~.....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
------- |