rxEPA
United Stattt
Environmental Prote
Agency
Off k* of
PWtteidw and Toxic Substances
Waahington DC 20460
July 1985
Pesticides
National Urban Pesticide
Applicator Survey:
Final Report
Overview and Results
-------
April 13, 1984 RTI/2764/08-01F
NATIONAL URBAN PESTICIDE APPLICATOR SURVEY:
FINAL REPORT
OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
by
Frederick W. Immennan
Douglas J. Drummond
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Contract No. 68-01-6646
Task Manager: Linda Zarow
Project Officer: Edward Brandt
Economic Analysis Branch
Benefits and Use Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
FOREWORD
The Foreword of this report consists of contributions from the
sponsoring trade associations, the Association of American Pesticide
Control Officials (AAPCO), and EPA that describe their respective
perceptions of the intent and usefulness of the National Urban Pesticide
Applicator Survey (NUPAS).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
June 18, 1985
To the Reader;
This report is the third of three volumes of the National
Urban Pesticide Applicators Survey. It contains the general
results of the survey and an overview of data compiled by the
Research Triangle Institute (RTI) under its contract with EPA.
This volume provides estimates of pesticide usage by comnercial
applicators to the structural, lawn and tree industries as well as
characteristics of these pest control industry sectors.
There are two additional technical volumes on this survey
which can be obtained from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) DOC, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia,
22216, (703-487-4650). These reports contain survey methodology
and statistical weighting techniques.
Anyone wishing to obtain the other technical volumes, may do
so by contacting NTIS and requesting the reports by the following
numbers:
Technical Volume I (Survey Design and Implementation)
5401-9184-007
Technical Volume II (Data Processing, Editing a
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This EPA Report has been reviewed by the Office of Pesticide Programs and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Enviromental Protection
Agency, or does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
A. Trade Association Assessment of NUPAS
iii
-------
NATIONAL ARBORIST NATIONAL PEST CONTROL PROFESSIONAL LAWN
ASSOCIATION (NAA) ASSOCIATION (NPCA) CARE ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA (PLCAA)
3537 Stratford Road 8100 Oak Street 1225 Johnson Ferry Rd
Wantagh, New York 11793 Dunn Loring, VA 22027 Suite B-220
Marietta, GA 30067
NATIONAL URBAN PESTICIDE APPLICATORS SURVEY (NUPAS)
A Profile of The Urban Pesticide Applicator Industry
The above topic title states succinctly the purpose that the three
trade associations, i.e., the structural applicators (NPCA), the
arborists (NAA}, and the lawn care specialists (PLCAA) shared with
the state regulatory officials (AAPCO), and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), in working together to design and carry
out this pioneering project. Industry needed documentation in
1981 of their estimates for the number of firms in their respective
specialty fields; the number, role and qualifications of the
persons employed to provide services by these firms; the types and
amounts of services provided in the various regions of the nation;
and what control procedures, including pesticides, are most
frequently utilized in providing services to the public. Government
obviously needed the same information for regulatory needs
assessment. The data on what industry tools, i.e., pesticides*
et al, are used, in what amounts, where, and for what purposes
are of greater interest and value to EPA and the states to assist
them in benefits versus risks decision making compared to industry's
need for these types of data.
The urban pesticide applicator industry needs accurate information
to better describe services made available to the nation's consumers
and how these might be expanded or strengthened.
The dues paying membership of the three trade associations represents
only part of the total industry firms or applicators registered to
provide service in the nation. The national trade association's
membership, however, in most instances provides the greatest amount
IV
-------
-2-
of services to the buying public. All of us, thus, can benefit
from collection of data that is not restricted to the national
association dues paying membership but instead is collected from
a cross section of everyone in the urban pesticide applicator
business .
The industry associations expected from the NUPAS, at the outset,
specific information of the following types :
1. Quantitative data - i.e., the number of firms by
size (i.e. range of gross sales) and number of
personnel employed according to role and their
qualifications (training and experience) in
pesticide use.
2. Descriptive data - i.e., pest management practices
used, major sites serviced, i.e., structure types
and the pests treated. We wanted information on
the pesticides used, in what amounts for these
factors as well as information on other techniques
for obtaining control, the safety measures used and
identification of problems most frequently
encountered by the industry in using, storing
or disposing of pesticides and containers.
All of the above expectations were not realized from the 1981 NUPAS
survey. Expectations must always be adapted to what is the most
cost effective to collect in any survey. The cost in terms of*
time for operators to supply Lue information and the money that
would be available to collect it required industry and government
to compromise and focus only on what was practical and most
valuable to ask for and likely to be provided by the nation's busy
applicator firms. The industry trade associations helped by field
testing sample questionnaires to arrive at the best questions to
ask, how to ask for it and to identify those questions that are
not likely to receive usable answers. This preliminary testing
was helpful but still some questions included in the survey did
not yield usable responses or sufficient information to be reliable
The 1981 NUPAS project provides many positives. It makes available
data that allows the urban pesticide applicator industry to tell
a better benefits story in regards to the pesticides it uses.
-------
-3-
It can help us to more accurately describe what we do to protect
and service the nation's homes, offices, stores and warehouses,
their contents and the greenery that surrounds them. What are
some of the positives? Here are a few:
The survey is a milestone in government agency, industry
relations. Three trade associations were involved with
the beginning, middle and end of the three year survey
project. Four years ago such cooperation between indus-
try and the EPA was unthinkable to many in government
or industry.
The survey generated improved cooperation between
state regulatory agencies and industry trade
associations .
The study estimated (with more accuracy than currently
available marketing studies) the number of urban
pesticide applicator firms in the U.S.
The study estimated for the first time the extremely
broad range of chemicals used by the three industries
involved in the survey.
The study estimated a weighted (scaled up) number
of pounds of chemicals used per year by the three
surveyed industries.
The study provides data to estimate the professional
population whose livelihood depends on employment
in the three industries surveyed.
The study indicates the relative number of firms in
the U.S. that belong to professional trade organi-
zations .
The study indicates the trade magazines read by at
least the respondents to the survey valuable
marketing data!
The data estimates the relative gross dollar value
of the three industry firms in the U.S. In the past,
we estimated economic benefits. Now we can speak with
more authority because firm survey base figures
for their data are better than nothing but guesses.
The survey indicates the knowledge about product labels,
or the willingness to read product labels by the
respondents of the three industry firms. If survey
results show that some applicators do not know the EPA
vi
-------
-4-
number when they see it then the survey points out
a weakness that must be addressed in training and
education resources serving the industries. Our
customers also deserve to know our real value as
protectors of health, food, structures, and the
green environment, and this survey helps provide
data to do that job.
There are other positives, but the above are enough to illustrate
the contributions to improved knowledge made by this nationwide
data collection project.
The NUPAS survey of 1981 was a pioneering government-industry
cooperative effort. As in all such initiatives one learns so
that if and when done again it can be done better and more cost-
effectively. The industry association participants in this
project are of the opinion that individual industry practitioners
should benefit from the data collected. For example, it will enable
an individual to know with assurance the number of pesticide
applicator firms nationwide, as well as in his multistate region,
and in some instances, in his state. It will enable him to see
multistate regional areas that are under or over served; it
will allow individual company comparisons with regional profiles
of the personnel gualifications and pesticide use practices of"
others in that region in the same field and the two other related
fields .
The national urban pesticide applicator trade associations enabled
the government, both EPA and the state regulators, to obtain
information that if used properly can improve the public decision-
makers' perceptions of the benefits versus the risks of pesticides
used by the urban applicator industry, obtain more precise data
on the guantities of pesticides used, and how, in the urban
compared to agricultural areas. This should encourage more
enlightened and cooperative state and federal pesticide use
enforcement planning and action for protection of the general
public and also the commercial applicators of pesticides the
most highly exposed segment of the "user" community.
vii
-------
-5-
The NUPAS was a valuable information gathering project. All of
us, whether as commercial applicators, government regulators, or
homeowners will benefit to the degree we use the storehouse of
information that the NUPAS data provides.
viii
-------
B. Association of American Pesticide Control Officials Assessments of NUPAS
ix
-------
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PESTICIDE CONTROL OFFICIALS
ANALYSIS OF
THE NATIONAL URBAN PESTICIDE APPLICATORS SURVEY
One of the most asked questions of state pesticide regulators iswhat
pesticides do applicators in your state use and how much? In the vast
majority of states only an "educated" guess can be made but no real data
can be given to the questioner. The National Urban Pesticide Applicators
Survey (NUPAS) offered a chance for states to gather statistically valid
information about a major group of pesticide applicators with no cost to
them. Not only would the data be reliable but it would allow states to
compare usage within their regions and between different parts of the
country. Hard data about the use of pesticides are difficult and costly to
obtain. For this reason the Association of American Pesticide Control
Officials (AAPCO) chose to participate in NUPAS.
AAPCO expected to learn what pesticides structural pest control operators
and ornamental and turf applicators actually use in their businesses: what
category of chemicals they were using1) chlorinated hydrocarbons, organo-
phosphates, carbamates, etc., 2) restricted use versus general use pesti-
cides, and 3) proportions of insecticides, hericides, rodenticides, etc.
We were also interested in what phases of the urban pest control business
companies engaged in. How many did termite work along with general pest
control? Did most companies offer both structural pest control and lawn
and ornamental pest control? Do small one-man companies use the same
chemicals used by the larger regional or national firms? How do pest
control operators receive their information and training? What training do
they consider to be the most valuable? Are state certification training
programs effective and are they covering the needs of the industry and the
problems encountered by the pest control industry? Finally, what percent-
age of urban applicators belong to a professional or trade association.
This last is of interest to states because the trade associations often
follow the comment on proposed pesticide regulations much more often than
do individual applicators. States are interested in how large a percentage
of applicators in their states are represented by an industry association
and whether association comments represent the views of the industry in
their state.
A great deal of information came out of NUPAS. Some of it was in areas not
directly surveyed, but in the logistics of such a survey. It showed that
EPA, the state and industry could all cooperate to conduct a successful,
valid survey of benefit to all. It also demonstrated some of the limita-
tions of a mail survey and the necessity of more communication between
cooperators prior to the initiation of the survey.
AAPCO believes NUPAS gives state pesticide officials a good idea of the
active ingredients used by pest control operators, what segment of the
industry uses what active ingredient and the relative amounts of each
active ingredient used in the ten EPA regions.
-------
The pesticide product data also tell what formulations are used. Solvents
and synergists are listed as active ingredients and if the tables are given
to persons not knowledgeable about pesticide formulations it would appear
that a lot more products are being used than is the case. The list of
active ingredients fails to give any valid indication of the target pest(s)
except in specialized cases such as the teraiticides.
The data presented in this report, while useful nationally, do not provide
individual states with a profile of pesticide usage within their respective
state. Therefore, the question of what and how much can only be answered
by inference, or by generating state-level estimates using the public user
data tape. This limitation is less in more homogeneous regions such as
Region 1 and greater in an area like Region 6 where states differ greatly
in climate, pest incidence and population density.
To a knowledgeable state pesticide official the pesticide usage data can be
interpreted and will be useful in answering questions about what is used by
pest control operators and should help in planning inspection and training
programs.
The gross sales information while of interest to industry groups is of less
use to states. The employment figures by type of employee is information
never before available to states and should be valuable in targeting infor-
mation in training programs.
Table 7 on the number of certified or licensed service technicians show the
tremendous educational effort which has been accomplished since 1976. It
also should provide a guide for states as to the number of technicians that
might remain to be certified should the number of restricted use pesticides
expand or they choose to expand certification requirements within their
respective state.
The survey showed the small percentage of firms which belong to the national
trade associations and that this percentage is especially low among the
smaller, less successful companies. It does not tell us whether or not the
non-member firms have the same concerns and needs as do the member firms.
Despite the problems in gathering the data and the assumptions and mani-
pulations made, AAPCO believes the data is valid and gives a good national
picture of the pest control industry to an extent never before adequately
documented. Like most statistical data it is not readily interpretable by
laymen outside of the industry, but to state, federal and industry persons
knowledgeable in pesticides the data gives a wealth of information not
previously available.
AAPCO feels the survey data are just as valid and useful in 1984 as they
were when they were collected. The objectives and use for the information
are the same today as when the survey was envisioned in 1981. The states
can use the survey to fine tune training programs. Inspection programs can
be planned to better utilize resources. Specialized state surveys can be
targeted to fill in details not addressed by NUPAS without duplicating data
adequately covered by NUPAS. Besides the actual data compiled in NUPAS,
the experience gained in conducting the survey should make future surveys
less costly and more informative.
xi
-------
EPA and its staff and the staff of the Research Triangle Institute are to
be complemented for tackling one of the most difficult areas of pest
control and pesticide usage and delivering a useful and valid overview of
the pest control industry.
xii
-------
C. EPA Assessment of NUPAS
xiii
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Economic Analysis Branch
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA's SPONSORSHIP OF THE NUPAS SURVEY
NUPAS is part of a broader initiative by the Office of Pesticide
Programs to gather quantitative pesticide usage data for the urban/non-farm
sector. Data on how much of and where a pesticide is used is basic to the
analysis of exposure and benefits. It enables the Agency to assign prior-
ities on the relative importance of various registered uses and to the
various regions of the country. In addition to risk/benefit analysis of
specific chemicals, pesticide usage data is frequently requested for the
planning of major programs. Recently, for example, the EPA working group
developing the National Monitoring Plan has requested detailed information
on pesticide use patterns.
The NUPAS Survey is the first comprehensive data base on pesticide use
by non-farm commerical applicators. The amount of information it provides
is vast, both in terms of the number of chemicals represented and its
national coverage. This is an additional dimension to the importance of
the database to EPA. No other published data source provides this informa-
tion so it fills an important data gap.
Excellent data quality was achieved in spite of the complexity involved
by using state lists as the sampling frame. RTI employed statistically
valid sampling techniques and respondent weighting procedures. In addition,
non-sampling error was reduced to the maximum extent feasible by applying
good survey procedures. Preliminary peer review has validated the accuracy
of the selected estimates. -.
xiv
-------
A significant spinoff from the NUPAS survey is its potential use as a
sampling frame of pesticide applicators for more detailed information on
pesticide use patterns. This could be very important for follow-up surveys
regarding risk/benefit reviews of specific chemicals, gathering general
information to guide label improvements and to target exposure monitoring.
EPA plans to integrate the NUPAS quantitative usage database with
other computerized databaes on pesticide use. The public user file enables
EPA to more extensively mine the data, share it with other potential users,
but at the same time protect the confidentiality of individual responses.
A final benefit from this survey has been the development of an
effective working relationship among the sponsors of the survey. Future
data collection efforts will no doubt benefit from this relationship by
it's service as a model, facilitating better survey instruments through
dialogue with user groups and achieving higher response rates with the help
of trade associations.
xv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Page
FOREWARD ii
A. Trade Association Assessment of NUPAS iii
B. Association of American Pesticide Control Officials Assess-
ment of NUPAS ix
C. EPA Assessment of NUPAS. . . . . . ............. xiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS-. .... . . . . . . . .............. xvi
Overview and Results Volume. . . . . . ...... . . ... . . . xvi
Technical Volume I xix
Technical Volume II. ... . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . xxi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . ....:...... xxiii
OVERVIEW. . . . .'. --..- . . xxvi
1. INTRODUCTION .......................... 1-1
2. SURVEY DESCRIPTION . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . ... . 2-1
2.1 Preliminary Work. . ....-;..-... . -. . . ..... . 2-1
2.2 Sampling Frame Construction and Sample Selection 2-2
2.3 Response-and Data Collection. . . . «. .-. . . .., . . . . . . 2-4
2.4 Resolution of Reporting Aggregates 2-6
2.5 Data Editing and Cleaning ....... 2-7
2.6 Weight File Construction 2-9
2.7 Preliminary Analyses and Review 2-9
3. RESULTS 3-1
3.1 General . 3-1
3.2 Sources of Error 3-2
3.3 Table and Appendix Descriptions 3-4
3.3.1 Pesticide Usage 3-4
3.3.2 Sales Information 3-5
3.3.3 Employee Information 3-5
3.3.4 Service Descriptors 3-6
3.3.5 General Industry Profiles 3-7
APPENDIX A The NUPAS Questionnaire.
APPENDIX B Estimates of National Usage of Active Ingredients in
1981, Sorted by Number of Pounds Used
APPENDIX C Estimates of National Usage of Active Ingredients in
1981, Sorted by EPA Chemical Code
APPENDIX D Relative Standard Errors of Summarized National
Estimates of Active Ingredient Usage in 1981, By
Product.Class and Industry Sector. . . ."""">. . .
xvi
\
' \
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDIX E Relative Standard Errors of National and Regional
Estimates of Active Ingredient Usage in 1981, by
Product Class and Industry Sector
APPENDIX F Relative Standard Errors of National Estimates of
Active Ingredient Usage in 1981, by Product Class and
Formulation
APPENDIX G Use and Interpretation of the Relative Standard Errors
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
A Profile of Industry Firms Participating in NUPAS
B Profile of Amounts of Active Ingredients Reported in NUPAS.
C Usage Characteristics of Firms Participating in NUPAS . . .
1 Summarized National Estimates of Pounds of Active
Ingredients Used in 1981
2 Estimates of National and Regional Usage of Pounds of
Active Ingredients in 1981, by Industry Sector and Product
Class
3 Estimates of National Usage of Active Ingredients in 1981,
by Product Class and Formulation
3A Estimates of National Usage of Pounds of Active Ingredients
in 1981, in Vertebrate Pesticides
4 Gross Sales of Pest Control Firms in 1981, by EPA Region
and Industry Sector
5 Sales of Pest Control Services in 1981, by EPA Region and
Industry Sector
6 Number of Employees of Pest Control Firms in 1981, by EPA
Region and Industry Sector
7 Number of Certified or Licensed Employees of Pest Control
Firms in 1981, by EPA Region and Industry Sector
8 Multiple State Certification or Licensing in 1981, by
Industry Sector
9 Number of Business Locations Associated with Reporting
Aggregates in 1981, by Industry Sector
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Table
10A-10G Site Specific Percent of Gross Sales from Pest Control
Services in 1981, by Industry Sector and Report Aggregate
Size
11A-11G Site Specific Number of Accounts in 1981, by Industry
Sector and Reporting Aggregate Size
12A-12E Service Specific Percent of Gross Sales in 1981, by
Reporting Aggregate Size
13 National Trade Association Membership in 1981, by Size of
Reporting Aggregate
14 Membership in State or Regional Trade Associations in 1981,
by Industry Sector and Size of Reporting Aggregate
15 Estimated Number of Reporting Aggregates with Subscriptions
to Trade Journals in 1981, by Reporting Aggregate Size. . .
16 Number of Years in Business as of 1981, by Industry Sector
and Size of Reporting Aggregate
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency Regional
Offices
xvii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Technical Volume I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Overview and Introduction 1-1
1.2 Preliminary Survey Activities 1-2
1.2.1 Requests from States to Conduct NUPAS 1-2
1.2.2 EPA and the Trade Associations 1-3
1.2.3 American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
Telephone Survey 1-4
1.3 Advance Survey Planning with Trade Associations 1-5
1.3.1 Trade Association Draft Questionnaire 1-5
1.3.2 Preliminary Schedule 1-6
1.3.3 Advance Survey Publicity 1-6
1.3.4 Use of Mail Survey Methodology 1-8
1.3.5 Use of State Lists of Registered Commercial
Operators 1-9
1.3.6 Use of Oakton, Virginia Facilities 1-10
1.3.7 Development of Survey Materials 1-10
2. SAMPLE DESIGN 2-1
2.1 Desired Target Population 2-1
2.2 Frame Construction 2-1
2.2.1 Characteristics of State Regulatory Lists 2-1
2.2.2 Industry Sector Categorization 2-2
2.2.3 Construction of the Firm-Level Frame 2-9
2.2.4 Frame Construction in Telephone States 2-12
2.3 Sample Design 2-13
2.3.1 Sample Design in Mail States Z-13
2.3.2 Sample Design in Telephone States . 2-19
2.4 Sample Design for the Nonresponse Followup 2-20
3. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN 3-1
3.1 Review of Trade Association Questionnaires 3-1
3.1.1 Comparability of Draft Questionnaires 3-1
3.1.2 Consolidation to One Questionnaire 3-2
3.2 Eligibility and Usage Questions 3-2
3.3 Reporting Problems 3-5
3.4 Pretest Activities ' . 3-10
4. PREPARATIONS FOR SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION 4-1
4.1 Trade Association Media Coverage 4-1
4.2 Development of the Final Schedule 4-2
4.3 Telephone Screening 4-3
4.4 Survey Control System 4-5
4.4.1 Overview 4-5
xix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Technical Volume I
Page
4.4.2 Control File 4-5
4.4.3 Event Processing 4-7
4.4.4 Usage 4-11
4.5 Preparation of Survey Materials 4-11
4.5.1 Reproduction of Survey Questionnaire 4-12
4.5.2 Development of the Cover Letter 4-12
4.5.3 Development of Data Receipt Plans 4-13
4.5.4 Development of Scan-Edit Specifications 4-13
4.5.5 Development of Plans for Handling Special Requests. 4-13
5. IMPLEMENTATION OF SURVEY PROCEDURES 5-1
5.1 Questionniare Mailout 5-1
5.2 Handling Special Requests and Problems 5-3
5.3 Data Receipt 5-3
5.3.1 Questionnaire Check-In Procedures 5-4
5.3.2 Scan-Edit Process . 5-4
5.3.3 Control System Keying 5-5
5.3.4 Monitoring Survey Progress 5-6
6. NONRESPONSE FOLLOWUP ACTIVITIES AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS 6-1
6.1 Necessity for Followup Activities 6-1
6.2 Response Problems 6-1
6.2.1 Effects of Timing of the Survey 6-1
6.2.2 Identifying the Correct Respondent in a Firm. . . . 6-2
6.2.3 Firms with Multiple Locations 6-2
6.3 Followup Activities Undertaken 6-3
6.3.1 The AAPCO Letter 6-3
6.3.2 Thank You/Reminder Postcards. . 6-4
6.3.3 Second Questionnaire Mailing 6-4
6.3.4 Other RTI and Trade Association Followup Activities 6-5
6.4 American Association of Retired Persons Interviews .... 6-6
6.4.1 Perceived Need for Interviews 6-6
6.4.2 Anticipated Results of Interviews 6-8
6.4.3 Preparation of Materials and Training of Staff. . . 6-8
6.4.4 Data Collection 6-9
6.4.5 Data Receipt and Review of AARP Materials 6-10
6.4.6 Debriefing for Field Effort 6-11
7. SURVEY STATUS AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1982 7-1
APPENDIX A: Documentation of the Survey Design for the Seven Tele-
phone States A-l
APPENDIX B: Telephone Screening Questionnaire B-l
APPENDIX C: Mail Screening Questionnaire C-l
APPENDIX D: Memorandum For the Record: NUPAS Nonresponse D-l
xx
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Technical Volume II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Overview of Technical Volume II 1-1
1.2 Schedule of Activities 1-2
2. INITIAL DATA PROCESSING 2-1
2.1 Hard Copy Edit 2-1
2.2 Keying of Questionnaire Data 2-2
i
3. TREATMENT OF INDUSTRY! "GIANTS" 3-1
i
3.1 Rationale for Special Treatment 3-1
3.2 Response from the National Offices 3-3
3.3 Identification of Frame and Sample Representatives of the
Industry Giants 3-4
3.4 State-Level Estimates 3-5
4. WEIGHTING 4-1
4.1 Overview 4-1
4.2 Firm-Level Basic Weights 4-2
4.2.1 Overview 4-2
4.2.2 Mail States 4-3
4.2.3 Telephone States 4-3
4.3 Multiplicity 4-5
4.3.1 Sources of Multiplicity 4-5
4.3.2 Identifying Multiplicities 4-6
4.4 Adjustment for Industry Giants 4-8
4.5 Nonresponse Subsampling 4-9
4.6 Determining Eligibility 4-12
4.6.1 Using Questionnaire Data 4-12
4.6.2 Undeliverable/Unable to Contact Adjustment 4-12
4.7 Defining Respondents 4-15
4.8 Defining Nonresponse Weighting Classes 4-15
4.9 Nonresponse Adjustments 4-19
4.9.1 Multiplicity Adjustment for Nonrespondents 4-19
4.9.2 Adjustment for Refusals 4-21
4.9.3 Weighting Class Nonresponse Adjustment 4-23
5. VARIANCE ESTIMATION 5-1
5.1 Variance Estimation in Complex Surveys 5-1
5.2 Variance Estimation Formula 5-3
5.3 Variance Estimation Software 5-7
5.4 Construction of the Usage Analysis File 5-9
xxi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Technical Volume II
6. USAGE DATA CLEANING AND EDITING 6-1
6.1 Intended Utilization of Product Usage Data 6-1
6.2 Characteristics of the Raw Usage Data 6-2
6.3 Assignment and Editing of Registration Numbers 6-4
6.4 Resolution of Nonspecific Unit Codes 6-7
6.5 Amount Imputation 6-13
6.6 Product Class and Formulation Categorization 6-14
6.7 Estimation of Active Ingredient Usage 6-15
7. EDITING NONUSAGE DATA FOR LOGICAL CONSISTENCY 7-1
7.1 Intended Level of Editing 7-1
7.2 Editing of Specific Questions 7-2
8. EXTERNAL REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY RESULTS 8-1
8.1 Motivation for External Review 8-1
8.2 Results of the Review Process 8-1
9. DATA QUALITY 9-1
9.1 Realized Target Population 9-1
9.2 Coverage Rates 9-3
9.3 Potential Sources of Error 9-3
9.4 Quality of the Usage Data 9-8
9.5 Quality of the Nonusage Data , . . . . 9-12
9.6 Overall Strengths and Weaknesses of the NUPAS Data .... 9-13
10. THE ANALYSIS PLAN FOR NUPAS DATA 10-1
APPENDIX A Edit Manual for NUPAS A-l
APPENDIX B Reporting Aggregate Resolution Questionnaire B-l
APPENDIX C: Letter to Dr. Richard Carr Outlining Information
Required for Interpretation of Certification/Licens-
ing Questions and Definition of Realized Target
Population C-l
APPENDIX D Memo to EPA on the NUPAS Analysis Plan and User File
Content D-l
xxii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
RTI wishes to acknowledge the efforts of the following persons who
provided valuable input to the National Urban Pesticide Applicator Survey.
American Association of Retired Persons
Norma Gillette, Coordinator of Special Programs
Marjorie Casterline, Regional Supervisor
Roland Wise, Regional Supervisor
Jack White, Regional Supervisor
Walter White, Regional Supervisor
Association of American Pesticide Control Officials
Barry Patterson, Director, Division of Agricultural and
Environmental Services, N.M. Department of
Agriculture
Arlo Ehart, Chief, Pesticide Use and Control, Plant Industry
Division, Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture
Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials
Neil Ogg, President
All members in attendance at the 1983 annual meeting
Chemlawn Corporation
Robert W. Miller, Vice President Support Services
Consultants
;, Richard Carr, Urban Biosystems, Inc.
Edwin Schneider
The Davey Tree Expert Company
Donald J. Shope, Vice President and General Manager,
Tree Care Services
Environmental Protection Agency
Arnold Aspelin, Chief, Economic Analysis Branch
Edward Brandt, Economist, Economic Analysis Branch
Peter Kuch, Supervisory Economist, Economic Analysis Branch
Linda Zarow, Economist, Economic Analysis Branch
David Brussard, Entomologist, Animal Biology Information Section
The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Walter E. Dages, Public Relations Director
National Arborist Association
Robert Felix, Executive Vice President
National Pest Control Association
Jack Grimes, Director, Government Affairs
Members of the Project Development Council in attendance at
the 1983 annual meeting
Mary Tomlinson, Secretary
xxiii
-------
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service
James Baker, Entomologist
Orkin Pest Control
Robert M. Russell, Vice President, Government Relations
Professional Lawn Care Association of America
Jerome Faulring, Chairman, Government Affairs
Terminix International, Inc.
John A. Craft, Technical Director
Union Carbide Agricultural Products
David Herman, Market Analyst
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
Charles Frommer, Director, Regulatory Affairs
Whitmire Research Laboratories
Daniel Stout
The following RTI personnel have been involved in NUPAS. Their efforts are
appreciated.
Center for Survey Research
Vivian Adkins
William Chapman
Charlene Derossett
Sandra Fox
Linda Miller
Lanny Piper
Evelyn Scalf
Richard Waddell
Frances Young
Center for Survey Statistics
Francine Burt
Martha Clegg
Ralph Folsom
Tim Gabel
Vince lannacchione
Laurine Johnson
Phyllis Norris
Lisa Packer
Pat Parker
Brenda Porter
Mary Ann Rowland
Scott Sweetland
Sara Wheeless
Center for Computer Applications
Danny Allen
Thomas Farrell
Brenda Frick
Beverly Hitchcock
David Moazed
xxxiv
-------
Jeanne Pagano
S. Kay Powell
Mary Beebe Woodside
Research Services Department
Robert Nichols
Martha Roberts
Elizabeth Weaver
Duplicating & Report Reproduction Staff
Telephone Survey Unit Staff
xxv
-------
OVERVIEW
What is NUPAS?
NUPAS is an acronym for National Urban pesticide
Applicators §urvey, a study of three sectors (i.e.,
tree, lawn and structural) of the commercial pest
control operator industry. The study was funded by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and jointly
sponsored by the\ three trade associations representing
these sectors, (i.e., the National Pest Control
Association (NPCA) for structural pest control, the
Professional Lawn Care Association of America (PLCAA)
for lawn and turf, and the National Arborist
Association (NAA) for tree and ornamental care) and the
American Association of Pesticide Control Officials
(AAPCO) representing the state pesticide regulators.
The survey represents the first effort to collect
quantitative pesticide usage data and permit profiles
of the size and composition of the entire industry to
be made. Equally important in some ways was the fact
that EPA, the trade associations and the members of the
industry at large were working together to address
common needs and goals.
When was the survey planned/conducted/analyzed?
Planning efforts for NUPAS began in calendar year
1981 and involved representatives of NPCA, PLCAA, NAA,
and AAPCO as well as staff persons from the Economic
xxvi
-------
Analysis Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs in EPA.
Survey design activities including sample design/
selection and questionnaire development were completed
in late March with the first mailout of questionnaires
occurring on April 2, 1982. Other efforts to solicit
valid responses included: industry media campaign;
thank you/reminder postcard to all firms receiving
first mailout; letter on AAPCO stationery to all first
mailout nonrespondents urging their participation;
second mailout of questionnaire to first round non-
respondents; telephone prompting of all second mailout
nonrespondents as of July 31, 1982; and personal inter-
views for a subsample of nonrespondents to the earlier
mailout/prompting efforts. Primary data collection
efforts were completed by late September, 1982. The
data was placed in machine readable format in October,
1982 and data edit/cleaning, sample weighting and work
file construction took place through March of 1984 --a
seventeen month period. Analyses were conducted on
preliminary data bases beginning as early as October
1982 and have continued through preparation of this
summary report and accompanying user file.
How many firms participated in NUPAS?
A total of 2,838 firms1 in the industry responded
to the survey. The firms represented all industry
1 Strictly speaking, 2,838 "reporting aggregates", rather
than "firms", responded to the survey. The distinction
between "reporting aggregate" and "firm" is discussed in
section 3.1.
xxvii
-------
sectors, regions of the country, and firm sizes and included
firms belonging and not belonging to trade associations --
Table A provides further details.
How much pesticide usage data was reported?
Of the 2,838 industry firms responding to the
survey instrument, 2,387 provided at least some usable
quantitative pesticide usage data. In all, usage was
reported for 47,134,115 Ibs. of 338 active ingredients
contained generically in 1,073 products. Tables B and
C amply demonstrate the dimensionality of the reported
usage data.
How, when and to whom will the study results be made avail-
able?
Survey results will be made available in three
formats: written summaries (i.e., this report); user
file (i.e., computerized file containing aggregate
usage data and related characteristics of responding
firms); and via special tabulations of the detailed
database.2 In addition, two volumes of technical
documentation provide a detailed record of NUPAS
activities as they affect realized data quality. All
survey results are available to the public at cost
following internal review by EPA. Prior to public
2Requests must be made to Linda Zarow, EPA Task Manager, and
will be honored subject to realizing adequate safeguards on
respondent confidentiality and payment for service to be
rendered.
xxviii
-------
release, survey sponsors will receive copies of this report,
the two volumes of technical documentation, and access to
the user file.
Can individual firms be identified in either the statistical
summaries or on the user file?
Respondents to NUPAS were assured that their
identity would not be disclosed in any survey tabula-
tions or user files. Only the Research Triangle
Institute knows the identity of each respondent.
How veil can NUPAS estimate industry characteristics based
on collecting data on a sample?
NUPAS selected approximately one out of every
three eligible businesses on the state licensing lists
for inclusion into the initial sample. More import-
antly, this selection was done in accordance with a
probability-based design permitting valid statistical
inferences to the whole industry as well as the approxi-
mation of precision for such parameter estimates. RTI
has a long standing reputation as a leader in the
design and analysis of surveys of this nature.
Precision of usage characteristics estimates has been
reported in terms of relative standard error (rse)
which is the approximate standard error of the estimate
divided by the magnitude of the parameter estimate.
For the top 25 active ingredients, the rse had an
estimated range of 4.5% to 51.6% and an average of
19.9%. Estimates for domains (e.g., industry; EPA
xxix
-------
regions) are likely to be less precise but can be
computed regardless of magnitude.
What and how do other sources of error affect NUPAS data
quality?
Sampling errors quantified above only account for
variation over repeated conceptual samples whereas
surveys are subject to other sources of error.
Specifically, four major sources of nonsampling error
can be identifiedi firm nonresponse; item nonresponse;
quality of reported usage amounts; and analytical
errors.
1. Firm nonreponse.
NUPAS was a voluntary study and one cannot force
firms to participate
achieved 74.6% weighted coverage (response) rate
understatesquality of data for estimated
totals since larger firms generally
responded.
observable
2. Item nonresponse.
80.3% of responding firms provided at
least some usable quantitative pesticide usage
data
impossible to observe when incomplete reporting
of all products occurs
3. Quality of reported usage amount.
source of usage data (i.e., purchase records,
service records, recall) largely determines
quality
virtually impossible after-the-fact to quanti-
tate, particularly for guesstimates furnished
through recall for 12-month reporting period
xxx
-------
4. Analytical.
Includes two major components:
mapping of reporting aggregate to sampling
frame
converting amounts of formulated product to
amount active ingredient(s) via reported/
assigned registration number.
Such nonsampling errors potentially affect estimates of
usage in two distinct ways: increase in variation
among repetitions of survey (i.e., random component);
and shifting of actual estimate as the result of bias
(i.e., systematic component). The systematic component
of nonsampling error is particularly important in
establishing a baseline for usage, Unfortunately, NUPAS
has no external industry profile for evaluating the
potential for bias. Instead, assurances of quality are
sought through comparison with manufactured amounts for
major chemicals (e.g., chlordane) and in the quality
and intensity of the data analysis effort. These
notwithstanding, no ability exists after-the-fact to
assess the potential for underreporting or overreport-
ing of products and/or their usage amounts.
Consolation must be sought in the notion that firms had
little to gain or lose by doing so. Finally, the
random component of nonsampling error is expected to be
at least as large as the sampling component. Additional
discussion on the potential impact of nonsampling error
on reported measures of precision is provided in
Appendix G.
xxxi
-------
How successful was NUPAS?
The following points should be made:
NUPAS is the most comprehensive survey of the
industry to date
NUPAS established pesticide usage baseline for
industry
recognized that database is missing parts of
North Dakota and Alaska and affords only
partial coverage of fumigators and right-of-
way applicators
NUPAS showed that EPA and industry can effectively
work together to address common goals/needs
i
participation of industry representatives in all
facets of planning, implementation and analysis
sharing of study strengths/weaknesses in open,
unreserved fashion
access to all study results
EPA demonstrated that it was willing to spend the
time and money necessary to produce quality data
NUPAS data will lead to better decisions being made
than otherwise would be possible
related studies will benefit from experience
gained
other characteristics (e.g., label comprehen-
sion/adequacy, applicator safety) will be
addressed in follow-up efforts.
xxxii
-------
Table A
Profile of Industry Firms Participating in NUPAS
Distribution
in Sample
Estimated
Distribution
in Population
Characteristic
Industry Sector
EPA Region2
Trade association
affiliation
Gross sales
Categories
Lawn
Tree
Lawn and/or Tree
Structural
Structural and Tree
and/ or Lawn
Overall
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Overall
National & state/
regional
National only
State/regional only
None
No response
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
No response
Number1 %
257
281
526
1,409
365
2,838
208
343
277
604
503
358
246
102
304
73
3,018
513
378
456
1,274
217
2,838
828
793
656
104
83
22
352
2,838
9.1
9.9
18.5
49.6
12.9
100
6.9
11.4
9.2
20.0
16.7
11.9
8.2
3.4
10.1
2.4
100
18.1
13.3
16.1
44.9
7.6
100
29.2
27.9
23.1
3.7
2.9
0.8
12.4
100
Number1
1,278
1,490
3,033
8,814
2,621
17,236
1,054
1,945
1,699
3,679
3,000
2,330
1,513
424
1,802
409
17,855
2,686
1,893
3,185
7,992
1,479
17,236
5,223
4,989
3,651
511
380
96
2,386
17,236
%
7.4
8.6
17.6
51.1
15.2
100
5.9
10.9
9.5
20.6
16.8
13.0
8.5
2.4
10.1
2.3
100
15.6
11.0
18.5
46.4
8.6
100
30.3
28.9
21.2
3.0
2.2
0.6
13.8
100
1Number of reporting aggregates in each category.
2Some reporting aggregates served more than one EPA region, and were counted
in each region they served.
xxxiii
-------
Table B
Profile of Amounts of Active Ingredients Reported in NUPAS
Amount Reported
in Sample
Estimated
Amount Used
by Population
Characteristic Categories
Industry Sector Lawn
Tree
Lawn and/or Tree
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
EPA Region2 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Overall
Pounds %
3,321,873
878,620
548,593
6,327,784
1,318,493
12,395,363
658,716
747,388
1,952,374
2,019,846
2,720,943
1,067,779
1,176,386
1,012,131
841,981
197,818
12,395,363
26.8
7.1
4.4
51.0
10.6
100
5.3
6.0
15.8
16.3
22.0
8.6
9.5
8.2
6.8
1.6
100
Pounds
5,349,539
2,785,257
3,294,165
23,735,220
11,969,934
47,134,115
1,351,110
2,555,316
5,492,545
9,150,868
8,123,528
6,479,821
3,435,648
3,503,826
5,737,468
1,303,984
47,134,115
%
11.3
5.9
7.0
50.4
25.4
100
2.9
5.4
11.7
19.4
17.2
13.7
7.3
7.4
12.2
2.8
100
xxxiv
-------
Table C
Usage Characteristics of Firms Participating in NUPAS
Distribution
in Sample1
Estimated
Distribution
in Population
Characteristic
Pounds in Active
Ingredient Used
in 1981
Number of Active
Ingredients Used
Categories
<10
10-99
100-999
1,000-9,999
10,000-99.999
>100,000
1-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
>50
Number2
84
A15
1,083
690
101
14
2,387
790
724
579
290
4
2,387
%
3.5
17.4
45.4
28.9
4.2
.6
100
33.1
30.3
24.3
12.1
0.2
100
Number2
695
3,107
8,346
4,454
592
41
17,236
6,335
5,706
3,894
1,284
15
17,236
%
4.0
18.0
48.4
25.8
3.4
0.2
100
36.8
33.1
22.6
7.5
0.1
100
reporting aggregates which provided usage data are included.
2Number of reporting aggregates in each category.
xxxv
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This final report on the National Urban Pesticide Applicator Survey
(NUPAS) provides an overview of the survey and presents survey tabulations
of general interest to pesticide regulators and the pest control industry.
The survey overview is intended primarily to provide the basic background
needed to understand and interpret the results presented in the tables.
More detailed information on the survey is presented in two Technical
Volumes which are referred to throughout this report.
The results presented in this volume were generated as part of the
analysis plan agreed to by RTI, EPA, and a representative of the NPCA on
February 6, 1984. Only tables thought to be of broadest interest are
included in this report. A public user data tape provided to EPA by RTI
will permit more detailed tables to be generated. Requests for specific
analyses should be directed to Linda Zarow, EPA task manager for this
survey ((703) 557-7355).
-------
2. SURVEY DESCRIPTION
2.1 Preliminary Work
RTI's involvement with NUPAS began in January, 1982. Preliminary
discussions about the survey had already occurred between EPA and four
trade associations - the National Pest Control Association (NPCA), the
National Arborist Association (NAA), the Professional Lawn Care Association
of America (PLCAA), and the Association of American Pesticide Control
Officials (AAPCO). The results of these discussions are profiled in
Technical Volume I, Chapter 1.
This survey was the first to attempt to obtain national, comprehensive
pesticide usage and business profile information for firms in the tree/
shrub/ornamental, lawn/turf, and structural pest control sectors. There-
fore, NUPAS questionnaire development and sample design had to rely on
expert opinion rather than previous surveys' experience. The trade
associations provided input throughout the development stages of NUPAS.
Resource constraints coupled with assumptions about record keeping systems
and the acceptable level of respondent burden led to a decision to use mail
as the primary mode of data collection. A thorough description of the
questionnaire development process is given in Technical Volume I, Chapter
3. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.
State regulatory lists were cited as being the most complete and
accurate available sources of information on the intended target population,
and were therefore chosen to serve as the bases for NUPAS sampling frame1
construction. All states and the District of Columbia were contacted and
XA sampling frame is a list of elements (e.g. people, businesses) from which
a sample can be selected.
2-1
-------
asked to cooperate in NUPAS and provide lists of firms certified in EPA
pest control categories 3a (lawn/ turf), 3b (tree/shrub/ornamental), and 7
(structural) to apply pesticides in their states. All states except North
Dakota and Alaska agreed to cooperate, and provided their lists in January
and February, 1982.
2.2 Sampling Frame Construction and Sample Selection
Upon receipt the state lists were examined for compliance with the
survey's needs, and if possible the observations on the list were categor-
ized as belonging to the outdoor pest control sector (tree, lawn, shrub,
turf, and ornamental pest control), the structural pest control sector
(including termite control, commodity fumigation, and general pest control),
or both (see Technical Volume I, Section 2.2.2). For some states such
classification required considerable amounts of interpretation. Some
specializations, in particular commodity fumigation and right of way pest
control, were included on lists from some states, and were not included on
others. This partial coverage results in underestimation of the amounts of
pesticide used by such firms.
Some states provided lists of certified applicators, whereas other
states provided lists of regulated pest control firms. Because the survey
was to be at the level of the firm, the individual-level lists had to be
transformed into firm-level lists prior to final stage sample selection
(see Technical Volume I, section 2.2.3 and 2.2.4). In the majority of the
individual-level lists, information on the employer of the individual
(specifically, firm name and sometimes address) was provided, and this
information was used to generate firm-level lists for those states.
Overall, firm-level lists were obtained or directly generated for 41 states,
2-2
-------
the District of Columbia, and the structural sector in Louisiana.
Following removal of elements that were obviously not members of the target
population1, and of obvious duplicate elements within a state list, the
firm-level lists were then placed in computer-accessible form in March,
1982. Further cleaning was done by searching within each state for
business license or 'firm name within five digit zip code1 matching and
removing any duplicate records.
A sample of 8100 firms was selected from the 42 state frame, stratify-
ing by state and industry sector (see Technical Volume I, Section 2.3.1).
Sample size was allocated to achieve, to the degree possible, equal rates
of sampling by industry sector subject to constraints at the state and
census division level. A minimum of 5 firms per stratum were, selected at
random without replacement within each stratum. The first mailout to these
firms was completed by April 2, 1982.
For the seven states for which a firm-level list could not be directly
generated (Arizona, Louisiana (partial), Massachusetts, Nebraska,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia), a two phase sample design was
employed. Specifically, a sample of 2500 individual applicators was
selected, stratified by state and industry sector. These individuals were
then contacted by telephone and asked to provide the name and address of
their current employer, and to assess whether or not that employer was
eligible for inclusion in the NUPAS survey. Telephone screening was
completed in April, 1982.
Based on the answers provided during the screening, a frame of appli-
cators employed by firms eligible for NUPAS in the 7 "telephone" states was
1The target population is the population about which inferences are to
be made.
2-3
-------
constructed, and a sample of 620 individuals selected, stratifying by state
and an updated industry sector categorization. All eligible firms
associated with the sampled individuals were then mailed a survey question-
naire. The first raailout to the firms employing these individuals was
completed by April 23, 1982.
The nature of the state lists and subsequent frame construction
process led to complications in cleaning and analyzing the NUPAS data.
Because of the large amount of variability between states in the nature of
their lists, and in the quantity and quality of data on their lists, no
attempt was made to develop a frame that had a unique entry for each pest
control firm. Cleaning was only done internal to states, and then only to
remove listings that matched in both name and location, or business license
number. The result was that a firm with multiple locations and/or a multi-
state service area could appear on the frame several times, and thus could
be selected several times. This potential was recognized at the time of
sample selection. The intent was to deal with this possibility by 1)
asking respondents to provide data only for the reference state listed on
the questionnaire and 2) to use auxiliary data collected on the question-
naire to identify respondents who may have provided data for more than one
frame element. Data for respondents who reported on an aggregate of frame
elements were to be analyzed using multiplicity estimators1.
2.3 Response and Data Collection
Because NUPAS was a mail survey of an industry not previously surveyed,
resources were allocated for followup efforts that would increase partici-
pation in the survey (see Technical Volume I, Chapter 6). Throughout the
JThe use of multiplicity estimators is a statistical technique for properly
weighting the data provided by a respondent that could have been included
in the sample through more than one frame element.
2-4
-------
collection period, a media campaign was conducted to encourage participa-
tion of sampled firms in NUPAS. Advertisements were run in trade journals,
announcements were made at trade association meetings, and trade
association personnel actively encouraged cooperation. Prompting letters
from RTI were sent to first mailout nonrespondents under an MPCO letter-
head and signature by June 16, 1982. Thank you/reminder postcards were
sent to all first mailout firms by June 23, 1982, and a second mailout of
the questionnaire to current nonrespondents took place in the first few
days of July, 1982. All sample members who had not responded by July 31,
1982 were prompted by telephone in the first two weeks of August.
Because the response rate by the end of July was still not sufficiently
high, a decision was made to select a sample of nonrespondents to followup
with personal interviews by American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
personnel. A sample of 1320 firms was selected in early August without
benefit of the telephone prompting results, and enumeration by AARP inter-
viewers continued until mid-October, 1982.
It was apparent relatively early in the data collection period that
the response rate for the sampled locations of three major pest control
firms - Orkin, Chemlawn/Chemscape, and Terminix - was low. Because these
three firms represent such a large portion of the pest control industry,
their participation in NUPAS was considered critical if representative
estimates of pesticide usage were to be produced. For this reason, the
national headquarters of each of these firms was contacted and ask to
provide data for their entire operation. Each of the firms complied, with
the Terminix usage data provided at a branch office level. Because of the
special treatment of these industry giants, the original sample was sub-
sequently treated as a census of these three firms, and a sample of all
2-5
-------
others. This subject is treated further in Technical Volume II, Chapter 3
and Section 4.4.
The final weighted coverage rate1 for 'nongiant' sample members was
74.6 percent. Usable quantitative pesticide usage data was provided by
80.3 percent of the eligible respondents.
2.4 Resolution of Reporting Aggregates
The auxiliary information (i.e. questions 5, 6, 7, and 8 in the mail
questionnaire) provided by each respondent was examined in October and
November, 1982, and those respondents who appeared to have a potential for
having provided data for more than one state and/or location were identi-
fied. All of the approximately 800 such respondents were contacted by
telephone in December, 1982 and January, 1983 and administered the report-
ing aggregate resolution questionnaire (see Technical Volume II, Appendix
B). The intent of the callbacks was to determine exactly what the report-
ing aggregate for a particular questionnaire was; that is, what states the
data (specifically, the usage data) was for, and how many locations and/or
business names were reported on. Addresses and names for all business
offices included in the aggregate were sought. Respondents who indicated
that they served a multistate area were asked to report the percent of the
firm's total business in each state. This data was subsequently used to
prorate their data to state level. The industry giants who had provided
national data were also recontacted and asked to provide 'percent total
business by state1 data.
*The weighted coverage rate is the ratio of the sum of eligible respondents'
basic weights to the sum of their weights adjusted for nonresponse (see
Technical Volume II, Section 9.2).
2-6
-------
The information gathered during these callbacks was then examined and
used to identify the component sample members of each reporting aggregate.
This identification was crucial both to properly weight the data and to
avoid double counting for multiple respondents in the same reporting aggre-
gate. The large number of weighting resolution questionnaires, coupled
with respondent inconsistencies, sampling frame inaccuracies, and time lags
between state list construction and reporting aggregate resolution made
this a time-consuming, resource-intensive task. Some respondents had to be
contacted two or more times in order to resolve problems. Final resolution
of the reporting aggregates was completed in July, 1983. A more detailed
description of the resolution process is provided in Technical Volume II,
Section 4.3.2.
During the resolution phase, the decision was made to solicit national
data from two major tree pest control companies. This action was taken in
response to their prominent position in the tree pest control sector and
the relatively low response rate of this sector. All necessary data was
received from them by September, 1983.
2.5 Data Editing and Cleaning
Upon the return of a questionnaire to RTI, it was logged into a control
system, batched, edited, and keyed into a computer file (see Technical
Volume II, Chapter 2). While some logical editing was performed on the
nonusage data, the primary editing effort was focused on the pesticide
usage data. This effort is described thoroughly in Technical Volume II,
Chapter 6. Analyses of NUPAS usage data are at the active ingredient,
rather than the product, level. Accurate, efficient translation from
product to active ingredient is accomplished through the product's EPA
registration number. These numbers provide unique links to the EPA pesti-
cide databases and permit transformation of reported usage amounts into
2-7
-------
pounds of active ingredients. However, a large portion of the usage data
was reported without any EPA registration number, or with numbers that were
subsequently found to be invalid. After initial efforts by EPA to provide
registration numbers for such observations proved too time consuming, RTI
staff worked on assigning registration numbers to all records, using the
usage data itself as a source of information. Observations with names and
formulations similar to those of observations which had registration
numbers were assigned those registration numbers. Frequency of occurrence
of a registration number was interpreted as being a measure of it's legiti-
macy, and for records which could be matched to more than one registration
number based on the reported product name and formulation, the "most legi-
timate" registration number was assigned. This strategy effectively means
that the registration numbers used in analyses are in some sense "generic",
and that a potential for erroneous assignment existed. The impact of such
errors on the active ingredient estimates is a function of the degree to
which the assigned registration numbers differed in composition (i.e.
percent active ingredient(s), by weight) from the "true" registration
number.
The initial assignment of registration numbers was completed by July,
1983. Subsequent work using consultants and the RTI SAS version of the EPA
pesticide databases resulted in more assignments and/or revisions in
October 1983 and December 1983.
Some of the usage data was reported in units of "boxes", "cases",
"drums", or other units that were not readily transformable into pounds or
gallons. Many of these observations were subsequently made usable in
September and October, 1983 by obtaining the necessary packaging informa-
tion from product manufacturers.
2-8
-------
2.6 Weight File Construction
A variety of complicating factors made construction of the final
weight file a time-consuming, complex task, requiring many assumptions and
subjective decisions. Details of the weighting process are given in
Technical Volume II, Chapter 4. The raw weight files were available at the
time of sample selection. The nonresponse followup sampling weights were
also calculated at the time of sample selection, but, due to reporting
aggregate problems and the use of "national" data for the industry giants,
they had to be revised considerably prior to use. The existence of many-
to-one mappings from the sample members to the reporting units was handled
by using multiplicity estimators. This meant that the multiplicity, or
number of frame members contained in a reporting aggregate, had to be
determined for each responding sample member, and an imputed average multi-
plicity assigned to all nonrespondents. Nonresponse adjustments were then
made, taking into account the inefficient (i.e., including ineligible
members) nature of the sampling frame. Nonresponse adjustments were made
at the overall questionnaire level, and, due to the sizable number of
respondents who failed to provide any usage data, at a product usage level.
The latter adjustment was based strictly on the presence or absence of any
usage data that was transformable to pounds of active ingredients, and is
used only for analyses involving the usage data.
The weight file went through several iterations as imputation and
adjustment strategies and input data changed. The final version of the
weight file was completed in March, 1984.
2.7 Preliminary Analyses and Review
A series of preliminary analyses were performed on the NUPAS data and
distributed to select reviewers or presented at meetings, with the intent
2-9
-------
of obtaining independent assessment of the accuracy of the estimates (see
Technical Volume II, Chapter 8). A presentation made to the NPCA Board of
Directors in October, 1982 primarily dealt with overall and question-
specific response rates. National and census region estimates of four
products were generated in March, 1983 for review by Union Carbide Agri-
cultural Products. Preliminary national and EPA region usage estimates and
selected other cross-tabulations were presented at the Association of
Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials Annual Meeting in October,
1983 and to the Project Development Council of the National Pest Control
Association in November, 1983. Review of preliminary usage estimates by
Velsicol, several other pesticide manufacturers and industry personnel was
solicited by EPA and RTI throughout the fall of 1983.
Assessments of the preliminary estimates were generally that they were
low, prompting further work on usage data cleaning and examination of the
estimation logic and software. Programming errors were detected in the
imputation and weighting software, and some of the weighting methodology
was modified to incorporate more justifiable assumptions. These changes
resulted in substantial increases in many of the estimates. It should be
stressed that in no way were the preliminary estimates simply adjusted up
to any externally provided totals. All final estimates are based solely on
data collected by NUPAS.
2-10
-------
3.1 -General
The tabulations specified in the final analysis plan are presented in
Tables 1-16 and Appendices B-F. They are based on the weighted responses
of 2,838 reporting aggregates represented on the master questionnaire file.
These reporting aggregates were deemed to be eligible members of the target
population for NUPAS, that is, firms in the tree, lawn, and structural
sectors offering commercial pest control services in the 48 cooperating
i
states and the District of Columbia in 1981, specifically excluding all
l
firms concerned solely with commercial agriculture or golf courses. For
the analyses, sample members previously categorized as tree/lawn were
recategorized as tree only, lawn only, or tree and/or lawn based on their
responses to the questions on industry sector and national trade associa-
tion membership (see Technical Volume II, Chapter 10).
The questionnaires correspond to a weighted sum of 17,236 reporting
aggregates, distributed by industry sector as follows:
Weighted estimate of
Industry Sector the number of reporting aggregates
Lawn 1,278
Tree 1,490
Tree and/or Lawn 3,033
Structural 8,814
Structural and Tree and/or Lawn 2,621
Because of the sampling frame used in this study and the nature of the
response, the definition of reporting aggregate in these analyses is not
obvious (see Technical Volume II, Section 9.2). Reporting aggregates in
these analyses may be (1) a single office's business in a single state; (2)
a single office's total business (i.e., across all states in which it does
3-1
-------
business); (3) several offices' combined business in a single state; or (A)
several offices' combined business in some or all of the states they serve.
Obviously, estimates involving the number of reporting aggregates need to
be interpreted with care.
Both national and EPA regional totals are presented in many of the
tables. The EPA regions are shown in Figure 1.
3.2 Sources of Error
The estimates in Tables 1-16 and Appendices B-F, reflect some or all
of the following potential sources of error:1
(1) Sampling error. This is the error contribution attributable to
the specific sampling design and sample sizes chosen for this
survey, and will be quantified for some of the estimates in the
final report.
(2) Incorrect mapping of sample units to reporting aggregates. This
would result in inaccurate weights and possible erroneous inclu-
sion or exclusion of data.
(3) Incorrect assignment of EPA registration number, leading to
inaccurate conversion of reported usage into pounds of active
ingredient.
(4) Respondent error in measurement of quantity of pesticide used,
number of employees, etc.
(5) Respondent error due to misunderstanding of questions.
(6) Undercoverage and/or overcoverage of the target population. The
former obviously occurred when firms went out of business prior
to receiving the questionnaire, or were not included on the state
licensing lists. The latter results from unintentional misclass-
ification of ineligible firms as eligibles.
(7) Errors in state and region level estimates due to proration of
multistate data to state level using % total business by state.
To the degree that the variable under study is not distributed
across the states served in the same way that the firms total
business is, the proration will be in error.
(8) Subjective judgement and assumptions made during nonresponse
adjustment of the weights. Distributional differences between
respondents and nonrespondents result in nonresponse adjustment
error.
*The sources of error in (2)-(8), referred to as nonsampling error, are not
quantifiable, but together are likely to be as large or larger thai the
sampling error.
3-2
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Regional Offices
REGIONS LOCATIONS
IV
X
IX
VI
IX
VIII
I
III
III
IV
IV
IX
X
V
V
VII
VII
IV
VI
I
III
1
V
V
IV
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Distric of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
REGIONS
VII
VIII
VII
IX
I
II
II
IV
VIII
V
VI
X
III
I
IV
VIII
IV
VI
VIII
I
III
X
III
V
VIII
LOCATIONS
Missouri
Montana
Kebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carol!
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
W_st Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
IX American Samoa
IX Guam
II Puerto Rico
II Virgin Islands
Figure 1
3-3
-------
These potential sources of error are described more thoroughly in Technical
Volume II, Section 9.3. Assessment of their impact is given in Sections
9.4-9.5 of the same volume.
3.3 Table and Appendix Descriptions
The results presented in this volume can be grouped into five general
categories: pesticide usage, sales information, employee information,
service descriptors, and general industry profiles. The tables and
appendices in each group will be described in turn. All references to
specific question numbers relate to the original questionnaire (Appendix
A).
3.3.1 Pesticide Usage
Estimates of the total amounts of pesticides used in 1981 by firms in
the NUPAS target population are presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 and
Appendices B and C. All estimated totals are in units of pounds of active
ingredient(s). Totals for an active ingredient are labelled with both the
chemical name and the EPA chemical code number1 (referred to as 'CHEMCODE'
in the tables and appendices) of the active ingredient. The estimated
precision of each of the totals is reported in terms of relative standard
error (RSE),
(S*n
RSE = ^ x 100,
where
T = the weighted estimate of the total amount of active ingredient(s)
S* = the estimated variance of T (see Technical Volume II, Chapter 5).
xThis is a unique code number assigned to the active ingredient by the EPA
and used to represent the active ingredient on the computerized EPA pesti-
cide files.
3-4
-------
The RSEs are presented in Appendices D, E, and F for the estimated totals
in Tables 1, 2, and 3 respectively, and with the estimated totals in
Appendices B and C. A detailed discussion of the use and interpretation of
the RSEs is presented in Appendix G. The criteria used to define the
product class and formulation categories in the tables are described in
Technical Volume II, Section 6.6.
3.3.2 Sales Information
Tables 4 and 5 profile the responses to questions 18 and 19 respec-
tively. The numbers in the tables represent the weighted number of report-
i ,
ing aggregates in each of the sales categories. The weighted number of
reporting aggregates associated with respondents who did not answer the
questions is given in the 'unknown1 category. In both tables national
totals are presented first, followed by EPA regional totals. Reporting
aggregates that served more than one EPA region are represented in each
region they served, at the sales level originally reported for the
aggregate (i.e. not prorated to a regional level). Proration to a regional
level was not possible due to the categorical nature of the questions.
3.3.3 Employee Information
Table 6 is based on the data reported in question 10. Parts a, b, and
d of question 10 were summed in the 'service technicians and technical
managers' category, and parts c, e, and f were summed in the 'clerical,
sales, and other employees' category. If a reporting aggregate provided
any usable response to any part of question 10, it was counted as having
provided data. The weighted number of reporting aggregates that did not
provide any usable data is also presented in the table. Under certain
assumptions, the ratio of
(the number that provided data + the number that did not provide data)
(the number that provided data)
3-5
-------
might be used to adjust the estimated numbers of employees upward to
compensate for nonresponse in this question. The regional totals incorpor-
ate prorated numbers of employees for reporting aggregates serving more
than one EPA region. The proration was based on the percent of the report-
ing aggregate's sales in each of the regions served (see Technical Volume
II, Section 3.4, 4.3.2, and 9.3).
Table 7 is based on the response to question 11. Proration and non-
response were handled as they were for Table 6. The complexities involved
in interpreting the estimated numbers of employees in Table 7 are discussed
in Technical Volume II, Section 7.2.
The weighted numbers of reporting aggregates providing given response
to questions 12 and 13 are presented in Table 8. The question 13 responses
are reflected under the 'Method' subheading, and are given only for those
reporting aggregates that indicated that they employed people certified or
licensed in states other than the reference state.
3.3.4 Service Descriptors
The number of business locations in and number of states served by
reporting aggregates are profiled in Table 9. When interpreting the
numbers in this table the distinction between 'reporting aggregates' and
'firms' must be taken into account. Some reporting aggregates represent
only a portion of a firm's business, and so have fewer locations and/or
states served than the firm as a whole does.
Profiles of the sites in which pest control services were provided are
given in Tables lOa - g and lla-g. Each segment of these tables is based
on a single part of question 20. Responses to part g ('other') are not
profiled due to the relatively high level of respondent misinterpretation
(see Technical Volume II, Section 7.2). Prior to analysis, the percents
3-6
-------
for parts a-g of question 20 were adjusted so that they summed to 100
percent.1 It should be noted that because of underrepresentation of right-
of-way pest control firms on the sampling frame (see Section 2.2), the
estimates in Tables 10F and 11F may be low.
Tables 12a-e correspond to the parts of question 21 and profile the
types of services provided by the reporting aggregates. The responses to
the "other (e.g. pesticide sales)1 portion of question 21 are not profiled,
and the precents of all parts of the question were adjusted so that they
sum to 100 percent. Because of underrepresentation of commodity fumigators
i
in the sampling frame (see section 2.2), the estimates in Table 12D may be
low.
3.3.5 General Industry Profiles
Tables 13 and 14 are based on questions 14 and 15, respectively, and
present the estimated number of reporting aggregates belonging to national
and regional and/or state trade associations. Responses to the question on
trade magazine subscriptions (question 17) are profiled in Table 15, and
the number of years the reporting aggregates had been in business as of
1981 (question 4) are represented in Table 16.
xThis adjustment caused some reporting aggregates to fall in the '100
percent1 category in Table lOg (commercial agriculture). Only reporting
aggregates that indicated that they were 100 percent agricultural prior to
the adjustment were deemed to be ineligible for NUPAS analysis purposes.
3-7
-------
Table 1. Summarized National Estimates of Pounds of Active Ingredients Used in 1981.
(Relative Standard Errors Are Given in Appendix D)
Product
Class Lawn Tree
Fungicide 94,039 288,601
Herbicide 3,401,901 208,003
Insecticide 1,853,599 2,288,618
Microbicide 0 35
Vertebrate 0 0
Pesticide
Overall 5,349,539 2,785,257
Industry Sector
Tree
and/or
Lawn Structural
278,953 198,158
1,309,902 925,174
1,705,274 22,562,766
24 12,034
12 37,092
3,294,165 23,735,223
Structural and
Tree and/or
Lawn
177,002
3,072,674
8,591,507
428
128,324
11,969,935
Overall
1,036,754
8,917,653
37,001,764
12,521
165,428
47,134,120
-------
TABLE 2
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS USED IN 1981,
BY INDUSTRY SECTOR AND PRODUCT CLASS.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX E)
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL
81901 BRAVO
56502 PCU3
6601 PETRO. DER. AROM. HYDROCARBONS
14505 MANEB
99101 BENLATE
14504 DITHANE M-45
109001 IPRODINE
79001 THIRAM
80811 DYREUE
27301 CHOLRCNEB
0 ALL OTHERS
CLASS
CHEMCOOE CHEMICAL
9801 BETASAN
78701 DACTHAL
30019 DIETHYLAMINE 2i4-D
3151S DIMETHYLAMINE 2-< 2-M-4-OPROP.
29302 DIltETHYLAMINE DICAHBA
31516 DIETHANOLAMINE 2-(2-M-4-C)PRO.
80803 ATRAZINE
84301 BENEFIN
30016 OIETHANOLAMINE 2,4-DICHLORPHEN
31503 POTASSIUM 2-<2-M-4-C> PROPION.
0 ALL OTHERS
CLASS
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL
59101 CHLORPYRIFOS
6501 AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
86803 XYLENE RANGE AROMATIC SOLVENT
57801 DIAZINON
57901 TRICHLORFON
84001 DDVP
79101 AGPOM
86002 DIMETHYLBENZENE
109401 ISOFENPIIOS
56C01 CARCARYL
0 ALL OTHERS
NATIONAL
37594
17981
12899
10233
10043
1711
1026
911
437
360
843
(I StLIUl
REGION1
2756
383
297
1600
932
80
164
0
262
0
237
94039 6712
TIJni I*5TDV CrPTfY
INUUo I KT OtU 1 U
NATIONAL REGION1
1029546
950534
629922
219241
120272
98936
80314
77594
52750
22627
120166
71856
55028
26592
16369
11553
3256
389
2394
3033
180
5540
3401900 196195
TUni IQTDV CCPTnD
JLriUUd InT 5tU 1 UK
NATIONAL REGION1
718058
312760
253393
151206
114856
113107
102572
25673
15572
8970
37432
14336
818
16555
10810
5189
0
7866
188
1124
0
125
* = 1_AWN
REGION2
3362
928
0
5152
1933
0
69
171
13
0
102
11730
D~l ALftJ
K-LAWN
REGION2
85764
76276
42145
17945
9457
7766
51707
4269
4732
829
23491
324382
1 ALAJ
-LAWN
REGION2
35107
3613
34073
20070
6598
'a
9315
9032
2738
3015
421
KHUUUL I
REGIONS
7215
745
12602
439
1556
0
195
654
130
0
3
23591
REGION3
114374
99471
50275
25235
8865
1246
691
3549
617
3093
6135
CLA55=M
REGION4
3827
438
0
832
621
1432
45
0
0
0
105
MGIC1DE
REGIONS
15875
14765
0
1935
4100
160
398
13
33
360
367
7300 38005
PI ACC UCDHTPTnC
CLAob-ntKulUIUc
REGION4 REGIONS
100505
62287
51859
17685
7716
6404
840
2003
3171
0
10982
546830
518371
400955
114034
75020
72756
2353
61677
37474
17724
30898
REGION6
2070
333
0
38
403
0
34
0
0
0
0
2878
REGION6
46053
47384
19596
11380
2698
0
338
1218
0
0
2604
314349 263452 1878593 131271
REGION3 REGION4 REGIONS REGION6
32510
3013
32432
15370
9235
13
13973
939
4230
4675
1603
34968
32956
20638
19949
5673
505
9005
6749
734
575
8723
566351
268669
114763
61640
58772
112455
47612
4496
5530
705
21036
9729
0
12039
5026
3072
0
6831
0
557
0
0
REGION7
1850
287
0
175
357
0
30
0
0
0
0
2700
REGION7
47905
75401
30212
11527
3859
4730
292
2115
2342
0
3021
181402
REGION7
19560
1274
10573
13642
24343
0
5900
3929
490
0
3377
REGIONS
484
76
0
9
109
0
8
0
0
0
0
685
REGIONS
10428
10767
5874
3557
774
0
77
277
0
0
891
32645
REGIONS
3613
260
3408
2112
830
0
1553
322
127
0
0
REGION9
63
10
0
I
12
39
81
74
0
0
29
309
REGION9
3746
2903
1536
1000
208
2778
23613
37
1375
0
36504
73699
REGION9
1442
2156
365
2359
117
126
207
13
17
0
2148
REGION10
94
15
0
2
18
0
2
0
0
0
0
131
REGION10
2086
2146
879
509
122
0
15
55
0
0
101
5912
REGION10
442
0
547
228
176
0
311
0
25
0
0
-------
TABLE 2
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIHATES OF
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS USED IN 19Slt
BY INDUSTRY SECTOR AND PRODUCT CLASS.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX E)
INDUSTRY SECTOR=UWN PRODUCT CLASS=INSECTICIDE
CHEMCOOE CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION! REGION REGION* REGIONS REGIONS REGION6 REGION? REGIONS REGION9 REGION10
CLASS
SECTOR
1853599
5349539
57013
259918
123991
060103
117993
455933
140475
411227
1262027
3178625
38054
172203
91088
275190
12274
45604
8956
82963
1730
7773
-------
TABLE 2
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS USED IN 1981,
BY INDUSTRY SECTOR AND PRODUCT CLASS.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX E)
CHEMCODE
6601
63001
99101
81301
77501
14505
79801
14506
44301
23102
0
CLASS
CHEMICAL
PETRO. DER. AROM. HYDROCARBONS
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
BENLATE
CAPTAN
SULFUR
MANEB
THIRAM
ZINEB
DOOINE
COPPER NAPHTHENATE
ALL OTHERS
- INDUSTRY SECTOR=TREE
NATIONAL REGION 1 REGION2
194817
17639
15753
12079
8355
8354
7937
7659
2095
1500
12413
10180 28651
0 0
1054 1354
848 1102
0 0
594 491
0 2457
813 1126
0 0
0 0
315 780
288601 13805 35961
CHEMCOnE CHEMICAL
30035
116001
5102
30063
34902
106701
11104
12301
80307
73301
0
CLASS
CHEMCODE
63503
86802
56C01
34001
57801
57701
6501
10501
103301
86803
0
TRIISOPROPANOLAMINE 2,4-D
TRICLOPYR
PICLORAM, TRIISOPROPANOLAMINE
CCTYL ESTER OF 2,4-D
FERRIC SULFATE
FOSAMINE AMMONIUM
SODIUM METABORATE
HYVAR X
SIMAZINE
SODIUM CHLORATE
ALL OTHERS
CHEMICAL
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
DIMETHYLBENZENE
CARBARYL
METHOXYCHLOR
DIAZItlON
NALATHION
AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
DICOFOL
OR1HENE
XYLEh'E RANGE AROMATIC SOLVENT
ALL OTHERS
*iiui/*i i n i «i(_w i \JK~ i nuc.
NATIONAL REGION1 REGION2
60208
16430
15508
11590
10468
9429
8108
7168
6993
6486
55611
208003
TMni ICTDY
JNUU5IKT
NATIONAL
701845
467104
422665
165748
147146
141305
66890
29009
26987
22945
96895
9813 17017
2791 0
2528 4383
6430 0
0 0
21 9408
0 0
0 4731
0 0
0 0
4073 11949
25656 47488
CFPTflD "TO C C
Otl I UK- IKtt
REGION1 REGION2
73327 98507
92725 62131
199105 91654
37156 30154
5948 12707
24832 28856
4692 9093
2307 2035
608 2096
83 40
5124 11869
PRODUCT
REGION3
36484
0
2931
895
765
1014
5407
996
0
0
1941
50432
ponniiPT
frtUUUl* 1
REGION3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
CLASS=FUNGICIDE
REGION4 REGIONS
4349
0
1109
410
1974
539
73
187
169
30
701
9541
PI A^
-------
TABLE 2
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS USED IN 1981,
BY INDUSTRY SECTOR AND PRODUCT CLASS.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX E)
INDUSTRY SECTOR=TREE PRODUCT CLASS=INSECTICIOE
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION1 REGION2 REGIONS REGION* REGIONS REGIONS REGION? REGIONS REGION9 REGION10
CLASS 2288618 445906 349162 402202 98221 673298 41249 72170 4564J 75975 84774
INDUSTRY SECTOR=TREE PRODUCT CLASS=MICROBICIDE
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION1 REGION2 REGIONS REGION4 REGIONS REGION6 REGIOH7 REGIONS REGION9 REGION10
14701 CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE 35 0000 35 0 000 0
SECTOR 2785257 485367 432611 452690 152349 810246 47416 136651 47438 95577 1C4911
-------
TABLE 2
NATIONAL AMD REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS USED IN 1981,
BY INDUSTRY SECTOR AMD PRODUCT CLASS.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX E)
CHEMCODE
6601
99101
14505
76702
79801
81901
14504
81301
14506
8101
0
CLASS
CHEMCODE
9801
30019
90501
108801
30056
24401
32201
80807
38904
78701
0
CLASS
CHEMCODE
63503
57601
6501
66802
56801
57701
59101
86803
57201
34001
0
INDUSTRY 5ECTOH=TREE
CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION1
PETRO. DER. AROM. HYDROCARBONS
BENLATE
MAHEB
CALCIUM POLYSULFIOE
THIRAM
BRAVO
DITHAUE M-45
CAPTAN
ZINEB
BASIC COPPER SULFATE
ALL OTHERS
215437
12685
11866
3944
3805
3228
3099
3089
3039
2897
15864
0
94
0
0
0
0
145
160
0
0
469
278953 868
CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION1
BETASAN
DIETHYLAMINE 2,4-D
ALACHLOR
METOLACHLOR
BUTYL 2,4-D
COPPER SULFATE PENTAHYDRATE
DICUAT DIDROMIDE
SIMAZINE
EUDOTHALLi DIPOTASSIUM SALT OF
DACTHAL
ALL OTHERS
220463
180601
112345
107445
81464
68555
64527
47823
45986
43807
336686
1309902
_ _ __ ___ __ TtJm ICTDY <5CPTf
CHEMICAL NATIONAL
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
DIAZIHON
AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
OlflETHYLBENZENE
CAPBARYL
MALATHION
CHLORPYRIFO3
XYLEIIE RANGE AROMATIC SOLVENT
THII1ET
METHOXYCHLOR
ALL OTHERS
565104
227623
199148
181433
102702
67394
56066
42039
35743
32415
195608
791
1444
0
0
0
309
0
102
0
36
3487
6169
REGION1
789
1563
1504
29141
12703
1938
656
532
0
12923
3465
AND/OR
REGIONS
105494
4830
1246
0
1921
102
0
494
2593
40
1749
118471
Akin Jf\n
AND /UK
REGION2
15958
12312
0
0
0
67645
60421
27
45986
7563
18462
LAWN PRODUCT CLASS=FUNGICIDE -
REGION3 REGION4 REGIONS REGION6
18662
920
5882
0
0
152
158
693
237
0
1677
426
564
1333
437
22
511
1298
83
60
110
980
13572 3438
4403 569
3383 22
3493 0
1861 0
401 85
0 0
243 0
87 55
27 0
2239 847
28382 5833 29708 5016
1 AMU DonniiPT PI AccuCDOTPTnc
LAWN PRuUUUT CLA55-ncKDlLIDu *
REGION3 REGION4 REGIONS REGION6
78208
25522
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3334
40918
4256
5467
0
0
135
0
14
1083
0
257
21747
86598 11036
66485 12218
174 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
14 0
12300 7823
0 0
24064 562
107168 17754
228374 147984 32959 296804 49392
Aun /no i AUU DonniiPT PI A
-------
TABLE 2 6
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS USED IN 1931,
BY INDUSTRY SECTOR AND PRODUCT CLASS.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX E)
INDUSTRY SECTOR=TREE AND/OR LAWN PRODUCT CLASS=INSECTICIDE
CHEMCODE CHEHICAL NATIONAL REGION1 REGION2 REGIONS REGION* REGIONS REGION6 REGION7 REGIONS PEGION9 REGION10
CLASS 170527"* 65214 187351 245152 158129 301986 64674 118694 6643S 441159 36460
CHEMCODE
CHEMICAL
INDUSTRY SECTOR=TREE AND/OR LAWN PRODUCT CLASS=MICRQBICIDE
NATIONAL REGION1 REGIONS REGION3 REGION4 REGIONS REGION6 REGION7 REGIONS REGION9 REGION10
69149 DIDECYL DIMETHYL AMMONIUM CL
Vn07 TETPASOQIUM EOTA
73506 SODIUM C£P60NATE
72604 SODIUM METASILICATE
CLASS
14
6
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
19
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL
80601 ZINC PHOSPHIDE
76901 STRYCHNINE
CLASS
SECTOR
NATIONAL
9
2
12
3294165
UOIKI OCI
REGION1
0
0
0
72251
U1UK- IKCC
REGION2
0
0
0
534196
«,r- ve.« ( tt)K
PEGION6
0
0
0
139082
;« 1 1 r to I
REGION7
0
0
0
192428
REGIONS
0
0
0
419715
REGION9
0
2
2
546101
REGION10
0
0
0
143420
-------
TABLE 2
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS USED IN 1981,
BY INDUSTRY SECTOR AND PRODUCT CLASS.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX E)
CHEMCODE
63503
63001
23102
14506
77501
99101
6601
23104
81601
33901
0
CLASS
CHEMCOOE
30035
80803
60607
30056
5102
35505
30019
30053
960 1
31453
0
CLASS
CHEMCODE
63503
58201
42003
78003
6501
16501
66603
53201
44801
57801
0
CHEMICAL
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
PENTACHLCROPHENOL
COPPER NAPHTHENATE
ZINEB
SULFUR
BEHLATE
PETRO. DER. AROM. HYDROCARBONS
COPPER SALTS OF ACIDS
FOLPET
DIACETONE ALCOHOL
ALL OTHERS
CHEMICAL
TRIISOPROPANOLAMINE 2,4-D
ATRAZIHE
SIMAZINE
BUTYL 2,4-D
PICLORAM, TRIISOPROPANOLAMINE
DIU30N
DIETHYLAMINE 2,4-D
BUTOXYETHYL 2,4-D
BETAS*N
BUTOXYETHYL 2-( 2,4-D) PROPION.
ALL OTHERS
INDUSTRY :
NATIONAL
90655
56611
26278
10631
5401
3564
2025
853
655
520
964
198158
TKmi I*ITDY
XMUU3 1 It 1
NATIONAL
181634
95818
90979
57245
46785
45056
4C616
38300
37754
37612
251375
5ECTOR=5T
REGION1
15
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RUCTURAL PRODUCT CLAS5=FUNGICI
REGION2 REGION3 REGION4 REGIONS
0
59
0
213
0
68
0
0
0
0
0
31 341
«SFf*TnO-4l*J.u& -
REGIONl REGION2 REGION3 REGION4 REGIONS REGION6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
423
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
749
0
712
925174 424 1461
CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGIONl REGION2
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS 4155907 66612 159161
CHLORDANE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
SULFURYL FLUORIDE
AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
XYLENE RADGE A.70MATIC SOLVENT
METHYL BROMIDE
HEPTACHLOR
DIAZINON
ALL OTHERS
3034365
2756096
2309439
1952373
1169590
1007175
992703
971263
739677
3474178
87816
0
0
27965
0
15182
50
0
11345
74971
333156
0
434
63614
0
52650
8641
40980
49070
144592
0 181634
85973 0
51683 0
19101 0
0 46785
8390 0
340 0
0 38299
36682 0
0 37611
103164 1203
0
9001
380
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
12759
0
45
197
2065
0
12275
0
0
0
0
16338
305333 305532 22149 30920
REGIONS REGION4 REGIONS REGION6
2238469 845607 246700 232536
475039 876644
0 5
7852 72392
157904 648712
0 2
84948 380032
151342 112031
77494 476974
94316 239228
299544 953117
298356
355
3213
198763
746
71581
67817
77050
52847
332429
366437
35
25255
399886
15
99773
74363
118222
112220
487431
REGION7
312
0
356
0
0
19
0
853
0
0
39
1579
REGION7
0
323
26839
14974
0
23648
714
0
324
0
104721
171543
REGION7
105322
245430
1024406
1057
112120
434500
76697
12870
72594
19593
366571
REGIONS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
REGIONS
0
4
16
21104
0
557
12244
0
0
0
3833
37757
REGIONS
15756
24054
1724022
130
12586
731242
4414
64S3
2937
11340
274509
REGION9
83319
55601
18349
0
5356
114
21
0
0
520
437
163717
REGION9
0
473
11864
0
0
186
0
0
0
0
7526
20048
REGION9
132686
294890
0
2198249
310510
0
219811
466793
102137
130926
512735
REGIONl 0
215
264
67
0
0
24
0
0
655
0
45
1270
REGION10
0
0
0
0
0
0
29309
0
0
0
696
30006
REGIONl 0
113059
30543
7274
837
12312
3085
2037
92306
2874
18791
26260
-------
TABLE 2 8
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS USED IN 1981,
BY INDUSTRY SECTOR AND PRODUCT CLASS.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX E)
INDUSTRY SECTOR=STRUCTURAL PRODUCT CUSS=INSECTICIDE
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION1 REGIONS REGIONS REGION4 REGIONS REGION6 REGION? REGIONS REGION? REGION10
CLASS 22562765 283940 852298 3586907 4606746 1349856 1916173 2473162 2607472 4376742 309468
CHEMCODE
67002
1501
46901
79009
22101
63501
69129
47501
68604
76406
0
CLASS
CHEMCODE
11402
88601
63503
11403
86002
67707
63502
69201
41601
75003
0
CLASS
SECTOR
lri
CHEMICAL
PINE OIL
ETHYL ALCOHOL
BUTOXY. . .ETHOXYETHANOL-IODINE
SOAP
CRESYLIC ACID, COAL TAR ACIDS
TRIETHYLEUE GLYCOL
HYAMINE 23S9
FROPANOL
DIFROPYLEUE GLYCOL
TRICCDIUM PHOSPHATE
ALL OTHERS
IUU5IKI bt
NATIONAL
4422
1610
1537
847
821
818
757
737
201
63
170
tlUK=5!K
REGION1
131
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:ucrUKAL
REGION2
1007
10
0
126
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
12033 149 114?
Tunil*tTQV CFPTnO «STDI lf*TI ID A 1
CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION1 REGION2
POLYBUTEUE 15482 625 259
ZII.'C PHOSPHIDE
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
POLYISOBUTYLEHE
H4RFARIN
CHLOROPHACINONE
MINERAL OIL, SEAL OR WHITE
AHIHOPYRIDINE
ECDRIN
SCDIUM FLUOROACETATE
ALL OTHERS
6805
5791
4637
2524
205
201
170
160
149
837
37091
23735220
38
79
9
27
10
20
1
0
0
11
819
285364
32
36
846
122
51
181
1
1
0
27
1556
856805
PKUUUC
REGION3
121
209
0
15
0
105
0
0
26
0
9
T CLA55=rUCROBIC
REGION4 REGIONS
692 1286
623 290
0 0
4 539
0 821
313 147
757 0
721 0
78 36
63 0
30 56
:iDE
REGION6
172
281
0
21
0
149
0
16
35
0
19
REGION7
810
91
0
101
0
46
0
0
11
0
4
484 3280 3174 692 1064
DonnnrT n AQQ- UPDTPGDATP PPCiTTPTHP .
rKULIUl* 1 l*uA jO VE.ri 1 CDrtH 1 C. r C.O 1 A o 1 L>C.
REGIONS REGION4 REGIONS REGIOU6 REGION7
1399 7099 2817 802 1013
1902
1012
267
2198
55
0
5
2
0
58
6898
3915201
455 893
3170 659
1075 1574
41 11
6 20
0 0
11 110
15 98
0 0
135 126
12008 6309
4940673 1381619
841
66
843
2
6
0
15
4
81
249
2909
1953099
57
67 Q
23
1
36
0
19
31
1
167
2024
2649371
REGIONS
125
13
0
16
0
6
0
0
Z
0
0
162
REGIONS
1156
70
0
0
0
18
0
3
8
3
32
1290
2846680
REGION9
2
82
1587
0
0
42
0
0
10
0
51
1774
REGION9
282
98
84
0
0
2
0
6
1
0
22
494
4562775
REGION! 0
76
12
0
10
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
105
REGION10
31
2498
8
0
122
0
0
1
0
64
61
2784
343633
-------
TABLE 2
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS USED IN 1981,
BY INDUSTRY SECTOR AND PRODUCT CLASS,
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX E)
CHEMCODE
6601
14506
81901
39003
81301
14504
99101
34305
6902
44301
0
CLASS
CHEMCODE
80303
35505
12301
11104
73301
30019
80804
9301
38904
30053
0
CLASS
CHEMCOOE
86802
6501
63503
53201
34001
50201
42003
57001
70003
59101
0
CHEMICAL
PETPO. DER. AROM. HYDROCARBONS
ZIUEB
ERAVO
NETAM- SODIUM
CAPTAN
DITIIANE M-45
DENLATE
ZIRAM
SODIUM POLYSULFIDE
DODINE
ALL OTHERS
;iUK=57KU(.
NATIONAL
112787
12824
6641
5612
5500
5022
4136
3518
2350
2518
15593
. IUKAL At
REGION1
1161
1892
0
11
214
37
99
0
0
0
222
ft) mtt t
REGION2
32620
163
0
6
685
0
242
0
0
0
169
INU/OR U
REGIONS
36720
8739
0
19
799
0
575
0
0
0
10
IWN PRl
REGION4
5463
229
1328
9
63
2433
433
0
0
0
5764
JOUCT CL;
REGIONS
3548
388
407
6
729
0
938
0
0
0
2455
IS5=FUNGICIOE
REGION6 REGION?
15165 0
0 188
634 0
0 0
138 125
0 44
625 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3419 774
177002 3636 33834 46063 15723 8472 19981 1131
CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION1 REGIOH2 REGION3 REGION4 REGIONS REGION6 REGION7
ATRAZINE
DIURCN
HYVAR X
SODIUM METABORATE
SODIUM CHLORATE
DIETHYLAMINE 2,4-D
PROMETON
BETASAN
EMOOTHALL, DIPOTASSIUM SALT OF
EUTOXYETHYL 2,4-D
ALL OTHERS
842395
392742
347199
318873
258337
177411
95201
76015
69607
65472
429344
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
4933
3
6221
3072674 11202
TlfnllCTDV CCf*TnD CTOI lf*TI IO A 1 AMI
CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION1
OIMETHYLBENZENE
AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
METHYL BROMIDE
NETHOXYCHLOR
CHLCPDANE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
DIAZINON
SULFU3YL FLUORIDE
CHLORPYRIFOS
ALL OTHERS
2067583
756567
666346
610565
535652
573257
416939
396039
370336
280446
81844
7587
42417
0
29160
386
0
3470
0
884
67615
0
5649
4237
0
0
125
121
504
0
0
8846
19482
1 TD fC At
J IHtt AJ
REGION2
67514
4754
28837
0
23848
42376
0
2834
0
1824
46190
0
8473
6355
0
0
1287
032
0
0
806
3094
0
0
44
10510
8408
8233
1616
14339
64668
64180
125955
0
0
0
0
0
5725
1722
5650
0
0
41201
762839 0
350204 253
331157 169
305135 0
244108 0
16727 6054
85003 0
47091 8076
0 0
0 0
79615 6285
20847 297953 54298 2221881 20338
m /no i AUU nnnnitf*Y f*i ACC TiJccf*TTf*Tnc
iU/UH LAWN rRUOUCT CLAbb-INbtU 1 ILlUt "
REGION3 REGION4 REGIONS REGION6 REGION?
62954
2343
31769
0
18976
4181
0
9708
0
205
49353
110448
496783
329277
590033
107C6
214320
0
183955
318494
202528
678134
1405383
13855
44643
0
489136
22980
47
5948
0
8851
70495
256615 2912
164427 6433
132492 11021
217 0
2613 62
209078 60791
232453 54
127447 4372
8519 0
46331 7163
619360 67230
REGIONS
126
633
1632
0
8
0
47
0
2850
0
356
5653
REGIONS
12036
0
0
46
37
30392
5
265
0
0
22823
65604
REGIONS
6993
6421
8764
2
0
8135
0
9426
0
2725
30646
REGION9
0
31
2639
5561
551
1935
400
0
0
0
1742
12938
REGION9
54483
22669
2003
3182
5783
9229
3555
51
0
0
39859
140895
REGION9
45408
20633
13502
20211
0
10100
0
32176
51373
6532
05253
REGION10
17983
561
0
0
2188
574
696
3518
0
2518
682
28722
REGION10
13036
5492
3154
0
0
99638
2428
0
0
483
95444
219675
REGION10
27513
25331
23624
102
11070
5830
164305
16695
0
1354
139923
-------
TABLE Z
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS USED IN 1981,
BY INDUSTRY SECTOR AND PRODUCT CLASS.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX E)
10
1NUUSIHT 5ECTOR=STRUCTURAL AND TREE AND/OR LAWN PRODUCT CLA55=INSECTICIDE
CHEMCOOE CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION! REGION2 REGION3 REGION4 REGIONS REGION6 REGION7 REGIONS REGION9
CLASS 8591506 233372 218178 179488 3134756 2061339 1799622 160039 73111 295768
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION1 REGION2 REGIONS REGION4 REGIONS REGION6 REGION7
69153 ALKYL TRIMETHYL NH4 BROMIDE
69104 ETC 776 OR 824
69154 ALKYLDIMETHYLETHYLBENZYL NH4CL
83501 TRIE1HYLEKE GLYCOL
66603 FROPYLENE GLYCOL
293
47
47
21
20
0
0
0
0
0
CLASS 428 0
CHEMCOOE CHEMICAL NATIONAL REGION1
11402 POLYEUTENE 123703 0
1140., POLYISOBUTYLENE
67704 PIVAL, SCOIUM SALT OF
83601 ZINC PHOSPHIDE
41601 ENDRIN
86001 FUMARIN
56704 TOBACCO DUST
80501 TOXAFHENE
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
69201 AMINOPYRIDINE
0 ALL OTHERS
CLASS
SECTOR
4107
127
71
66
56
50
18
17
16
92
128324
11969934
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
248210
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
293
0
0
21
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 335 0 0 0
YDCCT Aljn Vf*O 1 AUM DDnnllPT PI AC^ UPDTETHDATIT D
IntC AMU/UK LAWN rJrUUUUI ULAiO- vfcrf I ttiKH T t K
REGION2 REG10N3 REGION4 REGIONS REGION6 REGION7
56 0 356 244 123047 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
57
271601
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
247197
387
127
45
0
0
0
0
0
3
13
931
3449693
26
0
0
58
0
50
0
0
0
24
402
2124512
3420
0
4
0
3
0
18
17
11
19
12653£t
4168021
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
182008
REGIONS
0
0
0
0
0
0
tT'"** V 1" f~* T FlI
coT I UI Ui
REGIONS
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
20
144339
REGION9
0
46
46
0
0
92
REGION9
0
274
0
1
0
54
0
0
0
0
28
357
450051
REGION10
435832
REGION10
0
0
0
0
0
0
REGION10
0
0
0
2
8
0
0
0
0
2
4
17
684246
47134115 1351110 2555316 5492545 9150868 8123528 6479321 3435648 3503826 5737468 1303934
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 19811
BY PRODUCT CLASS AND FORMULATION.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX F)
PRODUCT CLASS=FUNGICIDE FORMULATION=DUST
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
56502 PCUB 3413
77501 SULFUR 1534
79001 THIRAM (TETRAMETHTLTHIURAM DISULFIOE) 73
43401 ACTIDIONE 60
6310 STREPTOMYCIN SULFATE 19
34301 FER8AM 13
44301 000IHE (DODECYLGUANIDINE ACETATE) 9
FORM 5126
PRODUCT CLASS=FUNGICIDE FORMULATION=GRANULAR/PELLETED
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
56502 PCNB 14759
81901 BRAVO 494
27301 CHOLRONEB 360
102001 METHYL THIOPHANATE 301
99101 BENLATE 208
109901 TRIAOIMEFON 50
109301 IPRODINE 27
FORM 16199
PRODUCT CLASS=FUNGICIOE FORMULATION=LIQUID CONCENTRATE
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
81901 BRAVO 40429
14505 MANEB 31990
23102 COPPER NAPHTHENATE 31257
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS 27505
39003 METAM-SODIUM 7056
76702 CALCIUM POLYSULFIDE 4975
6902 SODIUM POLYSULFIDE 4074
23104 COPPER SALTS OF FATTY AMD ROSIN ACIDS 2253
60102 HYPOPHOSFHOROUS 2-(4-THIAZOLYL)BEHZIMIDA 1294
64104 SODIUM OTRHOPHENYLPHENATE 1029
0 ALL OTHERS 5478
FORM 157340
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
BY PRODUCT CLASS AND FORMULATION.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX f)
PRODUCT CLASS=FUNGICIDE FORMULATION=OTHER
CHEMCOOE CHEMICAL
6601
63001
63503
33901
63005
63003
PETROLEUM DERIVED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
PENTACHLORDPHEHDL
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
DIACETOUE ALCOHOL
SODIUM TETRACHLOROPHENATES
SODIUM PENTACHLOROPHENATE
FORM
POUNDS
537965
74250
67662
520
62
38
660496
PRODUCT CLASS=FUNGICIOE
CHEMCOOE
77702
99102
FORM
FORMULATION=REAOY-TO-USE SOLUTION
CHEMICAL POUNDS
PROPIOHIC ACID
LIGNASAN BLP
918
470
1388
PRODUCT CLASS=FUMGICIQE FGRMULATION=WETTABLE POWDER
CHEMCODE
99101
14506
81301
79301
77501
14504
81901
44301
34305
8101
0
FORM
CLASS
CHEMICAL
BENLATE
ZINEB
CAPTAN
THIRAM (TETRAMETHTLTHIURAM DISULFIOE)
SULFUR
EBDC, AS A COORDINATION PRODUCT
BRAVO
DOD1IIE (DODECYLGUANIDINE ACETATE)
ZIRAH (ZINC DIMETHYL DITHIOCARBAMATE)
BASIC COPPER SULFATE
ALL OTHERS
POUNDS
45974
34154
J4025
12444
11014
6639
5409
4615
3404
17443
176204
1036753
PRODUCT CLASS=HERBICIOE FORMULATION=DUST
CHEMCOOE CHEMICAL POUNDS
28902 DALAPON, SODIUM SALT OF 1394
36601 DIPHENAMIO 393
FORM
267
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATES OF NATIOMAL USAGE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
BY PRODUCT CLASS AND FORMULATION.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX F)
PRODUCT CLASS=HERBICIOE FORMUUTION=GRANULAR/PELLETED
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
11104
73301
64301
80B07
9801
80804
78701
27401
63003
38904
0
SODIUM METABORATE
SODIUM CHLORATE
BENEFIN
SII1AZINE
BETASAN
PROMETON
DACTHAL
DICHLOROBENZOHITRILE
SODIUM PENTACHLOROPHENATE
EUDOTHALL, DIPOTASSIUM SALT OF
ALL OTHERS
FORM
328721
262977
71028
43649
34586
32872
15206
12190
5317
3344
15501
826391
PRODUCT CLASS=HERBICIDE FORMULATION=LIQUID CONCENTRATE
CHEMCODE
9801
30019
31519
30035
29002
100801
90501
30056
31516
30053
0
FORM
CHEMICAL
BETASAN
DIETHYLAMINE 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
DIMETHYLAMINE 2-(2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHEHOX
TRIISOPROPANOLAMINE 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYA
DIMETHYLAMINE DICAMBA
METOLACHLOR
ALACHLOR
BUTYL 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
DIETHAKOLAMINE 2-12-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENO
BUTOXYETHYL 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
ALL OTHERS
POUNDS
1329193
1032616
262416
242335
158305
142516
140247
133960
121980
119958
1140365
4828391
PRODUCT CUSS=HERBICIDE FORMULATION=OTHER
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
30501 MCPA 10443
19201 MCPB 10245
5501 AMMATE 6106
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS 605
FORM
27400
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
BY PRODUCT CLASS AND FORMULATION.
(RELATIVE STAHOARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX F)
- PRODUCT CLASS=HERBICIDE FORMULATION=PRESSURIZED --
CHEMCODS CHEMICAL POUNDS
4401
96801
FORM
AMITROLE Ci-AMINO-S-TRIAZOLEl
CHLORFLURENOL
54
1
55
PRODUCT CLASS=HERBICIDE FORMULATION=READY-TO-USE SOLUTION
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
38905
107301
13502
13303
12501
FORM
EUDOTHALL
VELPAR
30DIUM CACODYLATE
MOt.'OSOOIUtl METHANEARSONATE
CACODYLIC ACID
4059
704
4
1
1
PRODUCT CLASS=HERBICIDE FORMULATION=WETTABLE POWDER
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
78701
80803
35505
12)01
80S07
80304
105501
104201
35509
101701
0
FORM
CLASS
DACTHAL
ATRAZINE
DIURCM
HYVAR X
SIMAZIHE
PROMETON
TEBUTHIURON
SURFLAN
SIDURON
PRONAtllDE
ALL OTHERS
1011347
1007438
460133
400951
129156
79003
48703
38107
22455
10072
12510
3227761
6917653
----- PRODUCT CLASS=INSECTICIDE FORMULATION=DU5T ----
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
1100 1 BORIC ACIQ
57601 DIAZINCN
69004 . PYRETIIRIN COILS
56001 CARBARYL
75202 SODIUM FLUORIDE
72602 SILICA GEL
63503 PEFIHFO FETPOtEUM HYDROCARBONS
67501 PIFhRONYL BUIOX1DE
56733
55299
23477
1PS64
176G6
17212
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 19S1,
BY PRODUCT CLASS AND FORMULATION.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX F)
PRODUCT CLASS=INSECTICIDE FORflULATION=DUST
CHEMCOOE CHEMICAL POUNDS
72605 SILICON DIOXIDE
11102 BORAX
0 ALL OTHERS
FORM
2244
1448
6715
216167
PRODUCT CLASS=INSECTICIDE FORMULATION=GRANULAR/PELLETEO
CHEMCOOE
FORM
CHEMICAL
POUNDS
57801
66501
57201
59101
90601
41101
109401
56C01
53001
41701
0
DIAZINON
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
THIHET
CHLORPYRIFOS
FURADAN
MOCAP
ISOFENPHOS
CARBARYL
METALDEHYDE
DYFONATE
ALL OTHERS
1 98968
19S021
68873
57289
35241
26468
26222
15249
14048
10674
20934
671986
PRODUCT CLASS=INSECTICIDE FORMULATION=LIQUIO CONCENTRATE
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
58201 CHLOROANE 3625437
6501 AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE SOLVENT 3277718
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS 3134747
66802 OINETHYLBENZENE 3125C60
86803 XYLENE RANGE AROMATIC SOLVENT 1603B02
59101 CHLORPYRIFOS 1541658
57801 DIAZIUON 1379692
44801 HEPTACHLOR 1199557
34001 METHOXYCHLOR 730502
45101 ALD9IN 704274
0 ALL OTHERS 2294800
FORM
22617728
-------
TABLE 5
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981*
BY PRODUCT CLASS AND FORMULATION.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX F)
PRODUCT CLASS=INSECTICIDE FORMUUTION=OTHER
CHEtlCODE
63503
57801
61501
6350Z
61101
31608
40501
9001
22001
99401
0
FORM
CHEMICAL
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
DIAZINON
PARADICHLOROBENZENE
MINERAL OIL, SEAL OR WHITE
TRICHLOROBENZEUE
CASTOR OIL
CITRUS OIL
LINDANE
ASPHALT
GUM RESINS
ALL OTHERS
POUNDS
1103850
9508
4670
378
322
82
81
55
42
29
109
1119126
PRODUCT CLASS=INSECTICIDE FORMULATION=PRE5SURIZED
CHEMCODE
78003
53201
63503
81501
78501
84001
13
14
67501
11001
0
FORM
CHEMICAL
SULFURYL FLUORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
CHLOROPICRIN
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
DDVP
TRICHOLROFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORO DIFLUOnO METHANE
PIPEROUYL BUTOXIOE
BORIC ACID
ALL OTHERS
POUNDS
2688325
1599622
70065
30667
12759
12600
7974
7974
6536
6335
26227
4469084
PRODUCT CLASS=INSECTICIDE FORMULATION=REAOY-TO-USE SOLUTION
CHEMCOOE CHEMICAL
42003 ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
16501 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
42002 ETHYLENE DIEROMIDE
77601 SULFUR DIOXIDE
6601 PETROLEUM DERIVED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
57001 OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE DICARBOXIMIDE
63502 MINERAL OIL, SEAL OR WHITE
63506 MINERAL SPIRITS (ODORLESS!
57701 MULATHION
0 ALL OTHERS
FOPM .....
POUNDS
3172555
1771539
1348625
251797
147312
30957
29404
25124
23901
19SS4
6935310
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1961,
BY PRODUCT CLASS AUD FORMULATION.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX F)
PRODUCT CLASS=INSECTICIDE FORMULATIOM=WETTABLE POWDER
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
482385
180537
77010
63343
53507
42161
38759
13573
6375
4590
10071
56801
105201
103301
57701
34001
57901
10501
59201
47802
58001
0
FORM
CLASS
CARBARYL
BENOIOCARB
ORTHENE
MALATHION
METHOXYCHLOR
TRICHLORFON
DICOFOL
PHOSMET
BAYGOH
GUTHION
ALL OTHERS
972362
37001762
PRODUCT CLASS=MICROBICIOE FORMULATION=LIQUID CONCENTRATE
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
67002
79009
22101
69129
47501
69153
76406
69104
69154
14701
0
PINE 01U
SOAP
CRESYLIC ACID, COAL TAR ACIDS t PHENOLS
HYAMINE 2389
PROPANOL
ALKYL» TRIMETHYL AMMONIUM BROMIDE *(95X
TRISODIUM PHOSPHATE
ALKYL* DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
ALKYL* DIMETHYL ETHYLBENZYL AMMONIUM CHL
CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE
ALL OTHERS
FORM
4422
847
821
757
737
293
63
46
46
35
30
8098
PRODUCT CLASS=MICROBICIDE
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL
FORMULAT10N=OTHER
46901 BUTOXY...ETHOXYETHANOL-IODINE COMPLEX
46909 POLYETHOXY...ETHOXYETHAHOL-IODINE COMPLE
POUNDS
1587
47
FORM
1634
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
BY PRODUCT CLASS AND FORMULATION.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX F)
PRODUCT CLASS=MICROBICIDE FORMULATION=PRESSURIZED
CHEMCODE
1501
83501
66604
40501
68603
69140
69104
69154
FORM
CHEMICAL
ETHYL ALCOHOL
TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL
DIPROPYLENE GLYCOL '- '
CITRUS OIL
PROPYLEIIE GLYCOL
ALKYL* DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
ALKYL* DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
ALKYL* DIMETHYL ETHYLBENZYL AMMONIUM CHL
POUNDS
1610
840
201
50
32
10
1
1
2745
PRODUCT CLASS=MICROBICIOE FORMULATIQN=READY-TO-USE SOLUTION
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
69183 MSCP 44
CLASS : 12520
PRODUCT CLASS=VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE FORMULATION=DUST
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL ' POUNDS
88601
66002
60501
67707
69201
56704
611
55801
67701
ZINC PHOSPHIDE
WARFARIN
TOXAPHENE
CHLOROPHACINONE
AMINOPYRIDINE
TOBACCO OUST
DRIED BLOOD
NAPHTHALENE
DIPHACINONE
FORM
6616
276
150
139
91
50
11
11
6
7350
PRODUCT CLA35=VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE FORMULATION=GRANULAR/PELLETED
CHEMCODE
86601
86001
76901
69201
86002
67703
67701
112701
70001
CHEMICAL
ZINC PHOSPHIDE
FUMARIM
STRYCHNINE
AMINOPYRIDINE
WARFARIN
RIVAL
OIPHACIHOtlE
f!?ODIFACOUI1
KED SQUILL
POUNDS
349
135
125
95
65
61
53
38
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
BY PRODUCT CLASS AND FORMULATION.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX F)
PRODUCT CLASS-VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE FORMULATION=GRANULAR/PELLETED
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
67705 OIPHACINONE, SODIUM SALT OF 13
0 ALL OTHERS 11
FORM 959
PRODUCT CLASS-VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE FORMULATION= LIQUID CONCENTRATE
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
67704 PIVAL, SODIUM SALT OF 215
75003 SODIUM FLUOROACETATE 149
67707 CHLOROPHACINONE 69
67703 PIVAL «
86004 FUHARTN, SODIUM SALT OF 8
FORM 449
PRODUCT CLASS-VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE FORMULATION=OTHER ~
CHEMCOOE CHEMICAL POUNDS
86002 WARFARIN 2188
11402 POLYDUTEMC 1325
76104 SODIUM NITRATE 13
31604 HYOROGENATEO CASTOR OIL 12
16001 CARBON 5
63502 MINERAL OIL* SEAL OR WHITE 4
77501 SULFUR 3
66502 PHOSPHORUS 1
FORM 3552
PRODUCT CLASS-VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE FORMULATION:PRESSURIZED -
CHEMCOOE CHEMICAL POUNDS
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS 5309
11402 POLYBUTENE 5535
FORM H344
-------
TABLE 3 10
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
BY PRODUCT CLASS AND FORMULATION.
(RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORS ARE GIVEI! IN APPENDIX FJ
PRODUCT CLASSWERTEBRATE PESTICIDE fORWULATION=READY-TO-USE SOLUTION --
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL POUNDS
11402 POLYBUTENE 132325
11403 POLYISODUTYLENE 8744
41601 ENDRIN 226
63502 MINERAL OILf SEAL OR WHITE 201
6601 PETROLEUM DERIVED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS 133
53301 BAYTEX 133
169111 DIALKYL* DIMETHYL AHMOHIUM BENTONITE *tA 11
FORM 141773
CLASS 165427
47134116
-------
Table 3A. Estimates of National Usage of Pounds of Active Ingredients in 1981 in Vertebrate Pesticides
Table courtesy of Dr. William B. Jackson, Bowling Green State University
Chemical
Dust
Formulation
Granular/ Liquid
Pelleted Concentrate
Other Pressurized
Ready-to-
Use Solution
Totals
Rodenticides
Zinc phosphide 6616 349
Phosphorus
Red Squill - 14
1080
Warfarin 276 65
Fumarin - 135
Pival - 61
Diphacinone 6 66*
Chlorophacinone 139
Brodifacoum - 38
Bird Management
Baytex
Endrin**
Aminopyridine 91 95
Strychnine** - 125
Polybutane, polyisobutane***
Hydrogenated caster oil***
Mineral oil***
Refined petroleum hydrocardons***
Petroleum derived aromatic
hydrocarbons**
149
223*
69
sub-total
2188
1325
12
4
5535
5809
sub-total
133
226
141,069
201
133
6965
1
14
149
712'J
2529
143
284
72
208
38
3274
133
226
186
125
147,929
12
205
5809
133
sub-total 154.758
Other****
Toxaphene
Tobacco dust
Dried blood
Naphthalene
Sodim Nitrate
Carbon
Sulfur
Bentonite
Other
150
50
11
11
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
-
-
13
5
3
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
-
sub-total
Grand Total
150
50
11
11
13
5
3
11
11
265
165,426
* includes sodium salt
** presumed to be for bird management use
*** non-toxic compounds
**** noa-toxic or specific use not related to commensal rodents
-------
Table 4. Gross Sales of Pest Control Firms in 1981, by EPA Region and Industry Sector
EPA Industry
Region Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Unknown
47
66
450
1,444
379
2,386
Number
<$25,000
349
497
801
3,065
510
5,223
of Reporting Aggregates with Gross Sales of
$25,000- $100,
$99,999 $499,
National
471
417
823
2,482 1,
797
4,989 3,
000- $500
999 $999
Totals
360
379
769
463
679
651
,000-
,999
28
60
112
180
133
511
$1,000,000-
$5,000,000
22
65
66
149
79
380
>$5,000,000
1
6
13
32
43
96
Regional Totals
1 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
2 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
3 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
0
33
22
38
18
110
0
5
10
92
0
107
13
0
49
186
14
34
51
66
165
13
328
40
51
142
490
10
733
34
12
29
395
11
52
110
103
74
64
404
122
49
148
261
53
633
45
21
116
254
17
15
34
54
57
17
177
80
74
85
86
51
376
39
85
117
121
16
0
5
11
4
4
24
2
6
16
22
0
45
1
30
25
17
4
0
2
0
5
0
6
1
23
1
9
0
33
4
5
13
5
7
1
2
0
0
1
4
1
2
2
11
1
18
1
4
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
262
481
453
379
77
35
13
-------
Table 4. Gross Sales of Pest Control Firms in 1981, by EPA Region and Industry Sector
(continued)
EPA Industry
Region Sector
4 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
5 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
6 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
7 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Unknown
10
6
70
281
135
502
8
5
125
231
26
394
0
0
87
272
150
509
0
0
26
134
4
Number
<$25,000
46
50
145
734
92
1,066
120
134
224
389
51
917
7
25
61
420
171
684
46
77
82
344
79
of Reporting Aggregates with Gross Sales of
$25,000-
$99,999
42
27
84
699
137
988
143
61
195
343
41
784
0
21
39
328
244
632
48
46
92
195
63
$100,000-
$499,999
19
36
123
478
269
925
186
56
207
152
63
664
0
27
24
204
124
379
5
41
62
84
15
$500,000- $1
$999,999 $5
5
10
4
58
34
112
17
12
30
26
43
128
0
0
6
24
22
52
4
2
0
30
2
,000,000-
,000,000
0
2
8
50
9
69
13
8
20
20
7
67
0
8
4
10
43
64
0
0
0
13
0
>$5,000,000
1
2
0
6
6
16
1
6
0
1
38
46
1
2
0
0
9
1
/
4
11
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
165
628
444
207
37
14
19
-------
Table 4. Gross Sales of Pest Control Firms in 1981, by EPA Region and Industry Sector
(continued)
Number of Reporting
EPA
Region
8
9
10
Industry
Sector Unknown <$25,000
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
16
16
21
16
10
78
0
0
31
227
16
274
0
0
9
39
6
1
43
10
11
27
97
20
35
40
159
31
285
0
25
11
41
28
Aggregates with Gross Sales of
$25,000- $100,000- $500,000- $1,000,000-
$99,999 $499,999 $999,999 $5,000,000 >$5,000,000
21
21
3
57
29
132
0
45
39
355
116
555
0
29
49
31
44
5
5
14
30
21
75
15
18
90
348
68
539
0
15
6
10
44
0
0
5
9
5
19
0
0
10
48
12
70
0
0
6
1
9
5
0
10
3
0
18
0
17
11
34
16
78
0
0
0
5
0
1
1
3
1
0
6
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
54
104
154
75
15
-------
Table 5. Sales of Pest Control Services in 1981, By EPA Region and Industry Sector
Number of Reporting Aggregates with Sales for Pest Control Service of
EPA Industry
Region Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
1 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
2 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
3 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Unknown
96
69
348
1,179
292
1,984
0
33
22
41
18
114
26
5
15
81
0
127
21
1
30
230
14
<$25,000
824
998
2,206
3,529
1,026
8,582
56
85
195
169
55
559
160
122
345
539
59
1,226
94
99
275
443
25
$25,000- $100,
$99,999 $499,
National
231
310
376
2,609 1,
723
4,248 2,
Regional
33
92
39
71
42
277
51
65
15
244
28
403
12
30
38
228
24
000- $500
999 $999
Totals
106
97
84
235
532
054
Totals
12
24
0
53
0
89
7
14
21
83
27
152
10
23
6
59
6
,000-
,999
12
2
9
160
34
217
0
2
0
4
0
5
0
0
5
16
0
22
0
0
0
13
0
$1,000,000-
$5,000,000
8
8
10
97
9
133
0
0
0
5
1
5
0
0
2
3
1
6
0
0
4
5
1
>$5,000,000
1
6
0
6
4
17
1
2
0
0
0
3
1
2
0
6
0
9
1
2
0
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
296
935
333
105
13
-------
Table 5. Sales of Pest Control Services in 1981, By EPA Region and Industry Sector
(continued)
EPA Industry
Region Sector
4 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
5 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
6 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
7 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Number
Unknown
5
6
60
244
81
397
16
0
83
142
60
301
0
0
42
144
53
240
8
8
33
135
9
of Reporting Aggregates with Sales for
<$25,000
67
99
301
885
133
1,486
305
230
590
427
118
1,670
7
73
157
501
342
1,080
87
121
168
386
120
$25,000- $100
$99,999 $499
35
23
48
707
204
1,017
92
31
112
437
24
696
0
0
14
409
225
648
5
33
57
195
32
,000- $500,
,999 $999,
10
4
17
401
225
656
56
16
14
134
59
279
0
0
8
174
134
316
4
4
8
77
2
Pest
000-
999
4
0
4
44
27
79
8
0
0
9
5
22
0
0
0
23
2
25
0
0
0
15
Control Service
$1,000,000-
$5,000,000 >$5
0
0
4
24
7
35
8
0
0
14
3
25
0
8
Q
10
0
18
0
0
3
of
,000,000
1
2
0
1
4
9
1
6
0
1
0
8
1
2
0
1
0
4
1
1
Tree and/or Lawn n. ..
Overall 192 882 322 94 15
-------
Table 5. Sales of Pest Control Services in 1981, By EPA Region and Industry Sector
(continued)
EPA
Region
8
9
10
Industry
Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Number
Unknown
16
16
21
9
3
65
5
0
41
155
40
241
0
0
9
39
15
of Reporting Aggregates with
<$25,000
32
59
26
37
48
203
20
84
125
204
75
507
0
43
38
46
54
$25,000- $100
$99,999 $499
5
10
14
48
22
98
0
21
50
381
94
546
0
16
33
31
40
Sales for Pest
,000- $500,000-
,999 $999,999
0
0
5
26
18
49
10
10
5
349
50
425
0
10
0
6
22
0
0
0
6
0
6
0
0
0
48
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
Control Service
$1,000,000-
$5,000,000 >$5,
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
34
0
34
0
0
0
5
0
of
000,000
1
1
0
1
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
63
181
120
38
0
-------
Table 6. Number of Employees of Pest Control Firms, in 1981, By EPA Region and Industry Sector
Number of
EPA
Region Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
1 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
2 Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Service
Technicians
and Technical
Managers
6,606
8,324
14,594
40,345
14,791
84,659
401
1,436
973
1,242
377
4,429
1,086
2,071
2,090
2,607
604
Clerical, Sales
and Other
Employees
2,251
4,265
4,848
18,945
6,115
36,424
119
328
384
317
181
1,329
352
405
444
1,261
168
Weighted Number
of Reporting
Aggregates that
Provided Data
National Totals
1,210
1,395
2,661
7,862
2,212
15,339
Regional Totals
101
213
237
323
102
975
239
195
387
835
104
Weighted Number of
Reporting Aggregates
That Did Not
Provide Data
68
95
372
953
408
1,897
0
19
18
8
14
59
5
2
15
59
5
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
8,457
2,631
1,760
86
-------
Table 6. Number of Employees of Pest Control Firms, in 1981, By EPA Region and Industry Sector
(continued)
EPA
Region
3
4
5
Number
Service
Technicians
and Technical
Industry Sector Managers
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
688
1,537
1,633
4,602
256
8,714
427
443
1,963
11,873
3,520
18,224
3,215
1,513
2,885
5,473
4,752
of
Clerical, Sales
and Other
Employees
195
361
534
2,542
132
3,764
160
403
462
5,429
2,392
8,846
1,172
1,530
1,569
2,557
1,525
Weighted Number
of Reporting
Aggregates that
Provided Data
129
140
291
886
66
1,513
96
112
363
2,022
547
3,141
470
261
705
931
196
Weighted Number of
Reporting Aggregates
That Did Not
Provide Data
6
10
60
44
0
119
24
15
69
203
134
445
8
13
78
IOC
125
/ /
64
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall 17,837
8,352
2,564
288
-------
Table 6. Number of Employees of Pest Control Firms, in 1981, By EPA Region and Industry Sector
(continued)
Number of
EPA
Region
6
7
8
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Service
Technicians
and Technical
Managers
142
234
502
4,252
2,946
8,075
427
492
1,422
2,650
415
5,407
105
114
358
414
269
Clerical, Sales
and Other
Employees
23
90
220
1,952
1,010
3,295
84
136
255
984
126
1,584
115
10
330
144
43
Weighted Number
of Reporting
Aggregates that
Provided Data
4
73
140
1,021
614
1,853
99
162
217
669
152
1,298
37
54
38
89
76
Weighted Number of
Reporting Aggregates
That Did Not
Provide Data
4
6
80
223
138
451
5
0
11
78
10
103
16
31
22
14
10
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall 1,260
642
294
92
-------
Table 6. Number of Employees of Pest Control Firms, in 1981, By EPA Region and Industry Sector
(continued)
Number of
EPA
Region
9
10
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Service
Technicians
and Technical
Managers
110
292
2,539
6,545
1,100
10,585
6
192
231
688
553
Clerical, Sales
and Other
Employees
31
942
606
3,435
291
5,305
1
60
45
324
247
Weighted Number
of Reporting
Aggregates that
Provided Data
35
115
210
978
229
1,568
0
69
71
108
125
Weighted Number of
Reporting Aggregates
That Did Not
Provide Data
0
0
10
185
28
223
0
0
9
15
6
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall 1,670 677 373 30
-------
Table 7. Number of Certified or Licensed Employees of Pest Control
Firms in 1981, By EPA Region and Industry Sector
EPA
Region
1
2
3
4
Industry
Number of
Certified or
Sector Licensed Employees
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
2,536
2,097
4,336
16,048
5,115
30,133
162
526
375
896
177
2,136
353
290
521
1,238
258
2,661
228
232
447
1,241
125
2,274
173
131
923
3,707
1,278
Weighted Number
Weighted Number of
of Reporting Reporting Aggregates
Aggregates That
Provided Data
National Totals
1,201
1,375
2,713
7,398
2,232
14,919
Regional Totals
85
188
236
272
107
887
239
197
392
797
109
1,735
133
149
339
775
67
1,462
102
120
380
2,000
556
That Did Not
Provide Data
77
115
320
1,417
389
2,317
16
43
20
59
9
147
5
0
10
97
0
112
3
0
13
155
0
170
18
7
53
226
125
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall 6,211
3,158
428
-------
Table 7. Number of Certified or Licensed Employees of Pest Control
Firms in 1981, By EPA Region and Industry Sector (continued)
EPA
Region
5
6
7
8
9
Weighted Number
Number of of Reporting
Industry Certified or Aggregates That
Sector Licensed Employees Provided Data
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
1,307
421
1,053
1,903
884
5,569
4
127
189
2,018
1,233
3,571
217
121
260
951
209
1,758
37
44
60
206
155
502
55
95
352
3,606
404
469
261
682
920
244
2,576
7
79
141
959
630
1,817
98
152
222
644
128
1,243
37
54
39
75
76
282
30
105
212
877
212
Weighted Number of
Reporting Aggregates
That Did Not
Provide Data
8
14
101
136
16
276
0
0
79
285
122
486
6
9
7
103
34
158
16
31
21
28
10
105
5
10
8
285
45
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall 4,513
1,437
353
-------
Table 7. Number of Certified or Licensed Employees of Pest Control
Firms in 1981, By EPA Region and Industry Sector (continued)
EPA
Region
10
Industry
Number of
Certified or
Sector Licensed Employees
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/ or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
0
109
156
283
391
Weighted Number
of Reporting
Aggregates That
Provided Data
0
69
71
78
103
Weighted Number of
Reporting Aggregates
That Did
Not
Provide Data
0
0
9
45
28
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
939
322
81
-------
Table 8. Multiple State Certification or Licensing in 1981, By Industry Sector
Estimated Number of Reporting Aggregates
Industry Sector
Are Any Employees
Certified or Licensed
in Multiple States?
Yes
Method: Formal Examination
Reciprocity
Examination and Reciprocity
Other or Unknown
No Response
No
Don' t Know
No Response
Lawn
122
66
46
5
0
b
1,011
69
75
Tree
159
99
32
19
0
9
1,134
64
133
Tree
and/or
Lawn
206
105
56
26
0
18
2,441
86
300
Structural
1,442
968
285
85
6
98
5,724
329
1,319
Structural
and Tree
and/or Lawn
256
145
70
27
0
15
1,844
no
410
Overall
2,185
1,382
490
161
6
146
12,155
659
2,237
-------
Table 9. Number of Business Locations Associated With Reporting Aggregates in 1981,
By Industry Sector
Industry Number of
Sector States Served
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and Tree
and/or Lawn
Overall
1
2-3
4-10
11-50
1
2-3
4-10
11-50
1
2-3
4-10
11-50
1
2-3
4-10
11-50
1
2-3
4-10
11-50
1
2-3
4-10
11-50
1
1,161
68
0
1
1,230
1,395
56
0
1
1,452
2,797
156
8
0
2,961
7,521
763
25
1
8,310
2,383
110
4
0
2,497
15,258
1,154
36
3
16,451
Number of
2
29
0
0
0
29
17
8
1
0
26
48
9
1
0
58
335
36
10
1
382
78
12
3
0
93
507
66
15
1
589
Business Locations in Reporting Aggregate
3-5
12
1
0
1
14
4
5
0
0
9
14
0
0
0
14
63
13
0
0
76
21
0
2
0
23
114
19
2
0
135
6-10
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
2
2
0
35
6
0
0
0
6
41
2
2
0
45
11-20
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
7
2
0
0
0
2
9
0
0
1
10
>20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
2
6
-------
Table IDA
Percent of Gross Sales from Pest Control Services
at Residential Single Family Structures in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Gross Sales
Entries in the table represent the estimated number of
reporting aggregates in each category.
Percent of Sales Associated
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/ or Lawn
Structural
0
281
348
985
2,066
1-25
47
87
302
976
26-50
58
53
209
1,194
51-75
32
94
249
1,177
with Site
76-99
499
503
673
2,693
100
352
401
561
656
Data
Missing
9
4
54
53
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn 703 236 469 456 613 133 32
Reporting Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000 936 435 627 578 1,624 967 56
$25,000-$99,999 781 518 568 622 1,774 707 20
$100,000-$499,999 505 410 537 559 1,310 296 33
$500,000-$999,999 125 42 44 137 149 13 0
$1,000,000-$5,000,000 104 115 47 21 52 40 0
>$5,000,000 32 14 39 5 5 0 0
Data Missing 1,898 114 120 86 67 59 42
Overall 4,382 1,648 1,983 2,008 4,982 2,081 151
-------
Table 10B
Percent of Gross Sales from Pest Control Services
at Residential Multiple Family Structures in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Gross Sales
Entries in the table represent the estimated number of
reporting aggregates in each category.
Percent of Sales Associated with Site Data
0 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100 Missing
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn 1,108 1,239 138 23 26 17 69
Reporting Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000 3,021 1,624 308 31 29 21 189
$25,000-$99,999 2,384 2,060 221 52 70 4 200
$100,000-$499,999 1,341 1,982 103 81 42 33 71
$500,000-$999,999 197 264 17 20 0 14 0
$1,000,000-$5,000,000 148 193 12 10 0 5 13
>$5,000,000 77 19 00 0 00
Data Missing 2,059 158 95 10 0 18 46
Overall 9,226 6,299 756 202 141 94 518
808
997
2,117
4,196
382
391
563
3,724
18
4
100
496
0
0
78
101
21
14
24
56
4
23
26
23
44
61
126
219
-------
Table IOC
Percent of Gross Sales from Pest Control Services
at Institutional Structures in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Gross Sales
Entries in the table represent the estimated number of
reporting aggregates in each category.
Percent of Sales Associated with Site Data
0
1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100 Missing
1,047
1,156
2,599
5,855
160
250
253
2,522
5
13
21
120
10
14
6
6
0
4
10
18
0
0
4
0
56
53
140
294
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn 1,710 799 37 00 0 75
Reporting Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000 3,950 930 96 20 21 4 203
$25,000-$99,999 3,381 1,331 54 6 0 0 216
$100,000-$499,999 2,248 1,242 40 4 4 0 112
$500,000-$999,999 320 186 4 0 0 0 1
$1,000,000-$5,000,000 191 174 0 0 1 0 15
>$5,000,000 78 12 0 0 6 0 0
Data Missing 2,198 109 2 6 0 0 71
Overall 12,366 3,984 196 36 32 4 618
-------
Table 10D
Percent of Gross Sales from Pest Control Services
at Commercial Food Processing Areas in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Gross Sales
Entries in the table represent the estimated number of
reporting aggregates in each category.
Percent of Sales Associated with Site Data
0
1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100 Missing
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/ or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Reporting Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
1,129
1,296
2,679
4,289
1,418
3,304
2,854
1,981
304
189
68
2,112
73
121
168
3,337
1,024
1,348
1,635
1,264
184
144
11
138
1,129
1,296
2,679
4,289
73
121
168
3,337
24
8
14
637
0
0
15
236
0
0
4
75
0
0
0
49
52
64
152
192
58 15 0 0 106
199 117 53 14 188
217 30 15 0 240
197 115 7 0 87
18 4 0 0 1
29 1 4 0 13
12 0 0 4 0
69 0 0 31 36
Overall 10,812 4,723 741 267 79 49 565
-------
Table 10E
Percent of Gross Sales from Pest Control Services
at Industrial/Business Structures in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Gross Sales
Entries in the table represent the estimated number of
reporting aggregates in each category.
Percent of Sales Associated with Site
3 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99
100
Data
Missing
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Reporting Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
720
894
1,657
4,714
443
408
790
3,436
27
65
260
337
8
11
104
29
15
11
71
25
24
37
52
25
39
64
98
249
1,167 1,172
105
45
22
36
75
3,259
2,261
1,280
165
119
27
2,040
1,496
2,098
2,006
298
155
24
174
173
220
194
33
63
41
70
35
58
45
3
20
0
36
17
76
35
5
11
0
0
42
57
60
5
1
4
4
201
221
29
1
10
0
63
Overall
9,153 6,250
794
196
144
173
526
-------
Table 10F
Percent of Gross Sales from Pest Control Services
For Right of Ways in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Gross Sales
Entries in the table represent the estimated number of
reporting aggregates in each category.
Percent of Sales Associated with Site Data
0 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100 Missing
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn 2,229 188 52 9 5 0 137
Reporting Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000 4,822 91 10 5 13 29 253
$25,000-$99,999 4,440 198 16 37 7 8 283
$100,000-$499,999 3,330 175 3 13 5 4 120
$500,000-$999,999 459 31 4 2 5 0 10
$1,000,000-$5,000,000 290 26 42 0 1 4 17
>$5,000,000 85 5 0 2 4 0 0
Data Missing 2,276 38 4 0 0 0 68
Overall 15,701 565 79 60 35 45 751
1,089
1,332
2,707
8,344
114
51
100
112
0
2
15
9
0
5
44
1
0
12
7
11
4
19
13
8
70
68
147
329
-------
Table 10G
Percent of Gross Sales from Pest Control Services
for Commercial Agriculture in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Gross Sales
Entries in the table represent the estimated number of
reporting aggregates in each category.
Percent of Sales Associated with Site Data
0
1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100 Missing
1,201
1,376
2,768
8,291
2
46
83
139
4
0
6
16
0
0
4
9
0
0
13
36
9
0
9
5
61
68
150
319
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn 2,208 210 18 5 45 5 129
Reporting Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000 4,830 93 10 0 27 20 243
$25,000-$99,999 4,553 129 10 14 10 4 269
$100,000-$499,999 3,315 174 14 0 25 0 123
$500,000-$999,999 444 43 10 0 5 0 10
$1,000,000-$5,000,000 347 6 0 0 13 0 14
>$5,000,000 80 1 0 0 14 0 0
Data Missing 2,275 34 0 5 0 4 68
Overall 15,844 480 44 19 93 28 728
-------
Table 11A
Number of Accounts for Single Family Structures in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Size
Number
of
Accounts
Number of
Responding
Aggregates
Number of
Nonresponding
Aggregates
Industry Sector
Lawn 1,363,882
Tree 312,096
Tree and/or Lawn 264,953
Structural 2,112,303
Structural and 778,276
Tree and/or Lawn
Report Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000 273,196
$25,000-$99,999 922,080
$100,000-$499,999 1,412,346
$500,000-$999,999 383,839
$1,000,000-$5,000,000 561,201
>$5,000,000 1,243,388
Data Missing 35,359
770
856
1,409
3,812
1,357
2,780
2,836
1,940
255
167
22
204
507
634
1,624
5,003
1,264
2,443
2,154
1,710
256
213
74
2,182
Overall
4,831,509
8,204
9,032
-------
Table 11B
Number of Accounts for Multiple Family Structures in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Size
Number
of
Accounts
Number of
Responding
Aggregates
Number of
Nonresponding
Aggregates
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Report Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
17,611
6,207
8,382
196,144
41,137
377
403
712
2,825
1,120
15,754
47,086
81,408
36,776
19,133
65,602
3,721
1,572
1,848
1,490
226
150
16
135
900
1,087
2,321
5,989
1,500
3,651
3,142
2,161
285
230
80
2,251
Overall
269,481
5,438
11,798
-------
Table 11C
Number of Accounts for Institutional Structures in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Size
Number
of
Accounts
Number of
Responding
Aggregates
Number of
Nonresponding
Aggregates
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Report Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
1,851
2,715
1,421
65,010
11,244
226
323
431
2,147
906
3,222
16,789
23,692
8,922
8,589
20,459
568
1,115
1,403
1,115
153
134
10
103
1,051
1,167
2,602
6,668
1,715
4,108
3,587
2,536
358
246
86
2,283
Overall
82,241
4,032
13,204
-------
Table 11D
Number of Accounts for Commercial Food Processing Areas in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Size
Number
of
Accounts
Number of
Responding
Aggregates
Number of
Nonresponding
Aggregates
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Report Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
2,430
1,312
1,531
225,993
31,936
214
227
422
2,841
959
15,654
24,916
93,764
23,750
35,752
68,126
1,241
1,431
1,628
1,160
152
132
12
149
1,064
1,262
2,611
5,974
1,662
3,792
3,362
2,491
359
248
84
2,237
Overall
263,202
4,663
12,573
-------
Table HE
Number of Accounts for Industrial/Business Structures in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Size
Number
of
Accounts
Number of
Responding
Aggregates
Number of
Nonresponding
Aggregates
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Report Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
11,613
5,595
19,586
172,557
38,112
11,496
36,041
90,070
25,804
38,627
41,705
3,719
418
455
946
2,695
1,112
1,574
1,946
1,559
214
159
18
155
860
1,034
2,087
6,119
1,509
3,649
3,044
2,091
297
221
78
2,231
Overall
247,463
5,626
11,610
-------
Table 11F
Number of Accounts for Right of Ways in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Size
Number
of
Accounts
Number of
Responding
Aggregates
Number of
Nonresponding
Aggregates
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Report Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
108
453
1,068
924
30,096
187
223
412
1,125
601
703
916
1,190
413
29,373
54
0
787
959
542
93
85
11
71
1,091
1,267
2,621
7,690
2,020
4,436
4,031
3,109
418
295
85
2,315
Overall
32,649
2,547
14,683
-------
Table 11G
Number of Accounts for Commerical Agriculture in 1981,
By Industry Sector and Reporting Aggregate Size
Number
of
Accounts
Number of
Responding
Aggregates
Number of
Nonresponding
Aggregates
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Report Aggregate
Gross Sales
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
774
34
1,079
4,408
34,817
184
199
377
1,148
640
2,741
2,727
32,922
1,143
1,061
519
0
803
916
594
101
54
5
76
1,093
1,291
2,656
7,667
1,981
4,420
4,073
3,057
411
326
91
2,310
Overall
41,112
2,548
14,688
-------
TABLE ISA
PERCENT OF GROSS SALES FROM LAWN AND TURF IN 1981,
BY REPCRTII.'G AGGREGATE SIZE.
ENTRIES IN THE TABLE REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
REPORTING AGGREGATES IN EACH CATEGORY.
PERCENT OF GROSS SALES CATEGORIES
REPORTING AGGREGATE GROSS SALES
<$25,000
$25,000-599,999
$100,000-5499,999
$500,000-5999,999
$1,000,000-55,000,000
>$5,000,000
DATA MISSING
0 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99
3573
2906
1723
220
188
66
2021
548
812
666
165
71
24
231
230
368
253
53
38
5
42
141 259
167 258
259 296
41 12
50 6
0 0
27 25
DATA
100 MISSING
290
392
203
20
21
1
33
182
86
44
0
5
0
7
-------
TABLE 12B
PERCENT OF GROSS SALES FROM TREEtSHRUB, AND ORNAMENTAL
IN 1981, BY REPORTING AGGREGATE SIZE.
ENTRIES IN THE TABLE REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
REPORTING AGGREGATES IN EACH CATEGORY.
PERCENT OF CROSS SALES CATEGORIES
REPORTING AGGREGATE GROSS SALES
<525,000
525,000-599,999
5100,000-5499,999
5500,000-5999,999
51,000,000-55,000,000
>55,000,000
DATA MISSING
0 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99
3319
2928
1764
229
172
33
1933
604
859
845
79
77
21
141
305
315
359
76
60
36
68
146
244
158
53
12
2
77
224
233
244
30
13
1
43
DATA
100 MISSING
481
355
252
43
37
2
66
144
54
29
0
0
0
3
-------
TABLE 12C
PERCENT OF GROSS SALES FROM TERMITES AMD OTHER WOOD
DESTROYERS IN 1981 BY REPORTING AGGREGATE SIZE.
ENTRIES IN THE TABLE REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
REPORTING AGGREGATES IN EACH CATEGORY.
PERCENT OF GROSS SALES CATEGORIES
REPORTING AGGREGATE GROSS SALES
$5,000,000
DATA MISSING
0
2948
2519
1797
278
218
77
1720
1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99
934
1078
711
142
94
9
228
478
654
539
45
24
6
270
331
173
324
22
20
0
20
203
296
72
9
17
0
19
DATA
100 MISSING
139
137
125
5
0
0
94
190
132
83
11
5
4
35
-------
TABLE 120
PERCENT OF GROSS SALES FROM COK510QITY FUMIGATIONS IM 1981,
BY REPORTING AGGREGATE SIZE.
ENTRIES IN THE TABLE REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
REPORTING AGGREGATES IN EACH CATEGORY.
PERCENT OF GROSS SALES CATEGORIES
REPORTING AGGREGATE GROSS SALES
*5,000,000
DATA MISSING
DATA
0 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100 MISSING
4902
4701
3235
465
332
78
2315
35
111
301
25
43
14
7
13
3
18
6
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
15
0
15
6
0
0
0
0
14
0
7
4
0
0
5
259
158
93
11
5
4
43
-------
TABLE 12E
PERCEKT OF GROSS SALES FRCtt GERHERM. PEST CONTROL IN 1981.
BY REPORTING AGGREGATE SIZE.
ENTRIES IN THE TADLE REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
REPORTING AGGREGATES IN EACH CATEGORY.
PERCENT OF GROSS SALES CATEGORIES
REPORTING AGGREGATE GROSS SALES
<$C5,000
$25,000-499,999
S100,000-$4991999
$500,000-4999,999
$1,000,000-55,000,000
>$5,000,000
DATA MISSING
0 1-35 26-50 51-75 76-99
1811
1756
1497
182
134
25
1600
532
827
478
89
75
20
76
486
427
567
105
55
33
153
518
820
553
46
26
13
236
685
740
392
68
46
0
147
DATA
100 MISSING
1036
306
83
10
39
0
139
156
114
76
11
5
4
35
-------
Table 13. National Trade Association Membership in 1981, By Size
of Reporting Aggregate
Estimated Number of
Membership in
Reporting Aggregate Size
(Gross Sales, in Dollars)
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
NPCA
211
383
949
1,071
162
157
25
NAA
20
38
140
175
53
27
40
PLCA
11
50
124
151
72
62
39
Reporting Aggregates with
National Associations
Other
16
168
218
338
62
31
10
None
703
4,377
3,445
1,815
115
143
13
No
Response
1,445
226
165
142
58
4
5
2,958 494
508
844 10,612
2,045
-------
Table 14. Membership in State or Regional Trade Associations in 1981, By Industry Sector
and Size of Reporting Aggregate
Industry Sector
Lawn
Tree
Tree and/or Lawn
Structural
Structural and
Tree and/or Lawn
Overall
Reporting
Aggregate Size
(Gross Sales,
in Dollars)
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
<$25,000
$25, 000- $99, 999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$S,000,000
Data Missing
'
! <$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-5499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000, 000- $5, 000, 000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
<$2S,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000, 000-$5, 000, 000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-5499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1 ,000 ,000-$5 ,000 ,000
>$S,000,000
Data Missing
<$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-55,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
Estimated Number of Reporting Aggregates with
Membership in State or Regional Trade Associations
Yes
25
74
73
21
14
1
4
212
34
77
95
32
5
2
0
245
71
162
196
67
22
0
56
575
984
1,363
968
135
136
7
266
3,859
140
289
336
77
61
37
41
980
1,253
1,965
1,668
333
237
48
367
5,870
No
308
377
271
7
4
0
11
978
455
334
271
24
58
4
45
1,191
708
635
559
38
44
7
177
2,168
2,028
1,055
362
17
13
10
267
3,752
364
483
301
49
16
6
39
1,258
3,863
2,884
1,764
136
135
27
539
9,347
Don't Know
9
16
4
0
0
0
0
29
5
5
5
3
2
0
0
20
0
4
4
0
0
6
0
14
12
23
86
0
0
10
36
167
0
5
15
6
2
0
18
47
25
53
114
10
5
16
54
277
Data Missing
7
4
12
0
4
0
32
58
4
0
9
0
0
0
21
34
23
22
9
6
0
0
217
277
42
42
47
27
0
5
875
1,038
6
21
27
0
0
0
281
335
82
88
104
33
4
5
1,427
1,742
-------
Table 15. Estimated Number of Reporting Aggregates with Subscriptions to Trade Journals
in 1981, By Reporting Aggregate Size
Subscriptions
None
American Lawn Applicator
Arborage
Grounds Maintenance
Landscape & Turf
Landscape Industry
Lawn Care Industry
Pest Control
Pest Control Technology
Pest Management
Weeds, Trees, and Turf
Other
Nonresponse
<$25,000
1,955
224
65
503
298
71
387
1,754
1,149
502
780
67
96
$25,000-
$99,999
902
293
224
718
288
85
675
1,952
1,745
1,074
1,187
62
89
$100,000-
$499,999
303
433
170
994
390
257
897
1,688
1,623
1,169
1,472
64
44
$500,000-
$999,999
16
46
62
198
97
98
140
269
191
154
268
0
19
$1,000,000-
$5,000,000
32
36
13
181
79
33
105
209
169
120
213
0
4
>$5,000,000
11
7
42
54
40
45
53
34
18
21
59
0
10
Data
Missing
206
58
7
60
62
9
42
397
374
224
176
38
1,487
Overall
3,426
1,097
582
2,707
1,254
598
2,299
6,303
5,269
3,264
4,155
231
1,748
-------
Table 16. Number of Years in Business as of 1981, By Industry Sector and Size of Reporting Aggregate
Entries in the table represent the estimated number of reporting aggregates in each category.
Reporting Aggregate Size
Industry Sector (Gross Sales, in Dollars)
Lawn <$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
Tree <$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
Tree and/or Lawn <$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
Number of Years in Business
25
14
4
8
4
0
0
0
31
37
78
78
35
2
5
25
260
72
27
83
26
12
2
101
323
No Response
7
10
4
0
0
0
3
23
6
0
8
0
17
0
0
31
14
29
22
0
0
0
100
165
-------
Table 16. Number of Years in Business as of 1981, By Industry Sector and Size of Reporting Aggregate
Entries in the table represent the estimated number of reporting aggregates in each category.
(continued)
Reporting Aggregate Size
Industry Sector (Gross Sales, in Dollars)
Structural <$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
Structural and <$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
Overall <$25,000
$25,000-$99,999
$100,000-$499,999
$500,000-$999,999
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
>$5,000,000
Data Missing
Number of Years in Business
<1
135
47
0
0
5
0
20
206
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
232
55
4
0
5
0
34
330
1-3
783
155
76
4
11
6
106
1,142
67
179
30
2
6
0
0
283
1,235
567
246
17
16
6
160
2,246
3-6
692
549
248
9
5
0
118
1,622
134
176
79
4
11
4
36
444
1,326
1,338
773
55
29
9
234
3,763
6-10
406
441
197
23
0
2
98
1,166
36
116
180
38
6
0
19
395
625
843
714
96
54
2
176
2,510
10-25
779
848
488
52
54
14
149
2,385
176
228
225
60
21
38
48
796
1,349
1,499
1,091
159
135
61
325
4,620
>25
256
392
408
91
74
9
279
1,509
22
98
159
28
35
1
29
373
402
599
736
185
123
17
434
2,497
No Response
15
50
46
0
0
1
674
785
13
0
6
0
0
0
247
266
54
89
86
0
17
1
1.023
1,271
-------
APPENDIX A
The NUPAS Questionnaire
-------
RTI ID Number
Name
Street Address or P.O. Box
City, State ZIP
-Reference State:
1981 Business License Number:
The information you provide will be held in
strict confidence and the results will be
reported only in statistical summaries. No
information that would identify an individ-
ual or firm will be released or reported-
ALL QUESTIONS REFER COLLECTIVELY TO BUSINESS LOCATIONS OPERATING WITHIN THE
REFERENCE STATE UNDER THE BUSINESS NAME IDENTIFIED ON THE ABOVE LABEL. SUCH
BUSINESS LOCATIONS WITHIN THE STATE WILL HEREAFTER BE REFERRED TO AS THE
"FIRM". PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR ANSWER AND FOLLOW THE APPROPRIATE ARROW OR ENTER
THE INFORMATION IN THE SPACE PROVIDED.
A.
1.
3.
FIRM IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION
Is the information printed on the above label complete and correct?
No 02
i
2. Correct or complete information as necessary:
i
Firm Name:
Business Address
or P.O. Box:
City: State: ZIP:
Current Business License Number:
(GO TO Q.3)
Does your firm furnish pest control services on a commercial basis (i.e.,
for a fee)?
Yes 01 (GO TO Q.4)
No 02
STOP. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE
ENVELOPE PROVIDED.
How long has your firm provided pest control services in the reference
state identified on the above label?
Length of time:
OFFICE USE
ONLY
1
-1-
-------
5. How many business offices or locations does your firm have within the
reference state?
Number:
6. What is the service area of your firm?
Multiple states 01 ^- (How many? )
Single state, all counties 02
Single state, multiple counties 03 >-(How many? )
Single county 04
Don't know DK
7. Does the ownership of this firm offer pest control services through any
firms having other names and/or locations?
Yes 01
No 02
Don't know DK
8. During the past twelve months, has this firm merged with any other
firm(s) or split to form one or more firms operating within the reference
state identified on the above label?
Yes, merged 01
Yes, split 02
Yes, both 03
Neither 04
Don't know DK
9. If a 1981 Business License Number appears on the above label, do all
business locations operating within the reference state under this
license number have the same business name as that listed on the label?
Yes 01
No 02
No Business License Number on label ... 03
Don't know DK
-2-
-------
B. PERSONNEL INFORMATION
10. Using the following categories, please enter the number of employees
associated with business locations operating within the reference state
under the firm name identified on the above label. If your work varies
seasonally, please express these as averages. (IF NONE, ENTER ZERO.)
a. Full-time service technicians . .
b. Part-time service technicians . .
c. Sales representatives/inspectors.
d. Managers/supervisors
e. Clerical
f. Other
g. TOTAL EMPLOYEES
11. How many of your total employees are certified or licensed to apply
pesticides by the reference state identified on the above label?
Number of employees:
12. Are any of your employees certified or licensed to apply pesticides in
any other state(s)?
Yes ...... 01
" (GO TO Q.14)
01 No 02 1
I Don't know. . . . DK J
13. Was this employee certification or licensing outside the
reference state a result of...
formal examination? 01
reciprocity? 02
Other (SPECIFY
). 03
Don't know DK
(GO TO Q.14)
f
14. In which of the following national organizations does your firm or its
employees have membership? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.)
None 00
National Pest Control Association, Inc. . 01
National Arborist Association, Inc. ... 02
Professional Lawn Care Association of
America, Inc 03
Other national pest control trade or
professional organizations
(SPECIFY BELOW) 04
-3-
-------
15. Is your firm or any of its employees a member of any state or regional
pest control trade organizations?
\
Yes 01 No.
^
> V.UU 1U y. I 1 )
Don't know. . . . DK )
f
16. Please list these organizations:
(GO TO Q.17)
17. To which of the following national pest control trade magazines does your
firm or any of its employees subscribe? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.)
None 00
American Lawn Applicator 01
Arborage 02
Grounds Maintenance 03
Landscape and Turf 04
Landscape Industry 05
Lawn Care Industry 06
Pest Control 07
Pest Control Technology 08
Pest Management 09
Weeds, Trees and Turf 10
Other (SPECIFY BELOW) 11
-4-
-------
C. PESTICIDE SALES INFORMATION
The questions in this section concern sales volume during calendar year
1981 or your most recent fiscal year. Guidelines for furnishing this
information include:
Sales volume information for calendar year 1981 is preferred.
Report all information for the same time period. Please show any
variations in the appropriate margin(s).
Information requested is for all business locations operating within
the reference state under the firm name identified on the above
label. If this information can only be reported at another level
(e.g., information available from parent company for entire region/
state and not for firm identified by the above label), check this
box -» [""] and go to Question 26.
18. What were the total gross sales of your firm for all activities in 1981
(or your most recent fiscal year)?
Less than $25,000 01
$25,000 to $49,999 02
$50,000 to $99,999 03
$100,000 to $199,999 04
$200,000 to $499,999 05
$500,000 to $999,999 06
$1,000,000 to $5,000,000 07
Over $5,000,000 08
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
19. What were your total sales during 1981 (or most recent fiscal year) for
pest: control (including termite) services only (i.e., exclude retail
product sales, tree trimming, etc.)?
Less than $25,000 01
$25,000 to $49,999 02
$50,000 to $99,999 03
$100,000 to $199,999 04
$200,000 to $499,999 05
$500,000 to $999,999 06
$1,000,000 to $5,000,000 07
Over $5,000,000 08
-5-
-------
20. What percent of your gross sales from pest control services (including
termite) for 1981 (or your most recent fiscal year) came from the follow-
ing sources? How many accounts are in each group? (IF NONE, ENTER ZERO.
IF EXACT FIGURES ARE UNAVAILABLE, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.)
Percent Number of Accounts
a. Residential:
Single Family Structures
(detached houses, individual
living quarters, etc.) %
Multiple Family Structures
(apartment buildings, con-
dominium complexes, etc.) .... _ %
b. Institutional (schools, health
care facilities, prisons, etc.) . . _ %
c. Commercial Food Processing
Areas (hotels, restaurants,
bakeries, etc.) .......... _ %
d. Industrial/Business (offices,
warehouses, factories, malls,
recreational areas, etc.) ..... _ %
e. Right of Way (roads, trans-
mission lines or pipelines,
railroads, etc.) .......... _ %
f. Commercial Agricultural %
g. Other (SPECIFY . . %
21. What percent of your gross sales for 1981 or your most recent fiscal year
came from each of the following? (IF NONE, ENTER ZERO. IF EXACT FIGURES
ARE UNAVAILABLE, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.)
Lawn and Turf
Tree, Shrub, and Ornamental
Termites and Other Wood Destroyers ...... _ %
Commodity Fumigations ............ _ %
General Pest Control ............. _ %
Other (e.g., Pesticide Sales) ........ _ %
-6-
-------
D. PESTICIDE USAGE INFORMATION
22. The questions in this section concern total pesticide products purchased
for usage during calendar year 1981 or your most recent fiscal year.
Guidelines for furnishing this information include:
Usage information for calendar year 1981 is preferred.
Products should be identified as in the two examples below by EPA
Reg. Number OR by complete product name and formulation (if EPA Reg.
Number not available). Total amounts used should show units of
measure (e.g., pounds, gallons, etc.). Be as specific in listing
this information as you would if ordering from your supplier.
Information requested is for all business locations operating within
the reference state under the firm name identified on the above
label. If this information can only be reported at another level
(e.g., information available from parent company for entire region/
state and not for firm identified by the above label), check this
box » j | and go to Question 26.
Complete Pesticide
Product Name
Dursban
Talon
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Formulation
2E
G
EPA Reg. No.
7122-68
10182-39
(CIRCLE ONE)
Ready .,
to OR Concen-
Use trate
R (c)
© C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
Total Amount
Purchased
Product Used
40 gallons
120 pounds
(Continued on next page)
-7-
-------
Complete Pesticide
Product Name
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Formulation
EPA Reg. No.
(CIRCLE ONE)
Ready
to OR C°n"n-
Use trate
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
R C
Total Amount
Purchased
Product Used
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, CHECK THIS BOX -» Q AND ENCLOSE ADDITIONAL SHEETS
LISTING THE SAME INFORMATION AS ABOVE FOR EACH PRODUCT.
-8-
-------
E. GENERAL INFORMATION
23. Is the information reported in this questionnaire for 1981?
TO Q
Yes, 1981
No, other fiscal year
01
02
24. Dates of fiscal year:
FROM:
19
TO:
19
(Month)
(Yr.
(Month)
(Yr.)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
(GO TO Q.25)
25.
Companies use many different kinds of accounting and record keeping
systems. What record system did you use to furnish the information in
Question 22?
Service records 01
Purchase records 02
Other (SPECIFY BELOW) 03
26.
Please indicate what problems you had (if any) in furnishing the re-
quested information.
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
-9-
-------
27. We may, in the future, be interested in collecting additional product-
specific information concerning target pest, product effectiveness,
season of use, application site and equipment, safety precautions used,
and label comprehension. Would you be willing and able to provide such
information?
Yes, willing and able .
Yes, willing but unable
No, not willing ....
01
02
03
28. In case clarification is needed for certain responses, please enter the
name and business telephone number of a contact person in your firm.
Remember, this information will never be reported or associated with your
response.
Name:
Telephone (
(Area Code)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HELP.
PLEASE RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE TODAY
IN THE PRE-ADDRESSED, POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE,
Research Triangle Institute
Post Office Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
ATTENTION: Dick Waddell
(800) 334-8571
-10-
-------
OBS
CHEMCOOE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
33
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
43
49
50
51
52
63503
58201
6501
42003
86802
78003
57801
53201
59101
86803
9001
16501
44801
60003
30019
78701
56801
34001
6601
45101
57701
35505
12301
11104
73301
31519
42002
84001
30035
66501
80307
105201
57501
29802
77601
103301
10501
80304
90501
11402
30056
57901
31516
60501
30053
31453
30904
79101
32201
G'»301
67501
103601
APPENDIX B.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
SORTED BY NUMBER OF POUNDS USED.
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
CHEMICAL
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
CHLORDANE
AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE SOLVENT
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
DIKETHYLBEI1ZENE
SULFURYL FLUORIDE
DIAZINON
METHYL BROMIDE
CHLORPYRIFXlS
XYLEIIE RAUGE AROMATIC SOLVENT
BETASAN
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
HEPTACHLOR
ATRA2INE
DIETHYLAMINE 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
DACTHAL
CASBARYL
METHOXYCHLOR
PETROLEUM DERIVED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
ALDRIN
MALATHION
DIURON
HYVAR X
SODIUM METABORATE
SODIUM CHLORATE
DIMETHYLAMINE 2-12-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOX
ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE
DDVP
TRIISOPROPANOLAMINE 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYA
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
SKIAZINE
BENDIOCARB
PARATHION
DIMETHYLAMINE DICAMBA
SULFUR DIOXIDE
METOLACHLOR
DICOFOL
PROMETON
ALACHLOR
POLYEUTENE
BUTYL 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
TRICHLORFON
DIETHAI.'OLAMINE 2-(2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENO
TOXAPHENE
BUTOXYETHYL 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
EUTOXYETHYL 2-( 2,4-OlCHLO:70PHENOXY)FROPI
EtiOOTHALL, OIPOTASSIUI1 SALT OF
ASPOH
DIGUAT DIBROMIDE
DENEFIN
PTPHPOUYL BUTOXIDE
PUL'i.iJUP
POUNDS
RSE
6195909
3626095
3287738
3173050
3128718
2688325
1661691
1618251
1611396
1603382
1363779
1348625
1199746
1058175
1033077
1027221
05C503
784157
704339
704274
648526
460133
406951
339496
282565
262604
255522
247356
242335
198338
184333
181804
164065
150388
147312
142516
141818
141296
140356
139165
133960
127021
121980
120562
119958
117798
116016
103125
970C3
90581
6^652
6b'tS4
8.9882
4.5132
7.1633
19.0113
37.4182
41.4092
5.6624
16.1834
18.1453
5.2594
6.1006
18.9925
6.6449
36.5838
6.4247
6.3243
5.2748
51.6426
12.0239
12.2734
5.4431
35.9459
40.1990
45.3466
43.6950
3.7259
18.3034
30.4409
48.7106
22.4055
11.1793
21.3267
45.8105
9.4571
19.0168
47.8691
25.6945
31.6475
50.7496
44.5147
38.5532
9.8797
13.4752
21.3396
38.8740
38.8757
42.2232
0.2063
37.3954
19.4033
13.7427
9.4^59
-------
DBS
CHEMCODE
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
83
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
9001
103301
63001
24401
57201
30016
11001
5102
113601
34902
47602
105501
81901
99101
13S03
90601
104201
57001
4401
61601
14506
31503
35001
14505
63502
23102
81501
41101
109401
63506
35509
69004
58301
116001
63501
81301
56502
6602
505200
69001
75202
30010
72602
41401
89001
30063
79C01
78501
56702
77501
53001
59C01
APPENDIX B.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
SORTED BY NUMBER OF POUNDS USED.
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
CHEMICAL
LINDANE
ORTHENE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
COPPER SUIFATE PENTAHYDRATE
THIMET
DIETHANOLAMINE 2,4-DICHLORPHENOXYACETATE
BORIC ACID
PICLORAM, TRIISOPROPANOLAMINE SALT OF
SAFROTIN
FERRIC SULFATL
BAYGON
TEBUTHIURON
ERAVO
BENLATE
HONOSCDIUM METHANEARSONATE
FURAOAN
SURF LAN
OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE DICARBOXIMIDE
AMITROLE (3-AMINO-S-TRIAZOLE)
PARAQUAT OICHLORIDE
ZIHEB
POTASSIUM Z-i2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOXY)PR
DIMETHOATE
M-MIEB
MINERAL OIL, SEAL OR WHITE
COPPER NAPHTHENATE
CHLOROPICRIN
MOCAP
ISOFENPHOS
MINERAL SPIRITS (ODORLESS)
SIDURON
PYRETHRIN COILS
RONNEL
TRICLOPYR
KEROSENE
CAPTAN
PCNB
HEAVY AROMATIC NAPHTHA
ISOPARAFFINIC HYDROCARBONS
PYRETHRINS
SODIUM FLUORIDE
DICHLOROFHENOXYACETIC ACID, ALKANOLAMINE
SILICA GEL
EPTAM
ZINC SULFATE
DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID, OCTYL ESTER
THIRAM (TCTRAMETHTLTHIURAM DISULFIDE)
TETRACHLOPOETHYLENE
METASYSTOX-R
SULFUR
METAI.nEHYDE
PIIOStlET
POUNDS
RSE
82033
81487
77691
75282
68873
65083
63068
62420
55577
53431
51691
49333
47762
46182
42978
41320
40099
38319
36644
35111
34154
34065
33367
32433
31556
31257
31085
26468
26222
25902
24530
23477
22755
22117
21223
21089
20931
20560
19800
18777
17686
17263
17212
16994
16900
15618
14767
14590
14297
14202
14048
13573
7.5446
12.9439
50.5551
50.7420
43.0394
12.7533
23.3443
48.7106
32.4539
39.1779
11.5274
38.0647
5.0067
4.9749
19.0118
55.2080
38.8600
2.4896
26.9166
24.2015
17.6450
28.6433
15.6220
17.5629
19.2731
21.2968
30.2294
26.2936
15.2404
23.6833
16.4642
35.7415
14.2664
38.4880
14.3748
13.9913
17.6128
14.9785
11.0000
7.4806
30.5274
37.9504
14.0545
24.0909
49.1919
24.8960
23.7620
9.2S83
15.0844
33.4088
56.0036
24.0296
-------
DBS
CHEMCODE
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
27401
67002
14504
41701
106701
30501
19201
101701
38905
103001
37001
11403
13
14
34401
12302
30072
50001
39003
5501
88601
32501
01101
53301
41405
63003
29801
82606
8101
116002
44301
97701
76702
36101
28902
61501
34805
50401
30029
42004
80301
12502
97801
6902
30511
30001
10301
27501
109001
13603
11501
APPENDIX B.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1961,
SORTED BY NUMBER OF POUNDS USED.
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
CHEMICAL
DICHLOROBENZONITRILE
PINE OIL
EBOC, AS A COORDINATION PRODUCT
DYFOHATE
FOSAMINE AMMONIUM
MCPA
MCPB
PRONAMIDE
ENOOTHALL
DEVRIHOL
DIOXATHION
POLYISODUTYLENE
TRICHOLROFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORO DIFLUORO METHANE
NALED
BROMACIL, LITHIUM SALT OF
PROPYLENE GLYCOL BUTYL ETHER 2,4-DICHLOR
GUTHION
METAM-SODIUM
AMMATE
ZINC PHOSPHIDE
DISULFOTOM
TRICHLOROBENZENE
BAYTEX
SUTAN
SODIUM PENTACHLOROPHENATE
DICAUBAt 3,6-DICHLORO-O-ANISIC ACID)
AMMONIUM 2,3,6-TRICHLOROFHENYLACETATE
BASIC COPPER SULFATE
TRICLOPYR, TRIETHYLAMINE SALT OF
DODIHE (DOOECYLGUANIDINE ACETATE)
PMOSALOHE
CALCIUM POLYSULFIDE
TRIFLURALIN
DALAPON, SODIUM SALT OF
PARADICHLOROBENZENE
ZIRAM (ZINC DIMETHYL DITHIOCARBAMATE)
ETHION
CICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID, N-OLEYL-1,3-
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
DIETHYL-META-TOLUAMIDE AND OTHER ISOMERS
SODIUM CACODYLATE
RESMETHRIN
SODIUM POLYSULFIDE
MCPA, DIETHAKOLAMINE SALT OF
DICHLOROPHEHOXYACETIC ACID
NAPHTHOL
DIEIIOCHLOR
OXADIAZOH
SODIUM *RSENITE
BtlTOX'YETHANOL
COPPER HYOWOXIDE
POUNDS
RSE
12190
11599
11143
10674
10524
10443
10245
10072
9994
9548
9309
8744
7974
7974
7939
7571
7264
7039
7056
6998
6965
6715
6214
6208
5958
5854
5614
5505
5497
5476
5418
5079
4975
4919
4069
4670
4615
4608
4580
4386
4359
4228
4200
4074
3949
3619
3490
3457
3344
3318
3?85
3079
30.9567
11.2319
15.5866
40.1205
53.1096
72.1120
73.4971
24.8567
45.7329
26.1066
14.9785
22.2702
10.1734
10.1734
49.1218
14.9969
52.2024
16.2781
53.0762
8.6594
19.6061
13.6258
47.8490
34.7154
0.0000
86.3281
28.3025
65.2890
27.5590
57.8362
24.6044
26.5384
30.4284
26.1437
26.2169
29.0508
33.7207
9.4379
26.1172
10.1734
28.8922
26.6521
14.7819
48.3236
56.0028
26.0310
50.3658
42.4420
18.2645
37.2717
49.2476
19.7678
-------
DBS
CHEMCODE
157
153
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
193
199
200
201
202
203
204
COS
206
207
203
57601
7501
109301
86002
54001
68602
72605
23104
33901
102001
11102
74001
35506
103401
80811
107201
30033
1501
46901
13302
81601
31605
60102
11901
35701
34801
23503
79401
64104
104601
41601
77702
31563
36601
97601
83501
79009
8901
22101
6401
81701
47501
69129
71004
25902
12501
101601
114002
100101
5104
90501
35.J01
APPENDIX B.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1931,
SORTED BY NUMBER OF POUNDS USED.
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
CHEMICAL
SYSTOX
BARIUM CARBONATE
IPRODINE
WARFARIN
METHYLATED AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
POLYPROPYLENE GLYCOL
SILICON DIOXIDE
COPPER SALTS OF FATTY AND ROSIN ACIDS
DIACETONE ALCOHOL
METHYL THIOPHANATE
BORAX
CALCIUM CYANIDE
LINUKON
THIOFHANATE-ETHYL
DYRENE
VELPAR
DICHLOHOPHENOXYACETIC ACID, TRIETHANOLAtt
ETHYL ALCOHOL
BUTOXY...ETHOXYETHANOL-IODINE COMPLEX
DSMA
FOLPET
SOYBEAN OIL
HYPOPHOSPHOROUS 2-<4-THIAZOLYL)BENZIMIDA
BUTOXYPOLYPROPYLENE GLYCOL
BUTONATE
FERBAM
COPPER OXYCHLORIDE SULFATE
ENDOSULFAN
SODIUM OTRHOPHENYLPHENATE
VENDEX
ENDRIN
PROPIONIC ACID
ISOOCTYL 2-(2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOXY)PRO
DIPHENAI1ID
OMITE
TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL
SOAP
BHC
CRESYLIC ACID, COAL TAR ACIDS * PHENOLS
BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS VAR. ISRAELENSIS
DIFOLATAN
PROP/NQL
HYAMINE 2389
CUDE RESINS OTHER THAN ROTENOUE
CYCLOHEXANONE
CACODYLIC ACID
CYHEXATIN (TRICYCLOHEXYLHYDROXY5TANNANE)
MEFLUIOIDE, OIETHANOLAMINE SALT OF
BLADEX
PICLCRAM, POTASSIUM SALT OF
r,rtliC"\YL
UICKUIOF'HOS
POUNDS
RSE
2976
2924
2637
2529
2404
2274
2272
2253
2222
2072
2058
1995
1976
1963
1892
1798
1664
1610
1587
1581
1402
1368
1294
1245
1176
1167
1141
1083
1029
1017
957
918
915
895
861
850
847
834
821
805
780
774
757
755
738
722
667
632
626
624
601
S99
35.6607
59.3870
12.6362
14.9076
52.1042
58.9878
11.1685
32.4633
40.7244
36.7792
31.1396
15.2610
10.8772
37.1356
18.7907
32.4174
67.7605
0.0000
65.2890
23.4130
29.9041
81.5513
21.6115
11.8923
36.3375
62.3097
37.3526
20.1368
18.8359
41.2032
36.1406
64.1872
25.4537
54.4027
53.7191
1.7883
26.0525
52.1042
54.5243
20.3557
30.3356
57.3693
70.3476
23.9211
13.0481
26.6454
28.8305
34.1097
48.8234
33.0421
l.P.681
29.7536
-------
OBS
CHEMCODE
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
C16
2V7
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
84701
28903
30563
103901
12902
100501
28301
105401
99102
98301
101101
16401
103001
71003
30052
106401
80104
27301
36001
13804
13805
35302
19101
30004
43302
47201
80813
69153
107901
106601
109901
109701
98701
67704
42301
67707
29803
68604
25901
69201
22501
10002
75003
83601
75301
83701
30055
£6001
40501
76901
38903
99601
APPENDIX B.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1961,
SORTED BY NUMBER OF POUNDS USED.
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
CHEMICAL
TERRAZOLE
OALAFON,MAGNESIUM SALT OF
MCPA, ISOOCTYL ESTER OF
BENTAZON,SODIUM SALT OF
CADMIUM CHLORIDE
MESUROL
CHLORCBENZILATE
HETHOPRENE
LIGIIA5AH BLP
TEMIK
METRIBUZIN
CARBON DISULFIDE
OXAMYL
ROTEUOHE
DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID, BUTOXYETHOXY
AVEHGE
SODIUM THIOSULFATE
CHOUROUEB
KARATHANE
OCTYLAKHOHIUM METHANEARSONATE
DCDECYLAMMONIUM METHANEARSONATE
BROMOXYNIL OCTANOATE
PROPACHLOR
SODIUM 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
MGK REPELLENT R-ll
DIPROPYL ISOCIMCHOMERONATE
IGRAN
ALKYL* TRIMETHYL AMMONIUM BROMIDE *<95X
TRIFCRINE
PROFLURALIN
TRIADIMEFON
PERMETHRIN
BETANAL
PIVAL, SODIUM SALT OF
ETHYLENE OXIDE
CHLOROPHACINONE
DICAMBA.DIETHANOLAMINE SALT OF
DIPROPYLENE GLYCOL
CYCLOHEXANE
AMINOPYRIDINE
COPPER
LETHANE 384
SODIUM FLUOROACETATE
TRIPHENYLTIN HYDROXIDE
AMMONIUM FLUOSILICATE
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
BUTOXYPROPYL 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
FUMARIN
CITRUS OIL
STRYCHNINE
EWOTHALL, DISODIUM SALT OF
FLOP! EL
POUNDS
RSE
588
575
572
567
552
540
499
497
470
467
457
445
404
398
397
391
388
360
360
358
358
355
345
329
311
311
305
293
282
266
237
221
217
215
214
211
210
201
190
186
154
153
149
146
137
137
135
135
131
125
u*
28.6153
28.9545
23.5222
19.2779
77.7355
33.9772
22.0901
19.4136
58.3112
34.3555
39.9182
46.1033
33.0106
22.7778
56.3961
50.1219
48.3236
34.3280
38.5613
32.2463
32.2463
48.0871
70.6977
38.4303
28.8922
28.8922
61.9475
53.8742
31.1499
0.0000
46.0138
43.8864
56.3961
34.6203
49.7400
13.1261
34.4533
0.0000
14.9785
24.0657
38.3616
45.0266
36.6099
40.0076
31.0188
51.2608
42.0431
23.9266
55.5483
16.4875
51.6866
56.9319
-------
APPENDIX B.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
SORTED BY NUHDER OF POUNDS USED.
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
OBS
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
264
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
C96
297
293
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
m
51502
17601
43601
31608
82056
43401
67703
54101
90202
76406
82555
63005
31602
67701
24403
82519
56704
54002
46909
69104
69154
31501
69183
111601
22001
68603
30065
6310
42203
112701
14701
109301
84201
99401
34201
35501
43801
82602
23304
58301
107501
12303
118401
69149
106901
109601
11002
70601
67705
76104
82063
62!ifc5
MALEIC HYORAZIOE, DIETHANOLAMINE SALT OF
CARBYNE
GLYODIN
CASTOR OIL
BUTYL 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
ACTIDIONE
PIVAL
MQRESTAN
OXYCARBOXIN
TRISODIUM PHOSPHATE
SILVEX, BUTOXYPROPYL ESTER OF
SODIUM TETRACHLOROPHENATES
COTTONSEED OIL
DIPHACINOHE
COPPER TRIETHANOLAMINE COMPLEX
DIETHYLAMINE SILVEX
TOBACCO DUST
METHYL NAPTHALENES
POLYETHOXY...ETHOXYETHANOL-IODINE COMPLE
ALKYL* DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
ALKYL* DIMETHYL ETHYLBENZYL AMMONIUM CHL
MCPP
USCP
OXYFLUORFEN
ASPHALT
PROPYLENE GLYCOL
ISOOCTYLI2-OCTYL) 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACE
STREPTOMYCIN SULFATE
ETHYLENE GLYCOL
EROOIFACOUM
CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE
FENVALERATE
BOMYL
GUM RESINS
LESAN
MONURON
GIBBERELLIC ACID
SODIUM 2i3,6-TRICHLOROPHENYLACETATE
COPPER OLEATE
CIODRIN
KINOFRENE
BROMACIL, SODIUM SALT OF
AMORO
DIDECYL DIMETHYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
A5ULAM (METHYL SULFANILYLCARBAMATE)
ATRINAL
BORIC OXIDE
RED SQUILL
DIPHACINOUE, SODIUM SALT OF
SCDIUM NITRATE
If.COCTYL 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
ISCOCTYL S1LVEX
POUNDS
RSE
106
99
99
82
81
75
69
65
64
63
63
62
61
59
58
51
50
48
47
47
47
46
44
44
42
42
41
38
38
38
35
32
29
29
27
26
26
25
24
23
23
20
19
15
15
15
14
14
13
13
13
13
47.3916
70.6977
79.6139
63.4619
72.4108
41.8150
10.1628
46.5831
42.9129
70.3476
42.0431
53.7659
33.9243
4.6146
58.3888
56.3961
64.9771
41.8306
65.2890
52.9276
52.9276
34.1782
0.0000
72.4108
0.0000
33.8787
70.6126
33.5845
38.2340
4.1885
58.9501
53.7659
0.0000
63.4619
54.5931
35.2886
65.2890
52.5554
35.1934
42.4518
49.3364
52.5554
28.4585
47.9208
64.5037
42.1652
61.9475
52.6655
13.5036
65.2390
79.9759
70.6126
-------
DBS
CHEMCODE
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
330
13806
31604
611
4001
30030
55301
99301
169111
69140
56702
86004
17302
77901
39107
99501
11301
16001
79202
82563
69165
73506
69166
72604
66502
98301
112001
APPENDIX B.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
SORTED BY NUMBER OF POUNDS USED.
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
CHEMICAL
CALCIUM METHANEARSONATE
HYDROGENATED CASTOR OIL
DRIED BLOOD
ALLETHRIN (ALLYL HOMOLOG OF CINERIN I)
OCTYLAMIHE 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
NAPHTHALENE
ASBESTOS
DIALKYL* DIMETHYL AMMONIUM BENTONITE *(A
ALKYL* DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
NICOTINE
FUI1ARIN, SODIUM SALT OF
TRICHLOROBENZOIC ACID
SULFAQUINOXALINE
TETRASODIUM ETHYLENEDIAMINETETRAACETATE
VEGETABLE WAX
NEMAGON (DBCP)
CARBON
TETPADIFON
SILVEX, ISOOCTYLC2-ETHYLHEXYL) ESTER OF
OCTYL DECYL DIMETHYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
SODIUM CARBONATE
DIOCTYL DIMETHYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
SODIUM METASILICATE
PHOSPHORUS
CHL03FLURENOL
BROMADIOLONE
POUNDS
RSE
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
9
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
z
1
1
1
12.3000
25.7045
64.9771
88.0120
30.7369
64.9771
0.0000
56.0028
O.COOO
40.7116
18.7316
41.8778
21.1521
53.3775
63.4619
79.9799
65.2090
63.3590
59.2327
0.0000
53.3775
0.0000
53.3775
65.2890
48.3311
11.0376
-------
APPENDIX C.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981
SORTED BY EPA CHEMICAL CODE
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
CHEMCODE
13
14
611
1501
4401
5102
5104
5501
6310
6401
6501
6601
6602
6902
7501
8101
8901
9001
9801
10002
10301
10501
11001
11002
11102
11104
11301
11402
11403
11501
11901
12301
1C302
12303
12501
12502
12902
13603
13802
13303
13804
13805
13S06
14504
14505
14506
14701
16001
16401
16501
1/302
CHEMICAL
TRICHOLROFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORO DIFLUORO METHANE
DRIED BLOOD
ETHYL ALCOHOL
ALLETHRIN (ALLYL HOMOLOG OF CINERIN I)
AMITROLE (3-AMINO-S-TRIAZOLE)
PICLCRAM, TRIISOPROPAHOLAtUNE SALT OF
PICLORAM, POTASSIUM SALT OF
AtKIATE
STREPTOMYCIN SULFATE
BACILLUS THURIHGIENSIS VAR. ISRAELENSIS
AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE SOLVENT
PETROLEUM DERIVED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
HEAVY AROMATIC NAPHTHA
SODIUM POLYSULFIOE
BARIUM CARBONATE
BASIC COPPER SULFATE
BHC
LINDANE
BETASAN
LETHANE 384
NAPHTHOL
DICOFOL
BORIC ACID
BORIC OXIDE
BORAX
SODIUM METABORATE
NEMAGON (DCCP)
POLYBUTENE
POLYISODUTYLENE
BUTOXYETHANOL
BUTOXYPOLYPROPYLENE GLYCOL
HYVAR X
BROMACIL, LITHIUM SALT OF
BRCMACIL, SODIUM SALT OF
CACODYLIC ACID
SODIUM CACODYLATE
CADMIUM CHLORIDE
SODIUM ARSENITE
DSMA
MONOSODIUM METHANEARSONATE
OCTYLAMfIONIUM METHANEARSONATE
DOOECYLAHMONIUM METHANEARSONATE
CALCIUM METHANEARSONATE
EEDC, AS A COORDINATION PRODUCT
MANEB
ZINEB
CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE
CARBON
CAPBCN DISULFIDE
CABf.ON TETPACHI.ORIDE
7RICIILOH03EN<;OIC ACID
POUNDS
RSE
7974
7974
11
1610
11
36644
62420
624
6998
38
805
3287738
704339
20580
4074
2924
5497
834
82033
1363779
153
3490
141818
63068
14
2058
339496
5
139185
8744
32S5
1245
408951
7571
20
722
4228
552
3318
1581
42973
358
353
12
11143
32433
34154
35
5
445
1348623
7
10.1734
10.1734
64.9771
0.0000
88.0120
26.9166
48.7106
38.0421
8.6594
33.5C45
20.3557
7.1633
12.0239
14.9765
48.3236
59.3070
27.5590
52.1042
7.5446
6.1006
45.0266
50.3658
25.6945
23.3448
61.9475
31.1396
45.3466
79.9799
44.5147
22.2702
49.2476
11.8923
40.1990
14.9969
52.5554
26.6454
26.6521
77.7355
37.2717
23.4130
19.0118
32.2463
32.2463
12.3000
15.58C6
17.5629
17.6450
58.9S01
65.2690
46.1033
18 . 99T5
41 .0770
-------
APPENDIX C.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 19Q1,
SORTED BY EPA CHEMICAL CODE
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
CHEMCODE
17601
19101
19201
22001
22101
22501
23102
23104
23304
23401
23503
24401
24403
25901
25902
27301
27401
27501
28001
28902
28903
29001
29602
29S03
30001
30004
30010
30016
30019
30029
30030
30033
30035
30052
30053
30055
30056
30063
30065
30072
30501
30511
30563
31453
31501
31503
31516
31519
31563
31602
31604
31605
CHEMICAL
CARBYNE
PROPACHLOR
MCPB
ASPHALT
CRESYLIC ACID, COAL TAR ACIDS t PHENOLS
COPPER
COPPER NAPHTHENATE
COPPER SALTS OF FATTY AND ROSIN ACIDS
COPPER OLEATE
COPPER HYDROXIDE
COPPER OXYCHLORIDE SULFATE
COPPER SULFATE PENTAHYDRATE
COPPER TRIETHANOLAMIHE COMPLEX
CYCLOHEXANE
CYCLOIIEXAUONE
CHOLROUEB
DICHLOROBENZOMITRILE
DIENOCHLOR
CHLOROBENZILATE
OALAPON, SODIUM SALT OF
DALAPON>MAGMESIUM SALT OF
OICAMBA(3,6-DICHLORO-0-ANISIC ACID)
DIMETHYLAMINE DICAMBA
DICAM3A,DIETHANOLAMINE SALT OF
DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID
SODIUM 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
DICHLOROPHEHOXYACETIC ACIDi ALKANOLAMINE
DIETHANOLAMINE 2,4-OICHLORPHENOXYACETATE
DIETHYLAMIHE 2,4-OICHLOROPHEUOXYACETATE
CICHLCROPHENOXYACETIC ACID, N-OLEYL-1,3-
OCTYLAMINE 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID, TRIETHANOLAM
TRIISOPROPAHOLAMINE 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYA
DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID, BUTOXYETHOXY
BUTOXYETHYL 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
BUTOXYPROPYL 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
BUTYL 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID, OCTYL ESTER
ISOOCTYL(2-OCTYL) 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACE
PROPYLENE GLYCOL BUTYL ETHER 2,4-DICHLOR
MCPA
MCPA, DIETHANOLAMINE SALT OF
MCPA, ISOOCTYL ESTER OF
BUTOXYETHYL 2-(2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYJPROPI
MCPP
POTASSIUM 2-(2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHEHOXY)PR
DIETHANOLAMINE 2-< 2-METHYL-4-CHLOROFHENO
DIMETHYLAHINE 2-(2-METHYL-4-CHLOKOPHENOX
I5CCCTYL £-(2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOXY )PRO
COTTONSEED OIL
HYDROGENATED CASTOR OIL
SOYBEAN OIL
POUNDS
RSE
99
345
10245
42
821
154
31257
2253
24
3079
1141
75282
SB
190
738
360
12190
3457
499
4869
575
5614
1563S3
210
3619
329
17263
65083
1033077
4580
11
1664
242335
397
119958
135
138960
15618
41
7264
10443
3949
572
117798
46
34065
1219SO
262604
915
61
1?
70.6977
70.6977
73.4971
0.0000
54.5243
38.3616
21.2968
32.4638
35.1934
19.7678
37.3526
50.7420
58.3088
14.9705
13.0481
34.3260
30.9567
42.4420
22.0901
26.2169
28.9545
28.3025
9.4571
34.4533
26.0310
38.4303
37.9504
12.7533
6.4247
26.1172
30.7369
67.7605
48.7106
56.3961
38.8740
42.0431
38.5502
24.8960
70.6126
52.2024
72.1120
56.0028
23.5222
33.8757
34.1782
28.6433
13.4752
3.7259
25.4537
33.9243
25.7045
136
81.5513
-------
APPENDIX C.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
SORTED BY EPA CHEMICAL CODE
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
10
CHEMCODE
31608
32201
32501
33901
34001
34201
34801
34005
34902
35001
35201
35302
35501
35505
35506
35509
35701
36001
36101
36601
37801
38903
3C904
38905
39003
39107
40501
41101
41401
41405
41601
41701
42002
42003
42004
42203
42301
43302
43401
43601
43801
44301
44801
45101
46901
46909
47201
47501
47C02
51502
53001
CHEMICAL
CASTOR OIL
DIQUAT DIBROMIDE
OISULFOTOM
DIACETOIIE ALCOHOL
METHOXYCHLOR
LESAN
NALED
FERDAM
ZIRAM (ZINC DIMETHYL DITHIOCARBAMATE)
FERRIC SULFATE
DIMETHOATE
DICROTOPHOS
BROtlOXYNIL OCTANOATE
MONU30H
DIURON
LINURON
SIDURON
BUTOHATE
KARATHANE
TRIFLURALIN
DIPHEHAMID
DIOXATHION
EUDOTHALL, DISODIUM SALT OF
ENDOTHALL, DIPOTASSIUM SALT OF
EUDOTHALL
METAM-SODIUM
TETRASODIUM ETHYLENEDIAMINETETRAACETATE
CITRUS OIL
MOCAP
EPTAM
SUTAN
Eh'DRIN
DYFOHATE
ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE
ETHYLEUE DICHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
ETHYLEUE 6LYCOL
ETHYLENE OXIDE
MGK REPELLENT R-ll
ACTIDIOUE
GLYODIN
GIEBERELLIC ACID
DODINE (DODECYLGUANIDINE ACETATE)
HEPTACHLOR
ALDRIN
BUTOXY...ETHOXYETHANOL-IODINE COMPLEX
POLYETHOXY...ETHOXYETHANOL-IODINE COMPLE
DIFROPYL ISOCIMCHOMERONATE
FROPANOL
BAYGON
MALE 1C HYDRAZIDE, DIETHANOLAMINE SALT OF
POUNDS
RSE
82
97088
6715
2222
784157
27
7939
1167
4615
53431
33367
599
355
26
460133
1976
24530
1176
360
4919
895
9309
113
116016
9994
7056
6
131
26468
16994
5958
957
10674
255522
3173050
4386
38
214
311
75
99
26
5418
1199746
704274
1587
47
311
774
51691
106
14048
63.4619
37.3954
13.6253
40.7244
51.6426
54.5931
49.1218
62.3097
33.7207
39.1779
15.6220
29.7536
48.0871
35.2836
35.9459
10.8772
16.4642
36.3375
38.5613
26.1437
54.4027
14.9785
51.6C66
42.2232
45.7329
53.0762
53.3775
55.5488
26.2936
24.0909
0.0000
36.1406
40.1205
18.3034
'19.0113
10.1734
38.2340
49.7400
28.8922
41.8150
79.6139
65.2890
24.8344
6.6449
12.2734
65.2090
65.2890
28.8922
57.3690
11.5274
47.3016
56.0026
-------
APPENDIX C.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
SORTED BY EPA CHEMICAL CODE
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
11
CHEMCODE
53201
53301
54001
54101
55S01
56502
5670Z
56704
56£01
57001
57201
57501
57601
57701
57801
57901
58001
5SC01
53301
58401
58702
58301
59101
59201
60102
61501
61601
63001
63003
63005
63501
63502
63503
63506
64104
66501
66502
67002
67501
67701
67703
67704
67705
67707
68602
66603
6C604
69001
69004
69104
69129
CHEMICAL
METHYL BROMIDE
BAYTEX
METHYLATED AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
METHYL NAPTHALEHES
MORESTAN
NAPHTHALENE
PCNB
NICOTINE
TOBACCO DUST
CARBARYL
OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE DICARBOXIMIDE
THIMET
PARATHION
SYSTOX
MALATHIOM
DIAZINOM
TRICHLORFON
GUTHION
CHLCROANE
ROCNEL
ETHIOM
METASYSTOX-R
CIODRIN
CHLORPYRIFOS
PHOSMET
HYPOPHOSPHOROUS 2-< 4-THIAZOLYLJBENZIMIDA
PARADICHLOROBENZENE
PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
SODIUM PENTACHLOROPHENATE
SODIUM TETRACHLOROPHENATES
KEROSENE
MINERAL OIL, SEAL OR WHITE
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
MINERAL SPIRITS (ODORLESS)
SODIUM OTRHOPHENYLPHENATE
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
PHOSPHORUS
PINE OIL
PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE
DIPHACINONE
PIVAL
PIVAL, SODIUM SALT OF
DIPHACINONE, SODIUM SALT OF
CHLCROPHACINONE
POLYPROPYLENE GLYCOL
PROPYLENE GLYCOL
DIFROPYLENE GLYCOL
PYRETHRINS
PYRETHPIM COILS
ALKYL* DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
HYAMINE 2309
POUNDS
RSE
1616251
6208
2464
48
65
11
20931
9
50
852503
38819
68S73
164065
2976
648526
1661691
127021
7089
3626095
22755
4608
14297
23
1611396
13573
1294
4670
35111
77691
5854
62
21223
31556
6195909
25902
1029
198338
1
11599
86652
59
69
215
13
211
2274
42
201
18777
23477
47
757
16.1634
34.7154
52.1042
41.8306
46.5831
64.9771
17.6128
40.7116
64.9771
5.2748
2.4396
43.0894
45.8105
35.6607
5.4431
5.6624
9.8797
16.2731
4.5132
14.2664
9.4379
15.0C44
42.4518
18.1453
24.0296
21.6115
29.0508
24.2015
50.5551
86.3281
53.7659
14.3748
19.2731
8.9G32
23.6833
18.8359
22.4055
65.2890
11.2319
13.7427
4.6146
10.1628
34.6203
13.5036
13.1261
58.9878
33.8787
0.0000
7.4806
35.7415
52.9276
70.3476
-------
APPENDIX C.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
SORTED BY EPA CHEMICAL CODE
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
IZ
CHEMCODE
69140
69149
69153
69154
69165
69166
69163
69201
70001
71003
71004
72602
72604
72605
73301
73506
74001
75003
75202
75301
76104
76406
76702
76901
77501
77601
77702
77901
76003
78501
78701
79009
79101
79202
79401
79201
80104
80301
80501
80603
80004
80807
60811
80313
81101
81301
81501
81601
81701
81901
8C056
82C63
CHEMICAL
ALKYL* DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
DIDECYL DIMETHYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
ALKYL* TRIMETHYL AMMONIUM BROMIDE *( 95X
ALKYL* DIMETHYL ETHYLBENZYL AMMONIUM CHL
OCTYL DECYL DIMETHYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
DIOCTYL DIMETHYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
WSCP
AMINOPYRIDINE
RED SQUILL
ROTENONE
CUDE RESINS OTHER THAN ROTENONE
SILICA GEL
SODIUM METASILICATE
SILICON DIOXIDE
SODIUM CHLORATE
SODIUM CARBONATE
CALCIUM CYANIDE
SODIUM FLUOROACETATE
SODIUM FLUORIDE
AMMONIUM FLUOSILICATE
SODIUM NITRATE
TRISODIUM PHOSPHATE
CALCIUM POLYSULFIDE
STRYCHNINE
SULFUR
SULFUR DIOXIDE
PROPIONIC ACID
SULFAqUINOXALINE
SULFURYL FLUORIDE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
DACTHAL
SOAP
ASPON
TETRADIFON
ENDOSULFAN
THIRAM (TETRAMETHTLTHIURAH DISULFIDE)
SODIUM THIOSULFATE
DIETHYL-META-TOLUAMIDE AND OTHER ISOMERS
TOXAPHENE
ATRAZINE
PROMETON
SIMAZINE
DYRENE
IC-RAN
TRICHLOROBENZEUE
CAPTAN
CHL030PICRIN
FOLPET
DIFOLATAN
ERAVO
BUTYL 2;4,5-TRICHLOPOPHENOXYACETATE
1SOCCTYL 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPMENOXYACETATE
POUNDS
RSE
10
15
293
47
3
2
44
186
14
398
755
17212
2
2272
282565
3
1995
149
17686
137
13
63
4975
125
14202
147312
916
7
2688325
14590
1027221
847
103125
5
1083
14767
388
4359
120562
1058175
141296
164333
1892
305
6214
21089
31085
1402
700
47762
81
13
0.0000
47.9208
53.6742
52.9276
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
24.0657
52.6B55
22.7778
23.9211
14.0545
53.3775
11.16S5
43.6950
53.3775
15.2610
36.6099
30.5274
31.0188
65.2090
70.3476
30.4204
16.4675
33.40S8
19.0168
64.1672
21.1521
41.4092
9.2883
6.3243
26.0525
0.2063
63.3590
20.1368
23.7620
48.3236
28.8922
21.3396
36.5638
31.6475
11.1793
18.7907
61.9475
47.6490
13.9913
30.2214
29.9041
30.3356
5.0067
72.4103
79.9/V9
-------
APPENDIX C.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 1981,
SORTED BY EPA CHEMICAL CODE
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
CHEMCODE
82519
82555
82563
C2565
82602
62606
83501
83601
83701
64001
64201
84301
84701
66001
86002
66004
86602
66S03
68601
69001
90:02
90301
90501
90601
97601
97701
97301
98301
98701
90301
99101
99102
99301
99401
99501
95301
100101
100501
101101
101601
101701
102001
103001
103301
103401
103601
103801
103901
104201
104601
105201
lOb'tOl
CHEMICAL
DIETHYLAMINE SILVEX
SILVEX, BUTOXYPROPYL ESTER OF
SILVEX, ISOOCTYL(Z-ETHYLHEXYL) ESTER OF
ISOOCTYL SILVEX
SODIUM 2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENYLACETATE
AMMONIUM 2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENYLACETATE
TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL
TRIFHENYLTIN HYDROXIDE
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
DDVP
BOMYL
BENEFIN
TERRAZOLE
FUMARIN
WARFARIN
FUttARIN, SODIUM SALT OF
DIMETHYLBENZENE
XYLENE RANGE AROMATIC SOLVENT
ZII.'C PHOSPHIDE
ZIUC SULFATE
OXYCARDOXIN
METHOMYL
ALACHLOR
FLWADAN
OMITE
PHOSALONE
RESMETHRIN
TEMIK
BETANAL
CHLORFLURENOL
BENLATE
LIGNASAN BLP
ASBESTOS
GUM RESINS
VEGETABLE MAX
FLOREL
BLADEX
MESUHOL
METRICUZIN
CYHEXATIN (TRICYCLOHEXYLHYDROXYSTANNANE)
PROMAMIDE
METHYL THIOPHANATE
DEVRINOL
ORTHEt.'E
THIOFMANATE-ETHYL
ROUNDUP
OXAMYL
BENTAZON,SODIUM SALT OF
SURFLAN
VENDEX
BEMDTOCAPB
METHOFHENE
POUNDS
RSE
51
63
4
13
25
5505
650
146
137
Z47356
29
90531
533
135
2529
8
312B718
1603G32
6965
16900
64
601
140356
41320
661
5079
4200
467
217
1
46182
470
11
29
6
109
626
540
457
667
10072
2072
9548
81487
1963
85484
404
567
40099
1017
1S1804
H97
56.3961
42.0431
59.2327
70.6126
52.5554
65.2690
1.7883
40.0076
51.2608
30.4409
0.0000
19.4033
28.6153
23.9266
14.9076
18.7316
37.4182
5.2594
19.6061
49.1919
42.9129
1.8681
50.7496
55.2000
53.7191
26.5334
14.7319
34.3555
56.3961
48.3311
4.9749
58.3112
0.0000
63.4619
63.4619
56.9019
48.8284
33.9772
39.9182
28.8305
24.8567
38.7792
26.1066
12.9439
37.1356
9.4959
33.0106
19.2779
33.6600
41.2032
2I.3C47
19.4136
-------
CHEMCODE
105501
106401
106601
106701
106901
107C01
107501
107901
105301
109001
109301
109401
109601
109701
109S01
109901
111601
112001
11C701
113601
114002
116001
116002
118401
169111
505200
APPENDIX C.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL USAGE OF
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN 19Q1,
SORTED BY EPA CHEMICAL CODE
RSE = RELATIVE STANDARD ERROR.
CHEMICAL
TEBUTHIURON
AVENGE
PROFLURALIN
FOSAMINE AMMONIUM
ASULAM (METHYL SULFAHILYLCARBAMATE)
VELPAR
KII.'OFRENE
TRIFORINE
METOLACHLOR
OXADIAZON
FEHVAUERATE
ISOFENPHOS
ATRINAL
PERMETHRIN
IFRODINE
TRIADIMEFON
OXYFLUORFEN
BROMADIOLONE
BRODIFACOUM
SAFROTIN
MEFLUIDIDE, DIETHANOLAMINE SALT OF
TRICLOPYR
TRICLOPYR, TRIETHYLAMINE SALT OF
AMORO
DIALKYL* DIMETHYL AMMONIUM BENTONITE «
-------
Appendix D. Relative Standard Errors of Summarized National Estimates of Active Ingredient
Usage in 1981, By Product Class and Industry Sector
Product
Class
Fungicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Microbicide
Vertebrate
Pesticide
Overall
Lawn
13.7
5.2
28.6
-
60.6
10.8
Tree
17.6
21.1
8.4
59.0
49.5
7.7
Tree
and/or
Lawn
21.6
20.7
16.7
53.4
49.1
13.4
Structural
35.5
22.7
7.4
17.1
6.0
7.1
Structural and
Tree and/or
Lawn
19.3
35.4
19.2
39.2
49.6
16.9
Overall
10.7
12.9
6.5
16.5
38.5
5.8
-------
Appendix E
Relative Standard Errors of National and Regional Estimates of Active Ingredient
Usage in 1981, By Product Class and Industry Sector
CHEMCODE
81001
56502
6601
14505
99101
14504
109801
79801
80811
27301
CLASS
9801
78701
30019
31519
29802
31516
80803
841)01
30016
31503
CLASS
59101
6501
86803
57801
57901
84001
79101
86802
109401
5680]
CLASS
SECTOR
CHEMICAL
BRAVO
PCNB
PKTRO. DER. AROM. HYDROCARBONS
HANEB
RKNLATE
Dl THANK H-45
IPRODJNE
Till RAM
DYRENE
CIIOLRONEB
BF.TASAN
DACTHAL
DIETHYLAMINE 2, 4-D
DIMETHY1.AMINE 2-(2-M-4-C)PROP.
DIMETHYLAMINE DICAHBA
D1F.THANULAMINE 2-(2-M-4-C)PRO.
ATRAZINE
BENEF1N
DIETHANOLAMINE 2,4-DICHLORPHEN
POTASSIUM 2-(2-M-4-C) PROP10N.
CHLORPYRIFOS
AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
XYI.ENE RANGE AROMATIC SOLVENT
DIAZINON
TKICHLORFON
DDVP
ASPON
DIMETHYLBENEENE
ISOFENPHOS
CARBARYL
NATIONAL REGION 1
INDUSTRY
3.9
20.0
88.3
28.0
7.7
29.5
13.0
39.4
37.5
34.3
13.7
INDUSTRY
4.8
6.5
6.7
3.6
11.6
15.5
40.8
22.3
14.7
30.8
5.2
INDUSTRY
39.9
53.4
4.4
6.5
10.8
66.3
0.0
24.0
7.4
26.6
28.6
10.8
SECTOR
5.0
0.0
59.9
58.3
24.3
59.9
45.6
.
53.8
.
21.6
SECTOR
7.8
0.7
4.1
6.7
40.7
57.0
0.0
12.0
58.4
59.9
5.4
SECTOR
6.5
31.1
5.9
9.5
2.7
_
0.0
51.6
16.9
-
4.8
5.0
1 REGION 2 REGION 3
= LAWN
9.4
29.0
.
50.0
28.8
.
19.0
56.4
59.2
-
29.2
= LAWN
9.1
6.3
6.4
3.0
27.4
30.1
55.9
21.3
26.5
33.4
11.0
= LAWN
20.4
18.5
22.4
37.8
11.3
59.2
0.0
59.2
23.0
31.3
22.3
11.5
PRODUCT
17.9
4.0
90.4
35.0
15.1
-
29.2
51.3
51.3
-
48.8
PRODUCT
5.0
0.9
4.3
2.4
16.3
29.1
0.0
15.5
29.1
36.8
3.3
PRODUCT
7.2
22.2
6.8
9.3
6.3
67.5
0.0
40.9
20.0
45.5
6.0
4.6
REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 7 REGION 8 REGION 9 REGION 10
CLASS =
10.7
0.0
-
47.1
7.4
34.4
0.0
.
.
_
11.3
CLASS =
15.2
0.0
12.9
3.7
13.2
47.5
30.5
10.1
47.5
-
10.0
CLASS =
19.1
38.1
4.4
17.0
7.8
34.8
0.0
35.1
0.0
54.1
16.7
9.6
FUNGICIDE
2.7
24.3
38.0
10.7
60.6
20.4
51.3
51.3
34.3
11.6
HERBICIDE
8.4
11.4
10.2
6.7
16.9
19.5
0.0
28.0
18.8
38.3
8.8
INSECTICIDE
50.6
62.0
5.7
6.4
16.7
66.7
0.0
30.2
8.0
55.3
42.0
18.1
0.0
0.0
.
0.0
0.0
.
0.0
.
.
-
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.9
1.3
0.7
-
0.0
0.0
-
-
0.6
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
0.4
2.4
0.0
56.2
1.9
0.0
.
_
-
4.1
6.1
26.0
21.0
4.1
18.8
69.1
0.0
24.5
69.1
-
18.8
19.6
28.7
20.7
22.8
30.8
-
0.0
33.7
1.3
13.1
13.9
1.8
0.0
.
0.0
10.4
.
0.0
.
.
-
2.9
0.0
0.2
11.3
12.7
9.9
-
0.0
0.0
-
-
3.5
14.7
56.2
11.3
15.6
0.0
-
0.0
44.7
0.0
*
10.6
5.2
0.0
0.0
_
0.0
0.0
65.3
59.7
65.3
.
-
37.9
41.2
31.2
35.9
31.7
31.7
65.3
65.3
0.0
65.3
-
52.7
52.0
65.3
0.0
45.9
0.0
64.9
0.0
65.3
0.0
"
30.9
47.1
0.0
0.0
.
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
.
-
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
Appendix E (continued)
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL
NATIONAL REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 7 REGION 8 REGION 9 REGION 10
6601 PETRO. DER. AROM. HYDROCARBONS
63001 I'KNTACHLOROPHENOL
99101 BF.NLATE
81301 CAPTAN
77501 SULFUR
14505 MANEB
79801 TIIIRAM
14506 Z1NEB
44301 DODINE
23102 COPPER NAPHTIIENATE
CUSS
30035 TRIISOPROPANOLAMINE 2,4-D
116001 TRICLOPYR
5102 PICLORAM, TRIISOPROPANOLAMINE
30063 OCTYL ESTER OF 2,4-D
34902 FERRIC SUI.FATE
106701 FOSAMINE AMMONIUM
11104 SODIUM METABORATE
12301 I1YVAR X
80807 SINAZINE
73301 SODIUM CHLORATE
CLASS
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
86802 DIMETIIYLBENZENE
56801 CARBARYL
34001 MKTI10XYC1ILOR
57801 DIAZINON
57701 MA LATH ION
6501 AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
10501 DICOFOL
103301 OKTHENF.
86803 XYLENE RANGE AROMATIC SOLVENT
CLASS
INDUSTRY
24.5
72.4
6.3
22.2
46.8
2.6
36.0
15.8
32.4
59.3
17.6
INDUSTRY
30.7
49.2
30.7
33.0
63.4
59.1
50.0
44.6
28.5
50.0
21.1
INDUSTRY
12.4
14.3
9.5
17.0
7.0
10.3
13.3
9.1
15.5
29.5
8.4
SECTOR
34.2
.
10.1
22.2
-
0.0
-
42.0
-
-
25.6
SECTOR
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
-
33.8
-
.
-
-
32.6
SECTOR
31.4
15.3
17.4
17.1
3.5
22.0
25.9
16.1
1.2
35.1
12.7
= TREE
53.3
.
14.5
35.8
.
0.0
59.2
22.4
-
-
42.7
= TREE
59.2
-
59.2
-
-
59.2
-
59.2
-
-
57.8
= TREE
13.1
22.8
13.4
27.6
20.4
12.7
19.7
10.7
30.5
52.2
11. A
PRODUCT
41.2
-
16.3
63.9
45.5
0.0
45.5
27.5
-
-
32.0
PRODUCT
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
51.2
PRODUCT
25.9
18.5
22.9
32.1
18.3
14.5
23.5
17.2
17.4
79.6
18.0
CLASS =
32.3
-
39.3
58.4
80.0
0.0
80.0
27.3
61.7
59.3
24.6
CLASS =
61.7
-
61.7
61. A
-
-
50.0
-
50.0
50.0
40.5
CLASS =
32.6
17.8
31.4
11.6
7.6
28.8
21.6
4.2
73.2
40.1
23.8
FUNGICIDE
30.5
72. A
7.1
40.0
-
0.0
-
30.1
73.6
59.3
24.0
HERBICIDE
59.3
59.3
59.3
67.2
-
-
-
-
64. 5
-
55.7
15.9
-
3.2
-
-
0.0
-
15.0
-
-
10.8
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
76.9
72. A
15.3
-
-
0.0
-
A2.9
-
-
67.6
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
51.1
57.9
-
0.0
.
-
0.0
-
.
-
-
50.3
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
61.7
»
-
35.5
A7.6
.
-
-
A9.5
52.9
-
37.5
-
-
-
78.3
-
-
-
65.3
A2.A
~
3A.5
_
-
29.3
41.1
63. A
52.6
-
-
AO.O
-
36.9
-
63. A
-
-
63. A
-
-
63. A
A9.6
*
36.6
INSECTICIDE
2A.8
32.4
16.6
38.0
9.3
15.2
30. A
12.3
20.6
43.8
22.1
17. A
10.7
30.2
6.8
3.6
59.7
7A.8
A. 3
7.8
36.8
15. A
2A.9
14.6
27.3
26.2
11.2
27.8
27. A
13.8
36.6
63.1
17.1
-
30.8
31.2
53.7
28.5
58.9
A6.A
38.3
AO.l
63.5
31.9
A9.6
A3. 3
32.2
30.1
AA.7
30.3
50. A
A9.0
31.8
36.3
52.0
A0.8
A4.7
31.6
45.4
41.4
38.1
32.8
41.8
29.0
-------
Appendix E (continued)
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL
NATIONAL REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 7 REGION 8 REGION 9 REGION 10
14701 CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE
SECTOR
INDUSTRY SECTOR = TREE
59.0 59.9 59.9
7.7 12.0 13.8
PRODUCT CLASS = MICROBICIDE
59.3
17.5 19.8 19.6 13.5
31.8
30.9
29.4
29.1
"01 PETRO. DER. AROM. HYDROCARBONS
99101 BENLATE
14505 MANEB
76702 CALCIUM POLYSULFIDE
79801 THIRAM
81901 BRAVO
14504 D1THANE M-45
81301 CAPTAN
14506 ZINEB
8101 BASIC COPPER SULFATE
CLASS
9801 BETAS AN
30019 D1ETHYLAMINE 2,4-D
90501 ALACIILOR
108801 HETOLACHLOR
30056 BUTYL 2,4-D
24401 COPPER SULFATE PENTA1IYDRATE
32201 D1QUAT D1BROMIDE
80R07 SINAZINE
38904 ENDOTIIALL, DIPOTASSIUM SALT OF
78701 DACTHAL
CUSS
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
57801 DtAZINON
6501 AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
86802 DIMETHYLBENZENE
56801 CARBARYL
57701 MALATIIION
59101 CHLORPYRIFOS
8680.1 XYLENE RANGE AROMATIC SOLVENT
57201 TIIJNKT
34001 MKTHOXYCHLOR
CLASS
INDUSTRY
27.1
14.0
40.7
37.1
33.4
35.6
25.2
22.5
47.7
47.7
21.6
INDUSTRY
28.6
19.7
63.4
63.5
63.4
55.7
52.9
27.2
56.4
27.9
20.7
INDUSTRY
41.7
22.1
22.6
11.5
12.3
12.6
18.8
25.6
63.5
14.3
16.7
SECTOR
_
32.7
.
-
_
.
37.7
38.0
.
-
26.4
SECTOR
31.3
23.8
-
.
-
59.9
.
28.0
-
65.7
22.3
SECTOR
24.9
20.0
18.7
20.3
34.7
21.4
26.6
41.8
-
23.0
15.9
= TREE
48.3
24.3
33.3
-
33.5
56.4
-
31.6
55.8
59.2
44.3
= TREE
34.7
24.2
-
-
-
56.4
56.4
56.4
56.4
52.5
43.5
= TREE
48.6
21.3
26.5
24.7
21.7
27.6
21.8
27.7
-
25.9
17.6
AND/OR LAWN
39.4
63.8
77.7
-
.
57.6
44.6
45.5
35.4
-
34.3
AND/OR LAWN
72.6
72.1
-
-
-
-
-
59.3
-
60.4
67.9
AND/OR LAWN
39.9
37.3
41.2
29.5
19.0
25.2
54.0
66.8
-
39.0
32.4
PRODUCT CLASS
38.3
24.6
41.2
64.0
64.5
37.7
41.8
34.8
53.9
53.9
20.8
40.6
25.3
41.5
41.2
58.9
48.4
--
32.8
46.2
46.4
21.8
PRODUCT CLASS
47.5
25.2
-
-
61.7
-
75.1
40.2
-
48.8
24.7
24.7
23.5
47.1
-
-
-
59.4
56.8
-
46.5
20.4
PRODUCT CLASS
22.2
32.2
25.3
24.8
19.8
28.6
25.1
38.9
-
51.1
17.9
49.6
46.3
40.6
30.1
39.4
29.4
35.1
44.8
-
43.2
28.8
= FUNGICIDE
32.8
46.8
36.8
-
-
36.8
-
-
88.6
-
33.6
69.1
42.2
-
51.3
-
69.1
45.1
80.9
70.6
50.0
31.7
63.5
63.5
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
56.7
65.3
40.6
-
-
-
63.2
65.3
72.9
-
60.7
32.7
37.5
52.6
-
-
-
52.6
-
47.8
-
63.4
36.1
= HERBICIDE
39.0
63.5
-
-
-
-
-
46.2
-
40.5
29.1
68.7
47.6
-
-
-
-
-
51.7
-
43.1
39.6
74.4
60.8
63.5
63.5
63.5
-
-
55.5
-
63.5
61.8
59.3
29.5
-
-
-
-
35.7
41.9
-
"
26.7
-
38.7
-
-
-
63.4
63.4
41.0
~
33.9
24.6
= INSECTICIDE
36.2
15.4
38.2
32.2
32.9
31.6
40.4
48.0
-
80.1
18.4
47.6
45.7
32.4
33.3
37.9
58.4
64.8
66.8
~
40.0
30.4
63.5
60.4
57.1
82.1
56.9
51.5
63.5
63.5
"
51.0
59.9
22.4
31.1
48.7
41.3
31.4
56.2
65.1
53.8
56.5
52.6
26.6
36.5
42.2
55.6
38.7
30.3
28.0
-------
Appendix E (continued)
CHEMCOnE
69149
39107
73506
72604
CLASS
88601
7690]
CLASS
SKCTOR
63503
63001
23102
14506
77501
9910!
6601
23104
81601
33001
CLASS
30035
80803
80807
30056
5102
35505
30019
30053
9801
31453
CLASS
CHEMICAL
DIDECYL DIMETHYL AMMONIUM CLORIDE
TF.TRASODH/M EDTA
SODIUM CARBONATE
SODIUM METAS1L1CATE
ZINC PHOSPHIDE
STRYCHININE
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
PENTACHLOROl'llENOL
COPPER NAPIITHENATE
ZINEB
SULFUR
BEN LATE
PETRO. DER. AROM. HYDROCARBONS
COPPER SALTS OF ACIDS
FOLPET
Dl ACETONE ALCOHOL
TIUISOPROPANOLAMINE 2,4-D
ATKAZINK
SIMAZ1NE
BUTYL 2,4-D
P1CLORAM, TRIISOPROPANOLAMINE
DI1IRON
DIETIIYLAMINE 2,4-D
BUTOXYETIIYL 2,4-D
BETASAN
BUTOXYETIIYL 2-(2,4-D) PROPION.
NATIONAL REGION 1
INDUSTRY SECTOR
53.4
53.4
53.4
53.4
53.4
INDUSTRY SECTOR
59.4
53.8
49.1
13.4 14.8
INDUSTRY SECTOR
36.6 0.0
65.6
24.5 0.0
16.7
49.8
16.0
63.4
51.3
40.9
54.9
35.5 0.0
INDUSTRY SECTOR
64.2
4.2
16.2
25.6
64,2
28.6
30.6
64.2 73.8
16.5
64.2 73.8
22.7 73.8
REGION 2 REGION 3
= TREE AND/OR LAWN
55.5
55.5
55.5
55.5
55.5
= TREE AND/OR LAWN
.
-
-
24.5 38.8
REGION
4 REGION 5
PRODUCT CLASS
.
-
-
-
-
67.2
67.1
67.1
67.1
67.1
PRODUCT CLASS
-
-
61.7
15.2
= STRUCTURAL PRODUCT
38.7
56.0
38.7
16.7 16.7
56.0 56.0
16.7 16.7
-
-
-
-
16.8 15.3
29.5
40.5
30.7
-
-
-
64.0
-
-
-
25.3
= STRUCTURAL PRODUCT
0.0
0.4
0.0
43.9
36.5
-
16.7 16.7
- .
23.9 3.5
64.2
64.2
64.2
-
64.2
63.9
59.4
-
59.1
17.8
REGION 6
REGION 7 REGION
8 REGION 9 REGION 10
- MICROBICIDE
.
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
- VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE
.
-
-
15.8
-
-
'-
30.8 59.9
-
53.8
53.8
47.8 28.1
CLASS = FUNGICIDE
52.7
44.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
47.6
41.8
-
41.8
-
-
54.3
-
-
-
-
41.5
46.8
-
46.8
-
-
63.5
-
51.3
-
34.1
39.8 38.2
66.8 41.6
3.1.7 0.0
-
50.2
50.7 52.6
65.3
-
40.9
54.9
42.8 27.6
CLASS = HERBICIDE
44.9
36.2
0.0
~
"*
V
22.1
45.1
44.2
45.1
55.4
~
"
"
46.8
45.1 45.1
49.6 45.1
45.1 58.8
43.4 60.3
40.6 41.4
£*} C
63.5
40.6 46.5
65.3
52.7
55.8
40.9
4.1.0 40.0
-------
Appendix E (continued)
ClfEMCODE CHEMICAL
NATIONAL REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 7 REGION 8 REGION 9 REGION 10
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
58201 CHLORDANE
42003 ETHYLF.NE 1)1 CHLORIDE
78003 SULFURYL FLUORIDE
6501 AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVES
16501 CARBON TETRACIILORIDE
86803 XYLENE RANGE AROMATIC SOLVENT
53201 METHYL BROMIDE
44801 HEPTACHLOR
57801 DIAZINON
CLASS
67002 PINE OIL
1501 ETHYL ALCOHOL
46901 BUTOXY ... F.THOXYETHANOL- IODINE
79009 SOAP
22101 CHESYLIC ACID, COAL TAR ACIDS
83r)01 TUIETHYLENE GLYCOL
69129 HYAM1NE 2389
47501 PROPANOL
68604 DU'ROPYLENE GLYCOL
76406 TRISODIUM PHOSPHATE
CLASS
11402 POLYBUTENE
88601 ZINC PHOSPHIDE
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
11403 POLYISOBUTYLENE
86002 WARFARIN
67707 CHLOROPHACINONE
63502 MINERAL OIL, SEAL OR WHITE
69201 AMINOPYRIDINE
41601 ENDRIN
75003 SODIUM FLUOROACETATE
CLASS
SECTOR
INDUSTRY
12.1
5.1
21.2
48.1
7.4
21.1
8.1
23.3
8.0
8.8
7.4
INDUSTRY
17.5
0.0
65.3
26.1
54.5
0.4
70.3
60.2
0.0
70.3
17.1
INDUSTRY
8.5
19.8
2.4
18.7
14.9
13.5
56.0
26.1
25.7
36.6
6.0
7.1
SECTOR =
15.9
9.2
-
.
13.8
.
53.9
26.7
-
16.9
10.0
SECTOR =
8.6
-
.
8.6
-
0.0
-
.
.
-
8.6
SECTOR =
19.8
28.8
39.9
70.8
27.1
15.4
56.0
23.2
-
-
18.3
9.9
STRUCTURAL
12.9
23.0
-
3.4
10.2
-
35.5
4.7
41.2
15.6
16.6
21.5
7.7
-
11.7
8.1
-
9.1
14.0
8.6
11.0
14.9
STRUCTURAL
33.8
0.0
-
33.8
-
0.0
-
-
0.0
-
33.3
0.0
0.0
-
O.Q
-
0.0
-
-
0.0
-
0.0
STRUCTURAL
37.7
27.1
0.0
56.4
17.0
26.1
56.0
23.7
0.0
-
33.5
16.5
1.4
48.4
2.0
17.8
16.6
14.2
-
6.9
0.0
-
14.6
13.8
PRODUCT
14.9
7.4
0.0
21.6
8.8
0.0
11.0
25.8
10.9
24.8
6.5
PRODUCT
64.1
0.0
-
45.9
-
0.0
70.3
61.5
0.0
70.3
44.6
PRODUCT
15.3
9.4
0.1
44.5
50.3
23.3
-
18.7
45.9
-
10.3
. 7.1
CLASS = INSECTICIDE
12.4
8.3
5.0
0.0
14.2
60.9
16.9
24.3
12.9
10.8
7.3
6.4
11.3
65.0
30.1
20.6
65.0
8.4
38.7
6.5
8.7
8.8
11.1
15.0
43.5
0.0
21.0
43.5
22.3
43.1
21.2
14.1
27.8
15.9
28.5
21.8
0.0
23.0
21.8
18.7
59.5
21.5
20.8
20.7
9.3
30.6
-
50.5
29.5
-
28.3
47.7
50.1
14.7
28.2
28.1
21.6
52.3
45.3
27.1
52.3
35.7
39.3
23.3
32.2
28.4
CLASS = MICROBICIDE
11.6
0.0
-
38.4
54.5
0.0
-
-
0.0
-
21.2
34.2
0.0
-
35.3
-
2.1
-
0.0
0.0
-
10.4
CLASS = VERTEBRATE
18.5
26.0
19.1
25.9
62.9
20.5
-
39.7
39.0
~
12.3
7.3
10.3
35.6
51.9
41.9
38.8
18.3
-
17.1
16.7
53.0
17.6
8.8
62.4
0.0
-
62.4
-
0.0
-
-
0.0
-
53.5
PESTICIDE
6.2
10.7
1.7
41.8
31.1
59.4
-
32.4
38.4
53.4
4.8
26.1
45.1
0.0
-
45.1
-
0.0
-
-
0.0
-
39.2
42.6
27.8
-
-
45.1
40.6
-
38.3
64.7
65.6
38.2
20.4
0.0
0.0
65.3
0.0
-
0.0
-
-
0.0
60.1
0.0
18.3
0.0
-
-
17.8
"
26.3
0.0
4.2
27.5
52.6
0.0
-
52.6
-
0.0
-
-
0.0
~
42.9
0.0
37.3
0.0
36.9
42.3
"
32.0
0.0
52.6
35.5
28.9
-------
Appendix E (continued)
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL
6601 PETRO. DER. AROM. HYTROCARBONS
14506 ZIKEB
81901 BRAVO
39003 HETAM-SODIUM
81301 CAPTAN
14504 Dl THANE M-45
99101 BENLATE
34805 Z1RAM
6902 SODIUM POLYSUI.FIDE
44301 DOD1NE
CLASS
80803 ATRAZINE
35505 D1URON
12301 HYVAR X
11104 SODIUM HETABORATE
73301 SODIUM CHLORATE
30019 DIETHYLAMINE 2,4-D
80804 PROMETON
9801 BETASAN
38904 ENDOTHALL, DIPOTASSIUM SALT OF
30053 BUTOXYETHYL 2,4-D
CLASS
86802 DIMETHYLBENZENE
65"! AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
63503 RKFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
53201 METHYL BROMIDE
3s;31 HETIIOXYCIILOR
58201 CIILORDANE
42003 ETKYLENE DICHLORIDE
57801 DIAZINON
78003 SULFURYL FLUORIDE
59101 CHLORPYRIFOS
CLASS
NATIONAL REGION 1
INDUSTRY
25.5
42.4
22.9
65.2
19.5
28.9
13.3
43.2
63.5
45.2
19.3
INDUSTRY
45.8
42.0
47.2
48.2
47.6
19.8
43.1
29.2
59.7
62.9
35.4
INDUSTRY
56.5
9.6
11.4
20.4
69.0
10.9
37.1
11.3
17.4
12.1
19.2
REGION 2
REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5
SECTOR = STRUCTURAL AND TREE AND/OR
23.6 42.9 60.0 54.4
49.4 16.7 61.1 16.7
26.6
16.7
42.1
69.8
16.7
-
-
-
27.5
SECTOR
_
_
.
-
-
_
44.4
69.8
33.8
65.8
SECTOR
13.5
17.4
20.2
-
14.5
33.3
16.2
40.3
13.1
16.7
46.8
-
27.3
.
-
-
41.7
16.7
31.3
-
26.9
-
-
-
58.6
= STRUCTURAL AND
_
42.9
42.9
-
_
59.2
54.1
59.2
-
-
26.3
_
42.9
42.9
-
-
50.5
64.8
-
-
45.5
31.9
= STRUCTURAL AND
28.5
18.4
21.1
-
27.8
35.4
17.0
21.3
24.6
16.2
17.5
14.7
-
16.7
55.8
39.1
47.8
15.2
16.7
37.5
32.6
27.3
-
-
-
25.5
TREE AND/OR
_
-
53.9
64.0
64.0
37.2
43.7
64.0
64.0
64.2
34.5
TREE AND/OR
9.3
13.9
20.1
21.1
16.8
25.6
18.9
19.3
16.3
12.2
LAWN
53.0
36.4
47.1
16.7
25.8
-
37.9
-
-
-
33.2
LAWN
_
-
-
-
-
45.0
49.3
36.5
-
-
49.1
LAWN
82.8
24.4
36.7
-
82.6
27.8
54.4
27.8
47.6
76.2
REGION 6 REGION 7
PRODUCT
32.1
39.7
-
54.3
-
27.1
-
-
-
28.4
PRODUCT
50.3
46.9
49.5
50.3
50.3
47.1
48.2
42.1
-
-
48.5
PRODUCT
42.6
10.6
21.4
54.3
54.3
9.0
54.2
21.2
54.3
13.3
15.5
CLASS =
69.1
-
69.1
70.6
-
-
-
-
40.5
CLASS =
_
41.8
41.8
-
-
36.5
-
41.2
-
-
34.2
CLASS =
36.3
19.9
23.8
-
70.6
28.6
50.5
29.9
29.0
24.6
REGION 8 REGION 9
FUNGICIDE
38.0
40.0
34.2
-
36.8
-
40.0
-
63.5
-
38.1
HERBICIDE
74.6
-
-
59.2
59.2
63.7
59.2
70.7
-
51.4
53.8
50.4
65.8
42.1
60.8
26.4
-
-
-
38.7
58.5
56.6
36.3
61.3
61.3
41.0
59.8
65.3
-
47.2
REGION 10
58,0
52.6
-
42.6
52.6
41.7
43.2
-
45.2
39.8
48.8
35.1
30.3
-
-
27.7
52.6
-
-
43.9
25.1
INSECTICIDE
32.5
41.2
32.2
36.8
31.3
28.1
51.6
27.9
26.8
18.6
21.3
45.2
36.4
17.9
45.2
23.6
19.6
31.5
38.0
25.7
36.8
f.f 1
36. 1
14.0
48.8
17.7
21.0
39.2
-------
Appendix E (continued)
CIIEMCODE
69153
69104
69154
83501
68603
CLASS
11402
11403
67704
88601
41601
86001
56704
80501
63503
69201
CLASS
SECTOR
CHEMICAL
ALKYL TR I METHYL NH4 BROMIDE
BTC 776 OR 824
At.KYLniMF.THYLETHYLBENZYL NH4 CL
TRIETIIYLENE CLYCOL
PROPYLENE CLYCOL
POLYBUTENE
POLYISOBUTYI.ENE
PIVAL, SODIUM SALT OF
ZINC PHOSPHIDE
ENDRIN
FIIMAR1N
TORACCO DUST
TOXAPHENE
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
AM1NOPYRID1NE
NATIONAL REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 7 REGION 8 REGION 9 REGION 10
INDUSTRY
53.9
53.2
53.2
64.2
64.2
39.2
INDUSTRY
50.1
42.5
52.3
39.7
46.4
43.1
65.0
53.4
54.3
36.2
49.6
16.9
SECTOR = STRUCTURAL AND TREE AND/OR
53.9
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.2
47.8
SECTOR = STRUCTURAL AND TREE AND/OR
56.0 - 75.2
64.2
52.3
61.3
.
53.9
-
....
.
37.8
42.3 55.4 59.2 42.2
12.8 22.3 20.8 11.7
LAWN
.
.
.
.
-
-
LAWN
43.3
52.7
-
.
52.7
-
65.0
-
.
-
42.3
73.9
PRODUCT CLASS
. .
-
-
.
-
-
PRODUCT CLASS
50.3
50.3
-
33.3 63.5
-
35.8
-
53.4
54.3
53.1
50.3 47.8
28.2 22.3
= MICROBICIDE
...
53.8
51.8
...
...
53.8
= VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE
...
45 . 2
...
22.1 65.3 38.0
36.8 - 36.8
45 . 2
-
.
.
36.8 39.3 29.0
22.3 41.7 22.9
33.2 22.9 28.2
-------
Appendix F
Relative Standard Errors of National Estimates of Active Ingredient
Usage in 1981 by Product Class and Formulation
CHEMCODE
CHEMICAL
RSE
PRODUCT CLASS = FUNGICIDE FORMULATION = DUST
56502
77501
79801
43401
6301
34801
44301
FORMULATION
PRODUCT
56502
81901
27301
102001
99101
109901
109801
FORMULATION
PRODUCT
81901
14505
23102
63503
39003
76702
6902
23104
60102
64104
PCNB
SULFUR
THIRAM (TETRAMETHLYTHIURAM DISULFIDE)
ACTIDIONE
STREPTOMYCIN SULFATE
FERBAM
DODINE (DODECYLGUANIDINE ACETATE)
50.0
60.2
80.0
49.4
50.6
46.0
56.0
38.4
CLASS = FUNGICIDE FORMULATION = GRANULAR/PELLETED
t
PCNB
BRAVO
CHOLRONEB
METHYL THIOPHANATE
BENLATE
TRIADIMEFON
IPRODINE
CLASS = FUNGICIDE FORMULATION = LIQUID
BRAVO
MANEB
COPPER NAPHTHENATE
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
METAM-SODIUM
CALCIUM POLYSULFIDE
SODIUM POLYSULFIDE
COPPER SALTS OF FATTY AND ROSIN ACIDS
HYPOPHOSPHOROUS 2- (4-THIAZOLYL)BENZIMIDA
SODIUM ORTHOPHENYLPHENATE
21.3
60.6
34.3
61.2
55.5
33.2
56.4
22.3
CONCENTRATE
4.6
17.8
21.3
21.2
53.1
30.4
48.3
32.5
21.6
18.8
FORMULATION 9.4
F-l
-------
Appendix F (continued)
CHEMCODE
CHEMICAL
RSE
PRODUCT CLASS = FUNGICIDE FORMULATION = OTHER
6601
63001
63503
33901
63005
63003
FORMULATION
PRODUCT
77702
99102
FORMULATION
PRODUCT
99101
14506
81301
79801
77501
14504
81901
44301
34805
8101
FORMULATION
CLASS
PRODUCT
28902
36601
PETROLEUM DERIVED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
DIACETONE ALCOHOL
SODIUM TETRACHLOROPHENATES
SODIUM PENTACHLOROPHENATE
CLASS = FUNGICIDE FORMULATION = READY-TO-USE
PROPIONIC ACID
LIGNASAN BLP
15.1
52.9
45.9
54.9
53.8
53.8
15.6
SOLUTION
64.2
58.3
46.8
CLASS = FUNGICIDE FORMULATION = WETTABLE POWDER
BENLATE
ZINEB
CAPTAN
THIRAM (TETRAMETHTLTHIURAM DISULFIDE)
SULFUR
EBDC, AS A COORDINATION PRODUCT
BRAVO
DODINE (DODECYLGUANIDINE ACETATE)
2IRAM (ZINC DIMETHYL DITHIOCARBAMATE)
BASIC COPPER SULFATE
CLASS = HERBICIDE FORMULATION =
DALAPON, SODIUM SALT OF
DIPHENAMID
17.6
14.1
24.9
37.4
15.8
22.0
24.9
33.7
40.9
6.7
10.7
DUST
56.4
54.5
FORMULATION 40.4
F-2
-------
Appendix F (continued)
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL
RSE
PRODUCT CLASS = HERBICIDE FORMULATION = GRANULAR/ PELLETED
11104 SODIUM METABORATE
73301 SODIUM CHLORATE
84301 BENEFIN
80807 SIMAZINE
9801 BETASAN
80804 PROMETON
78701 DACTHAL
27401 DICHLOROBENZONITRILE
63003 SODIUM PENTACHLOROPHENATE
38904 ENDOTHALL, DIPOTASSIUM SALT OF
FORMULATION
PRODUCT CLASS = HERBICIDE FORMULATION = LIQUID
9801 BETASAN
30019 DIETHYLAMINE 2, 4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
31519 DIMETHYLAMINE 2-(2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOX)
30035 TRIISOPROPANOLAMINE 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYA
29802 DIMETHYLAMINE DICAMBA
108801 METOLACHLOR
90501 ALACHLOR
30056 BUTYL 2, 4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
31516 DIETHANOLAMLNE 2-(2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENO)
30053 BUTOXYETHYL 2, 4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE
FORMULATION
PRODUCT CLASS = HERBICIDE FORMULATION =
30501 MCPA
19201 MCPB
5501 AMMATE
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
FORMULATION
46.8
46.8
24.7
22.4
16.6
46.8
41.6
31.0
86.9
57.2
35.8
CONCENTRATE
6.3
6.4
3.7
48.7
9.5
47.9
50.8
38.6
13.5
38.9
7.6
OTHER
72.1
73.5
8.2
65.3
55.0
PRODUCT CLASS = HERBICIDE FORMULATION = PRESSURIZED
4401 AMITROLE (3-AMINO-S-TRIAZOLE)
98801 CHLORFLURENOL
37.1
48.3
FORMULATION 36.2
F-3
-------
Appendix F (continued)
CHEMCODE
PRODUCT
38905
107201
12502
13803
12501
FORMULATION
PRODUCT
78701
80803
35505
12301
80807
80804
105501
104201
35509
101701
FORMULATION
CLASS
CHEMICAL
CLASS = HERBICIDE FORMULATION = READY-TO-USE
ENDOTHALL
VELPAR
SODIUM CACODYLATE
MONOSODIUM METHANEARSONATE
CACODYLIC ACID
CLASS = HERBICIDE FORMULATION = WETTABLE
DACTHAL
ATRAZINE
DIURON
HYVAR X
SIMAZINE
PROMETON
TEBUTHIURON
SURFLAN
SIDURON
PRONAMIDE
PRODUCT CLASS = INSECTICIDE FORMULATION =
11001
57801
69004
56801
75202
72602
63503
67501
72605
11102
FORMULATION
BORIC ACID
DIAZINON
PYRETHRIN COILS
CARBARYL
SODIUM FLUORIDE
SILICA GEL
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE
SILICON DIOXIDE
BORAX
RSE
SOLUTION
69.8
49.1
70.6
80.1
70.6
59.0
POWDER
6.3
38.4
35.9
40.2
11.6
35.1
38.2
38.6
17.8
24.9
23.1
12.9
DUST
25.8
10.7
35.7
14.0
30.5
14.1
8.2
7.3
11.3
40.6
10.0
F-4
-------
Appendix F (continued)
CHEMCODE
PRODUCT
57801
66501
57201
59101
90601
41101
109401
56801
53001
41701
FORMULATION
PRODUCT
58201
6501
63503
86802
86803
59101
57801
44801
34001
45101
FORMULATION
PRODUCT
63503
57801
61501
63502
81101
31608
40501
9001
22001
99401
CHEMICAL
RSE
CLASS = INSECTICIDE FORMULATION = GRANULAR/ PELLETED
DIAZINON
ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE
THIMET
CHLORPYRIFOS
FURADAN
MOCAP
ISOFENPHOS
CARBARYL
METALDEHYDE
DYFONATE
i
CLASS = INSECTICIDE FORMULATION
CHLORDANE
AROMATIC PETROLEUM DERIVATIVE
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
DIMETHYLBENZENE
XYLENE RANGE AROMATIC SOLVENT
CHLORPYRIFOS
DIAZINON
HEPTACHLOR
METHOXYCHLOR
ALDRIN
CLASS = INSECTICIDE
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
DIAZINON
PARADICHLOROBENZENE
MINERAL OIL, SEAL OR WHITE
TRICHLOROBENZENE
CASTOR OIL
CITRUS OIL
LINDANE
ASPHALT
GUM RESINS
7.1
22.4
43.1
18.8
63.3
26.3
15.2
13.4
56.1
40.1
10.6
= LIQUID CONCENTRATE
4.5
SOLVENT 7.2
16.0
37.5
5.3
19.0
6.7
6.6
55.4
12.3
8.1
FORMULATION = OTHER
9-7
8.4
29 . 1
57.8
38.4
63.5
90.0
38.4
0.0
63.5
FORMULATION 9-6
F-5
-------
Appendix F (continued)
CHEMCODE CHEMICAL RSE
PRODUCT CLASS = INSECTICIDE FORMULATION = PRESSURIZED
78003 SULFURYL FLUORIDE 41.4
53201 METHYL BROMIDE 16.4
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS 6.5
81501 CHLOROPICRIN 30.6
78501 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 10.2
84001 DDVP 11.5
13 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 10.2
14 DICHLORO DIFLUORO METHANE 10.2
67501 PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE 7.3
11001 BORIC ACID 23.7
FORMULATION 26.6
PRODUCT CLASS = INSECTICIDE FORMULATION = READY-TO-USE SOLUTION
42003 ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE 19.0
63503 REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS 10.2
16501 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 19.0
42002 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE 18.6
77601 SULFUR DIOXIDE 19.0
6601 PETROLEUM DERIVED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS 7.9
57001 OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE DICARBOXIMIDE 1.9
63502 MINERAL OIL, SEAL OR WHITE 19.8
63506 MINERAL SPIRITS (ODORLESS) 25.1
57701 MALATHION 30.6
FORMULATION 13.7
PRODUCT CLASS = INSECTICIDE FORMULATION = WETTABLE POWDER
56801 CARBARYL 8.2
105201 BENDIOCARB 21.5
103301 ORTHENE 13.7
57701 MALATHION 14.0
34001 METHOXYCHLOR 19.4
57901 TRICHLORFON 23.8
10501 DICOFOL 8.7
59201 PHOSMET 24.0
47802 BAYGON 19.8
58001 GUTHION 18.2
FORMULATION 6-5
CLASS 6.5
F-6
-------
Appendix F (continued)
CHEMCODE
CHEMICAL
RSE
PRODUCT CLASS = MICROBICIDE
FORMULATION = LIQUID CONCENTRATE
67002
79009
22101
69129
47501
69153
76406
69104
69154
14701
FORMULATION
PINE OIL
SOAP
CRESYLIC ACID, COAL TAR ACIDS & PHENOLS
HYAMINE 2389
PROPANOL
ALKYL* TRIMETHYL AMMONIUM BROMIDE *(95%)
TRISODIUM PHOSPHATE
ALKYL* DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
ALKYL* DIMETHYL ETHYLBENZYL AMMONIUM CHL
CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE
17.
26.
54.
70.
60.
53.
70.
53.8
53.8
59.0
21.8
.5
I
.5
.3
.2
.9
.3
PRODUCT CLASS = MICROBICIDE
FORMULATION = OTHER
46901
46909
FORMULATION
BUTOXY..iETHOXYETHANOL-IODINE COMPLEX
POLYETHOXY...ETHOXYETHANOL-IODINE COMPLEX
65.3
65.3
65.3
PRODUCT CLASS = MICROBICIDE
FORMULATION = PRESSURIZED
1501
83501
68604
40501
68603
69140
69104
69154
FORMULATION
ETHYL ALCOHOL
TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL
DIPROPYLENE GLYCOL
CITRUS OIL
PROPYLENE GLYCOL
ALKYL* DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
ALKYL* DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
ALKYL* DIMETHYL ETHYLBENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
40.8
0.0
40.8
40.8
1.0
PRODUCT CLASS = MICROBICIDE
69183 WSCP
CLASS
FORMULATION = READY-TO-USE SOLUTION
0.0
16.5
F-7
-------
Appendix F (continued)
CHEMCODE
CHEMICAL
PRODUCT CLASS = VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE
88601
86002
80501
67707
69201
56704
611
55801
67701
FORMULATION
PRODUCT CLASS
88601
86001
76901
69201
86002
67703
67701
112701
70801
67705
FORMULATION
PRODUCT CLASS
67704
75003
67707
67703
86004
ZINC PHOSPHIDE
WARFARIN
TOXAPHENE
CHLOROPHACINONE - .
AMINOPYRIDINE
TOBACCO DUST
DRIED BLOOD
NAPHTHALENE
DIPHACINONE
= VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE FORMULATION
ZINC PHOSPHIDE
FUMARIN
STRYCHNINE
AMINOPYRIDINE
WARFARIN
PIVAL
DIPHACINONE
BRODIFACOUM :
RED SQUILL
DIPHACINONE, SODIUM SALT OF
= VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE FORMULATION
PIVAL, SODIUM SALT OF
SODIUM FLUOROACETATE
CHLOROPHACINONE
PIVAL
FUMARIN, SODIUM SALT OF
RSE
FORMULATION = DUST
20.6
19.6
39; 2
9,5
47.9
65.0
65.0
65.0
14.3
19.0
= GRANULAR/PELLETED
6.0
23.9
16.5
10.4
13.9
10.4
4.9
4.2
52.7
13.5
5.3
= LIQUID CONCENTRATE
34.6
36.6
35.5
28.5
18.7
FORMULATION 21.3
F-8
-------
Appendix F (continued)
CHEMCODE
PRODUCT
86002
11402
76104
31604
16001
63502
77501
66502
FORMULATION
CHEMICAL
CLASS = VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE FORMULATION
WARFARIN
POLYBUTENE
SODIUM NITRATE
HYDROGENATED CASTOR OIL
CARBON
MINERAL OIL, SEAL OR WHITE
SULFUR
PHOSPHORUS
PRODUCT CLASS = VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE FORMULATION =
63503
11402
FORMULATION
PRODUCT CLASS =
11402
11403
41601
63502
6601
53301
169111
FORMULATION
CLASS
REFINED PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
POLYBUTENE
RSE
= OTHER
16.7
34.0
65.3
25.7
65.3
65.3
65.3
65.3
16.3
PRESSURIZED
2.4
2.4
2.4
VERTEBRATE PESTICIDE FORMULATION = READY-TO-USE SOLUTION
POLYBUTENE
POLYISOBUTYLENE
ENDRIN
MINERAL OIL, SEAL OR WHITE
PETROLEUM DERIVED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
BAYTEX
DIALKYL* DIMETHYL AMMONIUM BENTONITE *(A
46.8
22.3
22.7
56.0
32.6
32.6
56.0
44.9
38.5
F-9
-------
APPENDIX G
Use and Interpretation of the Estimates of Relative Standard Error
-------
The estimated precision of each of the usage totals presented in this
report is given in terms of the relative standard error (RSE) of the total,
RSE = - * - x 100 (*)
T
where
A
T = the weighted estimate of the total amount of active ingredient (s ),
* A.
S? = the estimated variance of T, and
T
A
S? = the variance of T (see Technical Volume II, Chapter 5).
T
In the absence of nonsampling errors , T and S2 are unbiased estimates of
T
their associated population parameters. That is, in repeated samples
their average (i.e., expected) values are T and SS, respectively. Moreover,
T
under certain regularity conditions
^ s*. A A.
(T - 2 S. , T + 2 S~)
T T
would constitute an approximate 95 percent confidence interval for T. That
is, in repeated samples if one were to compute such an interval then on
average (i.e., in expectation) 95 percent of such intervals would contain
the true (but unknown) parameter value T. As such, readers wishing to lend
this interpretation to the precision reported in
^
preceding Appendices must first solve (*) for S~
T
e T RSE
i.e., S* = -
T 100
and proceed to form the desired confidence interval in the indicated manner.
A
In the presence of nonsampling errors, T is not necessarily an un-
biased estimator of T. Specifically, in repeated samples, T on average
-------
exceeds T by some amount, say B~, which is referred to as the expected bias.
T
As discussed in Section 3.2, this potential bias is attributable to three
main sources: nonresponse, quality of reported pesticide usage amounts,
and analytic errors (including conversion of formulated product amounts to
amounts a. i. via linking to a (possibly) generic registration number).
Unfortunately, B~ is nonestimable from the reported data and associated
T
survey design, a feature common to most (if not all) large survey efforts
involving human populations in which participation is required to be on a
voluntary basis. At a national level, T might be known (or at least well
approximated) by industry data on manufactured amounts of an active ingred-
ient in previous years. In such cases, overall bias for such chemicals
could be approximated and an assessment made of it's significance. Such
external data is generally not available for assessing regional and/or
industry sector biases. More importantly, chemicals are not often used
only by the industry under study, thus precluding any informed assessment
of the industry-specific bias (i.e., apart from knowledge of the industry
estimate not exceeding the "known" total across all industries). This
reality is particularly important in NUPAS where no survey of its kind has
been previously attempted. As such, apart from industry-specific chemicals
(e.g., chlordane), perceptions as to the magnitude of B~ must be predicated
T
on the thoroughness of the procedures employed, the number and nature of
the responding firms (i.e., a large and diverse sample), and the knowledge
that respondents were intended to be prime users of the resulting database
as such should have been motivated to provide quality data. In more finite
terms, any biases present in NUPAS estimates must be evaluated relative to
the state of knowledge prior to the study. Viewed in this manner, NUPAS
has undoubtedly reduced the biases significantly and will result in better
-------
business and regulator decisions being made. Finally, it should be
recognized that nonsampling error affects precision both in expectation and
its sample-based estimate. Specifically, in repeated samples the average
^
(i.e., expected) squared difference between T and T, hereafter referred to
as the mean squared error, can be expressed as
^ ^
MSE (T) = Var(T) + B? (**)
T
where
Var(T) = MSEE(^(T)
In this notation, S- is not an unbiased estimate of Var(T) since the latter
T
is the combined effect of both sampling and nonsampling errors. If non-
sampling errors were independent of this sampling counterpart
^
Var(T) = SS + MS
T T
where
M? = nonsampling error variance
T
^
Unfortunately, in the presence of nonsampling error bias, S? is no longer ever
T
an unbiased estimator of S%. It is unclear, therefore, how to compare
T
/\
S2
T
RSE = - - - x 100
T
with the preferred (but unavailable) estimate
T - BT(T)
The relative standard errors cannot with total impunity be claimed to
-------
be consistently too high nor too low. If, however, bias is dominated by
random measurement error (i.e., M? » B~) then the relative standard errors
T T
would be uniformly conservative (i.e., too small). Subjectively, random
measurement error in NUPAS is conjectured to equal or exceed sampling error
so that even if bias were negligible, the relative standard error could be
understated by a factor of at least 1.4 (i.e., square root of 2). Future
studies would presumably attempt to reduce remaining uncertainties but it
is again emphasized that NUPAS has made major advances in improving what
otherwise was (and would still be) the accuracy of usage estimates.
------- |