United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Pesticide Programs
Washington DC 24
EPA 540/9-80-002
July 1980
Pesticide
c/EPA
National Household
Pesticide Usage Study,
1976 - 1977
-------
NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDE
USAGE STUDY, 1976-1977
Final Report
El don P. Savage, Ph.D., Project Director
Thomas J. Keefe, Ph.D., Biostatistician
H. William Wheeler, B.S., Field Studies Coordinator
November 1979
Epidemiologic Pesticide Studies Center
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Credit Line and Disclaimer
Conclusions are subject to change on the basis of additional information and
evidence. Information contained herein is not to be reprinted.or published
without written permission of the Environmental Protection Agency. The views
expressed herein are those of the investigators and do not necessarily reflect
the official viewpoint of the Environmental Protection Agency. These investi-
gations were supported through a contract with the Epidemiologic Studies
Program, Health Effects Branch, Hazard Evaluation Division of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iii
LIST OF FIGURES vi
BACKGROUND 1
METHODS 8
SMSA Selection 8
County Selection 9
Household Selection Within Each Sampled SMSA 12
Household Selection With.in a Nonurbanized Portion of Each
Sampled SMSA 13
Household Selection Within Sampled Non-SMSA Counties 14
Questionnaire 18
Quality Control 18
Data Analysis 21
RESULTS 21
Household Pesticide Usage 21
Household Pesticide Usage, Storage, and Disposal Practices 47
Health Effects of Household Pesticide Use 51
Observed Pesticides 54
Economic Loss Involving Household Pesticide Usage 71
DISCUSSION 76
REFERENCES 80
APPENDICES 81
Appendix A 82
Appendix B 85
Appendix C 117
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 The twenty-five intensive-study pesticides ......... 2
2 U.S. consumption of twenty-four selected pesticides by
use sector ......................... 3
3 Pounds of active ingredient consumed in U.S. and percent
household usage for twelve selected pesticides ....... 4
4 Estimated pesticide usage for U.S. and EPA regions by
type of use ........................ 6
5 The Latin Square sampling scheme for the random selection
of three SMSAs in EPA Region VI. National Household Pesti-
cide Usage Study, 1976-1977 ................ 10
6 The Latin Square sampling scheme for the random selection
of two SMSAs in EPA Region VII. National Household Pesti-
cide Usage Study, 1976-1977 ................ 11
7 Number and percent of interviews, refusals, and not-at-
homes by EPA region. National Household Pesticide Usage _.
Study, 1976-1977 ...................... ^
8 Estimated total number of households using pesticides by
EPA region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-
1977 ............................ 26
9 Estimated total number of households having used pesticides
in the house, garden, and yard by EPA region. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 ......... 30
10 Estimated total number of pesticide containers in U.S.
households, and estimated total number of households with
stored but unused pesticides by EPA region. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 ......... 37
11 Estimated total number of households treated by commercial
applicator and estimated total number of households treated
for termites by EPA region. National Household Pesticide
Usage Study, 1976-1977 ................... 40
12 Estimated total number of households using no-pest strips,
mothballs, and disinfectants by EPA region. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 ......... 44
13 Estimated total number of households using insect collars
on pets or pet insecticide shampoos by EPA region. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 ......... 45
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
14 Estimated total number of households that have used pet
insecticide powders and other pesticides on pets by EPA
region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-
1977 46
15 Primary and secondary place of pesticide purchase.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977. (In
estimated percentages.) 48
16 Primary and secondary sources of information on pesticide
usage. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-
1977. (In estimated percentages.) 49
17 Types of information obtained from reading the pesticide
label. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-
1977. (In estimated percentages.) 50
18 Methods of disposing of unwanted pesticides, unused-diluted
pesticides, and empty pesticide containers. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977. (In estimated
percentages.) 52
19 Estimated total number of households having experienced
nausea, dizziness, headaches, or vomiting after using
pesticides by EPA region. National Household Pesticide
Usage Study, 1976-1977 53
20 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of unknown insecticide formulations by EPA
region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-
1977 55
21 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of dichlorovos formulations by EPA region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 .... 57
22 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of resmethrin formulations by EPA region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 .... 58
23 Estimated total amount and. standard error of ounces used
and stored of pyrethrin formulations by EPA region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 .... 59
24 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of chlordane formulations by EPA region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 .... 60
25 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
•and stored of Sevin formulations by EPA region. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 61
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
26 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces
used and stored of 2,4-D + si 1 vex formulations by EPA
region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study,
1976-1977 62
27 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of diazinon formulations by EPA region. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 63
28 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of baygon + DDVP formulations by EPA region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 .... 64
29 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of malathion formulations by EPA region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 .... 65
30 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of metaldehyde formulations by EPA region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 .... 66
31 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of warfarin formulations by EPA region. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 67
32 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of arprocarb formulations by EPA region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 .... 68
33 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of formulations containing a mixture of captan,
methoxychlor, ratenone, and rotenoids by EPA region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 .... 69
34 Estimated total amount and standard error of ounces used
and stored of formulations containing a mixture of ovex,
lindane, rotenone, and folpet by EPA region. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 70
35 Estimated total number of households which experienced an
economic loss and the estimated total number of economic
losses by EPA region. National Household Pesticide Usage
Study, 1976-1977 72
36 Estimated mean dollar value and standard error of economic
losses involving household pesticide usage by EPA region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 .... 75
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Log Book 20
2 Notation and formulae used in the estimation procedure.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 ... 22
3 Estimated percent of households using pesticides in the
house, garden, or yard for each EPA regions. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study. 1976-1977 27
4 Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence
interval) of households using pesticides in the house,
garden, or yard for each EPA region. National Household
Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 28
5 Estimated percent of households using pesticides in the
house, garden, or yard each EPA region. National House-
hold Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 31
6 Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence
interval) of households using pesticides in the house
for each EPA region. National Household Pesticide
Usage Study, 1976-1977 32
7 Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence
interval) of households using pesticides in the garden.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 ... 34
8 Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence
interval) of households using pesticides in the yard.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 ... 35
9 Estimated mean number (and standard deviation) of
observed pesticide containers per household. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 . . 36
10 Estimated percent of households with stored but unused
pesticides. National Household Pesticide Usage Study,
1976-1977 38
11 Estimated percent of households treated by a commercial
pesticide applicator or treated for termites for each EPA
region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 41
12 Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence
interval) of households treated by a commercial pesti-
cide applicator for each EPA region. National House-
hold Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 42
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
i
Figure
13 Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence
interval) of households treated for termites for each EPA
region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-
1977 43
14 Estimated percent of households experiencing economic loss
involving household pesticide usage. National Household
Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977 73
-------
This study was conducted by the Epidemiologic Pesticide Studies Center
of Colorado State University in cooperation with nine other Epidemiologic
Pesticide Studies Centers and Projects, under Contract No. 68-01-4663 with
the Epidemiologic Studies Program, Human Effects Monitoring Branch, Office
of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency. The project staff
included the following personnel:
Colorado Pesticide
Studies Center
Dr. El don Savage
Dr. Thomas Keefe
Mr. Lawrence Mounce
Ms. Janee Ahlers
Mr. Fred Applehans
Mr. Derrick Bates
Mr. Bert Bishop
Ms. Barbara Bonilla
Mr. John Buonaccorsi
Ms. Terry Carmichael
Ms. Sandra Ford
Ms. Elizabeth Goes
Mr. Thomas Goes
Ms. Lois Helwic
Ms. S. Aletha Hill
Ms. Myrna Jamison
Mr. Gene Johnson
Ms. Beth Lance
Mr. Gary Mihian
Mr. Gary Norwood
Dr. Mary 0'Keefe
Mr. Jerry Rench
Ms. Callie Snyder
Ms. Barbara Stevens
Mr. David Kim Taylor
Mr. Randy Taylor
Mr. William Wheeler
Ms. Nona Whitman
California Pesticide
Studies Project
Dr. Ephraim Kahn
Mr. Don Mengle
Ms. Madeline Thresh
Idaho Pesticide
Studies Project
Michigan Pesticide
Studies Project
Mr. Arthur Bloomer
Mr. Dave Dietel
Mr. Adrian Oudbier
Mississippi Pesticide
Studies Project
Dr. James Minyard
Mr. Bruce Bracken
New Jersey Pesticide
Studies Project
Dr. Ronald Altman
Mr. Peter Hague
South Carolina Pesticide
Studies Center
Dr. Samuel Sandifer
Dr. Charles D. Brokopp Mr. Sam Caldwell
Ms. Pam Smith
Iowa Pesticide
Studies Center
Dr. Kenneth Kirby
Mr. Victor Beat
Mr. Mike Watson
Texas Pesticide
Studies Project
Dr. Lei and Parks
viii
-------
Washington Pesticide
Studies Project
Dr. Jack Allard
Mr. David Nash
Dr. Robert Duncan, Medical University of South Carolina, provided consulta-
tion in reviewing the statistical design and analysis. Dr. Daryl Rowe,
Cleveland State Univesity provided assistance in data collection in
Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Jack Hatlen, University of Washington provided
assistance in data collection in Seattle, Washington. Additional assistance
was provided by Project Officers for the Environmental Protection Agency:
Dr. Charles W. Miller, Colorado; Dr. Lee Leiserson, Iowa; and Dr. John
Kliewer, South Carolina.
ix
-------
BACKGROUND
Pesticides are widely used throughout the United States in the home
environment and such usage may result in several environmental and human
problems. Since household members may fail to read and fully understand
the label instructions, misuse and overuse of the often potentially toxic
compounds may precede contamination of small sectors of the surrounding
ecosystem and accidental poisoning of man and animals (1).
In the United States, only limited information has been available re-
garding the quantities of pesticides applied by householders relative to
other sources of use. To date, the most extensive survey of pesticide usage
was completed in 1974 and focused on only 25 selected compounds as listed in
Table 1 (2). United States consumption of the 25 selected compounds was 1.54
billion pounds of active ingredient (AI) in 1972. The use of creosote, a
compound applied extensively as a wood preservative and fungicide, accounted
for 64% of that total amount. Because creosote was used almost exclusively
by the industrial/commercial/institutional sector, the relative amounts con-
sumed are not of importance in the present discussion.
Excluding creosote, the total consumption of the remaining 24 compounds
was 0.57 billion pounds AI. Of the 0.57 billion pounds AI, 23% was used by
the industrial/commercial/institutional sector, 2% by governmental sector,
12% by the home and garden sector, and 63% by the agricultural sector (Table
2). Home and garden use consumed 8.1% of the 10 insecticides studied, 2.4%
of the eight herbicides, 12.5% of the three fungicides and 50% of the two
fumigants. Twelve of the twenty-four compounds were used in measurable
amounts in the. house and garden and are listed in Table 3. According to
this survey, 71% of all paradichlorobenzene consumed in 1972 was used by the
-------
*
Table 1. The twenty-five intensive-study pesticides.
Insecticides Herbicides
Aldrin Alachlor
Carbaryl Atrazine
Carbofuran , Bromacil
Chlordane -' 2,4-D
Diazinon Diuron
Disulfoton MSMA .,
Malathion Sodium Chlorate -
Methyl Parathion Trifluralin
Parathion
Toxaphene Fumigants
Fungicides and Wood Preservatives p-Dichlorobenzene -
Methyl Bromide -'
Captan
Creosote
Maneb ,
Pentachlorophenol —
Special Category
Organotin Compounds
-Includes use as termite treatment of wood structures
— Includes mixtures with borates
— Includes herbicidal use
— Includes lavatory-space deodorant uses
^includes soil sterilization for weeds and insects and structural termite
treatment
*Abstracted from VonRumker, R., Production, distribution, use and environmental
impact potential of selected pesticides. Office of Pesticide Programs, Office
of Water and Hazardous Materials, Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974.
-2-
-------
Table 2. U.S. consumption of twenty-four selected pesticides by use sector .
U)
Pesticide Type
*
Insecticides
Herbicides
Fungicides &
Wood Preservatives
(excl . Creosote)
Fumigants
Tin Compounds
Total
U.S. Total
193.6
224.7
72.6
78.0
1.45
570.35
% Industrial
8%
16.4%
65.4%
35.9%
55.2%
23%
%
Governmental % Home & Garden
2.6% 8.1%
2.7% 2.4%
12.5%
2.6% 50%
—
2% 12%
% Agricultural
81.3%
78.4%
22.0%
11.5%
44.8%
63%
V.
*Million pounds active ingredient
**vonRumker, R., Production, distribution, use and environmental imoact potential
of selected pesticides. Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials, Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974.
-------
Table 3. Pounds of active ingredient consumed in U.S. arid percent
household usage for twelve selected pesticides.
Pesticide
Use
Lbs. AI Consumed
in U.S. X 106
% House-
hold use
p-Dichlorobenzene
Moth fumigant & lava-
tory deodorant
55.0
71%
Captan
Chlordane
Mai a th ion
Diazinon
Maneb
Carbaryl
MSMA
2,4-D
Pentachlorophenol
Disulfoton
Atrazine
Fungicide
Broad spectrum
insecticide
Broad spectrum
insecticide
Broad spectrum
insecticide
Fungicide
Broad spectrum
insecticide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Fungicide &
Herbicide
Broad spectrum
insecticide
Herbicide
16.0
15.0
16.2
7.0
7.6
25.0
19.0
48.0
49.0
5.0
75.0
37.5%
33.3%
30.8%
28.5%
27.0%
14%
7.9%
6.2%
3%
2.0%
1.3%
*vonRumker, R., Production, distribution, use and environmental impact
potential of selected pesticides. Office of Pesticide Programs, Office
of Water and Hazardous Materials, Environmental Protection Agency, March
1974.
-4-
-------
American householders. Usage estimates and percent of household use for the
other 11 compounds are found in Table 3.
The data presented previously were usage estimates of only 24 selected
compounds. Usage information for all pesticides by sector of use is nec-
essary. To partially answer this need, pesticide usage data for the indus-
trial, governmental, and agricultural sectors of the United States were
compiled for each state in 1974. Results of this study indicated that 903.2
million pounds of pesticides were used in the United States in 1974 (3).
Over 94% of all pesticides were used by agriculture, 3.5% by government, and
2.5% by industry (Table 4). The amounts of pesticides reported used varied
by geographic region. Approximately 26% of the pesticides were used in EPA
Region IV, 18% in EPA Region VI, and 16% in EPA Region V.
A review of the literature has revealed that pesticide usage data for
the home and garden in the United States was very limited. Several small
scale studies have been conducted in which household usage of pesticides has
been estimated. For example, a study of three urban areas, Philadephia,
Pennsylvania; Dallas, Texas; and Lansing, Michigan was completed in 1972 (4).
The study area population of 5.5 million people was comprised of 1,244,000
single family dwelling units. Of a total of 525 respondents in the study,
92.5% reported using pesticides. It is of considerable interest that 84% of
these interviewed used pesticides without reservations. Only 8.5% of the
respondents indicated that they were concerned with possible side effects
from pesticide use.
From the results of the three city study, the authors estimated the
average deposit of active pesticide ingredients to be between 5.3 and 10.6
Ibs. per acre. Although distinctly different home and garden usage patterns
were seen in each area, there was no observed correlation between ihe number
of single family residences and estimated quantities of pestici:desl used. As
-5-
-------
***
Table 4. Estimated pesticide usage* for U.S. and EPA regions by type of use.
Ol
I
EPA REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
U.S. Total
% of Total
AGRICULTURE
6.1
12.7
19.5
213.8
140.1
159.1
127.5
37.9
104.5
26.0
847.2
94%
GOVERNMENT
.7
1.8
1.4
14.1
2.1
5.8
.8
.9
2.5
2.7
32.8
3.5%
INDUSTRY**
1.1
1.6
2.8
9.4
2.1
1.7
1.2
.7
2.2
.4
23.2
2.5%
TOTAL
7.9
16.1
23.7
237.3
144.3
166.6
129.5
39.5
109.2
29.1
903.2
% OF TOTAL
1%
2%
3%
26%
16%
18%
14%
4%
12%
3%
* In million pounds active ingredient
**Totals reported
***Keil, J.E., et a]_., Pesticide usage survey of agricultural, governmental,
and industrial sectors in the United States. Abridged report, June 1977.
-------
postulated by the authors, these differences were probably due to varying
climatic, soil, environmental and man-made conditions.
A second limited study conducted in South Carolina in 1969 reported
that 89% of 196 families surveyed used pesticides and that 33% of the users
applied these chemicals during each week of the year (5). Results of this
study indicated that safety practices for handling pesticides were inadequate.
For example, approximately 88% of the responding families stored their pesti-
cides in unlocked areas; 66% stored their pesticides within easy reach of
small children^ and 54% stored their pesticides near food or medicine. Two-
thirds of all pesticide users interviewed neither wore gloves during appli-
cation nor washed their hands following application.
In 1974, 230 families in 18 Colorado communities were interviewed to
determine their pesticide usage practices (6). The results of this house-
hold usage study were as follows: 71.7% of the families used pesticides;
29% stored their pesticides in locked storage areas; and 25% observed pro-
tective measures during application. A very disturbing result of this study
was that 5.7% of the families did not store their pesticides in original
containers with attached warning labels. In 1974, a survey of 28 area re-
tailers in 11 Colorado communities revealed that malathion, diazinon, Sevin,
and Isotox were the compounds most frequently sold for use on lawns and
gardens by householders. An interesting observation in this study was that
the most hazardous pesticides sold in retail stores were highly concentrated
Zectran, toxaphene, and Delnav. All of these pesticides were sold in easily
breakable bottles.
In summary, data that have been presented regarding household pesti-
cide usage have been a result of several limited studies. This report
-7-
-------
presents the results of a national household pesticide usage study. This
study was the first major effort in the United States to provide pesticide
i
usage information on a national basis.
METHODS
Based on cost limitations and precision requirements, this study was
designed to include a sample size of approximately 10,000 households with an
anticipated refusal and not-at-home rate of approximately 20%.
Since approximately three-fourths of the United States population resides
in metropolitan areas of populations greater than or equal to 50,000 which
are classified as Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs), 7,500
sampling units (households) of the proposed 10,000 were allocated to. SMSA
areas and the remaining 2,500 sampling units were allocated to non-SMSA
counties in the United States.
SMSA Selection
According to data from the 1970 census, 243 SMSAs existed within the
United States. This list of SMSAs constituted the sampling frame to which
the following scheme was applied for the sample selection of 25 SMSAs.
Initially, the United States was divided into the 10 Environmental Protection
Agency regions. Three SMSAs of the 25 SMSA sample were allocated to each of
the five EPA regions with the largest number of SMSAs (Region I, III, IV, V,
and VI), and two SMSAs were allocated to each of the remaining five regions
that have the smallest number of SMSAs (Regions II, VII, VIII, IX, and X).
All SMSAs within the 10 EPA regions were ranked by number of occupied housing
units. Depending on whether an EPA region was allocated three or two SMSAs,
the rank list was divided into either three or two quantiles, respectively,
Secondly, all SMSAs within the 10 regions were divided into either 3 (if a
region was allocated 3 SMSAs) or 2 geographic areas so that each area contained
-8-
-------
either approximately one-third or one-half of the SMSAs in the region. In
some instances this requirement necessitated that a state be divided into
two geographic areas. For example, in EPA Region IX, one geographic area
consisted of Nevada and northern California and the other area of southern
California and Arizona. Similarly, Massachusetts was divided into two differ-
ent geographic areas within Region I. The final step of the sampling scheme
consisted of a random selection of three or two SMSAs within each EPA region
for a total of 25 SMSAs so that each quantile and geographic area was repre-
sented once. The sampling scheme described above is called a Latin square
sample design as .shown by examples in Tables 5 and 6 (7).
County Selection
A similar Latin square sampling scheme was applied for the selection of
counties outside of the SMSA areas. From the sampling frame of all non-SMSA
counties within the United States, 25 were randomly selected so that three
non-SMSA counties were chosen from each of the following five EPA regions:
Region IV, VII, VIII, IX, and X. Two non-SMSA counties were selected from
each of the remaining regions ( Regions I, II, III, V, and VI). When three
SMSAs were chosen from an EPA region, generally only two non-SMSA counties
were selected, and vice-versa. However, EPA Regions II and IV were excep-
tions to the above rule. Because Region II was composed of only two states,
/
two SMSAs and two non-SMSA counties were sampled within that region. Within
EPA Region IV three SMSAs and three non-SMSA counties were sampled due to
the large number of counties in this region.
Following allocation of the number of non-SMSA counties to be sampled
within each region, all non-SMSA counties within that region were ranked by
population and divided into the appropriate (two or three) number of quantiles
and geographic areas. As was done with the selection of SMSAs, the required
-9-
-------
Table 5. The Latin Square sampling scheme for the random selection of three SMSAs in
EPA Region VI. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
EPA Region VI
Geographic
Subregion
Large
SMSA Size
Medium
Small
Louisiana
Arkansas
Oklahoma
New Orleans, Louisiana
Little Rock, Arkansas
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Lake Charles, Louisiana
Shreveport, Louisiana
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Fort Smith, Arkansas*
Monroe, Louisiana
LaFayette, Louisiana
Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Lawton, Oklahoma
I
!-•
O
North Texas
New Mexico
Dallas, Texas
Fort Worth, Texas
Albuquerque, New Mexico*
Amarillo, Texas
Lubbock, Texas
Wichita Falls, Texas
Waco, Texas
Sherman, Texas
Abilene, Texas
Tyler, Texas
Texarkana, Texas
South Texas
El Paso, Texas
San Antonio, Texas
Houston, Texas
Austin, Texas
Beaumont, Texas
Galveston, Texas
Corpus Christi, Texas
McAllen, Texas
Brownsville, Texas
Odessa, Texas
Midland, Texas*
San Angelo, Texas
Laredo, Texas
Bryan, Texas
*Sampled SMSAs
-------
Table 6. The Latin Square sampling scheme for the random selection of two
SMSAs in EPA Region VII. National Household Pesticide Usage
Study, 1976-1977.
EPA Region VII SMSA Size
Geographic
Subregion
Large
Small
Iowa Cedar Rapids, Iowa Dubuque, Iowa
Nebraska Des Moines, Iowa Waterloo, Iowa
Omaha, Nebraska* Sioux City, Iowa
Lincoln, Nebraska
Kansas Wichita, Kansas Topeka, Kansas
Missouri Kansas City, Missouri St. Joseph, Missouri
St. Louis, Missouri Columbia, Missouri
Springfield, Missouri*
*Sampled SMSAs
-11-
-------
number of non-SMSA counties were randomly chosen under the restriction that
each quantile and geographic area was represented once.
Household Selection Within Each Sampled SMSA
Each SMSA selected for the national study had been subdivided into
census tracts and blocks within each census tract by the Bureau of the
Census. These two subdivisions, census tracts and blocks, formed the basis
for the actual selection of the households to be interviewed.
Although the original study plan called for a stratification of all
census tracts in the SMSAs into three socioeconomic groups, the stratifica-
tion was not done due to inadequate data in the Census Tracts PHC(l) series
of the 1970 Census of Population and Housing. Therefore, from the list of
all census tracts within each selected SMSA, a random sample of census tracts
was obtained with the requirement that the selected census tracts include at
least 10% of the occupied housing units in that SMSA. From these selected
census tracts, the 7,500 interviews for the SMSAs were proportionately allo-
cated based on a measure of the number of occupied housing units within the
selected tracts.
To distribute the allotted number of interviews for each sampled census
tract, the interviews were allocated to blocks within each census tract.
Blocks were randomly selected per census tract according to the proportion
of blocks per census tract. Thus, a census tract with a larger number of
blocks had more blocks selected for interviewing than a census tract with a
smaller number of blocks.
The number of interviews for each selected block was proportionately
allocated on the basis of the number of households per block. The interviewer
used a list of random numbers to select the households to be interviewed.
This procedure guaranteed that each household on the block had an equal
ability of being selected for interview.
-12-
-------
Household Selection Within a Nonurbanized Portion of Each Sampled SMSA
Census tracts or partial census tracts included in the nonurbanized
portions of the SMSAs consisted of these census tracts within each SMSA that
were either entirely outside of the urbanized area or partially in and parti-
ally out of the urbanized area and census tracts or partial census tracts for
which information was incomplete. Since only the number of occupied housing
units for each nonurbanized tract was available, a different system was de-
vised for sample selection so that the number in interviews for each non-
urbanized tract was proportionately allocated based on the number of house-
holds within that tract.
To allocate the number of interviews per block, county maps were obtained
from each State Highway Division of Planning and Research. With the exception
of states in the original 13 colonies, Texas, and parts of Ohio, these maps
displayed one-mile sections in townships. If the townships did not contain
an incorporated or unincorporated town, the tract was further classified as
nonurbanized rural and the one-mile sections were numbered. In these non-
urbanized rural areas, sections with households adjacent to roads were
randomly selected so as to the required sampling of households was propor-
tional to the number of housing units in each section.
When the census tracts within the nonurbanized area contained a town
(incorporated or nonincorporated), the census tract was classified as non-
urbanized urban. In this case, the number of households to be interviewed
was proportionally allocated between the town and the remaining areas. To
facilitate the selection of households to be interviewed, maps were obtained
and the blocks were numbered. Households were then selected for interview
from randomly selected numbered blocks. The number of households interviewed
averaged eight per block. The following example illustrates the sample
selection procedure.
-13-
-------
The town of Sallisaw., Oklahoma, is within census tract 303
which is located outside of the urbanized area of the Fort Smith,
Arkansas-Oklahoma SMSA. The total population of the tract is
5,488, of which 4,888 reside in Sallisaw and 600 reside in the
tract outside of Sallisaw. It had been previously determined
that 51 interviews should be obtained from this tract; therefore,
through proportional allocation 89% or 45 interviews were obtained
from households within the city of Sallisaw and 6 interviews were
obtained from households in the area of the tract outside of
Sallisaw. To complete these 45 interviews in Sailisaw six blocks
were randomly selected from the total number of blocks. Eight
households were randomly sampled for interview in five of the
blocks and five interviews were completed in the remaining block.
Six interviews were needed in the remainder of the tract.
All sections in the area of the tract were numbered and two sec-
tions were randomly selected. These households were sampled in
each of these two randomly selected sections.
Alternate blocks or sections were selected if the original selected
blocks or sections no longer existed or if they did not contain enough
occupied households.
Household Selection Within Sampled Non-SMSA Counties
County maps with county census subdivisions were obtained from the Bureau
of the Census. These subdivisions and the population contained therein served
as the basis for the apportionment of the sample. Every subdivision for each
non-SMSA county was placed into a population-based strata. Stratum I con-
tained all census subdivisions with a population of 10,000 or above. The
census subdivisions of populations between 10,000 and 2,500 were placed into
-14-
-------
Stratum II. Subdivisions containing a population of less than 2,500 were
categorized into Stratum III. One subdivision was randomly selected from
each of the three strata. The number of interviews per selected subdivision
was proportional to the population in the subdivision.
Household selection within each sampled county is illustrated in the
following example for Yuba County, California.
Yuba County, population 44,736, is divided into five county
census subdivisions in the 1970 Number of Inhabitants booklet
released by the Bureau of the Census. Based solely on population
size, each of the five subdivisions was placed into one of three
strata. Referring to the data contained in the Number of Inhab-
itants booklet, three of the subdivisions in Yuba County are in
Stratum I, none in Stratum II, and two in Stratum III. A pro-
portional allocation system based on the population in each of
of the two strata (Stratum II did not contain any subdivisions)
versus the population in Yuba County resulted in the allocation
of 129 interviews to Stratum I and 12 interviews to Stratum III.
The Marysville subdivision in Stratum I was selected as the site
for the 129 interviews and the Wheat!and subdivision as the
location for the 12 interviews in Stratum III.
Within each selected subdivision, the sample was proportionally allocated
to the incorporated or unincorporated towns in the subdivision and the re-
mainder of the subdivision. For example, of the 129 sampled households in
the Marysville subdivision, 96 were allocated to Marysville City and 33 to
the remainder of the Marysville subdivision. (Marysville City's population
is 9,353; remainder of the subdivision's population is 3,182.) All of the
population figures are from the Number of Inhabitants booklet in the 1970
Bureau of the Census material.
-15-
-------
To select households within the towns in each sampled subdivision,
block statistics were used to obtain the block numbers in all towns with a
population of greater than 2,500. In towns without published block statistics,
a town map was obtained and the blocks were numbered. Sampling of households
for interview was similar to that in the nonurbanized urban area of each SMSA.
For example, since 96 households were to be interviewed in Marysville City,
12 blocks were randomly selected from the block statistics. Additionally,
two adjacent alternate blocks were chosen in the same manner as previously
described for each sampled block in the event that eight interviews could not
be obtained from the original block.
The selection of households to be interviewed in the remainder of each
subdivision (rural portion) was done in a manner similar to the selection in
a nonurbanized rural portion of each SMSA. For example, 33 interviews were
allotted to the remainder of the Marysville subdivision. The accessible
area within the remainder of the subdivision was divided into sections and
numbered. Eleven sections were randomly selected in the remainder of the
Marysville subdivision, and three households were randomly selected in each
section. An alternate section was also selected for each original selection
in the event that three interviews could not be obtained from a selected
section.
When the field interviewers arrived at a selected block within an in-
corporated or unincorporated town in a county, they counted and recorded
the addresses of the houses. Using a table of random numbers, the inter-
viewers selected eight houses per block to interview. In the rural areas,
all households were counted and recorded in a section or area bounded by
roads, and three households were randomly selected.
-16-
-------
Following the selection of blocks or sections for sampling and the
allotment of interviews, maps and route itineraries were made for every SMSA
and county and included the following information:
1. assigned tract and block section code
2. interviewer team assignment
3. tract number
4. block section number
5. number of interviews
6. name of streets surrounding the block section
7. alternate block section numbers
Route itineraries giving the same information were made for the alter-
nate blocks. Therefore, the field interviewer possessed both a map with
selected blocks or sections identified and route itineraries with all of the
necessary sampling data.
The following methods were designed to deal with refusals, alternate
houses, and alternate blocks that the interviewer might encounter. A record
of vacant houses was kept by the interviewer. An alternate home was chosen
for each vacant house according to the sampling procedure described pre-
viously. The alternate column in header information was marked accordingly
on the questionnaire form. Extended efforts were made to complete inter-
views even though the initial interview attempt had resulted in a refusal.
These efforts included call backs by different interviewers at a different
time of day or evening. As many as three call backs were made on refusals
before entering a refusal into the refusal column. Some of the selected
households had no one at home when the interviewer was on the block. A
household in which no one 18 years or older was present was considered a
"not-at-home". To minimize possible sources of bias, each "not-at-home"
-17-
-------
was recontacted on two or three occasions, often times after 5:00 P.M. In
the event that occupied housing units on a selected block no longer existed
or the number of houses was less than the required sample size, the inter-
viewers were referred to route itineraries for alternate blocks prechosen
for each tract. Additionally, if there were enough houses on the block to
obtain the sample but all of the houses were contacted without getting the
required number of interviews due to vacancy or refusal, it was necessary
to go to the alternate block to finish the sample.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire (see Appendix A) was developed to cover the many
aspects of household pesticide usage and storage. Additionally, several
questions were included on possible household pesticide poisonings. The
questionnaire contained person data such as the household head's age, occu-
pation, race, education and household data such as type of residence.
The training manual (Appendix B) was compiled to obtain uniformity in
conducting the field studies. The manual contained detailed explanations of
each question in the questionnaire, and the procedure for recording inter-
viewee responses. The training manual also included detailed procedures and
recommendations for eliciting participation from the selected households.
One part of the training manual presented techniques for observing and record-?
ing all of the pesticides stored on the premises.
Quality Control
To increase validity in the National Household Pesticide Usage Study,
a detailed quality control system was employed. Quality control Included
training of field interviewer supervisors, field testing of the questionnaire,
study design control, presample control, sample control, and postsample con-
trol. The quality control system was applied at all stages of the study to
insure uniformity and accuracy of data collection.
-18-
-------
A training session was held at Colorado State University before inter-
viewing began. At this session, the first day was spent explaining the
questionnaire and providing directions on how to ask each question and record
each response. The remainder of the training session was spent completing
practice interviews with actual households and reviewing the completed
questionnaire with the interviewers.
A second training session was conducted by trained field epidemiologists
from the Colorado Center at selected sampling sites. At this time, inter-
viewers were trained in the use of route itineraries and maps. After several
interviews were completed, each interviewer was further evaluated by the
field epidemiologist and recommendations were made to assure uniform inter-
viewing techniques. A daily log or daily interview summary form (Figure 1)
was tabulated at the termination of each working day by a member of each of
the interview teams. That individual was solely responsible for each day's
tabulations and for the editing of completed questionnaires. This same
individual was also responsible for mailing each week's questionnaires to
the Colorado Center.
The questionnaires were coded and keypunched at the Colorado Center.
The questions that required separate coding, such as the header information
on page 1 and the household information on page 5, were coded by one indi-
vidual at the Center to maintain as much uniformity as possible. Also at
this stage, all pesticide products recorded on the questionnaires were
numerically coded according to the Pindex (Pesticide Index) System, which
was developed by the South Carolina Epidemiologic Pesticide Studies Center
to classify and code pesticides by active ingredient. All questionnaires
were reexamirxed by one person at the Center to assure proper coding and
questionnaire consistency. Additionally, household interviews that suggested
a human poisoning had occurred were recontacted to validate the responses on
the interview form.
-19-
-------
Figure 1. Log Book
SMSA or County
State
Location
House- I Block
hold 0 I f
Status
Part.
Inter
Time
Inter-
viewer
Storage
Examined
Comments-
-20-
-------
Data Analysis
National, as well as regional, estimates were made for the total number
of households with characteristics related to pesticide usage and storage
(for example, number of households using pesticides in the garden). Further-
more, the estimated total amounts of a specific pesticide that were used and/
or stored, for specific compounds, were obtained from the data of the House-
hold Pesticide Usage Study. Figure 2 presents the notation and formulae for
the estimation procedure described above for both SMSA and non-SMSA areas.
RESULTS
The National Household Pesticide Usage Study was designed to include a
sample size of approximately 10,000 households and an anticipated refusal
and "not-at-home" rate of 20%. Within the selected sample, 8254 households
granted an interview for an overall response rate of 82.8%; thus, the actual
combined percent of refusals and "not-at-homes" for the entire United States
was less than the anticipated 20%. Among the 10 EPA regions, the proportion
of interviews obtained varied slightly in that the highest proportion was
91.0% in Region VIII and the lowest was 78.2% in Region IV (Table 7).
Household Pesticide Usage
Based on data obtained from the 8254 respondents in the National House-
hold Pesticide Usage Study, it is estimated that 90.7% of all households in
the United States used pesticides in their house, garden, or yard. In this
study, a household was considered to use pesticides if a member of the house-
hold applied retail pesticide products (including no-pest strips and moth-
balls), employed a commercial pesticide applicator, or used pet insecticides.
-21-
-------
Figure 2. Notation and formulae used in the estimation procedure.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Symbol
Definition
Formula or Data Source
N1jk
Total number of households in k sampled SMSA or county in the
jth EPA region; where "1 = 1" is used for SMSAs and "i = 2" is
used for counties.
United States Census
n*
nijk
Total number of sampled households (respondents only; i.e.,
excluding refusals and not-at-homes) in the k SMSA or county
in the j EPA region.
National Household Pesti
cide Usage Study, 1976-
1977
Total number of sampled households in the k SMSA or county in
the j EPA region with the characteristic of interest (e.g.,
using pesticides or storing pesticides inadequately) or the
total amount of a specific pesticide used during the past
twelve months or currently stored.
National Household Pesti'
cide Usage Study, 1976-
1977
Yijk
Estimated total number of households in the k SMSA or county
in the j EPA region with the characteristic of interest or
the estimated total amount of a specific pesticide used
during the past twelve months or currently stored.
Y = J N
Yijk nt.kN1jk
Estimated variance of Y (Standard error of Y.. ,R is S.-k;
standard error of following estimators is simply the square
root of the sum of the corresponding variance estimators.)
-------
Figure 2. (Continued)
Symbol
Definition
Formula or Data Source
N.. Total number of households among all SMSAs or counties in the United States Census
jth EPA region.
Nij Total number of households in the sampled SMSAs or counties within United States Census
the jth EPA region.
Estimated total number of households among SMSAs or counties in the />/0\ \ M
•fh /» (c-\3i * \ n.,.
jtn EPA region with the characteristic of interest (see Y... defini- Y..=l i Y.., * v
0 \ ''J J Vk -1
Yij tion) or the estimated total amount of a specific pesticide used x
during the past twelve months or currently stored.
N. Total number of households in the j EPA region. N. = N.. + N?.
N^ Total number of households in the sampled SMSAs and counties N? = Nr. + N'
J fU J 1J O
together with the jtn EPA region.
••^ ^ ^«• — ^^^^^^^^••••^••^•.^^^••••^^•.•.^•••»^^«»^ — *«»_«•»_•*••__ ..••_^WM.^«K_,_ . ^ _ _ ^••.^••••^•••^».—,_^H ^
-------
Table 7. Number of households in the population; number of sampled households resulting in interviews,
refusals, and not-at-homes by EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
•IS*
I
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Population
Number
412100
8826000
8160000
11897000
15036000
7515000
4041000
2095000
9079000
2527000
Sampl e
Number
948
1109
1058
1301
1360
742
835
513
1077
1030
Interviews
Number
780
961
861
1017
1099
605
690
467
929
845
Percent
82.3
86.7
81.4
78.2
80.8
81.5
82.6
91.0
86.3
82.0
Refusals
Number
108
86
167
183
139
100
68
18
106
101
Percent
11.4
7.7
15.8
14.1
10.2
13.5
8.1
3.5
9.8
9.8
Not-At-Homes
Number
60
62
30
101
122
37
77
28
42
84
Percent
6.3
5.6
2.8
7.7
9.0
5.0
9.2
5.5
3.9
8.2
U.S.
73297000
9973
8254
82.8
1076
10.8
653
6.4
-------
The 90.7% estimate of household pesticide usage, translates into
66,461,655 households of a total of 73,297,000 in the United States using
pesticides in their house, garden, or yard (Table 8).
The proportion of households using pesticides varied considerably among
the 10 EPA regions (Figure 3). Region IV had the highest household usage
proportion of 97.1% while Region VIII had the lowest of 83.3%. The chi-
square test for homogeneity of proportions found the variation among the
regional proportions to be statistically significant at less than the 1%
level of significance (i.e., p < .01, based on a calculated chi-square
value of 139.43 with 9 degrees of freedom). However, significance of the
chi-square test merely indicates that some differences in the 10 proportions
exist. Figure 4 permits one to explore these differences graphically; that
is, in Figure 4 the interval about each estimated proportion represents the
95% confidence interval for the true unknown proportion of households using
pesticides in each respective EPA region. Nonoverlapping confidence inter-
vals indicate that the true proportions are significantly different at least
at the 10% level of significance. For example, the proportion for Region IV
is significantly higher than the proportion for each of the other regions.
Similarly, the proportion for EPA region IX is significantly higher than the
corresponding proportions for Regions I, II, V, VIII, and X but is not
significantly different from the corresponding proportions for Regions III,
VI, and VII. With these 10 proportions, 45 such pair-wise comparisons are
possible. The result of each comparison need not be listed because of the
ease and facility of such comparisons through the use of Figure 4.
The usage of pesticides by U.S. households has been investigated by
place of use; that is, use in the house, garden, or yard. Pesticide usage
in the house included application in the house and garage, as well as treat-
ment of house foundation and house-dwelling pets. Pesticide Usage in the
-25-
-------
Table 8. Estimated percent and total number of households using pesticides
in the house, garden or yard by EPA Region. National Household
Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Percent
88.3
88.8
90.6
97.1
87.3
91.0
93.5
83.3
92.6
84.4
Total
3637738
7839127
7390547
11554385
13127321
6842015
3780290
1745086
8411571
2133575
S.E.
47627
90384
81411
62730
151337
87457
38042
36199
77948
31725
U.S.
90.7
66461655
247774
-26-
-------
Figure 3. Estimated percent of households using pesticides in the house, garden, or yard for each EPA region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
ro
-*j
t
-------
Figure 4. Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence interval) of households using
pesticides in the house, garden, or yard for each EPA region. National House-
hold Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
i.na
B.BB-
0.flB-
0.70-
B.EB-
0
fe B.SB-
o
0.
g B.HB-
n.
0.3f-
0.28-
0.10-
n am •
T
JL
£1
f
±
T
J.
Pi
*
Pi
•
T
1
IM
in
EPA REGION
-------
garden included the application of pesticide compounds in flower beds and
vegetable gardens. Pesticide usage in the yard included the application of
pesticides to trees, shrubbery, lawn, and outside pets. Based on the total
number of responding households, it is estimated that 83.7% of all househo-lds
use pesticides in the house, 21.4% in the garden, and 28.7% in the yard.
Corresponding national estimates of the number of households using pesti-
cides by each place of use are presented in Table 9.
Overall, 83.7% of the responding households used pesticides in the
house; however, a wide variation in the proportions of households reporting
usage was noted by geographic region. In the southeastern EPA Region IV,
it was estimated that 94.0% of all households used pesticides in the house.
This compared to 65.5% in Rocky Mountain Region VIII (Figure 5). Results of
the chi-square test for homogeneity of proportions showed a significant
variation among the ten regional proportions (p < .01). Graphical comparisons
of the true unknown usage proportions for the 10 EPA regions are depicted in
Figure 6 which presents a plot of the estimated proportion (with correspond-
ing 95% confidence interval) of households using pesticides in the house;
the true proportion for Region IV is significantly greater (p <_ .10) than
the proportions for all other regions. Additionally, the true proportions
for Regions VIII and X are significantly less (p <_ .10) than the proportions
for the other eight EPA regions.
It was estimated that, for the entire United States, 21.4% of the house-
holds used pesticides in the garden. There was moderate variation of the
proportions of households using pesticides in the garden among the 10 EPA
regions. The range of the proportion variation was from a high of 27.7% in
-29-
-------
Table 9
Estimated Total Number of Households Having Used Pesticides in the House, Garden,
and Yard by EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
House
Garden
Yard
I
GO
o
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
3366899
7438791
7180420
11188845
11902355
6300075
340201 3
1372741
7487227
1715827
S.E.
57237
104387
90595
88704
184727
113041
5645B
46126
113632
40778
Total
919426
1255422
1158759
2939848
3437983
1412215
965927
477807
2510368
613510
S.E.
62565
101256
98451
166489
191439
120353
67085
41210
134318
39276
Total
1182880
1831277
2275200
4504570
51 35584
3688497
1784725
1081584
5647178
1209372
S.E.
67847
117109
125580
185955
215582
153630
77181
48814
145376
44191
U.S.
61355193
311514
15691267
358461
28340866
412519
-------
Figure 5. Estimated percent of households using pesticides in the house, garden or yard for each E?A region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
i
<*>
84.3% House
14.2% Garden
20.7% Yard
81.7% House
22.3% Garden
28.7% Yard
65.5% House
22.8% Garden
51.6% Yard
79.2% House
22.9% Garden
34.23 Yard
67.9% House
24.3% Garden
47.9% Yard
.0% Hous
14.2% Garden
7.9% Yard
84.2% House
23.9% Garden
44.2% Yard
82.5% House
27.7% Garden
62.2% Yard
94.0% House
24.7% Garden
37.9% Yard
83.8% House
18.8% Garden
49.1% Yard
-------
Figure 6 Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence interval) of households using
pesticides in the house for each EPA region. National Household Pesticide
Usage Study, 1976-1977.
GO
ro
1 .BU
B.B0-
a.aa-
B.7B-
B.EB-
o
fe B.Sfl-
o
§ B.HB-
o.
B.3B-
B.2B-
fl. IB-
it MR
ft
T
JL
T
jL
*
ijl
fl
*
T
1
T
1
n
tn
EPA REGION
-------
Region IX to a low-of 14.2% in Regions II and III (Figure 5). Figure 7 shows
the corresponding plot of these estimated proportions and the approximate 95%
confidence intervals; the true unknown proportion for Region IX is signifi-
cantly greater (at the 10% level) than the proportions for Regions II, III,
and VI. The proportions for Regions II and III are significantly less than
those for Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, and X (p <_ .10).
An estimated 38.7% of all households in the United States use pesticides
in their yards. The estimated percent of households in each EPA region using
yard pesticides varied from a high of 62.2% for Region IX to a low of 20.7%
for Region II (Figure 5). The corresponding estimated proportions and 95%
confidence intervals, as seen in Figure 8, confirm that the proportion for
Region IX was significantly greater than all other proportions (p <_ .05)
with the proportion for Region II significantly less than all others. By
examination of Figures 5 and 8, one can see that the proportions for four
of the five eastern EPA regions (i.e., Regions I, II, III, and V) are sig-
nificantly lower than the proportions of the remaining five EPA regions.
For each EPA region, the mean number of pesticide containers (used or
stored) was estimated and found to differ significantly (p < .01) among the
*
10 EPA regions. Region IX had the highest mean value of 2.3 containers per
household while Regions II and III had the lowest mean of 1.3 containers
(Figure 9). Overall, the national estimated mean number of containers per
household was 1.7. Corresponding estimates of total number of pesticide
containers are presented in Table 10.
An estimated 20.6% of all households in the United States stored
unused pesticides that had not been used in the past 12 months. As shown
in Figure 10, the highest proportion of households storing unused pesticides
was 27.3% for Region VIII and the lowest was 15.6% in Region IV. Correspond-
ing national estimates are shown in Table 10.
-33-
-------
Figure 7. Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence interval) of households using
pesticides in the garden. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
fl.BB*
B.7B-
fl.EB-
o B.SB-
o
2 a. MB-
o
a:
a.
B.3I-
fl.Zfl-
B.IB-
fl. HBI •
J'
^ X H-, m rh
± ± ± T X t
£ A R
J
rvi
m
EPA REGION
-------
Figure 8. Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence interval) of households using
pesticides in the yard. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
u.an
fl.fli-
B.7B-
B.Efl-
£ o l>n.
£
o
1 ••*•
o.
B.3B-
B.2I-
B.lfl-
H m
T
1
f
i
Fi
T
1
ft
X
1
JL
1
T
1
T
1
rvi
U3
m
EPA REGION
-------
Figure 9. Estimated mean number (and standard deviation) of observed pesticide containers per household.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
CO
o»
I
-------
Table 10
CO
^J
I
Estimated Total Number of Pesticide Containers in U.S. Households, and Estimated
Total Number of Households With Stored But Unused Pesticides by EPA Region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Total Number of
Pesticide Containers
Number of Households With
Stored,Unused Pesticides
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
5626750.0
11792591.2
10728362.4
18073613.6
27349375.8
14756727.3
7490491.3
4252805.1
20933496.2
4449912.4
S.E.
243805.9
461884.5
410908.8
631364.3
893918.8
703600.9
320275.8
225329.4
756863.8
204610.5
Total
999030
2039702
1806857
1861187
2448044
1235688
719879
572633
2348192
507877
S.E.
64146
122329
116970
138269
168918
114196
59870
44063
132815
35472
U.S.
125454025.3
1703657.5
14539090
343333
-------
Figure 10. Estimated percent of households with stored but unused pesticides. National Household
Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
-------
As mentioned previosuly, households were also considered to use pesti-
cides if they employed a commercial applicator, used mothballs, or used pet
insecticides. Table 11 depicts the national estimates of the total number
of households treated by a commercial applicator and treated for termites,
respectively, for each EPA region. Greater insight into the relative use
of pesticides by commercial and termite control applicators can be obtained
by the examination of Figures 11 through 13. The proportion of households
utilizing commercial applicators and termite control was significantly
different (p < .01) among the 10 EPA regions. As shown in Figures 11 and
12, the proportion of households in Region IV (44.2%) using commercial
applicators was significantly greater than proportions from the remaining
EPA regions. Similarly, the proportion of the population utilizing termite
control in Region IV (54.5%) was significantly greater than proportions for
the other regions (Figures 11 and 13). The proportions of households using
a commercial applicator and termite control was the least (8.9% and 2.5%,
respectively) in Region VIII.
Table 12 depicts national estimates of the total number of households
using no-pest strips, mothballs, and disinfectants for each EPA region. A
total of 16.4% of the households utilized no-peststrips; 35.8% used moth-
balls, flakes, or crystals; and 90.6% used disinfectants.
The estimated total numbers of households using insecticide impregnated
pet collars for insect control, insecticidal shampoos, insecticidal powders,
and other pesticides such as insecticide sprays and dips on pets are presented
in Tables 13 and 14. Proportions of responding sampled households that used
or applied the pet insecticides on their pets were as follows: 28.4% used
insecticide impregnated pet collars; 13.3% used insecticide pet shampoo;
13.1 used insecticide pet powder; and 2.0% used other pesticides for their
pets.
-39-
-------
Table 11
I
-p»
o
Estimated Total Number of Households Treated by Commercial Applicator and Estimated
Total Number of Households Treated for Termites by EPA Region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Treated By
Commercial Applicator
Treated for Termites
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
569169
2099577
1954079
5262364
1497894
2180119
722041
186222
1877678
355510
S.E.
51849
124783
120875
187227
138773
141002
60030
28137
126127
31300
Total
491245
1320531
3365175
6481814
732323
2208425
1295792
52638
3039607
149097
S.E.
54379
123105
147564
200976
104241
157571
76743
16456
163944
23177
U.S.
16704653
358254
19136647
386715
-------
Figure 11. Estimated percent of households treated By a commercial pesticide applicator or treated for termites for
each EPA region. National Household Usage Study, 1976-1977.
23.8%Applicatc
"14.2% Termites
23.9% Applicato
41.2* Termites
13.8% Applicator { I
11.9% Termites
10.0% Applicator WE
8.9% Applicator
2.5% Termites
14.1% Applicator
5.9% Termites
4.9% Termites
17.9% Applicator
32.1% Termites
20.7 Applicator
33.5% Termites
44.2% Applicator
54.5% Termites
29.0% Applicator
29.4% Termites
-------
Figure 12. Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence interval) of households treated
by a commercial pesticide applicator for each EPA region. National Household
Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
B.3B
B.flB
B. 71
o
Q.
g
O.
a. MB
i.ai
B.2B
fl.lfl
B.fffl
n
*
i
IV
PI
1/1
m
EPA REGION
-------
Figure 13. Plot of estimated proportion (with 95% confidence interval) of households treated
for termites for each EPA region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study,
1976-1977.
i. mm
B.3B-
• am\ .
•IB
B.7B-
z B.BB-
o
I— 4
£ B.5B-
0
a.
§ B.HB-
o.
B.3B-
B.2B-
B.IB-
• M
-T
H
1 1
T
1
.
T
f±l
*!•
T
1
T T r^
1 -*-
1 *•
T
Pi r3n Pi
IM
ui
u3
rn
tn
i3
EPA REGION
-------
Table \e.
i
-P»
t
Estimated Total Number of Households Using No-Pest Strips, Mothballs, and Disinfect-
ants by EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
No-Pest Strips
Mothbal1s.Crystals,Etc.
Disinfectants
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U.S.
Total
493661
1403297
1173895
1444213
2667232
1041311
633422
574654
2092117
499383
12023186
S.E.
48318
104437
97995
122621
174212
106173
56011
43486
126118
34740
318817
Total
1964663
4044862
3605358
4449382
5405734
2123804
1195142
419000
2606842
453409
26268196
S.E.
74031
142979
138993
182861
219449
138488
70619
38903
136314
33555
415001
Total
3728780
7966079
7426950
11098304
12846426
7050801
3512608
2024855
8486247
2249984
66391034
S.E.
43695
85686
80268
94291
161085
73981
52554
17826
74024
27570
255590
-------
Table 13
CJ1
I
Estimated Total Number of Households That Have Used Insect Collars on Pets,
or Pet Insecticide Shampoos, by EPA Region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Insecticide Collars
Insecticide Shampoos
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
1309775
2019743
2618436
4332639
3549976
1689322
976428
287109
3206667
834330
S.E.
69017
119915
130197
180674
192882
127647
66045
33375
142911
40979
Total
459075
701649
1107088
2559514
1975533
794975
453582
89722
1306901
336533
S.E.
46695
77260
95619
154363
153502
94047
48739
19649
105303
29624
U.S.
20824427
387057
9784570
297079
-------
Table 14
I
•Fk
cr>
i
Estimated Total Number of Households That Have Used Pet Insecticide Powders and
Other Pesticides on Pets By EPA-Region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Insecticide Powders
Other Pesticides
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
507118
757042
1096262
2695229
1439180
1142777
342658
76263
1257397
300833
S.E.
48754
79977
95168
157404
133620
109801
43075
18176
103618
28253
Total
54224
46847
185233
375567
123923
177720
107125
36435
278741
57226
S.E.
17045
20906
42035
66414
41156
46972
24931
12783
51891
12987
U.S.
9614758
293663
1443041
120216
-------
Household Pesticide Usage. Storage, and Disposal Practices
Several key questions were asked to investigate the pesticide usage,
storage, and disposal practices of respondents in the National Household
Pesticide Usage Study. For example, where do you buy your pesticides? what
information do you obtain from reading the label? and where do you dispose
of unwanted pesticides? In the following series of tables, (Tables 15
through 18) answers to the above questions are given in terms of the propor-
tions of the responding sample households. The balance of the nonspecified
household proportions listed under the "primary" column is attributable to
the inability of the respondents to define their primary place, method, or
source of information. A second column in this series of tables (Tables 15
through 18) presents the proportions of the responding sample households that
utilized secondary place, method, or source of information. For example,
Table 15 reveals that 41.1% of the responding households bought pesti-
cides from the grocery store; this location was the primary purchase place
for 35.1% of the households.
For 29.7% of the responding households, the label was used as
their primary source of information on pesticide usage, storage, and disposal
(Table 16). Over 49% of the households interviewed noted pesticide applica-
tion information was obtained from reading the label; 34.8% cited precaution-
ary measures; and 14.8% replied that they obtained pesticide preparation
instructions from the lauel (Table 17). The ingredients and antidotes were
noted by 10.2% and 6.2% of the responding population, respectively. Applica-
tion instructions and precautionary measures were the two leading types of
information primarily obtained by reading the label for 33.0% and 16.0% of
the respondents respectively.
-47-
-------
Table 15. Primary and secondary place of pesticide purchase. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977. (In estimated
percentages.)
Primary Place Secondary
of Purchase Place of Purchase Total
Grocery 35.1% 6.0% 41.1%
Discount 9.3% 3.8% 13.1%
Hardware 9.0% 3.9% 12.9%
Nursery 5.9% 2.9% 8.8%
Feed 3.3% 1.7% 5.0%
Drug 2.3% 2.0% 4.3%
Sales person other
than retail store .4% .5% .9%
Other 5.5% 2.2% 7.7%
Nonspecified 29.2%
-48-
-------
Table 16. Primary and secondary sources of information on pesticide usage.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977. (In esti-
mated percentages.)
Primary Source Secondary Source
of Information of Information Total
Label 29.7% 6.6% 36.3%
Mass media 10.9% 6.0% 16.9%
Neighbor, friend,
or relative 9.8% 3.5% 13.3%
Sales person 3.6% 2.1% 5.7%
Agriculture extension
service 1.8% 1.4% 3.2%
Health department .2% .1% .3%
Other 11.3% 2.7% 14.0%
Nonspecified 32.7%
-49-
-------
Table 17. Types of information obtained from reading the pesticide label.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977. (In esti-
mated percentages.)
Primary
Information
Obtained
Secondary
Information
Obtained
Total
Applications
Precautionary
measures
Preparation
Ingredients
Antidotes
Other
Nonspecified
33.0%
16.0%
2.9%
2.7%
.5%
8.4%
36.5%
16.4%
18.8%
11.9%
7.5%
5.7%
2.7%
49.4%
34.8%
14.8%
10.2%
6.2%
11.1%
-50-
-------
The following table (Table 18) deals with the householders' methods of
disposing unwanted pesticides, diluted pesticides, and empty pesticide con-
tainers. As shown in Table 18, 31.3% of the households disposed of their
unwanted pesticides primarily by using them entirely, while 20.4% placed
pesticides with other refuse as their primary disposal method. Similarly,
the majority of respondents (17.9%) primarily disposed of pesticides diluted
for use by using them entirely. An additional 5.8% of the responding popula-
tion primarily discarded their diluted pesticides by placing them with other
household refuse. Empty pesticide containers were also disposed primarily
by discarding them with other household refuse (67.6%). Only 13 of the 8254
responding households used empty pesticide containers to store other pesti-
cides and 19 households used empty pesticide containers to store other sub-
stances. Investigation of the use of pesticide application equipment revealed
that 147 of the 8254 households used application equipment to apply more than
one pesticide. It is of considerable interest to note that 104 householders
used application equipment for other substances.
Health Effects of Household Pesticide Use
In the National Household Pesticide Usage Study, an attempt was made to
determine if householders suffered any ill health effects associated with use
of pesticides. Of the 8254 responding households, 253 stated that they or
some member of their household experienced dizziness, headache, nausea, or
vomiting after using pesticides (Table 19). However, only 22 respondents
said that they or another member of their household experienced severe
adverse effects related to pesticide use and were treated by a physician.
Of the 8254 responding households, only seven had a member which had a
diagnosed pesticide poisoning. Only one of these seven diagnosed pesticide
poisonings was hospitalized. Material belongstd:--^_
Office of Toxic Substances Libraiy ~"
U.S. Env,-v Tiinental Protection Agency
401M:;.;,;l:S.W.TS-793
Washini-on, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-3944
-51-
-------
Table 18. Methods of disposing of unwanted pesticides, unused-diluted
pesticides, and empty pesticide containers. National House-
hold Usage Study, 1976-1977. (In estimated percentages.)
Used Up
Refuse
Sink or Toilet
Buried
Burned
Street Gutter
Given Away
Other
Nonspecified
Primary Method
of Disposal
31.3%a
17.9%b
20.4%
5.8%
66.5%
1.3%
2.0%
1.2%
.5%
.8%
.6%
1.9%
.4%
.1%
1.7%
.2%
.4%
.2%
1.0%
.8%
1.2%
43.4%
70.6%
29.8%
Secondary Method
of Disposal
1.4%
.6%
2.0%
.4%
1.1%
.5%
.2%
.3%
.2%
.2%
.4%
.5%
.2%
.1%
.5%
.1%
.1%
.2%
.2%
.2%
.3%
Total
32.7%
18.5%
22.4%
6.2%
67.6%
1.8%
2.2%
1.5%
.7%
1.0%
1.0%
2.4%
.6%
.2%
2.2%
.3%
.5%
.4%
1.2%
1.0%
1.5%
Percentage for disposal of unwanted pesticides.
Percentage for disposal of unused-diluted pesticides.
c ' '"}
Percentage for disposal of empty pesticide containers.
-52-
-------
Table 19
Estimated Total Number of Households Having Experienced Nausea, Dizziness,
Headaches, or Vomiting After Using Pesticides by EPA Region. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U.S.
Total
42927
268617
273629
505993
510713
314698
89800
68464
328157
98072
2501071
S.E.
15108
50013
50867
77364
86129
61659
23751
17405
58856
17566
164809
-53-
-------
Observed Pesticides
As a portion of the questionnaire, each interviewed household was asked
to provide information regarding all pesticides that they had used or stored
in the past 12 months. This information included the total number of ounces
used of each pesticide and the number of ounces currently stored. Products
such as pet insecticides and no-pest strips were not included in this list
since their use had been recorded in other portions of the questionnaire
(Tables 12 through 14).
As mentioned previously, the observed pesticides were subsequently
coded according to the seven-digit Pindex system which classified the pesti-
cides by ingredient. In Appendix C, Pindex numbers of all pesticides
observed in the study are listed along with the observed frequency and the
relative frequency (i.e., frequency divided by the observed total number of
pesticides) of each pesticide observed in this study.
Pesticides were coded as unknown insecticide (Pindex 0008540) when
described as "a bug spray" by the householder and the interviewer was not
able to inspect the container or storage site. Among the 8254 interviewed
households, 1756 containers of an unknown insecticide were recorded as being
used and/or stored (Table 20). The 14 known pesticides observed most fre-
quently in the study were: 1) dichlorvos; 2) resmethrin; 3) pyrethrin;
4) chlordane; 5) Sevin; 6) 2-4-D and silvex; 7) diazinon; 8) Baygon and
DDVP; 9) malathion; 10) metaldehyde; 11) warfarin; 12) arprocarb; 13) captan,
methoxychlor, rotenone, and rotenoids; 14) ovex, lindane, rotenone, and
folpet. Tables 21 through 34 present the number of observed containers as
well as the total observed and estimated amount of formulations (used and
stored) containing these pesticides for each EPA region and the United States,
-54-
-------
Table 20
en
en
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Unknown
Insecticide Formulations By EPA Region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Ounces Used
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
_jr-___
Total
11232366.7
32493640.0
10406132.4
95971473.0
52140305.7
42245479.3
11162530.4
1821349.0
25917662.0
2763252.1
S.E.
2946155.5
9753232.7
1944335.8
13759151.9
12189433.6
6432729.2
3995643.4
433479.3
9946015.7
401158.7
Total
2615250.0
13528301.8
14917351.9
31386087.5
23491184.7
17290710.7
2664717.4
1081145.6
8834678.1
2978570.4
S.E.
615282.4
4937969.1
8738277.0
5068952.5
3191503.7
8282589.1
693425.5
264636.2
1214590.6
828282.0
U.S.
286154190.6
24537718.1
118787998.2
14433052.5
-------
As shown in Table 21, 1207 dichlorvos containers (Pindex 0401281)
were observed in 8254 households. Similarly, 866 containers'of resmethrin
(Pindex 1016815), 787 of pyrethrin (Pindex 0803247), 674 of chlordane
(Pindex 0200725), and 618 of Sevin or carbaryl (Pindex 2000685) were
recorded as used and/or stored (Tables 22 through 25).
The sixth most frequently occurring known pesticide was a combination
of 2,4-D and silvex (pindex 0308049). Pesticides for household use are very
often combinations so that they can be used for control of a variety of pest
problems (Table 26).
Of the 14 known pesticides observed most frequently, the seventh, diazinon
(Pindex 0401109), was observed 449 times, the eighth, Baygon and DDVP. (Pindex
0008144), was observed 402 times; and the ninth, malathion (.Pindex Q402313),
382 times (Tables 27 through 29). Containers of the pesticides metaldehyde
(Pindex 2502409), warfarin (Pindex 1004183), and arprocarb or Baygon (Pindex
2002152) were recorded as being used or stored 367, 340, and 339 times,
respectively (Tables 30 through 32). The final two pesticides of the leading
14 are the following combination pesticides (Tables 33 and 34): captan,
methoxychlor, rotenone, and rotenoids (Pindex 6006712) which was observed
274 times, and ovex, lindane, rotenone and folpet (Pindex 6006696) observed
263 times.
In the National Household Pesticide Usage Study, a total of 14, 037
pesticide containers were observed as being used or stored in the 8254
sampled households. The 14 leading known pesticides and the unknown insecti-
cide classification accounted for 65.6% of all pesticide containers observed.
-56-
-------
Table 21
I
en
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Dichlorovos
Formulations By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Ounces Used
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
14988816.7
35157053.1
15040557.5
44230636.2
27499872.6
28258884.3
10916556.5
2839689.5
22389654.5
1333777.5
S.E.
4510145.6
8250867.6
2456399.4
11181601.4
4961120.6
4410774.0
1372115.1
631336.0
3149268.9
314526.0
Total
4443283.3
6869769.0
13950662.0
9346807.3
15938980.9
8682619.8
6963404.3
2108458.2
9127864.4
1013790.5
S.E.
461244.3
816238.6
5765995.6
1124054.7
2256056.3
1095248.0
961114.6
349331.6
943398. 1
323788.0
U.S.
202655498.3
16608614.9
78445639.8
6612047.1
-------
Table 22
I
Ol
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Resmethrin
Formulations By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Ounces Used
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
7787633.3
12049648.3
8937142.9
8972467.1
33136662.4
13191619.8
6143491.3
2530149.9
8531719.1
2147202.4
S.E.
1049872.2
2196799.1
1552190.5
2386137.3
4194302.7
3802944.6
1335471.6
465419.8
1581513.5
488596.7
Total
4200250.0
6970795.0
5250453.0
2737362.8
16212611.5
3192322.3
2477308.7
2557066.4
4436884.8
1267985.8
S.E.
455922.0
792044.1
757633.3
569089.0
1375681.6
598785.9
368601.5
350697.4
625356.9
195699.7
U.S.
103427736.4
7129206.9
49303040.3
2161569.9
-------
Table 23
01
ID
I
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Pyrethrin
Formulations By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Ounces Used
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U.S.
Total
3798716.7
9863812.7
5771707.3
10656998.0
39224942.7
7154776.9
3420208.7
1632933.6
13398610.3
1931884.0
96854590.9
S.E.
684399.8
1265165.0
979352.1
2344373.3
6537251.2
1448349.1
634142.3
385590.2
1843420.4
370749.3
7579188.7
Total
1616700.0
6961610.8
4008919.9
4316610.6
16800917.2
12359380.2
1587117.4
960021 .4
6166683.5
1004818.9
55782779.9
S.E.
300089.1
788448.8
608927.8
766534.0
2154252.4
7659611.4
285486.1
216306.6
898211.2
156808.8
8120356.3
-------
Table 24
o>
o
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Chlordane
Formulations By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Ounces Used
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
8580133.3
3434884.5
4369059.2
14564174.0
9754929.9
6869082.6
2793560.9
1628447.5
9567643.7
433627.2
S.E.
2018696.9
1148094.2
1473765.1
5589632.2
2564381.0
2290280.2
585004.4
370909.0
1569499.3
142136.9
Total
7206466.7
4041040.6
6539372.8
6504161.3
12286012.7
8061545.5
3566621.7
2063597.4
12137909.6
959960.9
S.E.
2002828.4
1130010.6
1784611.5
1326709.5
1846019.7
1780599.4
818342.9
392310.5
1467883.5
237939.1
U.S.
61995543.0
7320792.1
63366689.2
4454936.0
-------
Table 25
en
i
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Sevin Formula-
tions By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Ounces Used
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
1621983.3
10717941.7
11221184.7
73218606.7
12108152.9
15924347.1
5838952.2
1004882.2
2560493.0
331949.1
S.E.
351315.9
5364811.2
2550290.5
16398086.7
2631502.8
5330895.4
1480412.7
331669.4
659437.8
105297.4
Total
1695950.0
6970795.0
4710243.9
31467974.4
10794726.1
18607388.4
4240121.7
1879668.1
3313004.3
798472.2
S.E.
395167.4
2119090.5
829399.8
7563413.1
2359082.7
5582907.9
1017736.6
459451.9
57487.4
252538.0
U.S.
134548492.9
18503963.7
84478344.2
10053970.7
-------
Table 26
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of 2,4-D + Si 1 vex
Formulations By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
ro
Region
Total
S.E.
Total
S.E.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1437066.7
9174999.0
.2066062.7
783774.8
16390471.3
3415909.1
11531491.3
5607601.7
6059181.9
12356880.5
790552.3
4303433.7
682939.8
307590.6
4339007.2
1152498.9
2182339.8
2234697.5
1895736.4
4275238.8
2409200.0
3701225.8
1952334.5
6012839.7
22081987.3
6931190.1
11339226.1
5881252.7
5511901.0
4258518.3
1457268.0
1753208.6
656359.0
2237324.4
4647302.1
1607649.0
2855228.7
1304574.4
1312157.1
2158153.5
U.S.
68823439.0
8455101.0
70078675.4
7144884.7
-------
Table 27
0)
CO
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Diazinon
Formulations By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977,
Ounces Used
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
1389516.7
4417592.1
777142.9
13909078.7
7004942.7
8993157.0
29856547.8
4409818.0
10847890.2
2401397.6
S.E.
510772.0
2493543.4
271585.4
5593618.1
2775188.9
3644673.3
7957157.5
2070663.4
4431952.8
529978.9
Total
1014400.0
1910310.1
1374216.0
4819630.3
5705197.5
17588826.4
10606160.9
1072173.4
5814860.1
2096363.3
S.E.
397543.7
667258.9
444044.4
1 373880 .2
1271153.9
8439583.4
3909349.0
264410.0
1021965.8
382033.9
U.S.
84007083.6
12097680.4
52002138.0
959r,503.4
-------
Table 28
01
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Baygon + DDVP
Formulations By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Ounces Used
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
5769400.0
29077123.8
4814494.8
27221552.6
9905426.8
1180041.3
2073209.7
367858.7
15519324.0
254195.3
S.E.
2248198.7
7805958.3
1678682.2
7324870.4
3012406.4
571868.0
1007110.8
179392.2
1934598.6
107243.5
Total
961566.7
3655304.9
1819651.6
4258120.0
6225095.5
521702.5
503660.9
345428.3
7368747.0
143545.6
S.E.
222519.8
989478.3
481401.7
877678.1
2561170.0
290789.1
155418.9
137127.2
880246.3
58273.8
U.S.
96182625.9
11690223.9
25802822.8
3081555.9
-------
Table 29
en
01
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Malathion
Formulations By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1-976-1977.
Ounced Used
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U.S.
Total
454366.7
339814.8
417003.5
11592848.6
2298496.8
4335099.2
989752.2
1139464.7
5619402.6
864263.9
28050512.8
S.E.
161957.4
117516.5
140585.8
4946170.9
466223.9
1056316.2
367397.1
595075.7
1091267.2
284471.7
5255327.2
Total
1072516.7
1965415.2
3203344.9
8095107.2
6608178.3
7067826.4
1188873.9
1300963.6
7906255.1
1411531.4
39820012.8
S.E.
287545.3
554730.9
1718198.2
2453195.1
2015567.9
2140024.4
467069.1
291865.1
1137573.3
309960.7
4438072.3
-------
Table 30
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Metaldehyde
Formulations By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Ounces Used
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
243033.3
110210.2
151637.6
1871701.1
6156687.9
3304115.7
134700.0
179443.3
147746310.0
9476997.6
S.E.
177026.6
110208.4
151639.6
1114185.1
2130900.2
2449747.8
73254.6
93189.5
22566199.7
2409607.3
Total
507200.0
183683.7
682369.3
1555851.5
5937783.4
2037124.0
404100.0
753661.7
44251573.7
4793823.7
.S.E.
266873.9
183682.8
485202.0
690393.6
2486851.7
1242902.5
214067.5
312740.8
5076689.0
1050174.4
U.S.
69374836.7
22954378.9
61107171.0
5963683.3
-------
Table 31
CTl
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Warfarin
Formulations By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
U.S.
Ounces Used
32883753.6
5321421.3
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
803066.7
3701225.8
758188.2
5626801 .4
12313375.8
4036983.5
2155200.0
798522.5
1299792.2
1390597.6
S.E.
293137.4
1062757.7
376294.3
3793038.9
2985662.6
1008020.3
1347361.8
544565.3
379466.5
622240.3
Total
121516.7
1157207.1
426480.8
397736.5
3844509.6
1900487.6
415813.0
605621 .0
547280.9
562220.1
S.E.
63071.7
363351.7
241159.9
205048.0
1120542.1
910042.7
230730.7
538802.7
216586.7
280004.5
9978873.3
1669986.6
-------
Table 32
00
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Arprocarb
Formulations By EPA Region. National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977,
U.S.
Ounces Used
62163933.9
14598618.3
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
3444733.3
7273873.0
3971010.5
19828333.3
6348229.3
15675917.4
1563691.3
309539.6
3264139.9
484466.3
S.E.
1277939.8
2996026.0
1465735.9
11863312.4
1843532.3
7409372.9
338184.0
122227.7
1068281.5
236617.4
Total
1590283.3
3646120.7
2265087.1
3743402.2
5404203.8
4471735.5
1376282.6
686370.4
2169578.0
161488.8
S.E.
305398.5
639077.3
492803.1
993056.3
1065953.0
87901 8.. 2
384278.3
197951.4
774958.9
67082.5
25514552.5
2105124.3
-------
Table 33
I
0>
vo
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Formulations
Containing a Mixture of Captan, Methoxychlor, Rotenone, and Rotenoids By EPA Region
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Ounces Used
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
1072516.7
1148022.9
843484.3
573208.5
14652917.2
1689322.3
1446560.9
883758.0
1993666.3
140555.0
S.E.
272372.6
408324.5
291317.9
301743.8
2958106.8
461712.1
363778.3
226599.9
438496.4
56169.7
Total
1114783.3
1184759.6
1876515.7
678491.6
5800968.2
1912909.1
661787.0
973479.7
1759117.3
454560.9
S.E.
250321.5
333293.2
663151.6
304002.4
1034726.2
472864.2
163322.2
242095.6
347525.3
332170.7
U.S.
24444012.1
3124023.3
16417372.4
1522034.0
-------
Table 34
Estimated Total Amount and Standard Error of Ounces Used and Stored of Formulations
Containing a Mixture of Ovex, Lindane, Rotenone, and Folpet By EPA Region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
U.S.
Ounces Used
17004793.3
Ounces Stored
Region
1
2
3
4
sj
° 5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
845333.3
918418.3
1459512.2
1766417.9
5253707.0
1602371.9
778917.4
1659850.1
2247761 .0
472504.1
S.E.
206193.1
296563.7
559943.2
458486.0
1469846.1
827752.5
240897.3
489744.5
447998.4
143338.8
Total
855900.0
1432732.6
805574.9
1707927.2
3735057.3
794975.2
1270865.2
1251616.7
1759117.3
391759.8
S.E.
235260.6
766753.4
278501 .0
575402.4
861021.2
249018.2
369967.3
437265.9
396865.2
127891.7
2004735.2
14005526.3
1535321.5
-------
Economic Loss Involving Household Pesticide Usage
Household pesticide usage, especially improper or careless usage, can
result in economic loss through, for example, destruction of desirable
plants, staining of furniture or carpets, injury to pets, or loss of cash
crops or other cash products. In order to obtain information on economic
losses involving household pesticide usage, interviewed householders were
queried regarding both the number of economic losses which the household
had experienced as a result of using pesticides in the past 12 months prior
to the interview, and the approximate dollar value of each loss. Based on
these data, it was estimated that approximately one and a half million
households in the United States had experienced annually at least one
economic loss as a result of household pesticide usage (Table 35). Thus,
the estimated percent of U.S. households which experienced an economic loss
was 2.0% with a standard error of .2%. The proportion of households having
experienced an economic loss involving household pesticide usage did vary
among the 10 EPA regions (Figure 14); however,based on a chi-square test for
homogeneity of proportions, this variation was not statistically significant
at the 5% level (p = .056).
In order to estimate the number of economic losses involving household
pesticide usage, it was necessary to assign the value "4" for those few
households for which the respondent indicated merely that the household
had experienced more than three losses; thus, the estimated total number of
economic losses, as presented in Table 35, should be considered a conser-
vative estimate since some of the households, which indicated "greater than
three losses", may in fact have experienced five or more economic losses
involving household pesticide usage. The mean number of economic losses
among those households which had experienced a loss involving household
-71-
-------
Table 35
ro
i
Estimated Total Number of Households which Experienced an Economic Loss and the
Estimated Total Number of Economic Losses by EPA Region.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Number of Households
Number of Losses
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U.S.
Total
90373
111465
155853
298442
290395
63471
85614
78037
16438
85564
1475653
S.E.
23094
33414
41282
62861
67819
28289
26814
21267
49090
21740
129456
Total
132546.8
162130.9
178117.3
501925.9
419459.2
76165.5
94175.8
8404Q.1
318961.1
147977.5
2115500.2
S.E.
39723.9
58941.4
51759.5
131973.6
117687.4
35820.8
30621.2
23633.7
85439.7
45003.2
226059.8
-------
Figure 14. Estimated percent of households experiencing economic loss involving household pesticide usage.
National Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
-------
pesticide usage was estimated to be 1.4 with an estimated standard error
of .2.
For each household which had experienced at least one economic loss
involving household pesticide usage, the respondent was asked to categorize
each loss with respect to approximate dollar value as follows: less than
$100; greater than $100 but less than $250; greater than $250 but less than
$500; greater than $500 but less than $1000; or greater than $1000. In
order to estimate the mean dollar value of the experienced losses, it was
necessary to use the midpoint of the first four dollar-value intervals and
to use the lower limit of the fifth dollar-value category (i.e., greater
than $1000). Thus, as in the case of estimating the total number of
economic losses, the estimated mean dollar value of economic losses involv-
ing household pesticide usage can be considered a conservative estimate;
however, with only four losses reported in the "greater than $1000" category,
the net effect of using the lower limit of $1000 might well be considered
negligible. Based on these data, it was estimated that the mean dollar
value of reported losses involving household pesticide usage was $86.61 with
an estimated standard error of $10.69. Although there appears to be varia-
tion in the mean dollar value among the 10 EPA regions (Table 36), this
variation was not statistically significant at the 5% level (p = .072).
By combining the estimated number of economic losses involving house-
hold pesticide usage (Table 35) with the estimated mean dollar value of such
losses (Table 36), it was possible to estimate the total dollar value of
losses involving household pesticide usage in the United" States. In partic-
ular, based on the resirHs of this study, the estimated economic Toss involv-
ing household pesticide usage in the U.S. is approximately 183 million
dollars with an estimated standard error of 30 million dollars.
-74-
-------
Table 36. Estimated mean dollar value and standard error of economic losses
involving household pesticide usage by EPA region. National
Household Pesticide Usage Study, 1976-1977.
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U.S.
I
$ 67.86
66.67
50.00
116.91
69.57
50.00
75.00
50.00
88.39
156.58
$ 86.61
S.E.
$ 9.78
11.36
0.00
29.57
14.91
0.00
16.67
0.00
34.06
68.50
$10.69
-75-
-------
DISCUSSION
A significant finding of the National Household Pesticide Usage Study
is that nine of every ten households in the United States used some type
of pesticide in their house, garden, or yard. The percentage of households
found in this study to have used some type of pesticide in their house,
garden, or yard (i.e., 90.7%) is consistent with results from previous
limited studiesj that is, 90.7% versus 92.5% from a 1972 study involving
525 households in Philadelphia, Dallas, and Lansing (4), 89.0% from a 1969
study involving 196 households in South Carolina (5), and 71.7% from a 1974
study involving 230 households in Colorado (6).
Over three times as many householders used pesticides in their houses
than in their yards. Such widespread use of pesticides in the home environ-
ment is undoubtedly a significant source of exposure of the general popula-
tion to pesticides. The proportions of households using pesticides were
found to vary significantly among geographic regions of the United States.
As expected from the results of previous limited investigations (4,5, and 6),
a significantly larger proportion of southeastern households (EPA Region IV)
used pesticides than the northern and mountain area households (EPA Regions
I, II, V, VIII, and X).
Furthermore, results of this study indicated that householders living
in the southeastern United States also have a greater potential for exposure
to termiticides and pesticides used by commercial applicators than those
residing in other EPA regions. For example, more than 54% of the south-
eastern U.S. householders used termiticides and more than 44% contracted
their household pesticide work through commercial applicators.
Over 500 different pesticide formulations were found to be used by the
8254 householders in the study. Thus, U.S. householders have multiple
opportunities to be exposed to a variety of pesticide formulations in the
-76-
-------
home environment. A key result of this study is that 15 pesticide formula-
tions accounted for 65.5% of all observed pesticide containers in this national
study. Thirteen of the 15 pesticides were insecticides, one was a herbicide
(2,4-D & silvex), and one was a rodenticide (warfarin). It is also of interest
that four of the leading pesticides were mixtures of different compounds and
were designed for a wide spectrum of usage in the household. Many householders
either did not know what pesticide they had used (e.g., "bug spray") or equated
pesticides with a trade name (e.g., "Raid"). In addition to the aforementioned
pesticide formulations, households were found to use moth balls (35.8% of the
households), disinfectants (90% of householders), no-pest strips (16.4%), and
pet insecticide collars (28%). It is quite possible that household use of
pesticides may have a more significant role in human exposure to pesticides
than previously thought.
Results of this stucty indicated that householders used the pesticide
label as a primary source of information regarding the usage, storage, and
disposal of pesticides. Householders stated that they read the label pri-
marily to obtain information regarding application procedures and preventive
measures (49.4% and 34.8%, respectively). Relatively few householders read
the label to learn about the pesticide ingredients or antidotes (10.2% and
6.2%, respectively). This finding is an important consideration if the
label is to have a role in further reducing pesticide poisonings in humans.
It is of considerable concern that only 5.6% of the householders obtained
pesticide information from knowledgeable sources such as health department
personnel, agriculture extension agents, and pesticide suppliers.
Because of the traditional problems associated with disposal of pesti-
cides, the National Household Pesticide Usage Study included a section of
questions regarding the disposal of pesticide wastes. In particular, it
was found that the majority of householders completely used their unwanted
-77-
-------
pesticides. Over two-thirds of the householders discarded empty pesticide
containers with other solid waste material generated by the household.
The National Household Pesticide Usage Study was designed to obtain
information concerning possible health effects due to pesticide usage in
the household. A total of 253 respondents stated that a member of the
household had experienced nausea, dizziness, headaches, or vomiting as a
result of household pesticide usage. Of these 253, only 22 (<10%) contacted
a physician, and seven of the 22 were diagnosed as having experienced a
pesticide poisoning. Only one of the seven diagnosed pesticide poisonings
was actually hospitalized.
The National Household Pesticide Usage Study was also designed to obtain
information regarding economic losses due to household pesticide usage. A
total of 142 respondents reported one or more economic losses involving
household pesticide usage. Among these households, the mean number of
economic losses was 1.2 with an estimated mean dollar value of $86.61 per
loss. Whereas the percent of households which experienced at least one
economic loss is only 2%, the estimated total dollar value of economic losses
involving household pesticide usage in the U.S. was approximately 183 million
dollars.
In summary, the major findings of the National Household Pesticide
Usage Study are:
(1) a high proportion of households use pesticides;
(2) less than 50% of the respondents read pesticide labels for
information regarding application procedures and preventive
measures;
(3) many householders are unaware of the formulations in the pesti-
cide products that they use or equate a pesticide with a general
trade name;
-78-
-------
(4) more exact information is needed regarding health effects of
pesticide usage in the home environment;
(5) whereas the proportion of households which experienced an economic
loss involving household pesticide usage is relatively small, the
total estimated dollar value of such economic loss is considerable;
(6) the use of pesticides in the home environment may be a major
source of pesticide exposure in the general population. This is
of special significance since certain members of the family spend
the majority of their time in the home environment.
-79-
-------
REFERENCES
1. Mrak, E.M., Chairman, Report of the secretary's commission on pesticides
and their relationship to environmental health. U.S. Department of HEW,
December 1969.
2. vonRumker, R., Production, distribution, use and environmental impact
potential of selected pesticides. Office of Pesticide Programs, Office
of Water and Hazardous Materials, Environmental Protection Agency,
March 1974.
3. Keil, J.E., et al_., Pesticide usage survey of agricultural, governmental,
and industrial sectors in the United States. Abridged report, June 1977.
4. vonRumker, R., et a!., The use of pesticides in suburban homes and gardens
and their impact on the aquatic environment. Pesticide Study Series 2.
Office of Water Programs, Applied Technical Division, Rural Wastes Branch,
Environmental Protection. Agency, May 1972.
5. Finklea, J.F., et al_., Pesticides and pesticide hazards in urban house-
holds. S. Carolina Med. Assoc. J. 65: 31-33, February 1969.
6. Quarterly Progress Report No. 3, Colorado Epidemiologic Pesticide Studies
Center, Colorado State University, October 15, 1974.
7. Hansen, M.H., Hurwitz, W.N., Madow, W.G., Sample survey methods and
theory. Methods and Applications. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
1953, vol. 1, pp. 480-482.
8. A study of hospitalized acute pesticide poisonings in the United States,
1971-1973. Colorado Epidemiologic Pesticide Studies Center, Colorado
State University, October 1975.
-80-
-------
APPENDICES
-81-
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE ALLOCATION FOR HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDE USAGE STUDY
SMSAs (7,500)
SMSA
Midland, Texas
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
Billings, Montana
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Springfield, Missouri
Fort Smith, Arkansas
Salem, Oregon
Montgomery, Alabama
Lowe!1, Massachusetts
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Charleston, W. Virginia
Santa Barbara, California
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Columbia, South Carolina
Albuquerque, N.M.
York, Pennsylvania
New Haven, Connecticut
Richmond, Virginia
Omaha, Nebraska
Jersey City, N.J.
Albany, New York
San Jose, California
Miami, Florida
Seattle, Washington
Cleveland, Ohio
Occupied
Housing Units
19,804
24,899
27,641
43,560
51,153
52,589
59,175
60,322
60,444
67,581
74,511
83,929
85,720
86,202
94,223
105,004
113,001
163,313
165,216
207,499
230,484
322,782
428,026
473,222
650,138
Population
65,433
79,660
87,350
158,244
152,929
160,421
186,658
201,325
212,859
235,972
229,515
264,324
280,455
322,880
315,774
329,540
355,613
518,319
540,142
609,266
721,910
1,064,714
1,267,792
1,421,869
2,064,194
Sample
Size
121
135
142
179
194
197
209
211
211
224
235
249
252
254
265
280
290
349
351
394
414
490
565
594
695
7,500
Data from "County and City Data Book - 1972"
Under SMSAs col. 85 and 3
Counties col. 85 and 3
-82-
-------
SAMPLE ALLOCATION FOR HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDE USAGE STUDY
COUNTIES (2,500)
County
Boise, Idaho
Sully, South Dakota
Hitchcock, Nebraska
Humboldt, Nevada
Grant, Oregon
Beaverhead, Montana
Alfalfa, Oklahoma
Greene, Alabama
Hubbard, Minnesota
Goshen, Wyoming
Pike, Pennsylvania
Grundy, Missouri
Piscataquis, Maine
Rhea, Tennessee
Colorado, Texas
Marion, South Carolina
Halifax, Virginia
Seneca, New York
Yavapai, Arizona
Yuba, California
Walla Walla, Washington
Saline, Kansas
Allegan, Michigan
Cape May, New Jersey
Barnstable, Massachusetts
Occupies
Housing Units
578
703
1,413
2,145
2,360
2,683
2,724
2,947
3,409
3,607
4,130
4,441
5,243
5,331
5,768
8,413
8,515
9,853
12,999
13,074
13,438
14,973
19,494
21,177
32,936
Population
1,763
2,376
4,044
6,503
7,076
8,187
7,224
10,650
10,583
10,885
11,818
11,319
16,285
17,202
17,638
30,270
30,076
35,083
36,733
44,736
42,176
46,592
66,575
59,554
96,656
Sample
Size
29
33
46
56
58
64
64
66
71
74.
79
81
89
91
94
114
115
123
141
141
144
151
172
180
224
2,500
Data from"County and City Data Book - 1972"
Under SMSAs col. 85 and 3
Counties' col. 85 and 3
-83-
-------
*SMSA
D COUNTY
SELECTED SAMPLING SITES
-------
APPENDIX B
HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDE USAGE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDE USAGE STUDY
(Home and Garden)
Your responses, to this questionnaire are protected by the Privacy
Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552 a(e)(3)). Once the study 1s completed and
your response has been tabulated, this questionnaire will be destroyed
and there will be no way to Identify your name or response. Your name
and telephone number Is requested for the sole purpose of call back for
our quality check on the data.
This study 1s authorized by law (7 U.S.C. 136 r(a)(b)(c)>. although
you are not required to respond, your cooperation 1s needed to make the
results of this study comprehensive, accurate, and timely.
The purpose of this study 1s to characterize the Nation's household
usage of pesticides Including: estimates of kinds and amounts of
pesticides used, adequacy of household storage, and frequency and
manner of application within the home environment. In addition, we
are trying to determine the numbers of persons being poisoned by
pesticides within the home.
The data. Information and conclusions resulting from this study
will be utilized for policy decision-making and will be published and
available to other researchers and the general public upon completion
of the study.
-85-
-------
This 11st Includes the main categories of pesticides, their uses, and
examples of specific pesticides 1n each category.
TYPE
Herbicides
Insecticides
Rodcntlcldes
Nematoeides
Fungicides
Molluscicides
Wood preservatives
PESTICIDES
USE
Weed Killer
Dandelion Killer
Crabgrass Killer
Lawn Weed Killer
Flying Insect Sprays
or vapors
House & Garden Insect Spray
Rose & Flower Dust
Ant & Roach Killers
Fly & Mosquito Killers
Animal Flea & Louse Killer
Mice & Rat Killer
Gopher & Hole Killer
Lawn Disease Control
Sod Webworm Control
Chinch Bug Control
Rose & Garden Fungicide
Vegetable Garden
Snow Mold
Brown Patch
Copper Spot
Slug & Snail Killers
Wood Preservations
PRODUCT
Weed-B-Gon
Scotts
2-4 D
Raid
Black Flag
Shell
D-Con
Warfarin
Ortho
Scotts
Scotts
Ortho
Creasote
PCP's
Disinfectant definition: A disinfectant Is an agent that kills
microorganisms such as bacteria, mold
and fungi on Inanimate objects.
Examples: Pine-Sol. Lysol, Clorox
-86-
-------
fOUH ID:
FORM: P VER: 5 YEAR: 197 STATE: COUNTY: HOUSEHOLD: CARD: 0 1
T 2 J ?~ l~~ ? ll~
STATUS: 1-Original, Interviewed 1st visit 2-Or1»1nal. Interviewed on call back
T5 3-No interview due to refusal; 4-Alternate Interview due to vacancy;
5-Interview not obtained on call back
TIME OF INTERVIEW:
1-Before 17:00 2-After 17:00
INSPECTION: 1-Inspected 2-Not Inspected
17
STRATA: J-SMSA 2-County _J8
CLAS»: (It A SMSA: 1-Urbanized; 2-Non-urbanized 19
1-Upper; 2-Middle; 3-lower __20
NON-URBANIZED: 1-Urban (2.500 or more); 2-Rural (less than 2.500) _21
IF A COUNTY: 1-Urban; 2-Rural _22
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE: Area Code
Number
WHO IS BEING INTERVIEWED: 1-Household Head, Male 2-Household Head. Female
27 3-Other Adult
TIME: __ :
DATE: Month
COMMUNITY:
Day
2T2? 2T57
INTERVIEWER: Interview Partially Completed
?8~29~ 35
BASIC INFORMATION
Definition!
PESTICIDE: A pesticide Is any substance that 1s used to kill any type of pest.
These Include the following:
a) Herbicides used to kill unwanted vegetation;
b) Insecticides used to kill flying or crawling Insects;
c(i Rodentlcloes used to kill nice, rats, gophers, etc.;
d Nematoddes used to kill unwanted thread or roundworms. etc.;
e) Fungicides used to kill unwanted fungi, mushrooms, and molds;
f) Mollusc1c1des used to kill snails and slugs.
PREMISES: The residence Includes basement and attached garages; all lawn or yard
areas including ornamental flower gardens, flower beds, bushes or fees;
any area used as a garden for the production of vegetables or other edible
produce; and all snail buildings or sheds In the yard or garden area.
1. Has a commercial applicator treated these premises for pests within the past year?
33 Yes
34 3 No
35 Unknown
2. Has this home ever been treated for termites?
36 Yes
37 ~No
38 Unknown
3. Within the past 12 months has this household used no-pest strips?
39 Yes
40 _ No
41 Unknown
4. Within the past 12 months has this household used any of the following pesticides
on pets? 42 Insecticide Collar I-Ves 2-No 3-NA
43 Insecticide Shampoo 1-Yes 2-No 3-NA
44 ~ Insecticide Powder 1-Yes 2-No 3-NA
45 _ Other , ^^
S. Within the past 12 months have you or any member oT~th'e~Tousehold used moth"balls.
crystals, flakes, or aerosols? 47 Yes
48 ~ No
49 Unknown
Fora Approved
OMB No. liB-S-76004
Expiration date: 1/31/77
-87-
-------
Household Pesticide Usage
Page t
6. Within the past 12 months have pesticides been us?d In the:
SO _ House 1-Yes 2-No
SI __ Garden l-Yes 2-No 3-NA
52 Yard 1-Yes 2-No 3-HA
7. If pesticides have not been used by the household In the past 12 months, why not?
S4 No need to
SS ~ Afraid to
56 Don't believe In use of pesticides
57 ~ Other
58 Not Applicable
8. Are any pesticides stored on the premises that haven't been used In the past 12 months?
60 Yes
61 3 No
62 _ Unknown
9. Within the past 12 months, have you or any member of the household used any
disinfectants? 63 Yes
64 3 No
65 Unknown
OFFICE USE ONLY:
Number of pesticides
on pages 3 and 4
5T 6T-
COfUCNTS:
-88-
-------
FORM ID
Page 3
***~
. «w
J. 2 S
*• C 6 M
Wl f « -^
4) C Es
•^^9 S
«-l Ol M U
.- 0£ Ol xi
Ol J& 6 3 2
JC «VJ 1 Wl
•* XI «•» C
Of X»> Cf>
M tt»— 01
•»•§ o» * fc
2K 0 4-> O U
PESTICIDE NAME
00
1
c
M
S
H-
o
3
13
PESTICIDE
CODE
(Office Use
Only)
t 1 1 1 1 |
| 1 1 1 1 |
1 1 1 | t |
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 I 1 1
15
i
wi «-»
JC Ol
«J O.
wiv-
O Of 1
JC O.-.
UJ
UJ <
_) £
u.
i i
S?
Ul Ul
A
1
""
S)
§
at
5
2
Wl
i.
no
V
i
X
u
1.
o
n
3
o-
e
u
Wl
01
0.
Wl
Wt
0
27
jsols are liquids)!
C
r-
V-
XI
*
o
Wl
o
I/I
pesticide have yoJ
nisehold used in
Wl£
JC l.
0*5
01 C
ss^,
s *"*
£ *
i c?S
Ifef
1 |
I |
, |
I i
I i
i i
29
pesticide are 1
premises? I
1
22
JC «•>
*J
^
01 U
u o
c «•>
x
x-^
c «->
2£
03
X U
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
, ,
32
£
0.
4->
S
£
01
X
UJ
i
3
Wl
JC
Wl
10
Ml
01
Wl
E
$
«
6
5
c
Ol
01
2
*J
Wl
<
_J
Wl
IO
0.
Of
JC r-
*-l Wl
JC
e «-»
•^ e
^2
3 >^
I
<0
J vl
uj a
U) UJ
|
|
4
a
if
i/i
3
C
II CM
He*
a
it i/i
1
19
3
Ul
z ~_ia:
QZ
at wi
Q.JC
wi e
CM
Wl <-l
a ai
a
JQ JC
'fl
a»
<
^
56
*
c
X
«
4-1
U
«
c
_
«^»
4J
Wl
Wl
h.
Ol
m
4-*
U
0
1
j
4
«
«
1
1
•*
1
;
«
n
l
KO
5
it
M
a
£
5
- Wl
1 <-•
J
u a>
. c
X*f
- 3
C !>••
1 Ol 01
**0
C -r-
D J* l/l
: a
o
X
UJ
O lrtH/1
?^?l?
| |
8
i/t
>-
UJ
a.
•a
1
-j
u
o
»—
>—
r
-i1
LA.
U.
O
«
at
I
i
Of
0
Wl Ct>
XI J<
•r* C
01 -X
JC k
XI
Wl C
— i 3
UJ
ct
O
to
*J|OO
1
1
1
1
65
c
•9*
XI
fi
o <
4-> t
Wl •*•
Of *
T3 C
•r- C
U 1.
4J r-
Of C
o.-».
•SI
£ C
t/
M *J
••* *^
^?
|
I
68
i
i
»
i
t
i
i
•
T
§
n
5
e on the premises
his pesticide
ed?
k. 4-> b
Ol 0
£ Wl 44
3E •»• Wl
2
tt CC
^^X
Z3OCX J U
i i S— tt
z at » M o
UJUjfe— IUJ| pjul R— 1
xx -^5 r oeui
p3*"TjF™ ^C|3C 4 ^u ^™ C
II 1 III
1 1 | | 1 |
II II
1 1 1
1
,
71
Wl
c
Wl
*•
01
£
L.
W O
01 4>
Ol
XT3
5 01
X O.
80
-------
FORM 10
Page 4
1 VI M
«- 01 V
•* c E vi
s;1 i
«- o» vi k
r- O JC 01 Q.
•- JE *»Xt
• Of ••- O»
5x1 u jc
». tJ C •- W
o c E v» o
Ol J3 3 *•
JC CM t M
k 3 tJ C3
<• io«— e
M Q.»- Of
•»•§ of C
JE •*• JCV- 3
2 U4-> O U
PESTICIDE NAME
*C
O
41
VI
01
U
O
§
3
PESTICIDE
CODE
(Office Use
Only)
1 1 | 1 1 1
MINI
1 1 | M 1
MINI
1 1 1 1 1 I
1 I 1 I !
15
VI »*
••• VI
JC Ol
** A
•o u
Ol •**
VI -
U Of
O UXI
SSfZ
LU ^
UJ «$ O
Z^T,
1 1 ^-
00!—
•C -o JE
O JC ••- C «-«
u->- c
tVlf- O
ai wo fi
Of VI M 01
31 E 0.3 —
I
•o
"~ z
II
k a
01 -J Ul
4-> XI
uj o < ae
z 335 >c.o
II 1 L
1 I [_
1 1 L
III 1
1 1
1
35
VI VI
LU O K *T X
Z tuO 3Z*-»
^-» i oc u-kofo
1 1 1
Mill
1 1 1
1 1 1
,
1
pesticide been
ths?
VI 1
CM
VI — 1
JE 4-1
VI IS
Ol Q
>«c
?0f
VI
a. 3
|
|
|
,
|
I
48
1
a
V
C
4-1
O
£
i.
o
3
O
X
If}
Ul
|
|
|
50
i
T
V
a
01
XI
M
k
0
ai
e
01
*
C
01 -C
JC Ol
<
— • 4
I/I
ul C
|
|
|
|
,
1
52
VI
o
£
Z
ai
J3
XI
c r>
VI ••-
ai -^
•o *J
c v>
3 O
a
J3 J=
T) *J
ai vi
0
VI £
I/I
uio
|
|
|
|
|
i
4
^
*
c
i
[
c
XI
a
k
c
«j
VI
e
—
5
,w
01
<
1
1
56
) r-
:
• ^»
r*.
'
f*,
'
4
C
-
•r«
VI
VI
u
1
.^
4
C
a
u
i
-.- .-,....^1
precautions are |
0*
if
"O .
j;
3 4
I/I
I/I Ul
o u
58
VI
f-
c
c
»•
3
e <
u
•
c •
*
o
•*
,
*•
01
^
J
I/I
u
a.
10
o
i
z
1
1
I/I
t—
Ul
a.
•e
UJ
ae
z
u
2
3C
_J
4.
I*.
|
|
j ,
|
01
L.
O
VI «*•
5 •"*
"uxi
«-» «a
01 >AC
ex w
vt ^*
!c u
TJ
vi e
•— 3
a
Ul
g
5u!oo
;,>• z x
\
1
I |
65
cide stored in
container?
*j»-
Of C
o.— •
in f
JC O
M
M *•
(3
A,
X
/I
*J 3 D
*>• g J
1
,
,
,
68
e on the premises
his pesticide
ed?
k «-• k
Ol O
£ M •»
3 •»- vi
i
icoe
3^C T *"
^£ is i
scsg^^ii
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i
11(1111
II 1 ' I 1 ! '
i HIM
Ml Ml
1 1 1
71
VI
tJ
VI
k
o
o
•-
J?
«JI
•-XI
w 0
*•
&3
-------
FORH 10: ____________ CARD Page 5
10. At which locations do you or any member of the household buy your pesticides
that have been used In the past 12 months?
18 _ Grocery Store 22 _ Drug Store 26 _ Nursery
19 _ Hardware Store 23 _ Feed Store 27 _ Unknown
20 Discount Store 24 _ Sales Person other than Retail Store
21 ~ None 25 __ Other _
11. What Information do you or members of the household obtain from reading the
Tabel?
20 _ Ingredients 31 _ Precautionary measures
29 _ Preparation 32 Antidotes
30 __ Applications 33 __ Other _ _
12. Do you or any member of the household have any suggestions for Improving
pesticide labels In any way?
34-35
13. Where do you and/or members of the household leam how to use. store, or
dispose of pesticides?
36 _ Neighbor, friend 39 Mass media 41 Health Department
or relative 40 Sales person 42 None
37 __ Agriculture 43 __ Label
Extension Service
38 _ Other
14. How do you or any member of the household dispose of unwanted
pesticides?
44 __ Street gutter 48 Refuse 51 _ Burled
45 __ Sink or toilet 49 Burned 52 Poured on ground
46 _ Given away 50 Unknown 53 Used up
47 __ Other 54 _ Not applicable
15. How do you or any member of your household dispose of unused pesticides
that have been diluted for use?
55 _ Street gutter 59 Refuse 62 Burled
56 Sink or toilet 60 Burned 63 Poured on ground
57 Given away 61 Unknown 64 Used up
58 _ Other 65 _ Not applicable
16. How do you or members of the household dispose of empty pesticide containers?
66 Refuse 68 Burned 69 Buried
67 _ Other 70 Not applicable
17. Do you or members of the household use empty pesticide containers for other
substances?
71 _ No 73 Other pesticides 74 Other substances
72 Not applicable
18. Do you or members of the household use pesticide application equipment for
other substances?
75 __ No 77 _ Other pesticides 78 Other substances
76 _ Not applicable "~~
-91-
-------
Household Pesticide Usage
ID: ------------ CARDft
19. Within the past year have you or any member of your household experienced a
pesticide poisoning which was diagnosed by a physician?
18 __ Yes 19 _ No
20. Within the past year have you or any member of your household experienced
headaches, nausea, dizziness, fainting or other symptoms following exposure
to a pesticide?
21 _ Yes 22 _ No
21. If yes to question 20, was the person treated by a physician?
24 _ Yes 25 _ No 26 __ Not applicable
22. If yes to question 19 or 20 was the person hospitalized?
27 _ Yes 28 _ No 29 _ Not applicable
23. What was the diagnosis?
HOUSEHOLD DATA
24. What Is the date of birth of Head of Household: 38_.7 /
25. What was the education level achieved by Household Head?
(Write In the number of years) 44 _
NOTE: If person being interviewed is Household Head skip questions 26 and 27.
26. What Is the date of birth of person being interviewed: .*6__/__/
27. What was the education level achieved by person being interviewed?
(Write In the number of years) 52
28. What 1s the occupation of Head of Household:
.54
29. How many years has the Household Head lived in this community?
(SMSA or County)?_ 56_
30. Where did the Household Head live .prior to moving to this city or county?
58
State
60
Country
31. How many people In the household are in each of the following age groups?
63 0-4 years 67 20 - 24 years 71 55 - 64 years
64 5-9 years 68 25 - 34 years 72 _ 65 +
65 10-14 years 69 35 - 44 years 73 Unknown
66 ~ 15 - 19 years 70 _ 45 - 54 years
32. In what type of residence do the householders currently live?
A. 1. Single family 2. Residential double 3. Multiple family
B. 1. Rent residence 2. Own residence 3. Public housing
74_
33. What 1s the size of the premises?
1. Less than S acre 2. Greater than »» acre 3. Unknown 76_
34. Interviewer determine race of H
-------
4 ID
Does this household have problems
with any of these pests? Check
as many as applicable.
Which of the following 1s the
household's most 'severe pest
problem? Select only one.
What pesticide(s) has the house-
hold used on the following pests?
. (Write in name of pesticide for
each pest treated.) Approximate
number of souare feet treated?
i What was the cost of applying
cSeach of the aforementioned
' pesticides?
To which of the following pests
have you or any member of your
household applied the most
pesticide during the last year?
(Select one and indicate number
of applications.)
nf those pest problems in your
household treated with pesticide.
wnicn were successfully treated?
(Check as many as appropriate.)
M W) .
•I •*
lit
••- ••- 4
•s*~x
c^ «•-
•Iv O
oxw
Ants
Termites
Cockroaches
Houseflies
Mosaultos ft Gnats
INSECTS
1
tn
**•—
o> a
O.E
£J
M C
II
Grasshoppers
Crickets
VI
Ol
*>
s
CD
Leafmlners
Scale. Aphids
Why do you or a member of your household regard the aforementioned pests as
problems?
15 Destroy property 18 They are a nuisance and annoying
16 Threat to personal health can cause minor physical
17 They are unsightly discomfort.
(aesthetically undesirable) 19 Other
Has any member of this household had any problems as a result of using
pesticides during the past 12 months? (I.e.. Injury to pets,
destruction of desirable plants, staining of rugs or furniture, loss
of cash crop or other, cash -product)
20 Yes
21 No
22 Unknown
-------
FORM ID
PART II
Household Pesticide Usage Study
Hunan Pesticide Poisoning Data Sheet
Age at poisoning? _
Place of occurrence
Sex
Date of occurrence
City
State
Was previous occupation related to pesticides?
What were the circumstances of exposure?
What was the causative agent?
What VMS the trade name?
Carrier
What was the formulation? Dust Wettable Powder Granular Liquid
Other
What was the active Ingredient?
What application equipment was used?
Was any protective clothing In use? _
What was the date and time of exposure?
What was the duration of exposure?
What were the route(s) of exposure? Dermal Respiratory Oral
Was perspiration present? Yes No
What were the weather conditions?
What symptoms developed?
Hospital
Attending Physician
Treatment
Phone
Phone
-94-
-------
TRAINING MANUAL FOR HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDE USAGE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
Page 1
TRAINING SESSION - QUESTIONNAIRE
The questionnaire form Is designed to be transferred directly to
computer data cards for analysis. As such, it is very important that
all information be obtained, and recorded on the form. The study de-
pends on the quality of Information obtained. The questionnaire is
divided into three major areas: 1. Header Information, 2. Basic Informa-
tion, and 3. Household Data. The front page of the questionnaire is a
tear-away page and provides the interviewee with the purpose of this
study, rights to privacy, and examples of the different types of
pesticides. This page should be given to each interviewee at the
beginning of the Interview.
The study questionnaire consists of 9 sheets. The first sheet is
a tear-away sheet that was previously discussed. Pages 1 through 8
consist of questions to be completed by the field interviewer. You
will note that the back of page 6 of the questionnaire is to be completed
only in case a pesticide poisoning has been experienced by a household
member. Instructions for completion of the questionnaire follow.
Specific Header Information
Page 1 of Questionnaire
I. FORM ID: (DO NOT FILL IN)
II. FORM: (fill 1n as follows)
Year: blank 3) - Insert 6 (1976)
State:
County:
Household:
blank 4 and 5) - Insert 2-digit state code (provided)
blank 6,7,8) - Insert 3-digit county code (provided)
blank 9 - 12) - Insert 4-digit code as follows:
1. 1st digit - tract code (insert letter) (refer to Route Itinerary)
2. 2nd digit - block code (Insert letter) (refer to Route Itinerary;
3. 3rd & 4th digits - household code within tract and block
(Insert consecutive interview number, i.e.: 1st house-01; 2nd
house-02; etc.)
III. Status:
A. Circle 1,2,3,4. or 5. (Don't insert anything in column 15)
1. Circle 1 If house was original selection scheme and was
Interviewed on 1st visit.
2. Circle 2 If house was original selection scheme and was
Interviewed on a call back.
3. Circle 3 if no Interview was obtained due to refusal.
-95-
-------
- 2 -
4. Circle 4 if alternate house was chosen due to a vacancy
at original house selected.
5. Circle 5 if no one was home on call back and interview was
not obtained.
IV. Time of Interview:
Circle 1 or 2 (Don't insert anything in column 16).
A. Circle 1 if the interview was held before 17:00 (5:00 PM).
B. Circle 2 if the interview was held after 17:00 (5:00 PM).
V. Inspection: Actually viewing the household pesticides and their storage sites,
A. If inspected, circle 1. If not inspected, circle 2.
B. At all households, an attempt should be made to see the pesticides.
NOTE: Don't insert anything in column 17.
VI. Strata: Information obtained from Route Itinerary
A. If an SMSA, circle No. 1.
B. If county, circle No. 2.
C. Don't insert the number in column 18.
VII. Class: Information obtained from Route Itinerary
A. Column 19 - if a SMSA, circle 1 or 2, depending if the household
is in an urbanized or non-urbanized area as indicated on Route
Itinerary. (Don't insert number.)
B. Column 20 - if a SMSA, circle 1,2, or 3 depending upon which
socioeconomic class the household is in as indicated on the Route
Itinerary. (Don't insert number in column.)
C. Column 21 - if the household is in the non-urbanized portion of a
SMSA, circle 1 or 2 depending if in an urban or rural area. (Don't
insert number in column code space.)
VIII. Write in name, address, and phone number of household interviewed.
A. Ask for address at beginning of interview.
B. Ask for name and phone number at end of interview.
C. Assure that names and addresses will be held in confidence.
IX. Who is being interviewed?
Circle 1,2, or 3. (Don't insert anything in column 23.)
A. Circle 1 if interviewing a male household head.
B. Circle 2 if interviewing a female household head (includes wives).
C. Circle 3 (other adult) if interviewing anyone over 18 years that
is not a household head, such as grandparents and children over 18
years still living at home.
-96-
-------
- 3 -
X. Time and Community:
A. Insert time on basis of 24 hour clock (example: 2:00 PM = 14:00 hr
B. If SMSA, write in name of SMSA.
C. If county, write in name of place if in an incorporated or
unincorporated place, or write in Remainder of Division
if in rural area of a certain census subdivision.
XI. Date and Interviewer:
A. Columns 24 and 25 - insert the number of the month (example -
July =07..
B. Columns 26 and 27 - insert day of month.
C. Column 28 - insert Center or Project code number.
D. Column 29 - insert interviewer code number.
Basic Information
* - Read pesticide and premises definitions at each household.
NOTE: All questions except 2 refer to usage in the past 12 months.
1. Has a commerical applicator treated these premises for pests within
the past year?
33 _ Yes
34 _ No
35 Unknown
1. Mark with X.
2. If yes, this means that pesticides are used on the premises in 6.
3. Mark Unknown if interviewee does not know if premises have been
treated by a commerical applicator.
2. To the best of your knowledge, has this home ever been treated for
termites:
36 _ Yes
37 _ No
38 Unknown
1. Mark with X.
2. If yes, pesticides are used in question 6.
3. Mark Unknown if interviewee does not know if the premises have
ever been treated.
3. Within the past 12 months, has this household used No-Pest Strips?
39 yes
40 No
41 Unknown
1. This refers to the use of insecticide-treated strips such as
Shell No-Pest Strips and excljudes sticky fly paper.
?. If yes, this means that pesticides are used on the premises in (>.
-97-
-------
- 4 -
4. Within the past 12 months, has this household used any of the following
pesticides on pets?
42
43
44
45
Insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
Other
Collar
Shampoo
Powder
1-Yes
1-Yes
1-Yes
2-No
2-No
2-No
3-NA
3-NA
3-NA
1. Circle either 1,2, or 3 for 42,43, or 44.
2. Don't insert the numbers into the coding spaces.
3. Leave blank if no response.
4. Pets include dogs, cats, birds, and horses.
'5. NA=Not applicable, is to be used if the household doesn't
have any pets.
6. If Other is used, please specify on the line provided.
7. Horses generally are treated with spray, oowder, or a rub-on
type of insecticide.
8. NOTE: Doesn't include repel 1ants.
9. If yes, this means that pesticides are used on the premises in 6.
5. Within the past 12 months, have you or any member of the household
used moth balls, crystals, flakes, or aerosols?
47 _ Yes
48 _ No
49 Unknown
1. Refers to use in the past 12 months.
2. If yes, pesticides are used on premises in question 6.
6. Within the past 12 months, have pesticides been used in the:
50 House 1-Yes 2-No
51 __ Garden 1-Yes 2-No 3-NA
52 __ Yard 1-Yes 2-No 3-NA
1. Circle either 1,2, or 3 for 50, 51, or 52.
2. Don't insert the numbers into the coding spaces.
3. A blank will signify no response.
4. Code number 3 (not applicable) is to be used if the home doesn't
have a yard or garden.
5. A garden is a plot of ground used for the production of edible
produce.
6. A flower garden or flower bed, and any ornamental trees or
bushes would be included in the category of yard.
7. Mixed beds or gardens of both flowers and edible produce
would require both the yard and garden categories to be
Indicated.
8. An enclosed patio attached to the house is considered part of
the house. Otherwise, a patio is considered as part of the
yard.
9. The foundation is to be considered part of the house.
10. A 1 is to be circled if the household employs a commercial
applicator, uses termite control, uses no-pest strips, uses a
pesticide on their pets, or moth balls, crystals, flakes or aerosols.
-98-
-------
-5-
11. If a pet on which insecticides are used is primarily an indoor
animal, mark category for house, if primarily an outdoor animal,
mark category for yard.
7. If pesticides have not been used by the household in the past 12
months, why not?
54 No need to
55 Afraid to
56 Don't believe in use of pesticides
57 Other
58 Not applicable
1. Mark (X) any or all applicable.
2. If Other is marked, write in explanation
3. Not applicable is to be marked if 50, 51, and 52 are marked with
a 1 or a 3.
8. Are any pesticides stored on the premises that haven't been used in
the past 12 months?
60 _ Yes
61 __No
62 Unknown
1. This question is designed to simply determine if the household is
still storing any pesticides that it no longer uses, or is storing
up pesticides that it hasn't used up to this time.
2. The purpose of this question is to separate current pesticide
usage from those pesticides that are no longer in use or haven't
been used, but are stored on the premises.
9. Within the past 12 months, have you or any member of your household
used any disinfectants?
63 _ Yes
64 _ No
65 Unknown
1. A disinfectant includes anything that is a means for destroying
molds, bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc.
2. Common examples of disinfectants used in the home are such things
as Lysol, Pine-Sol, Chlorox, and ammonia cleaners.
3. This question has no relation to pesticide usage and has no
effect on question 6.
4. Mark with X.
Comments:
Use this section for:
1. Recording why no one was at home 1n a not-at-home from Information
obtained from alternate.
2. Recording at what point a questionnaire was terminated prematurely
due to unforeseen circumstances.
-99-
-------
- 6 -
3. Recording if you believe that an interviewee was purposefully
giving false information.
Directions for Proceeding with Questionnaire
1. If all negative answers are obtained on page 1 and 2, then proceed
directly to and complete page 6.
2. If the household employs a commercial applicator and is knowledgeable
in the details of the pesticides used, then complete pages 3,4,5, and 6.
If the interviewee is unaware of what pesticide is used, how much, etc.,
then proceed to page 6.
3. If the interviewee has had their home treated for termites, but uses
no other pesticides, proceed to page 6.
4. A. If a household used pest-strips and no other pesticides, page 5 and
6 of the questionnaire should be completed.
B. If only pet insecticides or moth balls or crystals are used by the
household, go directly to page 6.
5. If other pesticides besides those mentioned above are used, such as
insect sprays, powders, or herbicides, then page 3 (page 4 if required)
should be completed in addition to pages 5 and 6.
6. Question 9 on disinfectants is not to be considered as househpld
pesticide usage, and the response obtained is immaterial in as far as
which pages of the questionnaire to complete.
7. The question concerning pesticide storage: (#8)
A. If the answer is yes, pages 3,4,5, and 6 should be completed.
B. If the answer is no, page 6 should be completed (if no other
pesticides are used.)
Pages 3 and 4 of Questionnaire
NOTE: . It is recommended that information on pages 3 and 4 be recorded a
column at a time. Example: Record all pesticides used first,
and secondly, who uses them.
A. Pesticide Names
What are the names of all pesticides used by the household in the
past 12 months and the names of all non-used pesticides currently
stored on the premises?
1. If the pesticide used is a common one and a nation-wide brand,
all that need be written down is the brand name of the product.
2. If the pesticide used is an uncommon one or a local brand, you
must try and get the brand name, active ingredient, and E.P.A.
registration number.
3. Ask to see the pesticides if the interviewee is cooperative.
4. If pesticides are seen, please record brand name, active ingredient(? ,
and E.P.A. registration number.
B. Card
DorTt insert anything into this column (OFFICE USE ONLY).
C. Pesticide Code - OFFICE USE ONLY
Disregard this column since the pesticide will be given codes at the
Center in Fort Collins.
-100-
-------
- 7 -
D. Who uses this specific pesticide?
Conmercial Other Adult (18 years or over)
_ Household Head - Male _ Child (less than 18 years of age)
Household Head - Female
1. Mark (X) as many as applicable.
2. Household Head - Male is to be marked if a male household head uses
the produce.
3. Household Head - Female is to be marked if a female household head
uses the pesticide - includes wives.
4- Other Adult would include grandparents, in-laws, etc., living in
the household. Also includes children over 18 still living in
household.
5. If a commercial applicator is employed, and the interviewee is
knowledgeable in its name, how much is used, etc., then this can
be filled in. In most cases, however, the interviewee will not
know what commercial pesticide was applied on the premises, and
he should not complete page 3 (and 4) of the questionnaire. (If
commercial pesticide is the only pesticide used.)
E. Liquid or Solid: Is this pesticide in liquid or solid form?
1. Mark (X) whichever applicable. The applicable form is the form
(liquid or solid) in which it was purchased.
2. A powder is considered as a solid.
3. An aerosol is considered a liquid.
F. Amount Used: How many ounces of this pesticide have you or any member
of your household used in the past 12 months?
1. Relates to amount used in past 12 months.
2. Record in ounces to the nearest ounce (3 spaces).
3. Lbs. x 16 = ounces.
4. If none were used in past 12 months, record 0 (zero).
G. Amount on Hand: How many ounces of this pesticide are currently stored
on the premises?
1. Amount stored on premises.
2. Record in ounces to the nearest ounce (3 spaces).
3. If a pesticide hasn't been used in the past 12 months, or is yet
to be used, record amount on hand.
4. Lbs. x 16 = ounces.
NOTE: On questions where Other is marked, please specify in blank space
above coding area.
H. Where Used; Where on the premises has this pesticide been used in the
past 12 months?
House Yard Garage Lawn Vegetable Garden
Flower Beds Other
1. Mark (X) any or all applicable.
2. Specify Other is marked.
3. Garage may or may not be attached to the house.
4. Flower boxes are Included in Flower Beds.
5. Ornamental trees and bushes are to be included in Yard.
-101-
-------
- 8 -
I. Used For: What type of pes.ts has this pesticide been used for In the
past 12 months?
Insects Weeds Rodents Fungi Snails S Slugs
Other
1. Mark (X) any or all applicable.
2. Specify Other if marked.
3. Insects include all crawling and flying Insects such as flies,
mosquitoes, spiders, mites, cockroaches, etc.
4. Weeds are any unwanted vegetation.
5. Rodents are rats, mice, moles, shrews, squirrels, and gophers.
6. Fungi include molds and mildews found, for example, in the
bathroom and basement.
J. How Many Times has this pesticide been used 1n the past 12 months?
TiInsert number of times used in past 12 months.
2. If not used, insert 0 (zero).
K. Do you or any member of the household read the pesticide label? Yes Nc
A. If just the name 1s read and nothing else, then No should be
marked.
L. Is the print on the label large enough to read? Yes No
A. This question refers only to size of print and not content of
the label.
B. If any part of the label can't be read due to smallness of print,
then No should be marked.
M. Is the label understandable by those who use the pesticide? Yes No
A. This question refers to the technicality of the label or any part
of the label.
6. If the interviewee thinks that any part of the label 1s too
technical to be understood, then No should be marked.
N. Are all labels on stored original containers still Intact and legible? Yes N
A. If label has been removed, torn, or obliterated partially or totally
by any means, then mark No.
0. Protection: What types of precautions are taken when using this pesticide?
Mask Boots Wash Hands Other
None Gloves __Area off limits to children and pets
1. Mark (X) any or all applicable.
2. Specify Other if marked.
3. Pause between asking question and giving answer alternatives.
Leave Wash Hands as last choice. Give alternatives slowly.
This will allow the interviewee to give his own reply and reduce
the number of false positives.
4. Don't lead the interviewee.
P. Lock; Is this pesticide stored under lock and key? Yes No Not Store.
TT~Mark (X) Not Stored if the pesticide has been use? 1n the last 12
months, but either is not stored on premises or Is used up by the
time of the interview.
-102-
-------
- 9 -
Q. Is this pesticide stored in its original container? Yes No Not Stored
1. Mark with X.
2. Mark Not Stored if pesticide has been used up.
R. Storage Room: Where on the premises is this pesticide stored?
Kitchen-under sink Kitchen-Other Utility Room Garage
Shed _Back Porch Basement Other Not Stored
1. Mark (X) any or all applicable.
2. Mark (X) Not Stored if the pesticide has been used in the last 12
months, but either is not stored on premises or is used up by the
time of the interview.
S. Height Stored (in feet): How many feet off the floor is this pesticide
stored?
1. To the nearest foot, how far from the floor is the pesticide stored,
and write it in the space.
Page 5 of Questionnaire
10. At which locations do you or any member of the household buy your pesticides
that have been used in the past 12 months?
18 Grocery Store 22 Drug Store 26 Nursery
19__Hardware Store 23 Feed Store 27 Unknown
20 Discount Store 24 Sales Person Other than Retail Store
21^}lone 25_0ther
1. Mark the 1° location with®.
2. Mark all other locations with X.
3. Specify Other if marked.
4. Discount Stores include stores like K-Mart, Alco, Gibsons, etc.
5. 24^ implies door-to-door sales such as Amway, Fuller Brush, etc.
11. What information do you or members of the household obtain from reading
the label?
28 Ingredients 31 Precautionary measures
29 Preparation 32 Antidotes
30 Applications 33 Other
1. Mark the 1° part of label read with©
2. Mark remaining parts with X.
3. Preparation means the directions on how to mix up the pesticide
or dilute it with water.
4. Application refers to its uses against specific pests.
5. Pause after stating the question. Let them answer it in their
own words.
6. The question is designed to determine what the interviewee learns.
when reading the label.
12. Do you or any member of the household have any suggestions for improving
pesticide labels in any way?
34-35
-103-
-------
-12-
26. What is the date of birth of person being interviewed? 46_ J /
27. What was the education level achieved by person being interviewed?
(Write in number of years) 52
28. What is the occupation of head of household? 54
1. Write in present occupation (be as specific as possible).
2. Retired is considered an occupation.
3. Unemployed is considered an occupation.
29. How many years has the household head lived in this community (SMSA or
cou n ty) ? 56
1. Write in number of years to the closest year.
2. Write on line - not in code space.
30. Where did the household head live prior to this city or county?
State
Country
_
1. Write in the name of the state and country on the lines provided?
31. How many people in the household are in each of the following age groups?
63 _ 0 - 4 years 67 _ 20 - 24 years 71 _ 55 - 64 years
64 _ 5 - 9 years 68 _ 25 - 34 years 72 _ 65 + years
65 _ 10 - 14 years 69 _ 35 - 44 years 73_JJnknown
66 _ 15 - 19 years 70 _ 45 - 54 years
1. Includes all members of the household living in the home* such as
grandparents, mother-in-law, etc.
2. Insert the number of people in each age bracket.
32. In what type of residence do the householders currently live?
A. 1. Single Family 2. Residential Double 3. Multiple Family
B. 1. Rent Residence 2. Own Residence 3. Public Housing
74__
1. This question has 2 parts - A and B.
2. Circle one choice for both A and B.
3. Residential Double = duplex.
4. Multiple Family = apartment house.
5. Public Housing = any housing that is financed and supported by
federal, state, or local government agencies.
6. Don't insert anything in coding spaces (74 __ ).
33. What is the size of the premises?
1. Less than '2 acre 2. Greater than la acre 3. Unknown
76_
1. The person being interviewed (interviewee) is to answer this question
after being §1ven the alternatives. If he/she doesn't know the
size of the premises, then Unknown 1s to be circled. The interviewer
is not to guess at the size of the premises. If the interviewee
doesn't know, then Unknown must be circled.
-104-
-------
-13-
2. Don't insert numbers into coding spaces.
34. Interviewer determine race of household head.
1. White 4. American Indian 6. Oriental
2. Mexican American 5. Puerto Rican 7. Negro
3. Other 77_
1. In most cases, this can be accomplished without asking.
2. If in doubt, read the list of possible races to the respondent
and allow him/her to select the correct race.
-105-
-------
-13a-
36. Has any member of this household had any problems as a result of using
pesticides during the past 12 months? (i.e., injury to pets, destruction
of desirable plants, staining of rugs or furniture, loss of cash crop
or other cash product)
20 _ Yes
21 _ No
22 Unknown
1. The examples must be read to the interviewee to insure it is under-
stood that "problems" means other than health problems.
2. Place an X in the blank of one choice.
37. How many losses has this household experienced in the past 12 months?
(Circle correct choice)
23 l.l loss, 2. 2 losses, 3. 3 losses, 4. greater than 3 losses,
5. Not applicable, 6. Unknown
1. Refers to losses indicated in question 36.
2. If question 36 is considered "no", circle number 5.
3. If greater than 3 losses, circle number 4 and indicate number of losses
in comments section or on blank area below question 38.
38. What was the approximate value of each loss?
25 1st loss 1. Not applicable (no losses)
26 2nd loss 2. Less than $100.00
27 3rd loss 3. Greater than $100.00, but less than $250.00
4. Greater than $250.00, but less than $500.00
5. Greater than $500.00, but less than $1000.00
6. Greater than $1000.00
1. Refers to losses indicated in questions 36 and 37.
2. If no losses, circle 1.
3. If one loss, place number corresponding to value of loss in blank 25.
4. If two losses, place number corresponding to value of 1st loss in
blank 25 and number corresponding to value of 2nd loss in blank 26.
5. Follow similar pattern if three losses have occurred.
6. If greater than three losses, additional information can be included
in the comments section or the blank area at the bottom of page 7.
Page 8 is similar to pages 3 and 4 and obtains information requested to be added
after the field trials of the questionnaire, so it appears out of context.
1. Does this household have problems with any of these pests? Check as many
as applicable.
1. Indicate by an X in the column under each category of pest those pests
the interviewee considers to be a problem.
2. Read each choice to the interviewee and accept whatever they indicate.
-106-
-------
-Ub-
2. Which of the following is the households most severe pest problem? Select
only one.
1. If in question 1 the interviewee indicates np_ problems with pests, do
not ask this question, but do check the columns titled "none" under
each major heading.
2. If the interviewee indicated several problems in question 1, check
the one he considers to be the most severe.
3. Check only one from all categories listed.
3. What pesticide(s) has the household used on the following pests? (Write
in name of pesticide for each pest treated.) Indicate approximate number
of square feet treated.
1. Write the name (brand and/or active ingredient) of those pesticides
used for each pest indicated in question 1.
2. If a pest is indicated in question 1 and no treatment has been used
leave blank.
3. Indicate number of square feet treated with each pesticide after the name.
4. What was the cost of applying each of the aforementioned pesticides?
1. Indicate the response of the interviewee in each column under which
a response was given in question 3.
2. If interviewee responds "unknown" or "don't know" enter this.
5. To which of the following pests have you or any member of your household
applied the most pesticide during the last year? (Select one and indicate
number of applications).
1. Indicate interviewee's response with an X and the number of applications
given.
2. Select only one from all categories listed.
6. Of those pest problems in your household treated with pesticide, which were
successfully treated? (Check as many as appropriate.)
1. If no problems were treated, check columns for none.
-107-
-------
-14-
TRAINING SESSION
Team and Route Information
Each interview team will be given an interview folder including route
maps and route itinerary. The itinerary is a list of the blocks to be
sampled grouped by census tract and identified by a two letter code. The
first letter is the tract code; the second is the block code. The blocks
to be sampled are shown on the field map identified by their code letters.
Each block is further identified on the route itinerary by the four streets
which bound the block.
Upon arrival at the selected block, first determine the number of house-
hold units on the block.A possible way to determine this is to count the number
of mailboxes. Don't forget to count each apartment within an apartment
building as a housing unit.
After determining the number of households on the block:
1. Park the car at any convenient space on the block.
2. The housing unit nearest to the place at which the car is parked
is considered to be housing unit #1.
3. Determine from the route itinerary the number of households to be
sampled on the block.
4. Numbering the households on the block clockwise from housing unit
#1, select the required number of household units by consulting
the provided list of random numbers.
5. Interview the selected households, inserting the appropriate tract
and block codes in the HOUSEHOLD CODE in the FORM I.D.
6. All "not-at-homes" will be treated as call backs; the interviewer
should return after 5:00 FM to these homes to attempt an interview.
If there is still no one home upon return after 5:00 PM, the
interviewer should circle 5 in the Status section on the top of
page 1 of the questionnaire and the interview should be dropped
from the survey. No alternates are to be substituted for
"not-at-homes".
7. All vacants should be substituted with alternates
immediately and not treated as call backs.
8. If there is someone home, but they are not over 18 years of age,
then ask when the parents or household head will be home and come
back at that time. Therefore, this will be treated as a "not-at-
home" and a call back will be performed.
9. If the person at the selected housing unit refuses to cooperate
do not select an alternate, but fill out the Header Information
as fully as possible circling #3 of the status line to indicate
the household refused the interview.
-108-
-------
-15-
TRAINING SESSION
EXAMPLE OF SELECTION OF HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN A BLOCK
Suppose the block has 20 households on it and we are required to select
6 households for interview. Number the households clockwise from 1 to 20,
where household No. 1 is that household which is closest to where the car is
parked. Using the Table of Random Permutations, select a starting point
and .moving along the row of numbers select 9 distinct numbers which are between
1 and 20. We start, for example, with the number which is in the fifth row
and third column of the first page. The starting number is 07. Since 7
is between 1 and 20, we will interview the seventh household on the block.
The next number is 98, which is too large so that we ignore it and take the
next number which is 19. There are no other numbers in the fifth row which
are between 1 and 20 so we go to the sixth row. From the sixth row we get
the numbers 5, 17, 10, 12, 18, 6, and 14. Therefore, we will interview
households 5, 7, 10, 12, 17, and 19 on this block. If one of these housing
units is vacant #18 is chosen as an alternate for this unit. If a second
vacancy should be selected, #6 is used and so on.
For another block we could either select another starting point or
proceed from where we left off, using the number 57, which is in the fifth
row and 16th column of the first page. It is important to note that we
would not use the same random numbers for each block. This is, if the
next block also had 20 households and we were required to interview 6 of
these, we would not necessarily interview households 5, 7, 10, 12, 17, and
19 but would select 6 new random- numbers between 1 and 20.
-109-
-------
TRAINING SESSION
Approach at Household Door
"Hello, I'm (name) from the Pesticide Studies Center.
We're conducting a survey on the household usage of pesticides. Pesticides
are such chemicals as weed killers, no-pest strips, flea powders, or insecti-
cides like Raid, that you may personally use in your house, yard, or garden
or perhaps have a commercial pest control company apply. Your home was
randomly selected to participate in this study. Would it be possible to
use several minutes of your time to complete our confidential questionnaire."
Anticipated questions at this point: (if the interviewee doesn't
permit the interviewer to proceed with the questionnaire)
Possible questions;
1. "What is this study used for?"
The interviewer could reply, "The information collected in this study
will help the Pesticide Center evaluate the use of these chemicals
that can be quite toxic or poisonous."
2. "What sort of questions do you want to ask?"
We would like to ask you several questions about the pesticides that
you use, how you handle them, and how you dispose of them when you're
finished. We would also like to ask a few questions about your house-
hold."
3. "I don't use any pesticides."
If it has not already been made clear what chemicals are considered
pesticides, the interviewer might go into more detail on what chemicals
are considered pesticides or perhaps reiterate any that were stated
earlier.
If the answer is still no and the interviewer has established that
pesticides are not used in the yard and garden also, the interviewer should
tell the person that he has already answered the first question of the
questionnaire and has played an important part in helping the researchers
(us) determine usage patterns. A negative answer is as important to us as
knowing about the usage patterns of people who use many pesticides. Now,
would it be possible to ask why not and the interviewer states the answers
to the second question.
The question concerning commercial application should have been covered
in the introductory questioning (as a negative reply).
The question about commercial application is asked or reiterated.
For example, "You did state that you have never had a pest control company
treat any of your premises and this would include any termite treatments?"
The question on pest strips might be handled, "And you also sold you
have never used pest stripH?"
-no-
-------
-17-
The question on pet insecticides could be asked in two parts by first
asking if they have any pets and then asking if their pets wear flea
collars or if flea shampoo or powder is used.
The question regarding disinfectants can be asked in the following
manner, "Do you use any disinfectants such as Lysol or Pine-Sol for the
control of molds or mildew?"
If all negative answers are obtained on page 1 and 2, then the
interviewer should attempt to complete all of page 6. If the interviewee
objects, tell him/her that it is just as important to obtain the household
and poisoning data on non-users as it is with users.
Throughout the interview, be as congenial as possible. Be relaxed
and smile, and you'll be amazed how easily the interview is completed.
General Hints;
1. There is no need to pursue any question that the interviewee doesn't
want to answer (i.e., age, occupation, race).
2. Obviously, tact and tone of voice are two mannerisms that are important
in any study that involves interviewing. However, it is extremely
important, to practice these characteristics during the sensitive
questions about occupation and education.
Sincerity is extremely important during the opening paragraph since
many people are "sizing up" the interviewer and deciding on whether
the Interviewer can be trusted in the home for the interview. Many
interviewees grant interviews primarily on the basis of how the inter-
viewer presents himself and secondarily on how important his problem
or questions are.
3. There might be occasions when the interviewer feels that the information
that he is receiving is not true or reliable. A place for comments is
located at the end-of page 2 of the questionnaire where the interviewer
can note such problems or other pertinent information.
-Ill-
-------
Addendum to Training Manual
Household Pesticide Usage Study
1. The most important change that has occurred in the survey is that
of substitutions. On page 12 of the old training manual that was
used in May at the training course at Colorado State University,
it was stated that all not-at-homes will be treated as call-backs.
If no one was home on the call-back, the old manual stated that al-
ternate homes would be selected until a substitute interview was
obtained. THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE! The new manual now states
on page 14, number 6, that if no one is home on the call-back,
number 5 should be circled in the status section on page 1 of the
questionnaire, and the interview should be dropped from the survey.
No alternate households are to be substituted for "not-at-homes".
However, substitutions using random numbers, will still be obtained
for all vacant houses, and these can be done immediately upon encounter
in the field. To counter balance the anticipated "not-at-homes" upon
call-back and refusals, which we estimate will be
about 20%, the total number of interviews to be attempted nationwide
has been increased by 20% to a nationwide sample of 10,000 interviews.
2. The remainder of the changes involved the questionnaire and are as
follows:
A. Page 1 of the questionnaire:
1. Number A in status on Ver. A of the questionnaire—"Alt.
interview due to Not Home"—has been changed to-"Alt. interview
-112-
-------
due to vacancy"— on Ver. 5.
2. Number 5 in STATUS on Ver. 4 of the questionnaire-"Alt.
interview due to vacancy — has been changed to—"Interview
not obtained on call-back".
3. The INSPECTION section now reads simply either Inspected or
Not Inspected and a serious attempt should be made to in-
spect the pesticides and storage facilities of every household
interviewed. Therefore, the 10Z inspection figure as stated
on page 2 of the old training manual is no longer applicable.
Instructions for the inspection section are given on page
2 of the new training manual.
4. A definition of premises has been inserted, immediately follow-
ing the pesticide definition. These two definitions are to
be recited before beginning each interview.
5. Question 5 now is inclusive of moth crystals, flakes,
aerosols.
6. An unknown column has been added to questions 1, 2, 3, and 5.
B. Page 2 of the questionnaire:
1. Question 6 has been slightly reworded, however, there is no
change In context of the question.
2. Unknown columns have been added to questions 8 and 9.
3. Note: All changes on pages 1 and 2 of the questionnaire are
accompanied by corresponding changes in the new training
manual.
C. Pages 3 and 4 of the questionnaire:
-113-
-------
1. The section headed by the question—"Where on the premises
has this pesticide been used in the past 12 months?", has
been changed to include two new columns entitled LAWN and
FLOWER BED. YARD has been changed to YARD (other than lawn)
and GARDEN has been changed to VEGETABLE GARDEN. Hopefully
this will take care of any confusion that might have occurred
in this section. Instructions explaining this section are
found on page 7 of the training manual.
2. New sections have been added on pages 3 and 4.
a. Do you or any member of the household read the pesticide
label? Yes _No
b. Is the print on the label large enough to read? Yes No
c. Is the label understandable by those who use the pesti-
cide? Yes No
d. Are all the labels on stored original containers still
intact and legible? Yes No
3. These four new sections are explained on page 8 of the new
manual and replace questions 11, 13, and 16 that were formerly
on page 5 of the old questionnaire, and the old question 13
was subdivided into two parts. Thus the label information
will be obtained for each pesticide used or stored.
D. Page 5 of the questionnaire:
1. The main change that has occurred on page 5 is that questions
11, 13, and 16 have been removed and put on pages 3 and A
of the new questionnaire.
2. Question 12 on the old form is question 11 on the new and the
-114-
-------
column Applications has been added. Applications means
what type of pests that particular product is effective
against.
3. Question 14 on the old form has been changed to question 12
on the new and its wording improved to stand alone.
4. Question 15 on the old form is now question 13 on the new
form and Label has been added as a column.
5. Question 17 on the old form has been split into two questions
and is now questions 14 and 15 on the new form. Question 14
concerns just undiluted pesticides, and question 15 concerns
pesticides that the consumer has diluted for use and includes
container rinses.
6. Question 19 on the old form has also been subdivided into
two questions and is now questions 17 and 18 on the new form.
Question 17 concerns just the container and question 18 con-
cerns Just the pesticide application equipment.
E. Page 6 of the questionnaire:
1. The poisoning section on the top of page 6 remains essentially
the same, with the exception of the question numbers.
2. The primary changes that have occurred in the Household Data
Section on page 6 are that age and education levels are to
be obtained for both the Household Head and the person being
interviewed, rather than just the "Household Head" as it was
on the old form.
3. A new question, number 33 has also been added. It's purpose
is to determine the rough size of the premises (less than
-115-
-------
% acre or greater than % acre). The interviewee is to be
given the choices and determine the size, not the interviewer.
If the person being interviewed doesn't know, them Unknown
is to be marked.
A. The questions concerning education level, the number of years
of school completed is to now be written in instead of a
choice being circled.
5. On the question concerning type of residence and ownership,
Public Housing has been moved from A to B, which will make
the choices much clearer.
6. The columns have been reorganized in the question on ages of
household members to facilitate marking by the field inter-
viewer.
7. The last question on the page concerning race has been changed
so that the interviewer will determine race of Household Head,
instead of the interviewee. Most of the time this can be done
without asking.
3. Please note that all of the changes on the questionnaire are included
in the new manual, and it should be thoroughly read.
-116-
-------
APPENDIX C
FREQUENCY OF ALL OBSERVED PESTICIDES LISTED
ACCORDING TO THE PINDEX SYSTEM
P index
Number
0
232.
8*»3.
933.
1008.
1009.
1503.
2105.
2200.
2968.
2980.
3087.
-------
APPENDIX (Continued)
Plndex
Number
9019.
9027.
9035.
9043.
9050.
9068.
9076.
9084.
9092.
9100.
9126.
9134.
9175.
9183.
9191.
9209.
9217.
9225.
9233.
9241.
9255.
9258.
9266.
9274.
9282.
9290.
Frequency
29
4
5
2
2
1*
18
7
5
23
1
2
5
11
6
1
<*
1
22
8
1
3
82
4
18
8
Percent
of Total
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.1
.0
.0
.2
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
.1
.0
.0
.6
.0
.1
-» .1
PJndex
Number
9308.
9316.
9324.
9332.
9340.
9357.
9381.
9399.
9404.
9407.
9415.
9423.
9430.
9431.
9449.
9464.
9467.
9472.
9480.
9498.
9506.
9514.
9530.
9548.
9555.
9563.
Frequency
3
12
2
5
8
1
2
4
1
14
4
2
1
4
5
8
1
2
2
5
2
2
4
3
3
4
Percent
of Total
.0
.1
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.G
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
-118-
-------
APPENDIX (Continued)
Pjjndex
Number
9571.
9589.
9597.
9605.
9613,.
9639.
9647.
9662.
9670.
9688.
970<».
9712.
9738.
9746.
9753.
9761.
9779.
9803.
9811.
9837.
9B<»5.
9860.
9878.
9886.
9894.
9902.
Frequency
14
2
19
11
19
3
3
1
1
2
9
6
3
1
1
16
20
5
3
1
2
3
10
2
1 '
1
Percent
of Total
.1
.0
.1
.1
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
Fwdex
Number
9910.
9928.
9936.
9944.
9951.
9969.
9977.
9985.
9993.
10009.
10017.
10033.
10041.
10058.
10074.
10082.
10090.
10116.
10124.
10132.
101<»0.
10157.
10165.
10173.
10181.
. 10199.
Frequency
2
1
1
2
2
2
9
2
7
1
4
4
2
4
7
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
10
3
14
Percent
of Total
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. 0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.1
-119-
-------
APPENDIX (Continued)
Ptndex
Number
~10207.
10215.
10223,
10231.
1Q2*»9.
1C256.
10272.
1G3G6.
10322.
10330.
10363.
10371.
10397.
10<»39,
10<*62.
10<»6
-------
APPENDIX (Continued)
Plndex
Number
11056.
1106*».
11073.
11098.
11106.
11122.
111<»8.
11155.
11163.
11197.
11213.
11221.
11239.
11262.
11270.
11296.
1130**.
11361.
11^5.
11<»52.
111*60.
11<»86.
llt»9U.
11502.
11510.
11528.
Frequency
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
-------
APPENDIX (Continued)
P-fndex
Number
12C020.
200071.
200170.
200375.
20C340'.
200343.
200345.
200385.
200386.
200725.
201178.
201293.
201295.
201319.
201327.
201731.
202028.
202176.
202«»90.
202U99.
202598.
202952.
202978.
204990.
205955.
300673.
Frequency
1
10
1
1
1
1
261
1
49
67<»
2
17
2
57
18
3
18
138
1
129
2
2
2
1
1
40
Percent
of Total
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.9
.0
.3
<*. 8
.0
• 1
.0
.4
.1
.0
.1
1.0
.0
.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
PJndex
Number
300962.
300970.
300978.
301109.
301127.
301150.
301168.
301172.
301182.
301192.
301341.
30180'+.
301952.
302917.
302927.
302968.
303131.
3032«»7.
303396.
303818.
30<*626.
30<»9*0.
308Qi»Q.
308044.
308047.
308048.
Frequency
9
25
1
12
2
7
1
1
1
95
1
2
56
8
4
187
1
1
1
19
38
4
1
1
3
1
Percent
of Total
.1
.2
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.7
.0
.0
.4
.1
.0
1.3
.0
.0
.0
.1
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
-122-
-------
APPENDIX (Continued)
Pjndex
Number
3090*49.
338055.
308056.
306066.
308099.
308409.
308673.
309526.
<»00218.
1*00291.
400325.
400416.
400697.
401042,
401075,
401109.
401280.
401281.
401331.
401372.
<*01406.
401554.
<*01695.
401828.
402073.
402181.
Frequency
489
3
29
1
1
1
1
10
34
3
20
1
5
1
1
449
1
1207
1
9
2
52
11
2
12
1
Percent
of Total
3.5
.0
.2
.0
• a
.0
.0
.1
.2
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
3.2
.0
8.6
.0
.1
.0
.4
.1
.0
.1
.0
P index
Number
~402313.
402317.
402420.
• 402719.
402784.
403014.
403247.
403733.
404016.
404863.
404897.
406652.
406815.
408049.
409623.
409698.
410027.
411033.
591619.
502294.
504873.
504878.
508049.
510636.
-600122.
600130.
Frequency
382
1
2
3
20
1
1
8
1
1
11
9
3
1
5
3
2
6
2
1
1
1
39
5
9
6
Percent
of Total
2.7
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.1
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
.0
.1
.0
-123-
-------
APPENDIX (Continued)
Pindex
Number
60C205.
600725.
601716.
602730.
602888.
603001.
6C3076.
633118.
603167.
603449.
6050<*8.
701*»7i*.
800086.
800088.
802736.
80321*1.
80321*7.
803257.
803271*.
803353.
803<*27.
803718.
80<*690.
809152.
809376.
9001U2.
Percent
Frequency of Total
2 • 0
1 -0
13 .1
3 .0
22 -2
1 .0
1 • 0
31 .2
1 .0
1 -0
21* -2
2 .0
(*5 • 3
1 .0
20 .1
3 .0
787 5.6
1 • 0
2 • 0
131 .9
22 .2
41 .3
1_ • J
1 .0
1 .3
15 .1
Pindex
Number
900i»56.
900639.
90061*7.
900693.
901109.
901265.
903<*92.
9Qi»52<».
901*797.
905059.
910265.
9101*11*.
9111*01*.
1001*103.
1QO<»183.
100<*185.
1016815.
1106087.
2000000.
200031*5.
2000<»79.
2000658.
2000685.
2000933.
2001519.
200161*2.
Frequency
*
6U
1
1
1
1
i*
3
1
16
2
3
1
1
31*0
1
6
1
1
1
1
2
618
16
3
1
Percent
of Total
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
2.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
<».<*
.1
.0
.0
-124-
-------
APPENDIX (Continued)
PJndex
Number
^001790.
20018b5.
2002152.
200M90.
2004497.
2004927.
2005593.
2005595.
2006245.
2006582.
2006685.
2006852.
2101574.
2101921.
2102333.
2102457.
2104230.
2104330.
2104600.
2123201.
2204634.
2<*00315.
2<»04036.
2410579.
2500981.
2502049.
Frequency
2
52
339
3
2<*
1
30
23
1
32
3
1
1
1
14
3
16
1
1
1
1
2
8
6
15
1
Percent
of Total
.0
.4
2.4
.0
.2
.0
.2
.2
.0
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.1
• 0
.0
.0
.0
.3
.1
.0
.1
.0
P Index
Number
2502407.
2502409.
2502509.
2502524.
2504314.
2505923.
2522409.
3002391.
3002540.
3100195.
3100559.
3101383.
3101540.
3102480.
3102795.
3102910.
3103407.
3103470.
3103488.
3103553.
3104783.
3105061.
3404803.
3<»05867.
3500824.
3504941.
Frequency
1
367
1
2
4
1
1
1
2
32
2
9
13
*»
25
2
2
29
55
9
1
2
1
4
17
7
Percent
of Total
.0
2.6
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
• a
.2
.0
.1
.1
.0
.2
.0
.0
.2
.4
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
-125-
-------
APPENDIX (Continued)
P index
Number
3505153.
3506466.
3604212.
4002093.
4105995.
4403754.
4403762.
4822110.
5008073.
5008099.
5009725.
5080273.
5106139.
5303151.
5310677.
5402201.
5608062.
5610677.
5688062.
5706668.
5706700.
5*11476.
Frequency
10
1
1
2
1
23
1
1
25
21
1
1
6
1
1
31
48
1
2
2
1
1
Percent
of Total
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
.0
.0
.2
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Pindex
Number
6000696.
6006172*
6006693.
6006696.
6006712.
6008593.
6011423.
6011753.
6109656.
6110746.
6209795.
6209829.
6210355.
6210447.
6210967.
6309165.
6309785.
6311377.
6311385.
9000268.
9999999.
TOTAL
Frequency
1
1
1
263
274
4
5
1
14
1
1
1
2
4
2
8
2
1
4
1
1
14037
Percent
of Total
.0
.0
.0
1.9
2.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
100.0
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980-3M- 132/52
-126-
------- |