Toxapnene: Position Document 1
Toxaphene Working Group
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 19, 1977
iZPa/sPRI}' ffo/sT
-------
30272-1QI
REPORlr DOCUMENTATION |»- REPOIT no-
PAGE j E?A/S?RD-80/S5
2- ,
/
3. Recipient's Accession Nn.
PB 80 *16?3 2
«.*Titie and Sebt.tle
Toxaphene: Fosition Document 1
5. Report Date
It/I 9/77
6-
7. Authors)
8. Performing Organization Fleet. No
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Pro|ect/TaSk/Wofk Unit No.
Special Pesticide Review division
Environmental Projection Agency
Crystal Mali #2
Arlington, VA
11. Contract
-------
Toxaphene: Position Document 1
CONTENTS
I. Background
A. Chemical/Physical Characteristics.
B. Formulation and Class
C. Registered Oses and Production
D. Environmental Fate and Characteristics.
(1) Persistence: Soils
(2) Persistence: Water
(3) Bio accumulation.
(4) Transport .....
E. Tolerances
F. Residues
(1) FDA Commodity Survey
(2) Air Residues
(3) Water Residues
(a) Drinking Water
(b) Surface Water?,
-------
Toxaphene: Position Document 1
I• BACKGROUND
A. Chemical/Physical Characteristics
Tcxaphene (chemical name, chioriaated camphene) is a
coaplex mixture of at leasC 177 polychloriaated C^q compounds
with a& empirical formula of C^g Hjq Clg (1). It occurs as
an amber, waxy solid with a mild odor of chlorine and
camphor and is prepared by the chloriaation of camphene. It
has a. molecular weight of 414 'and a density of 1.66 at 27°C.
The melting point ranges from 65 to 90°C. It is highly
soluble in organic solvents, especially in aromatic solvents.
Its solubility in water is 0.5 parts per million
-------
; EPA records indicate that an ciggregate total of
103,000,000 lb were produced in 1974 and 116,000,000 lb in
1S75 (4) . The "national Study of Agricultural, Governmental
and Industrial Uses of Pesticides" (5) conducted by EPA's
Human Effects Monitoring 3ranch related that an estimated
74,469,332 lb of toxaphene were used in agriculture in the
Onited States during 1974. Cotton was by far the largest
single use, consuming approximately 63,960,000 lfc or 86% of
the total domestic consumption figure. Soybeans accounted
for an estimated 2,440,000 lb; wheat for 1,604,000 lb;
cattle for 1,285,000 lb; corn for 1,219,000 lb; peanuts for
1,070,000 lb; swine for 530,000 lb; tobacco for 434,000 lb;
alfalfa for 367,000 lb; tomatoes for 347,000 lb; sorghum for
254,000 lb; sunflowers for 233,000 lb; beans for 201,000 lb;
lettuce for 105,000 lb; hay (pasture & forage)- for 39,000
lb; oats for 71,000 lb; barley for 5S,000 lb; radishes for
'53,000 lb; potatoes for 33,000 lb; sheep for 24,000 lb;
green peppers for 20,0 00 lb; ornamentals for 15,000 lb;
carrots for 7,000 lb; other vegetables for 7,000 lb; onions
for 3,000 lb; eggplants for 3,000 lb; spinach for 2,000 lb;
nursey crops for 1,000 lb; and peaches for 96 lb. (A list of
sites on which toxaphene has been registered for use since
October 7, 1975, is given in Reference 6.)
The four, primary sites listed for the use of toxa-
phene are cotton, livestock, soybeans, and peanuts (6).
D. Environmental Fate and Characteristics
As stated earlier, toxaphene is a complex mixture of
compounds, and little is known of the metabolic pathways or
of the metabolites themselves. Men2ie (7) has stated that
very little information is available about the metabolism of
toxaphene. Dr. Phillip Kearney (8), Secretary to the ITJPCA
Commission on Terminal Pesticide Reviews, reported that
knowledge of toxaphene metabolism in mammals, birds, and
fish is "undoubtedlyn limited. And Sanborn et al. (9)
have stated that the environmental fate of toxaphene is very
pocrly understood. Scientific studies have been conducted,
however, that give some insight into certain of toxaphene's
characteristics (18).
(1) Persistence; Soils
Toxaphene is generally accepted as a persistent
compound in' both- soil and water. Hash and Woolson (10)
reported .that 45% of the applied toxaphene remained in
Congaree sandy loam soil after 14 years. Foster et al. (11.)
-2-
-------
indicated that repeated applications of toxaphene accumulated
in the soil and affected the growth rates of several vege-
tables and field crops. Based on analytical procedures
in use at that tine, Foster determined that 29% of the
toxaphene applied over 60 months in cold frames remained in
the soil. According to a green house test, 66% of the
total applied remained after 34 months. In the same study,
a significant reduction in the yield of turnips (a root
crop) resulted when they were planted in soil that had
been contaminated by toxaphene, even though the turnips were
never sprayed from time of planting through harvest.
LaFleur (12). concluded that some toxaphene persists beyond
the growing season, and that hazardous accumulation in soil,
water, and air is a possibility. Nash et al. (13) reported
that soils which were treated with 112 kg/hectare of toxa-
phene in 1951 contained 55.3 ppm (average of all plots
checked) in 1952, and after 20 years (1971) those same
soils still contained 24.24 ppm by soxhlet extraction,
28.08 ppm by shake extraction, and 21.61 ppm by GLC column
extraction.
(2) Persistence: Water
Although never registered as a piscicide, toxaphene
was in common use for a geriod of time to control undesir-
able fish. As a result df'this use, a number of studies
were conducted that give'some indication of the persis-
tence of toxaphene 1b surface waters. Terriere et al. (14)
reported that toxic levels remained in a lake treated with
40 ppb after S years. Johnson et al. (15) reported that
several lakes treated with 0.1 ppm of toxaphene could
not be safely restocked for approximately 4 years. And
Cohen et al. (16) reported, "From the limited experience
with the stability of toxaphene in water, it seems clear
that toxicity of toxaphene will persist...perhaps for as
long as 23 months."
(3) Bioacummulati.on
Most organochlorine compounds are persistent and
bioacummulatE!; toxaphene is no exception. Metcalf and
Sanborn (17) showed that toxaphene is highly persistent and
accumulates several thousand times in their model eco-
system. In a later study (9) they stated, "Continued
use of toxaphene..-will undoubtedly lead to greater contami-
nation of humans and foodstuff by [this] environmentally
recalcitrant pesticide...." Reimold and Durant (19) demon-
strated in a study, on toxaphene residues that water levels
-3-
-------
were undetectable on September 2, 1972, in Terry Creek, near
Brunswick, Georgia (levels less than 0.25 ppm were considered
insignificant); yet mummichogs collected the same day
contained 10.45 pom toxapfaene. On October 12, 1972, water
samples contained 0.0014 ppm; salt water marsh grass contain-
ed 3.9 3 ppm; oysters contained 1.19 ppm; shrimp contained-
2.88 ppm; and mummichogs contained 131-.14 ppm. Herring and
Cotton (20) reported that a lake in Mississippi had water
residue levels of toxaphene of 1.92 ?pb; sediments had 0.946
ppm, and bluegill sunfish had 20.0 ppm in the body and 35.7
ppm in the head and viscera. Schimmel et al. (21) report-
ed that longnose killifish were exposed to toxaphene for 28
days. Resulting concentration factors were 13,300 to 33,000
in embryo/fry; 19,300 to 32,200 in advanced fry; 23,700 to
60,000 in' juveniles; and 4,200 to 5,300 in adults. (Adults
were exposed for only 14 days.)
In a study on channel catfish, Merhle and Mayer
(22) learned that catfish fry bicaccuiaulated or concentrated
the levels of toxaphene 40,000 to 91,000 times that found in
water. Adult channel catfish accumulated about 54,0 00 times ¦
the lowest test level and 20,000 times the highest concentration,
used. - .
(4) Transport r •
Although toxaphene has been shown to persist in
soils, it can -also be readily transported from the site of
application. Bradley et al. (23) reported that sufficient
toxaphene was washed from a treated cotton plot into an
adjoining pond to raise the detectable level of <1.0 ppb to
a high of 65.2 ppb. Of 11 different calendar dates (from
July 8, 1969, through October 3, 1969) when water residues
were checked, all but one date showed levels of toxaphene in
the pond equal to or exceeding the 96-hour .median tolerance
limit for bluegiils. Bidleman and Olney (24) ran a study to
see whether or not long range transport of toxaphene by
volatilization was possible. By collecting air samples fros
a location in Bermuda and from a cruising ship, they learned
that levels of toxaphene in the marine atmosphere of the
western North Atlantic were equal to, and in some instances
twice, those of PCB's and acre than 10 times higher than
those of other pesticides reported to that date in the same
general location. Levels ranged from 0.4 to 1.6 nanograms
per cubic meter.
-4_
-------
E. Tolerances
Although tolerances have been granted which allow the
use of toxaphene on various food and feed stocks, no
acceptable daily intake has been set. Dr. Vettorazzi
(25) reported the following when the FAO/WHQ study group
addressed problems with the pesticide toxaphene:
Further work deemed to be necessary before an
A.D.I, (acceptable-daily intake) for man can be
established comprises adequate toxicological
information on campheclor (toxaphene* as currently
marketed, including carcinogenicity studies and
comparative studies evaluating the toxicological
hazards associated with polychlcrinated castphene
of different manufacturers used in worldwide
agriculture.
As of July 1, 1976, the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR 40, Section 180.138) reported the following tolerances
in-effect for toxaphene- residues in or on raw agricultural
commodities: 7 ppm in or-on applvs, apricots, beans,
blackberries, bovsenber£ies, broccoli,"brussel sprouts,
cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, celery, citrus fruits,
collards, corn, cranberries, cucumbers, dewberries, egg-
plants; fat of meat from cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and
sheep; hazelnuts, hickory nuts, horseradish, kale, kohlrabi,
lettuce, loganberries, nectarines, okra, onions, parsnips,
peaches, peanuts, pears, peas, pecans, peppers, pimentos,
quinces, radishes (with or without tops) or radish tops,
raspberries, rutabagas, spinach, strawberries, tomatoes,
walnuts, young berries; 5 ppm in or on barley, oats, rice,
rye, sorghum grain, wheat; 5 ppm, calculated as a chlorinated
terpene of molecular weight 396.6 containing 57% chlorine,
in or an cottonseed; 3.5 ppm combined residues of UDT and
toxaphene in or on soybeans (dry form), of which residues
DDT shall not exceed 1.5 ppm and toxaphene shall not exceed
2 ppm; 3 ppm in or on bananas (of which residue not more
than 0.3 ppm shall be in the pulp after the peel is removed
and discarded) and pineapples; 2.0 ppm in or on soybeans
(dry form)? and 0.1 ppm in or on sunflower seeds.
-5-
-------
F. Residues
(1) FDA Commodity Survey
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has beer-
collecting food and feed samples for a number of years,
analyzing each sample to determine pesticide residue levels
and frequency of occurrence. A brief summary of toxaphene
residues for the past 5 fiscal years is given in the chart
below.
~ of Cannndities
Contaminated
I of Ssnples
Checked
f of Positive
Sarnies
% of
Occurrence
Ccnnodity Mas-
Frequently
Contaminated
1972
10
3516
118
3.3
Leaf & Stem
Vegetables
1973
15
2906
ISO
4.3
Leaf & Stem
' Vegetables
1974
5
1919 :
109
4.6
Fish
1975-
12
2317
118
5.0
Fish
1S76
15
4228
257
6.0
Fish
The above figures disclose a slow but steady rise
in the number of positives found on a percentage basis
over the past five years. Although the commodity con-
taminated most in the past three years is fish, there are
only two registered uses where toxaphene is directly applied
to water, cranberries and rice. It is likely that the high
incidence in fish is due to side-effects such as run-off
and volatilization.
-6-
-------
The following list
indicates
the
commodities,
the
number cf positives within
the year.
ana
the
fiscal
years
(FY) when found contaminated:
?V
FY
TV
FY
FY
Commodity
1972
1972
1974
1975
1975
3eans
a
0
0
3
0
Large Fruits
1
0
0
0
0
Small Fruits
0
1
0
0
0
Leaf and Stem Veg.
50
66
38
19
34
Root Vegetables
24
2
3
15
18
Vine and £ar Veg.
4
10
6
6
23
NutS
0
7,
0
19
25
Eay Natural
0
12
a
0
'0
Whole Grain-Euman
0
4
12
0
0
Whole Grain-Animal
0
3
1
2
3
Whole Sovbeans
0
6
0
0
3
Fish
27
10
4-0
22
65
Shell Fish
0
0
0
0
1
Grains, Ground
1 ¦
2
0
0
0
Processed Animal Feed
Fisfe byproducts *¦
13
a
0
12
15
Processed Animal Feed ;
Oil seed byproducts
0
6
0
1
13
Processed Animal Feed
Hay dehydrated
a
4
0
~11
28
Processed Animal Feed
Misc. Animal Feeds
6
' 0
0
2
2
Processed Animal Feed
Processed Vec. byproducts
i
0
0
Q
• ' 12
Processed Animal Feed
Misc. Product Feed
l
6
0
0
0
Crude Veg. Oil
0
0
1
0
0
Processed Animal Feeds
Cereal byproducts
0
0
2
6
1 6
Processed Animal Feeds
Grains
0
0
0
0
1
Treated Seed
¦ 0
1
Q
0
0
Whole Milk
c
0
0
0
2
Total i of occurrences 10 15 S 12 15
It is apparent from the above that toxaphene contami-
nates vegetables and fish, both basic food commodities-
-------
(2) Air Residues
Six air samples were taken in the Stoneville,
Mississippi area (26). The following are average toxaphene
levels in nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3} for the six
sampling dates.
¦ 1-2-76/2-5-7 6 — 4.8 ng/m3
2-5-76/3-2-76 — 16.36 " ¦
3-2-76/3-31-76 — 16.55 " "•
3-31-76/4-30-76 — 15.48 " "
4-30-76/6_!-75 —. 16.67 " "
6-1-76/7-2-76. — 42.09 " "
A maximum weekly level of 1746.5 ng/m occurred in
the Mississipi Delta during a three-year study covering the
years 1972-73 and 1974.(27). Levels were the"highest
during the months of August and September. Average levels
during those months are listed below.
1972 ' 1973 1974
August 1540 ng/m^ - 268.8 ng/m^ 9Q3.fi ng/m^
September 227 " " * 322.6 " " 524.6 ' "
Bidlenan and Olney (24~j~ reported that levels of 0.04
to 1.6 ng/m^ of toxaphene were found in the atmosphere over
the North Atlantic many miles from any direct source af
contamination and suggested, "A possible source of airborne
toxaphene is the southern U.S. cotton growing areas where
the bulk of this pesticide has been used. "
(3) Water Residues
(a) Drinking Water
A series of commercial drinking water samples were
collected and analyzed for EPA during 1975 and 1976 (28).
Twenty-seven out of fifty-eight samples were positive for
toxaphene. The levels ranged from <0.05 to 0.05 ppb.
Of the samples reported prior to 1375, none cave a positive
indication for toxaphene.
-8-
-------
(b) Surfacs Waters
Herring and Cotton (20) reported on pesticide residues
in 20 Mississippi Delta lakes, disclosing detectable toxaphene
residues in 11 lakes with a maximum of 1.S2 ppb. In the
same study, sediments from the lakes were also checked.
Levels c *1 a trace to 2-46 ppm were found in 10 of the lakes.
Levels of a trace tc 35.7 ppm were found in the flesh of
bluegills in 3 of the lakes- Seven lakes had no detectable
toxaphene levels in the fish.
Reimold and Durant (19) reported that Terry Creek,
near Brunswick, Georgia, and a toxaphene manufacturing
plant, was dredged to both widen and deepen the creek bed.
Water, sediment, and aquatic life were sampled before,
during, and after dredging. The following chart shows that
disturbing bottom sediments caused a rise in detectability
of toxaphene residues in the water, flora, and fauna.
Dredging began on September 7, 1972,
Samples of water from western streams were analyzed
for pesticide residues from 1968 through 1S71. No toxaphene
residues were detected. Limits of detectability were listed
as C.5 to 1.0 micrograms per liter (ppb) (29).
(c) Fish
In spite of the low freguency of recorded occur-
rences cf detectable toxaphene residues in water, fish
have been found with significant levels in their tissues.
A massive fish kill in 1975 in Louisana
disclosed toxaphene.residues in fish and water of 2.017 and
0.0042 ppm, respectively, in the La Fourche Canal; of 5.358
and 0.004 ppm, respectively, in Joe Bayou; of 10.294 ?no
0.001 ppm, respectively, in the 3eouf River; and of 4.399
and 0.0 014 ppm, respectively, in Bayou Bartholomew. A
drainage ditch that flowed into Bartholomew had water
levels of 0.01 ppm (30).
Sept. 2
Sept. 28
Oct. 12
Water
Salt Marsh Grass
Sediment
Mummichog tfish)
none detected 0.0 013 .ppm 0.0014 ppm
0.82:-ppm 2.04' ppm 3.93 ppn
5.47 ppm 2.11 ppm 3.97 ppn
10.45 ppm 10.52 ppm . 131-14 ppm
-9-
-------
Several lakes in Wisconsin were "cleaned out" for
restocking using toxaphene (31). It was applied at a
calculated dose of 0.1 to 0.15 mg/liter (ppm). Water levels
after 4 months were 1 to 6 micrograms/liter (ppb). Fish
were stocked 11 months after treatment; two months after
stocking, samples of fish were removed and analyzed.
Toxaphene residues were found to be 3.4 micrograms/gram
(ppm) in bluegill sunfish and 10.6 micrograms/gram (ppm) in
suckers.
According to Crockett et al. (32) , 54 commerical
catfish farms in Arkansas and Mississippi were sampled ir.
1970 to see if they were contaminated by pesticides. Of the
samples taken, 96% showed toxaphene levels from 0.2 to 20.7
ppm in the fish. The average concentration was 2.1 ppm.
The authors suggested that cotton production was the primary
source of contamination and that, although actual routes
of movement have not been clearly defined, aerial transport
seemed mast probable. Samples of sediments, fish feed, and
water were analyzed but were not shown to be the sources of
contamination.
Hawthorne et al. (33), using the same data base as
Crockett et al. (32), reported that levels of toxaphene in
commercially grown catfish"sampled in 28 counties In Missis-
sippi and in 22 counties :.in Arkansas disclosed positive
occurrences in all but one sample in Mississippi and in
Arkansas. Levels of detectability were 0.01 ppm. Whole
body residues ranged from 0.2 ppm to 20.67 ppm.
(4) Livestock
Diephuis and Dunn (34) fed livestock (sheep and
cattle) hay treated with varying levels of toxaphene. After
134 days of feeding cattle, and 133 days of feeding sheep,
the following levels were determined.
Steers Treatment Fav Sssidues Fat lean Meats
Total lb/ftcre SuDcut- Abdominal Shoulder Ria Run?
Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
#8
2
25-40
ppn
24
ppm
25
pas
0.9 pan
0
0
#10
4
SI
PE»
338
Epn
243
pan
6.8 ppa
6.8 era
6.6
pT3n
412
8
306
ppn
618
772
pan
17.9 ppm
34.8 ppm
28.9
ppn
Shoulder
Loin
Leg
Sheen
Control
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
17
2
25-40
Ff®
42
pan
60
pan
1.5 pan
5.5 pan
3.1
pen
#9
4
81
PF®
72
pan
120
ppm
13.1 ppm
7.5 pan
8.4
pan
#12
3
306
pan
162
Tan
317
pan
51.2 ppm
30.0 pan
22.4
pan
-10-
-------
G. Pesticide Episode Reports System (?ERS)
EPA's Pesticide Episode Response (PER) Branch of the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) maintains a Pesticide
Episode Reports System (PERS) which collects reports of
pesticide exposure affecting humans, domestic animals,
livestock, and wildlife (36). According to their records,
there were 222 episodes from 1956 to 1975 involving the
insecticide toxaphene. The large number of episodes may
reflect the extensive use-of toxaphene as a pesticide; in
many instances, toxaphene was not the sole pesticide present.
The following chart list.
? those reports.
Table 1. Toxaphene Episodes 1966-1975
Net
Year
Human Animal Plant
Cantamination
Specified
Total
1966
I.
1
67
2 7
9
63
6
6
69
1 3
4
70
3 1
1
c
71
2 15
n
A*.
"5
£
72
10 12
10
7
39
73
11 35 r
10
2
58
74
a 3a
- 4
50
75
7 '16 1
5
29
Total
.44 134 1
32
il
222
Table 2 shows the
result when the
above data we:
e
reexamined to determine
age groups of humans affected.
Numbers in parentheses denote fatalities.
Table 2. Year of Age
Year 5 5-16
17-6"5
65 & Older
Unk.
19(57 1 (1)
—T™'
68
69
1 (1)
70 2 (1)
1 (1)
71 1
1 (1)
72
6
4
73 2
8 (2)
±.
74
8
75 1
4
2
Tot
:ai 3 (2) 4
30 (5)
0
7
-11-
-------
Analysis of the above table shows the highest
"at risk" age group to be 17 to 55 years of age. This age
group represents those individuals most 1 ike 1-y to be
occupationa1ly exposed. Of the eight f&t&lieies reported,
five involved exposure during some, phase of application,
i.e., spraying of crops or dipping of livestock. Two of •
Che five involved the crash of aircraft during aerial
application, and the remaining three involved exposure
during ground application. The actual cause of death
in these latter instances was vague due to exposure to
mixtures of two or more pesticides. The remaining :hree
fatalities of the eight reported involved two incidents
of ingestion by children and one in which Che circum-
stances of exposure were unknown.
Table 3. Animal Episodes 1966-
1975
Year
Wildlife Bees Livestock
?ish
Total
1966
1
1
67 ¦
5
2
7
68
1 4
1
S
69
- - 1
2
3
70
V
1
1
71
' 6
9
15
72
2
10
12
73
4
31
35
74
1 8
29
38
75
1 6
9
16
Total
1 2 37
54
134
Sixteen of the 37 episodes involving
livestock
were
d irec t
applications to cattle CIO), swine (
3 ) , horses
(2)
and 3heep (1). Fish kills were involved a total of 94
times. Forty of these episodes were reported to be the
result of toxa-phene applications to or near water. The
specific, circumstances of thirty-nine of the episodes were
unrepo rted.
The Pesticide Episode Response Branch concluded,
after examining the records closely, "The most comsscn
circumstance leading to fish mortality involved runoff from
treated fields following applications to rice, co'tton and
corn".
II. REGULATORY ACTIONS
loxaphene has been subjected to several Federal
regulatory actions since its original registration. Twelve
of the following 15 actions were initiated during the period
-------
when OSDA was responsible for the regulatory control of
pesticides. The regaining three were EPA actions. In cost
instances, actions concerned the absence of finite tolerances
or exemptions from tolerances, or the extension of time to
develop information far tolerance. All were published in
the Federal Register. (Some Federal Register notices on
toxaphene, in addition to the PR notices, are listed in
Reference 37).
Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 68-3 issued on
January 10, 1968, classified certain chemical use patterns
as nonfood uses. Toxaphene use on seeds o£ velvet beans and
the uses listed as uses on agricultural premises, i.e.,
barns, shed, animal shelters, fences, and farm buildings
except dairy barns, poultry houses, and milk rooms were
included. (This and all fallowing PR Notices are cited in
Reference 38.)
PR Notice 68-5 issued January 30, 1968, extended
certain "no residue" and "zero tolerance" registrations
beyond December 31, 1967. Toxaphene use on alfalfa (seed
crop only) and clover (seed crop enly) were extended unr.il
January 1, 1969.
PR. Notice 68-6 iasued on February 1, 1968, proposed
the cancellation of several uses of toxaphene on the basis
of an "absence of finite" tolerance or exemptions." Those
uses included all uses on alfalfa (except when grown for
seed only), asparagus, avacados, beets, blueberries, currants,
gooseberries, grapes, huckleberries, cherries, clover
(except when grown for seed crop only), almonds, cashews,
chestnuts, dates, figs, filberts, olives * persimmons, plums,
pomegranates, prunes, endive, birasfoot trefoil, buckwheat,
flax, grasses, hops, lespedeza, millet, pasture grass,
safflower, sugarcane, sugar beets, vetch, garlic, guavas,
hay, mangoes, mint (peppermint and spearmint), mustard,
passion fruit, potatoes, salsify, sweet potatoes, swiss
chard, papayas, turnips, cantaloupes, endine, melons,
mustard greens, pumpkins, squash (summer and winter),
watermelons, watercress, dairy cattle, milk rooms, and
mushroom houses. (Several of the following PR Notices
are in response to an appeal, made by the manufacturers of
toxaphene, of PR Notice 68-6.)
PR Notice 68-8 published on April 24, 1968, classified
certain chemical use patterns as nonfood uses, allowing
these uses to be continued in the absence of finite toler-
ances. For toxaphene, these uses were in grainbins and
grain elevators.
-------
PR Notice 68-9 published on April 24, 1968, granted
an extension of certain "no residue" and "zero tolerance"
registrations beyond the original deadline (December 31,
1967) until January 1, 1969. Those toxaphene uses were on
alfalfa, clover, birdsfoot trefoil, lespedeza, potatoes,
sugar beets, and vetch.
PR notice 68-19 published on November 29, 1968,
classified certain compounds which required a label statement
with regard to their hazard to honey bees. Toxaphene was
classified as toxic to bees, needing the fallowing label
statement: "This product is toxic to bees and should not be
applied when bees are actively visiting the area."
PR Notice 68-20 published on December 2, 1968,
extended certain uses of specific economic poisons beyond a
December 31, 1968, cutoff date. Toxaphene use on alfalfa,
birdsfoot trefoil, clover, lespedeza, potatoes, sugar beets,
and vetch was extended until January 1, 1970.
In February 1969 the OSDA issued PR Notice 69-5
cancelling the registration of toxaphene products bearing
directions for use an lettuce and cabbage. Certain informa-
tion showed existing registered uses on lettuce and cabbage
resulted in illegal residues. Xt was ordered that .Labels
showing those uses should be corrected immediately to
state "do not use. after heads start to form", and in the
instance of leaf lettuce, to prohibit use after the seedling
stage. The label change was complied with, and the compound
continued to be used on those crops.
PR Notice 70-1 published on January 19, 1970, extended
certain uses of specific economic poisons beyond the
December 31, 1969, deadline date. Toxaphene use on alfalfa,
range grass, alfalfa {seed crap), and potatoes was extended
until January 1, 1971.
PR Notice 70-4 issued on February 26, 1970, proposed the
cancellation of several uses of toxaphene on the basis
of an "absence of finite tolerances or exemptions."
Those uses were birdsfoot trefoil, clover, clover (seed
crop) , lespedeza, sugar beets, and vetch.
PR Notice 70-23 published on October 9, 1970, followed
a recommendation made by an interdepartmental review
panel relative.to the continued registration of "Certain
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticide Products Bearing
Directions for Repeated Applications." It stated, "It
is the recommendation of this Review Panel (USDI, HEW,
and OSDA) that USDA expeditiously notify registrants
that, on August 31, 1971, use patterns calling for repeat
-14-
-------
applications of DDT, DDD, dieldrin, aldrin, endrin, hepta-
chlorf tcxaphene, BSC and chlordane will not be accepted.
The Secretary of Agriculture must authorize deviation
for repeat applications deemed essential." As a result,
the notice stated that, after the August date, iabels
bearing directions for repeat applications of the above
mentioned compounds would not be acceptable except for
uses deemed essential and supported by efficacy data.
PR Notice 70-27 issued on November 12, 1970, rescinded
the PR Notice 70-23 mandatory date of August 31, 1971,
because after further consideration it was deemed impossible
to review all the compounds and their respective uses that
required repeat applications.
PR Notice 71-3 issued March 12, 1971, proposed
cancellation of the registrations of several specific
chemical compounds and uses in the absence of finite tole-
rances or exemptions for use on food or feed crops. Toxa-
phene registrations for use on potatoes were proposed fcr
cancellation.
PR Notice 71-7 issued on May 7, 1971, rescinded PR
Notices 70-23 and 70-27s -It stated that an in-depth review
of each compound was being initiated "to identify which, if
any, of the presently registered products present substantial
questions of safety that should trigger the administrative
process of cancellation." .
PR Notice 72-4 issued on March 10, 1972, proposed the
cancellation of the use of toxaphene on range grass along
with the cancellation of several other uses of other compounds
"for use on foods in the absence of finite tolerances or
exemptions." Additional time was later granted to develop
information for tolerance determinations.
Although not registered for such use, toxaphene was
used extensively as a piscicide. Even when applied at
very low levels {0.Q5 'to 0.2 ppm), it would result in a complete
icill in most waters. It is extremely toxic to most fish
species, and in some instances" can remain active for
long periods of time {6 years and longer). However, it was
also extremely toxic to other aquatic organisms. Because of
its extreme toxicity and its persistence, the. Federal Fish
and Wildlife Service discontinued its use as a piscicide in
1963 and recommended that Federal funds no longer be granted
to states for the use of toxaphene in fish control or rough
fish eradication programs (39).
-15-
-------
Ill. SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION
CRITERIA
The following adverse effects of toxaphene use have been
found to exceed the criteria for issuance of a rebuttable
presumption as stated in Section 152.11 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR 40) . (Risk critera not used for
issuance of a toxaphene RPAR at this time are listed in
Reference 73.)
A. Acute Toxicity, Hazard to Wildlife: . Aauatic
Species
40 CFR Section 162.11(a)(3)(i)(B)(3) specifies
that a rebuttable presumption shall arise against a pesticide
use if such use "results in a maximum calculated concentration
following direct application to a 6-inch layer of water more
than 1/2 the acute .rjCC£ for aquatic organisms representative
of the organisms likely to be exposed...."
Toxaphene is registered for the control of army-worms
and cutworms on cranberries and for the control of armyworms,
grasshoppers, chinch bugs, and cutworms on rice. (Represen-
tative label contents aCe "listed in Reference 4C.)
To determine whether toxaphene use in aquatic environ-
ments meets rebuttable presumption criteria, the Working
Group utilised the LC^q values for representative aquatic
species, as listed in Table 4.
Calculations based on these values (4 5) and on label
amounts and directions for use (40)—^indicate that any applica-
tion of toxaphene to water, under current representative
label directions, would be expected to exceed 1/2 the acute
LC^q in a 6-inch layer of water for all species listed
in Table 4.
1/ Sample use directions for cranberries include application
of 10 to 25 lb/acre of a product containing 2 to 5 lb active
ingredient (AI); 3 to 5 pts/acre of a product containing 8
lb Al/gai? for rice, 6 to 10 lb/acre of a product containing
2 lb AI; 2 to 2 2/3 pts/acre of a product containg 6 lb
Al/aal; and 2 to 3 1/2 pts/acre for a product containing 8
lb Al/gal.
-16'
-------
Table 4. Acute Toxicity of Toxaphene to Fresh Mater and Marine/tstuarine Species
24-hr 48-hr 96-hr References
Organism
Ganinariia lacustris (scud) 180 ppb
Pteronarcys callfornica (stonefly niad)
Salmo galrdneri (rainbow trout)
Daphnia pulex (water flea)
Siroocephalus serrulatua (daphnid)
Ictalurus punctatu3 (channel catfish)
Ictalurus rnelas ("bTack bullhead)
repomis macrochirus (bluegill)
Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass)
Salmo trutta (brown trout)
Qncorhynchus kisutch (coho salmon)
Perca flavescens (yellow perch)
70 ppb
7 ppb
4 ppb
15 ppb
10 ppb
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (chinook
salnon)
Ganibusia afflnis (inosquito fish)
Palaemonetes kadlakensis (grass
shrimp)
Procambarus simulans (crawfish)
13 ppb
7.9 ppb
0.45 ppn 0.024 ppm
0.091 ppm 0.068 ppm
26 ppb Sanders (72)
lOifrftfb
I i
3.3 ppb
Sanders & Cope (41)
13 ppb Macek t McAllister (42)
5 ppb
IB ppb
2 ppb
3 ppb
8 ppb
12 ppb
2.2 ppb Katz (43)
0.008 ppm Chaiyarach et al. (44)
36 ppm n » «
0.045 ppm 0.045 ppm 0.029 ppm
Penaeus duorarum (pink s!)rinp)
Palaemonetes puglo (grass shrinp)
Cyprinodon variegatus (sheepsliead minnow)
Iagodon rhomboldes (pinfish)
Fundulus slmilis (longnose klllifish)
1.4 ug/1 (ppb) Schimmel et al. (21)
4.4 ug/1 (ppb) " " H
1.1 ug/1 (ppb) H "
0.5 uc/1 (ppb)
10.0 ug/1- (ppb) "
-------
With a recommended toxaphene treatment on cranberries
of 3 r.o 4 pts/acre af an 8 lb Al/gal solution, the following
concentrations would result (45).
Application rate
4 pts/acre (4 lb/acre)
3.5 pts/acre (3.5 lb/acre)
3.0 pts/acre (3.0 lb/acre)
2.5 pts/acre (2.3 lb/acre)
2.0 pts/acre (2.0 lb/acre)
Concentration
pob
2945
2577
2209
1841
1472
Concentration
•ppm
2.945
2.577
2.209
1.341
1.472
With a recommended toxaphene treatment on rice of 1 1/3
qts/acre, or 2 to 2 2/2 pts/acre, of a 6 lb Al/gal solution,
the following concentration would uesult (45).
Application rate Concentration Concentration
ppb ppm
2 2/3 pts/acre 1472 1.472
2 1/3 pts/acre 1288 1.283
2 pts/acre 1104 1.1C4
Additional studies are sited in the Toxaphene Criteria
Document submitted in the Public Hearing on Proposed Toxic
Pollutant Effluent Standards. Those studies and the cata
therein have been accepted as valid studies by the; Admini-
strator (46) .
The foregoing data and calculations establish that
the recommended applications for toxaphene products register-
ed for aquatic use exceed the acute toxicity criteria of
Section 162-11(a)(3) (i)(B) (3) for representative fresh water
and marine/estuarine species. Accordingly, the Working
Group recommends a rebuttable presumption be issued against
the registration of toxaphene products labeled for these
registrations and any other that call for direct application
to water at rates resulting'in concentrations in water which
exceed the 1/2 LC5Q rate.
-18-
-------
B. Chronic Toxicity
(1) oncogenic Effects in Test Animals
40 CFR Section 162-11(a)(3)(ii)(A) provides that a
rebuttable presumption shall arise "if a pesticide's
ingredient(s)...(iinduces oncogenic effects in experimental
mammalian species or in man as a result of oral, inhalation
or dermal exposure...." Section 162.3(bb) defines the
term oncogenic as "the property of a substance or a mixture
of substances to produce or induce benign or malignant tumor
formation in living animals."
The National Cancer Institute on November 8, 1976,
issued an Experimental Design Status Report (Carcinogenesis
Bioassv) with accompanying documents (47). Each copy was
marked "Preliminary - Incomplete - Not Verified"; the
compound tested was toxaphene..!/
Verified NCI data have since been received by EPA's
Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) (75). It was statistical-
ly analyzed for that group by an EPA statistician.
On- the basis of tdae verified data and the statistical
analysis reported above,";,CAG (74) concluded that an increase
in the frequency of malignancies was found in toxaphene-
treated male rats. High dose-treated female rats showed
a significant increase in the frequency of tumors of the
reproductive system, but not for the individual repro-
ductive organs.
rn the instance of toxaphene—treated male and
female mice, a highly significant dose-related increase
in hepatic carcinomas was found. The Working Group therefore
recommends issuance of a rebuttable presumption against
toxaphene registrations pursuant to Section 162.11(a)(3)(ii)(A).
1/ Dr. .Heivin Reuber (48) , a specialist in pathology and
oncology, examined the preliminary data and determined that
toxaphene was in fact carcinogenic in male and female mice.
Ee also found it to be tumorigenic in female rats and
possibly tumorigenic in male rats.
-19-
-------
{2) Other Chronic and/or Delayed Toxic Effects
40 CFR Section 162.11(a)(3)(ii)(B) pravides that a.
rebuttable presumption shall arise "if a pesticide's ingre-
dient (s)... (p)roduces any other chronic or delayed toxic
effect in test animals at any dosage up to a level, as
determined by the Administrator, which is substantially
higher than that to which humans can reasonably be antici-
pated to be exposed, taking into account ample margins or
safety...." The following studies demonstrate that exposure
to toxaphene produces changes in growth and bone composition
in fathead minnows, brook trout, and channel catfish, as
well as in black ducks and rats„ In the absence of an establish-
ed level at which there is no demonstrated effect and with
a consequent lack of basis for choice of an "ample margin of
safety," it may be presumed that current exposure is
sufficient to produce these, or similar, chronic or delayed
effects in humans.
(a) Aquatic Species
(i) Fathead Minndws-
Fathead minnows have long been an accepted
test animal for acute testing of pesticides and have been
generally thought of as an-important representative of
fish forage species. The for fatheads as reported
by Macek and McAllester (42) in 1370 was 0.014 ppm.
In 1975 Herhle and Mayer (49) investigated toxaphene
effects on the growth and bone composition of fathead
minnows, Pimeohales nromelas, and found that at all concentra-
tions tested (55-123 ppt) toxaphene "altered the development
and quality of the backbone [reduced collagen and increased
calcium], and induced biochemical manifestations of the
brokenback syndrome." Radiographic analyses of the fish
supported their findings that toxaphene induced a weakened,
fragile backbone.
(ii) Brook Trout
The same authors (50) also checked brook trout, Salveli-
nus fontinalis, an important commercial and sporting species,
and found the same effect of the brokenback syndrome (with
altered collagen and calcium levels of the bone). They also
found that, although hatchability was not affected, all fry
exposed to 288 and 502 nanograms/liter (ppt) died at 60 and
30 days, respectively, and that growth decreased at all test
concentrations (39 , 68, 139 , 288, and 502 nanograias/liter)
after 90 days.-
-20-
-------
(iii) Channel Catfish
The effects on channel catfish, another important
commercial and sporting species, was also investigated by
Merhle and Mayer (22)- In this study it was found that
toxaphene concentrations of 224 and 535 ng/liter (ppt)
caused significant decreases in growth after 30 days. At
levels as low as 44 ng/liter (ppt) of toxaphene, catfish,
like the fathead minnow and brook trout, had decreased
collagen content and increased calcium content of the
bone, the biochemical manifestation of the brokenback
syndrome.
(b) Avian Species
?inley and Ludke (51) reported that "clutch size [in
black ducks], number of eggs incubated, hatchability and
duckling survival was lowest in the group fed 50 ppm toxa-
phene when compared to controls and the 10 ppm group." The
authors also indicated a.significant decrease in the collagen
content and an increase in the calcium content of bone
following treatment, similar to that seen in the studies
using fish as test animals (43), (30), (22).
(c) Mammalian Species: Rats
Chernoff and Carver '(52) administered toxaphene to
female rats through gastric intubation in doses of 35, 25,
and 15 mg/kg/day during days 7 through 16 of gestation. The
toxaphene was in a corn oil solution with an intubation
volume of 0.1 ml. With regard to fetal effects, the authors
reported, "Dose-related reductions also occurred both in the
average number of [fetal] sternal (p<0.05) and caudal
(p<0.001) ossification centers with increasing toxaphene
dosage."
The above studies demonstrate that exposure to
toxaphene produced changes in grovrth and bone composition in
aquatic, avian, and mammalian species. Since the dose
levels at which these effects are induced are not substan-
tially higher than current human exposure, the Working Group
recommends that a rebuttable presumption be initiated
pursuant to Section 162.11(a)(3)(ii)(B).
-21-
-------
(3) Population Reduction in Nontarget Organisms
40 CFR Section 162.11(a)(3)(ii)(C) provides that a
rebuttable presumption shall arise when a ?e.-<. icide' s use
"(c) an reasonably be anticipated to result in significant,
local, regional, or national population reductions in
nontarget organisms...."
Studies showing that toxaphene use has deleterious
effects on nontarget organisms and can lead to papulation
reduction in such nontarget species have already been
discussed in previous sections of this document.
In Section I.Q.(3) a study by Reimold and Durant
(19) reported that toxaphene bioaccumulates in numr.iciiogs.
oysters, and shrimp. Herring and Cotton (20) reported
bioaccumulation in bluegill sunfish, and Schimmel et al. (21)
reported bioaccumulation in all growth stages of longnose
killifish.
Section l.F.(3)(fc) and (c) contained reports showing
toxaphene residues in mummichogs (19) and in commercially
grown catfish (32), (33)..A fish kill in Louisiana was also
attributed to toxaphene (3-0) .
Section I.G. contained a discussion of ?ERS
reports which showed that accidents involving toxaphene
occurred in wildlife, bees, and fish (36).
Section III.3.(2)(a) and (b) contained reports
showing that toxaphene use has produced deleterious effects
(decrease in bone collagen and increase in calcium) in
fathead minnows (49), brook trout (50), channel catfish (22),
and black ducks (51).
Physiological change, metabolic interruptions or
disturbances of hormonal or enzymatic systems, behavioral
changes, as well as ether changes in body processes: or
functions resulting from pesticide exposure usually result
in reduced survivability of young, and at times significant
adult mortalities, in fish, birds, or wild mammalian populations.
The studies discussed in the foregoing sections indicate
that such effects do occur in bees, fish,, and birds. Since
these adverse effects can reasonably be anticipated to
result in significant local, regional, or national reductions
in nontarget organisms, the Working Group recommends that a
rebuttable oresunrotion be issued against toxaphene pursuant
to Section 152.11(a)(3)(ii)(C).
— 22-
-------
XV. OTHER RELEVANT ADVERSE EFFECTS
A review of the scientific literature suggests
several other areas; of adverse effects of toxaphene
(summarized below) not included in the Position Document at
this time- The Working Group will continue to investigate
these effects and aay issue a supplementary Position Document
discussing these effects in greater detail. The Working
Group also recommends that the Agency solicit comments on
the evidence listed below, and request submission of any
additional studies or relevant information on toxaphene—
related mutagenesis, endocrine effects, reproductive effects,
enzymatic effects, population reductions in nontarget
organisms, anc fatalities to members of endangered species.
[Complete bibliographic citations for the following studies
are given in the List of References to this Position Document^
These studies are also available for public inspection with
this Position Document in the Office of Special Pesticide
Reviews (WH-566) , Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, East Tower, Room 447, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.)
With regard to. mutagenesis, Samosh (53) has reported
chromosomal changes in .peripheral leukocytes of women
exposed to polychloracamphene.
With regard to endocrine effects, Hurst at al. (54)
reported that toxaphene. stimulated thyroid growth ar.d
131
I uptake in bobwhite quail. Makovskaya et al. (55)
reported that endocrine glands in rats, mice, and rabbits
are sensitive to the effect of polychloropinene.
With regard to reproductive effects, Mayer et al.
(56) reported that toxaphene reduced viability of brook
trout eggs. Welch et al. (57) reported that pretreatment of
rats and mice with toxaphene increased the activity cf
liver microsomal enzymes that metabolised estrone. Blekher-
man and li'ina (58) reported that women exposed to toxaphene
showed a deviation from the norm in the menstrual cycle and
in estrogen levels.
With regard to enzymatic effects, Desaiah ana Koch
(59) reported that exposure of channel catfish to toxaphene
inhibited Mg2+, NA+, and ATPase in brain, kidney, end
gill tissues. Ruz'minskaya and Alekhina (60) reported
that exposure of rats to toxaphene produced conditions of
hypoxia and disturbed the normal course of metabolism ir.
-23-
-------
liver tissues. Welch et al. (57) reported that pretreatment
of rats ana mice with toxaphene increased the activity of
certain microsomal enzymes. Gertig and Nowaczyk (61)
reported that rats treated with toxaphene showed decreases
in certain enzymatic activities and increases in others.
With regard to population reduction in nontarget
organisms, Hunt and Keith (625 reported that toxaphene was
responsible for a bird kill in California. Johnson (64)
reported a bird kill in South Dakota in which three of the
animals had high toxaphene residues. Flickinger (66)
reported on a bird kill in Texas in which all of the animals
had toxaphene residues. McEwen et al. (69) reported that
toxaphene use to control insects on short-grass ranges
resulted in bird kills and caused significant papulation
decreases. Toxaphene incidents involving a raccoon (63),
the death of a large number of white pelicans in California
(65), and a waterfowl kill in Arizona (67), (68) have also
besrj reported.
with regard to fatalities to members of endangered
species, toxaphene residues have been reported as being
involved with the death spf brown pelicans (Pelecanus occiden-
talism , a rare and endangered species, in the Gulf Coast
area of Louisiana in 1975 (70), (71).
-24-
-------
Toxaphene: Position Document 1
List fif References
1. Thruston, A.D., Jr. 1976. A quantitative method for
toxaphene by GC-CI-MS specific ion monitoring (EPA-
60Q-/4-76-Q1Q). O.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia.
2. Meister, R.T., ed. 1976. Farm chemicals handbook.
Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, Ohio.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Toxaphene -
080501 as an active ingredient in federally registered
products only (last update 8/13/76). (Computer print-
out - unpublished).
4. CJ.S- Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Enforce-
ment Division. 1975. Production vol/AI, 1975,
reflecting products on label file. (Computer printout -
unpublished). CONFIDENTIAL.
5. Memo: QSPR requested use data on toxaphene, dated
November 5, 1975. From Program Planning and Analysis
Officer, Human Effects' Monitoring Branch, to Donald
G. Kuntzelmen, Seniop Project Manager, Office of
Special Pesticide Reviews, Office'of Pesticides.
6. o.s. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated.
Toxaphene (technical chlorinated camphene):
Shaughnessy £080501. (unpublished).
7. Menzie, C.M. 1969. Metabolism of pesticides. Special
scientific report - wildlife no. 127. D.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C.
8. Kearney, ?.C. 1976. IUPAC commission on terminal
pesticide residues. J. AOAC 59(4):872—873.
9. Sanborn, J.R., R.L. Metcalf, W.N. Bruce, and F. Lu.
1976. The fate of chlordane and toxaphene in a
terrestrial-aquatic model ecosystem. Environ.
Entoraol. 5(3) :533-538.
-25-
-------
10. Nash, R.G., and E.A. Woolson. 1967. Persistence
of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in soils.
Science 157:924-927.
11. Poster, A.C., V.R. Bosvell, R.D. Chisholm, R.E.
Carter, G.L. Gilpin, B.B. Pepper, W.S. Anderson,
and M. Gieger. 1956. Some effects of insecti-
cide spray accumulations in soil on crop giants:
technical bulletin no. 1149. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
12. LaFleur, K.S. 1974. Toxaphene-soil-sclvent
inreractions. Soil Sci. 117(4):205~210.
13. Mash, R.G., W.G. Harris, P.D. Ensor, and E.A. Woolson.
1973. Comparative extraction of chlorinated hydro-
carbon insecticides from soiis 20 years after treatment.
J. AOAC 56(3):728—732.
14. Terriere, L.C., 0. Kiigeinagi, A.R. Gerlach, and R.L.
Borovicka. 1966. The persistence of toxaphene in
lake water and its uptake by aquatic plants and animals.
J. Agr. Food Chem. 14:66-69.
15. Johnson, W.D., G.F~L.ee, and D. Spyndakis. 1966.
Persistence of toxaphene in treated lakes. Air & Wat.
Pallut. Int. J. 10:555—560.
~
16. Cohen, J.M., L.J. Kamahake, A.E. Lemke, C- Henderson,
and R.L. Woodward. 1960. Effect of fish poisons on
water supolies: Part-I. removal of toxic materials.
J. AWWA 4 2:1551-1566.
17. Metcalf, R.L., and J.R. Sanborn. 1975. Pesticides
and environmental quality in Illinois. 111. Hat. aist.
Sur. 3ull. 31(Article 9):381-436.
18. Wolfe, N.L., R.G. Zepp, G.L. Baughman, R.C. Fincher,
and J.A. Gordon. 1976- Chemical and photochemical
transformation of selected pesticides in aquatic
systems (EPA-600/3-76-067). U.S Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia.
19. Reimold, R.J., and C.J. Durant. 197.4. Toxahene con-
tent of estuarine fauna and flora before, during, and
after dredging toxaphene-contaminated sediments.
Pest. Mon. J. 8(l):44-49.
20. Herring, J., and D. Cotton. 1970. Pesticide residues
of twenty Mississippi Delta lakes. Proc. 24th Ann.
Conf. S.E. Assoc. Game & Fish Ccmm. Pp. 482-488.
-26-
-------
21. Schimmelf S.C., J.M. Patrick, Jr., and J. Forester.
Undated. Uptake and toxicity of toxaphene in several
estuarine organisms: contribution no. 269. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Gult Breeze, Florida. 29 pp.
(Prepubiication copy).
22. Mehrle, P.M., and F.L. Mayer. Undated. Bone develop-
ment and growth of fish as affected by toxaphene.
(Prepublication copy}.
22. Bradley, J.R., Jr., T.J. Sheets, and M.D. Jackson.
1972. DDI and toxaphene movement in surface water
from cotton plots. J. Environ. Quality 1(1):1Q2-105.
24. Bidleman, T.F., and C.E. Olney. 1975. Long range
transport of toxaphene insecticide in the atmosphere
of the westarn North Atlantic. Nature 257:475-477.
25. Vettorazzi, G. 1975. State of the art of the
tcxicological evaluation carried out by the joint
FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues. I.
organohalogenated pesticides used in public health
and agriculture. Pages 107-134 in F.A. Gunther, ed.,
Residue reviews: residues of pesticides and other
foreign chemicals in foods and feeds, Vol. 56.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
26. Mississippi Agricultural Experiment. Station,
Department of Biochemistry. 1976. Samples of
air received from Delta Branch Expt. Station.
Mississippi State University (unpublished).
27. Arthur, R.D., J.D. Cain, and B.F. Barrentine.
1976. Atmospheric levels of pesticides in the
Hississipoi Delta. Bull. Environ. Contain. Tox.
15(2) -.129-134.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Watex Supply
Program. 1976. Laboratory examination of drinking
water pesticide analysis. 4'6 pp. (unpublished) .
29. Schulze, J.A., D.B. Manigold, and F.L. Andrews.
1973. Pesticides in selected western streams:
1968-71. Pest. Mon. J. 7(l):73-84.
30. Letter: ref. 1974 fish kills in Louisiana, dated
October 1, 1975. From Robert A. LaFleur, Executive
Secretary, State of Louisiana Strearn Control Com-
mission, to Mr. Donald Kuntzehmann [sic], U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
-27-
-------
31. Hughes, R.A., and G.F. Lee. 1973. Toxaphene accumu-
lation in fish in lakes treated for rough rish control.
Environ. Sci. Tech. 7.(10) :934-939.
32. Crockett, A.B., G-B. wiersma, H. Tai, and W. Mitchell.
1975. Pesticide and mercury residues in commercially
grown catfish. Pest. Won. J. 8(4) :235-24Q ,
33. Hawthorne, J.C., J.H. Ford, and G-P- M&rkin. 1974.
Residues of mirex and. other chlorinated pesticides
in commercially raised catfish. Bull. Environ.
Contao. Tax. 11 (3) :258-264.
34. Diephuis, F., and C.I.. Dunn. IS 19. Toxaphene in
tissues of cattle and shaep fed toxaphene-treatec
alfalfa- Montana Sxpt. Sea. Bull. 461, pp. 22-26.
35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Consultant Group
on Toxaphene. 1971. Toxaphene status report: special
report to the Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee,
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide
Episode Response Branch. 1976. Episode summary for
reports involving toxaphene: pesticide episode
review system report no. 81. Loose-leaf pub. 45 pp.
(unpublished) ~
37. Memo: Federal Register notices on toxaphene, datec
March 15, 1977. From Donald Kuntzelman, Project
Manager, OSPR, to Files.
38. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
68-3. Loose-lsaf pub. 5 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
68-5. Loose-laaf put. 8 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
68-6. Loose-leaf pub. 14 pp.
O.S. Department of Agriculture.
68-8. Loose-leaf pub. 5 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
68-9. Loose-leaf pub. 5 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
68-19. Loose-leaf pub. 2 pp.
1968. PR Notice
1968. PR Notice
1968. PR Notice
1968. PR Notice
1S68. PR Notice
1968. PR Notice
-26-
-------
U.S. Decartfcent of Agriculture. 1968.
68-20. Loose-leaf pub. 6 pp.
O.S. Department of Agriculture. 1969.
69-5. Loose-leaf pub. 2 pp.
U.S. Department o£ Agriculture. 1970.
7Q-1. Loose-leaf pub. 5 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970.
70-4. Loose-leaf pub. 7 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970.
7G-23. Loose-leaf pub. 2 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970.
70-27. Loose-leaf pub. 2 pp.
C.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice 71-3. Loose-leaf pub. 8 pp.
C.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice 71-7. Loose-leaf pub. 1 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice 72-4. Looae-rleaf pub. 3 pp.
?R Notice
•PR Notice
PR Notice
PR Notice
PR Notice
PR Notice
1971. PR
1S71. PR
1972. PR
39. Lennon, R.E., J.l. Hunn, R.A. Schnick, and SUM.
Burress. 1970. Reclamation of ponds, lakes,
and streams with fish toxicants: a review. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper 100. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
40. Memo: Representative toxaphene labels, dated March 15,
1977. From Donald Kuntzelman, Project Manager, OSPR,
to Files.
41. Sanders, H.O., and O.B. Cope. 1966. Toxicities of
several pesticides to two species of Claaocerans.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 95(2) sl65-168.
42. Macek, K.J., and W.A. McAllister. 1970. Insecticide
susceptibility of some common fish family representa-
tives. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 99(l):20-27.
43. Katz, M. 1961. Acute toxicity of same organic
insecticides to three species of salaonids and to the
threespine stickleback. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 90(3):
264-268.
-29-
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1958. PR Notice
58-20. "Loose-leaf pub. 6 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1969. PR Notice
69-5. Loose-leaf pub. 2 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. PR Notice
70-1. Loose-leaf pub. 5 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. PR Notice
70-4. Loose-leaf pub. 7 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. PR Notice
70-23. Loose-leaf pub. 2 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. PR Notice
70-27. Loose-leaf pub. 2 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. PR
Notice 71-3. Loose-leaf pub. 8 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. PR
Notice 71-7. Loose-leaf pub. 1 p.
U.S. Environmental Kratection Agency. IS72. PR
Notice 72-4. Loose-l-saf pub. 3 pp.
39. Lennon, R.E., J.3. Eunn, R-A. Scknick,.and R.M.
Burress. 1970. Reclamation of ponds, lakes,
and streams with fi^h toxicants: a review. FAQ
Fisheries Technical Paper 100. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rone.
40. Memo: Representative toxaphene labels, dated March 15,
1977. From Donald Kuntzelman, Project Manacer, OSPR,
to Files.
41. Sanders, H.Q., and O.B. Ccpe. 1966. Toxicities of
several pesticides to two species of Cladocerans.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 95(2):165-168.
42. Macek, K.J., and K-A. McAllister. 1970. Insecticide
susceptibility of some common fish family representa-
tives. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 99(l}:20-27.
43. Katz, H. 1961. Acute toxicity of some organic
insecticides to three species of salmonics and to the
threespine stickleback. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 90(3):
254-268.
-29-
-------
44. Chaiyarach, S., V. Ratananun, and R.C. Harrel. 1975.
Acute toxicity of the insecticides toxaphene and
carbaryl .and the herbicides propanil and molinate to
four species of aquatic organisms. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Tax. 14(3):281-284.
45. Memo: Acute toxicity calculations for toxaphene to
fresh water and marine/estuarine species, dated
March 15, 1977. From Donald Kuntzelman, Project
Manager, QSPR, to Files.
46. Train, R.E. 1976. Final decision in the matter of:
proposed toxic pollutant effluent standards for
aldrin/'dieldrin, DDT, ODD and DDE., endrin and toxa-
phene, FWPCA (307), Docket No. 2. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Before the Administrator.
47. Gulf South Research Inst. Undated. HCI carcinogenesis
experimental design status report- Inconplete - Not
Verified.
48. Reuber, K.L. 1976.- Affidavit cf Melvin 0. Reuber,
M
-------
51. Finley, M.T., and J.L. Ludke. 1976. Effects of
toxaphene, on survival and reproductive success in
black ducks. CJ.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center, Laurel, Maryland. (unpublished).
52. Chernoff, N., and 3-D- Carver. 1976. Fetal toxicity
of toxaphene in rats and mice. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Tox. 15(6):660-664.
53. Samosh, L.". 1974. Chromosome aberrations and the
character of satellite associations in accidental
exposure of the human body to polychlorocamphene.
(Transl. from Russian.) Cytol. and Gen. 8(l):24-27.
54. Hurst, J.G. r W.S. Newcomer, and J.A. Morrison. 1974.
Some effects of DDT, toxaphene and polychlorinated'
biphenyl on thyroid function in bobwhite quail. Paul.
Sci. 53:125-133.
55. Makavoskaya, Ye. I., P.F. Shampay, and' N.N. Grigor1
yeva. 1971. Structural and histochemical changes
of endocrine glands in polychloropinene poisoning.
(Transl. froa. Russian.) Med. Prac. 2:120-131.
56. Mayar, F.L., Jr., PJm: Mehrle, Jr., and W-P. Dwyer.
1975. Toxaphene effects on reproduction, growth,
an<3 mortality of brooX. trout. D.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota.
43 pp.
57.' Welch, R.M., W. Levin, R. Kuntzman, M. Jacobson, and
A-H- Conney. 1971. Effect of halcgenated hydrocarbon
insecticides on the metabolism and uterotropic action
of estrogens in rats and mice. Tex. Acd. Pharm.
19-.234-246.
58. Blekherman, K.A., and V.I. Il'ina. Undated. Certain
changes in the functions of the ovaries in women who
were in contact with chloro-organic compounds.
(Transl. from Ukranian.) All-Union Scientific-
Research Institute of Hygiene ana Toxicology of
Pesticides, Polymers, and Plastics.
59. Desaiah, D., and R.B. Koch. 1975. Toxaphene inhibition
of ATPase activity in catfish, Ictalurus punctatus,
tissues. Bull. Environ. Contam. Tox. 13~( 2) :238—244 .
-31-
-------
60. Kuz 'minskay2., C.A. , and S.M. Alekhina. 1976. Effect
of chlorocaaphene on the isoenzyme spectrum of lactate
dehydrogenase in rat serum and liver. Environ. Eeaith
Persp. 13:127—132.
61. Gertig, H.f and w. Nowaczyk. 1975. The influence of
carathane and toxpahene on the activity of some enzymes
in rat's tissues in the studies _in vivo. Pol. J.
Pharmacol. Fharm. 27:357-364.
62.. Eunt, E.G., and J.O. Keith. 1963. Pesticide-wildlife
investigations in California - 1962. Presented on the
Program: The Ose of Agricultural Chemicals in California -
A Summary of the Problems and Progress in Solving Them.
University of California, Davis, California.
S3. Memo: Raccoon from Crane Lake, dated September 27, 1962.
From Chief 3iologist, Pesticide - Wildlife Studies,-
Denver, Colorado, to Refuge Manager, Crescent Lake
Refuge, Ellsworth, Nebraska.
64. Johnson, J.W. 1966, White pelican die-off at Cavour
Lake. S.D. Bird Notes 18(3):57.
Letter: ref. White pjelican die-off at Cavour Lake, dated
January 23 , 1967. From George M. Jonfcel,-Wetlands
Program Supervisor, to Mr. Janes 0. Keith, University of
California.
Memo: Analyses of samples from 3 white pelican casualties,
dated September 8, 1966. From Leader, South Dakota
Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, South Dakota State
Univ., to Chief, Section of Chemical, Physiological and
Pesticide- Wildlife Studies, Denver Wildlife Research
Center.
Letter: ref. Laboratory repott on pelican losses on
Cavour Lake, dated November 8, 1965. From Dr. G.S.
Harshfield, Head, Department of Veterinary Science,
South Dakota State College, to Dr. Paul F. Springer,
Department of Wildlife Management, S.D.S.U.
65. Memo: Toxaphene incidents, dated October 23, 197 6.
From Jim [Keith, University of California], to Don
[Kuntzelman, Project Manager, OSPR]•
66. Flickinger, E.L. 1976. Fish and wildlife mortality
from toxaphene used for rice insect control in Texas.
(Prepublication copy).
-32-
-------
67. Memo: What about Cholla Lake, dated 1968. From
Richard E. Fillmore, Wildlife Biologist, to Chief,
Section of Upland Wildlife Ecology.
68. Memo: Cholla Lake bird kills, 1975-76, dated
November 11, 1976. Prom Donald Xuntzeiman,
Project Manager, OS?R, to Files.
69. McEwen, L.C., C.E. Xnittle, and M.L. Richmond.
1972. Wildlife effects from grasshopper
insecticides sprayed on short-grass range.
J. Range Mngmt. 25(3):188-194.
70. Memo: Analysis report, dated March 5, 1975.
From E.A. Spps, Jr., Chief Chemist, Feed and
Fertilizer Laboratory, to Dr. John Newsom,
Forestry Department.
71. Memo: Analysis of brown pelicans (File So. PS -
1024), dated July 23, 1975. From Director,
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel,
Maryland, to Dr. John Newsom, Leader, Louisiana
Cooperative Wildlife Research unit, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.
72. Sanders, a.O. 1969"!. "Toxicity of pesticides to
the crustacean, Gaminarus lacustris. 0.S. Department
of the Interior, Eisa. and wildlife Service, Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and wildlife, Washington, D.C.
73. Memo: Risk criteria not. currently used for issuance
of toxaphene RPAR, dated March 15, 1977. From Donald
Kuntzelman, Project Manager, OSPR, to Files.
74. D.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interim Car-
cinogen Assessment Group. 1977. Preliminary
review of oncogenicity,of toxaphene. Washington, D.C.
(unpublished).
75. Gulf South Research Inst. 1977. NCI Carcinogenesis
bioassay experimental design status report. [Final
report.]
-33-
------- |