ANALYSIS OF SPECIALIZED PESTICIDE PROBLEMS
                      INVERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS - EFFICACY TEST  METHODS
                                                               VOLUME V
                                  STORED PRODUCTS AND PREMISE TREATMENTS
JANUARY
  1977
                                                        EPA-540/10-77-003

-------
                          REPORT Tc THE
                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          ANALYSIS OF  SPECIALIZED PESTICIDE PROBLEMS
      INVERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS -  EFFICACY TEST  METHODS
                            VOLUME V
            STORED PRODUCTS AND PREMISE TREATMENTS
     The work upon which this publication is based was performed in whole  or
in part under Contract No. 68-01-2457 with the Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency.

-------
                           Report To The
                  Environmental Protection Agency

                              By The

             American Institute of Biological Sciences
                     Arlington, Virginia 22209
                         EPA REVIEW NOTICE

This Report has been reviewed by the Office of Pesticide Programs,
Criteria and Evaluation Division, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement of recommendation for use.

-------
       STORED PRODUCTS AND PREMISE TREATMENTS TASK GROUP
                           Chairman:

                       OR. ROBERT PAl/IS
                 USDA-ARS Stored Product Insects
                Research and Development Laboratory
PR. PHILLIP K. HAREIN
University of Minnesota
PR. HARRY H. IUCHO
FMC Corporation
PR. RALPH E. HEAL
Oxford, Maryland


PR. L. 5. HENPERSOW
USDA-ARS, National Program Staff
MR. CHARLES M. JACKSON
Celanese Coatings & Specialities
 Company

MR. ROBERT W. MORGAN
Dow Chemical Corporation
EPA Bbserver:
MR. ROGER PTERPOWT
Criteria and Evaluation Division
AIBS Coordinators:
MR. POWALP R. BEEM
MS. PATRICIA RUSSELL

-------
              STORED PRODUCTS AND PREMISE TREATMENTS

                        Table of Contents


                                                               Page

Introduction	   1


General Considerations 	 .  	   2


Definitions  	   A


Premise Treatments 	 . 	   5

  Flying Pests 	   5

    Aerosols 	   5
    Space sprays	   6
    Smokes 	   7
    Vapors 	   7
    Micronized dusts 	 .   8
    Residual sprays  	   8
    Baits	   9

  Crawling Pests 	  10


Stored-Product Treatments   	  13

  Aerosol	13
  Fumigants	14
  Insect-Resistant Packaging 	 .  	  15
  Residual Protectants 	  17
  Vapors	19
Structures and Structural Material Treatments
 (Terrestrial) 	  21

  Wood-Destroying Beetles  	  21
  Wharf Borer	21
  Carpenter Ant and Carpenter Bee	21
  Subterranean Termite 	  21

-------
                   Table of Contents Continued
                                                               Page

Structures and Structural Material Treatments
 (Marine)	   24

  Boring Pests  	   24

  Marine Fouling  	   24


Fabric Protective Treatments  	   26


Exhibits:

  1  Tests with Contact Insecticidal Aerosols Against
      Flies and Mosquitoes	   27

  2  Residual Sprays Against Houseflies and/or
      Mosquitoes	   29

  3  Insecticide Residue Tests with the German
      Cockroach^ Blatiella germanica  	   30

  4  Insecticide Residue Tests with the Bedbug,
      Cimex lectularius	   31

  5  Penetration and Toxicity of Fumigants for
      Potential Use Against Stored-Product Insects  .....   32

  6  Preliminary Evaluation of New Candidate Materials
      as Repellents to Stored-Product Insects 	   34

  7  Test Method for Initial Evaluation of Promising
      Insecticides as Protectants for Commodities 	   36

  8  Test for Residual Toxicity Against Stored-Product
      Insects	   39

  9  Standard Stake Method  	   40

 10  Standard Ground-Board Method 	   41

 11  Modified Ground-Board Method 	   42

 12  Standard Method for Laboratory Evaluation to
      Determine Resistance to Subterranean Termites 	   44

 13  Test Method for Antifouling Paints on Wood  Substrates
      for Fresh or Salt Water Exposure	   ^9

-------
                  Table of Contents Continued

                                                              Page


14  Test Method for Antifouling Paints on Metal
     Substrates for Fresh or Salt Water Exposure 	    52

15  Temporary Fabric Treatments  	    55

16  Semipermanent Fabric Treatments  	    56

17  Permanent Fabric Treatments  	    57

-------
                          INTRODUCTION
     This document provides a compilation of test methods that appear
adequate for purposes of evaluating the effectiveness of pesticides
against invertebrate pests of premises and stored products.  The methods
cited are not intended to exclude other valid procedures but for pro-
prietary or other reasons are not available for reference.  Similarly
there is no intent to exclude new methods or improvements of current
methods that may become available.

     Testing should be conducted initially to determine the efficacy
of a product against specific pest organisms.  Once this has been
established, further evidence of efficacy and usefulness of the product
may require augmentation through large-scale laboratory, simulated
field, or field testing procedures which closely approach actual use
and which employ commercial application equipment.

     The procedures presented herein primarily include methods for
the invertebrate control agents considered as conventional chemical
pesticides.  Repellents, attractants, growth regulators, pheromones,
etc., are not included unless they have been used over the years and
there exists a substantial number of published results in the open
literature.
                        GENERAL REFERENCES
Busvine, J.R.  1971.  A Critical Review of Techniques for Testing
  Insecticides, 2nd ed.  Commonwealth Inst. of Entomol., London.
  345 pp.

Shepard, H.H., ed. 1958.  Methods of Testing Chemicals on Insects,
  Vol. I. Burgess Publ. Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 356 pp.

Shepard, H.H., ed.  1960.  Methods of Testing Chemicals on Insects,
  Vol. II.   Burgess Publ. Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 248 pp.

-------
                                -2-
                     GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
     The following factors should be considered in the testing and
development of pesticide products for ultimate use in invertebrate
control in premises and stored products:   (1) the nature of the pest
or pests to be controlled, (2) the pest population, (3) the uniqueness
of the application site or structure, (4) the experimental design, and
(5) the material or materials being treated.

     The pest or pests to be controlled often cannot be distinguished
as separate entities and will frequently need to be grouped according
to control methods, geographical location, infested commodities or
premises, life stage or form, type of damage  being caused, ultimate
use of an infested commodity, etc.  Therefore, testing may need to
be directed at the most important pest or pests, life stage of a
pest complex, or at the species  most resistant to a particular pesti-
cide.

     The pest population may be difficult to  determine or to sample,
and it will often be necessary to limit testing to the laboratory,
to rear the desired pest species and artificially infest a stored
commodity, or to develop a system of estimating the extent of an infest-
ation in the field.

     The uniqueness of each application site  or structure and the fact
that no two identical sites or structures will usually be available
for field testing should be recognized and accommodated to by the
researcher.  Diversity will generally be the  rule because of the great
variety of form and volume in premises, storage and transportation
facilities, commodities, manufacturing processes, building materials
and surfaces to be treated, etc.

     A proper experimental design is important in the development of
acceptable test data and whenever possible the testing should yield
results which can be statistically analyzed for significance.  How-
ever, large-scale laboratory and field tests  frequently cannot be
conventionally designed or analyzed and may often be limited by cost
of the treatment, geography, time, and manpower.  Researchers not
well versed in the methods of statistical analysis or biometrics may
save valuable time by appropriate consultations before the testing
is undertaken.

     The material or materials being treated  can be a variable of
great magnitude.  The variety of commodities  a single pest can attack,
the number of sites capable of harboring pests, and the types and
locations of infested structures can result in a large array of poss-
ible field testing situations.  The researcher should use extreme care
in selecting test methods and field conditions that represent typical
situations for application of the product to  be registered.

-------
                               -3-
                           REFERENCES
Finney, D.J.  1962.  Profit Analysis.   Cambridge University Press.
  318 pp.

Smithv C.N., ed.  1966.  Insect Colonization and Mass Production.
  Academic Press, New York and London. 618 pp.

Snedecor, G.W.  1950.  Statistical Methods,  4th ed.   The Iowa State
  College Press, Ames, Iowa.

Steel, G.D., and J.H. Torrie.  1960.   Principles and Procedures of
  Statistics.   McGraw Hill, New York.

-------
                                 -4-
                          DEFINITIONS
     Aerosols are sprays dispensed in finely divided form in which 80
percent or more of the individual particles have a mean diameter of 30
microns or less and none of the particles has a diameter of more than
50 microns.  The aerosol sprays may be generated by the action of pro-
pellant liquified gases or by thermal or mechanical breakup of liquid
into fine droplets.  The resulting particles remain suspended in the air
for relatively long periods of time and serve to control flying pests
upon contact.

     Baits are formulations that are edible or attractive to a pest.

     Coatings are formulations that are brushed, sprayed, or otherwise
applied to and adhered to surfaces.  They remain on the surface as a
continuous film with little or no penetration.

     Dusts are formulations composed of finely divided powders of organic
or mineral origin which have been combined with a pesticide or which are
in themselves pesticidal.

     Fiffirigants are chemicals that are gaseous or will become gaseous
used in enclosed spaces.  They behave in accordance with the principles
of the Gas Laws and readily distribute themselves and penetrate into
cracks, crevices, and the commodity treated.

     Impregnants are formulations that may be applied by pressure,
injection, dipping, or other means to provide penetration of the pesti-
cide beneath the surface and into the body of the treated object or
substrate.

     Micronized dusts are formulations of very finely divided powders
that possess distinct flowable characteristics.  They are usually
dispersed into enclosed spaces with bursts of compressed gas.

     Nonresidual (contact) sprays are liquids applied directly on the
pest to be controlled.

     Residual sprays are liquids applied as a wetting deposit on sur-
faces contacted by pests to produce a long-lasting biological effect.

     Smokes are solid particulates which range from 0.3 to 2.0 microns
in diameter which are produced by pyrogenics.

     Space sprays are formulations delivered as mists or fine sprays
that produce particles larger than aerosols which stay suspended in the
treated space for relatively short periods of time.

     Vapors are formulations that are volatilized by supplementary
heat or by inherent high vapor pressure to produce a gaseous material.

-------
                              -5-
                       PREMISE TREATMENTS
     Premises are the areas within a structure, its walls, both inside
and outside, and the immediate adjacent surrounding grounds.  They
include but are not necessarily limited to the following:  residential
structures; transportation facilities; commercial, industrial, and
institutional buildings; food-handling establishments; animal feed
lots and holding pens; farm poultry houses and yards; farm dairy struc-
tures and equipment; empty greenhouses; and empty mushroom houses.
FLYING PESTS

     Flying pests usually include flies (houseflies, fruit flies,
cluster flies, bottle flies, etc.), mosquitoes, wasps (mud-daubers,
paper wasps, etc.), hornets, bees, flying moths, gnats, and other
small flying insects.  These pests may be occasional invaders of
occupied structures  (mosquitoes) or they may represent an infestation
established within the structure (hornets, bees, cluster flies).

     Since laboratory rearing and testing methods have been developed
primarily for pests of medical or sanitary importance, these have
become established as the standards for developing efficacy data
applicable to most of the flying pests.  However, many of the important
flying pests on label claims are not amenable to laboratory rearing
and therefore cannot be used as test organisms in the laboratory to
determine product efficacy.  Field testing against natural infestations
of these insects will, therefore, be the only method for the product
evaluation.  Although field testing presents problems in experimental
design, lack of standardized procedures, estimations of infestations,
assessment of control efficacy, etc., it usually serves as the most
practical means of assuring proper claims for registration of a product
for the control of many of the flying pests.

     Pesticide formulations used in the control of flying pests gen-
erally consist of products designed to kill (or repel) by direct con-
tact (aerosols, sprays, smokes, vapors, etc.) or by residual activity
(baits, sprays, wettable powders, etc.).
     Aerosols are generally used as premise space treatments to control
flying pests such as houseflies, cluster flies, fruit flies, mosquitoes,
wasps, hornets, bees, flying moths, and other small flying insects.
Laboratory testing of aerosols has presented certain problems primarily
related to test chamber sizes and to the use of test insects in cages
or in a free-flying state within the test chambers.  Specifications
of two standardized laboratory methods have been agreed upon and a
number of papers have appeared in the literature outlining other possible
procedures to be followed in the laboratory and field testing of aerosols.

-------
                             -6-
     The "Aerosol and Pressurized Space Spray Insecticides Test Method
for Flying Insects," standardized as an industry test procedure by the
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA), represents the
accepted laboratory method in the U.S.  Although specifically designed
for use with houseflies, it may be adapted for testing aerosols against
other flying pests, such as mosquitoes.

     The British Standard Institute procedure requires a large test
chamber of more than 1,000 cubic feet for test aerosols against house-
flies.  Although this presents some advantages in controlling test
dosages, the operators must, be in the chambers during testing and the
equipment demands a large commitment of building space.  This procedure
has not been adopted as an acceptable standard industry method in the
U.S., although it is being used in laboratories in England and Africa.
Protocol and Methodology:

British Standard Institute. 1967.  Insecticidal Efficiency of Aerosols
  Against Flies.  B.S. 4172.

CSMA. 1971.  Aerosol and pressurized space spray insecticide test
  method for flying insects.  Soap Chem. Spec. Blue Book 27(4a):161-
  163, 191.
     Space sprays are used as premise space treatments to control
flying pests by direct contact.  They usually consist of an active
pesticide(s) suspended in a carrier such as oil, water, emulsions of
oil in water, emulsions of water in oil, alcohol, etc., and are applied
with handsprayers, mist or fog generators, pressurized dispensers,
mechanical spray breakup devices such as, spinning disks, etc.

     The laboratory testing of pest sprays has employed a large number
of procedures for evaluating their effect in producing knockdown as well
as kill of the test insects (usually houseflies or mosquitoes).  These
test procedures have been developed with free-flying as well as caged
insects in large test chambers, small test chambers, wind tunnels,
settling mist towers, etc.

     The Peet-Grady Method, developed as a standardized industry test
procedure by CSMA, is generally accepted for evaluating the effectiveness
of space sprays under laboratory conditions.  Although the housefly is
specified in the procedures, it may be adapted for use against other
flying insects, such as mosquitoes.

     An alternative laboratory method has been devised for testing
the effect of sprays against houseflies and mosquitoes at the USDA-ARS,
Insects Affecting Man Research Laboratory and at some other laboratories.
The procedure uses a wind tunnel to draw the spray through cages of
insects (see Exhibit 1).

-------
                             -7-
Protocol and Methodology:

CSMA.  1971.  The Peet-Grady Method.  Soap Chem.  Spec.  Blue Book 47
  (4a): 158-160.

USDA-ARS.  Tests with contact insecticidal aerosols against flies and
  mosquitoes.  Insects Affecting Man Research Laboratory, Gainesville,
  Florida.   (Exhibit 1).
     Smokes for use in premise treatments have not been evaluated in
the U.S. by standard laboratory or field methods.  However, a number of
methods for bioassaying "mosquito coil"-type smokes in the laboratory
have been published.
Protocol and Methodology:

Fales, J.H., G.D. Mills, and C.G. Dubin, Jr.  1968.  Evaluation of
  smoke from insecticidal coils against mosquitoes.  Mosq, flews 28(4):
  547-553.

Mace, E.F.  1969.  Biological test method for mosquito coils.  Pyrethrum
  Post 10(1): 41-43.

Maciver, D.R.  1964.  Mosquito coils.  Part II.  Studies on the action
  of mosquito coil smokes on mosquitoes.  Pyvethrum Post 7(3): 7-17.
     Vapors are used to control flying insects in enclosed spaces.
Control is achieved by very small amounts of the insecticides, therefore,
smallscale laboratory testing has been limited to the evaluation of
carefully measured quantities of the vaporizing material in a solution.
Tests of the actual vaporizing solid products have been developed in
room-size test chambers using houseflies and mosquitoes as test insects.
Protocol and Methodology:

Batth, S.S., J. Singh, and B.C. Villeneuve.  1973.  Dichlorvos vaporizers:
  Method for evaluating under simulated household uses.  J. Eoon. Entomol.
  66(1): 146-150.

Batth, S.S., and J. Singh.  1974.  Evaluation of dichlorvos vaporizing
  solids for controlling insects.  Can. Entomol.  106(1):  31-37.

Khattat, F.H., and J.R. Busvine.  1965.  A modified test method  for
  measuring resistance to dichlorvos vapours.  Bull.  Wld.  Hlth.  Org.
  32: 551-556.

Maddock, D.R.  1961.  Dosage-mortality response of Musoa domestica
  exposed to DDVP vapour.  Bull.  Wld. Hlth.  Org. 24:  643-644.

-------
     Micronized dusts are insecticidal dusts in a very finely divided
form which have been found to be effective in the direct contact control
of flying insects when dispersed in enclosed areas such as trucks, air-
craft, warehouses, etc.  The following references are provided for pos-
sible use in the testing of micronized dusts.
Protocol and Methodology:

Jakob, W.L., D.R. Haddock, H.F. Schoof, and J.E. porter.  1972.  Gas-
  propelled aerosols and micronized dusts for the control of insects
  in aircraft.  5. Effectiveness against insects of public health impor-
  tance.  J. Boon. Entomol.  65(5): 1454-1458.

Schechter, M.S., and W.N. Sullivan.  1972.  Gas-propelled aerosols and
  micronized dusts for the control of insects in aircraft.  2. Pesticide
  formulations.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 65(5): 1444-1447.

Steiner, L.F. , and F. Lopez-D., and J.R. Woodley.  1972.  Gas-propelled
  aerosols and micronized dusts for the control of insects in aircraft.
  3.  Effectiveness against free flying Caribbean fruit flies.  J.  Eoon.
  Entomol. 65(5): 1447-1450.

Sullivan, W.N., M.S. Schechter, C.M. Amyx, and E.E. Crooks.  1972.
  Gas-propelled aerosols and micronized dusts for the control of insects
  in aircraft.  1.  Test protocol. J. Eoon.  Entomol. 65(5): 1442-1444.
     Residual sprays are used to apply residual deposits of pesticides
for the control of flying pests in a multitude of situations.  Housefly
control is obtained in and around dairy barns by the application of
residual oil or water-based sprays, wettable powders, emulsions, etc.
Mosquitoes are controlled by residual sprays in structures with natural
infestations, or where resting may occur.  Spray treatments of wasps'
or hornets' nests will provide residues toxic to the returning adult
insects as well as control of the larvae.

     Testing of residual sprays has not been standardized in the lab-
oratory or in field applications, however, literature is available in
which satisfactory methods are outlined for possible use in obtaining
efficacy data.  The laboratory procedures generally consist of treat-
ments applied to a representative surface followed by periodic testing
with houseflies or mosquitoes until the residue is no longer effective.
The field testing is usually conducted in infested structures (such as
dairy barns) with pretreatment and post-treatment counts made of adult
resting insects.  In most cases the efficacy is assessed by the relative
activity of the residual product in controlling flying insects over a
long period of time.
Protocol and Methodology:

Anonymous.  1963.  Insecticide resistance and vector control. Annex 15A.

-------
                             -9-
  Instructions for the bioassay of insecticidal deposits on wall sur-
  faces.  WHO Tech. Rep. Ser.  1963. p. 265.

Bailey D.L., G.C. LaBrecque, and T.L. Whitfield.  1970.  Insecticides
  applied as low-volume and conventional sprays to control larvae of
  the house fly in poultry houses.  J. Eoon.  Entomol.  63(3): 891-893.

Batth, S.S.  1974.  A method recommended for evaluating residual pesti-
  cides for house fly control.  Can.  Entomol.  106(12): 1241-1246.

Brady, U.E., Jr., D.W. Meifert, and G.C. LaBrecque.  1966.  Residual
  sprays for the control of house flies in field tests*  J. Econ.
  Entomol. 59(6): 1522-1523.

Darwazeh, H.A.  1972.  Preliminary evaluation of simplified technique
  for insecticide bioassay of adult mosquitoes.  Calif. Vector Views
  19(a): 65-66.

Fay, R.W., and D.A. Lindquist.  1954.  Laboratory studies on factors
  influencing the efficiency of insecticide impregnated cords for
  house fly control.  J. Econ. Entomol. 47(6): 975-980.

Flynn, A.D., and H.F. Schoof.   1966.   Effect of surface on residual
  activity of selected compounds.  J. Econ. Entomol.  59(3): 678-681.

LaBrecque, G.C., J.B. Gahan, and D.E. Weidhaas.  1971.  Evaluation
  of various insecticides as residual sprays in buildings naturally
  infested with Anopheles quadrlmaculatus.   Mosq.  News 31(2): 206-208.

Kilpatrick,  J.W., and H.F. Schoof.  1963.   Adult house fly control with
  residual treatments of six organophosphorous compounds.  J. Econ.
  Entomol.  56(1): 79-81.

Wilson, H.G., G.C. LaBrecque,  and J.A. Thomas.  1974.   New insecti-
  cides that show residual toxicity to Anopheles quadrlmaculatus Say.
  Mosq.  News 34(1): 121-122.

USDA-ARS.  Residual sprays against houseflies and/or mosquitoes.
  Insects Affecting Man Research Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida.
  (Exhibit 2).
     Baits containing pesticides serve to control flying insect pests,
primarily houseflies in dairy barns.

     The following selected references contain descriptions of satis-
factory methods for testing baits to proved efficacy data.
Protocol and Methodology:

Bailey, D.L., G.C. LaBrecque, D.W. Meifert, and P.M. Bishop.   1968.

-------
                             -10-
  Insecticides in dry sugar baits against two strains of house flies.
  J.  Econ.  Entomol.  61(3): 743-747.

Kilpatrick, J.W., and H.F. Schoof.  1959.  A semiautomatic liquid fly
  bait dispenser.  J. Econ. Entomol. 52(4): 775-776.

LaBrecque, G.C., H.G. Wilson, and J.B. Gahan.  1959.  Synergized pyre-
  thrins and allethrin baits for the control of resistant house flies.
  J.  Econ.  Entomol.  51(6): 798-800.
CRAWLING PESTS

     Crawling invertebrate pests of premises include a diverse group
of insect and other arthropod species that commonly inhabit or may
become occasional residents or casual invaders of structures.  The
principal pests encompassed by this group include residents such as:
cockroaches, silverfish, firebrats, spiders, carpet beetles, fleas,
bedbugs, booklice and psocids; and invaders such as: ants, clover mites,
ticks  (principally brown dog tick), crickets, earwigs, sowbugs (pillbugs),
centipedes, millipedes, boxelder bugs, springtails  (Collembola), and
scorpions.  Control of these pests may be important for any of several
reasons including sanitation (health), damage (to materials that consti-
tute sources of food or habitation), annoyance (nuisance). or offensive-
ness .

     Crawling pests occur or mav be found in numerous locations within
or around premises depending on the habits of the individual pest in-
volved.  Typical sites include dark corners of rooms and  closets; cracks
and  crevices in walls and between different elements of construction;
along and behind baseboards; places of entrance such as around doors
and windows; beneath and behind sinks, appliances,  cabinets, and other
fixtures and equipment; under floor coverings and furniture; around
plumbing and other utility installations; pet beds  and resting quarters;
in and around floor drains, etc.  It is to these areas and surfaces
that residually active deposits of pesticides are commonly applied
for  control purposes.  Supplementary control may be achieved by the
use  of nonresidual  (contact) sprays, space sprays,  and baits.  Where
pest populations are unusually large or are so firmly established that
use  of a residual pesticide would be unlikely to result in the immediate
control desired  fumigants, aerosols, mist sprays,  or similar methods
of control may also be employed.

     Evaluation of pesticides for control of crawling pests may require
both laboratory and field tests.  The former procedures often allow
factors such as minimum effective dosage, speed  (knockdown) and duration
 (residuality) of effectiveness, and the effect of different surface
types on biological activity to be determined, whereas field testing
is usually necessary to confirm the validity of  these factors under use
conditions and in accordance with proposed labeling.  The following
references cite test procedures that have been shown to be useful.

-------
                              -11-
Protocol and Methodology:

Anonymous.  1974.  Insects, resistance of textiles to.  AATCC Test
  Method 24-1975.  Am. Assoc. Tex. Color Chem. Technical Manual pp.  263-
  267.

Batth, S.S.  1974.  A method recommended for  evaluating residual pesti-
  cides for cockroach control.  Can. Entomol. 106(10): 1081-1085.

Bennett, G.W., and L.K. Antons.  1975.  Controlling German cockroaches
  with pyrethrin ULV applications. Pest Control 43(1): 24, 26, 28.

Burden, G.S., and B.J. Smittle.  1968.  Laboratory methods for evaluation
  of  toxicants for the bedbug and the Oriental rat flea. J. Eoon. Entomol.
  61(6): 1565-1566.

Burden, G.S., and B.J. Smittle.  1969.  Baygon^-/in field tests against
  German Cockroaches.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 62(1): 262-263.

Burden, G.S., W.A. Banks, and E.E. Madden.  1972.  Chlorpyrifos  (Dursban)
  in  field tests against German cockroaches.  Pest Control 40(3): 13-14.

Burden, G.S.  1975.  Repellency of selected insecticides.  Pest Control
  43(6): 16-18.

Burden, G.S., and E.E. Madden.  1975.  Periplaneta americana - compara-
  tive susceptibility to residuals.  Pest Control 43(1): 20.

CSMA.  1971.  Cockroach aerosol test method.  Soap Chem. Spec. Blue Book
  47(4a): 164-165, 191.

CSMA.  1971.  Cockroach spray method.  Soap Chem. Spec. Blue Book 47(4a):
  166-167.

CSMA.  1971.  Textile resistance test.  Soap  Chem. Spec. Blue Book 47(4a):
  168-171.

Fales, J.H., and O.F. Bodenstein.  1963.  How to field test for cock-
  roach susceptibility to chlordane.  Pest Control 31: 18, 20, 22, 62.

Flynn, A.D., and H. F. Schoof.  1966.  A simulated-field method of
  testing residual insecticide deposits against cockroaches.  J. Econ.
  Entomol.   59(1): 110-113.

Flynn, A.D., and H.F. Schoof.  1966.  Effect  of surface on residual
  activity of selected compounds.  J. Econ. Entomol.  59(3): 678-681.

Gladney,  W.J.,  and C.C. Dawkins.  1972.  Insecticidal tests against
  the brown recluse spider.  J. Econ. Entomol. 65(5): 1491-1493.

Goodhue,  L.D.   1960.   New techniques for screening cockroach repellents.
  J.  Econ.  Entomol.  53(5): 805-810.

-------
                              -12-
Grayson, J.M.  1975.  Cockroach control research in  1974.  Pest  Control
  43(4): 17-20.

Hagstrum, D.M.  1970.  Laboratory studies on  the effect  of several
  insecticides on Tarentula kochi.  J. Econ.  Entomol.  63(6):  1844-
  1847.

Moore, R.C.  1973.  Cockroach proofing.  Conn. Agr.  Exp. Sta.  Bull.
  New Haven 740: 1-13.

Nelson, V.A.  1969.  DursbaniL^Eor control of  the brown dog tick.   J.
  Eoon. Entomol. 62(3): 719-720.

Norment, B.R., and T.L. Pate.  1968. • Residual activity  of diazinon
  and lindane for control of Loxosceles reclusa.  J. Eoon. Entomol.
  61(2): 574-575.

Reierson, D.A.  1973.  Field tests to control German cockroaches with
  ULV aerosol generators.  Pest Control 41(1): 26, 28, 31, 32.

Sterling, H.R., R.G. Price, and K.O. Furr.  1972.  Laboratory evalua-
  tion  of insecticides on various surfaces and at various intervals
  for control of the brown recluse spider.  J. Eoon. Entomol.  65(4):
  1071-1073.

USDA-ARS.  Insecticide residue tests with the German cockroach,  Blattella
  german-ica  (L.).  Insects Affecting Man Research Laboratory,  Gainesville,
  Florida.   (Exhibit 3).

USDA-ARS.  Insecticide residue tests with the bedbug,  Cimex  Ieotu1ar"ius
  (L.).  Insects Affecting Man Research Laboratory,  Gainesville, Florida.
  (Exhibit 4).

-------
                              -13-
                    STORED-PRODUCT TREATMENTS
     Invertebrate pests of stored products include both the insects and
mites that damage and contaminate harvested raw agricultural commodities
and subsequent processed or manufactured products.  The subject pests
must be controlled not only in the commodities but in facilities where
they are stored, processed, manufactured, packaged, and transported.

     The majority of the primary insects attacking food, feed, and seed
are beetles or moths.  Most ^species are cosmopolitan in distribution and
at least 25 are economically important pests of stored products in the
United States.  Some species cause damage in both the larval and adult
stages.
                        General References

Boles, H.P., and F.O. Marzke.  1966.  Lepidoptera infesting stored
  products.  Pages 259-270 in C.N. Smith, ed.  Insect Colonization and
  Mass Production.  Academic Press, New York and London.  618 pp.

Harein, P.K., and E. De Las Casas.  1974.  Chemical control of stored-
  grain insects and associated micro- and macro-organisms.  Pages 232-
  291 in Storage of Cereal Grains and Their Products.   American Associa-
  tion of Cereal Chemists.  St. Paul, Minn.

Harein, P.K., and E.L. Soderstrom.  1966.  Coleoptera infesting stored
  products.  Pages 251-257 in C.N. Smith, ed.  Insect Colonization and
  Mass Production.  Academic Press, New York and London.  618 pp.
     Aerosol applications for stored-product insects are effective in
closed and semiclosed areas such as warehouses, transporting vehicles,
and various processing and manufacturing areas.  These treatments are
effective to prevent or protect against infestations but have little
potential control of established infestations.
Protocol and Methodology:

CSMA.  1971.  Aerosol and pressurized space spray insecticide test
  method for flying insects.  Soap Chem. Spec. Blue Book 47(4a): 161-
  163, 191.

CSMA.  1971.  Cockroach aerosol test method.  Soap Chem. Spec. Blue
  Book 47(4a): 164, 165, 191.

Cogburn, R.R., and R.A. Simonaitis.  1975.  Dichlorvos  for  control of
  stored-product insects in port warehouses.  Low volume aerosols and
  commodity residues.  J. Econ. Entomol. 68(3): 361-365.

-------
                             -14-


Gillenwater, H.B., G. Eason, and E.B. Bauman.  1972.  Gas-propelled
  aerosols and micronized dusts for control of insects In aircraft.
  4.  A potential for controlling stored-product insects.  J. Econ.
  Entomol. 65(5): 1450-1453.

Kantack, B.H., and H. Laudani.  1957.  Comparative laboratory tests with
  emulsions and wettable powder residues against the Indian meal moth.
  J. Eoon. Entomol.  50(4): 513-514.

Schechter, M.S., and W.N. Sullivan.  1972.  Gas-propelled aerosols and
  micronized dusts for control of insects in aircraft.  2. Pesticide
  formulations.  J.  Eoon. Entomol. 65(5): 1444-1447.

Steiner, L.F., F. Lopez-D., and J.R. Woodley-  1972.  Gas-propelled
  aerosols and micronized dusts for control of insects in aircraft.
  3. Effectiveness against free flying Caribbean fruit flies.  J. Eoon.
  Entomol. 65(5):1447-1450.

Sullivan, W.N., M.S. Schechter, C.M. Amyx, and E.E. Crooks.  1972.
  Gas-propelled aerosols and micronized dusts for control of insects
  in aircraft.  1. Test protocol.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 65(5): 1442-1444.

Yerington, A.P-  1967.  Control of Drosophila in wineries with dichlorvos
  aerosols.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 60(3): 701-704.
     Fumigants must reach the insect as a gas to be effective whether
dispersed as a solid, liquid, or gas, in lethal concentrations for
practical exposure periods.  To maintain such concentrations the pro-
duct, equipment, or area treated must be relatively gas-tight.  This
is generally attained by sealing the structure, enclosing the infested
items under gas-tight tarpulins, or placing it in a fumigation chamber.
Fumigants have no residual effectiveness.
Protocol and Methodology:

Childs, D.P.  1967-  Cigarette beetle control in warehouses with HCN
  and dichlorvos.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 60(1): 263-265.

Cogburn, R.R.  1974.  Detia Ex-B^Lflror phosphine fumigation in  sacked
  milled rice.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 67(3): 436-438.

Cogburn, R.R., and E.W. Tilton.  1963.  Studies of phosphine as a  fumi-
  gant for sacked rice under gas-tight tarpaulins.  J. Eoon. Entomol.
  56(5): 706-708.

Cooper, C.V., and H.B. Gillenwater.  1972.  Preliminary evaluation of
  six candidate fumigants against stored-product insects.  J.  Ga.
  Entomol.  Soc. 7(4): 250-253.

Cooper, C.V., J.W. Press, and H.B. Gillenwater.  1970.  The fumigant
  potential of GC-10033 against stored-product insects.  J. Eoon.  Entomol.
  63(6): 1979-1981.

-------
                              -15-
Howe, R.W.  1974.  Problems in the laboratory investigation of the
  toxicity of phosphine to stored product insects.  J. Stored Prod.
  Res.  10(3/4): 167-181.

Kirkpatrick, R.L.  1966.  Toxicity of seven candidate fumigants to stored-
  product insects.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 59(3): 558-560.

Leesch, J.G., H.B. Gillenwater, and J.O. Woodward.  1974.  Methyl bromide
  fumigation of shelled peanuts in bulk containers.  J.  Eoon. Entomol.
  67(6) 769-771.

Lindgren, D.L., and L.E. Vincent.  1966.  Relative toxicity of hydrogen
  phosphide to various stored-product insects.  J. Stored Prod. Res.
  2(2): 141-146.

Monro, H.A.U., C.R. Cunningham, and J.E. King.  1952.  Hydrogen cyanide
  and methyl bromide  as fumigants for insect control in empty cargo ships.
  Sci. Agric. 32:  241-265.

Soles, R.L., and P.K. Harein.  1962.  The fumigant toxicity of two new
  chemicals to stored-product insects.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 55(6): 1014-1015.

Storey, C.L.  1967.   Comparative Study of Methods of Distributing Methyl
  Bromide in Flat  Storages of Wheat:  Gravity-penetration, Single Pass,
  and Closed-recirculation.  USDA-ARS Mktg. Res. Rept. No. 794.  16 pp.

Storey, C.L., J.K. Quinlan, and L.I. Davidson.  1970.  Distribution and
  Retention to Fumigant Components in Shelled Corn in 3,250 Bushel Metal
  Bins.  USDA-ARS  Mktg. Res. Rept. No. 897.  12 pp.

Tilton, E.W., and  R.R. Cogburn.  1965.  Phosphine fumigation of rough
  rice in upright  bins.  Rice J. 68(11): 8-9.

USDA-ARS.  Penetration and toxicity of fumigants for potential use
  against stored-product insects.  Stored-Product Insects Research and
  Development Laboratory, Savannah, Georgia.  (Exhibit 5).

Vardell, H.H., A.  Cagle, and E. Cooper.  1973.  Fumigation with phosphine
  against stored-product insects in bagged flour in plywood overpacks.
  J. Eoon. Entomol. 66(5): 1209-1210.

White, G.D., H.H. Walkden, and H.D. Nelson.  1967.  Evaluation of three
  spot fumigant formulations.  Milling Prod. 5(22): 15-20.
     Insect-Resistant Packaging  (protective containers) for  food and  feeds
have found only limited application in the marketing channels.  The avail-
ability of pesticides with low mammalian toxicity and the economics of
treating food packages have been the limiting factors.  However, there
are several approved uses of insect-resistant packaging, and there are
several adequate examples of laboratory and simulated and/or actual
field procedures presented in the literature.

-------
                             -16-
     Insect-exposure rooms for conducting the tests should be maintained
at temperatures and relative humidities favorable for insect development.
Temperature and relative humidity should be determined periodically
throughout the test.  Insect populations should be kept active so that
the test packages are under constant attack by the test insects.  Insect
species in the exposure room should include as a minimum those species
that are particularly troublesome to the packaged commodities being
tested.  The room should also contain the species commonly found in food
storage situations, such as red flour beetle TT-ibolium castanewn or
confused flour beetle T. confusum., lesser grain beetle Bhyzopertha
dominica, cigarette beetle Lasioderma sewicoTne, sawtoothed grain
beetle Oryzaephilus surinamensis or merchant grain beetle 0.  mercatoT,
Indian meal moth Plodia interpunctella, and Trogoderma variable.  Approx-
priate insect food media should be distributed throughout the room as a
supplementary food source.  It may be desirable or necessary to place
additional insect cultures in the room from time to time if the population
of a given species decreases noticeably.

     The packages should be arranged in the room to provide maximum
exposure to the insects.  However, the packages must be arranged in
such a manner that would simulate a realistic situation.  For example,
if the repellent-treated packages are usually contained in external
packages in normal marketing channels, the test packages should be in
a similar external container for exposure to insects and determination
of repellent residues in the packaged product.

     As a minimum, the  test variables will include the experimental
(repellent-treated package), an untreated control (same package construc-
tion but with no treatment), and a check package (same packaging material
but with seals that would allow insects to enter easily).  The untreated
control demonstrates the necessity for the repellent treatment, while
the check package demonstrates that (1) the commodity is attacked by the
insects and (2) the insects are sufficiently active to provide a reliable
test.

     Representative packages will be examined for insect penetration and
for insects in the commodity at frequent intervals throughout the test.
The package construction such as seals, closure, glue lines, and heat-
sealed areas should be  examined for openings that would allow insects
to enter the packages.  The test storage period will extend for at least
the maximum storage period encountered by the package and product being
tested.
Protocol and Methodology:

Davis, D.F., and H. Laudani.  1956.  Long-term insecticide tests.  Modern
  Packaging 29(7): 236-240, 332, 334, 337, 338.

Gillenwater, H.B., and L.L. McDonald.  1975.  Repellency of nineteen com-
  pounds to adult Triboliim confusion,  J. Ga. Entomol. Soc. 10(2): 151-155.

-------
                             -17-
Guy, R.H., H.A. Highland, and C.E. Metts.  1970.  Repellency of selected
  compounds to Tribolium confusum.  J. Econ.  Entomol. 63(6): 1847-1850.

Highland, H.A.  1967.  Resistance to insect penetration of carbaryl-coated
  kraft bags. J. Eoon. Entomol. 60(2): 451-452.

Highland, H.A., E. Mangum, Jr., and W.H. Schoenherr.  1970.  Values of
  insect-resistant cotton bags in overseas shipments examined.  North-
  western Miller 277(3): 8-12.

Highland, H.A., and P.H. Merritt.  1973.  Synthetic pyrethroids as package
  treatments to prevent insect penetration.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 66(2): 540-
  541.
Incho. H.H., E.J. Incho, and N.W. Matthews.
  Agr. Food Chem. 1(20): 1200-1203.
1953.   Insect-proofing paper.
Laudani, H., D.F. Davis, and G.R. Swank.  1955.  A laboratory method of
  evaluating the repellency of treated paper to stored-product insects.
  Tech. Assoc.  Pulp Paper Ind.  38(6): 336-341.
Laudani, H., H.A. Highland, and E.G. Jay.  1966.
  cornmeal insect-free during overseas shipment.
  94(2) : 14-19, 33.
     Treated bags keep
     Am.  Miller Process.
Loschiavo, S.R.  1961.  4'(3,3-dimethyl-l-triazeno) acetanilide to
  protect package cereals against stored products insects.  Food Tech.
  24(4): 181-185.

USDA-ARS.  Preliminary evaluation of new candidate materials as repel-
  lents to stored-product insects.   Stored-Product Insects Research
  and Development Laboratory, Savannah, Georgia.  (Exhibit 6).

Yerington, A.P.  1971.  Insect resistance of dried-fruit packages.
  Mod. Packag. 44(6): 76, 77, 80.
     Residual protectants are applied to grains or oil seeds during the
postharvest period usually as they are going into their first major
storage period.  However, residual protectants may be applied at other
times during the storage period prior to processing.  The objective of
this protective treatment is to control insect pests upon emergence from
the commodity and to prevent spread of insect pest infestation of the
commodity during the storage period.  Surface treatments of a residual
protectant may also be applied during the storage period to prevent
reinfestation.  Residual protectants are usually formulated as sprays
such as water-wettable powders and emulsions or dust.

     Efficacy of a residual protectant may be determined satisfactorily
by any one of several laboratory procedures.  Usefulness may be determined
by either simulated field tests or pilot-scale field tests.

-------
                             -18-
Protocol and Methodology:

Cogburn, R.R.  1967.  Laboratory tests of five new insecticides as
  protectants for stored rough rice.  J.  Eoon. Entomol. 60(5): 1286-
  1289.

Harein, P.K., and H.B. Gillenwater.  1966.  Exploratory tests with bro-
  modan as a protectant for wheat against stored-product insects.  J.
  Econ. Entomol. 59(2): 413-414.

Kirkpatrick, R.L., P.K. Harein, and C.V.  Cooper.  1968.  Laboratory
  tests with dichlorvos a'pplied as a wheat protectant against rice
  weevils.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 61(2): 356-358.

La Hue, D.W.  1966.  Evaluation of Malathion, Synergized Pyrethrum, and
  Diatomaceous Earth on Shelled Corn as Protectants Against Insects
  in Small Bins.  USDA-ARS Mktg. Res. Rpt. No. 768. 10 pp.

La Hue, D.W.  1967.  Evaluation of Malathion, Synergized Pyrethrum, and
  a Diatomaceous Earth as Protectants Against Insects in Sorghum Grain
  in Small Bins.  USDA-ARS Mktg. Res. Rpt. No. 781. 11 pp.

La Hue, D.W.  1973.  Gardona as a protectant against insects in stored
  wheat.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 66(2): 485-489.

La Hue, D.W., and E.B. Dicke.  1971.  Phoxim as an insect protectant for
  stored grain.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 64(4): 1530-1533.

La Hue, D.W., and C.C. Fifield.  1967.  Evaluation of Four Inert Dusts
  on Wheat as Protectants Against Insects in Small Bins.  USDA-ARS Mktg.
  Res. Rpt. No. 780.  24 pp.

Laudani, H., H.B. Gillenwater, G.H. Kantack, and M.F. Phillips.  1959.
  Protection of citrus pulp against insect infestation with surface
  applications of pyrethrum-piperonyl butoxide wettable powder.  J. Econ.
  Entomol. 52(2): 224-227.

Nelson, H.D., G.H. Spitler, and A.P. Yerington.  1967-  Use of Malathion-
  treated Drying Trays to Protect Raisins from Insects During Drying and
  Storage.  USDA-ARS Mktg. Res. Rpt. No.  789.  14 pp.

Phillips, G.L.  1959.  Control of insects with pyrethrum sprays in
  wheat stored in ship's holds.  J. Econ. Entomol. 52(4): 557-559.

Press, J.W., H.B. Gillenwater, and G. Eason.  1970.  Dichlorvos treatments
  to prevent dissemination of the white-fringed beetle, Graphognathus
  leucoloma, in shipped wheat (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).  J. Ga.
  Entomol. Soo. 5(3): 158-162.

Spitler, G.H., P.L. Hartsell, and H.D. Nelson.  1974.  Malathion Protec-
  tion of Inshell Almonds in Bulk Storage—Pilot Scale Study.  ARS W-26.
  8 pp.

-------
                              -19-
Strong, R.G.  1970.  Relative susceptibility of confused and red flour
  beetles to 12 organophosphorous insecticides with notes on adequacy
  of the test method.  J. Econ.  Entomol. 63(1): 258-263.

Strong, R.G., and D.E. Sbur.  1961.  Evaluation of insecticides as pro-
  tectants against pests of stored grain and seeds.  J.  Econ.  Entomol.
  54(2): 235-238.

Strong, R.G., and D.E. Sbur.  1964.  Protective sprays against internal
  infestation of grain beetles in wheat.  J. Econ.  Entomol.  57(4): 544-
  548.

Tilton, E.W., and R.R. Cogburn.   1967.  Laboratory evaluation of fenthion
  for the protection of rough rice against insect attack.  J.  Econ.
  Entomol.  60(1): 233-235.

USDA-ARS.  Test method for initial evaluation of promising insecticides
  as protectants for commodities.  Stored-Product Insects Research and
  Development Laboratory, Savannah, Georgia.  (Exhibit 7).

Vardell, H.H., H.B. Gillenwater, G. Eason, and A. Cagle.  1973.  White-
  fringed beetles:  Dichlorvos applied as a postharvest  treatment to
  protect wheat.  J. Econ. Entomol. 66(1): 225-227.
     Residual sprays are commonly applied on surfaces where pests
alight, crawl, hide, feed, or reproduce.  Common examples are found
in warehouses, in mills and processing establishments, in grain bins,
and in transportation facilities.
Protocol and Methodology:

Harein, P.K. , and J.H. Schesser.  1975.  A Gardona-Vapona mixture for
  control of stored-product insects in railway cars.  J. Econ. Entomol.
McDonald, L.L., R.H. Guy, and R.D. Speirs .  1970.  Preliminary Evalua-
  tion of New Candidate Materials as Toxicants , Repellents , and Attractants
  Against Stored-product Insects.  I. USDA-ARS Mktg. Res. Rpt. No.  882.
  8 pp.

Speirs, R.D., and J.H. Lang.  1970.  Contact, Residue, and Vapor Toxicity
  of New Insecticides to Stored-product Insects.  II. USDA-ARS Mktg.  Res.
  Rpt. No. 885.  35 pp.

USDA-ARS.  Test for residual toxicity against stored-product  insects.
  Stored-Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory, Savannah,
  Georgia.   (Exhibit 8).
     Vapors are useful in situations similar to those of  aerosols  and
space sprays.  They are not known to penetrate commodities  in  concentra-
tions lethal to the target pest.

-------
                             -20-
Protocol and Methodology:

Batth, S.S., J. Singh, and D.C. Villaneuve.  1973.  Dichlorvos vaporizers.
  Method for evaluation under simulated household use.  J. Econ, Entomol.
  66(1): 146-150.

Gillenwater, H.B., P.K. Harein, E.W. Loy, Jr., J.F. Thompson, H. Laudani,
  and G. Eason.  1971.  Dichlorvos applied as a vapor in a warehouse
  containing packaged foods.  J.  Stored Prod. Res. 7(1): 45-56.

Harein, P.K., H.B. Gillenwater, and G. Eason.  1971.  Dichlorvos space
  treatments for protection of packaged flour against insect infesta-
  tion. J.  Stored Prod. Res. 7(1): 57-62.

Harein, P.K., H.B. Gillenwater, and E.G. Jay.  1970.  Dichlorvos:
  Methods of dispensing, estimates of concentrations in air, and
  toxicity to stored-product insects.  J. Econ.  Entomol. 63(4): 1263-
  1264.

Speirs, R.D., and J.H. Lang.  1970.  Contact, Residue, and Vapor Toxicity
  of New Insecticides to Stored-product Insects. II.  USDA-ARS Mktg.
  Res. Rpt. No. 885.  35 pp.

-------
                             -21-
  STRUCTURES Am STRUCTURAL MATERIAL TREATMENTS (TERRESTRIAL)
     Wood-destroying beetles include species of Anobiidae, Lyctidae,
Bostrichidae, and one species of Cerambycidae,  Hylotncpes bajulus L.
(the old house borer), all of which may reinfest structural members
or lumber in storage.  Occasionally other species may infest dead or
dying trees or drying lumber and emerge after the wood has been placed
in use, but are incapable of reinfesting the wood.  Examples are long-
horned borers, flatheaded borers, ambrosia beetles, and pinworms.  The
use of pesticides to control these non-reinfesting species is not needed
except where the infestation is extensive.

     Control of wood-destroying beetles in structural members or in
stored lumber may be by (1) residual spray or impregnation with a
pesticide or (2) fumigation.  Prevention of attack by wood-destroying
beetles may be achieved through residual spray or impregnation.  There
are no standard tests recognized in the United States for the laboratory
evaluation of residual sprays or impregnants in the prevention or
elimination of infestations by these species.  No fumigation tests
have been specified for these species but methods parallel to those
used for stored products may be utilized.
Protocol and Methodology:

Becker, W.B., H.G. Abbott, and J.H. Rich.  1956.  Effect of lindane
  emulsion sprays on the insect invasion of white pine sawlogs and the
  grade yield of the resulting lumber.  J.  Eoon. Entomol.  49(5): 664-
  666.
     Wharf borer adults emerging into buildings or in areas around the
sites of former buildings may be controlled by treatments designed for
the control of flying insects; and these could be evaluated by tests
paralleling those for other household pests.
     Carpenter ant and carpenter bee controls have been evaluated
chiefly through the observation of the effect of their applications
under field conditions.
     Subterranean termite attacks in a structure may be prevented or
controlled through impregnation with a termite toxicant of the soil
beneath and adjacent to the structure.  The effectiveness of such
treatments is measured by the time over which the toxic barrier remains
effective in resisting penetration by the termites.  No published lab-
oratory methods are currently recognized as giving a reliable evaluation
of soil toxicants for termite control.

     Three field tests are recognized as giving a reliable evaluation
of soil toxicants under conditions paralleling rigorous exposure in
practical application.  These tests are known as:   (1) The Stake Method

-------
                             -22-
(Exhibit 9), (2) The Ground Board Method (Exhibit 10), and (3) The
Modified Ground Board Method (Exhibit 11).   These methods were developed
and validated at the Southern Forest Experiment Station of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture.  Interpretation of these tests has been that effective-
ness retained over a period of 5 years is acceptable evidence of efficacy.

     Protection of wood from attack by subterranean termites may also be
provided by impregnation of the wood by a termite toxicant.  Such treat-
ments may be evaluated by a laboratory method developed by the American
Wood Preservers Association (Exhibit 12).
Protocol and Methodology:

American Wood Preservers Association.  Standard Method for Laboratory
  Evaluation to Determine Resistance to Subterranean Termites.  AWPA,
  Washington, D.C.  Standard M12-70.  (Exhibit 12).

Johnson, H.R., V.K. Smith, and R.H. Beal.  1971.  Chemicals for subter-
  ranean termite control:  Results of long-term tests. J. Econ. Entomol.
  64(3): 745-748.

USDA-Forest Service.  Standard Stake Method.  This method was provided
  by and is currently in use at the Wood Products Insect Laboratory,
  Southern Forest Experiment Station, Gulfport, Miss.  (Exhibit 9).

USDA-Forest Service.  Standard Ground-Board Method.  This method was
  provided by and is currently in use at the Wood Products Insect
  Laboratory, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Gulfport, Miss.
  (Exhibit 10).

USDA-Forest Service.  Modified Ground-Board Method.  This method was
  provided by and is currently in use at the Wood Products Insect
  Laboratory, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Gulfport, Miss.
  (Exhibit 11).
     Damp wood:  Efficacy of materials against the subterranean termite
has been the practical guide to the effectiveness of a pesticide for
these pests. No laboratory or field tests for their evaluation are in
the literature.

     Dry wood:  These termites in a structure or its furnishings are
controlled by fumigation or treatment of channels in the wood with
pesticidal dusts or liquids.  Evaluation of the treatments of channels
with dusts, liquids, or spot fumigants for the elimination of drywood
termites has been chiefly through the observation of the effect of such
treatments under field conditions.  Absorptive dusts have been used as
a protective treatment and likewise have been evaluated on the basis
of field treatments.

-------
                             -23-
Protocol and Methodology:

Bess. H.A., and A.K. Ota.  1960.  Fumigation of buildings to control the
  dry-wood termite, Cryptoteymes brevis.  J. Econ. Entomol.  53(4):
  503-510.

Stewart, D.  1957.  Sulfuryl fluoride - a new fumigant for control of
  the drywood termite, Kalotermes minor Hagen.  J. Econ, Entomol. 50(1):
  7-11.

-------
                             -24-
       STRUCTURES AND STRUCTURAL MATERIAL TREATMENTS (MARINE)
     Boring pests,  Teredos and Limnoria are the important borers which
cause damage to wooden marine structures,  Pesticides formulated as impreg-
nants and surface coatings are used to protect marine structures against
borer attack.

     No standard test method has been established for laboratory testing
samples, either treated with impregnants or painted with surface coatings,
for protection against borers.  Tests under actual marine exposure condi-
tions where borers naturally occur should be made.  All tests must include
untreated blank samples of the same material as the product being treated
and preferably samples treated with'a product of known and acceptable
performance.  Evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed treatment
is based on a comparison of the attack of the borers on the treated
versus the untreated specimens.  Exposures should be of two types: (a)
waterline and (b) completely submerged; products for use on pilings and
other wooden marine support structures should also be exposed to include
a mud-line area.  Enough replicates should be exposed to satisfactorily
substantiate the effectiveness of the treatment under test.  Examination
and evaluation should be made at intervals sufficient to determine the
progression of damage in the blanks and the effectiveness of the pesticide
on the treated samples; total exposure time should be not less than 1 year.
For the purpose of periodic examination, representative sections may be
cut from the exposed test members; all sections should be cut the same
size and from the same portion of the treated and untreated samples.
     Marine fouling.  Some of the most important marine fouling organisms
are:

                          Algae

                          Annelids (tube worms)

                          Barnacles

                          Bryozoa (encrusting and branching)

                          Hydroids

                          Mulluscs

                          Tunicates
     Pesticides in the form of surface coatings are used to control marine
fouling and may be applied by brushing, spraying, or roller coating.

     Although accelerated laboratory tests have been developed for testing
paints containing copper as the active ingredient, they are not applicable
to paints which also depend upon other active ingredients for efficacy.

-------
                             -25-
The acclerated tests are used strictly for preliminary laboratory evalua-
tion to eliminate obviously inefficient formulations from further testing.

     The only practical method for determing the efficacy of an antifouling
paint (coating) is to expose it under actual fouling conditions.  Efficacy
can be demonstrated by comparing treated (coated) panel specimens with un-
coated panels, or other suitable blanks, and with panels coated with paints
of known performance,  Panels for such tests should be as large as possible
to provide a reasonable area for examination and should not be smaller than
6 x 12 inches.  The coating system should be the same in both composition
(number of prime coats, when required, and antifouling coats) and appli-
cation as that recommended for field application.  Panels should be exposed
at least in duplicate at both waterline and complete submersion, and total
efficacy shall be judged on both types of exposure.  Specimens should be
examined at monthly intervals and efficacy determined after 12 months'
exposure.  Antifouling paints, for which specific lengths of time for
protection against fouling is claimed, shall be exposed for not less than
the time period claimed.  A monthly census of fouling organisms on an
untreated blank should be part of the efficacy evidence.  The physical
condition of the film, fouling rating compared to the untreated specimen,
and overall performance should be reported for total evaluation of efficacy.
Protocol and Methodology:

Environmental Protection Agency.  Tentative Recommended Practice for
  Testing Antifouling Paints on Wood Substrates: T5D 6.103 (Revised 1-1-75).
  E.P.A. Tech. Serv. Div., Chem. and Biological Investigation Branch,
  Beltsville, Md. 20705.

Environmental Protection Agency.  Tentative Specification for Preparation
  of Metal Panels for Antifouling Paint Testing: T5D 6.106 (1-1-75).
  Tech. Serv. Div., Chem. and Biological Investigation Branch, Beltsville,
  Md. 20705.

Environmental Protection Agency.  Tentative Specification for Standard
  Antifouling Test Racks:  T5D 6.107 (1-1-75).

Ketchum, B.H.  1948.  Action of antifouling paints.  V - The use of
  glycine solutions as accelerated test of availability of toxicant.  Ind.
  Eng. Chem. 40: 249-253.

Ketchum, B.H., J.D. Ferry, A.C. Redfield, and A.E. Burns, Jr.  1945.
  Evaluation of antifouling paints by leaching rate determinations.
  Ind. Eng.  Chem.  37: 456-460.

Unpublished Protocol.  Test method for antifouling paints on wood substrates
  "for fresh or salt water exposure.  Adapted from E.P.A. and industry sources.
  (Exhibit 13).

Unpublished Protocol.  Test method for antifouling paints on metal  substrates
  for fresh or salt water exposure.  Adapted from E.P.A. and industry sources,
  (Exhibit 14).

-------
                             -26-
                   FABRIC PROTECTIVE TREATMENTS
     Fabrics are considered to be all animal fibers and blends with
plant and synthetic fibers.  Treatments are applied at any stages from
harvest (raw) through processing and until fully utilized by man or
domestic animals.

     Several insects attack woolen fabric and other animal fibers; how-
ever, at least two pest species, one moth and one beetle, should be used
in conducting tests for fabric protectants.  Tests for efficacy and
usefulness are not usually conducted as separate entities, but rather
usefulness data are secured following aging and through subsequent
performance tests.
Protocol and Methodology:

American Association of Textile Chemists and Cblorists.  1974a.  Insect
  pest deterrents on textiles.   Standard Test Method 28-1974.  Technical
  Manual 50: 261-262.

American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists.   1974b.  Insects,
  resistance of textiles to.   Standard Test Method 24-1971.  Technical
  Manual 50: 263-267.

CSMA.  1971.  Textile resistance test.  Soap Chem.  Spec.  Blue Book 47(4A)
  168-171.

USDA-ARS.  Temporary fabric treatments.   Stored-Product  Insects Research
  and Development Laboratory,  Savannah,  GA.  (Exhibit 15).

USDA-ARS.  Semipermanent fabric treatments.  Stored-Product Insects
  Research and Development Laboratory, Savannah,  Ga.  (Exhibit 16).

USDA-ARS.  Permanent fabric treatments.   Stored Product  Insects Research
  and Development Laboratory,  Savannah,  Ga.  (Exhibit 17).

-------
                            -27-
                                                           Exhibit 1
TESTS WITH CONTACT INSECTICIDAL AEROSOLS AGAINST FLIES AND MOSQUITOES

       USDA-ARS, Insects Affecting Man Research Laboratory
                      Gainesville, Florida
     A wind tunnel is used consisting of a large anterior cone tapering
into a posterior cylindrical tube, 4 inches in diameter, through which
a column of air is drawn at 4 m.p.h. by a suction fan.  Twenty female
flies, 4-5 days old, or 25 female mosquitoes, 1 to 3 days old, are con-
fined in a 4-inch cylindrical screen cage, which is placed in the center
of the tube.   One-fourth ml  of  the  pesticide  usually  in a  deodorized
kerosene solution, is atomized at 1 p.s.i. into the mouth of the cone,
and the insects are exposed momentarily to the spray as it is drawn
through the cage.  One or two seconds after the spray has been exhausted
from the tunnel, the cage is removed from the tube and the insects are
anesthetized with carbon dioxide gas and transferred to clean, untreated
holding cages.  Sugar solution is furnished in an absorbent cotton pad.
Mortality is recorded 24 hours after treatment.  All tests are replicated.

     The first tests are made with sprays containing 2.5 percent of the
pesticide.  If mortality exceeds 50 percent, lower concentrations are
tested to derive a valid probit mortality-log concentration regression
line.
                                 Eeferences
Campau, E.J., G.J. Baker, and F.D. Morrison.  1951.  Rearing the stable
  fly for laboratory tests.  Proc. 38th Ann. Mtg. Chem. Spec. Mfgs.
  Assoc.  83-85.

Caron, D.M.  1974.  Evaluation of chlorpyrifos for hornet and wasp
  control.  Down to Earth 30(1): 10-12.

Davis, A.N., and J.B. Gahan.  1961.  Wind-tunnel tests with promising-
  insecticides against adult salt-marsh mosquitoes, Aedes taeniorhynohus
  (Weld.).  Mosq. News 21(4): 300-303.

Fales, J.H., O.F. Bodenstein, and P.G. Piquett.  1951.  Effectiveness
  of allethrin and pyrethrins as sprays against  three  species of mos-
  quitoes.  s7i Eoon. Entomol. 45(4):  743.

Kearns, C.W., and R.B. March.  1943.  Small chamber method for  testing
  effectiveness of insecticides against houseflies.  Soap Sanit Chem.
  19(2): 101, 103, 104, 128.

-------
                            -28-
Parkin, E.A., and A.A. Green.  1945.  The toxicity of DDT to the house
  fly, Musca domestioa (L.)  Bull.  Entomol. Res. 36: 149-162.

Roan, C.C., and C.W. Kearns.   1948.  Testing insecticide sprays.  Soap
  Sanit.  Chem.  24(5): 133, 135, 137, 149, 151.

Sun, Y.P., and J.E. Pankaskie.  1954.  Drosophilia, a sensitive insect,
  for the microbioassay of insecticide residues.  J.  Econ.  Entomol.
  47(1):  180.

Taylor, R.T., and H.F. Schoof.  1968.  Evaluation of thermal and non-
  thermal fogs against four species of mosquitoes.  Mosq. News 28(1):
  8-11.

-------
                             -29-
                                                           Exhibit 2
       RESIDUAL SPRAYS AGAINST HOUSEFLIES AND/OR MOSQUITOES

       USDA-ARS, Insects Affecting Man Research Laboratory
                      Gainesville, Florida
     The compounds are sprayed on 12- by 12-inch plywood panels at
the rate of 100 mg of active ingredient per square foot.  In each
test 20 female houseflies, 4 to 5 days of age, are exposed under half
sections of petri dishes on the treated panels for 60 minutes.  The
flies are then transferred to cylindrical screen cages, provided with
cotton pads saturated with sugar solution, and held for 24 hours, at
which time mortality counts are made.

     The panels are tested 1 week after treatment, 4 weeks after treat-
ment, and every 4 weeks thereafter for a period of 24 weeks, or until
they become ineffective, whichever occurs first.  Panels are considered
ineffective when they fail to produce at least 90-percent mortality.
Enough panels are sprayed with each insecticide to avoid using any
surface twice.

     The compounds are usually tested as solutions in acetone or other
volatile solvents, but occasionally wettable powders and emulsions
are used, in which case the classification is based on the most effective
treatment.

     The same procedure for testing residual sprays against houseflies
is used to determine the residual effectiveness of the compound against
1- to 2-day-old female common malaria mosquitoes, except that in this
test the panels are considered ineffective when they fail to produce
at least 70-percent mortality.

     Classification system:

     1.  Ineffective at 1 week.

     2.  Effective for 1 week.

     3.  Effective for 4 weeks.

     4.  Effective for 8-20 weeks.

     5.  Effective for 24 or more weeks.

-------
                             -30-
                                                           Exhibit 3
      INSECTICIDE RESIDUE TESTS WITH THE GERMAN COCKROACH,
                       Btatiella geTmani-ea

       USDA-ARS, Insects Affecting Man Research Laboratory
                      Gainesville, Florida
     Panels, 6 by 6 inches of 1/4-inch plywood, are treated with acetone
solutions of toxicants at the rate of 100 mg per square foot.  When
necessary, emulsions are substituted for the acetone solutions.  after
the treated panels are allowed to dry for 2 hours,  20 adult male cock-
roaches (two replicates of 10 each) are exposed to the residues for
30 minutes.  Exposures to the treated surfaces are made under inverted
plastic dished coated on the inner surface with pyrophyllite, which pre-
vents the cockroaches from crawling up the sides.  At the conclusion of
the exposure period, the cockroaches are transferred to clean petri
dishes.

     Observations on mortality are made after 48 hours.  The treated
panels are then allowed to age and are tested at intervals of 1, 2, and
4 weeks, or longer if necessary, depending on the effectiveness of the
residues.

     Classification system:

     1.  Less than 80-percent mortality with fresh (aged 2 hours) residue.

     2.  80-percent mortality with fresh residues but not after 1 week.

     3.  80-percent mortality for 1 week but not 2 weeks.

     4.  80-percent mortality for 2 weeks but not 4 weeks.

     5.  80-percent mortality for 4 weeks or more.

-------
                            -31-
                                                           Exhibit 4
           INSECTICIDE RESIDUE TESTS WITH THE BEDBUG,
                       Ci-mex
       USDA-ARS , Insects Affecting Man Research Laboratory
                      Gainesville, Florida
     Residue tests are conducted on circular pieces of Whatman No. 1
filter paper, 38 mm in diameter, impregnated with 0.2 ml of an acetone
solution containing 0.31 percent of an insecticide.  This impregnation
rate produces a residue of 50 mg of toxicant per square foot.  After
drying for 1 hour, each treated paper is placed in a 50-ml beaker and
ten 3-day-starved adult bedbugs are placed on it.  After exposure for
24 hours, live and affected bed bugs are removed from the treated paper
and placed on untreated filter paper in a clean 50-ml beaker for a
holding period of 24 additional hours, after which mortality readings
are made.  The treated papers are aged in the beakers and tested at
1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and every 4 weeks thereafter for 24 weeks,
or until less than 90-percent kill is obtained, whichever occurs first.

     Classification system:

     1.  Less than 90-percent mortality with fresh (aged 1 hour) residue.

     2.  90-percent mortality with fresh residue but not for 2 weeks.

     3.  90-percent mortality for 2 weeks but not 4 weeks.

     4.  90-percent mortality for 4 weeks but not 8 weeks.

     5.  90-percent mortality for 8 or more weeks.

-------
                            -32-
                                                         Exhibit 5
      PENETRATION AND TOXICITY OF FUMIGANTS FOR POTENTIAL USE
                  AGAINST STORED-PRODUCT INSECTS

USDA-ARS,  Stored-Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory
                       Savannah, Georgia
     For greatest practical value,  a toxic gas used as a fumigant to
control stored-product insects must penetrate a mass of commodity in
sufficient concentrations to kill insects within the mass.   A simple
test of the ability of a candidate compound to penetrate a commodity and
kill insects can be performed in 3.8-liter mason jars as fumitoria,
using soft red winter wheat as a substrate for penetration.  Any species
and life stage of stored-product insects, except adults of moths, can
be used as test insects.
                             Method

     Wheat is cleaned to <1% dockage and conditioned to 12±0.1% moisture
content.  Mason jars (3.8 liter) equipped with standard screw-cap lids
are used as fumitoria.   A 5-mm diameter hole is drilled in the center
of the lid, and then a paper clip to hold a piece of blotter paper is
soldered to the inside of the lid near the hole.   Insects are held in
cages made of 40- by 36-mesh Monel wire cloth measuring 7.6 cm in length
by 1.8 cm in diameter and closed on the bottom with wire and on the top
with polyethylene stoppers.  Twenty-five insects are placed in a cage,
and then it is filled with wheat.

     One kilogram of wheat is placed in the jar, and then the insect
cages (one cage per species of insects being tested) are laid flat on
the surface of this mass.  Another kilogram of wheat is placed in the
jar so that the cages are held near the center of the 2-kg mass of wheat.

     Insects and grain are conditioned at the fumigation temperature in
the fumitoria for 24 hours prior to testing by placing the prepared fumi-
toria into a controlled temperature room.  After conditioning, dosing
is accomplished after sealing the fumitoria, by placing the liquid
compound from a microsyringe on the blotter paper through a piece of
cellophane tape which covers the whole drilled in the lid directly over
the paper clip.  Upon removal of the syringe needle, another piece of
cellophane is placed over the puncture hole.  Each dosage is replicated
3 times.  This method is described by Cooper et al. (1970).

     If a compound in gas state is being tested; the fumitorium lid is
modified by drilling a hole to accommodate a No. 5 stopper through
which a piece of glass tubing extends 2-5 cm into the fumitorium.  A
piece of rubber tubing equipped with a pinch clamp is provided on the

-------
                             -33-
outside to seal the glass tubing.  Dosing is accomplished by removing
slightly more air from the fumitorium than will be added as gaseous
fumigant.  The fumigant gas is then introduced using a syringe, and
after application, the pinch clamp is released momentarily to equili-
brate the negative pressure in the fumitorium to the atmospheric pressure.
This method is derived from Whitney and Harein (1959).

     After dosing, fumitoria are placed in a controlled temperature room
for 24 hours.  Upon removal, the fumitoria are aerated in a hood, and
insects are removed and placed in suitable containers with food.  Insects
are held in a controlled temperature room during postexposure mortality
observations.  Final mortality observations are as follows: (1) adults
of red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum, confused flour beetle T. confusion
and merchant grain beetle Oryzaephilus surinamensis - 21 days,  (2)
adults of  cigarette beetle Lasiodermasevricorne - 1 days, (3) 1-month
larvae of black carpet beetle Attagenus megatoma - 35 days.  If eggs
or intrakernal feeders of a species are exposed in commodity, the
emergence of adults is observed until no further emergence occurs or
until the normal  life cycle of the insect species is complete.

     Tests with new candidate compounds are always compared with data
obtained in concurrent tests with a standard such as methyl bromide.

     Dosage-mortality analyses are conducted on the date to obtain
LD  's, LDQQ'S, etc., and their fiducial limits.  A computer program
sucn as the probit analysis described by R.J. Daum (1970) is desirable.
                           References

Cooper, C.V., J.W. Press, and H.B. Gillenwater.  1970.  The fumigant
  potential of GC-10033 against stored-product insects.  J. Econ.
  Entomol. 63(6): 1979-1981.

Daum, R.J.  1970.  A revision of  two computer programs for probit
  analysis.  Bull. Entomol. Soc.  Am. 16(1): 10-15.

Monro> H.A.U.  1969.  Manual of Fumigation for- Insect Control. F.A.O.
  Ag. Studies 79.  381 pp.

Whitney, W.K., and P.K. Harein.   1959.  Effects of number of  test
  insects, exposure period, and posttreatment interval on reliability
  of fumigant bioassays.  J. Econ. Entomol. 52(5): 942-949.

-------
                            -34-
                                                          Exhibit 6
      PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF NEW CANDIDATE MATERIALS AS
              REPELLENTS TO STORED-PRODUCT INSECTS

USDA-ARS,  Stored-Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory
                       Savannah, Georgia
     The insects used in the tests are confused flour beetle adults,
          confusion Jacquelin duVal, 7 to 14 days old.  They are reared
in a chamber maintained at 27°±1° C and 60±5 percent relative humidity
on a diet consisting of 47.5 percent each of white flour and cornmeal
and 5 percent of brewer's yeast.  All testing and aging of treated papers
are performed under similar conditions.

     Strips of aluminum foil, laminated to 40-lb. kraft paper, 4 by 6 in.,
are treated on the paper side with acetone solutions of the candidate
repellent.  The solutions are applied at rates of 25, 100, and 200 yg/cm2
with a blade applicator.  Strips treated with pyrethrins at 5 yg/cm2 are
used as standards for comparison.

     In these tests, 8-in.  strips of treated and untreated paper are
joined edge-to-edge lengthwise with cellulose tape on the untreated side.
Two such test surfaces are positioned so that the treated half of one is
turned to the right and treated half of the other turned to the left
to counteract any undetermined external influence on the distribution of
the test insects.  Two glass cylinders, 2.5 cm in height and 6.4 cm in
inside diameter, are placed on each of the two sections of paper to
provide test arenas of equal areas of treated and untreated paper.  Two
sets (four arenas each) of untreated paper matched with untreated paper
are used as checks.

     Ten confused flour beetle adults are exposed in each test arena,
and the number of insects on the treated half and on the untreated half
of the arena is recorded at 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.  After application of the
chemicals, exposures to determine the average numbers of insects on the
untreated half of the repellency arena during a 5-day period is initiated
at 4 days, 2 weeks, 1 month, and 2 months. The averages are converted to
express "percent repellency or attractancy" by doubling the differences
between the percentage of insects counted on the untreated half and the
50-percent distribution expected if only untreated papers are used.
Positive figures (+) express repellency and negative figures  (-) attrac-
tancy.  They are listed as follows:

-------
                             -35-



               Class               Repellency (percent)

                   0                 >-0.1 to <0.1

                   I                     .1 to 20

                  II                  20.1 to 40

                 III                  40.1 to 60

                  IV                  60.1 to 80

                   V                  80.1 to 100
     The same criteria are used for attractancy except that the repellency
percentages are all negative.  Class III is regarded as the minimum repel-
lency for further consideration; however, the main selection factor is
whether the chemical is more repellent than the pyrethrins-piperonyl
butoxide standard or not.

-------
                            -36-
                                                          Exhibit 7
   TEST METHOD FOR INITIAL EVALUATION OF PROMISING INSECTICIDES AS
                   PROTECTANTS FOR COMMODITIES

USDA-ARS, Stored-Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory
                       Savannah, Georgia
A.  Formulation of Candidate Insecticides

    1.  Emulsifiable concentration as formulated by the manufacturer.

    2.  Or formulate technical as 'follows (wt./wt.).

        a.  Technical insecticide                           25%

        b.  Emulsifier                                      10%

        c.  Xylene                                          65%

    3.  Or dust formulation as supplied by the manufacturer.


B.  Rate of Application

    1.  5 ppm (0.5 mg of actual insecticide per 100 grams of commodity)

    2.  10 ppm (1.0 mg/100 gm)

    3.  20 ppm (2.0 mg/100 gm)

    (Check volume of spray to weight of commodity that will give good
distribution and standardize accordingly.  Note effect on moisture
content.)


C.  Method of Application

    Kansas State University tumbler with 1-gal. jars for 15 minutes of
tumbling.  The subsamples are poured into the test jars directly from
the treatment jar but the treated material is tumbled for a few seconds
just prior to pouring each of the subsamples.


D.  Test Commodities to be Used

    Commodity           Moisture content  Temperature  Test Insects I/

    Wheat                     12             80° F.    1, 2, + 3

    Sorghum                   14             80° F.    1+4

-------
12
13
8
10
10
16
80° F.
80° F.
80° F.
80° F.
80° F.
80° F.
1, 2, 3, + 4
1, 2, + 3
1, 5 + 6
7
5 + 6
5 + 6
                             -37-
    Commodity           Moisture content  Temperature  Test Insects I/

    Rice

    Corn

    Peanuts

    Blackeye cowpea

    Almonds (in shell)

    Natural raisins



E.  Test Containers

     Treated commodity is to be placed in 1-qt. mason jars immediately
after it is treated.  Each jar should contain exactly 200 grams of a
treated commodity.  The opening of all containers is to be covered with
40-mesh wire cloth after insects are introduced.


F.  Test Insects
                                                       No. in each
    Species                     Stage    Age in days    container

    1.  Confused flour beetle   Adults     28 to 42        50

    2.  Rice weevil             Adults     28 to 42        50

    3.  Rice weevil             Larvae _2/  14 to 28        50

    4.  Lesser grain borer      Adults     14 to 21        50

    5.  Indian meal moth        Larvae        28           50

    6.  Indian meal moth        Eggs        2 to 4         50

    7.  Cowpea weevil           Adults      2 to 4         50


G.  Replications

    Five for each commodity, for each species, for each stage, for
each type of test (initial toxicity and residual).


H.  Exposure Period

    1.  Initial toxicity test
    _!/ See paragraph "F" for list of test insects.
    2/ Internal  infestaion.

-------
                            -38-
        a.  Introduce insects 24 hours after treatment.  Grain containing
immature stages should be rolled with the treated grain in the test jars.

        b.   In those tests in which adults are used, remove insects using
a U.S.  Standard sieve No. 8 for wheat and No.  10 for corn after a 21-day
exposure; record number dead, moribund, and alive immediately after separa-
tion and 24 hours later; discard insects; place samples back in original
container with any dust that may have been removed during the separation
of the insects and inspect again for presence of any form of insect life
42 days later and record as above.   The separation of the insects shall
be done using a rotary sifter and operated for 1 minute.

        c.   In those tests in which larvae and eggs are used, remove
samples from container after a 56-day exposure, record all insects pre-
sent, their stage and condition (dead, moribund, or alive).  Separation
of insects will be the same as specified above (Hlb).

    2.   Residual life test

        If initial toxicity test shows treatment to be effective, repeat
procedure under HI after treatment has aged 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.  If
initial toxicity test shows treatment to be ineffective, terminate test.
I.  Temperature and Relative Humidity Requirements

    All rearing of test insects, exposures, and postexposures shall be
in rooms with a temperature of 80° F. and a relative humidity of 60+5%.
J.  Standard and Untreated Checks

    With each series of tests there will be a treated standard using
malathion at 10 ppm and an untreated check.
                           References

Harein, P.K., and H.B. Gillenwater.  1966.  Exploratory tests with
  Bromodan as a protectant for wheat against stored-product insects.
  J.  Econ.  Entomol.  59(2): 413-414.

Kirkpatrick, R.L., P.K. Harein, and C.V. Cooper.  1968.  Laboratory
  tests with dichlorvos applied as a wheat protectant against rice
  weevils.   J.  Econ.  Entomol.  61(2): 356-358.

-------
                             -39-
                                                         Exhibit 8
   TEST FOR RESIDUAL TOXICITY AGAINST STORED-PRODUCT INSECTS

USDA-ARS, Stored-Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory
                       Savannah, Georgia
     The insects used in the tests are adults of the confused flour beetle,
Tr^bol•i^m oonfuswn Jacquelin duVal, 7 to 14 days old, and larvae of the
black carpet beetle, Attagenus megatoma (F.)> 3 to 5 months old.

     The compounds are prepared in acetone solutions and applied to 3-
by 12-in. strips of aluminum foil laminated to 40-lb. kraft paper with
a Gardner automatic blade applicator.  The compounds are first tried
in an exploratory test as 1-day-old residues at rates of application of
50 yg/cm  on the aluminum surfaces and 100 yg/cm2 on the paper surfaces.
If a compound kills 50 percent or more of the insects on either surface,
it is tested further as described below; however, if less than 50-percent
kill is obtained on either surface, that surface is not tested further.

     Four open-end glass cylinders, 6.4 cm in diameter and 2.5 cm in
height, are placed on each treated surface.  Ten confused flour beetles
are placed in each cylinder and exposed 4 hours.  Ten black carpet
beetle larvae are placed in each cylinder on other treated strips and
exposed 24 hours.  The insects are then transferred to clean petri
dishes for postexposure observations.  The number of knocked down and
dead-plus-moribund insects is recorded 120 hours after exposure for
black carpet beetle larvae.

     If the compound shows promise in the exploratory test, it is further
tested by these same procedures at lower rates of 5, 10, and 50 yg/cm
on paper surfaces and 1, 5, and 25 yg/cm  on aluminum surfaces as 1-day-
old residues.  It is also tested as 28-day-old residues at rates of
application of 10, 50, and 100 yg/cm2 on paper surfaces and 5, 25, and
50 yg/cm2 on aluminum surfaces.  The flour beetles are exposed for 24
hours to the 28-day-old residues; otherwise, these tests are conducted
the same as those for the 1-day-old residues.  Malathion-treated surfaces
are used as standards for comparison, and acetone-treated surfaces are
used as controls.

-------
                            -40-
                                                         Exhibit 9
                      STANDARD STAKE METHOD

      USDA-Forest Service,  Wood Products Insect Laboratory
              Southern Forest Experiment Station
                         Gulfport,  Miss.
     1.  Designed to simulate treatment of soil in trenches around
foundation walls, piers, pilings,  water and sewer lines, and other
ground-to-building connections in crawl space and/or basement-type
buildings.
     2.  In use since 1944 to present.


     3.  The original test unit design was to remove 2 cu ft (0.566 m3)
of soil to make 15 in.  (38.1 cm) in diameter and 19 in.  (48.3 cm) deep.
This design was changed in 1956 by reducing the depth to 14-3/4 in.
(37.4 cm) to give 1.5 cu ft (0.43 m3).   In both cases the rate of appli-
cation of the chemical is the same, based on volume of soil treated; i.e.,
4 gallons (18.2 liters)/10 cu ft (0.280 m3).  After the soil is treated
with the insecticide in a water emulsion or oil solution and replaced
in the hole, a 2- by 4- by 12-in. (5.08- by 10.16- by 31.0-cm) untreated
pine sapwood stake is driven 6 in. (15.2 cm) deep into the center.  The
termites have to penetrate the treated soil to attack the stake.
     4.  Selection criteria of a site for a study should include the
following:

        a.   Use land that has as little slope as possible to prevent
sheet erosion of soil from one treatment to another.

        b.   Use land that has been preselected for a known termite
population by a prebaiting survey or by history of the area.

        c.   Use land that is protected from fire and other disturbances
and that will be available for at least 20 years.
     5.  Each treatment is replicated 10 times in a randomized block
design with 5 ft (1.5 m) between each treatment, center to center.  The
stakes are carefully examined annually for termite attack.  When 50
percent of the stakes of a treatment have been attacked, the treatment
is considered to have failed.  Stakes that are decayed are replaced
at time of inspection.
     6.  Ten to thirty stakes within the study area are inserted in
untreated soil to serve as checks.

-------
                            -41-
                                                        Exhibit 10
                 STANDARD GROUND-BOARD METHOD

      USDA-Forest Service, Wood Products Insect Laboratory
              Southern Forest Experiment Station
                         Gulfport, Miss.
     1.  Designed to simulate treatment of the soil before pouring a
concrete slab foundation.
     2.  In use since 1946 to present.
     3.  The original test unit design was a 2-ft (60.9-cm) square of
soil from which all vegetation and duff were removed.  In 1952 the area
was reduced to a 17-in.  (43.2-cm) square of soil.  A known amount of
chemical as a water emulsion or oil solution at 1 pint/sq ft (473 ml/
929 cm2) is spread over  the soil surface.  After the chemicals have
soaked into the soil, an untreated sapwood pine board measuring 1 by 6
by 6 in. (2.5 by 15.2 by 15.2 cm) is laid flat in the center of the
treated area.  Termites have to penetrate the treated soil to attack
the board.
     4.  Selection criteria of a site for a study should include the
following:

         a.  Use land that has as little slope as possible to prevent
sheet erosion of soil from one treatment to another.

         b.  Use land that has been preselected for a known termite
population by a prebaiting survey or by history of the area.

         c.  Use land that is protected from fire and other disturbances
and that will be available for at least 20 years.
     5.  Each treatment is replicated 10 times in a randomized block
design with 5 ft.  (1.5 m) between each treatment, center to center.
The boards are carefully examined annually for termite attack.  When
50 percent of the boards of a treatment have been attacked, the treat-
ment is considered to have failed.  Boards that are decayed are replaced
at time of inspection.
     6.  Ten to thirty boards within the study area are placed on
untreated soil to serve as checks.
     7.  When possible, the studies using this method are repeated in
more than one location for comparison against different  termite species
in various soils and in varying climates.

-------
                            -42-
                                                        Exhibit 11
                  MODIFIED GROUND-BOARD METHOD

       USDA-Forest Service, Wood Products Insect Laboratory
              Southern Forest Experiment Station
                         Gulfport,  Miss.
     1.  Designed to more closely simulate the actual conditions under-
neath a concrete slab foundation which would exist in actual use than
does the standard ground-board method.
     2.  In use since 1965 until present.
     3.  As in the standard ground-board method, all vegetation and duff
are removed to expose the soil over a 24-in.  (60.9-cm) square area.  The
chemicals are applied at 1 pint/sq ft (473 ml/929 cm2) as water emulsions
over an area 17 in. (43.2 cm) square in the middle of the cleared area.
After the chemical soaks into the soil, a trench approximately 6 in.
(15.2 cm) by 3.5 in. (8.9 cm) wide is excavated around the outside of
the perimeter of the treated area.  A polyethylene vapor barrier material
is placed over the treated area and extends 1 inch (2.5 cm) into the
trench on all sides.  A short section, 4 in.  (10.0 cm) diameter of plastic
pipe is placed on end in the center of the area.  Concrete is then poured
over the treatment, around the pipe, and into the trench to form the
simulated slab.  When the concrete is set, the vapor barrier is removed
from the area inside the pipe, and a 2- by 3- by 4-in. (5.8- by 7.6- by
10.0-cm) sapwood pine block is placed on the soil.  A cap is placed over
the end of the pipe to form a seal.  Termites have to penetrate the
treated soil to attack the block of wood.
     4.  Selection criteria of a site for a study should include the
following:

         a.  Use land that has as little slope as possible to prevent
sheet erosion of soil from one treatment to another.

         b.  Use land that has been preselected from a known termite
population by a prebaiting survey or by history of the area.

         c.  Use land that is protected from fire and other disturbances
and that will be available for at least 20 years.
     5.  Each treatment is replicated 10 times in a randomized block
design with 5 ft. (1.5 m) between treatments, center to center.  The
wood blocks are carefully examined annually for termite attack.  When
50 percent of the blocks of a treatment have been attacked, the treat-
ment is considered to have failed.  Blocks that are decayed are replaced
at time of inspection.

-------
                            -43-
      6.  Ten to twenty blocks within the study area are placed on
untreated soil under cover to serve as checks.
     7.  When possible, the studies using this method are repeated in
more than one location for comparison against different termite species,
in various soils, and in varying climates.

-------
                            -44-
                                                        Exhibit 12
           STANDARD METHOD FOR LABORATORY EVALUATION TO
           DETERMINE RESISTANCE TO SUBTERRANEAN TERMITES
                         (Standard M12-70)

               American Wood Preservers Association
                         Washington,  D.C.
1.    Scope

     1.1  This method provides for the evaluation of treated or untreated
cellulosic material for its resistance to subterranean termites.
2.   Apparatus and Material

     2.1  Glass or clear plastic containers with loosely fitting tops,
240 ml (8 oz).

          2.1.1  If volatile chemicals are to be tested, a 4.76-mm
(3/16-in.) hold is drilled in the center of the top.

     2.2  Screened, washed, heat-sterilized, brown or white sand.

     2.3  Distilled water.

     2.4  Plastic rings, 13 mm (1/2 in.) diameter by  6 mm (1/4 in.) long.

     2.5  Southern yellow pine (Pinus spp.), 19 mm (3/4 in.) blocks,
sapwood, no visisble defects, smoothed surfaces (planed or sanded) four
to ten rings per 25 mm (1 in.).

          2.5.1  Other wood species may be used, but  in each separate
test using other species as the major test wood, five southern yellow
pine sapwood blocks must be used as additional controls to permit the
correlation of test results  among  laboratories.

     2.6  Subterranean termites.  Using a major common species of the
region in which the test is being run.

          2.6.1  Specific identification of any termite used shall be
obtained and reported with the test data.

     2.7  Enamel or stainless steel tray, 254 by 508  mm (10 by 20 in.)
and bucket.

     2.8  Paper towels.

     2.9  Zephiran chloride solution  (1 part zephiran chloride to 750
parts water)

-------
                             -45-
3.   Determination of Sand Water-Holding Capacity

     3.1  The quantity of distilled water to be added to the sand during
the test shall be determined as follows:

          3.1.1  Place 100 g of oven-dry sand in a beaker and determine
the volume of water required to saturate the sand.  The saturation point
is defined as the point when the addition of more water will result in
free water on the surface of the sand.

          3.1.2  Calculate the percent saturation as follows:

                 Percent     _ 	Weight water	
                 saturation    Weight sand + Weight water

          3.1.3  Add water to the sand as follows:

                 Percent water to add = Percent saturation - 5.0

          3.1.4  As an example:

                 Saturation point was reached at 20 ml of water.

                 Percent saturation = 20
                                      120 X 10° = 16.7 percent.

                 Percent water to add = 16.7 - 5.0 = 11.7 percent.


4.   Collection of Termites

     4.1  Subterranean termites (Reticul'ltermes3 Coptotermes, etc., spp.)
are collected from a natural forest situation; e.g., from fallen logs
or from stumps.

          4.1.1  Short log sections are removed to the laboratory and are
split.  The insects are shaken out onto a tray or trays.  After distributing
the debris and insects evenly on the tray(s), damn paper towels are laid
over the debris.  The termites will cling to the damp paper after a few
minutes.

          4.1.2  A 7.57- to 11.35-liter (2- to 3-gal) pail is prepared by
placing about 10 unfolded slightly crumpled damp paper towels in the bottom
of the pail.  These towels should be rinsed in distilled water and squeezed
damp a number of times.  Cover these towels with about 10 unfolded dry
paper towels.

          4.1.3  The damp towels covering the tray debris are shaken into
the above described pail.  After 2 to 4 hr the dry towels and any insects
and debris on them are removed from the pail and discarded.  Insects
clinging to the lower damp towels are used in the test.

          4.1.4  Termites should not be held in the pail longer than 24 hr
before being used.

-------
                            -46-
          4.1.5  CAUTION:   Exercise reasonable care to insure that any
termites discarded (4.1.3)  are dead.   Oven-drying in the debris and towels
used at 100° C for 6 hr is  sufficient.   When a test is finished, reasonable
care should be exercised that living insects are not discarded.
5.   Weathering the Test Blocks

     5.1  If the test material is weathered prior to exposure to the
insects, the complete details on the weathering shall be reported.

     5.2  The ASTM weathering procedure for the soil block test is
recommended (ASTM D 1413-61).
6.   Conditioning of the Test Blocks

     6.1  All test blocks, following weathering if used, shall be con-
ditioned to a constant weight and the individual weights recorded, prior
to exposure to the insects.

     6.2  The ASTM soil block conditioning procedure is recommended
(ASTM 1413-61).
7.   Block Quantity and Identification

     7.1  Five replicate blocks should be prepared for each variable under
test; e.g., for each retention of each preservative or chemical to be
tested.

     7.2  Five untreated blocks of the same species as the blocks in 7.1
must be used as controls for each separate study.

     7.3  If southern yellow pine (SYP) is not used as the species in
7.1 and 7.2, then five blocks of untreated SYP must be added to each study
to permit a comparison to studies using SYP as the major species.

     7.4  All blocks must be identified with a number in a suitable manner.
8.   Assembling Containers

     8.1  Prior to using, all containers (2.1) shall be washed, rinsed
in the Zephiran chloride solution, and dried.

     8.2  Sand in amount of 250 g is added in one or two increments to
each container.

          8.2.1  If a material which is easily leachable from wood is under
test, all the sand is added to the container at one time and the individual
weighed block is placed on a plastic ring on the surface of the sand in the
center of the container.  This will keep the block slightly above the
substrate.

-------
                             -47-
          8.2.2  If the material under test is not readily leachable, the
sand is added in two increments to each container as follows:

                 8.2.2.1  Fill each container about one-half with sand
and press one of the weighted test blocks about half way into the sand
with one side of the block touching the container side.

                 8.2.2.2  Add the second increment of sand, filling each
container about two-thirds full.

          8.2.3  Five containers are prepared without blocks but with the
same quantity of sand as above.  These containers are used to determine the
natural vigor of the insects used in the study.

     8.3  Mark or number each container for identification.

     8.4  Sufficient distilled water is added to each container as deter-
mined in Section 3.  After addition of the water, the containers are set
aside for 24 hr.
9.   Adding Termites

     9.1  One-half g  (±0.01 g) of subterranean termites (Section 4)
are weighed and added to each of the previously prepared containers.

     9.2  The container tops are replaced loosely.
10.  Container Storage and Inspections

     10.1  The test containers are weighed individually and maintained
at 25 to 28° C. for 30 days.

           10.1.1  Every 5 to 7 days the containers are examined and
the presence of tunneling, termite mortality, and position of the termites
in the container recorded as follows:

                10.1.1.1  Tunnelling present - yes, no.

                10.1.1.2  Majority termite position - up, down.

                10.1.1.3  Termite mortality - none, slight, moderate, heavy.

     10.2  Periodically weigh five randomly selected containers and add
distilled water if the moisture content of the sand drops below two per-
centage points of the original moisture content  (see Section  3).


11.  Container Disassembly

     11.1  After 30 days, the containers are disassembled and the blocks
removed and cleaned.  Prior to and during the disassembly the items in
Section 10.1.1 are noted.

-------
                             -48-
12.  Block Evaluation

     12.1  Each block is examined and visually rated using the termite
rating system as given in "Standard Method of Evaluating Wood Preservatives
by Field Tests with Stakes," ASTM D 1758-62, as follows:

     Recording Grade    Numerical Rating   Description of Condition

          A                    10          Sound

          B                     9          Trace of attack

          C                     7          Moderate attack

          D                     4          Heavy attack

          E                     0          Failure by termite attack

Two rating scales are shown for termite rating.  This is done to prevent
confusion when recording data.   When analyzing the ratings, the numerical
ones can be substituted.  If desired, the numerical ratings may be used
throughout.

     12.2  Following the above rating, the blocks are reconditioned to
constant weight under the same conditions used in 6.1.

           12.2.1  The individual block weight losses are determined.

     12.3  The visual and weight loss ratings are correlated for each
block and each group of replicates.  A single combined rating may be
assigned to each block if desired.

     12.4  A statistical analysis of the data should be completed and a
treatment evaluation derived.

-------
                             -49-
                                                        Exhibit 13
      TEST METHOD FOR ANTIFOULING PAINTS ON WOOD SUBSTRATES
                FOR FRESH OR SALT WATER EXPOSURE

        Adapted from Environmental Protection Agency and
                         Industry Sources
    1.1  This procedure outlines the testing procedure of marine anti-
fouling paints for wood substrates.  It directs how panels are to be
prepared and exposed for testing to acquire efficacy information to be
submitted with application for registration.
2.  Test Panel Preparation

    2.1  The panels may be prepared either in the laboratory or at the
exposure site.

    2.2  Recommended test panels are 13 mm (1/2 in.) thick Douglas Fir
plywood, exterior grade or Marine, solid core, and at least 152 by 304
mm  (6 by 12 in.)

    2.3  Prime and paint panels as directed on the label of the paint
being tested.

    2.4  Exposed at each test location at least two panels for each
paint to be tested, two standard panels painted with three coats U.S.N.
Formula 121/63; and two check (control) panels painted with a brown
alkyd enamel without toxicant.

    2.5  Prepare all wood panels as follows:

         2.5.1  Fill all core openings or defects in panel stock with
solvent-type wood filler.  After filler has dried, sand all surfaces.

         2.5.2  Apply test paint as directed on label.

         2.5.3  Prepare standard 121/63 panels as follows:

                2.5.3.1  Apply two coats of U.S. Navy Formula 121/63
(MIL-P-15931B) with brush, roller or spray gun to a dry-film thickness
of 4.0 mils (minimum).   Allow minimum of 1 hr drying between coats
(minimum 21° C and 70%  or less R.H.).  Allow minimum of 4 hr drying of
last coat before immersion.

         2.5.4  Prepare check (control) panels as follows:

-------
                            -50-
                2.5.4.1  Apply two coats of brown alkyd enamel approxi-
mating Federal Standard Color #30166.  Apply to a dry film thickness of
4.0 mils minimum.  Refer to ASTM D2691-70 Dry Film Thickness of Coating
on Wood Products.  Allow at least 24 hours between coats and between
last coat and immersion.  Enamel used shall conform with Federal Spec-
ification TT-E-490B.  The color specified approximates the color of 121/63.

    2.6  Shipment shall be made in either slotted boxes, to keep panels
separate, or in polyethylene sleeves, each panel being sealed in a
separate pocket.  Panels shall be shipped in fresh or sea-water (depending
upon exposure) when labeling calls for specified launching time after
painting.
3.  Exposure Method

    3.1  Sample panels may be exposed in any standard racks available
at each exposure station.  Local conditions may influence exposure depth.

         3.1.1  For totally submerged panels, it is recommended that they
be suspended from either a float or a fixed support so that top of panels
are at least 1 foot below water surface.

    3.2  All samples from one shipment should be exposed on the same day.
4.  Examination

    4.1  Panels shall be examined and reported on at 30-day intervals.

    4.2  From each examination a Fouling Resistance (F.R.) statistic
will be developed, the panels being rated as follows:

                                                         Score

Surface free of attached fouling organism                 100

Incipient forms present only                               95

If mature forms are present, subtract from 100 or 95 the total number
of individual organisms present, or the total percent area covered by
colonial forms.
                            Example

                                                         Score

No incipient fouling, panel clean                         100

Barnales -10 each                               -10

Tunicates -2 each                                -2

Algae    -15 each                               -15

-------
                             -51-
                            Example

                                                         Score
                                                          100
                                                          -27

                             F.R.  (Fouling Resistance) =   73

    4.3  Each panel of the set is  graded as above, as are the standards
and the untreated checks.

    4.4  Identification of fouling organisms to genus is not necessary.
However, if such identification to genus and species is possible, so
report, identifying types of organism  (Barnacle,Tunicate, Algae, etc.).

    4.5  Grade paint film as follows:

         4.5.1  A film with no defects scores 100.

         4.5.2  Subtract the percentage of the surface showing defects
from 100.

         4.5.3  This statistic is  called A.F. (Antifouling film rating).


5.  Reporting

    5.1  Efficacy for supporting application shall be based on 12 months'
exposure.

    5.2  Copies of each monthly report shall be submitted with application.

         5.2.1  Reports should show following information:

                1.  Identity of exposure station and location

                2.  Type of exposure

                3.  Length of exposure with dates

                4.  Identity of paints

                5.  Fouling resistance rating for each panel

                6.  Antifouling film rating for each panel

-------
                            -52-
                                                        Exhibit 14
     TEST METHOD FOR ANTIFOULING PAINTS ON METAL SUBSTRATES
                  FOR FRESH OR SALT WATER EXPOSURE

        Adapted from Environmental Protection Agency and
                        Industry Sources
    1.1  This method describes the preparation and testing of fresh and
salt-water antifouling paints on steel and aluminum substrates.
2.  Test Panels

    2.1  All panels should be prepared as follows unless these directions
conflict with label directions of the paint being tested.   In any case,
standard and control panels should be prepared as follows:

    2.2  Steel panels

         2.2.1  The recommended panel is a medium (mild) steel plate (low
carbon, MIL-S-22698, Type 3, Class A or as covered by ASTM A569), at least
3 by 152 by 305 mm (1/8 by 6 by 12 in.), with a minimum of 466 square cm
(72 square in.) per side.  A 6-mm (1/4-in.) diamter hole,  6 mm from the
top and centered, shall be drilled for holding the panel for handling and
while painting.  A 19-mm (3/4-in.) vinyl tape numbered and applied between
the first and second coats of antifoulding paint can be used for identifi-
cation.

         2.2.2  Surface preparation:  The panel should be abrasive blasted
to near white metal.

         2.2.3  Coating system used will depend on paint being tested.   All
steel panels should be stored in a heated drying oven 82° C immediately
after blasting if the panels are not to be coated immediately.  Such treat-
ment will prevent rust on the blasted surface.

         2.2.4  Standard panel preparation - Antifouling.

                2.2.4.1  One coat (0.5 mil or 13 microns) #117 pretreatment
coating, MIL-P-15328.

                2.2.4.2  Four coats (6.0 mils or 150 microns) #119 Vinyl
Red Lead Primer, MIL-P-15929.

                2.2.4.3  Two coats (4.0 mils or 100 microns) #121/63 Red
Vinyl (A.F.), MIL-P-15931.

-------
                            -53-
         2.2.5  Drying times:

                2.2.5.1  The abrasive blasted panel should be coated with
the #117 within 8 hr after blasting.

                2.2.5.2  The #117 should be top coated with the first coat
of #119 red lead vinyl within 24 hr.

                2.2.5.3  Allow a minimum of 1 hr drying time between the
next coats of #119 and 121/63 (minimum 21° C and relative humidity of 70%
or less) and a maximum of 24 hr.  Allow a minimum of 4 hr drying for the
last coat of 121/63 A.F. before immersion and a maximum of 2 weeks (this
allows shipping time of the panel to the immersion site).

         2.2.6  Primer will be used as recommended on label or accompanying
literature, i.e., Technical Bulletins, etc.

    2.3  Aluminum panels

         2.3.1  Aluminum panels shall conform both in substance and
preparation to ASTM D1733-63 "Standard Method of Preparation of Aluminum
Alloy Panels for Testing Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Products."

         2.3.2  Proceed with the coating system as specified on label of
paint on test.

    2.4  Expose at each test location at least two panels for each paint
to be tested; two panels painted with the standard paint system and ex-
posed with suitable uncoated blacks  (slate panels may be used as satis-
factory black surface).

    2.5  Shipment should be made in either slotted boxes, to keep panels
separate, or in polyethylene sleeves, each panel being sealed in a separ-
ate pocket.  Panels should be shipped in fresh or sea-water (depending
upon exposure) when labeling calls for specified maximum launching time
after painting.
3.  Exposure Method

    3.1  Sample panels may be exposed in any standard racks available
at each exposure station.  Local conditions may influence depth.

         3.1.1  For totally submerged panels, it is recommended that they
be suspended from either a float or a fixed support so that top of panels
are at least 1 foot below water surface.

    3.2  All samples from one shipment must be exposed on the same day.
4.  Examination

    4.1  Panels should be examined and reported on at 30-day intervals.

-------
                            -54-
    4.2  From each examination a Fouling Resistance (F.R.) statistic will
be developed, the panels being rated as follows:

                                                         Score

Surface free of attached fouling organism                 100

Incipient forms present only                               95

If mature forms are present, subtract from 100 or 95
the total number of individual organisms present,
or the toal percent area covered by colonial forms


                            Example

                                                         Score

No incipient fouling, panel clean                         100

Barnacles   -10 each                            -10

Tunicates    -2 each                             -2

Algae       -15 each                            -15
                                                          -27

                          F.R. (Fouling Resistance) =      73

    4.3  Each panel of the set is graded as above, as are the standards
and the untreated checks.

    4.4  Identification of fouling organisms to genus is not necessary.
However, if such identification to genus and species is possible, so
report, identifying type of organism (Barnacle, Tunicate, Algae, etc.).

    4.5  Grade paint film as follows:

         4.5.1  A film with no defects scores 100.

         4.5.2  Subtract the percentage of the surface showing defects from
100.

         4.5.3  This statistic is called A.F. (Antifouling film rating).

-------
                               -55-
                                                      Exhibit 15
                  TEMPORARY FABRIC TREATMENTS

USDA-ARS, Stored Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory
                         Savannah, Ga.
1.  Species

    Clothes moth and carpet beetles

    Webbing clothes moth, Tineola bisselli-ella (Hummel), and the black
carpet beetle, Attagenus megatoma (F.), are preferred.  Both larvae and
adults should be tested.


2.  Number of test insects
    Four sets of 10 insects replicated 3 times (120 insects of each stage)


3.  Observations

    Insects should be observed 24 and 48 hours after treatment, and the
percentage of knocked-down (KD) and dead-plus-moribund (D+M) insects re-
corded.  Data should be presented in tabular form.
NOTE:  Some nonresidual sprays may also function as short-term protectants
or semipermanent mothproofers when sprayed directly on woolen fabric.  If
classification as a semipermanent mothproofer is desired, the criteria
in the following section on semipermanent mothproofers should be followed.
                          Reference

Bry, R.E., J.H. Lang, and R.E. Boatright.  1973.  Toxicity of resmethrin
  to carpet beetles and clothes moths.  Pest Control 41  (11): 32, 47.

-------
                              -56-
                                                             Exhibit 16
                SEMIPERMANENT FABRIC TREATMENTS

USDA-ARS, Stored Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory
                         Savannah, Ga.
1.  Application and aging

    Official moth test cloth should be sprayed until "damp" to the touch.
Insert-feeding tests should be conducted when the cloth is dry.  Samples
should be stored under darkened or semidarkened conditions, and feeding
tests should be conducted at selected intervals during the aging period.
The efficacy date submitted must show that the treatment satisfactorily
protects the cloth for the time period claimed.  Chemical analyses
should be conducted initially and at each aging interval.
2.  Biological test procedures

    Use the applicable procedures as published by the Chemical Specialties
Manufacturers Association (CSMA) or the American Association of Textile
Chemists and Colorists (AATCC)-
3.  Species

    Clothes moths and carpet beetles

    Webbing clothes moth, Tineola b-issetl-ielta (Hummel), and black beetle
Attagenus megatoma (F.), are preferred.


4.  Observations

    The appropriate excrement-weight or fabric-weight-loss data, mortality
data  and  the analytical results should be submitted in tabular form.  Visual
feeding damage ratings are required.
NOTE:   If the semipermanent mothproof er is applied in some other manner
such as from a drycleaning solution or from a padding machine, the above
aging, biological test procedures, and manner of reporting will apply.
                          Reference

Bry, R.E., R.E. Boatright, J.H. Lang, and R.S. Gail.  1973,  Protecting
  woolen fabric against insect damage with resmethrin. Soap Cosm. Chem,
  Spec.  49(3): 40, 42, 44.

-------
                             -57-
                                                             Exhibit 17
                  PERMANENT FABRIC TREATMENTS

USDA-ARS, Stored Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory
                         Savannah, Ga.
1.  Laboratory application procedures

    Permanent mothproofers are usually applied to woolen fabric during
dyeing, and efficacy data should generally be generated with a mill run;
however, laboratory procedures such as that described by Bry and Simonaitis
(1975) will be a  close simulation of the dyebath process.


2.  Performance test procedures

    Performance test procedures developed by AATCC  (AATCC Test Method 28-
1974—same as American National Standards Institute L 14-65-1960/R1971)
should be employed.  These criteria should be considered as the minimum
requirements for  a permanent mothproofer and additional extended testing
should be conducted.  The following table lists the minimum requirements
and the suggested additional testing
                                         Minimum
                                        requirements
                                         5  times
Manipulation

Washing*

Drycleaning:

  Stoddard solvent or perchlorbethylene 5 times

Hot pressing                            5 times

Sea water                               5 immersions

Perspiration:

  Acid                                  5 immersions

  Alkaline                              5 immersions

Light:
  Maximum
requirements

 10 - 15 times
                                                              10 -  15  times

                                                              10 -  15  times
   Fade-Ometer
                                        40  Standard
                                           Fading  Hours
  100  Standard
      Fading  Hours
 NOTE:  Chemical analyses should be conducted before and after the above
 manipulations.
 ^Procedure described by Bry and Lang (1967) may be substituted.

-------
                             -58-
3.  Biological test procedures

    Use the applicable procedure published by CSMA or MTCC (AATCC Test
Method 24-1974).
4.  Species

    Clothes moths and carpet beetles

    Webbing clothes moth, T-ineola bisselliella (Hummel), and black carpet
beetle, Attagenus megatoma (F.)> are preferred,


5.  Observations

    The appropriate excrement-weight or fabric-weight-loss data, mortality,
and the analytical results should be submitted in tabular form.  Visual
feeding damage ratings are required.


                          References

Bry, R.E., and J.H. Lang.  1967.  0,0-diethyl phosporothioate 0-ester
  with phenylglyoxylonitrile oxime (Bay 77488) as a mothproofer of
  woolen fabric.  Textile Res.  J. 37(11): 915-919.

Bry, R. E., and R.A. Simonaitis.  1975.  Mothproofing in an acid dyebath.
  Textile Chem. Color.  7(2): 28-29.

-------