&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Pesticide Programs
Washington DC 20460
EPA-540/9-78-007
June 1977
Pesticide
Pesticide Usage Survey
of Agricultural,
Governmental, and
Industrial Sectors in
the United States, 1974
-------
PESTICIDE- USAGE SURVEY OF AGRICULTURAL, GOVERNMENTAL, AND INDUSTRIAL
SECTORS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1974
Directed by
South Carolina Epidemiologic Studies Program Center
Preventive Medicine Section
Medical University of South Carolina
Charleston, South Carolina 29401
Julian E. Keil, Dr.P.H., Principal Investigator
Samuel T. Caldwell, M.A., Field Studies Coordinator
C. Boyd Loadholt, Ph.D., Biometrist
With the Cooperation of the
Epidemiologic Studies Program Centers and Projects
This study was supported by the Epidemiologic Studies Program,
Technical Services Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency under contract number EPA 68-01-1950. The views
expressed herein are those of the investigators and do not necessarily
reflect the official viewpoint of the supporting agency.
June 1, 1977
(An abridgement of a report made to EPA, May 31, 1976)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ii
List of Figures iii
List of Tables iv
Introduction and Background ]
Methods and Procedures 5
Quality Control 6
Agriculture 6
Industry - PCO 7
Industrial Utility and Government 7
Results 8
Discussion and Recommendations 33
Recommendations 43
Uses of Data 49
Summary 49
References ..... 51
Index 52
-------
ACKNOWLEDCEMENTS
The authors wish' to acknowledge the following persons who
cooperated in this survey.
South Carolina ESP Center
S. H. Sandifer, M.D., M. T. Watson, D. L. Rlols, B. D. Brltz
Colorado ESP Center
E. P. Savage, Ph.D., L. Mounce
Iowa ESP Center
D. P. Morgan, M.D., V. B. Beat, D.V.M.
California ESP Project
W. F. Serat, Ph.D., D. C. Mengle
Hawaii ESP Project
H. W. Klemmer, Ph.D., W. Takahashi
Idaho ESP Project
D. Brock, Ph.D., P. Smith
Michigan ESP Project
A. W. Bloomer, A. D. Oudbier
Mississippi ESP Project
B. F. Barren tine, Ph.D., R. Arthur, Ph.D.
New Jersey ESP Project
R. A. Altaian, M.D., F. Marshall
Texas ESP Project
C. A. Nau, M.D., D. E. Foster, Ph.D.
Utah ESP Project
J. W. Southwick, Ph.D., D. A. Hilden, Ph.D.
Washington ESP Project
J. Allard, Ph.D., D. F. Nash
Consultants:
E. E. Moore - Kentucky Department of Human Resources
W. Sitterly, Ph.D. - Clemson University
J. B. Kissam, Ph.D. - Clemson University
R. L. Miller, Ph.D. - Horticultural Consultant, Orlando, Florida
Appreciation is also expressed to the numerous State Pesticide
Coordinators, State Extension Services, state and federal agencies,
industries and utilities which responded to our survey.
ii
-------
LIST OF-FIGURES
Page
1. USA 1974 Pesticide Usage in Agriculture,
Government, and Industrial Sectors 9
2. Pesticide Usage in USA by EPA Region, 1974 21
3. Estimated Pesticide Usage IN USA by Class
of Compound, 197*4 23
4. Estimated Pesticide Usage in USA by Type
of Compound, 1974 25
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Estimated Pesticide Usage for USA and EPA
Regions by Type of Use, 1974 10
2. Estimated Pesticide Usage for Region I and
States by Type of Use, 1974 11
3. Estimated Pesticide Usage for Region II and
States by Type of Use, 1974 12
4. Estimated Pesticide Usage for Region III and
States by Type of Use, 1974 13
5. Estimated Pesticide Us.age for Region IV and
States by Type of Use, 1974 14
6. Estimated Pesticide Usage for Region V and
States by Type of Use, 1974 15
7. Estimated Pesticide Usage for Region VI and
States by Type of Use, 1974 16
8. Estimated Pesticide Usage for Region VII and
States by Type of Use, 1974 17
9. Estimated Pesticide Usage for Region VIII and
States by Type of Use, 1974 18
10. Estimated Pesticide Usage for Region IX and
States by Type of Use, 1974 19
11. Estimated Pesticide Usage for Region X and
States by Type of Use, 1974 20
12. Estimated Pesticide Usage for USA and EPA
Regions by Class of Compound, 1974 24
13. Estimated Pesticide Usage in USA by EPA
Region and Type of Compound, 1974 26
14. Estimated Pesticide Usage for USA by Major
Crop and Class of Compound, 1974 27
15. Estimated Pesticide Usage for USA by Major
Crop and Type of Compound, 1974 29
iv
-------
Page
16. Estimated Pesticide Usage for USA by
Government and Class of Compound, 1974 30
17. Estimated Pesticide Usage for USA by
Government and Type of Compound, 1974 ...... 31
18. Estimated Pesticide Usage for USA by Elements
of Industry and Class of Compound, 1974 32
19. Estimated Pesticide Usage for USA by Elements
of Industry and Type of Compound, 1974 34
20. Estimates of U.S. Pesticide Usage in Agriculture,
Government, and Industry by Type of Use
and Generic Name, 1974 35
21. Twenty-Five Leading Pesticides as
Estimated by ESP Survey, 1974 45
-------
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Parties with vested interests in the production, sales, use, and
regulation of pesticides have long sought pesticide use information for
competitive and enforcement reasons.
Immediately apparent are four other reasons for the need for an
inventory of the pesticides which are disbursed to our environment.
(1) The most cogent of these is to modify the stereotyped image cf pesti-
cides, per se, as being an evil biocidepesticides, which are an important
factor in food and fibre production, are a conglomerate of chemical classes
and varying acute and chronic toxicities. It would not be unreasonable
to assume that certain of these chemicals are more harmful to the ecosystem
than others. (2) From an economic viewpoint, an inventory of use would
assist in the evaluation of the impact of continuance or discontinuance of
certain pesticides and would provide baselines so that secular trends of
use be identified. (3) From an epidemiologic viewpoint, specific use
data may serve as the denominator for the Incidence of acute poisoning
and other diseases. (4) Additionally, determination of usage pacterns may
assist in the identification of potential areas of concern (for example,
in cotton where experienced workers are employed or in vegetable crops
where migrant workers are engaged).
The reader is encouraged to accept the data as a beginning in
the acquisition of more precise national information. The basis of the
agricultural pesticide estimation process reported herein was that die
leading pesticides on the seven leading crops in each state were
-------
- 3 -
identified and quantified by established guidelines which called for the
most knowledgeable persons available to estimate their use, thus, the
knowledgeable concept method used in the agricultural section of this
survey.
The most recent and extensive survey of pesticide usage is found
in the Midwest Research Institute's "Production, Distribution, Use, and
Environmental Impact of Selected Pesticides," published in 1974. This
summary, which reports usage for 1972, presents data in the four elements
of usage (agriculture, government, industry, and home and garden) and
focuses upon 25 leading compounds. The Economic Research Services of the
United States Department of Agriculture perlodocally surveys pesticide
usage; the latest report published in 1974, Farmers' Use of Pesticides
2
in 1971. This survey presents the agricultural element of usage and
derives estimates through expansion of use patterns found in a sample
survey of farmers. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
also part of the USDA, has published on an annual basis since 1953 The
Pesticide Review, This publication makes available data concerning the
trends, production, and trade of pesticides but provides scant information
on specific compounds. The latest publication in this series is The
Pesticide Review 1974, published in September 1975, and provides sales
and trade data for 1973 and some data for 1974. There have also been a
limited number of statewide surveys by local agricultural extension
4 5
personnel; Kansas, 1974 and Arizona, 1974. Pennsylvania surveyed its
agricultural pesticide usage for 1973, but as with Kansas and Arizona,
these were special studies and not performed on an annual basis. The
Epidemiologic Studies Program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
have published information on a limited number of compounds since 1967,
-------
- 4 -
but these data are representative of small geographic areas. The state
of California has made the greatest contribution of pesticide usage
monitoring since the institution of a mandatory usage reporting system in
1970. Annual reports are published by the first quarter of the following
o
year. The Pesticide Use Report by Commodity 1974 and the Pesticide Use
9
Report 1974, prepared by the California Department of Food and Agriculture,
provides complete usage information for agriculture, government, and
industry. Although some usage data on the state level are available as
indicated, local or urban pesticide usage data are more elusive. This
point was reported by the Consad Research Corporation in their report to
the Environmental Protection Agency, "A Study of the National Scope of
Urban Pesticide Runoff," published November 1974. The authors stated that
after ". . .a comprehensive literature search, including computerized
data bases . . . ; and a survey of state agricultural extension services,
little hard data on urban pesticide usage were obtained."
The preceding paragraphs have presented current published research
efforts toward pesticide usage estimates. Private market research
agencies, in recent years and today, carry out usage surveys for pesticide
manufacturers; but since their reporting is on a confidential basis, the
data are unavailable to concerned government agencies and the public.
Reports of this type may contain valuable and timely information since
the reports are frequent and usually generated within a year of pesticide
application. The need for definitive and timely pesticide usage reports
is quite clear and was recently expressed by the Executive Committee of
the National Academy of Sciences in Volume I of their Contemporary Pest
Control Practices and Prospects, 1975. This publication recommended the
collaboration of the USDA and EPA in a joint effort to improve methodologies
-------
- 5 -
and frequency of pesticide usage surveys and that these surveys should
include non-agricultural use.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
A distinct survey method was used for each component of pesticide
usage, i.e., agriculture, industry, and government. The agricultural
survey protocol called for pesticide usage estimates to be made by each
state's Pesticide Coordinator, vho vas thought to be the most knowledge-
able contact for his respective state. When contacted, the coordinator
was asked to estimate usage on his state's seven leading crops taking into
consideration number of applications per chemical per crop, acreage
treated, and application rate. Forty-four^ state Pesticide Coordinators or
Chemical Specialists cooperated with the survey. Additionally, agricul-
tural usage estimates for three states were derived from state regulatory
agency data. In two states, estimates were made by survey personnel and
in one state, estimates were made by a consulting firm.
Industrial pesticide usage was considered by public utilities and
pest control operations. Public utilities, which included railroads,
electric, gas, telephone, and water companies, were surveyed in all states
and in each instance, response rates exceeded 852. The survey of pest
control firms required individualized techniques and a. variety of
approaches because of the diversity of operations. National, regional,
and local pest control concerns, as well as national distributors of
pest control chemicals, were contacted. Estimates from these sources
reflect a consolidation of all source data and were carefully audited to
eliminate double reporting.
-------
- 6 -
The survey of governmental usage included state divisions of public
health, transportation, park and forest operations and all federal
agencies. Of all state agencies contacted, only two failed to respond.
Thirty-four state health departments, 47 state highway departments, and
46 park and forest agencies reported pesticide usage for 1974. Federal
respondents included military installations; the Department of Agricul-
ture's Soil Conservation, Animal and Plant Health Inspection, and National
Forest Services; Corps of Engineers; the Postal Service; and the Depart-
ment of the Interior.
Quality Control
Twenty-nine pesticides were chosen for validation; ten by random
selection and the remainder because of their current toxicological
importance and widespread use. Manufacturers cooperated by supplying, in
confidence, their own estimates of use for 23 of them. The mean ratio of
survey estimates to manufacturer estimates was .83, with 95Z confidence
limits of .69 - .98.
Agriculture
Quality control of agricultural data encompassed four procedures:
(1) checking estimator's acreage base for all crops against reported
acreage of USDA's Statistical Reporting Service, (2) having crop
specialists review the consistency of reported use with current practices
in six randomly selected states and 22 crops, (3) mechanical verification
of submitted data with computer output, and (4) auditing the reliability
of data from six randomly pre-survey selected states and four chemicals
-------
- 7 -
per state. These quality control procedures suggested minimum variances:
(1) Of 196 acreage comparisons, 1% were in error and required a
change in estimates.
(2) Of 20 crops reviewed, one required a change in estimate.
(3) The mechanical audit found no coding, keypunching, or retrieval
errors.
(4) The reliability (reproducibility) of the estimation process
was 83%. There were two variances - one of a 5.4% and one
of an 3.6% magnitude. One of these variances was attribut-
able to improper labeling and would extrapolate to an overall
estimate error of about 1%.
Industry - PCO
A preliminary validation of PCO data was made using extrapolations
of usage and market data from a national pest control firm. These findings
are presented in the "Discussion" section.
Industrial Utility and Government
Upon completion of survey activities, each surveyor was contacted
for an audit to verify that all appropriate utilities and government
agencies were surveyed.
Additionally, a stratified random sample of five states was
selected along with two government and four utility respondents' reports
(randomly selected) from each state. The procedure was to contact at
least one respondent from government and two from industry from each
state to obtain verification of their originally submitted data. Those
respondents who could locate the data in their files responded identically
-------
- 8 -
to their suKiicted estimates. However, of seventeen agencies contacted,
five responded.
RESULTS
Nine hundred and three million pounds of all type pesticides were
reported used by the survey methods employed in this study of pesticide
usage in the United States in 1974. Almost 94% of the total was in
agriculture with about 3%% in government and 2*$% in industry (Figure 1).
The greatest use of pesticides occurred in the EPA Regions IV and VI,
which encompass the Southeast and mid-south states. Low use areas were
in the Northeast EPA Regions I and II. These nationwide use figures by
EPA region and sector are shown in Table 1.
Tables 2-11 present similar data for each EPA region and indivi-
dual state and shows that the greatest usage of all type pesticides
occurred in California, 90 million pounds; Texas, 89; Iowa, 59; Illinois,
49; Florida, 47; Mississippi, 42; and Arkansas, 41. Those states having
the lowest amounts in all sectors were Alaska, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Nevada, and Utah; each area having reported less than one million
pounds. Agricultural applications generally were responsible for the
>
high or low rankings. Governmental use was greatest in Florida and Texas
and lowest in Alaska and New Hampshire. The greatest industrial uses of
pesticides were in the Southeastern states and lowest in the mid and
west northern tier of states. Figure 2 displays proportional usage in
agriculture, government, and industry for each region. As may be seen
from the tabular data, the proportion attrituable to industry may be
-------
Figure 1
USA 1974 PESTICIPE USAGE IN AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL SECTORS
-------
Table 1
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE1 FOR U.S.A. AND EPA REGIONS BY TYPE OF USE, ]974
EPA REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
U.S. Total
in million pounds
o
Totals reported
Agriculture
6.1
12.7
19.5
213.8
140.1
159.1
127.5
37.9
104.5
26.0
847.2
of active ingredient
Government
.7
1.8
1.4
14.1
2.1
5.8
.8
.9
2.5
2.7
32.8
7
Industry '
1.1
1.6
2.8
9.4
2.1
1.7
1.2
.7
2.2
.4
23.2
Total
7.9
16.1
23.7
237.3
144.3
166.6
129.5
39.5
109.2
29.1
903.2
I
o>
i
-------
Table 2
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE1 FOR REGION I AND STATES BY TYPE OF USE, 1974
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
TOTAL
Agriculture
1,111
2,669
1,455
167
328
331
6,061
Government
13
491
80
8
82
14
688
2
Industry
315
47
568
30
71
40
1,071
Total
1,435
3,207
2,103
205
481
385
7,820
In thousand pounds active Ingredient
^Reported
-------
Table 3
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE1 FOR REGION II AND STATES BY TYPE OF USE, 1974
Agriculture Government
REGION II
New Jersey 2,435 870
New York 10,288 940
TOTAL 12,723 1,810
2
Industry Total
678 3,983
896 12,124
1,574 16,107
In thousand pounds active ingredient
2Reported
-------
Table 4
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE FOR REGION III AND STATES BY TYPE OF USE, 1974
Agriculture
Government
Industry
Total
REGION m
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
TOTAL
1,158
3,022
7,589
6,800
899
19,468
77
352
302
668
26
1,425
108
871
866
741
247
2,833
1,343
4,245
8,757
8,209
1,172
23,726
in thousand pounds active ingredient
-------
Table 5
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE FOR REGION IV AND STATES BY TYPE OF USE, 1974
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
TOTAL
Agriculture
18,742
34,216
31,427
9,002
40,650
35,097
27,944
16,708
213,786
Government
179
11,236
110
239
477
632
673
540
14,086
Industry
885
2,018
1,634
642
494
1,421
1,618
666
9,378
Total
19,806
47,470
33,171
9,883
41,621
37,150
30,235
17,914
237,250
in thousand pounds active Ingredient
-------
Table 6
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE ' FOR REGION V AND STATES BY TYPE OF USE, 1974
Agriculture
Government
Industry
Total
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
TOTAL
48,537
24,315
16,581
25,750
13,936
10,991
140,110
241
446
698
314
261
149
2,109
617
547
462
46
348
112
2,132
49,395
25,308
17,741
26,110
14,545
11,252
144,351
in thousand pounds active ingredient
-------
Table 7
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE FOR REGION VI AND STATES BY TYPE OF USE, 1974
Agriculture
Government
Industry
Total
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
TOTAL
39,687
25,250
2,429
7,260
84,488
159,114
1,045
336
375
125
3,896
5,777
349
365
45
293
650
1,702
41,081
25,951
2,849
7,678
89,034
166,593
In thousand pounds active Ingredient
-------
Table 8
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE FOR REGION VII AND STATES BY TYPE OF USE, 1974
Agriculture Government
REGION VII
Iowa 58,393 211
Kansas 21,569 204
Missouri 19,161 155
Nebraska 28,355 222
TOTAL 127,478 792
Industry
120
217
693
151
1,181
Total
58,724
21,990
20,009
28,728
129,451
In thousand pounds active Ingredient
-------
Table 9
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE FOR REGION VIII AND STATES BY TYPE OF USE, 1974
Agriculture
Government
Industry
Total
REGION VII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
TOTAL
12,171
2,566
7,986
9,144
564
5,429
37,860
280
53
83
105
280
133
934
116
9
107
139
51
252
674
12,567
2,628
8,176
9,388
895
5,814
39,468
In thousand pounds active ingredient
H
oo
-------
Table 10
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE FOR REGION IX AND STATES BY TYPE OF USE, 1974
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
TOTAL
Agriculture Government
11,194 236
86,031 1,914
6,747 346
498 36
104,470 2,532
Industry
222
1,626
339
53
2,240
Total
11,652
89,571
7,432
587
109(242
In thousand pounds active Ingredient
-------
Table U
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE FOR REGION X AND STATES BY TYPE OF USE, 1974
Agriculture Government Industry . Total
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL
11 12 60 83
7,758 609 7 8,374
7,167 735 74 7,976
11,072 1,305 294 12,671
26,008 2,661 435 29,104
In thousand pounds active Ingredient
to
o
-------
Figure 2
PESTICIDE USAGE IN U.S.A. BY EPA REGION. 1974
Industry
Government
Agriculture
N)
I-'
I
-------
- 22 -
increased bezau.se agricultural or governmental usage was low or because
industrial figures were actually higher than in other areas.
As shown in Figure 3 and Table 12, chlorinated hydrocarbons
accounted for nearly one-fourth (24%) of the use of all classes of pesti-
cides , followed by carbamates and amides (18%), and organophosphates
(16%). Arsenic-type materials only made up about 2% of national usage
reported in this survey while 40% was attributable to other metals and
miscellaneous classes of chemicals.
Fifty-one percent of all chlorinated hydrocarbons were used in
Regions IV and VI, as well as two-thirds of all organophosphate pesti-
cides and over 90% of arsenic-bearing products. Thus, these South-
eastern and mid-south regions can be characterized as having used 45%,
nearly half, of all pesticides used in the U. S.; one-fourth of all carba-
mates and amides; one-half of the chlorinated hydrocarbons; two-thirds
of the organophosphates; and nearly all of the arsenicals.
Estimated usage by type of pesticides and by EPA region is
exhibited in Figure 4 and shows that herbicides dominated with 45% of
usage, followed by insecticides, 30%; fungicides, 11%; and nematocides
and other products having 14% of the market. Table 13 presents these
data by region. The mid-western states in EPA Regions V and VII used 211
million pounds or 52% of all herbicides. The southern states, comprising
Regions IV and VI, however, used 180 million pounds (66%) of insecticides,
Crop utilization of pesticides, shown in Table 14, indicates that
corn, cotton, fruit, soybeans, and vegetable crops used 81% (683 million
pounds) of all agricultural pesticides reported by this survey. Three
of these crops, corn, cotton, and soybeans, accounted for 506 million
-------
Figure 3
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE' USAGE IN U.S.A. BY CLASS OF COMPOUND, 1974
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
(24%)
Arsenic
(2%)
Organophosphates
(16%)
Caruamates
and Amides
(18%)
10
LJ
-------
Table 12
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE*FOR U.S.A. AND EPA REGIONS BY CLASS OF COMPOUND, 197/i
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
U.S. TOTAL
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
1.4
2.9
5.2
57. A
39.3
52.6
25.6
11.9
9.6
9.0
214.9
Carbamates
and Amides
2.5
4.4
6.7
34.9
49.3
10.4
44.9
5.7
3.9
3.1
165.8
Organo-
Phosphates Arsenic
.9
3.8 0
3.3
38.6 9.7
6.5 .1
58.1 6.3
12.6 .2
4.9
10.2 .7
6.1
145.0 17.0
Other
Metals
- .1
.4
.2
13.4
1.8
3.1
.1
.5
44.7
.8
65.1
Other
3.0
4.6
8.3
83.3
47.3
36.1
46.1
16.5
/tO.l
10.1
295.4
Total
7.'J
16.1
23.7
237.3
14/..3
166.6
129.5
39.5
109.2
29.1
903.2
in million pounds active ingredient; 0 » none reported; - » estimate less than .1 million pounds
to
i.
-------
Figure 4
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE IN U.S.A. BY TYPE OF COMPOUND. 1974
Other and
Combination
Products
(9%)
V
Insecticides
& Acaricides
(30%)
l-o
Ln
-------
Table 13
INTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE IN U.S.A. BY EPA REGION AND TYPE OF COMPOUND, 1974
EPA
I
11
III
IV
V
VI
VII
virr
IX
X
U.S.
LLn
Region Neniatocides Herbicides
19
763
257
22,168
27
211
3,672
9,697
7,287
4,022
TOTAL 48,123
thousand pounds active
1,823
3,651
11,952
75,504
1J4.618
62,277
96,539
18,032
14,206
9,206
407,808
ingredient
Fungicides
1,941
3,765
3,233
24,369
6,602
5,981
755
2,592
45^490
4,178
98,906
Insecticides
and
Acaricides
2,143
6,495
5,457
86,907
18,851
93,023
22,940
8,325
18,071
8,268
270,480
Other and
Combination
Products
1,894
1,433
2,827
28,302
4,253
5,101
5,545
822
24,188
3,430
77,795
Total
7,820
16,107
23,726
237,250
1.44,351
166,593
129,451
39,468
109,242
29,104
903,112
I
en
-------
Table U
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE1 FOR U.S.A. BY MAJOR CROP AND CLASS OF COMPOUND, 1974
Chlorinated
Crop Hydrocarbons
Field Crops
Corn
Cotton
Hay and Small Grain
Sorghum
Soybeans
Sugar Beets
Tobacco
Misc. Field Crops (alfalfa,
flax, rice, sunflower,
sugar cane)
Fruit and Nut
Livestock and Mink
Ornamental and Misc.
Vegetables
TOTAL
38,909
68,275
19,984
6,465
15.224
585
531
16,338
13,112
2,660
6,111
8,078
196,272
Carbamates
and Amides
76.346
7,319
2.784
1.326
37.228
2.478
6,215
3,393
11,213
14
1,299
14,341
163,956
Organo-
Phosphates
13,010
79,475
3,273
5,640
2,989
558
4,025
5,267
12,499
4,075
1,328
7,049
139,188
Arsenic
0
15.401
0
0
0
0
0
22
96
0
263
0
15,782
Other
Metals
7
3,198
253
-
119
2,930
-
287
53,434
0
77
2.820
63,125
Other
79,140
30,308
4,020
17,509
39.034
14,546
20,763
7.059
36,712
66
2,212
17,379
268,748
Total
207,412
203,976
30,314
30,940
94,594
21,097
31,534
32,366
127,066
6,815
11,290
49,667
847,071
In thousand pounds active ingredient; 0 - none report.d; - - estimate less than .1 thousand pounds
-------
- 28 -
pounds or 60S of all agricultural pesticides in 1974. Viewed by class
of chemical, these three crops used 62% of the chlorinated hydrocarbons,
74% of the carbamates, 68% of the organophosphates, 97% of the arsenicals,
and 45% of the other pesticide classes.
Table 15 allows an examination of these crops by type of pesti-
cide. Sugar beets, tobacco, vegetables, and fruit and nut crops required
the greatest amount (87%) of all nematocides reported in the study, while
74% (288 million pounds) of all herbicides were applied to corn, cotton,
and soybeans. Fruits, nuts, and vegetables required 83% of all fungi-
cides, while using only 8% of the insecticides reported. The major
insecticide-using crops in 1974 were corn (34 million pounds) and cotton
(145 million pounds), accounting for 70% of the total agricultural
estimate.
A breakdown by class of compound of governmental estimates
(Table 16) shows that chlorinated hydrocarbons comprised the bulk of *
usage by both federal and state or local governmental agencies. Organo-
phosphate usage ranked second. Similar data for type of pesticide are
given in Table 17 and indicate that herbicides and insecticides were
the most frequently used of all pesticides. Overall, these tables show
pesticide use by state or local governments to be several times that of
federal agency use.
The use estimates in Table 18 show that in the industrial sector,
PCOs used more chlorinated hydrocarbons than any other type. The
chlorinated hydrocarbons, in this instance, were comprised mainly of
chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin, and heptachlor. Organophosphates accounted
for only 8% of industrial usage, made up mostly of malathion and
-------
Table 15
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE1 FOR U.S.A. BY MAJOR CROP AND TYPE OF COMPOUND, l'J74
Crop
Field Crops
Corn
Cotton
Hay and Small Grain
Sorghum
Soybeans
Sugar Beets
Tobacco
Misc. Field Crops (alfalfa,
flax, rice, sunflower
sugar cane)
Fruit and Nut
Livestock and Mink
Ornamental and Misc.
Vegetables
TOTAL
Nematocldes
1,993
-
0
3,046
14,078
11,703
4
6,981
0
1,000
8,528
47,333
Herbicides
161,123
46,822
21,977
23,026
80,724
2,900
7,522
20,652
8,815
0
6,184
6,813
386,558
Fungicides
1,700
5,787
2,142
201
1,168
2,947
526
355
64,695
0
1,436
15,469
96,426
Insecticides
& Acarlcides
34,282
145,311
5,943
7,540
8,662
632
2,511
7,870
20,568
6,766
2,222
12,289
254,596
Other
10,307
4,063
252
173
994
540
9,272
3,485
26,007
49
448
6,568
62,158
Total
207,412
203,976
30,314
30,940
94,594
21,097
31,534
32,366
127,066
6,815
11,290
49,667
847,071
10
in thousand pounds active ingredient; 0 = none reported; - - estimate less than .1 thousand pounds
-------
Table 16-
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE1 FOR U.S.A. BY GOVERNMENT AND CLASS OF COMPOUND, 1974
Government
Federal
State and Local
U.S. TOTAL
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
1,531
6,971
8,502
Carbamates
and Amides
382
619
1,001
Organo-
Phosphates
1,207
2,739
3.9A6
Other .
Arsenic Metal Other
55 1,505 2,668
646 71 14,415
701 1,576 17,083
Total
7,348
25,461
32,809
In thousand pounds active Ingredient
o
I
-------
Table 17
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE FOR U.S.A. BY GOVERNMENT AND TYPE OF COMPOUND, J974
Insecticides Other and
and Combination
Government Nematocldes Herbicides Fungicides Acaricides Products
Federal 754 1,334 1,612 2,413 1,235
State and Local 24 10,175 158 3,561 11,543
TOTAL 778 11,509 1,770 5,974 12,778
Total
7,:i/ill
25,461
32,809
in thousand pounds active ingredient
I
Ul
-------
Table 18
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE1 FOR U.S.A. BY ELEMENTS OF INDUSTRY AND CLASS OF COMPOUND, 1974
Industry
Pest Control
Operations
Utilities
Other
U.S. TOTAL
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
8,325
1,285
662
10,272
Carbamatea
and Amides
367
53
216
636
Organo-
Phosphates
1,688
29
70
1,787
Other
Arsenic Metal Other
366 244 2,530
48 125 2,058
283 5 4,871
697 374 9,459
Total
13,520
3,598
6,107
23,225
in thousand pounds active ingredient
1.0
IsJ
-------
- 33 -
diazinon. Of all industrial use, PCO reports accounted for almost 60%
of the total. This PCO figure may be underestimated and will be con-
sidered further under the "Discussion" section of this report.
Insecticides made up 44% of all industrial usage, shown in
Table 19; the greatest portion (98%) of this reported by PCOs. Herbi-
cides, which ranked second to insecticides, were mostly used by utilities
and railroads (included in "Other"). Fungicides, nematocides, and other
type products only made up 15% of all industrial use.
Table 20 contains a listing of pesticide product estimates in
agriculture, government, and industry by type of use and genetic name.
This table enumerates 238 chemicals plus a consolidated "Others" item
listed at the end of each type. The confidence intervals of data in
this table probably would be in the magnitude of 100,000 pounds, but
figures down to the thousand levels, may assist in ranking use.
The top ranking 25 pesticides have been selected for Table 21
and show the leading products, quality-wise, as judged from the ESP
survey estimates. These 25 chemicals account for 75% of all pesticides
reported used nationally in 1974 in this study.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The total pesticide usage estimate for 1974 obtained in this ES?
survey, v.i.z., 903 million pounds, is in accord with other national
estimates, ' ' but the estimate that almost 94% is in agriculture,
3.5% in government, and 2.5% in industry is at considerable variance
with other reports. Other estimates have suggested 55% to 60% of all
pesticide usage is in agriculture.
-------
Table 19
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE1 FOR U.S.A. BY ELEMENTS OF INDUSTRY AND TYPE OF COMPOUND, 1974
Industry
Pest Control
Operations
Utilities
Other
Nematocides Herbicides
12 1,318
0 2,429
0 5,644
Fungicides
310
145
255
Insecticides
and
Acaricides
10,006
52
203
Other and
Combination
Products
1,874
972
5
Total
13,520
3,598
6,107
TOTAL
12
9,391
710
10,261
2,851
23,225
in thousand pounds active ingredient; 0 - none reported
-------
- 35 -
Table 20
ESTIMATES OF U.S. PESTICIDE USAGE1 IN AGRICULTURE,
GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY BY TYPE OF USE AND GENERIC NAME, 1974
Nernatocides
DBCP
Dichloropropane/
Di chlor opropene
Others
Total Nematocides
Herbicides
Acrolein
Alachlor-
Amitrole
AMS
Atrazine
Avadex
Benefin
Bensulide
Bentazone
Bentranil
Bromacil
Bromoxynil
Butyl ate
Cacodylic Acid
Agriculture
9,777
37,544
12
47,333
54,390
±
±
76,244
437
1,183
479
117
11
238
614
28,500
184
Government
+
767
11
773
±
35
130
963
200
17
±
-
230
±
±
77
Industry
12
±
±
12
30
16
53
257
307
-
±
±
-
549
j
±
30
in thousand pounds active ingredient;
- = less than 1,000 pounds; ± = >_ 1,000 £ 10,000 pcands;
See Appendix C for totals of Agriculture, Government & Industry
-------
Table 20 (Cont'd) - 36 -
Calcium Chloride
Calcium Cyanamide
.Carbyne
CDAA
CDEC
Chlof lurecol
Chloramben
Chlorobromuron
Chloropropham
Chlor othaloni 1
Chloroxuron
Contact
Cyanazine
Cycloate
Cyprazine
2,4-D
Dacthal
Dalapon
2,4-DB
Dicamba
Dichlobenil
Dichlorprop
Dini t roamine
Dini t rophenol
Dinoseb
Diphenamid
Dipropetryn
Diquat
Diuron
DSHA/MSMA
Endothall
Agriculture
^^
147
272
51
34
-
11,828
257
877
556
421
36
7,618
1,318
48
26,662
800
2,072
924
1/139
186
-
719
-
8,579
1,264
96
±
5,075
15,540
90
Government
^
-
-
-
±
±
-
-
-
-
±
-
-
2,269
25
469
±
36
33
-
±
105
29
-
24
226
541
21
Industry
760
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
±
-
-
1,381
63
92
£
73
±
±
-
±
16
±
-
i
381
427
±
-------
Table 20 (Confd) -37-
EPTC
Erbon
Evik
Fatty Alcohols
Fenac
Fenuron
FlTiometuron
Fluorodifen
Folex/Def
Glyphosate
Glyphosine
Isocil
Isopropalin
Karbutilate
Linuron
Maleic Hydrazide
MCPA
MCPP
Metribuzin
Molinate
Monuron
Naptalam
Nitralin
Nitrofen
Norflurazon
Paraquat
PGP
Pebulette
Phenmediph am
Picloram
Agriculture
6,942
-
480
3,842
321
-
5,087
231
5,132
-
76
54
250
-
12,878
1,797
2,398
±
1,277
1,768
+
4,940
408
127
30
1,005
-
687
68
126
Government
+
26
-
-
12
±
±
.
19
-
+
+
13
101
i
±
£
+
67
-
i
-
-
29
14
172'
Industry
^
±
-
+
±
±
11
40
92
±
±
-
12
86
_
±
_
20
383
_
_
n «;
-------
Table 20. (Coilt.'d) - 38 -
Profluralin
.Prometon
Proms tryn
Pronamide
Propachlor
Prop anil
Propazine
Propham
Pyrazon
Siduron
Simazine
Sodium Borate
Sodium Chlorate
2,4,5-T
TEA
TCA
TC3
Terbacil
Terbutryn
2,4,5-TP
Trifluralin
Vernolate
Others
Agriculture
48
6,970
1,160
143
18,931
9,929
1,556
2.43
256
102
4,931
-
7,819
996
-
1,838
396
828
553
22,983
4,708
3,238
Government
156
±
-
+
31
-
-
257
422
321
324
±
3,769
-
+
82
11
-
252
Indus try
68
±
-
±
±
117
979
2,312
662
16
61
±
164
-
32
11
-
126
Total Herbicides 386,558 11,508 9,742
-------
Table 2TD (Cont'd) - 39 -
Fungicides
Anilazine
Benomyl
Captafol
Captan
Carboxin
Chloranil
Chloroneb
C-3 Hydrocarbons
Copper
Cy c loheximi de
DCNA
Dichlone
Dodine
Du-Ter
Fenaminosulf
Ferbam
Folpet
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
Maneb/Mancozeb
Mercuric Chloride
Metiram
PCNB
Phenylphenol
PMA
Sulfur
Terrazole
Thiabendazole
Thiram
Agriculture
360
2,467
1,898
4,813
176
3,695
755
308
4,975
-
243
34
263
376
35
769
181
'-
36
10,704
-
2,455
1,913
80
254
56,606
88
10
1,322
Government
±
±
-
13
-
13
±
±
1,548
i
-
-
±
±
+
-
±
-
20
-
-
37
-
19
i
73
Industry
61
47
±
27
-
37
13
-
260
+
±
-
12
98
i
-
18
_
±
36
_
»
mm
-------
Table 20 (Cont'd) - 40 -
Agriculture
Zineb
Ziram
Others
Total Fungicides
Insecticides and Acarici.des
Acaraben
Aldrin
Azinphosmethyl
Azodrin
Bacillus thuringiensis
Benzene Hexachloride
Bidrin
Bux
Carbaryl
Chlordane
Chlordime form
C-l Hydrocarbons
Chlorpyrifos
Ciodrin
Copper Acetoarsenite
Coumaphos
Cresylic Acid
Cruf ornate
Cryolite
Cyhexatin
DDT
DDVP
Deet
1,538
51
21
96,426
2,448
11,565
6,731
1,906
220
±
213
1,452
18,066
2,665
4,408
124
±
255
+
617
-
310
342
269
+
416
-
Government
±
±
47
1,770
_
±
±
±
-
±
±
-
600
519
-
17
-
19
±
13
-
-
-
468
±
-
Industry
20
37
44
710
±
833
±
-
-
19
-
-
280
5,420
±
-
219
-
-
-
-
-
±
-
81
±
-------
Table 20 (Cont'd) - 41 -
Delnav
Demeton
Demeton, Methyl
Dialiphor
Diazinon
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Dimethoate
Disulfoton
DMP
Dyfdnate
Endosulfan
Endrin
EPN
Ethion
Famphur
Fenthion
Heptachlor
Kepone
Lead Ar senate
Leptophos
Lethane
Lindane
Malathion
Methpxychlor
Methyl Parathion
Me th ami dophos
Methidathion
Mevinphos
Mexacarbate
Mi rex
Agriculture
63
120
343
100
3,349
833
168
1,993
6,4-51
-
2,599
1,602
1,270
1,119
2,815
356
16
1,958
-
334
14
-
324
5,521
1,693
63,418
552
303
353
±
Government
^^
+
-
-
65
±
29
+
±
-
+
±
±
±
-
86
14
+
+
3
±
3,268
70
29
-
55
67
Industry
+
±
±
-
536
±
86
i
±
-
-
+
±
-
±
-
38
679
±
53
-
-
11
773
96
±
-
-
i
a
-------
Table 20 (Cont'd) - 42 -
Naled
Organotin
Parathion
Per thane
Phorate
Phos alone
Phosmet
Phosphamidon
Phos toxin
Propargite
Propoxur
- Pyrethrum
Ronnel
Rotenone
Sodium Fluoride
Sulfuryl Fluoride
Temophos
TEPt
Tetrachlorvinphos
Tox£phene
Trichlorfon
Trithion
Others
Total Insecticides
Combination Products
Agriculture
1,016
109
13,609
118
7,804
263
1,378
540
-
976
11
12
567
±
-
-
±
49
73
74,469
449
201
273
254,596
and Rodenticides
Government
235
-
26
-
±
-
-
-
±
-
20
+
+
±
-
-
71
-
±
56
80
-
164
5,974
Indus try
±
-
26
-
±
-
-
±
±
-
39
44
±
±
±
314
±
-
±
148
42
-
173
9,910
Aldicarb 1,459
Arsenic Sulfide - 39
-------
Table 20 (Cont'd) - 43 -
Agriculture Government Industry
Butoxy Polypropylene
Glycol - 54
Carbofuran 12,327 ±
Carbon Bisulfide 27
Chlorophacinone - - 50
Chloropicrin 85 14
Dinocap '203
Oiphacinone - - ±
DNOC 505 ±
Ethoprop 2,654
Ethylene Dibromide 1,710 ± 11
Fensulfothion 1,940 - ±
Lime Sulfur 1,157 ±
Metam-sodium 51 ±
Methomyl 4r118
Methyl Bromide 5,177 279 340
Morestan 145
Oxamyl 24 - -
para-Dichlorobenzene - ±
Petroleum Oil 29,053 12,203 1,841
Pindone - ± +
Pine Oil - - 19
Piperonyl Butoxide ± ±44
Silica Gel - ±
Sodium Arsenite 87 20 238
Strychnine 12 ±
Tetrachloroethylene - ±
TFN - 107
Vorlex 417 32
Warfarin - 10 23
-------
Table 20 (Cont'd) - 44 -
Agriculture Government Industry
Others 1,007 75 231
Total Combination Products 62,158 12,779 2,851
TOTAL ALL PESTICIDES 8.47,071 32,809 23,225
-------
Table 21
TWENTY- FITZ HAD ING PESTICIDES AS ESTIMATED BY ESP SURVEY, 1974
Rank of Use
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pesticide
Atrazine
Toxaphene
Methyl Parathion
Sulphur
Alachlor
Petroleum Oil
Dichloropropane/
Dichloropropene
2,4-D
Butylate
Trifluralin
Carbaryl
Propachlor
DSMA/MSMA
Parathion
Linuron
Aldrin
Car bo fur an
Chloramben
Maneb /Mancozeb
Sodium Chlorate
Prop anil
DBCP
Malathion
Dinoseb
Chlordane
TOTALS
Lbs. A.I.
(million)
76.8
74.7
63.4
56.6
54.4
43.1
38.3
30.3
28.6
22.9
18.9
18.9
16.5
13.7
12.8
12.4
12.3
11.8
10.8
10.5
9.9
9.8
9.6
8.7
8.6
674.3
% U. S. Total
8.5
8.3
7.0
6.3
6.0
4.8
4.2
3.4
3.2
2.5
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
.9
.9
74.6
Agriculture, government & industry usage reported in this survey.
-------
- 46 -
Four assignations may account for this variance: (1) The ESP
study may have overestimated agriculture, (2) the ESP project may have
underestimated government and industry use, (3) the ESP survey did not
consider household applications, or (4) estimates from other studies may
be faulty.
Validation testing, however, on 61% of the total usage reported
in this survey suggested an under-reporting for the aggregate of agri-
culture, industry, and government.
One of the national PCO concerns (not identified here in order to
protect its data given in confidence) supplied pesticide usage and
marketing figures for each state of its business operations. The market
share data represented households treated by this concern and when com-
pared to the number of households in the country, a national market
share was derived. With a national market share figure and the total
pounds of active ingredient pesticides used by this company in 1974, a
national PCO usage figure could then be extrapolated. This extrapolated
estimate came to 15,850,000 pounds active ingredient, some 2,330,000
pounds over the usage survey estimate of 13,520,000 pounds.
If the pesticide usage and market share data supplied by this
concern are correct and representative of tne PCO industry, then the PCO
usage estimate of this survey is within 15Z of actual PCO usage. As
regards industries besides PCOs, certain industrial chemicals, such as
pentachlorophenol and sodium chlorate, were not entirely within the
purview of the ESP survey protocol.
Contacts with knowledgeable industry sources suggest that the ESP
study for agriculture may have underestimated usage of sulfur and copper
-------
- 47 -
fay 100%. This difference in sulfur probably occurred because of consistant
under-reporting by users in California and confused patterns of usage in
Florida. It is possible that study consultants in this latter state over-
estimated use of synthetic miticides, when indeed most citrus growers
continued to use sulfur. The problem with copper may have occurred because
of misunderstanding of the types of copper needed to be reported. For
instance, industry's estimate may have contained nutritional uses of
copper. By the same token, one leading manufacturer, whose products
account for 10% of this study's total estimate, declined to react to his
products' estimate except to indicate that on some of them the ESF figures
were as much as three fold too high. In summary, however, the authors
of this report believe that on balance, weighing under- and overestimates,
the agricultural pesticide estimate reported in this survey approximates
total actual usage in 1974. Governmental use figures are considered to
be adequate since they were obtained from a user survey and validated,
in many instances, by official reports.
The data reported by this study provide potentially fertile
information for epidemiologic studies. These data identify high and low
usage areas which may be the starting point of mortality and morbidity
studies. Additional detail about class of. chemical compound or the type
of farmer which has the greatest exposure potential is a~".so available and
may be examined across a gradient of use.
Factors which may have biased this study arose mostly in connec-
tion with inadequate training of some field investigators, apparent
ineffective contacts with USDA by EPA (OPP) and contract personnel,
apprehension about (if not animosity toward) motives and purposes of ae
-------
- 48 -
study by USDA officials and extension personnel, timing of the survey,
inadequate cooperation and response from PCOs and distributors ot PCD
supplies.
Three of the four quality control features of this study functioned
well and effected good results. The fourth method, while not entirely
satisfactory, suggested a good level of reproducibility in the agricul-
tural estimates.
In summary, it is felt that the objectives of the survey were met.
These being (1) to provide denominator data for the development of
incidence of poisonings and other health effects, (2) to determine usage
patterns which may assist in the identification of potential areas of
concern, (3) to have available data which may assist in the evaluation of
the economic impact of discontinuance of chemicals, and (4) to provide
baseline data so that secular trends of usage may be identified by sub-
sequent surveys.
Recommendations
The authors recommend that a feasibility study be undertaken
jointly by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and EPA to examine esti-
mation mechanisms. Such a study might consider the time and funding
required for:
a) a sampling program
b) utilizing a panel of users, strategically located
c) the "Knowledgeable Concept Method" used in this study
d) a reporting of deliveries by distributors and formulators
-------
- 49 -
Uses of Data
Finally, the readers of this report are asked to carefully consider
how this pesticide usage information might be utilized.
Initially, information about patterns of use and quantities applied
should provide an inventory of environmental pressures. These pressures
could be of an adverse nature with a direct influence on the natural
environmental control system and a beneficial effect (perhaps balancing
effect) via indirectly relieving disease or pestilence and synergizing
food production. Thus, a beginning may be made to assess the effect of
pesticides on our environmental system's equilibrium.
Another application of this knowledge about pesticide practices
would be to assess chronic and acute human health effects of the chemicals
used and may be the most immediate and pressing of all possible uses.
SUMMARY
Nine hundred and three million pounds of all type pesticides were
reported in this survey of the United States for 1974. Almost 942 of
this was in agriculture, with 3.52 in government, and 2.52 in industry
sectors. The greatest use of pesticides occurred in the Southeastern
and mid-southern states. Low use areas were in the Northeastern part
of the United States.
Inspection of the data, following analysis of possible bias,
quality control, and validation procedures, suggest a slight underesti-
mation of use in the agricultural and industrial sectors.
Data from this survey provide potentially fertile information for
epidemiologic studies by identifying high and low pesticide use areas,
-------
- 50 -
by giving application patterns by class of compound, and by recognizing
the type of fanner having the greatest exposure.
The survey utilized gathered data from the agricultural area,
utilities, federal, and state governmental agencies, and estimates from
leading pest control operators. The objectives of the survey were to
provide a reliable pattern of use and an inventory of the chemicals dis-
bursed to the environment, to serve economic, health, and ecologic purposes.
-------
- 51 -
REFERENCES
1. von Ruaker, Rosenarie, et al. "Production Distribution, Use,
and Environmental Impact Potential of Selected Pesticides,"
Contract No. EQC-311 for the EPA, 1974.
2. Farmers' Use of Pesticides in 1971, Agricultural Economic Report
No. 252, Economic Research Service, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture,
1974.
3. The Pesticide Review 1974, Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
servation Service, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1975.
4. "Kansas Pesticide Usage Survey 1974," Cooperative Extension Service,
Kansas State University/USDA, January 1976.
5. "Agricultural Use of Pesticides in Arizona," College of Agriculture,
University of Arizona, 1975.
6. "A Review of Pesticide Usage in Pennsylvania Agriculture," Bureau
of Community Environmental Control, Pennsylvania Dept. of
Environmental Resources, Contract No. 68-02-0351 for the EPA, 1975,
7. a) Hawaii ESP Project, Annual Report No. 6, Pacific Biomedical
Research Center.
b) Iowa ESP Project, Annual Report, University of Iowa.
c) South Carolina ESP Project, 1970 Quarterly Report, Medical
University of South Carolina.
d) Mississippi ESP Project, Quarterly Report So. 20 (1973),
Mississippi State.
8. Pesticide Use Report by Commodity 1974, California Dept. of Agri-
culture, Agricultural Chemicals and Feed, Sacramento, Cal., 1975.
9. Pesticide Use Report 1974, California Dept. of Agriculture, Agri-
cultural Chemicals and Feed, Sacramento, California, 1975.
10. Kennedy, Ralph, et al. "A Study of the National Scope of Urban
Pesticide Runoff," Contract No. 68-01-2225 for the EPA, p. ix,
November 15, 1974.
11- Contemporary Pest Control Practices and Prospects: The Report of
the Executive Committee, Vol. I. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D. C., 1975.
-------
- 52 -
INDEX
Page
AAtack (see Thiram) 39
AAtrex (see Atrazine) 35
Abate (see Temophos) 42
Acaraben 40
Acrolein 35
Acti-dione (see Cychloheximide) 39
Aero Cyanamid (see Calcium Cyanamide) 36
Agitol (see Bacillus thuringiensis) 40
Agrosan (see PMA) 39
Agroxone (see MCPA) 37
Akar (see Acaraben) 40
Alachlor 35, 45
Alanap (see Naptalam) 37
Aldicarb 42
Aldrex (see Aldrin) 40
Aldrin 28, 40, .45
Aldrite (see Aldrin) 40
Allidochlor (see CDAA) 36
Ametrex (see Evik) 37
Ametryn (see Evik) 37
Amiben (see Chloramben) 36
Aminotriazole (see Amitrole) 35
Amitrole 35
Animate (see AMS) 35
AMS 35
Anilazine 39
Ansar (see DSMA/MSMA) 36
Aquacide (see Diguat) 36
Aqualin (see Acrolein) 35
Aquathol (see Endothall) 36
Arsenic Sulfide 42
Aspor (see Zineb) 40
-------
- 53
Page
Atlas A (see Sodium Arsenite) 43
Atratol (see Sodium Chlorate) 38
Atrazine 35, 45
Avadex 35
Azinphosmethyl 40
Azodrin 40
Bacillus thuringiensis 40
Balan (see Benefin) 35
Banvel (see Dicamba) 35
Barban (see Carfayne) 36
Baron (see Erbon) 37
Basagran (see Bentazone) 35
Baygon (see Propoxur) 42
Batex (see Fenthion) 41
Benefin 35
Benlate (see Benomyl) 39
Benomyl 39
Bensulide 35
Bentazone 35
Bentranil 35
Benzene Hexachloride 40
Betanal (see Phenmedipham) 37
Betasan (see Bensulide) 35
BHC (see Benzene Hexachloride) 40
Bidrinr 40
Bioguard (see Thiabendazole) 39
Bladex (see Cyanazine) 36
Borax (see Sodium Borate) 38
Borea (see Bromacil) 35
Borolin (see Picloram) 37
Bravo (see Chlorothalonil) 35
Brimestone (see Sulfur) 39
Bromacil 35
-------
- 54 -
Page
Brominal (see Bromoxynil) 35
Bromofume (see Ethylene Dibromide) 43
Brom-O-Gas (see Methyl Bromide) 43
Bromoxynil 35
Buctril (see Bromoxynil) 35
Butacide (see Piperonyl Butoxide) 43
Butoxone (see 2,4-DB) 36
Butoxy Polypropylene Glycol 43
Butylate 35, 45
Butyrac (see 2,4-DB) . 36
Bux 40
Cacodylic Acid 35
Calcium Chloride 36
Calcium Cyanamide 36
Caparol (see Prometryn) 38
Captafol 39
Captan 39
Carbaryl 40, 45
Carbicron (see Bidrin) 40
Carbofuran 43, 45
Carbon Bisulfide 43
Carbon Bisulfide (see Carbon Bisulfide) 43
Carboxin 39
Carbyne 36
Casoron (see Dichlobenil) 36
CDAA 36
CDEC 36
Ceresan (see PMA) 39
Chemox P.E. (see Dinitrophenol) 36
Chloflurecol 36
Chloramben 36, 45
Chloranil 39
-------
- 33 -
Page
Chlordane 35, 39, 45
Chlordimeform 40
Chlorobenzilate (see Acaraben) 40
Chlorobromuron 36
Chloroneb 39
Chlorophacinone 43
Chloropicrin 43
Chloropropham 36
Chlorothalonil 36
Chloroxuron 36
Chlorpyrifos 40
C-l Hydrocarbons 40
C-3 Hydrocarbons 39
Ciodrin 40
Cobex (see Dinitroamine) 36
Contact 36
Copper 39, 46, 47
Copper Acetoarsenite 40
Co-Ral (see Coumaphos) 40
Corrosive Sublimate (see Mercuric Chloride) 39
Cotofor (see Dipropetryn) 36
Cotoran (see Fluometuron) 37
Coumaphos 40
Cresylic A'cid 40
Crotoxyphos (see Ciodrin) 40
Crufornate 40
Cryolite 40
Cyanazine 36
Cycloate 36
Cycloheximide 39
Cygon (see Dimethoate) 41
Cyhexatin 40
Cyprazine 36
Cyprex (see Dodine) 39
Cythion (see Malathion) 41
-------
- 56 -
Page
2,4-D 36, 45
Dacamine (see 2,4,5-T) 38
Daconil (see Chlorothalonil) 36
Dacthal 36
Dalapon 36
Dasanit (see Fensulfothion) 43
DATC (see Avadex) 35
2,4-DB 36
DBCP 35, 45
DCNtf 39
DCPA (see Dacthal) 36
D-D (see Dichloropropane/Dichloropropene) 35
DDT 40
DDVP 40
Dechlorane (see Mirex) 41
Deet 40
Delnav 41
Delphene (see Deet) 40
Demeton 41
Demeton, Methyl 41
Demosan (see Chloroneb) 39
Detamide (see Deet) 40
Dexon (see Fenaminosulf) 39
Dialiphor 41
Diallate (see Avadex) 35
Diazinon 33, 41
Dibrom (see Naled) 42
Dibromochloropropane (see DBCP) 35
Dicamba 36
Dicarbam (see Carbaryl) 40
Dichlobenil 36
Dichlone 39
Dichloropropane/Dichloropropene 35, 45
Dichlorprop 36
-------
- 57 -
Page
Dicloran (see DCNA) 40
Dicofol 41
Dieldrin 28, 41
Difolatan (see Captafol) 39
Dimecron (see Phosphamidon) 42
Dime tho ate 41
Dimethyl Phthalate (see DMP) 41
Dinitramine (see Dinitroamine) 36
Dinitro (see Dinoseb) 36
Dinitroamine 36
Dinitrophenol 36
Dinocap 43
Dinoseb 36, 45
Dipel (see Bacillus thuringiensis) 40
Diphacin (see Diphacinone) 43
Diphacinone 43
Diphenamid 36
Dipropetryn 36
Diguat 36
Diguat Dibromide (see Diguat) 36
Disulfoton 41
Di-Syston (see Disulfoton) 41
Dithane (see Maneb/Mancozeb) 39
Dithane Z-78 (see Zineb) 40
Diurex (see Diuron) 36
Diuron 36
DMP - 41
DNC (see DNOC) - 43
DNOC 43
DNSB (see Dinoseb) 36
Dodine 39
Dowfume W-85 (see Ethylene Dibromide) 43
Dowicide (see Phenylphenol) 39
Dowpon (see Dalapon) 36
-------
- 58 -
Page
2,4-DP (see Dichlorprop) 36
DPA (see Propanil) 38
DSMA/MSMA 36, 45
Dursban (see Chlorpyrifos) 40
Du-Ter 39
Dybar (see Fenuron) 37
Dyfonate 41
Dylox (see Trichlorfon) 42
Dymid (see Diphenamid) 36
Dyrene (see Anilazine) 39
Ectoral (see Ronnel) 42
Ektafos (see Bidrin) 40
Endosulfan 41
Endothall 36
Endrin 41
Enide (see Diphenamid) 36
EPN 41
Eptam (see EPTC) 37
EPTC 37
Erbon 37
Ethion 41
Ethoprop 43
Ethylene Dibromide 43
Ethyl Parathion (see Parathion) 42
Evik 37
Evital (see Norflurazon) 37
Famfos (see Famphur) 41
Famophos (see Famphur) 41
Famphur 41
Fatty Alcohols 37
Fenac 37
Fenaminosulf 39
-------
Page
Fenchlorfos .(see Ronnel) 42
Fensulfothion 43
Fenthion 41
Fenuron 37
Ferbam 39
Fermate (see Ferbam) 39
Fernasan (see Thiram) 39
Florocid (see Sodium Fluoride) 42
Fluometuron 37
Fluorodifen 37
Folex/Def 37
Folpet 39
Fonofos (see Dyfonate) 41
Forestan (see Morestan) 43
Forlin (see Lindane) 41
Formaldehyde 39
Fumazone (see DBCF) 35
Fundal (see Chlordimeform) 40
Furadan (see Carbofuran) 43
Glyphosate 37
Glyphosine 37
Guthion (see Azinphcsmethyl) 40
HCB (see Hexachlorobenzene) 39
Heptachlor 28, 41
Hexachlorobenzene 39
Hyvar General Weed Killer (see Isocil) 37
Hyvar X (see Bromacil) 35
Hyvar XL (see Bromacil) 35
Igran (see Terbutryn) 38
Imidan (see Phosmet) 42
IPC (see Propham) 38
-------
- 60 -
Page
Isocil 37
Isopropalin 37
Karathane (see Dinocap) 43
Karbutilate 37
Kannex (see Diuron) 36
Keithane (see Dicofol) 41
Kepone 41
Kerb (see Pronamide) 38
Kryocide (see Cryolite) . 40
Kuron (see 2,4,5-TP) 38
Lampreelde (see TFN) 43
Lannate (see Methomyl) 43
Lasso (see Alachlor) 35
Lead Arsenate 41
Leptophos 41
Lethane 41
Lime Sulphur 43
Lindane 41
Lintox (see Lindane) 41
Linuron 37, 45
Lorox (see Linuron) 37
Lorsban (see Chlorpyrifos) 40
Maintain (see Chloflurecol) 36
Malathion 28, 41, 45
Maleic Hydrazide 37
Maloran (see Chlorobromuron) 36
Maneb/Mancozeb 39, 45
Manzate (see Maneb/Mancozeb) 39
Marlate .(see Methoxychlor) 41
MCP (see MCPA) 41
MCPA 41
-------
- 61 -
Page
MCPP 37
Mediben (see Oicamba) 36
Mercuric Chloride 39
Merphos (see Folex/Def) 37
Me tarn-sodium 43
Meta-Systox (see Demeton, Methyl) 41
Methamidophos 41
Methidathion 41
Me thorny1 43
Methoxone (see MCPP) 37
Methoxychlor 41
Methyl Bromide 43
Methyl Parathion 41, 45
Metiram 3 9
Metribuzin 37
Mevinphos 41
Mexacarbate 41
Milogard (see Propazine) 38
Mirex 41
Mocap (see Ethoprop) 43
Molinate 37
Monitor (see Methamidophos) 41
Monocron (see Azodrin) 40
Monuron 37
Morestan 43
MSMA (see DSMA/MSMA) 36
Naled 42
Naptalam 37
Nemagon (see DBCP) 35
NIA 1240 (see Ethion) 41
Nitrador (see DNOC) 43
Nitralin 37
Nitrofen 37
-------
62
Page
Nitrolime (see Calcium Cyanamide) 36
Norflurazon 37
Novege (see Erbon) 37
NPA (see Naptalam) 37
Nudrin (see Methomyl) 43
Off (see Deet) 40
Omite (see Propargite) 42
Ordram (see Molinate) 37
Organotin 42
Orthocide (see Captan) 39
Outfox (see Cyprazine) 36
Oxarayl 43
Paarlan (see Isopropalin) 37
Paracide (see para-Dichlorobenzene) 43
para-Dichlorobenzene 43
Paradow (see para-Dichlorobenzene) .43
Paraquat 37
Parathion 42, 45
Paris Green (see Copper Acetoarsenite) 40
PCNB 39
PCP 37, 46
PDB (see para-Dichlorobenzene) 43
PDW (see Fenuron) 37
Pebulate 37
Penite (see Sodium Arsenite) 43
Perchlorethylene (see Tetrachloroethylene) 43
Perthane 42
Petroleum Oil 43, 45
Phaltan (see Folpet) 39
Phenmedipham 37
Phenylphenol 39
Phorate 42
-------
- 63 -
Page
Phosalone 42
Phosdrin (see Mevinphos) 41
Phosmet 42
Phosphamidon 42
Phostoxin 42
Phosvel (see Leptophos) 41
Phygon (see Dichlone) 39
Picloram 37
Pindone 43
Pine Oil 43
Piperonyl Butoxide 43
Pival (see Pindone) 43
Planavin (see Nitralin) 37
Plictran (see Cyhexatin) 40
PMA 39
Polyram (see Metiram) 39
Pramitol (see Prometon) 38
Prefar (see Bensulide) 35
Preforan (see Fluorodifen) 37
Premalin (see Linuron) 37
Premerge (see Dinoseb) 36
Pre-San (see Bensulide) 35
Primatol P (see Propazine) 33
Primatol Q (see Prometryn) 33
Princep (see Simazine) 33
Profluralin 33
Profume (see Methyl Bromide) 43
.>*
Prometon 33
Prometryn 33
Pronamide 33
Propachlor 38, 45
Propanex (see Propanil) 33
Propanil 33t 45
Propargite 42
-------
- 64 -
Page
Propoxur 42
Propazine 38
Propham 38
Propy2amide (see Pronamide) 38
Pyramin (see Pyrazon) 38
Pyrazon 38
Pyre thrum 42
Rabon (see Tetrachlorvinphos) 42
Radapon (see Dalapon) 36
s
Ramrod (see Propachlor) 38
Randox (see CDAA) 36
Retard (see Maleic Hydrazide) 37
Ro-Neet (see Cycloate) 36
Ronnel 42
Rotenone 42
Roundup (see Glyphosate) 37
Rozol (see Chlorophacinone) 43
Ruelene (see Crufornate) 40
Ruphos (see Delnav) 41
Sancap (see Dipropetryn) 36
Sencor (see Metribuzin) 37
Sevin :(see Carbaryl) 40
Siduxrdn 38
Silica Gel 43
Silvex (see 2,4,5-TP) 38
Silvisar (see Cacodylic Acid) 35
Simazine 38
Sinbar (see Terbacil) 38
Sinox (see DNOC) 43
Sistan (see Metam-sodium) 43
Sodium Arsenite 43
Sodium Borate 38
-------
- 65 -
Page
Sodium Chlorate 38, 45, 46
Sodium Fluoride 42
Spectracids (see Diazinon) 41
Stabilene Fly Repellent (see Butoxy
Polypropylene Glycol) 43
Strychnine 43
Sulfur 39, 45, 47
Sulfuryl Fluoride 42
Supracide (see Hethidathion) 41
Sutan (see Butylate) ' 35
Systox (see Demeton) 41
2,4,5-T 38
Tandex (see Karbutilate) 37
TBA 38
TBZ (see Thiabendazole) 39
TCA 38
TCB 38
Telvar (see Monuron) 37
Temik (see Aldicarb) 42
Temophos 42
Tenoran (see Chloroxuron) 36
TEPP 42
Terbacil 38
Terbutryn 38
Terraclor (see PCNB) 39
Terrazole 39
Tersan (see Thiram) 39
Tersan SP (see Chloroneb) 39
Tetrachloroethylene 43
Tetrachlorvinphos 42
TFN 43
Thiabendazole 39
Thixnet (see Phorate) 42
Thiodan (see Endosulfan) 41
-------
- 66 -
Page
Thiram 39
Thuricide (see Bacillus thuringiensis) 40
Tillam (see Pebulate) 37
Tobaz (see Thiabendazole) 39
TOK '(see Nitrofen) 37
Tolban (see Profluralin) 38
Torak (see Dialiphor) 41
Tordon (see Picloram) 37
Toxaphene 42, 45
2,4,5-TP 38
Treflan (see Trifluralin) 38
Tributon (see 2,4,5-T) 38
Trichlorfon 42
Trichlorobenzene (see TCB) 38
Tri-Clor (see Chloropicrin) 43
Tri-Fen (see Fenac) 37
Trifluralin 38, 45
Trithion 42
Truban (see Terrazole) 39
Tubotin (see Du-Ter) 39
Tupersan (see Siduron) 38
Vapam (see Metarn-sodium) 43
Vapona (see DDVP) 40
Vapotone (see TEPP) 42
Varitox (see TCA) 38
Vegadex (see CDEC) 36
Vernam (see Vernolate) 38
Vernolate 38
Vidden D (see Dichloropropane/
Dichloropropene) 35
Vikane (see Sulfuryl Fluoride) 42
Vitavax (see Carboxin) 39
-------
- 67 -
Page
Vondrax (see Maleic Hydrazide) 37
Vorlex 43
VPM (see Metarn-sodium) 43
Warbex (see Famphur) 41
Warfarin 43
Weedar (see 2,4,5-T) 38
Weedol (see Paraquat) 37
Zectran (see Mexacarbate) 41
Zelan (see MCPA) 37
Zineb 40
Zinosan (see Zineb) 40
Ziram 40
Zitox (see Ziram) 40
Zolone (see Phosalone) 42
Zorial (see Norflurazon) 37
*U.S.«OWWBir««W80fBCt'B7t-620-007/3710
------- |