0
2724.0
<
<
5744.0
1400.0
3800.0
<
2868.0
<
1930.0
5568.5
50938.7
49538.7
41864.7
(84.5%)
7674.0
(15.5%)
0
* < = less than 500 pounds active ingredient applied.
** ( ) = percent of total used within pesticide type.
17
-------
Table 3-8. Yuma County: Most Heavily-Used Pesticides by Year in Pounds of Active
' .jiiiia "'.."' ' " -" - " »
Year |
;, : ',;:; , :,: Pesticide
- : - ::":=" " Guthion,
Lolrsban
1,!! II1 1 Orthene
Sulfur
Diazinon
H li/vi1;, '.IDimethoate
! ' , 1 ". .Ililfl 'i . i
; : Lannate
, 1 if i nl1 |..'i, '. , i Ul.1 i.
Kerb
Phosdrin
Thiodan
Balan
Dacthal
Permethrin
Malajhipn
Trefian
Carzol
Diurpn
DiSyston
Ridomil
Maneb
Prowl
Prometryn
Prefar
EPTC
;-.:--; '. Wm,
, , , ; i
Primary Use
i '""^gp^pjjlg
Insecticide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
1 "I" :!," if '!' "it ,:,,,'
Insecticide
! i'T'i'i"1 OS! "ii'i i; ' I.
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
1992
ifii^o""
43808.2
23493.8
142158.4
10864
1085591
20990.5
27196.0
29215.0
19494.6
24120.8
14649.2
10341.6
25775.7
, < ,
<
12442.8
<
<
<
<
<
<
542,948
310408
(57.2%)**
90381.6
(16.6%)
142158.4
(26.2%)
1993
" ' <* "
49228.5
23447.1
""! , , , IP , 1 '",ll '"I" ft t ':: "
60029
12375
34891.1
110768.1
33200.0
59220.0
24010.8
29779.5
16171.9
32029.0
15585.6
64264.0
16663.5
27856.5
<
20721.7
76382.6
<
<
<
<
706624
387954
(54.9%)
97232.4
(13.8%)
221397°3
(31.3%)
1994
-------
The Arizona pesticide usage data were collected by pesticide application to a specific crop
and are presented by the type of pesticide (insecticide, herbicide, and fungicide), the major crop
grown (cotton, vegetables, other), and the four years (1992-1995) for which data were obtainable
(Tables 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11). In Arizona, a majority of the insecticides were applied to vegetables
in Cochise and Yuma counties while in Pima county, cotton received the greatest application of
insecticides. Herbicide and fungicide usage was more variable (i.e., crop dependant) with
herbicides generally being applied to cotton and "other crops" while the fungicides were routinely
applied to all crop types.
The types of crops grown, climate, pests, and growing season all combine to influence the
amount of pesticides used. For example, Cochise county with an overall average pesticide usage
of 0.37 pounds/acre (Table 3-12) has about one third the pesticide loading of Pima county (Table
3-13) with an overall average of 1.19 pounds/acre, and one tenth the pesticide loading of Yuma
county (Table 3-14) with an overall average of 3.33 pounds/acre. In all three counties, the
average amount of pesticides applied per acre was least for crops in the "other" category (e.g.,
hay, grain, etc.) with intermediate amounts of pesticides being applied to cotton and the maximum
pesticide usage occurring on vegetable crops. In areas where a substantial number of acres are
devoted to fruit crops (especially citrus), the pesticide loading is noticeably higher than for
vegetable crops.
It should be noted that the last column in Tables 3-12, 3-13, and 3-14 were used to derive
the estimation of pesticide usage figures for counties in New Mexico and Texas (see section 2.3).
3.3 New Mexico
Crop data presented for Dona Ana and Luna counties are based on the 1992 USDA
survey of crop acreage [17]. Additionally, the New Mexico Agricultural Statistics Service also
maintained historic records of acreage by crop for the years 1992 through 1995 [18-23]. These
data are important in the estimation process for pesticide usage in New Mexico. For example,
acres devoted to cotton in Dona Ana county were declining during the period of 1992 to 1995,
which could indicate, in the absence of other information such as weather or other pest-related
factors, that pesticide usage declined over the same period. In contrast, acres of cotton in Luna
county increased over the same time period, while acres of vegetables decreased. From this
information and pesticide application rates typical for the same crops in Arizona, it appears that
pesticide use has declined in Luna county in relationship to the decline in vegetable acres.
Overall, Dona Ana county had about three times more acres of harvested cropland than
Luna county (Table 3-15). Orchard crops, vegetables, and hay were the major crops grown in
Dona Ana county with lesser quantities of cotton (with markedly declining acreages) and small
grains also being grown. In contrast, vegetables were the dominant crop in Luna county.
Noticeably fewer acres were devoted to cotton, hay, and small grains (approximately 3000 to
4000 acres) with orchard crops being grown on only 1160 acres.
19
-------
' j
,,
" (I
'"'!« ' V.-ll
"
Table 3-9. Pesticide Usage by Major Crop in Cochise County, Arizona, 1992-1995, in
Pounds of Active Ingredient.
|;|; ' '.;.' (Total)
Herbicides
Cotton
Vegetables
_ ,. , Other Crops
12214.0
' "ill ,! ;,'! mi', IIP" . ; I
(Total)
16359.3
2553.0
745.0
4740.3
8038.3""
9005.2
1056.0
735.0
4789.0
"6586.0
* < = less than 500i "pound's active ingredient used.
8891.0
1148.0
11480
MIT IK1''ii r"l I
Mi i:,'i' ..',«!
III 1 III 1 1 1 II 1 III 1 1 1 1 1
Insecticides
.::,: ": ".'; ~: ' ."Cotton
Vegetables
Other Crops
1992
<*
8710.0
3504.0
1993
3450.7
7568.6
5340.0
M » ":lZi : BSliiSiiiil1:1"!!!:! '', i Ji',::*!!",
1994
1 , ,
1848.6
7156.6
1995 '
2178.4
5011.1
1701.5
Fungicides
Cotton ^
Vegetables
Other Crops
; .&> ,, ;':,::>_ :l|,,(Total)
AU Pesticides/All Crops
Average all years
2029.6
1237.0
<
3266.6
15480.6
19294.12
l649.d
3022.4
1352.5
6023.9
30421.5
1725.0
<
<
1725.0
17310.2
811.2
2210.0
904.0
3925.2
139642
20
-------
Table 3-10. Pesticide Usage by Major Crop in Pima County Arizona, 1992-1995, in Pounds
of Active Ingredient.
Insecticides
Cotton
Vegetables
Other Crops
(Total)
Herbicides
Cotton
Vegetables
Other Crops
(Total)
Fungicides
Cotton
Vegetables
Other Crops
(Total)
All Pesticides/All Crops
Average all years
* < = less than 500 pounds
1992
22636.6
1133.3
1952.0
25712.9
515.6
<
1412.0
1927.6
2010.0
<
<
3266.6
29659.5
: 53843.85
active ingredient.
1993
51875.5
<*
8592.0
60467.5
15458.1
<
<
15458.1
769.5
<
<
769.5
83620.6
1994
30635.2
<
9748.0
40383.2
4632.0
<
3840.0
8472.0
<
<
960.0
960.0
49815.2
1995
38015.9
1390.2
3800.0
43206.1
9074.0
<
<
9074.0
<
<
<
<
52280.1
21
-------
I l,
i IKiiii , i'SH
Table 3-11. Pesticide Usage by Major Crop in Yuma County, Arizona, 1992-1995, in
Pounds of Active Ingredient.
1 ' Illlllllllk ni' i! ,i " .1 illrt '! Sill .i'i-.' . ,,' nil,-1 .. 1 !", '' "
Insecticides
' "" ; Cotton
'" ." '. Vegetables
. 'Si1!?!""" 'Orchard
""" .. ' Other "Crops
(Total)
i iiiiii'ii ; i,v j ', it .f ill ' "' 1
Herbicides
,:' Cotton
" :"":» Vegetables
Orchard
Other Crops
(Total)
Fungicides
Cotton
Vegetables
Orchard
, i I 11 ilf ii |l" in ' :: "" i, " 'ii,1 1
Other Crops
(Total)
All Pesticides/All Crops
, , i , '"
Average all years
1992
I,,-;. ... , i| .;,!,;,, .
60245.2
217159.4
49513:8
18944.4
345862.8
800?: 1
74833.9
1494:6
36604.3
120939.9
38808.4
18449.6
102371.0
" '2451.5
162080.5
628883.2
"Li «
711024.85
1993
« '"" "i f11'!!!!,1-1.!1 If ''
50559.8
256243:6
. ""635941,",
5^?'§ ..
420618.3
' . ' 'i i i i , i .".
11593.1
9586L5
5955:3
55238.5
168648.4
1163.0
163310.6
60952.0
3844.0
229269.6
81*8536.3
!",!', '
1
1994
i. iU'S i'l- . ',!,' 1 "i1
II
54936.7
|[ ,
102798.2
;;;,' 2368l,8;;
"'' ' '55'90i.0"": ''
237325.7
' .i f,1'.
, , ,, . .,, i
17036.0
32037.8
8342.1
i
43683.5
161099.4
!
<
20008.2
116459.2
Biil'l'li'i:, "J, " ,;'. i,1/, it , , ;,'"
2364.0
: jj
138831.4
477256.5^
, , ,.' > . I , ,
1995
i ;.,<-,"> ,
101526.4
261811.7
60296.3
6^69.1
496603.5
1 ' :;: , " '
19322.4
118104.3
4656.7
43519.3
i85662.7
<
138825.6
97507.3
6884.3
243217.2
919423.4
* < = less than 500 pounds active ingredient
illllllli'!' «. t . ;
-------
Table 3-12. Cochise County: Pounds of Active Ingredient by Major Farm Commodity.
Commodity
Cotton
Vegetables
Other
Overall:
Acres (1992)
9678
5969
26899
42546
Pounds
2029.6
9947
3504.0
15480.6
Pounds/Acre
0.21
1.67
0.13
0.37
Table 3-13. Pima County: Pounds of Active Ingredient by Major Farm Commodity.
Commodity
Acres
Pounds of A.I.
Pounds/Acre
Cotton
Vegetables
Other
15160
534
9167
25162.2
1133.3
3364
1.66
2.12
0.37
Overall:
24861
29659.5
1.19
Table 3-14. Yuma County: Pounds of Active Ingredient by Major Farm Commodity.
Commodity
Cotton
Vegetables
Orchard
Other
Overall:
Acres
27210
68963
26206
66508
188887
Pounds of A.I.
107060.7
310442.9
153379.4
58000.2
628883.2
Pounds/ Acre
3.93
4.50
5.85
0.87
3.33
23
-------
Table 3-15. Acres of Cropland in New Mexico by County.
New Mexico
Harvested
Irrigated
I i
Fertilized
Insecticides
Fungicides
Herbicides
ill l'l|
Dona Ana
Cotton
Hay
Grain
Vegetables
brcEards
Luna
Cotton
Hay
Grain
Vegetables
Orcnards
Dona Ana
1992
78282
76586
70597
, ' i,' <
-------
Similar to both California and Arizona, insecticides were used on the most acres, followed
closely by herbicide use. Fungicides, the least used pesticides in New Mexico, were used on only
about one third the number of acres as insecticides or herbicides.
New Mexico has a state regulation that requires that pesticide sales information be
reported annually to the New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMD A) to monitor compliance
with the federal requirement that restricted-use pesticides be sold only to licensed applicators.
These data are checked for compliance, but not routinely stored. The most recent pesticide sales
data for the year 1996 were provided by the NMDA for Dofia Ana and Luna counties (Tables 3-
16 and 3-17). These data, in conjunction with the acres of cropland data (Table 3-15), were used
to develop the pesticide usage information for these two counties (Table 3-18) using the
estimation technique described in section 2.3.
The ten most heavily-used pesticides in each county based on these 1996 sales data are
also commonly used in the U.S./Mexico border counties in Arizona and California. All of the
pesticides with greatest usage (where usage is > 500 # A.I.) in Luna county (Table 3-17) are
included in the top ten pesticides used in Dona Ana county (Table 3-16). With the exception of
Telone (a fiimigant), the types of pesticides sold in Dona Ana county in 1996 are very similar to
the pesticides used in Pima county, Arizona; whereas the pesticides and quantities sold in Luna
county are more like the usage figures for Cochise county, Arizona.
Without actual pesticide usage information, it is not possible to provide actual yearly
estimates of pesticides by crops comparable to those shown for the Arizona counties (see Tables
3-12, 3-13, and 3-14). However, Table 3-18 provides an estimate of pesticide usage for Dona
Ana and Luna counties for the years 1992 through 1995. The estimates were obtained using the
crop acreage shown in Table 3-15 and the average # A.I. per acre applied for Pima and Cochise
counties, Arizona, due to similarities in crops grown and pesticides purchased/used in all four
counties.
The majority of the pesticides used in both Dona Ana and Luna counties are applied to
vegetable crops with lesser quantities being applied to cotton and the least to "other" crops. As a
result of the noticeable decline in cotton acreage in Dona Ana county, the overall pesticide usage
estimates for that county have declined over the 4-year period. Similarly, the decline in acres of
vegetables in Luna County resulted in a corresponding decline in pesticide usage between the
years 1993 and 1994.
By way of comparison between the estimated pesticide use and the 1996 pesticide sales
data, total pounds of active ingredients used in Dona Ana and Luna are 85517 and 12437,
respectively. It appears that the estimated pesticide use for Dona Ana is only about 50% of the
pounds of pesticide sold in 1996 (44000 versus 85517). However, this discrepancy can be
accounted for by the fact that Telone usage was not reported in either Cochise or Pima counties,
Arizona, and thus not included in the pesticide usage estimate. If the quantity of Telone sold in
Dona Ana county is removed from the total pesticide data, the resulting estimate (44000 versus
25
-------
i'i, ',"1
Table 3-16^ Dona Ana County: The Most Used Pesticides Based on 1996 Sales Data.
Chemical
» i i in i
Telone
Temik
Carinate
filadex '" "
Furidan
-
Diazinon
paraquat
Counter
'I'll'11, i- ' , sit ir-iO'j
M, Parathion
' ,,,i!"', fl' ' , , "'I* ,'
DiSyston
Type '"
iii. ".''' . , ' ."
Fumigant
Insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
insecticide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Insecticide
ii ;, in i"!, ,,'',iii,,| , ; ii,,;,1 j'i',1 ":",,' ,, " i1 , H, "
Insecticide
/:> r .:N|1 f ' " '' i
Insecticide
Pounds of Active Ingredient
"T ."^^' ;'^5r6' I" /'."I;,,.'. , !';'i'
12,030.5
11,156.0
6,848.2
1
4,026:b
j : ' ;
1,648.4
1,525.0
1,372 V
.'" . -111 ' "" i i . 'i"
1,085 .0
, '» M ',''' I" ' r1:, ,rt,i ' j "' ii, i,1,",
964.0
Major Insecticides: 32281.9ibs^ of A.I.
% of all insecticide sales: 86.9%
Major Herbicides: 8373.2
% of all herbicide sales: 83.9%
Major Fungicides & Other: 37995.0
°/o of all Other sales: 95+%
Note: Total sales of all pesticides equal 85516.9 pounds.
26
-------
Table 3-17. Luna County: The Most Heavily Used Pesticides Based on 1996 Sales Data.
Chemical
DiSyston
Telone
Bladex
Lannate
Diazinon
Temik
Type
Insecticide
Fumigant
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Pounds of Active Ingredient
4006.5
3851.0
1180.0
574.5
558.7
501.8
(All others less than 500 pounds)
Major Insecticides: 5641.5
% of total sales: 78.5%
Major Herbicides: 1180.0
% of total sales: 88.6%
Other: 3851.0
% of total sale: 95+%
Note: Total sales of all pesticides equals 12436.8 pounds.
Table 3-18. Estimate of Pesticide Usage for Dona Ana And Luna Counties (# A.I.)*
Commodity
Est. Total
1992
1993
54400
54000
1994
45000
1995
Dona Ana
Cotton 17800 17700 8100 7500
Vegetables 30400 30400 30400 30400
Other 6200 5900 6500 6500
44400
Luna
Cotton
Vegetables
Other
2300
28900
2300
3300
26000
3100
3700
22700
2300
4500
23300
2800
Est. Total
33500
32400
28700
30600
* estimated derived using average pesticide application rates fromPima and Cochise
counties, Arizona.
27
-------
,» . ,«.'it i., vli i,' ili i,,' ', ,,i' il r ". t. :«" , ',. i ' ,,l,,'", ' "' i
47522 # A.I.) of pesticide usage is within 10% of the 1996 sales figures. Conversely, the estimate
for, pesticide usage in Luna county is too high by a factor of about 2.5 (30600 versus 12437) and
removing the contribution'oFr^onenTali^ estimate and 1996 "sales
data tpo,hjgh by a factor of 3.6 (30600 versus 8515 # A.I.). Perhaps this is not unreasonable for
the crude methodology employed for estimating pesticide usage and the assumptions of similarity
with Arizona usage. It should be noted that overall usage of pesticides is likely to be relatively
low for New Mexico.
3.4 Texas
' l"" " ' " ' ' " """ ' '<.'" :L"'" ' ""!' '"'i ' '
.". :;: - : ( " » -
Crop data for the four counties in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border are based on the
1992 USDA survey of crop acreage [17] and are presented in Table 3-19'. Further detailed
acreage statistics for various crops grown all four counties were obtained for the years 1992-1995
were obtained from the Texas county extension agents (Tables 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, and 3-23).
These detailed data are important in the estimation process for pesticide usage in Texas.
M\K, lillh' Illii I,
Hidalgo county has the greatest amount of cropland acres with about double the acres of
cropland of Cameron county and 8 times the acres of El Paso and Webb counties combined
(Table 3-19). Cotton and small grains were the dominant crops in the two eastern most counties
of Texas (Cameron and Hildago counties). Other crops grown in Cameron and Hildago counties
incjude; vegetables, sugar cane, hay, and various orchard crops (predominantly citrus). Although
not specifically broken out in the Tables 3-22 and 3-23, the acres of citrus orchards grown in
Hidalgo and Cameron counties have been steadily increasing following a devastating freeze that
had occurred in 1939 in El Paso county, cotton and hay are the most widely gjown crops while
in Webb county, hay is the dominant crop.
In the absence of actual data to determine the major pesticides used in Texas, a literature
search provided some information about which chemicals are being used for cotton [24, 25], as
well as typical pesticides used on various crops as provide! by the Texas Agricultural Extension
Office (crop sheets [26], and local guidance [27, 28]). Use of pesticides in the four Texas
counties, based on their usage on cotton, vegetables, and citrus crops, indicate that similar
chemicals to tEose used in Anzpna are also being used in Texas (Table 3-24).
Similar to the findings in the other three states, the primary pesticides applied to croplands
are the insecticides with herbicides being applied to slightly fewer acres. Fungicides are used on
very few acres, only about one-tenth the cropland acres harvested.
I
Similar to New Mexico, actual pesticide usage data does not exist for any of the counties
in Texas. Following the same approach and methodology (see section 2.3) used in New Mexico,
with the assumption that El Paso and Webb counties are more likely to have pesticide usage
patterns similar to Cochise and Pima counties than Yuma county, Arizona, the estimates of
pesticide usage have been generated (Tables 3-20 and 3-21). One significant finding/result was
that pesticide usage estimates for El Paso county in 1995 (Table 3-20) are similar to the estimates
for Dofia Ana county, New Mexico (Table 3-18). This result was especially encouraging and
-------
Table 3-19. Acres of Cropland in Texas by County.
Texas
Harvested
Irrigated
Fertilized
Insecticides
Fungicides
Herbicides
Cotton
Hay
Grain
Vegetables
Orchards
Sugar Cane
Other
Cameron
1992
189297
119744 -
167076
110017
10885
99192
82154
3249
84002
5988
3372
8784
0
Hidalgo
1992
383507
218423
257384
200551
49960
192360
92533
7469
179210
52369
29101
21168
2865
El Paso
1992
42081
41197
31200
18738
3455
16796
25858
13612
1271
3990
5930
0
6735
Webb
1992
5154
3405
1622
0
0
12078*
0
3958
0
425
422
0
349
* herbicide usage is included for acres not associated with harvested cropland.
29
-------
Ill" I'! '|«|| I ", I ' ,'!
Table 3-20. Estimated Acres And Pesticide Usage by Major Crop Category For El Paso
County, Texas, 1992-1996.
» .::..:::;' :T " ~ i ." ' ;r.z Acres
Pesticide Usage (# A.I.)
Crop Category 1992 1993 1994 1995
1992 1993 1994
1995
illlllU-'I : : VI i "1-i.i.Spa lilf TIPS'»,i/R i«!«;:: i;:1!1!'" ifl-;:«!,' V"! :''7:f=>,:!'''If';''"'"1;l; I,» t > : S»- i "'Si 1?'' '!9jlt.11',) 1,:*,;.{j ''"'' 1 !' i!''' '"i#f' ,":i','' K "'jj!1:a i!;i>!B- 'Jt",
":" :" '" : 24771!'." 2,7549 :. : 24300 20900" "23306 25900
grains 1271 650 823 300 500 200 300 100
!
vegetables 3990 5073 5689 2454 7600 9600 10800 4700
hay/silage 13612 15221 13810 14306 4900 5500 5000 5200
other 6735 7255 7475 7494 2400 2600 2700 2700
TOTAl
51466 50399 52568 52103
47300 38800 42100 38600
Table 3-21. Estimated Acres And Pesticide Usage by Major Crop Category For Webb
County, Texas, 1992-1995. ..'."I." "'.!"!.''" .'. ". .".'.
Crop Category
vegetables
hay/silage
other
TOTAL
1992
425
3958
422
4805
" ' '
Acres
1993
425
3958
422
4805
1994
425
3958
422
4805
, , ,,
1995
425
3958
422
4805
Pesticide
1992
808
1425
152
2400
199
Usage (# A.I.)
3 1994
808 808
142
152
5 1425
152
2400 2400
1995
808
1425
152
2400
: s " ;' in mi»'
30
iiK!:! i' ll> :!> t i
llilLi'hl iilM in "I HE1 , Sill 'III
WK , "iiitt!
-------
Table 3-22. Estimated Acres and Pesticide Usage by Major Crop Category For Cameron
County, Texas, 1992-1995.
Acres
Crop Category
Vegetables
Orchard
Cotton
Grain + Others
TOTALS
92
5988
3372
76200
87251
172811
93
5551
3600
94100
87251
190502
94
6119
4160
92100
87251
189630
95
4589
4580
64000
87251
160420
Pesticide Usage (# A.I.)
92
26946
19726
299466
75908
422046
93
24980
21060
369813
75908
491761
94
27536
24336
361953
75908
489733
95
20650
26793
251520
75908
374871
Table 3-23. Estimated Acres and Pesticide Usage by Major Crop Category for Hidalgo
County, Texas, 1992-1995.
Crop
Category
Acres
Pesticide Usage (# A.I. x 1000)
1992
1993
1994
1995
1992 1993 1994
1995
Vegetables 52369 44522 45990 39306
Orchard 29101 21804 25204 27754
Cotton 92533 88400 87300 71700
Grain+ 186679 186679 186679 186679
Others
235.7 200.3 207.0 176.9
170.2 127.6 147.4 162.4
363.7 347.4 343.1 281.8
162.4 162.4 162.4 162.4
TOTALS 360682 341405 345173 325439
932.0 837.7 697.5 783.4
31
-------
Table3-;24. Major Pesticides Used on Crops in Cameron And Hidalgo Counties.
S"' ''cvfosecticides Herbicides Fungicides & Other
Counter Diaanbn**'."' ".'."..'" Prefar** " ' "'Kerb** Chlorthaionil
""! ' ' ' "" "" ' '""'! '" '""
1|n , n ,: : : | | | , i ,: f|i, N| I . I I'. I I " ,i ' ''
biSyston** Thiodan** Treflan Diuron Rovral
Ikiif lull , i, " 'I III"!1'Mil,,/ i" illiiJIlL » Hl!L IT!"!1, 'Hi'Srii1'" ,' ilii'SI", !l|,|'"!;ii" ' , '" ' i»" , i,i'" IH1 "'"i"';,i ,'» ' .'"' I .1 1 !!,!fi ' J"1'1 lilW1 :.*« ' ' ' I'M'I!1 ' , ' nin,"1' ! iv"i''" | 0 i!!1"1 ,,,''';, ' n'lili,,!:1"!;'., "Ill i, * ",, ,11",,'.,' ',,"n': ,1..' nSli!!1 C'1,1,
Qaqtha] MParathion Roundup Dacthal** Ridomil**
Carbofuran Orthene** Simazine Maneb**
}
Guthion Temik Prometryn
Lannate ** Malathion Pendimethalin
Profenofos Lorsban
** = included in the most heavily used pesticides in Yuma county, Arizona.
!: , ,, , . :.' ' ; ..,.', i ' ^ ;-,,.'
supports our estimation technique since both El Paso and Dona Ana counties border each other
across state lines and thus were expected to be agriculturally similar. Due to the limited farming
activity in Webb county, the pesticide usage estimates for that county indicate very low overall
pesticide usage (Table 3-21).
In contrast to the assumptions used to derive the pesticide usage estimates for El Paso and
Webb counties, it was assumed that Hidalgo and Cameron counties were more likely to have
pesticide usage patterns similar to Yuma county, Arizona. These assumptions are based on the
similarity in crops grown, the scale of agriculture in each county, and on discussions with the
Texas county extension agents. As a result of these assumptions, pesticide usage estimates were
generated for "Cameron(Table 3-22) and Hidalgo counties (Table 3-23). It is interesting to note
that the estimated pesticide usage totals for Hidalgo county are approximately equal to the usage
in Yuma county, Arizona, even thoughi Yuma county has more acres associated with agricultural
cropland.
i
-.,; ;,, , - , , ;:,-;;, ,,;-;,;;;, ;- , , , . ,-,, , , : , ,; . ;; ';,,;;-- . 1; ; ,, ; ; - ;;;;;,
The majority of pesticides used in El Paso, Cameron, and Hildago counties were applied
to cotton. Vegetable crops generally had the second highest pesticide usage rates except in
Cameron county where "other" crops required the second highest pesticide use. In Webb county,
hay and other silage crops accounted for the majority of pesticide applied with lesser quantities of
pesticides being used on vegetables and "other" crops.
3. 5 Comparison with Other Estimates of Pesticide Sales and/or Usage Data
Texas, ij^e New Mexico, does not have a state requirement to obtain pesticide sales or
usage information. However, it is possible to obtain some independent confirmation as to the
32
jJllilU^ : Mil! ;lll!IHi SIR '< killllliiiA; t, t
111,! IK '<:.!/!,:Mi,;:
ill rb S ..... 1 ...... AT! .<:']>r 11 !!*lif
>:> !:i; "I ilili," " , "I lli!!,!)! ......... *' ', <
-------
relative accuracy of the our estimates of pesticide use using data from two different independent
sources. The first source of independent pesticide use information is a published report in which
the use of pesticides is based on surveys of cotton growers in Texas [24]. Included in this report
are summary statistics of insecticide and herbicide usage in the four counties along the border
which are designated as the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The four counties of the Lower Rio
Grande Valley are Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy counties. Cameron and Hidalgo
counties accounted for 62.7% of the cotton acres grown in 1994 in the report. The report's
authors estimate of pesticide usage for these four counties was 1,059,000 pounds, which can be
adjusted by percentage of acres in Cameron and Hidalgo counties to provide an estimate of
664,000 pounds of pesticide used in the two counties of interest. This quantity underestimates
the true total pesticide usage on cotton because it only represents the insecticides and herbicides
applied to cotton (i.e., no fungicides, fumigants, etc.). The authors also provided an estimate of
the amount of pesticides used on cotton for other purposes to be 16% for this region [24].
Hence, adjusting the 664000 pounds higher by 16% provides an adjusted total of 770,000 pounds.
The resultant pesticide usage figure is within 10% (higher) of the estimated total pesticide use for
cotton in 1994 of 705,000 pounds (Tables 3-22 and 3-23) supporting the estimation technique
used in this report.
The second possible comparison to be made is with the sales data supplied by the Texas
Department of Agriculture (TDA) for Cameron, Hidalgo and Willacy counties in 1992. In 1993,
IDA asked dealers in these three counties to provide pesticide sales records for a four year
period, including 1992. TDA considers the reported data to be representative of the pesticide
sales, even though not all dealers responded to the survey. TDA provided the results of the top
20 pesticide sales for these counties and their quantities sold (Table 3-25). The top 20 pesticides
sold in these three counties are very similar to those used in Arizona and sold in New Mexico. To
arrive at the # A.I. sold, the average active ingredients rates were determined using the pesticide's
trade name and EPA number (see the Appendix) to identify the percentage in pounds for solids or
pounds per gallon for liquids of each pesticide formulation. For comparison with other data used
in this report, biological pesticides, such as Javelin WG, were not included in the total pesticide
quantities. In addition, since the sales data provided by TDA included Willacy county sales, the
ratio (expressed in percent) of harvested acres to combined total acres for the 3 counties was used
(65.6%, 19.2%, and 15.2% for Hidalgo, Cameron and Willacy counties, respectively) to adjust
the quantities of pesticide sold. With these assumptions and adjustments, the combined total #
A.I. of the 19 most heavily sold pesticides in Cameron and Hidalgo counties represented a total of
166,558 and 569,072 pounds, respectively. These figures compare with the 422,000 and 932,000
pounds estimated in this report, which are higher by factors of 2.5 and 1.6, respectively.
33
-------
Table 3-25. Pesticide Sales Data (1992) of the 20 Most Sold Pesticide Products from
Cameron, Hidalgo, and WUIacy Counties, Texas*.
Formulation (active ingredient) Quantity Sold
',!"ii,,ii" .' ." ' iSil-j" ..lit' '' "tiii niifii'tiiiii; , '1:1111111' Mini'..nii»i 'ii'! riniiii, .' .whui'.'ii, K"i :::«"' mB, L; \- -1 : ' wc.'i "; *!::," it..;' xj'rt^,"/i\
i, ii1: ' iiniiii ; !' i,i'f' , "' i ii iiiiiu iiijiiiriifiiniiii ^ iiiiiijwiiiiir 'V1'" iiKin iHirii'",,, ;,n:" /'IM: ^m;:t IIIIFI",,, :, i jinni ii, i"' i? ' {m IDS Or IDS/gaiJ
Tcmikl5G(aldicarb)
I,;"",' 'hi'\'l!o^ani5d(c!3orpynfo^ ' ' "" ' '
Ridomil/Bravo 81 W SP (metalaxyl & chlorothalonil)
i inn i 111 i n i n nil in i i i n i n 1 1 1 1 n n i
Furadan 15G(carboruran)
Dacthal 75% WP (DCPA)
Terrachlor Super X (PCNB)
Iron Sulphate (Iron Sulphate)
Javelin WG (Bacillus thuriglensis var. kurstaki)
Bravo 90 DF (chlorothalonil)
Orthenc 96sVacephate)
li 1 lil'i'ir , ii'";"" -1 ;"" % iiiir,; ' ' i'Sllt ' ::,t" , ;, ' ::< . ;". -; . " r ' , , : -i ' '"' ':' c;^.1- 1
Atrazine 4L (atrazine)
duthlon 2L (aziiphoi-niethyl)
Roundup (glvphbsate)
Karmex DF (diuron)
Methyl Parathion4 (MP)
Trcflan T1R.-10 (trifluraUn)
EJiSyston 15G(ffisulf6ton)
Diopp 50 WP (thidiazuron)
Solicam (norflurazon)
RidornilMZSS (mancozeb & metalaxyl)
f
* - data compiled by Texas Department of Agriculture.
** - only chemically-based pesticides included in total pounds
; in1 u, IP 'inn 'i, .in'''!!" .' .; ',' I'wuii j:i»iiiiiiinn» MI.; ' '"."' T'ti..:11 m:*., iMnhinnii1 ''.,':"' : viM ||:..:>| .mpiunr: , ... ;, nn in
" ' ' '
:: ',: -".. .' : -. " 34
184842
1'2'48'90
116366
112950
95280
50000
47870
47689
48809
43280
- ","' 'its ::!':i,:"i ".V ii
40665
30975
28980
28104
#A.L*
'/ 27726.3
""""" "1873"3".5
94256.5
* ,"': i"1 in.1 IP" , 'i,.."'1 r1 '. . '; ill,,: , J1 '.: ', i 'I,- ," , iinii. ''.in'i1.'1.1
- 16942.5
71460.
5000.
47870.
**
43928.1
' ' 38952.
162660.
61950.
101430.
22483.2
26806 107224.
23900 2390:
22560
:; . ,.^-~ ...;;.;:
22218
'' '22100
21756
Total
ofA.I.
i i iniinii
3384.
11169.
" 17370.6' ' " " '" """""
12618.5
819,618.2
1 ' ,; '. , ' ' ihliiiJI'i1 :. I'M ' iiiliiiPln,,,,
'
11
-------
'.,,,: Chapter 4
Summary
Understanding and evaluating the nature of pesticide exposure to the pediatric population
(i.e., multiple pathway/multiple pesticide exposure) and potential health implications are of
national interest and relevant to residents who live along the U.S./Mexico border. As a result of
discussions with the state agencies and border communities, this project was identified as one of
the priority areas for the Environmental Health Workgroup of the Border XXI program. This
project is a first step of a multi-phase project to assess the effects (if any) of multiple pathway,
multiple pesticide exposures on children's health. The pesticide data will be shared with state
agencies to examine the estimated pesticide usage in selected counties within 100 kilometers of
the border. These data provide insight into possible exposure areas along the U.S./Mexico border
which in turn can be used to develop future Border XXI study designs that are more efficient and
cost-effective by selecting areas with the highest exposure potential.
4.1 Data Availability
In the absence of a federal reporting requirement for pesticide data, the state specific
pesticide regulations and reporting requirements determine what, if any, pesticide information is
available. As a result, California has the most extensive and complete data record. Pesticide
usage data in California is a computerized database and readily available for use for the years
1991 through 1994 with 1995 data currently being added to the database. Arizona also requires
data reporting of commercially-applied pesticides. Arizona has a relatively complete electronic
database of pesticide application for the years 1992 to 1995.
In contrast, New Mexico and Texas do not have state regulations requiring the reporting
of pesticide sales or usage. However, pesticide sales information is required to be reported to the
New Mexico Department of Agriculture for verification of compliance with federal regulations on
restricted use chemicals. Unfortunately, these records are not maintained. Texas has no state
regulations requiring the reporting of pesticide sales or usage. Only a few small projects
conducted within Texas have collected any specific pesticide sales/usage information. As a result
of this lack of data, estimation techniques are necessary to generate the pesticide usage data
presented in this report.
4.2 Pesticide Data Summary
Chapter 3 presents the county-level tables of crop acres and pesticide usage by county for
study period 1992-1995 in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas while California data are presented
for the years 1991 through 1994. When summarized for all four states, it is apparent that the
most agriculturally active counties (as indicated by the most acres harvested) are Imperial county,
California; Hidalgo county, Texas; Yuma county, Arizona; and Cameron county, Texas, in that
order for calendar year 1992 (Table 4-1). These 4 counties comprised 78.8% of the total
35
-------
harvested acres associated with all 12 counties exagun^ jn this report. The most commonly
grown crops in these four counties are cotton, citrus, ^ vegej g^^
j . |, ''". [nil!!, i '.|;'fr , jjiij i' '","!' i ''is " ;KK i,;; ^tiiiiil 'piHiiii , li1',"1''';: ''v'y'iiiu rii'ir,,- i!.,/1': \ i.;|!':"" '''y, *,; 31;',:'"" '«. .' i 11 i n i in win n I i » |; . '''''w '''': i* ' ,'" s, Jr'Vniii ji],1'1
|n general, across all counties in the four border states, insecticides were the most
frequently applied pesticides and accounted for greater than 50% of all the pesticides used.
Herbicides, accounting for about 30% to 40% of all pesticides used, were the second most
frequently applied pesticides. The use of fungicides ranked third (about 15% or less of the total
pesticidesi used) in ~ihe U.S./Mexico border region and were generally associated with orchard and
vegetable crops. The least used (<5o^ of total applied pesticides) of the major classes of
pesticides were the soil fumigants (except in California) and defoliants.
i " II" III II11 ! I ! ii H "III1! ' ".Si1" ,- " .,,1 ' ' I i :»' Hi"1
The counties where the greatest total # A.I. were applied per acre are Imperial and San
Diego counties, California, Hidalgo county, Texas, Yuma county, Arizona, and Cameron county,
Texas, in order of decreasing # A.I. used (Table 4-1). Thes pesticide'usage rates in the two
counties in California should be compared with the other agriculturally active counties only with
the caveat that the Department of Pesticide Regulation in California includes a number of
chemicals not necessarily included in the estimates of usage in other states, such as chlorine, a
rtr t J!!"iJ : in -WHwn ivvj ''juiniji1 ii'iiiiiri" ,»':. .T. - ~ ...»,,: ** ' - <
common disinfectant used for many purposes [15].
Table 4-2 provides a summary list of the most abundantly used pesticides that were
applied in at least 3 of the 4 years during the study period in Arizona and California and the top
ten most frequently sold pesticides in New Mexico (based on NMDA1996 sales data) and Texas
(based on the TDA 1992 sales data study). It should be noted that there are eight
ofganophosphorus (OP) pesticides included in the list (Counter, Cythion, DiSyston, Guthion,
Lorsban, Methyl Parathion, Orthene, and Phosdrin).
Overall, counties with orchards required the highest pounds of pesticide per acre, followed
by vegetables and cotton with "other crops" (hay, grain, etc.) requiring the least amounts of
pesticides. This fact is confirmed by examination of the absolute # A.I. applied in Yuma and
Hidalgo counties which have the greatest acreages of orchards and vegetables for the 10 counties
in the : border region outside California and consequently, have the greatest absolute # A.I. of
pesticides being used (Table 4-1). However, when the absolute # A.I. figures are adjusted for
acies^faonedlo determine ..... an application rate (in # A.I./acre), Yuma county, Arizona, has the
highest overall application rate (3.76), followed by Cameron county (2.35), Texas, Pima county
(2.17), Arizona, and Hidalgo county (2.12), Texas (Table 4-3). Yuma county, Arizona, used at
least 50% more pounds of active ingredient applied to the acres harvested each year on average
than elsewhere hi the 10 border region counties (Imperial and San Diego counties excluded).
A possible factor associated with the interpretation of the assembled pesticide usage/sales
information for consideration of exposure estimates is the number of people who live and work in
ar,eas that use the greatest quantities of pesticides. The population estimates for the study area are
obtained from the 1990 Bureau of Census (Table 4-4). Subsequent analyses using population
,,, ,, ...................... | ........ I,,, | | , ...... ..... ....... , .............. ....... ,,,1, ..... .......... , ..................... ..... ,,,||||||, ............. mi, ...... ........ ..J, ..... .I,, ................. , , .................. , ..... ....... ,,5|| ,,|n, ,, .................. ............. ...... , ....... ,*,, ............. ............. , ................ .............. * ^^ * ,, * ............. ...... ,, ............ , ..........
estimates and location of major agricultural areas where there may be high pesticide usage could
improve the assessment of potential exposure to populations of interest.
36
-------
Table 4-1. Summary Table of Acres and Estimated Total Pesticide Usage for Selected
Border Counties.
State
CA
AZ
NM
TX
County
Imperial
San Diego
Cochise
Pima
Santa Cruz
Yuma
Dona Ana
Luna
Cameron
El Paso
Hidalgo
Webb
1992
405.7
71.3
42.5
24.9
1.2
188.9
78.3
28.5
172.8
51.5
360.7
4.8
Acres
1993
na*
na
na
na
na
na
77.3
30.2
190.5
50.4
341.4
4.8
(xlOOO)
1994
na
na
na
na
na
na
67.7
26.4
189.6
52.6
345.2
4.8
1995
na
na
na
na
na
na
67.0
29.3
160.4
52.1
325.4
4.8
1992
759.2
213.4
1.5
3.0
»
62.9
5.4
3.4
42.2
4.7
93.2
0.2
# A.I. (x
1993
617.5
208.9
3.0
8.4
81.9
5.4
3.2
49.2
3.9
83.8
0.2
10,000)
1994
657.5
140.1
1.7
5.0
--
47.7
4.5
2.9
49.0
4.2
69.8
0.2
1995
848.1
177.8
1.4
5.2
91.9
4.4
3.1
37,5
3.9
78.3
0.2
* - na = not available.
** . «..» = missing data.
37
-------
Table 4-2. Primary
SifHcNamc
'Ill Hill 1 1 II II III 'II II II I 111
Atrazine
Balan
,rfi!'! , , , ,",, ;,,, 'i, :
Bladex
liHiiKi .1, " "',' .III!1 IN' , ', I,1 ' '
Bravo
,H, i," " ' ' , ',!|, "I"!"" , "ill"11!:!1!!1 11, ,:"liii»i
Caparol
-r, :! , . ii ., ,[.. ; ''rirf' , i. it..
Counter
Cythion
Dacthal
Diazinon
i , ,',' Li, i|,,r,,',ll ' ,ii:
Dimethoate
DiSyston
Dithane
EPTC02PTAM)
Furadan
Guthion
lion Sulphate
Karmex
Lannate
luprsban/Dursban
Maneb
Metam Sodium
Methyl Bromide
in i i i n i
M. Parathion
Omitc
Orthene
Pesticides Used along
EPANo/'OIseO
19713-11 OH)
34704-746 (H)
352-47003)
,,i' '!'!: ,, '"'I,, ,!n ' Li, iH'PH n" Jllinillll I1 ' i' '
50534-188 0?)
1 ;«" ;:; i " _ " . "
100-620 (H)
:, 1'1,11' ',';"C ,,',!
241-314Q
5905-1960)
50534-10 (H)
5905-248 0)
" , , ' i1,',:1 ,!*, " ,, »' ,,
51036-1100)
3125-3070)
707-18000
10182-220 (H)
279-2876 0)
3125-1020)
-* ODefoliant)
352-508 (H)
352-342 0)
62719-2200)
4581-371 00
10182-150 00
- (Fumigant)
1 nil .. ,'
4787-110)
400-4270)
59639-33 Q
the U.S./Mexico Border.*
Common Name/Active
Ingredient
Atrazine
Benefin
Cyanazine
" ''1 ° «' ' 1!» ' '
Chlorothalonil
i i11 , .n / ,i "i.'4ii:
Prometryn
Terbufos
Malathion
DCPA (Dimethyl
tetrachloro terephthalate
Diazinon
,i , ui '.,! vj, ' , / ',' ' pjnf1, ".
Dimethoate
Disulfoton
Mancozeb
Ethyl dipropyl
thiocarbamate
Carbofuran
Azinphos-Methyl
Iron Sulphate
Diuron
Methomyl
Chlorpyrifos
Manganese ethylene bis
ditbiocarbamate
Metam Sodium
Methyl Bromide
'""!' :' !."J" II ' » '' '" , *
Methyl Parathion
Propargite
Acephate
CAS No.
1912-24-9
1861-40-1
:, / i ', ' ,"' " ', , , ', ,,:,'"
21725-46-2
! ' * '"::" ' i1 '" , : ,.".',,, i. -
1897-45-6
,!: i ||i,', i :" " i ,,l IL -' ;'!p » , jn:1,-:!
7287-19-6
111 : i' ' ' ',, " . , ,'«,
13071-79-9
121-75-5
1861-32-1
333-41-5
; | |, i i, , ,f' ' ,' ', ,,, n , .Jin:,
60-51-5
298-04-4
8018-01-7
759-94-4
1563-66-2
86^-50-0
.
330-54-1
16752-77-5
2921-88-2
12427-38-2
137-42-8
74-83-9
-i" ': ' ''" -''" '' -
298-00-0
2312-35-i
30560-19-1
38
-------
Trade Name
Paraquat
Phosdrin
Pounce/Ambush
Ridomil
Roundup
Sulfur
Telone
Temik
Thiodan
Treflan
EPA No.** (Use**)
10182-280 (H)
5481-114(1)
10182-35 CD
100-607 (F)
524-475 (H)
5905-437 (F)
627 1 9-32 (Fumigant)
264-330 (I)
10163-100 (T)
62719-131 (H)
Common Name/Active
Ingredient
Paraquat
Mevinphos
Permethrins
Metalaxyl
Glyphosate
Sulfur
Chloropicrin
Aldicarb
Endosulfan
Trifluralin
CAS No.
2074-50-2
7786-34-7
52645-53-1
57837-19-1
38641-94-0
7704-34-9
76-06-2
116-06-3
115-29-7
1582-09-8
* - this list is a summary of the most abundantly used pesticides that were applied in at least 3 of
the 4 years during the study period in Arizona and California and the top ten most sold
pesticides in New Mexico and Texas (based on the TDA 1992 sales data study).
** - the EPA number is for a commonly sold product in the U.S./Mexico border region. The first
portion of the number is associated with the manufacturer and the second with the product
formulation. These numbers are not unique for the chemical used.
f -1 = insecticide; H = herbicide; F = fungicide.
J - unknown or non-existent.
39
-------
Table 4-3. Pounds of A.L per Acre by County and Year*.
.State County Year
AZ" COCHISE 1992
III I'll ,i ..". v
1993
1994
OVERALL
PIMA 1992
l||"! "'"" : :*^'M ''*'"'"'
":= : "::": :"":, ' ' 1994
"",,''1995
OVERALL
YUMA 1992
1993
1994
, , , ,1995
:. ^.11.. ;,i:;;l>,|,i, ;.^( ,|| - ;. . V . ^'j^t^£ '
TXf CAMERON 1992
'::;': , ,. " !' ' ! ''1993
' 1994
1995
;, ''if ' ;,,' i || il ' il |i ii
OVERALL
, , , ";.i|" ! ' il '' !"!!!ii! L . 'IKii 1 ' '',."'" ' ''I I,. ' ! i'1
Insecticide
0.87
..-, i ^ ,. :,',
0.64
0.63
1.22
:> ,''' i" - ''''"'; '' -'*!'
2.SZ
1.92
2,06
;
2.25
2.74
1.55
3.19
;' ''-''"'< ''"' :' W
2.11
2.28
2.23
1.81
:;. :"" :;.",. , :
Herbicide
0.81
1.04
1.04
0.76
Other
*::?
0
0
0
.4§.,(V
.91
26
59
58.3
'; ' iiil!1! ' 1
ll' "','ii;, .:i '' ' "
13.7
17.14
8.93
6
9.
5.
9.
";"', ,
10
56
27
62
84
I:'"'., 't.
.08
12^65
13
'
05
J9
Average |
0,36 ,
0.72
0.41
0.33
0.45
1.19
' " I'",," , , , '",' I!!',''/, , ' 1 13 1; 'H'l . ' 'f'!i|l|
';. J./ll'.' .. /'jl!'1 ! 'i ''""' ! li!" lit 4
3.36
2.00
2.10
2.17
3.33
4.33
2.53
4.87
iW !'. , :"'" :, "*;(r. iiJii1 'iV't " '".'iiiiii
3'7< . ....
2.23
2.60
2,59
., ,, L98 B ,,, h
.V:J'h '"! ' 1 ' ' v fir I& I1*: >:
2.35
1 , .Mill, !!!l!'llli, '''il " 'il
40
-------
State County Year
EL PASO 1992
1993
1994
1995
OVER ATT
\J V JL4l\**A**M-4
HIDALGO 1992
1993
1994
1995
OVERA7J
\J w J^M\rMLjM-j
WEBB 1992
1993
1994
1995
OVFRATT
\J Y -dfvrlf .*! rf
NM* DONA ANA 1992
1993
1994
1995
nVKRAI.J.
Insecticide
2.10
1.30
1.48
1.52
2.56
2.13
1.74
2.07
0.41
0.32
0.33
0.37
0.64
0.64
0.53
0.53
Herbicide
0.08
0.51
0.70
0.28
0.92
0.91
0.76
0.81
0.02
0.11
0.14
0.06
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.15
Other
1.92
1.68
0.73
1.56
4.85
4.69
4.05
4.23
0.07
0.07
0.03
0.07
2.22
2.20
1.83
1.81
Average
1.12
0.92
1.00
0.92
OQQ
.yy
2.43
2.18
1.82
2.04
2f5
.±Z
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Ocn
.3U
0.69
0.69
0.57
0.57
n t^t
41
-------
State County Year
LUNA. .
1993
1994
1995 '
OVERALL
Insecticide
1.23
1.19
1.06
1.13
Herbicide Other Average
0.31 1.
0.30 1.
JO 1
74 1
0.26 1.54 1
0.28 1.64 1
i inn i
i
.18
.14
.01
.07
.10
* - Data for California are not included in this table because of the inclusion of chemicals (e.g.,
petroleum oil, mineral oil, and potash soap) in their usage inventory that are not reported in
the other states. Calculation of the # A.I. per acre by county and year would thus result in
an inaccurate assessment of pesticide usage in the state when compared to pesticide usage in
the other states.
**' - Tables 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11 pesticide usage total values were divided by corresponding acres
,, =;,;: ;fro,m .Table, 3-5, , \
f - Tables 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23 pesticide usage total values were adjusted by average
percentage of insecticide, herbicide and fungicide as determined by Cochise and Pima (for El
Paso and Webb) counties, and Yuma counties (for Cameron and Hidalgo) divided by
cpirjsponding acres from Table 3-19.
t - Table 3-18 pesticide usage total values were adjusted by average percentage of insecticide,
herbicide, and fungicide as determined by Cochise and Pima counties divided by
corresponding acres from Table 3-15.
42
-------
Table 4-4. Population Statistics For The Study Area Counties*.
State
California
Arizona
New Mexico
Texas
County
Imperial
San Diego
Cochise
Pima
Santa Cruz
Yuma
Dofia Ana
Luna
Cameron
Hidalgo
El Paso
Webb
Total Population
109,303
2,498,016
97,624
666,880
29,676
106,895
135,510
18,110
260,120
383,545
591,610
133,239
Children <11 Yrs
25,062
433,068
17,243
113,978
6,815
~21,482
27,938
3,440
51,079
90,522
127,363
32,487
population figures are for the 1990 census. These figures may grossly underestimate
current populations since the population on the U.S./Mexico border has been markedly
growing since the time of the 1990 census.
4.3 Comparison with U.S. Geological Survey Data
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides estimates of pesticide usage based on a
similar, yet different, estimation methodology than used in this report. Overall, the USGS
estimates were higher than our estimates by factors ranging from 1 to 22 (Table 4-5). The USGS
pesticide usage estimates are higher than our estimates due to a procedural bias in which non-
chemical pesticides or chemicals not necessarily thought of as pesticides (e.g., chlorine) are
included in their pesticide usage estimates. However, when looking at the three most
agriculturally active counties (i.e., Yuma county, Arizona, and Cameron and Hildago counties,
Texas), the estimates of pesticide usage in # A.I. were much closer with the USGS estimates
being only slightly higher than our estimates by a factor of no greater than 1.5. Further, when
ranking counties by pesticide use, close agreement can be seen by the two estimation methods in
which the top 3 and bottom 2 counties are identical with slight differences occurring for the
middle ranked counties.
43
-------
Table 4-5. Comparison of Estimates of Total Pesticides Used in Border Counties With
U.S. Geological Survey Estimates'.
I!,:,1!!11 Jif ' I1 ", ' : . l",i!,,
nip nil .,, ' i" .'"'i111 < j,1 TJniiinnui ';: "
State
Arizona
;{*:' 1' ' ; ."ill"; '
ii :|ji. I'-,,!1 ;},," a,;, fijfrji
New Mexico
ellfi 1 ' ', » , < i'it.1
Texas ',' ',"',,
'Si1.. ; ' ' II'J
ii1 'I v I!L t'iiiii-
* - estimates are
IHIIIIIIB '! i'HlkJBpi' : I',,!,1 ''8".| 1 VI'RJ' II ; It ,;K J^WMf''''1,, . i'.'l.ii't'J, ' ' ," <
., , , , County
Cochise
:"| ':.,,: .''..ft!:-"';:":''^ ,', ;: f. ; >!;-;"'!-"!"
f"«i ';. /; '""^ '"'Pirna i
Santa Cruz
Yuma
Dona Ana
Luna
Cameron
IliKlr :!''''' »' "!" , j "''' " ' i i" , .»'' .. i' I1",' '" , " ii " . "
-=-:'« 'v' !-...''.M*^^i(" '"i'
in#A.I. x 1000.
USGS Estimate
210.2
i '
284.3
11.9
913.5
210.7
60.7
!' ,'.{( !;l -ii''.,1 ,j.' ' -jll:'.'1!!}!11;"11:;'
438.9
1 II III
118.2
in
1475.5
53.6
' ''"'" ' ''' ' ' ' "'
""""RTI Estimate
15.5
29.7
0
628.9
54.4
33.5
1 : ' ''I'1' J !'' i1 ' ; , L
422.0
47.3 ' _ ' . , . t ;
932.0
2.4 '' ' ' : ' '"" "
1 ': " "'"'
' | ...
II
3
ir "
I'll-llt ' ...... * - ;']
iift, M
'!, "Ill 'i1 M'. I*!
44
" ',' !| :,»'",' ' ."i,,'
-------
References and Data Sources
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Emerson, P.M. and E.W. Bourbon. 1991. The Border and Free Trade. Report to the
North American Institute, Santa Fe, NM. Environmental Defense Fund, Austin, Texas.
Texas Department of Health. 1992. An Investigation of a Ouster of Neural Tube
Defects: Cameron County, Texas.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Lower Rio Grande Valley
Environmental Monitoring Study: Report to the Community on the Pilot Project. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Akland, G.G., M. Schwab, H. Zenick and D Pahl. 1997. An Interagency partnership
applied to the study of environmental health in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas,
Environ. Int. 23: 5 (595-609).
Ellenson, W.D., et al., 1997. An environmental scoping study in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley of Texas ~ II. Assessment of transboundary pollution transport and other activities
by air quality monitoring, Ibid (643-655).
Mukerjee, S., et al., 1997. An environmental scoping study in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley of Texas III. Residential microenvirohmental monitoring for air, housedust and
soil, IbM (657-673).
Berry, M.R., et al., 1997. Dietary characterizations in a study of human exposures hi the
Lower Rio Grande Valley: I. Foods and beverages, Ibid (675-692).
Berry, M.R., L.S. Johnson, K.P. Brenner, and K.W. Thomas, 1997. Dietary
characterizations in a study of human exposures in the Lower Rio Grande Valley: n.
Household waters, IbM (693-703).
Buckley, T.J., et al., 1997. Environmental and biomarker measurements in nine homes in
the Lower Rio Grande Valley: Multimedia results for pesticides, metals PAHs and
VOCs, Bad. (705-732).
Aspelin, A.L. 1994. Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 1992 and 1993 Market
Estimates. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Office of Prevention, pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, 20460.
National Research Council (NRC). 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children.
National Academy Press.
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDF A). Report of pesticides sold in
Sacramento, CA (1982).California in 1980 by pounds of active ingredients. Division of
Pest Management Report HS-942.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Household Pesticide Usage
Survey, 1976-1977. EPA Report No. 540/9-80-002. Washington, DC (1979).
Pesticide Use Report: Annual 1995 Indexed by Commodity. State of California,
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Information
Systems Branch, Sacramento, California.
Pesticide Use Report: Annual 1995 Indexed by Chemical. Ibid.
45
-------
..... !| 'i'i I'tli!1'"
jfcl, ,.!' i [ '
.. ....... -,
MliiHIigll "nil
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21. i
' 22. :
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
!', Ml ..... S'/P ; li, iilllil, . ...... if, '
' ', " "" .if" ',.;" i'1'', ' 'S ',.;".'' : :,<< 'Ilii',' !' Slip, f!1 l!.: . .1', ' 'I,' ..... Tif ........ i" !',,i, I1 ,, , 'i,!;:'", '; '> ,' '',!!!'! 'M,!.
' lll|*J' 'J1 '''tl ..... iiUJiln lUAlPl " i 'I1:"*. !ln "'"'Fi' ' ll""1!. 'i 'i '! fH'i " »vl!'!i ' »' !': i,'!,* ;l' i ;i . " ill "I ! " .Hir, " "' ....... i i " ,' HI!' !'!' " '"" "I "ik ill. ' , "''!
Pease, W.S., J. Liebman, D. Landy, and D. Albright, "Pesticide Use in California:
Strategies for Reducing Environmental Health Impacts." California Policy Seminar,
University of California, Berkeley, 1996.
1992 ...... !i^iciH&rar Census ..... by ..... County ..... U^A^ttp-f/vn^'.u^.gav/ta^)
New Mexico ...... Agricultural^ JStatistics, 1991. United States Department of Agriculture, New
Mexico Agricultural Statistics Service, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
New Mexico Agricultural Statistics, 1992. Ibid.
NfewTiexTco" AgncuittiiriaTStatrslicsT 1993" ....... iS" ..... ............... ' ' ' ......................... ' ....... ' .................... ' ' ' ......
New Mexico Agricultural Statistics, 1994.' Ibid.
'"' New Mexico Agncultural statistics, 1995 Ibji ...........................................
Lansfsrd, R.R., TX. fran2:j c. Gore, W.W. Wilken, B. Wilson, and C.S. Coburn,
"Sources of Irrigation ^ater and 'Cropland 'Acreage ^ in New Mexico, 1992-1994."
Technical Report 22, Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico State University.
Smith, D., T. Fuchs, and R. Holloway, "Cotton pests, Pesticide Use & Related
Management Practices by Texas Growers. Soil & Crop Sciences Department, Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A & M University System, 1996.
Norman, J.W , Jr. 1996 Cotton Blue Book, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, U.S.
D. A., Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas.
Texas Department Of Agriculture List of Crop Sheets, 1995. Texas Department of
Agriculture, Austin, Texas.
Johnson, J. "Vegetable Pesticide and Economic Factors Guide," Texas Agricultural
Extension Office, Hidalgo County, Texas.
Selected Vegetable Crops Harvested Acres by County, Texas Agricultural Statistics
Service, Austin, Texas.
It "l l! :' v" f! i 'f
.' -til
,.:' !
46,
-------
APPENDIX
COMMONLY-USED PESTICIDES BY EPA NUMBER
AND POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT
A-l
-------
A.I.
I! il
" : :v ..-NAME
ACCELERATE
ADMIRE
i. -;> ALffiTTE
!>-!;L! ' " Si* ..'Mf:. ?!
AMBUSH,
;' ;;; ^ AMMO'''/ ~ -'
ANTOR
..::" ' ASANA
ATRAZINE
1 , in1 ii11 , , "«: Jinn "'' ,",',, ''"I"1?'1 v, iir'i'i!
'!,'! "iif .n'li!!1' , , , "Si""! 'i'i , ,' "" i,:1'" ill ''I'lilil'1 1 h'lihll' ; i
BANVEL
i i i i i i i in
BASAGRAN
BAYTHROID
BAYLETON
i!!i£ii , ii, id ill tin :, in , i! :IM^
CHEMICAL NAME
ENDOTHALL
IMIDACLOPRID
FOSETHYL-
ALUMnjUM . ,; ;i..
^ PERMETHfttN
CYPERMETHRIN
(DISCONT. '93)
ESFENVALERATE
ATRAZINE
","," i :;:,: ill* it!,;, A\
-------
A.I.
NAME
BENLATE
BLADEX
BOLL'D
BOLSTAR
BOTRAN
BRAVO
BUCTRIL
BUTONE
BUTYRAC
CAPAROL
CAPTURE
CARZOL
CHAMP
CHLORATE
CLEAN CROP
CONCLUDE
CHEMICAL NAME
BENOMYL
CYANAZINE
???
SULPROFOS
DCNA
CHLORO-
THALONIL
BROMOXYNIL
2,4-DB
2,4-DB
PROMETRYN
BIFENTHRIN
FORMETANATE
HYDROCHLORIDE
COPPER
HYDROXIDE
SODIUM OR
MAGNESIUM
CHLORATE
???
BENTAZONE
EPA NO.
352-354
352-447
352-564
352-468
352-495
352-470
51036-218
3125-321
10163-189
50534-8
50534-188
264-437
56077-26
264-105
100-620
100-757
10163-94
34704-692
279-3069
279-3114
45639-163
45639-74
55146-41
49517-3
7001-335
34704-610
7969-58
#/GAL LBS (%)
50
50
50
80
90
4
6
75
5
7
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
5
92
5
5
2.67
A-3
-------
NAME
CURACRON
DACTHAL
DANITOL
DEF
DEFOL
;:;: - --; v
DEVRINOL
IJIACIDE,,.,,
'.' l""-.- '.'"'. : " .'. p. -. '.' ' ",
-2IATECT,,INSECT ,
DIAZINON
; :: p ; - _ ;-;;: ;";;;,:;
1 1 1 111 1 1 1
,
Ill 1
DICOFOL
DIMATE
CHEMICAL NAME
PROFENOFOS
DCPA
FENPROPATHRiN
TRIBUFOS
SODIUM
CHLORATE
NAPROPAMIDE
PYRETHRINS
'1 1'-'1'1. _' '' " ' '' ,:!"" !
PYRETHRON +
DIAZINON
. . :,.:,;" :~:. ." " ;:;;; :":
i
KELTHANE
DIMETHOATE
EPA NO.
100-599
100-669
59534-1
59639-35
3125-282
45115-1
19713-265
10182-258
1021-1091
42850-2
100-461
34704=41
19713-91
10163-100
10163-68
279-2945
2935-118 " '
5905-248
279-3051
10163-163
10163-103
100-460
10163-104
10163-97
34704-513
707-205
9779-263
9779-273
J/GAL LBS (%)
i
6
8
i
75
2.4
i
6
6
1
6
i
50
'
~ 1 - ''.' ' - " - '' ':
[
4
; 4
4
i
4
!"4
1 "'"'"4'
' 4 ::;: "'""'::
"4
50
50
"::':" ':;" " ' ':":'' so'' :
50
14
4
4
I1
35
i!
i1
4
4
i: i . 'i; .»n.. iiiwi" i
"M:,;, ?-" '"A-4
-------
A.I.
NAME
DIMETHOATE
DIQUATHERB
DISYSTON
DITHANE
(MANCOZEB)
DIURON
DROPP
DUAL
EPTAM
-
FOLEX
FURADAN
FURY (MUSTANG)
CHEMICAL NAME
DIMETHOATE
DIQUAT
DIBROMIDE
DISULFOTON
DITHIO-
CARBAMATES
KARATE
DIREX
KARMEX
TfflDRAZURON
METOLOCHLOR
EPTC
TRIBUFOS
CARBOFURAN
Z-CYPERMETHRIN
EPA NO:
10163-56
19713-231
34704-207
51036-110
9779-273
2749-41
279-2821
400-278
34704-489
10163-55
5905-87
10182-353
3125-172
3125-307
707-78
707-180
707-156
4581-370
10182-96
1812-257
19713-36
352-508
45639-89
100-597
100-673
10182-160
10182-199
10182-220
264-498
279-2876
279-3125
279-3126
#/GAL LBS(%)
2
4
4
4
4
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
25
5
3.6
15
8
45
45
45
45
1
4
4
80
50
8
8
10
20
7
6,
4
1.5
1.5
A-5
-------
(Ill II
1'*;;((: ill" a!!::III'".,',::
A.I.
'< i ,T ^i. ,'NAME
FUSILADE
: -'; -""GINSTAR
" ! "" ' " GOAL
GUTfflON
,:!!" i "I:.:?'!'!111" .. rp " . 'il;!1 !"» '' ' ,/' T"1" , , '!!' ,'!!"! '« '"' '; :»
-------
A.I.
NAME
LORSBAN
MALATfflON
MANEB
MANEX
MANZATE
MCPA
METAM SODIUM
MEPIQUAT
CHEMICAL NAME EPA NO.
CHLORPYRIFOS 62719-220
62719-79
62719-23
62719-35
464-612
62719-22
62719-221
464-552
62719-39
62719-34
464-523
CYTfflON 10163-21
5905-250
34704-474
2935-83
246-47
2393-280
34704-110
10163-44
MANEB 4581-255
707-48
4581-371
1812-251
DITfflO- 352-449
CARBAMATES
MCPA 228-143
264-47
464-394
62719-13
METAM SODIUM 10182-150
5481-423
MEPIQUATE 10163-186
CHLORIDE 7969-52
#/GAL LBS(%)
4
4
4
4
4
4
50
50
,50
15
15
8
8
8
57
5.7
5.7
6
91
80
80
75
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
4.2
4.2
MESUROL
METfflOCARB
10163-23
75
A-7
-------
II
1 1 1
1 1
1 II 1 1 1
111 1 1
Ii H' 1 "ii,,iii,i'l:'l»i Il'iiil1 "H1"1'
!H!i ''V ''Jf ''i1!1' ''"ii'i :' i,
i 11 ,1,1 Illlliril '',' , ' Illl I11'1 'I'll I1
'''I i1 I"''';!!! |,ii, I'li'i !,'«!' ' '' »'''
I I' i'i I'fjii! j | ' " "
Hi :iiii,< ! , ", ii,,1 ':
-:r
NAME
METASYSTOX
III 1 1 11 1 II II II III Illl 1 Illl Illl
METICIDE
MONITOR
MSMA
:
NEMACUR
NEMAGARD
ORTHENE1
Ill"
1 1 iiillll " IN
PARAQUAT
PARATfflON
i|| i i |i ilid 11
,,,PCNB
TJERR^CHLOR
i i||| Is " |" ,, ivil'jii'iiiili1' ' "Ilii,1' ,l:i: "Uiiji jjl ,| ijnH I1 II' '
tfiiltf'! ,,'L ii1 :,'| '.I'liw; ,;.;!'»( : ..;!.*tf '<
POAST
lliHItrill, ''I1!1!1 , f i i,,"!i,' 1 ill TIM, :|l,|i ',;,
CHEMICAL NAME
DEMETON
METHYL
METHEMIDOPHOS
MSMA (ORGANIC
; ". " ARSENICAL)
FENAMIPHOS
ACEPHATE
i ii i I
1 ' II
GRAMOXONE
PENNCAPP-M
QUINTOZENE
:'i, c nil: iii, i, ', ,: ;
'" I;, 'Jill " \iiWWJl 1! !!!] .,;-;: " if ,,i,
"| , ln "' | * iii,'!1" 3,| sj,'|i 'i|.]!f ii'.i i!1' "!!|| ,, i i, ,' |l|f ''*'' , |i :
SETHOXYDIM
hi " , ! , ' l,i ' , Hi! ,!, , , H ,'" i,,,l , : ',,1 :, ',
EPA NO.
10163-220
618-98
3125-280
59639-56
50534-6
5905-164
3125-236
3125-283
11688-5
II ,,,|||!, i 1 I'll! ,;,, .ilHlli,, :
23'9-24l8"!: >K ''
59639-26
59639-33
59639-75
59639-86
59639-89
10182-103
10182-280
182-280
10163-1
4581-292 '
5905-55
5905-414
400-399
400-402
400-411
,,; "» i""! S i ! , ii fliS /IB Vlli n1,,, ,!''i'
5481-114
;' ; 5481-412"" "'
7969-88
A-8
i/GAL
1 2
0.15
4
' 4
6
5
; 3.,
,n!li , , n ii ,,, , . ,
0.25
2.5
4
4
" 2
4
7.5
7.5
1
4
1 ,,,ii,, ' ,'i , ;': , i:;i",,,.",!|ii'!!iii ,,' , Tiuii;;
4
4
" , ,,-i
1.6
III,,!! ',/' Jii, i1, i V , '' '.' '
!
A.I.
LBS (%) 1
^1
15 1
:-"W: ;:":' :: '-' 1
; ' 9'6' ;"; ;;; ;."
90
15
90
1
; In nlv, 1 ' '"i ,,, '"i , iTV, : II ' 'I nliililllllllll , nilBNJ ' Illlllli ^^1
; 1
10
""" 6.5' " : ^ ' " "!";
:" , 1
1 !i I"1 " , ,i HI I; ' i, , ,1 'I' I1!* r, 'I'l " II'I'JUI ^H
-------
NAME
POUNCE
PREFAR
PREP
(Pgr)
PRINCEP
PROVADO
PROWL
PURSUIT
RIDOMIL
RIDOMEL-BRAVO
RONILAN
ROUNDUP
ROVRAL
SCOUT XTRA
SELECT (PRISM)
SENCOR
CHEMICAL NAME
PERMETHRIN
BENSULIDE
ETHEPHON
SIMAZINE
BVUDACLOPRID
PENDIMETHALIN
IMAZETHAPYR
METALAXYL
METALAXYL +
CHLORTHALONEL
VINCLOZOLIN
GLYPHOSATE
IPRODIONE
TRALOMETHRIN
CLETHODIM
METRIBUZIN
EPA NO.
279-3014
279-305
279-3059
279-3083
10163-200
10182-184
264-418
100-603
3125-457
241-243
241-337
241-310
241-350
100-607
100-628
100-629
100-664
100-658
7969-53
7969-62
7969-85
524-308
524-445
264-453
464-482
34147-3
34704-207
59639-3
3125-325
A.I.
#/GAL LBS (%)
3.2
25
25
25
4
4
90
1.6 75
4
4
2
5
58
11
81
50
50
50
3
4
50
4
4
4
2
A-9
-------
ill II
(I "III
till
A.I.
NAME CHEMICAL NAME
SEVIN CARBARYL
SOLICAMHERB NORFLURAZON
:;,:';;;' :::;" . ,,; jsujLFUR" ' "SULFUR.' .. _' '.'
' '' :-' ' " ' .«'.. «' ' ,.,:.:.,,.,..,
SUPRACIDE METHIDATHION
SURFLAN ORYZALIN
::;:::,; ;.:,. 'i:: ROTAS' BUTYLATE
TELONE 1,3-DICHLORO-
" :- " ' " ' PROPENE
iii . it i , : .'' . ,' jiiiii; us iji" i '", ;..; i ; i;,1 ; t.\.^\ i/.n ', ,,"
" ' !'":TEMlk ' " ' " AIIMCMB
": n, 'h,, ' i i '! :1P" ,i 1' '"'! '" I1: I ViMl* " I1' * ! ' " W T : iiJ* ," ', i' - : i "
THIMET PHORATE
THIODAN ENDOSULFAN
iiitm;* ii : ' -a ' ;,,'JV.(!t I'll '.'Hi : ":-;s;s .i,:":!;'" . ' ', i ..[ .",
it; ;;-,;;; ii. ,:: ^tf036lQ£B .LAR^IN
:-, '"lii'i !"i:''i»! ''.It ii,ii,r ' i 'iifl i'11" ,i,' 'i'!'.!| :"i "'^iriL'1 "Mwiiiiii i '"' '. '* / ' '«f: *, ' ' - '!
264-330 ' '" " - '15
264-417 15
264-426 15
10163-98 50
10163-110 3
:" 10163-136 " 50
279-2659 2
1=279-2924 3
264-379 3-2
;,264-530, , " ..,"","".""1 ' '."'"! '3 .2"' '
", i i i i n n
100-617 4
1 ' ' ' '!|!| ""' ' '"'"'1 "''' ||! :Vl "" '" """,,,: 'i, '." i , , ',:,. in,"' ,,. ' r t
i
A-10
II III
III 1 1 Mill 1
-------
A.I.
NAME
TREFLAN
TRILAN
TRIGARD
VERATRIND
(BOTANICAL
INSECTICIDE)
WDATE
ZORIAL
2,4-D
CHEMICAL NAME
TRIFLURALIN
CYROMAZINE
SABADILLA
OXYMIL
NORFLURAZON
EPA NO.
10163-99
10163-120
10163-166
10163-175
1471-120
1812-328
1812-353
62719-93
62719-98
62719-118
62719-131
100-654
39834-1
352-372
352-532
55947-77
228-145
2217-703
264-2
264-37
34704-5
464-394
5481-144
62719-13
#/GAL LBS (%)
5
10
50
50
5
10
5
5
5
10
2
2
8 80
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A-11 &U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1999 -750-101/00048
-------
.li'i'rj!"!' :' ! '.;' ^i ^ti'.l,^'1 jfli,11'!"
''i i 'I'f'1,, '' i, ' ''' ' "k :i>.i»i l|i' fill1 Hi Hllfi'1'1''1
mill i, ' ifr It 'I", H1 l'J
"HIM"!" HiV
IPIIL; < inHnli 'iii, ml
vll"1 l>l", "';!'" IllUlt, .iilllll'l!1!! liil'll"!"
I k'"i.i:j.'i". :Hi
JUi;
'ii I, ' '"I1,, .!*T c'ifbl, .".:'. "' ,1, ..:i5.rj'.fl -,:,'' i:,,, ' i. *;! ' ,r ,', '.S :-''"' r: ,'..,,' :'*f 'i'
," ,,, '!! S :»: ,.-.*,. \\
»; 1,1 '!,!!
,, , ( ., ""i1 "i';" » "
' n-..'*'^!};'-
'v/! ' '!i"i!':''
V.'^'.^!^'^!
"" , I.,11. ₯' iir",,,.
-------
-------
m
I
o
o
53
CO
CD
o o m c
55 Q.
.fa
~* CO
"05"
1 8
aj_ co
CD
CO
CD
o.
3'
3
CD
" CD
o ra
Mil
1^
&§'
oo CD
CD
a
£§
35 >
CD CQ
W CD
CD 3
o V<
3"
§
i
BJ.
5'
-a
m
n
RESORl
OSTAG
55
------- |