United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substencw
Washington DC 20460
Pesticide*
Ammonium Sulfamate
Pesticide Registration Standard
-------
AMMONIUM SULFAMATE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION STANDARD
Lois Rossi
Anne Barton
William Boodee
Wayne Faatz
Ralph Freund
Randy Norris
Pat Ott
Donna Peacher
Bruce Sid well
Ellen Sullivan
Dorothy Vaughn
Vickie Walters
Project Manager (SPRD)
Science Policy Staff (HED)
Residue Chemist (HED)
Wildlife Biologist (HED)
Economist (BFSD)
Editor (SPRD)
Environmental Chemist (HED)
Typist (SPRD)
Plant Scientist (BFSD)
Toxicologist (HED)
Typist (SPRD)
Product Manager (RD)
APRIL, 1981
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. How to Register Under a Registration Standard 1-1
II. Agency Position on Ammonium Sulfamate 2-1
1. Introduction 2-1
2. Description of Chemical 2-1
3. Regulatory Position for Products Containing 2-1
Ammonium Sulfamate
4. Regulatory Rationale 2-2
5. Criteria for Registration Under the Standard 2-3
Acceptable Ranges and Limits 2-3
Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate
Product Composition Standards 2-3
Acute Toxicity Limits 2-4
Use Patterns 2-4
End Use Ammonium Sulfamate 2-4
Product Composition Standards 2-4
Acute Toxicity Limits 2-4
Use Patterns and Application Methods 2-5
6. Required Labeling 2-5
7. Tolerance Reassessment 2-6
III. Data Requirements and' Data Gaps 3-1
Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate
End Use Ammonium Sulfamate
Tables
1. Generic Data Requirements 3-3
2. Product-Specific Data Requirements for 3-14
Manufacturing-Use Products
3. Product-Specific Data Requirements for 3-17
End Use Products
IV. Product Chemistry 4-1
Introduction 4-1
Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate 4-1
Product Chemistry Profile 4-1
Data Requirements 4-2
Topical Discussions 4-2
End Use Ammonium Sulfamate 4-5
V. Environmental Fate 5-1
Use Profile 5-1
Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate 5-2
Environmental Fate Profile 5-2
Data Requirements 5-2
Topical Discussions 5-2
Formulations of Ammonium Sulfamate 5-8
VI. Toxicology 6-1
Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate 6-1
Toxicology Profile 6-1
Data Requirements 6-2
-------
Required Labeling 6-2
Topical Discussions 6-2
Crystalline Ammonium Sulfaroate 6-8
Toxicology Profile 6-8
Data Requirements 6-8
Topical Discussions 6-8
Soluble Concentrate Ammonium Sulfamate 6-9
Toxicology Profile 6-9
Data Requirements 6-10
Topical Discussions 6-10
Ready-to-Use and Pressurized Liquid 6-12
Ammonium Sulfamate
Toxicology Profile 6-12
Data Requirements 6-12
VII. Residue Chemistry 7-1
Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate 7—i
Residue Chemistry Profile 7-1
Data Requirements 7-1
Topical Discussions 7-1
VIII. Ecological Effects 8-1
Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate 8-1
Ecological Effects Profile 8-1
Data Requirements 8-1
Topical Discussions 8—1
Crystalline Ammonium Sulfamate 8-3
Ecological Effects Profile 8-3
Topical Discussions 8-3
Soluble Concentrate Ammonium Sulfamate 8-4
Ecological Effects Profile 8-4
Topical Discussions 8-4
Ready-to-Use and Pressurized Liquid 8-4
Ammonium Sulfamate
Ecological Effects Profile 8-4
Topical Discussions 8-4
IX. Bibliography 9-1
Guide to Use of Bibliography 9-1
Case Bibliography 9-4
-------
CHAPTER I: HOW TO REGISTER UNDER A REGISTRATION STANDARD
1. Organization of the Standard
2. Purpose of the Standard
3. Requirement to Re-register 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 re-registering 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. But 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.
1-1
-------
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 2, 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 re-register 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)1- 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 he 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 pesticide safely, responsibly, and in accordance with label
directions. A restricted-use pesticide can have other regulatory restrictions
[40 CFR 162.11(cK5)l 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.
1-2
-------
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; 4*3 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 produc : 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 relates only to the
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 is 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'SNunique 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
1-3
-------
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. (VJhere 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 is 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 concerns 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 40 CFR 163.81-l(a), 43 FR 373551.
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 40
CFR 163.82-1, 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)l 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 is all data which are described by all 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 registant 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 in
effect 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 is
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 is 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
1-6
-------
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 ingredientfs), 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.
-------
II
Regulatory Position
1. Introduction
This chapter describes in detail the Agency's regulatory position on
products which contain ammonium sulfamate as the sole active ingredient. The
regulatory position adopted by the Agency incorporates a number of
considerations. Foremost among these considerations is an analysis of the
registrability of products containing ammonium sulfamate based on the risk
criteria found in Section 162.11(a) of Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations. The Agency's determination is presented below, and the rationale
for this decision follows the position.
In addition to the basic regulatory decision and rationale, this
chapter includes the following: criteria for the registration of ammonium
sulfamate products under the Standard; acceptable ranges and limits for product
composition, acute toxicity, and use pattern/application method; required
labeling; tolerance reassessment.
The scientific basis for a decision presented in this chapter can be found by
reading the various disciplinary chapters (Chapters IV-VIII) which provide
summaries of available scientific data on ammonium sulfamate. The data
requirements and data gaps are presented in Chapter III, Tables 1-3. Also, the
reason for establishing a data requirement can be found in the footnotes of the
tables in Chapter III and also in the topical discussion portion of Chapters IV-
VIII. References to Agency guidelines for testing are provided when
appropriate. In instances where the data requirements differ from the
guideline requirements, the rationale is presented in the footnotes of the
tables.
2. Description of Chemical
Ammonium sulfamate is an inorganic salt used as a herbicide on a variety of
sites. It is a non-volatile, crystalline solid. Ammonium sulfamate also has
the following non-pesticidal uses: flameproofing of textiles and paper
products, for electroplating solutions, for generation of nitrous oxide gas.
Only the herbicidal use of this chemical will be addressed in this standard.
Ammonium sulfamate is the accepted name for the chemical. The Weed Science
Society of America (WSSA) has adopted the common name of "AMS". Trade names
for this chemical include: "Ammate" and "Ikurin". The Chemical Abstracts
Registry (CAS) number for ammonium sulfamate is 7773-06-0, and the EPA
Shaughnessy number is 005501.
3. Regulatory Position for Products Containing Ammonium Sulfamate
Ammonium sulfamate as described in this Standard may be registered
for sale, distribution, reformulation, and use in the United States.
Considering information available to the Agency as of March 10, 1081, 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 were met or exceeded for ammonium
sulfamate.
2-1
-------
The information available to the Agency at the time of the development of this
Standard was very limited. The Agency does not have reason to believe that
the use of this herbicide will cause unreasonable adverse effects when used in
compliance with proper label directions and precautions. Ammonium sulfamate
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.
A. Regulatory Rationale
Ammonium sulfamate was developed and introduced as an herbicide in the early
1940's for the control of woody plants. The chemical has had appreciable use
as a herbicide since then, with annual production figures ranging from 3 to 10
million pounds.
Ammonium sulfamate products are registered for both domestic and
nondomestic, terrestrial outdoor use. Also, since the chemical is used to
control poison ivy in apple and pear orchards, it is considered to have a food
use.
Acute toxicity data are available only for a soluble concentrate formulation of
ammonium sulfamate. These data indicate a low toxicity potential. Mr adequate
chronic studies are available. Insufficient data on a 19-month feeding study
in rats and summary data for a rat reproduction study were submitted. No
consistent toxic effects were observed on growth, reproductive performance,
viability, or lactation, and no abnormal histopathological findings were
reported by the authors.
Some data are available on the physical/chemical properties of ammonium
sulfamate, but major gaps exist in the product chemistry data base. There are
no acceptable studies for the ecological effects or environmental fate
of ammonium sulfamate and, also, there is not adequate data on residues on
apples, pears and their by-products. Therefore, the hazards and potential
risks to humans and the environment as a result of exposure to ammonium
sulfamate cannot be adequately assessed at this time.
The human accident data reported on this chemical included four incidents
involving ammonium sulfamate alone and one incident involving ammonium
sulfamate in combination with other chemicals. All of the persons involved in
these incidents received emergency and precautionary medical attention. Three
of the reported incidents consisted of accidental splashing of ammonium
sulfamate in the eye and face. After the affected areas were washed throughly
with water, no symptoms or injury persisted. One incident involved an
agricultural worker who developed a respiratory illness after spraying ammonium
sulfamate. However, the attending physician stated that the case was not one
of pesticide poisoning. The case involving the ingestion of ammonium sulfamate
in combination with other chemicals was an attempted suicide, but the subject
remained asymptomatic.
Although some accidents have been reported for this chemical, the reported
incidents were not of a serious nature and were treated effectively. The lack
of substantive accident data is significant since this chemical has been used
for approximately forty years.
-------
In addition, the parent compound of ammonium sulfamate, sulfamic acid, was
assigned the generally recognized as safe status (GRAS) as an indirect human
food ingredient by the Food and Drug Administration (PR Notice Vol.44, No.31 -
February 13, 1979, p.9402). The review conducted by FDA considered the health
aspects of sulfamic acid as an ingredient of food packaging materials. An
extensive search of the literature was conducted. No chronic studies relating
to possible carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or teratogenicity of sulfamic acid
were available. The decision to classify sulfamic acid in the generally
recognized as safe status (GRAS) as an indirect human food ingredient was done
on the basis that there was no evidence in the available information on
sulfamic acid that demonstrates, or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect, a
hazard to the public when it is used in food-packaging materials as currently
practiced or as it might be expected to be used for such purpose in the future.
5. Criteria for Registration Under the Standard
To be subject to this Standard, ammonium sulfamate products must meet the
following conditions:
1. contain ammonium sulfamate as the sole active ingredient;
2. be within acceptable standards of product composition;
3. be within acceptable acute toxicity limits;
4. be labeled for acceptable end-uses; and
5. bear required labeling.
Manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate products must bear label directions
for formulations into acceptable end-uses.
The applicant for registration or reregistration of ammonium sulfamate
products subject to the Standard must comply with all terms and conditions
described in this Standard, including commitment to fill data gaps on a time
schedule specified by the Agency and, when applicable, offer to pay
compensation to the extent required by 3(c)(l)(D) and 3(c)(2)(D) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRAl, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 136
(c.)(l)(D) and 136 (c)(2)(D).
The only registrant that has submitted data in support of ammonium sulfamate
registrations, and has not waived rights to compensation for data, is
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company.
Acceptable Ranges and Limits
A. Manufacturing-use Ammonium Sulfamate
1. Product Composition Standards
To be covered under this Standard, manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate
products must contain ammonium sulfamate as the sole active ingredient.
Manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate products with any percentage of active
ingredient with appropriate certification of limits are acceptable under this
Standard.
-------
2. Acute Toxicity Limits
The Agency will consider registration of manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate
products in the following toxicity categories:
II
III
IV
Acute Oral Toxicity
Acute Dermal Toxicity
Acute Inhalation Toxicity
Primary Eye Irritation
Primary Dermal Irritation
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
3. Use Patterns
To be covered under this Standard, manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate
products must be labeled for formulation into end-use pesticides which are
intended for outdoor, domestic and/or nondomestic, terrestrial, and orchard
applications.
B. End Use Ammonium Sulfamate - Crystalline, Soluble Concentrate, Ready-to-Use,
Pressurized Liquid
1. Product Composition Standards
End use ammonium sulfamate products with any percentage of active
ingredient are acceptable under this Standard with appropriate
certification of limits.
Inert ingredients in food-use formulations must be cleared for such use under
40 CFR 180.1001. Currently, there are two inert ingredients used in ammonium
sulfamate end use products that are not cleared. These two ingredients are
listed in the Confidential Appendix to this Standard. Registrants of end use
products with inert ingredients that have not been cleared in 40 CFR 180.1001
must either remove the ingredient from the product or obtain clearance.
2. Acute Toxicity Limits
The Agency will consider registration of any end use ammonium sulfamate
products for domestic use with the following categories:
Acute Oral Toxicity no
Acute Dermal Toxicity no
Acute Inhalation Toxicity no
Primary Eye Irritation no
Primary Dermal Irritation no
II
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
III
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
IV
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
-------
To be registered for nondomestic use under this Standard, any end use ammonium
sulfamate products must have established acute toxicity category II-IV ratings
according to the following table:
I II III IV
Acute Oral Toxicity no yes yes yes
Acute Dermal Toxicity no yes yes yes
Acute Inhalation Toxicity no yes yes yes
Primary Eye Irritation no yes yes yes
Primary Dermal Irritation no yes yes yes
End use products that have estabished acute toxicity category II rating
and are registered for domestic use must meet child resistant packaging
requirements.
3. Use Patterns and Application Me'thods
To be registered under this Standard, end use products of ammonium sulfamate
must be labeled as herbicides for one or more of the following uses:
food uses non-food uses
Apples Non-agricultural sites
Pears Rangelands and pastures
The Agency finds that it must limit application rates not to exceed current
levels because of a lack of adequate data needed to complete a hazard
assessment. This is an interim measure which may need to be reassessed
following the receipt of required data.
6. Required Label ing
All manufacturing-use and end-use ammonium sulfamate products must bear
appropriate labeling as specified in 40 CFR 162.10. The guidance package for
this Standard contains specific information regarding label requirements.
A. Manufacturing-use Products
1. Use Pattern Statements
All manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate products -must list on the label the
intended end-uses of formulated products produced from the manufacturing-use
product. In accordance with data to be submitted or cited, all ammonium
sulfamate labels must bear the following statement:
"For Formulation into End-Use Herbicide Products
Intended Only for Domestic, (Non Domestic), Food (Non Food),
Terrestrial, Outdoor Use."
2-5
-------
2. Precautionary Statements
There are no unique precautionary statements which must appear on the ammonium
sulfamate label. The guidance package provides an updated list of all
precautionary statements which must appear for this type of product. The
Agency may, after review of data to be submitted under this Standard,
impose additional label requirements.
B. End Use Ammonium Sulfamate Products
There are no unique precautionary statements which must appear on the ammonium
sulfamate label. The guidance package provides an updated list of
all precautionary statements which must appear for this type of product.
The Agency may, after review of data to be submitted under this
Standard.impose additional label requirements.
7. Tolerance Reassessment
A tolerance of 5 ppm in or on apples and pears has been established for
residues of ammonium sulfamate (40 CFR 180.88). Based on these established
tolerances for residues of ammonium sulfamate and on the assumption that each
commodity contains residues which meet the established tolerance level, the
theoretical human exposure to residues of ammonium sulfamate is calculated to
be 0.2089 mg/day/1.5kg diet.
The established tolerances of 5 ppm for apples and pears are not supported by
the available data. Residue data for apples and pears and validation of the
residue methodology are required. No data are available concerning residues
in apple pomace. Residue data for apple pomace are currently being reserved
pending the results and evaluation of residue data on apples. The tolerances
will be reassessed when residue data are submitted.
Since ammonium sulfamate is registered for use in rangelands and pastures,
consideration must be given to potential residues in meat and milk and the
establishment of tolerances for these commodities. Tolerances have not been
established for ammonium sulfamate residues in meat and milk nor has an
exemption for these tolerances been granted. No data are available on residues
in meat and milk. Residue data are currently being reserved pending the
results and evaluation of residue data on apples at a detectable level to
determine if residues are present in dairy animal and cattle feedstuff and the
receipt and evaluation of environmental fate data. Milk and meat residue data
may be required if the fate data indicate that use of ammonium sulfamate in
fruit orchards, pastures, and rangelands could result in exposure to grazing
animals and residues in meat and milk.
2-6
-------
Ill
Data Requirements and Data Gaps
Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate
Table 1, entitled Ammonium Sulfamate Generic Data Requirements, includes
those data that pertain to the properties or effects of ammonium Sulfamate as
an active ingredient. Thus, these data are relevant to an evaluation of the
risks and benefits of all products containing ammonium Sulfamate. Providing
data to fill indicated gaps is the primary responsibility of the manufacturing-
use product registrant(s). Registrants of end-use products which are not
exempted by FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(D) are also responsible for the submission of
these data. Applicants for the registration or reregistration of manufacturing-
use ammonium sulfamate products must acknowledge reliance on existing data
which fill indicated data requirements under FIFRA 3(c)(l)(D). These data are
listed under the column entitled Bibliographic Citation in this table.
Table 2, entitled Ammonium Sulfamate Product-Specific Data Requirements
for Manufacturing-Use Products , includes those data that relate only to the
properties or effects of a product with a specific composition. Thus, these
data are required of each product to characterize the product's particular
composition and physical/chemical properties, and acute toxicity. Providing
data to fulfill these data requirements for a particular product is the
responsibility of each applicant for the registration or reregistration of a
manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate product. If the Agency has in its
possession product-specific data which fulfill a data requirement for a
particular product, this is indicated in the guidance package accompanying this
Standard.
Applicants for the registration of new manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate
products must submit all required product specific data or establish that the
proposed product is substantially similar to another product for which the
Agency has received acceptable product specific data.
If the Agency has determined that one or more existing manufacturing-use
ammonium sulfamate products are substantially similar, then this, too, is
indicated. Product specific data need not be acknowledged under FIFRA
3(c)(l)(D) unless the Agency or a registrant has established that a product is
substantially similar to another product for which the Agency has received
acceptable product specific data. If this should occur, the registrant(s)
of the former product(s) is required to acknowledge reliance on these data.
End Use Products of Ammonium Sulfamate
Registrants of end-use ammonium sulfamate products not exempted by FIFRA
Section 3(c)(2)(D) are responsible for the submission of "generic" data
described in Tables 1 and 2 of this Chapter, in addition to the product
specific data listed in Table 3.
Registrants of all end-use ammonium sulfamate products are advised that if data
are not generated to fill generic data requirements for the manufacturing-use
product(s), these registrations will be suspended. If continued availability
of the manufacturing-use product is desired, this data must be supplied.
3-1
-------
Table 3, entitled Ammonium Sulfamate Product-Specific Data Requirements
for End-Use Products , includes those data that relate only to the
properties or effects of an end-use product with a specific composition.
-------
Table 1
Ammonium Sulfamate Produot-Chemiatry (See Chapter IV)
Generic Data Requirements
Guidelines
Citation
163.61-8(1)
163.61-8(2)
163.61-8(3)
163-61-8(4)
163-61-6(5)
163-61-8(6)
163-61-8(7)
Name of Are Data
Test Required
Color
CHor
Melting Point
Solubility
Stability
Octanol/water
partition coefficent
Physical State
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes ,
Yes
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under P1PRA
Does KPA Have 3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
Data to Partially allowed for submission
or totally Satisfy Bibliographic from published date of
Composition this Requirement Citation standard
Technical All
Grade
Technical Grade No
Technical All
Grade
Technical Grade No
Technical Grade No
Technical Grade No
Technical All
Grade
Cain. 1972
MRID# 05008521
—
Fan, 1971,
MRID# 05016316
—
—
—
Cain. 1972,
MRID# 05008521
No
Yes/October,
No
Yea/October,
Yes/October,
Yes/October,
No
1981
1981
1981
1981
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981. Refer to
guidance package for update requirements.
3-3
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate Peoduct Chemistry (See Chapter -IV)
Generic Data Requirements
Guidelines
Citation
Name of
Test
Are Data
Required Composition
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under FIFHA
3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
allowed for submission
from published date of
standard
163.61-8(8)
163-61-8(9)
163-61-8(10)
163-61-8(11)
Density or
Specific Gravity
Boiling Point
Vapor Pressure
pH
Dissociation
Constant
Yes
Ho
Yes
Yes
Yes
Technical Grade
Technical
Grade
Technical
Grade
Technical
Grade
No
No
All
No
— Yes/October,
— Yes/October,
Ran, 1971, No
MRID# 05016316
— Yes/October,
1981
1981
1981
' The dissociation constant of a chemical can be used in assessing the aquatic, terrestrial, and metabolic fate of the chemical. For water
soluble compounds such as ammonium sulfamate, water will usually be ttie reaction 'medium of concern. Since dissociation data will tell the
Agency the active species in water (the intact molecule or only the sulfamate anion), this piece of information is required to determine the
behavior of ammonium sulfaraate in the environment.
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981. Refer to guidance
package for updated requirements.
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate Qwironmemal Pate (See Chapter V)
Generic Data .Requirements
Guidelines
Citation
163.62-7(b)
163.62-7(c)
163.62-8(b)
163.62-8(c)
163.62-8(d)
163.62-8(e)
163.62-8(f)
Name of
Teat
Hydrolysis
Photodegradation
Aerobic soil
metabolism
Anaerobic soil
metabolism
Anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
Aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
Microbial
metabolism
(2) effects of
microbes on
pesticides
(3) effects of
pesticides on
microbes
Are Data
Required
Yes
Yes
No2/
No
No2/
No2/
T /
No1/
i/
No1'
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under FIFRA
Does EPA Have 3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
Data to Partially allowed for submission
or totally Satisfy Bibliographic from published date of
Composition this Requirement Citation standard
See Footnote 3 No — Yes/October,
See Footnote 3 No — Yes/October,
1981
1981
I/ The requirement for the submission of these data is currently being reservea pending the review and modification of the testing protocols.
Consequently, the absence of acceptable data does not constitute a data gap.
2/ The requirement for the submission of data is currently being reserved pending the receipt and evaluation of hydrolysis and photodegradation
data. The results of the hydrolysis and photolysis data will determine if any additional testing is required.
3/ Technical or radio-labeled analytical grade.
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981.
cackaee foj-_ updated reauirements.
Refer to guidance
3-5
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate Environmental Fete (See Chapter V)
Generic Data Requirements
Guidelines
Citation
163.62-10(f)
163.62-10(g)
16?. 62-1 1(b)
163. 62-1 1(c)
163. 62-1 1(d)
163. 62-1 1(e)
163.62-13
Name of
Test
Combination
and tank mix
field dissipation
long term field
dissipation
study
Accumulation
in rotational
crops
Accumulation in
irrigated crops
Pish accumulation
Special studies
accumulation in
aquatic noncrop
uses
Disposal and
storage
Are Data
Required Composition
Ho
No
No
No
No
No
No
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under FIFRA
Does EPA Have 3(c)(2)(B)? if so, months
Data to Partially allowed for submission
or totally Satisfy Bibliographic from published date of
this Requirement Citation standard
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981.
package for updated requirements.
Refer to guidance
3-8
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate'Toxicology (See Chapter VI)
Generic Data Requirements
Guidelines
Citation
163.81-1
163.81-2
163.81-7
163.82-1
163.82-2
163.82-3
163.83-4
Name of
Test
Acute Oral
Toxicity
Acute Dermal
Toxicity
Acute
Heurotoxicity
Subchronic
Oral Toxicity
Subchronic
21-day Dermal
Toxicity
Subchronic
90-day Dermal
Toxicity
Subchronic
Inhalation
Toxicity
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under FIFRA
Does EPA Have 3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
Data to Partially allowed for submission
Are Data or totally Satisfy Bibliographic from published date of
Required Composition this Requirement Citation standard
Yes Technical Grade No — Yes/October, 1981
Yes Technical Grade No — Yes/October, 1981
Ho
Yes Technical Grade Ho — Yes/April, 1982
Yes Technical Grade No — Yes/ April, 1982
No
Ho
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981.
package for updated requirements.
Refer to guidance
3-0
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate Toxicology (See Chapter VI)
Generic Data Requirements
Guidelines
Citation
163.85-1
1-63.83-2
163.83-3
163.83-4
Name of
Test
Chronic Feeding
Oncogenicity
Teratogenicity
Reproduction
Are Data
Required Composition
No1/
No1/
2/
Yes ' Technical Grade
No5/
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement
No
Partial
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under FIFRA
3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
allowed for submission
Bibliographic
Citation
—
Sherman et al.
from published
standard
Yes/April
No
date of
, 1983
163.84-2
through 4
163-85-1
1964, HRID#
00004224
Mutagenicity
Metabolism
Yesc/
No1/
Technical Grade
No
Yes/April, 1982
T/The requirement for tne submission of data Is currently oeing reserved pending the receipt of requested residue data and
environmental fate data.
2/ These data are required because ammonium sulfamate is registered for domestic use and aignifleant exposure could result.
3/ A rat reproduction study (Sherman et al. 1964) containing summary data was submitted. Individual test animal data are
required for this study to be considered adequate. -However, the requirement for any further submission of data is currently
being reserved pending the receipt of requested residue data and environmental fate data.
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981.
package for updated requirements.
Refer to guidance
•- 10
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate Ecological Effects (See Chapter VIII)
Generic Data Requirements
Guidelines
Citation
163.72-1
163.72-2
163.72-3
Name of
Test
Are Data
Required
Pish Acute LC^Q Yes
Acute Toxicity to Yes
Aquatic Invertebrates
Acute Toxicity to No1/
Estaurine and
Marine Organisms
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
Composition this Requirement
Technical Grade No
Technical Grade No
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under PIFRA
3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
allowed for submission
Bibliographic from published date of
. Citation standard
— Yes/January, 1982
— Yes/January, 1982
163-72-4 Bnbryolarvae and No
Life-cycle Studies
of Pish and Aquatic
Invertebrates
163.72-5 Aquatic Organism No1
Toxicity and Residue
Studies
163-72-6 Simulated or Actual No1
Field Testing for
Aquatic Organisms
I/
I/ The requirement for submission of these data is currently reserved pending the results of the following tests: Pish Acute IC™
Acute Toxicity to Aquatic-Invertebrates.
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981. Refer to guidance
package for updated requirements.
3- 11
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate Ecological Effects (See Chapter VIII)
Generic Data Requirements
Guidelines
Citation
163-71-1
163-71-2
163-71-3
163-71-4
163-71-5
Name of
Teat
Avian Single-Dose
Oral ID^Q
Avian Dietary
Mammalian Acute
Toxiclty
Avfan Reproduction
Simulated and Actual
Field Testing for
Mammals and Birds
Are Data
Required
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
Composition this Requirement
Technical Grade No
Technical Grade No
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under FIFRA
3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
allowed for submission
Bibliographic from published date of
Citation standard
— Yes/January, 1982
— Yes/January, 1982
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981.
package for updated requirements.
Refer to guidance
3-12
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate Residue Chemistry (See Chapter VII)
Generic Data Requirements
Guidelines Name of
Citation Test
— Metabolism in
In Plants
— Metabolism In
Animals
— Analytical Methods
— Residue Data:
Crops- Apples;
Pears
— Residue Data:
Processed Crops-
Apple pomace
— Residue Data:
Milk and Meat
•• - • - • - - - - - - ft,st Additional Data be
Submitted under PIPRA
Does EPA Have 5(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
Data to Partially allowed for submission.
Are Data or totally Satisfy Bibliographic from published date of
Required Composition this Requirement Citation standard
Yes1/ Technical Grade Ho —
2/
Yes ' Technical Grade Ho —
Yes5/ Technical Grade No —
Yes4/ Technical Grade No —
NoV Technical Grade
Ho6/ Technical Grade
Yes/April, 1982
Yes/April, 1982
Yes/April, 1982
Yes/April, 1982
Storage Stability Yes
Technical Grade
No
Yes/April, 1982
I/ Plant metabolism data or an acceptable justification as to why plant metabolism data are not necessary, Including a discussion of
possible metabolites, must be submitted.
2/ Animal metabolism data or an acceptable justification as to why such data are not necessary, including a discussion of possible
metabolites must be submitted.
5/ Analytical method for detecting residues of ammonium sulfamate is required.
4/ Data on the nature and amount of residues on apples and pears are required to support established tolerance levels. The
results of these data will be used to assess possible dietary exposure to ammonium sulfamate; if residues can be expected in apple pomace,
milk and meat; and determine if chronic toxicology testing will be required.
5/ Data are currently being reserved pending the results and evaluation of residue data on apples.
6/ Data are currently being reserved pending the results and evaluation of residue data on apples to determine If aomoniun suLfanate
residues are present on animal feedstuff; and environmental fate data to determine if ammonium sulfamate residues persist in the
environment (pastures, rangelands) and result in exposure to grazing animals.
These" data requirements are current as of April, 1981.
Dackase for updated requirements.
Refer to guidance
3-13
-------
Table 2
Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Ammonium Sulfamate Product-Specific Data Requirements for Manufacturing-Use Products
Guidelines
Citation
163.61-3
163.61-4
163.61-5
163.61-6
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
Name of Are Data or totally Satisfy Bibliographic
Teat Required Composition this Requirement Citation
Product Identity Yes HUP No —
and Disclosure of
Ingredients
Description of Yes HUP No —
Manufacturing
Process
Discussion of Yea HUP No —
Ptormation of Unint.
Ingredients
Declaration and Yes HUP No —
Certification of
Ingredient Limits
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under PIFTIA
3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
allowed for submission
from published date of
standard
Yes/October, 1981
Yes/October, 1981
Yes/October, 1981
Yes/October, 1981
163.61-7
Product Analytical
Hethods and Data
Yes
MUP
No
Yes/October, 1981
163.61-8(7)
163.61-8(8)
163.61-8(9)
163.61-8(11)
163.61-8(12)
Physical State
Density or Specific
Gravity
Boiling Point
Ifl
Storage Stability
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
HUP
HUP
MUP
MUP
No —
No —
No —
No —
Yes/October, 1981
Yes/October, 1981
Yes/October, 1981
Yes/October, 1981
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981. Refer to guidance
package for updated requirements.
-------
Table 2 (Cont'd)
Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Ammonium Sulfamate Product-Specific Data Requirements for Hanufacturing-Use Products
Guidelines
Citation
163.61-6(13)
163.61-8(14)
163.61-8(15)
163-61-8(16)
163.61-8(17)
163.61-8(18)
i/
~'/ Required
yi Required
•'' Required
Name of Are Data
Test Required
Flammability
Oxidizing or
Reducing Action
Explosiveness
Miscibility
Viscosity
Corrosion
Characteristics
for products containing a
for products containing a
for products which may be
Yes I/
Yes
Yea?/
Yes3/
Yes
Yes
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy Bibliographic
Composition this Requirement Citation
HUP
MUP
HUP
HUP
HUP
HUP
No —
No —
No —
No —
No —
No —
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under FIBHA
3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
allowed for submission
from published date of
standard
Yes/October, 1981
Yes/Octgber, 1981
Yes/October, 1981
Yes/October, 1981
Yes/October, 1981
Yes/October, 1981
volatile, flammable ingredient.
potentially explosive ingredient.
diluted with petroleum solvents.
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981. Refer to guidance
package for updated requirements.
3-15
-------
Table 2 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate Toxicology (See Chapter VI)
Product-Specific Data Requirements for Manufacturing-Use Products
Guidelines
Citation
163.81-1
163.81-2
163.81-3
163.81-4
163.81-5
163.81-6
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
Name of Are Data or totally Satisfy Bibliographic
Test Required Composition this Requirement Citation
Acute Oral Yes* HUP No —
Toxicity
Acute Dermal Yes» MUP No —
Toxicity
Acute Inhalation Yes HUP No —
Toxicity
Primary Eye Yes MUP No —
Irritation
Primary Dermal Yes MUP No —
Irritation
Dermal Yes MUP No —
Sensitization
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under PIFRA
3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
allowed for submission
from published date of
standard
Yes/October,
Yea/October ,
Yes/October ,
Yes/October,
Yes/October,
Yes/October ,
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
* Technical ammonium sulfamate and the manufacturing-use product have been determined to be the same. These requirements
may be filled by data required in Table 1 entitled: "Ammonium Sulfamate Toxicology Generic Data Requirements for Hanufacturing-
Use Products."
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981. Refer to guidance
package for updated requirements.
3-16
-------
Table 3
Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Ammonium Sulfamate Product-Specific Data Requirements for End-Use Products
Guidelines
Citation
163.61-3
163.61-4
163.61-5
163.61-6
163.61-7
163.61-8(1)
163.61-8(2)
163.61-8(7)
163.61-6(8)
163.61-8(9)
Name of Are Data
Test Required
Product Identity
and Disclosure of
Ingredients
Description of
Manufacturing Process
Discussion of
Ibrmation of
Unint. Ingredients
Declaration and
Certification of
Ingredient Limits
Product Analytical
Color
Odor
Physical State
Density of Specific
Gravity
Boiling Point
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Composition
Each product
Bach product
Each product
Bach product
Each product
Each product
Each product
Each product
Each product
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy Bibliographic
this Requirement Citation
No —
No —
No —
No —
No —
No —
No —
No —
No —
Must Additianal Data be
Submitted under FIPRA
3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
allowed for submission
from published date of
"" standard
Yes/October,
Yes/October,
Yes/October,
Yes/October,
Yes/October,
Yes/October,
Yes/October,
Yes/October,
Yes/October,
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
J981
1981
1981
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981. Refer to guidance
package for updated requirements.
'- 1?
-------
Table 3 (Cont'd)
Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Ammonium Sulfamate Product-Specific Data Requirements for Bid-Use Products
Guidelines
Citation
163.61-8(11)
163.61-8(12)
163.61-8(13)
163.61-8(14)
163.61-8(15)
163.61-8(16)
163.61-8(17)
163.61-8(18)
2/ Required
J, Required
y' Required
Name of
Test
JH
Storage Stability
Plamniability
Oxidizing or
Reducing Action
Enplosiveness
Miscibility
Viscosity
Corrosion
Charac teristics
Are Data
Required
Yes
Yes
Yes I/
Yes
Yes2/
Yes3/
Yes
Yes
Composition
Bach product
Bach product
Bach product
Bach product
Bach product
Each product
Bach product
Bach product
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under FIfflA
3(c)(2)(B)7 If so, months
allowed for submission
Bibliographic from published date of
Citation standard
— Yes/October, 1981
— Yes/October, 1981
— Yes/October, 1981
— Yes/October, 1981
— Yes/October, 1981
— Yes/October, 1981
— Yea/October, 1981
— Yes/October, 1981
for products containing a volatile, flammable Ingredient.
for products containing a potentially explosive ingredient.
for products which nay be diluted with petroleum solvents.
These data requlreoents- are current as of April, 1981. Refer to guidance
package for updated requirements.
3-13
-------
Table 3 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate Toxicology (See Chapter VI)
Product-Specific Data Requirements for Bid-Use Products
Guidelines
Citation
Name of
Test
Are Data
Required
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under FIFHA
Does EPA Have 3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
Data to Partially allowed for submission
or totally Satisfy Bibliographic from published date of
Composition this Requirement Citation standard
Crystalline Formulations
163.81-1
163.81-2
163.81-3
163.81-4
163.81-5
163.81-6
Acute Oral
Toxicity
Acute Dermal
Toxicity
Acute Inhalation
Toxicity
Primary tye2/
Irritation
21
Primary Dermal '
Irritation
Dermal1/
Sensitization
Yes1/
Yes1/
Yes1/
Yes2/
Yes2/
Yes1/
Ifech product Ho — Ho
Bach product Ho — Ho
Bach product Ho — Ho
See footnote 2 Ho — Yes/October, 1981
See footnote 2 Ho — Yes/October, 1981
Bach product Ho — Ho
I/ The testing of the manufacturing-use product will fill these data requirements for crystalline formulations. These requirements will be
filled by data required in Table 2 entitled: "Ammonium Sulfamate Toxicology Product - Specific Data Requirements for Manufacturing-Use
Products".
2/ This test is required on any one of the products with the following registration numbers: 2169-262, 829-OBO, 10107-21, 352-206, 8127-22,
1348-202, 829-220, 8590-219, 2125-47, 5481-56, 4887-134.
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981. Refer to guidance
package for updated requirements.
-------
Table 3 (Cont'a)
Ammonium Sulfamate Toxicology (See Chapter VI)
Product-Specific Data Requirements for Bid-Use Products
Guidelines
Citation
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under PiFRA
Does EPA Have 3(c)(2)(B)? If so, months
Data to Partially allowed for submission
Name of Are Data or totally Satisfy Bibliographic from published date of
Test Required Composition thia Requirement Citation standard
2. Soluble Concentrate
163.81-1
163.81-2
163.81-3
163.81H
163.81-5
163.81-6
Acute Oral Yes fech product Yea
Tpxicity
Acute Dermal Yes Each product Yes
Toxic ity
Acute Inhalation Yes ' &ch product No
Toxiclty
Primary EJye Yes Each product Yea
Irritation
Primary Dermal Yes fech product Yes
Irritation
Dermal Yes ' Ibch product Ho
Senaitization
Bullock and
Narcisse 1974a,
HRID# 00004214
Bullock and
Narcisse 1974b,
HRID# 00004215
—
Bullock and
Narcisse 1974d,
HRID# 00004216
Bullock and
Narcisse 1974e,
MRID# 00004217
—
No
Ho
No
No
No
No
37 The testing on the manufacturing-use product(s) will fill these data requirements for the soluble concentrate formulations.
These requirements will be filled by data required in Table 2 entitled! "Ammonium Sulfamate Toxicology Product - Specific
Data Requirements for Hanufacturing-Uae Products".
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981.
package for updated requirements.
Refer to guidance
-------
Table 3 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate Toxicology (See Chapter VI)
Product-Specific Data Requirements for Bid-Use Products
Guidelines
Citation
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under FIFRA
Does EPA Have 3(c)(2){B)? If so, months
Data to Partially allowed for submission
Name of Are Data or totally Satisfy Bibliographic from published date of
Test Required Composition this Requirement Citation standard
3. Ready-to-Use
163.81-1
163.81-2
163.81-3
163.81-4
163.81-5
163.81-6
Acute Oral Yes Each product Yes
Toxicity
Acute Dermal Yes Bach product Yes
Toxicity
Acute Inhalation Yes ' Bach product Bo
Toxicity
Primary Eye Yes Bach product Yes
Irritation
Primary Dermal Yes Bach product Yes
Irritation
Dermal Yes ' Bach product No
Sensitization
Bullock and
Harcisse 1974a,
MRID# 00004214
Bullock and
Narcisse 1974b,
MRID# 00004215
—
Bullock and
Narcisse 1974d,
MRID# 00004216
Bullock and
Narcisse 1974e,
MRID# 00004217
—
No
No
No
No
No
No
4/ The testing on the manufacturing-use product(s) will fill these data requirements for the ready-to-use formulations.
These requirements will be filled by data required in Table 2 entitled: "Ammonium Sulfamate Toxicology Product-Specific
Data Requirements for Manufacturing-Use Products."
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981. Refer to guidance
package for updated requirements.
3- 21
-------
Table 3 (Cont'd)
Ammonium Sulfamate Toxicology (See Chapter VI)
Product-Specific Data Requirements for End-Use Products
Guidelines
Citation
4. Pressurized
163.81-1
163.81-2
163.81-3
163.81-4
163.81-5
163.81-6
Must Additional Data be
Submitted under FIFRA
Does EPA Have 3(c)(2)(B)7 If so, months
Data to Partially allowed for submission
Name of Are Data or totally Satisfy Bibliographic from published date of
Test Required Composition thla Requirement Citation standard
Liquid
Acute Oral Tea Each product Yes
Toxlcity
Acute Dermal Tea Each product Tea
Toxlcity
Acute Inhalation Tea Each product No
Toxlcity
Primary Eye Yes Each product No
Irritation
Primary Dermal Tea Each product Tea
Irritation
Dermal Tes Each product No
Sens Itlzat ion
Bullock and No
Narclsse 1974a,
HRIDf 00004214
Bullock and No
Narclaae 1974b,
MRIDf 00004215
No
— Tes/October, 1981
Bullock and No
Narclsse 1974e,
MRIDf 00004217
— No
5/ The testing on the manufacturing-use product(s) will fill these data requirements for the pressurized liquid formulations.
These requirements will be filled by data required in Table 2 entitled: "Ammonium Sulfamate Toxicology Product-Specific
Data ftequlreraents for Manufacturing-Use Products."
These data requirements are current as of April, 1981. Refer to guidance
package for updated requirements.
3-22-
-------
IV
fl
Product Chemistry
Introduction
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(A) requires the Agency to establish guidelines for registering
pesticides in the United States. The Agency requires registrants to provide
quantitative data on all added ingredients, active and inert, which are equal
to or greater than 0.1% of the product by weight.
To establish the composition of products proposed for registration, the
Agency requires data and information not only on the manufacturing and
formulation processes but also a discussion on the formation of manufacturing
impurities and other product ingredients, intentional and unintentional.
Furthermore, to assure that the composition of the product as marketed will not
vary from the composition evaluated at the time of registration, applicants are
required to submit a statement certifying upper and lower composition limits
for the added ingredients, or upper limits only for some unintentional
ingredients. Subpart D of the Proposed Guidelines (43 FR 29696, July 10, 1978)
suggests specific precision limits for ingredients based on the percentage of
ingredient and the standard deviation of the analytical method.
In addition to the data on product composition, the Agency guidelines
also require data to establish the physical and chemical properties of both the
pesticide active ingredient and its formulations. For example, data are needed
concerning the identity and physical state of the active ingredient such as
melting and boiling point data, ambient vapor pressure and solubility. Data
are also required on the properties of the formulated product to establish
labeling cautions e.g., flammability, corrosiveness or pesticide storage
stability. The Agency uses these data to characterize each pesticide and to
determine its environmental and health hazards.
Product Chemistry - Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate
Product Chemistry Profile
Ammonium sulfamate is a herbicide with the chemical formula:
N H SO . The technical product is at least 97% pure, forms colorless
plates, and is a non-volatile hygroscopic crystalline solid.
Ammonium sulfamate is very soluble in water and liquid NH». It is moderately
soluble in glycerol, glycols, and formamide. The melting point of ammonium
sulfamate is 131-132 C and it decomposes at 160 C to non-flammable gas.
Technical ammonium sulfamate is a "manufacturing-use product" and is used
in formulations as a single active ingredient. There are two formulated'
products with multiple active ingredients.
The manufacturing impurities which are present in ammonium sulfamate were
not reported. The confidential statements of ingredients for about 60
formulated products indicate that, with the exception of two compounds, the
inert ingredients are cleared under 40 CFR 180.1001. These two inert
4-1
-------
ingredients are listed in the Confidential Appendix to this Standard.
Registrants of end use products with inert ingredients that have not been
cleared in 40 CFR 180.1001 must either remove the ingredient from the product
or obtain clearance.
No physical/chemical properties for any of the formulations were reported.
Data Requirements
The data requirements needed to evaluate the continued registration of
ammonium sulfamate products to which this Standard applies are listed in
Chapter III, Tables 1-3.
Topical Discussions
Corresponding to each of the Topical Discussions listed below is the
number of the section in the 'Proposed Guidelines for Registering of Pesticides
in the United States' (A3 FR 29696, July 10, 1978) which explains the minimum
data that the Agency requires in order to adequately assess Product Chemistry
of manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate products. Also, under each of the
following topics is a reference to the appropriate section in the 'Proposed
Guidelines'.
Chemical Identity 163.61-3
Manufacturing Processes 163.61-4
Formation of Unintentional Ingredients 163.61-5
Active Ingredient Limits in Pesticide Products 163.61-6
Product Analytical Methods and Data 163.61-7
Physical/Chemical Properties 163.61-8
Chemical Identity
The Proposed Guidelines (40 CFR 163.61-3(c)) require identifying
information including chemical names, product names, and numerical codes of all
substances known or assumed to be present in pesticide products.
Ammonium sulfamate is the accepted name for the chemical. The Weed
Science Society of America (WSSA) has adopted the common name 'AMS'. Ammonium
sulfamate is also known by the Trade names "Ammate" and "Ikurin". Other names
for the chemical listed in the Farm Chemicals Handbook 1980 include: Ancide
and Sulfamate. The Chemical Abstracts Registry (CAS) number for ammonium
sulfamate is 7773-06-0, and the EPA Shaughnessy number is 005501.
The chemical name ammonium sulfamate will be routinely used in this
registration standard in lieu of trade or other names.
The molecular configuration of ammonium sulfamate is:
0
II
H2 N - S - 0 - NH^
II
0
-------
Manufacturing Processes
Because the route by which a pesticide is synthesized determines the
nature and amount of potentially toxic impurities, a detailed description of
the manufacturing process is required (40 CFR 163.61-4).
The open literature describes a number of processes by which ammonium
sulfamate may be synthesized:
(A) By neutralization with ammonia of sulfamic acid obtained by
careful heating of urea with oleum:
(NH_)CO+SO. + H SO, - 2 HSO-NH +CO
The yield of ammonium sulfamate by this reaction is said to be
not less than 90% with a purity of not less than 90%. (U.S.
Patents 2,102,350, and 2,487,480) (MRID# 00160001, 00160002.)
(B) Directly, by reaction of ammonia and sulfuric anhydride at an
elevated temperature. The purification is complicated, but the
process is inexpensive. (Sitting, Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge,
New Jersey, 1977).
(C) By the action of non-gaseous sulfur trioxide on liquid ammonia.
(US Patent 2,426,240) (MRID# 00160003).
(D) By heating ammonium nitrilosulfonate under high pressure, (MRID#
05011074).
(E) By heating imidosulfonate in the presence of ammonia under high
pressure (MRID# 05004655).
(F) By a laboratory procedure involving the reaction of ammonia and
sulfur dioxide to produce sulfur, ammonium sulfate, and ammonium
sulfamate (MRID# 05010475).
The Farm Chemicals Handbook 1980 lists the E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co., Inc. as the only basic producer of ammonium sulfamate in the United
States, which it markets under the Trade name "Amraate". No description of the
manufacturing process actually bein£ used by Du Pont has been submitted. This
constitutes a data gap.
Ammonium sulfamate is also manufactured abroad. This material is imported
by Aceto Chemical Co., but there is no description of this manufacturing
process. This constitutes a data gap.
Formation £f_ Unintentional Ingredients
Section 163.61-5 of the Proposed Guidelines required registrants of
manufacturing-use and of formulated products to submit a theoretical discussion
of the formation of unintended subtances in the product.
No data on the nature of the impurities which may be present in ammonium
sulfamate were available. This constitutes a data gap.
-------
Active Ingredient Limits i_n Pesticides Products
The Guidelines require that upper and lower limits be established for each
active ingredient and each intentionally added inert in a pesticide product (40
CFR 163.61-6).
A statement submitted by Du Pont states that its technical grade Ammate
contains at least 97% ammonium sulfamate. The remaining 3% consists of
manufacturing impurities whose identities have not been reported to the Agency.
Product Analytical Methods and Data
The Proposed Guidelines (40 CFR 163.61-7) require submission of, or
reference to, analytical methods for measuring each active ingredient in a
pesticide product.
The manufacturer of ammonium sulfamate did not report a method for the
identification and quantification of the active ingredient and possible
manufacturing impurities in the technical product nor in the end use
formulations. This constitutes a data gap.
The EPA Manual of Chemical Methods for Pesticides and Devices reports a method
for the determination of ammonium sulfamate by sodium nitrate titration;
however, the sensitivity of the method, accuracy and reproducibility are not
reported.
Physical and Chemical Properties
For every pesticide product, the Proposed Guidelines (163.61-8) require
data on certain physical and chemical properties useful for identification
purposes or for evaluation of hazard potential.
Available data from the open literature and registrant submissions on the
physical and chemical properties of technical ammonium sulfamate are as follows:
Color: colorless (Technical chemical) (MRID# 05008521)
Odor: There are no available data.
Melting Point: 131°C (Technical chemical) (MRID# 05016316)
Solubility: Very soluble in water (232 gm/100 cc at 30°C),
soluble in glycerol, glycols, and formamide.
(MRID# 00160004) *
Stability; There are no data available.
Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient; There are no data available.
Physical State; Solid crystals (MRID# 05008521)
Density or Specific Gravity: There are no data available.
Vapor Pressure; There are no data available.
pH: For a 5% solution, the pH equals 5.2. (MRID# 05016316)
-------
The following physical/chemical properties were not reported for manufacturing-
use ammonium sulfamate:
Physical State
Density or Specific Gravity
PH
Storage Stability
Flammability
Oxidizing or reducing action
Explosiveness
Miscibility
Viscosity
Corrosion Characteristics
Dissociation Constant
Product Chemistry - Ammonium Sulfamate End Use Products
No data are available on ammonium sulfamate end-use products. The required
data are presented in Chapter III, Table 3.
4-5
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
Use Profile
Ammonium sulfamate is an inorganic salt used as a nonselective herbicide on a
variety of sites. Registered use sites include:
Apple and pear orchards
Pastures
Rangeland
Right-of-ways
Industrial sites (such as farms and railroad switchyards)
Roadsides
Landscaped areas (such as lawn borders, walkways and patios)
Paved areas (such as parking lots and tennis courts)
Borders of drainage ditches and reservoirs
Other noncrop areas
Ammonium sulfamate in effective is killing most wood plants including hardwood
and coniferous species. It is considered useful for control of poison ivy.
Ammonium sulfamate also controls herbaceous perennials such as leafy spurge,
bitter dock, goldenrod, perennial ragweed, milkweed, and blueweed, as well as
most annual broadleaf weeds and grasses.
About 88% of ammonium sulfamate domestic annual production is used by
industry, commercial, or government personnel on the noncrop uses mentioned
above. Sites of particular importance in this group are roadsides, and brushy
areas along drainage ditches and reservoirs. About 7% of ammonium sulfamate
production is applied to agricultural sites, primarily in apple and pear
orchards for control of poison ivy. Very little is used on
pastures and rangeland. An additional 5% is used by homeowners, mostly for
control of weeds in landscaped areas and for control of poison ivy.
Three types of formulation are available: crystals containing 95 to 99%
A.I.; soluble liquid concentrates containing 19 to 55% A.I.; and ready-to-use
solutions containing from 8 to 12% A.I.
Ammonium sulfamate solutions are applied to target weeds by airblast sprayers,
tractor-pulled ground rig, hand-directed sprayers, or backpack and hose-end
sprayers. Along waterways, solutions may be applied by boat-mounted spray
equipment. Typical right-of-way application is by a boom-type sprayer.
Ammonium sulfamate is also applied as dry crystals to notches in undesired
trees and to tree stumps to prevent sprouting.
Use rates are 57-120 Ibs A.I. in 100 gallons of water per acre for all sprayers
except airblast equipment. The recommended rate for airblast equipment is 100-
400 Ibs A.I. per acre in 100 gallons of water. Ammonium sulfamate is not
normally applied with other pesticides nor is it applied aerially. Diesel
oil is often used with ammonium sulfamate in dormant stem treatments of weed
trees since the oil aids penetration of bark and promotes herbicide entry.
Surfactants are also frequently added at the time of application to water-
based solutions.
-------
Environmental Fate-Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate
Environmental Fate Profile
The submitted data are insufficient to predict the fate of ammonium sulfamate
(AMS) in the environment. Preliminary data indicate that AMS may, under
certain circumstances, increase or decrease microbial populations in soil. The
treatment of starch amended soil with AMS led to an increase and decrease in
the number of fungi and bacteria (including actinomycetes),- respectively. AMS
had no effect-on microbial counts obtained from non-amended soil. Fungal
colonization of AMS-treated hardwood stumps was enhanced over a 2.5-year period
relative to nontreated stumps, indicating that fungal cellulose degradation
processes are probably not inhibited by AMS. Limited data on the leaching of
AMS indicate that it is very mobile in soil and moves by mass flow. AMS at 50-
200 kg/ha will leach about 14 and 15 cm in soil eluted with 2-4 and 50 cm of
water, respectively.
Data Requirements
The data requirements needed to evaluate the continued registration of
ammonium sulfamate products to which this Standard applies are listed in
Chapter III, Table 1.
Topical Discussions
Corresponding to each of the Topical Discussions listed below is the number
of the section in the "Proposed Guidelines for Registering Pesticides in the
United States" (43 FR 29696, July 10, 1978) which explains the minimum data
that the Agency requires in order to adequately assess the environmental fate
of a pesticide.
Type of_ Data Guideline Section
Physico-Chemical Transformation 163.62-7
Metabolism (Soil, Aquatic and 163.63-8
Microbiological)
Mobility 163.62-9
Field Dissipation 163.62-10
Accumulation 163.62-11
PHYSIO-CHEMICAL TRANSFORMATION
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis data are required to support the registration of each manufac-
turing-use product and of each formulated end-use product intended for
terrestrial, forestry, aquatic, and aquatic impact use patterns.
No data are available on the hydrolysis of ammonium sulfamate.
All studies specified in Section 163.62-7(b) are needed to assess the
hydrolysis properties.
5-2
-------
Photolysis
A photodegradation study in water is required to support the registration
of each formulated end-use product intended for terrestrial (except
greenhouse and domestic outdoor), aquatic, and forestry use and for any aquatic
impact use which results in direct discharges into the aquatic environment.
Such a study is also required to support the registration of each manufacturing-
use product which legally could be used to make such an end-use product.
Photodegradation studies on soil surfaces are required to support the
registration of all formulated AMS products intended for crop and forestry uses.
No data on the photodegradation of AMS are available.
t
Data specified in Section 163.62-7(c) are needed to determine the effect of
ligh on AMS. Vapor phase studies are not required since AMS does not have a
greenhouse use and re-entry is not a consideration at this time.
METABOLISM
Data on metabolism are required to determine the nature and availability of
pesticide residues to rotational crops and to help in the assessment of
potential disposal and reentry hazards.
Soil Metabolism
An aerobic soil metabolism study .is required to support the registration of
each end-use product intended for terrestrial or forestry use, and also to
support the registration of each manufacturing-use product which legally could
be used to make such an end-use product.
An anaerobic soil metabolism study is required to support the registration
of each end-use product intended for field or vegetable crop use, and also
that of each manufacturing-use product which legally could be used to make such
an end-use product. Aerobic soil metabolism data are not required because
ammonium sulfamate is not used for field and vegetable crops.
Two studies (Abumiya 1966, 05013104) (Konnai 1974, 05016686) on the soil
metabolism of AMS were reviewed and judged to be invalid.
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved, pending the receipt and evaluation of hydrolysis and photodegradation
data. The results of these tests will determine what chemical species remain
in the environment from ammonium sulfamate use and whether the metabolism study
is needed to predict the fate of these species.
Aquatic
An aerobic aquatic metabolism study is required to support the registration of
each formulated end-use product intended for aquatic use or for any aquatic
impact use which results in direct discharges into the aquatic environment.
Such a study is also required to support the registration of each manufacturing-
use product which legally could be used to make such an end-use product.
5-3
-------
An anaerobic aquatic metabolism study is required to support the registration
of each formulated end-use product intended for aquatic or forestry use which
results in direct discharges into the aquatic environment. Such a study is
also required to support the registration of each manufacturing-use product
which legally could be used to make such an end-use product. The anaerobic
soil metabolism study in Section 63.62-8(c) may not be substituted for this
study.
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved, pending the receipt and evaluation of hydrolysis and photodegradation
data. The results of the hydrolysis and photodegradation data will determine
if additional testing is required.
Microbiological Metabolism
Data on the effects of microbes on pesticide degradation and the effects of
pesticides on microbes are required to support the registration of each
formulated end-use product intended for terrestrial (except greenhouse and
domestic outdoor), aquatic, and forestry use and for any aquatic impact use
which results in direct discharges into the aquatic environment. These data
are also required to support the registration of each manufacturing-use product
which legally could be used to make such a formulated product.
Microbiological - Effects of Microbes on Pesticides
One study (Frederick 1957, 05011435) on the metabolism of AMS by microbes was
reviewed and considered invalid.
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved pending the review and modification of the testing protocols.
Consequently, the absence of acceptable data does not constitute a data gap.
Microbiological - Effects of Pesticides on Microbes
Two valid studies on the effects of AMS on microbes were reviewed. Smith
et al. (MRID 05006452) reported that AMS applied at rates equivalent to 500 and
1,000 Ib ai/A had no adverse effects over a 3-week period on fungal, total
bacterial, and actinomycete populations in Cadorous silt loam soil. However,
AMS treatment of starch-amended soil resulted in an increase in the fungal
population and a decrease in total bacterial and actinomycete populations.
Rayner (MRID 05005817) found that AMS treatment of oak, beech, and birch
stumps stimulated initial fungal colonization and the subsequent rate of
succession on the stumps over a 2.5-year period. These results indicate that
fungal cellulose decomposition processes probably are not inhibited by AMS. In
summary, the above studies demonstrate that AMS may decrease, and in some cases
increase, microbial populations in the environment.
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved pending the review and modification of the testing protocols.
Consequently, the absence of acceptable data does not constitute a data gap.
-------
Activated^Sludge
A laboratory study of the effects of pesticides on the wastewater treatment
process is required to support the registration of all manufacturing-use
chemicals, and all formulated products that are indirectly discharged into
wastewater systems or are used as treatments in wastewater treatment systems.
No data on the activated sludge metabolism of AMS are available.
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved pending the review and modification of the testing protocols.
Consequently, the absence of acceptable data does not constitute a data gap.
MOBILITY
Data on mobility are required to determine pesticide residue movement in
the environment.
Leaching
Leaching data are required to support the registration of each AMS
formulated end-use product intended for terrestrial noncrop, tree fruit/nut
crop, aquatic, or forestry use, or for any aquatic impact use resulting in
direct discharges into the aquatic environment. Such data are also required to
support the registration of each manufacturing-use product which legally could
be used to make such an end-use product.
Two leaching studies were reviewed and one was considered a scientifically
valid study, but does not meet the guidelines requirements because the
leaching study was conducted in only one unspecified type of soil. Konnai et
al . (MRID 05016686) demonstrated that AMS was very mobile in soil and exhibited
a distribution parallel to the mass flow. AMS (95% powder) at 50 kg/ha leached
14 and 50 cm in an unspecified soil type eluted with 2 and 50 cm of water. AMS
at 200 kg/ha leached 12-14 cm in a cedar forest soil eluted with only 4 cm of
water.
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved pending the receipt and evaluation of hydrolysis and photodegradation
data. The results of the hydrolysis and photodegradation data will determine
what chemical species remain in the environment as a result of ammonium
sulfamate use and whether the leaching study is needed to predict the fate of
these species.
Volatility
No data are required on the volatility of AMS because the' use pattern of
AMS does not include a greenhouse use and reentry is not a consideration at
this time.
5-5
-------
Adsorption/Desorption
A laboratory study using radioisotopic or nonradiolsotopic analytical
techniques is required to support the registration of all AMS formulated
products intended for terrestrial, forestry, and aquatic uses, and for any
aquatic impact use which results in direct discharges into the aquatic
environment. These data are also required to support the registration of each
manufacturing-use product which legally could he used to make such a formulated
product.
No data on adso'rption/desorption of AMS are available.
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved, pending the receipt and evaluation of hydrolysis and photodegradation
data. The results of the hydrolysis and photodegradation data will determine
what chemical species remain in the environment as a result of ammonium
sulfamate use and whether the adsorption/desorption study is needed to predict
the fate of these species.
Water Dispersal
A field study tailored to one or more representative sites is required to
support the registration of all formulated products intended for aquatic uses,
and for any aquatic impact use which results in direct discharges into the
aquatic environment. These data are also required to support the registration
of each manufacturing-use product which legally could be used to make such a
formulated product.
No data on the water dispersal of AMS are available.
v
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved pending the receipt and evaluation of hydrolysis and phtodegradation
data.
FIELD DISSIPATION
A field dissipation study under actual use conditions is required to
support the registration of all AMS manufacturing-use and formulated products
intended for terrestrial (except greenhouses, aquatic, and forestry uses).
Terrestrial
A terrestrial field dissipation study is required to support the regis-
tration of each end-use product for terrestrial use (except greenhouses), and
that of each manufacturing-use product which legally could be used to make
such an end-use prooTuct.
No data on the terrestrial field dissipation of AMS are available.
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved, pending the receipt and evaluation of hydrolysis and photodegradation
data. The results of the hydrolysis and photodegradation data will determine
if additional testing is required.
5-6
-------
An aquatic field dissipation study is required to support the registration
of each AMS formulated end-use product intended for aquatic uses, including
products intended for application to ditch banks and shorelines and for
unintentional direct aquatic applications, or for any aquatic impact use which
results in direct aquatic applications or aquatic impact use with direct
discharges into the aquatic environment. This study is also required to
support the registration of each AMS manufacturing-use product which legally
could be used to make such an end-use product.
One study on the aquatic field dissipation of AMS was reviewed and judged
inval id'.
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved, pending the receipt and evaluation of hydrolysis and photodegradation
data. The results of the hydrolysis and photodegradation data will determine
if additional testing is required.
Forestry
A forestry study is required to support the registration of each AMS formulated
end-use product intended for forest use, and of each AMS manufacturing-usfe
product which legally could be used to make such an end-use product.
No data on the dissipation of AMS in forests are available.
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved, pending the receipt and evaluation of hydrolysis and
photodegradation data. The results of the hydrolysis and photodegradation data
will determine if additional testing is required.
Aquatic Impact Uses
No data are required under this topic for AMS. Required data have been
noted under other sections in this chapter.
Combination and Tank Mixes
Data requirements for combination and tank mixes containing AMS are not
cited here because this registration standard deals only with the single active
ingredient.
ACCUMULATION
Data on accumulation are required to determine accumulation in food webs.
Rotational Crops
No data on the accumulation of AMS in rotational crops are required because
the use pattern is such that application to field/vegetable and aquatic food
crops will not occur.
5-7
-------
Irrigated Crops
No data are required on the accumulation of AMS in irrigated crops because
the use pattern indicates that crops are not irrigated with AMS-treated water.
At this time AMS would not be expected to contribute significant quantities of
AMS to irrigation water.
Fish
A fish accumulation study is required to support the registration of each
formulated end-use product intended for outdoor impact use (except domestic
outdoor), or aquatic impact uses resulting in direct discharge into aquatic
environments, and for each manufacturing-use product that could be legally used
to produce such a product. These data are not required if the registrant can
offer evidence acceptable to the Agency showing that the applied pesticide and
one of its principal degradation product(s):
1. will not reach water, or will not persist in water (i.e., a nominal
half-life of four days or less); and
2. has physical properties suggesting a relatively low potential for
accumulation (i.e., a nominal octanol/water partition coefficient less than
1000); or
3. does not accumulate in the organs and tissues of mammals or avian
species.
The Agency may consider the particular use pattern and the rate and frequency
of application in making a decision to waive or maintain the data requirement
(such as in cases where movement to water is obviously negligible or where
frequent application counteracts a fast dissipation rate).
The requirement for the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved, pending the receipt and evaluation of hydrolysis and photodegrada-
tion data. The results of the hydrolysis and photodegradation data will
determine if additional testing is requried.
Formulations of Ammonium Sulfamate
Three formulations of ammonium sulfamate are available: crystals (95 to J9 %
A.I.), soluble liquid concentrates (19 to 54% A.I.)., and'ready-to-
use preparations (8 to 12% A.I.). The formulations are usually applied as a
hand-directed spray, although high-volume and airblast sprayers are also used.
Use rates are usually 57-120 Ibs A.I. in 100 gallons water per acre for all
sprayers except airblast equipment, where the recommended rate is 100-400 Ibs
A.I. per acre in 100 gallons of water.
Although ammonium sulfamate is not applied aerially, the use of airblast
machines (which direct the spray upward) increases the potential for exposure
via spray drift to humans, livestock or wildlife outside the application site.
However, the extent to which air blast machinery is used for application of
ammonium sulfamate is not known. Preliminary data indicates that ammonium
5-8
-------
sulfamate may leach; therefore, the potential for groundwater contamination
exists. The potential for surface water contamination exists through the use
of ammonium sulfamate for control of willow, cottonwood and other brush along
waterways.
As with most pesticides, the greatest human exposure may occur during mixing,
loading and treatment operations. However, quantitative data necessary to
estimate the degree of such exposure are not available. The potential for
dermal and eye exposure from splashing of the soluble liquid concentrate
formulation exists, but can be minimized by the use of protective clothing and
gloves during mixing and loading. Ready-to-use formulations can be especially
important in reducing exposures to small-volume users (i.e., homeowners),
because mixing operations are not required.
5-9
-------
VI
TOXICOLOGY
Toxicology - Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate
Toxicology Profile
No data were available to assess the following toxicity of manufacturing-
use ammonium sulfamate: acute oral, acute dermal, acute inhalation, primary eye
irritation, primary dermal irritation, and dermal sensitization potential.
Insufficient data were available to assess the subchronic toxicity of
manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate. In a subchronic oral toxicity study
conducted on rats using a 99% crystalline formulation of ammonium sulfamate, an
18% weight gain depression was noted in adult females at the high dose (500
mg/kg/day). Histopathological examination of the animals in this group
revealed that one rat showed slight fatty degenerative changes in the liver.
Lack of individual animal data and inadequate reporting preclude the use of
this study to assess the subchronic oral toxicity potential of manufacturing-
use ammonium sulfamate in humans.
No adequate subchronic dermal toxicity data were available on manufacturing-
use ammonium sulfamate.
Presently, subchronic inhalation testing is not required for the reregis-
tration of manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate. The Proposed Guidelines state
that subchronic inhalation testing is required on manufacturing-use products
whose pesticidal use may result in repeated inhalation exposure at a concen-
tration which is likely to be toxic as determined from results of the acute
inhalation testing. There is no reason to believe that the present use
patterns of ammonium sulfamate will result in repeated inhalation exposure at
toxic concentrations. This information may be required pending the results
from the acute inhalation testing.
Adequate data were not available on the chronic toxicity of manufacturing-use
ammonium sulfamate. A 19-month study was conducted in which rats were fed
0.035% and 0.05% ammonium sulfamate in the diet. No histopathological
alterations could be attributed to the ammonium sulfamate in the diet.
Sufficient data were not available to evaluate the effects of ammonium
sulfamate on any other parameter; therefore, this study cannot be used to
assess the chronic toxicity of ammonium sulfamate.
Summary data from a three-generation reproduction study in which rats were fed
0.035% and 0.05% ammonium sulfamate in the diet indicated that no reproductive
toxicity was observed through the F_a generation. This study was
inadequately reported because no individual animal data were available and,
therefore, an assessment of the reproductive toxicity potential of ammonium
sulfamate cannot be made.
No data were available to assess the oncogenic and teratogenic potential of the
manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate.
Adequate metabolism studies were not available for ammonium sulfamate.
-------
Data on the mutagenic potential of ammonium sulfamate in microbial systems were
insufficient. No other data were available to assess the mutagenic potential
of ammonium sulfamate.
Data Requirements
The data requirements needed to evaluate the continued registration of
ammonium sulfamate products to which this Standard applies are listed in
Chapter III, Tables 1- 3.
Required Labeling
Precautionary labeling of each product must correspond to the toxicity
categories determined by f/ive acute toxicity tests.
Topical Discussions
Corresponding to each of the Topical Discussions listed below is the number
of the section(s) in the "Proposed Guidelines" of August 22, 1978 (43 FR, No.
163 37336) which explain(s) the minimum data that the Agency usually requires
in order to adequately assess the toxicity of pesticides. Where no
section number is listed, a minimum requirement has not been set for such
information. Also under each of the topics is a reference to the section in
the "Proposed Guidelines".
Guidelines Section(s)
Acute Oral Toxicity 163.81-1
Acute Dermal Toxicity 163.81-2
Acute Inhalation Toxicity 163.81-3
Primary Eye Irritation 163.81-4
Primary Dermal Irritation 163.81-5
Skin Sensitization 163.81-6
Acute Delayed Neurotoxicity 163.81-7
Subchronic Oral Toxicity 163.82-1
Subchronic 21-Day Dermal Toxicity 163.82-2
Subchronic 90-Day Dermal Toxicity 163.82-3
Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity 163.82-4
Subchronic Neurotoxicity 163.82-5
Chronic Feeding 163.83-1
Oncogenicity 163.83-2
Teratology 163.83-3
Reproduction 163.83-4
Mutagenicity 163.83-1 to 4
Metabolism in Laboratory Animals 163.83-1
Clinical Trials
Emergency Treatment
-------
Acute Testing
Acute Oral Toxicity
The
one
rat.
minimum data requirement for testing acute oral toxicity (LDcr.) is
test on the manufacturing-use product, preferably using the laboratory
No acute oral toxicity studies are available on manufacturing-use
ammonimum sulfamate. Testing is required.
Acute Dermal Toxicity
The minimum data requirement for testing acute dermal toxicity is one test,
preferably in the albino rabbit, on each manufacturing-use product.
No acute dermal toxicity tests on manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate are
available. Testing is required.
Acute Inhalation Toxicity
Acute inhalation testing is required to support the registration of the
manufacturing-use and formulated products if: the product is a gas, the
product produces a respirable vapor or 20% or more of the aerodynamic
equivalent of the product is composed or particles not larger than 10 microns.
Testing in the laboratory rat is preferred.
The use pattern indicates that ammonium sulfamate is used by a route that could
permit inhalation exposure (i.e. used as a spray for weed control). Since no
information is available to assess the aerodynamic size of the particles or
the vapor pressure of ammonium sulfamate, acute inhalation testing is required.
No acute inhalation toxicity studies are available on manufacturing-use
ammonium sulfamate. Testing is required.
Primary Eye Irritation
The minimum data requirement for primary eye irritation is one test on each
manufacturing-use product, preferably using the albino rabbit. If the test
substance has a pH of 1-3 or 12-14, it will be judged corrosive, and
an eye irritation test is not needed. Also, if the test substance has been
judged to be dermally corrosive, an eye irritation test is not needed.
No primary eye irritation studies are available on manufacturing-use
ammonium sulfamate. Testing is required.
Primary Dermal Irritation
The minimum data requirement for primary dermal irritation is one test on
each manufacturing-use product, preferably using the albino rabbit.
No primary dermal irritation studies are available on manufacturing-use
ammonium sulfamate. Testing is required.
6-3
-------
Dermal Sensitization
The minimum data requirement for dermal sensitization is an intradermal
test on each manufacturing-use product, preferably using the guinea pig-
No dermal sensitization studies are available on manufacturing-use ammonium
sulfamate. Testing is required.
Acute Delayed Neurotoxicity
The minimum data requirement for acute delayed neurotoxicity is one test on
the manufacturing-use product, using the adult hen.
An acute delayed neurotoxicity test is required if the active ingredient,
or any of its metabolites, degradation products, or impurities causes esterase
depression or is structurally related to a substance that induces delayed
neurotoxicity.
There are no indications that ammonium sulfamate causes esterase
depression or is structurally related to known neurotoxins. Therefore,
testing is not required.
Subchronic Testing
Subchronic Oral Toxicity
The minimum data requirement for Subchronic oral toxicity is one test on
the manufacturing-use product in two mammalian species, preferably using the
rat and dog.
No adequate Subchronic oral toxicity data are available on manufacturing-
use ammonium sulfamate. However, a supplementary Subchronic oral toxicity
study is available on ammonium sulfamate in rats. In this study (Gupta et al.
1979, MRID 05014167), groups of adult female rats and male and female
weanling rats were given ammonium sulfamate (crystalline, 99% purity) at 100,
250 or 500 mg/kg orally in an aqueous solution 6 days a week for 90 days.
At the high dose an 18% weight gain depression was observed in the adult
female, and histological examination revealed that one animal in this group
showed slight fatty degenerative changes in the liver. No individual animal
data were included; and therefore, this study is not adequate to evaluate the
subchronic toxicity of the chemical. Additional Subchronic oral toxicity
testing in rats and dogs is required.
Subchronic 21-Day Dermal Toxicity
The minimum data requirement for subchronic 21-day dermal toxicity is one
study on the manufacturing-use product, preferably using the albino rabbit. A
subchronic 21-day dermal toxicity test is required if pesticidal use is likely
to result in repeated human skin contact. Since the use of ammonium sulfamate
is likely to result in repeated human skin contact, testing is required.
6-4
-------
One subchronic dermal toxicity study was conducted on an unspecified formu-
lation of ammonium sulfamate (Aoyama 1975, MRID 05005119). In this study, 0.75
ml of 15% , 20%, and 30% concentrations of ammonium sulfamate were applied to
the unshaved skin of rats, and .75 ml of 15% and 30% concentrations of the
chemical were applied to the shaved skin of rabbits daily for 20 days. No
deaths were observed in rats or rabbits, and only slight redness of the skin
was noted in rats at the highest dose at 7 days. Upon histopathological
examination, slight atrophy of the epidermis was observed in rabbits. This
study does not satisfy the data requirements for subchronic dermal toxicity
testing because too few rabbits were tested, and more than one route of
exposure was possible since the application sites were not covered. Additional
21-day dermal toxicity testing is required.
Subchronic 90-Day Dermal Toxicity
A subchronic 90-day dermal toxicity test is not required because ammonium
sulfamate is not purposely applied to skin, and its use will not result in
human exposure comparable to that, for example, from swimming pool additives or
pesticide-impregnated fabrics.
Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity
A subchronic inhalation study is required if pesticidal use may result in
repeated Inhalation exposure at a concentration that is likely to be toxic, as
determined from results of acute inhalation testing. A determination of the
requirement for a subchronic inhalation toxicity study of ammonium sulfamate
cannot be made at present, because no adequate acute inhalation toxicity data
are available.
Subchronic Neurotoxicity
A subchronic neurotoxicity study is not required on ammonium sulfamate,
because it is not expected to induce neuropathy or delayed neurotoxicity, and
because it does not have a molecular structure closely related to that of a
compound that is known to induce neuropathy or delayed neurotoxicity.
Chronic Feeding
A chronic feeding study is required if pesticidal use requires a tolerance
or exemption from a tolerance, requires an issuance of a food additive
regulation or is likely to result in repeated human exposure over a significant
portion of the life-span.
A tolerance exists for ammonium sulfamate on apples and pears; however,
ammonium sulfamate is not applied directly to the fruits since it is used for
weed control in these orchards. If the requested residue data (Chapter III,
Table 1) shows that negligible residues of ammonium sulfamate and its
metabolites are present on raw agriucltural commodities and the environmental
fate data indicates that repeated human exposure by other routes is unlikely,
this data requirement will be waived.
The available data were inadequate to assess the chronic feeding effects of
ammonium sulfamate. In a 19-month feeding study with rats (Sherman et al.,
1964 MRID #00004224), no histopathological alterations could be attributed to
6-5
-------
the feeding of .035% and .05% ammonium sulfamate in'the diet. Sufficient data
were not available to evaluate the effects of ammonium sulfamate on any other
parameter, therefore, an adequate assessment of the chronic toxicity of
ammonium sulfamate cannot be made from this data.
Oncogenicity
Oncogenicity tests on the manufacturing-use product are required in two
mammalian species, preferably the rat and the mouse, for all food uses. A
tolerance exists for ammonium sulfamate on apples and pears; however, ammonium
sulfamate is not applied directly to the fruits since it is used for weed
control in these orchards. If requested residue data (Chapter III, Table 1)
shows that negligible residues of ammonium sulfamate and its metabolites are
present on raw agricultural commodities and the environmental fate data
indicates that repeated hum^n exposure by other routes is unlikely, this data
requirement may be waived.
Teratogenicity
The minimum requirement for evaluating a pesticide for teratogenicity is
testing in two mammalian species. Teratogenicity testing is required on
ammonium sulfamate because it is registered for domestic use and may be
expected to result in significant exposure to human females. No data were
available to evaluate the teratogenicity potential of ammonium sulfamate.
Testing is required in two mammalian species.
Reproduction
The minimum data requirement for reproduction is testing in one mammalian
species, preferably the laboratory rat, using the manufacturing-use product and
lasting for two generations. This is required for all food uses. No adequate
studies assessing the effects of ammonium sulfamate on reproduction are
available at this time. A rat reproduction study (Sherman et al. 1964, MRID
00004224) containing summary data only, is in the Agency files. In this study,
rats were fed 0.035% and 0.05% ammonium sulfamate in the diet through the F_a
generation. No consistent toxic effects were observed on growth, reproductive
performance, viability, or lactation, and no abnormal histopathological
findings were reported by the authors in summary form. The requirement for
additional reproduction testing may be waived if adequate residue data show
that negligible residues of ammonium sulfamate and its metabolites are present
in raw agricultural commodities and adequate environmental fate data
indicates that repeated human exposure by other routes is unlikely, this data
requirement may be waived.
6-6
-------
Mutagenicity
The following studies represent the minimum data likely to be required on the
potential heritable effects of ammonium sulfamate:
1. A mammalian in vitro point mutation test.
2. A sensitive sub-mammalian point mutation test (Bacteria,
fungi, insect).
3. A primary DNA damage test (i.e., sister chromatid
exchange or unscheduled DNA synthesis).
4. A mammalian in vitro cytogenics test. If this suggests
a positive result, a dominant lethal or heritable
translocation test may be required.
After results from these test systems and other toxicology disciplines have
been considered, additional testing may be required to further characterize or
quantify the potential genetic risks.
Although the Agency mutagenic testing requirements are not final, the
standards for these tests should be based on the principles set forth in FR 43,
No. 163, August 22, 1978. Protocols and choices of test systems should be
accompanied by a scientific rationale. Substitution of test systems for those
listed above will be considered after discussion with the Agency.
A supplementary study is available in which an unspecified formulation of
ammonium sulfamate was evaluated for its ability to produce point mutations in
histidine requiring mutants of Salmonella typhimurium (Anderson et al. 1972,
MRID 05001460). Negative results were observed with ammonium sulfamate while
positive responses were produced with three known mutagens. No numerical data
were available for the positive controls; therefore, the reliability of the
assay cannot be determined. Thus, the minimum mutagenicity data requirements
for ammonium sulfamate have not been fulfilled and additional testing as
specified above is required.
Metabolism in Laboratory Animals
A general metabolism study is required to support the registration of each
manufacturing use product which requires a chronic feeding study or an
oncogenicity study.
No adequate metabolism study is available on ammonium sulfamate. An assessment
of this data requirement cannot be made at the present time, because the need
for the chronic feeding or oncogenicity data is not yet established.
Clinical Trials
No clinical studies in humans have been conducted using ammonium sulfamate.
Emergency Treatment
No information is available on emergency treatment of ammonium sulfamate
poisoning.
6-7
-------
Toxicology - Crystalline Ammonium Sulfamate
Toxicology Profile
No data were available to assess the acute oral, acute dermal,and acute
inhalation toxicity of crystalline formulations containing 95-99% ammonium
sulfamate. Testing is not required since testing of the manufacturing-use
product will be sufficient to evaluate the acute toxicities of these products.
No data were available to evaluate the primary eye irritation, primary dermal
irritation and dermal sensitization potentials of ammonium sulfamate. Dermal
and eye irritation testing is required on any one of the products listed in
Chapter III, Table 3. These products contain an inert ingredient that may
cause dermal and eye irritation.
Dermal sensitization testing is not required since testing of the manufacturing-
use product will be sufficient to fulfill this requirement.
Data Requirements
The data requirements needed to evaluate the continued registration
of ammonium sulfamate products to which this Standard applies are listed
in Chapter III, Tables 1-3.
Topical Discussions
Acute Testing
Acute Oral Toxicity
The minimum data requirement for testing acute oral toxicity (LD,.,.) is one
test in the laboratory rat on each formulated crystalline product.
No acute oral toxicity studies are available on crystalline formulations
of ammonium sulfamate. Testing on manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate will
fill this requirement.
Acute Dermal Toxicity
The minimum data requirement for testing acute dermal toxicity is one test on
each formulated crystalline product, preferably using the albino rabbit.
No acute dermal toxicity studies are available on crystalline formulations
of ammonium sulfamate. Testing on manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate will
fill this requirement.
Acute Inhalation Toxicity
The minimum data requirement for testing acute inhalation toxicity (LC,-n) is
one test on each formulated crystalline product, preferably using the
laboratory rat.
No acute inhalation toxicity studies are available on crystalline formulations
of ammonium sulfamate. Testing on manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate will
fill this requirement.
6-8
-------
Primary Eye Irritation
The minimum data requirement for primary eye irritation is one test on each
formulated crystalline product, preferably using the albino rabbit. •
No primary eye irritation studies are available on crystalline formulations.
Testing is required on one of the products with the following registration
numbers: 2169-262, 829-180, 10107-21, 352-206, 8127-22, 1348-202, 829-220,
8590-219, 2125-47, 5481-56, 4887-134.
Primary Dermal Irritation
The minimum data requirement for primary dermal irritation is one test on
each formulated crystalline product, preferably using the albino rabbit.
No primary dermal irritation studies are available on crystalline formulations.
Testing is required on one of the products with the following registration
numbers: 2169-262, 829-180, 10107-21, 352-206, 8127-22, 1348-202, 829-220,
8590-219, 2125-47, 5481-56, 4887-134.
Dermal Sensitization
The minimum data requirement for dermal sensitization is an intradermal test on
each formulated crystalline product, preferably using the guinea pig.
No dermal sensitization studies are available on crystalline formulations of
ammonium sulfamate. Testing on manufacturing-use ammonium sulfamate will
fill this requirement.
Toxicology - Soluble Concentrate Ammonium Sulfamate
Toxicology Profile
Sufficient data are available to assess the acute oral and dermal toxicities
of a soluble concentrate formulation containing 43% ammonium sulfamate. The
high acute oral LD,.^ in rats (male rats, 6.9 g/kg; female rats, 3.9 g/kg)
indicates a potentially low acute oral toxicity in humans. A high acute dermal
LD ^ in rabbits (greater than 2 g/kg) with this formulation, indicates a
potentially low acute dermal toxicity in humans.
An acute inhalation toxicity study conducted with rats using a 43% ammonium
sulfamate soluble concentrate formulation is available. However, since the
exposure concentration and the particle size distribution were inadequately
described, the study cannot be used to assess the potential acute inhalation
toxicity of this formulation in humans.
Data are available to assess the primary eye irritation and primary dermal
irritation potentials of a 43% ammonium sulfamate soluble concentrate formu-
lation. These data indicate that this formulation is not a primary eye
irritant but may cause transient eye irritation in humans, also, the data
indicate a low dermal irritation potential in humans-. No data were available
to assess the dermal sensitization potential of the soluble concentrate
formulations.
6-9
-------
Data Requirements
The data requirements needed to evaluate the continued registration of ammonium
sulfamate products to which this standard applies are listed in Chapter III.
Tables 1-3.
Topical Discussions
Acute Testing
Acute Oral Toxicity
The minimum data requirement for testing acute oral toxicity (LD^^) is one
test on each formulated soluble concentrate product, preferably using the
laboratory rat.
An adequate acute oral toxicity study in rats is available with a soluble
concentrate containing 43% ammonium sulfamate (Bullock and Narcisse,
1974a, MRID 00004214). The undiluted material was administered by gavage to
four groups of male and female rats. The LE> in males was 6.9
g/kg with a 95% confidence interval of 2.6-18.3 g/kg. In females the LD
was 3.9 g/kg with a 95% confidence interval of 2.0-7.6 g/kg. No adverse
clinical signs were observed in females receiving the lowest dose (1.9 g/kg).
Slight depression was observed in males receiving 2.8 g/kg. Signs of toxicity
in animals receiving the higher dose levels included depression, salivation,
bloody tears, and collapse. All deaths, 7 males and 8 females, occurred within
24 hours of dosing. The- survivors (12 males and 13 females) showed no
chemical-related gross pathological changes.
These data are sufficient to fulfill the acute oral toxicity data requirement
for the existing soluble concentrate formulations containing 19-55% ammonium
sulfamate and place these products in Toxicity Category III.
Acute Derm;1 Toxicity
The minimum data requirement for testing acute dermal toxicity (LD..,) is one
test on each formulated soluble concentrate product, preferably using the
albino rabbit.
An adequate acute dermal toxicity study is available with a soluble concentrate
containing 43% ammonium sulfamate (Bullock and Narcisse 1974b, MRID 00004215).
In this study the acute dermal LD,.. in male New Zealand albino rabbits was
determined to be greater than 2 g/kg. No mortality was observed when six males
were administered 2 g/kg of the undiluted material under an occlusive wrap;
half of the animals had abraded skin, and half had intact skin. At 24 hours
slight to severe erythema was observed but there were no other signs of
toxicity during the 14-day observation period. Although only males were
tested, the study is sufficient to fulfill the acute dermal toxicity data
requirement for the existing soluble concentrate formulations containing 19-55%
of ammonium sulfamate. The data place these products in Toxicity Category
III.
Acute Inhalation Toxicity
Acute inhalation testing is required to support the registration of formulated
products if: the product is a gas, the product produces a respirable vapor or
6-10
-------
20% or more of the aerodynamic equivalent of the product is composed of
particles not larger than 10 microns. Testing in the laboratory rat is
preferred.
An acute inhalation toxicity study (Bullock and Narcisse, I974c, MRID#
00004218) was conducted with a 43% soluble concentrate formulation of ammonium
sulfamate in rats. This study was inadequate to assess the inhalation toxicity
of this formulation.
Based on information in the Confidential Statement of Formulations (CSF's) for
the soluble concentrates containing 19-55% ammonium sulfamate, the inert
ingredients used in these products are not anitcipated to present problems with
respect to inhalation toxicity. Therefore, acute inhalation toxicity testing
on the manufacturing-use product will fill this data requirement for the
soluble concentrate formulations.
Primary Eye Irritation
The minimum data requirement for primary eye irritation is one test on each
formulated product, preferably using the albino rabbit.
An adequate primary eye irritation study is available with a soluble concen-
trate formulation containing 43% ammonium sulfamate. (Bullock and Narcisse
1974d, MRID 00004216). Instillation of 0.1 ml of the undiluted test
material into the conjunctival sac of one eye of each of six rabbits (three
males, three females) caused slight to moderate conjunctival irritation in
all of the treated eyes. By 72 hours this condition had cleared in all but one
animal who still had slight irritation. No corneal opacity or iritis was
observed in any of the treated eyes, and by 7 days all the eyes were normal.
The data are sufficient to fulfill the primary eye irritation data require-
ments for the existing soluble concentrate formulations containing 19-55%
ammonium sulfamate and place these products in Toxicity Category III,
indicating a low potential for eye irritation.
Primary Dermal Irritation
The minimum data requirement for primary dermal irritation is one test on
each formulated product, preferably using the albino rabbit.
An adequate primary dermal irritation study is available with a soluble
concentrate formulation containing 43% ammonium sulfamte (Bullock and Narcisse
1974e, MRID 00004217). In this study, the product was applied undiluted to
the abraded and intact skin of six New Zealand rabbits and the primary skin
irritation score was determined to be 0.6 out of a possible 8.0 score. This
study is sufficient to fulfill the primary dermal irritation potential data
requirement for the existing soluble concentrate formulations containing
19-55% ammonium sulfamate. These products should not be considered primary
skin irritants and should be placed in Toxicity Category IV.
Dermal Sensitization
The minimum data requirement for dermal sensitization is an intradermal test on
each formulated product, preferably using the guinea pig.
6-11
-------
No dermal sensitization studies are available on soluble concentrate
formulations of ammonium sulfamate. Based on information in the Confidential
Statement of Formulations (CSF's) for the soluble concentrate formulations
containing 19-55% ammonium sulfamate, the inert ingredient used in these
products are not expected to present a problem with respect to dermal
sensitization. Therefore, dermal sensitization testing on the manufacturing-
use product will fill this data requirement.
Toxicology Ready-to-Use and Pressurized Liquid Ammonium Sulfamate
Toxicology Profile
No data were available to assess the acute oral, acute dermal, and acute
inhalation toxicity as well as the primary eye irritation, primary dermal
irritation, and the dermal sensitization potential of the ready-to-use
formulations containing 8-55% ammonium sulfamate and the pressurized liquid
formulations containing 9.5% ammonium sulfamate.
The Confidential Statements of Formulations (CFS) do not indicate that the
acute toxicities Coral, dermal, inhalation), or the eye irritation, dermal
irritation and dermal sensitization potentials of the ready-to-use products
will differ from those observed with the soluble concentrates. Therefore,
refer to the Toxicology Profile and Topical Discussions for soluble concentrate
formulations, for an assessment of these toxicity parameters.
Data on the soluble concentrate formulations will fill the following
requirements for ready-to-use formulations: acute oral toxicity, acute dermal
toxicity, primary eye irritation and primary dermal irritation. Data on the
manufacturing-use product will fill the toxicity and dermal sensitization data
requirements.
The Confidential Statements of Formulations (CFS) does not indicate that the
acute toxicities or the dermal irritation or the dermal sensitization
potentials for the pressurized liquid product will differ from those observed
with the soluble concentrates.
Therefore, data on the soluble concentrate formulations will fill the
following requirements for the pressurized liquid formulation: acute oral
toxicity, acute dermal toxicity, and primary dermal irritation. Data on the
manufacturing-use product will fill the requirement for acute inhalation
toxicity and dermal sensitization for the pressurized liquid.
The pressurized liquid product may have eye irritation properties different
from those of the soluble concentrates. Therefore, primary eye irritation
testing is required.
Data Requirements
The data requirements needed to evaluate the continued registration of ammonium
sulfamate products to which this standard applies are listed in Chapter III,
Tables 1-3.
6-12
-------
VII
Residue Chemistry
Residue Chemistry - Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate
Residue Chemistry Profile
Ammonium sulfamate is used as a herbicide for the control of woody plants,
particularly poison ivy.
No data on the metabolism or breakdown patterns of ammonium sulfamate in plants
or animals are currently available. There is some indication in the literature
that ammonium sulfamate can hydrolyze in the soil to form ammonium sulfate.
Additional data are needed showing the nature of any major residues resulting
from the applied use of ammonium s olfatnate as a result of application to the
plants at the tree roots. Similarly, data are needed showing the nature of
major residues when ingested by grazing cattle or dairy cows from cover crops
in apple or pear orchards, pastures and rangelands that have been treated with
ammonium sulfamate, or apple pomace used in feed.
The results from method trials conducted by FDA on the residue analytical
methods submitted by the manufacturer were unsatisfactory. Two residue
studies were submitted. The studies showed that residues of ammonium
sulfamate per se, resulting from certain applications on ten tests with apples
and one on pears, did not exceed the established tolerances for apples and
pears. However, these test summations were submitted without supporting hard
data and were conducted several years prior to the FDA analytical method
trials.
There are no records of regulatory incidents or actions with respect to the
registered uses of ammonium sulfamate.
Data Requirements
The data required to support the registered food use and tolerances for
ammonium sulfamate are presented in Chapter III, Table 1.
Topical Discussions
Use Patterns and Restrictions
Ammonium sulfamate is used as a herbicide primarily for control of woody
plants and herbaceous perennials. It is considered especially useful for the
control of poison ivy in apple and pear orchards when applied as a foliage
spray. The use of ammonium sulfamate in apple and pear orchards is considered
to be a food use due to the possibility of residues on the fruit through
absorption and translocation or from a contaminative source.
The formulation type and percent active ingredient used in apple and pear
orchards are: 95-99% a.i. crystalline and 19-54% soluble concentrate.
The recommended use is 1-3 treatments per growing season (every 6 to 8 weeks)
when poison ivy plants are in full leaf. The type of application is foliar
7-1
-------
drench or hand directed by using either a backpack or ground rig high volume
sprayer. The application rate is 57 Ibs. A.I. in 100 gal. water. The spray
volume depends on the density and size of the poison ivy plants but usually 1
gallon will cover 200-250 sq. ft. of surface.
Present use restrictions include:
Do not spray fruit tree foliage.
Do not spray green or immature fruit tree bark.
Avoid excessive wetting of fruit tree bark.
Use coarse spray.
Metabolism in. plants
Ammonium sulfamate is known to be non-selective and translocates readily. One
study on its translocation'(Carvell 1955, 05005498) showed that ammonium
sulfamate moves into the leaves of plants more rapidly that it moves down into
the root system.
No data are available on the metabolic fate of ammonium sulfamate in plants or
on residues in plants or trees.
Metabolism in Animals
No studies are available regarding the metabolic fate of ammonium sulfamate
residues in large animals. '
Analytical Methodology
The accepted method for the determination of ammonium sulfamate in apples and
pears is that of H.L. Pease (Pease 1957, 00004228, 05003443, 00004232). This
method could not be made to work adequately in government laboratory tests;
adequate validation data and data in support of the claimed sensitivity of 0.1
ppm are not presented. Therefore, an adequate analytical method is required.
Residue Data; Apples and Pears
The available residue data for ammonium sulfamate (DuPont 1960, 00004229) is a
summary report of two tests conducted from 1957 to 1960, prior to method
trials.
The first test consisted of a series of trials conducted in three states using
ammonium sulfamate under apple and pear trees. Ammonium sulfamate was used in
doses from 0.3 to 1 Ib. per tree at 28 to 122 day intervals between treatment
and harvest. Residues in ten samples of fruit ranged from 0.1 ppm to 0.6 ppm.
The second test examined residues from applications of ammonium sulfamate for
three successive years to soil under apple trees applied at two rates: 1.2
Ibs/tree and 6 Ibs/tree. Residues ranged from 1.5 to 2.5 ppm and 2.7 to 6.1
ppm from the higher rate.
The limited residue data and the inadequacy of the data collection method do
not permit a conclusion that the registered tolerance of 5 ppm is adequately
supported.
-------
Residue Data: Meat and Milk
Consideration should be given to the possibility of cattle grazing in fruit
orchards, pastures and rangelands treated with ammonium sulfamate, and to the
agricultural practice of feeding apple pomace to cattle, including dairy
animals. No residue studies were reported for the indicated feed uses. These
data requirements are being reserved pending the receipt and evaluation of
residue data on apples to determine if residues of ammonium sulfamate are
present in cattle and dairy animal feedstuff at a detectable level. Also,
residue data on milk and meat are being reserved pending the receipt and
evaluation of environmental fate data. Milk and meat residue data may be
required if the fate data indicate that use of ammonium sulfamate in fruit
orchards, pastures, and rangelands could result in exposure to grazing animals
and residues in meat and milk.
-------
VIII
Ecological Effects Chapter
Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate
Ecological Effects Profile
No adequate data are available to assess the toxicity of ammonium sulfamate
to terrestrial and aquatic organisms.
Supplementary data indicate that toxicity to aquatic organisms is probably
low. One study (Matida et al., 1975, 05010743) was conducted by dripping a 70
% a.i. solution of ammonium sulfamate into an artificial stream containing
rainbow trout. No adverse effects were noted at concentrations up to 30 ppm.
Another study (Eddleman 1974, 05008669) conducted with a 43% a.i. formulated
product on Chaoborus punctipennis, the phantom midge, yielded 48-hour L^CQ
values of 6096 ppm and 3183 ppm at 15C and 20°C respectively. These
toxicity values indicate this particular product is practically non-toxic to
aquatic invertebrates.
One adequate beneficial insect study was conducted (Atkins et al. 1969,
00018842) in which honey bees were exposed to a mixture of technical ammonium
sulfamate and pyrolite dust. The study provided sufficient information to
characterize ammonium sulfamate as relatively non-toxic to honey bees (^D,.-
value is greater than 60.43 micrograms/bee).
Available data on the toxicity of ammonium sulfamate to terrestrial and aquatic
plants indicate that a temporary phytotoxic effect on turf may occur at
application rates of 2.18 Ibs. a.i./acre, and aquatic plants may suffer growth
reduction if the concentration in the aquatic environment were to reach
approximately 1000 ppm.
Data Requirements
The data requirements needed to evaluate the continued registration of
ammonium sulfamate products to which this Standard applies are listed in
Chapter III,,,Table 1.
Topical Discussions
Corresponding to each of the Topical Discussions listed below is the number of
the section(s) in the Proposed Guidelines of July 10, 1978 (43 FR No. 132,
29696) which explain(s) the minimum data that the Agency requires to adequately
assess the effects of ammonium sulfamate to fish and wildlife.
Guidelines Section
Birds 163.71-1, 163.71-2
Fish 163.72-1
Aquatic Invertebrates 163.72-2
8-1
-------
Birds
Birds may be exposed to pesticides by feeding on contaminated plants or
insects, by dermal contact and/or inhalation when close to outdoor sprays and
dust. To assess the impact of a pesticide on birds, the Agency requires
certain avian toxicity tests to support the registration of pesticides.
A determination of the avian acute single-dose oral LD5 is required to
support the registration of every manufacturing-use product and formulated
product for outdoor application. Information regarding the acute toxicity of
ammonium sulfamate to birds is not available.
A determination of the subacute dietary LC^ (5-day dietary exposure) is also
required to support the registration of all manufacturing-use products and all
formulated products intended for outdoor application. Testing shall be
performed on two avian species, one species of waterfowl (preferably the
mallard duck) and one species of upland game bird (preferably the bobwhite
quail).
One study on quails (Maki 1973, GS0016-0020) was submitted and reviewed for
this topic. The study was determined invalid. The study contained data from a
secondary source, the study protocol and the determination of the LC_Q was
not reported, and the species of quail was not reported. Therefore, no
acceptable data on technical ammonium sulfamate are available on this topic and
a data gap exists.
Fish
Freshwater Fish
The minimum data required for establishing the acute toxicity of manufacturing-
use ammonium sulfamate for fish is a determination of the 96-hour LC,.^ for a
coldwater species (preferably rainbow trout) and a warmwater species
(preferably bluegill sunfish). No acceptable data on technical ammonium
sulfamate are available on this topic and, therefore, a data gap exists.
Matida (1975, 05010743) provides supplemental information for coldwater
fish (rainbow trout). This study does not fulfill the guideline requirements
for toxicity studies for coldwater fish. In this study, rainbow trout, in an
artificial stream situation, showed no adverse effects to concentrations up to
30 ppm of ammonium sulfamate.
There is no requirement for an artificial stream test in the guidelines.
Various field studies on an artificial ecosystem study can be requested if the
required data indicate that the pesticide poses an environmental threat.
These additional data requests are decided on a case-by-case basis.
Aquatic Invertebrates
An acute toxicity LC test with the technical product on an aquatic
invertebrate is required to support registration of all manufacturing-use
products and all formulated products intended for outdoor applications. No
study on this topic was received and, therefore, the requirement for the
technical product has not been satisfied.
8-2
-------
Aquatic Plants
One study was available (Fromm 1949, 05004558) concerning the effects of
ammonium sulfamate on aquatic plants. The study showed that when Spirodela was
grown in a nutrient solution, ammonium sulfamate at 1140 ppm caused a decrease
in the number of fronds per plant, even though the number of plants increased
temporarily. Therefore, some aquatic plants would be expected to suffer
growth reduction if the concentration in the aquatic environment were to reach
approximately 1000 ppm.
This type of data is not currently required for registration.
Terrestrial Plants
Acceptable data are available on the toxicity of ammonium sulfamate to
terrestrial plants. The information is summarized in the following table:
Table 1: Toxicity of Ammonium Sulfamate To Terrestrial Plants
Species Formulation No Effect Level Author/Date MRIDff
Turfgrass A.I. <2.18 Ibs/A Pridham,1946 05004926
Eggplant A.I. <100 ppm Dubey, 1977 05004270
Bean A.I. 1140 ppm Fromm, 1949 05004558
Ammonium sulfamate can be expected to have a temporary phytotoxic effect on
turf at an application rate of 2.18 Ibs a.i./acre. Since ammonium sulfamate
is used as a non-selective herbicide on areas where a complete vegetation kill
is desired, it seems unlikely that this chemical would be used in areas where
it would significantly damage non-target plants.
This type of data is not currently required for registration.
Beneficial Insects
An acceptable study (Atkins et al. 1969, 00018842) on the toxicity of ammonium
sulfamate to beneficial insects is available. There is sufficient information
to characterize ammonium sulfamate as relatively non-toxic to honey bees, when
bees are exposed to a mixture of technical ammonium sulfamate and pyrolite dust
(LD50 60.43 micrograms/bee).
This type of data is not currently required for registration.
Crystalline Ammonium Sulfamate
Ecological Effects Profile
The toxicity of crystalline ammonium sulfaraate to wildlife may be estimated
from tests on the technical chemical.
Topical Discussions
See the Manufacturing-use Ammonium Sulfamate section of this chapter and
Chapter III, Table 1 for the ecological effects data requirements to support
the registration of ammonium sulfamate formulated products.
8-3
-------
The use patterns and formulations currently under consideration do not indicate
the need for acute fish and wildlife tests using the formulated products. The
toxicity of various formulations and the subsequent hazard to wildlife can be
estimated by using the toxicity data provided by tests on the technical
chemical.
Soluble Concentrate Ammonium Sulfamate
Ecological Effects Profile
The toxicity of soluble concentrate ammonium sulfamate formulations to wildlife
may be estimated from tests on the technical chemical.
Topical Discussions
See the Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate section of this chapter
and Chapter III, Table 1 for the ecological effects data required to
support the registration of ammonium sulfamate formulated products.
The use patterns and formulations currently under consideration do not indicate
the need for acute fish and wildlife tests using the formulated products. The
toxicity of various formulations and the subsequent hazard to wildlife can be
estimated by using the toxicity data provided by tests on the technical
chemical .
Freshwater Fish
A study (Matida et al ., 1975, 05010743) was done by dripping a 70% soluble
concentrate formulation of ammonium sulfamate into an artificial stream
containing rainbow trout. No adverse effects were noted at concentrations
up to 30 ppm.
Aquatic Invertebrates
One available study (Eddleman 1974, 05008669) was conducted with a 43% soluble
concentrate ammonium sulfamate formulation on Chaoborus punctipennis
(the phantom midge). The 48-hour LC values at 15 C and 20 C were
6096 ppm and 3183 ppm. These toxicity values indicate that this formulated
product is practically non-toxic to aquatic invertebrates.
Ready-to-Use and Pressurized Liquid Ammonium Sulfamate
Ecological Effects Profile
The toxicity of ready-to-use and pressurized liquid formulations to wildlife
may be estimated from tests on the manufacturing-use product.
Topical Discussions
See the Manufacturing-Use Ammonium Sulfamate section of this chapter and
Chapter III, Table 1 for the ecological effects data required to support
the registration of ammonium sulfamate formulated products.
8-4
-------
The use patterns and formulations currently under consideration do not indicate
the need for acute fish and wildlife tests using formulated products. The
toxicity of various formulations and the subsequent hazard to wildlife can be
estimated by using the toxicity data provided by tests on the manufacturing-
use chemical.
8-5
-------
GUIDE TO USE OP BIBLIOGRAPHY
9-1
-------
Guide to Use of This Bibliography
1. Content of Bibliography. This bibliography contains citations of
the studies reviewed by EPA in arriving at the positions and conclusions
stated elsewhere in this standard. The bibliography is divided into
3 sections: (1) citations that contributed information useful to the review
of the chemical and considered to be part of the data base supporting
registrations under the standard, (2) citations examined and judged to be
inappropriate for use in developing the standard, and (3) standard
reference material. 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, an eight-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)(A)
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 for 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 identificable 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
9-2
-------
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 the Agency bibliographers to create or enhance
a document title. Any such editorial insertions are contained
between square brackets.
d. Trailing Parenthesis. For studies submitted to us in the past, the
trailing parenthesis "include (in addition to any self-explanatory
text) the following elements describing the earliest known submission.
(1) Submission Date. Immediately following the word
'received' appears the date of the earliest known
submission.
(2) Administrative Number. The next element, immediately
following the word 'under', is the registration number,
experimental permit number, petition number, or other
administrative number associated with the earliest known
submission.
(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
'GDI/, 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.
J-3
-------
OFFICE OP PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
PESTICIDE DOCUMENT MANGEMENT SYSTEM
CASE BIBLIOGRAPHY
9-4
-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
Citations Considered to be Part of the Data Base Supporting
Registrations Under the Standard
1016-001-02
00004227
MRID CITATION
05001460 Anderson, K.G., E.G. Leighty and M.T. Takahashi, 1972
Evaluation of herbicides for possible mutagenic properties.
J. Agr. Food. Chem. 20:649-656.
05005119 Aoyama, M. 1975. Effect of anti-flame treating agents on the
skin. Nagoya Med. J. 20:11-19.
00018842 Atkins, E.L., Jr.; Anderson, L.D.; Greywood, E.A. (1969)
Effect of Pesticides on Apiculture: Project No.
1499; Research Report CF-7501. (Unpublished study
received May 8, 1971 under 1F1174; prepared by Univ. of
California—Riverside, Dept. of Entomology, submitted by
Ciba Agrochemical Co., Summit, N.J.; CDL:090973-8).
Baumgarten, Paul, inventor; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company,
assignee (1937) Process for manufacturing amino sulphonic acid
U.S. patent 2,102,350. Dec 14. 2p.
Bergen, D.S. and Wiley, F.H., 1938. The metaboism of sulfamic
acid and ammonium sulfamate. (Unpublished study received Nov.
10, 1954 under pp0376 submitted by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Co., Inc. Wilmington, DEL., CDL: 9048-4.
00004214 Bullock, C.H., and Narcisse, J.K., 1974a. S-662: The Acute Oral
Toxicity of Ortho Brush Killer A (CC-5110): Socal 5882/XVIII:81.
(Unpublished study received April 30, 1976, under 239-2336;
submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.;
CDL: 224772-B)
00004215 Bullock, C.H., and Narcisse, J.K., 1974b. S-663: The Acute
Dermal Toxicity of Ortho Brush Killer A (CC-5110): Socal
5883/XV:73A. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1976,,
under 239-2336; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond,
Calif.; CDL:224772-C)
00004218 Bullock, C.H., and Narcisse, J.K., 1974c. S-666: The Acute
Inhalation Toxicity of Ortho Brush Killer A (CC-5110): Socal
586/XIII:122. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1976,
under 239-2336; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond,
Calif.; CDL:224772-F)
00004216 Bullock, C.H., and Narcisse, J.K., 1974d. S-665: The Eye
Irritation Potential of Ortho Brush Killer A (CC-5110): Socal
584/XX:21. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1976, under
239-2336; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond,
Calif.; CDL:224772-D)
9-5
-------
00004117 Bullock, C.H., and Narcisse, J.K., 1974e. S-664: The
Skin Irritation Potential of Ortho Brush Killer A (CC-5110):
Socal 585/XX:21. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1976,
under 239-2336; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond,
Calif.; CDL:224772-E)
05008521 Cain, B.E.; Kanda, F.A. (1972) The crystal structure of ammonium
sulfamate. Zeitschrift fuer Kristallographie, Kristallgeometrie ,
Kristallphysik, Kristallchemie 135(3/4): 253-261
05005498 Carvell, K.L. (1955) Translocation of Ammate. Forest Science
05004270 Dubey, P.S. (1977) Herbicidal pollution—pollen damage due
to herbicides.' Environmental Pollution 13(3):169-171.
05008669 Eddlemon, G.K. (1974) The Effects of Three Herbicides on
Larvae of the Phantom Midge, Chaoborus punctipennis
(Say) Master°s Thesis. Knoxville, Tenn.: University
of Tennessee. (Available from; NTIS, Springfield, VA:
PB-269 343).
00004229 E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated (1960) Results of
Tests on Amount of Residue Remaining on Apples and Pears:
Ammonium Sulfamate. (Unpublished study received on unknown
date under PP0376; CDL: 090408-J)
1016-001-01
05016316
05004558
00014379
05014 167
E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Company (1962) Ammonium sulfamate.
(unpublished study received 8/8/62 under pp#376; CDL: 114188).
Fan, Y.T. (1971) Yp kuan yu lin yong chu chou gee tz yen jo (I):
an qi ya liu shwan an (AMS) si chu chou gee tz shing tz gee (I):
properties and usages of herbicides—series of sulfamate-1
Quarterly Jounal of Chinese Forestry 4(2): 69-85.
Fromtn, F. (1949) The action of herbicides on Lemnaceae.
Pages 85-90, In Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy
of Science. Easton, PA.: Pennsylvania Academy of
Science.
Gordon, D.L. (1963) Validation of Pesticide Petition for
Ammonium Sulfamate. (Unpublished study including letters
dated Dec 10, 1962, Feb 5, 1963, and Apr 30, 1963 from F.J.
McNall, D.L. Gordon, R.T. Ottes and E.M. Hoshall, respectively,
to U.S. Bureau of Field Administration, received on unknown date
under 3F0376; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
Wilmington, Del.; CDL: 098425-A)
Gupta, B.N., Khanna, R.N., and Datta, K.K., 1*979. Toxicological
studies of ammonium sulfamate in rats after repeated oral
administration. Toxicology 13:45-49.
-------
05011255
05004655
05011074
05016686
05010475
05010743
1016-001-08
05018857
00004228
1016-001-07
Hofmeister, H.K.; Heubach, E., inventors; Farbwerke Hoechst,
A.G., assignee (1971) Verfahren zur Gewinnung von Ammonium
sulfamate Process for obtaining ammonium sulfamate. German
(Fed. Rep.) offenlegungsschrift 1,936,854. Jan 28. 10 p. Int.
Cl. C Olb 21/10.
Ito, Y. (1957) Studies on the nonaqueous reaction of NHH3 and
SOH3; Part 7; Synthesis of ammonium sulfamate under pressure.
Tokyo Kogyo Shikensho Hokoku. Reports of the Government Chemical
Indusrial Research Institute, Tokyo, 52(8): 281-284.
Ito, Y.; Kobayashi, E. (1960) Ka-atsuho ni yoru nitorirosuruhon-
san-atnrnonium nitrilosulfonate by the high pressure method. Kogyo
Kagaku Zasshi. Journal of Industrial Chemistry. 63(8): 1298-
1300.
Konnai, M.; Takeuchi, Y.; Takematsu, T. (1974) Ringyoyo
josozai no oojochu niokeru zanryu oyobi ido nikansuru kisoteki
kenkyu - Basic studies on the residues and movements of
forestry herbicides in soil-1 Utsunomiya Daigaku Nogakubu
Gakujutsu hokoku. Bullentin of the College of Agriculture,
Utsunomiya University. 19(1) :95-112.
Mackay, J.S., inventor; American Cyanamid Co., assignee (1956)
Verfahren zur Herstellung von ammoniumsulfamat (Procedure for the
production of ammmonium sulfamate German (Fed. Rep.)
patenschrift 940,823. March 29. 2p.
Matida, Y.; Kimura, S.; Kumada, H.; Yokote, M. (1975)
Effects of some herbicides applied in the forest to the
freshwater fishes and other aquatic organisms II
Effects of sodium chlorate and ammonium sulfamate to the
aquatic organisms in the artificial stream. Bulletin of
Freshwater Fisheries Research Laboratory 25(l):55-62.
McNall, F.J. (1962) Memorandum sent to U.S.D.A. Bureau of Field
Administration dated December 10, 1962. [Concerning Ernest L.
Brisson°s analysis of Ammonium submitted by Bureau of Field Adm.,
Boston, FDA/HEW CDL: 114188.)
Miki, M.; Katsu, K.; Matsumoto, I.; Matsuda, M.; Arimoto, H.,
inventors; Seitetsu Kagaku Kogyo Ltd., assignee (1971) Surufamin
san anmoniumu no seizohoho. Manufacturing method of ammonium
sulfamate. Japanese patejt specification 71-40531. Nov 30. 4
p. Int. Cl. C Olc.
Pease, H.L. (1957?) The Determination of Sulfamate Residues.
Undated method. (Unpublished study received on unknown date
under PP0376; submitted by E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
Wilmington, Del.; CDL: 090408-1)
Pease, Harlan L. (1963) The Determination of Sulfamate Residues.
(Unpublished study received 3/1/63 under PP 376; CDL: 114188)
9-7
-------
00004232 Pease, H.L. (1964) The Determination of Sulfamate Residues.
Method dated May 8, 1964. (Unpublished study received May 10,
1965 under 352-311; submitted by E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.,
Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL: 002944-B)
Pease, H.L. (1964) Sulfamate Residue Method. (Unpublished study
received on unknown date under 3F0376; submitted by E.I. Dupont
de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL: 092659-A)
Pease, H.L. (1966) Determination of sulfamate residues. Journal
of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 14(2): 140-142.
Pridham, A.M.S. (1946) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acide
reduces germination of grass seed. Proceedings of the
American Socity for Horticultural Science 47:439-445.
Rayner, A.D.M. (1977) Fungal colonization of hardwood stumps
from natural sources: I- Non-basidiomycetes.
Transactions of the british Mycological Society 69(2):291-302.
Rohrmann, Charles A., iventor; E.I. du Pont de Nemour & Company,
assignee (1949) Process for producing ammonium sulfamate U.S.
patent 2,487,480. Nov. 8. 2p.
Sherman, H., and Stula, E.F., 1964. Haskell Laboratory Progress
Report No. 142-64, MR No. 730. (Unpublished study received on
unknown date, under PPO 376; submitted by E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL: 09048-E)
05011429 Sisler, H.H.; Audrieth, L.F. (1946) Triammonium imidodisulfate 1-
hydrate. Pages 179-181, In-inorganic syntheses II. Edited by
W.C. Fernelius, L.F. Audrieth, J.C. Bailar, Jr., H.S. Booth,
W.C. Johnson, R.C. Kirk, W.C. Schumb, J.D. Scott. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
00004230
05003443
05004926
05005817
1016-001-06
0004224
05006452 Smith, N.R.; Dawson, V.T.; Wenzel, M,E. (1946) The Effect of
certain herbicides on soil microorganisms. Pages 197-
201, In Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of
America. Vol. 10 Madison, Wis.: Soil Science Society of
America.
GS0016-0033
05011250
1016-001-03
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1973).
Sulfamic Acid: Affirmation of GRAS Status as an Indirect Human
Food Ingredient. Federal Register 44(31): Feb. 13, 1979.
Voigt, A.; Brand, H., inventors; Farbwerke Hoechst A.G., assignee
(1962) Unkrautbekaetnpfungsmittel. Herbicidal mixtures. German
(Fed. Rep.) patentschrift 1,112,854. Mar 8. 2 p. Int. Cl. A Oln.
Yip, George (1964) Letter sent to George Beusch ddated April 14,,
1964. [Modification of procedures used to determine ammonium
sulphamate*residues] (In upublished submission rreceived 4-20-64
under pp. 376; submitted by Div of Food Chem. FDA/HEW; CDL: 11489)
9-8
-------
1016-001-04 Yip, George (1964) memoraqndum to Howard Jones dated March 5,
1964. [Summary of findings on the method proposed by DuPont for
determination of sulphamate] (In unpublished submission reeceived
3/10/64 under pp#376; submitted by Div of Food, Chem; FDA/HEW;
CDL: 114189)
9-9
-------
OFFICE OF PESICIDE PROGRAMS
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
Citations Judged to be Inappropriate for Use
in Developing this Standard
005013104 Abumiya, H.; Azakami, N.; Hirose, A. (1966) Dojo ni okeru
surufuamin- san anmonno bunkai narabini ido ni tsuite. [On the
decomposition and migration of ammonium sulfamate in the soil.]
Pages 95-98, Jn Hokkaido Nogyo Striken jo Ihb. [Research
Bulletin of the Hokkaido National Agricultural Experiment
Station.] No. 90. Sapporo, Japan: Hokkaido National
Agricultural Experiment Station.
005011384 Ahrens, J.F.; Dunbar, D.M. (1975) Are herbicides effective in
control of pales ajid northern pine weevils in Christmas tree
plantations American Christmas Tree Journal 19(2):17-20.
005006317 Ahrens, J.F.; Stoddard, E.M. (1962) Eradication of Poison Ivy and
Poison Sumac. New Haven, Conn.: Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station. (Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station circular no. 222)
005010750 Akhurst, C.G. (1953) Chemical weed control on rubber estates in
Malaya. Plant Protection Overseas Review 4:5-14.
GS0016-0024 Alabaster, J.S. (1969) Survival of Fish in 164 Herbicides,
Insecticides, Fungicides, Wetting Agents and Miscellaneous
Substances: International Pest Control March/April 1969.
005007395 Allgaier, B.E. (1944) The chemical control of Klamath weed. I.
Application of ecological methods in determining the herbicidal
fertilizing properties of ammonium sulfamate and commercial
borax. Ecology 25(4):424-432 .
000004226 Ambrose, A.M. (1943) Studies on the physiological effects of sul-
famic acid and ammonium sulfamate. Journal of Industrial Hy-
giene and Toxicology 25(l):26-28. (Also In unpublished submis-
sion received Nov 10, 1954 under PP0376; submitted by E.I.
Dupont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:090408-G)
GS0016-0026 Anon. (?) Ammonium Sulfamate: Fish. (Unpublished study received
March 10, 1981; submitted by E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co.;
Wilmington, Delaware CDL: 224902)
000030208 Anon. (1950) Research Report of the Seventh Annual North Central
Weed Control Conference; Dec 12-14, 1950, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
N.P. (pp. 34-51,83 only; also ^n unpublished submission re-
ceived Jun 4, 1976 under 960-163; submitted by Balcom Chemicals,
Inc., Greeley, Colo.; CDL:224776-M)
000027252 Anon. (1954) Research Report of the Eleventh Annual North Central
Weed Control Conference: 1954; Dec 7-9, 1954, Fargo, North Da-
Kota. N.P. (pp. 28,50,72-73,92-94 only; also _In unpub-
lished submission received Jun 4, 1976 under 960-163; submitted
by Balcom Chemicals, Inc., Greeley, Colo.; CDL:224776-K)
9-10
-------
005005497 Anon. (1963) Focus on chemicals: 7. Sulphatnic acid and
sulphamates. Chemical Products and Chemical News 26(10):32-36.
005004172 Anon. (1973) Common names of pesticides. Revised list—February
1973. PANS 19(2):287-306.
005014617 Anon. (1973) Degree of hazard when using herbicides. South
African Sugar Journal 57(2) :71.
GS0016-0035 Anon. (1974) Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygenists: 2nd
Printing.
005003247 Anon. (1976) The possible alternatives. Nature 263(5578) :539.
005005119 Aoyama, M. (1975) Effect of anti-flame treating agents on the
skin. Nagoya Medical Journal 20(1):11-19.
005013706 Arbonnier, P- (1957) La devitalisation des feuillus par le
sulfamate d ammonium. [The devitalization of deciduous trees
with ammonium sulfamate.] Revue Forestiere Francaise
6:458-469.
005006426 Arend, J.L. (1952) Bark loosening effects with 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T and
ammate. Pulp and Paper Magazine of Canada 53(7):159,161,164.
005006183 Armitage, I.P. (1976) Some limitations to the controlled use of
fire as an alternative to herbicides in forest establishment.
Pages 301-305, In The Use of Herbicides in Forestry in New
Zealand, 1975. Proceedings of the F.R.I. Symposium No. 18.
Rotorua, New Zealand: Forest Research Institute.
005014609 Ashton, F.M.; Crafts, A.S. (1973) Mode of Action of Herbicides.
New York: Wiley Interscience.
000009181 Atkins, E.L., Jr.; Anderson, L.D.; Gr,eywood, E.A. (1969) Effect of
Pesticides on Apiculture: Project No. 1499. (Unpublished study
received Jul 29, 1976 under 352-342; prepared by Univ. of Cali-
fornia—Riverside, Dept. of Entomology, submitted by E.I. du
Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:224800-C)
005004927 Bailey, J.S. (1948) Controlling quack grass by spraying with
Ammate or Atlacide. Proceedings of the American Society for
Horticultural Science 51:563-564.
005010067 Baker, G.; Bitting, L.E.; Lambert, P.A.; McClintock, W.L.; Hogan,
W.D. (1975) Improved application techniques for aquatic
herbicides. Hyacinth Control Journal 13:21-24.
005017496 Ball, W.L. (1956) Threshold limits for pesticides. AMA Archives
of Industrial Health 14:178-185.
005003486 Beatty, R.H. (1953) Brush control: status of chemical methods.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1(2):178-181.
005009719 Bel°kov, V.P.; Shutov, I.V- (1960) Sul°famat ammoniya kak sredstvo
9-11
-------
005010071
bor°by s sornymi i nezhelatel°nymi rasteniyami. [Ammonium
sulfamate as a means of controlling weeds and undesirable
plants.] Lesnoe Khozyaistvo. [Forestry.] 1:7-10.
Bel°kov, V.P.; Shutov, I.V. (1972) Vliyanie zhivogo napochvennogo
pokrova na rost kultur sosny na osushennora bolote. [Effect of
ground biocover on the growth of Scotch pine on drained swamp.]
Lesnoe Khozyaistvo. [Forestry.] (6):33-36.
005008954
000027267
Bennett, J.M. (1958) Chemical control of conifers.
Research News 3:17-20.
Ontario Hydro
005004034
005006428
005007394
Bennett, J.M. (1959) Chemical control of conifers. Down to Earth
(Winter):18-20. (Also _In unpublished submission received
May 9, 1972 under 264-61; submitted by Union Carbide Agricul-
tural Products Co., Ambler, Pa.; CDL:001841-I)
Berry, F.H.; Bretz, T.W. (1964) Urea and other chemicals effective
against colonization of shortleaf pine stumps by Fomes
annosus in Missouri. Plant Disease Reporter 48(11):886-887.
Birch, W.R. (1958) The effect of weeds, and their control by MCPA
spraying, on the establishment of perennial ryegrass and
cocksfoot in the Kenya highlands. Journal of the British
Grassland Society 13(2):126-136.
Blair, B.O.; Glendening, G.E. (1953) Intake and movement of
herbicides injected into mesquite. Botanical Gazette
115:173-179.
005003751 Bock, F.G.; Michelson, I.; Bross, I.D.J.; Priore, R.L. (1974)
Carcinogenic activity of smoke condensate from cigarettes with
ammonium sulfamate-treated paper. Cancer 33(4):1010-1016.
GS0016-0030 Bodek, Itamar and Smith, Richard H. (1980) Determination of
Ammonium Sulfamate in Air Using Ion Chromatagraphy. American
Industrial Hygiene Association Journal: 41(8/80): 603-607.
005012906 Bovey, R.W. (1976) Response of Selected Woody Plants in the United
States to Herbicides. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.'(USDA handbook no.
493)
005004828 Boyce, J.S., Jr. (1957) Oak wilt spread and damage in the Southern
Appalachians. Journal of Forestry 55(7):499-505 .
005005798 Boyd, W.I. (1952) Chemical weed control around water reservoirs.
American City 67(12):86-87 ,169 .
005011077 Bramble, W.C.; Byrnes, W.R. (1972) A Long-term Ecological Study of
Game Food and Cover on a Sprayed Utility Right-of-Way.
Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Agricultural Experiment
Station. (Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station
research bulletin no. 885)
000014380 Brisson, E.L. (1962) Ammonium sulfamate Residues. (Unpublished
9-12
-------
study received on unknown date under 3F0376; submitted by
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:
098425-B)
005000993 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.
005010533 Brown, R.H. (1972) Chemical control of the cereal cyst nematode
( Heterodera avenae ) in Victoria: a comparison of systemic
and contact nematicides. Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 12(59):662-667.
005008895 Brown, R.L. (1966) Pesticides in Clinical Practice:
Identification, Pharmacology, and Therapeutics. Springfield,
111.: Charles C. Thomas.
000004792 Buchholtz, K.P.; Holm, L.G. (1952) Herbicide Applications Recom-
mended for Use in 1952. (Unpublished study received Jan 31, ,
1952 under 464-147; prepared by Univ. of Wisconsin, Depts. of
Agronomy and Horticulture, submitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A.,
Midland, Mich.; CDL:022935-B)
005013240 Buehring, N.; Santelmann, P.W.; Elwell, H.M. (1971) Responses of
eastern red cedar to control procedures. Journal of Range
Management 24(5):378-382.
005006583 Buehring, N.; Santlemann, P.W.; Elwell, H. (1970) Responses of
eastern red cedar to various control procedures. Pages
244-244, In Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society.
Vol. 23. Athens, Ga.: Southern Weed Science Society.
005007768 Bunting, D.L.; Robertson, E.B., Jr. (1975) Lethal and Sublethal
Effects of Herbicides on Zooplankton Species. Knoxville,
Tenn.: University of Tennessee, Water Resources Research
Center. (Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-241 337;
Tennessee Water Resources Center report no.43)
005004629 Cable, D.R. (1957) Chemical control of chaparral shrubs in central
Arizona. Journal of Forestry 55(12):899-903.
005004175 Cain, B.E. (1971) Crystal structures of three inorganic compounds:
(A) Ammonium sulfamate. (B) Tetraethylammonium tetrabromo-
nickelate(Il). (C) Bis(0-methyl-l-amidinourea)nickel(II)
bromide. Dissertation Abstracts International B 32(3):1422.
005006450 Campbell, R.S.; Peevy, F.A. (1950) Poisoning certain undesirable
southern hardwoods for forest and range improvement. American
Midland Naturalist 44(2):495-505.
005008488 Candeli, A.; Lindsey, A.J.; Persaud, K. (1960) Carta di sigarette
al sulfammato di ammonio e idrocarburi cancerigeni. [Cigarette
paper with ammonium sulfamate and carcinogenic hydrocarbons.]
Bollettino della Societa Italiana di Biologia Sperimentale.
9-13
-------
36(10):452-454.
005003244 Carlson, A.E. (1951) United Gas Pipe Line Co. uses new weapon in
its battle against brush. Oil and Gas Journal 50(19):127.
005004628 Carvell, K.L. (1956) The use of chemicals in controlling forest
stand composition in the Duke Forest. Journal of Forestry
54(8):525-530.
005005098 Castillo, B.S.; Agati, J.A. (1951) Using weedicides in eradicating
mosaic-infected abaca plants. Philippine Journal of
Agriculture 15:175-185.
005004627 Chaiken, L.E. (1951) Chemical control of inferior species in the
management of lo>lolly pine. Journal of Forestry 49:695-697.
000004213 Chevron Chemical Company (19 ) Human Safety: Summary of Toxicology
Data for Ortho Brush Killer A. Summary of studies 224772-B
through 224772-F. (Unpublished study received Apr 30, 1976
under 239-2336; CDL:224772-A)
GS0016-0021 Clemens, Howard P. and Sneed, Kermit E. (1959) Lethal Doses of
of Several Commercial Chemicals for Fingerling Channel Catfish:
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report-
Fisheries No. 316
005003248 Committee on Threshold Limits (1963) Threshold limit values for
1963: adopted at the 25th annual meeting of the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati,
Ohio, May 6-10, 1963. Journal of Occupational Medicine
5(10):491-498.
005007904 Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, of Canada, assignee
(1953) Process for the production of ammonium sulphamate.
British patent specification 696,996. Sep 9. 4 p.
005004928 Conway, E.; Forrest, J.D. (1956) Chemical treatment of bracken.
Pages 255-268, ^n Proceedings of the 3rd British Weed Control
Conference; Blackpool, England. Droitwich, England: British
Weed Control Conference.
005010737 Cook, D.B.; Hamilton, L.S. (1953) Chemi-peeling pulpwood in New
York. Journal of Forestry 51:566-569.
000004791 Cornell University (1952) Weed control in legumes. Pages 7,16-
ca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. (Also In unpublished submission re-
ceived Jan 31, 1952 under 464-147; submitted by Dow Chemical
U.S.A., Midland, Mich.; CDL:022935-A)
005005453 Corns, W.G.; Schraa, R.J. (1965) Mechanical and" chemical control
of silverberry ( Elaeagnus commutata Bernh.) on native
grassland. Journal of Range Management 18(1):15-19.
005013388 Cowley, G.T.; Lichtenstein, E.P. (1970) Growth inhibition of soil
fungi by insecticides and annulment of inhibition by yeast
extract or nitrogenous nutrients. Journal of General
9-14
-------
Microbiology 62(0:27-34.
005019280
005004630
000004222
005012890
005010770
005007660
005008659
005006451
005016056
005006448
005013699
Cress, D.; Ruppel, R.; Wallner, W.; Jones, A.; Bird, G.; Meggitt,
W.; Putnam, A. (1976) Pesticides Manual: Classification,
Toxicities, Formulation, Handling, Application. East Lansing,
Mich.: Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension
Service. (Michigan Cooperative Extension Service bulletin no.
E-751)
Cross, C.E. (1944) Control of cranberry bog weeds.
9(4):15.
Cranberries
Crowley, G.R. (1961) Application Report. (Unpublished study re-
ceived Jan 31, 1962 under 352-206; prepared by Chipman Chemical
Co., Inc., submitted by E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wil-
mington, Del.; CDL:002788-B)
Cupery, M.E.; Tanberg, A.P., inventors; Canadian Industries Ltd.,
assignee (1943) Pest controlling composition [abstract].
Canadian patent 410,832. Mar 2. 1 p. Pages not specified.
Curry, J.R.; Rushmore, P.M. (1955) Experiments in killing northern
hardwoods with sodium arsenite and ammonium sulfamate. Journal
of Forestry 53(8) :575-580.
Curtis, O.F., Jr.; Elfving, D.C. (1977) Control of apple root
suckers. Pages 272-274, _In Proceedings of the Northeastern
Weed Science Society. Vol. 31. Painter, Va.: Virginia Truck
and Ornamentals Research Station.
Cuzin, J.L.; Hubert-Habart, M.; Muel, B.; Royer, R.; Latarjet, R.
(1960) La production du benzo-3,4 pyrene dans des cigarettes a
papier itnpregne de sulfamate d°ammonium. [The production of
3,4-benzopyrene in cigarettes with papers impregnated with
ammonium sulfamate.] Bulletin de la Societe Chimique de France
1960:982.
Davidson, L.G. (1962) Effects of desiccants on sugar cane.
319-323, In Proceedings of the International Society of
Sugar-Cane Technologists. Vol. 11. New York: American
Elsevier.
Pages
Davison, J.G. (1971) Evaluation of herbicides and cutting
treatments for the control of Heracleum sphondylium L. Pages
377-383, In Proceedings of the 10th British Weed Control
Conference; 1970. Vol. 1. Droitwich, England: British Weed
Control Conference.
Day, M.W. (1948) The chemical control of certain forest shrubs: a
progress report. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station
Quarterly Bulletin 30(4):427-436.
Derico, T.R. (1951) Experimental control of cogon ( Imperata
cylindrica [Linn.] Beauv.), water hyacinth ( Eichornia
azurea Kunth.), Lantana camara Linn., and other noxious weeds
with 2,4-D and other herbicides. Philippine Agriculturist
9-15
-------
34(4):189-201.
005004870 Derscheid, L.A.; Wallace, K.E.; Nash, R.L. (1955) Competition,
cultivation and chemicals to eliminate leafy spurge (a summary
of five years of research). Pages 42-44, In Proceedings of the
North Central Weed Control Conference. Vol. 12. Lincoln,
Nebr.: North Central Weed Control Conference.
005016444 Derscheid, L.A.; Wallace, K.E.; Nash, R.L. (1960) Leafy spurge
control with cultivation, cropping and chemicals. Weeds
8:115-127.
005015444 Dieke, S.H.; Allen, G.S.; Richter, C.P. (1947) The acute toxicity
of thioureas and related compounds to wild and domestic Norway
rats. Journal de Pharmacologie 90:260-270.
005006431 Dietz, H.F.; Vogel, M.A.; Cupery, H. (1941) Ammonium sulfamate and
sulfamic acid as herbicides. Agricultural News Letter, E.I. du
Pont de Nemours and Co. 9(2):35-39.
005003509 Done, A.K. (1979) The toxic emergency: killers of weeds, fungi,
and occasional people. Emergency Medicine
11(4):186-187,191-193,197-
GS0016-0031 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated. (?) Ammonium
Sulfamate Data Sheet. (Unpublished study'received March 10, 1981;
CDL 224902
GS0016-0039 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated. (?) Haskell
Laboratory Report Nos. 132-63, 49-64, 42-64. (Unpublished study
received March 10, 1981; CDL: 224902)
GS0016-0037 E.I. DuPont de nemours & Company. Incorporated. Preliminary
Toxicity Evaluation of x-12 Flame Retardant: Medical Research
Project No. MR-48; Report No. 34-35. Prepared by Haskell
Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine, Wilmington
Deleware. (Unpublished data received on March 10, 1981; CDL:
224902)
000020107 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (1968). Data Supporting Use of
Karmex Diuron Weed Killer for Control of Algae and Certain
Aquatic Weeds in Ponds. (Unpublished study received Mar 25,
1970 under 352-247; CDL:023257-A)
000004210 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated (1954) Toxicity of
Ammonium Sulfamate. (Unpublished study received Nov 10, 1954
under 352-68; CDL:002724-A)
000014478 E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (1962) Hyvar X Weed Killer for
Non-Cropland Weed Control. (Unpublished study received Nov 28,
1962 under 352-287; CDL:002907-A)
000004225 E.I.Dupont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated (1963) Statement as
to the Safety of Ammonium Sulfamate. (Unpublished study re-
ceived on unknown date under PP0376; CDL:090408-F)
9-16
-------
000004219 E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated (1964) Animate X
Weed and Brush Killer Use in Air Blast-type Application Equip-
ment [and] Use as an Oil-water Emulsion. (Unpublished study re-
ceived Jan 28, 1964 under 352-206; CDL:002789-A)
000004231 E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated (1964) Data Support-
ing Use of Ammate X-NI Weed and Brush Killer. (Unpublished
study received May 10, 1965 under 3F0376; prepared in coopera-
tion with New Haven Water Co.; CDL:002944-A)
GS0016-0032 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated. (1980) Process
Description. (Unpublished study received March 10, 1981; CDL
224902)
GS0016-0029 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated. (1980) Sulfamic
Acid: Ammonium Salt: Method No: A360.005B (Unpublished study
received March 10, 1981; CDL: 224902)
GS0016-0028 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated. (1980) Sulfamic
Acid: Ammonium Salt: Method No: A360.00SE (Unpublished study
received March 10, 1981; CDL: 224902)
GS0016-0027 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated. (1980) Sulfamic
Acid: Ammonium Salt: Method No: 360.008E. (Unpublished study
received March 10, 1981; CDL: 224902).
000037597 Edson, E.F.; Sanderson, D.M.; Noakes, D.N. (1965) Acute toxicity
data for pesticides(1964). World Review of Pest Control 4(1):
36-41. (Also In unpublished submission received Oct 19, 1971
under 8F0676; submitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, Mich.;
CDL:091183-C)
005011078 Egler, F.E. (1954) Vegetation management for rights-of-way and
roadsides. Pages 299-322, In Smithsonian Institution Annual
Report, 1953. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. (Six
unpaged plates)
005009721 Eijsackers, H. (1974) Mogelijke neveneffecten van
bestrijdingsmiddelen tegen Prunus serotina . [Possible side
effects of pesticides for the control of Prunus serotina .]
Nederlands Bosbouw-Tijdschrift. [Netherlands Forestry
Journal.] 46(4) :55-6-2.
005021870 Eijsackers, H.; Chardon, W.J. (1979) Nevenwerkingen van
ammoniumsulfamaat op de bodemfauna. [Side effects of ammonium
sulphamate on soil fauna.] Nederlands Bosbouw-Tijdschrift.
005004692 Elder, W.C. (1946) Chemicals for eradicating weeds (progress
report). Pages 77-78, ^n Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin No. B-295. Stillwater; Okla.: Oklahoma
Agricultural Experiment Station.
005004691 Elwell, H.M. (1946) Poisons for eradicating brush (progress
report). Pages 75-76, In Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin No. B-2~9 5. Stillwater, Okla.: Oklahoma
Agricultural Experiment Station.
9-17
-------
000026970 Evans, R.A.; McKell, C.M.; Kay, B.L.; et al. (1972) AAtrex SOW—
Rangeland Efficacy and Crop Safety Summary. (Unpublished study
including published data, received Aug 10, 1973 under 100-439;
prepared in cooperation with U.S. Agricultural Research Service,
Crops Research Div. and others, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp.,
Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:094590-A)
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)
005003907 Fergus, C.L.; Cole, H., Jr.; Stambaugh, W.J. (1955) The influence
of actidione and other chemicals upon the oak wilt fungus.
Plant Disease Reporter 39(6):491-494.
000031817 Finnis, J.M. (1968) Chemical treatment of freshly cut big leaf ma-
ple Acer macrophyllum Pursh. stumps to prevent sprouting. Pages
22-23, In Proceedings of the Western Society of Weed Science,
Volume 22; Mar 19-21, 1968, Boise, Idaho. N.P. (Also In un-
published submission received Oct 28, 1974 under 464-510; sub-
mitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, Mich.; CDL:028257-J)
005004035 Fisher, C.E. (1952) Control of woody plants with herbicides.
Agricultural Chemicals 7(3):49,115,117-118.
000022605 Flanagan, L.; Nilles, R.L.; Wallace, K.; et al. (1974) Summary:
Banvel plus Bromoxynil plus MCPA: Fall Seeded Wheat. (Unpub-
lished study received Feb 18, 1976 under 876-25; prepared in
cooperation with Oregon State Univ., Pendleton Research Center
and Washington State Univ., submitted by Velsicol Chemical
Corp., Chicago, 111.; CDL:225102-C).
000027066 Fletcher, W.W. (1960) The effect of herbicides on soil micro-organ-
isms. Pages 20-62, _In Herbicides and the Soil. Edited by E.K.
Woodford and G.R. Sagar- Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publica-
tions. (Also In unpublished submission received Jan 2, 1980 un-
der 2217-641; submitted by FBI-Gordon Corp., Kansas City, Kans.;
CDL:241574-AH).
005010342 Foiles, M.W. (1951) Results of poisoning western hemlock.
Northwest Science XXV:41-47.
005015469 Forrest, J.D.; White, J. (1957) Chemical Weed Control in
Horticulture: Some Preliminary Trials Under So'uth-West Scotland
Conditions. Glasgow, Scotland: West of Scotland Agricultural
College. (West of Scotland Agricultural College ..research
bulletin no. 20)
005008970 Fox, H.W. (1973) A Look at the Conversion Methods Twenty Years
Later. Urbana-Champaign, 111.: University of Illinois,
Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Forestry.
(Illinois Agricultural Research Station, Department of
9-18
-------
Forestry, forestry research report no. 73-1)
000012146 Foy, C.L.; Witt, H.L. (1970) Fruit: Evaluation of Herbicides for
Weed Control in Non-Bearing Peaches. (Unpublished study re-
ceived Jan 18, 1973 under 100-437; prepared by Virginia Poly-
technic Institute and State Univ., Dept. of Plant Pathology and
Physiology, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.;
CDL:000242-AR)
000012120 Foy, C.L.; Witt, H.L. (1970) Fruit: Evaluation of Several Herbi-
cides for Weed Control in 4-Year Old Fenton Apples. (Unpub-
lished study received Jan 18, 1973 under 100-437; prepared by
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Dept. of Plant
Pathology and Physiology, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greens-
boro, N.C.; CDL:000242-0)
000012150 Foy, C.L.; Witt, H.L. (1971) Fruit: Evaluation of Herbicides for
Weed Control in Non-Bearing Peaches—One Year after Treatment.
(Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1973 under 100-437; prepared
by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Dept. of
Plant Pathology and Physiology, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp.,
Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:000242-AV)
005003513
005011435
005018013
Frear, D.E.H. (1955) Chemistry of the Pesticides.
York: D. Van Nostrand.
3rd ed. New
Frederick, L.R.; Starkey, R.L.; Segal, W. (1957) Decomposability
of some organic sulfur compounds in soil. Proceedings of the
Soil Science Society of America 21(3):287-292.
Freed, V.H. (1953) Weed control.
Research Society 3(2):81-85.
Journal of the Forest Products
GS0016-0034 Fregly, M.J. and Kier, L.B. (1966) Effect of Some Substituted
Sulfamic Acid Compounds on Development of Renal Hypertension
in Rats. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 9: 124-138.
005003246 Fromm, F. (1943) Growth stimulation by ammonium sulfamate in low
concentration. Science 98(2548) :391-392 .
005006408 Fromm, F. (1948) El desyerbo de la grama por una mixtura de 2,4-D
y sulfamato amonico. [Control of Bermuda grass by a mixture of
2,4-D and ammonium sulfamate.] Crisol 2(6):7-8.
005008961 Fromm, F.; 0°Donnell, M.L. (1951) The action of -S02NH2
derivatives on duckweed. Pages 85-88, In Proceedings of the
Pennsylvania Academy of Science. Vol. 25. Easton, Pa.:
Pennsylvania Academy of Science.
005004829 Fuller, R.M.; Boorman, L.A. (1977) The spread and development
of Rhododendron ponticum L. on dunes at Winterton, Norfolk, in
comparison with invasion by Hippophae rhamnoides L. at
Saltfleetby, Lincolnshire. Biological Conservation 12:83-94.
000023077 Furrer, J.D.; Heikes, E.; Mitich, L.W.; et al. (1964) [Leafy Spurge
9-19
-------
Control]. (Unpublished study including published data, received
Feb 6, 1964 under unknown admin, no.; prepared in cooperation
with Univ. of Nebraska, Extension Service and others, submitted
by Velsicol Chemical Corp., Chicago, 111.; CDL:222949-A)
000028440 Gangstad, E.O. (1967) Technical Report on the Use of Herbicides on
Non-cropland. (Unpublished paper prepared for national meetings
of the American Society of Agronomy; Nov 5-10, 1967, Washington,
D.C.; unpublished study received July 13, 1971 under 1E1046;
prepared by Planning Div., Civil Works, submitted by U.S. Dept.
of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C.;
CDL:091865-A)
005014972 Gangstad, E.G.; Novosad, C.; Nailon, W.T.; Guerra, L.V.; Maddox,
D.M.; Hambric, R.N.; Hill, L.O.; Petersen, D.P.; Hays, O.H.;
True, C.R.; Timmons, F.L.; House, W.B.; Goodman, L.H.;
Gadberry, H.M.; Dockter, K.W.; Mayer, E. (1975) Integrated
Control of Alligator Weed and Water Hyacinth in Texas.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers.
(Aquatic Plant Control Program technical report no. 9;
available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA;.AD-A008 980)
000035913 Gangstad, E.O.; Zimmerman, P.W.; Hitchcock, A.E.; et al. (1974)
Aquatic-Use Patterns for 2,4-D Dimethylamine and Integrated
Control. By U.S. Dept. of the Army, Office of the Chief of En-
gineers, Aquatic Plant Control Program. Vicksburg, Miss.: U.S.
Army Engineer, Waterways Experiment Station. (APCP technical
report 7; published study; CDL:096474-C)
005004956 Gasaway, J.M. (1978) Significance of abuse chemical contamination
of returnable dairy containers: hazard assessment. Journal of
Food Protection 41(12):965-973.
005018848 Gasaway, J.M. (1978) Significance of abuse chemical contamination
of returnable dairy containers: sensory and extraction studies.
Journal of Food Protection 41(11) :863-877 .
005012893 Giban, J. (1972) L°emploi des phytocides en sylviculture
presente-t-il un danger pour le gibier [Does the application
of herbicides in sylviculture present a danger for game]
Revue Forestiere Francaise XXIV(6):421-428.
4
005005117 Gibson, R.L.; Milby, T.H. (1964) Pesticides. Pages
243-250, jn Occupational Diseases: A Guide to Their
Recognition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. (U.S. Public Health Service publication
no. 1097)
005015749 Ginns, J.H., Jr.; Driver, C.H. (1969) Annosus root-rot in slash
pine plantations four years after thinning and stump
treatments. Plant-Disease Reporter 53(l):23-25.
005015748 Grane, C.X. (1952) Effectiveness of Animate in controlling
hardwoods. Southern Lumberman 185(2316):44,46,48,50.
005008388 Grigsby, B.H. (1952) Recommended practices in brush control.
9-20
-------
005003245
Pages 1-2, In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Michigan
Forestry and Park Association. No. 26. Jackson, Mich.:
Michigan Forestry and Park Association.
Gupta, B.N.; Khanna, R.N.; Datta, K.K.; Kohli, J.D. (1976)
Short-term toxicity study of ammonium sulphamate in rats
005004570 Guy, H.G., inventor; E.I. du Pont de Nemours, assignee (1945) Pest
control. U.S. patent 2,377,626. Jun 5. 2 p. Cl. 167-14.
GS0016-0036 Halpin, Walter R. (?) The Toxicity of Ammonium Sulfamate and
Sulfamic Acid. Prepared by Haskell Laboratory of Industrial
Toxicology, Wilmington, Deleware. (Unpublished study received
March 10, 1981; CDL: 224902).
000012389 Harris, C.B., Jr- (1970) Weed Control Inspection Report. (Unpub-
lished study received Apr 28, 1971 under 352-351; submitted by
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:003060-M)
000013307 Harrod, J.E.; Gonzalez, F.E.; Harris, C.B., Jr.; et al. (1970) Hy-
var X-L Bromacil Weed Killer Long-Term Vegetation Control. (Un-
published study received Sep 3, 1971 under 352-346; submitted by
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:003053-A)
000004211 Haugen, A.O. (1953) Animate in the diet of deer. Journal of Wild-
life Management 17(l):33-36. (Also ^n unpublished submission
received Nov 10, 1954 under 352-68; submitted by E.I. du Pont
de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:002724-B)
005006323 Hay, J.R. (1958) Effect of some herbicides on the control of
poison ivy. Pages Ill-Ill, In Research Report, Eastern
Section, National Weed Committee of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada: National Weed Committee of Canada.
000024796 Heikes, E.; Burnside, O.C.; Furrer, J.D.; et al. (1963) [Weed Con-
trol] . (Unpublished study including published data, received
Aug 9, 1963 under 100-447; prepared by California, Dept. of
Agriculture, Div. of Plant Industry, Weed and Vertebrate Pest
Control and others, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro,
N.C.; CDL:000318-A)
005005131 Henrichson, C.B. (1954) Control of woody plants using "Ammate"
Weed and Brush Killer and other non-growth regulator
herbicides. Pages 297-299, In Proceedings of the Southern Weed
Conference. Vol. 7. St. Louis, Mo.: Southern Weed
Conference.
005021347 Herron, J.W.; Watkins, H. (1971) 1971—Weed Control
Recommendations for Established Bluegrass Lawns. Lexington,
Ky.: University of Kentucky College of Agriculture,
Cooperative Extension Service. (University of Kentucky College
of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, miscellaneous
report no. 322-D)
005004925 Hewetspn, F.N. (1951) New herbicides for controlling poison ivy in
apple orchards. Proceedings of the American Society for
9-21
-------
Horticultural Science 58:125-130.
005004825 Hildebrand, E.M.; Palmiter, D.H. (1942) Control of X disease of
peaches by killing chokecherry weed with ammonium sulfamate.
Agricultural News Letter, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
10(3):73-75.
005009176 Hill, G.D.; Klingtnan, G.C.; Woltz, W.G. (1953) Chemical Weed
Control in Tobacco Plant Beds. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina
Agricultural Experiment Station. (North Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station bulletin no. 382)
000033352 Hist, L.F.; Daniell, J.W.; Skroch, W.; et al. (1973) [Efficacy and
Phytotoxicity of Herbicides—Peaches, Pecans]: Report No. FH
72028. (Unpublished study including report nos. FH 72029, FH
73026, FH 73027.'.., received Mar 14, 1975 under 11273-EX-9;
prepared in cooperation with Univ. of Georgia, Agricultural Ex-
periment Station and others, submitted by Sandoz, Inc.—Crop
Protection, San Diego, Calif.; CDL:095405-B)
005007524 Hitchcock, R., Jr.; Cardon, S.Z.; Alvord, E.T., inventors; Rand
Development Corp., assignee (1958) Cigarette wrapper material
and method for producing same. U.S. patent 2,859,753. Nov 11.
4 p. Cl. 131-15.
005017757 Hodgson, J.M.; Bruns, V.F.; Timmons, F.L.; Lee, W.O.; Weldon,
L.W.; Yeo, R.R. (1962) Control of Certain Ditchbank Weeds on
Irrigation Systems. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of
Agriculture. (USDA production research report no. 60)
005011254 Hofmeister, H.K., inventor; Farbwerke Hoechst A.G., assignee
(1970) Verfahren zur Herstellung von Amidosulfonsaeure.
Rep.) offenlegungsschrift 1,915,723. Oct 22. 10 p. Int. Cl. CJ
Olb 21/10.
005007479 Hoie, K.L. (1963) Kjemiske midler mot lauvkratt og annet.
Forskning og Forsoek i Landbruket. [Research in Agriculture.]
14(4):565-587.
005004868 Holmes, G.D. (1956) Experiments on the chemical control
of Rhododendron ponticum . Pages 723-730, Jhi Proceedings of
the 3rd British Weed Control Conference; Blackpool, England.
Droitwich, England: British Weed Control Conference.
005012011 Holmes, G.D. (1957) Chemical weed control, bark peeling and animal
repellents. Pages 47-47, _In Great Britain Department of
Scientific Industrial Research, forestry Commission, Report on
Forest Research 1955-56. London, England: Great Britain
Department of Scientific Industrial Research, Forestry
Commission.
005010334 Huckenpahler, B.J. (1954) Poisoning versus girdling to release
underplanted pines in north Mississippi. Journal of Forestry
52(4):266-268.
005006622 Hurd-Karrer, A.M. (1946) Relation of Soil Reaction to Toxicity and
9-22
-------
Persistence of Some Herbicides in Greenhouse Plots.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture.
(USDA technical bulletin no. 911)
000012991. Innis, Speiden & Company (1944) The Larvacide Log (December). New
York: ISCO. (Also It\ unpublished submission received on unknown
date under unknown admin, no.; submitted by E.J. Scarey, New
York, N.Y.; CDL:222941-A)
005008973 Irving, F.D. (1958) Killing Cull Black Oaks with Animate, 2,4,5-T
and Mechanical Girdling. St. Paul, Minn.: University of
Minnesota, School of Forestry. (Minnesota forestry notes no.
71; Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station scientific
journal series paper no. 3994)
005017628 Ito, S., inventor; Institute of Industrial Technology, assignee
(1971) Sulfamin-san anmonium oyobi niryusan anmonium oyobi
imido niryusan anmonium no seizoho. [Process for production of
ammonium sulfamate and ammonium imidosulfate.] Japanese patent
specification 46-26107. Jul 28. 3 p. Int. Cl. C Olc.
005011248 Ito, Y. (1954) Surufamin-san ammoniumu no ka-atsu gosei ni okeru
atsu, ondo, jikan oyobi suibun no eikyo. [Effects of pressure,
temperature, time and water content on the synthesis under
increased pressure of ammonium sulfamate.] Kogyo Kagaku
Zasshi. [Journal of Industrial Chemistry.] 57(11):800-801.
005012260 Ito, Y.; Kobayashi, E. .(I960) [The equilibrium of
(NH,S0~)2 NH-NH4S03NH2-(NH4)2 S0,-H20 system
at 20 degrees C.] Kogyo Kagaku Zasshi. Journal of Industrial
Chemistry. 63(11):1909-1912.
005011075 Ito, Y. (1972) Pepa kuromatogurafi ni yoru akuo ammono ryusan no
bunriteiryo. [Quantitative determination of aquo ammono
sulfuric acids by paper chromatography.] Nippon Kagaku Kaishi,
Kagaku to Kogyo Kagaku. [Journal of the Chemical Society of
Japan, Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry.] (2):329-334.
005012260 Ito, Y.; Kobayashi, E. (1960) [The equilibrium of
(NH.SO-J.NH-NH, at 2.0 degrees C] gogyo Kagaku Zasshi. [Journal
of Industrial Chemistry] 63 (ll): 1909-1912.
005006407 Itoh, M. (1976) Studies on the penetration and translocation of
ammonium sulfamate (AMS) in the needles of Akamatsu and Sugi.
Journal of the Japanese Forestry Society 58(2):41-46.
005013241 Itoh, M.; Kadota, M. (1972) Sulfaminsan ammonium siuyoeki no
rimboku no ha e no fuchaku ni tsuite. [The retention of
ammonium sulphamate spray on the needles of Pinus
densiflora Sieb. et Zucc. and Cryptomeria japonica D. Don.]
Nippon Rin Gakkai-Shi. [Journal of the Japanese Forestry
Society.] 54(l):21-27-
005004662 Jacobs, H.L. (1952) Chemical brush and weed control along rights
of way. Gas 28(9):110,113-114.
9-23
-------
005005818 Jarvis, J.M. (1957) The effectiveness of ammonium sulphamate for
killing defective tolerant hardwoods. Forestry Chronicle
33(l):51-53.
005017331 Johnson, R.S., inventor; E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.., assignee
(1966) Herbicidal compositions and methods employing
3-phenyl-3-alkoxyureas. U.S. patent 3,278,292. Oct 11. 6 p.
Cl. 71-2.6.
005008971 Jones, A.L.; Rosenberger, D.A. (1977) X-Disease of Peach and
Cherry: A Guide to Chokecherry Identification. East Lansing,
Mich.: Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension
Service. (Michigan State University Cooperative Extension
Service bulletin E-842)
005008485 Jones, D.L.; Evans, R.G. (1945) Eradication of broomweed
( Gutteriza sp.), with Ammate. Texas Livestock Journal
4(12) :6.
005008387 Jones, D.L.; Evans, R.G. (1945) Eradication of Broomweed
( Gutterizia sp.) with Ammate. College Station, Tex.: Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. (Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station progress report 951)
005004417 Jones, K.H.; Sanderson, D.M.; Noakes, D.N. (1968) Acute toxicity
data for pesticides (1968). World Review of Pest Control
7(3):135-143.
005010758 Joshi, N.C. (1973) Some problems and progress of weed control in
India, 1948-1972. Pages 170-176, In Proceedings of the 4th
Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference; Rotorua.
005004832 Juhren, G,; Eaton, V. (1950) Ammonium sulfamate as a brush-killer-
Journal of Forestry 48:498.
005003249 Kamlet, J., inventor; Mathieson Chemical Corporation, assignee
(1950) Manufacture of sulfamates. U.S. patent 2,514,955. Jul
11. 3 p. Cl. 23-114.
005011257 Kasahara, Y.; Kinoshita, 0.; Hirata, M. (1955) Suita urasaku
bakuho no zasso hojo ni kansuru kenkyu. [Experiments on weed
control for cultivating wheat and barley after rice on paddy
fields. (1) On the weed-controlling effects of calcium
cyanamid and ammonium sulfamate.] Nippon Sakumotsu Gakkai
Kiji. [Proceedings of the Crop Science Society of Japan.]
24:130-131.
005004289 Katiyar, R.S. (1966) Raman and infra-red spectra of crystalline
ammonium sulphamate. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of
Sciences, Section A LXIII(I):20-25.
005006007 Kennedy, D.A. (1975) Eradication of bracken on railway reserves.
Pages 53-53, In Proceedings of the 28th New Zealand Weed amd
Pest Control Conference. Hamilton, New Zealand: New Zealand
Weed and Pest Control Conference.
9-24
-------
005010114 King, J.R.; Simanton, W.A.; Kretchraan, D.W. (1958) Chemical
control of weeds in Florida citrus grove ditches. Pages
157-166, _In Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural
Society. Vol. 71. Lake Alfred, Fla.: Florida State
Horticultural Society. (Florida Agricultural Experiment
Station journal series no. 831)
000015858 King, J.R.; Simanton, W.A.; Kretchman, D.W. (1958) Chemical Control
of Weeds in Florida Citrus Grove Ditches. (Unpublished study
received Jan 28, 1959 under 218-340; prepared by Univ. of Flori-
da, Citrus Experiment Station, submitted by Allied Chemical
Corp., Morristown, N.J.; CDL:001087-A)
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.: U.S.D.A. (U.S.D.A. agriculture handbook no.
69).
000032150 Klingman, G.C.; Noordhoff, L.J., ed. (19 ) Weed Control: As a
Science. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (p. 66 only;
also In unpublished submission received Mar 4, 1976 under 464-
201; submitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, Mich.; CDL:
223763-E)
005006453 Klitsch, F.E. (1960) Advantages of mist blower application of
"Arnmate" X for brush control. Pages 393-397, J_n Proceedings of
the Northeastern Weed Control Conference; Jan 6-8, 1960, New
York. Farmingdale, N.Y.: Northeastern Weed Control
Conference.
005005083 Kohr, D.A., Jr.; Milde, R.L., inventors; Sherwin-Williams,
assignee (1951) Carrier material for agricultural chemicals.
U.S. patent 2,558,762. Jul 3. 10 p.
005011245 Korolev, L.I.; Starosel°skii, Y.Y.; Stonov, L.D. (1957) Bor°ba s
zarastaniem Nevinnomysskogo kanala s pomoshch°yu gerbitsidov.
herbicides.] Gidrotekhnika i Melioratsiya. [Hydraulic
Engineering and Reclamation.] 7(5):31-36.
005004830 Korstian, C.F.; Bilan, M.V- (1957) Some further evidence of
competition between loblolly pine and associated hardwoods.
Journal of Forestry 55(11):821-822.
005021260 Kramer, D. (1965) Chemicke odstranovani porostu pri udrzbe kanalu.
Hospodarstvi. [Water Management.] 15(10):465-470.
005011015 Krasavina, N.N. (1965) Sul°famat ammoniya dly bor°by s lesnymi
pozharami. [Ammonium sulfamate for the control of forest
fires.] Lesnoe Khozyaistvo. [Forestry.] 6:52.
005022097 Kubota, S.; Saito, H. (1961) Surufaminsan anmon no komugi ni
taisuru dokusei ni kansuru shiken. [Injurious effect of
ammonium-sulfaminate on wheat.] Pages 17-29, In Okayatna
Kenritsu Nogyo Shikenjo Rinji Hokoku. [Special Bulletin,
Okayatna Prefectural Agricultural Experiment Station.] No. 58.
9-25
-------
Okayama, Japan: Okayama-kenritsu Nogyo Shikenjo. (One unpaged
plate)
005005079 Lachman, W.H. (1946) Animate for polygonum. Horticulture 24:53.
005008953 Lachman, W.H. (1948) Weed Control in Vegetable Crops. Amherst,
Mass.: University of Massachusetts, Agricultural Experiment
Station. (Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station
bulletin no. 451)
000032350 Lange, A.H.; Fischer, B.B.; Lavalleye, M.P.; et al. (1972) Intro-
duction. (Unpublished study including published data, received
Aug 23, 1973 under 707-EX-79; prepared in cooperation with Univ.
of California—Riverside, Depts. of Horticultural Science,
Agronomy, and Vegetable Crops and others, submitted by Rohm &
Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:123842-A)
005003545 Laning, S.H.; van der Meulen, P.A. (1948) The systems ammonium
sulfamate-sodium sulfamate and sodium sulfamate-sodium nitrate.
Journal of the American Chemical Society 70:1799-1800.
005002172 Lawrence, J.M. (1958) Methods for Controlling Aquatic Weeds in
Fish Ponds with Emphasis on Use of Chemicals. Auburn, Ala.:
Alabama Polytechnic Institute, AgriculturalExperiment Station.
(Alabama Polytechnic Institute Agricultural Experiment Station
progress report series no. 69)
000030124 Lawrence, J.M.,-comp. (1962) Aquatic Herbicide Data. By Auburn
Univ., Agricultural Experiment Station. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. (Agriculture handbook no. 231;
pp. 8,18,20,127,128 only; available from: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, Washington, DC; also In unpublished submission re-
ceived Jan 2, 1980 under 2217-641; submitted by PBI-Gordon
Corp., Kansas City, Kans.; CDL:241577-T)
005017940 Lazareva, T.A. (1963) Kolorimetricheskie metody opredeleniya
sul°famata v vozdukhe. [Colorimetric methods of determining
sulfamate in air.] Gigiena i Sanitariya. [Hygiene and
Sanitation.] 28(7):45-46.
005016972 Lehman, A.J. (1951) Chemicals in foods: a report to the
Association of Food and Drug Officials on current developments.
Part II. Pesticides. Association of Food and Drug Officials
of the United States, Quarterly Bulletin 15:122-133.
000029768 Lehman, A.J. (1951) Chemicals in foods: A report to the Association
of Food and Drug Officials on current developments. Part
II. Pesticides. Association of Food and Drug Officials of the
United States XV(4):122-133. (Also _In unpublished submission
received May 23, 1957 under unknown admin, no.; submitted by
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:002708-R)
005016551 Lehmann, H.A.; Schneider, W.; Hiller, R. (1964) Ein vereinfachtes
Entwicklungsverfahren hoeherer Empfindlichkeit fuer
Papierchromatogramme von Ammoniakderivaten der Schwefelsaeure
bzw. deren Ammoniumsalzen. [Simplified developing technique of
9-26
-------
005005261
000027262
005001396
005004475
000016637
005012657
005009691
000022628
higher sensitivity for paper chromatograms of ammonium
derivatives of sulfuric acid and their ammonium salts.]
Zeitschrift fuer Chemie 4(10):398.
Leonard, O.A.; Carlson, C.E.; Bayer, D.E. (1965) Studies on the
cut-surface method. II. Control of blue oak and madrone.
Weeds 13(4) :352-356.
Leonard, O.A.; Harvey, B.; McCabe, L.; et al. (1971) [The Chemical,
Physiological, and Morphological Responses of Woody Plants to
Herbicides]: Project 1400. (Unpublished study received May 9,
1972 under 264-61; prepared by Univ. of California, submitted
by Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Ambler, Pa.;
CDL:001841-C)
Livingston, R.J. (1977) Review of current literature concerning
the acute and chronic effects of pesticides on aquatic
orgasnisms. CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control
7(4):325-351.
Loiselle, D.W. (1953) The use of chemical weed killers on public
water-supply watershed. Journal of the New England Water Works
Association 67:140-148.
Loomis, W.E.; Struve, W.M.; Klingman, G.C.; et al. (1958) Chemical
Control of Vegetation. N.P. (American Railway Engineering
Association Bulletin 542; also In unpublished submission re-
ceived Jun 7, 1959 under 218-533; submitted by Allied Chemical
Corp., Morristown, N.J.; CDL:119225-A)
Lutman, P.J.W. (1974) Experiments examining the potential of ten
residual herbicides for the control of volunteer potatoes.
Pages 293-299, In Proceedings of the 12th British Weed Control
Conference. London, England: British Crop Protection Council.
Lykken, L. (1967) The safe use of modern pesticides.
Chemicals 22:14-16.
Agricultura
MacConnell, W.P.; Stoll, G.P.; Finnis, J.M.; et al. (1965) [Effi-
cacy Study on Trees]. (Unpublished study received Apr 15, 1966
under 876-25; prepared by Univ. of Massachusetts and others,
submitted by Velsicol Chemical Corp., Chicago, 111.; CDL:
004510-J)
GS0016-0020 Maki, S. (1973) Bulletin of Forestry Experiment Station (Japan)
44, 11-14 (1973) Agricultural Chemicals and Toxicity, Series #5
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.
005004871 Martin, S.C.; Jones, T.W. (1954) Some effects of basal and frill
treatments of 2,4,5-T, Animate, and CMU on oaks. Pages
99-102, ^n Proceedings of the North Central Weed Control
Conference. Vol. 11. Lincoln, Nebr.: North Central Weed
Control Conference.
9-27
-------
005015345
005005099
005007228
000034142
005006165
000029773
005013958
000027263
005010739
Matida, Y.; Kimura, S.; Tanaka, H.; Yokote, M. (1976) Effects of
some herbicides applied in the forest to the freshwater fishes
and other aquatic organisms—III. Experiments on the
assessment of acute toxicity of herbicides to aquatic
organisms. Bulletin of Freshwater Fisheries Research
Laboratory 26(2):79-83.
Matida, Y.; Kimura, S.; Tanaka, H.; Yokote, M. (1976) Effects of
some herbicides applied in the forest to the freshwater fishes
and other aquatic organisms—III. Experiments on the
assessment of acute toxicity of herbicides to aquatic
organisms. Tansuiku Suisan Kenkyusho Kenkyu Hokoku. [Bulletin
of Freshwater Fisheries Research Laboratory.] 26(2):79-84.
Mazza, B.; Alberti-Oggioni, A. (1965) Proprieta delle soluzioni
acquose di acido solfatnmico e di alcuni suoi sali. [Properties
of aqueous solutions of sulfamic acid and of some sulfamates.]
Ricerca Scientifica, Serie 2: Rendiconti A: Chimica.
8(6):1394-1400.
McCarthy, M.K.; Sand, P.F.; Peters, R.A.; et al. (1958) Weed Con-
ference Reports on Use of Polychlorobenzoic acids. (Unpublished
study received Mar 26, 1958 under 264-92; prepared in coopera-
tion with Canada, Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario,
Research Div. and Texas A & M Univ., Agricultural Experiment
Station, Dept. of Range and Forestry, submitted by Union Carbide
Agricultural Products Co., Ambler, Pa.; CDL:001879-A)
McClay, T.A. (1953) Estimating time requirements for tree
poisoning with Ammate. Journal of Foresty 51:909.
McClure, T.T. (1968) Technical Report on the Registration of Aqua-
tic Herbicides. (Unpublished paper prepared for National Weed
Society of America, Feb 13-15, 1968, New Orleans, Louisiana; un-
published study received Jul 13, 1971 under 1E1046; prepared by
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticide Regulation Div., submitted
by U.S. Dept. of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Washington, D.C.; CDL:091865-E)
McCully, W.G.; Bowmer, W.J. (1971) Evaluation of Soil Sterilant
Herbicides for Roadsides. College Station, Tex.: Texas
Transportation Institute. (Texas Transportation Institute
research report np. 142-2)
McHenry, W.B.; Leonard, O.A.; Smith, N.L.; et al. (1970) [Efficacy
of Silvex and Various Other Herbicides on Woody Brush]. (Unpub-
lished study including published data, received May 9, 1972 un-
der 264-61; prepared by Univ. of California—Davis, Agricultural
Extension Service, Botany Dept. in cooperation with Washburn
Agricultural Service, submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural
Products Co., Ambler, Pa.; CDL:001841-D)
Mclntosh, D.C. (1948) Chemical treatment of trees.
Magazine of Canada 49(7):117-118,120.
Pulp and Paper
9-28
-------
000027245
005012620
005003723
005017298
005016208
005010333
005004667
005004826
005005080
005004269
000023076
005015440
McMinimee, W.G. (1948) Washington state report. Pages 29-33, In
Proceedings, Tenth Annual Western Weed Control Conference, Sac-
ramento, California. N.P. (Also In unpublished submission re-
ceived Jun 4, 1976 under 960-163; submitted by Balcom Chemicals,
Inc., Greeley, Colo.; CDL:224776-C)
McQuilkin, W.E. (1955) Use Ammate in Notches for Deadening Trees
Only During the Growing Season. Upper Darby, Pa.:
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. (U.S. Forest Service,
Northeastern Forest Experimen' Station, forest research notes
no. 52)
Meek, F.G. (1954) Chemical control of willows.
XLVl(313):357-359.
Military Engineer
Melnikov, N.N. (1971) Chemistry of Pesticides. Edited by F.A.
Gunther. New York: Springer-Verlag. (Residue reviews, vol.
36)
Mickovski, J. (1959) Upotreba totalnih i selektivnih hericida za
suzbijanje korova u duvanskim lejama i njihovo dejstvo na
duvan. [The use of total and selective herbicides for control
of weeds in tobacco patches and their effect on tobacco.]
Duvan 9:288-307.
Miller, W.D.; Tissue, O.C. (1956) Results of several methods of
release of understory loblolly pine in upland hardwood stands.
Journal of Forestry 54(3):188-189.
Minister of National Defence of Canada, assignee (1955) Production
of ammonium sulfamate. British patent specification 741,729.
Dec 14. 2 p.
Minshall, W.H. (1949) Eradication of poison ivy (Rhus
radicans L.) : IV. Experiments with ammonium sulfamate and
sodium chlorate. Scientific Agriculture 29(12) :584-594.
Minshall, W.H. (1951) Eradication of poison ivy (us
radicans L.) . V. The effect of foliage removal prior to
treatment on the control of poison ivy by applications of
ammonium sulfamate and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid.
Scientific Agriculture 31:127-130.
Mirvish, S.S.; Wallcave, L.; Eagen, M.; Shubik, P. (1972)
Ascorbate-nitrite reaction: possible means of blocking the
formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds. Science
177(4043):65-68.
Mitich, L.W.; Pridham, A.M.S.; Furrer, J.D.; et al. (1964) [Leafy
Spurge Control]. (Unpublished study including published data,
received Dec 3, 1964 under 464-323; prepared in cooperation with
Cornell Univ., Dept. of Floriculture and Ornamental Horticul-
ture and others, submitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland,
Mich., CDL:003521-A)
Morhaus, G.H.; Santen Kolff, L.F. van (1961) Investigations on the
9-29
-------
poisoning of tropical rainforests for land-reclamation and
wood-exploitation purposes. Netherlands Journal of
Agricultural Science 9(1):17-23 ,25-26.
005010738 Muntz, H.H. (1951) Converting scrub oak areas to pine plantations.
Journal of Forestry 49:714-715.
000029638 Nebraska Weed Control Association (1961) 1961 Handbook. N.P-
(Incomplete; also In unpublished submission received Jun 25,
1963 under 100-437; submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro,
N.C.; CDL:000226-B)
005019884 Nehring, D. (1966) Untersuchungen ueber die Toxizitaet neuer
Pflanzenschutzmittel und Abwasserstoffe gegenueber Fischen.
substances with respect to fish.) Zeitschrift fuer Fischerei
und Deren Hilfswissenschaften XIV(1/2):1-8.
000030206 Neilson, J.J.; Murphy, K.S.; Chiasson, T.C.; et al. (1951) Proceed-
ings of the Fourth Meeting, Eastern Section, National Weed Com-
mittee; Nov 6-8, 1950, Ottawa, Canada. N.P. (pp. 114-121
only; also Ln unpublished submission received Jun 4, 1976 under
960-163; submitted by Balcom Chemicals, Inc., Greeley, Colo.;
CDL:224776-B)
000027264 Newton, M. (1971) Herbicides in forestry. Pages 222-225,228-229,
In Oregon Weed Control Handbook. N.P. (Incomplete chapter;
also rn unpublished submission received May 9, 1972 under 264-
61; submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Am-
bler, Pa.; CDL:001841-E)
005009419 Nichols, J.M. (1957) Control of Woody Vegetation: A Report on
Tests Using 2,4,5-T, Animate, Sodium Arsenite and CMU on Nine
Common Missouri Tree Species. Columbia, Mo.: University of
Missouri, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment
Station. (Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station research
bulletin no. 638)
GS0016-0023 Nishiuchi, yasuhiro and Yoshida, Koji (1972) Toxicity of
Pesticides to Some Water Organisms: Bulletin Agricultural
Chemical Station No 12: 122-128.
005013103 Ohhata, Y.; Arai, F.; Tsuina, H.; Hashimoto, T., inventors; Nissan
Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and Ishihara Sangyo Kabushiki
Kaisha, assignee (1974) Rinchiyo josozai. [Herbicides for
forest use.] Japanese patent specification 74-32060. Aug 27.
5 p. Int. Cl. A Oln 13/00.
005013102 Ohshiba, T.; Aoki, M., inventors; Showa Denko Kabushiki Kaisha,
assignee (1954) Sulfaminsan matawa sulfaminsan 'ammonium
seizoho. [Method of manufacturing sulfamic acid or ammonium
sulfamate.] Japanese patent specification 54-8412. Dec 21. 2
005013702 Ohshiba, T., inventor; Showa Denko Co., assignee (1973) Sulfamnsan
anmonium oyobi ryusan anmonium no bunri-seiseiho. [Separating
and purifying method for ammonium sulfamate and ammonium
sulfate.] Japanese patent specification 73-17999. Jun 2. 2
9-30
-------
p. Int. Cl. C Olc.
005010355
005010906
005007652
005012905
005005078
005005132
005013375
005010471
005004833
000033123
005005933
005013374
005015447
Padmanabhan, V.M.; Yadava, V.S.; Wadhawan, V.K. (1975) Neutron
diffraction study of ammonia compounds—ammonium tartrate and
ammonium sulphamate [abstract no. 10.3-10]. Acta
Crystallographica, Section A 31:177.
Patterson, J.W. (1975) State-of-the-Art for the Inorganic
Chemicals Industry: Inorganic Pesticides. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. (EPA-600/2-74-009a; available from: NTIS,
Springfield, VA; PB-240 959)
Patterson, J.W. (1975) State-of-the-art for the Inorganic
Chemicals Industry: Inorganic Pesticides. Washington, D.C.:
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development. (Available from; NTIS, Springfield,
VA; PB-240 959: EPA report no. EPA-600/2-74-009a)
Peevy, F.A. (1946) How to Kill Blackjack Oaks with Ammate.
Alexandria, La.: Southern Forest Experiment Station.
Peevy, F.A. (1947) Killing undesirable hardwoods.
Lumberman 175(2201):123-125.
Southern
Peevy, F.A. (1954) Woody plant control in southern forests. Pages
261-264, In Proceedings of the Southern Weed Conference. Vol.
7. St. Louis, Mo.: Southern Weed Conference.
Peevy, F.A. (1960) Controlling southern weed trees with
herbicides. Journal of Forestry 58(5) :708-710.
Peevy, F.A.; Campbell, R.S. (1948) Your customer: the forest
farmer. Southern Seedsman 11(3):16,56.
Peevy, F.A.; Campbell, R.S. (1949) Poisoning southern upland weed
trees. Journal of Forestry 47:443-447.
Peevy, F.A.; Leonard, O.A.; Harvey, W.A.; et al. (1971) [Control of
Brush and Forest Trees]. (Unpublished study including published
data, received Mar 2, 1972 under 264-62; prepared by U.S. Forest
Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station and others, submit-
ted by Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Ambler, Pa.,;
CDL:001842-A)
Pegg, K.G. (1977) Soil application of elemental sulphur as a
control of Phytophthora cinnamomi root and heart rot of
pineapple. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and
Animal Husbandry 17(88):859-865.
Perry, A. (1944) Hoeing weeds with a sprayer.
63(7):22.
Farm and Ranch
Perry, P.W.; Upchurch, R.P- (1968) Growth analysis of red maple
and white ash seedlings treated with eight herbicides. Weed
Science 16(l):32-37.
9-31
-------
005009723 Petersen, D.P.; Hays, O.H.; True, C.R. (1975) New techniques in
vegetation maintenance on military reservations. Pages
3-12, Jin Aquatic Plant Control Program: Integrated Control of
Alligator Weed and Water Hyacinth in Texas. Vicksburg, Miss.:
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. (Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station technical report no. 9)
005015262 Freest, D.S. (1975) Effect of additives on bracken control by
asulam and glyphosate. Pages 49-52, In Proceedings of the 28th
New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. Hamilton, New
Zealand: New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference.
005004923 Pridham, A'.M.S. (1947) Preplanting sprays to control weeds in
nursery stock. Proceedings of the American Society for
Horticultural Science 49:351-354.
005007903 Pridham, A.M.S. (1947) The effect of 2,4-D applied at the time of
seed germination in reducing stands of annual grasses.
Greenkeepers0 Reporter 15(4):11-13.
000033426 Putnam, A.R.; Ries, S.K.; Hull, J., Jr.; et al. (1966) 1966 Chem-
ical Weed Control Field Research on Horticultural Crops: Mich
SR2-66 # 1. (Unpublished study received Nov 20, 1968 under 201-
167; prepared by Michigan State Univ., Cooperative Extension
Service, Dept. of Horticulture, submitted by Shell Chemical Co.,
Washington, D.C.; CDL:000898-T)
005005896 Raphael, H.J.; Panshin, A.J.; Day, M.W. (1954) "Chemical" bark
peeling of aspen, 1952 and 1953 field tests. Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station Quarterly Bulletin
37(2):230-240.
005006422 Rayner, A.D.M. (1977) Fungal colonization of hardwood stumps from
natural sources. II. Basidiomycetes. Transactions of the
British Mycological Society 69(2):303-312.
005019040 Rayner, A.D.M. (1979) Internal spread of fungi inoculated into
hardwood stumps. New Phytologist 82(2):505-517.
GS0016-0022 Raynor, R.N. (1948) and Britton, J.W. Toxicity of Herbicides to
Livestock. Prepared by University of California Experiment
Station, College of Agriculture, Berkley 4, California.
005003484 Read, R.A. (1950) Relation between time of treatment and sprouting
of poisoned trees. Science 111:264.
GS0016-0040 Read, Wiliam T. Jr., et al. (?) The Pathology Produced in Rats
Following the Administration of Sulfamic Acid and Ammonium
Sulfamate. Prepared by the Haskell laboratory of Industrial
Toxicology, Willimington Delaware. (Unpublished study received
March 10, 1981; submitted by E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co.,
Wilmington, Delaware; CDL: 224902).
005015445 Rishbeth, J. (1976) Chemical treatment and inoculation of hardwood
stumps for control of Armillaria mellea . Annals of Applied
9-32
-------
Biology 82(1):57-70.
005008492 Ritchie, R.J. (1961) Chemical debarking of plantation grown
conifers for pulpwood and fence post production. Pages
5-11, In Victoria Forests Commission, Forestry Technical Papers
No. 7. Melbourne, Australia: Victoria Forests Commission.
005005496 Robertson, J.A. (1960) Chemical control of eucalyptus regrowth.
Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science
26:367-369.
000027261
Rodgers, E.G.; Burt, E.G.; Upchurch, R.P. (19 ) Replacement of
Turkey oak vegetation with low-growing soil cover. Weeds
( ):48-53. (Also In unpublished submission received May 9,
1972 under 264-61; submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural Prod-
ucts Co., Ambler, Pa.; CLD:001841-B)
005005495
005003544
000004212
005004422
005015463
005008882
005015446
005011249
Rogers, B.L. (1973) What°s what with herbicides.
Grower 93(4):20,52.
American Fruit
Rosen, D.E.; Krister, C.J. (1965) Toxicity studies on ammonium
sulfamate: review of the literature. Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology 7(3):496.
Rosen, D.E.; Krister, C.J.; Sherman, H.; Stula, E.F. (1965) Toxi-
city Studies on Ammonium Sulfamate. (Unpublished paper present-
ed at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology,
March 8-10, 1965, Williamsburg, Va., received Apr 30, 1965
under unknown admin, no.; submitted by E.I. Dupont de Nemours &
Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:222723-A)
Ryker, T.C.; Wolf, D.E., inventors; E.I. du Pont de Nemours,
assignee (1955) Herbicidal composition and method employing
mixtures of a polychlorophenoxy compound with a phenyl dimethyl
urea. U.S. patent 2,709,648. May 31. 5 p. Cl. 71-2.6.
Saez, J.G. (1955) Efect.o del 2,4-D; TCA, CMU y Ammate sobre la
grama china, grama dulce, coquito y carretilla. [Effect of
2,4-D, TCA, CMU, and Ammate on Sorghum helepense, Cyperus
esculentus, Grama dulce and Carretilla .] Agronomia
(Peru) 19(78):39-51.
Schubert, O.E. (1959) Comparison of five herbicides used to kill
established poison ivy in a mature apple orchard. Pages
57-59, ^n Proceedings of the Northeastern Weed Control
Conference. Vol. 13. Farmingdale, N.Y.: Northeastern Weed
Control Conference.
Schubert, O.E. (1972) Plant cover changes following herbicide
applications in orchards. Weed Science 20(1):124-127.
Schwarzer, H., inventor; Peroxid-Chemie GmbH, assignee (1978)
Germizides Mittel. [Germicidal agent.] German (Fed. Rep.)
offenlegungsschrift 2,629,081. Jan 12. 14 p. Int. Cl., C
02B 3/08. L
9-33
-------
000027614 Schweizer, E.E.; Santelmann, P.W.; Upchurch, R.P.; et al. (1963)
Data Supporting Experimental Use of Lorox Linuron Weed Killer as
a Lay-By Treatment for Selective Control of Weeds in Cotton.
(Unpublished study including letters dated Nov 27, 1961 from
R.D. Hicks to Darrell Drake and Jan 10, 1963 from E.E. Schweizer
to RIH. Leavitt, received Apr 10, 1963 under 352-270; submit-
ted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:
002869-A)
005005081 Seth, J.N. (1957) Control of Dendrophthoe falcata (L.f.) Ettings.,
by injections of certain chemicals and hormones. Horticultural
Advance 1:79-85.
005003485 Seth, J.N. (1958) Comparative effect of certain herbicides on
Bandha and its hosts. Science and Culture 23(8):424-426.
*
005003442 Sherman, H.; Stula, E.F. (1965) Toxicity studies on ammonium
sulfamate. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 7(3):497-
GS0016-0038 Sherman, Henry and Stula, Edwin F. (1966) Pahtology Report
Ammonium Sulfamate 19-month Feeding Study: H-3568-MR-730.
(Unpublished study received March 10, 1981; submitted by E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated, Wilmington, Delaware
CDL: 224902)
000004223 Sherman, H.; Stula, E.F.; Krister, C.J.; Rosen, D.E. (1965) Toxi-
city Studies on Ammonium Sulfamate. (Unpublished study received
on unknown date under PP0376; submitted by E.I. Dupont de
Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:090408-C)
000027388 Shipman, R.D.; Foutz, B.L.; Ditman, W.D.; et al. (1963) [Efficacy
Data for Dybar on Pines]. (Unpublished study including pub-
lished data, received Dec 11, 1963 under 352-248; prepared by
Clemson Univ., South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
Dept. of Forestry and others, submitted by E.I. du Pont de Ne-
mours & Co., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:023282-A)
005008952 Simle.r, J.H. (1949) 2,4-D and ammonium sulfamate in weed control.
Arborist°s News 14:74-80.
005006001 Singh, B. (1957) Control of bandha (Dendrophthoe falcata (L.f.)
Ettings.) from some horticultural and other economic plants.
Horticultural Advance 1:68-78.
005004036
005015443
005015263
Singh, D.J.C.; Rao, K.N. (1976) Chemical control of the aquatic
weed Typha . Pesticides 10(8):45.
Skelly, J.M.; Wood, F.A. (1974) Longevity of Cefatocystis
fagacearum in Ammate treated and nontreated root systems.
Phytopathology 64(12):1483-1485 .
Skogley, C.R. (1954) The influence of wetting agents on the
phytotoxicity of several herbicides. Pages 293-299, _In Proceedings
of the Northeastern Weed Control Conference. Vol. 8.~Farmingdale,
N.Y.: Northeastern Weed Control Conference.
9-34
-------
000027304 Skroch, W.A. (1967) [Efficacy Study on Tomatoes and Other Crops].
(Unpublished study received Apr 5, 1972 under 2F1183; prepared
by North Carolina State Univ., Agricultural Extension Service,
submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:090993-E)
005004872 Smith, J.L. (1959) Tests of injected chemicals for hardwood
control in the Arkansas mountains. Pages 123-124, In Proceedings
of the Southern Weed Conference. Vol. 12. St. LouTs", Mo.:
000027276 Smith, J.L. (1959) Tests of injected chemicals for hardwood control
in the Arkansas mountains. Proceedings of 12th Southern Weed
Conference 12:123-125. (Also In unpublished submission received
May 9, 1972 under 264-61; submitted by Union Carbide Agricul-
tural Products Co., Ambler, Pa.; CDL:001841-T)
005009541 Smith, N.R.; Dawson, V.T.; Wenzel, M.E. (1945) The effect of
certain herbicides on soil microorganisms. Proceedings of the
Soil Science Society of America 10:197-201.
000026228 Stauffer Chemical Company (19 ) Chemicals for Weed Control in
Region IV. (Unpublished study received Oct 2, 1967 under
8F0643; CDL:091116-J).
005009861 Steinbauer, G.P.; Steinmetz, F.H. (1945) Eradication of Certain
Maine Weeds, an Important Step in Control of Potato Diseases
Spread By Aphids. Orono, Me.: University of Maine, Maine
Agricultural Experiment Station. (Maine Agricultural Experiment
Station miscellaneous publication no. 602)
005012827 Steiner, J. (1972) Chemische Jungbestandspflege in
Kiefernbestaenden, ein Beitrag zur sozialistischen
Rationalisierung. [Chemical cultivation of young growth in
stands of pine, a contribution to socialist systemization.]
Sozialistische Forstwirtschaft 22( 11) :334-335 ,338.
005008494 Stoddard, E.M. (1944) Poison ivy and its eradication. Pages
66-68, In Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Circular
No. 160~!~ New Haven, Conn.: Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station.
005004831 Stoeckeler, J.H.; Heinselman, M.L. (1950) The use of herbicides
for the control of alder brush and other swamp shrubs in the
Lake States. Journal of Forestry 48:870-874.
005006661 Stokinger, H.E. (1963) Threshold limit values for 1963. Journal
of Occupational Medicine 5(10):491-498.
005006430 Strang, R.M. (1960) An experiment in bush eradication. Rhodesia
Agricultural Journal 57:122-123.
005012259 Sueda, H.; Sugimura, K.; Sakamaki, I., inventors; Mitsui Kasei
Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, assignee (1952) Sulfaminsan ammonium no
seizihoho. [Method of manufacturing ammonium sulfamate.]
Japanese patent specification 52-3872. Sep 26. 2 p.
005004473 Suggitt, J.W. (1950) The chemical control of right-of-way growth.
9-35
-------
Chemistry in Canada 2(12):23-27.
005011246
005015448
005011016
005021223
005005448
005004670
005004199
000025964
005010335
005008972
Sugiura, T.; Kawana, A.; Matsunaga, S. (1970) [Chemical control of
weeds and trees: XIX. Treatment with ammonium sulfamate on
Koshida (Dicranopteris linearis ).] Tokyo Nogyo Daigaku
Nogaku Shuho. [Tokyo University of Agriculture, Journal of
Agricultural Science.] 15(2):97-115.
Suomela, H.; Paatela, J. (1962) The influence of irrigation,
fertilizing and MCPA on the competition between spring cereals
and weeds. Weed Research 2(2):90-99.
Svechkov, V.I.; Nikitin, E.S. (1969) K voprosu o deistvil dalapona
na kornevischa kuril°skogo bambula. [Action of Dalapon on the
rhizome of Kurile bamboo.] Pages 102-105, In Gerbitsidy i
Arboritsidy v Lesnom Khozyaistve, Materialy na
Koordinatsionno-Metodicheskom Soveshchanii. [Herbicides and
Arbicides in Forestry, Materials of the Coordination and
Methodology Conference.]; Feb. 1969, Leningrad. Edited by I.V.
Shutov.
Takizaki, K.; Takada, S. , inventors; Nitto Chemical Industries,
assignee (1951) Surufuamin-san anmon no seizo hoho. [Method of
manufacturing ammonium sulfamate.] Japanese patent
specification 26-5977. Oct 8. 2 p.
Tapley, G.O. (1944) Cities can destroy poison ivy.
59(8):53,117.
American City
Tauch, E.J.; Wilson, H.R., inventors; E.I. du Pont de Nemours,
assignee (1947) Improvements in or relating to the production
of sulfamic acid. British patent specification 589,662. Jun
26. 10 p.
Tauch, E.J., inventor; E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., assignee
(1947) Process for producing ammonium sulfamate. U.S. patent
2,426,420. Aug 26. 3 p. Cl. 23-114.
Timtnons, F.L.; Bruns, V.F.; Lee, W.O.; et al. (1963) Studies on the
Control of Common Cattail in Drainage Channels and Ditches. By
U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Crops Research Div.; State
Agricultural Experiment Stations; U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. ARS. (Technical
bulletin no. 1286; available from U.S. Government Printing Of-
fice; also In unpublished submission received Jan 16, 1970 under
464-164; submitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, Mich.; CDL:
003448-B)
Tisdale, W.H. (1944) Ammonium sulfamate (Du Pont weed killer).
Virginia Fruit 32:40-42.
Todd, F.A.; Clayton, E.E. (1956) Chemical Treatments for the
Control of Weeds and Diseases in Tobacco Plant Beds. Raleigh,
N.C.: North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. (North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station technical bulletin no.
119)
9-36
-------
005015989
005010736
005015441
005019125
005011247
005020393
005020793
000033121
005009087
005011058
005007653
005021537
Torres, S.C.A. (1957) Controle do "Leiteiro" por tneio de produtos
quimicos. [Control of "Leiteiro" by means of chemical
products.] Revista de Agriculture (Piracicaba, Brazil).
Towle, D.S. (1945) The town with no poison ivy.
34(1):23.
American Home
Turner, D.J. (1973) Laboratory experiments on "cut bark"
treatments with herbicides, using cuttings of Populus
euroamericana "1-78". Weed Research 13(1):91-100.
Turner, P.E.T. (1977) Results of three post-emergence herbicide
screening trials conducted in 1974 and 1975. Pages
36-41, In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Congress, South
African Sugar Technologists0 Association. Mount Edgecombe,
Natal, South Africa: South African Sugar Technologists0
Association.
Uchida, S.; Ito, Y. (1954) NH,.-SO- kei musui hanno ni kansuri
kenkyu: VI. NH. , _,
J anhydrous reactions of NH- „„
J NH,
Uchida, S.; Ito, Y.; Kobayashi, E. (1954) Mizu ni okeru
surufaminsan anmonyuniu to ryusan anmonyutnu tono sogo yokaido.
Dai-3-po. [Solubility in ammonium sulfamate-ammonium
sulfate-water system. 3.] Nippon Kagaku Zasshi. [Japanese
Journal of Chemistry.] 75(7 ) :743-746.
Uehara, M. , inventor; Motoyasu Uehara, assignee (1978) Kakushu no
sanrui yori taio suru alkalien wo seizo suru hoho. Manufacture
of organic acid alkali salts.] Japanese kokai 53-68693. Jun
19. 3 p. Int. Cl. C 01D 13/00; C 07C 51/52.
Union Carbide Agricultural Products Company (1957) [Herbicides To
Control Weeds]. (Unpublished study received Sep 26, 1958
under 264-61; CDL:001838-A)
Vaartaja, 0. (1956) Screening fungicides for controlling
damping-off of tree seedlings. Phytopathology 46:387-390.
Vacher, J.; Vallet, G. (1968) Les allergies supposees aux
pesticides et engrais. (Dix annees d°observation partielle en
France) (I). [Presumed allergies to pesticides and
fertilizers. (Ten years of partial observation in France)
(I).] Archives des Maladies Professionnelles, de Medecine du
Travail et de Securite Sociale 29(6):336-346.
Vinokurova, M.K.; Mal°kova, V.B. (1963) [Toxicological evaluation
of ammonium sufamate—a herbicide preparation.] A translation
of: Gigiena Truda i Professional°nye Zabolevaniya. [Industrial
Hygiene and Occupational Diseases.] 7(5):56-57.
Vinokurova, M.K.; Mal°kova, V.B. (1963) K toksikologicheskoi
otsenke gerbitsida sul°famata ammoniya. [Toxicological
evaluation of ammonium sulfamate, a herbicide preparation.]
Gigiena Truda i Professional°nye Zabolevaniya. [Labor Hygiene
and Occupational Diseases.] 7:56-57.
9-37
-------
005014582 von Ruemker, R.; Lawless, E.W.; Meiners, A.P.; Lawrence, K.A.;
Kelso, G.L.; Horay, F. (1974) Production, Distribution, Use and
Environmental Impact Potential of Selected Pesticides.
Washington, B.C.: Council on Environmental Quality. (Available
from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-238 795)
005005449 Wadhawan, V.K.; Padmanabhan, V.M. (1972) The crystal structure of
ammonium sulfamate. Acta Crystallographica, Section B
28(6):1903-1907.
000027004 West Virginia University, Agricultural Experiment Station (1967)
Chemical Weed Control—Suggestions. Morgantown, W.Va.: WVU ,
AES. (Current Report 50; pp. 22,26,32,35 only; also _In unpub-
lished submission received Oct 2, 1967. under 8F0643; submitted
by Stauffer Chemical Co., Westport, Conn.; CDL:091116-AT)
005004929 Wester, H.V. (1949) Comparative studies of ammonium sulfamate,
borax, and 2,4-D for control of poison ivy and honeysuckle in
the National Capital Parks, Washington, D.C. Proceedings of
the American Society for Horticultural Science 54:513-522.
005010740 White, A.R. (1947) Chemical treatment of live trees. Pulp and
Paper Magazine of Canada 48(2):67-71.
005004867 White, H.B. (1971) Long range maintenance contracts for brush
control. Pages" 359-361, In Proceedings of the Northeastern
Weed Science Society. Vol. 15. Painter, Va.: Northeastern
Weed Science Society.
005003750 Wilson, B.J. (1974) Ammonium sulphate enhancement of picloram
herbicidal activity and absorption in two guava species and
dwarf beans. Dissertation Abstracts International B
35(5):1997.
005008668 Wolf, D.E.; Ahlgren, G.H. (1950) Poison Ivy and its Control. New
Brunswick, N.J.: New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.
(New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station circular no. 532)
005004626 Wyatt-Smith, J. (1961) Arboricide trials using Ammate X, 2,3-D,
2,4,5-T and sodium arsenite. Malayan Forester 24(l):81-84.
005012619 Yawney, H.W. (1961) Killing Cull Trees with Ammate Crystals—A
Case Study. Upper Darby, Pa.: Northeastern Forest Experiment
Station. (U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment
Station, forest research notes no. 120)
000004221 Yazell, D.H. (1963) 1C sprays brush with air-b'last machine. Rail-
way Track and Structures (?/Mar):42-45. (Also I_n unpublished
submission received Jan 28, 1964 under 352-206; submitted by E.
I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:
002789-F)
000004220 Yazell, D.H. (1963) Use of air blast equipment for railroad brush
control. Pages 304-307, _In 16th Annual Meeting of the Southern
Weed Conference Proceedings; January, 1963. :N.P- (Also In
9-3^
-------
unpublished submission received Jan 28, 1964 under 352-206;
submitted by E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington,
Del.; CDL:002789-D)
005004924 Yeager, A.F.; Calahan, C.L. (1942) Control of poison ivy (Rhus
toxicodendron ) by spraying. Proceedings of the American
Society for Horticultural Science 41:234-236.
\
005011017 Zak, F.; Svehla, P., inventors; (1975) Zpusob vyroby amidosiranu
amonneho. [Ammonium amidosulfate preparation.]
Czechoslovakian popis vynalezu 159,893. Sep 15. 3 p. Int. Cl.
C Olb 21/10.
005004827 Zehngraff, P.; Von Bargen, J. (1949) Chemical brush control in
forest management. Journal of Forestry 47:110-112.
9-39
-------
OFFICE PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
Standard Reference Material
Farm Chemical Handbook. (1979) Meister publishing. Willoughby. Ohio.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended in 1978,
7th U.S. Code, Chapter 135, 61 Statute 163.78 Statute 190.
Pesticide Process Encyclopedia , 1977, Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, New
Jersey.
Pesticide Index: Basic information on the chemicals used as active
components of pesticides. ; Martin, H., and Worthington, C.R., eds., 1977.
5th ed., British Corp. Protection Council, Worcestershire, England
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1978a); Proposed Guidelines for
Registering Pesticides in the United States. Federal Register, 43 (132)
29696.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1978b); Proposed Guidelines for
Registering Pesticides in the United States; Hazard Evaluation: Humans and
Domestic Animals. Federal Register, 43 (163) 37336.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1980); Regulations for the Enforcement
of the Federal Insecticide,>Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Title 40,
Chapter 1, Part 162.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (in press) Proposed Guidelines for
Registering Pesticides in the United States. Subparts G (Product
Performance) and H (Label Development).
9-40
*U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 341-085/4471
------- |