SUBSTITUTE CHEMICAL PROGRAM
INITIAL SCIENTIFIC
MINIECONOMIC REVIEW
ALDICARB
MAY 1975
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
CRITERIA AND EVALUATION DIVISION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
EPA-540/1-75-013
-------
SUBSTITUTE CHEMICAL PROGRAM
INITIAL SCIENTIFIC
AND
MINIECONOMIC REVIEW
ALDICARB
MAY 1975
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
CRITERIA AND EVALUATION DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
EPA-540/1-75-013
-------
This report has been compiled by the Criteria and
Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
EPA, in conjunction with other sources listed in
the Preface. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
-------
PREFACE
The Alternative (Substitute) Chemicals Program was initiated under
Public Law 93-135 of October 24, 1973, to "provide research and testing
of substitute chemicals." The legislative intent is to prevent using
substitutes, which in essence are more deleterious to man and his environ-
ment, than a problem pesticide (one that has been suspended, cancelled,
deregistered or in an "internal review" for suspected "unreasonable
adverse effects to man or his environment"). The major objective of the
program is to determine the suitability of substitute chemicals which now
or in the future may act as replacements for those uses (major and minor)
of pesticides that have been cancelled, suspended, or are in litigation
or under internal review for potential unreasonable adverse effects on
man and his environment.
The substitute chemical is reviewed for suitability considering all
applicable scientific factors such as: chemistry, toxicology, pharmacology
and environmental fate and movement; and socio-economic factors such as:
use patterns and costs and benefits. EPA recognizes the fact that even
though a compound is registered it still may not be a practical substitute
for a particular use or uses of a problem pesticide. The utilitarian
value of the "substitute" must be evaluated by reviewing its biological
and economic data. The reviews of substitute chemicals are carried out in
two phases. Phase I conducts these reviews based on data bases readily
accessible at the present time. An Initial Scientific Review and Mini-
economic Review are conducted simultaneously to determine if there is
enough data to make a judgment with respect to the "safety and efficacy"
of the substitute chemical. Phase II is only performed if the Phase I
reviews identify certain questions of safety or lack of benefits. The
Phase II reviews conduct in-depth studies of these questions of safety and
cost/benefits and consider both present and projected future uses of the
substitute chemicals.
The report summarizes rather than interprets scientific data reviewed
during the course of the studies. Data is not correlated from different
sources. Opinions are not given on contradictory findings.
This report contains the Phase I Initial Scientific and Minieconomic
Review of Aldicarb [2-methyl-2-(methylthio) propionaldehyde 0-(methyl-
carbamoyl)oxime]. Aldicarb was identified as a registered substitute chem-
ical for certain cancelled and suspended uses of DDT. Where applicable, the
review also identifies areas where technical data may be lacking so that
appropriate studies may be initiated to develop desirable information.
The review covers all uses of aldicarb and is intended to be adaptable
to future needs. Should aldicarb be identified as a substitute for a problem
pesticide other than DDT, the review can be updated and made readily avail-
able for use. The data contained in this report was not intended to be
111
-------
complete in all areas. Data-searches ended in December, 1974. The review
was coordinated by a team of EPA scientists in the Criteria and Evaluation
Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs. The responsibility of the
team leader was to provide guidance and direction and technically review
information retrieved during the course of the study. The following EPA
scientists were members of the review team: William Burnam (Pharmacology
and Toxicology), team leader; George Bagley (Chemistry); Richard Claggett
(Fate and Significance in the Environment); Richard Stevens (Fate and
Significance in the Environment); Dr. E. David Thomas (Registered Uses);
and Jeff Conopask (Economics).
Data research, abstracting and collection were primarily performed by
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri (EPA Contract #68-01-2448)
RvR Consultants, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, under a subcontract to Midwest
Research, assisted in data collection. Union Carbide Corporation, a manu-
facturer of aldicarb, made certain comments and additions to this report.
Recommendations of the EPA, Office of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze
Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida, have also been
incorporated.
iv
-------
GENERAL CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Part I. Summary 1
Part II. Initial Scientific Review 9
Subpart A. Chemistry 9
Subpart B. Pharmacology and Toxicology 21
Subpart C. Fate and Significance in the Environment . . 45
Subpart D. Production and Use 73
Part III. Minieconomic Review 95
-------
FIGURES
No.
1 Production schematic for aldicarb 12
2 A metabolic pathway of aldicarb in cotton plants 65
vi
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Solubility in Various Solvents 16
2 U.S. Tolerances for Aldicarb 19
3 Dermal Toxicity of Aldicarb to Male Rabbits 28
4 Acute Oral Toxicity of Aldicarb to Chickens
(10-Day Test) " 30
5 Incidence of Tumor Occurrence in Mice Painted with
Aldicarb Compared to Methyl Cholanthrene Painted
Animals 37
6 Summary of Animal Species Recorded in and Around
Two Sugar Beet Fields Treated with Aldicarb at
0.89 Lb/Acre 50
7 Registered Agricultural Uses of Aldicarb 75
8 Registered Ornamental Uses of Aldicarb 80
9 Warning and Precautionary Statements Appearing on Temik v£>
15G (Aldicarb) Labels 82
10 Estimated Uses of Aldicarb (Temik^ ) in the U.S. by
Regions and Major Crops and Other Uses (1972) 88
11 Aldicarb Uses in California by Major Crops and Other
Uses (1970-1973) 91
12 Use of Aldicarb (TemikVS) ), in California in 1972,
By Crops and Other Uses, Applications, Quantities,
and Acres Treated 92
vii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
13 Use of Aldicarb (Temik®), in California in
1973, By Crops and Other Uses, Applications,
Quantities, and Acres Treated 93
14 Summary of Efficacy Tests on Cotton 99
15 1974 Results of Temik® Application on Cotton 105
16 Summary of Efficacy Tests on Potatoes 108
17 1974 Results of Temik® Application on Potatoes 110
18 Summary of Efficacy Tests on Sweet Potatoes 114
19 Summary of Efficacy Tests on Sugar Beets 115
20 1974 Results of TemikVS' Application on Sugar Beets,
Unidentified U.S. Regions 117
21 Summary of Efficacy Tests on Peanuts 118
22 1974 Results of Temik v$ Application on Peanuts 119
viii
-------
PART I. SUMMARY
CONTENTS
Production and Use
Toxicity and Physiological Effects
Food Tolerances and Acceptable Intake
Environmental Effects
Limitations in Available Scientific Data
Page
Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness 8
-------
This section contains a summary of the "Initial Scientific and
Minieconomic Review" conducted on aldicarb. The section summarizes
rather than interprets scientific data reviewed.
Production and Use
Aldicarb [2-methyl-2-(methylthio) propionaldehyde 0-(methyl-
carbamoyl)oxime] is a pesticide with a broad spectrum of effective-
ness against many species of insects, mites, and nematodes.
Technical aldicarb is manufactured under the trade name TemikQv;
a registered trademark of Union Carbide Corporation. The pesticide is
currently registered for use on sugarcane and sweet potatoes (in
Louisiana only), and on cotton, sugar beets, potatoes, peanuts, and
commercially grown ornamentals; it is not registered for home use.
Aldicarb is manufactured by the following synthesis process:
2(CH3)2C=CH2 + 2NaN02 + 4HC1—> 2NaCl + 2H20 + [ClC(CH3)2CH2NO]2
2-Chloro-2-methyl-1-
nitrosopropane dimer
(I)
(I) 2CH3SNa ^ 2NaCl + CH3SC(CH3)2CH=NOH
2-Methyl-2(methylthio)propionaldehyde
oxime (II)
CHoNCO
(II) 3— > CH3SC(CH3)2CH=NOC(0)NHCH3
Aldicarb
*
Hydrolysis of aldicarb to the oxime is reported to be complete
after 1 min at 100°C in dilute alkali. Rapid, quantitative oxidation
to aldicarb sulfone by peracetic acid is used in analytical gas-liquid
chromatographic determinations.
-------
An estimated 1.0 to 1.5 million pounds of aldicarb (as active
ingredient) were produced in the United States in 1972; about 600,000
Ib were used domestically. According to our estimates, about three-
quarters of the total 1972 domestic usage was on cotton, about 100,000
Ib on sugar beets, and about 60,000 Ib on all other crops. On a
regional basis, it is estimated that about 85% of the total 1972
domestic usage was in the Southern states, with the North Central and
Northwest states accounting for essentially all of the remainder.
Toxicity and Physiological Effects
Technical aldicarb is extremely toxic to mammals.
Acute Oral Toxicity - The U>50 value for technical aldicarb was found
to be 0.9 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg for male and female rats, respectively.
The major metabolic products, aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone,
have respective LD5Q values of 0.88 mg/kg and 25 mg/kg. The LD5Q
for the 10% granular to rats is 7.07 mg/kg. t
Dermal Toxicity - Rats were exposed for 4 hr to Temik 10G applied to the
skin. Exposures of dry Temik 10G to dry skin produced an LD5Q of 3,200
mg/kg; when wetted with saline, the LD5Q was 400 mg/kg. In another 4 hr
exposure with dry granules, the dermal LD5Q was 4,580 mg/kg for the 10G
and 6,320 mg/kg for the 15G. The LDso of 10G to rabbits was 141 mg/kg in
a 24 hr exposure.
Acute Inhalation Toxicity - Exposure of rats (as well as mice and
guinea pigs) to 200 mg/M3 of aldicarb dust for 5 min produced high
toxicity. Rats survived an exposure to 6.7 mg/M^ for 15 min, whereas
five out of six animals died at this exposure for 30 min. Room air
saturated with aldicarb vapor does not appear to be toxic to rats over
an 8-hr exposure.
Subacute Toxicity (93-day study) - Eight out of 10 rats died when
exposed to 0.5 mg/kg/day; no significant histopathological changes
were observed. At 0.1 and 0.02 mg/kg day, experimental animals and
controls had similar results in all parameters measured.
Chronic Oral Toxicity (2-years study) - There appeared to be no signif-
icant differences between the control rats and the test rats maintained
on diets containing 0.005, 0.025, and 0.1 mg/kg aldicarb over a 2-year
period. A 2-year study on rats gave the following no-adverse effect
levels for aldicarb and certain metabolites:
1:1 mixture of aldicarb sulfone and sulfoxide 0.6 mg/kg/day
Aldicarb sulfone 2.4 mg/kg/day
Aldicarb sulfoxide 0.3 mg/kg/day
Aldicarb 0.3 mg/kg/day
-------
Dogs maintained on a diet of 0.10 mg/kg/day of aldicarb for
2-years showed no statistically significant deleterious effects.
The no-effect level for dogs in 90-day studies was also shown to
be 0.1 mg/kg/day.
Aldicarb was non-carcinogenic in a lifetime skin painting study
in mice.
Environmental Exposure - Rats were maintained on a soil treated
2-1/2 in deep with 500 Ib of Temik ®10G per acre without any
visible signs of toxicity.
Demyelination - A test of chickens on single and multiple doses of
aldicarb did not produce symptoms of demyelination.
Teratology - No teratogenic effects were observed in young pregnant
rats given 1 mg/kg of aldicarb in the diet.
Reproduction.- Two separate three-generation reproductive studies in
rats indicated no-adverse-effect levels of 0.1 and 0.7 mg/kg/day.
Mutagenic Effects - No mutagenic effects were noted in either of the
three generation reproductive studies or in a dominant lethal study
in rats.
Metabolism - Aldicarb is readily absorbed from the mammalian gastro-
intestinal tract. Distribution is passive with no tissue specificity.
Metabolites of aldicarb are excreted in the urine and exhaled air.
Of these metabolites, aldicarb sulfoxide is the most potent choli-
nesterase inhibitor. The sulfoxide and sulfone of aldicarb oxime are
the major metabolites of aldicarb. Oxidative metabolism of aldicarb
is by the mixed-function oxidases. Hydrolytic enzymes metabolize
the carbamate moiety. There is apparently little or no accumulation
of aldicarb or its metabolites in tissues.
Human Exposure - Data on humans indicated that up to a single oral
dose of 0.1 mg/kg, aldicarb's effects were mild and transient.
Information concerning manufacturing operations and accidents
indicated that aldicarb, in coated granular form, has caused minimal
adverse incidents.
Food Tolerances and Acceptable Intake
Aldicarb has not been reported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
as a significant residue in any class of food; nor is it routinely searched
for in the FDA multiresidue analytical system which monitors pesticide
residues in food. Adequate individual compound methods exist for measuring
aldicarb residues. The apparent reason for the absence of aldicarb residue
data is that the pesticide is not widely used on major food and feed items.
The absence of aldicarb residue data does not necessarily mean it is not
present in food.
-------
Tolerances have been established for aldicarb residues on 15 food
and feed commodities. These tolerances range from 0.01 ppm in meats
and meat by-products to 1.0 ppm in potatoes and sugar beet tops.
An acceptable daily intake (ADI) has not been established for
aldicarb.
Environmental Effects
Aldicarb is reported to be toxic to fish. Product labels carry a
warning to this effect, and state that aldicarb should be kept out of any
body of water. LDso values (48 hr) for bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
have been reported as 150 pg/liter, 800 ug/liter, and 1,600 fig/liter,
respectively.
Laboratory studies on the toxicity of aldicarb to wildlife have
been limited to the mallard duck (Anas Platyrhynchos) and bobwhite quail
(Colinus Virginianus). ^50 values (for approximately 8-day-old birds)
are 3.6 and 240 mg/kg, respectively.
A number of field tests have been conducted to assess the hazard
of aldicarb to wildlife. In one test, no evidence of mortality in
animal and bird populations was observed in treated fields (1.5 Ib
aldicarb/acre) or in adjacent areas. Residues (0.07 ppm aldicarb and/
or metabolites) were detected in only one of 14 birds sampled. Tests
involving simulated spills of aldicarb indicate that neither wild deer,
ring-necked pheasants, pigeons nor rabbits would be attracted to, or
would feed on piles of aldicarb granules (the only formulation commer-
cially available).
Aldicarb has been classified as highly toxic to bees. Populations
of bumblebees, leafcutter bees, and alkali bees do not appear to be
adversely affected by the use of aldicarb in accordance with label
recommendations.
Available data indicates that, at rates of application recommended
for control of target pests, aldicarb is toxic to a number of important
predators and parasites, especially those preying on bollworms (Heliothis
sp.). Those belonging to the order Hymenoptera are significantly
affected. Spiders (order Araneida) and certain groups of hymenopterous
insects (families Braconidae and Ichneumonidae) are apparently less
affected.
The data on the effects of aldicarb on beneficial predators and
parasites pertains primarily to cotton. Reports were not found on
effects of aldicarb on predators and parasites in other crops for which
the product is registered.
-------
Laboratory tests show that the concentrations of aldicarb in
soil that might result from normal use, for example those in accordance
with label recommendations, are not toxic to a number of bacteria and
fungi. However, the data is insufficient to determine whether or not
the use of aldicarb, a pesticide recommended only for soil application,
presents specific hazards to the soil microflora or microfauna under
actual field conditions.
The dissipation of aldicarb and its metabolites has been studied in
a number of water types. The half-life of aldicarb in pond water, lake
water, and in a farm pond was found to .be 5 days, 6 days, and 7 to 10
days, respectively.
Only limited data was found on the presence, fate, and persis-
tence of aldicarb in the air. Monitoring of the air in uncovered, treated
fields has failed to detect carbamate residues.
The persistence of aldicarb has been evaluated in a number of
different soil types and under a range of pH values and moisture levels.
The soil tests which were reviewed indicated a half-life range of 1 to
15 days. One investigator has stated that the half-life of aldicarb in
soils varies from 1 to 4 weeks. More rapid degradation apparently occurs
in mineral soils, while aldicarb residues are more persistent in soils
of higher organic content. Replicated soil residue decline tests con-
ducted on 12 different soil types' indicate, according to the investiga-
tor, that aldicarb and its metabolites are not persistent.
Aldicarb is reported to be readily eluted with water from soil
columns. Aldicarb had the highest leaching rate of several soil insec-
ticides recently tested in three Egyptian soils; 47, 42, and 56% was
leached from sand, loam, and sandy elay loam soils, respectively.
There is evidence of lateral movement of aldicarb, and aldicarb
residues have been detected in nontarget vegetation. In one test,
aldicarb and/or its metabolites were detected in 80% of the grass and
weeds collected from the treated areas (dry land and irrigated cotton
fields treated at the rate of 1.5 Ib aldicarb/acre) and in 83% of the
samples from untreated sections. Residues as high as 42.80 ppm were found
in composite samples from treated areas of a dry land field 7 days after
treatment, decreasing to 0.96 ppm 29 day's after treatment. Residues were
also detected in weeds growing in untreated sections (12 to 13 ft from
the treated rows) ranging from 0.02 to 19.64 ppm. Similar residues were
found in samples from irrigated fields.
-------
Limited quantitative data were found on the aldicarb residues in specific
plants. Volunteer crabgrass growing in fallow ground contained 1.15 ppm
of ^C-aldicarb equivalents 90 days after treatment at the rate of 3 lb
aldicarb per acre. Sugar beet roots and potatoes contained 0.05 to 0.2
and 0.05 ppm aldicarb residue, respectively, when harvested 4 months after
planting (and soil treatment with aldicarb 10% granules). Tests on a
Pennsylvania tree farm have shown that aldicarb appears to be readily ab-
sorbed and translocated upward in the Scotch pine.
The propensity of aldicarb for bioaccumulation and biomagnification
was recently studied in a laboratory model ecosystem consisting of a
terrestrial-aquatic interface and a seven-element food chain. Thirty-
three days after the introduction of radiolabeled aldicarb, the system
was disassembled and its components were analyzed. The results of these
analyses indicated that aldicarb had high persistence and low biodegrada-
bility. Aldicarb oxidation products (the sulfoxide and sulfone) were
recovered in water and organisms in the ecosystem.
No significant lateral movement of aldicarb and its metabolites
was caused by runoff, even during periods of heavy water flow. (Only
samples of water taken 8 days after application, following 5 in of
irrigation and 2 rainy days, contained analytically significant residue
(0.14 ppm). Soil samples taken 7 days after application contained 5.5
ppm). By the time aldicarb reaches the 4-foot depth, the concentration
of total toxic residue is no greater than 0.1 ppm.
Volatilization of aldicarb is apparently not a major factor in
environmental transport.
Limitations in Available Scientific Data
The review of scientific literature was based on available sources,
given limitations of time and resources. Data was not found in a
number of pertinent areas:
1. Data on the effects (if any) of aldicarb residues in vegetation
consumed by wildlife.
2. Field data of the effects on lower terrestrial organisms on
crops other than cotton.
3. Laboratory or field data on effects (if any) on lower
aquatic organisms.
-------
Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness
Temik(B)has been used successfully in controlling several different
types of insects (thrips, aphids, fleahoppers, and the Colorado potato
beetle) and nematodes on potatoes, sweet potatoes, sugar beets and
peanuts. There was no data found on at least eight other pest/crop
combinations.
Good control of thrips and aphids was obtained in tests on cotton.
Some reduction in boll weevil populations was also evidenced in selected
tests. These experiments usually resulted in increased yield.
Infestations of the Colorado potato beetle, potato flea beetle and
aphids were controlled well when Temik ®was applied to potatoes. Yield
increases generally followed the degree of pest control. Positive control
of nematodes was also noted.
TemikQy provided good thrip control, but variable yield differentials
on peanuts. Nematode control and strong yield increases were demonstrated.
Some reduction in nematode damage on sweet potatoes was found, but
yield changes were quite variable. On sugar beets, Temik®provided good
control of nematodes as well as up to a 37% yield increase.
Based on these yield responses (compared to zero control) the
following net benefit range has been estimated:
Crop Least benefit ($/acre) Greatest benefits ($/acre)
Cotton -370.75 558.78
Potato 61.65 609.00
Sweet potato -99.50 270.50
Sugar beet -17.20 101.04
Peanut -55.40 72.93
-------
PART II. INITIAL SCIENTIFIC REVIEW
SUBPART A. CHEMISTRY
CONTENTS
Page
Synthesis and Production Technology 10
Physical Properties of Aldicarb 11
Analytical Methods 13
Composition and Formulation 16
Chemical Properties 16
Hydrolysis 17
Oxidation 17
Acceptable Daily Intake 18
Tolerances 18
References 20
-------
This section reviews available data on aldicarb's chemistry and
presence in foods. Eight subject areas have been examined: Synthesis
and Production Technology; Physical Properties of Aldicarb; Composition
and Formulation; Analytical Methods; Chemical Properties; Occurrence
of Residues in Food and Feed Commodities; Acceptable Daily Intake; and
Tolerances. The section summarizes rather than interprets scientific
data reviewed.
Synthesis and Production Technology
Aldicarb is classed as an alkyl carbamate, and is manufactured in
a three-step reaction. The reaction chemistry is as follows (Lawless
et al., 1972I/):
2(CH3)2C=CH + 2NaN02 + 4HC1 > 2NaCl + 2H20
2-Chloro-2-methyl-
1-nitrosopropane
dimer (I)
2CHoSNa
(I) =2 > 2NaCl + CH3SC(CH3)2CH=NOH
2-Methyl-2-(methyl-
thio)propional-
dehyde oxime (II)
CH.NCO
(II) ^ > CH3SC(CH3)2CH=NOCONHCH3
Aldicarb
Aldicarb and a series of related compounds have been patented for
use as pesticides (Payne and Weiden, 19651.±J
\J Lawless, E. W., and T. L. Ferguson of Midwest Research Institute, and
R. von Riimker of RvR Consultants, "The Pollution Potential in Pesti-
i
cide Manufacturing," for the Environmental Protection Agency, Con-
tract No. 68-01-0142 (1972).
_2/ Payne, L. K. , and M. H. J. Weiden, U.S. Patent No. 3,217,037 (to
Union Carbide Corporation, November 9, 1965).
10
-------
Only laboratory methods of preparation are discussed in the patent.
This patent is assigned to Union Carbide Corporation, the only known
manufacturer of aldicarb.
Inpurities listed by Union Carbide which are present in the
manufacture of aldicarb and present in Temik M£> formulations are as
follows: dimethylurea, 2-methyl-2-(methylthio) propionitrile: 2-
methyl-2- (2 ) -methyl-2-methyl thio-propylideneaminoxy ) propionaldehyde
^)-(methylcarbamoyl) oxime; and 2-methy 1-2- (methyl thio) propionaldehyde
oxime .
According to Union Carbide, the impurities are of no pharmacological
significance .i'
A production schematic for aldicarb is shown in Figure 1.
Physical Properties of Aldicarb
Chemical Name; 2-Methyl-2- (methylthio) propionaldehyde
O-(methylcarbamoyl) oxime
Common Name: Aldicarb
Other Names; Temik®, UC-21149
Pesticide Class; Insecticide; carbamate
Structural Formula;
CH3 0
CHo-S-C - C=N-0-C-N-CHo
-> i i i ->
CH3 H H
Empirical Formula;
Molecular Weight: 190.2
Percentage Composition: C, 44.2%; H, 7.4%; N, 14.7%; 0, 16.8%; S, 16.9%
Physical State; White odorless crystals
Melting Point; 100°C
Vapor Pressure; 1 X 10~^ mm Hg at 25 °C
7 X 10-4 mm Hg at 50°C
4 X 10~3 mm Hg at 75 °C
I/ Union Carbide Corporation, Temik Technical Bulletin, Salinas,
Calif. (1974).
11
-------
CH3NCO
Flare
Aliphatic
Solvent
Vent
NaNO2
HCI (aq)
NaOH
Vent
Source: Lawless et al, op. cit. (1972).
Aldicarb
«
35% Concentrate
Secondary Waste
Treatment Plant
Formulation
Figure 1. Production schematic for aldicarb
-------
Analytical Methods
This subsection reviews analytical methods for aldicarb. The
review describes multi-residue methods, residue analysis principles,
and formulation analysis principles. Information on the sensitivity
and selectivity of these methods is also presented.
Multi-Residue Methods
Multi-residue methods for detecting aldicarb are not found in
either the Association of Official Analytical Chemists methods manual!'
or the Pesticide Analytical Manual. Vol. I (PAM, 1971)-'. Aldicarb
has not been reported as a significant residue in any class of food nor
is it routinely searched for in the FDA multi-residue analytical system
which is used to monitor pesticide residues in food. Adequate individual
compound methods exist for measuring aldicarb residues. The apparent
reason for the absence of aldicarb residue data is that the pesticide
is not widely used on major food items. The absence of aldicarb residue
data does not necessarily mean that it is not present in food.
Residue Analysis Principles
PAM, Vol. II (19 71). does not contain specific residue analysis method
for aldicarb.
R. R. RomineA/ describes two methods of residue analysis, the
gas chromatographic method and the color imetric method.
Gas Chromatographic Method - The toxic residue of aldicarb in biological
substrates is composed of aldicarb and its sulfoxide and sulfone
metabolites. All three of these components are determined as a total
residue by first oxidizing aldicarb and aldicarb sulfoxide to aldicarb
sulfone with peracetic acid and then determing total aldicarb sulfone by
gas chromatography. The aldicarb sulfone is determined utilizing a
flame-photometric detector incorporating a 394 nm filter specific for
sulfur-containing compounds. Quantitative determination of aldicarb is
achieved by reference of the peak height to a previously prepared cali-
bration curve.
I/ Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Official Methods of
Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, llth
ed., Washington, D.C. (1970).
2J U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Food and Drug
Administration, Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. I (1971).
3J U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Food and Drug
Administration, Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. II (1971).
4/ Romine, R. R., "Aldicarb," Chap. 4 in Analytical Methods for
Pesticides and Plant Growth Regulators, Vol. VII, Thin-Layer and
Liquid Chromatography, J. Sherma and G. Zweig (eds.), Academic
Press, Inc., New York (1973).
13
-------
The components of the toxic residue may be separated by Florisil
liquid-column chromatography prior to oxidation to the sulfone. The
components can be separated quantitatively by procedures similar to
those used for the total residues.
Studies have been made to determine if other sulfur-containing
pesticides would interfere in the described method. Several aspects of
the procedure, such as liquid-column chromatography, liquid-liquid
partitioning, gas chromatography, and the sulfur-specific filter in the
detector, afford considerable "built-in" specificity. Several currently
registered pesticides as well as aldicarb metabolites have been tested
through the procedure and do not interfere.
Recovery of aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone is
about 90% when crop or environmental samples are fortified prior to
extraction. Sensitivity varies from 0.007 to 0.010 ppm depending on
the nature of the biological substrate.
A wide variety of crops, both fruits and foilage, as well as soil,
water, and animal tissues, have been routinely analyzed using the gas
chromatographic method. Onions and other crops containing organic
sulfur compounds have been successfully analyzed with minor clean up
variations.
Colorimetric Method - The colorimetric method is based on the generation
and quantitation of hydroxylamine. Since development of the gas
chromatographic method, the colorimetric method is usually used as an
alternative if instrumentation is not available or as a confirmatory
procedure to further confirm the identity of the residues found by gas
chromatography. In some cases the colorimetric end-point may be
directly applied to the residue solution remaining after the small
aliquot is withdrawn for gas chromatography. If sensitivity is not
satisfactory, some further clean up of residue solutions may be neces-
sary. Sensitivity is approximately 0.03 ppm.
14
-------
The determination of total aldicarb residue is based on the carbamoyl-
oxime group of the molecule. The carbamoyloxime, hydrolyzed with base
to 2-methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde oxime, is illustrated as follows:
H3 CH3S-C-CH=0 + NH2OH (2)
HoC H
NH2OH + 2 I2 + H20 > HN02 + 4 HI (3)
Hydrolysis of the oxime in acidic medium (2) forms the aldehyde 2-
methyl-2-methylthiopropionaldehyde and hydroxylamine. The hydroxylamine
is oxidized with iodine to nitrous acid (3) which is determined colorime-
trically.
Chrysanthemum plants contain an interfering substance which causes
a deep red color when the colorimetric method is applied. This is the
only substrate known to exhibit this gross interference.
Formulation Analysis Principles - The infrared spectroscopic method is
increasingly being used for formulation analysis. Under the method, as
described by Romaine (1973), aldicarb is extracted from granules (the
only registered aldicarb formulation) using methylene chloride solvent.
The extract is diluted to a known volume with additional solvent and an
aliquot is analyzed for aldicarb content by infrared spectroscopy
utilizing the carbamate carbonyl absorbance at 5.75 jim. The absorbance
of the sample at 5.75 jum is measured, and the aldicarb content is deter-
mined by comparison with the absorbance of a standard solution of analytical
grade aldicarb treated in the same manner.
15
-------
Composition and Formulation
Technical aldicarb [2-methy1-2(methylthio)propionaldehyde 0- _.
(methylcarbamoyl)oxime] is manufactured under the trade name Temik&/
a registered trademark of Union Carbide Corporation. Technical
aldicarb is not isolated during manufacture. It is produced as a 30
to 35 percent solution in an organic solvent. The solution is used to
impregnate ground corn cob grits in the 10/40 mesh range. The finished
granulars contain 5 to 15 percent aldicarb on inert carriers.
The names under which pesticide products containing aldicarb are
marketed in the United States are Temik OH 10% granular aldicarb pesticide
and Temik &, 15% granular aldicarb pesticide. Common reference to the for-
mulated products is "Temik 10G" (EPA Reg. No. 1016-69) or "Temik 15G" (EPA
Reg. No. 1016-78).
Table 1. SOLUBILITY IN VARIOUS SOLVENTS
Solvent Percent
Acetone 35l/,30l/
Benzene 15i/
Chlorobenzene 15.2/
Chloroform 352/
Ethanol 25l/
Methylene chloride 3Qi/
Toluene lOJ-/
Water 0.6l/»l/
Heptane Practically insoluble?-'
Adapted from Frear (1969)!/, Kirk-Othmer (1966)!/, and Martin (1971).I/
Chemical Properties
Most of the published information concerning the chemistry of aldi-
carb deals with metabolism and degradation in the environment. The
chemistry of metabolism is discussed in the Pharmacology and Toxicology
{section, p. 21.
I/ Frear, D. E. H., Pesticide Index, 4th ed., College Science
Publisher, State College, Pennsylvania (1969).
2/ Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 2nd ed.,
Vol. 11, Interscience Publishers, New York, New York (1966).
3/ Martin, H., Pesticide Manual, 2nd ed., British Crop Protection
Council, Worchester, England (1971).
16
-------
Hydrolysis - Aldicarb is hydrolyzed by alkali, as shown in the following
equation:
CH3SC(CH3)2CH=NOCONHCH
OH"
CH3SC(CH3)2CHNOH + C02
Aldicarb Oxirae Methylaraine
According to an analytical procedure (Johnson and Stansbury, 1969±/)>
this reaction is complete in 1 min at 100°C in dilute alkali. Further
hydrolysis of the oxime can be achieved by acid hydrolysis, as shown by
the following equation:
CH3SC(CH3)2CHNOH
CH3SC(CH3)2CHO + NH2OH
Oxitne
Aldehyde
Hydroxylamine
This second hydrolysis step is considerably more difficult, requiring
10 min digestion in strong acid.
Oxidation - Aldicarb is oxidized quantitatively to the sulfone by means
of peracetic acid. This reaction is employed in analytical gas-liquid
chromatographic determinations. The reaction is rapid, but proceeds
through the sulfoxide which can be determined as an intermediate when
the reaction is incomplete (Carey and Helrich, 197Q2-'):
CH3 S C(CH3)2CH=NOCONHCH3
Aldicarb
Peracetic
acid
0
11
CH3SC(CH3)2CH=NOCONHCH3
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Peracetic
Acid
0
CH3SC(CH3)2 CH=NOCONHCHs
'd
Aldicarb Sulfone
I/ Johnson, D. P., and H. A. Stansbury, Jr., "Determination of TemikQy
Residues in Raw Fruits and Vegetables," J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem.
49 (2):399 (1969).
2J Carey, W. F., and K. Helrich, "Improved Quantitative Method for the
Determination of Aldicarb and Its Oxidation Products in Plant
Materials," J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 53(6):1296 (1970).
17
-------
Acceptable Daily Intake
The acceptable daily intake (ADI) is established only by the FAO/
WHO. It is defined as the daily intake which, during an entire life-
time, appears to be without appreciable risk on the basis of all known
facts at the time of evaluation (Lu, 1973.1/).
Although aldicarb is used on sugar beets and several other food
crops, a majority of its use is on cotton. It is also a relatively new
pesticide. Consequently, the FAO/WHO has not yet determined an ADI for
aldicarb.
Tolerances
Section 408 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended, gives
procedures for establishing U.S. tolerances for pesticide chemicals on
raw agricultural commodities. Section 409 applies to food additives, inclu-
ding pesticide chemicals on processed foods. Tolerances are published in
the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, and in the Federal Register.
A summary of current U.S. tolerances for aldicarb is presented in Table 2.
No tolerances are pending on any other crops.
According to Lu (1973), U.S. tolerances which are established should
not result in the maximum ADI being reached each day. He gives the following
reasons:
1. The tolerance reflects the maximum level of residue
resulting from good agricultural practice, but this
level is often not reached.
2. The tolerance is based on the assumption that the particular
pesticide is used on all food in the class in question, and
this is rarely the case.
3. Much of the residue will be lost in storage, processing and
cooking.
The tolerances are also based upon the entire product as purchased in
the market. However, the product, as purchased, may not be entirely
consumed.
I/ Lu, F. C., "Toxicological Evaluation of Food Additives and Pesticide
Residues and Their 'Acceptable Daily Intakes' for Man: The Role
of WHO in Conjunction with FAO" Residue Rev., 45:81-93 (1973).
18
-------
Table 2. U.S. TOLERANCES FOR ALDICARB
Commodities Tolerance (ppm)
Cattle (meat, fat, meat by-products) 0.01
Cottonseed 0.1
Cottonseed hulls 0.3
Goats (meat, fat, meat by-products) 0.01
Hogs (meat, fat, meat by-products) 0.01
Horses (meat, fat, meat-by-products) 0.01
Milk 0.002
Potatoes 1.0
Peanut hulls 0.5
Peanuts 0.05
Sheep (meat, fat, meat by-products) 0.01
Sugar beets 0.05
Sugar beet tops 1.0
Sugarcane 0.02
Sugarcane foddei and forage 0.1
Sweet potatoes • 0.02
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Compendium oi:
of Registered Pesticides, Vol. Ill (1973).
19
-------
References
Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Official Methods of
Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, llth
ed . , Washington , D . C .
Carey, W. F., and K. Helrich, "Improved Quantitative Method for the
Determination of Aldicarb and Its Oxidation Products in Plant Mate-
rials ," JJ_A^s^c_._p^f._J^ial._Chem._, 53(6):1296 (1970).
Frear, D. E. H. , Pesticide Index. 4th ed., College Science Publisher,
State College, Pennsylvania (1969).
Kirk-Othmer , Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 2nd ed . , Vol . 11 ,
Interscience Publishers, New York, New York (1966).
Lawless, E. W. , and T. L. Ferguson of Midwest Research Institute, and
R. von Riimker of RvR Consultants, "The Pollution Potential in Pesti-
cide Manufacturing," for the Environmental Protection Agency, Con-
tract No. 68-01-0142 (1972).
Lu, F. C., "Toxicological Evaluation of Food Additives and Pesticide
Residues and Their 'Acceptable Daily Intakes' for Man: The Role
of WHO, in Conjunction with FAO," Residue Rev. , 45:81-93 (1973).
Martin, H. , Pesticide Manual, 2nd ed., British Crop Protection Council,
Worchester, England (1971).
Payne, L. K. , and M. H. J. Weiden, U.S. Patent No. 3,217,037 (to
Union Carbide Corporation, November 9, 1965).
Romine, R. R. , "Aldicarb,: Chap. 4 in Analytical Methods for Pesticides
and Plant Growth Regulators, Vol. VII: Thin-Layer and Liquid
Chr omatography , J. Sherma and G. Zweig (eds.), Academic Press, Inc.,
New York (1973) .
Union Carbide Corporation, Temik Technical Bulletin, Salinas, Calif. (1974)
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Food and Drug
Administration, Pesticides Analytical Manual, 2 Vols. (1971).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Compendium of 'Registered
Pesticides, Vol. Ill, Washington, D.C. (1973).
20
-------
SUBPART II. B. PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY
CONTENTS
Acute, Subacute and Chronic Toxicity 23
Acute Oral Toxicity - Rats 23
Acute Oral Toxicity (Repeated Dose) - Rats 24
Acute Toxicity by Other Routes Than Oral - Rats 24
Chronic Toxicity - Rats 24
Dermal Toxicity - Rats 26
Acute Toxicity - Inhalation 26
Environmental Exposure - Rats 26
Acute Oral Toxicity - Mouse 27
Acute Toxicity - Rabbits 27
Dermal 27
Eye Irritation 27
Chronic Toxicity - Dogs 29
Subacute Toxicity - Cats 29
Acute Toxicity - Guinea Pigs 29
Sensitization - Guinea Pigs 29
Toxicity to Domestic Animals 29
Demyelination Potential of Aldicarb in Chickens 30
Metabolism 31
Absorption 31
Distribution 31
Excretion 31
Biotransformation 32
Activation 32
Degradation 32
Effects on Reproduction 34
Teratogenic Effects 34
Behavioral Effects 35
Toxicity to Tissue Culture 35
Mutagenic Effects , 36
21
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Oncogenic Effects 36
Effects on Humans 36
Symptoms of Aldicarb Poisoning . 36
Occupational and Accidental Exposure Hazards 38
Manufacturing Operations 38
Field Operations 39
Accidents 40
References 41
22
-------
This section reviews pharmacological and toxicological data on aldicarb.
The acute, subacute and chronic toxicity data for a number of species by
various routes of administration is discussed. Data is presented on demye-
lination potential, metabolism, effects on reproduction, teratogenic, muta-
genic and oncogenic effects. A review has also been made of aldicarb?s
effects on humans both in industrial and field environments. The section
summarizes rather than interprets scientific data reviewed.
Acute, Subacute and Chronic Toxicity
Acute Oral Toxicity - Rats - The acute oral toxicity of aldicarb in rats was
determined in a study by Gaines (1969)—' to be 0.8 mg/kg for males and 0.65
mg/kg for females. The compound used in these tests was technical grade and
was suspended in peanut oil for dosing.
The LD50 value for aldicarb in rats was calculated to be 0.9 mg/kg for
males and 1.0 mg/kg for females, when the vehicle was corn oil (Carpenter
and Smyth, 1965; Weiden et al., 1965) .2^J Range finding tests determined
(Striegel and Carpenter, 1963),A/ that the LD50 for the male rat was 0.93
mg/kg (95% confidence limits, 0.67 to 1.3 mg/kg).
The acute oral LD50 of one of the two currently registered aldicarb
formulations, Temik 10G, was 7.07 mg/kg administered as dry granules to rats
(Weil, 1973) .I/
To show that aldicarb could be extracted from Temik 10G, a gram of Temik
10G was mixed with 200 ml water for 8 hr. The oral LD50 to male rats was 6.2
mg/kg of Temik 10G formulation (Carpenter and Smyth, 1965). The LD50 values
in rats for two metabolic products of aldicarb, the sulfoxide and sulfone
were 0.88 mg/kg and 25.0 mg/kg, respectively (Weil, 1968).A/
Aldicarb is a carbamate insecticide which causes cholinesterase inhibi-
tion at very low doses. It has muscarinic effects at exocrine, excretory,
cardiac and bronchial sites which are exhibited overtly by salivation, lacri-
mation, defecation, urination, slowing of the heart and trouble with breath-
ing. It also has nicotinic effects evidenced by muscle fasiculations.
Atropine has been shown to antagonize the muscarinic effects of most cholin-
esterase inhibitors. Aldicarb*s chief metabolites, aldicarb sulfoxide and
37 Gaines, T. B., "Acute Toxicity of Pesticides," Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.,
14:515-534 (1969).
2J Carpenter, C., and H. Smyth, Mellon Institute Report No. 28-78, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1965).
3/ Weiden, M. H. J., H. H. Moorefield, and L. K. Payne, Jr., "0-(Methyl-
carbamoyl)oximes: A Class of Carbamate Insecticides-Acaricides,"
J. Econ. Entomol.. 58:154-155 (1965).
4/ Striegel, J. A., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 25-53,
EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1963).
5/ Weil, C., Mellon Institute Report 35-41, EPA Pesticide Petition No.
3F1414 (1973).
6/ Weil, C., Mellon Institute Report No. 31-48, EPA Pesticide Petition No.
9F0798 (1968).
23
-------
aldicarb sulfone are also potent cholinesterase inhibitors. Atropine was
shown to be antidotal to the muscarinic and lethal effects of aldicarb and
its metabolites when these compounds were given to rats at twice their LD5Q
(Johnson).i/
Pyridine II aldoxime (2-PAM) in combination with atropine was no better
than atropine alone and is not recommended as an antidote for aldicarb
(Johnson). Atropine is the only antidote recommended on the Temik^'labels;
2-PAM is not recommended and may be contraindicated.
Acute Oral Toxicity (repeated dose) - Rats - Groups of 10 rats (five females
and five males) were tested starting at 45 days of age on repeated ingestion
(7 days) of aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone administered
in the feed (Nycum and Carpenter, '1970).—' Rats will tolerate > 0.4 mg/kg
of aldicarb sulfoxide without effect on body weight, liver, and kidney
weight and without depression of plasma, erythrocyte and brain cholinesterase.
Aldicarb sulfone at 5.0 mg/kg of body weight depresses plasma erythrocyte and
brain cholinesterase. When 2.5 mg/kg was administered, only brain cholines-
terase of the females was depressed. This effect persisted at 1.0 mg/kg dose
and did not lose statistical significance until 0.4 mg/kg was reached.
In a 93 day study, aldicarb was incorporated into the diet of CFE male
and female rats at doses of 0.5, 0.1, 0.02 and 0 mg/kg/day. Mortality was
significantly increased at the high dose and numerically but not significantly
increased at 0.1 mg/kg. All survivors did not differ from controls with
regard to pathology, organ weight or plasma erythrocyte or brain cholinester-
ase (Weil and Carpenter, 1969).—' When aldicarb was fed at 3.2 mg/kg, the
body weight of males and females was depressed. The liver and kidney weights
were not depressed. Both males and females experienced depression of plasma
cholinesterase activity, whereas only the males had a depression of erythro-
cyte cholinesterase.
Acute Toxicity by Other Routes Than Oral - Rats - The LD5Q values for rats
injected intraperitoneally with aldicarb carried in corn oil or propylene
glycol was 0.44 mg/kg for males and females (Weil, 1970).—
Chronic Toxicity - Rats - A 2-yr study on the presence of aldicarb in the
diet of the rat was conducted (Weil and Carpenter, 1965).I/ Forty rats (20
males and 20 females) were placed on each of the following diets: Group 1,
control; Group 2, 0.1 mg/kg; Group 3, 0.05 mg/kg; Group 4, 0.025 mg/kg; and
Group 5, 0.005 mg/kg.
I/ Johnson, H., Mellon Institute Report No. 31-139, EPA Pesticide Petition
No. 9F0798.
2J Nycum, J. S., and C. Carpenter, Summary with Respect to Guideline PR70-15,
Mellon Institute Report No. 31-48, EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798
(1970).
3/ Weil, C., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report 26-47, Section C, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1969).
4V Weil, C., Mellon Institute, Report No. 33-7, Amendments to EPA Pesticide
Petition No. 9F0798 (1970).
5/ Weil, C., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 28-123, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1965).
24
-------
Along with these test groups, 32 other rats (16 males and 16 females)
were carried along on the diets simultaneously. At the end of the
first 6 months, four animals of each sex from this second group were
sacrificed and at the end of the first year, the remaining 12 animals
of each sex were killed. The criteria of the test included food con-
sumption, mortality and life span, incidence of infection, liver and
kidney weight as percentages of body weights, body weight gain, maxi-
mum body weight gain, hematocrit, incidence of neoplasms, incidence
of pathological lesions, and plasma, brain and erythrocyte cholin-
esterase levels. The aldicarb treated animals did not differ sig-
nificantly from the controls for any of the above parameters.
Fifty-nine rats had microscopically verified neoplasms. During
the first year there were seven occurrences. Eighty-three tumors were
found; each tumor-bearing rat had an average of 1.4 tumors. More
tumors were observed in the control group than in the treated group.
Forty-seven percent of all females had tumors in the treated group
while the incidence in the control group was 60%.
As reported by Weil,.!/ Greenacres Laboratory Controlled Flora rats
(20 per sex) were fed the following aldicarb levels for a maximum of
two years: 0.3 or 0.6 mg/kg/day of aldicarb sulfoxide (ASO); 0.6 or
2.4 mg/kg/day of aldicarb sulfone (ASC^); 0.6 or 1.2 mg/kg/day of a
1:1 mixture of ASO: AS02, or 0.3 mg/kg/day aldicarb. No adverse
effects were noted at 0.3 mg/kg aldicarb, but the high dose of the
mixture of ASO:AS02 caused increased mortality in the first 30 days
and, in the males, a decrease in plasma cholinesterase activity at two
years and decreased weight gain. Some increased mortality was ob-
served in females at the high close of ASO.
The investigators determined that the no-adverse effect levels
for 2 years were as follows:
1:1 mixture of ASO:AS02-0.6 mg/kg
ASO 0.3 mg/kg
AS02 2.4 mg/kg
Aldicarb 0.3 mg/kg
Weil, C., Mellon Institute Report No. 35-72, Section C, EPA Pesticide
Petition No. 3F1414.
25
-------
Dermal Toxicity - Rats - Acute dermal toxicity (the LDso) f°r aldicarb
in rats was. reported to be 3 mg for males and 2.5 mg for females
(Gaines, 1969). These were 24 hr exposure periods.
Skin penetration tests (4-hr exposure) were conducted on male rats
weighing 120 to 190 g (Carpenter and Smyth, 1965). Temik 10G (a 10%
granular aldicarb formulation) in mixtures was applied to the skin as a
dry formulation and with saline added. The test materials were retained
under adhesive tape. The dry formulation was not as toxic as when the
same mixture was wetted with saline.
The H>50 for Temik 10G was 400 mg/kg when wetted and 3,200 mg/kg
when applied dry. Temik 10G wetted with saline is 1/40 as toxic to rats
in terms of contained pesticide as is the unformulated material by mouth.
Dry granules of either Temik 10G or Temik 15G were applied for
4 hr to the clipped bellies of rats (Weil).i' The dermal LDso of the
10G was 4.58 g/kg and the LD50 of the 15G was 6.32 g/kg.
Acute Toxicity - Inhalation - Inhalation studies were conducted with rats,
mice and guinea pigs (Carpenter and Smyth, 1965).
A level of 200 mg/m^ of aldicarb as a dust in a 5-min exposure is
highly toxic to all three species. Guinea pigs are not quite as suscep-
tible to inhalation of aldicarb dust as rats and mice (5-min exposure of
mice and rats to 200 mg/m3). Rats appear to be able to survive a dust
concentration of 6.7 mg/m3 for 15 min whereas five out of six are dead
in 30 min at the same concentration. Rats are able to survive 8 hr in
atmospheres of saturated vapors of aldicarb. Aldicarb appears to be less
toxic in the form of an aerosol than as a dust: an 8-hr exposure of rats
to an aerosol concentration of 7.6 mg/m^ of aldicarb was toxic, but two
out of six survived. When the aerosol concentration was raised to 15.8
mg/m3 five out of six animals died in 4 hr.
Environmental Exposure - Rats - Groups of six female albino rats were
subjected to top soil treated with Temik 10G for a 28-day exposure
(Pozzani and Carpenter, 1966).—' The ventral surfaces of the rats were
shaved free of hair. Temik 10G was incorporated into the top soil to a
depth of 6 cm and the application rate was 100 and 500 Ib/acre (one and
five times the recommended usage, respectively). All the rats survived
with no adverse effects. There were no fatalities or gross lesions
produced and no adverse body weight changes.
if Weil, C., Mellon Institute Report No. 34-76, EPA Pesticide Petition
No. 3F1414.
2J Pozzani, U. C., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 29-2,
EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798.
26
-------
Rats were dosed orally with equiconcentration solutions of aldicarb
and various cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides such as guthion, para-
thion, carbaryl, diazinon, methyl parathion, malathion, dipterex, EPN and
trithion (West, and Carpenter, 1966) .i/ When the predicted LD5QS were
compared to the observed LD5Qs °f these combinations, only simple addi-
tive effects were noted. No potentiation was observed.
Acute Oral Toxicity - Mouse - Black et al. (1973)2/ reported that the acute
oral toxic dose of technical aldicarb for the mouse was 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg.
Acute Toxicity - Rabbits
Dermal - The results of a dermal toxicity evaluation with rabbits
is shown in Table 3.
It has been determined that the U^o (24 hr) for a single skin appli-
cation (male rabbits) of 50% solution of aldicarb in water was 32 mg/kg of
body weight. When the compound was applied in a 5% solution of propylene
glycol, the LI>50 was 5 mg/kg. If the carrier was changed to dimethyl
phthalate the LD50 was 12.5 mg/kg. When the aldicarb was dispersed in a
5% solution of toluene, the LD5Q for a 4-hr exposure was 3.5 mg/kg. (West
and Carpenter, 1966,3/ Wieden et al., 1965) In a 24 hr dermal test with
dry Temik QD10G (a 10% granule formulation of aldicarb) under adhesive tape
the LE>50 was 141 mg/kg expressed as active aldicarb (Carpenter and Smyth,
1965).
A 15-day dermal toxicity study of aldicarb has been conducted with
rabbits (Carpenter and Smyth, 1966). Three dosage levels of TemikQDlOG
(10.5% active granular formulation) 0.05, 0.10 and 0.2 g/kg were applied to
abraded skin areas on male albino rabbits under wetted gauze for 6 hr a day
for 15 consecutive days. The criteria of evaluation included total weight
gain, food consumption, liver and kidney weight, along with histopathological
examination of the liver, lung, kidney, heart, muscle, thyroid, and skin.
In addition, a course of hematology was run along with kidney function (blood
urea nitrogen) and liver function (serum glutamic oxalacetic and pyruvic
transaminase) tests. The plasma and erythrocyte cholinesterase activity
levels were assessed.
The only significant difference between controls and test animals was
depressed weight gains for the groups in contact with 0.1 and 0.2 g/kg of
Temik QL-10G. Plasma cholinesterase was lowered in the 0.1 and 0.2 g/kg groups,
Eye Irritation - Aldicarb applied to the eye of the rabbit has a LD5Q
of 0.7 to 10 mg/kg (Striegel and Carpenter, 1963). No corneal irritation
was noted.
I/ West, J., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 29-98, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1966).
2/ Black, A. L., Y. C. Chiu, M. A. H. Famy, and T. R. Fukuto, "Selective
Toxicity of N-Sulfenylated Derivitaves of Insecticidal Methyl-
Carbamate Esters," J. Agr. Food Chem., 21(5):747-751 (1973).
_3/ West, J., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 28-140, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1966).
27
-------
Table 3. DERMAL TOXICITY OF ALDICARB TO MALE RABBITS
Test
compound
Temik® 10G
Active
ingredient
10
Temik® 10G 10
C-15 Kobrite
(corn cob granules)
Temik® 10G 10
C-6 Kobrite
(corn cob granules)
CO
Aldicarb
Aldicarb
100
100
Aldicarb
Aldicarb
50
100
Weight
range
(8)
2,300
Time
(hr)
2,600-3,500 24
2,400-2,900 4
2,200-2,700 4
2,200-3,000 4
2,200-3,000 24
2,300-3,300 24
24
Condition
Covering
LD5Q and range or mor-
tality containing Temik®
(mg/kg)
Dry
Adhesive tape
Vinylite sheeting
Saline added Adhesive tape
Saline added Adhesive tape
Saline added Vinylite sheeting
Saline added Vinylite sheeting
Saline added Vinylite sheeting
Saline added Vinylite sheeting
141
320 killed 2/2
160 killed 0/2
320 killed 2/2
160 killed 0/1
3.54 (in toluene)
4.96 (3.67-6.71)
(in propylene
glycol)
32 (24-43) in
water
200 killed 2/2
50 killed 1/1
12.5 killed 1/2
6.25 killed 0/1
(in dimethyl
phthalate)
-------
Chronic Toxicity - Dogs - Long-term feeding studies (2 years) of
aldicarb (99.9% pure) in the diet of beagle dogs have been conducted
(Weil and Carpenter, 1966) .i/ There were four groups of six dogs
(three males and three females). The dosages were as follows:
Group 1 - control
Group 2 - 0.0003333% (0.1 mg/kg/day)
Group 3 - 0.0001667% (0.05 mg/kg/day)
Group 4 - 0.0000833% (0.025 mg/kg/day)
The criteria of evaluation included body weight changes, appetite,
mortality, histophathology, hematology, biochemistry and terminal liver
and kidney weights. The investigators reported that there were no
statistically measurable deleterious effects even at the highest dosage.
The no-effect level for dogs and rats based on chronic studies was
0.1 mg/kg/day. The no-effect level was identical for the rats in the
2-year study and the 90-day dog studies (Smyth)JJ
Subacute Toxicity - Cats - Cats were dosed with 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 mg/kg
of aldicarb with a 7-to-8-day interval between doses. There was no
evidence of tolerance since third dose death was as prompt as death from
the first dose (Carpenter and Smyth, 1965).
Acute Toxicity - Guinea Pigs - The U>50 for guinea pigs (and rabbits)
falls in the same range as rats (Carpenter and Smyth, 1965).
Sensitization - Guinea Pigs - Aldicarb in saline exhibited no sensitizing
properties when injected intradermally to guinea pigs in a modified
Landsteiner sensitization protocol (Pozzani and Kinead)._3/
Toxicity to Domestic Animals - Schlinke (1970)A/ evaluated the toxic effects
of aldicarb in chickens (Table 4). White leghorn chickens 6 to 7 weeks
old were treated for 10 days. The dosages were given in gelatin capsules
or by oral drench. Aldicarb was administered to three groups (five birds
per group) at a level of 1.0, 2.5 and 5 mg/kg/day. No ill effects were
observed in the chickens that received 1 mg/kg/day. At the 2.5-mg/kg/
day level, one bird died after the first dose and another after the third
dose. All of the birds receiving 5 mg/kg/day died in a period of 3 days.
One died after the first dose, one after the second dose, and the remain-
ing three after the third dose.
I/ Weil, C., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 29-5,
EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1966).
2J Smyth, H., EPA Pesticide Petition No. 8F0637, Vol. I.
3/ Pozzani, U. C., and E. R. Kinead, Mellon Institute Report 31-143,
EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798.
4/ Schlinke, J. C., "Toxicologic Effects of Five Soil Nematocides in
Chickens," J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.. 31:119-121 (1970).
29
-------
Table 4. ACUTE ORAL TOXICITY OF ALDICARB
TO CHICKENS (10-DAY TEST)
f Body weight
Dosage£/ gain (%)
(mg/kg/day) Results Treated Control
5 1 died after first dose
1 died after second dose
3 died after third dose
2.5 1 died after first dose 30 40
1 died after third dose
1.0 No ill effects 44 49
aj Five per group (6 to 7 weeks old).
White Leghorn Cockerels were dosed orally with aldicarb; the
LD50 was 9 mg/kg or ten times that for rats (West and Carpenter).!.'
Schlinke (1970) described the signs of aldicarb poisoning in
chickens as excessive salivation, dyspnea, stiffness and twitching of
leg, wing and pectoral muscles.
Demyelination Potential of Aldicarb in Chickens
Single oral doses 4.5 mg/kg (1/2 LDso) or 30 daily doses of 4.5 mg/
kg and 2.25 mg/kg caused no delayed ataxia or apparent limb paralysis
during or 30 days after the last dose (Johnson and Carpenter, 1966).±J
At a high level (9.0 mg/kg), four of six birds died within 2 weeks at
the beginning of the dosing without showing any overt ataxia or limb
paralysis. A positive control was run (0.1 ml triorthocresyl phosphate)
and produced symptoms associated with demyelination and caused death
in 14 to 16 days.
37 West, J., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 28-30,
EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798.
2j Johnson, H., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 29-90,
EPA Petition No. 9F0798 (1966).
30
-------
Metabolism
Absorption - Aldicarb is readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract
of rats (Andrawes et al., 1967; Knaak et al., 1965; and Ryan, 197lil^),
cows (Dorough et al., 1970 and Dorough and Ivie, 1968^1/) and chickens
(Hicks et al., 19726-/) .
Distribution - Andrawes et al. (1967) found that aldicarb did not have a
particular target tissue when given orally to rats. Hicks et al. (1972)
found that labelled aldicarb or aldicarb sulfone given to laying hens
reached a maximum concentration in muscle in 6 hr and declined during the
next 10 days to 1/100 the highest concentration. Liver and kidney dis-
tribution was about twice as high as muscle.
Excretion - N. R. Andrawes et al. (1967) fed 35s and ^C aldicarb to rats
and found 80% of radioactivity in the urine in 24 hr, and 1% in the feces.
Only traces of unchanged aldicarb were found in the excreta. The 10 to
15% of the radioactivity in the animal after 24 hr was excreted more slowly.
Knaak et al. (1965) fed aldicarb labelled at one of the three positions
indicated below to rats!
J?H3 (? *
*CH3-S-C-CH=N-0-C-NH-CH3
\f Andrawes, N. R., Jr., H. W. Dorough, Jr., and D. A. Lindquist,
"Degradation and Elimination of Temik in Rats," J. Econ. Entomol.
60:979-987 (1967).
2/ Knaak, J. B., M. J. Tallant, and L. J. Sullivan, "The Metabolism of 2-
Methyl-2-(Methylthio)propionaldehyde 0-(Methylcarbamoyl)oxime in
the Rat," J. Agr. Food Chem., 14:573-578 (1965).
3/ Ryan, A. J., "The Metabolism of Pesticidal Carbamates," CRC Critical
Revs. Toxicol., l(l):33-54 (1971).
4/ Dorough, H. W., Jr., R. B. Davis, and G. W. Ivie, "Fate of Temik-Carbon-
14 in Lactating Cows During a 14-Day Feeding Period," J. Agr. Food
Chem.. 18(1):135-142 (1970).
5_/ Dorough, H. W., Jr., and G. W. Ivie, "Temik-35S Metabolism in a Lactat-
ing Cows," J. Agr. Food Chem., 16(3):460-464 (1968).
6>/ Hicks, B. W., H. W. Dorough, Jr., and H. M. Mehendale, "Metabolism of
Aldicarb Pesticide in Laying Hens," J. Agr. Food Chem., 20(1):151-
156 (1972).
31
-------
Aldicarb labelled at the S-methyl or tert-butyl positions was nearly
all excreted in the urine and very little in the feces. The N-methyl
labelled aldicarb was excreted about 35 to 40% in the urine and 20 to 25%
in the expired air. Ryan (1971) gave a dose of aldicarb that was labelled
with 1^C at the carbonyl carbon and found 627o excreted as 14c02 and 29%
appeared in the urine. Dorough and Ivie (1968) fed aldicarb to a Jersey
cow and found 90.2% in the urine, 3.0% in the milk and 2.9% in the feces.
They also fed 35S-aldicarb in milk to rats for 9 days. They found that
90% of each daily dose was excreted in the urine within 24 hr. Dorough
et al. (1970) fed 0.12, 0.6, or 1.2 ppm aldicarb to a lactating cow for
14 days. Ninety-one to 94% was excreted in the urine, 3.0 to 3.5% in feces
and about 1% in the milk. Hicks et al. (1972) fed laying hens 0.7 mg/kg
aldicarb or aldicarb sulfone and found 75% in the feces in 24 hr.
B iot r ans format ion -
Activation - In a recent review, Fukuto (197 2)1/ has pointed out that
the aryl and alkyl carbamates are metabolized by oxidative pathways (by
the mixed- function oxidases) or by cleavage of the carbamate moiety by di-
rect enzymatic activity. Andrawes and Dorough (1970).?/ found that aldicarb
was oxidized to compounds which were also active cholinesterase inhibitors
while hydrolysis inactivated them. Bull et al. (1967)!/ found that the
I50 for aldicarb was 1.8 x 10'5 M, for aldicarb sulfoxide, 8.1 x 10"7 M,
and for aldicarb sulfone, 4.9 x 10~^ M using bovine red cell 'Cholinesterase
as the bioassay method. Shrivastava et al. (1971)—' found that mixed func-
tion oxidases of mosquitos oxidized aldicarb and that there was a require-
ment for NADPH.
Degradation - Andrawes et al. (1967) fed rats S and C aldicarb
and identified seven metabolites in the urine. Half of the metabolites
were not extracted into organic solvents and were not identified. Knaak
I/ Fukuto, T. R., "Metabolism of Carbamate Insecticides," Drug Metab.
Rev., 1(1):117-151 (1972).
2f Andrawes, N. R., Jr., and H. W. Dorough, Jr., "Metabolism of Temik
in Boll Weevils and Houseflies," Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, Progress Report No. PR-2833 (1970).
3/ Bull, D. L., D. A. Lindquist, and J. R. Coppedge, "Metabolism of 2-
Methyl-2-(Methylthio)propionaldehyde 0-(Methylcarbamoyl)oxime
(Temik, UC 21149) in Insects," J. Agr. Food Chem., 15(4):610-616
(1967).
4/ Shrivastava, S. P., G. P. Georghiou, and T. R. Fukuto, "Metabolism
"vof N-Methylcarbamate Insecticides by Mosquito Larval Enzyme System
Requiring NADPH," Entomol. Exp. Appl.. 14(3):333-348 (1971).
32
-------
et al. (1965) labelled the S-methyl-14C, tert-butyl-14C and N-methyl-14C
of aldicarb and found that rats metabolized it mainly to aldicarb oxime,
aldicarb sulfoxide, sulfoxide oxime and sulfone oxime based on urinary
recovery of. these metabolites. The large amount of ^CO^ excreted after
dosing with N-methyl-l^C indicated an active N-demethylation while the
14CH3-S-label did not yield any 14C02 indicating no thioether cleavage or
demethylation of the sulfoxides or sulfones. Ryan (1971) also failed to
find thioether metabolites. He suggested that thioethers are metabolized
to sulfoxides and sulfones as the major metabolites in vivo.
Borough et al. (1970) examined aldicarb metabolites in cows' milk and
found aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone, oxime sulfoxide, oxime sulfone,
nitrile sulfoxide, nitrile sulfone and five unidentified metabolites. No
water soluble metabolites were found. Knaak (1971)i/ studied the metabolism
of aldicarb in rats and proposed the following metabolic pathways:
0 CH3
I I
CHo-S-C-CH=N-OH-
3 II I
0 CH3 A
0 CH3
CHo-S-C-CH=N-0-C-NH-CH^
J » i
0 CH3 \
Acids
CH3
0
it
0 CH3
M I °
0
II
CH-3-S-C-CH=N-0-C-NH-CH<:
•* i
CH3
CH3-S-C-CH=N-0-C-NH-CH3
CH3
0 CH-j
II I •*
CHo-S-C-CH=N-OH
I
Acids
CH3 \
CHc
•> Acids
x. CHq-S-C-CH=N-OH
*• J ,
CH3
Fukuto (1972) reported that the major organic-insoluble metabolite (80%)
was a conjugate (glycoside) of 2-methyl-2-(methylsulfinyl) propanol.
Others were the 2-methyl-2-(methylsulfinyl) derivatives of propionaldehyde,
propinoamide and propionic acide. All were virtually nontoxic to rats.
Retention - Dorough-et al. (1970) fed 0.12, 0.6 and 1.2 ppm aldicarb in
feed to cows for 14 days. At the end of this period the livers contained
I/ Knaak, J. R., "Biological and Nonbiological Modifications of Carba-
nates," Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 44:121-131 (1971).
33
-------
29, 123, and 164 ppb aldicarb equivalents, respectively. Other tissues
had much less. Andrawes et al. (1967) fed 35S and 14c-labelled aldicarb
to rats and found 10 to 15% excreted slowly over 1 to 10 days. Knaak
et al. (1965) fed rats aldicarb labelled with l^C at the S-methyl and
tertbutyl carbon and found less than 0.1% in the carcass after 4 days.
However, if the aldicarb was labelled at the N-methyl carbon, there was
8 to 10% of the carbon label in the carcass 11 days after treatment.
Dorough and Ivie (1968) fed a Jersey cow 0.1 mg/kg of aldicarb.
Milk had 62 ppb at 3 hr, 10 ppb at 84 hr, 1 ppb at 276 hr and 0.1 ppb at
540 hr. Hicks et al. (1972) found that chickens that had a peak concen-
tration of 0.2 to 0.3 ppm of aldicarb in muscle 6 hr after treatment had
less than 0.01 ppm by the 10th day.
Effects on Reproduction
A three generation study was conducted in which aldicarb was incor-
porated into the diet of the parent generation of rats 84 days before
mating occurred and into the diets of the subsequent generations at
levels of 0.1 and 0.05 mg/kg/day. When the offspring were 112-days old,
they were mated and their offspring collected and used as parents of
¥3 pups. The presence of aldicarb at either dose in the diet did not
appear to affect food acceptability in any generation.
Evaluation of the effect of aldicarb on reproduction performance
was done by comparing indices for fertility, gestation, viability,
lactation, mean weight of male pups, mean weight of female pups, micro-
pathology on weanlings of the F^ generation and micropathology of 90-
day old adults of the ¥3 generation. No statistical differences were
found between the treated and control animals on any of the comparisons
(Weil and Carpenter, 1964).U
An abstract of a report on the study by Weil and Carpenter (1974)2/
indicated that up to 0.7 mg/kg/day aldicarb in the diet of rats for 3
generations had no adverse effect on fertility, gestation, gestation
survival, 4-day, 14-day or 21-day survival. This dose caused no adverse
effects in the dominant lethal mutagenicity test in rats.
Teratogenic Effects
The teratogenic potential of aldicarb in the diet of the rat has
been reported (Weil and Carpenter, 1966). The dosages were 0.0, 0.04,
0.02 and 1.0 mg/kg.
I/ Weil, C., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 27-158,
EPA Pesticide Petition No. OF1008 (1964).
2f Weil, C., and C. Carpenter, Three Generation Reproductive and
Dominant Lethal Study in Rats, unpublished report, No. 37-90,
Carnegie-Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa. (1974).
34
-------
Group 1 - Aldicarb was in the diet throughout pregnancy or up
until the pups were weaned.
Group 2 - Aldicarb was available from the day the vaginal plug
was present to the seventh day.
Group 3 - Aldicarb was given from day 5 to 15.
Five or six of the mothers per group were killed at the 20th day
and a similar number were allowed to nurse and wean their young.
Although the highest dosage level (1 mg/kg) approximated the oral LD5Q
value, no significant effects were found by any of the measurements
associated with fertility, gestation, viability or lactation. There was
no evidence of congenital malformation in the treated groups. Further-
more, the body weights of the mothers and the young were normal.
Behavioral Effects
Aldicarb (technical) was evaluated in comparative behavioral tests
(Johnson and Carpenter, 1966)1.' along with carbaryl and aldicarb sul-
foxide. The chemicals were injected intraperitoneally into 10 rats (400
to 500 g) in each group. A discrete or noncontinuous avoidance behavior
test was used employing a 10-compartment rat shock box.
The lowest behavioral effective dose in rats was found to be 0.266
mg/kg. This level was greater than the dosages of the other compounds
such as eserine needed to produce disruptive behavioral effects on
learned avoidance behavior.
Toxicity to Tissue Culture
Litterst et al. (1969)2J studied the effect of aldicarb on HeLa cells.
The growth tubes were inoculated with 0.5 x 106 cells. The cells were
incubated 48 hr and then the test compounds were added and incubation con-
tinued for another 48 hr. The LD5o (rats) for aldicarb was found to be
1 ppm. The ID5Q (the concentration of insecticide in growth medium that
causes a 50% reduction in cell number in 48 hr of incubation) in tissue
culture was 750 ppm.
I/ Johnson, H. and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 29-89,
EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798, (1966).
2/ Litterst, C. L., E. P. Lichtenstein, and K. Kajiwara, "Effects of
Insecticides on Growth of HeLa Cells," J. Agr. Food Chem.. 17:1199-
1203 (1969). '
35
-------
Mutagenic Effects
A dominant lethal test in rats showed no adverse effects at 0.7
mg/kg. See the preceding subsection, "Effects on Reproduction."
Oncogenie Effects
Investigators conducted an evaluation of aldicarb in relation to
mouse skin carcinogenicity (Weil and Carpenter, 1966).!/ They used
C3H/HeJ male mice since this strain has a high incidence of mammary
tumors in breeding females. Also, there is a slightly lower incidence
in virgin females. Hepatomas occur in the males. They painted 30 or
40 mice twice a week on hair-free skin of the back until death. As a
negative control group, they utilized the statistics on the (C3H/HeJ
mice) strain reported at a Gordon Conference in 1957: an incidence of
21% tumors.occurred by the end of the life span of 184 males, three
had skin tumors, and two were afflicted with lymphocyte leukemia. As a
positive control, they painted another group of mice of the same strain
with methyl cholanthrene. The results of the test are shown in Table 5.
Aldicarb was non-carcinogenic to mice.
Effects_ on Humans
Three groups of four adult males were each given dose of an al-
dicarb solution corresponding to either 0.1, 0.05 or 0.025 mg/kg
aldicarb.A/ Blood cholinesterase levels were monitored pre- and post-
dosing and resulting symptoms were observed by physicians. All four
men at the high dose developed mild cholinergic symptoms. While there
was some variation in the blood cholinesterase values between different
sampling periods due to aldicarb administration, the variation between
values of controls taken 18 hr prior to ingestion and 1 hr prior, make
statistical comparisons difficult. At 6 hr after dose, however, the
means of all groups were statistically similar. Aldicarb's cholinest-
erase depression was rapidly reversible.
Symptoms of Aldicarb Poisoning - A case history of aldicarb poisoning
experienced in a manufacturing plant has been reported (Sexton, 1966).
I/ Weil, C., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 29-34,
EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1966).
2] Aldicarb Report, EPA Pesticide Petition No. 1F1008, Section C.
3/ Sexton, William F., Report on Aldicarb, EPA Pesticide Petition
No. 9F0798, Section C (1966).
36
-------
Table 5. INCIDENCE OF TUMOR OCCURRENCE IN MICE PAINTED WITH
ALDICARB COMPARED TO METHYL CHOLANTHRENE PAINTED ANIMALS
Methyl
Aldicarb cholanthrene
Concentration 0.125% 0.2%
Number of mice alive at 12 months 20 0
18 months 14
24 months 10
Appearance of first tumor
Number of months of painting 17 3
Number of mice alive 16 25
Total number of mice with tumors 2 22
Carcinoma or sarcoma 1 21
Maximum number of months painted 28 11
Tumor index-/ 18.2 95.6
Sarcoma or cancer index— 9.1 91.3
Average latent period months—'
Tumor 28 5.0
Cancer 28 6.1
~~i ~ I~~~:No. of mice with tumors „ -, nn
a/ Tumor Index = x 100
Effective group
b/ Cancer Index = No. of mice with cancer x 10Q
Effective group
£/ Average latent period = The length of time necessary to reach a 50%
tumor (or cancer) index by a least squares calculation of tumor
(or cancer) index versus time.
37
-------
The subject was a foreman who ran a mechanical bagging machine for 1
day. The progress of his illness was as follows:
• 3:45 p.m. - No complaints.
5:00 p.m. - The subject experienced nausea, dizziness, depression,
weakness, tightening of chest muscles.
• 8:00 p.m. - Plasma cholinesterase - 3.2 michel units.
RBC cholinesterase - 1.47 michel units (a 57% depression
of activity).
• 11:00 p.m. - Plasma cholinesterase - 2.96 michel units.
RBC cholinesterase - 2.04 michel units.
Still complained of tightness of chest.
He returned to work the next day without symptoms.
Occupational and Accidental Exposure Hazards
Manufacturing Operations - Studies were made in the 1960's on hazards
connected with the manufacture of aldicarb in both plant and surrounding
environment (Sexton, 1966). At the time manufacture started, obser-
vations were made on employees before, during and after an 8-hr shift.
There were no observable physiological effects in the employees.
There was one obvious case of poisoning that occurred due to exposure
to aldicarb which has been described in the symptoms section. There
were no indications that concentrations as high as 0.05 mg/m3 in the
plant atmosphere produced a health hazard. Results obtained in the plant
study (using midget impingers) indicated that the air in certain areas
contained 0.01 to 0.52 mg/m3 of aldicarb. Continuous sampling (Greenburg-
Smith impingers) indicated an air-borne load of 0.006 to 0.333 mg/m3.
Samples (251) were also taken outside the plant north of the cooker. These
were 38-min samples and only two exceeded 0.02 mg/m3. None of the samples
taken with the continuous samples exceeded 0.007 mg/m3. Samples were taken
at the vent of a caustic scrubber and the unneutralized aldicarb in the
effluent ranged from 350 ug to 7,650 ug. Forty-six samples were taken at
the perimeter of the plant and none of them were in excess of 4.3 x 10""^
mg/m3.
38
-------
Urine has been analyzed from employees working in the production
and the formulation area of a plant (Ketchum, 1966).!/ These samples
were analyzed for aldicarb sulfoxide, a known metabolite of aldicarb
previously identified in rat urine. The results indicated little or
no exposure to aldicarb.
An evaluation was made of air pollution around an aldicarb manu-
facturing plant and at a location where a formulation plant for aldicarb
was operating (Peele, 1966) .A' During this evaluation 802 atmospheric
samples were collected. It was stated that an atmospheric concentration
of Temik(E)lOG in the range of 0.02 mg/m^ was definitely not hazardous
(apparently based on LD5Q data).
Field Operations -• A human exposure study was made during the field
application of Temik ©10G on cotton (Williams, 1966).A/ The test took
place on a 7-acre plot of ground. There were three plots in the area of
about 2 acres. The treatment was as follows:
Plot 1 - 0.5 Ib active ingredient per acre.
Plot 2 - 1.0 Ib active ingredient per acre.
• Plot 3 - No treatment.
On six rows 450 ft long an application was made of 10 Ib active ingredient
per acre. The Temik ® 10G was metered into the open furrow at the time of
planting. The three participants in the test wore portable air sampling
pumps which were operated continuously.
No appreciable amounts of Temik (£)lOG entered the atmosphere when the
boxes and packages were opened and poured into the Gandy application hopper.
One sampler operated for 5.5 hr inside the chemical storage building with
an air flow of 7 liters/min and no appreciable amount of Temik ® 10G was
found in the air. The cholinesterase activity of the blood of the exposed
personnel was checked at the start and the end of the day and no depression
in activity was found. No indication was given that aldicarb sulfoxide, a
metabolite of Temik®, existed in the urine of the men working in the field.
I/ Ketchum, N. H., Union Carbide Corp. Project No. 299A20, EPA Pesticide
Petition No. 9F0798, (1966).
2/ Peele, R. E., Report on Aldicarb, EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798,
Section C., (1966).
I/ Williams, F., Report on Aldicarb, EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798,
Section C., (1966).
39
-------
Accidents - Aldicarb has been cited in a small number of accidental
exposure reports. The EPA Pesticide Accident Surveillance System (PASS)
computerized data base lists a total of 11 episodes involving aldicarb.
This .data base includes most data reported for 1972 through January 1974.
Eight of the 11 reported episodes took place in EPA Region IX. The avail-
able data, however, is not sufficient to establish any relationship between
accident frequency and specific uses of aldicarb.
A report from Union Carbidei/ regarding human exposure noted the
following:
An updating on experiences of overexposure
to humans with TEMIK ®10G was submitted to EPA
on May 10, 1972. In this summarization, all
cases of alleged or actual illness due to hand-
ling or Use of TEMIK ® 10G were reported. At
the formulation site (Thiokol Corp., Woodbine,
Ga.) there were 10 cases of intoxication requi-
ring medical attention in 1971. Three were
hospitilized for one day or more; the others
treated and released after 8 hours or less.
With increased supervision to avoid prevent-
able carelessness, there has been no recurrence
of illnesses at this site. During 1971 and
1972, 9 cases were reported from commercial
use. Five of these were subsequently found not
to have been a result of exposure with TEMIK ©.
The confirmed cases resulted from almost total
disregard of warning statements and safety
precautions. One patient had an amazing concen-
tration of 58 ppm aldicarb carbamates in the
urine, indicative of an exposure of at least twice
the rat oral LD5Q. Despite indicated inadequate
care and therapy at the hospital, eventually this
individual recovered within 72 hours and returned
to work within a week. Only one mild incident of
poisoning has occurred in the field since this
report. Recovery was complete in all cases.
I/ Union Carbide Corporation, Report on Aldicarb, EPA Pesticide Petition
No. 3F141F, Section C.
40
-------
References
Aldicarb Report, EPA Pesticide Petition No. 1F1008, Section C.
Andrawes, N. R., Jr., H. W. Borough, Jr., and D. A. Lindquist,
"Degradation and Elimination of Temik in Rats," J. Econ.
Entpmol., 60:979-987 (1967).
Andrawes, N. R., Jr., and H. W. Borough, Jr., "Metabolism of Temik
in Boll Weevils and Houseflies," Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, Progress Report No. PR-2833 (1970).
Black, A. L., Y. C. Chiu, M. A. H. Fahmy, and T. R. Fukuto, "Selec-
tive Toxicity of N-Sulfenylated Derivatives of Insecticidal Methyl-
carbamate Esters," J. Agr. Food Chem., 21(5):747-751 (1973).
Bull, B. L., B. A. Lindquist, and J. R. Coppedge, "Metabolism of 2-
Methyl-2-(Methylthio)propionaldehyde 0-(Methylcarbamoyl)oxime
(Temik, UC 21149) in Insects," J. Agr. Food Chem., 15(4):610-616
(1967).
Carpenter, C., and H. Smyth, Mellon Institute Report No. 28-78, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1965).
Borough, H. W., Jr., and G. W. Ivie, "Temik-35S Metabolism in a Lac-
tating Cow," J. Agr. Food Chem., 14(3):460-464 (1968).
Borough, H. W., Jr., and G. W. Ivie, "Temik-35S Metabolism in Lactating
Cows Buring a 14-Bay Feeding Period," J. Agr. Food Chem., 18(1):135-
142 (1970).
Fukuto, T. R., "Metabolism of Carbamate Insecticides," Brug Metab.
Rev., 1(1):117-151 (1972).
Gaines, T. B., "Acute Toxicity of Pesticides," Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.,
14:515-534 (1969).
Hicks, B. W., H. W. Borough, Jr., and H. M. Mehendale, "Metabolism of
Aldicarb Pesticide in Laying Hens," J. Agr. Food Chem., 20(1):151-
156 (1972).
Johnson, H., Mellon Institute Report No. 31-139, EPA Pesticide Petition
No. 9F0798.
Johnson, H., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 29-89, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1966).
Johnson, H., and C.'Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report 29-90, EPA Petition
No. 9F0798.
Ketchum, Union Carbide Corp. Project No. 299A20, EPA Pesticide Petition
No. 9F0798 (1966).
41
-------
Knaak,.J. B., M. J. Tallant, and L. J. Sullivan, "The Metabolism of 2-
Methy1-2-(Methylthio)propionaldehyde 0-(Methylcarbamoyl)oxime in the
Rat," J. Agr. Food Chem., 14:573-578 (1965).
Knaak, J. R., "Biological and Nonbiological Modifications of Carba-
mates," Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 44:121-131 (1971).
Litterst, C. L., E. P. Lichtenstein, and K. Kajiwara, "Effects of
Insecticides on Growth of HeLa Cells," J. Agr. Food Chem., 17:1199-
1203 (1969).
Nycum, and C. Carpenter, Summary with Respect to Guideline PR 70-15,
Mellon Institute Report No. 31-48, EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798
(1970).
Peele, Report on Aldicarb, EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798, Section C.
Pozzani, and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 29-2, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 29-2.
Ryan, A. J., "The Metabolism of Pesticidal Carbamates," CRC Critical
Revs. Toxicol., 1(1):33-54 (1971).
Schlinke, J. C., "Toxicologic Effects of Five Soil Nematocides in
Chickens," J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc., 31:119-121 (1970).
Sexton, William, F., Report on Aldicarb, EPA Pesticide Petition No.
9F0798, Section C (1966).
Shrivastava, S. P., G. P. Georghiou, and T. R. Fukuto, "Metabolism
of N-Methylcarbamate Insecticides by Mosquito Larval Enzyme System
Requiring NADPH," Entomol. Exp. Appl., 14(3):333-348 (1971).
Smyth, H., EPA Pesticide Petition No. 8F0637, Vol. I.
Striegel, and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 25-53, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1963).
Weiden, M. H. J., H. H. Moorefield, and L. K. Payne, Jr., "0-(Methylcarba-
moyl)oximes: A Class of Carbamate Insecticides-Acaricides," J. Econ.
Entomol., 58:154-155 (1965).
Weil, C., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 26-47, Section
C, EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1969).
Weil, C., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 27-158,
EPA Pesticide Petition No. OF1008 (1964).
Weil, C., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 28-123, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1965).
Weil, C., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 29-5, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1966).
42
-------
Weil, C., Mellon Institute Report No. 31-48, EPA Pesticide Petition
No. 9F0798 (1968).
Weil, C., Amendments to EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798, Mellon
Institute Report No. 33-7 (1970).
Weil, C., Mellon Institute Report No. 34-76, EPA Pesticide Petition
No. 3F1414.
Weil, C., Mellon Institute Report No. 35-41, EPA Pesticide Petition
No. 3F1414 (1973).
Weil, C., Mellon Institute Report No. 35-72, Section C, EPA Pesticide
Petition No. 3F1414.
West, J., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 28-30, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798.
West, J., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 28-140, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798 (1966).
West, J., and C. Carpenter, Mellon Institute Report No. 29-98, EPA
Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798.
Williams, Report on Aldicarb, EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798,
Section C.
Union Carbide Corporation, Report on Aldicarb, EPA Pesticide Petition
No. 3F141F, Section C.
43
-------
SUBPART II. C. FATE AND SIGNIFICANCE IN THE ENVIRONMENT
CONTENTS
Page
Effects on Fish 46
Effects on Birds 47
Effects on Beneficial Insects 52
Bees 52
Parasites and Predators 53
Effects and Residues in the Soil 56
Biota 56
Residues in Soil/Laboratory Studies 57
Residues in Soil/Field Studies 60
Residues in Water 62
Residues in Air 62
Effects on Nontarget Plants 63
Metabolic Pathways in Plants 64
-»•*
Bioaccumulation, Biomagnification 66
Environmental Transport Mechanisms 67
References 69
45
-------
This section contains data on the environmental effects of aldicarb
on aquatic species, birds, beneficial insects, and non-target plants. Also
considered are effects and residues in soil water and air and metabolic
pathways in plants. The section summarizes rather than interprets scientific
data reviewed.
Effects on Fish -
The toxic effects of aldicarb oft fish were tested in laboratory
studies on a number of species. Eighty bluegills weighing 5g each and
divided equally into 16 two-liter jars, were exposed to a purified grade
of aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone (Clarkson, 1968)JL/
The 96 hr-LC^Q values were 0.1, 4, and 64 ppm, respectively.
The acute toxicity of Temik 10G in 130 rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri)
(10 per trial) has also been studied (Beliles et al. , 1966)][7~] On an active
ingredient basis, the LC5Q values and 95% confidence limits for a 48-hr
exposure were 1.12 (0.78 to 1.60 ppm), for a 96-hr exposure they were 0.88
ppm (0.62 to 1.25 ppm). Signs of intoxication were observed in 6 hr at
concentrations of 1.0 and 1.8 ppm. Other toxicity values obtained (Knott
and Beliles, 1966)^.' on bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) were: LCcQ (48 hr)
0.175 ppm (0.159 to 0.192 ppm) and LC5Q (96 hr) 0.145 ppm (0.124 to 0.169
ppm).
It has been reported (Department of Interior, 1964)A/ that the LC5Q
values for exposures of aldicarb to bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and rain-
bow trout (Salmo gairdneri) were 150 ;ig/liter (48 hr), 76 ug/liter (96 hr),
800 ug/liter (48 hr) and 560 ug/liter (96 hr), respectively. Carter (1971)—'
working with channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) found the LC^Q 24-hr
exposure to aldicarb to be 1,600 ug/liter.
One study (Mulla, not dated)£/ evaluated the toxicity of aldicarb
under field conditions using mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) and tadpoles
of the western toad (Bufo boreas). Mulla considered the application of
1 Ib of aldicarb per acre to be safe for mosquito fish. When 10 Ib of
aldicarb was applied per acre, there was no observed effect on tadpoles.
I/ Clarkson, Summary with Respect to Guidelines PR 70-15 Project No. 111B32,
EPA Pesticide Petition File, (1968).
21 Beliles et al., Report on Aldicarb, EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798,
Section C, Book III (1966).
_3/ Knott and Beliles, Report on Aldicarb, EPA Pesticide Petition No.
9F0798, Section C, Book III (1966).
kj U. S. Department of Interior Fish Pesticide Laboratory, Columbia, Mo.,
unpublished data, (1964).
5j Carter, F. L., "In vivo Studies of Brain Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition
by Organophosphate and Carbamate Insecticides in Fish," Piss. Abstr.
32(5): 27, 2-73 (1971).
6/ Mulla, Summary with Respect to Guideline, PR 70-15, EPA Pesticide
Petition File.
46
-------
Carter (1971) subjected channel catfish weighing about 8.5 grams
to sublethal doses of aldicarb (1.6 ppm) to determine potency for brain
cholinesterase inhibition and enzyme recovery rate. In static exposure
tests it was found that 0.315 ppm of aldicarb caused a 50% inhibition
of the enzyme. When brain cholinesterase was inhibited 80-to-90% by
aldicarb, under static conditions, 6-to-10 days were required for 80%
recovery of normal activity. Aldicarb produced scolinosis (a lateral
curvature of the spine) with localized hemorrhaging at sublethal concen-
trations in channel catfish. Aldicarb also produced calcium deposition
and fusion as long term effects.
The sequential toxicity symptoms and associated inhibition ranges
were hyperactivity (35 to 75%), lethargy (65 to 86%), body paralysis
(65 to 85%), scoliosis (62 to 89%), loss of equilibrium (78 to 92%)
and opercular and mouth paralysis with ensuing death (50 to 95% maxi-
mum but the usual range was 65 to 85%) (Carter, 1971).
Effects on Birds
Hudson et al. (1972)—' studied the effect of age on the acute oral
toxicity of a number of pesticides in mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos).
Four groups were used in these tests. The age and weights (mean) were as
follows:
36 + 3 hr -43
7+1 day -98 g
30+3 days -480 g
6 months + 3 days -1,254 g
The sex could not be determined in ducks less than 2 months old. At
the older ages, three males and two females or two males and three
females were used at each dose level. The dosage form was gelatin
capsules. The toxicity response with aldicarb for the various age
groups was as follows:
LD5n mg/kg
Age (95% confidence limits)
36 + 3 hr 1.92 (1.55-2.37)
7 + 1 day 3.60 (2.90-4.49)
30+3 days 6.73 (5.29-8.55)
6 months + 3 days 4.44 (3.49-5.65)
I/ Hudson, R. H., R. K. Tucker, and M. A. Haegele, "Effect of Age on
Sensitivity: Acute Oral Toxicity of 14 Pesticides to Mallard
Ducks of Several Ages," Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 22:556-561
(1972).
47
-------
A safety evaluation has been made of Temik 10G in the diet of
bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) Beliles, 1966). Twenty quail
(8 weeks old) were placed in a control group; each test group had 10
quail. The birds were fed Temik 10G and the dosages were; 560, 1,000,
1,800, 3,200, and 5,600 ppm. The quail were fed 7 days and returned
to the basic diet for 3 days. During the 7-day feeding trial, there was
no significant decrease in food consumption or the body weight of the sur-
vivors. Tremors and ataxia occurred in the quail that received 1,800,
3,200 and 5,600 ppm in the diet. There were no cases of tremor in the
1,000-ppm group. The quail that received 3,200 ppm of Temik 10G in the
diet had pale livers at necropsy. The quail that received Temik G at
lesser levels had no lesions. Denver Wildlife Research Center (1974).!'
evaluated the toxicity of aldicarb in mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos)
and California quail (Lophertix californicus). At the 95% confidence level,
the LD5Q in male mallard was 60.0 mg/kg, for female quail it was 2.58 mg/kg,
and for male quail it was 4.67 (3.32-6.56) mg/kg.
Hill (1974)—' evaluated the comparative toxicity of aldicarb to
Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japenica) ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus
colchirus) and mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos). The 95% confidence
limit was used. The LC5Q for 14-day old quail was 381 ppm (317-453);
for 10-day old pheasant there was Ino mortality at 300 ppm; for 5-day old
mallard the LCso was 594 ppm (507-695); and for 10-day old mallard the
LC5Q was less than 1,000 ppm (70% mortality at 1,000 ppm). Aldicarb 10%
granular was applied at the rate of 1.5 Ib AI per acre in dryland and
irrigated fields. Aldicarb residues in wildlife were determined by a
gas chromatographic-flame photometric analysis method. Samples of
animals and birds were collected where found, usually within 1/2 mile of
a treated field. Birds were killed as near a treated field as possible;
coyotes were trapped around watermelon fields.
Throughout this test, no evidence of mortality in the animal or bird
populations was observed in the treated or adjacent areas. Residues were
detected in only one bird of 14 sampled; this was an oriole which contained
0.07 ppm of aldicarb and/or metabolites. No detectable aldicarb residues
were found in any of eight (unspecified) terrestrial animals sampled.
JL/ Denver Wildlife Research Center, "Toxicity of Aldicarb to Mallard
and Quail," unpublished report, 1974.
2j Hill, Elwood F. (U.S. Department of Interior, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Station), Toxicity of Aldicarb to Wildlife, personal communication
to Criteria and Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
EPA (1974).
48
-------
Evaluations on game birds were conducted initially in North
Carolina. Three separate field trials using bobwhite quail (Colinus
yirginianus) were made to determine how placement and method of app-
lication of aldicarb might influence quail populations under simu-
lated resident conditions. Six pairs of adult birds in small cages
were randomly placed in a field of cotton that had been treated with
aldicarb in-furrow at planting and side-dressed at squaring time.
During a 2-week exposure period, observations were made on survival,
symptoms, and weight gains of birds on treated and untreated areas.
A single bird died in the treated zone.
A second quail trial involved different methods of application
and treatment rates. Aldicarb was applied to noncropped land as an
in-furrow treatment at depths of 1/2 and 2 in; and also broadcast on
the soil surface and incorporated 4 to 6 in deep by rototilling. One
plot was treated on the surface at 8.9 Ib active ingredient per acre
without incorporation. Duplicate plots were established with one
group receiving sprinkler irrigation, while the other remained in
"dryland" condition. Birds were caged over the treated areas and
observations made during a 1-week period. Results showed that (1)
aldicarb placed 2 in deep in-furrow caused no mortality of birds;
(2) exaggerated dosages broadcast and incorporated did not create any
appreciable hazards to hunger-stressed, captive quail; (3) treated
land, promptly irrigated or receiving rainfall presented no hazard
from completely exposed granules.
To eliminate the restrictions that small cages caused to birds'
normal foraging habits, further field trials were conducted in North
Carolina. Cotton plantings of 0.14 acre were treated with two formu-
lations of aldicarb at 5.3 Ib active ingredient per acre banded 12
in, in-row and incorporated 4 to 6 in deep by rototilling at seeding
time. The entire plot was enclosed with wire fencing to prevent
escape and predation. Twenty-four mature bobwhite quail which had
been wing-clipped were released in each treated zone and supplied
with cover, food and water. A similar untreated plot was established.
None of the plots received supplemental water, and rainfall was about
0.4 in during the 16- to 20-day observation periods. One bird was
found dead in the area treated with experimental granules.
Expanded evaluations with birds were made in California* Ring-
necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) and California quail (Lophortyx
californicus) were used in both caged and fenced field trials in sugar
beet and cotton plantings. Rates and placements of aldicarb followed
the label directions required for nematode control in both crops (see
Table 9, p. 88). Results from these tests showed that (1) aldicarb
was not hazardous to either species of upland game bird when used in
accordance with label directions; (2) total consumption of emerging
sugar beet seedlings by hunger-stressed birds did not result in mortal-
ity; seedlings contained up to 19 ppm of total toxic aldicarb carba-
mate residues; and (3) exposed spills of granules, were hazardous;
quail seemed to be more apt to take up the grit product than the
pheasants.
49
-------
Extensive monitoring for effects on wildlife of sugar beet fields
tested with aldicarb was carried out in 1970 and 1972 in England.
The 1970 trials were conducted on two independent sites where a diver-
sity of wildlife existed adjacent to commercial sugar beet fields that
had been treated with aldicarb at rates up to 0.89 Ib active ingredient
per acre drilled in-furrow with the seed planting. Both sites were
observed in the post treatment periods up to 32 days (Site A) and 43
days (Site B). The results are summarized in the following table:
Table 6. SUMMARY OF ANIMAL SPECIES RECORDED IN AND
AROUND TWO SUGAR BEET FIELDS TREATED WITH
ALDICARB AT 0.89 LB/ACRE3-/
Effect on animal species Site A£/ Site BfL/
Total species recorded^/ 57 51
Total species seen before treatment 44 31
Total species seen after treatment 41 44
Total species seen before and after
treatment 38 24
Number of dead animals found 4£' 6JL'
Source: Union Carbide Corporation.
a/ Commercial formulation applied in-furrow with sugar beet seed at
planting, in Suffolk County, England, 1970.
b_/ Includes eight species of mammals; remainder were birds.
c/ 6.25 Acres treated, solid block.
d/ 5.0 Acres treated, solid block.
e/ Ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus).
fj Five wood pigeons (Columba palumbus) and one yellow hammer
(Emberiza citrinella).
To explore the impact of aldicarb granular applications on natural
wildlife populations, a second monitoring study was conducted in 1972
in the same general area used for the previous trials. About 25 acres
of sugar beets were treated with aldicarb at 0.89 Ib active ingredient
per acre at planting time. Depth of drilling was about 0.8 in. The
area selected had an abundance and diversity of wildlife. Very exten-
sive assessments of the small mammal and bird populations were made in
the 6-week period following application. The survey showed no change
in diversity or numbers of birds after treatment, and many successfully
reared young. Of four birds found dead in the area, only one linnet
(Acanthis cannabina) was confirmed to contain residues of aldicarb.
50
-------
Since spills of granular aldicarb can occur, a field study was
conducted in New Jersey to determine the extent of hazard presented by
exposed granules to Virginia white-tail (Qdocuileus virginianus) deer
and the common rabbit (Sylvilages Floridenus). Sufficient animals of
both species were confined in enclosures expansive enough to permit
normal grazing and active movement. The tests were conduced in 1969
under supervision, of the New Jersey Fish and Game Comuiission. No
adverse effects occurred from the simulated spills of aldicarb during
an exposure period of 7 days. None of the animals sought out or fed
on the granules in preference to their food. The quantity of spilled
granules exceeded the maximum label dosage for crop use by at least
sevenfold. Since there were obvious indications of feeding activity
around the spills, it was concluded that neither wild deer nor rabbits
were attracted to, or would feed on, piles of aldicarb granules.
Union Carbide (1971)!/ reported a sugar beet-Temik 10G study in
Greenfield, California, revealing that pheasant consumed nearly all
foliage from beets treated with three applications of Temik 10G at
2 Ib Al/acre (one at planting, two side-dress after emergence). Neither
pheasant nor California quail (which ate less green tissue) were affected
indirectly from plants containing 19 ppm total aldicarb carbamate resi-
dues.
A granule preference test with pheasants was conducted by the
New Jersey Fish and Game Commission in 1970. Captive adult pheasant
were fed cracked grains from a grain feeder. Half of one replenishment
was substituted with Temik ® . Only one mortality in nine adults occurred
in a five-day observation period.
Another field study using a fenced area was conducted on cotton with
the maximum Temik 10G side-dressing rate (3 Ib Al/acre). The work was
carried out in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game,
Madera County, California. Neither California quail nor ring-necked
pheasants consumed any cotton plant tissue which contained 19.5 ppm
aldicarb carbamates. Some mortalities of birds did occur from spilled
granules on one of the ends of treated row. The California Fish and Game
Pesticide Wildlife Investigations group are reportedly satisfied with the
proposed label uses on sugar beets and commercial usage of Temik 10G,
provided the label specifies that spills on the turn-row are covered
with soil immediately by discing or other mechanical means.
In a cooperative test in west Texas with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Plant Projection Division, Texas State Department of
Agriculture, and Union Carbide, over 300 acres of nearly isolated cotton
was treated with Temik 10G at planting and side-dress. The fields were
surveyed for bird activity. Three mourning doves (Zenaidura macroura)
were found dead on the fringes of the field from the at-planting app-
lication. However, considerable dove activity was present in the area
and the loss of birds was insignificant to the high number of birds observed,
I/ Union Carbide Corporation, "10G Aldicarb Pesticide Wildlife Reports,"
unpublished data, submitted in support of EPA Registration No. 1016-69,
Salinas, California (1971).
51
-------
In a^ Union Carbide Corporation Report (1970)—' the potential hazard
of Temik^ was tested on ten ring-necked pheasant (Phasiana colchicus) by
the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Shell Fisheries. The pheasant
(one year of age weighing from 3-5 Ib) were placed in a. 40' x 10* x 6' pen
and exposed to six-8 oz spills then to 24 oz of Temik *£) (corn cob grit) .
Finally all feed was removed and replaced with 48 oz of Temik >£) , one ~.
pheasant was found dead. The pheasant were not readily attracted to Temik^
and the danger from simulated spills seem to be minimal. However, mortality
may occur in marginal pheasant range where natural feeds are at a minimum.
A further test in Madera County California (Union Carbide, 1971) evalu-
ated the potential hazard of Temik® to California quail and ring-necked
pheasant in a cotton planting. A large plot (125 * x 150') of two^month old
cotton was side dressed 6 to 8 in to each side and 2 to 4 in deep. This
plot and a smaller untreated plot were enclosed with a 5' x 1" mesh fence.
In the Temik ® treated plot 21 adult quail, 10 immature pheasants, and 12
adult pheasants were introduced. Ten adult quail, 5 immature pheasants,
and 5 adult pheasants were placed in the untreated plot. By the end of the
3rd day of observation 7 quail and 4 immature pheasants were dead in the
Temik ©plots; wild birds foraged in a similar treated area without effect.
Neither pheasants nor quail fed on two-month old cotton plants. Therefore,
there would be no hazard from indirect intoxication.
Effects on Beneficial Insects
Bees - Bailey and Swift (1968)—' classify aldicarb as "highly toxic" to
honey bees, based on laboratory and field tests conducted in California
on alfalfa, cotton, citrus, ladino clover, and sweet corn.
The comparative toxicity of aldicarb to honeybees (Apis mellifera)
was evaluated in a laboratory test at 48 hr with 80 °F temperature and a
relative humidity of 65% (Atkins et al, 1973)—'. The LD5Q was found to be
0.285 fig/bee with a slope value of 5.64 probits.
Moorefield (1974)—' reported that aldicarb was highly toxic to worker
honeybees by topical application of technical active ingredient. However,
when granular aldicarb is applied to the soil, direct exposure to bees is
eliminated. In field studies with seed alfalfa in California, no mortality
occurred to bees or their colonies from foraging on blooming alfalfa for
2 weeks after the crop had been side-dressed with aldicarb at the rate of
2.7 Ib AI per acre.
I/ Union Carbide Corporation "Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide Wildlife Reports,"
unpublished data submitted in support of EPA Registration No. 1016-69,
Salinas, Calif. (1970).
2J Bailey, J.B., and J. E. Swift, "Honeybees and other Pollinating Insect
Losses," Pesticide Information and Safety Manual, University of
California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, pp. 7-10 (1968).
_3/ Atkins, E. L., E. A. Greywood, and R. L. MacDonald, "Toxicity of
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemicals to Honeybees," University
of California Extension Laboratory Studies (1973).
47 Moorefield, H. H. (Union Carbide Corporation), Data on Temik Aldicarb
Pesticide Environmental Impact, personal communication (1974).
52
-------
Mizuta and Johansen (1972)—' investigated the hazard of aldicarb
and several other plant-systemic insecticides to nectar-collecting bees.
In the greenhouse, alfalfa leaf cutting bees (Megachile rotundata) were
exposed to white sweetclover (Melilotus) treated with aldicarb at the
(unspecified) standard field dosage rate. In field tests, honeybees
(Apis mellifera) were exposed to birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus sp.) treated
with aldicarb at the recommended rate. There are no hazards to the bees
from nectar of treated plants.
Moorefield (1974) reported that populations of other pollinators
such as bumblebees, leafcutter bees, and alkali bees do not appear to
be adversely affected by the use of aldicarb as recommended on labels.
Parasites and Predators - Ridgway et al. (1967)—/ studied the effects
of in-furrow applications of aldicarb (and several other systemic in-
secticides) to cotton on populations of the bollworm (Heliothis zea),
the tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens) and of arthropod bollworm
predators. Aldicarb 10% granular was applied on four different plots
varying from 0.3-2.0 acres at the rate of 1 Ib AI per acre as an in-
furrow application and, in another test, as a sidedress at the rates
of 0.9 and 2.2 Ib AI per acre. Results indicated that populations
of certain beneficials, particularly those belonging to the order
Hymenoptera were significantly reduced by aldicarb treatments.
Spiders (order Araneida) and certain groups of hymenopterous insects
(families Braconidae and Ichneumonidae) were less affected. In two
experiments, the number of eggs and larvae of Heliothis spp, increased
as the population of predators decreased. These results demonstrated the
importance of natural populations of predators in suppressing populations
of Heliothis spp. The mechanisms by which the beneficial arthropods are
affected are not clear. They may feed on sap, pollen, or exudates from
treated plants or on plant pests which feed on treated plants; and/or they
may lack food because their hosts are destroyed by systemic insecticides.
Coppedge et al. (1969)—/ applied aldicarb 10% granular as a side-
dressing to 4- to 5-acre plots of cotton for the control of overwintered
bool weevils (Anthonomus grandis). Rates of active ingredient application
were 1 Ib/acre; 2 Ib/acre; 1 Ib/acre + 2 Ib/acre 10 days later; and
2 Ib/acre + 2 Ib/acre 9 to 10 days later. Treated plots were sampled for
beneficial insects, including eight species of insect predators and spiders,
Insect predators monitored in treated and untreated plots included the
genera Notoxus, Hippodamia, Scymnus, Collops, Nab is, Geocoris, Orius, and
Chrysopa. The average number of beneficial insects and spiders found per
1Y Mizuta, H.M., and C. A. Johansen, "Hazard of Plant-Systemic Insecti-
cides to Nectar-Collecting Bees," Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech»Bull.
(72)(1972).
2/ Ridgway, R.L., P. D. Lingren, C. B. Cowan, Jr., and J. W. Davis,
"Populations of Arthropod Predators and Heliothis spp. after
Applications of Systemic Insecticides to Cotton," J. Econ. Entomol.,
60 (4):1012-1016 (1967).
3/ Coppedge, J.R., D. A. Lindquist, R. L. Ridgway, C. B. Cowan, and
L. A. Bariola, "Sidedress Applications of Union Carbide UC-21149
for Control of Overwintered Boll Weevils," J. Econ. Entomol.,
62(3):558-565 (1969).
53
-------
400 ft of row in the treated plots was inversely related to the dosage of
aldicarb used. An average of 13.4 beneficial insects and 3.4 spiders/400
ft of row were counted in the plot that received 2 + 2 Ib aldicarb per acre,
compared to 34.2 beneficial insects and 6.7 spiders in the untreated plots.
More bollworms (Heliothis zea) and tobacco budworms (Heliothis virescens)
were found in the treated than in the untreated plots.
Bariola et al. (1971)I/ conducted large-scale field tests of four
different farms varying from 10-40 acres with soil-applied aldicarb for
suppression of the bollweevil (Anthonomus grandis) in northern Texas.
Aldicarb 10% granular was applied at the active ingredient rate of 1 Ib/acre
in-furrow at planting time; 2 Ib/acre sidedressed when cotton plants began
to square; 2 Ib/acre sidedressed when plants began to square + 2 Ib/acre
10 to 14 days later. The aldicarb applications reduced populations of adult
bollweevils 94 to 96% until late August when there is extensive seasonal
movement, of bollweevils from untreated cotton. This would effect the
results of the aldicarb treatment. Populations of bollworms (Heliothis spp.)
increased in most aldicarb-treated plots. The in-furrow aldicarb treatment
at planting resulted in an average increase of bollworm larvae of 17%; one
sidedressing, 141%; two sidedressings, 126%. These increases in bollworm
larvae appeared to be with reductions in the numbers of insect predators.
There was also some reduction in the numbers of beneficial spiders.
Gate et al. (1972)1/ studied the toxicity of aldicarb (and
several other insecticides) applied topically and orally to an ich-
neumonid parasite (Campoletis perdistinctus). Eighty-eight trials
using 10 adult ^C_. perdistinctus per cage were placed in the greenhouse
on individual flowering cotton plants treated with the pest insecti-
cides. When aldicarb was applied to the stem of the cotton plants
at the rate of 10 mg active ingredient per plant, the plants remained
toxic to the parasite for more than 21 days. When adult C_. perdistinctus
were confined in petri dishes on leaves taken from cotton plants treated
with aldicarb by soil application at the rate of 34 mg active ingre-
dient per plant, there was 80% mortality 3 days after treatment, 42%
after 7 days, and 9% after 14 days. Leaves taken from plants that
had received a stem application of aldicarb at the rate of 10 mg active
ingredient per plant resulted in 5% mortality 3 days after treatment;
6% mortality 7 days after the treatment (the latter two values not
significantly different from parasite mortality in the untreated controls
at the 5% level. Nectar collected from greenhouse grown cotton plants
treated with aldicarb via the soil at 34 mg active ingredient per plant
produced more thanx50% mortality of adult C^. perdistinctus for at least
7 days after treatment, while stem application of aldicarb at 10 mg
active ingredient per plant produced 26 to 28% mortality 3, 7, and 14
days after treatment. In field tests, one aldicarb sidedress applica-
tion of 2 Ib Al per acre produced 18% mortality of adult £. perdistinctus
cages on treated plants 3 days after treatment, and 100% mortality of
adults offered nectar of treated plants 3 days after treatment.
I/ Bariola, L. A., R. L. Ridgway, and J. R. Coppedge, "Large-Scale Field
Tests on Soil Applications of Aldicarb for Suppression of Populations
of Boll Weevils," J. Econ.Entomol., 64(5):1280-1784 (1971).
2/ Gate, J. R., Jr., R. L. Ridgway, and P. D. Lingren, "Effects of Systemic
Insecticides Applied to Cotton on Adults of an Ichneumonid Parasite,
Campoletis perdistinctus," J. Econ. Entomol., 65(2):484-488 (1972).
54
-------
Kinzer et al. (1974)i/ studied the effects of aldicarb applica-
tions to cotton on populations of the bollworm (H. zea), the tobacco
budworm (II. virescens) and eight arthropod predators, including largely
the same species as monitored by Coppedge et al. (1969). Aldicarb 10%
granular was applied in-furrow, or as one or two sidedressings; the
total amount of active ingredient applied ranged from 1.7 to 2.2 lb/
acre. In three field tests, the arthropod predator populations were
reduced following these applications. However, at the time of the
Heliothis infestations, the reduction in arthropod predator populations
did not seem great enough to cause the Heliothis increases that occurred.
Results of a field-cage test indicated that tobacco budworm moths, when
given a choice between aldicarb-treated and untreated cotton plants, pre-
ferred to oviposit on the treated cotton. The authors concluded that
reduced arthropod predator populations following aldicarb treatments do
not appear to be the sole factor causing Heliothis increases. The increased
Heliothis oviposition on aldicarb-treated cotton coupled with reduced
arthropod predator populations could greatly increase Heliothis populations
on cotton treated with aldicarb.
Further studies on the effects of aldicarb on beneficial insects
have been reported (Moorefield 1974).
T. R. Pfrimmer, Stoneville, Mississippi, applied aldicarb granules
with the seed at planting time to cotton at rates of 0.1 to 1.0 lb
active ingredient per acre without diminishing beneficial insect populations.
C. B. Cowan, Waco, Texas, applied aldicarb at 0.6 and 1.0 lb active ingre-
dient per acre at planting, followed by 0.6 lb active ingredient per
acre sidedressed at the four-leaf stage of cotton, 8 weeks after planting.
The numbers.of predators and parasites were not adversely affected. R. L.
Hanns, at College Station, Texas, reported that more predaceous insects
and spiders were in plots treated with aldicarb at the rates of 0.25
to 2.0 lb active ingredient per acre than in the checks which may have been
due to the faster fruiting on the treated cotton. F. R. Gilliland .reported
that populations of beneficial insects on cotton in Auburn, Alabama, were
depressed during early June in plots treated with aldicarb, but late
in _June and during July, little differences were observed between the
populations of beneficials in treated versus untreated plots.
Predators that also feed on plant juices such as Geocoris, Nabis
and Orius are reduced in numbers following aldicarb applications, but
that the effect is transient, and that the predators frequently reestablish
as the aldicarb residues dissipate to prey on insects against which
aldicarb is ineffective, e.g., Heliothis and other lepidopterous genera.
Coccinella. Collops, Chrysopa, and Coleomegilla genera; certain members
of the Reduviidae and Carabidae families; spiders; and predatory mites
appear to be less affected by aldicarb. Populations of these species
may temporarily decrease in numbers simply from lack of food sources.
Occasionally, increases in these species have been noted if a large
number of prey abound following an aldicarb application. According to
Moorefield (1974), aldicarb treatments have no apparent effect on parasitic
insects of the Braconidae, Encyrtidae, Eulophidae, Ichneumonidae, Pteromalidae,
Scelionidae, and Trichogrammatidae families.
55
-------
Effects and Residues in the Soil
Biota - Spurr and Sousa (1974)—' studied potential interactions of aldi-
carb and several of its metabolites to nontarget organisms. The test
bacteria and fungi were cultured in the laboratory on potato dextrose
agar to which aldicarb and several of its metabolites and related chemi-
cals were added at a final concentration of 100 ppm. The plates were
inoculated with bacteria or fungi, incubated for 2 days at 30°C, and
the growth of the test organism rated visually. In another test series,
mycelial growth in the soil was studied in steam-pasteurized Norfolk
sandy loam soil mixed with fungal inoculum grown on a cornmeal-sand
medium in paper cups. Aldicarb, its metabolites and related chemicals
were added to the soil at a final concentration equivalent to 50 Ib
active ingredient per acre, a fivefold exaggeration of the maximum use
rate of aldicarb. The treated cups were incubated for 2 days at 21 C
and 96% relative humidity, after which time surface growth was visually
rated.
Organisms tested in this manner included eight species of bacteria
and five species of fungi commonly found in different habitats, includ-
ing saprophytes and parasites. Aldicarb and most of the related chemicals
did not inhibit the growth of bacteria or fungi under these test condi-
tions. The authors then investigated whether aldicarb would support
the growth of microorganisms that might aid in its degradation and
metabolism. Three soil fungi, i.e., Rhizoctonia solani, Aspergillus
niger, and Alternaria solani, made only slight growth on inorganic
salts or on aldicarb (1,000 ppm) plus inorganic salts. Rhizoctonia
solani made a fair amount of growth on mannitol (1,000 ppm) plus inorganic
salts. When both aldicarb and mannitol were present (1,000 ppm of each),
the growth of R. solani was more than twice that with mannitol alone.
By contrast, A. niger grew appreciably only on mannitol in the absence
of aldicarb, while _A. solani grew on manmitol with or without aldicarb
present. Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a plant-pathogenic soil bacterium
and a close relative of the nodule forming (beneficial) bacterium Rhizobium,
had very little growth on aldicarb alone; its growth on aldicarb plus
mannitol was half that observed on mannitol alone.
Spurr and Sousa imply from their observations that the growth
of soil microorganisms should not be adversely affected by the concen-
trations of aldicarb applied for pest control purposes.
Lin et al. (1972)I/ studied the effects of aldicarb and several
other insecticides on the nitrification and growth rates of legume crops.
Tested by the disc inhibition method, aldicarb was one of four (out of nine)
insecticides which induced a high degree of growth inhibition of Rhizobium.
Four different species of Rhizobium showed different degrees of sensitivity
to the insecticides. At field use rates (5 ppm), aldicarb and the other
I/ Spurr, H. W., Jr., and A. A. Sousa, "Potential Interactions of Aldicarb
and its Metabolites on Nontarget Organisms in the Environment,"
J. Environ. Quality. 3(2);130-133 (1974).
2J Lin, S., B. R. Funke, and J. T. Schulz, "Effects of Some Organophosphate
Carbamate Insecticide on Nitrification and Legume Growth," Plant
Soil, 37(3):489-496 (1972).
56
-------
insecticides studied had little effect on the nitrification rate, or on
the growth of alfalfa or sweet clover seedlings. At exaggerated rates (50
and 500 ppm), aldicarb and most of the other insecticides inhibited nitri-
fication and seedling growth.
Gawaad et al. (1972)—/ studied the effects of aldicarb (and several
other insecticides) on the nodulation of Rhizobium phaseoli and R. trifolii
in broad beans and Egyptian clover. Aldicarb had no effect on the nodula-
tion rate up to a concentration of 40 ppm. Several other insecticides
tested in the same manner did not influence nodulation at rates of 10 ppm
(approximate field use rates), but fewer nodules were found when these
compounds were applied at 40 to 50 ppm. The Rhizobium species were more
tolerant to aldicarb than to chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides studies.
Anderson (1971)±/ investigated the capacity of several fungi isolated from
an agricultural loam soil to degrade DDT or dieldrin. In shake cultures,
Mucor alternans partially degraded DDT in 2 to 4 days into two water-soluble
metabolites. Aldicarb did not affect the growth rate of the fungus or its
degradation of DDT. Heungens (1970)A/ investigated the effects of aldicarb
and several other pesticides on the soil fauna in azaleas. The test plants
were grown in pots in the greenhouse in a conifer litter substrate. Aldi-
carb (applied at the rate of 3 mg/liter) was among the pesticides most
toxic to oribatids, while it was less toxic than several other materials to
earthworms, enchytraeids, predatory mites, and collembola.
There were no additional reports found on the effects of aldicarb on
lower terrestrial organisms. The few reports reviewed above indicate that
at concentrations that might result from normal use in accordance with
label recommendations, aldicarb was not toxic to the bacteria and fungi
against which it was tested. However, this data is insufficient to deter-
mine whether or not the use of aldicarb, pesticide recommended only for
soil application, presents specific hazards to the soil microflora or
microfauna under field use conditions.
Residues in Soil/Laboratory Studies - Coppedge et al. (1967)A/ studied
the fate of radio-labeled aldicarb in cotton plants and in three types
of soil (Houston clay, Norwood silty clay loam, and Lakeland fine sand)
in the laboratory. The three soil types varied considerably in organic
matter content pH, water holding capacity, and sand, silt, and clay
content. Two hundred ug of ^S~aid±carb in 50 pi of water were added
to 10-g samples of the different soils, mixed thoroughly, and
I/ Gawaad, A.A.A., E. S. N. M. Ali, and A. Y. Shazli, "Leaching of Some Soil
Insecticide in Three Egyptian Soils," Bull. Entomol. Soc.. Egypt Econ.
Ser., (5):23-26 (1971).
2J Anderson, J.P.E., "Factors Influencing Insecticide Degradation by a Soil
Fungus, Mucor alternans," Piss. Abstr. Int., 32(6):3114B-3115B (1971).
3/ Heungens, A., "The Influence of Some Pesticides in the Soil Fauna in
Azalea Culture," Meded. Fac. Landbouwwet. Ryksuniv, Gent, 35(2):717-
729 (1970).
4/ Coppedge, J.R., D. A. Lindquist, D. L. Bull, and H. W. Dorough, "Fate
of 2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde 0-Methylcarbamoyl) Oxime
(Temik) in Cotton Rlants and Soil," J. Agr. Food Chem., 15(5):902-910
(1967).
57
-------
placed into tightly capped bottles which were held in the dark at 25 to
28°C. At intervals during a 12-week period, replicates of each soil type
were removed from storage and analyzed. The approximate half-life of
aldicarb in the three soils ranged from 9 to 12 days. Four weeks after
treatment, the soils contained 0.3 to 27.2% of the applied dose of
aldicarb. As in plants, the major metabolites recovered was aldicarb
sulfoxide. Aldicarb was degraded more slowly in the soils than in
cotton plants.
Bull et al. (1970)i/ conducted further laboratory studies on the
fate of radio-labeled aldicarb in sand, loam, clay and muck soils main-
tained at different moisture levels (0, 50, and 100% of field capacity)
and at pH values of 6, 7, and 8. Samples of 14-C or 35s-labeled aldi-
carb were added to the test soils. At various time after treatment,
samples of the treated soils were analyzed radiometrically and/or by gas
chromatography.
No important difference in results were attributable to pH within
the range tested. Aldicarb was relatively stable in all dry soils, in
sand at all moisture levels, and in loam at 50% moisture. The half-
life of all toxic compounds exceeded 56 days. A moisture level of 50%
was optimal for the oxidation of aldicarb to its sulfoxide and sulfone
derivatives in loam, clay, and muck. A moisture level of 100% caused
a substantially faster rate of decomposition to nontoxic products in
the same soils. The volatilization of aldicarb and its derivatives
was influenced greatly by soil moisture. As the rate of water evapora-
tion from the soil increased, so did volatilization of radioactivity
from the treated soil.
In an additional test series, 50-g samples of sand, Lufkin fine
sandy loam and Woodward fine sandy loam were mixed thoroughly with
450 ug of 35g-iabeled aldicarb. Each sample was then enclosed in a
flat, rectangular packet made of stainless steel screen and buried
individually in a cotton field in holes that were each 19 cm (7.5 in)
wide and 30 cm (12 in) deep. Each packet was placed in a horizontal
position at a depth of about 15 cm (6 in) and surrounded by soil of
the same type that was in Che pocket. One set of samples was kept as
dry as possible by covering the site with a plastic sheet during in-
clement weather. The other set of samples was saturated with water
immediately after it was buried. The test was conducted in an unusually
wet season. Under very wet conditions, all radioactivity .was lost from
the packets in a matter of hours. In the protected set of samples, the
half-lives of aldicarb and its toxic metabolites was 1 day in sand and
4 to 7 days in the loams.
Quraishi (1972)2/ studied the persistence of aldicarb and its metabo-
lites in clay loam (pH 6.8 to 7.2) and in water collected from fields.
I/ Bull, D. L., R. A. Stokes, J. R. Cpppedge, and R. L. Ridgway,
"Further Studies of the Fate of Aldicarb in Soil," J. Econ.
Entomol., 63(4):1283-1289 (August 1970).
2J Quraishi, M. S., "Edaphic and Water Relationships of Aldicarb and
its Metabolites," Can. Entomol., 104(1)-1191-1196 (1972).
58
-------
Soil samples treated in the laboratory with aldicarb at 5 and 20 pptn did
not contain detectable aldicarb residues after 8 and 12 weeks, respec-
tively. At 50 ppm, chemically detectable amounts of aldicarb were present
in the soil after 11 weeks. The soil samples were stored at 23 to 28° C,
but the temperature at times reached 32°C. In field water treated in
the laboratory with aldicarb at 100 ppm the parent compound and its
metabolites were detectable at 0.4 ppm 11 months later. The water was
stored at 16 to 20°C and exposed to 507.5 hr of sunlight. Aldicarb was
readily eluted with water from soil columns.
Onsager and Rusk (1969)—/ studied the residual toxicity of aldicarb
and other insecticides to the sugar beet wireworm (Limonius californicus)
in laboratory tests. Aldicarb 10% granular was applied at an initial
concentration of 2.31 ppm, a rate suggested by the manufacturer. How-
ever, it was completely ineffective against the test insect immediately
after treatment and was not further evaluated.
Campbell et al. (1971).2-/ studied the influence of organic matter
content of soils on the control of the wireworm, Melanotus communis,
by several insecticides, including aldicarb. These authors also found
aldicarb to be ineffective against the test insect at 2 Ib active in-
gredient per acre applied as 10% granular and therefore obtained no
data on the influenced organic matter.
Supak (1972)!/ investigated the volatilization, degradation, ad-
sorption, and desorption characteristics of aldicarb in soils and clays.
Volatilization of solid and dissolved aldicarb, and of aldicarb mixed
with Houston black and Beaumont soils at the rate of 1 mg of toxicant
per gram of soil was determined by GLC analysis of trapped vapors. The
volatilization rate of aldicarb was generally depressed by the presence
of water, and by elevated temperatures. For all systems, aldicarb
volatilization losses ranged from 0.01 to 0.18% of the applied dose.
At 23°C, the degradation of aldicarb exceeded 10% of the applied dose only
in the Beaumont soil where 24 and 46% of the added toxicant were lost
from the moist and dry soil, respectively. At 42°C, extensive degradation
occurred in all systems; losses ranged from 38 to 82%. Adsorption experi-
ments with radiolabeled aldicarb indicated apparent negative adsorption
(exclusion) of the pesticide on Ca- and Al-saturated montmorillonite clays.
There appeared to be two different bonding mechanisms responsible for
retention of aldicarb near basic clay surfaces.
I/ Onsager, J. A., and H. W. Rusk, "Potency of the Residues of Some
Nonpersistent Insecticides in Soil Against Wireworms," J. Econ.
Entomol.. 62(5):1060-1064 (1969).
2J Campbell, W. V., D. A. Mount, and B. S. Heming, "Influence of
Organic Matter Content of Soils on Insecticidal Control of the
Wireworm." J. Econ. Entomol., 64(l):41-44 (1971)
3J Supak, J. R., "The Volatilization, Degradation, Adsorption, and
Desorption Characteristics of Aldicarb [2-Methyl-2-methylthio
(propionaldehyde) 0-(Methylcarbamoyl)Oxime] in Soils and Clays,"
Piss. Abstr. Int.. 33(3):982B (1972).
59
-------
Gawaad et al. (1971)!/ studied the leaching characteristics of al-
dicarb arid several other soil insecticides in three Egyptian soils; among
the insecticides studied, aldicarb had the highest leaching rate; 47.12,
42.30, and 56.14% was leached from sand, loam, and sandy clay loam soils,
respectively.
Residues in Soil/Field Studies - Kearby e_t al. (1970)2/ studied the dis-
tribution and persistence of aldicarb residues in a Pennsylvania tree
farm soil (and in the needles and branches of Scotch pine). Aldicarb
10% granular was applied broadcast at rates of 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 lb/12
trees. Application was made on both sides of each 12-tree row in 3-ft
bands. The 10-year old trees were spaced at 6-ft intervals and grew in
fine, well mixed and mesic loam. Soil samples were taken, 1, 15, 36 and
63 days after application and analyzed colorimetrically. This analysis
method did not differentiate between the parent compound and its degra-
dation products. In the 0.5 and 1.0 lb/12 trees treatments, no apparent
chemical residues.were found in soil samples taken at depths of 6 and 12
in., 36 and 63 days after treatment. Only a trace amount, 0.07 ppm, was
detected 63 days its major metabolites under the test conditions was
estimated to be 15 days. Aldicarb appeared to be readily absorbed and
translocated upwards in Scotch pine.
Andrawes, et al. (1971).3_/ studied the fate and persistence of aldi-
carb in soil under field conditions over two growing seasons. l^C-
aldicarb was applied at the rate of 3.0 Ib active ingredient per acre
in-furrow. This application resulted in 14c-residues of 13.1 ppm in
soil planted to potatoes, and 15.4 ppm in fallow ground. Ninety days after-
application, total l^c-aldicarb equivalents had declined to 0.07 ppm in
the cultivated soil, 0.05 ppm in the fallow ground. Maximum dissipation
rates were associated with heavy rainfall at various times during the
season. Aldicarb sulfoxide and sulfone and water-soluble metabolites were
the principal transformation products of aldicarb remaining in the soil.
Volunteer crabgrass growing in the treated fallow ground contained 1.15
ppm of total l^C-aldicarb equivalents 90 days after the original treatment.
When tomato plants were transplanted and grown for 7 days in the fallow
ground 90 days after treatment, they contained from less than 0.01 to 0.06
ppm of total l^C-residues.
In an additional test, -"-^C-aldicarb was applied in-furrow at the rate
of 1.0 Ib active ingredient per acre. No crops were planted in this area,
and the soil remained undisturbed. Soil samples taken after 14 days con-
tained 0.59 ppm of total -^C-aldicarb equivalents. Immediately after
sampling, the treated area was disced to a depth of 15 to 20 cm (6 to 8 in.)
I/ Gawaad, A. A. A., E. S. N. M. Ali and A. Y. Shazli, "Leaching of Some
Soil Insecticides in Three Egyptian Soils," Bull. Entomol. Soc.f
Egypt Econ. Ser., (5):23-26 (1971)
2] Kearby, W. H., C. D. Ercegovich, and M. Bliss, Jr., "Residue Studies
on Aldicarb in Soil and Scotch Pine," J. Econ. Entomol., 63(4):
1317-1318 (August 1970).
3f Andrawes, N. R., W. P. Bagley, and R. A. Herrett, "Fate and Carryover
Properties of Temik Aldicarb Pesticide,1 J. Agr. Food Chem.,
19 (4):727-730 (1971).
60
-------
and resampled. After discing, the residues found were 0.02 ppm of C-aldicarb
equivalents, an approximately 30-fold dilution. The residue level remaining
after discing, was lower than that in the tomato transplant experiment. The
authors conclude that residues of aldicarb and its transformation products
do not persist in the soil after a 90-day growing season and that therefore,
the likelihood of carryover of residues to subsequent crops is remote.
Woodham et al. (1973a)!/ investigated aldicarb residues remaining in
soil, cottonseed, and cotton lint on the Texas high plains, following an
in-furrow soil application of 10% granular formulation at the rate of 1.5 Ib
active ingredient per acre and use of a gas chromatographic-flame photometric
analytical procedure. Aldicarb residues (measured as the sulfone) as high as
1.65 ppm were present in soil from dryland fields 3 days after application,
decreasing to 0.24 ppm in 1 month, and completely disappearing in 4 months.
Aldicarb residues in soil from irrigated fields averaged 0.7 ppm 13 days after
treatment and had completely disappeared in 42 days. No significant aldicarb
residues were detected in soil between treated rows or in adjacent untreated areas,
Quraishi (1972) reported on aldicarb residues in sugar beet roots and
potatoes grown in soil treated with aldicarb 10% granules in the seed furrow
at the time of planting at the rate of 1.6 Ib active ingredient per acre.
At harvest time 4 months later, aldicarb residues found in three samples of
sugar beet roots ranged from 0.05 to 0.2 ppm. Potatoes harvested from
fields treated in the same manner at 2 and 4 Ib active ingredient per acre
contained less than 0.05 ppm of aldicarb residues.
Moorefield (1974) reports that aldicarb is oxidized in the soil to
aldicarb sulfoxide which is then largely hydrolyzed to nontoxic nitriles,
oximes, etc. A small portion of the sulfoxide is oxidized further to
sulfone which also degrades in soil to nontoxic nitriles, oximes, etc.
Replicated soil residue, decline tests were carried out in a least 12
different soil types. According to Moorefield (1974), the results indicate
that aldicarb and its carbamate metabolites in soil varies, depending upon
several factors. Soil moisture is necessary to release aldicarb toxicant
from the granule into the soil. Loss occurs by biological degradation by
soil microorganisms, by chemical reaction catalyzed by clays, and by uptake
into growing vegetation. Under very dry soil conditions, aldicarb diffuses
slowly out of the granule and degrades more slowly.
According to Moorefield (1974), the half-life of aldicarb carbamate
residues in soil varies from 1 to 4 weeks. More rapid degradation occurs
in mineral soils, while aldicarb residues are more persistent in soils of
higher organic content.
In a field test when aldicarb 10% granules were applied to bare
Norfolk sandy loam at the rate of 10 Ib active ingredient per acre, soil
I/ Woodham, D. W., R. R. Edwards, R. G. Reeves, and R. L. Schutzmann,
"Total Toxic Aldicarb Residues in Soil, Cottonseed, and Cotton
Lint Following a Soil Treatment with the Insecticides on the Texas
High Plains," J. Agr. Food Chem.. 21(2):303-307 (1973a).
61
-------
samples from the treated area contained 9.4 ppm of aldicarb residues at
0 days; 5.5 ppm at 7 days; 0.66 ppm at 14 days; and 0.19 ppm at 28 days.
Residues in Water
Moorefield (1974) reported that a laboratory study on the dissipation
of aldicarb and its carbamate metabolites in various types of water has
recently been completed. The disappearance of aldicarb was determined over
a 30-day period in distilled water at pH 6,7, and 8, and in pond water
and lake water, the latter two in the presence and absence of their res-
pective bottom material. The initial concentration of aldicarb in all
samples was 0.5 ppm. There was little or no degradation of aldicarb
carbamates in the distilled water, or in the pond and lake water in the
absence of bottom material. In the pond water with about 5% mud (percent
by weight, dry basis) present, the aldicarb carbamate residue degraded to
a concentration of 0.02 ppm in 20 days; the half-life being about 5 days.
After 20 days, the bottom mud contained less than 0.01 ppm aldicarb
carbamates. In lake water in the presence of bottom silt, aldicarb carbamates
degraded to a concentration of 0.03 ppm in 25 days; half-life is about 6 days.
Moorefield (1974) further reported on a field study in which a farm
pond was treated with aldicarb at an initial concentration of 3 ppm. Samples
of water and bottom mud were taken periodically. Aldicarb carbamate
residues in the pond water declined to 1.1 ppm after 2 weeks; 0.26 ppm
after 4 weeks; 0.06 ppm (the limit of sensitivity of the method) after 6
weeks. The half-life was about 7 to 10 days. The maximum concentration of
aldicarb carbamate residues in the bottom mud was 0.09 ppm at 4 weeks. The
dissipation of aldicarb carbamate residues on this farm pond was rapid on a
complete, without residue buildup in pond sediment.
Residues in Air
Bull et al. (1970) found that in some of their laboratory and field
tests, aldicarb residues disappeared from different types of soil with
unexpected rapidity. Aldicarb "losses" were correlated with soil mois-
ture and type and consisted primarily of upward movement and subsequent
volatilization. These and several other early laboratory experiments
indicated that condensable volatiles consisted largely of oxime and nitrile
products, with small amounts of aldicarb and its oxidation products. Accord-
ing to Moorefield (1974), more recent studies with refined trapping tech-
niques suggest that extensive degradation of the aldicarb molecule occurs
with resultant evolution of the methylthio function as carbon dioxide.
Studies currently in progress to more completely account for the fate of
aldicarb in soil, and to define the nature of the evolved products support
the conclusion that most of the volatilized radioactivity is carbon dioxide
liberated by extensive microbial degradation of the toxicant.
Nematologists, including Miller (1970)!/ and Brodie and Good (1973),2J
describe aldicarb as a "nonvolatile nematocide." Moorefield (1974) states
I/ Miller, P. M., "Failure of Several Non-Volatile and Contact Nematicides
to Kill Eggs in Cysts of Heterodera tabacum," Plant Pis. Rep., 54(9);
781-783 M970).
2J Brodie, B. B., and J. M. Good, "Relative Efficacy of Selected Volatile
and Nonvolatile Nematocides for Control of Meloidogyne incognita on
Tobacco," J. Nematol., 5(1):14-18 (1973).
62
-------
that aldicarb is not a volatile substance, as its low vapor pressure attests
and that air monitoring samples in uncovered treated fields have failed to
detect carbamate residues. Airborne particulate fines of aldicarb do
present a hazard if inhaled. Special precautions are made to remove the dust
from the granulated aldicarb product, Temik 10% granular aldicarb formulation
and small hand applicators that severely abrade the granules are not recommended.
Effects on Nontarget Plants
Spurr and Sousa (1974) studied the effects of aldicarb and its
metabolites on nontarget organisms in the environment, including a number
of higher plants. In greenhouse tests, test plants were exposed to
aldicarb applied at a rate equivalent to 50 Ib/acre, a dosage five to 20
times greater than those permitted in the aldicarb registrations.
Under these conditions, aldicarb and its sulfone were nontoxic when
applied postemergence to beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) corn (Zea mays L.)
tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum mill), and cotton (Gossyplum hirsutun L.)
or preemergence to perennial rye grass (Solium perenne L.) pearl millet
(Setaria italica L.), red root pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and
mustard (Brassica pincea var. foliosa).
Woodham et al. (1973b)—' studied the total toxic residues of aldicarb
in weeds, grasses, and wildlife following soil application of 10% granular
to dryland and irrigated cotton fields in the Texas high plains. Aldicarb
was applied at the rate of 1.5 Ib/acre. Residues of aldicarb and/or its
metabolites (measured as the sulfone by a gas chromatographicflame photometric
analysis method) were detected in 80% of the grass and weeds collected from
treated areas in dryland fields, and in 83% of the samples from untreated
sections of these fields. Residues as high as 42.8 ppm were found in a
composite sample of nightshade, ironweed, and careless weed collected from
a treated area of a dryland field 7 days after treatment, decreasing to 0.96
ppm 29 days after treatment. Residues were also detected in weeds growing
in untreated sections of dryland fields approximately 12 to 13 ft from the
treated rows, ranging from 0.02 to 19.64 ppm* No detectable residues were
found in weed samples from adjacent untreated, noncultivated areas outside
of treated fields.
In irrigated fields, residues were detected in about 73% of the samples
from treated areas, 38% of the samples from untreated sections of treated
fields, and 31% of the samples from untreated sections of treated fields,
and 31% of the samples from untreated, noncultivated areas adjacent to the
treated irrigated fields. In this set of samples, the highest residues de-
tected from treated areas were 2.09 ppm in a sample of careless seed 54
days after treatment; 2.94 ppm in a composite sample of Johnsongrass and
ironweed 74 days after treatment; 1.85 ppm in a composite sample of careless
weed, Johnsongrass, and Colorado grass; and 3.37 ppm in a composite sample of
Johnsongrass and ironweed. Weed samples collected from untreated areas
of the fields showed significant residues in only three samples, including
23.59 ppm in a composite sample of careless weed and Johnsongrass collected
I/ Woodham, D. W., R. G. Reeves, and R. R. Edwards, "Total Toxic Aldicarb
Residues in Weeds, Grasses, and Wildlife from the Texas High Plains
Following a Soil Treatment with the Insecticide," J. Agr. Food Chem.,
21(4):604-607 (1973b).
63
-------
54 days after treatment (collected about 13 ft from treated areas). Small
but detectable residues were found in three samples from untreated, non-
cultivated areas adjacent to cultivated irrigated fields; they were: 0.03
0.02, and 0.01 ppm in material collected 51,'51, and 54 days, respectively,
after treatment.
Metabolic Pathways in Plants
The metabolism of aldicarb in plants has been investigated extensively.
Bull (1968)JL/ observed that aldicarb in cotton plants is completely meta-
bolized within 2 days, primarily to the corresponding sulfoxide. Metcalf
et al. (1966)^.' noted that the sulfoxide is a more active cholinesterase
inhibitor than aldicarb, and observed that the long-term persistence of the
sulfoxide in the plant (cotton) and its slow oxidation to the sulfone is
responsible for the persistent, systemic activity of aldicarb.
3/
Hartley et al. (1970)— have performed the most extensive work on
the metabolism of aldicarb in cotton. They also studied previously un-
examined water-soluble aldicarb metabolites, which become the predominant
products of aldicarb metabolism in cotton.
The metabolic pathway of aldicarb in cotton plants, as delineated by
Hartley et al. (1970) is presented in Figure 2. Hartley et al. (1970)
noted that the initial metabolic attack on aldicarb is both oxidative and
hydrolytic in nature, yielding organo-soluble products. These metabolites,
for the most part, are transient in nature and are further converted to
the water-soluble residues.
Surprisingly, the chief metabolic pathway in the formation of water-
solubles is one of reduction, leading to the alcohol sulfoxide (T^Al)
(see Figure 2) in high conversion. Only minor quantities of this alcohol
occur free in the aqueous and organic fractions, the bulk of the metabolite
being in the form of a highly polar glycoside conjugate.
Apparently because of the resistance of the sulfoxide metabolites
to oxidation, only minor quantities of the aldicarb sulfone metabolites,
T20, T2A1, and T2Ac, were detected.
I/ Bull, D. L., "Metabolism of UC-21149 [2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)-propionalde-
hyde-0-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime] in Cotton Plants and Soil in the Field,"
J. Econ. Entomol., 61(6):1598-1602 (1968).
2/ Metcalf, L., T. R. Fukuto, C. Collins, K. Borck, J. Burk, H. T. Reynolds,
and M. F. Osman, "Metabolism of 2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)-propionaldehyde-
0-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime in Plant and Insect," J. Agr. Food Chem.,
14(6):579-584 (1966).
3/ Hartley, W., N. Andrawes, E. Chancey, P. Bagley, and H. Spurr, "The
Metabolism of'Temik Aldicarb Pesticide [2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)-pro-
pionaldehyde)-0-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime] in the Cotton Plant," J. Agr.
Food Chem., 18(3):446-453 (1970).
64
-------
0 CH,
CH-.S-C-CH-NOCNHCH-,
CH3
Aldicarb
I II
CII3S-C-CH-NOCNHCTl3
CH3 (Tj)
0 CH3
ClUS-C-CH-NOCNIIOU
!i|
Conjugate
J
(T2)
Conjugate
\ « ?"3 M ? P1' ?, PS /
Nil i ^ k 1 Hi/
CH,S-C-C1I-NOH I "> CIUS-C-CN CH,S-C-CII-NOH
1 1 • IN
CH3 (TjO) CB3 (T^) 0 Cl!3 (T20)
J , 1 .1 ,
0
ClljS-
CH, 0 CH, 0 0
li L I'
J-CHO cH3£-c— 6ni2 cii.s-
1 1
="3
>CHO
CH3 J CHj (TjAm) ^ 6 CH3
^ \ / / i
0 1
II
X, \ 0 CH / 0
\ 8I3 / II
="3
CII3S-C-CH201I CH3S-C-COOH / CH3S-C-CH2OH
/ I
CH3 (TjAl) CH3 (TjAc)/ 6
!/
0 CH,
1! 1 3
•7 CH,S-C-COOH
H ^
Clucoaldc conjugate 0 CHj (TjAc) Glucoi
<=
H3 (TjAl)
Ide conjugate
rULATED INTERMEDIATE
Compound Abbreviation
2-Mctliyl-2(nicChylsulfinyl)propionaldchyde
0-(racthylcarbamoyl)oxime (Aldicarb sulfoxide)
2-Methyl-2-(methylsulfonyl)propionaldehyde
0-(mcthylcarbamoyl)oxime (Aldicarb sulfone)
2-HcChyl-2-(mcthylsulfinyl)propionaldchyde
oximc (Oxlmc sulfoxide)
2-Mcthyl-2-(mothylsulfonyl)propionaldehydc
oxirac (Oximc sulfone)
2-Methyl-2-(metliylsuHinyl)propionitrile
2-Methyl-2-(methylsul£inyl)propionaraidc
2-Mcthyl-?.-(mcthylsulfinyl)propauol
2-Mcthyl-2-(mcthylsulfonyl)propanol
2-Mcthyl-2-(mcthylsulfinyl)propionic acid
2-Mcthyl-2-(mcthylsulfonyl)propionic acid
Source: Barlety et al., op. clt. (1970).
Figure 2. A metabolic pathway of aldlcarb. in cotton plant*.
65
T20
T2Ai
T2Ac
-------
All of the major plant metabolites of aldicarb have been found to be
relatively nontoxic in acute studies (Hartley et al. 1970). The major
metabolites, 2-methyl-2- (methylsulf inyl) propanol, (T^Al) , had no demonstra-
ble effect on rats when included in their daily diet for 7 days at concen-
trations as high as 20,000 ppm. Acute oral H>50 values determined for
aldicarb ?s water soluble metabolites are as follows:
Acute Oral
Metabolite Abbreviation LD50 (ing /kg)
CH3c-CH2OH TAI Ilj300
CH3
CH2S-C-CH9OH T Al n
1! i ^ j.«iij- j_j
0 CH3 *
0 CH3 0
CH3^-C—
-------
Radio-labeled aldicarb was applied to the system. At the end of 33 days,
the system was taken apart, and the organisms and the water extracted
and analyzed for radioactivity. In addition, extracts were spotted on
thin-layer chromatographic plates, developed with appropriate solvents,
and exposed to X-ray film to locate and identify the chemical composition
of the residues in the different tissues. Metabolites were identified by
cochromatography with hypothesized metabolites, as well as by infrared,
nuclear magnetic resonance, and mass spectrometry techniques. Aldicarb
had high persistence and low biodegradability in this test system when
compared with other carbamates. Aldicarb oxidation products (sulfoxide
and sulfone) were recovered in water (7.4 ppb) and other organisms in the
system. Aldicarb was highly toxic to snails and mammals; its LC5Q to
Paphnia was 350 ppb.
Environmental Transport Mechanisms
Moorefield (1974) reported that the leaching characteristics of aldicarb
have been evaluated in various soil types in in the laboratory and in the
field. In laboratory studies, percolation experiments designed to simulate
normal rainfall conditions, e.g., 1 in of precipitation per week, were
conducted in plastic or metal columns. Under these conditions, downward
migration of aldicarb and its metabolites was retarded to the extent that
little or no radioactivity passed through clay, loam, or muck soil columns.
Leaching was maximized in pure, course sand. However, even in this instance,
a 6-in column was sufficient to prevent elution of 95% of the applied material.
Evaporation of soil moisture encourages movement of aldicarb toward the soil
surface. Therefore, evaporative losses between weekly applications of water
may assist soil adsorption in opposing net downward movement of aldicarb.
When evaporation was retarded with a perforated Saran wrap covering, a
column length of 27 in of coarse sand still served as an efficient leaching
barrier.
Moorefield (1974) also relayed the results of a field experiment conducted
to determine the movement of aldicarb and its carbamate metabolites under
conditions of heavy surface runoff. A bare Norfolk sandy loam field of 0.45
acre with a slope of approximately 1 ft/100 ft was treated broadcast at the
exaggerated rate of 100 Ib of Temik 10% granular aldicarb pesticide per acre.
The field was disced to depth 6 in immediately after treatment. During a
28-day testing period, the field received a total of 8.3 acre-in of water,
5 in from sprinkler irrigation (1 in/hr) on the seventh day after application,
and 3.3 in of rainfall at various times during the study. Runoff from the
treated field drained into a farm pond 60 ft downslope. The untreated area
between the pond and the treated field had been compacted and contoured to
provide a surface for runoff water. Catchbasins for collecting runoff water
in the untreated area were prepared by setting pails flush with the ground level
15, 30, and 45 ft downslope from the treated field. Samples of pond water,
runoff water, and of soil from the untreated runoff area were taken after
periods of runoff water flow, and soil and water were analyzed.
The only analytically significant residue, 0.14 ppm, was found in a
runoff water sample taken 8 days after application, following 5 in of
irrigation and rain during the preceding 2 days. No other samples of runoff
water and none of the samples of soil from the runoff area or of pond water
contained analytically significant concentrations of aldicarb residues.
67
-------
The highest value obtained for any of these samples was 0.09 ppm. Soil
samples from the treated area contained 0.4 ppm aldicarb residues at
0 days; 5.5 ppm at 7 days; 0.66 ppm at 14 days; and 0.19 ppm at 28 days.
A two acre plot of sandy loam soil (pH 7.8) was treated with Temik
10G in six-in bands at the rate of 54 Ib/acre to a depth of three in.
The plot was then subdivided into two one-acre blocks, one furrow irrigation
to simulate normal moisture for sugar beets and the second sprinkler irriga-
tion to simulate an extremely wet season. (Union Carbide Corp., 1972)—'
Soil core samples were taken to a depth of eight feet at 0, 4, 8, 16,
32, 64 & 132 days after treatment and to a depth of 12 feet 176 days after.
Both the furrow and sprinkler-irrigated plots show downward movement of
aldicarb residues. However, by the time the pesticide residue passes the
4-ft level, the concentration of total toxic residue is no greater than 0.1
ppm.
In addition, residue levels are reduced by degradation and dilution by
groundwater. Therefore, the author points out that with the resulting low
residue level, the movement of aldicarb by leaching should present no
environmental hazard.
I/ Union Carbide Corporation, "Leaching of Aldicarb into Irrigated Sandy
Loam Soil Following Treatment with Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide,"
report submitted to EPA, Pesticide Regulations Division, Chemistry
Branch (June 1972).
68
-------
References
Anderson, J. P. E., "Factors Influencing Insecticide Degradation by a
Soil Fungus, Mucor alternans." Piss. Abstr. Int., 32(6):3114B-3115B
(1971).
Andrawes, N. R., W. P. Bagley, and R. A. Herrett, "Fate and Carryover
Properties of Temik Aldicarb Pesticide," J. Agr. Food Chem., 19(4):
727-730 (1971).
Atkins, E. L., Greywood, E. A., and R. L. Macdonald, "Toxicity of
Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals to Honey Bees/1 University
of California Agriculture Extension Laboratory Studies (1973).
Bailey, J. B., and J. E. Swift, "Honeybee and Other Pollinating Insect
Losses," Pesticide Information and Safety Manual, University of
California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, pp. 7-10 (1968).
Bariola, L. A., R. L. Ridgway, and J. R. Coppedge, "Large-Scale Field
Tests of Soil Applications of Aldicarb for Suppression of Populations
of Boll Weevils," J. Econ. Entomol... 64(5):1280-1284 (1971).
Bartley, W., N. Andrawes, E. Chancey, P. Bagley, and H. Spurr, "The
Metabolism of Temik Aldicarb Pesticide [2-Methy1-2-(methylthio)-
propionaldehyde)-(methylcarbamoyl]oxime] in the Cotton Plant," J..
Agr. Food Chem.. 18(3):446-453 (1970).
Beliles, Report on Aldicarb, EPA Pesticide Petition No. 9F0798, Section
C, Book III.
Brodie, B. B., and J. M. Good, "Relative Efficacy of Selected Volatile
and Nonvolatile Nematocides for Control of Meloidogyne incognita on
Tobacco," J. Nematol., 5(1):14-18 (1973).
Bull, D. L. "Metabolism of UC-21149 [2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)-
propionaldehyde-0-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime] in Cotton Plants and Soil
in the field," J. Econ. Entomol.,. 61(6):1598-1602 (1968).
Bull, D. L., R. A. Stokes, J. R. Coppedge, and R. L. Ridgway, "Further
Studies of the Fate of Aldicarb in Soil," J. Econ. Entomol., 63(4):
1283-1289 (August 1970).
Campbell, W. V., D. A. Mount, and B. S. Heming, "Influence of Organic
Matter Content of Soils on Insecticidal Control of the Wirewormj "
J. Econ. Entomol., 64(1):41-44 (1971).
Carter, F. L., "In vivo Studies of Brain Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition
by Organophosphate and Carbamate Insecticides in Fish," Piss. Abstr.,
32(5):27, 2-73 (1971).
69
-------
Gate, J. R., Jr.,.R. L. Ridgway, and P. D. Lingren, "Effects of Systemic
Insecticides Applied to Cotton on Adults of an Ichneumonid Parasite,
Campoletis perdistinctus," J. Econ. Entomol., 65(2) -.484-488 (1972).
Coppedge, J. R., D. A. Lindquist, D. L. Bull, and H. W. Borough, "Fate
of 2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde O-(Methylcarbamoyl) Oxime
(Temik) in Cotton Plants and Soil," J. Agr. Food Chem. 15(5):902-910
(1967) .
Coppedge, J. R., D. A. Lindquist, R. L. Ridgway, C. B. Cowan, and L. A.
Bariola, "Sidedress Applications of Union Carbide UC-21149 for
Control of Overwintered Boll Weevils," J. Econ. Entomol., 62(3): 558-565
(1969).
Council on Environmental Quality, The Federal Environmental Monitoring
Directory, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C. (1973).
Crockett, A. B., G. B. Wiersma, H. Tai, W. G. Mitchell and P- J. Sand,
"National Soils Monitoring Program for Pesticide Residues - FY 1970,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Services Division,
unpublished manuscript (1970).
Benver Wildlife Research Center "Toxicity of Aldicarb to Mallard and Quail,"
unpublished report (1974).
Gawaad, A. A. A., E. S. N. M. Ali, and A. Y. Shazili, "Leaching of Some
Soil Insecticides in Three Egyptian Soils," Bull. Entomol. Soc.,
Egypt Econ. Ser., (5):23-26 (1971).
Gawaad, A. A. A., A. M. El-Minshawy, and M. Zeid, "Soil Insecticides.
VIII. Effect of Some Soil Insecticides on Broad Beans and Egyptian
Clovernodule-Forming Bacteria," Zentralbl. Bakteriol., Parasitenk.,
Infekt., 127(2):172-177 (1972).
Gawaad, A. A. A., E. S. N. M. Al., and A. Y. Shazl., "Leaching of Some
Soil Insecticides in Three Egyptian Soils," Bull. Entomol. Soc., Egypt
Econ. Ser. (5):23-26 (1971).
Heungens, A., "The Influence of Some Pesticides in the Soil Fauna in
Azelea Culture," Meded. Fac. Landouwwet. Rijksuniv Gent, 35(2):717-729
(1970).
Hill, Elwood F. (U.S. Department of Interior, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Station) Toxicity of Aldicarb to Wildlife, personal communication to
Criteria and Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA
(1974).
Hudson, R. H., R. K. Tucker, and M. A. Haegele, "Effect of Age on Sensitivity:
Acute Oral Toxicity of 14 Pesticides to Mallard Ducks of Several Ages,"
Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 22:556-561 (1972).
Kearby, W. H., C. D. Ercegovich, and M. Bliss, Jr., "Residue Studies on
Aldicarb in Soil and Scotch Pine," J. Econ. Entomol., 63(4):1317-1318
(August 1970).
70
-------
Kinzer, R. E., C. B. Cowan, R. L. Ridgway, J. W. Davis, Jr., J. R.
Coppedge, and S. L. Jones, "Populations of Arthropod Predators and
Heliothis spp. after Application of Aldicarb and Monocrotophos to
Cotton," unpublished data, personal communication (1974).
Lin, S., B. R. Funke, and J. T. Schulz, "Effects of Some Organophosphate
Carbamate Insecticides on Nitrification and Legume Growth," Plant Soil.
37(3):489-496 (1972).
Metcalf, R. L., G. K. Sangha, and I. P. Kapoor, "Model Ecosystem for
the Evaluation of Pesticide Biodegradability and Ecological
Magnification," Environ. Sci. Technol. 5(8):709-713 (1971).
Metcalf, L., T. R. Fukuto, C. Collins, K. Borck, J. Burk, H. T.
Reynolds, and M. F. Osman, "Metabolism of 2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)-
propionaldehyde-0-(methylcarbamoyl)-oxime in Plant and Insect,"
J. Agr. Food Chetn.. 14(6):579-584 (1966).
Miller, P. M., "Failure of Several Non-Volatile and Contact Nematicides
to Kill Eggs in Cysts of Heterodera tabacum," Plant Pis. Rep., 54(9):
781-783 (1970).
Mizuta, H. M., and C. A. Johansen, "Hazard of Plant-Systemic Insecti-
cides to Nectar-Collecting Bees," Wash., Agr. Exp. Sta., Tech. Bull.
No. 72 (1972).
Moorefield, H. H. (Union Carbide Corporation), Data on Temik Aldicarb
Pesticide Environmental Impact, personal communication (1974).
Onsager, J. A., and H. W. Rusk, "Potency of the Residues of Some Non-
persistent Insecticides in Soil Against Wireworms," J. Econ. Entomol.,
62(5):1060-1064 (1969).
Pimentel, D., "Ecological Effects of Pesticides on Nontarget Species,"
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology,
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. (1971).
Quraishi, M. S., "Edaphic and Water Relationships of Aldicarb and its
Metabolites," Can. Entomol. 104(3):1191-1196 (1972).
Ridgway, R. L., P. D. Lingren, C. B. Cowan, Jr., and J. W. Davis,
"Populations of Arthropod Predators and Heliothis spp. after
Applications of Systemic Insecticides to Cotton," J. Econ. Entomol.,
60(4):1012-1016 (1967).
71
-------
Sangha, G. K. » "Environmental Effects of Carbaraate Insecticides as
Assayed in the "Model Ecosystem," a Comparison with DDT," Piss. Abstr.
Int., 32(8) :4650-B (1972).
Spurr, H. W., Jr., and A. A. Sousa, "Potential Interactions of Aldicarb
and its Metabolites on Nontarget Organisms in the Environment," J_.
Environ. Quality, 3(2):130-133 (1974).
Stevens, L. J., C. W. Collier, and D. W. Woodham, "Monitoring .Pesticides
in Soils from Areas of Regular, Limited, and No Pesticide Use,"
Pest. Mon. J., 4(3):145-163 (1970).
Supak, J. R., "The Volatilization, Degradation, Adsorption, and
Desorption Characteristics of Aldicarb [2-Methyl-2-Methylthio
(Propionaldehyde)O-(Methylcarbamoyl) Oxime] in Soils and Clays,"
Piss. Abstr. Int., 33(3):982B (1972).
Tucker, R. K., and D. G. Crabtree, Handbook of Toxicity of Pesticides
to Wildlife, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Denver Wildlife
Research Center, Resource Publication No. 84 (1970).
Union Carbide Corporation, "10G Aldicarb Pesticide Wildlife Reports,"
unpublished data, submitted in support of EPA Registration No. 1016-69,
Salinas, Calif. (1971).
\
Union Carbide Corporation, "Leaching of Aldicarb into Irrigated Sandy Loam
Soil Following Treatment with Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide," submitted
to EPA Pesticide Regulation Division, Chemistry Branch (June 1972).
Wiersma, G. B., H. Tai, and P. F. Sand, "Pesticide Residue Levels in
Soils, FY 1969-National Soils Monitoring Program," Pest. Mon. J.,
•6(3):194-201 (1972).
Woodham, D. W., R. R. Edwards, R. G. Reeves, and R. L. Schutzmann,
"Total Toxic Aldicarb Residues in Soil, Cottonseed, and Cotton Lint
Following a Soil Treatment with the Insecticide on the Texas High
Plains," J. Agr. Food Chem., 21(2);303-307 (1973a).
Woodham, D. W., R. G. Reeves, and R. R. Edwards, "Total Toxic Aldicarb
Residues in Weeds, Grasses, and Wildlife from the Texas High Plains
Following a^Soil Treatment with the Insecticide," J. Agr. Food Chem.,
21(4):604-S07 (1973b).
72
-------
SUBPART II. D. PRODUCTION AND USE
CONTENTS
Page
Registered Uses of Aldicarb 74
Federally Registered Uses 74
State Regulations ..." 74
Production and Domestic Supply 85
Volume of Production 85
Imports 85
Exports 86
Domestic Supply 86
Formulations 86
Use Patterns of Aldicarb in the United States 86
General 86
Aldicarb Use Patterns by Regions 89
Aldicarb Use Patterns by Crops 89
Aldicarb Uses in California 89
References 120
73
-------
This section contains data on registration and on production and uses
of aldicarb. The section summarizes rather than interprets scientific data
reviewed.
Registered Uses of Aldicarb
Federally Registered Uses - Aldicarb is a pesticide with a broad spectrum
of effectiveness against many species of insects, mites, and nematodes. It
has pronounced systemic action. When applied to soil, the active ingredient
is rapidly absorbed by plant roots and translocated throughout all parts of
the plant. Aldicarb active ingredient is extremely toxic to mammals. Two
granular aldicarb formulations are available for commercial use; they contain
10% and 15% stabilized aldicarb active ingredient. The aldicarb active
ingredient is impregnated on organic granules with a small quantity of bind-
ing agent which prevents dustiness and reduces the oral, dermal, and inhala-
tion toxicity hazard. In the formulation and packaging of aldicarb granules,
special care is taken .to remove any fines which might present an inhalation
hazard.
Registered uses of aldicarb by crops, target pests, dosage rates, type
of use, established tolerances, and use, timing, and pre-harvest interval
limitations are summarized in Tables 7 and 8.
Warning and precautionary statements appearing on Temik 15G aldicarb
pesticide carbon and package labels appear in Table 9.
Tolerances established for aldicarb residues on raw agricultural
commodities are recorded in the Code of Federal Regulations (see Table 2,
p. 19).
State Regulations - In many of the states that currently regulate the use
of pesticides, aldicarb is subject to use restrictions. For instance, in
California, aldicarb is one of 42 pesticides that have been designated as
"injurious or restricted materials." The use of pesticides in this category
is subject to special restrictions under regulations administered by the
State Department of Agriculture. A permit from the County Agricultural
Commissioner must be obtained for the use of aldicarb. The product may not
be applied in any location where damage, illness, or injury appears likely
to result through direct application, drift, or residue, to persons, other
crops, or animals (including honeybees) other than the pest(s) which the
application is intended to destroy. Before aldicarb is applied, the person
responsible for the application must give warning to all persons known to
be on the property to be treated.
Under the California requirement, it is unlawful to sell or to deliver
aldicarb-containing pesticide products to any person who is required to
have a permit, unless the person or his agent signs a statement that he
has a valid permit to use the product.
74
-------
Table 7. REGISTERED AGRICULTURAL USES OF ALDICARB
Crop & time of
application
Cotton
At - planting
At - first
squaring
From squaring
through early
bloom
Pests
controlled
Aphids, Thrips
Fleahoppers ,
Leaf miner s, Mites,
Overwintering boll
weevils, Plant bugs
including Lygus bugs
Nematodes
Leafhoppers,
Fleahoppers
Mites, Boll weevils,
Plant bugs, including
Lygus bugs.
Cotton leaf
perforator
Whiteflies
Oz formulation/
1,000 feet of row
107.
40 -
4 to 6
8 to 12
6 to 18
(E
24 to 48
\
12 to 24
24 to 36
24
24 to 36
15%
Pounds active
ingredient/acre
(Range)
inch row spacing
2.5 to 4.5
5.0 to 8.0
4.5 to 12
xcept Far Wes
17 to 33
Far West only
8.5 to 17
17 to 24.5
17
17 to 24.5
0.3 to 0.5
0.6 to 1.0
0.5 to 1.5
t)
2.0 to 4.05
)
1.0 to 2.1
2.0 to 3.0
2.0 to 2.1
2.0 to 3.0
Tolerance, use and limitations
0.1 ppm (cottonseed)
0.3 ppm (cottonseed hulls)
90 day preharvest interval
Use high rate on heavy organic or clay soils.
Do not make more than one application at plant-
ing and one side-dress application per crop.
Granules should be worked into the soil to a
depth of at least 2 inches or covered with soil
to a depth of at least 2 Inches to provide maxi-
mum performance and minimize hazard to birds.
Do not allow livestock to graze in treated areas
before harvest. Do not plant any crop not listed
on label in treated soil within 100 days of last
application. Do not use in homes or home gardens.
Drill granules just below seed line or place in
seed furrow and cover with soil. If seeds and
granules are hill dropped, granule rates may be
reduced by one-half.
If rate does not exceed 1.0 Ib active ingredient
/acre drill granules just below seed line or place
in seed furrow and cover with soil. For higher
rates, apply granules in a 4- to 6-inch band and
work into the soil or cover with soil; plant seed
in or above the treated zone.
•Apply granules in a 4- to 6-inch band 3 to 6
inches below the seed line or cover with 3 to 6
inches of soil. Plant seed above treated zone.
Side-dress granules 8 to 16 inches to one side
of the plant row and 2 to 6 inches deep (usually
at or below bottom of water furrow).
01
-------
Table 7. REGISTERED AGRICULTURAL USES OF ALDICARB (continued)
Crop & time of
application
Peanuts
At - planting
Potatoes
At - planting
Pests
controlled
Thrips
Nematodes
(root-knot, ring,
lesion, sting, stunt
spiral & stubby -root
Aphids
Flea beetles
Aphids
Colorado potato
beetles ,
Leafhoppers
Oz formulation/
1,000 feet of row
10%
15%
Pounds active
ingredient/acre
(Range)
36 - inch row spacing
11 to 22
22 to 33
>
)
7.5 to 15
15 to 22
1.0 to 2.1
2.0 to 3.0
34 - inch row spacing
10.5 1 7
(Maine only)
31
21
21 to 31
21
14.5
14.5 to 21
1.0 to 1.05
3.0
2.0 to 2.1
2.0 to 3.0
Tolerance, use and limitations
0.05 ppm (peanuts)
90 day preharvest interval.
Use high rate on heavy organic or clay soils.
Applied as soil application at planting. Granules
should be worked into the soil to a depth of at
least 2 inches or covered with soil to a depth of
at least 2 inches to provide maximum performance
and minimize the hazard to birds. Do not allow
livestock to graze in treated areas before harvest.
Do not allow hogs to root in treated fields. Do
not feed peanut hay or vines to livestock. Do not .
plant any crop not listed on label in treated soil
within 100 days of last application. Do not use
in homes or home gardens.
Apply granules in seed furrow and cover with soil.
In Southwest use high rate only.
Apply granules in a 6- to 12-inch band and work
into the soil or cover with soil to a depth of 2
to 4 inches. Plant seeds in the treated zone.
1.0 ppm
90 day preharvest interval for an at planting
application.
50 day preharvest interval for post-emergence soil
application.
Use high rate on heavy organic or clay soils.
Do not plant any crop not listed on label in treated
soil within 100 days of the last application.
Do not apply more than once per crop. Granules
should be worked into the soil to a depth of at
least 2 inches or covered with soil to a depth of
at least 2 inches to provide maximum performance
and minimize the hazard to birds. Do not allow
livestock to graze in treated areas before harvest.
Do not use in home or home gardens.
Apply granules with seed pieces in the planting
furrow and cover with soil.
Apply as above or. drill granules 2 to 4 inches
on both sides of seed row (split application) and
3 to 8 inches deep (usually 1 to 2 inches below
the seed pieces) .
-------
Table 7. REGISTERED AGRICULTURAL USES OF ALDICARB (continued)
Crop & time of
application
Pests
controlled
Potatoes (continued)
At - planting
Nematodes
(root-knot, lesion)
(Golden nematode is
suppressed. Vertici-
llium wilt has been
suppressed where
nematode populations
have been reduced).
Oz formulation/
1,000 feet of row
107.
15%
Pounds active
ingredient/acre
(Range)
34 - inch row spacing
31
21
3.0
Tolerance, use and limitations
Apply granules with seed pieces in the planting
furrow and cover with soil.or, apply granules in
an 8-inch band and work into the soil or cover
with soil to a depth of 4 inches. Plant seed
pieces in the treated zone.
Post-emergence
(from 75%
emergence up to
6 weeks after
emergence)
Aphids, Colorado
potato beetles '
21 to 31
14.5 to 21
2.0 to 3.0
(Washington only)
Side-dress granules 4 to 5 inches on both sides
of plant row and 4 inches deep. Apply to early
crop only. Do not apply if an at-planting treatment
was made.
22 - inch row spacing
0.05 ppm (roots)
1.0 ppm (tops)
0.002 ppm in milk
0.01 ppm in meat, fat and meat by-products of goats,
cattle, hogs, horses and sheep.
90 day preharvest interval
120 day preharvest interval if tops are to be fed to
livestock. Do not use tops for human consumption. Do
inot exceed a total of 6.0 Ib active ingredient/acre/
icrop. Do not make more than one at-planting applica-
tion and two post-emergence applications per crop.
Use high rate on heavy organic or clay soils.
Granules should be worked into the soil to a depth
of at least 2 inches or covered with soil to a
depth of at least 2 inches to provide maximum
performance and minimize the hazard to birds. Do
not plant any crop not listed on the label in the
treated soil within 100 days of the last application.
Do not allow livestock to graze in treated areas be-
fore harvest. Do not use in home or home gardens.
At - planting
or within one
week before
planting.
Nematodes
(cyst and root-
knot)
26 to 33
18 to 22
4.0 to 5-0
.Apply granules in a 4 to 6-inch band and immediately
work into the soil or cover with soil to a depth of
2 to 4 Inches. Plant seed in or above the treated
zone or. drill granules 1.5 to 3 inches to one side
of the seed row and 2 to 4 inches deep.
-------
Table 7. REGISTERED AGRICULTURAL USES OF ALDICARB (continued)
Crop & time of
application
Sugar beeta (con
At - planting
At - planting
plus post-
emergence (split
application)
Post-emergence
(Do not make any
post-emergence
application if
4 to 5 Ib
active ingredien
/acre were used
for nematode
control at plant
ing or one week
before planting)
Pests
controlled
tinued)
Aphids
Leafminers,
Leafhoppers
Sugar beet root
maggot
Nematodes
(cyst and root-
knot)
Sugar beet root
maggot
Aphids
Leafminers,
Lea fhoppera
Nematodes
(cyst and root-
knot)
Oz formulation/
1,000 feet of row
10%
22 -
6.5 to 13
13 to 20
10 to 13
13
A
13
F
6.5 to 13
6.5 to 13
13 to 20
26
15%
Pounds active
ingredient /acre
(Range)
inch row spacing
4.5 to 9.5
9.5 to 13.5
6.5 to 9.5
9.5
t planting an
9.5
ost-emergence
4.5 to 9.5
4.5 to 9.5
9.5 to 13.5
18
1.0 to 2.1
2.0 to 3.0
1.5 to 2.1
2.0 to 2.1
d
2.0 to 2.1
1.0 to 2.1
1.0 to 2.1
2.0 to 3.0
4.0 to 4.05
Tolerance, use and limitations
Drill granules 1- to 3-inchea below the seed line.
Granules can be placed in the seed furrow if rate
does not exceed 1.0 Ib active ingredient/acre.
Apply granules in a 2- to 4-inch band over the
seed row and immediately work into the soil or
cover with soil.
At - planting: Apply granules in a 4- to 6-inch
band a\id immediately work into the soil or cover
with soil to a depth of 2 to 4 inches. Plant
seeds in or above the treated zone or. drill the
granules 1.5 to 3 inches to one side of the -seed
row and 2 to 4 inches deep. Post-emergence;
Side-dress granules 2 to 4 inches to one side of
plant row and 3 to 6 inches deep (furrow depth).
Apply 40 to 60 days after planting and before
soil temperature at 6- inch depth reaches 55°F.
'Apply granules to both sides of the plant row
(split application) and immediately work Into
the soil or cover with soil.
Side-dress granules 2 to 8 inches to one side
of the plant row and 2 to 6 inches deep. A
repeat application may be required for contin-
ued protection against virus vectors (aphids,
lea fhoppera) .
Side-dress granules 2 to 4 inches to one side
of plant row and 3 to 6 inches deep (furrow
depth). Apply 40 to 60 days after planting
and before the soil temperature at 6-inch depth
reaches 55*F.
00
-------
Table 7. REGISTERED AGRICULTURAL USES OF ALDICARB (continued)
Crop & time of
application
Pests
controlled
Oz formulation/
1,000 feet of row
10%
15%
Pounds active
ingredient/acre
(Range)
Tolerance, use and limitations
Sugar cane
60 - inch row spacing
0.02 ppm sugar cane
0.1 ppm fodder or forage
120 day preharvest interval.
Use high rate on heavy organic or clay soils.
Make only one application per crop. Granules
should be worked into the soil to a depth of at
least 2 inches or covered with soil to a depth
of at least 2 inches to provide maximum
performance and minimum hazard to birds. Do not
allow livestock to graze on the treated areas
until the harvest has been completed. Do not
plant any crop not listed on the label in the
treated soil within 100 days of application.
Do not use in homes or home gardens.
At - planting
Nematodes
(lance, lesion,
ring, root-knot,
stubby-root and
sting)
37 to 55
28 to 37
(Louisiana only)
2.0 to 3.0
Apply granules in opened row on top of the newly
planted cane and cover immediately with at least
6 inches of soil.
- inch row spacing
0.02 ppm
120 day preharvest interval.
Use high rate on heavy organic or clay soils.
Make only one application per crop. Granules
should be worked' into-the soil to a depth of at
least 2 inches or covered with soil to a depth of
at least 2 Inches to provide maximum performance
and minimize the nazard to birds. Do not allow
livestock to graze on the treated areas until the
harvest has been completed. Do not plant any
crop not listed on the label in the treated soil
within 100 days of application. Do not use in
homes or home gardens.
AT - planting
Nematodes
(reniform
and root-knot)
22 to 44
15 to 30
(Louisiana only)
1.5 to 2.0
Apply granules in a 12 inch band in the opened
row. Cover immediately with soil by hilling up
8 to 10 inches. Plant in the center of the
treated zone.
Source: Compiled from the EPA Compendium of Registered Pesticides and Union Carbide
Corporation Temlk 10G & 156 (aldicarb) Pesticide Labels 1016-69 & 1016-78.
-------
Table 8. REGISTERED ORNAMENTAL USES OF ALDICARB
Crop
Pest
controlled
10% formulation
pounds/1,000
feet of row
Pounds active
ingredient/acre
Limitations and use
Time of
application
Recommended application
For use by trained personnel in commercial production of
ornamental plants. Do not market potted plants within
4 weeks of last application. Granules should be worked .
into the soil to a depth of at least 2 inches or covered
with soil to a depth of at least 2 inches to provide max-
imum performance and to minimize hazard to birds. Do not
plant food crops in soil treated with aldicarb for at
least 100 days after last application. Do not use in
homes or home gardens. Do not use plant parts for food
or feed purposes.
1
FOR USE ON FIELD GROWN AND NURSERY PLANTINGS
00
o
(Herbaceous pla
Dahlias
Lilies
(bulbs)
(Woody shrubs,
Birch
and
Holly
Roses
nts and bulbs)
Aphids
Leaf hoppers
Leaf miners
Spider mites
Nematodes
(lesion)
trees and vines)
4 to 6
(42 - inch r
4 to 6
(40 - inch i
Aphids 4.5 to 9
Leafminers (42 - inch r
or
1 to 2 oz /one
inch diameter of
: trunk at soil leve
Spider mites 5 to 8
(42 - inch r
5.0 to 8.0
ow spacing)
5.0 to 7.0
ow spacing)
5.0 to 10
ow spacing)
1
7.0 to 10
ow spacing)
As pests begin to
appear. Repeat if
needed.
At planting
After spring
growth begins
and prior to
occurrence of
leafminer
activity.
As pest begins
to appear. Repeat
if needed.
Apply granules as a side-dressing to
both sides of the plant row; work
into the soil to at least 2 to 4
inches.
Apply in furrow with bulblet. Cover
with soil. Limit 7.0 Ibs. active
ingredient/acre at time of planting.
Apply granules as side-dressing 3
to 4 inches deep and 10 to 12 inches
to one or both sides of the row.
Cover with soil.
Apply granules as side-dressing to
both sides of the plant row; work
into the soil to at least 2 to 4
inches.
-------
Table 8. REGISTERED ORNAMENTAL USES OF ALDICARB(contlnued)
Crop
FOR USE ON POTT!
Chrysanthemum
Orchids
(Cymbidiums)
Easter lilies
Poiusettia
Gerbera
Carnations
Roses and
Snapdragons
Pest
controlled
!D PLANTS OR PLA
Aphids
Leafminers
Thrips
Spider mites
Whlteflies
Spider mites
Aphids
Spider mites
Mealy bugs
Whiteflies
Aphids
Leafminers
Spider mites
Whiteflies
Aphids
Spider mites
10% oz formulation
sq. ft. of plant
aed or closely
packed pots
NT BEDS IN COMMERC
20 to 30
30 to 40
30 to 40
20 to 30
30 to 40
20 to 30
30 to 40
20 to 30
30 to 40
/
Pounds active
ingredient /acre
IAL GREENHOUSES
5.0 to 7.5
7.5 to 10
7.5 to 10
5.0 to 7.5
7.5 to 10
5.0 to 7.5
7.5 to 10
5.0 to 7.5
7.5 to 10
Time of
application
3 to 5 weeks
after transplant-
ing cuttings or
just after pinch-
ing. Repeat in
6 to 8 weeks if
needed.
Apply just prior
to emergence of
flower spikes.
Repeat if needed.
After plants are
established and
pests appear.
Repeat in 6 to 8
weeks, if needed.
Recommended application
If beds are covered with leaf or
compost type mulch, remove mulch,
work into the soil and water
thoroughly. Use the high rate on
heavy organic or clay soils, or if
pest populations become severe.
Apply granules evenly around the
base of plants. Wash off granules
adhering to foliage.
On old well established roses, use
maximum rate for spider mite control.
00
Source: Compiled from the EPA Compendium of Registered Pesticides and Union Carbide
Corporation Temik 10G (aldicarb) Pesticide Label 1016-69.
-------
I Hi -—"~
Table 9. WARNING AND PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS APPEARING ON TEMIK\£/15G (Aldicarb) LABELS.
NET WT.
25 LBS.
FOR CONTROL
OF CERTAIN
INSECTS, MITES
AND NEMATODES
Active Ingredient: Aldlcarta [2-methyl-2-(methylthio) prop!onaldehydeO-(melhylcarbamoyl)oxlme] ...... 15%
Inert Ingredients: . . .' [[[ 85%
EPA REG. NO. 1016-78 EPA EST. 33761-GA-1
SEE DIRECTIONS FOR USE ON THE CARTON IN WHICH THIS BAG WAS PACKED.
THIS BAG NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION AND RESALE SEPARATELY.
teEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN AND ANIMALS
HARMFUL OR FATAL BY SKIN OR EYE CONTACT BY BREATHING DUST OR BY SWALLOWING GRANULES. RAPIDLY
ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN AND EYES.
ANTIDOTE IS ATROPINE SULFATE. DO NOT USE 2-PAM. SEE ANTIDOTE STATEMENT, INFORMATION FOR PHYSICIAN
AND OTHER DETAILED WARNINGS BELOW.
DO NOT STORE OR USE IN OR AROUND THE HOME OR HOME GARDEN
DO NOT GET IN SKIN OR EYES.
DO NOT BREATHE DUST.
Wear long-sleeved doming and protective gloves when handling. Wash
hand* and face before eating Of Knotting. Batho a! th* and ol work day.
washing entire body and hair wllh Map and watar. Chang* contami-
nated clothing dally and wain In alrang washing toda aolutlon and rlnsa
thoroughly before reusing.
SYMPTOMS OF POISONING
may be one or more of the following;
Weakness
Headache
Sweating
Nausea
Vomiting
Diarrhea
Tightness In Chest
Blurred VHton
Pinpoint Eye Pupils
Abnormal Flow of Saliva
Abdominal Cramps
Unconsciousness
CONTACT A PHYSICIAN IMMEDIATELY IN ALL CASES
OF SUSPECTED POISONING
ANTIDOTE is alropine sullale. Consult a physician for antidote tablets
and instructions before using this pesticide. DO NOT USE 2-PAM AS
AN ANTIDOTE.
FIRST AID TREATMENT. If symptoms are apparent, give
alropine sultate tablets as directed by the physician. Do no» gtva antldota
unless symotoms ol poisoning have occurred. Transport patient fa a
physician or hospital, whichever Is faster. Keep patient warm and quiet
If breathing is difficult give oxygen. Start artificial respiration Immedl-
alety If bteahling stops. SHOW A COPY OF THIS LABEL TO THE PHY-
SICIAN.
IN CASE OF SKIN OR EYE CONTACT, wash skin Immediately and -
thoroughly with soap and waler and tlnse mil; flusHeyes with plenty
of water for 15 minutes. Remove coniaminalad dothlng and wash.
before reuse.
IN CASE OF SWALLOWING. Indue* vomiting Immediately by putting
finger down throat or drinking strong salty or soapy water. Than drink
plain waler and repeat until vomit is dear.
INFORMATION FOR PHYSICIAN. -This product con.
tains 2-methyl-2(methYtthk)) proptonsldeayde am°yQa»-
Ime. It Is a spontaneously reversible chollnnuras* Inhibitor causing
parasympalhaUc nerve stimulation. Preferred treatment of poisoning to
adults Is atroplne sunale In 1.2 mg doses given Intravenously •vaiy 10
or 12 minutes until psUettt Is fully alroplnlied. Dosage for children la ap-
propriately reduced. Atroplnlialion should b* maintained for 12 houis
by Intramuscular administration of atropina In lower doses given al ap-
proprlat* lime Intervals. Do not admlnlaler 2-PAM. opiates and other
cholinesterase Inhibiting drugs. Artificial respiration or oxygen may be
necessary. Observe paUent continuously for at least 24 hours. Allow no
further exposure to any chollnesteras* Inhibitors until chollntesMraM
level Is normal by blood lest
TOXIC TO FISH, BIRDS, AND WILDLIFE. Bird*
feeding on treated area* may be Wiled. Keep out of wiy body of water.
Do not contaminate waler when cleaning equipment or disposing of
wastes. Apply this product only as specified for us* on the carton In
which this bag waa packed.
DISPOSAL OF SPILLED OR EXCESS TEMIK15Q
ALDICARB PESTICIDE AND EMPTY CON-
TAINERS. II bag Is broken, handle with rubber glove*. Do not
gel dust or granules on skin or In eyes. Do not breathe dust Sweep
up and bury any spilled or excess TEMIK al least 18 Inches deep
In soil Isolated horn water supplies and food crop*. Never re-use
bags or boxes. Burn empty bags and boxes immediately. .May away
from and do not breath* or contact amok*.
WARRANTY
1. Tto manutacturaf gua/ant**» and wa/rants (a) that the aethre btgraxfcenl contenl and the total net wetght are as iUltd within lawful Itmlta and (b) that Hie JUeo
tioni. wanwnas and othat ataiaments on the label art based upon rnpontibto expsils' evaluation of nutonabM testa of eflecfavenesa. of toxlcfly to laboratory
animals and to plants, and of residue* on food crops, and upon report! of field experience. Teats have not been made on an varlatief or In all geographic anas.
ZTlWmam.1acturarfMrtI.*r warrants mat Uwmateto
nor airthonzn any agent or repre»*r>iaiiv« to make any other warrantm ol FITNESS OR OF MERCHANTABILITY, guarantee or repreMntalloi
concerning thrt malarial Thit product rs told only on the basis thai buyer assumes aU rtaks of use or handling which may result In loaa or damage end which *ro
btyond manutacturer't control. No clatm of any kind, and whether or not based on negligence, than be greater In amount than the purchase price of Vie malarial In
i*ip*cl ol wruch tuch claim is madt In no event shall manufacturer er seller be Hable (or special. Indirect or consequential damages resulting froM the use or
handling ol tru» malarial, whether or not based on negligence.
3 No modification of mis warraVrty and disclaimer la authonxad. except by specific reference to tham in writing by an employs* of th* manufacturer.
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION • AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
P.O. BOX 1906, SALINAS, CALIFORNIA 93901
Hcl-ve *")"() •«*pioitcl«dbr US '•< No 3417.037
USA MADE IN USA
-------
Table 9. WASHING AND PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS APPEARING ON TEMIK© 15G (aldicarb) LABELS (continued) .
oo
U)
DISPOSAL OF SPILLUD OR EXCESS TEMIK15Q ALDICARU PESTICIDE
AND EMTPY CONTAINERS
IP CARTON IS DIIOKCN, HANDLE WITH RUDBER OLOVB8. DO NOT GET DUST OR GRANULES ON SKIN OR IN
EYES. DO NOT BREATHE DUST. SWEEP UP AND BURY ANY SPILLED OR EXCESS TEMIK AT LEAST 18 INCHES
DEEP IN SOIL ISOLATED FROM WATER SUPPLIES AND FOOD CROPS. NEVER REUSE BAGS OR BOXES. BURN
EMPTY BAGS AND BOXES IMMEDIATELY. STAY AWAY FROM AND DO NOT BREATHE OR CONTACT SMOKE.
KEEP DRY
Moisture can increase
handling hazards
FOR DISTRIBUTION
AND. SALE ONLY
IN THIS CARTON
KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN AND ANIMALS
Dapl of Transportation shipping nama: Insecticide, dry.
HARMFUL OR FATAL BY SKIN OR EYE CONTACT,
BY BREATHING OUST OR BY SWALLOWING GRANULES.
RAPIDLY ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN AND EYES.
DO NOT GET ON SKIN OR IN EYES.
DO NOT BREATHE DUST.
Wear longtleeved clothing and protective glovaa when handling. Wash hand: and
face before eating or amoMng. Bath* at the end of work day. washing entire body
and hair with soap and water. Chang* contaminated clothing dally and wash In
strong washing soda solution and rinse thoroughly before reusing.
SYMPTOMS OF POISONING
may be one of more of the following:
Weakness Vomiting
Headache Diarrhea
Sweating Tightness In Chest
Nausea Blurred Vision
CONTACT A PHYSICIAN IMMEDIATELY IN ALL CASES OF
SUSPECTED. POISONING
Pinpoint Eye Pupns
Abnormal Flow of Saliva
Abdominal Cramps
Unconsciousness
ANTIDOTE
ANTIDOTE Is atroplne sulfata. Consult a physician for antidote tablets and Instruc-
. lions before using this pesticide. DO NOT USE 2-PAM AS AN ANTIDOTE.
FIRST AID TREATMENT
II symptoms are apparent, give alroplne sullate labials as directed by the physician.
Do not give antidote unless symptoms of poisoning have occurred. Transport
patient to a physician or hospital, whichever Is (aster. Keep patient warm and quiet
If breathing Is difficult, give oxygen. Start artificial respiration Immediately II breath-
ing stops. SHOW A COPY OF THIS LABEL TO THE PHYSICIAN.
IN CASE OF SKIN OR EYE CONTACT, wash skin Immediately and thoroughly
with soap and water and rinse well; flush eyes with plenty of water for 15 min-
utes. Remove contaminated clothing and wash before reuse.
IN CASE OF SWALLOWING, Induce vomiting Immediately by putting finger
down throat or drinking strong salty or soapy water. Then drink plain water
and repeat until vomit Is clear.
INFORMATION FOR PHYSICIAN
This product contains 2-methyl-2(melhyllhlo) proplonaldehyde r>(methylcartaa-
moyl)oxlm«. It Is a spontaneously reversible choHnesterase Inhibitor causing para-
sympathetic nerve stimulation. Preferred treatment of poisoning In adults Is atroplne
aulfate In 1.2 mg doses given Intravenously every 10 to 12 minutes until patient Is
fully alroplnlzed. Dosage for children Is appropriately reduced. Atroplnliatlon
should be maintained for 12 hours by Intramuscular administration of alroplne In
lower doses given at appropriate time Intervals. Do not administer 2-PAM, opletes
and other chollnesterase Inhibiting drugs. Artificial respiration or oxygen may be
necessary. Observe patient continuously for at least 24 hours. Allow no further ex-
posure to any chollnesterase Inhibitors until chollnesterase level Is normal by blood
test
TOXIC TO FISH, BIRDS, AND WILDLIFE
Birds feeding on treated areas may be killed. Ke»p out of any body of water. Oo not
contaminate water when cleaning equipment or disposing of wastes. Apply this
product only as specified on this label.
UCC-ttOC
-------
Table 9. WARNING AND PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS APPEARING ON
156 .(aldicarb) LABELS (continued)..
in/?*
Liti
ALDICARB PESTICIDE
GENERAL DIRECTIONS FOR USE
0>
(See Back Panel For Crop Use Directions)
GENERAL INFORMATION
TEMIK 15Q controls certain insects, mites and nematodes. When
applied into moist soil at-plantlng and/or post-emergence the
active ingredient is rapidly absorbed by roots and translocated
throughout all parts of the plant. Control often lasts more than six
weeks varying with growing conditions, rate of use and pests.
Crop yields are usually increased with treatments of TEMIK.
GENERAL CAUTIONS
Use TEMIK 15G Aldicarb Pesticide only In accordance with label
directions, warnings and cautions. Do not use on any crop not
listed on this label, as any residues remaining ma/ be Illegal or
harmful. DO NOT STORE OR USE IN OR AROUND THE HOME
OR HOME GARDEN.
Use high rate on heavy organic or clay soils. Do not overapply.
Treatments in excess of 6.5 pounds per acre made directly In the
seed furrow of cotton or sugar beets may delay emergence and
reduce plant stand.
Make side-dress applications close enough to plants to allow
good uptake by the roots without Injury to the plants from root
pruning. In Irrigated areas, follow application with Irrigation within
one week. If alternate furrows are Irrigated after side-dress appll-
' cation, the TEMIK and water must be on the same side of the
plant row.
Calibrate and adjust application equipment to Insure proper rate
and-accurate placement. Clean application equipment thoroughly
'after use. Bury any excess material In soil (see Instruction* on
TOP PANEL of this carton for DISPOSAL OF SPILLED OR EX-
CESS TEMIK and EMPTY CONTAINERS).
Deep disc any spills at row ends Immediately to prevent birds from
feeding on exposed granules. '
COMPATABILITY
Pestlcidal activity of TEMIK 153 Aldicarb Pesticide is not affected
by normal applications of fertilizers or other pesticides. It may
be reduced or lost if applied with alkaline materials such as lime.
PRE-HARVEST AND GRAZING USE
INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS
Tg avoid illegal residues In or on:
COTTONSEED
• Do not make more than one at-plantlng application and one
I , post-emergence application per crop.
• Do not apply wlthing 90 days of harvest
PEANUTS
Do not make more than one application per crop.
Do not harvest within 90 days of application.
Do not hog off treated fields.
Do not feed hay or vines to livestock.
P TATOES
Do not make more than one application per crop.
Do not harvest within 90 days of an at-planting application.
Do not apply a post-emergence application within 50 days of
harvest.
SUGAR BEETS
• Do not make more than'one at-plantlng application and two
post-emergence applications per crop.
• Do not exceed a total of 40 pounds per acre.
• Do not apply within 90 days of harvest.
• If tops are to be fed to livestock, do not apply within 120 days
of harvest.
• Do not use tops as food for humans.
SUGARCANE AND SWEET POTATOES
• Do not make more than one application per crop.
• Do not harvest within 120 days of application.
OTHER CROPS
• Do not plant any crop not listed on this label In soil treated
with TEMIK15G within 100days after last application.
MEAT AND MILK
• Do not allow I Ivestock to graze In treated areas before harvest.
UCC-2413C
-------
Besides California, a number of other states have imposed restrictions
on pesticides. They are: Washington, Oregon, California, Illinois,
Michigan, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
North Carolina, and Florida.
In addition to restrictions on the use of aldicarb imposed by state
statutes and regulations, many states amplify aldicarb product labels by
making more specific use recommendations designed to accommodate local or
regional requirements. These are usually issued jointly by the State
Agricultural Experiment Station and Extension Service in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These state insecticide use recommenda-
tions are issued or revised annually.
Production and Domestic Supply
Volume of Production - According to the United States Tariff Commission,
there has been only one basic producer of aldicarb in the United States up
to and including 1972, i.e., Union Carbide Corporation. The production
and sales volumes of aldicarb are not reported individually. In the most
recent Tariff Commission reports (1972 and 1973)JL/, aldicarb is included in
the category: "All other acyclic insecticides, rodenticides, soil condi-
tioners and fumigants." This category includes, in addition to aldicarb,
methomyl, chloropicrin, DBCP, other fumigants, soil conditioners, small
quantities of rodenticides, and others. The reported production volume
for this composite group was 104,295,000 Ib of active ingredients in 1972;
111,288,000 Ib in 1973.
Compared to several other pesticides in this category, the production
and sales volume of aldicarb is so small that the Tariff Commission data
are not very helpful in estimating aldicarb volumes. However, based on
estimates in a previous study (Lawless et al., 1972)J-/ and on additional
information received more recently, including the data on the domestic uses
of aldicarb, Midwest Research Institute (MRI) estimates that between 1.0
and 1.5 million pounds of aldicarb active ingredient were moved in 1972 for
domestic and export sales combined. It is assumed that this quantity is
equivalent to the 1972 production of aldicarb, although it is possible that
a part of it was produced prior to the 1972 calendar year.
Imports - A Tariff Commission report^/ on benzenoid and non benzenoid chemical
imports in 1972 shows an absence of aldicarb imports. The probability that
there were no imports on aldicarb into the United States in 1972 is further
supported by the fact that the product is the subject of a patent held by the
basic U.S. producer, Union Carbide Corporation.
I/ U.S. Tariff Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals, U.S. Production and
Sales, TC Publication 681 (1972, 1973).
2j Lawless, E. W., and T. L. Ferguson of Midwest Research Institute,
and R. von Rumker of RvR Consultants, The Pollution Potential in
Pesticide Manufacturing, for the Environmental Protection Agency,
Contract No. 68-01-0142 (January 1972).
3I/ U.S. Tariff Commission, Imports of Benzenoid Chemicals and Products,
TC Publication 601 (1973).
85
-------
Exports^ - Technical or formulated aldicarb is not listed in Bureau of Census
commodity descriptions on pesticide exports.i/ Based on other sources,
including the Lawless study (1972), MRI estimates that the export volume of
aldicarb in 1972 was on the order of 400 - 700,000 Ib of active ingredient
equivalent.
Domestic Supply - Based on the information presented in preceding subsec-
tions, MRI estimates that the domestic consumption of aldicarb in the
United States in 1972 at about 600,000 Ib of active ingredient.
Formulations - The only aldicarb formulation available for commercial
use is a granular product containing 10% of stabilized active ingredient.
According to Union Carbide Corporation, this formulation provides a
uniform high-quality product with minimal handling hazards. The active
ingredient is impregnated on organic granules with a small quantity of
binding agent which prevents dustiness in shipment and reduces dermal
toxicity. The final product is air-cleaned to remove any fines which
might present an inhalation toxicity hazard.
Use Patterns of Aldicarb in the United States
General - Aldicarb is registered and used in the United States only on
agricultural and commercially grown ornamental crops. The product is not
registered or recommended for any industrial, commercial, or institutional
pest control purposes, nor for use by amateur gardeners.
Aldicarb was first introduced for commercial use in agriculture in
the U.S. in about 1970. In the U.S. Department of Agriculture's survey
on the quantities of pesticides used by farmers in 197l2/, aldicarb is not
shown individually. However, in the group "carbamate insecticides," there
is a category, "other," which, MRI believes to consist predominantly or
entirely of aldicarb. According to this USDA report, 37,000 Ib active
ingredient of "other carbamate insecticides" were used in the U.S. in 1971,
all on cotton. Of this total, 20,000 Ib were used in the Southeastern and
South Central states; 17,000 Ib in the Pacific states.
In 1972, an estimated 600,000 Ib of aldicarb active ingredient were
used in the United States. About 75% of this total went on cotton;
slightly more than 15% on sugar beets; the balance on ornamentals and a
number of other crops, including some for which aldicarb is not registered.
By geographic regions, about 40% of the total quantity of aldicarb was used
in the Southwestern states; about 35% in the South Central states; slightly
less than 10% each in the Northwestern and Southeastern states; the balance
in the North Central states. More than 25% of the total quantity of aldi-
carb used in the U.S. in 1972 was used in the State of California on cotton,
sugar beets and ornamentals.
_!/ U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Exports. Schedule B, Commodity by
Country. Section 5, Chemistry, Report FT 410 (1973).
2J U.S. Department of Agriculture, Survey on Quantities of Pesticides
Used by Farmers in 1971, Agricultural Economic Report No. 252,
in press.
86
-------
MRI estimates that the quantity of aldicarb used on agricultural
crops in the U.S. increased substantially (more than tenfold) between
1971 and 1972. Table 10 presents a breakdown of the estimated uses of
aldicarb in the U.S. in 1972 by regions and major crops. The following
information sources were used in arriving at these estimates:
1. The 1971 USDA survey of pesticide uses by farmers.
2. Results of a survey of the Federal/State cooperative extension
services in all 50 states and in Puerto Rico conducted by RvR
Consultants in 1973.
3. Analyses of State pesticide use recommendations.
4. Local and regional estimates on pesticide use volumes obtained
from State research and extension personnel in personal communi-
cations.
5. Pesticide use reports from the states of Arizona, California,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
6. Data on pesticide uses supplied by the EPA Community Pesticide
Studies Projects in Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Texas, and Utah.
7. Estimates and information obtained from the basic producers of
aldicarb and of other pesticides, and from pesticide trade
sources.
8. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture, 1969, Vol. V,
Special Reports.
9. Agricultural Statistics, an annual publication of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
Data from these sources was carefully analyzed, correlated, cross-
checked and cross-validated. The resulting estimates have the following
limitations:
1. Aldicarb was not included among the 25 selected pesticides
whose distribution, use, and environmental impact potential
was recently studied jointly by Midwest Research Institute and
RvR Consultants in a project sponsored by EPA and the Council
on Environmental Quality (von Rumker et al., 1974) .i/
T/ von Rumker, R., E. W. Lawless, and A. F. Meiners, Production, Distri-
bution, Use, and Environmental Impact Potential of Selected Pesti-
cides , for Council of Environmental Quality, Contract No. EQC-311
(15 March 1974). •
87
-------
Table 10. ESTIMATED USES OF ALDICARB (TEMIK®) IN THE U.S.
BY REGIONS AND MAJOR CROPS AND OTHER USES (1972)
Crop
Sugar
Cotton Beets
Region (Thousands of pounds of
All Total
Other All
Crops Crops
active ingredient)
a/
Northeast-' - - Negligible Negligible
Southeast^ 40 - 10 50
North Central^/ - 20 10 30
South Central^/ 200 Negligible 15 215
Northwest-/ - 45 10 55
Southwest^/ 200 35 15 250
Total, all
regions 440 100 60 600
a/ New England States, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania.
b/ Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida.
c_/ Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa,
Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas.
d/ Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
Oklahoma, Texas.
e/ Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Washington, Oregon, Alaska.
f/ New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, California, Hawaii.
Source: RvR estimates. See text.
88
-------
2. Aldicarb has been in commercial use in the U.S. fcrr only a few
years. Its volume of use appears to be expanding rapidly, and it
has been registered for use on additional crops since it first
became available. The product has not as yet reached a "steady
state" or steady growth trend.
3. Many pesticide use surveys (including the 1971 USDA survey) do
not as yet list aldicarb individually.
Aldicarb Use Patterns by Regions - MRI estimates that about 85% of the
total quantity of aldicarb used in the United States in 1972 (Table 10)
was in the Southern states—an estimated 250,000 Ib in the Southwest;
215,000 Ib in the South Central states; and 50,000 Ib in the Southeastern
states. In all three areas, aldicarb was primarily used on cotton.
Few, if any, quantities of aldicarb were used in the Northeastern
states. An estimated 30,000 Ib were used in the North Central states, and
55,000 Ib in the Northwest—the major use was on sugar beets.
Aldicarb Use Patterns by Crops - Almost three-quarters of the total
estimated quantity of aldicarb used in 1972 was on cotton. An estimated
400,000 Ib (90%) was equally divided on cotton in the Southwestern and
South Central states; the balance of 40,000 Ib (10%) was used in the
Southeastern states.
About 100,000 Ib of aldicarb active ingredients were used on sugar
beets in the Northwestern, Southwestern, and North Central states.
An estimated 60,000 Ib of aldicarb (10% of total U.S. consumption)
were used on all other crops combined in 1972, consisting of about 15,000
Ib each in the Southwestern and South Central states, and about 10,000 Ib
each in the remaining regions of the country, with the exception of the
Northeast where the use of aldicarb was negligible.
Aldicarb Uses in California - The State keeps detailed records of pesticide
uses by crops and commodities which are published quarterly and summarized
annually. Table 11 summarizes the uses of aldicarb in California by major
crops for the 4-yr period 1970 to 1973. The annual volume of aldicarb
used in California increased from 14,000 Ib in 1970 to 213,000 Ib in 1973.
According to this source, almost all of the aldicarb quantities used in
California in 1970 and in 1971 went on cotton. In 1972, aldicarb use on
cotton increased to 133,000 Ib; 22,000 Ib went on sugar beets; 3,000 Ib on
ornamentals; 5,000 Ib on alfalfa; and 1,000 Ib on a considerable variety of
other crops. These California uses reflect State registration or experi-
mental uses.
There was a further substantial increase in rate of use of aldicarb
in California from 1972 to 1973. Use on cotton increased by more than
10% to 148,000 Ib, while the quantities used on sugar beets and ornamentals,
respectively, more than doubled. About 6,000 Ib of aldicarb were again used
on alfalfa and a variety of other crops, most of them not covered by the
product's registered label.
89
-------
Tables 12 and 13 present the aldicarb uses in California by crops
and other uses, number of applications, pounds of active ingredient, and
number of acres treated, for 1972 and 1973, the two most recent years for
which such data are available. In 1972, aldicarb was applied to about 10,
in 1973 to about 20 different crops in California, including those listed
individually in Table 11. In addition, small quantities of aldicarb were
used in both years by Federal agencies, county or city parks, the Univers-
ity of California and "other agencies." Some quantities were also used in
greenhouses, on fallow (open ground), in or on nonagricultural areas, and
for "soil fumigation."
There is a rapid increase in the use of aldicarb on cotton in
California despite the fact that the California Agricultural Experiment
Station and Extension Service do not recommend its use on this crop. A
report!/ on California's 1972 pest and disease control program for
cotton contains the following statement on aldicarb in one section dealing
with aldicarbfs effects on various spider mites, Atlantic or Strawberry,
Pacific, two-spotted, and carmine mites, on cotton.
Use of aldicarb ... is very effective in reducing
populations of spider mites, leafhoppers, lygus bugs,
aphids and whiteflies on cotton. It is not effective on
lepidopterous larvae with the exception of the cotton leaf
perforator. Tests conducted in California indicate that in-
furrow granular applications at planting or side-dressed applica-
tions to an established stand are effective, but the residual
activity of in-furrow applications usually does not persist into
late June and July. In-furrow applications at planting have
frequently caused stand reduction; however,the reduction has not
been serious enough to require replanting when germination condi-
tions were adequate.
The greatest potential of this material appears to be as a
side-dressed application to established stands. Field tests
indicate that the granules should be placed 6 to 8 in. from the
plant row and deep enough to be in moisture (4 to 5 in.). Side-
dressed applications should be made about mid-June just before
the first irrigation but not after late June. Effective dosage
rates range from 1.5 to 2.0 Ib of active ingredient per acre,
using the higher dosage on heavy soils and the lighter dosage
on sandy or sandy-loam soils. The granules have been most
effective on lighter soils.
Poor reduction of spider mite populations has been observed
in some cases where the granules were injected too shallow. Popu-
lations of beneficial Damsel, big-eyed, and minute pirate bugs
are reduced in Temik (*9 treated areas. Lepidopterous insects
I/ University of California Division of Agriculture, California Agricul-
tural Experiment Station Extension Service, 1972 Pest and Disease
Control Program for Cotton. (1972).
90
-------
Table 11. ALDICARB USES IN CALIFORNIA BY MAJOR CROPS AND OTHER USES
(1970-1973)
(Thousands of pounds of active ingredient)
Crop/Use
Cotton
Sugar beets
Ornamentals
Alfalfa^/
All other uses J2/
Year
1973
148
52
7
5
1
1972
133
22
3
5
1
1971
15
1
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
1970
14
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Total, all uses
213
164
16
14
a/ Aldicarb is not Federally registered or recommended for use on this
crop.
b/ Includes small uses by Federal, State, and local government agencies
and the University of California; and uses on (unspecified) non
agricultural areas, in greenhouses, on fallow (open ground), and
for "soil fumigation."
Source: California Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Use Reports for
1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973.
91
-------
Table 12. USE OF ALDICARB (TEMIK®) IN CALIFORNIA IN 1972, BY CROPS
AND OTHER USES, APPLICATIONS, QUANTITIES, AND ACRES TREATED
Commodity
Alfalfa
Alfalfa for seed
Beet
Cotton
Cottonseed
Federal agency
Flowers
U -FlowersV
Greenhouse
U -Nursery stock^.'
Union/dry
Orange
Ornamentals
Ornamental bedding plants
U -Ornamental bedding plants—'
Other agencies
Rice
Roses
Sugar beet
University of California
Total
Applica t ion sfL/
4
34
22
1,144
6
9
2
2
1
1
1
6
51
2
1
7
278
Lb
175.81
5,191.67
532.84
132,237.89
698.20
0.49
946.87
5.00
11.10
5.00
20.40
25.00
1,540.69
299.69
1.20
0.17
104.00
684.87
22,002.79
13.70
Acres
297.00
2,691.30
381.00
107,714.65
892.00
377.00
15,000£/
1.91
4,560,000£/
17.00
50.00
115.40
60.59
500,000£/
52.00
75.80
17,425.40
1,571
164,497.38 130,151.05
Source: State of California, Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Use
Report for 1972.
a/ Only agricultural applications are tabulated in this column.
b/ U = Miscellaneous units.
cj These appear to be order of magnitude errors, and do not significantly
effect the total.
92
-------
Table 13. USE OF ALDICARB (TEMIK®) IN CALIFORNIA IN 1973, BY CROPS
AND OTHER USES, APPLICATIONS, QUANTITIES, AND ACRES TREATED
Commodity
Alfalfa
Alfalfa for seed
Beet
Bulb
Citrus
Corn, field
Corn, pop
Cotton
Cottonseed
County or city parks
Deciduous ornamental trees
Federal agency
Fallow (open ground)
Flowers
U -Flowers?-/
U -Flowering shrubs]!/
U -Foliage^/
Grape
Greenhouse
U -Greenhousel>/
Nonagricultural areas
Nursery stock
U -Nursery stock]*/
Olive
Orchard
Ornamentals
U -Ornamentals—/
Ornamental bedding plants
U -Ornamental bedding plants?./
Other agencies
Roses
U -Rosesk/
Soil (fumigation only)
Sorghum
Sugar beet
Tomatillo/husk tomato
Tomato
University of California
Applications?./
12
13
15
1
1
1
1
1,085
4
1
2
523
115
1
2
1
6
5
1
2
2
2
7
20
3
39
4
43
6
2
1
433
1
1
Lb
1,476.52
3,032.25
884.60
20.00
2.03
148.00
60.00
148,219.00
163.65
0.11
2.00
5.45
220.00
3,662.95
373.79
1.00
7.42
120.00
128.18
35.40
216.00
3.28
1.20
25.60
20.46
358.57
12.78
288.81
7.50
312.00
1,735.74
19.90
149.59
30.00
51,509.39
60.00
80.00
19.15
Acres
1,752.00
1,251.75
766.50
4.00
0.25
74.00
30.00
111,590.61
372.00
2.00
220.00
1,409.57
650, 2 12 £/
4,000£/
9,000£/
120.00
32.94
23
54.00
2.16
16,000-S/
32.00
3.63
79.90
70,000£/
41.16
50
427.76
66,205£/
41.35
30.00
40,873.10
100.00
80.00
Total 2,356 213,412.32 159,390.68
Source: State of California, Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Use
Report for 1973.
a/ Only agricultural applications are tabulated in this column.
b/ U = Miscellaneous units.
£/ These appear to be order of magnitude error, and do not significantly
effect the total.
93
-------
have not increased in TemikVy treated areas under California
conditions. Since this is largely a preventative insecticide
use and because most applications of Temik Qy in experimental
field tests have not resulted in statistically significant
increased cotton yields, a general recommendation for the use
of Temik ® cannot be made. CAUTION: Temik ® is highly
toxic. Read and follow label instructions if used.
The use record of aldicarb on cotton in California (Table 11)
indicates that despite this statement, increasing numbers of California
cotton growers apply the product.
94
-------
PART III. MINIECONOMIC REVIEW
CONTENTS
Page
Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness 96
Cotton 97
Efficacy Against Pest Infestation 97
Cost Effectiveness of Pest Control 98
Potatoes 106
Efficacy Against Pest Infestation 106
Cost Effectiveness of Pest Control 107
Sweet Potatoes 112
Efficacy Against Pest Infestation 112
Cost Effectiveness of Pest Control 113
Sugar Beets 113
Efficacy Against Pest Infestation 113
Cost Effectiveness of Pest Control 113
Peanuts 116
Efficacy Against Pest Infestation 116
Cost Effectiveness of Pest Control 118
References 120
95
-------
This section contains a general assessment of the efficacy and cost
effectiveness of aldicarb. Data on the production of aldicarb in the
United States as well as an analysis of its use patterns at the regional
level and major crop are found in Part II of the report. The section
summarizes rather than interprets data reviewed•
Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness
The efficacy and cost effectiveness of a specific pesticide should
be measurable in terms of the increased yield or improved quality of a
treated crop which would result in a greater income or lower cost than
would be achieved if the pesticide had not been used. Thus, one should
be able to pick an isolated test plot of a selected crop, treat it with
a pesticide, and compare its yield with that of a nearby untreated test
plot. The difference in yield should be the increase due to the use of
the pesticide. The increased income (i.e., the yield multiplied by the
selling price of the commodity) less than additional costs (i.e., the
pesticide, its application and the harvesting of the increased yield) is
the economic benefit due to the use of the pesticide.
Unfortunately, this method has many limitations. The data derived
is incomplete and should be looked on with caution. Midwest Research
Institute's review of the literature and EPA pesticide registration files
revealed that experimental tests comparing crops treated with specific
pesticides to the same crop without treatment are conducted by many of
the state agricultural experimental stations. Only a few of these, however,
have attempted to measure increased yield and most of this effort has been
directed toward just a few crops such as cotton, potatoes, and sorghum.
Most other tests on crops measure the amount of reduction in pest levels
which cannot be directly related to yield.
Even the test plot yield data are marginally reliable, since these
tests are conducted under actual field conditions that may never be
duplicated again and are often not representative of actual field use.
Thus yield is affected by rainfall, fertilizer use, severe weather con-
ditions, soil type, region of the country, pesticide infestation levels
and the rate, frequency and method of pesticide application. Because of
these factors, yield tests at different locations and in different years
will show a wide variance ranging from a yield decline to significant
increases. For example, in a year of heavy pest infestation frequent
pesticidal use will result in a high yield increase because the crop from
the untreated test plot is practically destroyed. Conversely, in a year
of light infestation, the yield increase will be slight. The use of
market price to estimate the value received by the producer also has its
limitations. If the use of the pesticide increases the yield of a crop
and the national production is increased, then the market price should
decline. According to Headley and Lewis (1967),— a 1% increase in
quantity marketed has at times resulted in a greater than 1% decrease
in price. Thus the marginal revenue from the increased yield would be
a better measure of value received. '
I/ Headley, J. C., and J. N. Lewis, The Pesticide Problem; An Economic
Approach to Public Policy, Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington,
B.C., pp. 39-40 (1967).
96
-------
A third limitation to the quantification of the economic costs and
benefits is the limited availability of data on the quantities of the
pesticide used by crop or pest, the acres treated,, and the number of
applications. In most cases the amount of Temik® used on each crop or
each pest is not available.
As a result of these limitations an overall economic benefit by crop
or pest cannot be determined. This report presents a range of the potential
economic benefits, based on 1972 cost data, derived from the use of Temik®
to control a specific pest on a specific crop. This economic benefit or
loss is measured in dollars per acre for the highest and lowest and average
yield increases developed from experimental tests conducted by the pesticide
producers and the State agricultural experimental stations. The yiel is a recently introduced pesticide that is applied to a wide
variety of crops where it is used as a nematocide and as a control for small
insects. Numerous tests have been conducted that compare TemikQPand other
insecticides and nematocides to untreated test plots to determine their
effects on yield. These tests on cotton, potatoes, peanuts, sugar beets,
and sweet potatoes are summarized in the following subsections.
Cotton
Approximately 440,000 Ib AI of Temik® were used to treat cotton
insects and nematodes in 1972. It has been shown to be effective in con-
trolling thrips, aphids, boll weevils, leaf miners, desert spider mites
and fleahoppers.
Efficacy Against Pest Infestation
Temik™ has been evaluated for insect control on cotton by a number of
researchers. These tests were conducted prior to registration and in non-
commercial trials since registration. For this reason the results may not
be representative of actual field conditions, but they have been included
so that the review may be more complete. (See Table 14.)
Beckham (1970)!/ evaluated Temik® and other insecticides for the
control of thrips on cotton, in Georgia. Results of tests conducted in 1967
and 1968 showed that Temik® was highly effective in thrips control. Davis
and Cowan (1972)^.' showed that Temik® applied in the seed furrow at planting
gave effective control of thrips, the cotton aphid, and the cotton fleahoppers,
I/ Beckham, C. M., "Influence of Systemic Insecticides on Thrips Control
and Yield of Cotton," J. Econ. Entomol.. 63:936-938 (1970).
2J Davis, J. W., and C. B. Cowan, Jr., "Field Evaluation of Three Formula-
tions of Aldicarb for Control of Cotton Insects," J. Econ. Entomol.,
65:231-232 (1972).
97
-------
Davis and Cowan (1974)17 conducted tests with Temik® and concluded that
effective control of thrips, cotton aphids and cotton fleahoppers was
achieved. The director of the Cooperative Extension Service in Mississippi,
W. M. Bost (1974)2/, reporting on tests of Temik® at Verona, Mississippi,
in 1971, found the pesticide gave excellent thrips control and reduced the
number of boll weevils. Its effect on fleahoppers was inconclusive.
Fifty additional tests, conducted from 1965 to 1973, compared yields
of Temik®-treated plots at Stoneville, Mississippi (Bost, 1974). Sub-
stantial yield information was also obtained from Union Carbide pesticide
petitions registered with EPA.
In addition to the above test data, Union Carbide has submitted the
results of 1974 efficacy and comparative yield tests for cotton. This data
has been compiled and evaluated in the same manner as the published data
and is presented in Table 15. These tests are results of commercial use and
are likely to be more representative of actual field conditions than the
experimental trials in Table 14. The tests were conducted in several states
and, therefore, probably cover a wide spectrum of environmental conditions.
Most of the yield increases are averages of several tests and in the cases
where the number of tests was given, this number has also been presented.
The average change in yield has been calculated as a weighted average based
on the number of tests from which each yield change was derived. This
supplementary data on cotton gave no indication of the efficacy of insect
control but the tests did report increases in yield of from 0 to 390 Ib/acre
in South Carolina and Alabama respectively. The weighted average of all the
tests indicated that the use of Temik ® caused an average increase in cotton
yield of 75.6 Ib/acre.
Cost Effectiveness of Pest Control
The 1972 price received by farmers for cotton was 24.0
-------
Table 14. SUMMARY OF EFFICACY TESTS ON COTTON
VO
Date
1964
1964
Unknown
Unknown
0
1
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
Application
(Ib Al/acre)
0.6
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
1.06
0.5
1.0
.6/100 Ib seed
.0/100 Ib seed
2.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
0.6
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.7
3.7
Yield
increase*
(Ib/acre)
8
37
73
(98)
65
(192)
328
277
152
87
(119)
(38)
851
83
523
396
917
395
130
300
(60)
820
60p
Additional
income*
($/acre at
40.7c/lb)
3.26
15.06
29.71
(39.89)
26.46
(78.14)
133.50
112.74
61.86
35.41
(48.43)
(15.46)
346.36
33.78
212.86
161.17
373.22
160.77
52.91
122.10
(24.42)
333.74
(244.20)
Aldicarb cost Economic
at $9.50/lb
($/acre)
5.70
9.50
19.00
19.00
38.00
10.07
4.75
9.50
5.70
9.50
19.00
9.50
28.50
9.50
19.00
5.70
9.50
28.50
28.50
29.45
29.45
35.15
35.15
benefit*
($/acre) Source
(2.44) a/
5.56
10.71
(58.89)
(11.54)
(88.21)
128.75 b/
103 . 24
56.16
25.91
(67.43)
(24.96)
317.86
24.28
193.86
155.47
363.72
132.27
24.41
92.65
(53.87)
298.59
(279.35)
-------
Table 14. (Continued)
o
o
Date
•••••M^W
1966
1966
1965
1965
1966
1966
1966
1966
Application
(Ib Al/acre)
0.98
1.94
3.68
1.1
2.5
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.55
1.25
1.72
2.56
0.60
1.38
1.90
2.68
1.0
1.0 + 1.0
1.0 + 2.0
1.0 + 3.0
Yield
increase*
(Ib/acre)
892
839
586
230
365
(38)
851
1,253
1,281
(210)
360
(100)
320
250
350
558
661
1,413
1,224
300
230
60
(70)
(281)
(281)
150
207
Additional
income *
($/acre at
40.7o/lb)
363.04
341.47
238.50
93.61
148.56
(15.46)
346.36
509.97
521.37
(85.47)
146.52
(40.70)
130.24
101.75
142.45
227.11
269.03
575.09
498.17
122.10
93.61
24.42
(28.49)
(114.37)
(114.37)
61.05
84.25
Aldicarb cost
at $9.50/lb
($/acre)
9.31
18.43
34.96
10.45
23.75
9.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
9.50
19.00
28.50
9.50
19.00
28.50
5.23
11.88
16.34
24.32
5.70
13.11
18.05
25.46
9.50
19.00
28.50
38.00
Economic
benefit*
(^/acrej Source
353.73 b/
323.04
203.54
83.16
124.81
(24.96)
317.86
481.47
492.87
(94.97)
127.52
(69.20)
120.74
82.75
113.95
221.88
257.15
558.75
473.85
116.40
80.50
6.37
(54.95)
(123.87)
(133.37)
32.55
46.25
-------
Table 14. (Continued)
Date
1966
1967
1968
1970
1972
1970
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
Application
(Ib Al/acre)
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.6
2.1
0.9
1.8
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.125
1.0
0.5
0.33
0.67
1.0
0.5
2.0
2.0
Yield
increase*
(Ib/acre)
614
937
970
54
152
296
384
351
394
381
309
443
307
164
11
231
433
221
907
898
701
595
632
846
Additional
income*
($/acre at
40.70/lb)
249.90
381.36
394.79
21.98
61.86
120.47
156.29
142.86
160.36
155.07
125 . 76
180.30
124.95
66.75
4.48
94.02
176.23
89.95
369 . 15
365.49
285.31
242.17
257.22
344.32
Aldicarb cost Economic
at $9.50/lb
($/acre)
0.95
2.38
4.75
9.50
9.50
5.70
19.95
8.55
17.10
9.50
7.60
11.40
9.50
19.00
9.50
10.69
9.50
4.75
3.14
6.37
9.50
4.75
19.00
19.00
benefit*
($/acre)
248.95
378.98
390.04
12.48
52.36
114.77
136.34
134.31
143.26
145.57
118.16
168.90
115.45
47.75
(5.02)
83.33
166.73
85.20
366.01
359 . 12
275.81
237.42
238.22
325.32
Source
W
£/
d/
£/
f/
.£/
£/
i/
£/
J./
k/
-------
Table 14. (Continued)
o
NJ
Date
1971
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1967
1967
1967
1967
1967
1967
1968
1968
1968
1968
1969
1969
1969
1969
Application
(Ib Al/acre)
0.25
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0 + 2.0
1.0 + 4.0
0.5
0.75
0.25
0.1
0.25
0.5
0.25
1.0
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.25
0.5
Yield
increase *
(Ib/acre)
300
197
50
83
523
(114)
157
538
1,258
614
937
970
150
206
310
542
585
10
321
134
277
207
280
81
363
675
293
266
Additional
income*
($/acre at
40.7c/lb)
122.10
80.18
20.35
33.78
212.86
(46.40)
63.90
218.97
512.01
249.90
381.36
394.79
61.05
83.84
126.17
220.59
238.10
4.07
130.65
54.54
112.74
84.30
113.96
32.97
147.74
274.73
119.25
108.26
Aldicarb cost
at $9.50/lb
($/acre)
2.38
4.75
9.50
9.50
19.00
4.75
9.50
19.00
4.75
0.95
2.38
4.75
28.50
47.50
4.75
7.13
2.38
0.95
2.38
4.75
2.38
9.50
2.38
4.75
2.38
0.95
2.38
4.75
Economic
benefit*
($/acre) Source
119.72 k/
75.43
10.85
24.28
193.86
(51.15)
54.40
199.97
507.26
248.95
378.98
390.04
32.55
36.34
121.42
213.46
235.72
3.12
128.27
49.79
110.36
74.80
111.58
28.22
145 . 36
273.78
116.17
103.5.1
-------
Table 14. (Continued)
o
to
Date
1970
1970
1970
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
Application
(Ib Al/acre)
0.25
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.5
Yield
increase*
(Ib/acre)
545
536
207
232
260
223
330
117
308
366
155
657
137
195
198
49
53
171
Additional
income*
($/acre at
40.7c/lb)
221.82
218.15
84.25
94.42
105.82
90.76
.134.31
47.62
125.35
148.96
63.09
267.40
55.76
79.37
80.58
19.94
21.57
69.60
Aldicarb cost
at $9.50/lb
($/acre)
2.38
4.75
0.95
0.95
2.38
4.75
9.50
2.38
4.75
9.50
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
4.75
2.38
2.38
4.75
Economic
benefit*
($/acre) Source
219.44 k/
213.40
83.30
93.47
103.44
86.01
124.81
45.24
120.60
139.46
60.71
265.02
53.38
76.99
75.83
17.56
19.19
64.85
-------
Table 14. (Continued)
Yield
Application increase*
Date (Ib Al/acre) (Ib/acre)
1973 0.3 89
1973 0.6 120
1973 0.15 130
1973 0.3 281
1973 0.6 189
1973 0.5 228
1973 1.0 215
Additional
income*
($/acre at
40.7c/lb)
36.22
48.84
52.91
114.37
76.92
92.80
87.50
Aldicarb cost
at $9.50/lb
($/acre)
2.
5,
1,
2,
5.
85
70
-43
85
70
4.75
9.50
Economic
benefit*
($/acre)
33.37
43.14
51.48
111.52
71.22
88.05
78.00
Source
*
a/
b/
£/
d/
h/
j/
k/
Data in parentheses indicate decreases in yield, income, and economic benefit.
Union Carbide Corp., EPA Pesticide Petition Files, Section 11.
Union Carbide Corp., EPA Pesticide Petition 8F0637.
Beckham, op cit. (1970).
Davis and Cowan, op cit. (1972).
Davis and Cowan, op cit. (1974).
Birchfield, W. , "Cotton," Fungicide and Nematocide Test Results of 1970, Report No. 277,
American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1970).
Blackman, op cit. (1972).
Birchfield, op cit. (1972).
Bird et al., op cit. (1972).
Smith, F. H. , "Cotton," Fungicide and Nematocide Test Results of 1972, Report No. 312,
American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
Bost, op cit. (1974).
Note: AI = active ingredient.
-------
Tabie 15. 1974 RESULTS OF TEMIK® APPLICATION ON COTTON
o
in
Location
Calif .-Ariz.
Calif .-Ariz.
Texas
Ni* —
-------
For the data reviewed from non-commercial use situations the range of
changes in cotton varied from a decline of 281 Ib/acre to an increase
1413 Ib/acre. The economic benefit after subtracting the cost of Temik
ranged from a loss of $133.37/acre to an increase of $558.75/acre. The 1974
commercial use data indicates a range of economic benefits from a loss of
$5.70/acre to an increase of $153.03/acre. The average economic benefit
shown by this data is an increase of $25.07/acre. However,in typical farm
situations this increase to farmer income would be reduced nominally by
costs of insecticide application and costs of harvesting the additional
output. The actual application cost was treated here as a joint cost with
the planting operation; therefore, a rather nominally low figure resulted.
Furthermore, there is no indication that this supplementary data is a
statistically representative sample of all comparative yield tests conducted
on cotton.
Potatoes
Temik® is registered for control of aphids, leaf hoppers, flea beetles,
Colorado potato beetle larvae and various nematodes. ^However, most of the
literature reviewed consisted of evaluation of Temik (§) for nematode control.
Efficacy Against Pest Infestation
In experimental trials prior to 1974 registration of Temik ^ for use on
potatoes, Hof master and Waterfield (1972)i' conducted yearly tests of various
soil insecticides between 1967 and 1971 for control of the Colorado potato
beetle in Virginia. They concluded that 2 Ib Al/acre of Temik ® gave the
best results and provided almost complete protection from the potato beetle
from plant emergence to harvest. Miller and Kring (1970)-?-' evaluated
several insecticides for control of insects and nematodes on potatoes in
Connecticut. They concluded that the use of Temik ® lowered the tobacco
stunt nematodes by 90%, reduced feeding by potato flea beetles 95% or more,
decreased the Colorado potato beetle damage more than 80% and reduced aphid
population by over 99.5%.
Cetas (1970, 1971, 1972, 19 73) conducted yearly tests comparing
several insecticides for control of root lesion nematodes at the Long Island
Vegetable Research Farm. He concluded that good control of the nematode was
achieved with in-furrow applications of Temik 09.
I/ Hofmaster, R. N., and R. L. Waterfield, "Insecticides Applied to the Soil
for Control of the Colorado Potato Beetle in Virginia," J. Econ.
Entomol., 65:1672-1679 (1972).
21 Miller, P. M., and J. B. Kring, "Reduction of Nematode and Insect Damage
to Potatoes by Band Application of Systemic Insecticides and Soil
Fumigation." J. Econ. Entomol., 63:186-189 (1970).
3/ Cetas, Robert C., "Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide Test Results of 1970,
Report No. 293, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn.
(1970).
4/ Cetas, Robert C., "Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide Test Results of 1971,
Report No. 315, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn.
(1971).
5/ Cetas, Robert C., "Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide Test Results of 1972,
Report No. 323, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn.
(1972).
6/ Cetas, Robert C., "Potato." Fungicide and Nematocide Test Results of 1973,
Report No. 260, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn.
(1973).
106
-------
Cole et al. (1972, 1973)il2/ evaluated Temik^Vfor control of
verticillium wilt on potatoes and concluded that there were no significant
differences in wilting when compared to an untreated plot. Weingartner
et. al. (1973)!/ and Weingartner and Dickson (1973)A/ evaluated Temik®
for control of a variety of nematodes and found that it reduced some
nematodes, increased tuber quality and yields. These tests are summarized
in Table 16.
Additional comparative efficacy and yield data for Temik ™ use on
potatoes has been provided by Union Carbide and is presented in Table 17.
In addition to the yield and economic benefit data, brief remarks on
efficacy have been added in those cases where the data presented assess-
ment of efficacy. These remarks give the measure of efficacy used followed
by the value for the plots treated with Temik& and the Jtalue for the
untreated check plots. As the test results show, Temik OP appears effective
in reducing the numbers of insects and nematodes found in potatoes and in
the soil, as well as in reducing the incidence of verticillium wilt on
potatoes.
Cost Effectiveness of Pest Control
For the non-commercial tests conducted prior to registration (1964-
1973) the range of yield changes varies from a loss of 13 cwt/acre to an
increase of 250 cwt/acre. The 1972 average price of potatoes was $2.55 cwt
and the cost of Temik ® is $9.50/lb Al (Bost, 1974). The economic benefits
indicated by these tests, therefore, range from a loss of $61.65/acre to an
increase of $609.00/acre, exclusive of application and harvesting costs.
The 1974 commercial yield data is sufficient for permitting some differenti-
ation by region in which the tests were conducted. From the three state
area of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho there were 23 reports covering at
least 57 comparative yield tests. Yield changes varied from a loss of
8 cwt/acre to an increase of 301 cwt/acre with an average^yield increase of
144 cwt/acre. The calculated economic benefits of Temik ^ in this area
range from a loss of $39.40/acre to a gain of $739.05/acre. The average
economic benefit of these tests indicated a gain of $338.70/acre. A number
of tests were submitted from the New England area, including tests from
Maine, Connecticut, and New York. Changes in potato yield ranged from a
decline of 5 cwt/acre to an increase of 133 cwt/acre with an average increase
of 62 cwt/acre. The economic benefits associated with Temik^use averaged
an increase of $131.98/acre, while they varied from a loss of $22.25/acre to
an increase of $310.65.
I/ Cole, H., C. W. Goldberg, W. R. Mills, and R. A. Krause, "Potato," Fungi-
cide and Nematocide Test Results of 1972, Report No. 153, American
Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
2J Cole, J., R. A. Krause, and J. P. Huether, "Potato," Fungicide and Nema-
tocide Test Results of 1973, Report No. 127, American Phytopathological
Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
_3/ Weingartner, D. P., J. R. Shumaker, and D. W. Dickson, "Potato," Fungi-
cide and Nematocide Test Results of 1973, Report No. 302, American
Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
4/ Weingartner, D. P., and D. W. Dickson, "Potato," Fungicide and Namatocide
Test Results of 1973, Report No. 301, American Phytopathological
Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
107
-------
Table 16. SUMMARY OF EFFICACY TESTS ON POTATOES
Date
1964
1964
1964
1965
1965
1965
o 1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1967
1969
1970
Application
(Ib Al/acre)
3
3
1
3.0
1.5
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.0 + 1.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
Yield
increase*
(cwt/acre^
221
250
137
228
198
143
152
89
108
132
69
(13)
152
142
131
26
28
177
170
234
246
231
148
Additional
income at*
$2.55/cwt
($/acre)
563.55
637.50
349.35
581.40
504.90
364.65
387.60
226.95
275.40
336.60
175.95
(33.15)
387.60
362.10
334.05
66.30
71.40
451.35
433.50
596.70
627.30
589 . 05
377.40
Aldicarb cost
at $9.50/lb
($/acre)
28.50
28.50
• 9.50
28.50
14.25
28.50
28.50
19.00
9.50
19.00
28.50
28.50
19.00
19.00
19.00
9.50
28.50
19.00
28.50
19.00
28.50
19.00
19.00
Economic
benefit*
($/acre) Source
535 . 05 a/
609 . 00
339.85
552.90 k/
490.65
336 . 15
359.10
207.95
265.90
317.60
147.45
(61.65)
368.60
343 . 10
315.05
56.80
42.90
432.35
405.00
577.70
598.80
570.05
358.40
-------
Table 16. (Continued)
o
so
1970
1971
1972
1973
1973
1973
1973
Application
(Ib Al/acre)
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.25
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Yield
increase*
(cwt/acre)
176
153
149
80
72
65
7
23
26
23
43
65
25
Additional
income at*
$2.55/cwt
($/acre)
448.80
390.15
379.95
204.00
183.60
165.75
17.85
58.65
66.30
58.65
109.65
165.75
63.75
Aldicarb cost
at $9.50/lb
($/acre)
19.00
19.00
19.00
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
21.38
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
Economic
benefit
(loss)*
($/acre)
429.80
371.15
360.95
175.50
158.10
137.25
(10.65)
37.27
37.80
30.15
81.15
137.25
35.25
Source
f/
i/
k/
I/
m/
* Data in parentheses indicate decreases in yield, income, and economic benefit.
a/ Union Carbide Corp., EPA Petition File, Section 11.
b/ Union Carbide Corp., EPA Pesticide Petition 7F0573.
c/ Miller and Kring, op. cit. (1970).
d,/ Hofmaster and Waterfield, op. cit. (1972).
el Cetas, op. cit. (1970).
f_/ Cetas, op. cit. (1971).
£/ Cole et al., op. cit. (1972).
h/ Cetas, op. cit. (1972).
j./ Schultz, 0. E., and J. C. Locke, "Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide Test Results of 1973
Report No. 299, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
k/ Cetas, op. cit. (1973).
I/ Weingartner and Dickson, op. cit. (1973).
m/ Weingartner et. al., op. cit. (1973).
Note: Al = active ingredient.
-------
Table 17. 1974 RESULTS OF TEMIK® APPLICATION ON POTATOES
Location
u.s.!/
u.s.!/
u.s.!/
Oregon
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Ida. -Wash. -Ore.
Ida. -Wash. -Ore.
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Maine
Maine
Maine
Connecticut
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New ^ngland
New England
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Ohio
Application
Pestl/ (lb AI/acre)*
A.L.C.F
A.L.C.F
N
V,A
N
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
N
I
N
V,N
V
A.mites
A.mites
V
C
C
C
C,A
C,A
C.A.L
C.A.L
C.A.L
N
L.A.F
N
N
N
N
N
I
N/S
N/S
L.F.A.PB
A,C'
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.6
2.6
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Yield Change Value of ±' Temlk® 2J
. (cwt) Yield Change($) Cost(S)
225
83
47
79
301
57
301
116
32
109
108
80
15
297
43
69
132
53
-8
55
4
33
87
73
58
88
-5
15
117
133
65
33
72
65
80
46
97
110
182
122
140
573.75
211.65
119.85
201.45
767.55
145.35
767.55
295.80
81.60
277.95
275.40
204.00
38.25
757.35
109.65
175.95
336.60
135.15
-20.40
140.25
10.20
84.15
221.85
186.15
147 -.90
224.80
-12.75
38.25
298.35
339.15
165.75
84.15
183.60
165.75
204.00
117.30
247.35
280.50
464.10
311.10
357.00
23.75
23.75
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
23.75
28.50
28.50
28.50
19.00
28.50
28.50
19.00
23.75
23.75
19.00
19.00
9.50
24.70
24.70
28.50
23.75
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
23.75
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
Economic!/
Benefit ($)
550.00
188.10
91.35
172.95
739.05
116.85
739.05
267.30
53.10
249.45
246.90
175.50
9.75
728.85
86.15
147.45
308.10
106.65
-39.40
111.75
-18.30
65.15
198.10
162.40
128.90
205.40
-22.25
13.55
273.65
310.65
142.00
55.65
155.10
137.25
175.50
88.80
223.60
252.00
435.60
282.60
328.50
No.
Tests
104
16
49
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19
17
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
22
10
1
1
1
1
Efficacy Remarks (T/U^*
Z leaves with aphids: 0/14
1 root knot galls: 0.29/64.33
incidence of wilt after 1
month: slight/severe
root knot index: 0.86/4.69
nematodes/250 ml soll:87/440
mean Z wilt: 13Z/15Z
live mites/10 leaves :1965/6672
live mites/10 leaves: 1285/6672
wilt rating: 1.8/2.8
fnematodes/lOOg soll:16/76
aphids: 18.5/152.7
fnematodes at harvest:
67/187
fnematode/gm of root: 33/81
fnematode/gm of root: 18/90
Jnematode/gm of root: 6.4/44.7
aphlds/season: 105/395
aphids/leaf, 78 days: 15.5/71.2
110
-------
Table 17. (Continued)
Location
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Michigan
Michigan
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Michigan
Ohio, Mich.,
New Jersey
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Va. ,N.J.,Del
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
N.D.,Mlnn.
Arizona
Arizona
Average, All
Average, All
Average, All
Average, All
Pesti/
N/S
N/.S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N
Wise. I
A,C
C
C
C
C
. ,Pemu I
N
N
N
N
I
A
N/S
Ore., Wash., Ida.
New England
Ohio, Mich. ,Wlsc.
Va.,N.J.,Del.,Penn
Grand Average
Application
(Ib AI/acre)*
1.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
3.0
2.75
2.5
2.5
2.75
Yield Change
(cwt)
156
163
65
67
12
-8
111
146
28
18
33
31
36
104
105
176
176
148
151
159
43
73
46
31
17
90
108
144
62
93
157
130
Value of i/ :
Yield Change($)
379.80
415.65
165.75
170.85
30.60
-20.40
283.05
372.30
71.40
45.90
84.15
79.05
91.80
265.20
267.75
448.80
448.80
377.40
385.05
405.45
109.65
186.15
117.30
79.05
43.35
229.50
275.40
367.20
158.10
237.15
400.35
331.50
Cemik® 1.1
Cost($)
14.25
28.50
28.50
28.50
14.25
28.50
14.25
28.50
14.25
28.50
14.25
28.50
28.50
23.75
28.50
19.00
19.00
19.00
38.00
23.75
28.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
23.75
23.75
19.00
28.50
26.13
23.75
23.75
26.13
Economic!/
Benefit ($)
383.55
387.15
137.25
142.35
16.35
-48.90
268.80
343.80
57.15
17.40
69.90
50.55
63.30
241.45
239.25
429.80
429.80
358.40
347.05
381.70
81.15
157.65
88.80
50.55
19.60
205.75
256.40
338.70
131.98
213.40
376.60
305.37
No.
Tests Efficacy Remarks (T/U)**
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
32
1 aphid control: excellent/poor
1 I? Colo, potato beetles/10 hills: .-
0/213
1 fColo. potato beetles/10 hills:
0/219
1 JColo. potato beetles/10 hills:
0/309
1 fColo. potato beetles/10 hills:
0/309
19
1 fnematodes/lOOcc soil: 63.6/115
1 fnematodes/lOOcc soil: 145/2702
1 fnematodes/lOOcc soil: 165/942
3
9
7
1
57
41
52
24
* AI/acre • active ingredient/acre.
** T/U • treated/untreated.
I/ Change in potato yield x $2.55/cwt (1972 average price).
2/ Lb AI/acre x $9.50/lb AI, since most Temik® is applied at planting the application cost is considered a joint cost with planting cost
and not considered here. g
3/ Value of Yield Change minus Temik'S' Cost equals Economic Benefit.
kl N-nematodes, L-Leafhoppers, C-Colo. potato beetle, A-aphids, F-flea beetles, V-verticillium wilt, I-insects, unspec., T-thrips,
PB-plant bugs, N/S-not specified.
V Tests in various states not specified elsewhere.
Source: Comparative yield data submitted to EPA by Dr. Richard Back, Union Carbide Corporation, Washington,D.C.
Ill
-------
Eighteen reports covering 32 yield comparisons from the Ohio, Michigan,
and Wisconsin area were included in potato yield data. The lowest yield
change was a loss of 8 cwt/acre, while the greatest change was an increase
of 182 cwt/acre. The average change in yield was an increase in output of
93 cwt/acre. The economic benefits implied by these yield changes are:
$A8.90/acre, $435.60/acre, and $213.40/acre, respectively. Several tests
from the Mid-Atlantic area showed an average yield increase of 157 cwt/acre,
with an economic benefit of $376.60. The lowest yield change from this area
was an increase of 104 cwt/acre and the highest was an increase of 126 cwt/
acre. The economic benefits ranged from $239.25/acre to $429.80/acre.
Additional data submitted by Union Carbide on potatoes resulted in
reports covering at least 366 comparative yield tests. Overall data on
changes in yield varied from a loss of 8 cwt/acre to a gain of 301 cwt/acre,
averaging an increase of 130 cwt/acre. Economic benefits ranged from a loss
of $48.90/acre to an increase of $739.05. The average economic benefit for
the 1974 potato yield data was an increase of $305.37/acre.
Sweet Potatoes
Temik ™ is registered for control of root knot, reniform and miscella-
neous nematodes on sweet potatoes in Louisiana.
Efficacy Against Pest Infestation
Birchfield and Martin (1970, 1973)-^-/ and Averre et al. (1972)-3-/
evaluated aldicarb for root knot nematode and observed a reduction in the
nematodes and an increase in No. 1 grade sweet potatoes. Birchfield and
Martin (1973) tested various rates of Temik ® for control of the reniform
nematode and found that heavier dosages resulted in significantly reduced
namatodes and greater yields. Martin and Birchfield (1970^ 1973)-^-' and
Birchfield and Martin (1971, 1972, 1973)-SzL' tested Temik® for control of
miscellaneous nematodes which are not known to cause sweet potato yield reduc-
tion. They found some nematode reduction but a wide yield variance.
I/ Birchfield, W., and W. J. Martin, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1970, Report No. 303, American Phytopathological Society,
St. Paul, Minn. (1970).
2J Birchfield, W., and W. J. Martin, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1973, Report Nos. 308 and 309, American Phytopatho-
logical Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
3/ Averre, C. W., L. W. Nielson, and K. R. Baker, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide
and Nematocide Test Results of 1972, Report No. 334, American Phytopatho-
logical Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
47 Martin, W. J., and W. Birchfield, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1970, Report No. 305, American Phytopathological Society,
St. Paul, Minn. (1970).
51 Martin, W. J., and W. Birchfield, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1973. Report Nos. 306 and 307, American Phytopatho-
logical Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
6/ Birchfield, W., and W. J. Martin, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1971, Report No. 318, American Phytopathological Society,
St. Paul, Minn. (1971).
]_l Birchfield, W., and W. J. Martin, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1972, Report No. 335, American Phytopathological Society,
St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
112
-------
Cost Effectiveness of Pest Control
The yield changes on test plots treated with Temik xy varied from a loss
of 68 bu/acre to an increase of 228 bu/acre based upon grading the potatoes
according to U.S. standards into U.S. No. 1, jumbo and canners grades.
Averre et al.f (1972) used prices of $1.75/bu for U.S. No. 1 grade and $0.75/
bu for canners and jumbo grades. At these prices and with the cost of
aldicarb at $9.50/lb AI per acre (Bost, 1974), the economic benefit range
would vary from a loss of $99.50/acre to a gain of $270.50/acre. The
average benefit is an increase of $67.58/acre. The test results are
summarized in Table 18.
Sugar Beets
Temik (§) is registered for control of the sugar beet root maggot, nematodes,
leaf miners and aphids, with application rates varying from 1 to 3 Ib/acre AI
for insects and from 3 to 5 Ib/acre AI for nematodes.
Efficacy Against Pest Infestation
Two references were found for non-commercial experimental trials which
evaluated Temik® for control of the sugar beet nematode. Steele et al.
(1972)i' in two separate tests in Salinas, California, in 1972 compared
aldicarb wi£h several nematocides and an untreated check. They concluded
that Temik® gave the best control of nematodes and that the highest yields
were obtained when 4.0 Ib Al/acre TemikV5/ were applied.
Additional commercial yield data submitted by Union Carbide gave no
indication of the efficacy of the insect or nematode control achieved,
although performance data was presented.
Cost Effectiveness of Pest Control
Steele and Hodges (1972)—' compared yields of sugar beets when Temik
was applied at various rates and placement methods. However, most of these
test conditions were not those that are currently registered for nematode
control, and they have been omitted from this review. In the one remaining
test, the use of Temik ® at 4.0 Ib/acre AI in a 5-in band treatment
increased sugar beet yield by 3.26 tons/acre over the untreated check plot.
At the_1972 average price of $16/ton for sugar beets and $9.50/lb AI for
Temik ^ , the economic benefit of this treatment is $14.16/acre. This data
is presented in Table 19.
17 Steele, A. E., L. R. Hodges, and G. W. Wheatley, "Sugar Beet," Fungicide
and Nematocide Test Results of 1972, Report No. 332, American Phyto-
pathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
2] Steele, A. E., and L. R. Hodges, "Sugar Beet," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1972, Report No. 333, American Phytopathological
Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
113
-------
Table 18. SUMMARY OF EFFICACY TESTS ON SWEET POTATOES
Date
1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
*
a/
b/
^'
c/
d/
•— *
e/
Application
Yield
increase*
(bu/acre)
(Ib Al/acre) No. 1 Canner
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
3.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
30
46
44
55
27.5
2.5
12
15
(39)
38
47
40
93
16
39
7
34
2
47
19
62
(33)
128
124
83
65
65
51
44
38
20
13
(18)
(23)
(57)
(34)
25
(D
(29)
(23)
12
10
2
(12)
(30)
(28)
(13)
(27)
(20)
(42)
(25)
22
100
54
88
73
50
38
18
44
Aldicarb
Additional cost at Economic
income* $9.50/lb benefit*
($/acre)
67.50
90.25
63.50
79.00
5.37
18.25
39.75
25.50
(90.00)
49.25
91.25
77.50
164.25
19.00
45.75
(8.75)
49.75
(16.75)
67.25
1.75
89.75
(57.75)
299.00
257.50
211.25
168.50
151.25
117.75
90.50
99.50
Data in parentheses indicate decreases in
Birchfield and
Martin, op_
Martin and Birchfield, op
Birchfield and
Birchfield and
Martin, op
Martin, op
Martin and Birchfield, (op
. cit.
. cit.
. cit.
. cit.
(1970).
(1970).
(1971).
(1972).
(1973).
($/acre) ($/acre) Source
9.50
9.50
19.00
9.50
9.50
4.75
4.75
9.50
9.50
14.25
14.25
19.00
28.50
4.75
4.75
9.50
9.50
14.25
14.25
19.00
28.50
9.50
28.50
19.00
14.25
14.25
4.75
9.50
9.50
4.75
yield, income
58.00 a/
80.75 b/
44.50
69.50 c/
(4.13) d/
13.50 £/
35.00
16.00
(99.50)
35.00
77.00
58.50
135.75
14.25 ±1
41.00
(18.25)
40.25
(31.00)
53.00
(17.25)
61.25
(67.25) e/
270.50
238.50
197.00 £/
154.25
146.50
108.25
81.00
94.75
\
, and economic benefit.
Note: AI = active ingredient.
114
-------
Table 19. SUMMARY OF EFFICACY TESTS ON SUGAR BEETS
Additional
Yield income at*
Application
Date
1972
(Ib Al/acre)
2
4
2
4
4
2
4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
* Data in
a/ Steele
- 1 in. band
- 1 in. band
-,5 in. band
- 5 in. band
- Sidedress
- Sidedress
- Sidedress
increase *
(tons /acre)
0.
7.
0.
3.
1.
4.
8.
39
32
19
26
30
64
69
$16/ton
($/acre)
6
117
3
52
20
74
139
.24
.12
.04
.16
.80
.24
.04
parentheses indicate decreases in yield,
and Hodges, op. cit. (1972).
Aldicarb cost Economic
at $9
.50/lb benefit
($/acre)
19
38
19
38
38
19
38
income
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
and
($/acre) Source
(12
79
(15
14
(17
55
101
.76) a/
.12
.98)
.16
.20)
.24
.04
economic benefit.
Note: AI = active ingredient.
-------
The 1974 supplementary data contained 28 reports covering 1,080 field
tests of Temik^® for control of nematodes and insects. (See Table 20.)
The reports were not differentiated by region of the country in which the
tests were conducted. In all cases reported, the yield of sugar beets
increased. The range of yield increases was from 1.6 to 6.2 tons/acre with
an average of 3.6 tons/acre over all the tests. The economic benefits
varied from a loss of $4.35/acre to a gain of $57.75/acre. The average
economic benefit due to Temik® was an increase of $36.23/acre.
Peanuts
Temik® is registered for control of thrips and nematodes on peanuts.
Efficacy Against Pest Infestation
Morgan et al, (1970)!/ showed that Temik®gave good control of thrips
on peanuts in Georgia in 1965 and 1966 but sightly decreased yields over
untreated plots. Smith (1972)J/ tested Temikd> on peanuts in Virginia in
1971 and found some control of thrips but little control of root-knot
nematode although a slight yield increase was evidenced.
Sturgeon and Schackelford (1972)A/ and Sturgeon and Jackson (1973)A/
compared various insecticides for treatment of nematodes on peanuts in
Oklahoma. Their papers usually do not specify the type of nematode control-
led but do indicate that peanut yields increased in all but one test. (See
Table 21.)
In the 1974 yield tests on peanuts shown in JTable 22 a few indications
of comparative efficacy are given. Use of Temik® greatly reduced the per-
cent of thrip damage in all cases reported as well as reducing the number of
nematodes per 100 ml of soil. In one case the nematode rating increased on
the plot treated with Temik ©. Unfortunately, the majority of test reports
gave no indication of efficacy at all. (See Table 21.)
T7 Morgan, L.W., J. W. Snow, and M. J. Peach, "Chemical Thrips Control:
Effects on Growth and Yield of Peanuts in Georgia," J. ECon. Entomol.,
65:1253-1255 (August 1970).
2/ Smith, J.C., "Tobacco Thrips Nematode Control on Virginia Type Peanuts,"
J. Econ. Entomol.. 65:1700-1703 (1972).
3/ Sturgeon, R. V., Jr., and C. Schackelford, "Peanut," Fungicide and
Nematocide Test Results of 1972, Report No. 321, American Phytopatho-
logical Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
4/ Sturgeon, R. V., Jr., and K. E. Jackson, "Peanut," Fungicide and Nemato-
cide Test Results of 1973, Report No. 296, American Phytopathological
Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
116
-------
Table 20. 1974 RESULTS OF TEMIK® APPLICATION ON SUGAR BEETS,
UNIDENTIFIED U.S. REGIONS
Pest4./
Application
(Ib AI/acre)*
Yield Change
(tons)
Value of!/
Yield Change ($)
Temik® 2J
Cost ($9.50/lb)
Economic::/
Benefit
No.
Tests
R 1.75 2.5
R 1.75 2.7
R 1.75 3.3
R 1.75 2.6
R 1.75 2.2
R 1.5 2.7
R 1.5 2.3
R 1.5 3.0
R 1.5 2.4
R 1.5 2.2
R 1.5 2.8
R 1.5 2.6
R 1.65 4.5
R 1.65 4.4
R 1.65 4.1
R 1.65 3.8
R 1.65 2.9
C 1.65 4.0
C 4.5 5.3
C 4.5 2.4
C 4.5 6.2
C 4.5 4.5
C 4.5 5.4
C 4.5 3.7
A 1.5 1.6
A 1.5 3.3
A 1.5 4.5
L 2.5 2.4
Average 2.25 3.6
* AI/acre = active ingredient /acre.
** N/S = not specified.
40.00
43.20
52.80
41.60
35.20
43.20
36.80
48.00
38.40
35.20
44.80
41.60
72.00
70.40
65.60
60.80
46.40
64.00
84.80
38.40
99.20
72.00
86.40
59.20
25.60
52.80
72.00
38.40
57.60
16.62
16.62
16.62
16.62
16.62
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.25
15.68
15.68
15.68
15.68
15.68
15.68
42.75
42.75
42.75
42.75
42.75
42.75
14.25
14.25
14.25
23.75
21.38
23.38
26.58
36.18
24.98
18.58
28.95
22.55
33.75
24.15
20.95
30.55
27.35
56.32
54.72
49.92
45.12
30.72
48.32
42.05
-4.35
56.45
29.25
43.65
16.45
11.35
38.55
57.75
14.65
36.23
31
73
45
13
43
27
48
19
26
34
14
10
5
5
7
9
5
8
102
107
58
69
28
290
N/S**
N/S
N/S
N/S
I/ Change in sugar beet yield x $16/ton. ,.
2/ Lb AI/acre x $0.50/lb AI, since most Temik® is
application cost is considered a
considered here. /
3J Value of Yield Change minus Temik^
4/ R = root maggot, C = cyst nematode
applied at planting the
joint cost with planting cost
^
* Cost equals
, A = aphids,
Economic Benefit,
L = leaf hoppers .
and not
k
Source: Comparative yield data submitted to EPA by Dr. Richard Back, Union Carbide
Corporation, Washington, D.C.
117
-------
Table 21. SUMMARY OF EFFICACY TESTS ON PEANUTS
Application
te (Ib Al/acre)
65 1.0
66 1.0
71 1.0
70 3.0
70 3.0
70 3.0
72 0.6
0.3
1.0
72 2.0
2.0
2.0
72 2.0
1.0
Yield
increase*
(Ib/acre)
(102)
(80)
124
(43)
(71)
369
192
174
156
188
(151)
371
634
284
Additional
income at
14..5c/lb*
($)
(14.79)
(11.60)
17.98
(6.24)
(24.80)
53.50
27.84
25.23
22.62
27.26
(21.90)
53.80
91.93
41.18
Aldicarb cost
at $9.50/lb
($)
9.50
9.50
9.50
28.50
28.50
28.50
5.70
2.85
9.50
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
9.50
EC onomic
benefit*
(loss)
(S) Sou
(24.29) |
(21.10)
8.48 t
(34.74) e
(53.20) I
25.00 e
22 . 14 f
22.38
13.12
8.26 j
(40.90)
34.80
72.93 h
31.68
*
a/
Data in parentheses indicate decreases in yield, income, and economic benefit.
Morgan et al., op. cit. (1970).
b/ Smith, J. C., op. cit. (1972).
Minton and Morgan, op. cit. (1970).
Minton et al., op. cit. (1970).
£/
&f
-------
VD
Table 22, 1974 RESULTS OF
APPLICATION ON PEANUTS
Location
Application Yield Change Value of i/ Temik® 2J Econimic I/ No.
Pesti' (lb/AI/acre)* (lb) Yield Change($) Cost ($) Benefit ($) Tests Efficacy Remarks (T/U)**
U.S.
SE U.S.
SE U.S.
SE U.S.
Tex. and
Tex. and
Tex. and
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
S.C.
N.C.
Florida
N.I
N
I
M.I
Okla. N
Okla. I
Okla. N,I
H.I
N,I
N,I
T
T
N
N
N
N
T
N
T.A.N
2.0
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.25
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
3.0
3.0
0.5
2.0
0.8
573
678
112
569
195
117
128
412
109
450
-102
46
629
-14
346
395
275
1160
200
83.09
98.31
16.24
82.51
28.28
16.97
18.56
59.74
15.81
65.25
-14.79
6.67
91.21
-2.03
50.17
57.28
40.02
168.20
29.00
19.00
23.75
14.25
19.00
23.75
19.00
21.38
19.00
19.00
19.00
9.50
19.00
19.00
14.25
28.50
28.50
5.70
19.00
7.60
64.09
74.56
1.99
63.51
4.53
-2.04
-2.82
40.74
-3.20
46.25
-24.29
-12.33
72.21
-16.28
21.67
28.78
34.32
149.20
21.40
73
38
20
16
8
4
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
%thrip damage: 18.1/31.9
Nematode rating: 200/129
%thrip damage i 5.8/48.8
%thrip damage: 2.5/67.0
%thrip damage: 0.5/67.0
//nemat odes /100ml soil: 0/27
//nemat odes /100ml soil: 0/27
Pod necrosis rating: 2.8/3.4
Thrip damage rating: 0/2.5
Average U.S.
2.0
469
68.01
19.00
49.01
* Al/acre = active ingredient/acre.
** T/U = treated/untreated.
I/ Change in peanut yield x $1.45/lb (1972 average price).
"2J Lb Al/acre x $9.50/lc AI, since most TemikW is applied at planting the application cost is considered a
joint cost with planting cost and not considered here.
3J Value of Yield Change minus Temik® Cost equals Economic Benefit.
bj N - nematodes, I = insects, unspecified, T «= thrips, A - aphids.
Source: Comparative yield data submitted to EPA by Dr. Richard Back, Union Carbide Corporation, Washington, D.C.
-------
References
Averre, C. W., L. W. Nielsen, and K. R. Baker, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide
and Nematocide Test Results of 1972, Report No. 334, American Phyto-
pathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
Beckham, C. M., "Influence of Systemic Insecticides on Thrips Control and
Yield of Cotton," J. Econ. Entomol., 63:936-938 (1970).
Birchfield, W., and W. J. Martin, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1970, Report No. 303, American Phytopathological Society,
St. Paul, Minn. (1970).
Birchfield, W., and W. J. Martin, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1971, Report No. 318, American Phytopathological Society,
St. Paul, Minn. (1971).
Birchfield, W., and W. J. Martin, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1972, Report No. 335, American Phytopathological Society,
St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
Birchfield, W., and W. J. Martin, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1973, Report Nos. 308, 309, American Phytopathological
Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
Bost, W. M., (Director, Cooperative Extension Service, Mississippi State
University, State College, Miss.), Personal letter to D. F. Hahlen
(Midwest Research Institute, St. Louis, Mo.) (1974).
California Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Use Reports for 1970, 1971,
1972, and 1973.
Cetas, Robert C., "Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide Test Results of 1970,
Report No. 293, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1970).
Cetas, Robert C., "Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide Test Results of 1971,
Report No. 315, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1971).
Cetas, Robert C., "Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide Test Results of 1972,
Report No. 323, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
Cetas, Robert C., "Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide Test Results of 1973,
Report No. 260, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
Cole, H., C. W. Goldberg, W. R. Mills, and R. A. Krause, "Potato," Fungicide
and Nematocide Test Results of 1972, Report No. 153, American Phytopatho-
logical Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
Cole, J., R. A. Krause, and J. P. Huether, "Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
^ Test Results of 1973, Report No. 127, American Phytopathological Society,
St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
120
-------
Davis, J. W., and C. B. Cowan, Jr., "Early Season Insects on Cotton Control
with Two Systemic Insecticides," J. Econ. Entomol., 67:130-131 (1974).
Davis, J. W., and C. B. Cowan, Jr., "Field Evaluation of Three Formulations
of Aldicarb for Control of Cotton Insects," J. Econ. Entomol., 65:231-
232 (1972).
Headley, J. C., and J. N. Lewis, The Pesticide Problem: An Economic Approach
to Public Policy, Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C., pp. 39-
40 (1967).
Hofmaster, R. N., and R. L. Waterfield, "Insecticides Applied to the Soil
for Control of the Colorado Potato Beetle in Virginia," J. Econ. Entomol.,
65:1672-1679 (1972).
Lawless, E. W., and T. L. Ferguson of Midwest Research Institute, and R. von
Rumker of RvR Consultants, The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufactur-
ing, for the Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-01-0142
(January 1972).
Martin, W. J., and W. Birchfield, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1970. Report No. 305, American Phytopathological Society,
St. Paul, Minn. (1970).
Martin, W. J., and W. Birchfield, "Sweet Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1973. Report Nos. 306, 307, American Phytopathological
Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
Miller, P. M., and J. B. Kring, "Reduction of Nematode and Insect Damage to
Potatoes by Band Application of Systemic Insecticides and Soil Funigation,"
J. Econ. Entomol., 63:186-189 (1970).
Morgan, L. W., J. W. Snow, and M. J. Peach, "Chemical Thrips Control: Effects
on Growth and Yield of Peanuts in Georgia," J. Econ. Entomol., 65:1253-1255
(August 1970).
Smith, J. C., "Tobacco Thrips Nematode Control on Virginia Type Peanuts,"
J. Econ. Entomol.. 65:1700-1703 (1972).
Steele, A. E., and L. R. Hodges, "Sugar Beet," Fungicide and Nematocide Test
Results of 1972, Report No. 333, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul,
Minn. (1972).
Steele, A. E., L. R. Hodges, and G. W. Wheatley, "Sugar Beet," Fungicide and
Nematocide Test Results of 1972, Report No. 332, American Phytopathological
Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
Sturgeon, R. V., Jr., and K. E. Jackson, "Peanut," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1973. Report No. 296, American Phytopathological Society,
St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
121
-------
Sturgeon, R. V., Jr., and C. Schackelford, "Peanut," Fungicide and
Nematocide Test Results of 1972, Report No. 321, American Phytopathological
Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1972).
U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Exports, Schedule B, Commodity by Country,
Section 5, Chemistry, Report FT 410 (1973).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1973.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Survey on Quantities of Pesticides Used by
Farmers in 1971, Agricultural Economic Report No. 252, in press.
U.S. Tariff Commission, Imports of Benzenoid Chemicals and Products, TC
Publication 601 (1973).
U.S. Tariff Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals, U.S. Production and Sales,
TC Publication 681 (1972, 1973).
University of California Division of Agriculture, California Agricultural
Experiment Station Extension Service, 1972 Pest and Dis'ease Control Program
for Cotton, (1972).
von Rumker, R., E. W. Lawless, and A. F. Meiners, Production, Distribution,
Use, and Environmental Impact Potential of Selected Pesticides, for Council
of Environmental Quality, Contract No. EQC-311 (15 March 1974).
Weingartner, D. P., and D. W. Dickson, "Potato," Fungicide and Nematocide
Test Results of 1973, Report No. 301, American Phytopathological Society,
St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
Weingartner, D. P., J. R. Shumaker, and D. W. Dickson, "Potato," Fungicide and
Nematocide Test Results of 1973, Report No. 302, American Phytopathological
Society, St. Paul, Minn. (1973).
122
------- |