v>EPA
            Unitad States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Office of
            Pesticides and Toxic Substanc
            Washington DC 20460
September 1980
            Pesticides
1, 4-dichloro-2,5
    -dimethoxybenzene

        Chloroneb
Pesticide Registration
Standard

-------
                  CHLORONEB

       Pesticide Registration Standard


Rose Allison            Project  Manager  (SPRD)
Henry Appleton          Environmental Chemist  ((HED)
Raymond Kent            Residue  Chemist  (HED)
Bob Panebianco          Product  Manager  (RD)
Mary Quaife             lexicologist  (HED)
John Tice               Wildlife Ecologist  (HED)
Greg Ueidemann          Plant Sciences Specialist  (BFSD)
                   September 1980

       Office of Pesticides  and  Toxic  Substances
           Environmental  Protection  Agency
           401  M  Street.  SW
           Washington,  DC 20460

-------
              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                               Page No.

Chapter One
How to Register Under a Registration Standard....  1

Chapter Two
Agency Position on Chloroneb
     Regulatory Position for Chloroneb....
          Criteria for Registration under
             a Standard
     A.  Manufacturing-use Chloroneb	    9
         1.  Acceptable Ranges and Limits
         2.  Data Requirements and Data Gaps
         3.  Required Labeling
         4.  Tolerance Reassessment
         5.  Regulatory Rationale

     B.  Wettable Powder Chloroneb	   20
         1.  Acceptable Ranges and Limits
         2.  Data Requirements and Data Gaps
         3.  Required Labeling
         4.  Regulatory Rationale

     C.  Granular Chloroneb	   26
         1.  Acceptable Ranges and Limits
         2.  Data Requirements and Data Gaps
         3.  Required Labeling
         4.  Regulatory Rationale

     D.  Dust Chloroneb	   33
         1.  Acceptable Ranges and Limits
         2.  Data Requirements and Data Gaps
         3.  Required Labeling
         4.  Regulatory Rationale

Chapter Three
Product Chemistry of Chloroneb

     A.  Introduction	   40

     B.  Manufacturing-use Chloroneb	   40
         1.  Product Chemistry Profile
         2.  Data Requirements and Data Gaps
         3.  Topical Discussions

     C.  Wettable Powder Chloroneb	   46
         1.  Data Gaps
         2.  Topical Discussions

-------
                                                Page No,
     D.   Granul ar Chi oroneb	   48
         1.  Data Gaps
         2.  Topical Discussions

     E.   Dust Chloroneb	   49
         1.  Data Gaps
         2.  Topical Discussions

     F.   Bibliography	   52

Chapter Four
Environmental Fate of  Chloroneb

     A.   Use Profile	    53

     B.   Manufacturing-use Chloroneb	   53
         1.  Environmental Fate Profile
         2.  Exposure  Profile
         3.  Data Gaps
         4.  Topical Discussions

     C.   Formulations  of Chloroneb	   64
         1.  Exposure  Profi1es

     D.   Bibliography	   66

Chapter Five
Toxicology  of Chloroneb

     A.   Manufacturing-use Chloroneb	   67
         1.  Toxicology Profile
         2.  Human and Domestic Animal  Hazard
             Assessment
         3.  Data Requirements and Data Gaps
         4.  Required  Labeling
         5.  Topical Discussions

     B.   Wettable Powder Chloroneb	   81
         1.  Toxicology Profile
         2.  Data Gaps
         3.  Human and Domestic Animal  Hazard
             Assessment
         4.  Topical Discussions

     C.   Granular Chloroneb	   85
         1.  Toxicology Profile
         2.  Data Gaps
         3.  Human and Domestic Animal  Hazard
             Assessment
         4.  Topical Discussions
                          ii

-------
                                               Page No,

     D.  Dust Chloroneb	  89
         1.  Toxicology Profile
         2.  Data Gaps
         3.  Human and Domestic Animal Hazard
             Assessment
         4.  Topical Discussions

     E.  Bibliography	  92

Chapter Six
Residue Chemistry of Chloroneb

     A.  Manufacturing-use Chloroneb	  94
         1.  Residue Chemistry Profile
         2.  Data Gaps
         3.  Topical Discussions

     B.  Formulations of Chloroneb	 108
         1.  Data Requirements
         2.  Required Labeling

     C.  Bibliography	 110

Chapter Seven
Ecological  Effects of Chloroneb

     A.  Manufacturing-use Chloroneb	 113
         1.  Ecological  Effects Profile
         2.  Data Gaps
         3.  Topical Discussions

     B.  Wettable Powder Chloroneb	 116
         1.  Ecological  Effects Profile
         2.  Topical Discussions

     C.  Granular Chloroneb	 116
         1.  Ecological  Effects Profile
         2.  Topical Discussions

     D.  Dust Chloroneb	 117
         1.  Ecological  Effects Profile
         2.  Topical Discussions

     E.  Bibliography	 118

Case Bibliography

     A.  Guide  to Use of the Bibliography	   119
           Section 1	   122
           Section II	   129
                         ill

-------
                                   Chapter 1

                               HOW TO REGISTER
                        UNDER A REGISTRATION STANDARD
Organization of tha Standard
Purpose of the Standard
Requirement to Re-register Under the Standard
"Product Specific" Data and "Generic" Data
Data Compensation Requirements under FIFRA 3(c)(1)(D)
Obtaining Data to Fill "Data Gaps"; FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)
Amendments to the Standard


Organization of the Standard

    This first chapter explains the purpose of a Registration Standard and
summarizes the legal principles involved in registering or re-registering under
a Standard.  The second chapter sets forth the requirements that must be met to
obtain or retain registration for products covered by this particular
Registration Standard.  In the remaining chapters, the Agency reviews the
available data by scientific discipline, discusses the Agency's concerns with
the identified potential hazards, and logically develops the conditions and
requirements that would reduce those hazards to acceptable levels.


Purpose or_ the Standard

    Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) provides that "no person in any State may distribute, sell, offer for
sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive (and having so
received) deliver or offer to deliver, to any person any pesticide which is not
registered with the Administrator [of EPA]."  To approve the registration of a
pesticide, the Administrator must find, pursuant to Section 3(c)(5) that:
    "(A) its composition is such as to warrant the proposed claims for it;
     (B) its labeling and other material required to be submitted comply with
         the requirements of this Act;
     (C) it will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse
         effects on the environment; and
     (D) when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized
         practice it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on
         the environment."
    In making these findings, the Agency reviews a wide range of data which
registrants are required to submit, and assesses the risks and benefits
associated with the use of the proposed pesticide.  But the established
approach to making these findings has been found to be defective on two counts:
    First, EPA and its predecessor agency, the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), routinely reviewed registration applications on a  'product
by product1 basis, evaluating each product-specific application somewhat
independently.  In the review of products containing similar components, there
was little opportunity for a retrospective review of the full range of
pertinent data available in Agency files and in the public literature.  Thus
the 'product by product1 approach was often inefficient and sometimes  resulted
in inconsistent or incomplete regulatory judgments.

-------
    Second, over the years, as a result of inevitable  and continuing  advances
in scientific knowledge, methodology, and policy,  the  data base  for many
pesticides came to be considered inadequate by current scientific and
regulatory standards.  Given the long history- of pesticide regulation  in
several agencies, it is even likely that materials may have been lost  from the
data files,  '//hen EPA issued new requirements for  registration in 1975 (40 CFR
162) and proposed new guidelines for hazard testing in 1978 (43 FR 29686, July
10, 1973 and 43 FR 37336, August 2, 1973), many products that had already been
registered for years were being sold and used without  the same assurances of
human and environmental safety as was being required for new products.  Because
of this inconsistency, Congress" directed EPA to re-register all previously
registered products, so as to bring their registrations and their data bases
into compliance with current requirements [See FIFRA Section 3(g)l.
    Facing the enormous job of re-reviewing and calling-in new data for the
approximately 35,000 current registrations, and realizing the inefficiencies of
the 'product by product' approach, the Agency decided  that a new, more
effective method of review was needed.
    A new review procedure has been developed.  Under  it, EPA publishes
documents called Registration Standards, each of which discusses a particular
pesticide active ingredient.  Each Registration Standard summarizes all the
data available to the Agency on a particular active ingredient ana its  current
uses, and sets forth the Agency's comprehensive position on the conditions and
requirements for registration of all existing and future products which contain
that active ingredient.  These conditions and requirements, all of which must
be met to obtain or retain full registration or re-registration under  Section
3(c)(5) of FIFRA, include the submission of needed scientific data which the
Agency does not now have, compliance with standards of toxicity, composition,
labeling, and packaging, and satisfaction of the data  compensation provisions
of FIFRA Section 3(O(1)(D).
    The Standard will also serve as a tool for product classification.  As part
of the registration of a pesticide product, EPA may classify each product for
"general use" or "restricted use" [FIFRA Section 3(d)].  A pesticide is
classified for "restricted use" when some special regulatory restriction is
needed to ensure against unreasonable adverse effects  to man or the
environment.  Many such risks of unreasonable adverse  effects can be lessened
if expressly-designed label precautions are strictly followed.  Thus the
special regulatory restriction for a "restricted use"  pesticide is usually a
requirement that it be applied only by, or under the supervision of, an
applicator who has been certified by the State or Federal government as being
competent to use pesticides safely, responsibly, and in accordance with label
directions.  A restricted-use pesticide can have other regulatory restrictions
[40 CFR 162.11(c)(5)] instead of, or in addition to, the certified applicator
requirement.  These other regulatory restrictions may  include such actions as
seasonal or regional limitations on use, or a requirement for the monitoring of
residue levels after use.  A pesticide classified for  "general use," or not
classified at all, is available for use by any individual who is in compliance
with State or local regulations.  The Registration Standard review compares
information about potential adverse effects of specific uses of the pesticide
with risk criteria listed in 40 CFR I62.11(c), and thereby determines  whether a
product needs to be classified for "restricted use."   If the Standard  does
classify a pesticide for "restricted use," this determination is stated in the
second chapter.

-------
 Requirement Jto Re-register Under  the Standard

    FIFRA Section 3(g), as amended in  1978, directs EPA  to  re-register all
 currently registered products as  expeditiously as  possible.   Congress also
 agreed that re-registration should be accomplished by the use of  Registration
 Standards.
    Each registrant of a currently registered product to which  this  Standard
 applies, and who wishes to continue to sell or distribute his product in
 commerce, must apply for re-regisration.  His application must  contain proposed
 labeling that complies with this  Standard.
    EPA will issue a notice of intent to cancel the registration  of  any
 currently registered product to which this Standard applies if  the registrant
 fails to comply with the procedures for re-registration  set forth in the
 Guidance Package which accompanies this Standard.


 "Product Specific" Data and "Generic" Data

    In the course of developing this Standard, EPA has determined the types  of
 data needed for evaluation of the properties and effects of products to which
 the Standard applies, in the disciplinary areas of Product  Chemistry,
 Environmental Fate,  Toxicology, Residue Chemistry, and Ecological Effects.
 These determinations are based primarily on the data Guidelines proposed  in
 1978 (43 FR 29686, July 10, 1978,  and 43 FR 37336, August 2,  1978),  as  applied
 to the use patterns of the products to which this Standard applies.   Where it
 appeared that data from a normally applicable Guidelines requirement  was
 actually unnecessary to evaluate these products, the Standard indicates that
 the requirement has been waived.  On the other hand, in some  cases studies not
 required by the Guidelines may be needed because of the particular composition
 or use pattern of products the Standard covers;  if so, the Standard  explains
 the Agency's reasoning.  Data guidelines have not yet been proposed  for the
 Residue Chemistry discipline, but the requirements for such data  have been in
 effect for some time and are, the Agency believes, relatively familiar to
 registrants.  Data which we have found are needed to evaluate the
 registrability of some products covered by the Standard may not be needed for
 the evaluation of other products,  depending upon the composition, formulation
 type, and intended uses of the product in question.  The Standard states  which
data requirements apply to which product categories.  (See the second chapter.)
    The various kinds of data normally required for registration  of  a pesticide
 product can be divided into two basic groups:
                    »
    (A)  data that is "product specific," i.e., data that relates only to
         the properties or effects of a product with a particular composition
         (or a group of products with closely similar composition);  and
    (B)  "generic" data that pertains to the properties or effects of a
         particular ingredient, and thus is relevant to an evaluation of  the
         risks and benefits of all products containing that ingredient (or all
         such products having a certain use pattern), regardless  of  any such
         product's unique composition.

    The Agency requires certain "product specific" data  for each  product  to
 characterize the product's particular composition and physical/chemical
 properties (Product Chemistry), and to characterize the  product's acute
 toxicity (which is a function of its total composition).  The applicant for
 registration or re-registration of any product, whether  it  is a manufacturing-
 use or end-use product, and without regard to its intended use pattern, must

-------
submit or cite enough of this kind of data to allow EPA to evaluate  the
product.  For such purposes, "product specific" data  on any  product  other  than
the applicant's is irrelevant, unless the other product is closely similar in
composition to the applicant's.   (Where  it has been found practicable  to group
similar products for purposes of  evaluating, with a single set of tests, all
products in the group,  the Standard so indicates.)  "Product specific" data on
the efficacy of particular end-use products is also required where the exact
formulation may affect  efficacy and where failure of  efficacy could  cause
public health problems.
    All other data needed to evaluate pesticide products concerns the
properties or effects of a particular ingredient of products (normally a
pesticidally active ingredient, but in some cases a pesticidally inactive,  or
"inert," ingredient).   Some data  in this "generic" category  are required to
evaluate the properties and effects of all products containing that  ingredient
[e.g., the acute LD-50  of the active ingredient in its technical or  purer
grade; see proposed 40  CFR  163.81-Ka),  43 FR  37355].
    Other "generic" data are required to evaluate all products which both
contain a particular ingredient and are  intended for  certain uses (see, e.g.,
proposed 40 CFR 163.82-1, 43 FR 37363, which requires subchronic oral  testing
of the active ingredient with respect to certain use  patterns only).  Where a
particular data requirement is use-pattern dependent, it will apply  to each
end-use product which is to be labeled for that use pattern  (except  where  such
end-use product is formulated from a registered manufacturing-use product
permitting such formulations) and to each manufacturing-use  product  with
labeling that allows it to be used to make end-use products  with that use
pattern.  Thus, for example, a subchronic oral dosing study  is needed  to
evaluate the safety of  any manufacturing-use product  that legally could be used
to make an end-use, food-crop pesticide. But  if an end-use  product's  label
specified it was for use only in  ways that involved no food/feed exposure  and
no repeated human exposure, the subchronic oral dosing study would not be
required to evaluate the product's safety;  and if a  manufacturing-use
product's label states  that the product  is for use only in making end-use
products not involving  food/feed  use or  repeated human exposure, that
subchronic oral study would not be relevant to the evaluation of the
manufacturing-use product either.
    If a registrant of  a currently registered manufacturing-use or end-use
product wishes to avoid the costs of data compensation [under FIFRA  Section
3(c)(1)(D)] or data generation [under Section 3(c)(2)(B)] for "generic" data
that is required only with respect to seme use patterns, he  may elect to delete
those use patterns from his labeling at  the time he re-registers his product.
An applicant for registration of  a new product under  this Standard may
similarly request approval for only certain use patterns.


Data Compensation Requirements under FIFRA 3(c)(1)(D)

    Under FIFRA Section 3(c)(1)(D), an applicant for  registration, re-
registration, or amended registration must offer to pay compensation for
certain existing data the Agency  has used in developing the  Registration
Standard.  The data for which compensation must be offered is all data <»hich is
described by all the following criteria:

    (1)  the data were first submitted to EPA (or to  its predecessor agencies,
         USDA or FDA), on or after January 1, 1970;
    (2)  the data were submitted  to EPA  (or USDA or FDA) by  some other
         applicant or registrant  in support of an application for an

-------
         experimental use permit, an amendment  adding  a new use to a
         registration, or for  re-registration,  or to support or maintain in
         effect an existing registration;
     (3)  the data are relevant to the  Agency's  decision to register or re-
         register the applicant's product under the  Registration Standard,
         taking into account the applicant's  product's composition and intended
         use pattern(s);
     (4)  the data are determined by EPA to be valid  and usable  in reaching
         regulatory conclusions; and
     (5)  the data are not those for which the applicant has been exempted by
         FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(D) from the duty to offer to pay compensation.
         (This exemption applies to the "generic" data concerning the  safety of
         an active ingredient of the applicant's  product,  not to "product
         specific" data.  The  exemption is available only to applicants  whose
         product is labeled for end-uses for which the active ingredient in
         question is present in the applicant's product because of his use of
         another registered product containing  that active ingredient  which  he
         purchases from another producer.)

     An applicant for re-registration of an already registered product  under
this Standard, or for registration of a new product under this  Standard,
accordingly must determine which of the data used by EPA in developing the
Standard must be the subject of an offer to pay compensation, and must submit
with his application the appropriate statements evidencing his  compliance  with
FIFRA Section 3(c)(1)(D).
    An applicant would never be required to offer to pay for "product  specific"
data submitted by another firm.  In many,  if not in most  cases,  data which are
specific to another firm's product will not suffice to allow EPA to evaluate
the applicant's product,  that is,  will not be useful to  the  Agency in  determin-
ing whether the applicant's product is registrable.  There may  be  cases, how-
ever, where because of close similarities between the  composition of two or
more products, another firm's data may suffice  to allow EPA to  evaluate  some or
all of the "product specific" aspects of the applicant's  product.   In  such a
case, the applicant may choose to cite that data  instead  of submitting data
from tests on his own product,  and if he chooses that  option, he  would have  to
comply with the offer-to-pay requirements of Section 3(C)(1)(D)  for that data.
    Each applicant for registration or re-registration of  a manufacturing-use
product, and each applicant for registration or re-registration of an  end-use
product, who is not exempted by FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(D),  must  comply with the
Section 3(c)(1)(D) requirements with respect to each item of "generic" data
that relates to his product's intended uses.
    A detailed description of the procedures an applicant  must  follow  in
applying for re-registration (or new registration) under  this Standard is  found
in the Guidance Package for this Standard.


Obtaining Data to Fill "Data Gaps";  FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)

    Some of the kinds of data EPA needs for its evaluation of the  properties
and effects of products to which this Standard  applies have never been
submitted to the Agency (or, if submitted, have been found to have deficiencies
rendering them inadequate for making registrability decisions)  and 'nave  not
been located in the published literature search that EPA conducted as  part of
preparing this Standard.   Such instances of missing but  required data  are
referred to in the Standard as "data gaps".

-------
    FIFRA Section  3(c)(2)(B),  added  to  FIFRA by  the  Congress in 1978,
authorizes  EPA  to  require  registrants to whom a  data requirement applies to
generate (or otherwise produce) data to fill such  "gaps"  and submit  those data
to EPA.  EPA must  allow a  reasonably sufficient  period for this to be
accomplished.   If  a registrant fails to take appropriate  and timely  steps to
fill the data gaps identified  by  a section 3(c)(2)(B)  order, his product's
registration may be suspended  until  the data are submitted.   A mechanism is
provided whereby two or more registrants may agree to share in the costs of
producing data  for which they  are both  responsible.
    The Standard lists, in its summary  second chapter, the "generic" data gaps
and notes the classes of products to which these data gaps pertain.  The
Standard also points out that  to  be  registrable  under the Standard,  a  product
must be supported  by certain required "product spe^fic"  data.  In some cases,
the Agency  may  possess sufficient "product specific" data on one currently
registered  product, but may lack  such data on another. Only those Standards
which apply to  a very small number of currently  registered products  will
attempt to  state definitively  the "product specific" data gaps on a 'product by
product' basis. (Although the Standard will in  some cases note which  data that
EPA does possess would suffice to satisfy certain  "product specific" data
requirements for a category of products with closely similar composition
characteristics.)
    As part of  the process of  re-registering currently registered products, EPA
will issue  Section 3(c)(2)(B)  directives requiring the registrants to  take
appropriate steps  to fill  all  identified data gaps — whether that data in
question is "product specific" or "generic" — in  accordance with a  schedule.
    Persons who wish to obtain registrations for new products under  this
Standard will be required  to submit  (or cite) sufficient  "product specific"
data before their  applications are approved.  Upon registration, they  will be
required under  Section 3(c)(2)(B) to take appropriate steps  to submit  data
needed to fill  "generic" data  gaps.  (We expect  they will respond to this
requirement by  entering into cost-sharing agreements with other registrants who
previously  have been told  they must  furnish the  data.) The Guidance Package
for this Standard  details  the  steps  that must be taken by registrants  to comply
with .Section 3(c)(2)(B).


Amendments  to the  Standard

    Applications for registration which propose  uses or formulations that are
not presently covered by the Standard,  or which  present product compositions,
product chemistry  data, hazard data, toxicity levels,  or  labeling that do not
meet the requirements of the Standard,  will  automatically be considered by the
Agency to be requests for  amendments to the Standard.   In response to  such
applications, the  Agency may request additional  data to support the  proposed
amendment to the Standard,  or  may deny  the application for registration on the
grounds that the proposed  product would cause unreasonable adverse effects to
the environment.   In the former case, when additional  data have been
satisfactorily  supplied, and providing  that  the  data do not  indicate the
potential for unreasonable  adverse effects,  the  Agency will  then amend the
Standard to cover  the new registration.
    Each Registration Standard is based upon all data  and information  available
to the Agency's reviewers on a particular  date prior to the  publication date.
This "cut-off" date is stated at  the beginning of  the  second chapter.   Any
subsequent data submissions and any approved  amendments will be incorporated
into the Registration Standard by means of addenda,  which are available for
inspection at EPA  in Washington,  D.G.,  or  copies of  which may be .requested from

-------
the Agency.  When all the present "data gaps" have been filled and  the
submitted data have been reviewed, the Agency will revise the Registration
Standard.  Thereafter, when the Agency determines that the internally
maintained addenda have significantly altered the conditions for registration
under the Standard, the document will be updated and re-issued for  publication.
    While the Registration Standard discusses only the uses and hazards of
products containing the designated active ingredient(s), the Agency is also
concerned with the potential hazards of some inert ingredients and  impurities.
Independent of the development of any one Standard, the Agency has  initiated
the evaluation of some inert pesticide ingredients.  Where the Agency has
identified inert ingredients of concern in a specific product to which the
Standard applies, these ingredients will be pointed out in the Guidance Package.

-------
          II.  AGENCY POSITION ON CHLORONEB
Regulatory Position for Chloroneb

Chloroneb (1,4-dichloro-2,5-dimethoxybenzene) as described
in this Standard may be registered for sale, distribution,
reformulation and use in the United States.  Considering all
available information on products registered on or before
May 15, 1980, the Agency finds that none of the risk criteria
found in section 162.11(a) of Title 40 of the U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations were met or exceeded for Chloroneb.

The Agency has determined that Chloroneb does not cause an
unreasonable adverse effect with proper label directions and
precautions.  Chloroneb products currently registered may be
reregistered subject to the conditions imposed for data
requirements.  New products may be registered under this
Standard and are subject to the same requirements.

Criteria for Registration Under the Standard

To be subject to this Standard, Chloroneb products must meet
the following conditions:

     - contain Chloroneb as the sole active ingredient;
     - bear required labeling; and
     - be within acute toxicity limits.

Manufacturing-use Chloroneb products must bear label directions
for formulation into acceptable end-uses.

The applicant for registration or reregistration of Chloroneb
products subject to this Standard must comply with all  terms
and conditions described in this Standard including commitment
to fill data gaps on a time schedule specified  by the Agency
and when applicable offer to pay compensation to the extent
required by 3(c)(l)(D) and 3(c)(2)(D)  of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA], as
amended, 7 U.S.C. 136(c)(l)(D) and 136(c)(2)(D).

The following registrants have submitted data in support of
Chloroneb registrations, and have not  waived their rights to
compensation for this data:  E.I.  duPont de Nemours and Co.,
Inc.  and O.M.  Scott and Sons Co.

-------
 A.  Manufacturing-use Chloroneb

 1.  Acceptable Ranges and Limits

 a.  Product Composition Standard

 To  be covered under this Standard, manufacturing-use
 chloroneb products with any percentage of active ingredient
 are acceptable with appropriate certification of limits.

 The Agency identified the possibility of chlorinated dioxin
 formation, including TCDD, during manufacture of chloroneb.
 To  be covered under this standard, applicants for registration
 of manufacturing-use chloroneb products must demonstrate
 that the manufacturing process will not result in the
 formation of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorobenzo-£-dioxin (TCDD).

 b.  Acute Toxicity Limits

 The Agency will consider registration of manufacturing-use
 chloroneb products which have established Toxicity Category
 1 through IV ratings for each of the following acute effects:

     Acute Oral Toxicity;
     Acute Dermal Toxicity
     Acute Inhalation Toxicity;
     Primary Eye Irritation; and
     Primary Dermal Irritation.

 c.  Use Patterns

 To be covered under this Standard, manufacturing-use chloroneb
 must be formulated into end-use fungicides which are intended
 for outdoor nondomestic terrestrial uses (food or nonfood).

 2.  Data Requirements and Data Gaps

 Applicants for registration of manufacturing-use chloroneb
 products with all acceptable end-uses must cite or submit
 the following information on the physical/chemical  properties,
 composition, fate and toxicity of the proposed product.
 Data in this Standard that satisfy registration requirements
 may be cited, if the applicant establishes that the proposed
 product is substantially similar to another product for
 which the Agency has received acceptable acute toxicity
 tests.  Data may be cited provided compensation has been
 offered to the submitters of these studies.   The Agency
will consider both active and inert ingredients in the
 determination of substantially similar products.   Before
 each requirement is listed the section of the Proposed
 Guidelines which describes that type of data and when it is
 required [43 FR,  No.  132, 29696 of July 10,  1978;  and 43 FR,
 No. 163, 37336 .of August 22, 1978].  Applicants for the
 reregistration of manufacturing-use chloroneb must sumbit
 all information identified as data gaps (see charts).

-------
PRODUCT CHEMISTRY
                                                            Data  Gaps
Data Requirements
163.61-3 Product Identity
163.61-4 Composition Starting
Materials
163.61-4 Manuf. Process
163.61-3 Disc, of Ingred.
163.61-5 Disc, of Unint.
Ingredients
163.61-6 Certification of
Limits
163.61-7 Analyt. Meth./Data


163.61-8 Color
163.61-8 Odor
163.61-8 Melting Point
163.61-8 Solubility
163.61-8 Stability
163.61-8 Oct./Water Part.
Coefficient
163.61-8 Physical State
163.61-8 Density or Specific
Gravity
163.61-8 Vapor Pressure
163.61-8 pH


163.61-8 Storage Stability

163.61-8 Flammability

163.61-8 Oxidizing/Reducing
Action
163.61-8 Explosiveness

163.61-8 Corrosion
Food
Use
X
X

X
X
X

X

X


X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X


X

X

X

X

X
Nonfood
Use
X
X

X
X
X

X

X


X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X


X

X

X

X

X
Food Nonfood
Use Use


X

X

X

X(data)







X





X


X

X

X

X

X


X

X

X

X(data)







X





X


X

X

X

X

X
Test
Substance


Technical Grade

Technical Grade

Manufacturing-
use Product
Technical Grade
and/or Manufac-
turing-use Produc





Technical Grade





Technical Grade
and/or Manufac-
turing-use Produc
Manufacturing- use
Product
Manufacturing-use
Product
Manufacturing-use
Product
Manufacturing-use
Product
Manufacturing-use
           Characteristics
Product
                                           10

-------
TOXICOLOGY
Data Requirements
Food
Use
Nonfood
Use
Data Gaps
Food Nonfood
Use Use
Data Which
Must be Cited
163.81-1 Acute Oral Tox.
163.81-2 Acute Dermal Tox.
163.81-3 Acute Inhal. Tox.
163.81-4 Primary Eye
           Irritation*
163.81-5 Primary Dermal
           Irritation
163.81-6 Skin Sensitization
163.82-1 Subchronic Oral Tox.
163.82-2 Subchronic (21 day)
           Dermal Tox.
163.83-1 Chronic Feeding
163.83-2 Oncogenicity
163.83-3 Teratogenicity
163.83-4 Reproduction
163.83-1 Mutagencity
through -4
163.85-1 Metabolism
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
          X
          X
          X
          X
X
X
X
X

X
            X
            X
X
X
X
X
X
           X
           X
         GS0007-010


         GS0007-011

         GS0007-012
X

X
*Primary Eye Irritation test or_ demonstration of pH between 1  and 3 or 12 and 14 or^
demonstration of dermal irritation of Category I.
                                            11

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
Data Requirements
163.62-7 Hydrolysis
163.62-7 Photolysis
163.62-8 Aerobic/Anerobic
Soil Metab.
163.62-8 Microbes on Chloroneb
163.62-8 Chloroneb on Microbes
163.62-8 Activated Sludge
Metabolism
163.62-9 Leaching
163.62-9 Adsorption/Desorption
163.62-10 Terrestrial Field
Di ssi p.
163.62-11 Rotational Crop
163.62-11 Fish Accumulation
Food
Use
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
Nonfood
Use
X
X
X(aerobic)

X
X
X

X
X
X


X
Data
Food
Use

X
X

X
X


X
X
X

X
X
Gaps
Nonfood
Use

X
Data Which
Must be Cited


X (aerobic)

X
X


X
X
X


X

00001426

GS0007-007







                                            12

-------
RESIDUE CHEMISTRY


Data Requirements  (Food Use)	Data Gaps	Data Which Must be Cited

Metabolism in Plants
Metabolism in Animals                  X
Analytical Methods
Residue Data:  Crops
  Snap Beans/Dried Beans               X(Beans/Bean Vines)
  Soybeans                             X(and Soybean Vines)
  Sugarbeets                           X
  Cottonseed/Cotton Forge              X
Residue Data:  Processed Crops
  Cottonseed                           X
  Soybeans                             X
  Sugarbeets                           X
Residue Data:
  Milk and Meat                        X
Storage and Stability                  X
                                            13

-------
Residue Chemistry Data Gaps
     1) Data on the metabolism of chloroneb in food animals.
Available data- are qualitative, whereas quantitative as well
as qualitative data on the disposition of chloroneb in food
animals are required.

     2) Data on residues in beans and bean vines (forage),
soybeans and soybean vines (forage), cottonseed and cotton
forage, and sugarbeets (roots and tops).  Available data
were not submitted in raw* form and, with the exception of
the data on beans, were obtained on an inadequate number of
samples.

     3) Information on the storage of agricultural  commodities
between sampling and residue analysis.  Data on storage
conditions and on the stability of residues during sample
storage are required.  No data are available.

     4) Data on residues in fractions of processed cottonseed,
soybeans, and sugarbeets.  No data are available.  The
data would not be required if residues in raw agricultural
commodities are low enough that residues in processed
commodities would not likely exceed 0.1 ppm, the tolerance
on the raw commodities.  The Agency assumes a maximum
concentration factor of 5 in processing cottonseed and
soybeans to oil, and a factor of 20 in processing sugarbeets
to dried pulp.  Therefore, fractionation studies would not
be required if residues on cottonseed and soybeans were less
than .02 ppm (.lppm/5), and residues on sugarbeets were less
than .005 ppm (.lppm/20).

    5) Data on whether residues are transferred from items
of animal feed to meat and milk.   Available data were
obtained on too few animals, and were not submitted in
raw* form.
*Raw data are data which are uncorrected for reagent
blanks, untreated crop blanks, and recovery of fortified
samples.
                         14

-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Data Requirements
                          Data Gaps
Food     Nonfood       Food     Nonfood
Use        Use         Use        Use
                                Data Which
                                Must be Cited
163.72-1  Freshwater Fish LC50
  Coldwater
  Warmwater
163.71-1  Bird Single Dose
           Oral  LD50
163.71-2  Bird Subacute
           Dietary  LC50
163.72-2  Aquatic Invertebrates
  X
  X
  X
  X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GS0007-003
GS0007-004
                                            GSOOO7-002
                                            GS0007-001
                                            GS0007-005
                                           15

-------
3.  Required Labeling

All manufacturing-use chloroneb products must bear appropriate
labeling as specified in 40 CFR 162.10.

a.  Use Pattern Statements

All manufacturing-use chloroneb products must list on the
label the intended end-uses of formulated products produced
from the manufacturing-use products.  In accordance with
data to be submitted or cited, all chloroneb product
labels must bear one of the following statements:

     "For Formulation into End-Use Fungicide Products
      Intended Only for Nondomestic, Food, Outdoor Use"';
      or

     "For Formulation into End-Use Fungicide Products
      Intended
      or
for Nondomestic, Nonfood,  Outdoors  Use"
     "For Formulation into End-Use Fungicide Products
      Intended Only for Nondomestic, Food or Nonfood, Outdoors
      Use".
                             16

-------
Presented below are the types of statements which must
appear on manufacturing-use chloroneb labels.   See 40 CFR
162.10 for specific required labeling for manufacturing-use
products.
                  PRODUCT NAME

           "For Formulation into End-Use Fungicide
            Products Intended Only for Nondomestic,
            Food, Outdoor Use.""
      ACTIVE  INGREDIENT:

      Chloroneb (1,4-dichloro-2 ,5-
                 dimethoxybenzene)	  %(min)

      INERT INGREDIENTS:		%
                                            100%
                       CAUTION

!                PRECAUTIONARY  STATEMENTS
•
.  Hazards  to Humans  and Domestic  Animals
•
•
.  May irritate eyes,  nose,  throat,  and skin.   Avoid
.  breathing  dust.   Avoid contact  with skin,  eyes and
.  c 1 ot h i n g .
•
.  First  Aid  Statement:   In  case of  contact,  immediately
.  flush  skin or eyes  with plenty  of water.   Get medical
.  attention  if irritation persists.
•
.  Environmental Hazards
•
.  Do  not  discharge  into lakes,  streams,  ponds, or public
.  waters  unless in  accordance  with  an NPDES  permit.  For
.  guidance,  contact your regional  office  of  EPA.
                            17

-------
.  Directions for Use
•
.  It is a violation of federal  law to use this product
.  in a manner inconsistent with  its labeling.   Refer to
.  technical  bullet in.
•
.  Storage and Disposal
•
.  Do not contaminate water, food,  or feed by storage or
.  disposal.   Do  not re-use empty container;  bury in  a
.  safe place away from water supplies.   Consult federal,
.  state, or  local  disposal authories for approved
.  alternative procedures such as limited open  burning.
.  Open dumping is prohibited.
•
.  EPA Registration No. 	
.  Establishment  No.  	
.  Net Wt.  or Measure
  Name and Address of the producer,  registrant,  or
  person for whom produced.
                            18

-------
4.  Tolerance Reassessment

Tolerances have been established for residues of chloroneb
and its metabolite, 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol (calculated
as chloroneb), in or on raw  agricultural commodities as
indicated:  2 ppm in or on cotton forage, bean vines, and
soybean vines; 0.2 ppm in or on meat, fat, and meat by-products
of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep; 0.1 ppm  (neglible
residue)  in or on beans, cottonseed, soybeans, and  sugarbeets
(roots and tops); and 0.05 ppm (negible residue) in milk (40
CFR 180.257).

The theoretical  maximum residue contribution (TMRC) of
chloroneb to the human diet  is calculated to be .064 mg/day.
This figure is based on average adult eating patterns and on
the assumption that each commodity contains residues which
meet the  established tolerance level.

The Agency has calculated a  tentative acceptable daily
intake (ADI) value of .125 milligrams of chloroneb  per
kilogram  of body weight per  day.   This value is based on a
"no-observed-effect" level (NOEL) of 500 ppm established in
a two year dog study, and the incorporation of a 100 fold
safety factor in translating the  data from animal  to man.
This ADI  value can only be considered tentative until the
Agency is able to verify the NOEL through the submission of
additional required chronic  effects data (see Toxicology
data gap.s).

From available data, the Agency has established a maximum
permissible intake (MPI) value of 7.5 mg/day for an average
(60 kg.) adult (ADI X 60 kg = MPI).
           *•-    »
The theoretical  maximum residue contribution of chloroneb to
the diet  is less than the maximum permissible intake (.064
mg/day is less than 7.5 mg/day).   Current tolerance levels
appear to be more than adequate.

5.  Regulatory Rationale

a.  Data Gaps

Data on physical  and chemical properties and acute  toxicity
are required for all  chloroneb manufacturing-use products.
Chloroneb's food use and the need for tolerances for those
uses is the basis for chloroneb's chronic toxicology data
requirements.   The nonfood-nondomestic use pattern  of
chloroneb requires subchronic testing and teratogenicity,
and mutagenicity data.   Chronic studies for the nonfood,
nondomestic use.pattern are  not currently required  because
the use pattern  is not  expected to result in repeated
exposure over a  significant  portion of the human li fe
span.
                              19

-------
B.  Wettable Powder Chloroneb

].  Acceptable Ranges and Limits

a.  Product Composition Standard

To be covered under this Standard, wettable powder chloroneb
products with any percentage of ingredients are acceptable
with appropriate certification of limits.

Inert ingredients in food-use formulations must be cleared
for such use under 40 CFR 180.1001.

b .  Acute Toxicity. Limits

To be registered for nondomestic use under this Standard,
wettable powder chloroneb products must have Toxicity
Category II through IV ratings for each of the following
acute effects:

     Acute Oral Toxicity;
     Acute Dermal Toxicity
     Acute Inhalation Toxicity;
     Primary Eye Irritation; and
     Primary Dermal Irritation.

c.  Use Patterns and Application Methods

To be registered under this Standard, WP products of
chloroneb may be used only as a fungicide on cotton, beans,
soybeans, and sugarbeets or ornamental  turf.

The Agency considers chloroneb use as a seed treatment on
cotton, beans, soybeans, and sugarbeets, and in-furrow soil
treatment for cotton, beans, and soybeans to be a food use.
The use on ornamental turfgrass does not constitute a food
use with the restriction that grazing or feeding of clippings
from treated areas to livestock is prohibited.

The Agency finds that current dosage rates and application
methods are acceptable under this Standard.

2.  Data Requirements and Data Gaps

Applicants for registration of wettable powder chloroneb
products must cite or submit the following information
on the physical/chemical properties, composition, and acute
toxicity of the proposed product.   If the appl icant. establi shes
that a product is substantially similar to another product,
for which the Agency has received acceptable acute toxicity
tests, these data may be cited provided compensation has been
offered to the submitters of these studies.  The Agency will
consider both active and inert ingredients in making the
determination of substantially similar products.
                         20

-------
The Agency has not received acceptable acute toxicity data
or product chemistry data for any wettable powder chloroneb
product.  The Agency has determined that no existing wettable
powder chloroneb product is substantially similar to another.
Therefore, all required acute toxicity tests and product
chemistry data are needed for each currently registered
wettable powder product.

Applicants are hereby advised that if the Agency does not
receive commitments, within the specified time frame, from
maufacturing-use chloroneb producers to fill data gaps
identified for the manufacturing-use product, manufacturing-use
product registrations will  be suspended.  Formulators must
then bear the burden of supplying the data if formulators
want the manufacturing-use product to be available.
                             21

-------
                                   WETTABLE  POWDER
Data Requirements
Food     Nonfood
Use        Use
   Data Gaps
Food     Nonfood
Use        Use
         Data Which
         Must be Cited
Product Chemistry

163.61-7 Analytical Methods          X
           and Data
163.61-6 Certification of            X
           Limits
163.61-8 Color                       X
163.61-8 Odor                        X
163.61-8 Density or                  X
           Specific Gravity
163.61-8 pH                          X
163.61-8 Storage Stability           X
163.61-8 Flamtnability                X
163.61-8 Oxidizing/Reducing          X
           Action
163.61-8 Explosiveness               X
163.61-8 Corrosion                   X
           Characteristics

Toxicology

163.81-1 Acute Oral Toxicity         X
163.81-2 Acute Dermal Toxicity       X
163.81-3 Acute Inhalation            X
           Toxicity            ,
163.81-4 Primary Eye Irritation      X
163.81-5 Primary Dermal              X
           Irritation
163.81-6 Skin Sensitization          X
            X
            X
            X

            X
            X
            X
            X

            X
            X
            X
            X
            X

            X
            X
 X

 X

 X
 X
 X

 X
 X
 X
 X

 X
 X
 X
 X
 X

 X
 X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
 A demonstration of pH between 1  and 3 or 12 and 14  mi a demonstration  of  dermal
corrosiveness will allow the Agency to establish that  a product  is  corrosive to the
eye, an an eye irritation test need not be performed.
                                             22

-------
3.  Required Labeli ng

All wettable powder chloroneb products must bear appropriate
labeling as specified in 40 CFR 162.10.

All labels and labeling intended for agricultural  use
products must bear the following statement:  "This product
must be applied in accordance with  40 CFR Part 170."
Registrants may state the contents  of 40 CFR Part  170 or
additional  statements.
                             23

-------
Presented below are types of statements which must appear on
wettable powder chloroneb labels.  See 40 CFR 162.10 for
specific required labeling for formulated products.
                  PRODUCT NAME
•

      ACTIVE INGREDIENT:
•
      Chloroneb (1 ,4-dichloro-2,5-
                 dimethoxybenzene)	 %(min)

!      INERT INGREDIENTS:		%
                                            100%
•
•
            Keep out of reach of children.
•

                       CAUTION

!                PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
•
.  Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals
•
.  May irritate eyes, nose, throat, and skin.  Avoid
.  breathing dust.   Avoid contact with skin, eyes and
.  c 1 ot h i n g.
•
.  Other Prohibitions
•
.  Seed Treatment
    Do not use treated seed for food, feed, or oil.
    purposes.
•
    For use on beans and soybeans:  Do not graze on
    treated plants  within 45 days of planting.
•
.  Ornamental Turf
    Do not allow grazing or feeding of clippings from
    treated areas  to livestock.
                             24

-------
Directions for Use
It  is a  violation of federal  law to use this product
in  a manner  inconsistent with  its  labeling.
Registered Appplication Rates


           Site


                       seed
Formu-
1 a t i o n
            Type of  Application rate
            App1ic.  (Ib.  or oz. a.i.)
Wettable
Powder
(65%)
cotton
                       furrow

           sugarbeets  seed
           beans


           soybeans


           turf
            seed
            furrow

            seed
            furrow

            f o 1 i ar
3.9 oz/100 Ib seed
6.5 oz/100 Ib seed

1.3-1.9 Ib/A

3.9 oz/100 Ib seed

2.6 oz/100 Ib seed
.98 Ib/A

2.6 oz/100 Ib seed
.98 Ib/A

7.08 Ib/A for Pythium
blight
10.6-15.9 Ib/A for
snow mold
Storage and Disposal
Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage
or disposal.  Do not re-use empty container;  bury in
a safe place away from water supplies.  Consult
federal, state, or local disposal authories for
approved alternative procedures such as limited open
burning.  Open dumping is prohibited.
                                                        .
Name and Address of the producer, registrant,  or person .
for whom produced.

EPA Registration No. 	                     !
Establishment No. 	
Net Wt.  or Measure
                          25

-------
4.  Regulatory Rationale

Wettable  powder  chloroneb may be  registered for  use  in the
United States.   The  registration  is dependent upon filling
the data  gaps identified  in the disciplinary chapters of
wettable  powder  chloroneb and upon meeting standards for
nondomestic use.

a.  Acceptable Ranges and Limits

  Product Composition Standards

The Agency will  consider  for registration wettable powder
chloroneb products which  contain  chloroneb as the sole
active ingredient  if the  products meet the acute toxicity
standards for nondomestic use, and if the inert  ingredients
in food-use formulations  have been cleared under 40 CFR
180.1001.

  Acute Toxicity Limits

The Agency will  register wettable powder chloroneb products
for nondomestic  use  that  have acute toxicity category II
through IV ratings because the nondomestic user  can be
expected  to take precautions associated with Category II
pesticides.

  Use Patterns and Application Methods

Wettable  powder  chloroneb products may be registered for
nondomestic use  as a fungicide seed or infurrow  soil
treatment only for cotton, soybeans, and beans,  and as a
seed treatment only  on sugarbeets.  It may also  be registered
for nondomestic  use  on ornamental turf.

The Agency finds that currently registered dosage rates and
application methods  are acceptable pending submission of
required  residue chemistry data listed in the manufacturing-
use standard.  There is no data to suggest that  maximum
dosage rates on  currently registered labels would produce
residues  that would  exceed tolerances set for chloroneb.

C.  Granular Chloroneb

1.  Acceptable Ranges and Limits

a.  Product Composition Standards

To be covered under this Standard, granular chloroneb
products with any percentage of ingredients are  acceptable
with appropriate certification of limits.
                             26

-------
 Inert  ingredients  in food-use  formulations must  be  cleared
 for  such  use  under 40 CFR  180.1001.

 b.   Acute Toxicity Limits

 To be  registered for non-domestic use under this Standard,
 granular  chl-oroneb products must have Toxicity Category  II
 through IV ratings for each of the following acute  effects:

     Acute Oral Toxicity;
     Acute Dermal Toxicity
     Acute Inhalation Toxicity;
     Primary Eye Irritation; and
     Primary Dermal Irritation.

 c.   Use Patterns and Application Methods

 To be  registered under this Standard, granular products  of
 chloroneb may be used only as  a fungicide on cotton, beans,
 soybeans  or ornamental  turf.

 The  Agency considers chloroneb use as an in-furrow  soil
 treatment for cotton, beans, and soybeans to be a food use.
 The  use on ornamental turfgrass does not constitute a food
 use with the restriction that grazing or feeding of clippings
 from treated areas to livestock is prohibited.

 The Agency finds that current dosage rates and application
 methods are acceptable under this Standard.

 2.  Data Requirements and Data Gaps

 Applicants for registration of granular chloroneb products
 must cite or submit the following information on the physical/
 chemical properties,  composition and acute toxicity of the
 proposed product.   Data in this Standard that satisfy
 registration requirements may be cited,  if the applicant
 establishes that the proposed product Is substantially
 similar to another product for which the Agency has acceptable
 acute toxicity tests.  Data may be cited provided compensation
 has been offered to the submitters  of these studies.  The
Agency will  consider both active and inert ingredients in
making determinations of substantial  similarity.

The Agency has received  acceptable  acute toxicity data for
 some  categories of tests for one granular product (see
Topical Discussions).   No product  chemistry data were
available.  The Agency  has determined that no existing
 granular chloroneb product is substantially similar to
another.  Therefore,  all  acute toxicity  tests and product
                             27

-------
chemistry data are required of each product.  The guidance
package accompanying this standard identifies the single
product for which the Agency has received acceptable acute
toxicity data.

Applicants are hereby advised that if the Agency does
not receive commitments, within the specified time frame,
from manufacturing-use chl oroneb producers to fill data gaps
identified for the manufacturing-use material, the registrations
of manufacturing-use products will be suspended.  Formulators
must then bear the burden of supplying this data if continued
availability of the manufacturing-use product is desired.
                            28

-------
                                     GRANULAR

                                                             Data Gaps
                                   Food     Nonfood       Food     Nonfood     Data Which
Data Requirements	Use	Use	Use	Use	Must be Cited

Product Chemistry

163.61-7 Analytical Methods          XX           XX
           and Data
163.61-6 Certification of            X         X           X          X
           Limits
163.61-8 Color                       XX           XX
163.61-8 Odor                        XX           XX
163.61-8 Density or                  X         X           X          X
           Specific Gravity
163.61-8 pH                          X         X           X          X
163.61-8 Storage Stability           XX           XX
163.61-8 Flammability                XX           XX
163.61-8 Oxidizing/Reducing          XX           XX
           Action
163.61-8 Explosiveness               XX           XX
163.61-8 Corrosion                   XX           XX
           Characteristics

Toxicology

163.81-1 Acute Oral Toxicity1        XX           XX
163.81-2 Acute Dermal Toxicity       XX           XX
163.81-3 Acute Inhalation            XX           XX
           Toxicity            ,
163.81-4 Primary Eye Irritation      XX           XX
163.81-5 Primary Dermal               XX           XX
           Irritation
163.81-6 Skin Sensitization          XX           XX


 The Agency has received acceptable acute oral  LD50 data and primary dermal irritation
data for one registered  granular product.  See guidance package accompanying this Standard
for information on the identity of this product.
2
 A demonstration of pH between 1  and 3 or 12 and 14 j)r a demonstration of dermal
corrosiveness will allow the Agency to establish that a product is corrosive to the eye,
and an eye irritation test need not be performed.
                                            29

-------
3.  Required Labeling

All granular chloroneb products must bear appropriate
labeling as specified in 40 CFR 162.10.   All  labels  and
labeling intended for agricultural  use products  must bear
the following statement:  "This product  must  be  applied  in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 170."  Registrants my  state  the
contents of 40 CFR Part 170 or additional  statements.
                            30

-------
Presented below are types of statements which must appear on
granular chloroneb labels.   See 40 CFR 162.10 for specific
required labeling for formulated products.
                  PRODUCT NAME
•

!      ACTIVE INGREDIENT:
•
      Chloroneb (1,4-dichloro-2 ,5-
                 dimethoxybenzene)	  %(min)

!      INERT INGREDIENTS:		%
                                            100%
•
•
            Keep out of  reach  of children.
•

                       CAUTION

                PRECAUTIONARY  STATEMENT
•
.  Hazards  to Humans  and  Domestic Animals
•
.  May irritate eyes, nose,  throat, and skin.   Avoid
.  breathing dust.   Avoid contact with  skin,  eyes and
.  clothing.
*
.  Other Prohibitions
.  Seed Treatment
    Do not use  treated seed  for food,  feed,  or oil
    purposes.
•
    For use on  beans  and  soybeans:   Do not  graze  on
    treated plants  within  45 days  of planting.
•
.  Ornamental  Turf
    Do not allow  grazing  or  feeding  of clippings  from
    treated areas to  livestock.
                            31

-------
.  Directions for Use
•
.  It is a violation of federal  law to use this product
.  in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.
•
.  Registered Appplication Rates
•
.  Formu-                 Type of  Application  rate
.  1 atipn     Site        App1ic.  (1b.  or oz.  a.i.)
•
.  Granular   turf        foliar   7.1-16.6 1b/A
.  (1.015-10%)
•
             cotton      furrow   1-2 Ib/A
•
             beans       furrow   1 1b/A
•
             soybeans    furrow   1 Ib/A
•
.  Storage and Disposal
•
.  Do not contaminate water, food,  or  feed by  storage
.  or disposal.   Do not re-use empty container; bury  in
.  a  safe place  away from water  supplies.   Consult
.  federal, state, or local disposal authorities for
.  approved alternative procedures  such  as limited  open
.  burning.  Open dumping is prohibited.
  Name  and Address of the producer,  registrant,  or  person  .
  for whom produced.
                                                          •
  EPA Registration No.  ___,	
  Establishment No. 	
  Net Wt.  or Measure
                            32

-------
 4.  Regulatory Rationale

 Granular chloroneb may be registered for nondomestic use  in
 the United States.  The registration is dependent  upon filling
 the data gaps identified in the disciplinary chapters of  granular
 chloroneb and upon meeting standards for nondomestic use.
    Acceptable Ranges and Limits

  Product Composition Standards
The Agency will consider for registration granular chloroneb
products which contain chloroneb as an active ingredient if
the products meet the acute toxicity standards for non-
domestic general use, and if inert ingredients in food-use
formulations have been cleared under 40 CFR 180.1001.

  Acute Toxicity Limits

The Agency will register granular chloroneb products
for nondomestic use that have acute toxicity category
II through IV ratings because the nondomestic user can be
expected to take precautions associated with Category II
pesticides.

  Use Patterns and Application Methods

Granular chloroneb products may be registered for nondomestic
use as a fungicide infurrow soil  treatment only for cotton,
soybeans, and beans.  - It may also be registered for nondomestic
use on ornamental  turf.

The Agency finds current dosage rates  and application
methods acceptable.   There are no data to suggest that
maximum dosage rates  on currently registered labels would
produce residues that would exceed tolerances set for
chloroneb.

D.  Dust Chloroneb

1.  Acceptable Ranges and Limits

a.  Product Composition Standards

To be covered under this Standard, dust chloroneb products
with any percentage  of ingredients are acceptable with
appropriate certification of limits.

Inert ingredients  in  food-use formulations must  be cleared  for
such use under 40  CFR 180.1001.
                           33

-------
b.  Acute Toxlcity Limits

To be registered for nondomestic use under this Standard,
dust chloroneb products must have Toxicity Category II
through IV ratings for each of the following acute effects:

     1) Acute Oral Toxicity;
     2) Acute Dermal Toxicity;
     3) Acute Inhalation Toxicity;
     4) Primary Eye Irritation; and
     5) Primary Dermal Irritation.

c.  Use Patterns and Application Methods

To be under this Standard, dust products of chloroneb may be
used only as a fungicide on cotton, beans or soybeans.

The Agency considers chloroneb use as a seed treatment or
in-furrow soil treatment to be a food use.

The Agency finds that dosage rates and application methods
on currently registered labels are acceptable under this
Standard.
2.  Data Requirements and Data Gaps
Applicants for registration of dust chloroneb products must
cite or submit the following information on the physical/
chemical properties, composition, and acute toxicity of the
proposed product.  If the applicant establishes that a
product is substantially similar to another product for
which the Agency has received acceptable acute toxicity
tests, this data may be cited provided compensation has been
offered to the submitters of these studies.  Both active and
inert ingredients will be considered in making determination
of substantial similarity.

The Agency has not received acceptable acute toxicity-or
product chemistry data for any category of test, for any
dust chloroneb product.  The Agency has determined that no
existing dust chloroneb product is substantially similar to
another.  Therefore, all acute toxicity tests and product
chemistry data are required of each dust chloroneb product.

Applicants are hereby advised that if the Agency does not
receive commitments, within the specified time frame, from
manufacturing-use chloroneb producers to fill gaps identified
for the manufacturing-use material, the registrations of
manufacturing-use products will  be suspended.  Formulators
must then bear the burden of supplying this data if continued
availability pf the manufacturing-use product is desired.
                             34

-------
                                         DUST
Data Requirements
Food
Use
Nonfood
Use
Data Gaps
Food Nonfood
Use Use
Data Which
Must be Cited
Product Chemistry

163.61-7 Analytical  Methods          X
           and Data
163.61-6 Certification of            X
           Limits
163.61-8 Color                       X
163.61-8 Odor                        X
163.61-8 Density or                  X
           Specific Gravity
163.61-8 pH                          X
163.61-8 Storage Stability           X
163.61-8 Flammability                X
163.61-8 Oxidizing/Reducing          X
           Action
163.61-8 Explosiveness               X
163.61-8 Corrosion                   X
           Characteristics

Toxicology

163.81-1 Acute Oral  Toxicity         X
163.81-2 Acute Dermal Toxicity       X
163.81-3 Acute Inhalation            X
           Toxicity             ,
163.81-4 Primary Eye Irritation1      X
163.81-5 Primary Dermal               X
           Irritation
163.81-6 Skin Sensitization          X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
  A demonstration of pH between 1  and 3 or 12 and 14 ^r a demonstration of dermal
corrosiveness will  allow the Agency to establish that a product is corrosive to the eye,
and an eye irritation test need not be performed.
                                             35

-------
3.  Requi red Label ing

All dust chloroneb products must bear appropriate labeling
as specified in 40 CFR 162.10.  All labels and labeling
intended for agricultural use products must bear the following
statement:  "This proudct must be applied in accordance with
40 CFR Part 170."  Registrants may state the contents of the
40 CFR Part 170 or additional statements.
                             36

-------
Presented below are types of statements which must appear on
dust chloroneb labels.  Refer to 40 CFR 162.10 for specific
labeling requirements for formulated products.
                  PRODUCT NAME
•

!      ACTIVE INGREDIENT:
•
      Chloroneb (1,4-dichloro-2,5-
                 dimethoxybenzene)	  %(min)

      INERT INGREDIENTS:		%
                                            100%
•
•
            Keep  out of reach of children.
•

!                       CAUTION

'.                PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
•
.  Hazards  to Humans  and Domestic Animals
•
.  May  irritate  eyes, nose,  throat, and skin.   Avoid
.  breathing dust.   Avoid  contact with  skin,  eyes and
.  clothing.
•           v
.  Other  Prohibitions
•
.  Seed  Treatment
    Do  not use  treated  seed for food,  feed,  or  oil
    purposes.
•
    For  use on  beans and  soybeans:  Do not graze on
    treated plants  within  45 days of planting.
                             37

-------
  Direction for Use

  It is a violation of federal  law to use this  product
  in a manner inconsistent with  its labeling.
.  Registered Appplication Rates
F o rm u -
1 ation
Dust
(10%)


Site
cotton
beans
soybeans
Type of
A p p 1 i c .
seed
furrow
seed
furrow
seed
furrow
                                  (Ib.  or oz.  a.i.)

                                  .5  lb/100  Ib seed
                                  1-2  Ib/A

                                  .2  lb/100  Ib seed
                                  1  Ib/A

                                  .2  lb/100  Ib seed
                                  1  Ib/A
  Storage and Disposal
.  Do not contaminate water,  food,  or feed  by  storage  or
.  disposal.   Do not re-use empty  container;  bury  in  a
.  safe place away from water supplies.   Consult  federal,
.  state, or  local  disposal authories for approved  alter-
.  native procedures such  as  limited  open burning.  Open
.  dumping is prohibited.
•                                                          •
.  Name and Address of the producer,  registrant,  or person  .
.  for whom produced.
•                                                          •
.  EPA Registration No.  	
.  Establishment No. 	
.  Net Wt. or Measure
                              38

-------
4.  Regulatory Rationale

Dust chloroneb may be registered for nondomestic use in the
United States.  The registration is dependent upon filling
the data gaps identified in the disciplinary chapters of
dust chloroneb and upon meeting description of nondomestic
use.

a.  Acceptable Ranges and Limits

  Product Composition Standards

The Agency will  consider for registration dust chloroneb
products which contain chloroneb as the sole active ingredient
if the products  meet the acute toxicity standards for
nondomestic use,  and if the inert ingredients in food-use
formulations have been cleared under 40 CFR 180.1001.

  Acute Toxicity  Limits

The Agency will  register dust chloroneb products for nondomestic
use that have acute toxicity category II through IV
ratings because  the nondomestic user can be expected to take
precautions associated with Category II pesticides.

  Use Patterns and Application Methods

Dust chloroneb products may be registered for nondomestic
use as a fungicide seed or infurrow soil treatment only for
cotton, soybeans,  and beans.

The Agency finds  that currently registered dosage rates and
application methods are acceptable pending submission of
required residue  chemistry data listed in the manufacturing-
use standard.  There is no data to suggest that  maximum
dosage rates on  currently registered labels would produce
residues that would exceed tolerances set for chloroneb.
                             39

-------
                   III.  PRODUCT CHEMISTRY
Intreduction
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(A) requires the Agency to establish guidelines
for registering  pesticides  in the  United States.  The Agency
requires registrants to  provide  quantitative data on all
added ingredients, active and inert, which are  equal to or
greater than 0.1% of the product by weight.

To establish the composition of  products proposed for
registration, the Agency requires  data and information not
only on the manufacturing and formulation processes but also
a discussion on  the formation of manufacturing  impurities
and other product ingredients, intentional and  unintentional.
Further, to assure that  the composition of the  product as
marketed will not vary from the  composition evaluated at the
time of registration, applicants are required to submit a
statement certifying upper  and lower composition limits for
the added ingredients, or upper  limits only for some uninten
tional ingredients.  Subpart D of  the Proposed  Guidelines
(43 FR 29696, July 10, 1978) suggests specific  precision
limits for ingredients based on  the percentage  of ingredient
and the standard deviation  of the  analytical method.

In addition to the data  on  product composition, the Agency
guidelines also  require  data to  establish the physical  and
chemical properties of both the  pesticide active ingredient
and its formulations.  For  example, data are needed concerning
the identity and physical state  of the active ingredient
(e.g., melting and boiling  point data, ambient  vapor pressure
and solubility).  Data are  also  required on the properties
of the formulated product to establish labeling cautions
(e.g., fl ammabi 1 ity , corrosiveness or storage stability).   /'
The Agency uses these data to characterize each pesticide
and to determine its environmental  and health hazards.

Product Chemistry - Manufacturing-Use Chloroneb

Product Chemistry Profile

One manufacturing use product containing approximately  90%
chloroneb  is  currently registered.

A detailed manufacturing procedure was not available to the
Agency.   The  two major routes by which technical chloroneb
could be synthesized involve either direct chlorination of
1,4-dimethoxy-benzene,  or chlorination of quinone or hydro-
quinone followed by methylation.   With either of these
routes there  exists the possibility of chlorinated' dioxin
formation  including TCDD depending  on the reaction conditions
and on the purity of starting materials.
                             40

-------
Methods for the determination of chloroneb in wettable
powder formulations, the determination of chloroneb in the
technical  chemical, and the determination of volatile
impurities in the technical chemical have been submitted to
the Agency.

A small amount of data are available on the physical and
chemical  properties of technical chloroneb.

Data Requirements

Listed below are Product Chemistry data needed to adequately
support the registration of any manufacturing-use chloroneb
product.   Following each data requirement is the section
in the Proposed Guidelines for the Registration of Pesticides
in the United States (43 FR 29696, July 10, 1978) that
describes  the type of data required.  The applicant for
registration must submit or cite the following information.


For Manufacturi ng-Use Chioroneb:

    1) Product Identity 	163.61-3(a)

    2) Identification of all  impurities
       exceeding 0.1% of the  weight of the
       technical chloroneb product	163.61-3(c)

    3) Composition of the starting materials
       used to manufacture technical ehloroneb...163.61-4(a)

    4) Detailed manufacturing process for
       technical chl oroneb	163.61-4(b)

    5) Discussion on the formation of
       unintentional ingredients during the
       manufacture of technical  chloroneb	163.61-5

    6) Declaration of Limits	163.61-6(a)

    7) Certification that  limits on the active
       ingredient and impurities in technical
       chloroneb will be maintained for all
       quantities of the product sold or
       distributed in interstate commerce	163.61-6(b)

    8) Analytical  method and  data  on the  compo-
       sition  of technical  chloroneb.  Data on
       the active ingredient  and each identifiable
       impurity exceeding  0.1% of  the product
       weight  are to. be obtained on five  or
       more samples of  the product	163.61-7(b)
                             41 .

-------
    9) Physical and chemical properties.

         a) Color	163.61-8(c) (1)
         b) Odor	163.61- (c)(2)
         c) Melting point	1 63. 61-8(c) (3 )
         d) Solubility (in quantitative terms)...163.61-8(c)(4)
         e) Stability	1 63. 61-8(c) (5 )
         f) Octanol/water partition coefficient..163.61-8(c)(6)
         g) Physical  state	1 63. 61-8(c) (7 )
         h) Density or Specific Gravity	1 63.61-8(c) (8)
         i) Boiling Point	1 63. 61-8(c) (9)
         j) Vapor Pressure	1 63. 61-8(c) (10)
         k) pH	 163.61-8(c)(11)
         i) Storage Stability	163.61-8(c)(1 2)
         m) Flammability	163.61-8(c)(13)
         n) Oxidizing and Reducing Action	163.61-8(c)(14)
         o) Explosiveness	1 63.61-8(c) (1 5)
         p) Corrosion Characteristics	163.61-8(c)(18)

Data Gaps

  Manufacturing Process	163.61-4
  Formation of Unintentional Ingredients	163.61-5
  Active Ingredient Limits	163.61-6
  Data Obtained from Analytical Methods	163.61-7
  Physical/Chemi cal Properties	163.61-8
    Octanol/Water Partition
    Coefficient
    PH
    Storage Stability
    Flammabi1ity
    Oxidizing/Reducing Action
    Explosiveness
    Corrosion  Characteristics
                                                            -\
                                                            /
Topical  Discussions

Corresponding  to each of the Topical Discussions listed
below is the number of the section in the 'Proposed Guidelines
for Registering Pesticides'  in the United States (43 FR
29696, July 10, 1978) which explains the minimum data
that the Agency requires in order to adequately assess
Product  Chemistry of manufacturing-use chloroneb products.
Also,  under each of the following topics is a reference to
the appropriate section in the 'Proposed Guidelines'.

                                          Guidelines Section
Chemical Identity	163.61-3
Manufacturing Processes	163.61-4
Formation of Unintentional
  Ingredients	163.61-5
                             42

-------
Active Ingredient Limits in
  Pesticide Products	163.61-6
Product Analytical  Methods and Data	163.61-7
Physical/Chemical Properties	163.61-8

Chemical  Identity

The Proposed Guidelines require identifying information
includ-ing chemical  names,  product names, and numerical
codes of all substances known  or assumed to be present
in pesticide products.   [163.61-3(c)]

"Chloroneb" is the  common  name accepted by the American
National  Standards  Institute (ANSI) for the chemical
1,4-dichloro-2,5-dimethoxybenzene.   (Fig. 1).   Chloroneb is
also known   by the  trade names "Demosan", Soil Fungicide
1823, and "Tersan".   The Chemical Abstracts Registry  (CAS)
number for  chloroneb is 2675-77-6,  and the EPA Shaughnessy
number is 027301.  The  common  name  will be used throughout
this standard in  lieu of other chemical or trade names.

Manufacturing Processes

Because the route by which a pesticide is synthesized
determines  the nature and  amount of potentially toxic
impurities, a detailed  description  of the manufacturing
process is  required. [163.61-4]

Technical  chloroneb  could  be synthesized by two major routes
which involve either direct chlorination of 1,4-dimethoxy-
benzene or  chlorination of quinone  or hydroquinone followed
by methylation.   Two patent applications (Alvarez 1968, GS
0007-015;  Haglid  1979,  05013181) describe several chloroneb
manufacturing processes in sufficient detail  to satisfy
Proposed  Guidelines  requirements.  However, the Agency has
no information to indicate which if any of the processes are
used presently to manufacture  technical chloroneb.  A
description of the  manufacturing process has been submitted to
the Agency.  This description  is not  sufficiently detailed
to satisfy  Guidelines  requirements.  Company submitted data
on manufacture of technical  chloroneb is contained in the
Confidential Discussion Appendix.

Formation jvF Unintentional  Ingredients

Section 163.61-5  of  the Proposed Guidelines requires
registrants of manufacturing-use and  of formulated products
to submit  a theoretical discussion  of the formation of
unintended  substances  in the product.  Of particular  relevance
to chloroneb would  be  a discussion  of dioxin formation
incident  to the manufacture of technical chloroneb.
                             43

-------
Manufacturing processes for chloroneb found in the patent
literature could result in dioxin formation.  In one patent
application (Scribner and Soboczenski 1966, GS0007-009), six
routes by which chloroneb could be synthesized were outlined.
In four of these routes, the initial  step is chlorination of
quinone or hydroqui none.  A polychl orinated phenol with
a -Cl ortho to an -OH is an intermediate in these syntheses,
and thus,depending on reaction conditions, a variety of
dioxins may be formed.  One of these routes involves
basic hydrolysis of 1,2,4,5-tetrachloro-benzene and could
thus result in formation of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD).

The remaining routes discussed in Scribner and Soboczenski
(1966, GS0007-009) and the synthetic routes discussed in
other patent applications (Alvarez 1968, GS0007-015; Haglid
1979, 05013181), involve direct chlorination of 1,4 dimethoxy-
benzene and would be  less likely to result in dioxin by-products
unless there were significant amounts of phenols in manufactur-
ing grade 1,4-dimethoxybenzene.

A theoretical discussion of the formation of unintended
substances is required and has not been submitted for
technical chloroneb.  Such a discussion is required for each
technical.

Acti ve Ingredient Limits jji Pesticide Products

The Guidelines require that upper and lower limits be
established for each active ingredient and each intentionally
added inert in a pesticide product [163.61-6].  Technical
chloroneb contains approximately 90% of the pure chemical.

Upper and lower limits have not been established and certified ^
for technical chloroneb.

Product Analytical Methods and Data

The Guidelines require submission of, or reference to,
analytical methods for measuring each active ingredient
in a pesticide product. [163.61-7]

Section 163.61-7 of the Proposed Guidelines also require
that applications for registration of pesticide products
contain analytical data obtained by methods supplied to the
Agency.

Acceptable methods for the determination of chloroneb
and impurities in technical  chloroneb are contained in
the Confidential  Discussion Appendix.  Data obtained by the
method are not available.
                             44

-------
Physical and Chemical Properties

For every pesticide product, the Proposed Guidelines
require data on certain physical and chemical
properties useful  for identification purposes  or for
evaluation of hazard potential  [163.61-8].

A small amount of data are available on the physical and
chemical properties of chloroneb.   Available data on purified
chloroneb (du Pont 1977,  00001444)  are as follows:

  Col or:  White

  Odor:  Musty (technical  chemical).

  Melting point:   133-135°C

  Boiling point:   268°C
  Density or Specific Gravity:   1.66

   lysic.
   Hid.
Physical  State:   Purified chloroneb is a crystalline
so
  Solubility:   The solubilities  of purified  chloroneb  in
  selected solvents are as follows:   8 ppm  in  water  at
  25°C,  13.3%  in methylene chloride,  11.8%  in  dimethyl
  formamide,  11.5% in acetone,  8.9%  in xylene.

  Stabi1ity:   Chloroneb is temperature stable  at  least  up
  to  the  boiling point; stable  in  water and  common  organic
  solvents;  stable in the presence of dilute acid  or alkali;
  and subject  to microbial decomposition under moist condi-
  tions  in the soil.

  Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient:   No  data are  avail-
  able.

  VapprpPressure:  " The vapor pressure of purified  chloroneb
  3x10  mm Hg  at 25°C.

  pH:  There  are no data available.

  Storage Stability:   There are  no data available.

  Flammability:   There are no data available.

  Oxidizing  or Reducing Action:  There  are  no  data  available.

  Explosi veness:   There are no  data  available.

  Corrosion  Characteristics:  There  are no  data available
  for technicalchloroneb.
                             45

-------
Available data on physical and chemical properties
of the purified chemical were submitted in tabular
form.  Methods by which the data were obtained, and
individual values were  not submitted.

Product Chemistry - Wett.able Powder Chloroneb

Data Gaps

    1) Color	163.61-8(c)(l)
    2) Odor	163.61-8(c)(2)
    3) Density or Specific Gravity	163.61-8)c)(8)
    4) pH	163.61-8(c)(ll)
    5) Storage Stability	1 63. 61-8(c) (1 2)
    6) Flammability	1 63. 61-8(c) (13)
    7) Oxidizing or Reducing
       Action	163.61-8(c)(14)
    8) Expl osiveness	1 63. 61-8(c) (15)
    9) Corrosion Characteristics	".	163.61-8(c)(18)
   10) For each product an analy-
       tical method for the determi-
       nation of chloroneb if produced
       by an integrated formulation system	163.61-7(a)(3)
   11) Data obtained by use of the above method
       on representative samples of
       the product	163.61-7(5) (1)
   12) Declaration and  certification of the upper
       and lower limits for each active ingredient
       and intentionally added inert ingredient,
       and the upper limit for each impurtiy,
       reaction product, and degradation
       product	163.61-6

Topical Discussions                                          ?

The product chemistry of chloroneb has been dealt with in
the Manufacturing-Use Chloroneb section of this chapter.
The following are data  required of all wettable powder
formulated products of  chloroneb.

Active Ingredient Limits in Pesticide Products

For all pesticide products, the Guidelines would require
that upper and lower limits be established for each active
ingredient,  impurity, reaction product, and degradation
product.   [163.61-5]
                i
Current registrations of wettable powder chloroneb contain
65% a.i.

For no wettable powder  formulation of chloroneb has an upper
and lower limit been established.
                         46

-------
Product Analytical Methods and Data

The Guidelines would require submission of, or reference to,
analytical methods measuring each active ingredient in a
pesticide product.  [163.61-7]

A method for the determination of chloroneb in 65% wettable
powder formulations has been submitted (du Pont 1977,
00001444).  A sample of the formulated product is slurried
with chloroform and filtered through sintered glass.  The
filtrate is mixed with an internal standard (biphenyl) and
aliquots analyzed by gas chromatography on columns of 20%
SE-30 on 60-80 mesh Diatoport S.  Chloroneb concentration is
determined by comparison of the sample area ratio (sample
peak area divided by internal standard peak area) to the
corresponding ratio determined with a standard solution
consisting of chloroneb and biphenyl.

Section 163.61-7 of the Proposed Guidelines would require
that applications for registration of pesticide products
contain analytical data obtained by methods supplied to the
Agency.  Data obtained by the method described above have
not been submitted.

Section 163.61-7 of the Proposed Guidelines would also
require that registrants of formulated products produced by
an integrated formulation system (Proposed Guidelines,
section 163.61-1) submit methods not only for the active
ingredient,  but for each identifiable impurity associated
with manufacture of the technical  chemical.  Such methods
have not been submitted for any chloroneb formulation.
Physical and Chemical Properties
For every pesticide product, the Proposed Guidelines
would require data on certain physical and chemical properties
useful  for identification purposes or for evaluation of
hazard potential  [163.61-8].

The following physical and chemical properties are required
for all wettable powder products of chloroneb.  There are no
data except storage stability of Demosan 65W Fungicide (du
Pont).   Refer to the Confidential Appendix for this storage
stability data.

Required Physical/Chemical Properties:  Color, odor, density
or specific gravity, pH,  storage stability, f1ammabi1ity,
oxidizing or reducing action, explosiveness, and corrosion
characteristics.
                             47

-------
Product Chemistry - Granular Chloroneb

Data Gaps

    1) Color	163.61-8(c)(l)
    2) Odor	163.61-8(c)(2)
    3) Density or Specific Gravity	163.61-8)c)(8)
    4) pH	163.61-8(c) (11)
    5) Storage Stability	1 63.61 -8(c) (12)
    6) Flammability	163.61-8(c)(13)
    7) Oxidizing or Reducing
       Action	163.61-8(c) (14)
    8) Explosiveness	163.61-8(c)(15)
    9) Corrosion Characteristics	1 63.61 -8(c) (1 8)
   10) For each product an analy-
       tical  method for the determi-
       nation of chloroneb if produced
       by an integrated formulation
       system	163.61 -7( a) (3 ) (4)
   11) Data obtained by use of the above
       method on representative samples of
       the product	1 63. 61-7 (b) (1 )
   12) Declaration and certification of the upper
       and lower limits for each active ingredient
       and intentionally added inert ingredient,
       and the upper limit for each impurtiy,
       reaction product, and degradation
       product	163.61-6

Topical Discussions

The product chemistry of chloroneb per se has been  dealt
with in the Manufacturing-use Chloroneb section of  this
chapter.   The following are data required of all granular
formulated products of chloroneb.

Active Ingredient Limits in Pesticide Products

For all pesticide products, the Guidelines would require
that upper and lower limits be established for each active
ingredient, impurity, reaction product, and degradation
product.   [163.61-5]

Current federal  reoistrations of granular chloroneb contain
6.25% to  10%  a.i.

For no granular formulation of chloroneb has an upper
and lower limit  been  established.
                         48

-------
Product Analytical Methods and Data

The Guidelines would require submission of, or reference to,
analytical methods measuring each active ingredient  in a
pesticide product.  [163.61-7]

Section 163.61-7 of the Proposed Guidelines would require
that applications for registration of pesticide products
contain analytical data obtained by methods supplied to the
Agency.

Section 163.61-7 of the Proposed Guidelines would also
require that registrants of formulated products produced by
an integrated formulation system (Proposed Guidelines,
section 163.61-1) submit methods not only for the active
ingredient, but for each identifiable impurity associated
with manufacture of the technical chemical.  Such methods
have not been submitted for any chloroneb formulation.

Methods for the determination of chloroneb in granular
formulations have not been submitted.

Physical and Chemical Properties

For every pesticide product, the Proposed Guidelines would
require data on certain physical and chemical  properties
useful  for identification purposes or for evaluation of
hazard potential  [163.61-8].

The following physical  and chemical  properties are required
for all granular products of chloroneb.  There are no
data.

Required Physical/Chemical  Properties:   Color, odor, density
or specific gravity,  pH, storage stability, fl ammabi 1 i ty ,
oxidizing or reducing action, explosiveness,  and corrosion
characteristics.

Product Chemistry - Dust Chloroneb

Data Gaps

     1) Color	163.61-8(c) (1)
     2) Odor	163.61-8(c)(2)
     3) Density or Specific Gravity	1 63. 61-8(c) (8)
     4) pH	163.61-8(c)(ll)
     5) Storage Stability	163.61-8(c)(1 2)
     6) Flammability	163.61-8(c) (13)
     7) Oxidizing or  Reducing Action	163.61-8(c)(14)
     8) Expl osi veness	163.61-8(c)(1 5)
     9) Corrosion Characteristics	163.61-8(c)(1 8)
                              49

-------
    10) For each product an analytical
        method for the determination  of
        chloroneb if produced by an
        inegrated formulation system	1 63.61-7(a) (3), (4)
    11) Data obtained by use of the above
        method on representative samples
        of the product	1 63. 61-7(b) (1)
   12) Declaration and certification  of the upper
       and lower limits for each active ingredient
       and intentionally added inert  ingredient,
       and the upper limit for each impurtiy,
       reaction product, and degradation
       •product	163.61-6

Topical Discussions

The product chemistry of chloroneb per se has been dealt
with in the Manufacturing-use Chloroneb section of this
chapter.  The following is data required of all dust formulated
products of chloroneb.

Acti ve Ingredient Limits j_n_ Pesticide Products

For all pesticide products, the Guidelines require that
upper and lower limits be established for each active
ingredient, impurity, reaction product, and degradation
product.  [163.61-5]

Current registrations of dust chloroneb contain 10% a.i.

For no dust formulation of chloroneb  has an upper and lower
limit been established.

Product Analytical  Methods and Data                             "

The Guidelines require submission of,  or reference to,
analytical methods  measuring each active ingredient in a
pesticide product.   [163.61-7]

Section 163.61-7 of the Proposed Guidelines would require
that applications for registration of pesticide products
contain analytical  data obtained by methods supplied to the
Agency.

Section 163.61-7 of the Proposed Guidelines would also
require that registrants of formulated products produced by
an integrated formulation system (Proposed Guidelines,
section 163.61-1)  submit methods not only for the active
ingredient, but for each identifiable  impurity associated
with manufacture of the technical  chemical.  Such methods
have not been submitted for any chloroneb formulation.

Methods for the determination of chloroneb in dust
formulations have not been submitted or cited.
                               50

-------
Physical and Chemical Properties

For every pesticide product, the Proposed Guidelines
require data on certain physical and chemical properties
useful  for identification purposes or for evaluation of
hazard potential [163.61-8].

The following physical and chemical properties are required
for all dust products of chloroneb.

Required Physical/Chemical Properties:  Color, odor, density
or specific gravity, pH, storage stability, fl ammabi 1 ity,
oxidizing or reducing action, explosiveness, and corrosion
characteristics.
                              51

-------
Bi bl iography

Manufacturing-Use

-MRID         CITATION
GS0007-015
              Alvarez, J.R., inventor; E.I.  du Pont de
                 Nemours and Co., assignee (1968)  Process for
                 Preparing 1,4 dichl oro-2 ,5-dimethosybenzene
                 US. patent 3,363,005, Jan.  9
00001428
I.  duPont de
 (1967)  Name
 Chloroneb.
                             Nemours & Company,
                              Chemical Identity
                             (Unpublished study
                                                Incorporated
                                               ,  and Composition
                                                received
00001444
05013181
GS007-009
                 Oct. 16, 1967 under 8F0657;  CDL:092951 -F)

              E.I.  duPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated
                 (1977) "Demosan" 65W Fungicide:   Product
                 Chemistry.  Includes method  dated October
                 15, 1976 and undated method.  (Unpublished
                 study received May 27,  1977  under 352-312;
                 CDL:232274-A)

              Haglid, F.R., inventor; E.I.  duPont  de Nemours
                 and Co., assignee (1979)  Process  for
                 preparing 1 ,4- dichl oro- 2, 5-d i met ho xy benzene,
                 U.S. patent 4,159,391.   Jun  26.   3 p.
                 Int. CL 2  C 07C 41/001  U.S.  Cl . 568/649^

              Scribner, R.M.; Soboczenski,  E.J. ;  inventor;
                 (1966) Methods for Protecting  Plants and
                 Seeds from Fungi.  United  States  plant
                 patent 3,265,564.  Aug  9
Bib! iography

Wettable Powder

00001444      E
                I.  duPont de Nemours & Company,  Incorporated
                 (1977)  "Demosan"  65W Fungicide:   Product
                 Chemistry.  Includes method dated Oct.  15,
                 1976 and undated  method.   (Unpublished
                 study received May 27,  1977 under 352-312;
                 CDL:232274-A)  0000 1444
                              52

-------
                  IV.  ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
                          4
A.  Use Profile

Chloroneb  is a fungicide  registered for control  of:
1.  damping-off  and  seedling blight of cotton, beans,
soybeans,  and sugarbeets  caused by Pythium spp.;  2.  soreshin
of cotton  caused  by  Scleroti urn rolfsii ; and 3.   Pythi urn
blight and grey  snow mold (Typhula spp.) of turfgrass.

Chloroneb  is formulated as a 65% active ingredient wettable
powder, 10% active ingredient dust, or 1.015-10% active
ingredient granulars.  The wettable powder is registered
for use as a slurry  seed  treatment or in-furrow  spray on
cotton, beans, and soybeans and as a slurry seed treatment
on sugarbeets.   The  wettable powder is also registered as a
foliar spray on  turfgrass.  The dust formulation is registered
as a planter box  seed treatment or in-furrow application on
cotton, beans, and soybeans.  The granular formulations are
registered as in-furrow applications on cotton,  beans, and
soybeans or as a  foliar application on turfgrass.

On turfgrass applications can be made to 5-7 day intervals
for Pythium blight control on established turf and 7-10 day
intervals on new  seedings.  Applications to turf for snow
mold control can  be made  prior to the first heavy snowfall,
during a midwinter thaw,  and in early spring as  snow is
melting.  Seed treatments and in-furrow applications
on other sites are made at planting.

The major use sites for Chloroneb are co'tton and turf.
Use is less extensive on  sugarbeets, beans, and  soybeans.

On the order of 500,000 pounds  of active ingredient are
produced yearly.   Of that, the  majority of active ingredient
is used on cotton and turf.   Use on sugarbeets, beans, and
soybeans is less  extensive.

Registered application rates are listed  in Table 1.

B.  Environmental Fate - Manufacturing-Use Chloroneb

Environmental  Fate Profi1e

Chloroneb is very resistant  to  hydrolysis, with no detectable
hydrolysis of either the manufacturing-use chemical  or the
65% wettable powder formulation occurring over 30 days at  an
environmental  pH  range of 5  to  9,  and temperatures of 25  and
35°C.
                              53

-------
Table 1.   Registered application rates of chloroneb.
                             Type of
                           Application rate
Formul ation
Dust
(10%)


Granul ar
(1.015-10%)



Site
cotton
beans
soybeans
turf
cotton
beans
soybeans
Appl ication
seed
furrow
seed
furrow
seed
furrow
fol i ar
furrow
furrow
furrow
( 1 b. or oz
.5 lb/100
1-2 Ib/A
.2 lb/100
1 Ib/A
.2 Ib seed
1 Ib/A
7.1-16.6 1
1-2 Ib/A
1 Ib/A
1 Ib/A
. a . i . )
Ib seed
Ib seed

b/A



Wettable
  Powder
(65%)
cotton
                sugarbeets

                beans


                soybeans


                turf
-East of the Rocky Mountains
 West of the Rocky Mountains
seed


furrow

seed

seed
furrow

seed
furrow

foliar
3.9 oz/100 Ib seed,
6.5 oz/100 Ib seed'

1.3-1.9 Ib/A

3.9 oz/100 Ib seed

2.6 oz/100 Ib seed
.98 Ib/A

2.6 oz/100 Ib seed
.98 Ib/A

7.08 Ib/A3    .
10.6-15.9
 Snow mold
                               54

-------
 Several common  soil  fungi  are  capable  of  transforming
 chloroneb to 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol  (DCMP)  in  vitro.
 Of the 20 soil  fungi  studied,  12 were  able  to  transform
 up to 60% of chloroneb  to  DCMP within  10  days  in  a chloroneb-
 amended medium  (5   g/ml) basal medium.  The most  active
 species included Fusari urn  solani, Sclerotina sclerotiorum,
 Mucor ramannianus.  and  He!minthosporiurn victoriae.   In
 addition, 10 of the  species  studied were  capable  of  converting
 DCMP to chloroneb.   This indicates that dissipation  of
 chloroneb may  not  be  a  simple  function of  conversion to
 DCMP.  The growth  of  several of  the fungi  in the  above
 metabolic survey was  reduced 10-50% relative to controls,
 confirming the  fungicidal  action of chloroneb.

 Chloroneb at concentrations  of 0.1 to  7.0  ppm  had no
 effect on the  growth  of effluent microorganisms in a
 model activated sludge  unit.   At higher chloroneb levels
 (70 and 100 ppm),  the  system became overloaded with  insoluble
 chloroneb, and microbial populations were  reduced to 10-20%
 of control levels.   After  an acclimation  period,  sludge
 nncroorganisms readily metabolized 40-50% of the  applied
  C-chloroneb to    C02 within  3 weeks  of the initial
 treatment.  The chloroneb  metabolites  DCMP and 2 ,5-dichl orohydro-
 quinone were recovered from  the effluent and accounted for
 89% and 4%,  respectively,  of the effluent radioactivity at
 day 16 of the study.  At day  19. however, the relative
 proportion of metabolite in  the effluent declined, with 47%
 of the radioactivity  present in the form of unchanged
 chloroneb, even though no  change in chloroneb  initial
 concentration had  occurred.  The degradates are believed to
 be intermediates in the total  degradation of chloroneb.

 Therefore, it appears that under moderate chloroneb concentra-
 tion (7.0 ppm or less) an  activated sludge system is capable
 of degrading the majority  of introduced chloroneb.  However,
 the inhibition seen at higher  concentrations could pose
 problems  in  the event that manufacturing-use chloroneb
 i s -di scharged directly into  an activated sludge treatment
 system,  since chloroneb acting alone in high concentra-
 tions or  in  concert with other discharged chemicals could
 have an  adverse effect on  the treatment process.

 In a preliminary investigation on the field dissipation of
 ring-labeled [  C]  chloroneb, 48% of the applied radioactivity
was lost  from the  soil within a 3 month period  following
 an application of  2 Ib/acre to a Delaware soil. Only 21% of
the   C  in the soil was extractable.  This extractable
material  was identified as chloroneb.   Therefore,  there is
 a possibility that  a  portion of the chloroneb or its
metabolite(s) forms a bound  residue in  the soil.  Since
 no free  degradation products were noted, it is  possible
                               55

-------
                                 14
that the observed dissipation of   C-labelled material
was due to movement of chloroneb or its degradates
(including   C02) away from application sites by
volatilization or leaching.

In summary, although there is insufficient information
to form a comprehensive profile of the fate of chloroneb
in the environment, the information available suggests
that, under some circumstances, chloroneb may present
a persistence problem.  Chloroneb does not hydrolyze to
a measurable degree under environmental conditions, which
could enhance its persistence if entry into aquatic environ-
ments occurs.  Although chloroneb can be converted to
a number of degradation products by certain soil fungi and
by activated sludge microorganisms, the rates of these
processes are relatively slow.  In fact, in the case of
an activated sludge system, a substantial portion of the
introduced chemical may escape the system undegraded.

The fate and effects of the various phenolic degradates
are unknown, and the observed ability of some fungi to
reconvert degradation products to chloroneb by methylation
has to be considered in predicting the long term fate
of the chemical.  Also, although there are data indicating
that chloroneb dissipates slowly in soil, there is no
evidence to indicate what percentage of the dissipation
is the result of degradation by soil microorganisms, or
is due rather to physico-chemical mechanisms or movement
from the application site.  The relatively slow rate
of dissipation observed raises the possibility that chloroneb
residues may accumulate in soil if applications are frequently
repeated.
                                                            ->
Exposure Profile (Manufacturing-Use Chloroneb)

Because of the scarcity of data on the environmental presence
or fate of chloroneb, it is impossible to quantitatively
assess exposure of human and wildlife to manufacturing-use
chloroneb.  However, provided that chloroneb enters water-
ways as a result of manufacture, a potential for food-chain
accumulation of chloroneb and subsequent human and wildlife
exposure may be dictated by the low solubility of chloroneb
in water (8 ppm).

Data Gaps

To support the registration of all formulated chloroneb
products, it is necessary to submit or cite the following
data:
                              56

-------
  Food Use (Terrestrial Field-Vegetable Crop)
     Photodegradation studies	163.62-7(c)
     Soil metabolism studies-aerobic and
       anaerobic	163.62-8(b,c)
     Metabolism studies-effects of microbes
       on chloroneb except fungi	163. 62-8(f) (2)
     Metabolism studies-effects of chloroneb
       on microbes	1 63. 62-8 (f) (3)
     Leaching and adsorption/desorption studies..163.62-9(b,d)
     Terrestrial Field Dissipation studies	163.62-10(b)(1,4)
     Rotational Crop and Fish Accumulation
       studies	163.62-1l(b,d)

  Nonfood Use (Terrestrial Noncrop)

     All  above environmental  fate topics are required
     except Anaerobic soil metabolism (163.62-8(c)  and
     Rotational Crop studies  (163.62-11(b).

Topical  Discussions

Corresponding to each of the  Topical Discussions  listed
below is  the number of the section in the 'Proposed Guide-
lines for Registering Pesticides'  in the United States (43
FR 29696, July 10, 1978) which  explains the minimum data
that the  Agency requires in order to adequately assess
a pesticide's Environmental Fate.

All  topics related to the Environmental Fate of chloroneb
as an active ingredient are discussed under Manufacturing-Use,
Chioroneb.

                                          Guide!ines Section

Physico-Chemi cal Transformation	163.62-7
Metabolism (Soil, Aquatic
  and Mi crobiol ogical)	163.63-8
Mobility	163.62-9
Field Dissipation	163.62-10
Accumul at ion	163.62-11

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL TRANSFORMATION 163.62-7

Hydrolysis

Hydrolysis data are required  to support the registration
of all  manufacturing-use products  regardless of the
intended  end uses of products formulated from the
manufacturing-use product.
                              57

-------
Data from a single  study (Harvey 1979, GS0007-6) indicate
that chloroneb will  not hydrolyze under typical environ-
mental conditions.   No chloroneb degradation products
were identified by  high-pressure liquid chromatography
within 30 days when  [  C]chloroneb (4 ppm) was maintained
in distilled water  or at buffered pH 5-7 and 25 or 35 C.
No hydrolysis products were detected when a 650 ppm aqueous
solution of a chloroneb formulation (Tersan SP, 65% chloroneb)
was maintained under the same conditions.  Similarly,
no degradation was  observed when the same chloroneb formulation
was maintained in acid (0.1 N HC1) or base (0.1 N NaOH) for
44 hours.

This study is adequate to assess chloroneb hydrolysis and
fulfill the data requirements in Section 163.62-7(b) of
EPA's Proposed Guidelines for Registering Pesticides (July
1978).  No data gaps were identified.

Photolysi s

Photodegradation studies in water are required to support
the registration of  all formulated chloroneb products
intended for terrestrial  uses.

Studies in soil  are  required to support the registration of
all chloroneb formulated products intended for crop uses.

No data on the photolysis of chloroneb are available.

All data specified  in Section 163.62-7(c) are needed to
determine the effect of light on chloroneb.

METABOLISM  163.62-8

Data on metabolism  are required to determine the nature of
pesticide residues  and their availability to rotational
crops, and to help  in the assessment of potential  disposal
and reentry hazards.

Soil  Metabolism

Aerobic metabolism studies are required to support the
registration of all  formulated chloroneb products  intended
for terrestrial  uses.  Anaerobic soil  metabolism studies are
required to support the registration of all formulated
products intended for field and vegetable crop uses.

No data on the metabolism of chloroneb in soil  are available.

All data specified  in Section 163.62-8(b,c) are
needed to determine the metabolism of chloroneb
in soil .
                              58

-------
Aquatic Metabolism

No data are required on the aquatic metabolism of
chloroneb because the use  pattern  indicates that direct
discharge into the aquatic environment  is unlikely.

Microbiological Metabolism

Data on the effects of microbes on pesticide degradation
and effects of pesticides  on microbes are required to
support the registration of all chloroneb formulated products
intended for terrestrial uses.

Microbiological Metabolism - Effects of Microbes on Pesticides

Two valid studies relating to the  effects of microbes
on pesticides were reviewed.  The  first (Hock and Sisler 1969,
05001155) assessed the ability of  selected microbes
to metabolize [  C]chloroneb within 24 hours.  The metabolite
2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol (DCMP) accounted for greater
than 50% of the medium radioactivity when Rhizoctonia
solani was incubated in the presence of either methyl-or
ring-1 abeled [  C]chloroneb at 5,  8, or 15>j/g/ml  for 24
h
-------
These studies show that  several  common  soil microorganisms
species are capable  of degrading chloroneb to DCMP  in
vitro. Some soil microbes  are  also  capable of resynthesizing
chloroneb from DCMP-  Therefore, the rate of chloroneb
degradation in soil  will be  related to  the relative popula-
tions of microorganism species capable  of degrading or
resynthesizing chloroneb.

It can be concluded  from these studies  that many soil
fungi are capable of demethylat ing  chloroneb to DCMP and
degrading chloroneb  to other unidentified degradation
products.

Additional studies are needed  using the procedures outlined
in Section 163.62-8(f)(2)  to determine  the effects of
bacteria and algae on chloroneb.

Microbiological Metabolism - Effects of Pesticides on Microbes

Four valid studies were  reviewed.   Wiese and Vargas (1973,
05001170) observed that  growth of R_._ s o 1 a n i was completely
inhibited by chloroneb at  5//g/ml.  Growth of several
other fungal species was also  reduced 10-50% in the presence
of chloroneb at low  concentrations.

Studies by Kappas (1978, 05001167)  and  Georgopoulos et al.
(1976, 05001308) showed  that chloroneb  inhibits the growth
of Aspergillus nidulans.   At 20-40  M chloroneb, the
former investigator  observed 30-61% growth inhibition in
complete media over  3 days, whereas the latter investigators
observed a 36-67% growth inhibition at  24-38 ^/M in complete
media over 5 days.   Azevedo et al.  (1977, 05001292) also
observed drastic growth  inhibition  by chloroneb in chloroneb-
sensitive strains of A.  nidulans at 50  ppm, while 400 ppm
was required to inhibTF  growth of resistant strains.  The
frequency of mitotic recombination  was  increased and haploidi
ration of a diploid  strain was decreased, as well.  Under
very limited conditions  and species, chloroneb is capable
of affecting growth  and  genetic characteristics of microbes.

All data specified in Section  163.62-8(f)(3) are needed
to determine the effects of chloroneb on microorganisms.

Activated Sludge Metabolism

A laboratory study of the  effects of pesticides on the
wastewater treatment process is required to support the
registration of all  manufacturing-use products and all
formulated products  that are indirectly discharged into
wastewater treatment systems or are used as treatments
in wastewater treatment  systems.
                              60

-------
Harvey (1979, GS0007-7) studied the fate and effects of
[  C]chloroneb in a simulated wastewater treatment
system.  Chloroneb added daily for 29 days to a closed
aerated system in increments between 0.1 and 100 ppm had
no effect (determined by plate counts) on the growth of
effluent microorganisms at concentrations of 7 ppm or
less.  AT 70 ppm or above, the system became overloaded
with insoluble chloroneb and colony sizes were 10-20%
of control levels.  After a lag period of about 10 days,
sludge microorganisms readily metabolized the applied
chloroneb.  Approximately-, 40-45% of the chloroneb applied
daily was metabolized to   COp after 3 weeks.  High-
pressure liquid chromatography of the effluent sampled
identified two metabolites, 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol
(DCMP) and 2,5-dichlorohydroquinone (DCHQ), which reached
maximum concentrations, respectively,  of 89 and 4% of the
effluent radioactivity, respectively,  on the 16th day of
the study.

This study is considered adequate to assess the effects
and fate of chloroneb in waste treatment facilities as
specified in Section 163.62-8(g).  No data gaps were
identi fied.

MOBILITY  163.62-9

Data on mobility are required to determine pesticide
residue movement in the environment.

Leaching

Leaching data are required to support registration of
formulated products intended for terrestrial noncrop and
field/vegetable crop uses.

All data specified in Section 163.62-9(b) are needed to
determine the susceptibility of chloroneb to leaching.

Volatility

No data are required on the volatility of chloroneb because
the use pattern of chloroneb does not  include a greenhouse
use.

Adsorption/Desorption

A laboratory study using radioisotopic or nonradioisotopic
analytical  techniques is required to support the registra-
tion of all  chloroneb formulated products intended for terrestrial
uses.
                              61

-------
No valid data on the adsorption/desorption of chloroneb
are avail able.

All data specified in Section 163.62-9(d) are needed
to determine the adsorption/desorption of chloroneb.

Water Dispersal

No data are required on the water dispersal  of chloroneb
because the use pattern indicates that direct introduction
into the aquatic environment is unlikely to occur.

FIELD DISSIPATION  163.62-10

A field dissipation study using representative formulations
under actual use conditions is required to support the
registration of all chloroneb formulated products intended
for terrestrial uses.

Terrestrial
The study reviewed below provides preliminary data on
terrestrial field dissipation of chloroneb.

Rhodes (1968, 00001426) studied the dissipation of ring-
labeled [  C]-chloroneb in a Delaware soil.  At various
sampling intervals up to 6 months following application
(2 Ib ai/A), the soils were Soxhlet extracted with acetone
and the extracts,were analyzed by thin-layer chromatography.
The extractable   C (about 21% of   C present at 3
months) was identified as chloroneb.  No free chloroneb
degradation products were observed within a depth of 1-3
inches.  Approximately 28% of the applied radioactivity
dissipated from the soil by 1 month following application.
Further loss of radioactivity from the soil continued over
the next 2 months.  However, the remaining 52% of radioactivity
showed no further decline.  No loss of radioactivity was
detectable during the 3-6 month interval; this may be
partially attributed to the fact that the earth was frozen,
creating unfavorable conditions for chloroneb dissipation.
Most of the recovered radioactivity remained within the
1-3 inch soil depth throughout the experiment.

Additional studies are needed as specified in Section
163.62-10(b) in the following areas:

    • Four studies in field and vegetable crop use
      areas using granular and wettable powder
      formulations of chloroneb as specified in
      Section 163.62-10(b)(1)
                              62

-------
     • Two  studies  in turf use areas  using granular
      and  wettable powder formulations of chloroneb
      as specified in Section 163.62-10(b) (4)

Aquatic Dissipation

No data are required on the aquatic  dissipation of chloroneb
because the use pattern indicates that direct introduction
into the aquatic environment is unlikely to occur.

Terrestrial/Aquatic (Forest)

No data are required on the terrestrial/aquatic dissipation
of chloroneb because the use pattern indicates that direct
introduction into  a forest environment is unlikely to
occur.

Aquatic Impact Uses

No data are required on the aquatic  impact of chloroneb
because the use pattern indicates that direct introduction
into the aquatic environment is unlikely to occur-

ACCUMULATION 163.62-11
Data on accumulation are required to determine accumulation
in food webs.

Rotational Crops

Rotational crop studies are required to support the registra-
tion of all chloroneb formulated products intended for
field/ vegetable uses.

No data on the accumulation of chloroneb in rotational crops
are available.

All data specified in Section 163.62-ll(b)  are needed to
determine the accumulation of chloroneb (granular and
wettable powder) in rotational crops.

Irrigated Crops

No data are required on the accumulation of chloroneb in
irrigated crops because the use pattern indicates that
chloroneb is not used on irrigated crops.

Fish

This laboratory study employing radidisotopic or nonradio-
isotopic analytical techniques is required  to support
                               63

-------
the registration of all chloroneb formulated products
intended for terrestrial noncrop and field/vegetable crop
uses.

No data on the accumulation of chloroneb in fish are
avai1 able.

All data specified in Section 163.62-11(4)  are needed
to determine the accumulation of chloroneb in fish.

Formulated Chloroneb - Exposure Profile

A11 Formulat ions

The relatively high vapor pressure of chloroneb creates the
potential  of exposure by inhalation of the volatilized
chemical in all its formulations.  Chloroneb formulations
are not applied a.erially, thereby greatly reducing the
possibilities for contamination of persons, livestock, and
wildlife outside of application sites.  Because soil mobility
data are lacking, the potential  exposure of humans to
chloroneb through contamination of drinking water cannot
be assessed. For the same reason, the potential  for exposure
of aquatic organisms is unknown.

Dissipation of chloroneb in soil cannot be assumed to
eliminate use-associated hazards because chlorophenol s
are major products of soil microbial metabolism of chloroneb.

The principal sites of usage of chloroneb appear to be
cotton and turf (predominantly golf-courses), and the
principal  regions of exposure are expected to be the Mid-West
and the cotton belt.

Wettable Powder Formulations

Inhalation of volatilized chloroneb may be considerable in
view of its relatively high vapor pressure.  This may be
particularly true for the turf treatment use of chloroneb
65% wettable powder on golf course fairways and greens where
weekly treatments of 7 Ib. a.i.  per acre may be used.

Significant human exposure may also occur by dermal or
ocular routes from splashing during the dilution, tank-mixing,
and loading of spray equipment with the wettable powder.
Exposure of applicators by breathing of spray droplets could
be important for these formulations.

Granular Formulations

No significant exposures to humans which are unique to the
granular formulations are foreseen.  Availability of granular
chloroneb may differ from other formulations to terrestrial
wildlife and birds.
                               64

-------
Dust Formulati ons

Inhalation of a dust formulation or dermal contact with  it
are the primary routes of exposure.
                              65

-------
Bibliography

-MRID         CITATION

05001292      Azevedo, J.L., E.P. Santana, and R. Bonatelli,  Jr.
                 1977.  Resistance and mitotic instability
                 to chloroneb and 1,4-oxathiin in Aspergi11 us
                 nidulans.  Mutation Res. 48(2):163-172

05001308      Georgopoulos, S.G. , A. Kappas, and  A.C. Hastie.
                 1976. Induced sectoring in diploid Aspergi11 us
                 nidulans as a criterion of fungitoxi city  by
                 interference with hereditary processes.
                 Phytopath.  66(2):217-220

GS0007-006    Harvey, J.   1979.   Stability of C14C]chloroneb
                 in water at various pH values.  (Unpublished
                 study received Dec. 13, 1979, under 352-GIA;
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,  Inc.,
                 Wilmington, Del. CDL:241500.)

GS0007-007    Harvey, J.   1979.   ..Activated sewage sludge
                 metabolism of [  C]chloroneb.  (Unpublished
                 study received Dec. 13, 1979, under 352-GIA;
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,  Inc.,
                 Wilmington, Del. CDL:241500.)

05001155      Hock, W.K., and H.D. Sisler.  1969.  Metabolism
                 of chloroneb by Rhizpctgnia sol am' and
                 other fungi.  J. Agri. Food Chem. 17(1):123-128

05001167      Kappas, A.   1978.   On the mechanisms of
                 induced  somatic recombination by certain       ^
                 fungicides in Aspergi1lus hi dulans.
                 Mutation Res. 51(2):189-197
                                                    14
00001426      Rhodes, R.C.  1968.  Disappearance  of   C-ring-
                 labeled  chloroneb from soil.  (Unpublished
                 study received July 8, 1968, under 8F0657;
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
                 Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del. CDL:091147-J.)

05001170      Wiese, M.V., and J.M.  Vargas, Jr.  1973.
                 Interconversion of chloroneb and 2,5-dichloro-
                 4-methoxyphenol by soil microorganisms.
                 Pesticide Biochem.  Physiol.  3(2):214-222.
                               66

-------
                        V.  TOXICOLOGY


Toxicology - Manufacturing-Use Chloroneb

Toxicology Profile

The high acute oral LD5Q of 90% technical chloroneb in rats
(greater than 5 g/kg) Suggests a very low acute oral hazard
to human beings.  Gross changes included heavy livers (in
two of five females) and kidneys with hydronephrosis (in two
of five males).  Based on the high 4-hour LC5Q (25.2
mg/liter) in male rats, a low acute inhalation hazard in
human beings is expected, pending receipt of data on female
rats.  Technical chloroneb (90%) is not expected to irritate human
eyes, based on studies conducted with rabbits.  No eye
irritation was noted when this compound was instilled into
rabbit eyes.  Technical chloroneb (90%) has a low potential for
primary dermal irritation in human beings.   It was only
slightly irritating to rabbit skin.

No subchronic dermal, subchronic oral, or chronic feeding
studies are available on the technical product.  Adequate
subchronic tests are available on 65 and 75% wettable powder
formulations, which contained 90 or 98% pure chloroneb,
respectively.  Presently, these satisfy Agency requirements
for the technical  product.   The known chloroneb impurities
or inert formulation ingredients should not significantly
affect the toxicity of the active ingredient.   Nor should
extrapolation of results underestimate hazard to human
beings or to domestic animals.

In general, new toxicologic studies might be required if
the Agency determines that previously uncharacterized, toxic
impurities are present in techical  chloroneb.   Chlorinated
dibenzodioxins, theoretically, could be present.   A detailed
description of chemicals present in any technical  chloroneb
used as a test substance,  therefore, it necessary for
realistic evaluation of key chloroneb toxicologic studies
(including subchronic and chronic).  Likewise, new toxicologic
information may be needed should unknown or inadequately
tested chloroneb metabolites  be found in pesticide residues
in treated foods or feeds  or  food animals.

Repeated application of technical  chloroneb to human
skin may not result in systemic effects, based on results of
a  subchronic dermal  test on a 75% wettable  powder formulation
of chloroneb.  In  rabbits,  subchronic dermal  application of
as much as  5 g/kg (as active ingredient) did  not result in
observed clinical  or pathological  change, except  for a
slightly lower weight gain.
                         67

-------
Data from subchronic and chronic oral studies on 65 or
75% wettable powder formulations of chloroneb indicate
that high oral doses of technical chloroneb primarily
affect the liver, kidney, stomach, and thyroid.

Ninety-day feeding of the 65 or 75% wettable powder in rats
resulted in increased weight of the liver and kidney and
histopathologic changes in these organs.  The observed
increased urine sugar supports the findings of kidney
damage.  The "no-observed effect level" (NOEL) for the study
is 500 ppm.

Two-year feeding to dogs of 2,500-10,000 ppm resulted (as 65
or 75% wettable powders) in gastritis and in pathological
alterations and weight increases in the liver.  The elevated
Scrum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase activity (SGPT) seen at
18 months, supports the finding of liver damage.  Liver
damage was not noted in rats fed up to 2,500 ppm chloroneb
for 2 years.   Morphologic changes in the thyroid were noted
in rats at 1  year and dogs at 2 years, indicating a moderate
increase in activity.  The kidney was not affected in these
studies in either rat or dog.  The high levels of chloroneb
intake also caused reduced body-weight gain in rats and
weight loss in dogs.  For these 2-year studies, the NOEL is
500 ppm for both dog and rat. These NOEL's correspond to
12.5 mg/kg body weight/day of chloroneb for the dog and
25 mg/kg body weight/day of chloroneb for the rat.  The dog
study meets Agency requirements for a non-rodent subchronic
feeding study.

A final judgment as to adequacy of this rat study as a
chronic feeding study cannot.be made until detailed chemical
characterization of the test substances (technical chloronebs
90 and 98% pure) is provided.  In addition to this requirement,
further information and classification of neoplastic and
non-neoplastic lesions found in the study must be provided
before it can be evaluated for acceptability as an oncogenicity
study.

To assess oncogenic potential, an oncogenicity test in an
acceptable mammalian species other than the rat is needed.
As noted above, a new oncogenicity study may be needed in
the rat.

Chloroneb has not been evaluated for mutagenicity.  Acceptable
mutagenicity  tests (see Guidelines of August 22, 1978, 40 FR
Part 163)  must be submitted or cited to support registration
of any proposed end-use.  Because of possible exposure of
women of child-bearing age, teratogenicity studies in two
species are needed to support all existing end-uses.
                               68

-------
Limited tissue residue data indicate that both chloroneb
and a metabolite, 2 ,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol, show a
very low order of bioaccumulation in mammalian tissues
after long-term dietary exposure to chloroneb.  In rats and
dogs fed chloroneb  (as a 65 or 75% wettable powder) for 2
years, the parent compound occurred primarily in body fat,
and the metabolite  occurred chiefly in liver and kidney.
Dogs eliminate the  metabolite in urine and, to a lesser
extent, in feces.   The metabolite also occurs in rat urine.
Rats feces were not analyzed.  To fulfill Agency requirements
on metabolism, single-dose testing of chloroneb is required.
The available data  are insufficient to assess the mammalian
metabolism of chloroneb.

Additional  tests that must be conducted to assess the
toxicity of technical chloroneb are listed in the section on
Data Gaps.

Data Requirements

The following are toxicology data requirements.   Listed
after each requirement is the section in the Proposed
Guidelines  of August 22, 1978, (43 FR,  No. 163 37336) that
describes the type  of data required.

All applicants, regardless of end-use,  must submit or cite
the following data:

Category of Test                                  Guideline Number

  Acute Oral  Toxicity (rat)	163.81-1
  Acute Dermal Toxicity (rabbit)	163.81-2
  Acute Inhalation Toxicity (rat)	163.81-3
  Primary Eye Irritation (rabbit)	163.81-4
    or Demonstration of pH 1-3 or 12-14
    or Demonstration of Dermal Irritation
    of Category I
  Primary Dermal  Irritation (rabbit)	163.81-5
  Skin Sensi tization (guinea pig)	...163.81-6

Data Gaps

The following data are required for the reregistration  of
manufacturing-use chloroneb:

Acute Toxicity

  Acute Dermal Toxicity	163.81-2
  Acute Inhalation Toxicity (Female Rats)	163.81-3
  Skin Sensi tization	163.81-6
                          69

-------
Food Use (Requires a Tolerance or Exemption)

All applicants for registration or reregistration of technical
products which are formulated into end-use  products intended
for use on food must submit or cite the  following:
Chronic Feeding
Oncogenic ity
Teratogenicity
Reproduction
Mutagenicity
Metabol ism
A two year feeding study        163.83-1
in the rat is required.
The available rat study is
inadequate, pending evaluation
of the chemical  composition
of technical  chloroneb,
including minor impurities.

An oncogenicity study in       163.83-2
each of two suitable
mammalian species is
required.  Registrants may
cite the referenced two-year
rat study provided that they
also submit the appropriate
supplementary data.

Teratogenicity testing
in two mammalian species
is required.

A two-generation reproduc-
tion study, preferably in the
rat is required.  A summar-
ized reproduction study is in
Agency files.
                                    s
A mammalian in vitro point      163.81-1
mutation test; a sensitive      through
sub-mammalian point mutation    163.81-4
test; a primary DMA damage
test; a mammalian in vitro
cytogenetics  test.

A general metabolism study      163.85-1
in one mammalian species
is required.
163.83-3
163.83-4
Non-Food Use (Nondomestic, Outdoor)

All applicants for registration or reregistration of technical
products which are formulated into end-use products intended
for non-food, nondomestic, outdoor uses must submit or cite
the following:
                              70

-------
  Teratogen iticy      Teratogenicity testing          163.83.3
                      in two mammalian species
                      is required.

  Mutagenicity        A mammalian in vitro point      163.83-1
                      mutation test; a sensitive      through
                      sub-mammalian point mutation    163.83-4
                      test; a primary DNA damage
                      test; a mammalian in vitro
                      cytogenetics test.

Human and Domestic Animal Hazard Assessment

The chloroneb exposure profile (see Exposure Profile
in the Environmental Fate Chapter) reveals that persons
who handle, store, or ship technical chloroneb will be
exposed, principally, by inhalation.  Without taking
proper precautions, they may get it on the skin and in the
eyes.

Single exposure by any of these routes to technical chloroneb
may be of low hazard.  Technical  chloroneb (90%) showed
relatively high acute inhalation toxicity (tested in males,
only).  Applied once to skin or eyes, it caused little or no
primary irritation.  Limited skin application may not cause
systemic hazard; since, on repeated, daily skin contact with
large doses of chloroneb (as 75% wettable powder), only
reduced body-weight gain was noted.  Swallowing a lethal
dose of technical chloroneb by accident seems unlikely,
based on the relatively high acute oral LD50 shown by
technical  chloroneb (90%).

Required Labeling

Precautionary labeling of each product must correspond to the
toxicity categories determined by five acute toxicity tests.
Acceptable categories of acute toxicity and the corresponding
required labeling appear in the Regulatory Chapter of this
Standard.

Topical Discussions

Corresponding to each of the Topical Discussions listed
below is the number of the section(s) in the 'Proposed
Guidelines'  of August 22, 1978  (43 FR, No. 163 37336 which
explain(s) the minimum data that  the Agency usually requires
in order to adequately assess chloroneb's toxicology.  Where
no section number is listed, a minimum requirement has not
been set for such information.  Also under each of the
topics is  a reference to the section in the 'Proposed
Guidelines1.
                              71

-------
Acute Testing                          Guidelines Section(s)

  Acute Oral  Toxicity	163.81-1
  Acute Dermal Toxicity	163.81-2
  Acute Inhalation Toxicity	163.81-3
  Primary Eye Irritation	163.81-4
  Primary Dermal  Irritation	163.81-5
  Skin Sensitization	163.81-6
  Acute Delayed Neurotoxicity	163.81-7

Subchronic Testing

  Subchronic Oral Toxicity	163.82-1
  Subchronic 21-Day Dermal Toxicity	163.82-2
  Subchronic 90-Day Dermal Toxicity	163.82-3
  Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity	163.82-4
  Subchronic Neurotoxicity	163-82-5
  Dermal  Sensitization	163.82-6

Chronic Testing

  Chronic Feedi ng	1 63.83-1
  Oncogenicity	163.83-2

Reproduction Testing

  Teratology	163.83-3
  Reproduction	163.83- 4
Mutagenicity	163.83-1  to 4
Metabolism in Laboratory Animals	163.85-1
Clinical  Trials
Emergency Treatment

The following topical discussions describe available
toxicity data on technical chloroneb and its formulations
and state whether they are adequate for Agency  regulatory
purposes.

Acute Testing

Acute Oral Toxicity (163.81-1)

The minimum testing needed on acute oral toxicity is one
test, in the laboratory rat, on the technical chemical
and on each manufacturing-use product.

The LDcn of technical chloroneb (90% active ingredient)
exceedlu5 g/kg in male and female rats (Hinckle 1979,  GS0007-010)
Clinical  signs included diarrhea, stained face  and perineal
area, and weight loss.  Gross pathologic changes included
heavy liver (two of five females), kidneys with hydronephrosis
                              72

-------
 (two  of  five  males), cornea!  opacity  (one  of  five  males),
 and lungs  that  were dull-red,  gray mottled with  gray  foci  in
 one to three  animals (not  further described).  This  study  is
 sufficient  to assess the acute oral toxicity  of  technical
 chloroneb  and to  place  it  in  Category  IV,  corresponding  to  a
 very  low acute  oral hazard.

 Acute Dermal  Toxicity (163.81-2)

 The minimum testing needed  on  acute dermal toxicity  is
 one test,  preferably in the albino rabbit, on the  technical
 chemical and  on each manufacturing-use product.

 No tests on technical chloroneb are available.

 Acute Inhalation Toxicity  (163.81-3)

 The minimum data requirement  for acute inhalation  toxicity  is
 one test,  preferably in the albino rat, on the technical
 chemical and  on each manufacturing-use product.

 The 4-hour LCcg of chloroneb  aerosol (formed from  a melt
 of particulate chloroneb) was  25.2 mg/liter in male rats
 (Kwon 1965, 00004982).   Lethal concentrations resulted in
 hyperemia, unresponsiveness, mydriasis, and respiratory
 irregularities.  Hyperemia and  hyperpnea were observed at
 sublethal concentrations. This is an adequate determination
 in males, which would place particulate chloroneb  in Category
 IV, indicating a very low acute inhalation hazard.  Testing
 in females, however, must be conducted to adequately assess
 inhalation toxicity.

 Primary Eye Irritation  (163.81-4)

The minimum testing needed to  evaluate eye irritation
 potential is one test,  in albino rabbits, on each manufacturing
 use product.  If the test substance has a pH of 1-3 or 12-14,
 however,  it will be judged corrosive,  and an eye  irritation
test is not needed.  If the test substance has been judged
to be dermally corrosive, an eye irritation test  is not
 needed.

Technical chloroneb (90% active ingredient) was not irritating
to the eyes of rabbits  (Ferenz 1979a,  GS0007-011).  Instilla-
tion of 0.1 ml (50 mg)  of the test product resulted in no
corneal  opacity, iritis, or conjunctival  irritation in
either washed or unwashed eyes.  The study meets  Agency
requirements for a primary eye irritation test and is
adequate  to place this  technical chloroneb product in
Category  IV, indicating  a very low eye irritation potential.
                              73

-------
Primary Dermal Irritation (163.81-5)

The minimum testing needed to evaluate dermal irritation
potential  is one test, preferably on the albino rabbit,
on each manufacturing use product.

Technical  chloroneb (90% active ingredient) was very
slightly irritating to intact and abraded rabbit skin at
either 24 or 72 hours (Ferenz 1979b, GS0007-012).  The study
is adequate to place technical chloroneb in Category IV,
indicating a very low potential for dermal  irritation.

Skin Sensitization (163.81-6)

The minimum requirement for assessing skin sensitization is
an interdermal test in one mammalian species, preferably the
guinea pig, on each manufacturing-use product.

No testing is available for manufacturing-use chloroneb.

Acute Delayed Neurotoxicity (163.81-7)

An acute delayed neurotoxicity evaluation is not required
because chloroneb is not expected to cause acetylcholinesterase
depression, nor is its chemical structure related to that
of substances that induce delayed neurotoxicity.

Subchronic Testing

Subchronic Oral Toxicity (163.82-1)

The minimum testing needed to assess Subchronic oral
toxicity is one test in each of two mammalian species,
a rodent and a non-rodent, on the technical chemical.

No adequate Subchronic oral test of the technical product
itself is available.  However, a 90-day feeding study
in rats on a 75% formulation of chloroneb (Sherman 1964a,
00001446; described below) is judged adequate to fulfill
Agency requirements for a rodent study, and a 2-year-feeding
study in dogs on a 65 or 75% wettable powder (Busey and
Kundzins 1967, 00001421, described below) satisfies the
requirement for a non-rodent study, tthe known impurities
and inerts in the 65 or 75% wettable powder formulations are
not expected to decrease the toxicity of technical chloroneb
in such studies or correspondingly, to cause underestimation
of human hazard.

A summary of a 90-day rat feeding study on a mixture
of substances that comprise the impurities (10%) in technical
(90%) chloroneb (as determined in 1967) is in Agency files.
It will be reviewed when details of the study become available.
                              74

-------
 In  preliminary  testing,  Sherman  (19646,  00004980)  gave
 each  of  two  male  rats  technical  chloroneb  at  3.400  mg/kg
 body  weight/day as  a  suspension  in  peanut  oil,  5  days  a
 week,  for  2  weeks.   The  only  toxic  sign  was  salivation
 during the  second week of  dosing.

 In  a  preliminary  study,  six  rats were  dosed  repeatedly
 with  a wettable powder formulation  containing 75%  of active
 ingredient  (Sherman  1964b, 00004980).  Cumulative  oral
 toxicity was  observed  in these rats, each  of  which  received
 orally 5 g/kg body  weight/day  (based on  active  ingredient),
 5 days a week,  for  2 weeks.   They lost weight and  showed
 diarrhea during the  first  week and  showed  weakness  and
 semi-prostration  during  the  second  week.   Two of  six rats
 died  after  eight  doses.  Pathologic  findings  included conges-
 tion  of organs,  injury to  blood  cells  and  blood-forming
 organs (spleen  and  bone  marrow), slight  injury  to  kidneys,
 and large  liver with cytoplasmic and nuclear  irregularities.
 The compound  appeared to affect  the hematopoietic  system,
 liver, and  kidneys.

 A 90-day feeding  study was conducted in  rats  using  a wettable
 powder formulation  containing 75% active ingredient at 0, 50,
 500, and 5,000-7,500 ppm (based  on  the active ingredient) in
 the diet (Sherman 1964a, 00001446).  There was  no behavioral,
 hematologic, or nutritional evidence of  toxicity.   Increased
 sugar was  present in the urine of male and female rats fed
 the highest dose.   In rats on this  dose, the urine  sediment
 contained  large numbers  of epithelial  cells (males) and
 leukocytes  (females).  Increased liver and kidney weights in
 male rats  and increased  liver weights in female rats were
 recorded in the highest-dosage groups.   Histopathologic
 examination revealed tubular degeneration  in the kidneys and
 centri1obular enlargement of hepatic cells with unequal
 hypertrophy of  the hepatic cell nuclei in  livers of male
 rats fed the highest dose.  The  "no-observed-effect level"
 (NOEL) for the  study is 500 ppm  (25 mg/kg  body weight/day).
 This study is judged adequate to fulfill  Agency requirements
 for a subchronic rodent study.

 In a 2-year feeding study, beagle dogs received chloroneb
 (as a 65 or 75% wettable powder)  in the  diet at 0, 100,
 500, or 2,500-10,000 ppm of active  ingredient (Busey and
 Kundzins 1967,  00001421).  Loss of body weight occurred in
 dogs in the high-level group when fed  7,500, 8,750, or
 10,000 ppm. In  three of six high-dose  dogs  at 18 months,
 serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase and/or alkaline phosphatase
 activities were moderately-to-markedly elevated.  At necropsy,
the mean and relative liver weights of the high-dose dogs
were moderately elevated  over those of controls.  Histopathologic
changes were found in. dogs  of this group after 2 years
 on test.   Changes in the  thyroid, indicative of a moderate
                              75

-------
increase in activity, were characterized by uniform, small-to-
me di urn- si zed follicles that were lined by medium-to-high
cuboidal epithelium in four of six dogs. The livers from
four of six dogs had moderate-to-severe pigmentation consisting
of small yellowish-brown granules in hepatocytes.  A moderate
subacute-to-chronic catarrhal gastritis was observed in
stomachs from four of six dogs.

As judged by appearance, behavior, appetite, elimination,
body weight changes, clinical laboratory values, organ
weights, organ-weight/body-weight ratios, and gross necropsy
and histopathologic findings, chloroneb at either 100 or
500 ppm chloroneb in the diet, fed for 2 years, did not
adversely affect these dogs.  The NOEL for the study is 500
ppm (12.5 mg/kg body weight/day).  This study is judged
adequate to comply with the requirement for a non-rodent
subchronic oral study-

Subchronic 21-Day Dermal Toxicity (163.82-2)

The minimum requirement to assess subchronic 21-day dermal
toxicity is one study preferably in the albino rabbit, on
the technical product.  This study is required for all
uses of chloroneb.

No studies of subchronic dermal toxicity have been conducted
using technical chloroneb itself.  However, a test on a
formulated product (Hood 1965, 00001445, described below) is
judged adequate to fulfill Agency requirements for a subchronic
dermal test on the technical product.

A study by Hood (1965, 00001445) was conducted on a 75%  *
wettable powder formulation containing 75% active ingredient
using groups of five male and five female rabbits.  A 55%
aqueous paste of the formulation was kept on abraded skin of
each rabbit, during each of fifteen, daily 5-hour periods,
over 3 weeks, at 5 g/kg body weight (as active ingredient).
One control group was untreated.  In the other control
group, each application of the wettable powder formulation-
without-chloroneb was made at 1 g/kg body weight.  Except
for slightly lower weight gain in test rabbits, there were
no apparent effects of chloroneb on clinical signs, organ
weights, relative organ weights, or histopathologic findings.

The study is judged adequate to comply with Agency requirements
for subchronic 21-day dermal test on the technical product.

Subchronic 90-Day Dermal Toxicity (163.82-3)

A subchronic 90-day dermal toxicity test is not required
because chloroneb is not purposely applied to skin, and
its use will not result in human exposure comparable to,
                              76

-------
 for  example, the  exposure  of  swimmers  to  swimming  pool
 additives  or garment wearers  to  pesticide-impregnated
 fabric.

 Subchronic  Inhalation  (163.82-4)

 A subchronic inhalation  study  is required  if  pesticidal
 use  may result  in  repeated  inhalation  exposure  at  a concentra-
 tion that  is likely to be  toxic, as determined  from results
 of acute inhalation testing.   Acute inhalation  testing on
 chloroneb  is incomplete, so a  final determination  on the
 requirement for a  subchronic  inhalation test  cannot be made
 at this time.

 Subchronic Neurotoxicity (163.82-5)

 A subchronic neurotoxicity  evaluation  is  not  required
 on chloroneb because it  is  not expected to induce  neuropathy
 or delayed neurotoxicity,  and  because  it  does not  have a
 molecular  structure closely related to that of  a compound
 that is known to  induce  neuropathy or  delayed neurotoxicity.

 Chronic Testing

 Chronic Feeding (163.83)

 A chronic  feeding  study  is  required for all food uses in one
 mammalian  species, preferably the laboratory  rat,  using the
 technical  product.  The  study  is required for all  food uses
 of chloroneb.

 No chronic tests  are available on technical chloroneb.
 At present, a study in rats on a wettable powder containing
 65 or 75% chloroneb (Busey et al. 1967, 00001422, described.
 below)  will not satisfy Agency requirements for a chronic
 test because the  test substances are inadequately characterized
 The test chemicals were 98 and 90% pure chloroneb,  formulated
 as 75 and 65% wettable powders, respectively.   The  study
 cannot  be judged for adequacy as a chronic feeding  study
 until the test  substances (90 and 98%  pure technical  chloroneb)
 have been adequately characterized.  This includes  the
 characterization of minor impurities.

 In this study,  a wettable powder containing 65 or 75%
 chloroneb was fed  to rats at dietary levels of 0, 100,  500,
 and 2,500 ppm (based on active ingredient) for 2 years
 (Busey  et al.  1967, 00001422).  Marked growth  suppression
 and reduced food consumption occurred  in the females,  and
moderate growth suppression occurred in the males given the
 highest dose.  No abnormalities were noted in physical
 appearance, behavior,  or extent of survival in any  test
group.   Hematology, clinical biochemistry, urinalysis,  and
                              77

-------
gross necropsy evaluations did not reveal effects that were
judged to be compound-related. In male rats on 2,500 ppm
which were killed after 1 year of feeding (but not in those
killed after 2 years), there was microscopic evidence of
increased thyroid activity.  Female rats on 2,500 ppm which
were killed at 2 years showed significantly increased
organ-weight/ body-weight values for brain and thyroid and
decreased spleen weights.  The NOEL for the study is 500 ppm
(25 mg/kg body weight/day).

Provisionally, the study does not meet Agency requirements
for a chronic feeding study.  It will be judged for adequacy
when the detailed composition of the test chemicals (98 and
90% chloronebs) fed in the study is provided.

Oncogenicity (163.83-2)

Oncogenicity tests using the technical material are required
in two mammalian species, normally the rat and the mouse.
The studies are required for all food uses.

The two-year rat study (Busey et al . 1967, 00001422) does
not meet the Agency requirements for an Oncogenicity test.
The study does not contain information on incidence of
neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions observed in the study
and it does not state the composition of the two chloronebs
fed to the test animals.  The Agency requires this additional
information to evaluate the study.  Registrants may cite
this study as one of the two required Oncogenicity studies
provided that the registrants submits the missing lesion
incidence and product composition data.  The Agency will
determine the validity of the study when the deficiencies
are corrected.

Reproduction Testing

Teratology (163.83-3)

The minimum requirement for evaluating a pesticide for
teratogenicity is testing in two mammalian species.   It is
required for both food and nonfood uses of chloroneb.  No
tests are available on chloroneb to assess teratogenic
effects.

Reproduction (163.83-4)

The minimum requirement for measuring effects on reproduction
is one test in the rat, lasting two generations.  This is
required for all  food uses.  No adequate studies assessing
the effects of chloroneb on reproduction are available at
this time.  A rat reproduction study (Kundzin 1967,  00001423)
                               78

-------
containing summary data only  is  in Agency  files.   To  satisfy
this requirement, registrants may  submit the  referenced
study  (not the  summary) provided  it  is  supplemented by
individual test  animal  data.  The Agency will  determine  the
validity of the  study when the full  data are  submitted.
available in detailed form.

Mutagenicity (163.84-1  through 4)

The following studies represent the  minimum requirements for
data on the potential heritable effects of chloroneb.
     1.  A mammalian in vitro point  mutation  test.

     2.  A sensitive sub-mammalian point mutation  test.
         (Bacteria, fungi, insect)

     3.  A primary DMA  damage test (i.e. sister chromatid
         exchange or unscheduled DNA synthesis).

     4.  A mammalian in vitro cytogenics test.  If this  test
         suggests a positive result, a dominant lethal or
         heritable translocation test may be  required.

After  results from these test systems and other toxicology
disciplines have been considered, additional   testing may be
required to further characterize or  quantify  the potential
genetic risks.

Although the Agency mutagenic testing requirements are not
final, the standards for these tests should be based on  the
principles set forth there in FR 43, No. 163, Tuesday Augst
22, 1978.  Protocols and choices of  test systems should  be
accompanied by a scientific rationale.  Substitution of  test
systems for those listed above will  be considered  after
discussion with the Agency.

These  requirements should be considered an interim guide and
not final Agency policy.  However, the Agency does not
consider the above testing scheme to be a reasonable minimum
requirement.

No adequate mutagenicity studies on  chloroneb are available
to the Agency.

Metabolism in Laboratory Animals (163.85-1)

A general  metabolism study on chloroneb must   be carried
out to fulfill  Agency requirements.  A metabolism study
is required because chronic studies  are required for all
food uses of chloroneb.

A metabolite  of chloroneb, 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol
(DCMP), has been identified in feces of dogs   and in tissues
and urine of  rats and dogs fed chloroneb (Rhodes and Pease
                           79

-------
1971, 05001159; du Pont 1967, 00001424).  Both compounds
showed a very low order of bioaccumulation in mammalian
tissues.

Residues were measured in tissues and excreta of dogs
and in tissues of rats fed chloroneb, as 65 or 75% wettable
powders, in the diet for 2 years (du Pont 1967, 00001424).
Liver, kidney, fat, muscle, spleen, testis, and brain were
sampled from dogs and rats.  In addition, blood and excreta
were sampled from dogs.  All samples were analyzed for
content of chloroneb and its metabolite, DCMP, by the
microcoulometric gas chromatographic method of Pease.

In dogs fed chloroneb for 2 years (at 7,500 ppm active
ingredient for the last 19 weeks), up to 8 ppm chloroneb
occurred in fat, and 2-6 ppm DCMP occurred in liver and
kidney.  In other tissues and in blood, respective contents
of chloroneb and of DCMP did not exceed 1 or 0.4 ppm.
Chloroneb was excreted in feces (2,300 ppm), and DCMP was
excreted in urine (2,400 ppm) and in feces (560 ppm).  In
dogs fed 500 ppm for 2 years, chloroneb was found in fat
(0.08 ppm), and its metabolite was found in liver and kidney
(0.1-0.3 ppm). Dogs fed 100 ppm showed no chloroneb (less
than 0.08 ppm) in tissues and DCMP (0.05 ppm)  only in
kidney.  DCMP was excreted in urine and feces by dogs at
both dietary levels, as was the parent compound in feces of
mid-level dogs.

High-level (2,500-ppm) rats, similarly, showed more chloroneb
(24 ppm) in fat and more metabolite in the kidneys (13 ppm)
than in other tissues.  This pattern held true in rats on
500 and 100 ppm chloroneb.  Chloroneb occurred in fat (1.6
and 0.13 ppm), and the metabolite occurred in kidneys (5 and
1.4 ppm) of mid- and low-level  rats, respectively.  Otherwise,
the compounds were generally undetectable (at detectability
limits of 0.1 ppm and less) in other tissues of these rats.

Other unidentified chlorine-containing compounds were
detected in minor amounts in a few samples from dogs and
rats at the high dietary level  only.

DCMP is a metabolite of chloroneb in cows, also.  Gutenmann
and Lisk (1969, 05001156) identified this compound in
hydrolyzed samples of cow urine and in a 10,000-G supernatant
fraction of beef liver incubated with chloroneb.  No chloroneb
(that is, less than 0.02 ppm) was found in the milk of
either of two cows fed chloroneb for 30 days,  one at 2 ppm
and one at 50 ppm (Rhodes and Pease 1971, 05001159).  DCMP
was detected in the milk (0.2-0.4 ppm)  of the cow fed the
higher dose.   After withdrawal  of chloroneb from the diet,
no metabolite (that is, less than 0.02 ppm)  was detected in
milk on the second day.
                               80

-------
The extent of mammalian metabolism of chloroneb  and the
presence of other metabolites have not been  investigated
sufficiently.  Single-dose testing on metabolism and pharmaco-
kinetics of chloroneb must be carried out to comply with
Agency requirements.

Clinical Trails
No clinical
chloroneb.
studies in humans have been conducted using
Emergency Treatment

No information on the prevention and treatment of chloroneb
intoxication is available.

Toxicology - Wettable Powder Chloroneb

Toxicology Profi1e

No adequate tests are available to assess either the acute
toxicity or possible skin or eye effects of wettable powder
chloroneb formulations.  Available data on wettable powder
formulations containing 65 and 75% chloroneb are adequate to
assess subchronic oral and subchronic dermal  toxicity.
Repeated application to human skin of wettable powder
formulations are not expected t result in systemic effects,
based on results of a subchronic dermal toxicity test in
rabbits on the 75% formulation.  See the Manufacturing-use
Chloroneb Section of this chapter for a discussion of
subchronic oral and dermal toxicity and chronic toxicity of
chloroneb.
Data Gaps

Category of Test

Acute Oral
Acute Dermal
Acute Inhalation
          Data  Requirement

          An  acute  oral  toxicity
          test  in  male  and  female
          rats  is  required  for
          each  wettable  powder.

          An  acute  dermal toxicity
          study,  preferably  in  the
          albino  rabbit,  is  required
          for each  wettable  powder.

          An  acute  inhalation study
          in  the  rat  is  required for
          each  wettable  powder.
Guideline Number

    163.81-1
    163.81-2
    163.81-3
                               81

-------
Primary Eye           A primary eye irritation        163.81-4
  Irritation          test, preferably in the albino
                      rabbit, is required for each
                      wettable powder unless it has
                      a pH of either 1-3 or 12-14 or
                      if the product has been judge"?
                      to be dermally corrosive.
                      If so, it wi 1 be regulated as a
                      corrosive substance.

Primary Dermal        A primary dermal irritation     163.81-5
  Irritation          test, preferably in the albino
                      rabbit, is required for each
                      wettable powder.

Skin                  A skin sensitization             163.81-6
  Sensitization       test in the guinea pig is
                      required for each wettable
                      powder formulation.

Human and Domestic Animal  Hazard Assessment

All  Formulations

Due to its appreciable vapor pressure, chloroneb in all
formulations may be inhaled to a considerable extent by
handlers or applicators (or domestic animals) at the appli-
cation site.  Whether it might contaminate  drinking water
has not been determined.  Exposure to chloroneb-treated  soil
may involve contact with both chloroneb and its chlorophenol
metabolites.

Wettable Powder Formulations (65%)

Considerable inhalation and skin absorption of chloroneb
in a 65% wettable powder could occur.  This is true,
especially of grounds-keepers and golfers on golf fairways
and greens.  It could be true of applicators, especially if
the formulation is used in excess of label  directions (in
severe fungal outbreaks).  It might be spilled on the skin or
in eyes of persons who dilute, tank-mix, or load spray
equipment.  Applicators could breathe spray droplets.

Test results suggest, indirectly, that a person (or domestic
animal) should encounter only low systemic  hazard from
acute oral, acute dermal,  or acute inhalation exposure to
registered 65% wettable powders.  However,  further acute
testing is needed on this  and any other wettable powder
formulations.
                               82

-------
The  potential  for  long-term  repeated  exposure  to  chloroneb
-by  any  route-  to  harm human beings or domestic animals
cannot be  assessed fully because of its presently  incomplete
chemical and toxicologic characterization.  Two-year dietary
intake of  pure  chloroneb at  12.5 mg/kg body weight/day
resulted in no  observed harmful effect in rats and dogs.
The  test substance was first 98% chloroneb, then  90%
administered as a  75% or 65% wettable powder.  Increasing
the  intake by ten-fold or more suppressed growth  and,
variously, caused  adverse effects on  liver, kidney, stomach,
or thyroid.  At no level of  intake did these animals accumulate
significant amounts of chloroneb in body tissues  examined,
relative to degree of exposure, nor did they accumulate  its
chief known metabolite.

Adequate testing of technical chloroneb for teratogenic,
carcinogenic and mutagenic potential;  for effects on reproduc-
tion; and for mammalian metabolism/pharmcokinetics is not
available.  Such testing must not be done until the chemical
composition of technical chloroneb is  determined  adequately
as judged by the Agency.

Topical Discussions

For  information concerning subchronic  and chronic studies
using a 65% and 75% wettable powder refer to the Manufacturing-
use Chloroneb section of this chapter-

Topics

Acute Oral  Toxicity
Acute Dermal  Toxicity
Acute Inhalation Toxicity
Primary Eye Irritation
Primary Dermal  Irritation
Skin Sensitization
Subchronic Dermal  (21-Day)  Toxicity

Acute Testing

Acute Oral  Toxicity (163.81-1)

The minimum testing needed  on acute oral  toxicity is one
test in the laboratory rat  on each formulated wettable
powder product.

No acute  oral  tests are available on  wettable powders
containing chloroneb.
                              83

-------
      k
Acute Dermal Toxicity (163.81-2)

The minimum testing needed on acute dermal toxicity is
one test in the albino rabbit on each formulated wettable
powder product.

No adequate test on a wettable powder formulation is available.

Acute Inhalation Toxicity (163.81-3)

An acute inhalation toxicity test is required on a wettable
powder formulation if it causes a respirable vapor, or if
20% or more of the aerodynamic equivalent is composed of
particles not larger than 10 microns.

Chloroneb has a relatively high vapor pressure and should
provide a respirable vapor.   Therefore, a test will be
needed on each chloroneb wettable powder.  No tests of acute
inhalation toxicity are available on this formulation
type.

Primary Eye Irritation (163.81-4)

The minimum testing needed to evaluate eye irritation
potential is one test, in albino rabbits for each wettable
powder formulated product.  If the test substance has a pH
of 1-3 or 12-14, however, it will be judged corrosive, and
an eye irritation test is not needed.  If the test substance
is judged to be dermally corrosive, an eye irritation test
is not needed.

No tests are available on wettable powder formulations
containing chloroneb.

Primary Dermal Irritation

The minimum testing needed to evaluate dermal irritation
potential is one test preferably in the albino rabbit, on
each wettable powder formulated product.

No testing is available for wettable powder formulations
containing chloroneb.

Skin Sensitization (163.81-6)
                                                            L
The minimum requirement for assessing skin sensitization is
an intradermal test in one mammalian species, preferably the
guinea pig, on each wettable powder product.

No adequate test for skin sensitization has been done on any
chloroneb wettable powder product.
                               84

-------
 Subchrom'c  Testing

 Subchronic  21-Day Dermal  Toxicity

 The  minimum requirement  to  assess  subchronic  21-day  dermal
 toxicity  is one  study,  perferably  in  the  albino  rabbit,  on
 each  wettable  powder  formulation of chloroneb  if  any  of  its
 constituents is  likely  to increase  skin absorption  or  to
 potentiate  toxic and  pharmacologic  effects.   The  Agency  will
 evaluate  need  for this  study  on a  case-by-case basis.

 No 21-day dermal study  on a wettable  powder formulation  of
 chloroneb is available.

 Toxicology  - Granular

 Toxico19gy  Profi1e

 Limited data are available  on  one  granular formulation
 containing  chloroneb  as the only active ingredient. Both
 very  low  acute oral hazard  and very low potential for
 primary dermal  irritation  are  expected in humans  for a
 granular  formulation  containing 6.75% chloroneb,   based on
 the  high  acute oral LD5Q  in male rats (greater than 5 g/kg)
 and  on the  absence of dermal  irritation on intact or
 abraded rabbit skin.  Female  rats, however, must   be tested
 before a  final  assessment of  acute oral hazard can be made
 on the 6.75% granular formulation.  The acute oral or dermal
 hazard for  other granular formulations cannot be  assessed.

 Testing that must be conducted on granular formulations,
 including additional tests required on the 6.75%   formulation,
 is described in the section on Data Gaps.

 Data Gaps

 Category of Test      Data Requirement            Guide!ine Number

 Acute Oral            An  acute oral toxicity          163.81-1
                      test in  male and female
                      rats is  required for
                      each granular, except that
                      only females must be tested
                      for one  6.75% granular
                      formulati on.

Acute Dermal          An acute dermal  toxicity        163.81-2
                      study, preferably in the
                      albino rabbit,  is required
                      for each granular.
                             85

-------
Acute Inhalation      An acute inhalation study       163.81-3
                      in the rat is required for
                      each granular.

Primary Eye           A primary eye irritation        163.81-4
  Irritation          test in the albino rabbit
                      is required for each granular
                      unless it has a pH of either
                      1-3 or 12-14 or if the dermal
                      substance is corrosive.  If so,
                      it will be regulated as a
                      corrosive substance.

Primary Dermal        A primary dermal irritation     163.81-5
  Irritation          test, preferably in the albino
                      rabbit, is required for each
                      granular formulation, except
                      for one 6.75% granular formulation.

Skin                  A skin sensitization test in    163.81-6
  Sensitization       the guinea pig is required on
                      each granular product.

Human and Domestic Animal Hazard Assessment

Granular Formulations

No significant exposure unique to granular formulations for
humans is foreseen.

Based on test results, very low acute oral hazard and very
low potential for primary skin irritations are expected in
persons exposed to one 6.75% granular formulation, based on
test results.

Further acute testing which is needed on this and other
granular formulations is described in the preceding section,
Data Gaps.

The potential for long-term repeated exposure to chloroneb
-by any route- to harm human beings or domestic animals
cannot be assessed fully because of its presently incomplete
chemical and toxicologic characterization.  Two-year dietary
intake of pure chloroneb at 12.5 mg/kg body weight/day
resulted in no observed harmful effect in rats and dogs.
The test substance was first 98% chloroneb, then 90%
administered as a 75% or 65% wettable powder.  Increasing
the intake by ten-fold or more suppressed growth and,
variously, caused adverse effects on liver, kidney, stomach,
or thyroid.  At no level of intake did these animals accumulate
significant amounts of chloroneb in body tissues examined,
relative to degree of exposure, nor did they accumulate its
chief known metabolite.
                               86

-------
Adequate testing of technical chloroneb for tetratogeni c,
carcinogenic and mutagenic potential; for effects on  reproduc-
tion; and for mammalian metabol i sm/pharmcoki neti cs  is  not
available.  Such testing must not be done until the chemical
composition of technical chloroneb  is determined adequately
as judged by the Agency.

Topical Discussions

Acute Oral Toxicity
Acute Dermal Toxicity
Acute Inhalation Toxicity
Primary Eye Irritation
Primary Dermal  Irritation
Skin Sensi tization
Subchronic Dermal (21-Day) Toxicity

Acute Testi ng

Acute Oral Toxicity

The minimum testing needed on acute oral toxicity is -one
test in the laboratory rat on each formulated granular
product.
One study is available on a granular formulation containing
6.75% chloroneb (WARF 1971, 00001495).  The acute oral
LDj-n of this formulation exceeds 5 g/kg in male rats.  At
this level, no deaths occurred.  Because only males were
tested, the acute oral toxicity of this formulation cannot
be adequately assessed.  For males, the data are adequate
to pi    ace 6.75% chloroneb in toxicity Category IV, indicating
a very low acute oral hazard.  To complete the assessment,
testing must also be conducted in female rats.

Acute Dermal Toxicity

The minimum testing needed on acute dermal toxicity is
one test, perferably in the albino rabbit on, each formulated
granular product.

No acute dermal  tests are available on granular formulations
containing chloroneb.

Acute Inhalation Toxicity

An acute inhalation toxicity test is required on a granular
formulation if it causes a respirable vapor or if 20% or
more of the aerodynamic equivalent is composed of particles
not larger than 10 microns. Chloroneb has a relatively high
                             87

-------
vapor pressure and should provide a respirable vapor.
Therefore, a test will be needed on each granular formulation
of chloroneb.  No tests of acute inhalation toxicity are
available on this formulation type.

Primary Eye Irritation

The minimum testing needed to evaluate eye irritation
potential is one test, in albino rabbits, on each granular
formulated product.   If the test substance has a pH of 1-3
or 12-14, however, it will be judged corrosive, and an eye
irritation test is not needed.  If the test substance is
dermally corrosive, it will  be judged corrosive to the eye,
and an eye irritation test is not needed..

No test are available on granular formulations containing
chl oroneb.
Primary Dermal Irritation
The minimum testing needed to evaluate dermal irritation
potential is one test preferably in the albino rabbit on
each granular formulated product.

A granular formulation containing 6.75% chloroneb was not
irritating to intact to abraded rabbit skin (WARF 1971,
00001495).  No erythema or edema was noted at 24 or 72
hours.  The study is adequate to place 6.75% chloroneb in
Category IV, indicating a very low potential for dermal
irritation.

Skin Sensitization

The minimum requirement for assessing dermal sensitization
is an intradermal test in one mammalian species, perferably
the guinea pig, on each granular formulation of chloroneb.
None is available.

Subchronic Testing

Subchronic 21-Day Dermal Toxicity

The minimum requirement to assess subchronic 21-day dermal
toxicity is one study, perferably in the albino rabbit, on
each granular formulation of chloroneb if any of its
constituents is likely to increase skin absorption or to
potentiate toxic and pharmacologic effects.  The Agency will
evaluate need for this study on a case-by-cse basis.

No 21-day dermal study on a granular formulation of chloroneb
is available.
                               88

-------
Toxicology - Dust

Toxicology Profile

Since no testing is available on dust chloroneb, no summary
can be made.  The required tests are listed in the section
on Data Gaps.
Data Gaps

Category of Test

Acute Oral
Acute Dermal
Acute Inhalati on
Primary Eye
  Irritation
Primary Dermal
  Irritati on
Skin
  Sensitization
Data Requirement
Guideli ne Number
An acute oral toxicity          163.81-1
test in male and female
rats is required for
each dust product.

An acute dermal toxicity        163.81-2
study, preferably in the
albino rabbit, is required
for each dust product.

An acute inhalation study       163.81-3
in the rat is required for
each dust product.

A primary eye irritation        163.81-4
test in the albino rabbit
is required for each dust
product unless it has
a pH of either 1-3 or 12-14.
or unless it has been
judged dermally corrosive.
If so, it will be regulated
as a corrosive substance.

A primary dermal irritation     163.81-5
test,  preferably in the albino
rabbit, is required for each
dust product.

A skin sensitization test is    163.81-6
is required for each dust
formulat ion.
Human and Domestic Animal Hazard Assessment

Dust Formulations

Contact with any dust formulation by inhalation or skin
adsorption is possible.
                              89

-------
No tests on a dust formulation are contained in Agency
files.  Therefore, the acute hazard of exposure to dust
chloroneb cannot be assessed.

The potential  for long-term repeated exposure to chloroneb
-by any route- to harm human beings or domestic animals
cannot be assessed fully because of its presently incomplete
chemical and toxicologic characterization.  Two-year dietary
intake of pure chloroneb at 12.5 mg/kg body weight/day
resulted in no observed harmful effect in rats and dogs.
The test substance was first 98% chloroneb, then 90%
administered as a 75% ir 65% wettable powder.  Increasing
the intake by ten-fold or more suppressed growth and,
variously, caused adverse effects on liver, kidney, stomach,
or thyroid.  At no level of intake did these animals accumulate
significant amounts of chloroneb in body tissues examined,
relative to degree of exposure, nor did they accumulate its
chief known metabolite.

Adequate testing of technical chloroneb for tetratogenic,
carcinogenic and mutagenic potential; for effects on reproduc-
tion; and for mammalian metabolism/phamcokinetics is not
avail able.

Topical Discussions

Topics

Acute Oral Toxicity
Acute Dermal Toxicity
Acute Inhalation Toxicity
Primary Eye Irritation
Primary Dermal Irritation
Skin Sensitization
Subchronic (21-day) Toxicity

Acute Testing

Acute Oral Toxicity

The minimum testing needed on acute oral toxicity is one test
in the laboratory rat on each formulated dust product.

No tests on dust formulations containing chloroneb are
avail able.

Acute Dermal Toxicity

The minimum testing needed on acute dermal toxicity is one
test, preferably in the albino rabbit, on each formulated
dust product.

No acute dermal tests are available on dust formulations
containing chloroneb.
                               90

-------
Acute Inhalation Toxicity

An acute  inhalation toxicity test is required on a dust
formulation if it causes a respirable vapor, or if 20% or
more of the aerodynamic equivalent is composed of particles
not larger than 10 microns.  Chloroneb has a relatively high
vapor pressure and should provide a respirable vapor.
Therefore, a test will be needed on each chloroneb dust
formulation.  No tests of acute inhalation toxicity are
available on this formulation type.

Primary Eye Irritation

The minimum testing needed to evaluate eye irritation
potential is one test, in albino rabbits, on each formulated
dust product.  If the test substance has a pH of 1-3 or
12-14, however, it will be judged corrosive, and an eye
irritation test is not needed.  If the test substance has been
judged dermally corrosive, the test substance will  be judged
to be corrosive to the eye and an eye irritation test is not
needed.

No tests are available on granular formulations containing
chloroneb.

Primary Dermal  Irritation

The minimum testing needed to evaluate dermal  irritation
potential is one test, preferably in the albino rabbit,
on each dust formulated product.

Testing on dust formulations containing chloroneb is not
available.

Skin Sensitization

The minimum requirement for assessing dermal  sensitization
is an intradermal  test in one mammalian species,  preferably
the guinea pig, on each dust formulation of chloroneb.   None
is available.

Subchrom'c Testing

Subchronic 21-Day  Dermal  Toxicity

The minimum requirement to assess subchronic 21-day dermal
toxicity is one study, preferably in the albino rabbit,  on
each dust formulation  of chloroneb if any of its  constituents
is likely to increase  skin absorption or to potentiate  toxic
and pharmacologic  effects.  The Agency will evaluate need
for this study  on  a case-by-case basis.

No 21-day dermal  study on a dust formulation of chloroneb is
available.
                              91

-------
Bibli ography

-MRID          CITATION

00001422      Busey, W.M., Crews, L.M., and Kundzins, W.
                 1967.  24-Month Dietary Feeding--Rats :
                 Fungicide 1823:  Final Report:  Project  No.
                 201-124.  (Unpublished study received July 8,
                 1968, under 8F0657; prepared by Hazleton
                 Laboratories, Inc., submitted by E.I. du
                 Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.,  Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:091147-B)

00001421      Busey, W.M., and Kundzins, W.  1967.  Two-Year
                 Dietary Feeding--Dogs:  Fungicide 1823:
                 Final Report: Project No. 201-125.   (Unpublished
                 study received July 8, 1968, under 8F0657;
                 prepared by Hazleton Laboratories,  Inc.,
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
                 Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:091147-A)

00001424      E.I.  du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc.
                 1967.  Chioroneb--Chronic Feeding Studies:
                 Tissue Analysis--Dogs, Rats. (Unpublished
                 study received July 8, 1968, under 8F0657;
                 CDL:091147-D)

GS0007-011    Ferenz, R.L.  1979a.  Eye Irritation in
                 Rabbits.  (Unpublished study received
                 December 13, 1979, 'under 352-386; prepared
                 by Haskell Laboratory, submitted by E.I. du
                 Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.,  Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:241500)

GS0007-012    Ferenz, R.L.  1979b.  Skin Irritation  in
                 Rabbits. (Unpublished study received
                 December 13, 1979, under 352-386; prepared
                 by Haskell Laboratory, submitted by E.I. du
                 Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.,  Wilmington,
                 Del. ; CDL:241500)

05001156      Gutenmann, W.H., and Lisk, D.J.  1969.
                 Metabolic Studies with Chloroneb Fungicide
                 in a Lactating Cow.  J. Agric.  Food Chem.
                 17:1008-1010

GS0007-010    Hinckle, L.  1979.  Oral LD50 Test.  (Unpublished
                 study received December 13, 1979, under
                 352-G1A; prepared by Haskell Laboratory,
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
                 Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:241500
                              92

-------
 -MRID          CITATION

 00001445       Hood, D.B.   1965.  Fifteen-Exposure Dermal
                 Study with  1,4-Dichloro-2,5-Dimethoxybenzene:
                 Report No.  106-65.  (Unpublished study
                 received  October 27, 1965, under 352-313;
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
                 Co., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:050831-B)

 00001423       Kundzin, T.  (1967) Three-Generation Reproduction
                 Study of  Fungicide  1823:  Final Report:
                 Project No. 201-126.  (Unpublished study
                 received  jUl 8, 1968 under 8F0657; prepared
                 by Hazelton Laboratories, Inc., submitted
                 by E.I. du  Pont de  Nemours & Co., Inc.,
                 Wilmington, Del.; CDL:091147C)

 00004982       Kwon, B.K.   1965.  Acute Inhalation Toxicity:
                 Haskell Laboratory Report No. 31-65.
                 (Unpublished study received October 27,
                 1965, under 352-313; submitted  by E.I.  du
                 Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.,  Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:050831-F)

 05001159       Rhodes, R.C., and Pease,  H.L.  1971.   Fate of
                 Chloroneb in Animals.   J. Agric. Food Chem.
                 19:750-753

 00004980      Sherman, H.   1964a.  Ninety-Day Feeding Study
                 with 1 ,4-Dichloro-2,5-Dimethoxybenzene
                 (INK-1823):  Report No.  81-64.  (Unpublished
                 study received Octover 27, 1965, under
                 352-313;  submitted by E.I. du Pont  de
                 Nemours and Co., Wilmington,  Del.;  CDL:05.0831-C)

00004980      Sherman, H.   1964b.  Ten-dose subacute Oral
                 Test:  Haskell  Laboratory Report No.  23-64.
                 (Unpublished study received  Octoer  27,
                 1965, under 352-313; submitted  by  E.I.  du
                 Pont  de Nemours and Co.,  Inc.,  Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:050831-D)

00001495      WARF  Institute, Inc.   1971.   Oral  LD50 and
                 Skin Irritation of 1 ,4-Dichloro-2,5-Dimethoxy-
                 benzene:   WARF  No.  1080676.   (Unpublished
                 study received  October  18, 1971,  under
                 538-79;  submitted  by O.M. Scott and Sons
                 Co.,  Marysville, Ohio; CDL:050143-A)
                            93

-------
               VI.  RESIDUE CHEMISTRY

Residue Chemistry - Manufacturing-Use Chloroneb

Residue Chemistry Profile

Chloroneb is a fungicide used to protect cotton, bean,
soybean, and sugarbeet seedlings against a variety of
diseases.  For this use, the fungicide is applied either
directly to seed or in-furrow at time of planting.  Chloroneb
is also used on ornamental turf grass to control blights.

Chloroneb has been shown by a variety of methods to be
systemic in plants.  The compound is taken up through the
roots and distributed throughout the plants, concentrating
most heavily in roots, lower stem, and cotyledons.  There is
little redistribution of residues in plants during maturation.

Chloroneb is extensively metabolized in plants to 2,5-dichl oro-
4-methoxyphenol , which is present in plant tissues as the
free phenol and as a glucose conjugate.  The phenol is
metabolized to a  small extent to 2,5-dichlorohydroquinone,
which is, in turn, converted to 2,5-dichloroquinone.

In animals, metabolism of Chloroneb also proceeds via
2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenolI.  Unidentified conjugates of
the phenol have been found in urine and in milk of cows fed
high dose of Chloroneb.

The gas chromatographic method of Pease is capable of
determining Chloroneb, free 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol,
and acid labile conjugates of the phenol.  The method is
suitable for obtaining data on residues in raw agricultural
commodities and for tolerance enforcement. The method has
been validated for use on snap beans, snap bean foliage,
dried beans, peas, soybeans, cottonseed, sugarbeet roots  ,
sugarbeet tops, meat, meat by-products, and milk.  Ti:e
sensitivity of the method for most commodities is 0.02
ppm.

Data on crops  indicate that at present directed rates of
applications, residues are generally higher in plants grown
from seed treated in-furrow than in plants grown from seed
directly treated with the fungicide.  Residues in seeds of
plants grown from Chloroneb treated seed are ordinarily
below detectable  levels, however, residues in foliage
of plants grown from treated seed are quite high soon
after emergence, decreasing to low but detectable levels
six weeks after emergence.  Residues in mature plants
consist principally of free conjugated 2,5-dichloro-
4-methoxyphenol .
                             94

-------
 Residues  were  found  in  the  kidney  of  a  cow  maintained  on 2 ppm
 chl oroneb and  in  milk of  a  cow  maintained  on  50  ppm chloroneb.
 The  residue  consisted of  2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol
 probably  as  a  conjugate.

 Data Gaps

 The  following  data are  required  to  support  the tolerances
 for  chloroneb.

     1) Data on the  metabolism  of  chloroneb  in food animals.
 Available  data are qualitative,  whereas  quantitative as  well
 as  qualitative data  on  the  disposition  of  chloroneb in  food
 animals are  required.

     2)  Data  on residues in  beans and  bean  vines  (forage),
 soybeans  and soybean vines  (forage),  cottonseed  and cotton
 forage, and  sugarbeets  (roots and  tops). Available  data  were
 not  submitted  in  raw* form  and,  with  the exception  of the
 data on beans, were  obtained on  an  inadequate number of
 samples.

     3)  Information on the storage  of  agricultural commodities
 between sampling  and residue analysis.  Data on  storage
 conditions and on the stability  of  residues during  sample
 storage are  required.   No data are  available.

    4)  Data  on residues in  fractions  of processed cottonseed,
 soybeans, and sugarbeets.    No data  are available.   The data
 would not be required if residue data requested  in  raw
 agricultural commodities are low enough that residues in
 processed commodities would not  likely exceed 0.1 ppm, the
 tolerance on the  raw commodities.   The Agency assumes a
 maximum concentration factor of  5  in  processing  cottonseed
 and soybeans to oil,  and a  factor of  20 in processing
 sugarbeets to dried pulp.    Therefore,  fractionation studies
would not be required if residues on  cottonseed  and soybeans
 were less than .02 ppm  (.lppm/5), and residues on sugarbeets
were less than .005 ppm (.lppm/20).

    5)  Data on whether  residues  are transferred  from items
of animal  feed to meat and  milk.  Available data  were
 obtained  on too few animals, and were  not submitted in
 raw* form.
*
  Raw data are data which are uncorrected for reagant
blanks, untreated crop blanks, and recovery fortified
samples.
                             95

-------
Topical Discussions
Use Patterns and Restrictions

Chloroneb is a fungicide used alone or in combination
with other fungicides to protect cotton, bean, soybean,
and sugarbeet seedlings against damping off, blights,
and other seedling diseases, especially those caused by
species of Pythi urn, Rhi zoctpni a. and Scleroti urn.  The
fungicide is applied directly to seed or applied to soil
as an in-furrow treatment at planting.  Chloroneb is also
broadcast or sprayed on ornamental turfgrass, including
golf greens and fairways, to control blights caused by
Pythiurn and Typhula species.

Chloroneb is available as an wettable-use product in wettable
powder, dust, and granular formulations containing 1.015% to
65% chloroneb.

Dust and granular formulations of chloroneb intended for
use on seeds of agricultural crops contain a label recommendation
that the products supplement standard fungicide seed treatments.
The label on a wettable powder formulation intended for the
same use indicates that the product may be used alone or
in combination with standard seed treatments.
For use directly
are applied once
on seeds, dust and wettable powder formulations
at the rates indicated below:
LBS. CHLORONEB PER 100 IBS. OF SEED
DUST
072~
0.2
0.5
WETTABLE POWDER
0.16
0.16a
0.24a,
0.24
0.41b
          SEED
          BEM
          SOYBEAN
          COTTON
          SUGARBEET
            a  East of the Rocky Mountains.

            b  West of the Rocky Mountains.
For use as an in-furrow treatment, formulations are applied once
at the following rates:
SEED
BEAN"
SOYBEAN
COTTON
                            LBS. CHLORONEB PER ACRE
  DUST
  TTO~
  1.0
1.0-2.0
GRANULES
  1.0
  1.0
1.0-2.0
WETTABLE POWDER
     0.98
     0.98
   1.3-1.95
                              96

-------
 For  use on turfgrass, granular  formulations  are  broadcast
 0.17  - 0.37  Ibs. of chloroneb per thousand square  feet
 (7.4-16.1  Ibs.  per acre).  Products are  applied  one to
 three times  a year for control  of gray snow  mold (Typhula
 blight), or  every five to ten days for control of  Pythium
 blight.  The only wettable powder formulation registered
 for  use on turfgrass is sprayed at 0.16  Ibs. per three
 to five gallons per thousand square feet every five to
 seven days to control Pythium blight.  For the control
 of Typhul a blight, it should be sprayed  once at 0.24 to
 0.37  Ibs.  per three to five gallons per  thousand square
 feet.

 Chloroneb  formulations contain  a number  of label restrictions.
 Formulations intended for direct application to seeds
 have  a label warning against use of treated  seed for food,
 feed, or oil purposes.  Labels  on formulations intended for
 use  on bean  and soybean seed prohibit grazing of plants
 grown from treated seeds within 45 days  of planting.  Labels
 on formulations intended for use on ornamental turfgrass
 contain a  restriction on grazing or feeding  of clippings
 from treated areas to livestock.

 With the exception of the use of turfgrass, the above
 uses of chloroneb are food uses and are expected to result
 in residues in human food and animal  feed.   The use on
 ornamental  turfgrass does not constitute a food use,
 provided the label restriction  stated above  is followed.

Uptake, Distribution,  and Metabolism in PI ants

Whenever a pesticide is proposed for use on agricultural
crops, the Agency requires data on the fate of the  pesticide
 in plants.  It has been demonstrated by a variety of methods
that chloroneb is systemic in plants.   Soybean seeds treated
with chloroneb and subsequently germinated  in vermiculite
contained a water extractable residue  toxic to Rhizoctonia
solani (Thapliyal  and Sinclair 1970,  05001302).   In a
similar study, soybean seedlings grown from seed dusted with
8 oz. chloroneb per 100 Ibs.  of seed  were divided into
roots, hypocotyls, cotyledons and  leaves, and water soluble
extracts of the plant  parts  prepared.   Extracts  of  cotyledons
were inhibitory to R.  solani  14 days  after  planting (Thapliyal
and Sinclair 1971, 05001304).   Extracts of  chickpea
seedlings  grown from chloroneb-treated seed,  grown  in
chloroneb-treated  soil,  or treated by  root  immersion in
chloroneb  solution,  were toxic to  Sclerotium rolfsii.
Fungitoxic  residues  persisted  for  nine days in  seedlings
started in  treated soil  following  transplantation to chloroneb-
free soil.   Root extracts  were more toxic than  extracts
prepared from shoots  (Verma  and  Vyas  1976,  05001172).
                             97

-------
             14
Ring-labeled   C-chloroneb has been shown by radioautography
to be taken up in cotton seedlings (Rhodes 19??b,  00002218;
Kirk, Sinclair, and lambremont 1969, 05001181), in soybean
seedlings (Kharbanda 1971, GS0007-013), in snap beans
(Rhodes 1968, 00001430), and in turfgrass (Vargas  and
Turgeon 1975, 05001134).  Heavy labeling of roots  and
lower stems was consistently seen in these studies.  Cotyledons
were heavily labeled in cotton (Rhodes 19??b, 00002218)  and
bean (Rhodes.1968, 00001430) seedlings grown from  seeds
planted in   C-chloroneb treated soil.  Cotyledons were
much less heavily labeled in a five-day old cotton seedling

             14
exposed to a   C-chloroneb solution by root immersion
(Kirk, Sinclair, and Lambremont 1969,  05001181).  There
was noticeable labeling of true leaves only in the bean
and cotton plants grown from seed planted in treated soil
(Rhodes 19??b,  00002218; Rhodes, 1968, 00001430).

Data obtained by analysis of   C-chloroneb treated plants
with liquid scintillation techniques support the radio-
autography data.  Five-day old bush bean.(Phaseolus  vulgaris
seedlings treated by root immersion in   C-chloroneb
solution for 48 hours were labeled throughout the  plants
with the highest concentration of label in the roots and
lower stem (Thorn 1973,.05001297).  Soybean seedlings grown
from seed dusted with   C-chloroneb were most heavily
labeled in the cotyledons with little  radioactivity  in
roots, hypocotyls and true leaves.  There was no difference
in radiolabel distribution between seedlings analyzed
nine and 14 days after planting (Thapliyal and Sinclair
1971, 05001304}.  Five to seven-day old soybean seedlings
immersed in a   C-chloroneb solution tended to accumulate
radioactivity in the lower stem, with  lesser amounts in
the cotyledons and very little radioactivity in the  upper
stems and true leaves.  Roots were not analyzed (Kharbanda
1971, 6S0007-013).  There was little redistribution  of
radioactivity to upper parts of maturing soybeans  exposed
for one week during the seedling stage to   C-chloroneb.
It was also demonstrated in the same study that   C-chloroneb
applied to true leaves of soybeans migrated to other parts
of the plant although the pattern of distribution  was
highly variable (Kharbanda, 1971, 6S0007-013).  In snap
bean (Rhodes, 1968, 00001430, Rhodes,  Pease, and Brantley,
1971, 05001158) and cotton (Rhodes. 19??b, 00002218; Rhodes,
  ase, and Brantley 1971, 05001158) seedlings grown  from
  C-chloroneb treated seed, radioactive residues predominated
in roots, lower stems, and cotyledons, with little radioactivity
being found in upper stems (above the  cotyledons)  and true
leaves.  There was no redistribution of radioactivity to
upper portions of either cotton or bean plants during
maturation.  The level of radioactivity in roots resulting
                             98

-------
from in-furrow seed treatment was considerably higher than
the level resulting from direct application of the labeled
fungicide to seeds in both cotton and beans (Rhodes  19??b,
00002218; Rhodes 1968, 00001430).

Some data on metabolism of chloroneb in plants are available.
Extracts of hypocotyls from soybean seedlings immersed
in   C-chloroneb solution contained a labeled compound
that was shown by thin-layer chromatography to be more polar
than chloroneb (Kharbanda 1971, GS0007-013).  Snap beans
grown in a greenhouse from seed treated in-furrow with
ring-labeled   C-chloroneb at 1 Ib. per 12,000 row feet,
and harvested 12 days after planting, contained four degradation
products of chloroneb (Rhodes 1968b, 00001407; Rhodes,
Pease and Brantley 1971, 050011580.  These compounds,
comprising over 80% of the total   C-residue, were identified
as chloroneb (50.6% of the labeled material), 2,5-dichloro-4-
methoxyphenol (45.8%), 2,5-dichlorohydroquinone (0.6%),  and
2,5-dichloroquinone (0.9%).  An additional compound comprising
2.1% of the extractable residue was not identified.  Identifica-
tion of compounds was based on comparison of chromatographic
mobility, infrared spectra, and mass spectra with reference
standards (Rhodes 1968b, 00001407; Rhodes, Pease, and
Brantley 1971, 05001158).

Cotton plants grown in a greenhouse from seeds treated with
0.92 Ibs. of ring-labeled   C-chloroneb per 12,000 row
feet, and extracted and analyzed in the same manner as
the snap beans described above contained the four degration
products of chloroneb in a pattern remarkably like that  seen
in beans (Rhodes, Pease, and Brantley 1971, 05001158).  Of
the total   C-residue, 84% could be extracted, of which
52.1% was chloroneb,  44.2% was 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol,
0.7% was 2,5-dichlorohydroquinone, 0.9% was 2,5-dichloro-
quinone, and 2.1% was unidentified (Rhodes, Pease, and
Brantley 1971, 05001158).

The above studies show that the predominant residues
from the use of chloroneb on plants are the parent compound
and free 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol.   A somewhat different
picture is seen in  bush beans  (P.  vulgaris) treated by
root immersion in ring-labeled   C-chloroneb solution,
Ethanol  extracts of roots, combined hypocotyl  and cotyledons,
and combined epicotyl  and leaves were analyzed by thin-layer
chromatography and  found to contain 35% - 76% chloroneb,
4% - 8% of the free phenol, and 21% - 57% of the  glucoside
conjugate of the phenol  (Thorn 1973, 05001297).   Traces
of 2,5-dichlorohydroquinone were also reported.   The  identity
of the glucoside was  determined by comparison of  the  chromato-
graphic mobility of the labeled metabolite with  synthesized
                             99

-------
glucoside in three solvent systems, and by crystallization
to constant specific radioactivity of a mixture of the
labeled metabolite and unlabeled synthetic glucoside (Thorn
1973, 05001297).

The failure to observe the glucoside conjugate in significant
amounts in the snap bean and cotton studies (Rhodes 1968b,
00001407; Rhodes, Pease, and Brantley 1971, 05001158)
may be due to the extraction procedure in which the first
step is a digestion of plant material in 5N phosphoric acid.
The glucoside conjugate, if initially present, would be
expected to hydrolyze during the digestion.  In the bush
bean study (Thorn 1973, 05001297), the plant tissues were
extracted with 80% ethanol.

The metabolism of chloroneb in plants is adequately defined
for the currently registered uses of chloroneb.  Chloroneb
is taken up by plants through roots and distributed throughout
the plant concentrating primarily in roots, lower stem,
and cotyledons.  Chloroneb is extensively metabolized to
2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol which is in turn metabolized to
a small extent to 2,5-dichlorohydroquinone, and 2,5-dichloro-
quinone.  Evidence from one study indicates that, in bush
beans, the phenol is readily conjugated with glucose and
that the free phenol is present at very low concentration
in beans.

Metabolism of Chloroneb in Food Animals

When use of a pesticide on agricultural crops results
in residues in items of animal feed, the Agency requires
data on the fate of the pesticide in food animals.   Data on
metabolism of chloroneb in food animals are sparse.  A
cow maintained for 30 days on a diet containing 2 ppm
chloroneb was found to have 0.05 ppm of 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxy-
phenol in its kidneys (du Pont 1967a, 00001431; Rhodes
and Pease 1971, 05001159).  Another cow maintained  on a diet
containing 50 ppm of chloroneb had measurable milk  levels of
the phenol throughout the feeding period, and levels of 14
ppm in urine seven days after chloroneb feeding began
(du Pont 1967a, 00001431; Rhodes and Pease 1971,  05001159).
The samples in these studies were analyzed* by the method of
Pease (see Analytical Method below) which involves  digesting
samples in 5N phosphoric acid.  Conjugates of 2,5-dichloro-4-
methoxyphenol would likely be hydrolyzed to the free phenol
during the digestion.  However, the milk samples  from the
cow maintained on 50 ppm chloroneb were also analyzed by an
alternative method in which samples were extracted  with an
organic solvent at neutral pH (Rhodes 19  a, 00002214).
It was found that the phenol could be detected in milk
                             100

-------
only after refluxing of the sample with hydrochloric  acid,
indicating that the phenol was originally present  in  the
samples as an acid labile conjugate.

A cow maintained for four days on a diet containing 5
ppm chloroneb had detectable amounts of 2,5-dichl oro-4-
methoxyphenol in acid hydrolyzed urine but not in  unhydrolyzed
urine, indicating the presence of conjugated phenol.
The amount of phenol in the urine accounted for 44% of the
ingested dose, however, the remaining dose was unaccounted for.
The formation of the .ihenol from chloroneb was demonstrated
by use of an in vitro metabolizing system using a  crude
microsomal preparation from beef liver (Gutenmann  and
Lisk 1969, 05001156).

The data on metabolism of chloroneb in food animals are
inadequate.  The available data show only that chloroneb
is metabolized to 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol and that
the phenol may be conjugated in milk and in urine.  There
have been no studies to determine the quantitative disposition
of administered chloroneb in food animals.  (For metabolism
in laboratory animals see the "Toxicology" chapter.)

Analytical Methods

The Agency requires the submission of, or reference to,
validated analytical methods suitable for obtaining data
on the nature and amount of pesticide residues resulting
from proposed use.  One method must be suitable for tolerance
enforcement.  The regulatory method for determination of
a pesticide in raw agricultural  commodities must be capable
of measuring the total  toxic residue derived from the
pesticide.  Metabolism data indicate that chloroneb, 2,5-dichl oro-
4-methoxyphenol , and conjugates of the latter compound
comprise the bulk of the residue found in plants and animals
as a result of chloroneb use.

The regulatory method for chloroneb in Vol. II of the
Pesticide Analytical Manual  is the method of Pease (Pease
1967,  00001429). In this method a sample of plant or animal
tissue is mixed with 5N phosphoric acid and subjected to 12
hours  of simultaneous steam distillation and hexane extraction
by means of a Bleidner apparatus.   The hexane extract is
carefully concentrated  to a small  volume and aliquots are
analyzed by microcoullometric gas chromatography (MCGC) with
temperature programming. Concentrated hexane extracts of
samples with high oil  content  are cleaned-up prior to
analyses by partition into acetonitrile or by Florisil
columm chromatography with ethyl  acetate as column elutant.
Acetonitrile and ethyl  acetate extracts are carefully
concentrated to a small  volume before analysis by MCGC.
                             101

-------
The method determines chloroneb and the phenolic metabolite
separately.  The compounds are steam distilled during the
phosphoric acid .digestion procedure, and are determined
during a single MCGC run. Chloroneb and the phenol are well
separated on the gas chromatographic column.  Conjugates
of the phenol would be expected to hydrolyze during the 12
hour distillation-extraction step and would be determined as
free phenol.

Recovery studies utilizing the Pease method have been
carried out on snap beans, snap bean foliage, dry green
beans, peas, soybeans, cottonseed, sugarbeet roots, and
sugarbeet tops (Pease 1967, 00001429).  The average recovery
of chloroneb from 40 samples fortified at 0.02 to 1.0 ppm
was 95% and individual values varied from 77% to 114%.
Average recovery of the phenol from 40 samples fortified at
0.02 to 3.1 ppm was 88% and values ranged from 71% to 110%
(Pease 1967, 00001429).

Recovery studies have also been carried out in bovine
tissues including muscle, subcutaneous fat, liver, kidney,
whole milk, milk fractions (fat and aqueous), and urine
(du Pont 1967a, 00001431).  The overall average recovery of
chloroneb from 19 samples fortified at 0.02 to 0.55 ppm was
89% and values varied between 69% to 109%.  Average recovery
of 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol from 21 samples fortified
with 0.02 to 1.03 ppm was 80% and values ranged from 54% to
110%.  Recovery of both compounds from urine tended to be
1 ow.

The sensitivity of the method is 0.02 ppm each for both
chloroneb and the phenol  metabolite (1 ppm in urine).
The Pease method is adequate for enforcement provided that
no new toxic metabolites  of chloroneb are identified.

Residues j_n_ Plants

Whenever a pesticide is proposed for use on an agricultural
crop, the Agency requires data on the nature and amount
of residue on the crop resulting from the proposed use.
Limited residue data have been obtained with.a variety
of chloroneb formulations and ring-labeled   C-chloroneb
formulated as a 75% wettable powder.  With one exception
(discussed below) crops treated with unlabeled chloroneb
formulations were analyzed for residues of chloroneb and
2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol  by,the method of Pease (Pease
1967, 00001429).  Samples with   C-residues were analyzed
by combustion techniques  and subsequent scintillation
counting.
                               102

-------
      Cotton

 Cotton  plants grown  in a greenhouse from seeds treated
 with  the   C-chloroneb formulation at 6.75 oz. chloroneb
 per 100 Ibs. of  seeds contained 150 ppm of chloroneb
 equivalents one  week after planting, 0.7 ppm  after eight
 weeks,  and 0.2 ppm at 16 weeks.  Seeds from plants sampled
 at 16-20 weeks contained no detectable (<0.01) residues
 (Rhodes, 19??b,  00002218; Rhodes, Pease and Brantley,
 1971, 05001158).

 Cotton  plants, greenhouse-grown from seeds planted in
 soil  treated with the   C-chloroneb formulation to simulate
 a field application  rate of 2 Ibs. active per 12,000 row
 ft.,  contained 397 ppm of chlorpneb equivalents one week
 after planting and 7 ppm after eight weeks.  Seeds contained
 0.04  ppm after 22 weeks (Rhodes 19??b, 00002218; Rhodes,
 Pease, and Brantley  1971, 05001158).

                                               1 4
 Cotton plants from seed field-treated with the   C-
 chloroneb formulation by in-furrow application of 2 Ibs.
 per 12,000 row feet  contained 0.23 ppm chloroneb equivalents
 in whole plants  at maturity and 0.03 ppm in seeds (Rhodes,
 19??b, 00002218; Rhodes,  Pease, and Brantley, 1971, 05001158).

 Residues were not detected  (<0.01  ppm)  in 11  cottonseed
 samples from plants  grown from seeds treated  by direct
 application of a 5% dust  containing 0.5 to 1.0 Ibs.
 of chloroneb per 100 Ibs. of seeds (du Pont 1967c, 00001412;
 du Pont 1965, 00001434.).  No residues were detected
 in two samples of cottonseed from plants grown from seeds
 treated by in-furrow application of a wettable powder
 containing 75% chloroneb  at 1.5 or 2.25 Ibs.  of chloroneb
 per acre-row (du Pont 1967c, 0001412;  du Pont 1965,
00001434).  The  13 seed samples were from nine locations in
four  southern states and  were obtained 123 to 169 days after
treatment.  Samples were  analyzed by an earlier version of
the Pease method in which the samples  are digested in a
 strongly alkaline medium  instead of in  acid.   Consequently,
the earlier method does not determine  the phenolic metabolite
of chloroneb (du Pont 1965  00001434).

Additional cottonseed samples were analyzed by the Pease
method.  Three samples,  two from Mississippi  and one from
California, were from plants grown from seeds receiving
0.5 Ibs. of chloroneb (unspecified formulation)  per 100 Ibs.
of seed.  One sample from Texas was from a plant grown
from seed treated in-furrow at 1.2 Ibs.  chloroneb (unspecified
formulation)  per acre.   Plants were harvested 135 to 157
days after treatment.  Residues  of chloroneb  and its
                              103

-------
metabolite could not be detected (<0.02 ppm),  except for
a sample from a plant grown from directly treated seeds
that contained 0.03 ppm chloroneb (du Pont 1967c, 00001412).

There are no  ata on residues in cotton foliage from use
of non-radiolabeled chloroneb formulations. There are
no data on cottonseed fractions from processed cottonseed.

     Snap beans and dried beans

Residues in snap bean plants grown in a greenhouse from seed
treated with 3 oz.   C-chloroneb per 100 Ibs.  of seed were
127 ppm one week after planting and 2.6 ppm after five weeks.
Residues in edible pods were 0.04 ppm five weeks after planting
(Rhodes 1968, 00001430; Rhodes, Pease, and Brantley 1971,
05001158).

Snap bean plants grown in a greenhouse from.seeds treated
by simulated in-furrow application of the   C-chloroneb
application at 2 Ibs. chloroneb per 12,000 row feet contained
290 ppm of chloroneb equivalents one week after planting and
18 ppm after five weeks.  Residues in pods were 0.48 ppm at
four weeks and 1.5 ppm five weeks after planting (Rhodes
1968, 00001430; Rhodes, Pease, and Brantley 1971 05001158).

Bean plants grown in the field from seeds treated by
in-furrow application of the radiolabeled chloroneb formu-
lation at 2 Ibs. chloroneb per 12,000 row feet contained 2.1
ppm residues in whole plants at maturity. Pods contained
0.08 ppm.  Residues in whole plants fjfld grown from seeds
treated by direct application of the   C-chloroneb formu-
lation at 2.6 oz. per Ibs. of seeds were 0.32 ppm at maturity.
Residues in pods were 0.003 ppm (Rhodes 1968,  00001430,
Rhodes, Pease, and Brantley 1971, 05001158).  It should be
noted that edible pods from greenhouse grown bean plants
grown from in-furrow treated seeds contained much higher
residues (0.48, 1.5 ppm) than pods from field grown plants
treated in the same manner (0.08 ppm).  The greenhouse
plants were pot grown and their roots were, therefore,
confined to the chloroneb treated soil throughout maturation,
whereas the roots of field treated plants could grow
past the chloroneb treated zone.

In a field study carried out at 13 locations in nine geographi-
cally dispersed states, bean seed were treated with chloroneb
(unspecified formulation) in a planter box at 16-36 oz.
chloroneb per 100 Ibs. of seed; in a seed treater at 4-10
oz. chloroneb per 100 Ibs. of seed, or were sown in soil
treated in-furrow with wettable powder, granular, or dust
formulations of chloroneb at 0.5-6 Ibs. chloroneb per
acre-row.  Plants were harvested 48-85 days (snap beans) or
                               104

-------
 84-117  days  (dried  beans)  after  treatment,  and  edible  pods
 and  vines  were  analyzed  by the method  of  Pease  (Pease,  1967,
 00001429).   Seventeen  pod  samples were  analyzed,  14  of  which
 contain  no chloroneb above the method  sensitivity  (0.02
 ppm), and  the remaining  three samples  contained 0.02 to  0.04
 ppm  of  chloroneb.   Thirteen of the  17  pod  samples  contained
 no detectable metabolite (0.02 ppm) and the other  four
 samples  contained metabolite levels of  0.03, 0.04, 0.09.
 and  0.14 ppm.   Fifteen of  the 17 snap  bean  vine samples
 contained  chloroneb at 0.03 ppm  or  less.   The remaining  two
 samples  are  reported as  "<0.2 ppm".  Nine  of the  vine
 samples  contained metabolite levels of  0.03 ppm or less.
 The  remaining eight samples contained  levels of the  phenol
 from 0.11  to 2.0 ppm.  In  general these latter values were
 associated with in-furrow  application,  although within this
 group of eight  samples, there was little correlation between
 application  rate and residue level. Four samples of dried
 shelled  beans and their  vines were  analyzed by the Pease
 method,  the  beans containing no  detectable  chloroneb
 or metabolite,  the  vines containing no  detectable chloroneb,
 and  two  of the  four vine samples containing no detectable
 metabolite.  The other two  vine samples  contained 0.26 and
 0.31 ppm of  the metabolite  (du Pont 1967b, 00001412).

     Soybeans

 Soybean  seeds were treated with  chloroneb  in a seed treater
 at 4 oz. active per 100 Ibs., or were sown in soil treated
 with granular or wettable  powder formulations of chloroneb
 at 1 Ib. active per acre.  Plant samples from five locations
 in four  states were harvested 133 to 179 days after treatment
 and  beans  and vines separately analyzed for residues by
 the  Pease method.   Six samples of beans contained no detectable
 (<0.02 ppm)  level  of either chloroneb or its metabolite,
 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol.   A single vine sample contained
 no detectable (<0.04 ppm)  residue of either chloroneb or
 the metabolite  (du Pont 1967b, 00001412).

     Sugarbeets

 Seeds were treated with chloroneb (unspecified formulation)
 at 2 to  12 ounces  per 100  Ibs. of seed.  Six plant samples
 from three states  were harvested 131 to 309 days after
 treatment, and roots and tops  were analyzed separately
 for chloroneb and  its phenol metabolite by the Pease method
 (Pease 1967,  00001429).  No sample contained detectable
 (0.02 ppm)  levels  of either chloroneb or its metabolite.
There have been no data submitted on processed sugarbeet
 fractions.
                                105

-------
Adequacy of the data on residues in plants

The residue data are inadequate.  There were no raw data
submitted with any study.  Raw data are needed by Agency
scientists to evaluate data reliability.

No data on the handling of samples between harvest and
analysis were presented.  The only information on this
matter indicates that sugarbeets sampled between 10/13/65
and 10/20/66 (du Pont 1967b, 00001412) were analyzed
between 1/4/67 and 6/2/67 (du Pont 1968a, 00003269).  Data
on the storage stability of pesticide residues on crops is
particularly relevant to chloroneb because of its volatility
and the volatility of its phenol metabolite.

For most field grown crops, an insufficient number of
samples were analyzed.  Six soybean samples were analyzed
for residues, and only one soybean foliage sample.  Six
sugarbeet samples were analyzed for residues in roots and
tops.  There were 18 cotton seed samples analyzed; however,
only five of these samples were analyzed by methods capable
of detecting both chloroneb and 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxy-phenol
and only two of these five reflected in-furrow use, the
treatment method resulting in highest residues.  There was
one cotton foliage sample analyzed.

There were 23 bean plants analyzed, pods (or dried beans)
and foliage being analyzed separately.  Of the 23 bean
plant samples, 12 reflected direct seed treatment and 11
reflected in-furrow treatment.  The number of bean plant
samples is considered adequate.

There were no data on fractions of processed soybeans,
cottonseed, or sugarbeets.  These data are required whenever
the possibility exists that residues may concentrate in
a particular fraction of a processed commodity.

Residues j_n Animals

When use of a pesticide on agricultural crops results
in residues in items of animal feed, the Agency requires
data on whether residues are transferred to meat, milk,
poultry, and eggs.

     Residues in Meat and Milk

There are limited data available on residues in meat and
milk. In one feeding study, three cows were maintained on
diets containing 0, 2, and 50 ppm chloroneb administered in
a 65% wettable powder formulation.  The cow maintained on 2
ppm chloroneb was sacrificed after 30 days of feeding, and
                                106

-------
the cow fed 50 ppm chloroneb was  switched to  chloroneb-free
rations after 30 days  and  sacrificed  after  an  additional  seven
days, an  unacceptable  procedure  for a  feeding  study.   Milk
collected during the feeding study, and muscle,  fat,  liver,
and kidney obtained at  sacrifice  were  analyzed for chloroneb
and 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol  by the method of Pease
(Pease 1967, 00001429).  Chloroneb per se was  not detected
in any sample (<0.02 ppm).  The  phenol was  present at  0.05
ppm in kidney tissue of the cow  fed 2  ppm,  however, the
phenol was not detected in tissues of  the cow  fed 50  ppm
chloroneb and sacrificed after a  seven day  withdrawal
period.   The metabolite was not detected in milk of the
cow at 2  ppm chloroneb, but was  present at  0.3 to 0.4  ppm
in milk from the cow fed 50 ppm chloroneb.  The  metabolite
dropped to undetectable (<0.02 ppm) levels  in milk two days
after withdrawal of chloroneb treated  rations  (Rhodes  and
Pease 1971, 05001159; du Pont 1967a, 00001431).  Fraction-
ation of  the phenol-containing milk revealed  that the  bulk
of the  residue was in the aqueous phase (du Pont 1967a,
00001431).

In another study, a cow was maintained for  four  days on
a diet containing 5 ppm chloroneb administered as the
pure compound.   Milk collected during the study  was analyzed
by a gas  chromatographic method with e-lectron capture
detection. Neither of the compounds was detected (0.02
ppm)(Gutenmann  and Lisk 1969,  05001156).   No tissues were
analyzed  for residues in the study, and the method may not
have had  the capability of detecting conjugates  of the
phenol metabolite.

There are no data on residues of chloroneb  in poultry and
eggs.

Adequacy  of the Data

The data on residues of chloroneb in milk and meat are
not adequate.   Raw data were not included and thus cannot
be evaluated by Agency scientists.  In addition,  an insufficient
number of animals were studied.   One cow  fed 2 ppm chloroneb
was examined for tissue residues while chloroneb  feeding
was in progress (Rhodes and Pease 1971, 05001159; du Pont
1967a, 00001431). Another cow,  fed an  exaggerated level of
50 ppm chloroneb, was shown to  have no detectable  (<0.02
ppm)  tissue residues of either  chloroneb  or metabolite.
However, the animal  was not sacrificed until seven days after
chloroneb  treatment  had ceased  (Rhodes and Pease  1971,
05001159;  du  Pont 1967a, 00001431).   Thus data on the
two cows cannot be  compared.   Milk samples  from three
cows  fed 2,  5,  and  50 ppm were  analyzed,  but the  method used
                           107

-------
for analysis of milk from the cow fed 5 ppm chloroneb may
not have detected conjugates of the phenol (Gutenmann and
Lisk 1969, 05001156), whereas another study indicates that
a conjugate is the primary residue of chloroneb to be
found in milk (Rhodes 19??a, 00002214).

Unpublished Agency guidelines require that feeding studies
be conducted on a minimum of 4 groups of 3 animals per
group.  The groups are fed 0-, 1-, 3-, and 10- fold the
amount of pesticide expected in the diet, were the feed item
in question to contain the tolerance level of pesticide.
Normally the Agency requires that the pesticide fed correspond
to the "aged" residue, however, data show that chloroneb is
metabolized similarly in plants and animals and thus the
parent compound above may be fed.

Residue Chemistry - Formulated Chloroneb

Registration Requirements

There are no residue chemistry data required for the non-food
use of chloroneb.

For future registration of a pesticide product for use on a
food or feed crop not covered by this Standard, the Agency
must be provided with a full range of data including a
validated method for analysis of pesticide residues in or on
the raw agricultural commodity, data on metabolism of the
pesticide in plants and (when appropriate) in animals, and
residue data reflecting the proposed use of the pesticide on
the crop.  As discussed in this Standard an analytical
method suitable for obtaining chloroneb residue data and for
tolerance enforcement is available.  Registrants are therefore
not required to provide a method.

Required Labeling - Wettable Powder

Labels on wettable powder chloroneb used for direct application
to seed should contain a restriction against the use of
treated seed for food, feed, or oil purposes.  Wettable
powder chloroneb intended for use on beans or soybeans
should bear a label restriction against grazing of treated
plants within 45 days of planting.  Labels on wettable
powder chloroneb intended for use on ornamental turf grass
should contain a restriction against grazing or feeding of
clippings from treated areas to livestock.

Granular
^^^•MHHMMBBMBBM                         (

Granular chloroneb intended for use on beans or soybeans
should bear a label restriction against grazing of treated
plants within 45 days of planting.  Labels on granular
                            108

-------
chloroneb intended for use on ornamental turf grass should
contain a restriction against grazing or feeding of clippings
from treated areas to livestock.

As gaps in the residue chemistry data base are filled, other
label restrictions or warnings may become necessary.

Dust

Labels on dust chloroneb used for direct application
to seed should contain a restriction against the use of
treated seed for food, feed, or oil  purposes.  Dust chloroneb
intended for use on beans or soybeans should bear a label
restriction against grazing of treated plants within 45 days
of planting.

As gaps in the residue chemistry data base are filled, other
label restrictions or warnings may become necessary.
                            109

-------
Bib!iography

-MRID

00001434
00001431
00001412
00003269
05001156
05001181
GS0007-013
00001429
CITATION

E.I.  du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated
   (1965?) Method for Determining Residues of
   1,4-Dich1oro-2,5-Dimethoxybenzene.  (Unpublished
   study received Jul 7, 1965 under unknown
   admin, no-; CDL:120886-A)

E.I.  du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated
   (1967a) Chloroneb Livestock Feeding Studies:
   Milk and Meat. (Unpublished study received
   Jul  8, 1968 under 8F0657; CDL:091146-U)

E.I.  du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorported
   (1967b) Results of Tests on the Amount of
   Residue in Crops  Grown in Chloroneb Treated
   Soil.  (Unpublished study received Jul 8,
   1968 under 8F0657; COL :091146-1)

E.I.  du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated
   (1968) Chloroneb--Pesticide Petition No.
   8F0657:  Supplemental Information: Answer
   to FDA Letter of  June 4, 1968.  (Unpublished
   study received Jul 8, 1968 under 8F0657;
   CDL:091146-A)

Gutenmann, W.H., Lisk, D.J. (1969) Metabolic
   studies with Chloroneb fungicide in a
   lactating cow.  Journal  of Agricultural
   and Food Chemistry 17(5):1008-1010

Kirk, B.T., Sinclair, J.B., Lambremont, E.N.
   (1969) Trans!ocation of C14-labeled chloroneb
   and DMOC in cotton seedlings.   Phytopathology
   59(10): 1473-1476

Kharbanda, P.O. (1971) Systemicity of C14-labeled
   chloroneb in soybean tissues.   Unpublished
   Ph.D Dissertation, University  of Illinois,
   46 pp.

Pease, H.L.  (1967)   Determination of residues
   of Chloroneb and  a metabolite  by microcoulometric
   gas chromatography.  Journal  of Agricultural and
   Food Chemistry 15(5):917-919.   Undated
   method.  (Also In unpublished  submission
   received Oct 16,  1967 under 8F0657; submitted
   by E.I. du Pont de Nemours &  Co., Inc.,
   Wilmington, Del.; CDL:092951-G)
                              110

-------
-MRID         CITATION

00002214      Rhodes, R.C.  (19??a)  Determination of
                 2,5-Dichloro-hydroquinone and 2,5-Dichloroquinone
                 in Milk. Undated method.  (Unpublished
                 study received Jul 8, 1968 under 8F0657;
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
                 Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:091146-D )

00002218      Rhodes, R.C.  (19??b)  Greenhouse Studies with
                 C-14 Ring-Labeled Chloroneb in Cotton
                 Plants.  (Unpublished study received Jul 8,
                 1968 under 8F0657; submitted by E.I.
                 du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:091146-S)

00001430      Rhodes, R.C.  (1968a) Studies with C-14
                 Ring-Labeled Chloroneb in Bean Plants.
                 (Unpublished study received Jul  8, 1968
                 under 8F0657; submitted by E.I.  du Pont de
                 Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington Del.;
                 CDL:091146-T) (MRID 00001430)

00001407      Rhodes, R.C.  (1968b) Chemical  Identification
                 of Metabolites of Chloroneb in Bean  Plants.
                 (Unpublished study received Jul  8, 1968
                 under 8F0657; submitted by E.I.  du Pont
                 de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington,  Del.;
                 CDL:091146-B)

05001159      Rhodes, R.C., Pease, H.L.   (1971)  Fate of
                 chloroneb in animals.  Journal of Agricultural
                 and Food 19(4):  750-753

00001158      Rhodes, R.C., Pease, H.L., Brantley,  B.K.
                 (1971)   Fate of C14-labeled chloroneb  in
                 plants  and soils.  Journal of Agricultural
                 and Food Chemistry 19(4):745-749

05001302      Thapliyal, P.N., Sinclair, J.B.   (1970)
                 Uptake  of three systemic fungicides  by
                 germinating  soybean seed.  Phytopathology
                 60(9):1373-1375

05001304      Thapliyal, P.N., Sinclair, J.B.   (1971)
                 Translocation of benomyl,  carboxin,  and
                 chloroneb in  soybean seedlings.  Phytopathology
                 61(10:1301-1302
                              111

-------
-MR ID         CITATION

05001297      Thorn, G.D.  (1973)  Uptake and metabolism of
                 chloroneb by Phaseolus vulgaris.    Pesticide
                 Biochemistry and Physiology 3(2):137-140

05001134      Vargas, J.M., Turgeon, A.J.  (1975)   Translocation
                 of C14 labeled chloroneb in three turfgrass
                 species.  Canadian Journal  of Plant Science
                 55(l):85-88

05001172      Verma, R.K. , Vyas, S.C.  (1976)  Uptake,
                 translocation and persistence of  five
                 systemic fungicides in gram seedlings.
                 Pesticides 10(12):21-24
                                112

-------
               VII.   ECOLOGICAL  EFFECTS
 Ecological  Effects  -  Manufacturing-Use  Chloroneb

 Ecological  Effects  Profile

 Currently available data  indicate  that  manufacturing-use
 chloroneb is  practically  non-toxic  to most  terrestrial
 wildlife.   Manufacturing-use  chloroneb  is moderately  toxic
 to  aquatic  organisms.

 Manufacturing-use chloroneb appears to  be relatively  non-toxic
 to  birds.   Dietary  studies on both  the  bobwhite quail  and
 mallard duck yielded  LC50 values of greater than 5000  ppm.
 An  acute oral study for birds is not available.

 The available aquatic toxicity data suggest that manufacturing-
 use chloroneb is moderately toxic to fish and aquatic
 invertebrates.  The 48 hour LC5Q for an aquatic invertebrate
 (D a p h n i a) was approximately 6 ppm.  The 96 hour LC50  for a
 coldwater fish (rainbow trout) was 3.7  ppm.  The test  for a
 warmwater fish is not available.

 Data Gaps

 The following fish and wildlife studies testing the effects
 of technical chloroneb are required.
An avian single-dose oral  LD,
either the bobwhite quail  or'
mallard duck.
    b. A 96 hour acute LC5Q to a species
       of warmwater fish (preferably the
       bluegill sunfish).
                                           Guidelines Section
                                                 163.71-1
                                          163.72-1
Considering use patterns and environmental fate information,
a "second tier" study may be required.  Section 163.72-4 of
the June 10, 1978 proposed Guidelines lists the requirements
for an embryolarval  and/or an aquatic invertebrate life
cycle test.  The use information and available half-life
data suggest that chronic levels of the chemical  could be
available to the aquatic environment.  If the leaching data
indicate chemical movement,  one or both of these  tests will
be necessary.  Whether or not one or both of these tests
will be required will  depend on environmental fate and
toxicity data.   A determination will be made after the
Agency receives the  data.
                                113

-------
Topical  Discussions

Corresponding to each of the Topical Discussions listed
below is the number of the section(s) in the 'Proposed
Guidelines'  of July 10, 1978.  (43 FR No. 132,29696) which
explain(s) the minimum data that the Agency require to
adequately assess chloroneb's Ecological Effects.  Where no
section number is listed, a minimum requirement has not been
set for such information.

                                     Guidelines Section

Birds                                163.71-1, 163.71-2
Fish                                 163.72-1
Aquatic Invertebrates                163.72-2

Freshwater Fish

The minimum data required for establishing the acute toxicity
of manufacturing-use chloroneb for fish is a determination
of the 96-hour LCgQ for a coldwater species (preferably
rainbow trout) ana a warmwater species (preferably bluegill
sunfi sh).

Acceptable data are available on the acute toxicity of
technical chloroneb to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri).
Zihal (1979) determined the 96-hour LC5Q of 90% technical
chloroneb at 3.7 ppm.  This study characterizes chloroneb
as moderately toxic to coldwater fish, and satisfies
the requirement for a coldwater fish study.

Trivits (1979) provides supplemental information for
warmwater fish (bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus).
This study does not fulfill the guideline requirements
for toxicity studies for warmwater fish. It does, however,
provide sufficient information to characterize chloroneb as
at least moderately toxic to warmwater fish.  Because no
studies were available that satisfy the guideline requirements,
a data gap exists for warmwater fish.

Birds

Birds may be exposed to pesticides by feeding on contaminated
plants or insects, by dermal contact and/or inhalation
when close to outdoor sprays and dust.  To assess the impact
of a pesticide on birds, the Agency requires certain avian
toxicity tests to support the registration of pesticides.
                               114

-------
A determination of the avian acute  single-dose oral  LD
is required to support the registration of every manufacturing
use product and formulated product  for outdoor application.
Acute testing must be performed on  one avian species, either
a wild waterfowl or an upland gamebird.   (The species tested
shall be the same as one of the two species used for the
avian dietary tests.)  Information  regarding the acute
toxicity of chloroneb to birds is not available; as  such a
data gap exists.

A determination of the subacute dietary LCcg (5-day
dietary exposure) is also required  to support the registration
of all manufacturing-use products and all formulated products
intended for outdoor application.   These  studies should
be conducted using the technical  material in the diet of
an upland gamebird and a wild waterfowl.

Acceptable data are available on the effects of chloroneb
in the diet of mallard ducks (Anas  piatyrhynchps) and bobwhite
quail (Colinis virginianus).  The information f? summarized
in the following table:

TABLE:  DIETARY TOXICITY OF CHLORONEB  TO BIRDS

                                8-DAY
SPECIES         FORMULATION    DIETARY    REFERENCE

Mallard duck    90% Technical   >5000 ppm  Hinkle 1979 (GS00007-001)
Bobwhite quail   90% Technical   >5000 ppm  Hinkle 1979 (GS00007-002)


These studies characterize chloroneb's dietary toxicity
as practically non-toxic to upland  game birds and wild
waterfowl.  The dietary study requirements for birds have
been satisfied.

A decision  to require chronic toxicity data (reproductive
or simulated and actual  field tests),  must await  further
information.

Aquatic Invertebrates

A determination of the 48-hour EC50 or LC5Q for an
aquatic invertebrate species is  required to support the
registration of all  manufacturing-use  products and  for all
formulated  products  intended for  outdoor application.

A 48-hour toxicity test  (Goodman  1979) was performed using
90% technical  chloroneb  on the water flea, Daphnia  magna.
The reported 48-hour LCcg was  6.19 ppm.   This study
characterizes  chloroneb  as moderately  toxic to freshwater
                              115

-------
aquatic invertebrates.  The guidelines requirement for
the'acute toxicity to freshwater aquatic invertebrates has
been  satisfied.

The decision to require life-cycle or other tests on aquatic
invertebrates will depend on, but not be limited to, a
consideration of chloroneb's use patterns,  persistence,
bioaccumulation, mobility and degradation rates.  Sufficient
information on the environmental fate of chloroneb is
not available at this time.

Wettable Powder - Ecological Effects Profile

The toxicity of wettable powder chloroneb to wildlife may be
estimated from tests on the manufacturing-use chemical.

Topical Discussions

See the Manufacturing-Use Chloroneb section of this chapter
for the ecological effects requirements to  support the
registration of chloroneb formulated products.

The use patterns and formulations currently under consideration
do not indicate the need for acute fish and wildlife tests
using the formulated products.  The toxicity of the various
formulations and the subsequent hazard to wildlife can be
estimated by using the toxicity data provided by tests of
the technical chemical.

Ecological Effects Profile - Granular Chloroneb

The toxicity of granular chloroneb to wildlife may be
estimated from tests on the technical chemical.

Topical Discussions

See the Manufacturing-Use Chloroneb section of this chapter
for the ecological effects requirements to  support the
registration of chloroneb formulated products.

Fish and Wildlife

The use patterns and formulations currently under considera-
tion do not indicate the need for acute fish and wildlife
tests using the formulated products.  The toxicity of the
various formulations and the subsequent hazard to wildlife
can be estimated by using the toxicity data provided by
tests of the technical chemical.
                             116

-------
Terrestrial PI ants

The only available study (Scott 1971; 00001496) indicates
that granular chloroneb has no phytotoxic effects on host
grasses at the highest level tested.  The no effect level
for bentgrass (4.6, 9, or 12% granular formulation) was
58.5 pounds a.i. per acre.  For Kentucky blue grass and
perrenial  ryegrass, the no effect level was 9.8 pounds
a.i. per acre for 4.6, 9, or 12% granular formulations.
This type of data is not, at present, required for regis-
trati on.

Ecological  Effects -.Dust Chloroneb

The toxicity of dust chl oroneb to wildlife may be
estimated from tests on the technical chemical.

Topical Discussions

See the Manufacturing-Use Chloroneb section of this chapter
for the ecological  effects requirements to support the
registration of Chloroneb formulated products.

The use patterns and formulations currently under consideration
do not  indicate the need  for acute fish and wildlife tests
using  the formulated products.   The toxicity of the various
formulations and the subsequent hazard to wildlife can be
estimated by using the toxicity data provided by tests of
the technical  chemical.
                              117

-------
Bibliography

-MRID         CITATION

GS0007-005    Goodman, N.C.  (1979) 48-Hour LC5Q to
                 Daphnia magna. (Unpublished study received
                 Dec. 13, 1979 under 352-386 submitted by
                 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
                 Wilmington, Del.; CDL:241500)

GS0007-002    Hinkle, S.  (1979a)  Avian Dietary Toxicity
                 (LCcn) Study in Bobwhite Quail  Project
                 No. T 201-528.  (Unpublished study received
                 Dec. 13, 1979 'under 352-386; prepared by
                 Hazleton Laboratories, Inc., submitted by
                 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
                 Wilmington, Del.; CDL:241500)

GS0007-001    Hinkle, S.  (1979b)  Avian Dietary Toxicity
                 (LCcQ) i" Mallard Ducks  Project  No.
                 2012527.  (Unpublished study received Dec.  13,
                 1979 under 352-386;  prepared by Hazleton
                 Laboratories, Inc.,  submitted by  E.I.  du
                 Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:241500)

00001496      O.M.  Scott & Sons Company (1971)  Summary of
                 Results for: Granular Vermiculite Chloroneb
                 Formulations for  Turfgrass Disease Control:
                 Environmental  Protection Agency Report.
                 (Unpublished study received Oct.  18, 1971
                 under 538-79;  CDL:023122-A)

GS0007-004    Trivits, R.L.   (1979) 96-Hour LC5Q to
                 Bluegill Sunfish.  (Unpublished study
                 received Dec.  13, 1979 under 352-
                 386 submitted by  E.I.  du Pont de  Nemours &
                 Co., Inc.  Wilmington,  Del.; CDL:241500)

GS0007-003    Zihal, A.J.  (1979)  96-Hour LC5Q to  Rainbow
                 Trout. (Unpublished  study received Dec.  13,
                 1979 under  352-386;  submitted by  E.I.  du
                 Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,  Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:241500)
                             118

-------
    OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
PESTICIDE DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
          CASE BIBLIOGRAPHY

-------
          GUIDE TO USE OF THIS BIBLIOGRAPHY

Content of Bibliography.  This bibliography contains
citations of all the studies reviewed by EPA  in  arriving
at the positions and conclusions stated e1se\*here  in
this standard.  The bibliography is divCi'ded wttp 3
sections:  (1) citations that contributed  information
useful  to the review of the chemical and considered to
be part of the data base supporting registrations  under
the standard, (2) citations examined and judged to be
inappropriate for use in developing the standard,  and
(3) standard reference material.  Primary  sources  for
studies in this bibliography have been the body of data
submitted to EPA and its predecessor agencies in support
of past regulatory decisions, and the published technical
1iterature.

Units of Entry.  The unit of entry in this bibliography
is called a "study".  In the case of published materials,
this corresponds closely to an article.   In the case of
unpublished materials submitted to the Agency, the
Agency has sought to identify documents  at a level
parallel  to a published article from within the typically
larger volumes in which they were submitted.  The
resulting "studies" generally have a distinct title (or
at least a single subject), can stand alone for purposes
of review, and can be described with a conventional
bibliographic citation.  The Agency has  attempted also
to unite basic documents and commentaries upon them,
treating them as a single study.

Identification of Entries.   The entries  in this bibliography
are sorted by author, date  of the document, and title.
Each entry bears, to the left of the citation proper,  an
eight-digit numeric identifier.  This number is unique
to the citations, and should be called the "Master
Record Identifier", or "MRID".   It is not related to the
six-digit "Accession Number" which has been used to
identify volumes of submitted data; see  paragraph
4(d)(4) below for a further explanation.   In a few
cases,  entries added to the bibliography  late in the
review may be preceded by a nine-character temporary
identifier.  This is also to be used whenever a specific
reference is  needed.
                          119

-------
4.   Form of the Entry.  In addition to the Master Record
    Identi fier (MRID), each entry consists of a bibliographic
    citation containing standard elements followed, in the
    case of materials submitted to EPA, by a description of
    the earliest known submissin.  The bibliographic conventions
    used reflect the standards of the American National
    Standards Institute (ANSI), expanded to provide for
    certain special needs.  Some explanatory notes of
    specific elements follow:

       a.  Author.  Whenever the Agency could confidently
           identify one, we have chosen to show a personal
           author.  When no individual was identified, the
           Agency has shown an identifiable laboratory or
           testing facility as author.  As a last resort,
           the Agency has shown the first known submitter as
           author.

       b.  Document Date.  When the data appears as four
           digits with no question marks, the Agency took it
           directly from the document.  When a four-digit
           date is followed by a question mark, the bibliographer
           deduced the date from evidence in the document.
           When the date appears as (19??), the Agency was
           unable to determine or estimate the date of the
           document.

       c.  Title.  T-his is the third element in the citation.
           In some cases it has been necessary for out
           bibliographers to create or enhance a document
           title.  Any such editorial insertions are contained
           between square brackets.

       d.  Trailing Parentheses.  For studies submitted to
           the Agency in the past, the trailing parentheses
           include (in addition to any self-explanatory
           text) the following elements describing the
           earliest known submission:

                (1) Submission Date.  Immediately following
                    the word 'received* appears the date of
                    the earliest known submission.

                (2) Administrative Number.  The next element,
                    immediately following the word 'under1,
                    is the registration number, experimental
                    perimt number, petition number, or other
                    administrative number associated with
                    the earliest known submission.
                              120

-------
(3)  Submitter.   The third element is the
    submitter,  following  the phrase 'submitted by1
    When authorship is defaulted to the
    submitter,  this element is  omitted.

(4)  Volume Identification.   The final
    element in  the trailing parentheseis
    identifies  the EPA accession number of
    the  volume  in  which the original  submission
    of the study appears.   The  six-digit
    accession  number follows the symbol
    'CDL1, standing for "Company Data
    Library".   This accession number is in
    turn followed  by an alphabetic  suffix
    which shows  the relative position  of the
    study within the volume.   For example,
    within acessin number 123456. the  first
    study would  be 123456-A;  the second,
    123456-B; the  26,  123456-Z;  and  the
    27th, 123456-AA.
             121

-------
Section 1:  Citations Considered to be Part of the Data Base
Supporting Registrations Under the Standard.


Product Chemistry Bibliography

-MRID         CITATION

GS0007-015    Alvarez, J.R., inventor; E.I. du Pont de
                 Nemours and Co., assignee (1968) Process for
                 Preparing 1,4 dichloro-2,5-dimethosybenzene
                 US. patent 3,363,005, Jan. 9

00001428      E.I.  duPont de Nemours  & Company, Incorporated
                 (1967) Name, Chemical Identity, and Composition:
                 Chloroneb.  (Unpublished study received
                 Oct. >16, 1967 under  8F0657; CDL:092951-F)

00001444      E.I.  duPont de Nemours  & Company, Incorporated
                 (1977) "Demosan" 65W Fungicide:  Product
                 Chemistry.  Includes method dated October
                 15, 1976 and undated method.  (Unpublished
                 study received May 27, 1977 under 352-312;
                 CDL.-232274-A)

05013181      Haglid, F.R., inventor; E.I. duPont de Nemours
                 and Co., assignee (1979) Process for
                 preparing 1,4-dichloro-2,5-dimethoxybenzene,
                 U.S. patent 4,159,391.  Jun 26.  3 p.
                 Int. CL 2  C 07C 41/001   U.S. C1. 568/649

GS007-009     Scribner, R.M.; Soboczenski, E.J.; inventor;
                 (1966) Methods for Protecting Plants and
                 Seeds from Fungi.  United States plant
                 patent 3,265,564.  Aug 9

Environmental  Fate  Bibliography

-MRID         CITATION

05001292      Azevedo, J.L., E.P. Santana, and R. Bonatelli, Jr.
                 1977.  Resistance and mitotic instability
                 to chloroneb and 1,4-oxathiin in Aspergillus
                 nidulans.  Mutation  Res. 48(2):163-172

05001308      Georgopoulos, S.G., A.  Kappas, and A.C. Hastie.
                 1976. Induced sectoring  in diploid Aspergillus
                 nidulans as a criterion  of fungitoxicity by
                 interference with hereditary processes.
                 Phytopath.  66(2):217-220
                              122

-------
-MRID         CITATION

GS0007-006    Harvey, J.  1979.  Stability of [14C]chloroneb
                 in water at various pH values.  (Unpublished
                 study received Dec. 13, 1979, under 352-GIA;
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours 4 Co., Inc.,
                 Wilmington, Del. CDL:241500.)

GS0007-007    Harvey, J.  1979. ..Activated sewage sludge
                 metabolism of [  C]chloroneb.  (Unpublished
                 study received Dec. 13, 1979, under 352-GIA;
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours 4 Co., Inc.,
                 Wilmington, Del. CDL:241500.)

05001155      Hock, W.K., and H.D. Sisler.  1969.  Metabolism
                 of chloroneb by Rhizoctonia solani  and
                 other fungi.  J. Agri. Food Chem.  17(1): 123-128

05001167      Kappas, A.  1978.  On the mechanisms  of
                 induced somatic recombination by certain
                 fungicides in Aspergillus hidulans.
                 Mutation Res. 51(Z):189-197

00001426      Rhodes, R.C.  1968.  Disappearance  of   C-ring-
                 labeled chloroneb from soil.  (Unpublished
                 study received July 8, 1968, under 8F0657;
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours 4
                 Co.^, Inc., Wilmington, Del. CDL:091147-J.)

05001170      Wiese, M.V., and J.M. Vargas, Jr.  1973.
                 Interconversion of chloroneb and 2,5-dichloro-
                 4-methoxyphenol  by soil microorganisms.
                 Pesticide Biochem. Physiol.  3(2):214-222.

Toxicology Bibliography

-MRID         CITATION

00001422      Busey, W.M., Crews, L.M., and Kundzins, W.
                 1967.  24-Month Dietary Feeding—Rats:
                 Fungicide 1823:   Final Report: Project No.
                 201-124.  (Unpublished study received  July 8,
                 1968, under 8F0657; prepared by  Hazleton
                 Laboratories, Inc., submitted by E.I.  du
                 Pont de Nemours and Co.,  Inc., Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:091147-B)

00001421      Busey, W.M., and Kundzins, W.  1967.   Two-Year
                 Dietary Feeding—Dogs:  Fungicide  1823:
                 Final Report: Project  No. 201-125.   (Unpublished
                 study received July 8, 1968, under  8F0657;
                 prepared by Hazleton Laboratories,  Inc.,
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
                 Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:091147-A)
                              123

-------
-MRID         CITATION

00001424      E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc.
                 1967.  Chloroneb—Chronic Feeding Studies:
                 Tissue Analysis--Dogs, Rats. (Unpublished
                 study received July 8, 1968, under 8F0657;
                 CDL:091147-D)

GS0007-011    Ferenz, R.L.  1979a.  Eye Irritation in
                 Rabbits.  (Unpublished study received
                 December 13, 1979, under 352-385; prepared
                 by Haskell Laboratory, submitted by E.I.  du
                 Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.,  Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:241500)

GS0007-012    Ferenz, R.L.  1979b.  Skin Irritation in
                 Rabbits. (Unpublished study received
                 December 13, 1979, under 352-386; prepared
                 by Haskell Laboratory, submitted by E.I.  du
                 Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.,  Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:241500)

05001156      Gutenmann, W.H., and Lisk, D.J.  1969.
                 Metabolic Studies with Chloroneb Fungicide
                 in a Lactating Cow.  J. Agric.  Food Chem.
                 17:1008-1010

GS0007-010    Hinckle, L.  1979.  Oral LD50 Test.  (Unpublished
                 study received December 13, 1979, under
                 352-G1A; prepared by Haskell Laboratory,
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
                 Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:241500

00001445      Hood, D.B.  1965.  Fifteen-Exposure Dermal
                 Study with 1,4-Dichloro-2,5-Dimethoxybenzene:
                 Report No. 106-65. (Unpublished study
                 received October 27, 1965, under 352-313;
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
                 Co., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:050831-B)

00001423      Kundzin, T.  (1967) Three-Generation Reproduction
                 Study of Fungicide 1823:   Final Report:
                 Project No.  201-126.   (Unpublished study
                 received jUl 8, 1968 under 8F0657; prepared
                 by Hazelton  Laboratories, Inc., submitted
                 by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
                 Wilmington,  Del.; CDL:091H7C)
                              124

-------
-MR ID

00004982
CITATION

Kwon, B.K.  1965.  Acute Inhalation Toxicity:
   Haskell Laboratory Report No. 31-65.
   (Unpublished study received October 27,
   1965, under 352-313; submitted by E.I. du
   Pont de Nemours and
   Del.; CDL:050831-F)
                                     Co., Inc., Wilmington,
05001159
00004980
Rhodes, R.C., and Pease,
   Chloroneb in Animals.
   19:750-753
H.L.   1971
 J.  Ag r i c.
  Fate of
Food Chem.
Sherman, H.  1964a.  Ninety-Day Feeding Study
   with 1 ,4-Dichloro-2,5-Dimethoxybenzene
   (INK-1823):  Report No. 81-64.  (Unpublished
   study received Octover 27, 1965, under
   352-313; submitted by E.I. du Pont de
   Nemours and Co., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:050831-C)
00004980
00001495
Sherman, H.  1964b.  Ten-dose subacute Oral
   Test:  Haskell Laboratory Report No. 23-64.
   (Unpublished study received Octoer 27,
   1965, under 352-313; submitted by E.I. du
   Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., Wilmington,
   Del.; CDL:050831-D)

WARF Institute, Inc.  1971.  Oral LD50 and
   Skin Irritation of 1,4-Dichloro-2,5-Dimethoxy-
   benzene:  WARF No. 1080676.  (Unpublished
   study received October 18, 1971, under
   538-79; submitted by O.M. Scott and Sons
   Co., Marysville, Ohio; CDL:050143-A)
Residue Chemistry Bibliography
-MRID

00001434
00001431
CITATION

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated
   (1965?) Method for Determining Residues of
   1,4-Dichloro-2,5-Dimethoxybenzene.   (Unpublished
   study received Jul 7,  1965 under unknown
   admin, no-;  CDL:120886-A)

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated
   (1967a) Chloroneb Livestock Feeding Studies:
   Milk and Meat. (Unpublished study received
   Jul  8, 1968  under 8F0657;  CDL:091146-U)
                              125

-------
-MRID         CITATION

00001412      E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorported
                 (1967b) Results of Tests on the Amount of
                 Residue in Crops Grown in Chloroneb Treated
                 Soil.  (Unpublished study received Jul 8,
                 1968 under 8F0657; CDL:091146-1)

00003269      E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated
                 (1968) Chioroneb--Pesticide Petition No.
                 8F0657:  Supplemental  Information: Answer
                 to FDA Letter of June  4, 1968.  (Unpublished
                 study received Jul 8,  1968 under 8F0657;
                 CDL.-091146-A)

05001156      Gutenmann, W.H., Lisk, D.J. (1969) Metabolic
                 studies with chloroneb fungicide in a
                 lactating cow.  Journal  of Agricultural
                 and Food Chemistry 17(5):1008-1010

05001181      Kirk, B.T., Sinclair, J.B., Lambremont, E.N.
                 (1969) Translocation of C14-labeled chloroneb
                 and DMOC in cotton seedlings.  Phytopathology
                 59(10): 1473-1476

GS0007-013    Kharbanda, P.O. (1971) Systemicity of C14-labeled
                 chloroneb in soybean tissues.  Unpublished
                 Ph.O Dissertation, University of Illinois,
                 46 pp.

00001429      Pease, H.L.  (1967)  Determination of residues
                 of Chloroneb and a metabolite by microcoulometric
                 gas chromatography.  Journal  of Agricultural and
                 Food Chemistry 15(5):917-919.  Undated
                 method.  (Also In unpublished submission
                 received Oct 16, 1967  under 8F0657; submitted
                 by E.I. du Pont de Nemours &  Co., Inc.,
                 Wilmington, Del.; CDL:092951-G)

00002214      Rhodes, R.C.  (19??a)  Determination of
                 2,5-Dichloro-hydroquinone and 2,5-Dichloroquinone
                 in Milk. Undated method.  (Unpublished
                 study received Jul 8,  1968 under 8F0657;
                 submitted by E.I. du Pont de  Nemours & Co.,
                 Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:091146-D)
           *r
00002218      Rhodes, R.C.  (19??b)  Greenhouse Studies with
                •C-14 Ring-Labeled Chloroneb in Cotton
                 Plants.  (Unpublished  study received Jul  8,
                 1968 under 8F0657; submitted  by E.I.
                 du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:091146-S)
                              126

-------
 -MRID          CITATION

 00001430       Rhodes, R.C.   (1968a) Studies with C-14
                 Ring-Labeled Chloroneb  in Bean Plants.
                 (Unpublished study received Jul 8, 1968
                 under 8F0657; submitted by E.I. du Pont de
                 Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington Del.;
                 CDL:091146-T) (MRID 00001430)

 00001407       Rhodes, R.C.   (1968b) Chemical Identification
                 of Metabolites of Chloroneb in Bean Plants.
                 (Unpublished study received Jul 8, 1968
                 under 8F0657; submitted by E.I. du Pont
                 de Nemours  & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.;
                 CDL:091146-B)

 05001159       Rhodes, R.C.,  Pease, H.L.   (1971)  Fate of
                 chloroneb in animals.  Journal of Agricultural
                 and Food 19(4):  750-753

 00001158       Rhodes, R.C.,  Pease, H.L., Brantley, B.K.
                 (1971)   Fate of C14-labeled chloroneb in
                 plants and  soils.  Journal of Agricultural
                 and Food Chemistry 19(4):745-749

 05001302       Thapliyal, P.N., Sinclair, J.B.   (1970)
                 Uptake of three systemic fungicides by
                 germinating soybean seed.  Phytopathology
                 60(9):1373-1375

 05001304      Thapliyal, P.N., Sinclair, J.B.   (1971)
                 Translocation of benomyl ,  carboxin, and
                 chloroneb in soybean seedlings. Phytopathology
                 61(10:1301-1302

 05001297      Thorn, G.D.   (1973)   Uptake and  metabolism of
                 chloroneb by Phaseolus  vulgaris.    Pesticide
                 Biochemistry and  Physiology 3(2):137-140

 05001134      Vargas, J.M., Turgeon,  A.J.  (1975)   Translocation
                 of C14  labeled  chloroneb in  three turfgrass
                 species.   Canadian Journal of Plant Science
                 55(l):85-88

05001172      Verma, R.K., Vyas,  S.C.   (1976)   Uptake,
                 translocation and persistence of  five
                 systemic  fungicides  in  gram  seedlings.
                 Pesticides 10(12):21-24
                              127

-------
Ecological  Effects Bibliography

-MRID         CITATION

GS0007-005     Goodman, N.C.  (1979) 48-Hour LC5Q to
                 Daphnia magna. (Unpublished study received
                 Dec. 13, 1979 under 352-386 submitted by
                 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
                 Wilmington, Del.; CDL:241500)

GS0007-002     Hinkle, S.  (1979a)  Avian Dietary Toxicity
                 (LC,.Q)  Study in Bobwhite Quail  Project
                 No. T 201-528.  (Unpublished study received
                 Dec. 13, 1979 under 352-386; prepared by
                 Hazleton Laboratories, Inc., submitted by
                 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
                 Wilmington, Del.; CDL:241500)

GS0007-001     Hinkle, S.  (1979b)  Avian Dietary Toxicity
                 (LC5Q)  in Mallard Ducks  Project No.
                 201=527.  (Unpublished study received Dec. 13,
                 1979 under 352-386; prepared by Hazleton
                 Laboratories, Inc., submitted by E.I. du
                 Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:241500)

00001496      O.M. Scott & Sons Company (1971) Summary of
                 Res'ults for: Granular Vermiculite Chloroneb
                 Formulations for Turfgrass Disease Control:
                 Environmental Protection Agency Report.
                 (Unpublished study received Oct. 18, 1971
                 under 538-79; CDL:023122-A)

GS0007-004     Trivits, R.L.  (1979) 96-Hour LCc« to
                 Bluegill Sunfish. (Unpublishedustudy
                 received Dec. 13, 1979 under 352-
                 386 submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
                 Co., Inc. Wilmington, Del.; CDL:241500)

GS0007-003     Zihal, A.J.  (1979)  96-Hour LC5Q to Rainbow
                 Trout.  (Unpublished study received Dec. 13,
                 1979 under 352-386; submitted by E.I. du
                 Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington,
                 Del.; CDL:241500)
                             128

-------
 Section  2:
              OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
          PESTICIDE DOCUMENT MAN\GS*!ENT SYSTEM
                   C\SE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citations Ekarained and judged to be Citations Inappropriate for Use
   in Developing the Standard.
 -MRID       CITATION

 335018584   Aaron, J.J.; Kaleel, E.M.; Winefordner, J.D.  (1979) Comparative
               study of low-temperature and room-temperature phosphorescence
               characteristics of several pesticides.  Journal of Agricultural
               and Ebod Chemistry 27(6):1233-1237.

 305331219   Aetna, H.E.; Waite, B.H.  (1975) Control of root rot in bean
               (??Phaseolus vulgaris??) with fungicides in El Salvador.   Pages
               73,?In?Proceedings—American Phy to pathological Society:
               Caribbean Division; Dec 4-7, 1975.  Val. 2.  St. Paul, Minn.:
               American Ehytopathologial Society.

 335001441   Adaickalam, V.; Prasad, N.N. (1976) Efficacy of certain fungicides
               on the control of sesame leaf spot of rice.  Annaraalai
               University Agricultural Research Annual 6:103-112.

 005001445   Agarval, D.K.; Sarbhoy, A.K. (1976) Effect of different fungicides
               on the pre-energence rot of soybean caused by?Macrophcmina?
               ??phaseolina??.  Indian Phytopathology 29(1):100.

 005001153   Agarwal, D.K.; Sarbhoy, A.K. (1976) Efficacy of different
               fungicides (in vitro)  to seedling rot of soybean.  Indian
               Phytopathology 29 (4):458.

 005031147   Agnihotri, V.P.; Sen, C.; Srivastava, S.N. (1975)  Role of
               fungitoxicants in the  control of Sclerotiun root rot of
               sugarbeet,?Beta vulgaris?L.   Indian Journal of Experimental
               Biology 13(1):39-91.

 005001233   Agraval, S.C.; ttiare, M.N. (1975)  Effect of fungicides on
               macroconidia fonnation of?Fusariun oxysporun?f_?l2ntis??.
               Science and Culture 41(6):280-231.

305001174   Agrawal, S.C.; Khare,  M.N. (1977)  Role of fungicides in
               differentiating eight  strains of ??Fusarium
               oxysporun?f?lentis??.   Pesticides 11(4):39-40.

005302493   Agrawal, S.C.; Kiare,  M.N.; Hashvaha, L.S. (1974)  In vitro
               evaluation of fungicides against?Fusariun oxysporun?f?lentis??.
               Indian Phytopathology XXVII (3): 419-421.

005001286   Ahnadinejad, A. (1973)  Seedling diseases of  sugar  beet in Iran and
               the effects of some fungicides on the causal agents.  Iran
               Journal of Plant Pathology 9(3/4):50-52.
                                       129

-------
035301113   Al-Beldawi,  A.S.; Wallsed, B.K.; Shamseldin, S. (1976) Efficacy of
               some fungicides in controlling?Fhizoctonia solaniPon okra
               seedlings.  Poljoprivradna Znanstvena Snotra.  £Scientific
               Review of Agriculture.) 39(49):409-412.

305001310   Al-Beldawi,  A.S.; Welleed, B.K. (1973)  Cisnical control
               of?Fhiz>ctonia solaniPKuehn on cotton seedlings.
               Ehytopathologia Mediterranea 12:87-88.

305911371   Albertini, L.; Faddoul, J. (1974)  Action au laboratoire de
               quelques  fongitoxiques et fongicides systamiques sur?Fusariun?
               ??roseura?var_?graminearun?(Schwabe)  Synd  et Hans_  EAction in
               the laboratory of sane fungitoxicants ari3 systemic fungicides
               on?Fusarium roseun?var ?graminearun?(Schwabe)  Synd  and Bans_|
               Annales Scientifiques He 1'Uiiversite de feints et He 1'ARERS
               12(1/2):17-26.

035333536   Albertini, L.; Miayoukou, J.F, (1976)  Etuda cytophotometrique de
               1'action  du chloronebe (dichloro-1,4 dimethoxy-2,5 benzene)  et
               du silicate de methoxyethylmercure sur la teneur nucleaire en
               proteines basiques, en -SH et en -S-S- proteiques et en HNA
               chez le?Triticun durunTDesf   ECytophotometric study of the
               action of chloroneb (l,4-dichloro-2,5-dimethoxybenzene) and
               methoxyethylmercury silicate on the nuclear contenjt of basic
               proteins, protein -SH and -S-S-, and HNA in?1riticun?
               ??durun?Desf |   Revue Generale de Bbtanique
               83(983/985) :T87-198.

005033531   Albertini, L.; Yoka, p. (1976) Etude des modifications
               morphologiques provoquees par differents fongicides chez
               1'7?Helminthosporium turcicunPPass  parasi te du raais   EStudy
               of the toorphological changes caused" by different fungicides
               inPHelminthosporium turcicun?Pass  parasite of corn |   Bulletin
               Tr lines trial de la Societe MycologTque de France 92 (7): 423-443.

305031227   Alfieri, S.A., Jr.; mauss, J.F. (1972) Stem and leaf rot of
               pepercmia incited by?Sclerotiun rolfsii??.  Pages
               352-357,?In?Proceedings--Florida State torticultural Society.
               Vbl. 35.   lake Alfred, Fla.:  Florida State Ibrticultural
               Society.

305302533   Alfieri, S.A., Jr.; Miller, J.W. (1971) Basal stem and root rot of
               Christinas cactus caused by?Ehytophthora parasi tica??.
               Phytopathology 61(7): 804-306.

305301106   Alfieri, S.A., Jr.; Seymour, C.P.;  Cfemark, J.C. (1972)
               ??FhiaDctonia?blight of?Carissa grandiflora??.  Phytopathology
               62 (8): 301.

335331205   Alfieri, S.A., Jr.; Seynour, C.P.; Denmark, J.C. (1972)  Aerial
               blight of?Carissa grandiflora?caused byPRhizoctonia solani??-
               Plant Disease Reporter 56(6):511-514.
                                      130

-------
 335301225
005331133
305016657
005331141
005003381
005004172


005011369



033013795




005009469


305001216



305031154
000013200
Allen,  L.R.; Bernier, C.C.; Ferguson, A.C.  (1975) Ciemical control
   of low temperture organisms attacking  turfgrass.  Pages
   29,? In? Proceed ings—Canadian Phytopathological Society.   No.
   42.

Allen,  P.G.  (1971) Effects of some organic phosphorus and
   endosulfan seed dressings on whaat.  Australian Journal of
   Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 11(52): 556-553.

Andersen, K.J.; Lsighty, E.G.; Takahashi, M.T.  (1972) Evaluation
   of herbicides for possible mutagenic properties.  Journal of
   Agricultural and food Chemistry 20(3):649-656.

Andreeva, E.I. (1975) Effect of some new  seed-treatment agents
   upon harmful and useful microorganisms.  Pages
   723-730,?In?Pesticides: lectures Hald  at the  IUPAC Third
   International Congress of Pesticide Chemistry; Jul 3-9, 1974,
   Helsinki/ Finland.  Environmental Quality and Safety.
   Supplement \fol. III. HJited by Frederick Cbulston and Friedhelm
   Karte.  Stuttgart, West Germany:  George Thieme Publishers.

Andreeva, E.I.; Usaanov, M.T.; Kurganova, L.Y.  (1972) Metodika
   ispytaniya preparatov protiv kornevoi gnili   £A method of
   testing preparations against root rot  I  KhTopkovodstvo.
   ECotton Growing.! (11):19-21.        ~"
Anon.  (1973) Common names of pesticides
   1973.  PANS 19(2):287-306.
     Revised list—February
Anon.  (1979) lebensnittelzusatz- und -begleitstoffe^  £Ebod
   additives and accompanying materials |   ZeitschrTft fuer
   Ifibenanittel-Untersuchung und -Ebrschung 153(1):5-9.

Arnaud, L.J. (1966) Technical Service Calls.  (Unpublished study
   received Nbv 21, 1967 under 7946-1; submitted by J.J. Mauget
   Cb., Burbank, Calif.; CEL:008103-AG)

Attabhanyo, A.; Balccnb, G.E. (1975) Systemic fungicides tested
   for control of mimosa wilt.  Louisiana Agriculture 19(2):8-9.
Attabhanyo, A.; Halconb, G.E. (1976)
   mimosa with systemic fungicides.
   60(l):56-59.
Control of Fusariun wilt of
Plant Disease Reporter
Aulakh, K.S.; Sunar, M.S. (1970) Effect of seed treatment during
   storage of groundnut in relation to collar rot incidence.
   Pages 546,?In?Proceedings—57th Indian Science Cbngress: Part
   III, Abstracts; Section X, Agricultural Sciences.  Calcutta,
   India:  Indian Science Cbngress Association.

Backman, P.A.; Rodriguez-Kabana, R.; dark, E.M. (1972) Soil-Borne
   Disease Tests: Pythium Pod Rat.  (Unpublished study received Mar
   26, 1975 under 743-EX-12; prepared by Auburn Univ., Dapt. of
   Botany and Microbiology, submitted by PPG Industries, Inc.,
   Chemical Div., Pittsburgh, Pa.; CDL:096409-B)
                                        131

-------
303010205   Backman, P.A.; Rodriguez-Kabana, R.; dark, E.M.  (1972) Soil-Borne
               Disease Tasts:?Sclerotiua rolfsii??.  (Unpublished study re-
               ceived Mar 26, 1975 under 743-EX-12; prepared by Auburn Univ.,
               Dapt. of Botany and Microbiology, submitted by PPG Industries,
               Inc., Chemical Div., Pittsburgh, Pa.; CDL:096409-H)

000010235   Bactanan, P.A.; Rodriguez-Kabana, R.; Clark, E.M.; et al. (1973)
               Cbntrol of?Sclerotium rolfsii?White Mold of Peanuts.  (Unpub-
               lished study received Mar 26, 1975 under 748-EX-12; prepared by
               Auburn Univ.,  Dspt. of Botany and Microbiology, submitted by PPG
               Industries, Inc., Chemical Div., Pittsburgh, Pa.; GEL:095409-1)

000010217   Bactanan, P.A.; Rodriguez-I&bana, R.; dark, E.M.; et al. (1973)
               1973 Soil-Borne Interactions (Cylindrocladiura Test) .  (Unpub-
               lished study- received Mar 26, 1975 under 748-EX-12; prepared by
               Auburn Uiiv.,  Dspt. of Botany and Microbiology, submitted by PPG
               Industries, Inc., Chemical Div., Pittsburgh, Pa.; CDL:096439-T)

000010201   Bactanan, P.A.; Rodriguaz-Kabana, R.; Clark, E.M.; et al. (1973)
               1973—Pod Rot Cbntrol.  (unpublished study received Mar 26, 1975
               under 748-EX-12;  prepared by Auburn Uiiv., Dept. of Botany and
               Microbiology,  submitted by PPG Industries,- Inc., Chemical Div.,
               Pittsburgh, Pa.;  CU.:096409-C)

000010207   Backman, P.A.; Rodriguez-Fabana, R.; dark, E.M.; et al. (1974)
               Control of?Sclerotiura rolfsii?Vhite Maid in Peanuts.  (Unpub-
               lished study received Mar 26, 1975 under 748-EX-12; prepared by
               Auburn Uiiv.,  Dspt. of Botany and Microbiology, submitted by PPG
               Industries, Inc., Chemical Div., Pittsburgh, Pa.; CDL:096409-J)

005006359   Bagga, H.S. (1963) A simple technique for evaluating systemic
               fungicides and insecticides for control of cotton boll rot.
               Plant Disease Reporter 52(11):835-837.

000005546   Baldwin, C.H., jr. (1976) Report of Southern Regional Soybean Seed
               Treatment Cbninittee—1975.  (Unpublished study received Dsc 11,
               1977 under 400-112; prepared by Univ. of Missouri, Delta Center,
               submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:233031-I)

000005351   Baldwin, C.H., Jr. (1976) Stand Count Results from the Southern
               Soybean Disease Wbrkers Regional Seed Treatment Trials in 1976:
               Table 1.  (Unpublished study including letter dated Sep 15, 1976
               from C.H. Baldwin, Jr. to SSDW Regional Soybean Seed Treatment
               Cooperators, received Dae 11, 1977 under 400-112; prepared by
               Uiiv. of Missouri, Delta Center, Cooperative Extension Service,
               submitted by Uhiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:233081-H)

000004976   Bastian, R.A. (1971) Demosan—Arasan—Cotton Trial.  (Unpublished
               study received Sep 5, 1974 under 352-312; submitted by E.I. du
               Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Dal.; CEL:002466-D)

005001312   Bean, G.A.; Cook, R.N.; Rabbitt, A.E. (1967) Chemical control of
               Fusarium blight of turfgrass.  Plant Disease Reporter
               51(10):339-341.
                                        132

-------
005039963   Beckham, C.M.  (1970) Influence of systemic insecticides on thrips
               control and yield of cotton.  Journal of Economic Entomology
               63 (3):936-938.

305301184   Bectoan, K.M.; Story, G.E. (1972) Show mold abatement of golf
               courses with nonroercurial fungicides.  Phytopathology
               62 (7): 746.

005001457   Belcher, J.; Carlson, L.W. (1953) Seed-treatment fungicides for
               control of conifer damping-off: laboratory and greenhouse
               tests, 1967.  Canadian Plant Disease Service 48(2):47-52.

005001194   Bell, D.K. (1968) Rslationships of peanut seed treatment
               fungicides to seed mycoflora and germination and seedling
               emergence.  Plant Disease Reporter 52(3):240-243.

005001208   Bell, O.K.; Locke, B.J.; Thompson, S.S. (1973) The status of
               Cylindrocladiun black rot of peanut in Georgia since its
               discovery in 1965.  Plant Disease Reporter 57(1):90-94.

005001243   Bell, R.J.; Simmons, J.A., inventors; The O..M. Scott and Sons Co.,
               assignee (1977) Fungicide compositions for the control of
               snowoold.   U.S. patent 4,028,464.  Jun 7.  5 p. Int. Cl.-i2?
               A02N 9/12; A01N 9/22; A01N 9/24.

005003274   Bell, R.J., inventor; Deutsche ITT Industries GmbH, assignee
               (1974) Flingizides Gemisch_  EFungicide mixture |  German (Fed.
               Rep.) offenlegungsschrift 2 443 412.  Sep 4.  15 p.

000001720   Bird, L.S. (1964) In-Covering Soil Fungicide Tests for Cotton Seed-
               ling Disease Control.  (Unpublished study received Dec 16, 1964
               under 1253-740; prepared by Texas ASM Univ., Texas Agricultural
               Experiment Station in cooperation with U.S. Agricultural
               Research Service, Crops Research Div., submitted by din ffathie-
               son Chemical Corp., tew York, N.Y.; CDL:005767-B)

009303207   Bird, L.S. (1968) Regional Cottonseed Treatment Tests.  (Unpub-
               lished study received Jan 13, 1969 under 400-EX-33; .prepared by
               Texas A&M Uiiv., Agricultural Experiment Station, Dept. of
               Plant Sciences in cooperation with Cotton Disease Council,
               Seed Treatment Committee, submitted by Unroyal Chemical,
               Bethany, Conn.; CDL; 123439-B)

030002963   Blackmon, C.W. (1970) Cotton Seedling Diseases: (Seed Treatments).
               (Unpublished study received on unknown date under 9G0819; pre-
               pared by CLemson Ihiv., Bdisto Experiment Station, submitted by
               Uuroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:091418-1)

000002991   Blactanon, C.W. (1971) Cotton Seedling Diseases (Cottonseed Treat-
               ments) .  (Unpublished study received Apr 12, 1972 under 400-80;
               prepared by Clemson Ihiv., Ed is to Experiment Station, submitted
               by Lhiroyal Chemical,  Bethany, Conn.; CDL;023352-F)
                                        133

-------
303012933   Blackmon, C.W.; Musan, H. L. (1959) EControl of Lance Nanatodes and
               Seedling Diseases!.  (Unpublished study including letter dated
               Fab 6, 1970 fron R.D. dark to R.B. Boren or S.T. Ichikawa, re-
               ceived Get 5, 1971 under 201-119; prepared by Clemson Uiiv.,
               EH is to Experiment Station,  submitted by Shell Chemical Co.,
               Washington, D.C.; CEL:000777-8I)

305301143   Blazquez, C.H. (1967)  Control  of damping-off and root rots of
               vegetable crops.  Pages 150,?In?Florida agricultural Experiment
               Station Annual Report 1967.

305017616   Bollag, J.M. (1972) Biochemical transformation of pesticides by
               soil fungi.  Critical Reviews  in Microbiology 2(l):35-58.

005306353   Borun, D.E.; Sinclair, J.B. (19S3) Evidence for systemic
               protection againstPRhizoctonia solani?with vitavax in cotton
               seedlings.  Phytopathology 58(7):976-930.

305000993   British Crop Protection Council (1974) Pesticide Manual: Basic
               Information on the Chemicals Used as Active Components of
               Pesticides. Eflited by H. Martin and C.R. Worthing.  4th ed.
               London, England: British Crop  Protection Council.

005001649   Burchfield, H.P.; Stores, E.E. (1977) Residue analysis.  Pages
               463-505,?In?Mtifungal Compounds: \bl. 1.  Edited by M.R.
               Siegel and H.D. Sisler.  tew York:  Marcel Dekker.

005003383   Buss, H.; Zinner, L. (1974) Natuerliche polychlorierte aroraaten in
               champignons^  Elfetural polychlorinated ar ana tic hydrocarbons in
               mushroomsj  Chemosphere 3(3):123-126.

005004977   Carey, A.E.; Gowen, J.A. (1979) Pesticide application and cropping
               data from 37 states, 1972—National Soils Monitoring Program.
               Pesticides Monitoring Journal 12(4): 198-208.

035004973   Carey, A.E.; Gowen, J.A.; Wiersma, G.B. (1978) Pesticide
               application and cropping data from 37 states, 1971—National
               Soils Monitoring Program.  Pesticides Monitoring Journal
               12(3):137-148.

030001432   Chamber, A.Y. (1971?)  Tennessee Regional Cottonseed Treatment Test
               £in 19711.  (Unpublished study received Apr 3, 1972 under
               352-360; submitted by E.I.  du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
               Wilmington, Del.; CDL:003095-0)

003002990   Chambers, A. (1971) Regional Cottonseed Treatment Test—1971.  (Un-
               published study received Apr 12, 1972 under 400-33; submitted by
               Lhiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CEL:023352-E)

300304237   Chambers, A.Y. (1978)  Ev/aluation of Fungicides for Traa&nent of
               Cotton Seed, Jackson, Tennessee, 1973.  (Unpublished study re-
               ceived Feb 6, 1979 under 2935-413; prepared by Univ. of Ten-
               nessee, Agricultural Experiment Station, Dept. of Agricultural
               Biology, submitted by Wilbur-Ellis Co., Fresno, Calif., CDL:
               237333-E)
                                        134

-------
035017136   Chan, C.L. (1974)  Chemical control of?Curvularia?laaf spot of
               coconut seedling.  MARDI Research Bulletin 2(1):19-24.

305001284   Chatrath, M.S.; Mohan, M. (1971)  Control of loose snut of wheat
               with a derivative of benzimidaaale.  Indian £hy to pathology
               XXIV (1):174-176.

005331175   Chaudhuri, S.; Ahmed, T. (1977) Fungicides for the control
               of?Rhizactonia?saedling blight of pigeon pea.  Pssticides
               11(8):23-25.

335303333   Chee, K.H. (1973)  Evaluation of fungicides for control of South
               American leaf blight of?Hevea brasiliensis??.  Annals of
               Applied Biology 90(l):51-58.

335002923   Chehata,  M.;  Thuillier, G.; Runpf, P. (1967) Etude de 1'oxydation"
               d'un ether phenolique par 1'acide perchroraique en milieu
               chlorhydrique   EStudy of the oxidation of a phenolic ether by
               perchromic acTd in hydrochloric acid medium I   Comptas Randus
               Hsbdcmadaires des Seances de 1'Acadanie des~"Scisnces, Serie C
               234 (12): 1059-107x1.

305031241   Chiles, J.W., Jr., inventor;  (1073)  Method for the treatment of
               seeds.  U.S. patent 3,728,099.  Apr 17.  7 p. Bit. CL. A01N
               21/02.

335001232   Cole, D.L.; Cavill, M.E. (1977) Use of selected fungicides as seed
               dressings  for the control of ??Rhizoctonia solani?in cotton.
               Fhodesian Journal of Agricultural Research 15(1):45-50.

003004972   Cole, H.; Goldberg, C.W.; Euich, J.M. (1973) Merion Kantucky Blue-
               grass;?Poa pratensis??-  (Unpublished study received Get 25,
               1973 under 1001-50; prepared by Pennsylvania State Univ., Depts.
               of Plant Pathology and Agronomy, submitted by deary W.A. Corp.,
               Somerset,  N.J.; CDL:009369-A)

335001196   Cole, H.; Massie,  L.B.; Ouich, J. (1968) Bentgrass varietal
               suceptibility to Sclerotinia dollar spot and control with
               l-(butylcarbaraoyl)-2-benzimida2Dle carbarnic acid,  methyl ester,
               a new systemic  fungicide.  Plant Disease Reporter
               52(5):410-414.

003301454   Cole, H.; Massie,  L.B.; Fulton, D.; Duich, J.M. (1971?) Crop:
               Colonial Bentgrass (??Agrostis tenuis??): Snow Molds (??Typhula
               itoana, Fusarium nivale??).  (Unpublished study received
               Jan 10, 1972 under 352-359; prepared by Pennsylvania State
               Univ., Eept. of Plant Pathology and Dept. of Agronomy, submitted
               by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.;
               CEL:003093-C)

303301455   Cole, H.; Massie,  L.B,; Fulton, D.; Duich, J.M. (1971?) Crop:
               Creeping Bentgrass (??Agrostis palustris??): Snow Molds
               (??T/phula itoana, Fusarium nivale??).  (Unpublished study
               received Jan 10, 1972 under 352-359; prepared by Pennsylvania
               State  Ihiv., Dept. of Plant Pathology and "Dept. of Agronomy,
               submitted  by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,  Lie.;  Wilmington,
               Dal.;  CDL:003093-D)

                                        135

-------
035032535   Cole, H.; Mills, W.R.; Massie, L.B. (1972) Influence of chanical
               seed and soil treatments on?Verticillium??-induced yield
               reduction and tuber defects.  Anerican Potato Journal
               49(3):79-92.

305334535   Crosier, W.F.; Nash, G.T.; Crosier, D.C. (1970) Differential
               reactions of?Pythiun?sp  and five isolates of?Rhizoctonia?
               ??solani?to fungicides oh pea seeds.  Plant Disease Reporter
               54 (4): 349-352.

335331230   Cutright, N.J.; Ifcrrison, M.B. (1970)  Chemical control of Fusarium
               blight of "Merion" Ksntuclcy bluegrass turf.  Plant Disease
               Reporter 54(9): 771-773.

005031129   Dale, J.L.; King, J.W.; Troutman, B.C. (1973) Testing fungicides
               for turf grass disease control.  Arkansas Farm Research
               22(6):12.

035301195   Darrag, I.E.A.; Sinclair, J.B. (1963)  Techniques to evaluate
               chemotherapeutic activity of certain fungicides
               against?Rhiaoctonia solani?in cotton seedlings.  Plant Disease
               Reporter 52(5):399-403.

305301318   Darrag, I.E.M. (1968) Chemotherapeutic activity of
               l,4-dichloro-2,4-dimethoxybenzene (Demosan) and other con pounds
               against?Rhiaoctonis solani?in cotton seedlings.  Dissertation
               Abstracts International B 29(2):437.

005331301   Darrag, I.E.M.; Sinclair, J.B. (1969)  Evidence of systemic
               protection against?Rhizoctonia solani?with chloroneb in cotton
               seedlings.  Phytopathology 59 (3): 1102-1105.

035301303   Davis,  J.R.; Callihan, R.H. (1970) Evaluation of several
               fungicides in Idaho for control of?Rhiz>ctonia?on potato.
               Phytopathology 60(11):1533.

003001477   Davis, R.G. (1971?)  1971 Regional Cottonseed Treatment Test £in
               Mississippi].  (Unpublished study received Apr 3, 1972 under
               352-360; prepared by Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
               Experiment Station, Delta Branch, submitted by E.I. du Pont de
               Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CIL:003395-J)

335331234   Davis,  R.G.; Pinckard, J.A. (1971)  Comparative systanic fungicidal
               activity and phytotoxicity of certain seed and soil fungicides
               potentially useful for control of cotton seedling diseases.
               Plant Disease Reporter 55(12):1111-1115.

005303657   Denny,  F.E. (1948)  The role of the surface micro-flora in
               measurements of the respiration rate of germinating seeds.
               Contributions from Boyce Thompson Institute 15:211-227.

035331176   Dhanpal, N.; Prasad, N.N. (1977)  Chemical control of sesame leaf
               spot of rice.  Pesticides 11(3):53-59.
                                        136

-------
 2300301425    Dieterich, W.H.  (1965) Fungicide 1323  (1, 4-Dicnloro-2,  5-Dimeth-
               oxybenzene):  Acute Oral Tbxicity to  Mallard  Cucks and  Bobwhite
               Quail:  Project Na. 201-154.   (Unpublished study  received
               Jul 8,  1963 under 3F0657; submitted by E.I. du Pont de  Nsmours
               & Cb.,  Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:091147-H)

 005301149    Dutt, S.;  Sedi, P.S. (1974) In vitro evaluation  of fungicides
               against?Ifelminthosporiizn spiciferun?the causal  organism of
               blight  of cotton.  Indian Jburnal of Mycology and Plant
               Pathology 4 (2): 219-220.

 000001472    E.I. du Pont da Nemours & Company, Incorporated  (1965?)  Summary of
               Field .Results with Seed Application of Chloroneb  (S.F.  1323-75W)
               on Acid Eelinted Cotton.  (Unpublished study  received Apr  3,
               1972 under 352-360; CDL:003095-C)

 000001471    E.I. du Pont de Namours & Company, Incorporated  (1965?)  Summary of
               Laboratory Results with Seed Application of Chloroneb
               (S.F. 1823-75W)  on Cotton.  (Unpublished study received Apr  3,
               1972 under 352-360; CDL:003095-B)

 000001433    E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated  (1965)
               l,4-Dichloro-2,5-Dijnethoxybenzene: Acute Tbxicity—fish.
               (Unpublished study received Jul 7, 1965 under 352-312;
               CDL:050833-B)

 000001435   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated  (19S5) Data Sup-
               porting Use of "Demosan" 65W and "Eemosan" 10D  Fungicides  for
               Control of Seedling Diseases in Cotton.  (Unpublished study
               including exhibits A-F, received Jul 7, 1965 under 352-312;
               CEL:026702-A)

 000001439   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated  (1965) Supplemental
               lexicological Information: l,4-Dichloro-2,5-Dimethoxybenzene,
               Technical.  (Unpublished study received Jul 7,  1965 under
               352-312; CDL:050833-C)

 000001417   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated  (1956?)  EDemosan
               Efficacy Studies on Beans).   (Unpublished study received Jul  8,
               1963 under 3F0557; CEL:091146-N)

 000001419   E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated  (1966?) 2Eemosan
               Efficacy Studies on Peas, Soybeans and Sugar bee ts| .   (Unpub-
               lished study received Jul 8, 1968 under 8F0657; CDL:091146-P)

 030301433   E.I.  du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated  (19S6?) Evaluation
               of "Eemosan" and Insecticide 1179  as Seed Additives to  Ferry-
               Morse E5221 White Bush Beans and as Hi-Furrow Plantings at San
               Juan Bautista  in 1966.  (Unpublished study received Feb 10,
               1975 under 352-350;  CEL:221833-D)

000001487   E.I.  du Pont de Nanours & Company, Incorporated  (1956?)  Evaluation
               of "Demosan" 65W Chloroneb Fungicide as Seed Overcoat of Black-
               eye  Peas for Protection Against Rhizoctonia in Florida  in 1956.
               (Unpublished study received  Feb 10,  1975  under 352-350;
               CDL: 221383-C)
                                        137

-------
300031413   C.I. du Pont da Nemours & Canpany, incorporated  (1967) EDemosan
               Efficacy Studies!.  (Unpublished study including letter
               dated Sep 15, 1965 from R.E. Wbrley to Robert Sutton, received
               Jul 8, 1963 under 8F0657; CEL:091146-J)

300301410   E. I. du Pant de Nemours & Company, Incorporated  (1968)
               Chromatograras—Sugar Beets.  (Unpublished study received
               Jul 8f 1968 under 8F0657; CDL:091145-F)

000001411   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, incorporated  (1963) ERasidue
               Cata: Chloronebl  .  (Unpublished study received Jul 8, 1963
               under 8F0657; CEL:091146-G)

200001466   E. I. du Rant de Nemours & Company, incorporated  (1969?) Response
               of Nsw Grass Seed ings to Fungicida Treatments.  (Unpublished
               study received Jul 23, 1969 under 352-344; CDL:003046-H)

300032220   E.I. du Rant de Nemours & Company, incorporated  (19S9) Data
               Supporting Use of "Tersan" SP Turf Fungicide  ("Demosan11
               65W)  for the Cbntrol of Typhula Snow Maid and Pythium Blight
               on Turfgrass.  (Unpublished study received Jul 23, 1969 under
               352-344; CEL:003046-A)

300001441   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, incorporated  (1969) Cata
               Supporting Use of Ohioronab-Disulfbton Granules in Cotton.
               (Unpublished study received Get 15, 1969 under 352-312; CDL:
               032949-A)

000001473   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated  (1970?) Evaluation
               of Two Rates of Demosan 65W on Arid Del in ted Cottonseed in
               Greenhouse Planting in 1970.  (Unpublished study received Apr 3,
               1972 under 352-360; CDL:003095-E)

000031476   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, incorporated  (1971?) Cottonseed
               Treatenant Studies, Delta Pine and Land Co., Scott, Mississippi
               1971.  (Unpublished study received Apr 3, 1972 under 352-350;
               CDL: 003095-1)

003001434   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, incorporated  (1971?) Evaluation
               of Selected 1971 Regional Cottonseed Treatment Samples in Lab-
               oratory: Pythium and Fhizoctonia Boosted Soil Plantings, Eecem-
               ber, 1971.   (Unpublished study received Apr 3, 1972 under
               352-360; CEL:003095-Q)

000031474   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated  (1971?) Evaluation
               of Three Rates of " Demosan" Chloroneb on Acid and Regianed
               Cottonseed in P/thium and Rhiaocbonia Boosted Soil in Greenhouse
               Plantings in 1971.  (Unpublished study received Apr 3, 1972
               under 352-350; CEL:003395-F)

333001435   E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated  (1971?) Summary of
               "Demosan" T Performance in the 1971 Regional  Cottonseed Treat-
               ment Trials.  (Unpublished study received Apr 3, 1972 under
               352-363; CEL:003095-R)
                                        138

-------
303001492    E.I. du  Pont da Nemours &  Company,  Incorporated  (1972?)  Performance
               of  "Demosan" T on  Hendarson  Bush Lima Beans in Greenhouse
               Planting in Rhizoctonia  Boostad  Soil  in  1972—Trial 1.  (Unpub-
               lishad study received Feb  10,  1975 under 352-363;  CEL:221833-tt)

003301442    E.I. du  Pont de Nemours &  Company,  Incorporated  (1972)  Eata
               Supporting the Use of "Demosan"  65W Chloroneb Fungicide at the
               Reduced Rata of  6  Ozs. per 100  Ibs. of Cottonseed.  CUipub-
               lished study received Nov  5,  1972 under  352-312; CEL:C02950-A)

000001451    E.I. du  Pont de Nemours &  Company,  Incorporated  (1972)  EBta
               Supporting Use of  Tersan-.(R)?  SP-G Turf  Fungicide  for  the Con-
               trol of Snow Mold  (Typhula) .   (Unpublished  study received Jan
               10, 1972 under 352-359;  CEL.-003093-A)

300001452    E. I. du  Pont de Nemours & Company,  Incorporated  (1972)  EBta Sup-
               porting the Use of Eemosan-i(R)?  T Seed Fungicide as a  Cottonseed
               Treatment.  (Unpublished study received  Apr 3,  1972 under
               352-360; CEL:003095-A)

030001440    E.I. du  Pont da Namours & Company,  Incorporated  (1974) Data Sup-
               porting the USe of Demosan-.(R) ?  65W Chloroneb  Fungicide at the
               Rate of 10 Oz. per 100 Ibs. of Cottonseed West  of  the  Rocky
               fountains.  (Unpublished study received  Sep 5,  1974 under 352-
               312; CEL:002466-A)

333031453   E.I. du Pont de Namours & Company,  Incorporated  (1975) Data
               Supporting the Use of "Cemosan" T Seed Fungicide on Beans.
               (Unpublished study received Feb 10, 1975 under  352-360;
               CDL: 221888-A)

GS0007-003  E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company,  Incorporated.  (1979) Storage
               Stability of Technical Chloroneb November,  1973 to  October
               1979.  (Unpublished study received Eec 13,  1979 under  352-GIA;
               submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.  Inc., Wilmington,
               Eel.; CEL: 241500)

003031415   SE.I. du Pont de Namours & Company, Incorporated?! (1965)  Phytopath
               Tests—1965:  \bl.  21—p. 57-60.   (Unpublished study raceivad
               Jul 3, 1953 under 3F0657; CEL:091146-L)

030001418   £E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated?I (1966)  Phytopath
               Tests—1965:  Val.  22—p.56,59;57,58.    (Unpublished study
               received Jul  8, 1968 under 8F0657; CDL:091146-0)

305307871   E.I.  du Pont de  Nemours and Co., assignee (1954)  Werkwijze  an
               middel ter bescherming van pi anten tegen aantasting door
               bodemfungi   EMethod and product for the protection of plants
               against iriFaction caused by soil fungi |   Dutch octrooiaanvrage
               5,402,669.   Sept 15.  31 p. Int. CL.  A~01n, C 07c.

335001122   El-Sawah, M.Y.;  Ziedan, M.I.; Abdel-Halim, S.T.  (1975) Laboratory
               and greenhouse evaluations of various systemic fungicides  for
               control of?Rhizoctonia?damping-off of cotton seedlings.
               Agricultural  Research Review 53(2):65-77.
                                        139

-------
300304975   Elliott, G.N. (1971)  Cotton Saedling Disease Trials—S.J. Valley,
               1971.  (Unpublished study received Sep 5, 1974 under 352-312;
               submitted by C.I. du Pont de Nemours & Go.., Wilmington, Del.;
               CEL:002466-C)

003335345   Ellis, M.A.; ffepperly, P.R.; Paschal, E.h., II; Ebor, S.R. (19??)
               Seed treatments.  Pages 139-190,?In?Fungicide and Maoaticide
               Test, Vbltme 32.  By American Phytopathological Society.
               St. Paul, Minn.: APS.  (Also?In?unpublished submission received
               Dec 11, 1977 under 403-112; submitted by Uniroyal Chemical,
               Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 233081-B)

005003634   Ellis, M.A.; Smith, R.S.; Zambrano, 0. (1979) Effect of fungicide
               seed treatment on field emergence of poor and good quality
               pigeon pea?Cajanus cajan??.  Journal of Agriculture of the
               University of Puerto Rico 53(1):3-12.

035335933   Engelhard, A.W. (1973) Crovn rot and wilt of baby's breath
               (??Gypsophila paniculata?L_)  caused by the soil
               fungus?Phytophthora parasitica?Dast.  Pages
               423-431,?m?Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural
               Society.  Vol. 86.  Lake Alfred, Fla.:  Florida State
               Horticultural Society.  (Florida Agricultural Experiment
               Stations journal series no. 5163)

005001212   Engelhard, A.W. (1974) A serious new crown rot and wilt of baby's
               breath (??Gypsophila paniculata??) incited byPPhytophtnora?
               ??parasitica??.  Plant Disease Reporter 58(7): 669-672.

005031189   Engelhard, A.W. (1974) Crown rot and wilt of baby's breath incited
               by?Riytophthora parasitica??.  Phytopathology 64 (6): 767.

305031223   Englehard, A.W. (1973) Crovn rot and wilt of baby's breath
               (??Gypsophila paniculata?LJ  caused by the soil
               fungus?Phytophthora parasitica??Dast.  Pages
               423-431,?In?Proceedings—Florida State Horticultural Society.
               Vol. 86.  Lake Alfred, Fla.:   Florida State Horticultural
               Society.

305333339   Erentraut, E.; D'yakov, Y.T. (1970) Adaptazia?Fhiaoctonia?
               ??solani?Kuehn k fungicidam_  III   Maptatsiya k demosanu i
               polikarbatsinu   EAiaptation of?Ffuzoctonia solani?Kuehn to
               fungicides_  l7l_  Adaptation to demosan and polycarbacine_|
               Mikologiya i Fltopatologiya.  EMycology and Ehytopathology. I
               4 (3): 217-222.

035003534   Erentraut, E.; Dyakov, Y.T. (1973) Ada?tatsiya?Fhizoctonia?
               ??solani?Kuehn k fungitsidam   Soobshchenie V   Ihduktsiya
               ultrafioletovyn oblucheniem rautantov s komplelcsnoi
               ustoichivostyu_  EAiaptation of?Rizoctonia solani?Kuehn to
               fungicides_  Communication V   UV-indue:ad mutants with complex
               resistance I   Mikologiya i FTtopatologiya.  SMycology and
               Phytopathology. I 7(4): 341-343.
                                      140

-------
005014237
035303535
035337048
000001420
005003037
005003646
005001142
000001756
030001463
Esser, H.O.  (1970) The biodegradation of pesticides in the soil.
   Medadelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen,
   Rijksuniversiteit Gent.  ECoimuni cations of the Faculty of
   Agricultural Sciences, State University of Giant.I
   35(2):753-733.

Faddoul, J.; Albertini, L. (1974) La lutte chimique
   contre?Coryneun cardinalePWag  agent du deperissemant des
   cy?res_  I_  Experiences in vTtro   EChemical control
   ofPGbryneun cardinale?Wag_ pathogen of Cypress canker_  1_
   vitro experiments |   Phytopathologia Mediterranea
   13 (1/2): 47-54.
                                                                           In
Fairchild, E.J., ed. (1977) Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides:
   A Subfile of the NICSH Registry of Tbxic Effects of Chemical
   Substances.  Cincinnati, Ohio:  National Institute for
   Occupational Safety and ffealth. (Pagination includes 46 pages
   nunbered i-xlvi; available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA: P3-274
   748)

Fielding, M.J.; Rhodes, R.C. (1957) Studies with C-.14? Labeled
   Chloroneb Fungicide in Plants.  (Unpublished paper presented at
   Beltwide Cotton Production—Mechanization Conference; Jan 9-13,
   1967; Dallas, Tex.; received Jul 8, 1968 under 8F0657; sub-
   mitted by E.I. du Pont de Naraours & Co., inc., Wilmington, Dsl.;
   CDL:091146-Q)

Fishbein, L.; Flamm, W.G. (1972) Potential environmental chemical
   hazards: Part II_  Feed additives and pesticides.  Science of
   the Tbtal Ehvironment 1(1):31-64.

Ebllin, J.C.; Diallo, D. (1971) Les fbntes de semis du cotonnier
   en Cote D'lvoire: I—Etude de produits fongicides au
   laboratoire_  EDanping-off of cotton plant seedlings on the
   Ivory CoastT I—Laboratory study of fungicide products |   Co ton
   et Fibres Tropicales XXVI(3):303-308.

Freeman, T.E. (1967) Diseases of turf grasses.  Pages
   88,?In?Florida Agricultural Experimental Station Annual Report.
   Gainesville, Fla.:  Florida Agricultural Experiment Station.

Freeman, T.E. (1967) Pythian Test in Greenhouse (1967) .  (Unpub-
   lished study including letter dated Jun 21, 1963 from T.E. Free-
   man to William A. 9nall, received Jul 25, 1969 under 1253-826;
   prepared by Ihiv. of Florida, institute of Food and Agricul-
   tural Sciences, Dapt. of Plant Pathology, submitted by 01 in
   Mathieson Chemical Corp., Stamford, Conn.; CDL:035787-J)

Freeman, T.E. (1969)  EPythiun Tests in Greenhouse, 1967-19581.
   (Unpublished study including letter dated Jun 4, 1959 from
   T.E. Freeman to R.T. Miller, received Jul 23, 1969 under 352-
   344; prepared by Univ. of Florida, Dept. of Plant Pathology,
   submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington,
   Dsl.; CDL:003046->J)
                                      141

-------
335001207   Freeman, T.E. (1972) Ssed treatment for control of Pythian blight
               of ryegrass.  Plant Disease Reporter 56(12):1043-1045.

3333014S7   Freeman, T.E.; Mayers, H.G. (1968) Pythiun blight of turfgrasses.
               Florida Turf Grower 3(?/Jan):1-5.  (Also?In?unpublished submis-
               sion received Jul 23, 1969 under 352-344; submitted by E.I. du
               Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:333046-1)

300001493   Freeman, T.E.; Mayers, H.G. (1969)  Cbntrol of Pythiun blight.
               Golf Superintendent ? (?/May):24-45.  (Also?In?unpublished
               submission received JUn 3,  1977 under 538-152; submitted by O.M.
               Scott & Sans Co., Marysville,  Ohio; CEL:239512-8)

305003587   Fritz,  R. (1976)  Action de quelques fongicides sur la croissance
               raycalienne-de trois especes d'Entomophthorales   Etation of
               seme fungicides on the mycelial growth of three species of
               Entomophthorales_|   Entomophaga 21(3): 239-249.

005013587   Fritz,  R.; leroux, P.; Gredt,  M.  (1977)  Mscanisne de 1'action
               fongitoxique de la promidione  (26019 RP ou glycophene) , de la
               vinchlozoline et du dido ran sur?Botrytis cinereaPPers
               EMechanisa of the fungi toxic action of promidione (260T9 RP or
               glycophene), vinchlozolin and dicloran on?Botrytis?
               ??cinerea?PersJ   Phytopathologische Zeitschrift 90(2):152-163.

005001313   Fulton, N.D. (1971)  Over-the-top sprays of fungicides to  control
               seedling disease of cotton. Plant Disease Reporter
               55(4):307-309.

000001464   Fushtey, S.G. (1969) Snow Mold Control Trials (1963-69).   (Unpub-
               lished study received JUl 23,  1969 under 352-344; prepared by
               Univ. of Guelph, Dept. of Botany, submitted by E.I. du Pont
               de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:003046-F)

000004934   Fushtey, S.G. (1971) Snow Maid Trials—University of Guelph, 1970—
               71.   (Unpublished study including letter dated May 26, 1971 from
               S.G. Fushtey to A.R. Appleton,  received Jan 10, 1972 under
               352-359; prepared by Univ.  of  Guelph,  Dept. of Botany,  Canada,
               submitted by E.I. du Pont de temours & Gb., Wilmington, Del.;
               CDLJ003093-J)

305301231   Fushtey, S.G. (1975) The nature- and control of snow mold  of fine
               turf grass in southern Qitario.   Canadian Plant Disease Survey
               55(3)i87-90.

005034493   Galvez, G.E.; Castano, J.  (1974) Aplicacion de productos
               quimoterapeuticos al suelo  para el control dePPyricularia?
               ??oryzae?en arroz_  £Soil application of chemotherapeutic
               products to control?Pyricularia oryzae?on rice_|   Fitopatologia
               9(1):13-23.

033334236   Garber, R. (1978) Special Seed Treatment Trial—1973.  (Unpublished
               study received Feb 6, 1979 under 2935-413; prepared by U.S. Cot-
               ton  Research Station, submitted by Wilbur-Ellis Co., Fresno,
               Calif.; CDL:237333-C)
                                      142

-------
305307339   Gsenen, J.  (1977) Cnder zoek naar de bestrijdingsmogelijkheden
               van?Ustilago maydis?(D C ) Corda   ERasearch on the
               possibilities for control" of?Ust7lago rnaydis? (DJZJ CordaJ
               Mededelingen da Eaculteit LandbouwwetensehappenT
               Rijksuniversiteit Gent.  ECcnmuni cations of the Faculty of
               Agricultural Sciences, State University of Ghent.)
               42(2):1027-1038.

335314304   Geer, R.D.  (1973) Predicting the Anaerobic Degradation of Organic
               Chanical Pollutants in Waste Mater Treatment Plants from their
               Electrochemical Reduction Behavior.  Washington, O.C.:  U.S.
               Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and
               Technology. (Montana University Joint Water Resources Research
               Canter, Bozeman, research report no. 95; available from: NTIS,
               Springfield, VA; P3-239 224)

035304391   Ghosh,  S.K.; Ganawat, P.O. (1976) Evaluation of fungicides
               against?Alternaria solani?in vitro.  Proceedings of the Indian
               Academy of Sciences, Section B 84(5):155-158.

035301229   Ghosh, S.K.; Gemavat, P.O. (1976) Evaluation of fungicides
               against?Alternaria solani?in?vitro??.  Pages
               155-153,?In?Proceedings—Indian Academy of Sciences, Section B.
               Vol. 34.

005301515   Gill, D.L.  (1950) Effectiveness of fungicidal sprays and dusts in
               azalea petal blight control.  Phytopathology 40:333-340.

000001475   Gillham, L.B. (1971?) Farmer Cottonseed Treatment Trials 1971: Acid
               Dalinted Cottonseed.  (Unpublished study received Apr 3, 1972
               under 352-360; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
               Wilmington, Del.; CDL:003095-H)

000301414   Gooda,  M.J. (1965)  Rhizoctonia root and stem rot of beans.
               Arkansas Farm Research ?(?/Sep-Cct):7.  (Also?In?unpublished
               submission received Jul 3, 1963 under 3F3657; submitted by E.I.
               du pant de Nenours & Co.,  Inc.,  Wilmington, Eel.; CDL:091146-K)

005331244   Gould,  C.J.; Goss,  R.L. (1974)  Comparison of light-frequent,
               heavy-infrequent, and alternating applications of fungicides to
               control Fusarium Patch.  Pages 339-343,?In?Proceedings—Second
               International Turfgrass Research Conference.

333332374   Grahame, R.E. (1972) Fungicide Screening for Control of Hslmintho-
               sporiun Stripe on Barley.   (Unpublished study received Sep 27,
               1972 under 3F1318; prepared in cooperation with Uiiv. of Cali-
               fornia—Davis, Dept. of Plant Pathology,  submitted by Uuroyal
               Chemical, Bethany, Conn.;  CDL:093547-Q)

335001132   Gray, L.E.; Sinclair, J.B. (1970)  Uptake and translocation of
               systemic fungicides by soybean seedlings.  Phytopathology
               60(10):1436-1488.

035001177   Gupta,  0.;  Mama,  K.G. (1978)  A note on efficacy of some systemic
               and  nonsystemic  fungicides against?Colletotrichum
               papayae?and?Botryodiplodia theobromae??.   pesticides
               12(5):30-31.

                                   143

-------
335301233   Guthrie, F.E.; Shah, P.V.; Mareland, D.E.  (1974)  Effects of
               pesticides on active transport of glucose  through  tha isolated
               intestine of the mouse.  Jburnal of Agricultural and fbod
               Cnemistry 22(4):713-715.

305013742   Halloin, J.M.; Minton, E.B.; Petersen, H.D.  (1978) Fungicide
               application to cottonseed using methylene  chloride carrier.
               Crop Science 13(5):909-910.

033333325   Hansing, E.D. (1972) Oats (??Avena byzantina??):  9nuts;?Ustilago?
               ??avenue and U??.?R3lleri??.  Pages 133-51391 ,?In? Fungicide and
               Nematicide Tests: Results of 1972: Volume  23.  Compiled and
               edited by Eldon I. Zehr...£??et al??.|  EWinchester, Va.?|:
               American Phytopathological Society.   (ALso?In?unpublished sub-
               mission received Apr 21, 1975 under 400-112; submitted by Uii-
               royal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:220785-F)

305037949   Harris, H.B.; Parker, M.B.; Phillips, D.V.  (1971) Effects of Saed
               Treatment, Method of Application, and Malybdenun Content on
               Bnergence and Yield of Soybeans.  Athens,  Ga.:  university of
               Georgia College of Agriculture Experiment  Stations. (University
               of Georgia College of Agriculture Experiment Stations research
               report 113)

005331231   Hartill, W.F.T. (1963) Fungicide trials for the control of sore
               shin of tobacco.  Rhodesian Jburnal of Agricultural Research
               6(1):13-18.
                                                              14
GS0007-007  Harvey, J. (1979)  Activated sludge Metabolism of   C-Chloroneb.
               (unpublished study received Dec 13, 1979 under 352-GIA submitted
               by £. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CEL:
               241530)

335332497   Haware, M.P. (1972) Effect of systemic fungicides on?Fusarium?
               ??lini?in vitro and their up take by linseed seedlings.  Indian
               Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology 2(2): 135-138.

305303603   Ifeware, M.P. (1973) Effect of systanic fungicides on?Fusariun?
               ??lini?in vitro and their up take by linseed seedlings.  Indian
               Jburnal of Mycology and Plant Pathology 2(2): 136-138.

305302535   Havare, M.P.; Joshi, L.K. (1973)  Effect of acid and fungicide
               treatment on germination of hybrid 4 cotton seed.  JNKW
               Research Jburnal 7(4): 251-254.

005001151   teware, M.P.; Jbshi, L.K. (1974)  Efficacy of certain fungicides
               against seed-borne infection by ??Fusarium oxysportmPin ginger.
               Indian Phytopathology XXVII (2): 236-237.

005031193   Helling, C.S.; Dennison, D.G.; Kaufman, D.D.  (1974)  Fungicide
               movement in soils.  Phytopathology 64(8): 1091-1100.

005303391   Henrard, P. (1957) ??Colletotrichun coffeanun??,
               Agricultura (louvain)  5 (2): 39-55.
                                    144

-------
033395346   ffepperly, P.R.; Sinclair, J.B.  (19??) Ssed treatments.  Pages 190-
               191,?In?Fungicide and Mematicide Test, \tolune 32.  By American
               Fhytopathological Society.   St. Paul, Minn.: APS.  (Also?In?un-
               publishad submission received Dec 11, 1977 under 400-112; CEL:
               23S081-C)

035001242   Hinkes, T.M., inventor;  (1975) Seed coating process and product.
               U.S. patent 3,911,133.  Get 7.  7 p. Int. C1.-.2? A01C 1/06.

005301319   Hack, W.K. (1963) Studies of the biodegradation and mode of
               antifungal action of chloroneb
               (l,4-dichloro-2,5-diaiethoxyben2sne).  Dissertation .tostracts
               International B 29 (8): 2705.

005331179   Hack, W.K.; Sisler, H.D. <1963) Metabolic detoxification of
               chloroneb (l,4-dichloro-2, S-dimethoxybenzane)  byPRhizoctonia?
               ??solani??-  phytopathology 53 (7): 835.

300001403   Hack, W.K.; Sisler, H.D. (1968) Metabolic Detoxification of Chloro-
               neb (l,4-Dichloro-2,5-Dimethoxybenzene)  by?Rhiz)ctonia?
               ??solani??.  (Unpublished paper presented at the 25th Annual
               Mseting of Potamac £sic|  Division, American Phy to pathological
               Society; Mar 27, 1968; available from author, Uiiv. of Maryland,
               Gbllege Park, Md., received Jul 3, 1968 under 3F0657; submitted
               by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & 00., Inc.,  Wilmington, Del.;
               CTL:091146-C)

005001300   Hock, W.K.; Sisler, H.D. (1969) Specificity and mechanism of
               antifungal action of chloroneb.  Phytopathology 59(5):627-532.

305001316   Hoffmann, J.A. (1968) fungicides for wheat smut control.
               Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin (707):48.

005005041   Hoffmann, J.A. (1963) Fungicides for wheat smut control.
               Washington Agriculture Experiment Station Bulletin 737:48.

033004981   Hood, D.B. (1964)  Acute Skin absorption Tbxicity:  Haskell labora-
               tory Report No. 153-64.  (Unpublished study received Get 27,
               1965 under 352-313;  submitted by E.I. du Pont de Namours &
               Cb., Wilmington, Dal.; CDLJ050331-E)

005031210   Hopkins,  D.L.; EOmstrom, G.W. (1974)  Chemical control of
               watermelon damping-off and seedling  wilt.  Plant Disease
               Reporter 58(2):114-117.

330001462   Hoskins,  R.W. (1969)  Snow Mold Tfest—"Demosan" 55W and "Benlate"
               5CW.  (Unpublished study  including letter dated Apr 25,  1969
               from M.B. Harrison to R.W. Hoskins,  received Jul 23, 1969 aider
               352-344; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Cb., Inc.,
               Wilmington, Del.;  CDL;003046-D)

030011569   toward, F.L. (1955) What's new in turf grass  diseases—and their
               control.   Golf Cburse Reporter ? (?/Mar-Apr):5-10.  (Also?In?un-
               published  submission received Mar 6,  1958 under 1023-T0; submit-
               ted by Upjohn Cb., Kalamazoo, Mich.;  CDL:024377-F)
                                   145

-------
300002911
330335531
330001480
005301823
030001460
000001461
005301211
035301295
005002144
335331169


035315405
Hsi, D.C.H.; Finkner, R.E.  (19??) Paanut seedling blight (??Rhi??-
   ??zoctonia solani??,?Fusarium spp??.,?Aspergillus niger??,
   ??Thielaviopsis basicola??).  ? ? (? ): 116-117.  (Also?In?un-
   published submission received May 1, 1974 under 4F1499; sub-
   mitted by Uiiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 094551-R)

Hsi, D.C.H.; Finkner, R.E.  (1969) 1963 Valencia peanut seed  treat-
   ment.  Ssed and Soil Treatment Nawsletter ll(?/May 1) :56-57.
   (Also?In?unpublished submission received May 2, 1975 under
   400-81; submitted by Ihiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:
   393023-B)

Hunter, R.E. (1971?) Regional Cottonseed Treatment Test—1971:
   Chic kasha, Oklahoma: Acid Dslinted: Machine Delinted.  (Unpub-
   lished study received Apr 3, 1972 under 352-363; submitted by
   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:
   003095-M)

Hutzinger, 0. (1969) Electron acceptor complexes for chromogenic
   detection and mass spectrcmetric identification of phenol and
   aniline derivatives, related fungicides, and metabolites.
   analytical Chemistry 41(12):1662-1665.

Jackson, N.; Fenstennachar, J.M. (1967) Evaluation of Same TUrf-
   grass Fungicides—1967.  (Unpublished study received Jul  23,
   1969 under 352-344; prepared by Lhiv. of Fhode Island, Agricul-
   tural Experiment Station, submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours
   & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CEL:003046-B)

Jackson, N.; Fensteraacher, J.M. (1958) Evaluation of Seme Turf-
   grass Fungicides—1963.  (Unpublished study received Jul 23,
   1969 under 352-344; prepared by Uiiv. of Fhode Island, Agricul-
   tural Experiment Station, submitted by E.I. du font de Nemours
   & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:003046-C)

Jackson, M.; Fenstermacher, J.M. (1974) Fungicidal control of
   stripe snut and melting out with consequent maintenance of
   sward density in "Marion" Kentucky bluegrass turf.  Plant
   Disease Reporter 58(6):573-576.

Jain, N.K.; Kiare, M.N. (1972) Chemical control ofPRiiaactonia?
   ??bataticola?causing diseases of?Urid??.  Mysore Journal of
   Agricultural Sciences 6(4):461-465.

Jain, S.S. (1973) Control of stem rot disease of rice with certain
   systemic and nonsystemic fungicides.  Pages 667,?In?Indian
   Science Congress Association Proceedings.  Section X:
   Agricultural Sciences.  Vol. 60.  Calcutta, India:  Indian
   Science Congress Association.

Jain, S.S. (1975) Evaluation of systemic fungicides for the
   control of stem rot of  rice.  Cryza 12(2):95-102.

Jain, S.S. (1977) Evaluation of systemic fungicides for the
   control of stem rot of  rice.  Ccyza 12(2):95-102.
                                    146

-------
 035003532   Jarowaja, N.  (1974) Badania nad mikroflorq zgorzeli siewek burakow
               cukrowych w warinkach nowej technologii uprawy   Czesc II_
               SStudies on microflora involved in sugar beet d'asnping-off  under
               conditions of naw agricultural technology  Part II_|  Gazata
               CUkrownicza.  ESugar Industry Journal.) 32(12):324-326.

 005333533   Jarovaja, N.  (1975) Skutecznosc dzialania nowych zapraw
               bezrtaciowych przeciw zgorzeli siewek burakow cukrowych_   Czec
               I_  Effectiveness of some new mercuryless seed dressings
               against sugar beet seedling root rot_  Part I_J  Gazeta
               Qikrovnicza.  ESugar Industry Jburnal.l 83(107:245-248.

 305004621   Jhooty, J.S.; Bains, S.S. (1973) Studies on?Rhizoctonia solani??_
               III   Reaction of various isolates to different fungitoxicants.
               IhdTan Journal of Microbiology 13 (1): 27-32.

 03530320S   Johnson, A.W.; Glaze, N.C.; Jaworski, C.A. (1975) Combinations of
               specific pesticides for multiple pest control on tanato.
               Journal of the Anerican Society for Horticultural Science
               100(2):203-206.

 005314182   Johnson, A.W.; Sunner, D.R.; Javorski, C.A. (1979)  Effects of
               management practices on nematode and  fungus populations and
               cucumber yield.  Journal of Namatology 11(1):84-93.

 005001162   Johnson, A.M.; Sunner, D.R.; Javorski, C.A.;  Chalfant, R.B. (1975)
               Control of nematodes and soil-borne pathogenic fungi in okra
               with funigation and film mulch.  Journal of Nanatology
               7 (4):325.

            Jones, J.p.; Everett, P.H. (1966)  Control of anthracnose, dovny
               mildew, and soil rot of cucumbers.   Plant''Disease Reporter
               50(5):340-344.

            Joshi, L.K.; Vyas, S.C. (1974)  Screening of systemic and
               non-systanic fungicides against ??Fusariun oxysporunPcausing
               foot and  root rot of wheat.   Indian fhytopathology
               XXVII(4):550-651.

 005001148   Kannaiijan, S.; Prasad, N.N.  (1973)  Effect of  certain fungicides on
               survival  ofPPusariun oxysporun?f_?melonis?in soil.   ]hdian
               Journal of Microbiology 13(2):133-135.

 305301770   Kannaiyan, S.; Prasad, N.N.  (1973)  In  vitro effect  of  certain
               fungicides on muskmelon wilt pathogen.   Labdev,  Part B:  Life
               Sciences  11(1/2):15-16.

 305301291   Kappas, A.;  Georgopoulos,  S.G.  (1975)  Fungicides causing mitotic
               segregation in?Aspergillus?diploids.   Mutation Research 29:236.

000001478   Kappelraan, A. (197.1?)  1971 Regional  Cottonseed Treatment Test Sin
               Alabama| .  (Unpublished study received  Apr 3,  1972 under 352-
               350;  submitted by E.I.  du Pont  de Mamours  S Co.,  Inc.,
               Wilmington,  Del.; CDL:003095-K)
005301311
305301152
                                   147

-------
330302959   Kappelman,  A.J., jr. (1970) Regional Cottonseed Treatment Test,
               Tallassee, Alabama, 1973.  (Unpublished study received on
               unknown  date under 9G0819; submitted by Lhiroyal Chemical,
               Bethany, Cbnn.; CEL:091418-J)

330002992   Kappelman,  A.J., Jr. (1971) Regional Cottonseed Treatment Test,
               Tallassee, Alabama, 1971.  (Plant Science Research Report
               to. 49-71; unpublished study received Apr 12, 1972 under 400-30;
               prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Plant Science
               Research Div., submitted by Uhiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.;
               CEL:023352-fl)

003003124   Kappelman,  A.J., Jr. (1972) Regional Cottonseed Treatment Test,
               Tallassee, Alabama, 1972.  (Unpublished study received May 16,
               1973 under 400-107; prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research
               Service, Southern Region, submitted by Uiiroyal Chemical,
               Bethany, Conn.; CEL:003284-G)

305001449   Kappelman,  A.J., Jr. (1977) Effect of fungicides and insecticides
               applied  at planting on cotton emergence, seedling survival, and
               vigor.  Plant Disease Reporter 61(8):703-706.

000003209   Kappelman,  A.J., Jr.; Pugh, C.H.  (1963) Regional Cotton Seed Treat-
               ment Tests, Tallassee, Alabama, 1968.  (Unpublished study
               received Jan 13, 1969 under 400-BX-33; submitted by Uhiroyal
               Chemical, Bethany, Cbnn.; CDL; 123439-0)

005001315   Karnaiyan,  S.; Prasad, N.N. (1974) Effect of certain fungicides on
               the sapropnytic activity of raustanelon wilt pathogen in soil.
               Science  and Culture 40(l):43-44.

005003883   Kas'yanenko, A.G.; Rjroleva, N.S.; Ryabova, I.M.; Shevtsova, V.M.
               (1977) Izmenchivost'TVerticillium??, indutsirovannaya
               pestitsidami   £ Pesticide-induced mutations in?Verticilliun??_J
               Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Tadzhikskoi SSR, Otdelenie           ~"
               Biologicheskikh Nauk.  £ Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences
               of the Takzhik SSR, Department of Biological Sciences.)
               (1):22-27.

005301317   Kataria, H.R.; Grover, R.K. (1974) Adaptation ofPRhizactonia?
               ??solani?to systemic and non-systanic^fungitoxicants.
               Zeitschrift fuer Pflanzankrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz
               81 (8): 472-478.

005331245   Kataria, H.R.; Grover, R.K. (1974) Effect of chloroneb and FCN3 on
               metabolic activities of ??Rhizoctonia solani??-  Pages
               147,?In?Symposium on Use of Radiations and Radioisotopes in
               Studies  of Plant Productivity; Apr 12-14, G.B. Pant University
               of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, India.  Programme and
               Abstracts.  EHited by D.P. SLigh.  Pantnagar, India:  Food and
               Agriculture Coamitttea of the Department of Atomic Energy,
               Government of India.

035331125   Kataria, H.R.; Grover, R.K. (1976) Some factors affecting the
               control  of?Rhizoctonia solani?by systemic and non-systemic
               fungicides.  Annals of Applied Biology 82(2):267-278.
                                    148

-------
095004774   Kataria, H.R.; Grover, R.K.  (1977) Comparison of fungicides  for
               the control of?Riiz3ctonia solani?causing damping-off  of  racing
               bean  (??Fhas3olus aureus??).   Indian  Phytopathology  30(1):151.

035331128   Kataria, H.R.; Grover, R.K.  (1978) Comparison of fungicides  for
               the control of?Rhizoctonia solani? causing damping-off of raung
               bean  (??Phaseolus aureus??) .   Annals  of Applied  Biology
               83 (2): 257-263.

005031417   Keith, L.H.; Alford, A.L.  (1970)  Review  of the application of
               nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in pesticide analysis.
               Jburnal of the Association of  Official Analytical demists
               53(5):1013-1035.

005017202   Khatua, D.C.; Bandyopadhyay, S.;  laiti,  S.; Giri, D.; Sen, C.
               (1978) Effect of fungicides on seedling health and brown  spot
               of paddy.  Pesticides 12(8):35-38.

000012833   King, C.L.  (1958) lavn Grass Plots, 1958.  (unpublished study re-
               ceived Aug 20, 1959 under 1023-10; prepared by Kansas  State Col-
               lege, submitted by Upjohn Gb., Kalamaaoo, Mich.; CDL:024332-C)

005093273   Kingsland, G.C. (1971) Results of seed treatment of barley and
               oats in South Carolina during  1970 and 1971.  Plant Disease
               Reporter 55(12):1122-1124.

005001238   Kirk, B.T.  (1959") Studies of systematic movement of radio labeled
               Vitavax and Demosan in cotton seedlings.  Dissertation-
               Abstracts International 3 30(4):1448.

005001180   Kirk, B.T.; Sinclair, J.B. (1963) Radioautographic comparison of
               C14-labeled Vitavax and Demosan.  Phytopathology 53 (3): 1055.

005333664   Kirk, 3.T.; Sinclair, J.B.; Lambremont, S.N.  (1969)  Translocation
               of 14C-labeled chloroneb and DMOC in cotton seedlings.
               Phytopathology (59) .-1473-1476.

005001217   Kirkpatrick, B.L.; Kharbanda, P.D.; Sinclair, J.B.  (1976)
               Translocation of C14-chloroneb fungicide in soybean after
               leaflet appliction.  Plant Disease Reporter 50(1): 53-70.

003003353   Kline, D.M. (1963) Effectiveness of fungicides in controlling bar-
               ley loose snut.  Page 28,?In?Fungicidal Control of Snut Diseases
               of Cereals.  Compiled by J.G. Moseman.   Beltsville, Md.:  U.S.
               Dept. of Agriculture.  (U.S.  Agricultural  Research Service,
               Crops Research Div.,  CR 42-63, also?In?unpublished submission
               including glossary,  received  Mar 25, 1969 under 930819; sub-
               mitted by Uniroyal Chemical,  Bethany,  Conn.; CIL:093520-AQ)

005002632   KLuge, E. (1973)  Vergleichende Uitersuchungen ueber  die
               Wirksamkeit von Systemfungiziden gegen Oomyzeten   EComparative
               studies regarding  the action  of systemic  fungicides against
               Oamycetes |  Archiv fuer Riytopathologie  und Pflanzenschutz
               14 (2):115=122.
                                    149

-------
335001135   Riauss, J.F. (1972) Control of?Rhizoctonia?cutting rot of two
               ornamental, foliage plant species.  Phytopathology  62(7):769.

335301209   Rnauss, J.F. (1973) Description and control of a cutting decay of
               two foliage plant species incited byPRhiaoctonia solani??.
               Plant Disease Reporter 57(3):222-225.

335337310   Kobakhidze, D.M.; Satalova, T.S. (1972) Itogi ispytania
               fungicidov   EResults of fungicidal testsj  Zashchita Rastenii
               (Mascow) . ~~£Plant Protection. |  (8):22-23.

335334125   Kcnraedahl, T.;  Lang, D.S. (1973) Effect of temperature and
               fungicides on survival of corn grow from kernels  infected
               with?H3lminthosporiun maydisT?.  Phytopathology 63(1): 133-140.

305331233   Kbuyeas, H.; Theohari, I. (1976) An experimental approach for
               evaluation of cotton seed protectanLs against soil-borne fungi.
               Poljoprivredna ananstvena Saotra.  ESsientific Review of
               Agriculture. | 39 (49):431-435.

300331490   Krause, K.L. (1956?) Effect of "Demosan" and Insecticide 1179 as
               Additive Seed Treatments Tb "Arasan* 75 on- Piota Beans in
               Greenhouse Plantings in 1966.  (unpublished study  received Ebb
               10, 1975 under 352-360; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
               Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:221883-F)

300001439   Krause, K.L. (1966?) Evaluation of "Demosan" and Insecticide as
               Seed Treatment Additives to Ferry Marse E5221 White Bush Seans
               in Greenhouse planting of Regular Seed Rot Test Soil and in
               Rhiaoctonia Boosted Soil in 1966.  (Unpublished study received
               Feb 10, 1975 under 352-360; submitted by E.I. du Pont de
               Nemours & Gb., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:221838-£)

003001493   ftrause, K.L. (1972?) Performance of "Cemosan" Ton Five lots of
               Beans in Greenhouse Planting in Pythium Boosted Soil in 1972—
               Trial 1.  (Unpublished study received Feb 10, 1975 under
               352-350; submitted by E.I. du Pont Nemours & Co.,  Inc.,
               Wilmington,  Eel.; CDL:221883-1)

330033273   Krause, K.L. (1972) Performance of "Demosan" Ton Henderson Bush
               Lima Beans in Greenhouse Plants in Pythium and Rhizoctonia
               Boosted Soils in 1972—Trial 3.  (Unpublished study received
               Feb 10, 1975 under 352-360; submitted by E.I. du Pont de
               Namours & Gb., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CEL:221338-M)

303003271   Krause, K.L. (1972) Performance of "Demosan* Ton Henderson Rush
               Lima Beans in Greenhouse Plantings in Pythium and  Rhizoctonia
               Boosted Soils in 1972—Trial 2.  (Unpublished study received
               Feb 10, 1975 under 352-360; submitted by E.I. du Pont de
               Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:221383-K)

303333272   Krause, K.L. (1972) Performance of "Demosan" T on Vyiada Bush 3ean
               in Greenhouse Planting in Pythiun and Rhizoctonia  Boosted Soil
               in 1972—Trial 3.  (Unpublished study received Fab 10, 1975
               under 352-363; submittad by E.I. du Pant da Nemours & Co., Inc.,
               Wilmington, Del.; CEL:221333-L)
                                    150

-------
303333270   Krause, K.L.  (1972) Perfcrmancs of "Damosan" Ton Wade Bush  Bean
               in Graenhouse Planting in P/thiun and Rhizoctonia Boosted Soil
               in 1972—Trial 2.  (Unpublished studwvreceivad Fab 10, 1975
               under 352-360; submitted by E.I. du rent de Nemours & Cb., Inc.,
               Wilmington, Eel.; CDL: 22188S^J)

003301494   Krause, K. L.  (1973?) Performance of Demosan -«(R)? T. on Henderson
               Bush Lima Beans in Greenhouse Plantings in Pythiun Boosted Soil
               in 1973.   (Unpublished study received Eteb 10, 1975 under
               352-363; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Cb., Inc.,
               Wilmington, Dsl.; CDL:221838-N)

300003274   Krause, K.L.  (1973) Parformancs of Demosan-.(R)? T. on Benders
               Bush Lima Beans in Greenhouse Plantings in Rhizoctonia Boosted
               Soil in 1973.  (Unpublished study received Eeb 10, 1975 under
               352-360; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.;
               Wilmington, Dal.; CDL: 221388-0)

035331161   Krueger, H.R.; *teson, J.F. (1973)  Phorate and aldicarb: effects of
               systemic fungicides on their levels in soybeans.  Journal of
               Economic Entomology 66(3): 815-316.

005001171   Kulkarni,  S.N.; Shanna, O.P. (1976) B/aluation of sane systemic
               and non-systemic fungicides against tvo plant pathogenic  fungi.
               Pesticides 10 (8): 32.

000001423   Kundzin, T. (1967)  Three-Generation Reproduction Study £of]   Fungi-
               cide 1823: Final Report: Project No. 201-126.  (Unpublished
               study received Jul 8, 1968 under 3F0657; prepared by Hazleton
               laboratories, Inc., submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Cb.,
               Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CEL:091147-C)

005001224   Lacy, M.L. (1977)  Influence of chemical treatments on stand
               establishment in asparagus.  Pages
               151-152,?In?proceedings—Anerican Phytopathological Society.
               Ual. 4.  St. Paul, Minn.:   American Phytopathological Society.

005004533   Lai,  B.B.; Singh,  R.D. (1977)  Control of sunflower rust by pra-
               and post-infection spraying of systemic and non-systemic
               fungicides.  Pesticides 11(1): 24-25.

005305283   Latham, A.J.  (1962)  The soil-column method and other techniques
               for evaluating  soil fungicides.  Dissertation Abstracts
               International B 22(10):3342.

000002930   Line, R.F. (1969) Wheat:  Flag smut (??Urocystis agropyri? (Prauss)
               Schrot).  Page 133,?In?Fungicide and Nematicide Tests:  Results
               of 1969:  \tolune  25.  Compiled and edited by K.D. Hickey.
               Winchester, re.?|: Anerican Phytopathological Society.   (Also
               ??In?unpublished submission received Aug 11, 1971 under 2F1191;
               submitted by Uhiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:093516-I)

005001199   Littrell,  R.H.; Gay, J.D.; Wells,  H.D. (1969)  Chloroneb fungicide
               for control of?Pythium aphanid2rtnatum?on several crop plants.
               Plant Disease Reporter 53(11):913-915.
                                    151

-------
335001160


005001225
005001135
005001223
005011355
005001450
005001191


003002965
003002907
005014446
305331131
035301150
LLu, L.J.  (1978) Rice blast in Puerto Rico.  Journal of
   Agriculture of the university of Puerto Rico 52(3):290-300.

Liu, L.J.; Serapion, J.L.  (1977) Etiology and control of root rot
   of?Anthuriura?in Rierto Rico.  Pages
   179,?In?Proceedings—Anerican Phytopathological Society.  Vbl.
   4.  St. Paul, Minn.:  American Fhy to pathological Society.

lockhart, C.L.  (1971) Gbntrol of?Typhula?snow mold on cold-stored
   stravberry runner plants.  Canadian Plant Disease Survey
   51 (4): 170-171.

Lucas, L.T. (1976) Chemical control of spring deadspot of
   betmudagrass.  Pages 339-340,?In?Procaedings—American
   Ehy to pathological Society.  Vol. 3.  St. Paul, Minn.:  Anerican
   Phytopathological Society.

Luisi, N.  (1977) Prodotti sistemici in patologia vegstale,
   ecologia e adattaraento dei patogeni_  ESystsraic products used
   in vegetable pathology, ecology and resistance of the
   pathogensj  Securitas.  ESafety.l  52(11/12):659-666.

Luke, H.H.; Barnett, R.D.; Morey, S.A. (1977) Effects of foliar
   fungicides on the mycofLora of wheat seed using a new technique
   to assess seed infestations.  Plant Disease Reporter
   61 (9): 773-776.
Lukens, R.J. (1967) Chemical control of stripe smut.
   Disease Reporter 51(5):355-356.
Plant
Lyle, J.A. (1970) Field Hnergence of Florunner Peanuts in the 1970
   Seed Protectant Experiment, Tiers 3 and 4; Wiregrass Substation.
   (Unpublished study including letter dated Nav 24, 1970 from J.A.
   Lyle to H. Douglas late, received on unknown date under 9G0819;
   prepared by Auburn Univ., School of Agriculture and Agricultural
   Experiment Station Systam, EDspt. of|  Botany and Microbiology,
   submitted by Uhiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CEL:091418-F)

Lyle, J.A.; Brogden, C.A. (1970) 1970 Elorunner Peanut Seed Treat-
   ment.  (Unpublished study received May 1, 1974 under 4F1499;
   prepared by Auburn Univ., Agricultural Experiment Station, sub-
   mitted by Uhiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CEL:094551-K)

Lyr, H. (1978)  £ State of art and problems of chemotherapy of
   plants |   Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften der
   D.D.R."5:3-19.

Mackenzie, J.; Glasby, T.; Diatloff, A. (1972) The role of
   nodulation and damping-off in lucerne establishment on acidic
   sandy soils on the Darling Etowis.  Australian Jburnal of
   Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 12(57):423-432.

Maholay, M.N.; Sohi, H.S. (1976) Studies on?Botryodiplodia?rot
   of?Dolichos biflorus??.  Ihdian Jburnal of Mycology and Plant
   Pathology 6(2): 126-129.
                                    152

-------
035301192   Maier, C.R.; Bullard, R.G.  (1967) Evaluation of granular
               formulations of soil fungicides for seedling disease control in
               cotton.  Plant Disease Reporter 51(6):487-490.

005333524   Maiti, S.; Chaudhuri, S. (1975) Effect of some systemic fungicides
               on sclerotial germination and growth of?Sclerotiun rolfsii?in
               vitro.  Zeitschrift fuer Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz
               32(4):233-235.

335017167   Mallet, V.; Frei, R.to. (1971) An investigation of flavones as
               fluorogenic spray reagents for organic compounds on a cellulose
               matrix: part II   Detection of pesticides.  Journal of
               Chromatography 56(1) :69-77.

035303735   -Mayberry, R.M.; Savage, J.  (1978) Mutagenic activity of several
               pesticides using the ??Salmonella?test and?Saccharomyces?
               ??D-3?system.  Pages 125,?In?Abstracts of the Seventy-Eighth
               Annual Meeting of the Anerican Society for Microbiology; May
               14-19, Las Vegas, Nevada.

003003186   Mclntire, S. (1956) Dsep South 1966 Vitavax Cotton Field Studies.
               (Unpublished study received Nov 29, 1967 under 400-EX-28; sub-
               mitted by Ihiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:123430-C)

000302987   Mcmtire, S. (1971) 1971 Cottonseed Treatment Tests, Senatobia
               Field Station,  (unpublished study received Apr 12, 1972 under
               400-30; submitted by Ihiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:
               023352-A)

005001127   Mclhtosh, A.H. (1976) Glasshouse tests of quinones,
               polyhydroxybenzenes and related compounds against potato common
               scab.  Annals of Applied Biology 83(2):239-244.

005013548   MsMahon, B.; Burke, J.A. (1973) Analytical behavior data for
               chemicals determined using AQAC raultiresidua methodology for
               pesticide residues in foods.  Journal of the Association of
               Official Analytical Chemists 51(3):640-652.

305003380   Mel'nikov, N.N.; Andreeva, E.I.; Pronchenko, T.S.; Usnanpv, M.T.;
               Grapov, A.F.; Snirnova, K.F. (1975) Sravnitel'naya aktivnost'
               preparatov protiv knornevoi gnili khlopchatnika   EComparative
               activity of preparations against root rot of cotton I
               Khimicheskie Sredstva Zashchity Rastenii.  £ChemicaT Agents for
               Plant Protecton.l  (5): 115-119.

005004767   Manzer, R.E. (1973)  Biological oxidation and conjugation of
               pesticidal chemicals.  Pages 79-116,?In?Rasidue Reviews.  Vbl.
               48.  New Ybrk:  Springer. (Department of Entomology,  university
               of Maryland, College Park, miscellaneous publication no. 817;
               Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of
               Entomology, contribution no. 4510)

305005909   Metcalfe, P.B.; Brown, J.F. (1969)  Evaluation of nine fungicides
               in controlling flag anut of -.vheat.  plant Disease Reporter
               53 (8): 531-633.
                                      153

-------
305332921   Miayoukou, J.F.; Albertini, L.  (1975) Etude da 1'action
               cytotoxiqu-3 axercaa par le chloronabe (dichloro-1,4
               dimethoxy-2,5 benzane) au nivaau radiculaire chez le?Triticun?
               ??durun?Desf_  ECytotoxic action of chloroneb
               (l,4-dichloro-2,5-dimethoxybanzene) on roots ofPTriticun?
               ??durun?Desf_|  Gomptes Randus Habdomadaires des Saancas da
               1'Acadsmie des Sciences, Serie D 281(12):779-781.

3005531622   Miller, H.N. (1970?)  Several Fungicides as Soil Amendments and Soil
               Drenches on feavily Infested Soil for the Control of Pnyto-
               phthora on Annual Plants.  (Unpublished study received Get 5,
               1970 under 372-UG(43); submitted bv Mallinckrodt Chemical Wbrks,
               St. Louis, Mo.; CEL:803213-E)

035039222   Miller, P.M. (1972)  Fungicidal control ofPtfelminthosporiun?
               ??maydis?and three other species ofPHelminthosporium??.  Plant
               Disease Reporter 56(7):612-614.

003003133   Minton, E.B. (1967)  1957 Regional Cottonseed Treatment last: South
               Plains Research and Extension Canter: Lubbock, Texas.  (Unpub-
               lished study received Nav 29, 1967 under 400-EX-23; prepared by
               STexas A& M Uhiv.j, South Plai,i£ Research and Extension Canter,
               submitted by Hiiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CEL: 123430-S)

000003208   Minton, E.B. (1968)  1968 Cottonseed Treatment Tests.  (Unpublished
               study received Jan 13, 1959 under 400-EX-33; prepared by Texas
               A & M Univ., Agricultural Research and Extension Canter at
               Lubbock, submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CCL:
               123439-C)

003002966   Minton, E.B. (1970)  19S9 Cottonseed Treatment Tests.  (Unpub-
               lished study received on unknown data under 9G0819; prepared by
               Texas A & M Univ., Agricultural Research and Extension Canter at
               Lubbock, submitted by Uhiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:
               091418-G)

333001436   Minton, E.B. (1971?)  Report of the Seed Treatment Conmittea—
               1971.  (Unpublished study received Apr 3, 1972 under 352-360;
               prepared by U.S.  Agricultural Research, submitted by E.I.
               du Pont de Nemours Co., Inc., Wilmington, Dal.; CDL:003095-S)

035334743   Minton, E.B. (1972)  Effects of seed treatment with fungicides and
               systanic insecticides on stand of cotton.  Crop Science
               12(1):93-94.

005302859   Minton, E.B.; Pest,  G.A. (1975)  Seedling survival from cottonseed
               treatment experiments at several locations.  Crop'Science
               15(4):509-513.

035035237   Mishra, R.P.; Jain,  A.C. (1973)  Studies on loose smut of wheat
               comparative efficacy of seme systemic fungicides against loose
               anut of wheat (??Ustilago nuda tritici?Schaf) .  Pesticides
               7(3):19,21.

035301445   Mukhopadhyay, A.M. (1976) Recant advances in the control of
               Sclerotiun root rot of sugarbeet.  Indian Phytopathology
               29(1):102.
                                      154

-------
305001444   Mokhopadhyay, A.M.; Tawari, K.C. (1975)  Cbntrol of sclerotiun root
               rot of sugar beat.  Indian Phytopathology XXVIII(1):140.

305001203   Mukhopadhyay, A.M.; Thakur, R.P. (1971)  Cbntrol of Sclerotiun root
               rot of sugar beat with systemic fungicides.  Plant Disease
               Reporter 55(7):630-634.

005332341   Mulholland, R.I. (1972)  Bunt control in wheat.  Pages
               165-168,?In?Proceedings of the tew Zealand Weed and Pest
               Control Conference.  Vol. 25.  Hamilton, N.Z.:  Ruakura
               Agricultural Research Centre.

335001234   Muthusamy, S. (1973) Systemic fungicides in the control of
               pineapple disease of sugar cane.  Sugarcane Pathologists'
               Newsletter 10:14-15.

005302146   Naik, S.L. (1975)  Fungi observed on 45 wheat varieties in M_ P_
               (India).  Seed Research 3(2): 116-118.

000301416   Natti, J.J. (1965) Fungicide Treatments of Soil for Control of
               Bean Root Rots.  (Unpublished study received Jul 8, 1968 under
               8F0657; prepared by tew Sbrk State Agricultural Station, Oept.
               of Plant Pathology, submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nanours & Co.,
               Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:091146-M)

305001202   Natti, J.J.; Crosier, D.C. (1971) Seed and soil treatments for
               control of bean root rots.  Plant Disease Reporter
               55(6):483-486.

005001133   Noon, J.P.; Hictenan, C.J. (1974) Oospore production by a single
               isolate ofPPhytophthora capsiciPin the presence of chloroneb.
               Canadian Journal of Botany 52(7): 1591-1595.

300002921   Nyvall, R.F. (1974) Results 1974 Soybean Seed Fungicide Tests.
               (Unpublished study received Jun 9, 1975 under 5F1637; prepared
               by Elbwa State Lhiv. of Science and Technology, Cooperative
               Extension Service, Dspt. of Botany and Plant Pathology! / sub-
               mitted by Lhiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:094947-Y)

300001497   O.M.  Scott & Sons Company (1976) Research Report Supporting the
               Registration of Chloroneb and Terrazole as Seed Treatments for
               Control of Seed and Seedling Diseases.  (Unpublished study
               received JUn 3, 1977 under 533-152; CDL:230612-A)

000010166   Osborne, W.W.; Hameed, K.M.; Harris, C.; et al. (1971) Peanut pod
               rot disease control.  Pages 2-14,?In?Results of 1971 Plant Pro-
               tection Research-Demonstration Program on the Nature and Control
               of Root and Pod Diseases of Peanuts.   Compiled by W.W. Csbome.
               Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.,
               Dept. of Plant Pathology and Physiology.  (ALso?In?unpublished
               submission received Get 5,  1973 under 3G1359; submitted by PPG
               Industries, Inc., Chemical  Div., Pittsburgh, Pa.;  CDL:393629-L)
                                      155

-------
000012335   Osborne, W.W.; Hameed, K.M.; Harris, C.; et al.  (1972)  Evaluation
               of Chemicals for Pod Hot and Nathern Root-Knot Naraatode Cbntrol
               in Peanuts—Nansamond Cbunty, 1972.  (Unpublished study received
               Cct 5, 1973 under 3G1359; prepared by Virginia Polytechnic
               Institute and State Uiiv., Dspt. of Plant Pathology  and Physiol-
               ogy, submitted by PPG Industries, Inc., Chemical Div., Pitts-
               burgh, Pa.; CDL:093629-M)

330013170   Osborne, W.W.; Hameed, K.M.; Harris, C.; et al.  (1972)  Peanuts:
               Evaluation of Chemicals for Pod Rot and Narthern Root-Knot Nana-
               tode Cbntrol in Peanuts—Nansonond Cbixity, 1972.  (Unpublished
               study received Feb 15, 1973 under 5785-43; prepared  by Virginia
               Polytechnic Institute and State Uiiv., Dapt. of Plant Pathology
               and Physiology, submitted by Great takes Chemical Corp., West
               Lafayette, Bid.; CEL:223335-A)

030003144   Csborne, W.W.; Hameed, K.M.; Harris, C.; Sill, L. (1972?) Evalua-
               tion of Chemicals for Pod Rot and Mar them Root-Knot Namatode
               Cbntrol in Peanuts—Nansemond Cbunty, 1972.   (Uipublished study
               received Sep 13, 1976 under 400-129; prepared by Virginia Poly-
               technic Institute and State Uiiv., Dapt. of Plant Pathology and
               Ehysiology, submitted by Uiiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Cbnn.; CEL:
               225604-M)

003032363   Osborne, W.W.; Hameed, K.M.; Harris, C.; Sill, L. (1972) Cylin-
               drocladiun Black Rot Disease Cbntrol.  (Uipublished  study re-
               ceived Sep 23., 1976 under 400-130; prepared by Virginia Poly-
               technic Institute and State Uiiv., Dapt. of Plant Pathology and
               Physiology, submitted by Uiiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Cbnn.; CEL:
               230405-Z)

000013012   Osborne, W.W.; Pristou, R.; Lambe, R.C.; et al.  (1971)  Field Eval-
               uation of Various Soil Treatments for the Control of the Peanut
               Pod Rot Disease and Plant Parasitic Namatodes.  (Unpublished
               study received Jan 24, 1972 under 464-379; prepared by Virginia
               Polytechnic Institute and State Uiiv., Dept. of Plant Pathology
               and Ehysiology, submitted by Cow Chemical U.S.A., Midland,
               Mich.; CEL:003594-D)

030302363   Osborna, W.W.; Pristou, R.; Lambe, R.C.; Fox, J.A.; Wills, W.H.;
               Moore, L.D.; Harris, C.  (1971) Field Evaluation of Various
               Naraaticide-Fung icide Combinations for the Cbntrol of Plant Para-
               sitic Nematodes and the Pod Rot Disease in Peanuts.  (Unpub-
               lished study received Sep 23, 1976 under 400-130; prepared by
               Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uiiv., Dept. of Plant
               Pathology and Physiology, submitted by Uiiroyal Chemical,
               Bethany, Conn.; CDL:230405-Q)

003032359   Osborne, W.W.; Taylor, J.D.; Harris, C. (1973) Evaluation of Chem-
               icals for Pod Rot and Northern Haot-Khot Nanatode Cbntrol in
               Paanuts—Southampton Cbunty, 1973.  (Unpublished study received
               Sep 28, 1976 under 400-130; prepared by Virginia Polytechnic
               Institute and State Uiiv., Dept. of Plant Pathology  and Physio-
               logy, submitted by Uiiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Cbnn.; CDL:
               230435-AA)
                                       156

-------
390333143   Csborne, W.W., camp.  (1972) Results of 1971-1972 Plant Protection
               Research-Demonstration Program on the Nature and Control of  Root
               and Pod Diseases of Peanuts.  (Unpublished study received
               Sep 13, 1976 under 400-129; prepared by Virginia Polytechnic
               Institute and State Univ., Dept. of Plant Pathology and Physio-
               logy, submitted by Uhiroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:
               225604-L)

030319171   Osborne, W.W., camp. (1973) Results of 1973 Plant Protection Re-
               search—Demonstration Program on the Nature and Cbntrol of Root,
               Pod, and foliar Diseases of Peanuts.  (Unpublished study re-
               ceived on unknown date under 3G1359; prepared by Virginia Poly-
               technic Institute and State Uiiv., Eept. of Plant Pathology and
               Physiology, submitted by PPG Industries, Die., Chemical Div.,
               Pittsburgh, Pa.; CDL:093S33-E)

035014325   Ottinger, R.S.; Blunenthal, J.L.;  Dal Porto, D.F.; Qruber, G.I.;
               Santy, M.J.; Shih, C.C. (1973)  Recommended Methods of
               Reduction, Neutralization, Recovery or Disposal of ifezardous
               Waste.  Vblune XIV.  Summary of Waste Origins, Ebrms, and
               Quantities.  Cincinnati, Chio:   U.S. Environmental Protection
               Agency, National Environmental  Research Center.
               (EPA-670/2-73-053-n; available  from: NTIS, Springfield, VA;
               PB-224 593)

000001721   Owen, J.H. (1964)  1964 Cotton Soil  Fungicide Test.  (Unpublished
               study received Dec 16, 1964 under 1258-740; prepared by Uiiv. of
               Georgia, College Experiment Station, submitted by 01 in Mathieson
               Chemical Corp.,  New York, N.Y.;  CDL:005764-D)

005001213   Papavizas, G.C.; Lewis, J.A. (1975)  Effect of seed treatment with
               fungicides on bean root rots.  Plant Disease Reporter
               59(1):24-28.

005301235   Paulson, G.D. (1977)  Biological conversions of fungicides in
               animals.  Pages  149-208,?In?Antifungal Compounds.   Vol. 2.
               Edited by M.R.  Si eg el and H.D. Sisler.  New Ybrk:   Marcel
               Dekker.

030004977   Paulus, A.O.  (1971)  Cotton—Rhizoctonia and Pythiun—Delta Pine 16.
               (Unpublished study including letter  dated Jun 7,  1971 from A.O.
               Paulus to William C.  Reische, received Sep 5,  1974 under
               352-312; prepared  by Uiiv.  of California—Riverside,  Agricultur-
               al Extension Service, Dept. of Plant Pathology,  submitted by
               E.I. du Pont de  Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:002465-E)

000001443   Paulus, A.O.  (1972) Cotton Seedling Trial—Rhizoctonia.
               (Unpublished study including letter  dated Jun 29,  1972 from
               A.O. Paulus to Bill Reische, received Sep 5,  1974  under 352-312;
               prepared by Uiiv.  of  California—Riverside,  Agricultural EScten-
               sion Service, submitted by E.I.  du Pont de Nemours & Co.,  Inc.,
               Wilmington, Dal.;  CDL:002466-G)
                                       157

-------
303334978   Paulus,  A.O. (1972)  Cotton Seedling Trial—Rhiaoctonia—Pythiun,
               University of California, Riverside: Variety—Acala SJ—1.  (Un-
               published study including letter dated May 16, 1972 from A.O.
               Paulus to William C. Reische, received Sep 5, 1974 under
               352-312; prepared by Uiiv. of California—Riverside, Agricultur-
               al Extension Service, Dept. of Plant Pathology, submitted by
               E.I.  du Pont da Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:002466-F)

000004979   Paulus,  A.O. (1974)  Rhiaactonia—Pythiura Cotton Seedling Trial,
               University of California, Riverside.  (Unpublished study includ-
               ing letter dated May 29, 1974 from A.O. Paulus to J.F. Magana,
               received Sep 5, 1974 under 352-312; prepared by Uiiv. of Cali-
               fornia—Riverside, Agricultural Extension Service, Dept. of
               Plant Pathology,  submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
               Wilmington, Dal.; CEL:0024SS-H)

033003206   Paulus,  A.O.; DaWblfe, T.; Qsgood, J.; Shibuya, F.; Cudney, D.
               (1953) Control of Rhizactonia Seedling Disease of Cotton.  Rav.
               (Unpublished study received Jan 13, 1969 under 400-EX-33; pre-
               pared by Uiiv. of California—Riverside, EAgriculturall  Experi-
               ment  Station in cooperation with Agricultural Extension Service,
               Imperial County,  submitted by Uiiroyal Chamical, Bethany, Conn.;
               CDL:123439-A)

005004766   Paulus,  A.O.; Nelson, J.; DeWblfe, T.; Hause, J.; Shibuya, F.
               (1973) Nanmercury fungicides for control of seedling disease of
               cotton.  California Agriculture 27(6):9-10.

000001447   Paulus,  A.O.; Shibuya, F.; Osgood, J.; DeWblfe, T.; Cudney, 0.;
               House, J. (1970)  Controlling Rhiaoctonia seedling disease of
               cotton in Southern California.  California Agriculture ? (?/
               Aug):12-14.  (Also?In?unpublished submission received Sep 5,
               1974  under 352-312, submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nsmours & Co.,
               Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CEL:002466-8)

005301124   Pease, H.L.; Reiser, R.W. (1973)  Chloroneb.  Analytical Methods
               for Pesticides, Plant Growth Regulators, and Ebod Additives
               7:657-664.

005001120   Peethambaran, C.K.P. (1977) Population dynamics of?Pythium?
               ??aphanidermatun?(EHson) fitz  in soil treated with different
               fungicides.  Agricultural Research journal of Kerala
               15(1) :30-32.

005333379   Pergola, G.; Garibaldi, A. (1975) Risultati di prove di lotta
               contro il raarciune del colletto (??Rhizoctonia solani?Kuehn)
               del garofano   EResults of tests for the control of collar rot
               (??RhizoctonTa solani?Kuehn) in carnations_|  Infonnatore
               Fitopatologico 25(4):27-31.

305008541   Pergola, G.; Garibaldi, A. (1977) Control of collar rot of
               carnation caused by?Phytophthora nicotianae?var_J?parasitica??-
               Acta  Harticulturae 71:137-141.                 ~~
                                       158

-------
033307933   Pfrinraer, T.R.  (1963) Results of Insecticide Tests with Materials
               Furnished by E.I. Du Pont de Memours and Company,   (unpublished
               study recaivad Apr 16, 1971 under 1G1144; prepared by  U.S. Agri-
               cultural Research Service, Entomology Research Div., Gbtton In-
               sects Research Branch, submitted by E.I. du Pant de Nemours &
               Cb., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CEL:B90931-V)

333302938   Pinckard, J. (1971) Regional Cottonseed Treatment Test—1971.
               (Unpublished study received Apr 12, 1972 under 400-30; submitted
               by Uniroyal Chemical,'Bethany, Conn.; CDL:023352-C)

305301759   Pinckard, J.A.; Ivey, J. (1971) Chemical Treatments for
               Cottonseed.  Baton Rouge, La.:  Louisiana State University,
               AgriculturalExperiment Station. (Louisiana State University,
               Agricultural Experiment Station bulletin no. 655)

303331431   Pinckard, J.C. (1971?)  Table:  List of Chemical Seed Treatments
               Tested in Louisiana in cooperation with the Regional Cottonseed
               Treabnent Cbmnittee.  (Unpublished study received Apr 3, 1972
               under 352-360; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Cb., Inc.,
               Wilmington, Del.; CEL:003095-N)

305002887   Plato, C. (1972) Differential scanning calorimetry as a general
               method for determining purity and heat of fusion of high-purity
               organic chemicals: application to 64 compounds.  Analytical
               Chemistry 44(8):1531-1534.

005002633   Ponti, I.; Svampa, G. (1975) Cbrabotka semyan s tselyo
               unichtozheniya pochvennykh i obitayushchikh na sanenakh gribov
               fiSeed treatment for  the destruction of soil and seed fungi_|   ~~
               Lbklady Soobshcheniya, Mezhdunarodnyi Ftongress Zashchita
               Rastenii, 3th 3(2):483-490.

005037517   Popov, V.I.; Humachova, E.M. (1972)  Vliyanie fungitsidov na
               vozbuditelei kornevoi gnili  pshenitsy   £Effect of fungicides
               on causative agents  of wheat root rot~|   Khimiya v Sel'skom
               ffcozyaistve.  EChanistry in  Agriculture. | 10(8):593-595.

005031197   Powell,  W.M.; Hendrix,  F.F., Jr.; Marx, D.H. (1968) Chemical
               control of feeder root necrosis of pecans caused
               by?Pythium?species and nematodes.  plant Disease Reporter
               52(7):577-573.

005001451   Prasad,  R. (1976)  Evaluation of Fungicides for Cbntrol of Tree
               Diseases V_—Screening Against the Datch Elm
               Disease?Ceratocystis ulmi?(Buism)  C_ toreau under Laboratory
               and Field Conditions Daring  1976.   Ottawa,  Ontario,  Canada:
               Chemical  Conrol Research institute.  (CCRI information report
               CC-X-125)

035301283   Rai,  J.N.; Srivastava,  S.K.  (1977) Studies on the chemical control
               of root and  stem rot ofPBrassica  j unceaPcaused byPMacrophcmina?
               ??phaseolina??.  Indian Jburnal of ."tycology and Plant Pathology
               7(1):47-51.
                                       159

-------
305031144   Ramasami, R.;  Snanraugam,. N. (1977) laboratory evaluation of
               fungicides  against?Riizactonia bataticola??.  Ebod Arming and
               Agriculture IX(2):43.

333333193   Ranney, C.D. (1967)  Regional Cottonseed Treatment Test, Stoneville,
               Mississippi,  1967.  (Unpublished study including letter dated
               May 31, 1967 from C.D. Ranney to Sheron M=mtire, received fov
               29, 1967 under 400-EX-28; prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research
               Service, Crops Research Div., Cotton and Cordage Fibers Research
               Branch, submitted by Unroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; COL:
               123430-%!)

305301232   Ranney, C.O. (1973)  Multiple chemical treatment of cotton seed,
               effects on  seedling survival.  Crop Science 10(6):634-636.

335001139   Ranney, C.D. (1972)  Multiple cottonseed treatments:  effects on
               germination,  seedling growth, and survival.  Crop Science
               12(3):346-353.

005301193   Ranney, C.D.;  Burchfield, E.G. (1967) Evaluation of seed treatment
               with l,4-dichloro-2,5-dimethoxybenzane as a cotton seedling
               disease control measure.  Plant Disease Reporter 51(7):553-562.

000004161   Ranney, C.D.;  Burchfield, E.G. (1967) Report of the Seed Treatment
               Committee—1967.   (Unpublished study received Eteb 23, 1963 under
               400-EX-33;  prepared by ECotton Disease Council|, Seed Treatment
               Committee,  submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.;
               CDL:123433-F)

003003196   Ranney, C.D.;  Burchfield, E.G., camp. (1966) Report of the Seed
               Treatment Committee of the Cotton Disease Council.  (Unpublished
               study received Jan 25, 1967 under 400-EX-28; submitted by
               Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 123403-0)

005001140   Ranney, C.D.;  ifeartley, W.H., Jr. (1972) Multiple cottonseed
               treatments:  effect of sequence of application of pesticides on
               germination,  seedling growth, and survival.  Crop Science
               12(6):847-850.

000002970   Ranney, C.D.,  comp.  (1970) Report of the Seed Treatment Committee—
               1970.  (Unpublished study received on unknown date under 9G0819;
               prepared by ECotton Disease Council), Seed Treatment Commit tea,
               submitted by Unroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:091413-K)

035301293   Reddy, P.P. (1972) Greenhouse evaluation of seed treatment
               fungicides  for the control of rye damping-off.  Mysore jbumal
               of Agricultural Sciences 6(2):193-194.

035039468   Raddy, P.P. (1972) Greenhouse evaluation of saed treatment
               fungicides  for the control of rye damping-off.  Mysore Journal
               of Agricultural Sciences VI(2):193-194.

005031294   Reddy, P.P. (1972) Investigations on the efficacy of selected
               fungicides  on ??Rhizoctonia solani?under laboratory, greenhouse
               and field conditions.  Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences
               6(4):435-439.
                                      160

-------
335301146


030004933




035016311
 Reddy,  P.P.
   of rye..
(1974)  Chemical control of pra-anergenca damping-off
Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 44<5):257-253.
003301443
033301407
003001409
033001427
003031449
305001157
000002216
005002S83
335332534
 Reinke,  R.E.  (1963)  Eye  Irritation  Tast.   (Unpublished  study re-
   ceived  Cct  27,  19S5 under  352-313;  submitted  by E.I. du Pont de
   Nemours & Co.,  Wilmington,  Eel.; CDL:350331-G)

 Research Institute,  London  (1974) Report,  Research Institute,
   London. Pages  133-190,?In?Research Branch  Report, 1973,
   Agriculture Canada.   Ottawa,  Ontario, Canada:   Agriculture
   Canada.

 Rhodes,  R.C. (1965)  Supplemental Data: "Demosan"  65W and "Demosan"
   10 D  Fungicides:  Disappearance from Soil.   (Unpublished study
   received Sap 1, 1955  under  352-312; submitted  by E.I.  du Pont de
   Nemours & Co.,  Inc.,  Wilmington, Dal.;  CDL: 120427-A)

 Rhodes,  R.C. (1963?) Chemical  Identification of Metabolites  of
   Chloroneb in Bean Plants.   (Unpublished study  received Jul 8,
   1963  under  3F0657; submitted  by  E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
   Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:091146-B)

 Rhodes,  R.C. (1953?) Determination  of  2,5-Dichlorohydroquinone and
   2,5-Dichloroquinone Residues  in  Cow Urine.  Undated  method.
   (Unpublished study received Jul 3,  1963 under  8F0657;  submitted
   by E.I. du  Pont de Nemours s  Co., Inc., Wilmington,  Dal.;
   CEL:091146-E)

 Rhodes,  R.C. (1963?) Disappearance of  1,4-Dichloro-2,5-Diraethoxy-
   benzene fron Soil.  (Unpublished study  received Jul  8,  1953
   under 8F0657; submitted by E.I. du  Pont de  Nemours & Co., Inc.,
   Wilmington,  Del.; CDL:091147-K)

 Rhodes,  R.C.;  Belasco, I.J.; Pease, H.L. (1970) Determination of
   Mobility and  Adsorption of Agrichemicals on Soils.   Undated
   method.  (Unpublished study received Feb 17,  1970 under 352-
   324; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,  Inc.,
   Wilmington,  Dal.; CEL:002972-A)

 Rhodes, R.C.;  Belasco, I.J.; Pease, H. L. (1970) Da termination of
   mobility and  adsorption of agrichemicals on soils.   Journal of
   Agricultural and  Ebod Chemistry 13(3):524-528.

 Rhodes, R.C.;  Pease, H.L. (19??) Chemical  Identification  of  Meta-
   bolites of  l,4-Dichloro-2,5-Dimethoxybenzene in  Dag  and Rat
   Urine.  (Unpublished study including supplement I, received
   Jul 3,  1968  under 8F3657; submitted by  E.I. du  Pont  de  Nanours
   & Co.,  Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CEL:391147-1)

 Richardson, L.T. (1973)  Synergism between chloroneb  and  thiram
   applied to peas to control seed rot and damping-off  by?pythium?
   ??ultimun??.  Plant Disease Reporter 57(l):3-6.

Ritter, G. (1975) Die Heranung der Chitinsynthese  in vivo_ £The
   inhibition of chitin synthesis in vivo_|  Pages
   203-203,?In?Internationales Symposium:" Systemfungizide.
   £International Synposiun:  Systanic Fungicides.   Edited by H.
   Lyr and C.  Polter.l   Berlin, Germany:  Akadamie-Varlog.

                          161

-------
305003332   Fbka, P.; ALbertini, L. (1976) Action da fongitoxiques de contact
               et de fongicidas systamiquas sur la gemination conidienna, la
               croissanca mycalianne et la sporulation da l'??H2lminthosporium?
               ??turcicun?Pass , parasite du Mais (??Zea mays?LJ_  EAction of
               sane contact fungitoxics and systamic fungicides on the
               conidial germination, mycelium growth and sporulation
               of?ffelminthosporium turcicum?Pass__, a maize (??Zea mays?L_)
               parasite_|  Phytopathologia Mediterranea 15(2/3):81-89.

033001433   fbncadori,  R.W.; McCarter, S.M. (1971?)  Regional Cotton Saed Treat-
               ment Test £in Georgia in 19711.  (Unpublished study received Apr
               3, 1972 under 352-360; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
               Co., Inc., Wilmington, Dal.; CDL:003095-P)

302002993   Roncadori,  R.W.; McCarter, S.M. (1971) Regional Cotton Ssed Treat-
               ment last—1971.  (Unpublished study received Apr 12, 1972 under
               400-30;  prepared by Uiiv. of Georgia, submitted by Uhiroyal
               Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CEL:023352-1)

300033127   Roncadori,  R.W.; MsCarter, S.M. (1972) Regional Cotton Saed Treat-
               ment Tast—1972.  (Unpublished study received May 16, 1973 under
               400-107; prepared by Uiiv. of Georgia, submitted by Uniroyal
               Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:003284-K)

005001448   Rowan, S.J. (1972) Selected systemic fungicides provide little
               control  of fusiform rust of loblolly pine in forest tree
               nurseries.  Plant Disease Reporter 56(7):623-630.

035312577   Rove, R.C.; Beute, M.K.; Wells, J.C.; Wynne, J.C. (1974) Incidence
               and control of?Cylindrocladiun?black  rot of peanuts in North
               Carolina during 1973.  Plant Disease Reporter 58(4):343-352.

305001341   Ray,  A.K. (1975) Pathoganicity ofPRhizocotonia solani?and its
               control.  Indian Phytopathology 23(2): 184-138.

335301309   Sanders, P.L.; Burpee, L.L.; Cole, H., Jr. (1973) Preliminary
               studies  on binucleate turf grass pathogens that
               resemble? Rhizoctonia solani??.  Phytopathology 58(2):145-143.

335331222   Sanders, P.L.; Burpee, L.L.; Sherwood, R.T.; Cole, H., Jr. (1976)
               ??Ceratobasidium??:  a pathogen of turfgrass.  Pages
               310,?In?Proceedings—American Phytopathological Society.  Vol.
               3.  St.  Paul, Minn.:  American Phytopathological Society.

005303377   Sanz B.M.,  H. (1953)  Control de la caida de alnacigo en tocnate
               (??Lycopersicon sculentum?Mill_)_  EGantrol of damping-off in
               tomatoes (??Lycopersicon sculentura?Mill )  |   Agricultura
               Tecnica  28(2):84-87.

035303272   Sanz B.M.,  H. (1970)  Aplicacion da productos al suelo y
               desinfeccion de semilla para el control de la caida an
               tomate?Lycopersicon esculentum?Mill_)_  ESoil treatment and
               disinfection to prevent damping-off of tomatoes?Lycopersicon?
               ??esculentura?Mill |  Agricultura Tecnica 30(2):87-90.
                                      162

-------
005303733   Schaeufele, W.R.; Winner, C. (1972)  Zur Verhuetung und Bekaempfung
               pilzlicher Wurzalkrankheitsn der jungen Zuckerruebe__
               ^Prevention and control of fungal root diseases of young sugar
               beat plants_|  Zucker 25(5):153-156.

005002993   Schneider, C.L.; Potter, H.S.;  Reichard, D.L. (1976) Tests with
               fungicides to control Rhizoctonia cro**n rot of sugarbeet.
               Jburnal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists
               19(2):153-156.

005001335   Schultz, O.E. (1972) Evaluation of chloroneb for control of
               Philippine downy raildaw of corn (??Sclerospora?
               ??philippinensis??).  Phytopathology 62(5):500.

005301443   Sharma, O.P.; Tlwari, A. (1975) Effect of chloroneb on?Pythiun?
               ??aphanidermatura??-  Indian Phytopathology XXVIII(1):115-117.

335001285   Sharma, O.P.; Tiwari, A.; KUlkarni,  S.N. (1975)  Effect of seed
               treatment with systemic and non-systemic fungicides on the
               control of seedling blight of raung (??Phaseolus aureus??)
               caused by (??Riizoctonia solani??) .  Indian Phytopathology
               XXVIII(1):114-115.

005001295   Sheikh, A.H.; Oiaffar, A. (1975) Population study of the sclerotia
               of?Macrophcmina phaseolinaPin cotton fields.   Pakistan Jburnal
               of Botany 7(1): 13-17.

005301239   Sherma, J. (1975)  Chromatographic analysis of fungicides.  Journal
               of Chromatography 113(1):97-137.

033301446   Sherman, H. (1964) Ninety-Day Feeding Study with l,4-Dichloro-2,
               5-Dimethoxybenzane (INK-1323): Report to.'81-64.  (Unpublished
               study received Oct 27, 1965  under 352-313; submitted by E.I.
               du Pont de Nemours & 00., Inc., Wilmington, Eel.; CDL:350831 -C)

300304974   Sherman, H. (1965) Oral LD750-.  Tfest: Haskell laboratory. Re port
               No.  157-65.  (Unpublished study received CCt  27, 1965 under
               352-313; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington,
               DBl.; CDL:050831-A)

035331214   Shlevin, E.; Katan, J. (1975) Rhizoctonia disease of carrot
               seedlings and its control.  Plant Disease Reporter 59(l):29-32.

035001223   Short,  G.E.; Wyllie, T.D. (1976) A quantitative  technique for
               measuring vegetative growth  and sclerotia production
               by?Macrophomina phaseolina?in soybean tissues.  Pages
               222,? In? Proceed ings—Anerican Phytopathological Society.  Mai.
               3.  St. Paul, Mian.:   Anerican Phytopathological Society.

330003198   Sinclair, J.B. (1966) Summary and Progress Report to the louisiana
               Cotton Contact Cbnroittae on Cotton Seedling Disease Investiga-
               tions for the 1965 and 1966 Seasons: Project  931.  (Unpublished
               study received Jan 25, 1967  under 400-EX-28;  prepared by £Iou-
               isiana State  Univ. and Agricultural  and Mechanical  Cbllegel,
               Etept. of Plant Pathology in  cooperation with  the Northeast lou-
               isiana Agricultural Experiment Station and the Red  railey Agri-
               cultural Experiment Station, submitted by Uhiroyal  Chemical,
               Bethany, Conn.; CDL:123433-Q)

-------
033333194
005301119
305001158
005010294
005004758
305001447
005001121
035316734



005005932



035301305


300035535
Sinclair, J.B. (1957) Report to the U.S. Rubber Company Concerning
   Studies on Systemic Fungicides in Cbtton Seedlings against
   ??Rhizoctonia solani?.   (Unpublished study received Nsv 29, 1957
   under 403-EX-28; prepared by Lauisiana State Ihiv. Sand Agricul-
   tural and Mechanical Cbllegel, Agricultural Experiment Station,
   EDept. of| Botany and Plant Ethology, submitted by Lhiroyal
   Chemical, Bethany, (bnn.; CDL:123430-L)

Sinclair, J.B. (1975) Uptake and translocation of systemic
   fungicides by soybean, creeping bentgras and strawberry.  Pages
   301-308,?In?Internationales Symposium:
   Systemfungizide—International Synposiun:  Systemic FungicIdas.
   Edited by H. Lyr and C.  Polter.  Berlin:  Akademie-Verlag.

Singh, G.; Milne, K.S. (1974) laboratory evaluation of fungicides
   against fungi causing flower blight of chrysanthemums.  New
   Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 2(2):131-133.

Singh, K.B.; Mehrotra, R.S. (1978) Effects of some fungicides on
   mycelial growth and respiration ofplfelminthosporiun sativum??.
   Journal of the Indian Botanical Society 57(1): 1-5.

Sinha, S.K.; Prasad, M. (1977) Studies on certain aspects of
   chemical control of bacterial stalk rot disease of maize.
   Zentralblatt fuer Bakteriologie, parasitenkunde,
   Infektionskrankheiten und fygiene, Abteilung 2 132(1):39-92.

Siradhana, B.S.;  Dange, S.R.S.; Rathore, R.S.; Jain, K.L. (1976)
   Chemical control of sorghum downy mildew (??Sclerospora?
   ??sorghi??)  of maize.  Indian Phytopathology 29(1):103.

Sirry, A.R.; Higazy, M.F.H.; Farahat, A.A. (1974) Fungicidal
   seed-dressing  of?Phaseolus vulgaris?L_ in relation
   to?Rhizoctonia?root-rot and the plant growth.  Agricultural
   Research Review 52 (2): 37-46.

Sisler, H.D.; Ragsdale, N.N. (1977) Fungitoxicity and growth
   regulation involving aspects of lipid biosynthesis.
   tetherlands Journal of Plant Pathology.  Supplement 1 83:81-91.

Suilsy, R.W.; Craven, M.M.  (1978)  Fungicides in Kentucky bluegrass
   turf: effects on thatch and pH.  Agronomy Journal
   70(6):1013-1019.

Smith, D.H. (1973) Ineffective chemical control ofPSclerotium?
   ??rolfsii?on peanuts.  Phytopathology 63(4):448.

Smith, D.H.; fbrne, C.W.; Jones, B.L.; Lee, T.A., Jr.; Pailley, G.
   L.; Tranpota,  J. (1974)  Peanut Seed Treatment Results.  (Unpub-
   lished study received May 2, 1975 under 400-31; prepared by
   Tsxas A & M Univ., Agricultural Extension Service in cooperation
   with Plant Disease Research Station and Tarleton Experiment
   Station, submitted by Unroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:
   093023-F)
                                      164

-------
305301136


005001137



005301138



005304146



005001246
005001145
000004240
005001307


005331218



305017530
305001166



335013561


005309700


305031658
3nith, J.D.  (1972) Snow mold of  turfgrass  in  Saskatchewan  in  1971.
   Canadian  Plant Disease Survey 52(1):25-29.

3nith, J.D.  (1975) Snow mold control  in  turfgrasses with
   fungicides  in Saskatchewan, 1971-74.  Canadian  Plant Disease
   Survey 56(1):l-8.

Smith, J.D.; Rsiter, W.W. (1976) Snow mold control in bentgrass
   turf with fungicides, 1975.   Canadian Plant Disease Survey
   56(3):104-103.

Sohi, H.S. (1976) Effect of seed dressers against seed borne
   infection in certain vegetable crops.  Madras Agricultural
   Journal 63(5/7):425-427.

Sonoda, R.M. (1975) Control of Damp-off  in Tbmatoes Planted by
   Plug-mix Method in Previously Cropped Soil.  Ft. Pierce, Ela.:
   Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,Agricultural
   Research Center. (Ft. Pierce  Agricultural Research Center
   research report RL-1975-1)

Sridhar, T.S.  (1974)  Evaluation  of fungicides against?Fhiz>pus?spp
   causing soft rot of fruits.   Hindustan Antibiotics Bulletin
   17(1/2):31-34.

Stoner laboratories (1978) Chloroneb and Metabolite.  Method
   502.257.2 dated Get 16, 1978.  (Unpublished study including sum-
   mary, received Feb 6, 1979 under 2935-413; submitted by Wilbur-
   Ellis Co., Fresno, Calif.; CDL:237335-A)

Sumner, D.R. (1974) Ecology and  control of seedling diseases  of
   crucifers.  Phytopathology 64(5):692-698.

Sumner, D.R.; Suit tie, D.A. (1976) Etiology and control of fruit
   rot of cucumber in single harvesting for pickles.  Plant
   Disease Reporter 60(4):304-307.

Thomas, J.F.; Pauls,  C.F. (1974)  Survey of Wastewater Discharge:
   Elmendorf Air force Base, Alaska.  Kelly Air Ebrce Base, Ttex.:
   U.S. Air Ebrce, environmental Ifealth Laboratory. (Available
   from: OTIS, Springfield, ^; AD-782 480)

Thong, H.L.  (1974) Germination and seedling survival
   of?Araucaria?with Damosan (chloroneb 1,4 dicIiloro-2,5-dimethoxy
   benzene)  treatment.  The Malaysian Ebrester 37(1):54-60.
Thornburg, W. (1971) Pesticide residues.
   43 (5): 145-162.
Analytical Chemistry
Thornburg, W. (1973) Pesticide residues.  Analytical Chamistry
   45(5):151-157.

Thornburg, W.; Beckman, H. (1969) Pesticide residues.  Analytical
   Chemistry 41(5):140R-151R.
                                      165

-------
305001240   Tillraan, R.W. (1971)  Effect of chloroneb on the growth and
               metabolism of?Ustilago maydis??.  Dissertation Abstracts
               International B 32(9):5358.

035031183   Tillman, R.W.; Sisler, H.D. (1971) A chloronab-resistant mutant
               of?Ustilago maydis??.  Phytopathology 51 (3):914.

005031138   Tillraan, R.W.; Sisler, H.D. (1973) Effect of chloroneb on the
               growth and metabolism of?Ustilago maydis??.  Phytopathology
               53:219-225.

005335583   Tillman, R.W.; Sisler, H.D. (1973) Effect of chloroneb on the
               growth and metabolism of?Ustilago maydis??.  Phytopathology
               53(2):219-225.

003301459   Toro Research and Development Center (1970) Snow told Trials, 1969-
               70:  ETersanl.  (Unpublished study received Jan 10, 1972 under
               352-359; submitted by E.I.  du Pont de Nemours & Co. Inc.,
               Wilmington, Del.;  CDL:003093-H)

005002145   Tripathi, R.K.; Bhaktavatsalam, G. (1977) Growth of?Tolyposporium?
               ??penicillariae?on different media and in vitro screening of
               fungicides against the fungus.  Pesticides 11(6):60.

005001771   Tuyl, J.M. van (1977) Genetics of fungal resistance to systemic
               fungicides.  Mededelingen Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen.
               ECcnmunications of the Agricultural University, Wageningen.I
               77(2):1-136.

035010935   Tuyl, J.M. van (1977) Genetics of Fungal Resistance to Systemic
               Fungicides.  Wageningen, Netherlands:  H. \feerraan and Zonen
               B.V. (Mededelingen Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen no. 77-2)

300004242   inilab Research (1973) Tbxicity Analysis: Technical Report: Labora-
               tory ND. 10165-2.   (Unpublished study received Fab 5, 1979 under
               2935-413; submitted by Wilbur-Ellis Co., Fresno, Calif.; CDL:
               237336-A)

300033191   Uniroyal Chemical (1967) Cold Hardiness Test: SOCS 7A(AD).  (Unpub-
               lished study received ttov 29, 1967 under 400-EX-28; CDL:
               123430-H)

033003051   Uniroyal Chemical (1969) Data on Seed Treatment—Soil Fungicide
               Test for Control of Cotton Seedling Diseases, Athens, Georgia,
               1959: Table 2.  (Unpublished study received Jun 5, 1970 under
               0F0939; CDL:093245-N)

333002939   Uniroyal Chemical (1971) Cotton Seedling Survival.  (Unpublished
               study received Apr 12, 1972 under 400-30; CDL: 023352-D)

300032352   Uniroyal Chemical (1971) Regional Pod Rot test—1971.  (Unpublished
               study received Sep 28, 1976 under 400-130; CDL:230405-O)

003032354   Uniroyal Chemical (1972) Pod Rot Test—1972.  (Unpublished study
               received Sep 28, 1976 under 403-133; CDL:230405-R)
                                       166

-------
300003126   Unroyal Chemical  (1972) 1972 Regional Cottonseed Treatment Tast.
               (Unpublished study received May 16, 1973 undar 403-107; prepared
               in cooperation with Seed Treatment Conroittaa of the Cotton
               Disease Cbuncil; CEL:003234-I)

000005530   Lhiroyal Oiemical  (1973) Vitavax—Fungicide: Paanut Ssed Treatment
               Test Summary at 3-6 Qz/100 Rounds of Seed,  (unpublished study
               received Way 2, 1975 under 400-81; CDL:098023-A)

000003001   Uniroyal Chemical  (1974) Phytotoxicity.  (Unpublished study re-
               ceived JUl 15, 1976 under 400-118; CDLs 224933-B)

000302925   Uniroyal Chemical  (1975?)  Rate of USI-1107: Saedling Survival per
               20 »unds Seed (A/e. Stand Count) .  (Unpublished study received
               Mar 27, 1975 under 403-118; CEL:230407-C)

000002999   Uiiroyal Chemical  (1975) Field Evaluation Report.  (Unpublished
               study received Jul 15,  1976 under 400-118; GEL:224932-D)

000005870   Uhiroyal Chemical  (1976) Vitavax-10G.  (Unpublished study received
               Apr 21, 1977 under 400-107; prepared in cooperation with Vir-
               ginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.., Dept. of Plant
               Pathology and Physiology; CDL:237180-C)

000003236   Uhiroyal Chemical (1977) Vitavax-3F: Peanuts.  (Unpublished study
               received May 30, 1978 under 400-EX-55; CDL:234122-B)

000003016   Uiiroyal Chemical (1978) Vitavax-200 Flowable Fungicide: Soybeans.
               Summary of studies 235936-G and 235936-H.  (Unpublished study
               received Jbv 14, 1978 under .400-112; CDL:235936-C)

000004233   University of California—Davis, Department of Plant Pathology
               (1978)  Effect of Various Seed Treatments on Seedling Survival in
               Flats Infested with?RuzDCtonia solani, Phytrhiura ultimum?? and
               ??1hielaviopsis basicola??.  (Unpublished study received Feb 6,
               1979 under 2935-413; submitted by Wilbur-Ellis Co., Fresno,
               Calif.; CDL:237333-F)

003001535   University of Rhode Island (1954)  Stem Rust (??Puccinia gramin??-
               77is??)  Development on  Injured Merion BLuegrass:  Plant Pathology
               Report 4.  (Unpublished study received Jan 15,  1957 under 400-
               11; submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:
               003230-H)

003302957   University of Tennessee (1970)  Evaluation of Fungicides for Treat-
               ment of Cotton Seed, Jackson, Tennessee, 1970.   (Unpublished
               study received on unknown date under 9G0319; prepared by Agri-
               cultural Experiment Station,  Dept.  of Agricultural Biology, sub-
               mitted  by Uniroyal Chemical,  Bethany, Conn.; CDL:091418-H)

003003331   EUuversity of Tennessee)  (1972) Regional Cottonseed Treatment
               Test—1972.  (Unpublished study received May 16,  1973 under
               403-107; prepared by Agricultural  Experiment Station, Dspt. of
               Agricultural Biology, Evaluation of Fungicides  for Treatment of
               Cotton  Seed,  submitted  by Uniroyal  Chemical, Bethany, Conn.;
               CDL:003234-F)
                                       167

-------
303012337
305305245
305331477
303001453
333031457
330301456
305337830
335302499
335303373
305331237
Upjohn Company (19??) EControl of Powdery Mildew and Brown Patches
   on Lavvnsl .  (Unpublished study received Aug 20,  1959 under 1023-
   10; prepared in cooperation with Pennsylvania State Univ., Ex-
   tension Service and U.S. Dept. of Agriculture; CEL: 02433 2-B)

Vaartaja, 0.; Pitblado, R.E. ; Buzzell, R.I.; Crawford, L.G.  (1979)
   Chemical and biological control of phytophthora  root and stalk
   rot of soybean.  Canadian Jburnal of Plant Science
   59 (2): 337-311.

Vaartaja, 0.; Wilner, J. (1956) Field tests with fungicides  to
   control damping-off of Scots pine.  Canadian Jburnal of
   Agricultural Science 36:14-18.

Vargas, J.M.  (1969) Snow Maid Fungicide Study 1969: Boyne
   Highlands, Michigan.  (Unpublished study including letter dated
   Jun 2,. 1969 from I.M. Vargas to R.T. Miller, received JUl 23,
   1959 under 352-344; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
   Inc., Wilmington, Dal.; CDL:303046-£)

Vargas, J.M. ; Beard, J.B. (1971?) Comparison of Application Dates
   for Control of Typhula Blight.  (Unpublished study received
   Jan 10, 1972 under 352-359; prepared by Michigan Agricultural
   Experiment Station, submitted by E.I. du Pont de Meioours & Co.,
   Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:003093-F)

Vargas, J.M., Jr.; Beard, J.B.  (1970) Chloroneb, a new fungicide
   for the control of typhula blight.  Plant Disease Reporter 54
   (12) : 1075- 1077.  (Also?In?unpublished submission received
   Jan 10, 1972 under 352-359; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours
   & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:303093-E)

Verma, J.P. ; Singh, R.P. ; Nayak, M.L. (1975) Laboratory evaluation
   of chemicals against ?Xanthomonas malvacearun?? ,  the incitant of
   bacterial blight of cotton.  Indian Phytopathology
   28 (2) : 171-174.

Verma, R.K. ; Vyas, S.C. (1977) Effect of seed treatment with
   systemic fungicides in gram wilt control.  Pesticides
   11(1): 20-21.

Veverka, K. (1976) Kombinance thiram— chloroneb pri ochrane
   cukrovky proti spale_ EThiram-chloroneb mixture  for fungicidal
   dressing of sugar-beet seed_|  Agrochemia 16 (3): 90-92.
Vonk, J.W.; Sijpesteijn, A.K.  (1977) .Metabolism.  Pages
   153-175,? In? Systemic Fungicides.  Edited by R.W. Marsh.
   ed.  Naw York:  Longman.
                                                                        2nd
335331173   Vyas
305013944
   s, S.C.; Jbshi, L.K. (1977) Laboratory evaluation of systemic
   and non-systemic fungicides against?Sclerotiun rolfsii?Sacc_
   causing collar rot of wheat.  Pesticides  11(2): 55-55.

Vyas, S.C.; Singh, D.  (1977) Control of storage diseases of apple
   (??Malus sylvestris?Mill) fruits with fungicides.  Pesticides
   11 (9): 44-47.
                                       168

-------
303033333   Wadsvorth, D.F.; toung, H.C., Jr.  (1953)  Peanut disease  research.
               Pages 13-17/?In?Paanut Research  Progress  Report,  1958.   By Caddo
               Peanut Research Station.   Stillwater: Oklahoma State Univ.
               (Processed series no. P-593; also?In?unpublished  submission
               received Jan 13, 1969 under 400-SX-33; submitted  by Uniroyal
               Chemical, Bethany, Cbnn.; CEL:123439-1)

300C01337   Wadsworth, D.F.; Ybung, B.C., Jr.;  McCoy, R.E.  (1967) Peanut
               Disease Research—1965: Progress Report:  Processed Series  P-559.
               (Unpublished study received Feb  16, 1968  under 1253-813; pre-
               pared by Oklahoma State Univ., Dcpt. of Botany and Plant Patho-
               logy, Ekperimant Station, submitted by Olin Cbrp., Stamford,
               Coan.; CEL:005734-G)

033333199   Wadsworth, D.F.; Young, H.C., Jr.;  McCoy, R.E. (1957) Progress
               Report: Peanut Disease Research—1966: Processed  Series P-559.
               (Unpublished study received Feb  23, 1953  under 400-EX-33;
               prepared by Oklahoma State Univ., Dept. of Botany and  Plant
               Pathology, submitted by Uniroyal ChemjLcal, Bethany, Cbnn.;  CDL:
               123438-D)

000002222   Wagner, J.R. (1974) Disease Control with Seed Treatment.  (Unpub-
               lished study received Feb 10, 1975 under  352-363; submitted by
               E.I. du Pont de Namours & Co., Inc., Wilmington,  Del.; CDL:
               221883-B)

035003330   Walker, J.T.  (1976) Cantipedegrass  seed treatments-and
               light-temperature effects on germination.  Plant  Disease
               Reporter 60(5):393-397.

005004575   Wall, R.E. (1976)  Fungicide use in  relation  to the compatibility
               of damping-off fungi.  Bi-Monthly Research Notes, Canadian
               Forestry Service 32 (2): 12-13.

305003950   Wastie, R.L.  (1971)  Fungicides for protecting baled  rubber.
               International Biodeterioration Bulletin 7(3):121-124.

000001465   Watson, J.R.  (1969) Snow Maid Tests.  (Unpublished study received
               Jul 23, 1969 under 352-344; prepared by Tbro Manufacturing  Co.,
               submitted  by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington,
               Del.; CDL:003046-G)

005013379   Webster, R.K.; mil, D.H.; Sostad,  J.; Wick, C.M.; Brandon, D.M.;
               Baskett, R.;  Williams,  J.M. (1973)  Chemical seed treatment  for
               the control of seedling disease of water-sowi rice.  Hilgardia
               41(21):639-698.

333301479   Welch, A.W.  (1971?)  1971 Regional Seed Treatment Tests £in North
               Carolinal .  (Unpublished study received Apr 3, 1972 under 352-
               353; submitted by E.I.  du Pont de Namours & Co.,  Inc.,
               Wilmington,  Dal.; CDL:303095-L)

233301459   Wells, H.D.  (1953?)  Effectiveness of Fungicides for  the Control of
               Cottony Blight on Field  Plots of Ryegrass Turf in 1968.  (Unpub-
               lished study received Jul 23, 1959  under 352-344; submitted by
               E.I. du Pont  de  Nemours  & Co., Inc.,  Wilmington, Del.; CDL:
               003045-K)
                                      169

-------
3035501473   Walls, H.D. (1959?)  Chloroneb, a Foliage Fungicide for Control of
               Cottony Blight of Ryegrass.  (Unpublished study received Jul 23,
               1969 under 352-344; prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research
               Service, Crops Research Div. in cooperation with Univ. of
               Georgia, College of Agriculture, submitted by E.I. du Pont de
               Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:003046-L)

005001198   Wells, H.D. (1959)  Chloroneb, a foilage fungicide for control of
               cottony blight of ryegrass.  Plant Disease Reporter
               53 (7): 523-529.

305301221   Walls, H.D.; 3ell,  O.K. (1976) Control of cottony blight of annual
               ryegrass caused  by?Pythiun aphanidennatun??.  Pages
               263,?In?Proceedings—American Phytopathological Society.  Vbl.
               3.  St. Paul, Minn.:  Anerican Phytopathological Society.

035005033   Wells, H.D.; Bell,  O.K. (1976) Control of cottony blight of annual
               ryegrass caused  by?Pythium aphanidennatun??.  Proceedings of
               the Anerican Hiytopathological Society 3:263.

300004985   Wells, H.D.; Gay, ?; Littrell, ? (1959?)  EEfficacy Data of Demonsan
               on Crops|.  (Unpublished study including letter dated May 23,
               1969 from H.D. Wells to Bob Miller, received Jul 23, 1969 under
               352-344; prepared by U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Crops
               Research Div., Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station, submit-
               ted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Del.; GEL:
               003046-M)

000002932   Wells, J.C. (1969)  Peanut Seed Treatment "tests.  (Unpublished study
               including letter dated Mar 25, 1970 from J.C. Wells to Dave
               Benson, received Apr 6, 1970 under OF0939; prepared by North
               Carolina State Univ., Agricultural Extension Service, SDept. ofI
               Plant Pathology, submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.;
               CDL:394582-H)

233010165   Wells, J.C. (1971)  Pod Pot Test—1971.  (Unpublished study received
               Cct 5, 1973 under 3G1359; prepared by North Carolina State
               Univ., submitted by PPG Industries, Inc., Chemical Div., Pitts-
               burgh, Pa.; CDL:093629-K)

333013011   Wells, J.C. (1971)  Pod Rst Test—1971.  (Unpublished study received
               Jan 24, 1972 under 464-379; submitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A.,
               Midland, Mich.;  CEL:003594-C)

300012304   Wells, J.C. (1972)  Pod Rat Test—1972.  (Unpublished study received
               Oct 5, 1973 under 3G1359; prepared in cooperation with North
               Carolina State Uiiv., Dept. of Plant Pathology and Shell Chemi-
               cal Co., submitted by PPG Industries, Inc., Chemical Div.,
               Pittsburgh, Pa.; CDL:093629-M)

003033332   Wells, J.C. (1972)  Regional Cottonseed Treatment Test—-1972.  (Un-
               published study  received May 16, 1973 under 400-107; prepared
               by North Carolina State Univ., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical,
               Bethany, Conn.;  CDL:003284-M)
                                       170

-------
003313204   Wells, J.C.  (1974) Demonstrations and Applied  Research—1974:  Pod
               Rot.   (Unpublished study received Mar  25,  1975 under  743-EX-12;
               prepared by North Carolina State Lhiv.f submitted by  PPG  indus-
               tries, Inc., Chemical Div.,  Pittsburgh, Pa.;  CDL:096409-F)

033309637   Wells, J.C.; Garriss, H.R. (1969) EPsanut Pad  Rot Test,  Peanut
               Leaf spot Test, and Cottonseed Treatment Testl .   (Unpublished
               study received Jua 1, 1970 under 400-EX-37; prepared  by North
               Carolina State Univ., Plant  Pathology  Dspt.,  submitted by Uhi-
               royal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL: 123446-1)

035319792   Werner, P.; Lyr, H.; Casperson, G. (1978) Die  Wirkung von
               Chloroneb, seinen Abbauprodukten, sowie von chlorierten
               Ehenolen auf das Wachstura und die Ultrastruktur verschiedener
               Pilzarten   EEffects of chloroneb, its degradation products,
               and of chlorinated phenols on the growth and  ultrastructure of
               various fungij  Archiv fuer Phytopathologie  und Pflanzenschutz
               14(5):301-312.

335301123   White, G.A.; Adamson, W.C.; Whiteley, E.L.; Massey, J.H. (1971)
               Bnergence of kenaf seedlings as affected by seed fungicides.
               Agronomy Jburnal 63(3):484-486.

305004938   Wierana, G.B.; Tai, H.; Sand, P.F. (1972) Pesticide residue  levels
               in soils, FY 1969—National Soils Monitoring  Program.
               Pesticides Monitoring Journal 6(3):194-228.

305001187   Wiese, M.V.; Vargas, J.M. (1972) Degradation and synthesis of
               chloroneb by soil microorganisms.  Phytopathology 62(10):1112.

000004235   Wilbur-Ellis Company (1978)  EAcala SJ 2 Cotton Seedling  Survival
               and Bnergence after Fungicide Treatment].'   (Unpublished study
               received Feb 6, 1979 under 2935-413; CDL:234333-8)

000004234   Wilbur-Ellis Ccrapany (1979)  Efficacy Data—Suttnary.  Summary of
               studies 237333-3 through 237333-F.   (Unpublished study received
               Feb 6, 1979 under 2935-413; CDL:237333-A)

003004239   Wilbur-Ellis Company (1979)  Residue Data—Summary.  (Unpublished
               study including letter dated Oct 16, 1973 from J.H. Stoner  to
               Dave T. Schulteis, received Feb 5,  1979 under 2935-413; pre-
               pared in cooperation with  Stoner laboratories; CDL:237334-A)

095303235   Williams, P.P. (1977) Metabolism of synthetic organic pesticides
               by anaerobic microorganisms.  Pages 63-135,?In?Residue Reviews.
               Reviews of Pesticides and  Other Ebreign Chemicals in  Ebods and
               Feeds.  Vol. 66.   Edited by F.A. Gunther.   New *rk:   Springer.

035301215   Williams, R.J. (1975) Control of cowpea seedling mortality in
               southern Nigeria,   plant  Disease Reporter 59(3):245-248.

305331125   Wimalajeewa, D.L.S.  (1975)  Field investigations on the control of
               club root of cabbage in Sri Lan!
-------
005017354   Woodcock,  D. (1977)  Structure-activity relationships.  Pagas
               32-34,?In?Systemic Fungicides.  Edited by R.W. Marsh.  2nd ed.
               frtew York:  Longman.

330031453   Wbrf, G.L.; Ahrens,  R.W. (1971)  Results of 1970-71 (Typhula)  Snow
               Mold Trials in Wisconsin.  (Unpublished study received Jan 10,
               1972 under 352-359; prepared  by Uhiv. of Wisconsin, Dept. of
               Plant Pathology,  submitted by E.I. du Pont da Nsnours & 03.,
               Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CEL:003093-G)

305004784   ^adav, R.K.S. (1975)  Control of  damping-off of?Luffa?
               ??aegyptica?with  systemic and non-systemic fungicides.  Indian
               Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology 5(1):43.

335314451   Zaznbolim,  L.; Sediyama, C.S.; Ribeiro, A.C.; Chaves,  G.M. (1975)
               Efeito  de fungicidas protetores e sistanicos e molibdenio, na
               amergencia, producao a fixacao simbiotica do nitrogenio em soja
               (??Glycine max?(LJ Merril)    £Effect of protective and
               systemic fungicides and mol'yodenun on the emergence, production
               and symbiotic fixation of nitrogen in soybeans (??Glycine?
               ??max?(LJ  Msrrill)J   Rsvista Ceres 22(124):440-448.

305001132   Zander, M.; aitzinger, 0. (1971) P2Tosphorimetry of chloro- and
               nitro-aroraatic fungicides. Bulletin of Environmental
               Contamination and Toxicology  5(6):565-568.

003001436   Zapp, J.A., Jr. (1965) lexicological Information: 1,4-Dichloro-2,
               5-Wmethoxybenzene.  (Uipublished study received  Jul 7, 1965
               under 352-312; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
               Wilmington, Del.; CDL:050034-A)
                                  172

-------
                           OFFICE PESTICIDE  PROGRAMS
                       REGISTRATON STANDARD  BIBLIOGRAPHY

            Section  3:   Standard Reference Material

Farm Chemical Handbook.  (1979) Meister publishing.   Willoughby.   Ohio.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide  Act,  as  amended in 1978,
    7th U.S. Code, Chapter 135, 61 Statute  163.78 Statute 190.

Pesticide Process Encyclopedia , 1977, Moyes Data Corp.,  Park Ridge, Mew
    Jersey.

Pesticide Index;  Basic  information on the chemicals used as active
    components of pesticides.  ; Martin, H..  and Wbrthington, C.R..  eds.,  1977-
    5th ed.f British Corp. Protection Council, Worcestershire,  England

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1978a); Proposed Guidelines for
    Registering Pesticides in the United States.   Federal Register,  43 (132)
    29696.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency O978b); Proposed Guidelines for
    Registering Pesticides in the United S^tes; Hazard  Evaluation:   Hunans and
    Domestic Animals.  Federal Register, 43  (I6j) 37336.

U.S. Environment! Protection Agency (1930);  Regulations  for the  Enforcement
    of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Title 40,
    Chapter 1, Part 162.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (in press) Proposed  Guidelines for
    Registering Pesticides in the United States.  Subparts G (Product
    Performance) and H (Label Development).
                                                            *u s GovEimm PRINTING OFFICES iseo 34i-oas/3946

-------