RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
RTI/5100/17-03F
March 1992
NATIONAL HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDE USE SURVEY
FINAL REPORT
Executive Summary
Prepared by:
Roy W. Whltmore
Janice E. Kelly
Pamela L Reading
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Biological and Economic Analysis Branch
Contract No. 68-WO-0032
RTI Work Assignment Leader:
Roy W. Whttmore
EPA Work Assignment Manager:
Edward Brandt
POST OFFICE BOX 121 94 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27709-21 94
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Background
In March 1988, the EPA contracted Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to
design the National Home and Garden Pesticide Use Survey (NHGPUS). After
designing the survey and obtaining approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), field data collection was conducted during August and September
1990. The study was designed as a national, probability-based sample of
households with Interviews conducted In person at the sample residences.
Prior to the current survey, the last national survey of household pesticide
use was conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1n
1976-77.
The Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) performs risk/benefit
analyses for home and garden pesticide registrations that will be better
Informed using the survey data. Survey data on frequency of use and safety
precautions will be used 1n risk assessments. Data on pests and sites
treated and on consumer satisfaction will be used 1n benefit analyses.
Information regarding child resistant packaging (CRP), disposal methods, and
commercial pesticide treatments will help guide Agency policy 1n these areas.
1.2 Study Objectives and Target Population
The NHGPUS 1s a one-time, cross-sectional survey of the use of pesticides
1n and around homes 1n the United States. The dwellings 1n the target
population are the housing units1 1n the 48 coterminous States and the
District of Columbia that are occupied as primary residences, excluding
Institutions, group quarters, military reservations, and Indian
Reservations. Questions regarding pesticide use 1n and around the home would
not be well-defined for people living 1n Institutions or group
A housing unit, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Is a room
or groups of rooms occupied or Intended for occupancy as a separate
living quarters 1n which the occupants (1) live and eat separately from
any other persons In the building and (2) have direct access from the
outside of the building or through a common hall.
A person's primary residence Is defined as the home where the person
lives for half the year or more.
A group quarters, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Is a
housing unit occupied by 10 or more unrelated family units, counting
sets of related people as family units.
1
-------
quarters. Indian reservations and military reservations are excluded from the
NHGPUS primarily because pesticide applications in these places are likely to
be atypical of the remainder of the U.S. household population. The States of
Alaska and Hawaii were excluded for the same reason and to control the costs
of field data collection.
The following types of data were collected by the NHGPUS regarding use of
pesticides by the households In the target population: 4
1. which pesticides were used;
2. what they were used for;
3. how often they were used;
4. how they were applied, Including safety precautions;
5. how unused portions were stored and/or disposed of;
6. how product containers were disposed of;
7. how child resistant packaging was used;
8. how effective the pesticides were judged to be; and
9. which pests were major problems (either treated or untreated).
Most data were collected for the 12—month reference period ending on the
date of the Interview. However, the data for specific pesticides were
limited to those In storage at the residences at the time of the Interview.
Because pesticides tend to be used more In the summer than during the
winter, data collection was performed late In the summer (August and
September 1990) to temper the effects of these limitations.
The NHGPUS was not designed to collect quantitative usage data (I.e.,
estimates of aggregate quantities of pesticides actually used for a
specific purpose over a period of time). However, the frequency of
application data collected In the NHGPUS are helpful for preparing
quantitative usage estimates because quantitative usage can be derived from
frequency, extent, and rate of application. Moreover, the Agency has
access to quantitative data from commercial subscriptions and from
production reports submitted to EPA under the reporting requirements of
Section 7 Of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentlcide Act (FIFRA).
1.3 Summary Description of the Sampling Design
The sampling design for the I’IHGPUS can be summarily described as a
stratified, three—stage probability sampling design. The areas selected at
Pesticides that were used solely for crops or livestock grown for sale
were excluded from consideration.
2
-------
the first two stages of sampling were selected with probabilities
proportional to estimates of the numbers of housing units currently in
these areas. This strategy achieved approximately equal overall
probabilities of selection with approximately equal Interviewer assignments
within each sample county.
Fifty—eight sample counties located In 29 different States were
selected at the first stage of sampling. The locations of the 58 sample
counties are shaded on a map of the United States In Figure 1.1.
Approximately five subcounty areas defined by Census blocks and enumeration
districts were selected at the second stage of sampling within each sample
county for a total of 298 sampled subcounty areas, called sample segments.
A list of current housing units was then prepared for each segment, from
which the third-stage sample of housing units was selected.
A sample of 2,674 housing units was selected, of which 2,447 housIng
units were eligible for the NHGPUS (i.e., occupied primary residences). Of
these 2,447 eligIble households, 2,078 particIpated in the survey for a
response rate of 84.9 percent (2,078/2,447). Because of the high response
rate, the potential for nonresponse bias affecting the survey statistics Is
low.
The NHGPUS was designed to provide defensible national inferences, not
regional inferences. Regional inferences would require a much larger
sample. A sample of approximately 30 or more counties per region would be
necessary. Because the NHGPUS is based on a sample of 60 counties, no more
than limited inferences for two regions that each contain approximately 30
counties are supported. Limited regional analyses were performed by
combining the Northeast and North Central Census Regions and comparing them
to the combined South and West Regions.
1.4 Overview of Results
1.4.1 Population Characteristics
The estimated breakdown of the NHGPUS target population by selected
household characteristics is presented in Table 1.1. The statistics
presented in Table 1.1 are relative frequencies of occurrence for urban
versus rural households, 5 single- versus multi-family households, and
based on interviewer observation.
3
-------
£
Figure 1. NHGPUS Sample Counties
-------
Table 1.1 Selected Characteristics of Households in the
Target Population
Population
Estimated
Thousands
Estimated
Percentage
Characteristic
of Households
of All Households
All Households 84,573 100.00
Urbani zationa
Urban 70,468 83.32
Rural 14,105 16.68
Type of Dwelling
Single—Family 63,335 74.89
Multi—Family 21,237 25.11
Have private lawn
Yes 66,828 79.02
No 17,744 20.98
Have private swimming pool
Yes 5,978 7.07
No’ 78,595 92.93
Have hot tub
Yes 2,500 2.96
No 82,073 97.04
Grew edible frBit/nut trees
or grape vines
Yes 18,421 21.78
No 66,151 78.22
Grew tomatoes, vegetables, b
berries, or melons in past year
Yes 23,180 27.41
No 61,392 72.59
Grew roses In the past yearb
Yes 27,150 32.10
No 57,423 67.90
aThe interviewers were Instructed to classify each residence as located
in either an urban area or a rural area in their best judgement so that
homes in suburban neighborhoods located adjacent to rural farmland would
be coded as urban, while farm homes would be coded as rural.
bExciuding any grown for sale.
5
-------
potential pesticide application sites, such as lawns, swimming pools, fruit
trees, vegetable gardens, and roses.
1.4.2 Storage of Pesticide Products
One task of the NHGPUS data collection was to construct an inventory of
all the pesticide products In storage at each sample residence, excluding
plant growth regulators, pool chemicals, anti-fouling paints, and products
used exclusively for agricultural production. The types of pesticide
products inventoried include disinfectants, fungicides, Insecticides,
molluscicides, rodenticides, herbicides, and repellents. The total number
of pesticide products identified and inventoried in storage at the 2,078
participating residences was 7,945. The estimated total number of
pesticide products In storage at residences in the target population at the
time of the IIHGPUS survey (August and September 1990) is approximately
324,538,000 with a standard error of 22,213,000. Thus, a 95 percent
confidence Interval estimate of the number of pesticide products In storage
at residences In the target population at that time Is 280,102,000 to
368,954,000. Likewise, a 95 percent confidence interval estimate of the
mean number of products that were In storage at residences In the target
population is 3.34 to 4.34, or 3.84 ± 0.50.
The estimated distribution of the number of products In storage at
residences In the target population at the time of the survey (August and
September 1990) Is shown in Table 1.2 for single-family and multi-family
residences. 6 The estimated percentage of residences that had at least one
pesticide product in storage is 90 percent for single-family residences,
which is significantly greater than the estimated 70 percent for multi-
family residences. About 85 percent of all households had at least one
pesticide product in storage at the time of the survey. Most households
(about 63 percent) had one to five products in storage. About 22 percent
had more than five products In storage.
The estimated number of products in storage at the time of the survey
is presented for each type of pesticide product in Table 1.3 by when the
product was last used. About 5 to 10 percent of each type of pesticide
product (disinfectants through repellents) that was found in storage had
not been used yet. With the exception of disinfectants, about 15 to 30
6 A product found at more than one residence is counted once for
each residence.
6
-------
Table 1.2 Household Distribution of the Number of Products in Storage
by Type of Dwelling
Single—
Family
Multi—
Family
TOTAL
Number of
Products
Estimated
Thousands
of HH
Estimated
Percentage
of HH
Estimated
Thousands
of RH
Estimated
Percentage
of HH
Estimated
Thousands
of HH
Estimated
Percentage
of HH
TOTAL
63,335
100.00
21,237
100.00
84,574
100.00
0
6,364
10.05
6,454
30.38
12,818
15.16
1-5
39,613
62.55
13,765
64.80
53,378
63.12
6-10
11,148
17.60
700
3.29
11,848
14.01
>10
6,207
9.80
323
1.52
6,530
7.72
Abbreviations: HH = Households.
7
-------
Table 1.3 Number of Products in Storage by Type of Pesticide and When last Useda
Not
Used Yet
Used in
Past Year
Used Over
1 Year Ago
TOTAL
Estimated
Thousands
of Prod.c
Estimated
Percentage
of Prod.
Estimated
Thousands
of Prod.b
Estimated
Percentage
of Prod.
Type of
Pesticide
Estimated
Thousands
of Prod.b
Estimated
Percentage
of Prod.
Estimated
Thousands
of Prod.b
Estimated
Percentage
of Prod.
ALL TYPES OF
PESTICIDES
23,153
7.13
227,767
70.18
73,619
22.68
324,538
100.00
Disinfectant
3,515
4.55
69,898
90.40
3,907
5.05
76,888
100.00
Fungicide
3,144
4.60
54,024
79.00
11,216
16.40
68,190
100.00
Insecticide
14,301
8.09
114,556
64.82
47,864
27.08
176,454
100.00
Molluscicide
250
4.42
3,995
70.69
1,407
24.89
5,551
100.00
Rodenticide
328
7.01
3,499
74.73
855
18.25
4,829
100.00
Herbicide
3,255
9.90
19,447
59.12
10,191
30.98
32,984
100.00
Repellent
1,838
5.78
21,357
67.19
8,592
27.03
32,260
100.00
Abbreviations: Prod. = Products.
aFor pesticide products (excluding those used exclusively for agricultural production, plant growth regulators, pool
chemicals, and anti-fouling paints) in storage at residences in the target population at the time of the survey
(Aug-Sept 1990).
bA individual pesticide product can be of more than one type (e.g., insecticide and fungicide). Therefore, the
estimates for the individual types of pesticides sum to more than the total for all types of pesticides within a
column.
cThe estimated totals are not identical to the sum of the columns. The totals were estimated separately and are more
reliable than the sum of the columns.
-------
percent of the pesticide products of each type had last been used over a
year ago. Only about 5 percent of the disinfectants in storage had last
been used over a year ago.
Table 1.4 presents the estimated distribution of the number of
pesticide products in storage at the time of the survey by size of
container and length of time In storage. The length of time In storage was
found to decrease with Increasing size of container. This pattern of
storage was observed consistently for all types of pesticide product
containers except bait boxes, which are seldom found in large containers.
host pesticide products have labels that ask the users to keep the
products out of the reach of children. Products found In storage at sample
residences were classified as being stored “securely” if they were:
1. stored in a locked or childproof room or cabinet, or
2. stored more than 4 feet off the floor (i.e., out-of-reach for
small children).
Otherwise 1 when the products were:
1. stored no more than 4 feet off the floor, and
2. not stored in a locked or childproof room or cabinet,
they were classified as being stored finsecurely.N Tables 1.5 and 1.6
present estimates of the conditional percentages of households that had
each type of pesticide stored 9nsecurely,N given that the household had at
least one product of the given type in storage. Table 1.5 presents the
results for households with children under 5 years of age (a cut—off for
regulations regarding CRP), and Table 1.6 presents the results for all
other households.
Table 1.6 shows that approxImately 75 percent of households that had no
children under 5 years of age and had pesticides in storage had at least
one stored The corresponding estimate from Table 1.5 for
households with children under 5 years of age is about 47 percent, which is
significantly less. For each type of pesticide, except rodenticides , the
estimated percentage of households with the pesticide in storage that had
at least one stored “insecurely Is less for households with children under
5 years of age. For rodenticides, there is no significant difference
because of the small numbers of rodenticide products in storage.
Therefore, the overall Impression is that households with small children
9
-------
Table 1.4 Percentage of Products in Storgge by
Size of Container and Time in Storage
Size of b
Container
Months
in Storage
TOTAL
>24
Products
(6 6-12
Estimated
13-24
Percentage
of
All Sizes of
Containers
42.58 19.74
14.95
22.74 100.00
4 Ounces
40.65 18.82
12.62
27.90 100.00
4 < Ounces
8
32.95 20.25
15.04
31.77 100.00
8 < Ounces
16
37.93 20.72
16.92
24.44 100.00
16 ( Ounces 32
47.61 19.14
15.18
18.07 100.00
32 < Ounces 128
58.19 16.75
9.73
15.32 100.00
> 128 Ounces
55.66 20.05
12.47
11.82 100.00
a For pesticide products (excluding those used exclusively for agricultural
production, plant growth regulators, pooi chemicals, and anti-fouling
paints) in storage at residences in the target population at the time of
the survey (Aug-Sept 1990).
b The number of ounces can be considered either ounces by weight
(avoirdupois ounces) or ounces by volume (fluid ounces) assuming an
equivalency rate of 8 pounds per gallon.
10
-------
Table 1.5 Number of Households with at least One Pesticide Product
Stored Insecurely by Type of Pesticide for ouseholds with
Children under 5 Years of Age
Type of
Pesticide
At least One
Stored Insecurely
None Stored
Insecurely
TOTAL
Estimated
Thousands
of HH
Estimated b
Percentage
of HH
Estimated
Thousands
of HH
Estimated b Estimated
Percentage Thousands
of HH of HH
Estimated
Percentage
of HH
b
All types of
Pesticides
61 O 78
46.88
6 887 C
53.12
121965 C
100.00
Disinfectant
3,481
41.61
4,885
58.39
8,366
100.00
Fungicide
2,831
38.12
4,594
61.88
7,425
100.00
InsecticIde
Molluscicide
3.749
43 d
36.04
645 d
6,655
617
63.96
93.55
10,404
660
100.00
100.00
Rodenticide
319 d
40.65
466
59.35
786
100.00
Herbicide
617
21.18
2,295
78.82
2,912
100.00
Repellent
1,261
24.30
3,928
75.70
5,189
100.00
Abbreviations: HH Households.
aFor pesticide products (excluding those used exclusively for agricultural
production, plant growth regulators, pooi chemicals, and anti-fouling paints)
in storage at residences in the target population at the time of
the survey (Aug-Sept 1990).
bConditional percentage, given that at least one product of the designated type
was in storage.
cAfl Individual pesticide product can be of more than one type (e.g., Insecticide
and fungicide). Therefore, the estimates for the individual types of
pesticides sum to more than the total for all types of pesticides.
dEstimate has poor precision because of the small number of observations in this
cell.
11
-------
Table 1.6 Number of Households with at least One Pesticide Product
Stored Insecurely by Type of Pesticide for Households with
No Children under 5 Years of Age
Type of
Pesticide
At least One
Stored Insecurely
None Stored
Insecurely
TOTAL
Estimated
Thousands
of HH
Estimated b
Percentage
of HH
Estimated
Thousands
of HH
Estimated b Estimated
Percentage Thousands
of HH of HH
Estimated
Percentage
of HH
b
All types of
Pesticides
43 , 909 C
74.69
141881 C
25.31
581790 C
100.00
Disinfectant
26,149
77.35
7,658
22.65
33,806
100.00
Fungicide
21,461
67.55
10,310
32.45
31,771
100.00
InsecticIde
28,934
61.57
18,062
38.43
46,996
100.00
Mollusclcide
1,427
34.89
2,663
65.11
4,090
100.00
Rodentlcide
791
21.20
2,942
78.80
3,734
100.00
Herbicide
5,006
34.77
9,390
65.23
14,396
100.00
Repellent
8,462
48.10
9,130
51.90
17,591
100.00
Abbreviations: HH = Households.
aFor pesticide products (excluding those used exclusively for agricultural
production, plant growth regulators, pool chemicals, and anti-fouling paints)
In storage at residences In the target population at the time of the survey
(Aug-Sept 1990).
bCondItlonal percentage, given that at least one product of the designated type
was in storage.
CAn individual pesticide product can be of more than one type (e.g., Insecticide
and fungicide). Therefore, the estimates for the Individual types of
pesticides sum to more than the total for all types of pesticides.
12
-------
are less likely to have pesticide products stored within their reach. Of
course, children can be exposed to pesticides at homes other than their own
(e.g., at homes of friends or relatives).
1.4.3 Difficulty Opening Containers
The NHGPUS questionnaire asked if any of the users of pesticide
products had difficulty opening the container. If so, the ages of the
users who had difficulty opening the package were determined. Table 1.7
shows that approximately 10.5 percent of pesticide product users reported
difficulty opening CRP pesticide containers, which was significantly
greater than the estimated 1.5 percent for non-CRP pesticide containers.
The data suggest that the percentage of users aged 75 or older who have
difficulty opening CRP pesticide containers (18 percent) is greater than
the percentage for other age groups, but this difference is not
statistically significant. The data also suggest that the percentage of
users aged 75 or older (5 percent) who have difficulty opening non-CRP
pesticide containers is greater than the percentage for other age groups,
but again this difference is not statistically significant.
1.4.4 Disposal of Pesticides
Households participating in the NHGPLJS were asked about their disposal,
if any, of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, or empty containers
thereof during the past year. Table 1.8 shows that approximately 62
percent of households (about 52 million) disposed of at least one empty
ready-to—use container of insecticide, fungicide, or herbicide in the past
year, and that approximately 23 percent (about 19 mIllion) disposed of an
empty concentrate container. Much smaller percentages of households (under
10 percent) disposed of leftover insecticides, fungicides, or herbicides
(concentrate, diluted, or ready-to-use).
Among the households that disposed of leftover concentrates of
insecticide, fungicide, or herbicide in the past year, approximately 13
percent took the leftover chemicals to special collection sites and 67
percent disposed of the concentrates in their regular household trash. For
disposing of empty containers (either for concentrated or ready-to-use
products), only about 2 to 3 percent of households took them to a special
collection site. However, because many more households disposed of empty
containers than disposed of leftover pesticides, the overall percentage of
13
-------
Table 1.7 DIfficulty in Opening Child Rqlstant Packaging
by Age of Household User
Products In
CRP Containers
Produ
non—CRP
cts in
Containers
All
Products
Age
Group
Estimated Estimated
Thousands Percentage
of Users of usersb
Estimated
Thousands
of Users
Estimated
Percentage
of Usersc
Estimated
Thousands
of Users
Estimated
Percentage
of Users
All Ages
5478 e 10.48
3 , 768 e
1.68
9 , 246 e
18—44
2,722 11.04
1,515
1.32
4,237
3.03
45-59
1,206 8.74
742
1.63
1,949
3.28
60-74
905 8.95
843
2.44
1,749
3.92
75 or Older 391 18.02
582
4.97
974
7.01
aFor pesticide products (excluding these used exclusively for agricultural
production, plant growth regulators, pool chemicals, and anti-fouling
paints) In storage at residences in the target population at the time of
the survey (Aug-Sept 1990) that were used In the past year.
of users of pesticide products In CRP containers who have
difficulty opening the container.
cpercentage of users of pesticide products in non-CRP containers who have
difficulty opening the container.
dpercentage of users of pesticide products who have difficulty opening the
container (either CRP or non-CRP).
eThe total across all age groups includes some users under 18 years of age
and, hence, exceeds the sum of the other rows.
14
-------
Table 1.8 Percentage of Households Using Specified Disposal Methods
In the Past Year for Insecticides, Herbicides, or Fungicides
Households Disposing
of Pesticides
Type of Estimated Estimated
Item Thousands Percentage
Disposed of HH of All HH
Disposal Method Used
Special Special Other
Regular Home Collection Disposal
Trash Collection Site aMeth0
Estimated Percentage of NH
Concentrated 1,458 1.72
Pesticide
Diluted from 3,194 3.78
Concentrate
Ready-to—Use 6,414 7.58
Product
Empty Concentrate 19,240 22.75
Container
Empty Ready-to-Use 52,368 61.92
Container
66.53 2 • 69 b 12.96 20.51
28.83 2 • 47 b 68.69
86.36 1 • 29 b 6.16 6.88
91.90 2.95 2.91 3.58
95.15 1.46 2.36 2.33
Abbreviations: HH = Households.
aConditlonal percentages, given disposal. Percentages may add to more than 100 percent
because a household may have used multiple disposal methods In the past year.
bEstimate has poor precision because of the small number of observations in this
cell.
CNone observed In the survey.
15
-------
households that took empty pesticide containers to special collection
sites, about 1 percent, was greater than the percentage of households that
took leftover pesticides, less than 0.5 percent, to those sites.
In response to a separate, but related question, the survey also
determined that about 6 percent of all households in the survey population
had pesticides in storage at the time of the survey (August and September
1990) that they had not disposed of because they did not know how to do so
safely. Many households have products in storage for registrations that
have been cancelled by the Agency. For example, approximately one million
households (1.4 percent) still have products containing chlordane; about
150,000 (0.2 percent) have products containing DDT; around 70,000 (0.1
percent) have heptachior; and about 85,000 (0.1 percent) have silvex.
1.4.5 Severity of Pest Problems
Each household that participated in the NHGPUS was asked to identify:
(a) all types of pests that had been treated by a household member in the
past year; and (b) all types of pests that had been a major problem (in the
respondent’s opinion) in the past year, whether or not the pest had been
treated. Table 1.9 presents the estimated percentage of households that
had a major problem with each pest in the past year and the estimated
percentage of households that treated each type of pest. In addition, the
four sites of application that were reported most frequently (for household
treatment) are presented for each pest.
The two types of pests most frequently reported to be a major problem
are household nuisance pests, ants, and cockroaches. The next two pests
most frequently reported to be a major problem are pests that directly
attack people and pets, namely mosquitoes and fleas. The estimated
percentage of households that had a major problem with fire ants in the
past year, about 6 percent, Is quite high considering that fire ants only
inhabit certain regions of the U.S. Pests that Inhibit the growth of
ornamental plants, gardens, and lawns (plant-sucking and —chewing Insects
plus related pests and weeds) were less frequently reported to be a major
problem.
The pest category treated by the highest percentage Of households,
nearly 50 percent, is umlldew, mold, bacteria, or vlrus, even though this
16
-------
Table 1.9 Households Reporting Major Pest Problems or Problems Treated by a Household Member
Households
Major
Estimated
Thousands
Pest Problem of HH
Reporting
Problem
Households
Treated
Reporting
Problem
Most
(in
Frequently Treated
order of treatment
Sitesa
frequency)
Estimated
Thousands
of HH
Estimated
Percentage
of All HH
Estimated
Percentage
of All HR
MICROORGANISMS
Mildew, Mold, Bacteria 1 Virus 2,486 2.94 40,361 47.72 Bathroom; Kitchen; Living area; Fabric
Plant Diseases 1,826 2.16 8,356 9.88 Roses; OrnamentalsC; Lawn; Gardend
INSECTS AND RELATED PESTS
Afltsb 10,830 12.81 30,443 36.00 Kitchen; OOAe; Bathroom; OlAf
Mosquitoes 6,884 8.14 24,056 28.44 Person; ooAe; Living area; Kitchen
Cockroaches 8,320 9.84 20,687 24.46 Kitchen; Bathroom; Living area; OlAf
Fleas 6,482 7.66 20,107 23.77 Cat dog or kennel; Living area; Kitchen;
Batfiroom
Flies, Gnats, RIdges 4,961 5.87 17,448 20.63 Person; Kitchen; ooAe; Living area
Bees, Hornets, Wasps 4,995 5.91 15,611 18.46 ooAe; OlAf; Detached structures; Living
area
Spiders, Crickets, Pilibugs, 5,105 6.04 13,177 15.58 OOAe; OlAf; Kitchen; Living area
mill/Centipedes
Plant-Chewing Insects 3,468 4.10 11,858 14.02 OrnamentalsC; Gardend; Roses; lawn
Plant-Sucking Insects and Mites 2,994 3.54 11.730 13.87 Ornamentalsc; Roses; Gardend; Lawn
Ticks, Chiggers 1,659 1.96 9,542 11.28 Cat, dog or kenne1; Person; Lawn; OOAe
Fire Ants 4,966 5.87 7,907 9.35 Lawn; ooAe; Kitchen; OlAf
Mice, Rats 2,571 3.04 7,388 8.74 Kitchen; OlAf; Bathroom; Living area
Slugs, Snails 2,076 2.45 5,100 6.03 Ornamentalsc; lawn; ooAe; Gardend
(continued)
-------
Table 1.9 Households Reporting Major Pest Problems or Problems Treated by a Household Member (cont.)
Pest Problem
Households
Major
Estimated
Reporting
Problem
Estimated
Households
Treated
Reporting
Problem
Most Frequently Treated Sitesa
(in order of treatment frequency)
Estimated
Thousands
of HH
Estimated
Percentage
of All HR
Thousands
of RH
Percentage
of All RH
PLANTS
Broadleaf Weeds
3,692
4.37
12,345
14.60
Lawn; ooAe;
OrnamentalsC; Gardend
Grass-Like Weeds
3,158
3.73
11,707
13.84
Lawn; ooAe;
OrnamentalsC; Roses
Abbreviations: HH — Households.
a”Treated” or “not treated” refers to treatment by a household member; thus, pests treated only by a pest control service are
reported as “not treated” in this table.
bE Cl ding fire ants, carpenter ants, and termites.
CRoses are the only ornamental identif led separately.
CO dFood crops such as tomatoes and vegetables (excluding fruit or nut trees and grapes).
eOther Outside Area (such as walls, driveway, patio, deck, fences, or roof, including air treated by fogging).
fOther Inside Area (such as attached garage, attic, basement, crawispace, attached utility room or workshop, etc.).
-------
pest was not often reported to be a major problem. 7 The top five Insect
pests In terms of the estimated percentage of households treating the pest
In the past year are: ants; mosquitoes; cockroaches; fleas; and flies,
gnats, or midges. The sites most frequently treated for these pests were
kitchen, person, or pet. For other pests, other outside areas, Including
lawns and ornamental plants, were often reported as the sites treated.
1.4.6 Consumer Satisfaction
For each pesticide product in storage that had been used in the past
year, the NHGPUS questionnaire determined if the household users were
satisfied with Its effectiveness. For each pest, Table 1.10 presents the
number of pesticide products for which the household was not satisfied with
the effectiveness of the product as a percentage of all products used to
treat the pest. The percentage of products with which the household was
not satisfied was significantly greater than the overall average of 8
percent for two pests:
1. mammals other than mice, rats, or bats (36 percent) and
2. fleas (14.5 percent).
The “other manvnalssl category includes squirrels, moles, skunks, prairie
dogs, woodchucks, and rabbits, plus cats and dogs for repellent products.
Other pests for which elevated levels of dissatisfaction with the pesticide
products were recorded include:
1. mice or rats (14.5 percent),
2. broadleaf weeds (13 percent),
3. grass—like weeds (11.5 percent),
4. ticks or chiggers (11 percent), and
5. soil-dwellIng insects or nematodes (11 percent).
Household dissatisfaction with pesticide products could be the result of
poor product efficacy or a number of other factors, including improper
applications, not treating as frequently or extensively as recommended, or
poor sanitation.
1.4.7 Use of Pest Control Services
Each household that participated in the NHGPUS was asked about their
use of a commercial lawn care company or a pest control service for
Some household cleaning products that are labeled for treating these
pests were reportedly used just for cleaning and are not included in
this estimate.
7
19
-------
Table 1.10 Number of Pesticide Products for Which Households Ware Not
Satisfied with Their Performance by Type of Pest Treated
Pest Treated
Estimated Thousands
of Products
Not Efficacious
Estimated Percentage
of Products b
Not Efficaceous
All Pests
25,033
8.17
Plant Diseases
593
8.99
Cockroaches
1,550
7.96
Fire Ants
579
8.67
Other Ants
2,425
8.21
Bees, Hornets, Wasps
913
7.77
Mosquitoes
1,586
7.41
Flies, Gnats, Midges
1,603
9.13
Fleas
3,453
14.51
Ticks, Chiggers
1,289
11.09
Spiders, Crickets, Plilbu
gs, 986
8.27
Millipedes, Centipedes
Soil—Dwelling Insects, Nematodes 395
Plant—Chewing Insects 1,032
Plant—Sucking Insects and Mites 1,082
10.73
7.59
7.70
Grass—Like Weeds
1,213
11.52
Broadleaf Weeds
1,654
13.21
Mice, Rats
384 c
Other Mammal 5 d
426
35.59
aFor pesticide products (excluding those used exclusively for agricultural
production, plant growth regulators, pooi chemicals, and anti-fouling paints)
in storage at residences in the target population at the time of the survey
(Aug—Sept 1990) that were used in the past year. Moreover, this analysis
assumes that the product satisfaction reported in response to Question 32 is
applicable to all the pests reported in response to Question 28a.
bCondltional percentage of products used to treat the pest specified.
CEstimate has poor precision because of the small number of observations In this
cell.
dSuCh as squirrels, moles, skunks, prairie dogs, woodchucks, and rabbits, plus
cats and dogs for repellent products.
20
-------
treatment of fleas, roaches, or ants in the home. About 15 percent of the
66.8 million households that have a private lawn (about 10 millIon
households) had pesticides applied in the past year by someone other than a
member of the household, usually by a commercial lawn care company. Also,
about 20 percent of all households (about 16 million) had their homes
commercially treated for indoor pests, such as cockroaches, ants, or fleas.
Estimates of the percentages of the households utilizing these services
that received written notification of the chemicals used and safety
precautions to be taken are presented In Table 1.11. The estimates
indicate that the proportion of households receiving written notification
is higher for commercial lawn-care companies than for pest control
companies.
21
-------
Table 1.11 Number of Households That Used Pest Control Services and
Received Written Precautions in the Past Year
TYPE OF SERVICE
Utilization
Written Precautions
of
Estimated
Thousands
Households
Estimated
Percentage
of Households
COMMERCIAL LAWN-CARE COMPANYa
Utilized c
Informed of Chemicals Used
Informed of Safety Precautions
8,003
3,626
3,746
12.07
49.51
50.42
TREATMENT FOR FLEAS, ROACHES, ANTSb
Utilized
Informed of Chemicals Used
Informed of Safety Precautions
16,557
3,637
3,216
19.58
23.46
20.67
aThe Inference population for lawn care services Is the population of all
households with a private lawn.
bThe inference population for treatment of fleas, roaches, or ants Is the
population of all private households.
CConditional percentages, given that the service was used.
22
------- |