~.....v.....^..tal Protection
             Agency
Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Washington DC 20460
                                         March 1981
&EPA
              2-Ethy!-1,3-Hexanediol
             Pesticide Registration
             Standard

-------
              2-Ethyl-l,3-Bexanediol
          Pesticide Registration Standard
I.M. Sunzenauer        Project Manager  (SPRD)
Ken Bailey             Science Policy Staff (BED)
Charlotte Blalock      Chemist (BED)
Harry Craven           Wildlife Biologist (BED)
Paul Matthai           Biologist (RD)
Christine Dively       Entomologist (RD)
Linda Garczynski       Writer/Editor (SPRD)
Arthur Schlosser       Environmental Chemist (BED)
Chad Sandusky          Toxicologist (BED)
Joseph Tavano          Technical Product Manager (RD)
Ralph Wright           Project Manager  (SPRD)
                March 27, 1981

    Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances

         Environmental Protection Agency

               401 M Street, SW

            Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                      - TABLE OF CONTENTS -

                                                                 page
Chapter I     How to Register under a Registration Standard	2
Chapter II    Regulatory Position and Rationale	9
Chapter III   Summary of Data Requirements and Data Gaps	13
Chapter IV    Product Chemistry	32
Chapter V     Environmental Fate	33
Chapter VI    Toxicology	34
Chapter VII   Residue Chemistry	36
Chapter VIII  Ecological Effects	37
Chapter IX    Efficacy	38
Bibliography	40

-------
          CHAPTER I:   HOW TO REGISTER UNDER A REGISTRATION STANDARD

     1. Organization of the Standard
     2. Purpose  of the  Standard
     3. Requirement to  Reregister Under the Standard
     4. "Product Specific"  Data  and  "Generic" Data
     5. Data  Compensation Requirements under FIFRA 3(c)(l)(D)
     6. Obtaining Data  to Fill "Data  Gaps"; FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)
     7. Amendments to the Standard

 1.  Organization of the Standard

 This first chapter explains the purpose of a Registration Standard and
 summarizes the  legal principles involved in registering or reregistering under
 a Standard.   The second chapter sets forth the requirements that must be met to
 obtain or retain registration for products covered by this particular
 Registration Standard. In the  remaining chapters, the Agency reviews the
 available data  by scientific discipline, discusses the Agency's concerns with
 the identified  potential hazards, and logically develops the conditions and
 requirements that would reduce  those hazards to acceptable levels.

 2.  Purpose of the Standard

 Section  3 of the Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
 provides that "no person  in any State may distribute, sell, offer for sale,
 hold for sale,  ship, deliver for shipment, or receive (and having so received)
 deliver  or offer to deliver, to any  person any pesticide which is not
 registered with the Administrator  [of EPA]."  To approve the  registration of a
 pesticide, the  Administrator must find,  pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)  that:

    "(A)   its composition  is such as  to warrant the proposed claims for it;

     (B)   its labeling  and  other material required to be submitted comply
          with the requirements  of this Act;

     (C)   it  will perform its intended function without unreasonable  adverse
          effects on the environment;  and

     (D)   when used in  accordance with widespread and commonly recognized
          practice it will  not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects
          on  the  environment."

 In making these  findings,  the Agency reviews a wide range of data which
 registrants  are  required to submit,  and  assesses the risks and benefits
 associated with  the use of the  proposed  pesticide.  However, the established.
 approach  to making these findings has been found to be defective on  two counts.

 First, EPA and  its predecessor  agency, the United States Department  of
 Agriculture  (USDA), routinely reviewed registration applications on  a "product
 by product"  basis, evaluating each product-specific application somewhat
 independently.   In the  review of products containing similar components, there
was little opportunity for  a retrospective review of the full range  of
pertinent data available in  Agency files and in the public literature.   Thus

-------
 the  "product by product"  approach was often inefficient and sometimes resulted
 in inconsistent or incomplete regulatory judgments.

 Second, over the years, as a result of inevitable and continuing advances in
 scientific  knowledge, methodology, and policy, the data base for many
 pesticides  came to be considered  inadequate by current scientific and
 regulatory  standards.  Given the  long history of pesticide regulation in
 several agencies, it is even likely that materials may have been lost from
 the  data  files.  When EPA issued  new requirements for registration in 1975 (40
 CFR  162)  and proposed new guidelines for hazard testing in 1978 (43 FR 29686,
 July 10,  1978 and 43 FR 37336, August 22, 1978), many products that had already
 been registered for years were being sold and used without the same assurances
 of human  and environmental safety as was being required for new products.
 Because of  this inconsistency, Congress directed EPA to reregister all
 previously  registered products, so as to bring their registrations and their
 data bases  into compliance with current requirements [See FIFRA Section 3(g)].

 Facing the  enormous job of re-reviewing and calling-in new data for the
 approximately 35,000 current registrations, and realizing the inefficiencies of
 the  "product by product"  approach, the Agency decided that a new, more
 effective method of review was needed.

 A new review procedure has been developed.  Under it, EPA publishes documents
 called Registration Standards, each of which discusses a particular pesticide
 active ingredient.  Each  Registration Standard summarizes all the data
 available to the Agency on a particular active ingredient and its current uses,
 and  sets  forth the Agency's comprehensive position on the conditions and
 requirements for registration of  all existing and future products which contain
 that active ingredient.   These conditions and requirements, all of which must
 be met to obtain or retain full registration or reregistration under Section
 3(c)(5) of  FIFRA, include the submission of needed scientific data which the
 Agency does not now have, compliance with standards of toxicity, composition,'
 labeling, and packaging,  and satisfaction of the data compensation provisions
 of FIFRA  Section 3(c)(l)(D).

 The  Standard will also serve as a tool for product classification.  As part of
 the  registration of a pesticide product,  EPA may classify each product for
 "general  use" or "restricted use" [FIFRA Section 3(d)].   A pesticide is
 classified  for "restricted use" when some special regulatory restriction is
 needed to ensure against  unreasonable adverse effects to man or the
 environment.   Many such risks of  unreasonable adverse effects can be lessened
 if expressly-designed label precautions are strictly followed. Thus the special
 regulatory  restriction for a "restricted  use"  pesticide  is usually a
 requirement that it be applied only by, or under the supervision of, an
 applicator  who has been certified by the State or Federal government as being
 competent to use the pesticide safely, responsibly, and  in accordance with
 label  directions.   A restricted-use  pesticide can have other regulatory
 restrictions [40 CFR 162.11(c)(5)]  instead of, or in addition to, the certified
 applicator  requirement.   These other regulatory restrictions may include such
 actions as  seasonal or regional limitations on use, or a requirement for the
monitoring  of residue levels after use. A pesticide classified for "general
 use,"  or  not classified at all, is available for use by any individual who is
 in compliance with State  or local regulations.   The Registration Standard

-------
 review compares  information about potential adverse effects of specific uses of
 the pesticide with risk criteria listed in 40 CFR 162.11(c), and thereby
 determines whether a product needs to be classified for "restricted use."  If
 the Standard  does  classify a pesticide for "restricted  use," this determination
 is  stated in  the second chapter.

 3.  Requirement to  Reregister Under the Standard

 FIFRA Section 3(g), as  amended  in 1978, directs EPA to  reregister all currently
 registered products as  expeditiously as possible.   Congress also agreed that
 reregistration should be accomplished by the use of Registration Standards.

 Each registrant  of a currently  registered product  to which this Standard
 applies, and  who wishes to continue to sell or distribute  his product in
 commerce, must apply for reregistration.   His application  must contain proposed
 labeling that complies  with this  Standard.

 EPA will issue a notice of intent to cancel the registration of any currently
 registered product to which this  Standard applies  if the registrant fails to
 comply with the  procedures for  reregistration set  forth in the Guidance Package
 which accompanies  this  Standard.

 4.  "Product Specific" Data and  "Generic"  Data

 In  the course of developing this  Standard,  EPA has determined the types of data
 needed for evaluation of the properties and effects of  products to which the
 Standard applies,  in the disciplinary areas of Product  Chemistry, Environmental
 Fate, Toxicology,  Residue Chemistry,  and  Ecological Effects.   These
 determinations are based primarily on the data Guidelines  proposed in 43 FR
 29696, July 10,  1978; 43 FR 37336,  August 22,  1978;  and 45 FR 72948,^
 November 3, 1980,  as applied to the use patterns of the products to which this
 Standard applies.  Where it appeared  that data from a normally applicable
 Guidelines requirement  was  actually unnecessary to evaluate these products, the
 Standard indicates that the requirement has been waived.   On the other hand, in
 some  cases studies not  required by  the Guidelines  may be needed because of the
 particular composition  or use pattern of  products  the Standard covers; if so,
 the Standard  explains the Agency's  reasoning.   Data guidelines have not yet
 been  proposed for  the Residue Chemistry discipline,  but the requirements for
 such  data have been in  effect for some time and are,  the Agency believes,
 relatively familiar to  registrants.   Data which we have found are needed to
 evaluate the  registrability of some products covered by the Standard may not be
 needed  for the evaluation of other  products, depending  upon the composition,
 formulation type,  and intended uses of the  product in question.   The Standard
 states which  data  requirements apply  to which  product categories.  (See the
 third chapter.)  The various kinds of  data  normally required  for registration
of a pesticide product  can  be divided  into  two basic groups:

  A. Data that are  product specific  ,  i.e.  data that relate  only
     to the properties or effects of a product with  a particular
     composition (or a group of products with  closely similar
     composition);  and

  B. Generic data that pertains to the properties  or effects  of a

-------
     particular ingredient,  and thus are relevant to an evaluation of
     the risks and benefits  of all products containing that ingredient
     (or all  such products having a certain use pattern), regardless
     of any such product's unique composition.

The  Agency requires certain  "product specific" data for each product to
characterize  the product's particular composition and physical/chemical
properties (Product Chemistry), and to characterize the product's acute
toxicity (which is a function of'its total composition).  The applicant for
registration  or reregistration of any product, whether it is a manufacturing-
use  or end-use product' and  without regard to its intended use pattern, must
submit or cite enough of this kind of data to allow EPA to evaluate the
product.  For such purposes, "product specific" data on any product other than
the  applicant's is irrelevant, unless the other product is closely similar in
composition to the applicant's.  (Where it has been found practicable to group
similar products for purposes of evaluating, with a single set of tests, all
products in the group, the Standard so indicates.)  "Product specific" data on
the  efficacy  of particular end-use products are also required where the exact
formulation may affect efficacy and where failure of efficacy could cause
public health problems.

All  other data needed to evaluate pesticide products concern the properties or
effects of a  particular ingredient of products (normally a pesticidally active
ingredient, but in some cases a pesticidally inactive, or "inert",
ingredient).   Some data in this "generic" category are required to evaluate the
properties and effects of all products containing that ingredient [e.g., the
acute  LD-50 of the active ingredient in its technical or purer grade; see
proposed guidelines, 43 FR 37355].

Other  "generic" data are required to evaluate all products which both contain a
particular ingredient and are intended for certain uses (see, e.g., proposed
guidelines,43 FR 37363, which requires subchronic oral testing of the
active ingredient with respect to certain use patterns only).  Where a
particular data requirement  is use-pattern dependent, it will apply to each end-
use  product which is to be labeled for that use pattern (except where such end-
use  product is formulated from a registered manufacturing-use product
permitting such formulations)  and to each manufacturing-use product with
labeling that allows it to be used to make end-use products with that use
pattern.   Thus,  for example,  a subchronic oral dosing study is needed to
evaluate the  safety of any manufacturing-use product that legally could be used
to make  an end-use,  food-crop pesticide.   But if an end-use product's label
specified  it  was for use only in ways that involved no food/feed exposure and
no repeated human exposure,  the subchronic oral dosing study would not be
required  to evaluate the product's safety;  and if a manufacturing-use product's
label  states  that the  product is for use  only in making end-use products not
involving  food/feed  use or repeated human exposure, that subchronic oral study
would  not  be  relevant  to the  evaluation of the manufacturing-use product either.

If a registrant of a currently registered manufacturing-use or end-use product
wishes to  avoid  the  costs of  data compensation [under FIFRA Section 3(c)(l)(D)]
or data generation [under Section 3(c)(2)(B)]  for "generic" data that is
required only with respect to some use patterns,  he may elect to delete those
use  patterns  from his  labeling at the time he reregisters  his product.  An

-------
applicant for registration of a new product  under  this  Standard may similarly
request approval for only certain use patterns.

5. Data Compensation Requirements under FIFRA 3(c)(l)(D)

Under FIFRA Section 3(c)(l)(D), an applicant for registration, reregistration,
or amended registration must offer to pay compensation  for certain existing
data the Agency has used in developing the Registration Standard.   The data for
which compensation must be offered are all data which are described by all of
the following criteria:
                                                        •
  A. The data were first submitted to EPA (or to its predecessor
     agencies, USDA or FDA), on or after January 1, 1970;

  B. The data were submitted to EPA (or USDA or FDA) by some other
     applicant or registrant in support of an application for an
     experimental use permit, an amendment adding  a new use to a
     registration, or for registration, or to support or  maintain
     an existing registration;

  C. They are the kind of data which are relevant  to the  Agency's
     decision to register or reregister the  applicant's product
     under the Registration Standard, taking into  account the
     applicant's product's composition and intended use pattern(s);

  D. The Agency has found the data to be valid and usable in reaching
     regulatory conclusions; and

  E. They are not data for which the applicant has been exempted by
     FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(D) from the duty  to offer to pay
     compensation.  (This exemption applies  to the "generic" data
     concerning the safety of an active ingredient of the applicant's
     product, not to "product specific" data.  The exemption is
     available only to applicants whose product is labeled for end-
     uses for which the active ingredient in question is  present in
     the applicant's product because of his  use of another registered
     product containing that active ingredient which he purchases  from
     another producer.

An applicant for reregistration of an already registered  product under this
Standard, or for registration of a new product under this Standard, accordingly
must determine which of the data used by EPA in developing the Standard must be
the subject of an offer to pay compensation,  and must submit with  his
application the appropriate statements evidencing  his compliance with FIFRA
Section 3(c)(l)(D).

An applicant would never be required to offer to pay for  "product  specific"
data submitted by another firm.  In many, if not in most  cases, data which are
specific to another firm's product will not  suffice to  allow EPA to evaluate
the applicant's product, that is, will not be useful to the Agency in
determining whether the applicant's product  is registrable.  There may be
cases, however, where because of close similarities between the composition of
two or more products, another firm's data may suffice to  allow EPA to evaluate

-------
some or all of the  "product  specific"  aspects  of the applicant's product.   In
such a case,  the  applicant may choose  to cite  that data instead of submitting
data from tests on  his own product,  and  if  he  chooses that option, he would
have to comply with the offer-to-pay requirements of Section 3(C)(1)(D)  for
that data.

Each applicant for  registration or reregistration of a manufacturing-use
product, and  each applicant  for registration or  reregistration of an end-use
product, who  is not exempted by FIFRA  Section  3(c)(2)(D),  must comply with the
Section 3(c)(l)(D)  requirements with respect to  each item  of "generic" data
that relates  to his product's intended uses.

A detailed description of the procedures an applicant must follow in applying
for reregistration  (or new registration) under this Standard is found in the
Guidance Package  for this Standard.       <

6.  Obtaining  Data to Fill "Data Gaps"; FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)

Some of the kinds of data EPA needs  for  its evaluation of  the properties and
effects of products to which this Standard  applies have never been submitted to
the Agency (or, if  submitted, have been  found  to have deficiencies rendering
them inadequate for making registrability decisions)  and have not been located
in  the published  literature  search that  EPA conducted as part of preparing this
Standard.  Such instances of missing but required data are referred to in  the
Standard as "data gaps".

FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(B), added to FIFRA by the  Congress in 1978, authorizes
EPA to require registrants to whom a data requirement applies to generate  (or
otherwise produce)  data to fill such "gaps" and  submit those data to EPA.   EPA
must allow a  reasonably sufficient period for  this to be accomplished.  If a
registrant fails  to take appropriate and timely  steps to fill the data gaps
identified by a section 3(c)(2)(B) order, his  product's registration may be
suspended until the data are submitted.   A  mechanism is provided whereby two or
more registrants  may agree to share  in the  costs of producing data for which
they are both responsible.

The Standard  lists,  in the third chapter, the  "generic" data gaps and notes the
classes of products  to which these data  gaps pertain.   The Standard also points
out that to be registrable under the Standard, a product must be supported by
certain required  "product specific"  data.   In  some cases,  the Agency may
possess sufficient  "product  specific"  data  on  one currently registered product,
but may lack  such data on another.   Only those Standards which apply to  a  very
small number  of currently registered products  will attempt to state
definitively  the  "product specific"  data gaps  on a "product by product"
basis.  (Although the Standard will  in some cases note which data that EPA does
possess would suffice to satisfy certain "product specific"  data requirements
for a category of products with closely  similar  composition characteristics.)

As part of the process of reregistering  currently registered products, EPA will
issue Section 3(c)(2)(B) directives  requiring  the registrants to take
appropriate steps to fill all  identified data  gaps — whether the data in
question are  "product specific"  or "generic" —  in accordance with a schedule.

-------
Persons who wish to obtain registrations  for new products  under this Standard
will be required to submit (or cite) sufficient "product specific"  data before
their applications are approved.  Upon registration, they  will  be required
under Section 3(c)(2)(B) to take appropriate steps  to  submit data needed to
fill "generic" data gaps:  (We expect they will respond  to this requirement by
entering into cost-sharing agreements with other registrants who previously
have been told they must furnish the data.)  The Guidance  Package for this
Standard details the steps that must be taken by registrants to comply with
Section 3(c)(2)(B).

7. Amendments to the Standard

Applications for registration which propose uses or formulations that are not
presently covered by the Standard, or which present product compositions,
product chemistry data, hazard data, toxicity levels,  or labeling that do not
meet the requirements of the Standard, will automatically  be considered by the
Agency to be requests for amendments to the Standard.  In  response  to such
applications, the Agency may request additional data to  support the proposed
amendment to the Standard, or may deny the application for registration on the
grounds that the proposed product would cause unreasonable adverse  effects to
the environment.  In the former case, when additional  data have been
satisfactorily supplied, and providing that the data do  not indicate the
potential for unreasonable adverse effects, the Agency will then amend the
Standard to cover the new registration.

Each Registration Standard is based upon all data and  information available to
the Agency's reviewers on a particular date prior to the publication date.
This "cut-off" date is stated at the beginning of the  second chapter.  Any
subsequent data submissions and any approved amendments  will be incorporated
into the Registration Standard by means of addenda, which  are available for
inspection at EPA in Washington, D.C., or copies of which  may be requested from
the Agency.  When all the present "data gaps" have  been  filled  and  the
submitted data have been reviewed, the Agency will  revise  the Registration
Standard.  Thereafter, when the Agency determines that the internally
maintained addenda have significantly altered the conditions for registration
under the Standard, the document will be updated and re-issued.

While the Registration Standard discusses only the  uses  and hazards of products
containing the designated active ingredient(s), the Agency is also  concerned
with the potential hazards of some inert ingredients and impurities.
Independent of the development of any one Standard, the  Agency  has  initiated
the evaluation of some inert pesticide ingredients.  Where the  Agency has
identified inert ingredients of concern in a specific  product to which the
Standard applies, these ingredients will be pointed out  in the  Guidance Package.

-------
                 CHAPTER II:   REGULATORY POSITION AND RATIONALE

     1.  Introduction
     2.  Description of Chemical
     3.  Regulatory Position
     4.  Regulatory Rationale
     5.  Criteria for Registration under the Standard
     6.  Required Labeling
     7.  Tolerance Reassessment

 1.  Introduction

 This chapter presents the Agency's regulatory position and rationale based on
 an  evaluation of all registered products containing 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol as
 the sole active ingredient.   After briefly describing the chemical, this
 chapter presents the regulatory position and rationale, the criteria by which
 applicants for registration  of 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol products will be
 approved, labeling considerations, and tolerance reassessment. A summary of
 data requirements is contained in Chapter III.  A discussion of the data upon
 which this regulatory position is based is presented in each of the
 disciplinary chapters, IV through IX.

 2.  Description of Chemical

 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol, also known as  "6-12", is registered as an insect
 repellent for use on human skin, clothing, and window and door screens,
 excluding use in commercial  food preparation and serving areas. The Chemical
 Abstracts Service (CAS)  Registry number for 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol is 94-96-2.
 The OPP Internal Control Number (EPA Shaughnessy number) is 041001.

 3.  Regulatory Position

 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol as described in this Standard may be registered for
 sale, distribution,  reformulation and  use in the United States.  The Agency
 has considered the scientific data obtained from the open literature as of
 January 14,  1981,  and  those  data submitted by the registrants up through the
 time of publication  of this  Standard.   Based upon the review of these limited
 data, the Agency finds that  none of the risk criteria found in section
 162.11(a)  of Title 40  of the U.S.  Code of Federal Regulations was met or
 exceeded  for 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol.   The Agency has determined that
 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol does  not appear to cause  an unreasonable adverse effect,
 when used in accordance  with proper label directions and precautions.
 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol products currently registered may be reregistered
 subject to the conditions imposed for  data requirements.  New products may be
 registered under this  Standard and are subject to the same requirements.

 4.  Regulatory Rationale

Limited data are available to support  the registration of
2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol,  with the exception of a  primary dermal irritation
study and  efficacy data.  All  other acute and chronic toxicology studies
and product  chemistry  studies  are  either not available or not usable by
current  standards.  There are  no environmental fate or ecological effects data.

-------
Despite the lack of data, the Agency has concluded that it should continue  the
registration for this chemical for the following reasons:

   A. Mb valid, adverse effects data of regulatory concern have been  uncovered
      in the review of the studies which have been received. Therefore,
      the benefits demonstrated by the sale of this product outweigh  the
      known risks, when label directions are followed.

   B. Incidents of 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol ingest ion, as well as eye and other
      means of exposure have been reported.  However, no  indication of any
      resulting problems has been given.  (EPA 1980, MRID #GS00200019).

   C. In accordance with FIFRA, the Agency's policy is not to cancel  routinely
      the registration of products for which it lacks data or to withhold
      registration merely for the lack of data.  (See Sections 3(c)(2)(B) and
      3(c)(7) of FIFRA.)  Rather, publication of the Standard provides a
      mechanism for identifying data needs, and registration under the Standard
      allows for upgrading of labels during the period in which the required
      data are being generated.  When these data are received, they will be
      reviewed by the Agency, and the registrability of the chemical  will be
      reassessed.

5.  Criteria for Registration Under The Standard

Tb be subject to this Standard, products must meet the following conditions:

  - contain 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol as the sole active ingredient,

  - bear required labeling, and

  - conform to the product composition standard, acute toxicity limits, and use
    pattern requirements as specified in part A.I., 2., and 3., and B.I., 2.,
    and 3., respectively.

The applicant for registration or reregistration of products subject  to this
Standard must comply with all terms and conditions described in this  Standard,
including a commitment to fill data gaps on a time schedule specified by the
Agency and, when applicable, offering to pay compensation to the extent
required by 3(c)(l)(D) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), as amended, 7 U.S.C. 136(c)(1)(D). As discussed in Chapter I,
applicants for registration under this Standard should contact the Agency for
specific instructions, including updated information on data requirements and
companies whose data must be cited and to whom compensation must be offered.

    A.  Manufacturing-Use Products

         1)  Product Composition Standard

To be covered under this Standard, manufacturing-use 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol
products with any percentage of active ingredient are acceptable with an
appropriate certification of limits.
                                      10

-------
          2)  Acute Toxicity Limits

Because  of  the  intended  use of manufacturing-use 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol
products, there are no acute toxicity limits.

          3)  Use  Patterns

To  be  covered under this Standard, manufacturing-use 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol
must be  labeled to allow for formulation only  into end-use repellents, which
are intended for  application to human skin and/or window and door screens,
excluding use in  commercial food preparation and serving areas.
                            u
    B.   End-Use Products

          1)   Product  Composition Standard

End-use  products  with any percentage  active ingredient with the  appropriate
certification of  limits  will be considered under this Standard.

          2)  Acute Toxicity Limit

Because  of  the  high level of exposure resulting from direct skin application,
the Agency will consider the registration of any ready-to-use,  impregnated
material, or pressurized spray in the following categories:

                                        Toxicology Category
                                       I    II     III    IV

          Acute  Oral Toxicity         No    No     Yes    Yes

          Acute  Dermal Toxicity       No    No     Yes    Yes

          Acute  Inhalation Toxicity   No    No     Yes    Yes

          Primary  Dermal  Irritation   No    No     Yes    Yes

Additionally, end-use products must not be corrosive to the eye  (cause
irreversible destruction of ocular tissue) or  cause corneal involvement or
irritation persisting for 21 days  or  more.

          3)  Use  Pattern

To be considered  under this Standard, end-use  products must bear directions for
use as an insect  repellent to  be used in direct skin application and  clothing
application  on  humans and/or window and door screens, excluding  use in
commercial food preparation and  serving areas.

6.  Required Labeling

All manufacturing-use and end-use  2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol products must bear
appropriate  labeling  as  specified  in  40 CFR 162.10.   The guidance package
which accompanies this Standard  contains specific information regarding label
requirements.


                                       11

-------
    A.  Manufacturing-use Products

All mnufacturing-use 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol  products must list on the label
the intended end-uses of formulated products  produced from manufacturing-use
products.  All manufacturing-use product  labels must bear the following
statement:

"For  Formulation  into End-Use  Insect Repellent Products Intended Only for
NonfoodJJses."

    B.  End-use Products

2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol has been shown  to  be a skin  sensitizer.   Unless data on
individual products are submitted to the  contrary,  all end-use  2-ethy1-1,3-
hexanediol products must bear  the following statement:

"If skin irritation (rash or itching)  develops,  discontinue use."

Because this product is applied directly  to the  skin, including hands, the
following statement must appear on all end-use labels:

"Wash hands before touching food."

For end-use products presenting claims for insects  which might  affect public
health, the Agency will require registrants to submit or cite data to support
these claims.  The label on all products  or substantially similar products,
which claim that  2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol repels the  following pests, must be
supported by company data or published literature:

         black flies
         chiggers
         fleas
         mosquitoes
         sand flies (biting midges)
         stable flies
         ticks

7. Tolerance Reassessment

The current uses  of this chemical are  not subject to the requirement  to obtain
a tolerance under the provisions of the Federal  Food,  Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Therefore, no tolerance reassessment is appropriate for this Standard.
                                      12

-------
           CHAPTER III:  SUMMARY OF DATA REQUIREMENTS AND DATA GAPS


    1.  Introduction
    2.  Manufacturing-Use Products
    3.  End-Use Products
    4.  Footnotes

1. Introduction

Applicants for registration of manufacturing-use  and  end-use
2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol products must cite or submit the  information identified
as required in the tables in this chapter.  The tables applicable  to end-use
products indicate whether the product to be tested is the  technical grade or
formulation.  Data generated on one formulation may be used to satisfy the  data
requirement for a substantially similar  formulation.  Information  on which
product specific data requirements are already met is available in the guidance
package.

Before each requirement is listed the section of  the  Proposed  Guidelines which
describes the type of data and when the  data are  required  to be submitted  [43
FR, 29696 of July 10, 1978; and 43 FR, 37336 of August 22, 1978].
Justification for why the test is required is provided in  the  Guidelines.   A
discussion of why data additional to those already submitted are necessary, or
why data normally required are not necessary for  this chemical,  are explained
in footnotes to the tables.  The data requirements specified are the minimum
that will be required.  Areas where additional data may  be required as the
result of tiered testing are indicated.
                                      13

-------
                                                   2-Ethyl-1,3-Bexanediol
                 Product Specific Manufacturing-Use Products Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Guidelines
Citation
163.61-3
163-61-4
163.61-5
Name Of Test Are Data Required? Composition Does EPA Have Bibliographic Must Additional
Data To Partially Reference Data be Submitted
Or Totally Satisfy Under FIJBA 3(c)(2)
This Requirement? (B)? If So, due
when?
Product Identity & yes Bach Product nql/ I/
Disclosure of Ingredients
Description of yes Bach Product no
Manufacturing Process
Discussion on Formation yes Bach Product no
yen/1/
yea/1/
yes/1/
               of Unintentional
               Ingredients

163.61-6       Declaration ft
               Certification of
               Ingredients Limits
                          yes
163.61-7


163.6l-8(c)(1) Color
Product Analytical
Methods ft Data
I63.6l-8(c)(2) Odor

I63.6l-8(c)(3) Melting Point
                          yes
   Bach Product



   Bach Product


Technical Grade of
Active Ingredient

Tech. Grade of A.I.

Tech. Grade of A.I.
   no



partially


   no


   no

   no
I/
All footnotes are located at the end of Chapter in.
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
yes/April, 1982



yes/April, 1982


yes/1/


yea/1/

yea/1/
                                                            14

-------
B^Jlm.l <3n~»-l-F4«i
ruuUUV opeClUC
Guidelines *»e Of Test
Citation
163-6l-8(c)(4) Solubility
Ifi3-61-e(c)(5) Stability
me f M. »
r IkidUuCWrlfc^-
Oae Products Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Are Data Required? Composition Does EPA Rave Bibliographic
Data To Partially Reference
Or Totally Satisfy
This Requirement?
.*-
yes
l£3-61-8(c)(6) Octanol/ffexter Partition yes
Cbefficient
163.6l-^8(c)(7) Physical State
Ifi3.6l-8(c)(8) Specific Gravity
163-61-8(c)(9) Boiling Point
l£3.61-8(c)(10) Tapor Pressure
Ifi3.6l-*(c)(l1) pH
All footnotes are located at the
A mpmrfof.1 MMInpwifliy in ra-rari
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
end of Chapter
tm nf Mnrr-h
ided at the end
Technical Grade of
Active Ingredient
Tech. Grade of A.I.
Tech. Grade of A.I.
Tech. Grade of A.I.
Tech. Grade of A.I.
Tech. Grade of A.I.
Tech. Grade of A.I.
Tech. Grade of A.I.
m.
1981 . Refer to the guidance
of this Standard.
no -
no -
no -
no -
no -
no -
no -
no
package for updated requirements.
Must Additional
Date he Submitted
under FURA 3(c)(2)
(B)? If So, due
when?
yes/1/
yes/1/
yes/1/
yes/1/
yes/1/
yes/1/
yes/1/
yes/1/

15

-------
                                                   2-Bthyl-1,3-Hexanediol
                 Product Specific Manufacturing-Use Products Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Guidelines
Citation
I63.6l-8(e)(12)
I63.61-8(c)(l3)
I63.61-8(c)(l4)
I63.61-8(c)(l5)
I63.6l-8(c)(16)
I63.6i-6(c)(17)
I63.6l-8(c)(18)
Name Of Test Are Data
Storage Stability
FLammability
Oxidizing/Reducing Action
Explosiveness
Miscibility
Viscosity Coefficient
Corrosiveness
Required?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Composition
Bach Product
Bach Product
Each Product
Bach Product
Bach Product
Bach Product
Bach Product
Does EPA Have Bibliographic
Data To Partially Reference
Or Totally Satisfy
This Requirement?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Must Additional
Data be Submitted
Under FBRA 3(c)(2)
(B)? If So, due
when?
yes/i/
yes/i/
yes/1/
yes/l/
yes/1/
yes/i/
yes/1/
All footnotes are located at the end of Chapter III.
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
                                                            16

-------
                                                   2-Ethyl-1,3-Hexanediol
                     Generic Manufacturing-Use Products Data Requirements: Environmental Pate (See Chapter V)
zuidelines
3itation
l63.62-7(b)
!63.62-7(c)
!63.62-8(b)
l63.62-8(c)
Name Of Test Are Data Required? Composition Does EPA Have Bibliographic Must Additional
Data To Partially Reference Data be Submitted
Or Totally Satisfy ftider FIFRA 3(c)(2)
This Requirement? (B)? If So, due
when?
Hydrolysis
Photodegradation
Aerobic Soil Metabolism
Anaerobic Soil
no 2/
no
no
no
               Metabolism

l63.62-8(d)    Anaerobic Aquatic        no
               Metabolism

l63-62-8(e)    Aerobic Aquatic          no
               Metabolism

!63.62-^3(f)    Microbial Metabolism:
               (2) Effects of Microbes  no
                   on Pesticides
               (3) Effects of           no
                   Pesticides on
                   Microbes
All footnotes are located at the end of Chapter III.
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
                                                              17

-------
                                                   2-Ethyl-1,3-Bexanediol
                     Generic ffanufacturlqe-Oae Products Data Requirements: Environmental Bate (See Chapter V)
Guldellnea
Citation
     Of Test	Are Data Required?
                                                         Composition
Does EPA Have
Data To Partially
Or Totally Satisfy
This Requirement?
Bibliographic
Reference
Must Additional
Data be Submitted
Under PIERA 3(c)(2)
(B)? If So, due
when?
163.62-8(g)    Activated Sludge


163.62-9(b)

l63.62-9(c)

163.62-9(4)

163-62-9(e)

163-62-K)(b)
                                      no3/
                                      no
Volatility             no

Adaorption/Desorption  no

Hater Dispersal
                                      no
               Terrestrial Field
               Dissipation:
               (1) field ft Tegatable  no
                   Crops
               (2) Tree fruit ft Hit   no
                   Crop uses
               (3) Pasture land uses  no
               (4) Domestic Outdoor   no
                   Barks, Ornamental
                   ft Turf uses
All footnotes are located at tie end of Chapter IlH
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
                                                             18

-------
                                                   2-Bthyl-1,3-Bexanediol
                     Generic Manufacturing-Use Products Data Requireaents: ftwironaental Bate (See Chapter V)
GuidelinesName Of TestAre Data Required?CompositionDoes 8PA HaveBibliographic
Citation                                                                 Data To Partially     Reference          Data be Submitted
                                                                         Or Totally Satisfy                       Under FIHIA 3(c)(2)
                                                                         This Requirement?                        (B)? If So, due
	.	when?	

               (5) Rights of Way,    no
                   Shelterbelts ft
                   Related Uses

!65-62-10(c)   Aquatic Field
               Dissipation:
               (1) Aquatic food      no
                   Crop Uses
               (2) Aquatic Noncrop   no
               (3) Specialized       no
                   Aquatic Uses

l63-62-10(d)   Terrestrial/Aquatic   no
               (Forest) Field
               Dissipation

l63.62-10(e)   Aquatic Impact Uses:
               (l) Direct Discharge  no
               (2) Indirect          no
                   Discharge
               (3) Wasteuater        no
                   Treatment
All footnotes are located at the end of Chapter III.
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at Die end of this Standard.
                                                             19

-------
                                                   2-Ethyl-1,3-Hexanediol
                     Generic Manufacturing-Use Products Data Requirements: Environmental Pate (See Chapter V)
Guidelines
Citation
!63.62-10(f)
!63.62-10(g)
!63.62-ll(b)
!63.62-ll(c)
163.62-ll(d)
163.62-ll(e)
Name Of Test Are Data Required?
Combination & Tank no
Mix Field Dissipation
Long Term Field no
Dissipation Study
Accumulation in no
Rotational Crops
Accumulation in no
Irrigated Crops
Fish Accumulation no
Special Studies no
Composition Does EPA Have Bibliographic Must Additional
Data To Partially Reference Data be Submitted
Or Totally Satisfy Under FIFRA 3(c)(2)
This Requirement? (B)? If So, due
when?






163.62-13
Accumulation in
Aquatic Noncrop Uses

Disposal & Storage    no
All footnotes are located at the end of Chapter III.
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
                                                        20

-------
                                                    2-Ethyl-1,3-Hexanediol
                     Product Specific Manufacturing-Use Products Data Requirements: Toxicology (See Chapter VI)
Guidelines
Citation
163-81-1
163-81-2
163-81-3
163.81-4
163-81-5
163.81-6
163-81-7
163.82-1
163-82-2
Name Of Test Are Data Required?
Acute Oral Toxicity
Acute Dermal Toxicity
Acute Inhalation Toxicity
Primary iye Irritation
Primary Dermal Irritation
Dermal Sensitization
Acute Delayed Neurotoxicity
Suchronic Oral Toxicity
Subchronic 21 -Day Dermal
Toxicity
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no 4/
no 5/
no 6/
Composition
Does EPA Have Bibliographic
Data To Partially Reference
Or Totally Satisfy
This Requirement?
Each Product or
Substantially Similar no
Product
Ba. Prod, or
Substan. Sim. Prod.
Ba. Prod, or
Substan. Sim. Prod.
Ba. Prod, or
Substan. Sim. Prod.
Ba. Prod, or
Substan. Sim. Prod.
Ba. Prod, or
Substan. Sim. Prod.



no
no
no -
yes 000004881
yes 000004881



Must Additional
Data be Submitted
Under FISRA 3(c)(2)
(B)? If So, due
when?
yes/April, 1982
yes/April, 1982
yes/April, 1982
yes/April, 1982
no
no



All footnotes are located at  the  end  of Chapter  III.
These data requirements are current as  of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography ^is provided  at the end  of. this Standard.
                                                              21

-------
                                                   2-Ethyl-1,3-Bexanediol
                        Generic Manufacturing-Use Products Data Requirements: Toxicology (See Chapter VI)
Guidelines
Citation
163.82-3
163.82-4
163.82-5
163-83-1
163.83-2
163-83-3
163.83-4
163.84-2
through -4
163.85-1
All footnotes
These data rec
Name Of Test Are Data Required?
Subchronic 90-Day Dermal
Tbxicity
Subchronic Inhalation
Toxicity
Subchronic Neurotoxicity
Chronic Dermal Toxicity
Dermal Oncogenicity
Dermal Teratogenicity
Dermal Reproduction
Mutagenicity
Metabolism
(Identification of
Metabolites)
yes
11
no §/
yes9/
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
are located at -Hie end of Chapter III.
niipements are current as of September.
Composition Does EPA Have Bibliographic Must Additional
Data To Partially Reference Data be Submitted
Or Totally Satisfy ttder FOBA 3(c)(2]
This Requirement? (B)? If So, due
when?
Technical Grade of no -
Active Ingredient
Tech. Grade of A.I.

Tech. Grade of A.I. no -
Tech. Grade of A.I. no -
Tech. Grade of A.I. no
Tech. Grade of A.I. no -
Tech. Grade of A.I. no -
Tech. Grade of A.I. no -
1980. Refer to the guidance cackaee for undated reouin
yes/May, 1982
conditional

yes/Nov, 1985
yes/Hov, 1985
yes/Hay, 1982
yes/Nov, 1984
yes/Hay, 1982
yes/Hov, 1982
enents.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
                                                            22

-------
                                                   2-Ethyl-1,3-Hexanediol
                    Generic Manufacturing-Use Products Data Requirements: Residue Chemistry (See Chapter VII)
Guidelines
Citation
-
-
- -
-
Name Of Test Are
Metabolism in Plants
Metabolism in Animals
Analytical Methods
Residue Data:
Crops-
Data Required?
no
no
no
no
Composition Does EPA Have Bibliographic
Data To Partially Reference
Or Totally Satisfy
This Requirement?




Most Additional
Data be Suhnitted
Under PIPRA 3(c)(2)
(B)? If So, due
when?




               Residue Data:             no
                 Processed Crops-

               Residue Data:             no
                 Milk ft Meat

               Storage Stability         no
All footnotes are located at the end of Chapter III.
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
                                                             25

-------
                                                   2-Ethyl-1,3-Hexanediol
                   Generic Manufacturing-Use Products Data Requirements: Ecological Effects (See Chapter VIII)
Guidelines
Citation
163-71-1
163.71-2
163.71-3
163.71-4
163.71-5
163.72-1
163.72-2
Name Of Test Are Data Required? Composition Does EPA Have Bibliographic Must Additional
Data To Partially Reference Data be Submitted
Or Totally Satisfy Under FIFRA 3(c)(2
This Requirement? (B)? If So, due
when?
Avian Single-Dose Oral ID™
Avian Dietary 1C™
Mammalian Acute Toxicity
Avian Reproduction
Simulated and Actual Field
Testing for Mammals & Birds
Fish Acute IC,-Q
Acute Toxicity to Aquatic
nqlO/
nojp/
no
no
no
nojO/
nqlO/
               Invertebrates

163-72-3       Acute Toxicity to Estuarine  no
               & Marine Organisms

163.72-4       Embryolarvae & life-cycle    no
               Studies of Fish & Aquatic
               Invertibrates

163.72-5       Aquatic Organism Toxicity    no
               & Residue Studies

163-72^6       Simulated or Actual Field    no
               Testing for Aquatic Organisms

All footnotes are located at the end of Chapter III.
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
                                    '\
                                                           24

-------
Guidelines
Citation
                                                   2-Ethyl-1,3-Hexanediol                                 %
                    woduct Specific End-Use Products Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Name Of Test      Are Data Required?      Composition
                                    Does EPA Have
                                    Data To Partially
                                    Or Totally Satisfy
                                    This Requirement?
                                       Bibliographic
                                       Reference
                                                                                                   Data bTsubmittSr
                                                                                                   Under FlfflA 3(c)(2)
                                                                                                   (B)? If So, due
                                                                                                   when?
163.61-3



163.61-4


163.61-5
Product Identity ft
Disclosure of
Ingredients
Description of        yes
Manufacturing Process
Discussion on
Formation of
Unintentional
Ingredients
yes
                   Bach Product
                   Each Product
Bach Product
                                          no
                                          no
no
yes/1/



yes/1/


yes/1/
163.61-6


163.61-7

Declaration ft
Certification of
Ingredients Limits
Product Analytical
Methods ft Data
yes


yes

Bach Product


Bach Product

no


partially

yes/i/


I/ yes/l/

All footnotes are located at the end of Chapter III.
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
                                                             25

-------
                                                   2-Ethyl-1,3-Hexanediol
                     Product Specific End-Use Products Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Guidelines Name Of Test Are Data Required? Composition Does EPA Have Bibliographic Must Additional
Citation Data To Partially Reference Data be Submitted
Or Totally Satisfy Under FISRA 3(c)(2)
This Requirement? (B)? If So, due
when?
I63.6l-8(c)(l) Color
163.6l-8(c)(2) Odor
163.6l-8(c)(3) Melting Point
I63.6l-8(c)(4) Solubility
163.6l-8(c)(5) Stability
163.6l-8(c)(6) Octanol/Water
Partition Coefficient
163.6l-8(c}(7) Physical State
163.61-8(c)(8) Specific Gravity
163-61-8(c)(9) Boiling Point
I63.6l-8(c)(10) Vapor Pressure
163.61-8(c)(ll) pH
yes Each Product no
yes Each Product no
no
no
no
no
yes Bach Product no
yes Each Product no
no
no
yes Bach Product no
yes/i/
yes/i/




yes/i/
yea/i/


yea/1/
All footnotes are located at the end of Chapter III.
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated, requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
                                                               26

-------
                                                   2-Ethyl-1,3-Hexanediol
                     Product Specific Bid-Use Products Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Guidelines Name Of Test Are Data Required? Composition Does EPA Have Bibliographic Host Additional
Citation Data To Partially Reference Data be Submitted
Or Totally Satisfy Under PIERA 3(c)(2)
This Requirement? (B)? If So, due
when?
I63.6l-8(c)(12) Storage Stability
I63.6l-8(c)(l3) PLanmability
I63.6l-8(c)(14) Oxidising/Reducing
Action
l63-6l-8(c) (15) Explosiveness
I63.6l-8(c)(16) Miscibility
I63.61-8(c)(l7) Viscosity Coefficient
l63-6l-8(c)(18) Corrosiveness
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
no
no -
no -
no
no -
no
no ' -
yes/1/
yes/i/
yes/1/
yes/1/
yes/1/
yes/1/
yes/1/
All footnotes are located at the end of Chapter III.
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
                                                           27

-------
                                                    2-Bthyl-1,3-Hexanediol
                         Product Specific End-Use Products  Data Requirements: Toxicology  (See Chapter VI)
Guidelines Name Of Test
Citation
Are Data Required? Composition Does EPA Have
Data To Partially
Or Totally Satisfy
This Requirement?
Bibliographic
Reference
Host Additional
Data be Submitted
Under FIFRA 3(c)(2)
(B)? If So, due
when?
163.81-1
163.81-2
163.81-3
163.8M
163.81-5
163-81-6
Acute Oral Toxicity
            Each Formulation
yes         or Substantially
          Similar Formulations
Acute Dermal Toxicity      yes
Acute Inhalation Toxicity  yes
Primary Eye Irritation     yes
Primary Dermal Irritation  yes
Dermal Sensitization
            Each Formulation
            or Substantially
          Similar Formulations

            Bach Formulation
            or Substantially
          Similar Formulations

            Each Formulation
            or Substantially
          Similar Formulations

            Each Formulation
            or Substantially
          Similar Formulations
            Each Formulation
yes         or Substantially
          Similar Formulations
See Guidance Package for Requirements
for Each Formulation or Substantially
        Similar Formulation

See Guidance Package for Requirements
for Each Formulation or Substantially
        Similar Formulations

See Guidance Package for Requirements
for Each Formulation or Substantially
        Similar Formulations

See Guidance Package for Requirements
for Each Formulation or Substantially
        Similar Formulations

See Guidance Package for Requirements
for Each Formulation or Substantially
        Similar Formulations

See Guidance Package for Requirements
for Each Formulations or Substantially
        Similar Formulations
All footnotes are located at the end  of Chapter III.
These data requirements are current as  of March, 1981.  Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided  at the end of this Standard.
                                                              28

-------
                                                   2-Btnyl-1 ,5-Hexanediol
                          Product Specific End-Use Products Data Requirements:  Efficacy (See Chapter H)
Site Pest Are
Humans: Direct Black Flies
Skin Application
ft Clothing
•
Chiggers
Fleas
Mosquitoes
Sand Flies
(Biting Midges)
Stable Flies
Ticks
Data Required? Composition Does EPA Have Bibliographic
Data To Partially Reference
Or Totally Satisfy
This Requirement?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Minimum of 20£
Active Ingredient
iiy
u/
Min. of 20£ A.I.
li/
Min. of 20j( A.I.
!!/
yes
partially
partially
yes
partially
yes
partially
000001106,
000001112,
005000009,
005005264,
005006157
000001112,
005000299,
000001112,
12/
000001106,
000001109,
005000164,
005000256,
13/
005002666
000001109
000001118
005000164
005005640
005000150
005002597
000001181

000001107
000001112
005005265
005002669


Must Additional
Data be Submitted
Under PIPRA 5(c)(2
(B)? If So, due
when?
no
yes/April,
yes/April,
no
yes/April,
no
yes/April,

1985
1983

1983

1983
All footnotes are located at the end of Chapter III.
These data requirements are current as of March, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this Standard.
                                                         29

-------
4.   Footnotes

-/These requirements must be  fulfilled by each  applicant.   Data from other
applications may not be cited.  Therefore, even if  the  requirement has been
partially or completely fulfilled  for some products,  no references are given.
These requirements must be filled  at the time of registration or
rereg i strat ion.

-/Hydrolysis data are not required, since the structure of this compound
indicates its reaction with water  will not be a significant route of
degradation.

-The requirement for the submission of the above data  is  currently being
reserved.  Consequently, the  absence of acceptable  data within this topic does
not  constitute a data gap.

— Acute delayed neurotoxicity data are not required,  because this chemical
is not expected to cause esterase  depression, nor is  it related to a substance
which induces delayed neurotoxicity.

— Subchronic oral toxicity data are not required, because  the use of this
chemical does not need a tolerance or an exemption  from a  tolerance, does not
need the issuance of a food additive regulation, and  is not likely to result in
repeated human exposure through an oral route.

— Subchronic 21-day dermal toxicity data are not required, because the
direct application of this chemical to the skin requires a Subchronic 90-day
dermal toxicity test.

— Acute inhalation data are not available.  It  is,  thus, not possible to
determine if a subchronic inhalation test is needed.  A test may be required,
depending on the results of the acute inhalation test.
8/
— Subchronic neurotoxicity data are not required, because  this chemical is
not  expected to cause esterase depression, nor  is it  related to a substance
which induces delayed neurotoxicity.
9/
-'This study is listed in the Guidelines as a Chronic Feeding Study and not
as a Chronic Dermal Study.  We believe this reference will provide useful
guidance with respect to factors other than route of  exposure, such as number
of animals per dosage group,  number of dosage groups, etc.

- /Ecological effects data are not required, because  of the limited annual
production and the use pattern of*this chemical.

— Sufficient efficacy data are not available to establish a minimum
percentage of active ingredient for these pests.  Testing  will be required for
existing products until a minimum  level is established.
                                      30

-------
12/
- 'The bibliographic citations, which partially or. totally support  the
claim for mosquito repellency are as follows:

  MRID#         MRID#          MRIDt          MRID#          MRID#
GS0020005     000001172      005000126      005000284      005011438
GS0020007     000004865      005000128      005000299
GS0020011     000004866      005000130      005002395
000001106     000004867      005000141      005002493
000001107     000004868      005000164      005002667
000001109     000004873      005000165      005002848
000001112     000004874      005000167      005003262
000001114     000004887      005000169      005003263
000001115     000004890      005000170      005003265
000001116     000004892      005000172      005003266
000001117     000004893      005000187      005004864
000001118     000004896      005000222      005006012
000001121     005000042      005000231      005006137
000001123     005000113      005000236      005006463
000001166     005000121      005000280      005006505

— 'The bibliographic citations, which partially or totally support  the
claim for stable fly repellency are as follows:

  MRID#         MRID#          MRID#          MRID#          MRID#

GS0020005     000001114      000001123      000004892      005002395
GS0020011     000001115      000004865      000004893
000001106     000001116      000004866      000021737
000001107     000001117      000004867    ,  005000164
000001109     000001118      000004868      005000236
000001112     000001121      000004874      005000268
                                      31

-------
                            IV.  PRODUCT CHEMISTRY
The available product chemistry data cannot be considered as acceptable to fill
the data requirements for 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol.  The studies are  old, and the
applicability of the data to the products currently manufactured has not been
established.  Registrants may use existing data by resubmitting it  along with
confirmation of its current applicability.

The Agency reminds registrants that chlorofluorocarbons  (Freons) have been
banned for use in pressurized products due to their having been demonstrated
to cause a depletion in the ozone layer (43 FR 11318).  Products containing
Freon are not registrable under this Standard.
                                      32

-------
                             V.   ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
     1.  Use  Profile
     2.  Environmental  Fate  Profile
     3.  Exposure Profile

1.   Use Profile

2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol is an insect, mite, and tick repellent registered for
direct application  to  human skin and human clothing for the repellency of a
variety of insects. Those  which fall  into the area of public health concern,
according to the Agency definition (44 FR 27932;  May 11, 1979),  include black
flies, chiggers, fleas, mosquitoes, stable flies, sand flies, and ticks.  Ready-
to-use, pressurized liquids, and impregnated materials registered for skin
application  are labeled to  warn against contact with eyes or lips;  pressurized
liquids are  not to  be  sprayed directly into the face.

Window and door screens,  excluding use in commercial food preparation and
serving areas, may  also be  treated with 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol.

2.   Environmental Fate

The  minimum  environmental fate  data as required by the Agency under the
Guidelines proposed in 43 FR 29712; July 10, 1978,  are not required for
2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol.  These  include hydrolysis and  activated  sludge data.
Hydrolysis data are not necessary, because the structure of this compound
indicates its reaction with water will not be  a significant route of
degradation,  and the requirement for the submission of activated sludge data
is currently being  reserved. In addition if indirect  or accidental discharge
into an aquatic environment or  a wastewater treatment  system were to occur, the
Agency has determined  that  the  amount  of such  a discharge would  not be of
significant quantity to cause extensive environmental  harm.   Also,  the
potential use pattern  as  a  repellent for humans and window and door screens is
not  expected  to result in the introduction of  significant amounts of this
chemical into the environment.

3.   Exposure  Profile

No specific exposure data on 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol have been developed.  Human
exposure is clearly very  high due to the direct application to the  skin.  The
Agency has decided  not to seek  data to quantify exposure until the  results of
the  additional required toxicology testing are reviewed.   At that time the
Agency will either:

     1.  Attempt to  establish safety margins based on exposure as indicated by
        existing use directions,  or
     2.  Use data developed  for  other similar chemicals, or
     3.  Seek  additional exposure  data  from registrants of 2-ethyl-l,3-
        hexanediol.
                                      33

-------
                               VI.  TOXICOLOGY
    1.  Introduction
    2.  Manufacturing-Use Products
    3.  End-Use Products
    4.  Summary of Major Data Gaps

1. Introduction

Little acceptable data exist for 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol, with  the exception  of
a primary dermal irritation study.  However, a low order of acute toxicity is
suggested by studies done on mixtures.

2. Manufacturing-Use Products

    Toxicology Profile

A human study (Kline and Gabriel 1965, MRID#000004881) indicates that
2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol may be a weak primary skin irritant and/or weak
skin sensitizer. Four out of 200 people showed a reaction.  This study  is
acceptable to fulfill the data requirement for primary dermal  irritation and
skin sensitization, although it was not conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the Guidelines.

Insufficient data were available to assess the chronic effects.  One inadequate
chronic dermal study suggests, that 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol might be oncogenic
in female mice (Stenbaeck and Shubik 1974, MRID#005004319).  The results of
this study were not definitive, because of the discrepancies between the number
of animals in the test groups and the number of total tumors.  A linear trend
analysis and a site-specific chi-square test was conducted with the information
available in the study, which suggest a possible oncogenic potential.   A firm
conclusion cannot be made.  This study does, however, further  substantiate
the need for additional chronic testing.

3.  End-Use Products

    Toxicology Profile

Limited acceptable data exists for the end-use products. The primary dermal
irritation study performed with the manufacturing-use product  will be
acceptable to fulfill the skin sensitization data requirement  for the end-use
products.  Registrants will be required to place a precautionary statement
concerning skin sensitization on the label. Those registrants  who do not
wish to do this may submit data using the appropriate test animals, and
following Guideline requirements, submit data which demonstrate that their
product is not a skin sensitizer.
                                      34

-------
4.  Summary of Major Data Gaps

Except for the primary dermal irritation study for the manufacturing-use
products and the skin sensitization study for the manufacturing-use and
end-use products, the full series of toxicological tests are required.
                                      35

-------
                           VII.  RESIDUE CHEMISTRY
An allowable residue level (tolerance) for specific chemicals  is determined by
the Agency for the commodities on which they may occur.  Since no
2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol product is registered for use on food or feed
crops, its use should not result in such residues.  Therefore, there  are  no
residue chemistry data requirements for this chemical.
                                      36

-------
                          VIII.  ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS


There are no ecological effects data requirements for 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol.
The Agency has determined, that if an accidental discharge of
2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol into an aquatic environment or a wastewater treatment
system were to occur, the amount of such a discharge would not be likely to be
of significant quantity to cause extensive environmental harm.  In addition the
potential use pattern as a repellent for humans and window and door screens is
not expected to result in the introduction of significant amounts of
2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol into the environment.
                                      37

-------
                                 IX.  EFFICACY


    1.  Efficacy Profile
    2.  Factors Influencing Efficacy
    3.  Use Sites
    4.  Target Pests
    5.  Summary of Major Data Gaps


1.  Efficacy Profile

The review of 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol data are limited  to efficacy data only c,s
they relate to public health applications.  The Agency has provided  for the
waiver of efficacy data submission as a part of the registration  process in all
other instances (44 FR 27932; May 11, 1979).

2.  Factors Influencing Efficacy

Available data indicate that several factors may  influence the  efficacy of
repellents such as 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol.  Elements such as minimum effective
dose, rate of loss, desirability of the host, and avidity of the  insect species
directly contribute to the overall protection time of  repellents  (Smith et al.
1963, MRID #005000300).  Indications also exist which  support the theoryThat
washoff by rainfall and perspiration appear to reduce  effectiveness  (Granett
and Haynes 1945, MRID #000001112).  Decreases in the relative humidity and
absorption also appear to reduce effectiveness (Wood 1968, MRID #005011438
and Smith 1970, MRID #000001166).

3.  Use Sites

In relation to certain public health pests, the majority of the test data
reviewed by the Agency clearly indicate that 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol  applied
directly to human skin is an appropriate use method.   Application to human
clothing is also an appropriate method. Formulations to repel black  flies,
mosquitoes, and stable flies for either application method must contain at
least 20% active ingredient.  A minimum percentage of  active ingredient has not
yet been established for the other public health pests.

Insufficient information is available to support use against public  health
pests for window and door screens.

4.  Target Pests

In general 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol when used as a repellent, may be adequate to
superior, depending on the species of biting insect, the type of  formulation
and percentage of active ingredient.  Effective control has been  demonstrated
for the following insects:

         black flies
         mosquitoes
         stable flies
                                      38

-------
(Please refer to the table for efficacy in Chapter III  for references.)
A minimum of 20% active ingredient  is required  for all  formulations  with regard
to these pests.

The following pests were not supported with sufficient  data  to demonstrate
efficacy:
         chiggers
         fleas  .
         sand flies (biting midges)
         ticks

5.  Summary of Major Data Gaps

The major data gaps for efficacy of this chemical are for the treatment  of
chiggers, fleas, sand flies (biting midges), and ticks  in direct skin or
clothing application to humans.
                                      39

-------
                            X.  CASE BIBLIOGRAPHY

                       Guide to Use of This Bibliography


1.  Content of Bibliography.  This bibliography contains citations of all the
    studies reviewed by EPA in arriving at the  positions and  conclusions stated
    elsewhere in this standard.  The bibliography is divided  into two sections:
    (1) citations in numerical order that contributed  information useful to
    the review of the chemical and are considered to be  part  of the data base
    supporting registrations under the standard,  (2) an  alphabetical
    listing of all documents identified in the  literature search, and (3')  a
    standard reference bibliography.  Primary sources  for studies in this
    bibliography have been the body of data submitted  to EPA  and its
    predecessor agencies in support of past regulatory decisions, and the
    published technical literature.


2.  Units of Entry.  The unit of entry in this  bibliography is  called a
    "study".  In the case of published materials,  this corresponds closely to
    an article.  In the case of unpublished materials  submitted to the Agency,
    the Agency has sought to identify documents at a level parallel to a
    published article from within the typically larger volumes  in which they
    were submitted.  The resulting "studies" generally have a distinct title
    (or at least a single subject), can stand alone for  purposes of review, and
    can be described with a conventional bibliographic citation.   The Agency
    has attempted also to unite basic documents and commentaries upon them,
    treating them as a single study.

3.  Identification of Entries.  The entries in  this bibliography are sorted
    by author, date of the document, and title.   Each  entry bears, to the left
    of the citation proper, a nine-digit numeric  identifier.  This number is
    unique to the citations and should be used  at any  time specific reference
    is required.  This number is called the "Master Record Identifier" or
    "MRID".  It is not related to the six-digit "Accession Number", which has
    been used to identify volumes of submitted  data; see paragraph 4(d)(4)
    below for a further explanation.  In a few  cases,  entries added to the
    bibliography late in the review may be preceded by a nine-character
    temporary identifier.  This is also to be used whenever a specific
    reference is needed.

4.  Form of the Entry.  In addition to the Master Record Identifier (MRID),
    each entry consists of a bibliographic citation containing  standard
    elements followed, in the case of materials submitted to  EPA, by a
    description of the earliest known submission.  The bibliographic
    conventions used reflect the standards of the American National Standards
    Institute (ANSI), expanded to provide for certain  special needs.  Some
    explanatory notes of specific elements follow:

    a.   Author.  Whenever the Agency could confidently  identify one, the
         Agency has chosen to show a personal author.  When no  individual was
         identified, the Agency has shown an identifiable laboratory or testing
         facility as author.  As a last resort,  the Agency has  shown the first
         known submitter as author.

-------
b.   Document Date.  When the date appears as four digits with no
     question marks, the agency took it directly from the document.  When a
     four-digit date is followed by a question mark, the bibliographer
     deduced the date from evidence in the document.  When the date appears
     as (19??), the Agency was unable to determine or estimate the date of
     the document.

c.   Title.  This is the third element in the citation.  In some cases it
     has been necessary for Agency bibliographers to create or enhance a
     document title.  Any such editorial insertions are contained between
     square brackets.

d.   Trailing Parentheses.  For studies submitted to us in the past, the
     trailing parentheses include (in addition to any self-explanatory
     text) the following elements describing the earliest known
     submissions:

     (1)  Submission Date.  Immediately following the word 'received'
          appears the date of the earliest known submission, at the time
          that particular document was processed into the Pesticide
          Document Management System.

     (2)  Administrative Number.  The next element, immediately following
          the word 'under1, is the registration number, experimental permit
          number, petition number, or other administrative number
          associated with the earliest known submission, at the time that
          particular document was processed into the Pesticide Document
          Management System.

     (3)  Submitter.  The third element is the submitter, following the
          phrase 'submitted by'.  When authorship is defaulted to the
          submitter, this element is omitted.

     (4)  Volume Identification.  The final element in the trailing
          parenthesis identifies the EPA accession number of the volume in
          which the original submission of the study appears.  The six-
          digit accession number follows the symbol 'CDL1, standing for
          "Company Data Library".  This accession number is in turn
          followed by an alphabetic suffix which shows the relative
          position of the study within the volume.  For example, within
          accession number 123456, the first study would be 123456-A; the
          second, 123456-B; the 26th, 123456-Z; and the 27th,123456-AA.

-------
                          OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
                  REGISTRATION STANDARD NUMERICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
          Citations Considered to be Part of the Data Base Supporting
                       Registrations Under the Standard
CASE   GS0002   2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol

MRID        CITATION

GS0020005   Haynes, H.L.  (1971) Letter sent to J. Touhey dated Mar 10, 1970.
                [Concerns  the registration of "6-12 PLUS".  Efficacy data are
               attached for mixture with ethyl hexanediol, as well as ethyl
               hexanediol alone.]  (Unpublished study received Jul 10, 1971
               under 5769-57; submitted by ?; CDL:007435)

GS0020007   Lahr, P.H.  (?) Tarrytown Technical Memorandum TTM-81:Synergistic
               Mixtures of 2-Ethyl-l,3-hexanediol and M-Diethyltoluamide.
               Exhibit D.  (Unpublished study which includes Tables I
               and V received Apr 25, 1968 under 5769-27; prepared by Rutgers
               University, Entomology Department, submitted by ?; CDL:022577)

GS0020011   Lomax, J.L. (1970) Summary and Discussion of Repellent Test Results
                (Duration Type in the Lab.) (Unpublished study which includes
               Table I received Apr 25, 1968 under 5769-27; prepared by Rutgers
               University, Entomology Department, Submitted by ?; CDL:022577)

GS0020019   U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, Hazard Evaluation Division
                (1980) Summary of Reported Pesticide Incidents Involving Ethyl
               Hexanediol.  Pesticide Monitoring System Report No. 374.

GS0020024   Bontoyan, W., ed. (1976) Manual of Chemical Methods for Pesticides
               and Devices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
               Pesticide Programs, Technical Services Division, Chemical and
               Biological Investigations Branch.  (Available from Association of
               Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA)

000001106   Union Carbide Corporation (1970) Summary of 1969 Test Results with
               Personal Insect Repellent Formulations Containing (1) 56.0%
               2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol and 9.1% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide and
               (2)  65% 2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol: Exhibit A.  (Unpublished study
               received Apr 9, 1970 under 3282-44; CDL:007757-A)

000001107   Union Carbide Corporation (1970) Summary of 1969 Test Results with
               Personal Insect Repellent Formulations Containing (1) 80%
               2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol and 10% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide (2)
               80% 2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol and (3) 50% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Tolua-
               mide: Exhibit A.  (Unpublished study received Mar 24, 1970 under
               5769-27; CDL:007758-A)

-------
000001109   Haynes, H.L. (1969) Entomological Performance Data: [6-12 Insect
               Repellent Spray].  (Unpublished study that includes appended
               report, received Sep 18, 1969 under 3282-46, submitted by Union
               Carbide Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:007759-A)

000001112   Granett, P.; Haynes, H.L. (1945) Insect repellent properties of
               2-ethylhexanediol-l,3.  Journal of Economic Entomology 88(6):
               671-675.  (Also In unpublished submission that includes
               correction, received Feb 26, 1970 under 3282-46; prepared by
               Rutgers Univ., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York, N.Y.;
               CDL:007760-B)

000001114   Union Carbide Corporation (1970) Summary of 1969 Test Results with
               Personal Insect Repellent Formulations Containing (1) 40.0%
               2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol and 8.0% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide (2)
               48.6% 2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol: [Insect Repellent Towelette]: Ex-
               hibit A.  (Unpublished study received May 14, 1970 under
               5769-44; CDL:007761-A)

000001115   Lomax, J.L. (1970) Summary and Discussion of Repellent Test Results
               (Duration Type in the Laboratory):  [1481-21 Versus 1481-54, -57
               Towelettes]: Exhibit E.  (Unpublished study that includes at-
               tached report and appendices 1-2, received May 14, 1970 under
               5769-44; prepared by Rutgers Univ., College of Agriculture,
               Dept. of Entomology, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York,
               N.Y.; CDL:007761-E)

000001116   Union Carbide Corporation (1970) Summary of 1969-1970 Test Results
               with Personal Insect Repellents Containing (1) 25% 2-Ethyl-l,
               3-Hexanediol-5% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide.  (2) 27% 2-Ethyl-l,
               3-Hexanediol-5% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide.  (3) 18% N,
               N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide, and (4) 18% 2-Ethyl-l, 3-Hexanediol:
               study received Apr 30, 1970 under 5769-48; CDL:007762-A)

000001117   Lomax, J.L. (1970) Summary and Discussion of Repellent Test Results
               (Duration Type in the Laboratory):  ["6-12" Foam Versus 1481-57
               and 1481-67]: Exhibit E.  (Unpublished study that includes at-
               tached report and appendices 1-2, received Apr 30, 1970 under
               5769-48; prepared by Rutgers Univ., College of Agriculture,
               Dept. of Entomology, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York,
               N.Y.; CDL:007762-E)

000001118   Lomax, J.L. (1969) Summary and Discussion of All Duration Field
               Test Results for Summer 1969: [Deet]: Exhibit F.  (Unpublished
               study that includes appendices 1-4, received Apr 30, 1970 under
               5769-48; prepared by Rutgers Univ., College of Agriculture,
               Dept. of Entomology, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York,
               N.Y.; CDL:007762-F)

-------
000001121   Beam, F.; Granett, P.  (1965) Repellency Tests June-September  1965.
                (Unpublished  study  that  includes  incomplete sections  II and  IV
               with Tables II, IV  and Appendix 1, received Dec 3, 1966 under
               5769-44; prepared by Union Carbide Consumer Products  Co. in
               cooperation with Rutgers State Univ., submitted by Union Carbide
               Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:024243-A)

000001123   Union Carbide Corporation (1970) Summary of 1969 Test Results with
               Personal Insect Repellent Formulations Containing (1) 40.0%
               2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol and 10.0% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide  (2)
               40% 2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol: Exhibit A.  (Unpublished  study that
               includes appended letter, received Apr 9, 1970 under  5769-51;
               CDL:007764-A)

000001166   Smith, C.N. (1970) Repellents for anopheline mosquitoes.  Miscel-
               laneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America
               7(1):99-117.   (Also In unpublished submission received Jan 11,
               1978 under 4822-10; prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research Ser-
               vice, Entomology Research Div., submitted by S.C. Johnson &
               Sons, Inc., Racine, Wis.; CDL:233318-1)

000001172   Altman, R.M. (1969) Repellent tests against Anopheles albimanus
               Wiedemann in  the Panama Canal Zone.  Mosquito News 29(1):110-
               112.  (Also ^n unpublished submission received Jun 23, 1969
               under 4822-EX-8; submitted by S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,
               Racine, Wis.;  CDL:127306-D)

000001181   Lindquist, A.W.;  Madden, A.H.; Watts, C.N. (1944) The use of re-
               pellents against fleas.  Journal of Economic Entomology 37(4):
               485-486.  (Also ^n  unpublished submission received Jun 10, 1971
               under 3282-48; prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research
               Administration, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quaran-
               tine, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y.;
               CDL:007766-F)
                      !

000004865   Lomax, J.L. (1968) Union Carbide Consumer Products Company Research
               Project at Rutgers State University: Annual Report for 1968.
               (Unpublished  study  received Sep 18, 1969 under 3282-45; prepared
               by Rutgers Univ., Dept. of Entomology and Economic Zoology in
               cooperation with Union Carbide Consumer Products Co., submitted
               by d-Con Co.,  Inc., New York, N.Y.; CDL:022574-B)

000004866   D-Con Company, Incorporated (1963) Lab and Field Results of New
               Cream Lotion.  (Unpublished study received May 28, 1968 under
               3282-47; CDL:222081-A)

000004867   Granett, P.; Lomax, J.L. (1968) Results of Repellency Tests in the
               Laboratory against Caged Adult Yellow Fever Mosquitoes and Sta-
               ble Flies.  (Unpublished study received May 28, 1968  under 3282-
               47; prepared by Rutgers Univ., Dept. of Entomology and Economic
               Zoology, submitted by d-Con Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.; CDL:
               222081-B)

-------
000004868   Lahr, P.H. (1970) Synergism of Mixtures of Ethylhexanediol and
               Diethyltoluamide.  (Unpublished study received Jul 1, 1970 under
               3282-48; prepared by Union Carbide Corp. in cooperation with
               Rutgers Univ., submitted by d-Con Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.;
               CDL:007765-B)

000004873   Haynes, H.L. (1967) Personal Insect Repellent Tests in Madbury,
               N.H.—July 1,  2 and 3, 1967: Tested Af(80% Diol + MGK Repel-
               lents), B (80% Diol), and C (80% Trimethyl pentanediol) and Each
               Mixture at One Half Strength.  (Unpublished study including
               letter dated Jul 21, 1967 from R.J. Norton to Harry L. Haynes,
               received Apr 23, 1968 under 3282-45; prepared by Union Carbide
               Corp. in cooperation with Crop Protection Institute and Univ.  of
               New Hampshire, Dept. of Entomology, submitted by d-Con Co.,
               Inc., New York, N.Y.; CDL:022566-C)

000004874   Lomax, J. (1968)  Results of Mosquito and Fly Repellency Tests in
               the Rutgers University Laboratory.  (Unpublished study received
               May 28, 1968 under 3282-45; prepared by Rutgers Univ., Dept. of
               Entomology and Economic Zoology, submitted by d-Con Co., Inc.,
               New York, N.Y.; CDL:022566-D)

000004881   Kline, P.R.; Gabriel, K.L. (1965)  Project #20-124: A Repeated In-
               sult Patch Test Conducted in 200 Human Subjects with Union
               Carbide Corporation—2 Ethyl hexanediol—1,3 (100%).  (Unpub-
               lished study including letter dated Jul 12, 1966 from C.U.
               Dernehl to J.S. Leary, Jr., received Jul 14, 1966 under unknown
               admin, no.; submitted by Union  Carbide Corp., Agricultural
               Products, Washington, D.C.; CDL:118533-A)

000004887   Granett, P.; Haynes, H.L. (19??) Laboratory evaluation of chemicals
               for rendering  fabric repellent  to mosquitoes.  Pages 82-87, ^n
               Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting of the New
               Jersey Mosquito Extermination Association; Mar 28-30, Atlantic
               City, N.J.  N.P.  (Also In unpublished submission received
               Jan 30, 1969 under 5769-51; submitted by Union Carbide Corp. ,
               Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:022549-A)

000004890   Granett, P. (1961) Effectiveness of Various Products as Insect
               Repellents Applied to Skin of Arms or Legs of Testers.  (Unpub-
               lished study including letter dated Oct 17, 1961 from P. Granett
               to Harry L. Haynes, received Jul 26, 1963 under 5769-32; pre-
               pared by Rutgers Univ., New Jersey Agricultural Experiment
               Station, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y.;
               CDL:231147-B)

-------
000004892
000004893
000004896
000021737
005000009
005000042
005000113



005000121



005000126


005000128


005000130


005000141
Union Carbide Corporation (1965) Laboratory Tests: Summary and
   Conclusions.  (Unpublished study received Jul 19, 1966 under
   5769-48; CDL:022563-A)

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (1959) Bioassay Report: Per-
   sonal Repellent Tests with Samples 612 and Formula D, against
   Yellow Fever Mosquito and Stable Fly: WARF No. 902067-8.
   (Unpublished study received June 10, 1959 under 1021-566; sub-
   mitted by McLaughlin Gormley King Co., Minneapolis, Minn.; CDL:
   005220-A)

Cosmetics Incorporated (19??) Comparative Effectiveness of a Com-
   mercial Repellent Stick (OM-718) and 2-Ethyl-l,3-hexanediol
   (0-375) in Paired Tests as Skin Application against Aedes
   aeqvpti . (Unpublished study received Oct 27, 1953 under
   4371-1; CDL:231140-A)

Haynes, H.L. (1967) Bioassay: WARF No. 7091961-2.  (Unpublished
   study received Apr 23, 1968 under 5769-26; prepared by Wisconsin
   Alumni Research Foundation, submitted by Union Carbide Corp.,
   Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:028100-D)

Schmidt, M.L. (1977) Relative effectiveness of repellent against
   Simulium damnosum (Diptera: Simuliidae) and Gloss ina morsitans
   (Diptera: Glossinidae) in Ethiopia.  Journal of Medical
   Entomology 14(3):276-278.

Spencer, T.S.; Bayles, S.F.; Shimmin, R.K.; Gabel, M.L.; Akers,
   W.A. (1975) Interactions between mosquito repellents and human
   skin.  Pages 1-14, JEn Proceedings of the Ninth Army Science
   Conference; June 1975; West Point, N.Y.  (Available from: NTIS,
   Springfield, VA; AD-A050-958/8ST)

Schreck, C.E. (1977) Techniques for the evaluation of insect
   repellents: A critical review.  Annual Review of Entomology
   22:101-119.

Bar-Zeev, M. (1962) A rapid method for screening and evaluating
   mosquito repellents.  Bulletin of Entomological Research
   53(3):521-528.

Wright, R.H. (1962) Studies in mosquito attraction and repulsion.
   V. Physical theory.  Canadian Entomologist 94(10):1022-1029.

Roadhouse, L.A.O. (1953) Laboratory studies on insect repellency.
   Canadian Journal of Zoology 31:535-546.

Setterstrom, C.A. (1946) Insect repellents: Intensive research
   broadens market.  Chemistry and Industry (London) 59:474-475.

Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck, H.K. (1955) Evaluation of repellents against
   mosquitoes in Panama.  Florida Entomologist XXXVIII(4):153-163.

-------
005000164



005000165



005000167



005000169


005000170



005000172



005000187



005000222



005000231


005000236



005000268
005000280
005000284
Travis, B.V.; Morton, F.A.; Cochran, J.H. (1946) Insect repellents
   used as skin treatments by the armed forces.  Journal of
   Economic Entomology 39(5):627-630.

Applewhite, K.H.; Smith, C.N. (1950) Field tests with mosquito and
   sand fly repellents in Alaska.  Journal of Economic Entomology
   43(3):353-357.

Altman, R.M.; Smith, C.N. (1955) Investigations of repellents for
   protection against mosquitoes in Alaska, 1953.  Journal of
   Economic Entomology 48(l):67-72.

Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck, H.K.; Smith, C.N. (1955) New mosquito
   repellents.  Journal of Economic Entomology 48(6):741-743.

Gilbert, I.E. (1957) Evaluation of repellents against mosquitoes
   and deer flies in Oregon.  Journal of Economic Entomology
   50(l):46-48.

Bar-Zeev, M.; Smith, C.N. (1959) Action of repellents on
   mosquitoes feeding through treated membranes or on treated
   blood.  Journal of Economic Entomology 52(2):263-267.

Gilbert, I.H.; Scanlon, J.E.; Bailey, D.L. (1970) Repellents
   against mosquitoes in Thailand.  Journal of Economic Entomology
   63(4):1207-1209.

Gabel, M.L.; Spencer, T.S.; Akers, W.A. (1976) Evaporation rates
   and protection times of mosquito repellents.  Mosquito News
   36(2):141-146.

Scott, J.A. (1946) Insect repellents.  Pest Control and Sanitation
Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck, H.K.; Smith, C.N. (1957) New insect
   repellent. Soap and Chemical  Specialties
   33(5):115-117,129,131,133.

Yeoman, G.H.; Warren, B.C. (1970) Repellents for Stomoxys
   calcitrans, the stable fly: Techniques and a comparative
   laboratory assessment of butyl methylcinchoninate.  Bulletin of
   Entomological Research 59(4):563-577.

Gouck, H.K.; Bowman, M.C. (1959) Effect of repellents on the
   evolution of carbon dioxide and moisture from human arms.
   Journal of Economic Entomology 52(6):1257-1259.

Berry, R.; Joseph, S.R.; Langford, G.S. (1965) The question of
   area mosquito repellents.  Pages 190-193, In New Brunswick,
   N.J.: New Jersey Mosquito Extermination Association.New
   Brunswick, N.J.: New Jersey Mosquito Extermination Association.

-------
005000299   King, W.V., cctnp.  (1954) Chemicals Evaluated as Insecticides and
               Repellents at Orlando, Fla.  U.S. Department of Agriculture,
               Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Branch.
               Washington, D.C.: USDA. (USDA Agriculture Handbook no.
               69).

005000300   Smith, C.N.; Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck, H.K.; Bowman, M.C.; Acree, F.,
               Jr.; Schmidt, C.H. (1963) Factors affecting the protection
               period of mosquito repellents.  Pages 1-36, Jin U.S. Department
               of Agriculture Technical Bulletin, No. 1285.

005002395   Travis, B.V. (1947) Mosquito repellents.  American Perfumer and
               Essential Oil Review 50:141-142.

005002397   Madden, A.H.; Lindquist, A.W.; Knipling, E.F. (1944) Tests of
               repellents against chiggers.  Journal of Economic Entomology
               37(2):283-286.

005002493   Sarkaria, D.S.; Brown, A.W.A. (1951) Studies on the responses of
               the female Aedes mosquito.  Part II.—The action of liquid
               repellent compounds.   Bulletin of Entomological Research
               42:115-122.

005002666   Smith, C.N.; Gouck, H.K. (1946) Observations on tick repellents.
               Journal of Economic Entomology 39(3):374-378.

005002667   Kasman, S.; Roadhouse, L.A.O.; Wright, G.F. (1953) Studies in
               testing insect repellents.  Mosquito News 13(2):116-123.

005002669   Travis, B.V.; Morton, F.A. (1950) Insect repellents and nets for
               use against sand flies.  Pages 154-156, jtn Proceedings of the
               Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the New Jersey Mosquito
               Extermination Association.  New Brunswick, N.J.:  New Jersey
               Mosquito Extermination Association.

005002848   Christophers, S.R., Sir (1947) Mosquito repellents: Being a report
               of the work of the Mosquito Repellent Inquiry, Cambridge
               1943-5.  Journal of Hygiene 45:176-231.

005003262   Travis, B.V. (1949) Studies of mosquito and other biting-insect
               problems in Alaska.  Journal of Economic Entomology
               42(3):451-457-

005003263   Applewhite, K.H.; Cross, H.F. (1951) Further studies of repellents
               in Alaska.  Journal of Economic Entomology 44(1):19-22.

005003264   DeFoliart, G.R. (1951) A comparison of several repellents against
               blackflies.   Journal of Economic Entomology 44(2):265-266.

005003265   Travis, B.V.; Smith, C.N. (1951) Mosquito repellents selected for
               use on man.   Journal of Economic Entomology 44(3):428-429.

-------
005003266


005003640
Dowling, M.A.C. (1955) Insect repellents and miticides.
   of the Royal Army Medical Corps 101(1):1-15.
Journal
Travis, B.V.; Smith, A.L.; Madden, A.H. (1951) Effectiveness of
   insect repellents against black flies.  Journal of Economic
   Entomology 44(5):813-814.
005004319   Stenbaeck, F.; Sh'ubik, P. (1974) Lack of toxicity and

               carcinogenicity of some commonly used cutaneous agents.
               Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 30:7-13.

005004864   Spencer, T.S.; Zeller, K.L.; Brodel, C.F.; Akers, W.A. (1977)
               Analysis of four-site method for testing mosquito repellents.
               Pages 119-120, In Proceedings and Papers of the Annual
               Conference of the California Mosquito Control Association.
               Vol. 45.  Visalia, Calif.:  California Mosquito Control
               Association.

005006012   Linduska, J.P.;  Morton, F.A. (1947) Determining the repellency of
               solid chemicals to mosquitoes.  Journal of Economic Entomology
               40(4):562-564.

005006137   Haynes^ H.L.; Lahr, P.H., inventors; Union Carbide Corporation,
               assignee (1974) Synergistic insect repellent compositions
               containing N,N-diethyl meta toluamide and 2-ethy1-1,3-
               hexanedioi.   Canadian patent 960140.  Dec 31. 22p.

005006463   Beroza, M.; Acree, F., Jr.;  Turner, R.B.; Braun, B.H. (1966)
               Separation and insect repellent activity of diastereoisomers of
               2-ethy1-1,3-hexanediol against Aedes aegypti. Journal of
               Economic Entomology 59(2):376-378.

005006505   Burton, D.J. (1969) Intrinsic mosquito repellency values of some
               chemical compounds.   American Perfumer and Cosmetics
               84(4):41-42,44.

005011438   Vfood, P.W. (1968) The effect of ambient humidity on the repellency
               of ethylhexanediol ("6-12") to  Aedes aegypti. Canadian
               Entomologist  100 (12):1331-1334.

-------
                         OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
               REGISTRATION STANDARD ALPHABETICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
         Listing of All Documents Identified in the Literature Search
CASE   GS0002   2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol

MRID       CITATION

005002316   Acree, F., Jr.; Beroza, M.  (1962) Gas chromatography of insect
               repellents.  Journal of  Economic Entomology 55(1):128-130.

000001003   Allenbaugh, R.B.  (1965) Review of Literature on n,n-diethyl-m-
               toluatnide as an Insect Repellent.  (Unpublished study that
               includes bibliography, received Feb 12, 1969 under 134-48; sub-
               mitted by Hess & Clark,  Research Dept., Div. of Richardson-
               Merrell, Inc., Ashland,  Ohio; CDL:000602-C)

000001172   Altman, R.M. (1969) Repellent tests against Anopheles albimanus
               Wiedemann in the Panama  Canal Zone.  Mosquito News 29(1):110-
               112.   (Also ^n unpublished/submission received Jun 23, 1969
               under 4822-EX-8; submitted by S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,
               Racine, Wis.; CDL:127306-D)

005000167   Altman, R.M.; Smith, C.N. (1955) Investigations of repellents for
               protection against mosquitoes in Alaska, 1953.  Journal of
               Economic Entomology 48(l):67-72.

005002670   Anon. (1953) Information on New Insect Repellent Compositions
               Developed for Military Use.  Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Dept. of
               Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of
               Entomology and Plant Quarantine.

000001067   Anon. (1968) Insect repellents.  U.S. Navy Medical News Letter
               52(6): ?.  (Also In unpublished submission received Jul 7,
               1969 under 1516-52; submitted by Curts Laboratories, Inc.,
               Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:024967-A)

GS0020001   Anon. (1972) Letter sent to ? dated Oct 18, 1972.  [Contains tests
               which concern the ammount of "6-12" washed off by water from
               sheets of embossed polyethylene.]   (Unpublished study received
               under 3282-49; submitted by ?; CDL:222093)

005003263   Applewhite, K.H.; Cross, H.F. (1951)  Further studies of repellents
               in Alaska.  Journal of Economic Entomology 44(1):19-22.

005000165   Applewhite, K.H.; Smith, C.N. (1950)  Field tests with mosquito and
               sand fly repellents in Alaska.  Journal of Economic Entomology
               43(3)s353-357.

-------
000014714   Atkins, E.L.; Greywood, E.A.; MacDonald, R.L. (1971) Effect of
               Pesticides en Apiculture: Project No. 1499.  (Unpublished study
               received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; prepared by Univ. of
               California—Riverside, Dept. of Entomology, Div. of Economic
               Entomology, submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.;
               CDL:223505-AS)

005000604   Atkins, E.L.; MacDonald, R.L.; Greywood-Hale, E.A. (1975)
               Repellent additives to reduce pesticide hazards to honey bees:
               field tests.  Environmental Entomology 4(2):207-210.

005000158   Atkins, E.L.; MacDonald, R.L.; McGovern, T.P.; Beroza, M.;
               Greywood-Hale, E.A. (1975) Repellent additives to reduce
               pesticide hazards to honeybees: Laboratory testing.  Journal of
               Apicultural Research 14(2):85-97.

005002317   Axtell, R.C. (1967) Evaluations of repellents for Hippelates eye
               gnats.   Journal of Economic Entomology 60(1):176-180.

GS0020023   Baker, G.J. (1965) Letter to J. Leary dated Feb 12, 1965.
               [Concerns the attached five pages from the company bulletin and
               labels.]  Unpublished study received ? under 336-010; submitted
               by ?; CDL:101072)

005000121   Bar-Zeev, M. (1962) A rapid method for screening and evaluating
               mosquito repellents.  Bulletin of Entomological Research
               53(3):521-528.

005000172   Bar-Zeev, M.; 9nith, C.N. (1959) Action of repellents on
               mosquitoes feeding through treated membranes or on treated
               blood.   Journal of Economic Entomology 52(2):263-267.

005002330   Bartlett,  P.O.; Dauben, H.J., Jr.; Hammond, G.S.;  McKusick, B.C.;
               Mueller, G.P.; Packer, C.K.; Ross, S.D.; Schneider, A.; Siegel,
               S.; Woods, G.F. (1945) The Preparation of Some Organic
               Compounds for Testing as Insect Repellents.  Washington, D.C.:
               U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technical Services.
               (U.S.Department of Commerce, Office of Technical Services
               PB report no. 27406 issued by the Office of Scientific
               Research and Development, National Defense Research
               Committee as report OSRD no. 6367; National Research Council,
               Insect Control Committee Report No. 155)

005004397   Bauman, P.M.; Berrios-Duran, L.; McMullen, D.B. (1955)
               Effectiveness of Abbott's Insect Repellent Cream (E 4856) as a
               protective barrier against Schistosoma mansoni in mice.
               Journal of Parasitology 41:298-301.

-------
005000284
 000001121   Beam,  F.; Granett, P.  (1965) Repellency Tests June-September 1965.
                (Unpublished  study  that  includes  incomplete Sections  II and IV
               with Tables II, IV  and Appendix 1, received Dec 3, 1966 under
               5769-44; prepared by Union Carbide Consumer Products  Co. in
               cooperation with Rutgers State Univ., submitted by Union Carbide
               Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:024243-A)

 005006463   Beroza, M.; Acree, P., Jr.; Turner, R.B.; Braun, B.H. (1966)
               Separation and insect repellent activity of diastereoisomers of
               2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol against Aedes aegypti. Journal of
               Economic Entomology 59(2):376-37HT

            Berry, R.; Joseph, S.R.; Langford, G.S^ (1965) The question of
               area mosquito repellents.  Pages 190-193, In New Brunswick,
               N.J.: New Jersey Mosquito Extermination Association.New
               Brunswick, N.J.: New Jersey Mosquito Extermination Association.

 005002553   Elaine, R.L.; Levy, P.P. (1974) The use of thermal evolution
               analysis  (TEA) for  the determination of vapor pressure of
               agricultural  chemicals.  Analytical Calorimetry 3:185-198.

 005008771   Bondi, A.; Simkin, D.J. (1957) Heats of vaporization of
               hydrogen-bonded substances.  A.I.Ch.E. Journal 3(4):473-479.

GS0020024   Bontoyan, W., ed. (1976) Manual of Chemical Methods for Pesticides
               and Devices.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
               Pesticide Programs, Technical Services Division, Chemical and
               Biological Investigations Branch.  (Available from Association of
               Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA)

005004288   Bontoyan, W.R. (1979) Report on pesticide formulations:
               Herbicides, fungicides, and miscellaneous.  Journal of the
               Association of Official Analytical Chemists 62(2):334-337.

005014407   Bornmann, G.; loeser, A. (1956) Ueber die toxikologische Wirkung
               von 2-Aethylhexandiol-l ,3 bei der Verwendung als
               Desinfektionsmittel.  [The toxicological action of
               2-ethylhexanediol-l,3 in application as a disinfectant.]
               Zeitschrift fuer Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und -Forschung
               104:28-32.

005004488   Bowman, M.C.; Beroza, M.; Acree, P., Jr. (1959) Colorimetric
               determination of 2-ethyl-l ,3-hexanediol.  Journal of
               Agricultural and Food Chemistry 7(4):259-261.

005002398   Brennan, J.M. (1947) Preliminary report on some organic materials
               as tick repellents and toxic agents.  Public Health Reports
               62:1162-1165.

-------
005000993
005006505
005004322
005007004
GS0020002
005002848
005006138
005006134
005004954
000004896
005005164
British Crop Protection Council  (1974)  Pesticide Manual:  Basic
    Information on  the Chemicals  Used  as Active  Components of
    Pesticides. Edited by H. Martin and  C.R. Worthing.   4th ed.
    London, England: British Crop Protection Council.

Burton, D.J. (1969) Intrinsic mosquito  repellency values  of some
    chemical compounds.  American Perfumer  and Cosmetics
    84(4):41-42,44.

Buttle, G.A.H.; Bower, J.D. (1958) A  note  on the anaesthetic
    activity of l:3-propanediols.  Journal  of Pharmacy  and
    Pharmacology 10:447-449.

Caldas, A.D. (1962) 0 emprego de repelentes para moscas sugado-ras
    dos animais domesticos.  [The USe  of repellents against
    blood-sucking flies on domestic animals.]  Biologico
    XXVIII(4):111-112.

Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation (1948)  Application for
    "6-12" Insect Repellent with  Sun Screen to the Food  and Drug
    Administration.' (Unpublished study  that includes product
    chemistry and toxicology reports received ?  under ?; submitted
    by Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation;  CDL:130593)

Christophers, S.R., Sir (1947) Mosquito repellents: being a report
    of the work of the Mosquito Repellent Inquiry, Cambridge
    1943-5.  Journal of Hygiene 45:176-231.

Ciferri, R. (1962) Repellenti degli insetti.  [Insect  repellents.]
    Coltivatore e Giornale Vinicolo Italiano.  [The Grower and  the
    Italian Wine-Growing Journal.] 108(3):100-101.

Claus, A. (1950) Zur Frage der Insektenvergraemungsmittel.   [On
    the question of insect repellents.]   Deutsche  Tieraerztliche
   Wbchenschrift 57(43/44):364-365.

Coler, M.A., inventor; Synergistics,  assignee (1950) Skin
   dressings with fugitive colors.  U.S. patent  2,496,270.
    2 p. Cl. 167-22.
                                                                        Feb 7.
Cosmetics Incorporated (19??) Comparative Effectiveness of a Com-
   mercial Repellent Stick (OM-718) and 2-Ethyl-l ,3-hexanediol
   (0-375) in Paired Tests as Skin Application against Aedes
   4371-1; CDL:231140-A)                              '

Crossley, J.; Williams, G. (1977) Relaxation in hydrogen-bonded
   liquids studied by dielectric and Kerr-effect techniques.
   Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions
   73(12):1906-1917.

-------
000004863
005000301



000004866



005005417



005000232


005000191



005003264


005003266


005004326
005002556
005000153
Cutter, R.E.; Morison, C.R.W. (1961) A Comparison of the Effect of
   6-12 and Deet Insect Repellents upon Cannon Surface Coatings.
   (Unpublished study received Jan 8, 1962 under 3282-45; prepared
   by Union Carbide Chemicals Co., submitted by d-Con Co., Inc.,
   New York, N.Y.; CDL:022564-B)

Cutting, W.C. (1967) Insecticides, repellents and rodenticides.
   Pages 132-140, In Handbook of Pharmacology, 3rd Edition.  New
   York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

D-Con Company, Incorporated  (1963) Lab and Field Results of New
   Cream Lotion.  (Unpublished study received May 28, 1968 under
   3282-47; CDL:222081-A)

Davidson, L.M.; Peairs, R.H. (1966) Applied insect control:
   Chemical.  Pages 72-100,  In Insect Pests of Farm, Garden and
   Orchard.  6th ed.  New YorTc:  John Wiley.
Davies, J.J. (1946) Insect repellents.
   Sanitation 1(12):13.
Pest Control and
Davis, E.E.; Rebert, C.S. (1972) Elements of olfactory receptor
   coding in the yellowfever mosquito.  Journal of Economic
   Entomology 65(4):1058-1061.

DeFoliart, G.R. (1951) A comparison of several repellents against
   blackflies.  Journal of Economic Entomology 44(2):265-266.
Dowling, M.A.C. (1955) Insect repellents and miticides.
   of the Royal Army Medical Corps 101(1):1-15.
                 Journal
Draize, J.H.; Alvarez, E.; Whitesell, M.F.; Woodard, G.; Hagan,
   E.G.; Nelson, A.A. (1948) Toxicological investigations of
   compounds proposed for use as insect repellents: A.  Local and
   systemic effects following topical skin application.  B.  Acute
   oral toxicity.  C.  Pathological examination.  Journal of
   Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 93:26-39.

Drake, N.L.; Eaker, C.M.; Kilmer, G.W.; Melamed, S.; Shenk, W.J.;
   Weaver, W.E. (1945) The Preparation of Some Compounds for
   Testing as Insect Repellents.  Washington, D.C.: U.S.
   Department of Commerce, Office of Technical Services. (PB report
   no. 27409, issued by the Office of Scientific Research and
   Development, National Defense Research Committee as report OSRD
   no. 6370; National Research Council, Insect Control Committee
   report no. 153)

Dremova, V.P.; Markina, V.V.; Zvyagintzeva, T.V. (1976)
   Methodology for the primary selection of insect repellents in
   field conditions.  International Pest Control 18(5):12-14.

-------
005000197   Dukes, J.C.; Rodriguez, J.G. (1976) A bioassay for host-seeking
               responses of tick nymphs (Ixodidae).  Journal of the Kansas
               Entomological Society 49(4):562-566.

005010268   Dyrssen, D.; Uppstrom, L.; Zangen, M. (1969) A distribution study
               of the association of 2,2-diethylpropanediol-l,3 and
               2-ethylhexanediol-l,3 in chloroform.  Analytica Chimica Acta
               46(l):49-53.

005007048   Fairchild, E.J., ed. (1977) Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides:
               A Subfile of the NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
               Substances.  Cincinnati, Ohio:  National Institute for
               Occupational Safety and Health. (Pagination includes 46 pages
               numbered i-xlvi; available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA: PB-274
               748)

005003269   Findlay, G.M.; Hardwicke, J.; Phelps, J. (1946) Tsetse fly
               repellents.  Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical
               Medicine and Hygiene 40(3):341-344.

000001070   Fisher, A.M.; Birdsall, C.M. (1972) Flash Point on Insect Repellent
               Liquid #1659-142.  (Unpublished study received May 23, 1972
               under unknown admin,  no.; submitted by Union Carbide Corp.,
               Agricultural Products, Washington, B.C.; CDL:117587-A)

005006462   Fluno, H.J.; Jones, H.A.; Snyder, F.M. (1946) Emulsifiers for
               liquid acaricides.  Journal of Economic Entomology 39:810-811.

000001180   Fluno, J.A.; Weidhaas, D.E. (1968) Saving your skin—insect repel-
               lants.  Pages 293-296, ^n Yearbook of Agriculture, 1968.  By
               U.S. Dept of Agriculture.   Washington, D.C.:  U.S.  Government
               Printing Office.  (Yearbook separate no. 3605; Also In unpub-
               lished submission received Jun 10, 1971 under 3282-48 and
               3282-51; prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research Service,
               Entomology Research Div., Insects Affecting Man and Animals
               Research Branch, submitted by Union Carbide Corp.,  Tarrytown,
               N.Y.;  CDL:007766-B)

000004897   Fultz, T.O., Jr.  (1977)  Sandfly Efficacy Report:  (Comparative Eval-
               uations of Three Repellents).   (Unpublished study received
               Feb 21, 1978 under 40195-1;  submitted by Reaenge Insect
               Repellent Corp., Savannah, Ga.; CDL:232893-A)

005000222   Gabel, M.L.;  Spencer, T.S.; Akers, W.A.  (1976) Evaporation rates
               and protection times of mosquito repellents.  Mosquito News
               36(2):141-146.

-------
 005004321   Garner,  D.D.; Garson,  L.R.  (1973) Silyl ether precursor-type
                insect repellents.  Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
                16(6):729-732.

 005009433   Garner,  F.H.; Marchant,  P.J.M. (1961) Diffusivities of associated
                compounds in water.   Transactions of the Institute of Chemical
                Engineers 39:397-408.

 005000185   Garson,  L.R.; Buckner, J.H.; Schreck, C.E.; Weidhaas, D.E.;
                Gilbert, I.H.  (1970)  Insect repellency of
                N,N-diethyl-m-toluamidine-a nitrogen isotere of deet.  Journal
                of Economic Entomology 63(4):1116-1117.

 005009862   Cast, R.;  Early, J.  (1956) Phytotoxicity of solvents and
                emulsifiers used  in insecticide formulations.  Agricultural
                Chemicals 11(4):42-45,136-137.

 005004876   Gessner, P.K.; Parke,  D.V.; Williams, R.T. (1960) Studies in
                detoxication: 80.   The metabolism of glycols.  Biochemical
                Journal 74:1-5.

 005000170   Gilbert,  I.H. (1957) Evaluation of repellents against mosquitoes
                and deer flies  in Oregon.  Journal of Economic Entomology
                50(1):46-V48.

 005000157   Gilbert, I.H. (1966) Evaluation and use of mosquito repellents.
                Journal of the American Medical Association 196(3):163-165.

 005000264   Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck,  H.K. (1955) Evaluation of repellents against
                mosquitoes in Panama.  Association of Southern Agricultural
                Workers Proceedings 52:93.

 005000141   Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck,  H.K. (1955) Evaluation of repellents against
                mosquitoes in Panama.  Florida Entomologist XXXVTII(4):153-163.

 005000298   Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck,  H.K. (1962) Effect of Insect Repellents on
                Plastics, Paints, and Fabrics.  Washington B.C.: USDA. (U.S.
                Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,).

 005000169   Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck,  H.K.; Smith, C.N. (1955) New mosquito
                repellents.  Journal of Economic Entomology 48(6):741-743.

 005000237   Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck,  H.K.; Smith, C.N. (1957) Diethyltoluamide:
                new insect repellent, Part II-Clothing treatments.  Soap and
                Chemical Specialties  33(6):95,97,99,109.

005000236   Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck, H.K.; Smith, C.N. (1957) New insect
                repellent.  Soap and Chemical Specialties
                33(5):115-117,129,131,133.

005000187   Gilbert, I.H.; Scanlon, J.E.; Bailey, D.L. (1970) Repellents
                against mosquitoes  in Thailand.  Journal of Economic Entomology
                63(4):1207-1209.

-------
005010120   Gjullin, C.M.; Cope, O.B.; Quisenberry, B.F.; DuChanois, P.R.
               (1949) The effect of some insecticides on black fly larvae in
               Alaskan streams.  Journal of Economic Entomology 42(1):100-105.

005000118   Goldman, L. (1960) Dermatologic aspects of insect repellents and
               toxicants.  Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology 62:245-260.

005000114   Gouck, H.K. (1966) Protection from ticks, fleas, chiggers, and
               leeches.  Archives of Dermatology 93(1):112-113.

005000280   Gouck, H.K.; Bowman, M.C. (1959) Effect of repellents on the
               evolution of carbon dioxide and moisture from human arms.
               Journal of Economic Entomology 52(6):1257-1259.

005000168   Gouck, H.K.; Gilbert, I.H. (1955) Field tests with new tick
               repellents in 1954.  Journal of Economic Entomology
               48(5):499-500.

005000282   Granett, P. (1960) Insect Repellents for Personal Use.  New
               Brunswick: New Jersey Agricultural Experimental Station. (N.J.
               A.E.S. circular no. 592).

000004890   Granett, P. (1961) Effectiveness of Various Products as Insect
               Repellents Applied to Skin of Arms or Legs of Testers.  (Unpub-
               lished study including letter dated Oct 17, 1961 from P. Granett
               to Harry L. Haynes, received Jul 26, 1963 under 5769-32? pre-
               pared by Rutgers Univ., New Jersey Agricultural Experiment
               Station, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y.;
               CDL:231147-B)

000004887   Granett, P.; Haynes, H.L. (19??) Laboratory evaluation of chemicals
               for rendering fabric repellent to mosquitoes.  Pages 82-87, jCn
               Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting of the New
               Jersey Mosquito Extermination Association; Mar 28-30, Atlantic
               City, N.J.   N.P.  (Also In unpublished submission received
               Jan 30, 1969 under 5769-517 submitted by Union Carbide Corp.,
               Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:022549-A)

000001112   Granett, P.; Haynes, H.L. (1945) Insect repellent properties of
               2-ethylhexanediol-l,3.  Journal of Economic Entomology 88(6):
               671-675.  (Also In unpublished submission that includes
               correction, received Feb 26, 1970 under 3282-46; prepared by
               Rutgers Univ., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York, N.Y.;
               CDL:007760-B)

000004867   Granett, P.; Lonax, J.L. (1968) Results of Repellency Tests in the
               Laboratory against Caged Adult Yellow Fever Mosquitoes and Sta-
               ble Flies.  (Unpublished study received May 28, 1968 under 3282-
               47; prepared by Rutgers Univ., Dept. of Entomology and Economic
               Zoology, submitted by d-Con Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.; CDL:
               222081-B)

-------
000001138   Granett, P.; Lomax, J.L.  (1971) Summary of Rutgers University Effi-
               cacy Data - June, 1971: "6-12" Brand Super Insect Repellent
               Stick Formula No. 1481-141B Stick Versus 50% Deet (95%) Liquid
               Formula No. 1481-141A: Exhibit I.  (Unpublished study that in-
               cludes Table 1 and Appendix Tables 15-16, received 1972 under
               5769-Q; prepared by Rutgers Univ., submitted by Union Carbide
               Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:228420-A)

000001127   Granett, P.; Lomax, J. (1973) Summarized Results from Rutgers
               University: [Field Tests on Insect Repellent Spray: Deet].
               (Unpublished study received Aug 24, 1973 under 5769-97; prepared
               by Rutgers Univ., Dept. of Entomology, submitted by Union
               Carbide Corp., New York, N.Y.; CDL:003305-A)

000001137   Granett, P.; Lomax, J. (1973) Summarized Results from Rutgers
               University: Treatments and Locations: [Deet].  (Unpublished
               study received Aug 24, 1973 under. 3282-56; prepared by Rutgers
               Univ., Dept. of Entomology, submitted by Union Carbide Corp.,
               Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:009768-A)

005002325   Hall, S.A.; Green, N.; Beroza, M. (1957) Insect repellents and
               attractants.  Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
               5(9):663-667,669.

000001060   Harris Laboratories Incorporated (1965) Subacute Dermal Toxicity
               Study of Repellent Mixtures:  [Deet].  (Unpublished study
               received Nov 30, 1965 under unknown admin, no.; submitted by
               McLaughlin Gormley King Co., Minneapolis, Minn.; CDL:140026-A)

GS0020003   Haynes, H.L. (1966) Letter sent to ? dated Dec 7, 1966.  [Concerns
               aerosol and pressurized space spray insecticide test methods.]
               (Unpublished study received  under 3282-49; submitted by ?;
               CDL:222093)

000021737   Haynes, H.L. (1967) Bioassay: WARF No. 7091961-2.  (Unpublished
               study received Apr 23, 1968 under 5769-26; prepared by Wisconsin
               Alumni Research Foundation, submitted by Union Carbide Corp.,
               Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:028100-D)

000004873   Haynes, H.L. (1967) Personal Insect Repellent Tests in Madbury,
               N.H.—July 1, 2 and 3, 1967: Tested A (80% Diol + MGK Repel-
               lents) , B (80% Diol), and C (80% Trimethyl pentanediol) and Each
               Mixture at One Half Strength.  (Unpublished study including
               letter dated Jul 21, 1967 from R.J. Norton to Harry L. Haynes,
               received Apr 23, 1968 under 3282-45; prepared by Union Carbide
               Corp. in cooperation with Crop Protection Institute and Univ. of
               New Hampshire, Dept. of Entomology, submitted by d-Con Co.,
               Inc., New York, N.Y.; CDLi022566-C)

-------
 000004864   Haynes, H.L.  (1969) Entomological Performance Data:  [6-12].   (Un-
               published  study received Sep 18, 1969 under 3282-45; prepared by
               Union Carbide Corp. in cooperation with Rutgers Univ., submitted
               by d-Con Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.; CDL:022574-A)

 000001109   Haynes, H.L.  (1969) Entomological Performance Data:  [6-12 Insect
               Repellent  Spray].  (Unpublished study that includes appended
               report, received Sep 18, 1969 under 3282-46, submitted by Union
               Carbide Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:007759-A)

 GS0020004   Haynes, H.L.  (1970) Letter sent to H.G. Alford dated May 12, 1970.
               [Concerns  the completed form for an Application for Amended
               Registration for "6-12".  Attached is the application.]
               (Unpublished study received Apr 14, 1970 under 5769-50; sub-
               mitted by Union Carbide Corporation; CDL:100917)

 GS0020005   Haynes, H.L.  (1971) Letter sent to J. Touhey dated Mar 10, 1970.
               [Concerns the registration of "6-12 PLUS".  Efficacy data are
               attached for mixture with ethyl-hexanediol, as well as ethyl
               hexanediol alone.]   Unpublished study received Jul 10, 1971]
               under 5769-56; submitted by ? CDL:007435)

 000001122   Haynes, H.L.  (1972) Supporting Data for "6-12 Plus" Brand Insect
               Repellent Spray.  (Unpublished study that includes figures 1-2
               and tables 1-2, received Jun 27, 1972 under 3282-48; submitted
               by Union Carbide Corp., New York, N.Y.; CDL:007767-A)

 005006137   Haynes, H.L.; Lahr, P.H., inventors; Union Carbide Corp., assignee
               (1974) Synergistic insect repellent compositions containing
               N,N-diethyl meta toluamide and 2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol.
               Canadian patent 960140.  Dec 31.  22 p.

 005008237   Hill,. J.A.; Robinson,  P.B.; McVey, D.L.; Akers, W.A.; Reifenrath,
               W.G. (1979) Evaluation of mosquito repellents on the hairless
               dog.  Mosquito News 39(2):307-310.

 005003270   Ihndris, R.W.; Gouck,  H.K.; Bowen, C.V. (1955) Effect of Promising
               Insect Repellents on Plastics and Paints.  Beltsville, Md.:
               U.S. Agricultural Research Service. (U.S. Department of
               Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service report ARS-33-7)

 000004871   Industrial Toxicology Laboratories (1954) Repeated Insult Patch
               Test Study with Union Carbide & Carbon Insect Repellent Stick
               #1.   (Unpublished study received Jan 27, 1954 under 3282-44;
               submitted by d-Con  Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.; CDL:222080-A)

000004894   Industrial Toxicology Laboratories (1954) Repeated Insult Test
               Screening Study with 2-Ethyl hexanediol 1, 3 in Aerosol Spray.
               (Unpublished study received Aug 10, 1954 under 2915-11; sub-
               mitted by Fuller Brush Co., Great Bend, Kans.; CDL:050483-A)

-------
 GS0020006   Jasper,  R.L.  (1963)  Pharmacology Laboratory Report.   (Unpublished
                study received Jul 2,  1963 under 643-92;  submitted by ?;
                CDL:110120)

 005003267   Jones, H.A.;  McCollough,  G.T.; Morton, F.A.  (1946) Effect of
                storage on insect repellents.   Soap and  Sanitary Chemicals
                22(10):151,153.

 005003268   Kalmus,  H.; Hocking, B.  (1960) Behaviour  of Aedes mosquitos in
                relation to blood-feeding  and  repellents.  Entomologia
                Experimentalis et Applicata 3(1):1-26.

 005002788   Kashin,  P.; Kardatzke, M.L.  (1975)  Diurnal  rhythm, age,  and other
                variables  affecting yellow fever mosquito avidity  and the
                laboratory assay  of repellents.  Journal  of Economic  Entomology
                68(6):766-768.

 005002667   Kasman,  S.; Roadhouse, L.A.O.; Wright, G.F.  (1953) Studies in
                testing insect repellents.   Mosquito News 13(2):116-123.

 000001035   Keegan,  H.L.; Weaver, R.E.; Fleshman,  P.; Zarem, M. (1964) Studies
                of Taiwan  Leeches: 3.  Further  Tests of Repellents Against
                Aquatic, Blood-Sucking Leeches.   (Unpublished study received
                on unknown date under  901-37;  prepared by U.S. Army Medical
                Command, Dept.  of Entomology,  406th Medical Laboratory, sub-
                mitted by  Airosol Co., Inc., Neodesha, Kans.; CDL:221876-A)

 005000127   Kellogg, F.E.; Burton, D.J.; Wright, R.H. (1968) Measuring
                mosquito repellency.   Canadian Entomologist 100(7):763-768.

 005006013   Kethley, T.W.; Fincher, E.L.;  Cown, W.B.  (1956) A system  for the
                evaluation of  aerial disinfectants.  Applied Microbiology
                4:237-243.

 005000100   Khan, A.A. (1965) Effects of repellents on mosquito behavior.
                Quaestiones Entomologicae l(l):l-35.

 005014489   Khan, A.A. (1977) Mosquito attractants and repellents.  Pages
                305-325, Jto Chemical Control of  Insect Behavior, Theory and
               Application, a Conference;  May,  1975, Bellagio, Italy.  Edited
               by H.H. Shorey and J.J. McKelvey, Jr.  New York:  Wiley.

 000001163   Khan, A.A.;  Maibach, H.I. (1972) A  study of  insect repellents. 1.
               Effect on idle  flight and approach by Aedes aegypti. Journal of
               Economic Entomology 65(5):1318-1321.   (Also JEn unpublished sub-
               mission received Jan 11, 1978  under 4822-10; prepared by Univ.
               of California School of Medicine, Dept. of Dermatology, submit-
                ted by S.C. Johnson &  Sons,  Inc., Racine, Wis.; CDL:233318-D)

005000218   Khan, A.A.;  Maibach, H.I.; Skidmore, D.L. (1975) Addition of
               perfume fixatives to mosquito repellents to increase protection
               time.   Mosquito News 35(1):23-26.

-------
005000299   King, W.V., comp. (1954) Chemicals Evaluated as Insecticides and
               Repellents at Orlando, Fla.  U.S. Department of Agriculture,
               Agricultural Research Service.', Entomology Research Branch.
               Washington, D.C.: USDA. (USDA Agriculture Handbook no.
               69).

005000017   Klier, M.; Hamburg, A.G. (1976) Neue Insektenabwehrmittel - Am
               Stickstoff disubstituierte beta-Alaninderivate.  [New insect
               repellents <- Derivatives of N-disubstituted beta-alanine.]
               Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists 27(3):141-153.

000004881   Kline, P.R.; Gabriel, K.L. (1965) Project #20-124: A Repeated In-
               sult Patch Test Conducted in 200 Human Subjects with Union
               Carbide Corporation—2 Ethylhexanediol—1, 3 (100%).  (Unpub-
               lished study including letter dated Jul 12, 1966 from C.U.
               Dernehl to J.S. Leary, Jr., received Jul 14, 1966 under ?
               submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Agricultural Products,
               Washington, D.C.; CDL:118533-A)

005003641   Knipling, E.F. (1948) New insecticides, acaracides, and repellents
               for the control of arthropods attacking man.  Pages
               141-142, In Abstracts—International Congress of Tropical
               Medicine and Malaria.  Vol. 4.

005004560   Kulpinski, M.S.; Nbrd, F.F. (1943) Essential steps in the
               catalytic condensation of aldehydes; new synthesis of glycol
               esters.  Journal of Organic Chemistry 8:256-270.

GS0020007   Lahr, P.H. (?) Tarrytown Technical Memorandum TTM-81:Synergist.ic
               Mixtures of 2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol and M-Diethyltoluamide.
               Exhibit D. (Unpublished study which includes Tables I and V
               received Apr 25, 1968 under 5769-27; prepared by Rutgers
               University, Entomology Department, submitted by ?;  CDL:022577)

000004875   Lahr, P.H. (1968) Memorandum: Summary of 1967 Tests on Effective-
               ness of MGK Additives 11 and 264 in Improving 6-12 Insect Repel-
               lent Liquid.  Summary of studies 022566-C and 022566-D.  (Unpub-
               lished study including WARF nos. 7090335-361, 7091961-2 and
               7090335-36, received Apr 23, 1968 under 3282-45; prepared by
               Union Carbide Corp. in cooperation with Rutgers Univ., Dept. of
               Entomology and Economic Zoology and Wisconsin Alumni Research
               Foundation, submitted by d-Con Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.;
               CDL:022566-G)

000021734   Lahr, P.H. (1968) Summary of 1967 Tests on Effectiveness of MGK
               Additives 11 and 264 in Improving 6-12 Insect Repellent Liquid.
               (Unpublished study received Apr 23, 1968 under 5769-26; prepared
               in cooperation with Rutgers, The State Univ. of New Jersey, sub-
               mitted by Union Carbide Corp., Tarr^town, N.Y.; CDLi28100-A)

-------
000004870
000004869
000004868
GS0020008
GS0020009
000001124
005007003
005002319


005002396



005010129
Lahr, P.H. (1970) Observations on the Patent Memorandum of March 4,
   1969.  (Unpublished study received Jul 1, 1970 under 3282-48;
   prepared by Union Carbide Corp. in cooperation with Rutgers
   Univ., Dept. of Entomology and Economic Zoology, submitted by
 .  d-Con Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.; CDL:007765-D)

Lahr, P.H. (1970) Synergism of Mixtures of Ethylhexanediol and
   Diethyltoluamide.  (Unpublished study received Jul 1, 1970 under
   3282-48; prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by d-Con
   Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.; CDL:007765-C)

Lahr, P.H. (1970) Synergism of Mixtures of Ethylhexanediol and
   Diethyltoluamide.  (Unpublished study received Jul 1, 1970 under
   3282-48; prepared by Union Carbide Corp. in cooperation with
   Rutgers Univ., submitted by d-Con Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.;
   CDL:007765-B)

Lahr, P.H. (1972) Letter sent to H.L. Haynes dated Jul 21, 1972.
   [Conerns efficacy of Super Repellent Stick and Liquid with the
   "6-12 PLUS" stick.]  (Unpublished study received Jul 25, 1972
   under 1016-Q; prepared by Rutgers University, Department of
   Entomology, submitted by ?; CDL:117589)

Lahr, P.H. (1972) Letter sent to H.L. Haynes dated Jun 1, 1972.
   [Concerns the relative performance of super liquid insect
   repellents vs. 50% and 65% Deet liquid.] (Unpublished study
   received ? under 5769-93; submitted by Union Carbide
   Corporation; CDL:022494)

Lahr, P.H. (1972) Performance of "6-12 Plus" Spray Formula vs. 15
   Percent Deet based on Rutgers Laboratory and Field Tests for
   1968 through 1971: Tarrytown Technical Memorandum, TTM-102.
   (Unpublished study, that includes Appendices I-IV, received Jun
   27, 1972 under 3282-48; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Tarry-
   town, N.Y.; CDL:007768-A)

Lamdan, S. (1951) Consideraciones generales sobre atractivos y
   repelentes de insectos.  [General ideas on insect attractants
   and repellents.]  Buenos Aires, Argentina:  Ministerio de
   Agricultura y Ganaderia.

Langford, G.S.; Joseph, S.R.; Berry, R. (1966) Some observations
   on mosquito repellents.  Mosquito News 26(3):399-404.

Lehman, A.J.  (1955) Insect repellents.  Association of Food and
   Drug Officials of the United States, Quarterly Bulletin
   19:87-99.
Lehman, A.J. (1956) Insect repellents,
   16(3):243-256.
Medical Bulletin

-------
GS0020010   Lehman, A..J.  (1959) Letter sent to T.W. Nale dated Nov 6,  1959.
                [Concerns the attached  few pages from the company bulletin  and
                labels.]  (Unpublished  study received ? under 336-10; submitted
                by ?; CDL:101072)

005004495   Lesser, M.A. (1952) Insect repellents.  Soap and Sanitary
                Chemicals 28(3):136-137,141-142,173.

000001181   Lindquist, A.W.; Madden, A.H.; Watts, C.N. (1944) The use of re-
                pellents against fleas.  Journal of Economic Entomology  37(4):
                485-486.  (Also ^n unpublished submission received Jun 10,  1971
                under 3282-48;  prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research
                Administration, Bureau  of Entomology and Plant Quaran-
                tine, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y.;
                CDL:007766-F)

005006012   Linduska, J.P.; Morton, F.A. (1947) Determining the repellency of
                solid chemicals to mosquitoes.  Journal of Economic Entomology
                40(4):562-564.

000004874   Lomax, J.L. (1968) Results of Mosquito and Fly Repellency Tests in
                the Rutgers University  Laboratory.  (Unpublished study received
                May 28, 1968 under 3282-45; prepared by Rutgers Univ., Dept. of
                Entomology and  Economic Zoology, submitted by d-Con Co., Inc.,
                New York, N.Y.; CDL-.022566-D)

000004865   Lomax, J.L. (1968) Union Carbide Consumer Products Company  Research
                Project at Rutgers State University: Annual Report for 1968.
                (Unpublished study received Sep 18, 1969 under 3282-45;  prepared
                by Rutgers Univ., Dept. of Entomology and Economic Zoology  in
                cooperation with Union  Carbide Consumer Products Co., submitted
                by d-Con Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.; CDL:022574-B)

000001118   Lomax, J.L. (1969) Summary and Discussion of All Duration Field
                Test Results for Summer 1969: [Deet]: Exhibit F.  (Unpublished
                study that includes Appendices 1-4, received Apr 30, 1970 under
                5769-48; prepared by Rutgers Univ., College of Agriculture,
                Dept. of Entomology, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York,
               N.Y.; CDL:007762-F)

000001117   Lomax, J.L. (1970) Summary and Discussion of Repellent Test Results
                (Duration Type  in the Laboratory): ["6-12" Foam Versus 1481-57
               and 1481-67]: Exhibit E.  (Unpublished study that includes  at-
               .tached report and Appendices 1-2, received Apr 30, 1970  under
                5769-48; prepared by Rutgers Univ., College of Agriculture,
               Dept. of Entomology, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York,
               N.Y.; CDL:007762-E)

GS0020011   Lomax, J.L. (1970) Summary and Discussion of Repellent Test Results
                (Duration Type in the Lab).   (Unpublished study which includes
               Table I received Apr 25, 1968 under 5769-27; prepared by Rutgers
               University,  Entomology Department, submitted by ?; CDL:022577)

-------
000001115
GS0020013
000001128
005002609
000021860
005002397
005000116
005010941
005000310
Lomax, J.L.  (1970) Summary and Discussion of Repellent Test Results
    (Duration Type in  the Laboratory):  [1481-21 Versus 1481-54, -57
   Towelettes]: Exhibit E.   (Unpublished study that includes at-
   tached report and  Appendices 1-2, received May 14, 1970 under
   5769-44;  prepared  by Rutgers Univ., College of Agriculture,
   Dept. of  Entomology, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York,
   N.Y.; CDL:007761-E)

Lomax, J.L.  (1972) Letter sent to H.L. Haynes dated Oct 23, 1972.
    [Concerns the requested stress test results from Rutgers
   University  for "6-12 PLUS" stick formulation, which are
   attached.]  (Unpublished study received Oct 19, 1972 under 5769*
   53; CDL:024240)

Lomax, J.L.; Granett, P. (1971) Current laboratory procedures for
   the development of improved insect repellents at Rutgers-the
   State University.  Pages  41-47, In Proceedings of the 58th
   Annual Meeting of  the New Jersey Mosquition Extermination
   Association; Mar 17-19, 1971, Atlantic City, New Jersey.   New
   Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers  Univ.  (Also In unpublished sub-
   mission received Aug 24,  1973 under 5769-97; prepared by Rutgers
   Univ., Dept. of Entomology, submitted by Union Carbide Corp.,
   New York, N.Y.; CDL:003305-B)

Lust* S. (1960) Ueber Wirkung und biologische Pruefung von
   Repellentien.  [The effect and biological testing of
   repellents.]  Parfuemerie Kosmetik 41(8):304-306.

Mace, E.F.;  Neumiller, P.J.; Yocum, R.V.; et al. (1971) Maximized
   Insect Repellent:  Project 573.  (Unpublished study received Sep
   9, 1971 under 4822-114; submitted by S.C. Johnson and Sons,
   Inc., Racine, Wis.; CDL:007511-A)

Madden, A.H.; Lindquist, A.W.; Knipling, E.F. (1944) Tests of
   repellents against chiggers.  Journal of Economic Entomology
   37(2):283-286.

Maibach, H.I.; Khan,  A.A.; Akers, W. (1974) Use of insect
   repellents for maximum efficacy.  Archives of Dermatology
   109(1):32-35.

Martin, H.;  Miles, J.R.W. (1953) Guide to the Chemicals Used in
   Crop Protection.   2nd ed.  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada:  Canada
   Department of Agriculture.

Mathieson, D.R.; Wilson, C.E. (1944) Insect Repellents. Attempts
   to Increase Duration of Effectiveness.  Washington, D.C.: U.S.
   Department of Commerce, Office of the Publication Board. (U.S.
   Department of Commerce, Office of Technical Services PB).
005005521
McClure, H.B. (1944) Newer aliphatic chemicals.
   Engineering News 22(6):416-421.
Chemical and

-------
 000001055   Mclaughlin Gormley King Company  (1957) Recommendations  for the Use
               of Diethyltoluamide by the Armed Forces.   (Unpublished  study
               received Oct  22, 1974  under 1021-1323; CDL:028339-1)

 000001057   McLaughlin Gormley King Company  (1965) MGK  (R) Repellents  for per-
               sonal Use.  (Unpublished study received Feb 15,  1965  under
               unknown admin, no.; CDL:105970-B)

 000001056   McLaughlin Gormley King Company  (1965) Modified Subacute Dermal
               Study - MGK Repellent Mixes.  (Unpublished study received
               Feb 15, 1965 under unknown admin, no.; CDL:105970-A)

 000001000   Miller, W.V. (1955) Insect Repellents for Canines:  [Butoxy Polypro-
               pylene Glycol].  (Unpublished study that includes Tables I-IV,
               received Mar 2, 1956 under 59-82; submitted by Burroughs
               Wellcome Co., Research Triangle Park, N.C.; CDL:000126-A)

 000001129   Mitchell, R.B. (1971) "6-12 Plus" Insect Repellent  Spray with
               Knockdown Power: Efficacy Data.  (Unpublished study that in-
               cludes TTM-95 with Appendices A-C, received Oct  13, 1971 under
               5769-86; prepared by Union Carbide Corp.  in cooperation with
               Crop Protection Institute; submitted by Union Carbide Corp.,
               Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:007772-A)

 005002307   Moore, J.B. (1962) Insect repellent formulations for personal use.
               Aerosol Age 7(12):43,46,123,128.

 005012265   Moriamez, C.; Allab, M.D. (1963) Sur les proprietes dielectriques
               de diols a chaine ramifiee, a 1'etat pur et en solution.   [On
               the dielectric properties of branch-chain diols  in the pure
               state and in solution.]  Pages 338-345, ^n Proceedings of the
               Colloque AMPERE; 1962.  Vol.  11.   Amsterdam:   Colloque AMPERE.

 005011439   Mulla, M.S. (1963) Chemical repellents for Hippelates eye gnats—a
               method and procedure for evaluation.   Journal of Economic
               Entomology 56(6):753-757.

GS0020014   Nale, T.W. (1959) Letter sent to R.O.  White dated Nov 10, 1959.
               [Concerns a precautionary statement on the label.]  (Unpublished
               study received ? under 336-10; submitted by Union Carbide
               Corporation; CDL:101072)

GS0020015   Nale, T.W. (1959) Letter sent to A.J.  Lehman dated Oct 30, 1959.
               [Concerns the irritation of the mucous membrane by "6-12".]
               (Unpublished study received ? under 336-10; submitted by ?;
               CDL:101072)

000004877   Nycum, J.S., ed.  (1968) Continuing Guarantees under the Federal
               Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act:  Special Report 31-81.   (Unpublished
               study received Mar 23, 1973 under 1016-4; prepared by Carnegie-
               Mellon Univ.,  Mellon Institute, submitted by Union Carbide
               Corp., Agricultural Products, Washington, D.C.; CDL:100971-A)

-------
 GS0020023


 005005242
005005162
005005957
005002422


005000235


005004559



000004862
005000128


005002394


005001774



000001097
GS0020016
Nycum, J.S.; Carpenter, C.R.  (1968) Miscellaneous Acute Ibxicity
   Data, Chemicals and Plastics Division. Special Report 31-136.

Ogawa, S.; Toyoda, M.; Tbnogai, Y.; Ito, Y.; Iwaida, M. (1979)
   Colorimetric determination of boric acid in prawns, shrimp, and
   salted jelly fish by chelate extraction with
   2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol.  Journal of the Association of Official
   Analytical Chemists 62(3):610-614.

Qnohundro, A.L.; Neumeier, F.M.; Zeitlin, B.R., inventors;
   McKesson & Robbins, assignee (1949) Insect repellent stick.
   U.S. patent 2,465,470.  Mar 29.  3 p. Cl. 167-42.

Peters, W. (1956) Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Wirkungsweise
   insektenabwehrender Mittel (Repellents).  [Experimental
   investigations on the efficacy of insect repellents.]
   Zeitschrift fuer Angewandte Zoologie 1:1-75.

Philips, F.S. (1946) Insecticides and rodenticides.  Federation
   Proceedings 5:292-298.

Pierce, H.F. (1958) Diethyltoluamide in aerosol repellents.  Soap
   and Chemical Specialties 34(6):80-81,83,85-86,191.

Pochini, A.; Salerno, G.; Ungaro, R. (1975) A new simple catalyst
   for the synthesis of 1,3-diols and their monoesters from linear
   aliphatic aldehydes.  Synthesis 3:164-165.

Reinhard, G.M. (1961) Effect of Insect Repellent 6-12 on Stocking
   Dye.  (Unpublished study including letter dated Jun 12, 1961
   from S.M. Livengood to J.M. Hogrefe, received Jan 8, 1962 under
   3282-45; prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by d-Con
   Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.; CDL:022564-A)

Roadhouse, L.A.O. (1953) Laboratory studies on insect repellency.
   Canadian Journal of Zoology 31:535-546.
Roadhouse, L.A.O. (1953) Use of insect repellents.
   Institute Review 8(2):23-24,30.
Agricultural
Roberts, R.S. (1969) A review of pesticides used in environmental
   health activities.  Journal of Environmental Health
   31(6):560-567.

S.C. Johnson & Son, Incorporated (1974) Fly and Mosquito Repellent
   4071D9-3: Project [No.]  752.  (Unpublished study that includes
   repellency test methods 3082D23, 3452D105, 3767R98 and 3767R99,
   received Aug 7, 1974 under 4822-138; CDL:102574-A)

Samuel J. Milazzao Manufacturing Company (?) Effectiveness Report.
   (Unpublished study that includes Hercules Bulletin AP-105B,
   received Feb 18, 1970 under 8218-2; submitted by ?; CDL:227966)

-------
005002493
005000009
005000199
005000113
005000188
005004305
005000612



005000231


005000130


005000263



005004696



000004884
Sarkaria, D.S.; Brown, A.W.A. (1951) Studies on the responses of
   the female Aedes mosquito.  Part II.—The action of liquid
   repellent compounds.  Bulletin of Entomological Research
   42:115-122.

Schmidt, M.L. (1977) Relative effectiveness of repellents against
   Simulium damnosum   (Dipetera: Simuliidae) and  Glossina
               morsitans  (Diptera: Glossinidae) in Ethiopia.
               Medical Entomology 14(3):276-278.
                                                  Journal of
Schmidt, M.L.; Schmidt, J.R. (1969) Relative effectiveness of
   chemical repellents against Phlebotomus papatasi (Sropoh).
   Journal of Medical Entomology 6(1):79-80.

Schreck, C.E. (1977) Techniques for the evaluation of insect
   repellents: a critical review.  Annual Review of Entomology
   22:101-119.

Schreck, C.E.; Gilbert, I.H.; Weidhaas, D.E.; Posey, K.H. (1970)
   Spatial action of mosquito repellents.  Journal of Economic
   Entomology 63(5):1576-1578.

Schwartz, D.P.; Brewington, C.R.; Weihrauch, J.L. (1972) Methods
   for the isolation and characterization of constituents of
   natural products.  XVI.  Quantitative microdetermination of
   diols as bis-esters of pyruvic acid 2,6-dinitrophenylhydrazone:
   separation from monohydric alcohol derivatives and resolution
   of an homologous series.  Microchemical Journal 17(3):302-308.

Schwartz, H., inventor;  (1972) Neue synergistische
   Zusammensetzungen.  [Synergistic bactericidal compositions.]
   German dffenlegungsschrift 2,209,606.  Nov 16.  11 p.

Scott, J.A. (1946) Insect repellents.  Pest Control and Sanitation
Setterstrom, C.A. (1946) Insect repellents: Intensive research
   broadens market.   Chemistry and Industry (London) 59:474-475.

Shambaugh, G.F.; Brown, R.F.; Pratt, J.J., Jr. (1957) Repellents
   for biting arthropods.  Pages 277-303, JCn Advances in Pest
   Control Research.  New York: New York Interscience.

Shay, J.F.; Skilling, S.; Stafford, R.W. (1954) Identification of
   polyhydric alcohols in polymeric esters.  Analytical Chemistry
   26(4):652-656.

Shelanski, H.A. (1945) Patch Tests on Human Subjects.  (Unpublished
   study received Feb 2, 1948 under ?; prepared by Smyth
   Laboratories, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Agricultural
   Products, Washington, D.C.; CDL:110121-D)

-------
 005000270   Smith, C.N.  (1958)  Insect  repellents.   Pages 96-104,   In
                Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, Chemical Specialties
                Manufacturers Association, No. 44; Dec 9-12, 1957.  New York,
                N.Y.: Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association.

 005000276   Smith, C.N.  (1962)  Factors affecting the protection obtained with
                insect repellents.  Pages 482-485, ^n Transactions  of the
                International Congress  of Entomology, llth Congress, vol. 2,
                sect. 7/14.

 000001020   Smith, C.N.  (1965)  Insect  repellents—Their present usefulness and
                future development.  Pages 507-509, ^n Section 8: Insecticides
                and Toxicology:  [Proceedings of the] Xllth International
                Congress  of Entomology; 1964(1965),  London, N.P.  (Also ^n
                unpublished submission  received May  7, 1970 under 891-37;
                prepared  by U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Entomology
                Research  Div., submitted by Hercules, Inc., Agricultural Chemi-
                cals, Wilmington, Del.; CDL:005111-G)

 000001166   Smith, C.N.  (1970)  Repellents for anopheline mosquitoes.  Miscel-
                laneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America
                7(1):99-117.  (Also ^n  unpublished submission received Jan 11,
                1978 under 4822-10; prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research Ser-
                vice, Entomology Research Div., submitted by S.C. Johnson &
                Sons, Inc., Racine, Wis.; CDL:233318-1)

 005000166   Smith, C.N.; Cole,  M.M.; Lloyd, G.W.; Selhime, A. (1952)
                Mosquito-repellent mixtures.  Journal of Economic Entomology
                45(5):805-809.

 000001010   Smith, C.N.; Couch, M.D. (1957) Tests with Mosquitone Sticks from
                McKesson  & Robbins, Inc.  (Unpublished study received Oct 17,
                1957 under 385-6; prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research
                Service,  Entomology Research Div., Insects Affecting Man
                Section,  submitted by McKesson Laboratories, Bridgeport, Conn.;
                CDL:229417-A)

 005000277    Smith, C.N.; Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck, H.K. (1962) Factors in the
                attraction of mosquitoes to hosts, and their relation to
                protection with  repellents.  Pages 82-86, In Transactions of
                the  International Congress of Entomology, llth Congress, vol.
                3,  supp.  1/2, 5/7.

 005000300    Smith,  C.N.; Gilbert, I.H.; Gouck, H.K.; Bowman, M.C.; Acree, F.,
               Jr.; Schmidt, C.H. (1963) Factors affecting the protection
               period of mosquito repellents.  Pages 1-36, In U.S. Department
               of Agriculture Technical Bulletin, No. 1285.

005002666    Smith, C.N.; Gouck, H.K. (1946) Observations on tick repellents.
               Journal of Economic Entomology 39(3):374-378.

-------
005000297   Smith, C.N.; Gouck, I.H.; Gouck, H.K. (1956) Use of Insect
               Repellents.  Washington, B.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
               Agricultural Research Service. (USDA, ARS report no. 33-26).

000001184   Smith, C.N.; Smith, N. (1961) Results of Tests with Six Samples of
               Suntan-Insect Repellent from Revlon.  (Unpublished study re-
               ceived Dec 19, 1961 under 6650-1; prepared by U.S. Agricultural
               Research Service, Entomology Research Div., Insects Affecting
               Man and Animals Research Branch, submitted by Revlon, Inc.,
               Bronx, N.Y.; CDL:229503-D)

GS0020019   Smyth, H.F., Jr. (1944) Special Report on Recapitulation of
               Tbxicity and Irritation Data for Some Insect Repellents.
               Report 7-8.

GS0020020   Smyth, H.F., Jr. (1946) Special Report on Quantitative Aspects of
               Chemical Burns of the Eye. Report 11.

005007398   Smyth, H.F., Jr. (1952) Physiological aspects of the glycols and
               related compounds.  Pages 300-327, JEn Glycols.  Washington,
               D.C.:  American Chemical Society Publications. (ACS
               monographs no. 114)

GS0020017   Smyth, H.F., Jr.; Carpenter, C.P.; Shaffer, C.B. (1943) Progress
               Report for the Month Ended Apr 30, 1943. Report 6-40.

GS0020018   Smyth, H.F.,Jr.; Carpenter, C.P.; Shaffer, C.B.; Weil, C.S. (1947)
               Progress Report for the Month Ended Jan 31, 1947.  Report 10-19.

005006929   Smyth, H.F., Jr.; Carpenter, C.P.; Weil, C.S. (1951) Range-finding
               toxicity data: List IV.  Archives of Industrial Hygiene and
               Occupational Medicine 4:119-122.

000004879   Smyth, H.F., Jr.; Carpenter, C.P.; Weil, C.S.;  Priddle, O.D., Jr.
               (1955) Progress Report for the Month Ended November 30, 1955:
               Report 18-141.  (Unpublished study received Mar 23, 1973 under
               1016-4; prepared by Univ. of Pittsburgh, Mellon Institute of
               Industrial Research, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Agricul-
               tural Products, Washington, D.C.; CDL:100971-C)

000004880   Smyth, H.F., Jr.; Carpenter, C.P.; Weil, C.S.;  Priddle, O.D., Jr.
               (1956) Progress Report for the Month Ended November 30, 1956:
               Report 19-132.  (Unpublished study received Mar 23, 1973 under
               1016-4; prepared by Univ. of Pittsburgh, Mellon Institute of
               Industrial Research, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Agricul-
               tural Products, Washington, D.C.; CDL:100971-D)

005000042   Spencer, T.S.;  Bayles, S.F.; Shimmin, R.K.; Gabel, M.L.; Akers,
               W.A. (1975)  Interactions between mosquito repellents and human
               skin.  Pages 1-14, Jin Proceedings of the Ninth Army Science
               Conference;  June 1975; West Point, N.Y.   (Available from: NTIS,
               Springfield, VA; AD-A050-958/8ST)

-------
005000603
005004864
005000045
005004319
005000106
005002315
005002395


005003643



005003262



005004302


005002668
Spencer, T.S.; Shimmin, R.K.; Schoeppher, R.F. (1975) Field test
   of repellents against the valley black gnat, Leptoconops.
   Vector Views 22(1):5-7.

Spencer, T.S.; Zeller, K.L.; Brodel, C.F.; Akers, W.A. (1977)
   Analysis of four-site method for testing mosquito repellents.
   Pages 119-120, In Proceedings and Papers of the Annual
   Conference of the California Mosquito Control Association.
   Vol." 45.  Visalia, Calif.:  California Mosquito Control
   Association.

Stenbaeck, F. (1977) Local and systemic effects of commonly used
   cutaneous agents: Lifetime studies of 16 compounds, in mice and
   rabbits.  Acta Pharmacologica et Toxicologica 41(5):417-431.

Stenbaeck, F.; Shubik, P. (1974) Lack of toxicity and
   carcinogenicity of some commonly used cutaneous agents.
   Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 30:7-13.

Svirbely, W.J.; Eareckson, W.M., III.; Matsuda, K.; Pickard, H.B.;
   Solet, I.S.; Tuemmler, W.B. (1949) Physical properties of some
   organic insect repellents.  Merican Chemical Society Journal
   71:507-509.

Touhey, J.G.; Bray, D.F. (1961) Certain compounds as feeding
   deterrents against the smaller European elm bark
   beetle, Scolytus multistriatus. Journal of Economic
   Entomology 54(2):293-296.
005005163
Travis, B.V. (1947) Mosquito repellents.  American Perfumer and
   Essential Oil Review 50:141-142.

Travis, B.V. (1947) New insect repellents.  Pages 628-631, In U.S.
   Department of Agriculture Yearbook, 1943-1947.  Washington,
   D.C.:  U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Travis, B.V. (1949) Studies of mosquito and other biting-insect
   problems in Alaska.  Journal of Economic Entomology
   42(3):451-457.

Travis, B.V.; Jones, H.A., inventors;  (1947) Insect repellent
   composition.  U.S. patent 2,420,389.  May 13.  2 p. Cl. 167-22.

Travis, B.V.; Morton, F.A. (1946) Treatment of clothing for
   protection against mosquitoes.  Pages 65-69, ^n Proceedings of
   the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the New Jersey Mosquito
   Extermination Association.  New Brunswick, N.J.:  New Jersey
   Mosquito Extermination Association.

Travis, B.V.; Morton, F.A. (1946) Use of Insect Repellents and
   Miticides.  Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Department of Agriculture,
   Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine.

-------
 000004872   Travis, B.V.; Morton, F.A.  (1946) Use of Insect Repellents and
               Miticides: E-698.  (Unpublished study received Jun 5, 1957 under
               3282-44; prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research Administration,
               Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Div. of Insects Af-
               fecting Man and Animals, submitted by d-Con Co., Inc., New York,
               N.Y.; CDL:022578-A)

 005002669   Travis, B.V.; Morton, F.A.  (1950) Insect repellents and nets for
               use against sand flies.  Pages 154-156, jtn Proceedings of the
               Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the New Jersey Mosquito
               Extermination Association.  New Brunswick, N.J.:  New Jersey
               Mosquito Extermination Association.

 005000164   Travis, B.V.; Morton, F.A.; Cochran, J.H. (1946) Insect repellents
               used as skin treatments by the armed forces.  Journal of
               Economic Entomology 39(5):627-630.

 005013243   Travis, B.V.; Morton, F.A.; Smith, C.N. (1953) Use of Insect
               Repellents and Toxicants.  Washington, B.C.:  U.S. Department
               of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine.
               (Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine report no. E-698,
               second revision)

 005003640   Travis, B.V.; Smith, A.L.; Madden, A.H. (1951) Effectiveness of
               insect repellents against black flies.  Journal of Economic
               Entomology 44(5):813-814.

 005006011   Travis, B.V.; Smith, C.N. (1950) Materials for protection against
               biting insects.  Journal of Forestry 48:329-330.

 005003265   Travis, B.V.; Smith, C.N. (1951) Mosquito repellents selected for
               use on man.  Journal of Economic Entomology 44(3):428-429.

 005003732   Twinn, C.R. (1948) Insect repellents.  Canada, Sci. Serv., Div.
               Ent. Forest Insect Invest. Bi-monthly Progress Report 4(2):3.

 005002328   U.S.  Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Branch
               (1954) Composition of repellent mixtures of current or recent
               interest.  Washington D.C.: USDA.

 005000244   U.S.  Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine (1947) Results of
               screening tests with materials evaluated as insecticides,
               miticides and repellents at the Orlando, Fla. laboratory, April
               1942 - April 1947 I-V, rep. no. E-733.

005000147   U.S.  Department of Agriculture (1976) Controlling Chiggers.
               Washington, D.C.: USDA. (USDA Home and Garden Bulletin, no.
               137).

000004891   Union Carbide Corporation (19??) Consumer Test of "6-12" Cream and
               Clear Lotion Type Insect Repellents.  (Unpublished study re-
               ceived Jul 26, 1963 under 5769-32; CDL:231147-C)

-------
000004889   Union Carbide Corporation  (19??) 6-12  Insect Repellent  lotion.
                (Unpublished study received Jul 26,  1963 under  5769-32;  CDL:
                231147-A)

000004882   Union Carbide Corporation  (1945) Mellon Institute  lexicological
                Tests on 2-Ethylhexanediol 1,3  (Insect Repellent  "6-12").
                (Unpublished study received Feb 2,  1948 under unknown admin.
     _          no.; CDL:110121-A)

000004886   Union Carbide Corporation  (1947) Full Reports of All Investigations
               Which Have Been Made to Show That 6-12 Insect Repellent with
                Sun Screen Is Safe For Use.  Summary pf studies 130593-A,
                118533-A, 100971-A through 100971-D,  and 110121-A through1
                110121-D.  (Unpublished study received Feb 2, 1948 under unknown
                admin, no.; CDL:110121-F)

000004885   Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation (1956) Technical Information:
                2-Ethylhexanediol-l,3 (U.S.P.): F-6311A.  (Unpublished study re-
                ceived Nbv 22, 1957 under unknown admin, no.; CDL:110119-A)

000004895   Union Carbide Chemicals Company (1962)  2-Ethyl-l,3-hexanediol
                (U.S.P.).  (Unpublished study received Nov 18,  1970 under
                9157-7; submitted by Sun Swimming Pool Chemical Co.; CDL:
                227413-A)

000004892   Union Carbide Corporation  (1965) Laboratory Tests: Summary and
                Conclusions.  (Unpublished study received Jul 19, 1966 under
                5769-48; CDL:022563-A)

000001119   Union Carbide Corporation  (1970) Summary of Microbiological Data:
                "6-12" Plus Foam: Exhibit G.  (Unpublished study that includes
                attached report, received Apr 30, 1970 under 5769-48;
                CDL:007762-G)

000001111   Union Carbide Corporation  (1970) Summary of 1969 Test Results with
                Personal Insect Repellent Formulations Containing (1) 25%
                2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol and 5% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide, (2)
                30% 2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol and (3) 15% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Tolu-
               amide: [Insect Repellent Spray: Exhibit A].  (Unpublished study
               received Feb 26, 1970 under 3282-46;  CDL:007760-A)

000001123   Union Carbide Corporation  (1970) Summary of 1969 Test Results with
               Personal Insect Repellent Formulations Containing (1) 40.0%
                2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol and 10.0% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide (2)
               40% 2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol: Exhibit A.  (Unpublished study that
                includes appended letter, received Apr 9, 1970  under 5769-51;
               CDL:007764-A)

-------
000001114
000001106
000001107
000001116
000001125
000004876
000001126



005000110


000001098
Union Carbide Corporation  (1970) Summary of  1969 Test Results with
   Personal Insect Repellent Formulations  Containing  (1)  40.0%
   2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol  and 8.0% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide  (2)
   48.6% 2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol:  [Insect Repellent Towelette]:  Ex-
   hibit A.  (Unpublished  study received May 14, 1970 under
   5769-44; CDL:007761-A)

Union Carbide Corporation  (1970) Summary of  1969 Test Results with
   Personal Insect Repellent Formulations  Containing  (1)  56.0%
   2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol  and 9.1% N ,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide and
   (2) 65% 2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol: Exhibit A.   (Unpublished  study
   received Apr 9, 1970 under 3282-44; CDL:007757-A)

Union Carbide Corporation  (1970) Summary of  1969 Test Results with
   Personal Insect Repellent Formulations  Containing  (1)  80%
   2-Ethyl-l ,3-Hexanediol  and 10% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide (2)
   80% 2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol and (3) 50%  N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Tolua-
   mide: Exhibit A.  (Unpublished study received Mar 24,  1970 under
   5769-27; CDL:007758-A)

Union Carbide Corporation  (1970) Summary of  1969-1970 Test Results
   with Personal Insect Repellents Containing  (1) 25% 2-Ethyl-l,
   3-Hexanediol-5% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide.  (2) 27% 2-Ethyl-l,
   3-Hexanediol-5% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide.  (3) 18% N,
   N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide, and (4) 18% 2-Ethyl-l, 3-Hexanediol:
   study received Apr 30,  1970 under 5769-48; CDL:007762-A)

Union Carbide Corporation  (1970) Summary of  1970 Test Results with
   Personal Insect Repellent Formulations  Containing (1)  17% 2-
   Ethy1-1,3-Hexanediol -  3% N,N-Diethyl-Meta-Toluamide and  (2) 20%
   2-Ethyl-l,3-Hexanediol: Exhibit A.  (Unpublished study received
   May 14, 1970 under 3282-47; CDL:022548-A)

Union Carbide Corporation  (1971) Glycols:  For Anti-Freezes,
   Coupling Agents, Humectants, Liquid Coolants, Solvents, Resin
   Intermediates.  (Glycols bulletin #F-41515A, pp. 9,68  only;  un-
   published study received Sep 13, 1972 under 1016-4; CDL:
   022140-A)

Union Carbide Corporation  (1972) Wash-Off  Tests on "6-12  Plus"
   Stick.  (Unpublished study received Oct 19, 1972 under 3282-49;
   CDL:222043-A)
Utzinger, G.E. (1951) Insect repellents.
   63:430-434.
Angewandte Chemie.
WARF Institute, Incorporated  (1974) Oral LD 50  (Male and Female),
   Skin [and] Eye Irritation  [of] 4071D9-5: WARF No. 4044150.
   (Unpublished study that includes formulation, received Aug 7,
   1974 under 4822-138; submitted by S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,
   Racine, Wis.; CDL:140048-A)

-------
000001099   WARF Institute, Incorporated  (1974) Spray in Eye Irritation  [of]
               4071 D9-3: WARF No. 4044151.  (Unpublished study received
               Aug 7, 1974 under 4822-138; submitted by S.C. Johnson & Son,
               Inc., Racine, Wis.; CDL:140048-B)

005004301   Wassell, H.E., inventor; Union Carbide Corporation, assignee
               (1958) Insect repellent sticks.  U.S. patent 2,819,995.  Jan
               14.  2 p. Cl. 167-42.

005008509   Waterhouse, D.F. (1947) Insectary tests of repellents for the
               Australian sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina. Pages
               19-29, In Australia Council on Scientific and Industrial
               Research Bulletin No. 218.

005002400   Waterhouse, D.F. (1947) Studies of the Physiology and Toxicology
               of Blowflies.  Melbourne, Australia:  Council for Scientific
               and Industrial Research. (Commonwealth of Australia, Council
               for Scientific and Industrial Research bulletin no. 218)

005000120   Waterhouse, D.F.; Norris, K.R. (1966) Bushfly repellents (letter).
               Australian Journal of Science 28(9):351.

000004878   Weil, C.S., ed. (1969) Continuing Guarantees of Some Food, Drug,
               Cosmetic or Agricultural Product Chemicals: Special Report
               32-116.  (Unpublished study received Mar 23, 1973 under 1016-4;
               prepared by Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Mellon Institute, submitted
               by Union Carbide Corp., Agricultural Products, Washington, D.C.;
               CDL:100971-B)

GS0020021   Whitehead, W.G. (1972) Letter sent to H.L. Haynes dated Oct 18,
               1972.  [Concerns the attached wash-off tests for "6-12 PLUS"
               stick.]  (Unpublished study received Oct 19, 1972 under 5769-53;
               submitted by ?; CDL:024240)

005004300   Wilkes, B.C., inventor; Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation,
               assignee (1946) Insect repellents.  U.S. patent 2,407,205.
               Sep 3.  5 p. Cl. 167-22.

000021735   Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (19??) Method: [2-Ethyl-l,3-
               hexane-diol].  (Unpublished study received Apr 23, 1968 under
               5769-26;  submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y.; CDL:
               028100-B)

000004893   Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (1959) Bioassay Report:  Per-
               sonal Repellent Tests with Samples 612 and Formula D, against
               Yellow Fever Mosquito and Stable Fly: WARF No. 902067-8.
               (Unpublished study received June 10, 1959 under 1021-566;  sub-
               mitted by McLaughlin Gormley King Co., Minneapolis, Minn.; CDL:
               005220-A)

-------
000001047
005011438



005004318


005000126


005002322


005000227


005006767
005000268
GS0020022
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (1964)  [Efficacy of Insect
   Repellent E13-9A and Off (Pressurized) Against the Yellow Fever
   Mosquito, Aedes Aegypti ]: Bioassay Report: WARF No. 4110412M.
   (Unpublished study received Feb 7, 1966 under 1021-737; sub-
   mitted by Mclaughlin Gormley King Co., Minneapolis, Minn.;
   CDL:005239-B)

Wood, P.W. (1968) The effect of ambient humidity on the repellency
   of ethylhexanediol ("6-12") to Aedes aegypti* Canadian
   Entomologist 100(12):1331-1334.
Wright, R.H. (1956) Physical basis of insect repellency.
   178:638.
Nature
Wright, R.H. (1962) Studies in mosquito attraction and repulsion.
   V. Physical theory.  Canadian Entomologist 94(10):1022-1029.

Wright, R.H. (1962) The attraction and repulsion of mosquitoes.
   World Review of Pest Control 1(4):20-30.

Wright, R.H.; Kellogg, F.E. (1962) Mosquito attraction and
   repulsion.  Nature (London) 195(4839):405-406.

Yates, W.W.; Lindquist, A.W.; Mote, D.C. (1951) Suggestions for
   Mosquito Control in Oregon.  Corvallis, Ore.:  Oregon
   Agricultural Experiment Station. (Oregon Agricultural
   Experiment Station bulletin no. 507)

Yeoman, G.H.; Warren, B.C. (1970) Repellents for Stomoxys
   laboratory assessment of butyl methylcinchoninate.  Bulletin ,of
   Entomological Research 59(4):563-577.

Zofchak, A. (1963) Letter sent to U.  Oakdale dated Aug 9, 1963.
   [Concerns the toxicity of ethyl hexanediol.] (Unpublished study
   received Sep 16, 1963 under 336-10; submitted by Union Carbide
   Chemicals Company; CDL:101072)

-------
                          OFFICE OF  PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
                           Standard  Reference Material
GS0020024   Bontoyan, W., ed.  (1976) Manual  of Chemical Methods for Pesticides
               and Devices.  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
               Pesticide Programs, Technical Services Division, Chemical and
               Biological Investigations  Branch.   (Available from Association
               of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA)

            Cutting, W.C. (1967) Insecticides, repellents and rodenticides.
               Pages 132-140d,  In  Handbook  of Pharmacology, 3rd Edition. New
               York:  Appleton-Century-Crofts.

            Davidson, L.M.; Peairs, R.H.  (1966) Applied insect control:
               Chemical.  Pages 72-100, In Insect Pests of Farm, Garden  and
               Orchard.  6th ed.  New York:   John Wiley.

            Fairchild, E.J., ed. (1977) Agricultural  Chemicals and Pesticides:
               A Subfile of the NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
               Substances.  Cincinnati, Ohio:   National Institute for
               Occupational Safety and Health.   (Pagination includes 46
               pages numbered  i-xlvi; available from:   NTIS, Springfield,
               VA:  PB-274 748)

005010941   Martin, H.; Miles,  J.R.W. (1953)  Guide to the Chemicals Used in
               Crop Protection.  2nd ed.  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada:   Canada
               Department of Agriculture.
005000301
005005417
005007048
 MJ.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981  341-082/242 1-3

-------