Methyl Bromide Alternatives for Applicators,
Commodity Owners, Shippers, and Their Agents
IsSz)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Stratospheric Protection Division
June 2010
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 1
-------
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) co-chairs and members,
the Quarantine and Preshipment Task Force co-chairs and members, and the companies and
organizations that employ them do not endorse the performance, worker safety, or
environmental acceptability of any of the technical options discussed. Every industrial and
agricultural operation requires consideration of environmental and worker safety and proper
disposal of contaminants and waste products. Moreover, as work continues - including
additional toxicity evaluation - more information on health, environmental and safety effects
of alternatives and replacements will become available for use in selecting among the options
discussed in this document.
U.S. EPA, UNEP, the TEAP Co-chairs and members, the Quarantine and Preshipment Task
Force co-chairs and members, in furnishing or distributing this information, do not make any
warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy,
completeness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind whatsoever resulting
from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure contained herein,
including but not limited to any claims regarding health, safety, environmental effect or fate,
efficacy, or performance, made by the source of information.
Mention of any company, association, or product in this document is for information
purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of any such company, association,
or product, either express or implied by U.S. EPA, UNEP, the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel co-chairs or members, the Quarantine and Preshipment Task Force or
members, or the companies or organizations that employ them.
Acknowledgements
This report represents a synopsis of information gathered by the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
specifically the Quarantine and Preshipment Task Force, which worked in collaboration with
the International Plant Protection Convention, to produce a report in October, 2009. The full
report can be accessed at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment Panels/TEAP/Reports/. No
copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with
acknowledgement of the source of the material.
Special thanks to the Quarantine and Preshipment Task Force co-chairs Marta Pizano
(Colombia); Jonathan Banks (Australia); Members: Ken Glassey (New Zealand); Takashi
Misumi (Japan); David Okioga (Kenya); Ken Vick (USA); Eduardo Wellink (Argentina); Tom
Batchelor (Belgium); Ian Porter (Australia); and Wang Yuejin (PRC).
Me Br Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 2
-------
Table of Contents
COMMON ACRONYMS 6
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 7
Alternatives for Quarantine Applications 7
Alternatives for Preshipment Treatments 7
Methyl Bromide Emission Minimization 8
Regulations that Affect QPS Use 8
SECTION II. CATEGORIES OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT FOR QPS USES.... 9
International Trade Manuals 10
Table 2-1. Examples of potential phytosanitary treatments to consider to replace or
REDUCE METHYL BROMIDE 11
International Standards for QPS Treatments 11
Alternatives for the Main Methyl Bromide QPS Uses 13
Fresh Fruit and Vegetables 13
300+ Alternative Quarantine Treatments for Perishables 14
Categories of Alternatives for Perishables 14
Treatments in the country of origin 15
In-transit treatment 16
Treatments on arrival in the importing country 16
Table 2-2: Examples of alternative non-MB quarantine treatments approved by some national quarantine
authorities for fresh fruit and vegetables 17
Table 2-3: Examples of alternative non-MB quarantine treatments used alone or in combination approved
by national quarantine authorities for fresh fruit and vegetables 19
Alternatives Under Development for Perishables 20
Grain, including Rice 20
Alternatives for Preshipment Treatment on Grain 21
Alternatives for Quarantine Treatments on Grain 22
Alternatives under Development for Grain 24
Alternatives for Preplant Soil Use - Propagation Materials 24
Treatment of Soil as a Commodity 24
Treatment of Soil in Situ to Eradicate an Exotic Quarantine Pest 24
Preplant Fumigation of Soils for Nursery Plants and Turf 25
Table 2-4. Production of various types ofpropagation material in the US with associated methyl
bromide usage 26
Alternatives for Strawberry Runners 26
Alternatives for Forest Nurseries 27
Alternatives for Other Kinds of Propagation Materials 27
Non-chemical Alternatives for Nurseries 27
Me Br Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 3
-------
Alternatives Under Development in Nurseries 27
Whole Logs 28
Table 2-5. Groups of wood insects containing species of quarantine importance that are targets of
methyl bromide fumigation 28
Alternatives for Logs 29
Reduction in Fumigation Rate for Logs 29
Alternatives for Logs - Fumigants 30
Sulfuryl Fluoride 31
Methyl Isothocyanate/SuIfuryl Fluoride Mixture 32
Methyl Iodide 32
Cyanogen 33
Alternatives - Non-fumigants 33
Heat treatment 33
Irradiation 34
Water soaking 34
Debarking 35
Microwave Treatment 35
Trends in Log Trade 35
Fig 2-6: Trends in log trade in Asia 1999 - 2007 36
Heat Treatment of Wood Packaging Materials 36
Chemical Alternatives in WPM 37
Table 2-7: List ofpotential treatments for ISPM-15 under IPPC evaluation 38
Table 6-6: List of potential treatments for ISPM-15 under IPPC evaluation 38
Not in-kind Alternatives for WPM 38
Alternatives Under Development for WPM 39
Uses Where No Alternatives Have Been Identified 39
Summary: Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 40
SECTION III. OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMISSION REDUCTION AND RECOVERY41
Quantities of QPS Methyl Bromide Emissions Available for Recapture and Destruction 41
Table 3-1. Examples of standard QPS methyl bromide treatment schedules that specify end point
concentrations 42
Table 3-2. Estimates of emissions from various commodities fumigated with methyl bromide 43
Emission Reduction Processes and Technologies 44
Application of Best Practices 44
Gas Transfer Systems 45
Me Br Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 4
-------
Prolonged Exposures 45
Technologies for MB Recovery, Containment and Recycling from Commodity Treatments ..46
Recapture of Methyl Bromide from QPS Commodity Treatments 46
Table 3-3. Available systems for recapture of MB 47
Economics of Recapture, Reuse and Destruction Technologies 48
Recapture Systems Under Development 50
Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction in Soil Fumigation 50
Barrier Films 51
Increased Chloropicrin Content with Decreased MB 52
Phytosanitary Standards of IPPC and Recommendations on Use of MB 52
SECTION IV. CONCLUSION 53
Me Br Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 5
-------
Common
Acronyms
1,3-D
1,3 -dichloropropene
A5
Article 5 Party
APHIS
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)
AQIS
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
CUE
Critical Use Exemption
CUN
Critical Use Nomination
EC
European Community
EPPO
European Plant Protection Organisation
IPPC
International Plant Protection Convention
ISPM
International Standard Phytosanitary Measure
MB
Methyl Bromide
MBAIS
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Information System (Australian database)
MBTOC
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee
MITC
Methylsiocyanate
MOP
Meeting of the Parties
NPPO
National Plant Protection Organization
OEWG
Open Ended Working Group
Pic
Chloropicrin
PHYTO
Plant and plant product export conditions database within AQIS
PPQ
Plant, Protection and Quarantine (APHIS)
QPS
Quarantine and Pre-shipment
SF
Sulfuryl fluoride
TEAP
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
USA, US
United States of America
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Me Br Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 6
-------
Section I. Introduction and Overview
Alternatives for many quarantine and preshipment (QPS) uses of methyl bromide are known.
The Quarantine and Preshipment Task Force of the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer submitted these
alternatives in a comprehensive report to the Montreal Protocol parties in October, 2009.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created this consolidated report to
encourage applicators - commodity owners, shippers, and their agents - to review and
consider the use of potential alternatives to lessen methyl bromide usage.
Alternatives for Quarantine Applications
With regard to quarantine treatments associated with international trade, the International
Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) has a policy that alternatives to methyl bromide should
be used wherever technically and economically feasible. Within the IPPC, a Technical Panel
on Phytosanitary Treatments has promulgated a standard for treatments to be assessed against
and is assessing alternatives and approving where sufficient data are available.
There are technically effective alternatives approved and in use for at least some of the major
categories of current quarantine uses on commodities. Heat treatments are available for sawn
timber and wood packing material, fumigation with phosphine or sulfuryl fluoride is
available for particular trades with whole logs, and there are a number of alternative options
in use for various perishables in international trade.
Development of methyl bromide alternatives for quarantine applications on commodities
continues to be a difficult process, exacerbated by the multitude of commodities being
treated, the diverse situations where treatments are applied, a constantly changing trade and
regulatory landscape, requirements for bilateral agreement on QPS measures, requirement for
very high levels of proven effectiveness, often for several different target species, lack of
patent coverage or other commercial protection for some potential alternatives, and the low
price and plentiful supply of methyl bromide for QPS purposes. Regulations favoring methyl
bromide treatment or prescribing methyl bromide alone are a major barrier to adoption of
alternatives as often there is little incentive for the regulation to be changed. A key barrier to
the development of alternatives for soil treatment for growing plants of certified high health
status is the rigorous testing required to prove and certify that an alternative is effective.
Alternatives for Preshipment Treatments
For preshipment treatments, the objective is to produce goods that are "pest-free" to some
standard level. While in practice the target species are typically cosmopolitan insect pests
(beetles, moths and psocids) associated with quality losses in storage, treatments are also
expected to eliminate the other living insect species that may contaminate commodities, even
when they do not pose a direct threat to the quality of the commodity.
For preshipment treatment of grains, there are several alternative fumigants which are
available or near market and that can match the effectiveness and speed of action of methyl
bromide. Where logistically possible, several alternative strategies are available that can
deliver "pest-free" grain at the point of export. In-transit fumigation with phosphine may also
be an option.
Me Br Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 7
-------
In many of these cases, where the alternatives are not already approved, there are various
regulatory and other barriers to be overcome before the alternatives can be applied.
Methyl Bromide Emission Minimization
Methyl bromide emissions from fumigations can be minimized through the adoption of best
practices, both directly through best use of the fumigant and indirectly by minimizing the
need to re-treat after treatment failures. Methyl bromide can also be conserved to some
extent. For example, in a commercial installation in China treating logs, residual gas from
one fumigation chamber is transferred to a new fumigation. The concentration is then topped
up to specification using new methyl bromide, with a savings of methyl bromide of about
30% use.
There are several commercially available processes for recapture of residual methyl bromide.
Present installations have individual capacities of less than 50kg of fumigant, but higher
capacity units are currently being installed. All commercially available recapture units are
based on absorption onto active carbon, but subsequent treatment of the loaded carbon
differs. Efficiencies of recapture are strongly dependent on good fumigation practices that
minimises leakage during the exposure to the fumigant. Some specifications for QPS
fumigations include a minimum residual concentration or percent retention at the end of the
exposure. Examples vary from 21-60% retention, setting a limit on easily available fumigant
for recapture. Taking into account losses in practice during fumigations, including sorption
losses and leakage, it is estimated that 30-10% of initial dosage is available for recapture with
good practice, depending on the load treated and other conditions. Commercially available
recapture systems also offer the ability to release recaptured methyl bromide for reuse, with a
savings in practice of about 30% of methyl bromide use. Costs of recapture are highly
situation-dependent, but may typically add 50-100%) to the cost of fumigation.
Regulations that Affect QPS Use
Methyl bromide, as a highly toxic gas, is subject to numerous restrictions and regulations that
affect its use as QPS fumigant treatment.
Some Parties have discontinued use of QPS methyl bromide or have announced an intent to
do so in the near future. The Russian Federation discontinued use of QPS methyl bromide
with legislation that also terminated use of non-QPS material. Both the EC and Brazil have
signaled they will discontinue QPS methyl bromide use soon.
Industrial and environmental regulations relating to methyl bromide fumigations vary widely
between countries. In some, its use is severely restricted and may require recapture in some
regions. National phytosanitary regulations specify set dosages for particular applications.
There are relatively few cases (by total volume used) where methyl bromide is the sole
treatment specified, though local circumstances may make it the only feasible option. This is
particularly so for post-entry quarantine.
Illustrative examples of regulations affecting methyl bromide as a QPS fumigant are given in
the full 2009 report.
Me Br Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 8
-------
Section II. Categories of Alternative Treatment for QPS
Uses
The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) (2002) recognized 13
different categories of alternative treatments that are approved by regulatory agencies as QPS
treatments in one or more countries against specific quarantine (regulated) pests for
disinfestation of particular perishable and durable commodities. For example, the Methyl
Bromide Alternatives Information System (MBAIS) database (Australian Quarantine and
Information System - AQIS 2009a) provides a listing of references to methyl bromide
alternatives for QPS and other uses, such as heat, cold, and irradiation.
Existing alternatives to MB for QPS treatment of perishable and durable commodities are
based on (1) pre-harvest practices and inspection procedures; (2) non-chemical (physical)
treatments; and (3) chemical treatments.
Many quarantine treatments are "post-entry." This is where a treatment is required either if
inspection finds a quarantine organism in the shipment at the port of entry or quarantine or
other treatments have been insufficient to adequately manage the risk of importing quarantine
pests in sufficient numbers to be a quarantine threat. Many countries prohibit imports of
particular cargos where the risk of carrying quarantine pests is unacceptable and there is no
system or treatment available to manage this risk to an adequate level. In effect, this avoids
the need for post-entry quarantine measures, including methyl bromide fumigation.
Typically, treatment options are more restricted practically for post-entry quarantine
treatments than for treatment before shipment. In many post-entry situations, methyl bromide
fumigation is the only technically and economically available and approved process to meet
quarantine standards to allow importation. Ports often lack alternative treatment facilities and
infrastructure. The cargos are often containerized and removal from the container is
uneconomic. Methyl bromide fumigation may be ordered before the commodity can be
released for distribution. Rejection or destruction of the cargo remains the default option if
the treatment is not carried out.
MBTOC (2002) noted more than 300 individual alternatives approved for quarantine
treatment of perishables and more than 70 approved as QPS treatments for durable
commodities. These examples are often specific to a particular commodity and export trade
and are drawn from several categories of alternatives (such as cold, heat, pest-free zones,
systems approach, physical removal of pests, controlled atmospheres, pesticides, alternative
fumigants, debarking, irradiation and combination treatments (MBTOC 2002; 2007)).
National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) may publish listings of approved
treatments for imports, with specifications varying according to phytosanitary requirements
of receiving countries and pest risk. In many cases, methyl bromide fumigation may be
specified as a quarantine treatment, but often there are also approved alternative treatments or
processes given.
Me Br Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 9
-------
International Trade Manuals
Examples of manuals of approved quarantine treatments for international trade include:
USA - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Plant Protection & Quarantine
(PPQ) manuals - http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import export/plants/manuals/index.shtml
Australia - Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) Import Conditions database
http://www.aqis.gov.au/icon32/asp/ex quervcontent.asp
New Zealand - Approved Biosecurity Treatments for Risk Goods Directed for Treatment -
http://www.biosecuritv.govt.nz/files/regs/stds/bnz-std-abtrt.pdf
Japan - Theory and Practice of Plant Quarantine Treatments (revised edition 2002) (JFTA
2002)
Some NPPOs also keep listings of treatments required to meet the quarantine and
preshipment requirements of importing countries (e.g., AQIS's plant and plant product export
conditions database named PHYTO (AQIS 2009)). These can include both methyl bromide
and approved alternatives.
A listing of alternatives for various Quarantine uses was given in the IPPC recommendation
(IPPC 2008) to its contracting Parties on preferential use of alternatives in place of MB,
together with considerations affecting the choice of a phytosanitary measure to replace
methyl bromide use. The listing is reproduced in Table 2-1.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 10
-------
Table 2-1. Examples of potentialphytosanitary treatments to consider to replace or reduce
use of methyl bromide
List of articles fumigated
Examples of potential phytosanitary treatments to consider to
replace or reduce use of methyl bromide
Commodities
Bulbs, corms, tubers and rhizomes
(intended for planting)
Hot water, pre-plant quarantine soil sterilization (steam or chemical),
pesticide dip, or a combination of these treatments
Cut flowers and branches (including
foliage)
Controlled atmosphere (CO2, N2) + combination treatment, hot water,
irradiation, phosphine, phosphine/carbon dioxide mixture, pyrethroids +
carbon dioxide, ethyl formate + carbon dioxide
Fresh fruit and vegetables
Cold treatment, high-temperature forced air, hot water, irradiation, quick
freeze, vapor heat treatment, chemical dip, phosphine, combination of
treatments
Grain, cereals and oil seeds for
consumption including rice (not intended
for planting)
Heat treatment, irradiation, ethyl formate, carbonyl sulphide, phosphine,
phosphine + carbon dioxide, controlled atmosphere (CO2, N2)
Dried foodstuffs (including herbs, dried
fruit, coffee, cocoa)
Heat treatment, carbon dioxide under high pressure, irradiation, ethyl
formate, ethylene oxide, phosphine, phosphine + carbon dioxide, controlled
atmosphere (CO2, N2), sulfuryl fluoride, propylene oxide
Nursery stock (plants intended for planting
other than seed), and associated soil and
other growing media
Hot water, soil sterilization (steam or chemical e.g. methyl isothiocyanate
(MITC) fumigants), pesticides dip, phosphine, combination of any of these
treatments
Seeds (intended for planting)
Hot water, pesticide dip or dusting, phosphine, combination treatments
Wood packaging materials
Heat treatment (contained in Annex 1 of ISPM No. 15). Further alternative
treatments may be added in the future.
Wood (including round wood, sawn wood,
wood chips)
Heat treatment, kiln-drying, removal of bark, microwave, irradiation,
MITC/sulfuryl fluoride mixture, methyl iodide, chemical impregnation or
immersion, phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride
Whole logs (with or without bark)
Heat treatment, irradiation, removal of bark, phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride
Hay, straw, thatch grass, dried animal
fodder (other than grains and cereals listed
above)
Heat treatment, irradiation, high pressure + phosphine, phosphine, sulfuryl
fluoride
Cotton and other fibre crops and products
Heat treatment, compression, irradiation, phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride
Tree nuts (almonds, walnuts, hazelnuts
etc.)
Carbon dioxide under high pressure, controlled atmosphere (CO2, N2), heat
treatment, irradiation, ethylene oxide, ethyl formate, phosphine, phosphine
+ carbon dioxide, propylene oxide, sulfuryl fluoride
Structures and equipment
Buildings with quarantine pests (including
elevators, dwellings, factories, storage
facilities)
Controlled atmosphere (CO2, N2), heat treatment, pesticide spray or
fogging, phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride
Equipment (including used agricultural
machinery and vehicles), empty shipping
containers and reused packaging
Controlled atmosphere (CO2, N2), heat treatment, steam, hot water, pesticide
spray or fogging, phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride
Other items
Personal effects, furniture, crafts, artifacts,
hides, fur and skins
Controlled atmosphere (CO2, N2), heat treatment, irradiation, ethylene
oxide, pesticide spray or fogging, phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride
International Standards for QPS Treatments
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 11
-------
Some international standards produced by the IPPC (called International Standard
Phytosanitary Measures or ISPMs) relate directly or indirectly to phytosanitary (quarantine)
processes that either use methyl bromide at present or avoid the need for QPS methyl
bromide treatments.
The main ISPM that deals specifically with a major volume use of methyl bromide is ISPM
15, as revised (IPPC 2009b). The standard deals with the disinfestation of wood packaging
material in international trade as a quarantine measure against various pests of wood and
forests. The standard contains specifications for both heat treatment and methyl bromide
fumigation. The standard recognises that methyl bromide is an ozone-depleting substance
(p. 5 of Appendix 4). It states, "In the absence of alternative treatments being available for
certain situations or to all countries, or the availability of other appropriate packaging
materials, methyl bromide treatment is included in this standard. " (IPPC 2006, 2009). The
recently revised ISPM 15 standard also encourages national quarantine authorities to promote
the use of an approved MB alternative: 'NPPOs are encouraged to promote the use of
alternative treatments approved in this standard' (CPM-4 report, April 2009, p.l 1 of
Appendix 4).
Other ISPM standards (www.ippc.int) relevant to methyl bromide treatments and alternatives
are:
• ISPM No. 02 (2007) Framework for pest risk analysis
• ISPM No. 10 (1999) Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production
and pest free production sites
• ISPM No. 11 (2004) Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of
environmental risks and living modified organisms
• ISPM No. 14 (2002) The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk
management
• ISPM No. 16 (2002) Regulated non-quarantine pests: concept and application
• ISPM No. 18 (2003) Guidelines for the use of irradiation as a phytosanitary measure
• ISPM No. 21 (2004) Pest risk analysis for regulated non quarantine pests
• ISPM No. 22 (2005) Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence
• ISPM No. 24 (2005) Guidelines for the determination and recognition of equivalence of
phytosanitary measures
• ISPM No. 26 (2006) Establishment of pest free areas for fruit flies (Tephritidae)
• ISPM No. 28 (2009) Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests
• ISPM No. 29 (2007) Recognition of pest free areas and areas of low pest prevalence
• ISPM No. 30 (2008) Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies
(Tephritidae)
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 12
-------
Alternatives for the Main Methyl Bromide QPS Uses
Globally, the main categories of use of methyl bromide for QPS by volume (>300 tonnes a
year) are:
• Fresh fruit and vegetables
• Grain including rice
• Soil, in situ, for production of propagation material
• Whole logs
• Wood and wooden packaging material
These main categories represent about 85% of the uses in 2007 for which detailed estimates
are available at this time (i.e. excluding unidentified uses) and 70% of total reported
consumption.
All of these categories have approved non-methyl bromide alternatives in at least some
applications. Specific alternatives may not be available for a particular trade or situation
because of the risk or presence of particular quarantine pests, lack of approval by the
importing NPPO, or lack of registration or commercial supply of the particular treatment.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetables
This is a complex category comprising a large and diverse group of products. Very large
volumes of perishable products are traded internationally each year (FAO 2009). The
statistics on international trade and MB usage indicate that the vast majority of perishable
products are traded without MB fumigation. The principal perishable commodities that tend
to use MB for quarantine treatments are apples and pears, berry fruit, citrus, cucurbits,
grapes, root crops, stone fruit, subtropical and tropical fruit, and some vegetables, as well as
cut flowers, ornamentals and others (MBTOC, 2007 p.299). Quarantine treatments or
procedures are considered essential in the cases where countries and commodities are hosts to
specific pests that have quarantine significance to a specific importing country and are not
found in the importing country and where the commodity being traded presents an
unacceptable risk of the pest being introduced into the importing country.
Various alternative methods to MB have been developed in recent decades, in some cases to
address product quality problems. The typical MB dosages required for successful QPS
fumigation result in some perishables showing significant loss of marketability and quality
(MBTOC 2007 p.299-300), such as reduced shelf-life. This acts as an incentive for the
development and use of alternatives to QPS methyl bromide treatment. As described in
previous MBTOC and TEAP reports (TEAP 1999, MBTOC 1994, 1998, 2002, 2007) there is
a wide variety of non-MB treatments and procedures available, applied individually or in
combination, which may be able to meet quarantine requirements depending on the pest in
question, country of origin and quarantine security requirements of the importing country.
However, before quarantine treatments can be used, alternatives have to be approved case by
case for specific commodities, pests, and countries, as explained in other sections of this
report.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 13
-------
300+ Alternative Quarantine Treatments for Perishables
MBTOC (2002) recorded more than 300 alternative quarantine treatments for perishable
commodities that had been approved by a National Plant Protection Organisation (national
quarantine authorities) (MBTOC 2007, p.300) for some particular quarantine situation. This
current study has identified many and diverse approved treatments. It provides examples of
alternative quarantine treatments and procedures that have been approved by national
quarantine authorities for the list of fresh fruit and vegetables listed in Table 6-1 and Annex
2. Approved alternatives include cold treatments, various types of heat treatments, heat +
controlled atmospheres, pesticide dips or sprays, wax coating, pest removal (e.g. by
brushing), alternative fumigants, irradiation, crop production in areas free from quarantine
pests, the systems approach, and inspection procedures. Examples for particular perishable
commodities are summarised in Table 6-1 and given in more detail in Annex 2. Technical
descriptions of these alternatives can be found in previous MBTOC reports (e.g. MBTOC
2002, pp.273-318; MBTOC 2007, pp.306-315). For most of the commodities listed in Table
6-2, two or more different types of alternatives have been approved by various quarantine
authorities for specific quarantine situations. Cold, heat and irradiation treatments appear to
be applicable to the widest range of commodities at present.
There is a wide variety of pests of quarantine significance, varying according to origin and
country of destination. These include tephritid fruit flies, mealybugs, thrips, aphids, mites and
other groups shown in Table 2-3.
In many cases, the approved treatments apply to a particular situation, i.e. a commodity with
particular pest(s) from a certain country or region and a specific quarantine concern of the
importing country (MBTOC, 2007), as illustrated in Annex 2. Each approved treatment may
be applicable to just one or several species of fruit fly, for example. However, in some cases
an approved treatment covers many species, such as "external feeders" and "insects," as
shown in Table 2-3.
Categories of Alternatives for Perishables
Alternatives for perishables (e.g. fresh fruits, vegetables, cut flowers) can be grouped by
process into three classes:
• Pre-harvest practices, including systems approaches
• Non-chemical treatments
• Chemical treatments, including fumigation
Non-chemical treatments kill pests by exposure to changes in temperature and/or atmospheric
conditions, or high energy processes such as irradiation and microwaves, or physical removal
using air or water jets. Often a combination of these is required to kill particular quarantine
pests or pest complexes because they can tolerate a single treatment.
Although a number of treatments have been approved, actual use of these treatments is not
well documented (MBTOC 2007, p.300). The QPSTF did not collect statistics on the specific
commercial adoption and use of QPS alternatives on particular categories of fruit and
vegetables. Some of the approved treatments listed in Table 6-2 may not be used at all in
commercial practice, while others are used to a significant extent. For example, the non MB
systems approach required for Hass avocado exported from Mexico (Michoacan region only)
to the USA appears to be well used, according to FAO statistics (http://faostat.fao.org).
Mexico exported a total of about 310,260 tonnes of avocado in 2007 (value $US 620
million), and much of this was imported by the USA, indicating that this quarantine
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 14
-------
procedure is used for a significant volume of product. An APHIS document also reported on
the efficacy of the Mexico/Michoacan avocado procedure in commercial practice (which
does not use MB), stating that"In 6 years of experience, the surveys, inspections, andfruit
cuttings have not detected the presence of any insect pests in the importation of Mexican
Hass avocados'" (APHIS 2004, p.8).
Alternative treatments for perishable products may be carried out in the country of origin, or
in-transit in some cases, or in the importing country as outlined below. However, although for
reasons of practicality (see below), fumigation with MB may at present be the only available
treatment in lieu of destruction or rejection of the consignment if infestation by quarantine
pests is detected at the port of entry.
Treatments in the country of origin: Some of the approved alternative methods, notably
systems approaches, pest free areas and pre-export inspection requirements, can only be
carried out in the country of origin. For some important quarantine pest species such as fruit
flies and codling moth, some importing countries require that infestible perishable
commodities undergo a mandatory treatment or procedure prior to export. Exporters
sometimes prefer to carry out quarantine treatments in the country of origin for economic
reasons. The cost of materials and labour for quarantine treatments can be lower in the
exporting country, particularly if the destination country is a non-A5 country with higher
labor costs or high charges for port demurrage. Quarantine MB fumigations in the
Philippines, for example, were reported to be $US 20-80 if carried out prior to export
compared with $1,500-2,000 if carried out in destination countries (MLF 2004, prices in
2004 dollars).
In many cases fixed facilities are needed for carrying out treatments (e.g. heat, cold,
controlled atmospheres) and it can be cheaper for the exporters to locate and operate the
facilities in the country of origin than in the importing country, i.e. it is often more efficient
to treat the entire commodity at the point of origin than to treat it after it has been dispersed to
several different ports. Taiwan, for example, has 4 vapour heat treatment facilities and pack
houses which have been approved by the Australian quarantine authorities for mangoes
exported to Australia, while the Philippines has 5 registered treatment facilities for mango
(AQIS 2009).
For certain treatments such as MB and heat, there is a product quality cost, however, for
treating perishables before transit since the earlier treatment significantly cuts shelf-life of the
treated commodity compared to treatment after transit. On the other hand, cold treatments
and controlled atmospheres can improve the shelf-life and quality of perishable commodities
(such as flowers and fruit) if carried out prior to export.
For perishable products, pest control based on pre-harvest practices, as part of the systems
approach as described in ISPM No. 14, must include cultural techniques leading to pest
reduction, must have an agreement on the area of any pest-free zones, and be subject to
inspection in order to receive certification. In these cases, regulatory approval depends on a
number of factors including knowledge of the pest-host biology, evidence of commodity
resistance to the pest, trapping and field treatment results, monitoring of pests and diseases,
and careful documentation.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 15
-------
In-transit treatment: In some cases the approved alternative treatments (e.g. cold, controlled
atmospheres) are allowed to be carried out while commodities are being transported to their
destination in a truck, shipping container or ship hold that has the relevant equipment. The
quarantine authorities in the USA, for example, have approved the equipment installations in
a number of ships and in hundreds of shipping containers for in-transit cold treatments
(CPHST 2009b, 2009c). For example, citrus shipped from Spain to the US can be treated by
cold treatment in transit.
Treatments on arrival in the importing country: When products arrive in an importing
country and are found to need a quarantine treatment, MB tends to be the prevalent treatment
in a number of countries, due to logistic issues such as a lack of rapid pest identification
facilities and lack of alternative treatment facilities at ports of entry. Quarantine authorities in
the USA, for example, have approved a total of about 116 quarantine treatment facilities for
imported products in 28 states (primarily for MB fumigation). This total includes seven heat
treatment facilities1 located in five states, and eight cold treatment facilities located in one
state only (APHIS 2008 ab). So in many US states, only MB and phosphine facilities appear
to be available at present for carrying out quarantine treatments on imported perishable
products (APHIS 2008ab).
Some of these heat facilities are small and may not be suitable for perishable products. These 7 heat facilities are
intended for imported products only. This number does not include the heat facilities approved for ISPM-15 treatments
in the USA.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 16
-------
Table 2-2: Examples of alternative non-MB quarantine treatments approved by some
national quarantine authorities for fresh fruit and vegetables (listed by commodity) for
specific quarantine situations involving particular importing and exporting countries
Perishable commodities
Examples of alternative quarantine treatments or procedures
Cold
Heat
Chemical
Irradiation
Pest free
areas
Inspection
Systems
approach
Fruit (many types)
CHM
PFA
Vegetables, many types
CHM
PFA
Apple
CT
CAT
PFA
INS
SYS
Apricot
CT
PFA
INS
Avocado
CT
PFA, SA
INS
SYS
Blueberry
CT
CHM
INS
Breadfruit
SWB
Cape gooseberry
CT
Carambola
CT
IRR
Cherimoya
SWW
Cherry
CT
CAT
SYS
Citrus
CT
HTF
PFA
Clementine
CT
VHT
Durian, other large fruits
SWB
Eggplant
VHT
IRR
Ethrog
CT
Garlic
PFA
Grape
CT
FUM
SYS
Grapefruit
CT
VHT
PFA
INS
Guava
IRR
Horseradish roots
HWT
Kiwi fruit
CT
Kumquat
CT
HTF
Lemon
CT
HTF
Lime
HWT,
HTF
SWW
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 17
-------
Perishable commodities
Examples of alternative quarantine treatments or procedures
Cold
Heat
Chemical
Irradiation
Pest free
areas
Inspection
Systems
approach
Litchi (lychee)
CT
HTF,
VHT
IRR
Longan
CT
HWT
IRR
INS
Loquat
CT
Mandarin
CT
Mango
CT
HWT,
VHT
IRR
PFA
Nectarine
CT
CAT
Orange
CT
HTF,
VHT
Ortanique
CT
Papaya
HTF,
VHT
Passion fruit
SWW
Peach
CT
CAT
PFA
INS
SYS
Pear
CT
INS
SYS
Pepper (bell)
VHT
PFA
INS
Persimmon
CT
Pineapple
VHT
IRR
Plum, Plumcot
CT
SYS
Pomegranate
CT
PFA
INS
Rambutan
HTF,
VHT
IRR
Squash
VHT
Tangerine
CT
HTF
Tomato
VHT
Zucchini
VHT
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 18
-------
Key to table:
CAT
Forced moist air or vapour warm air with controlled atmosphere treatment, e.g. 1% oxygen, 15% CO:
CHM
Chemical dip or spray, e.g. specified fungicide, acaricide or nematicide, other than MB.
CT
Cold treatment
FUM
Fumigant other than MB, e.g. phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride.
HTF
High temperature forced air treatment
HWT
Hot or warm water treatment
INS
Inspection
IRR
Irradiation
PFA
Approved pest-free production area
SA
Systems Approach comprising measures such as pest free areas, trapping, field sanitation, registered
packhouses, screened storage etc.
SWB
Soapy water + brushing
SWW
Soapy water + wax
VHT
Vapour heat treatment
Table 2-3: Examples of alternative non-MB quarantine treatments used alone or in
combination approved by national quarantine authorities for fresh fruit and vegetables
(listed by pest group) for specific quarantine situations involving particular exporting and
importing countries
Categories of pests
controlled by
approved treatments
Examples of alternative quarantine treatments or procedures
Cold
Heat
Chemical
Irradiation
Pest free area
Inspection
Systems
approach
External feeders, surface
pests
HWT
SWB
INS
Fruit borers
CT
INS
Fruit flies
CT
CAT, HTF,
HWT,
VHT
IRR
PFA
INS
SYS
Fruit moths (a)
CT
CAT
PFA
INS
SYS
Fungi (b)
CHM
PFA
INS
Insects
FUM
IRR
INS
Mealybugs
CT
HWT
PFA
INS
Mtes (c)
SWW,
CHM
INS
SYS
Nematodes
HWT
PFA
INS
Spiders
CHM
INS
Weevils
CT
VHT
PFA
INS
Unspecified quarantine
pests
CT
VHT, HTF
CHM
PFA
INS
(a) Including codling moth, false codling moth, light brown apple moth, (b) Including citrus black spot, fruit rusts, (c)
Including spider mites, false spider mite.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 19
-------
Alternatives Under Development for Perishables
Fresh fruit and vegetables comprise a difficult category for development of quarantine
treatments in order to avoid or minimise chemical injury, quality deterioration or phytotoxicity.
Adverse effects vary according to the country or area of production, the varieties involved and
other factors. Additionally, some types of perishable commodities are directly consumed
without processing or cooking and therefore, tests such as residue analysis to ensure food safety
are required. Mortality tests and chemical injury tests are presently being conducted or planned
in Japan; chemical injury tests mainly consider methyl iodide, phosphine and sulfuryl fluoride.
In particular, methyl iodide is expected to exhibit toxic properties that are similar to those of
methyl bromide given that their chemical composition is almost equivalent. Phosphine
fumigation at 1.5 g m-3 for 24h at >15°C is registered as a quarantine treatment for Japanese
pear. Mortality tests for fresh fruits are in progress to evaluate control of leaf miners, spider
mites and mealybugs with a mixture of ethyl formate + carbon dioxide.
Until recently phosphine, generated from aluminium phosphide preparations, was not used
for perishable commodities because ammonia contaminants released from the formulation
damaged some perishable goods (Horn and Horn 2004). However, experts in Chile have
developed treatments of pure phosphine at low temperature (i.e. cold-storage temperature, or
1.5-15 °C) which have been found to control key fruit pests, such as mealybugs,
Pseudococcus spp; apple moth, Cydiapomonella; eulia, Proeulia spp; fruit tree weevil,
Naupactus xanthographus; mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata; fruit fly, Rhagoletis
spp, Bractocera spp, Anastrepha spp; and Thrips spp., without causing damage to the fruit
(Horn and Horn 2004). This pure phosphine treatment has been adopted commercially as a
MB alternative for quarantine (and non-quarantine) pests for fruit exports from Chile to
Mexico, Iran and other countries. New Zealand has recently registered pure phosphine as a
postharvest pesticide for kiwifruit (for armoured scales and mealy bugs) and studies are
underway to gain approval for quarantine use (Horn 2009). USD A researchers recently tested
pure phosphine at cold temperatures as a MB alternative, and found there was no damage to
artichokes, white-flesh peaches, and white-flesh nectarines (USDA 2008, p.9). USDA
researchers also demonstrated that pure phosphine is effective in controlling western flower
thrips without causing damage to commodities such as strawberries, lettuce, broccoli and
asparagus (USDA 2008, p.9).
Grain, including Rice
Methyl bromide fumigation continues to be used for preshipment treatment of cereal grains
where logistical constraints at point of export or importing country specifications preclude
the use of phosphine, the principal accepted fumigant alternative, or where methyl bromide
treatment is specified by regulation, or for treatments against certain specific regulated
quarantine pests. Methyl bromide fumigation may be the treatment of choice or the only
approved and available treatment for the situations where a quarantine treatment is required,
though it is acknowledged that it may not be ideal for this purpose when it causes some
damage to the commodity.
There are different alternative treatments of choice for grains to meet appropriate QPS
standards, depending on whether the treatment is officially required by national authorities
for normal and widespread insects that attack or are associated with grain in storage and
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 20
-------
transport (i.e. pre-shipment), or for control and elimination of specific regulated quarantine
pests.
Export cereal grains, such as rice and wheat, are prone to infestation by a number of
cosmopolitan grain pests that cause damage when in storage and are unacceptable to modern
market standards. Most of the MB fumigations that target these pests are non-QPS
treatments, falling outside the Protocol's definition of QPS. However, these pests are also the
main target of the preshipment treatments that are required by official regulations of some
exporting countries or by official requirements of some importing countries. Export cereal
grains, similar products and associated packaging from some locations may also be subject to
quarantine treatments against specific insect pests, notably khapra beetle (Trogoderma
granarium), or contaminants such as specific snails (e.g.. Cochlicella spp.) or seed-borne
diseases such as karnal bunt (Tilletia indica).
Alternatives for Preshipment Treatment on Grain
There are well known, standard processes for protection and disinfestation of stored grain in
storage and transport, capable of delivering grain (either bagged or in bulk) to an export point
in a pest-free condition without recourse to methyl bromide fumigation (e.g. see MBTOC
2007). The choice of alternative is dependent on the commodity or structure to be treated, the
situation in which the treatment is required, the accepted level of efficacy and the cost and the
time available for treatment. Some alternatives (e.g. some fumigants, heat treatment) may be
implemented as 'stand alone' treatments to replace methyl bromide in certain situations.
Others may be used in combination to achieve an acceptable level of control.
Preshipment treatments in general are aimed at a lower standard of pest control than
quarantine. While quarantine treatments lead to a commodity free of regulated quarantine
pests, preshipment treatments only require the consignment to be 'practically free' of pests.
This lower level of security gives a wider choice of alternatives, with reduced requirements
for efficacy testing.
These processes can theoretically avoid the need for any further treatment against infestation
at the export port. In practice, consignments may be brought to the export point in infested
condition. Also, particularly in humid, tropical situations, there is often a high invasion
pressure from pests at the export point. As a result, an insecticidal process, usually
fumigation, must be used to ensure the grain meets the exporter's or importer's official
regulations for lack of infestation.
Alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation for preshipment of cereal grains, including rice,
vary with situation, particularly the required speed of action. In some export situations, there
is sufficient capacity at the port, to allow slower acting alternative treatments to be used
easily, with treatment times of 7 days or more for full effectiveness. Phosphine fumigation is
in widespread use for this purpose, for both bagged and bulk consignments. Controlled
atmosphere technologies have some usage at present (e.g. Clamp and Moore 2000), but have
potential for much more widespread adoption. Dichlorvos treatment, where permitted, also
will provide pest-free grain up to inspection standards.
In many export situations, a high throughput is required, where there is limited space at the
port for treatments and where demurrage costs on waiting vessels is high. Typical turnaround
times for methyl bromide for a shipment can be 24-48 hours, a time that has to be
accommodated in the organization of the export consignment under preshipment treatment.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 21
-------
More rapid treatments would be welcomed in many export situations, as these would
minimize delays associated with handling the export consignment, such as associated costs
and grain handling limitations. At this time there are no agreed, widely available and
approved preshipment treatments that will match the treatment speeds of large consignments
that can be achieved with MB fumigation, though there are several in advanced stages of
commercialisation and the regulatory approval process. The fumigants sulfuryl fluoride,
cyanogen and carbonyl sulphide, and synergised ethyl formate all have potential to give
similar treatment times and throughputs as methyl bromide (MBTOC 2007). Sulfuryl fluoride
fumigation is restricted by availability and registration of the fumigant to only a few
countries at this time, but now is in routine use as an alternative to methyl bromide for
preshipment treatment of grain in certain countries, such as Australia.
Irradiation has been used for preshipment disinfestation of grain (Zakladnoi et al. 1982) and
heat treatments have been demonstrated at moderate rates of throughput (150 tonnes per hour
(Thorpe et al. 1984)). Both systems require very substantial infrastructure if they are to match
treatment speeds provided by fumigants, including methyl bromide.
Some importing countries may specify fumigation at point of export as a pre-shipment
treatment, with indications as to what treatments are acceptable. Typically where methyl
bromide is specified as one treatment, phosphine fumigation may be specified as an
alternative. However, several countries specify use of methyl bromide as the only acceptable
QPS treatment of imported grain from specified exporters, even though well-conducted
phosphine fumigation may be expected to deliver the same technical outcome as methyl
bromide treatment.
Treatment, after loading, of bulk or bagged grain in ships with phosphine after loading may
potentially replace some current preshipment uses of MB. However, this may be interpreted
as falling outside 'preshipment' timelines and may not meet regulatory requirements of some
exporters and importers who require grain to be practically pest-free before loading.
Phosphine treatments may be conducted at the dockside, in lighters or barges prior to loading
a ship, or in the ship after loading and before sailing. In suitable ships, in-transit phosphine
treatment gives an effective post-export treatment.
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) recommendations on safe use of pesticides in
ships and shipping containers describe the safe use of both phosphine and methyl bromide at
port and in-transit (IMO 2008 ab).
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO 1996) specifically recommends that cargoes
should not be fumigated in ships with MB prior to sailing due to the risks resulting from the
difficulty in ventilating the cargo effectively. As an alternative to methyl bromide, for safety
and efficacy reasons, in-transit treatment with phosphine is restricted to specially-designed
bulk carriers, tanker-type vessels and other ships where the holds are gastight or can be made
so (Semple and Kirenga, 1997). In addition, equipment must be installed to circulate the
phosphine through the cargo mass (Watson et al., 1999). The circulation equipment ensures
that the gas penetrates throughout the load and can be aired from the load prior to unloading.
In-transit treatment of bulk grain is in widespread use, potentially avoiding the need for
methyl bromide treatment prior to shipment where import and export regulations permit.
Alternatives for Quarantine Treatments on Grain
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 22
-------
Many countries have strict quarantine regulations on grain and other durables originating from
countries where khapra beetle occurs. Typically, only methyl bromide treatment is specified
against this notorious pest, requiring twice the normal dosages for stored product disinfestation
often with an extended exposure period. For instance, cereal products from khapra beetle areas
for import into Australia require 80g m-3 for 48 hours at 21°C with an end point concentration at
48 hours of 20g m-3 (ICON 2009).
The USDA PPQ Treatment Manual (USDA 2009) contains many treatment schedules
specific to khapra beetle. Schedule T307-a refers to various treatment schedules for
commodities and transport vehicles found to be infested with khapra beetle for post-entry
quarantine treatment. Heat treatment at a high temperature and prolonged exposure (7
minutes at 65.5°C) is given as the only approved alternative and only to be used when
specifically authorized.
Heat treatment appears to be a good alternative treatment against khapra beetle, with potential as
a quarantine measure. Despite its tolerance to quite high temperatures at around 41°C, it is quite
susceptible to higher temperatures, more so than some common storage pests such as
Khyzoperta dominica. There is a surprising quantity of data available to substantiate this.
Much of it is older, but of good quality. For instance, Husain (1923) studied heat
disinfestation of wheat from khapra larvae.
Pupae of T. granarium are the most heat tolerant stage, requiring 16 hours at 50°C or 2 hours
at 55°C for '100%' kill, while other stages are eliminated in less than 2 hours (Mookheijee et
al., 1968). R. dominica requires in excess of 24 hours for complete kill at 50°C, 5 hours at
51°C and 10 minutes at 55°C. Battu et al. (1975) found LT95 for diapausing and non-
diapausing larvae to be 7.4 and 3.0 hours respectively at 50°C. Lindgren et al. (1955) noted a
slight dependence of time to complete kill an ambient relative humidity with treatment at
high humidities taking slightly longer. At 55°, 75% r.h., 95% mortality was obtained after 8
and 15 minutes with 4th instar larvae and pupae respectively. Wright et al. (2007) investigated
heat treatment of Trogoderma variabile, showing it to have similar response to heat as T.
granarium.
T. granarium is usually quite susceptible to phosphine (e.g. Hole etal. 1976). Phosphine
fumigation at one time appeared to be a potential alternative to methyl bromide against this
pest, but it is probably no longer so, with the development of high levels of phosphine
resistance in the Indian subcontinent.
Tests to quarantine standards with alternative fumigants, such as sulfuryl fluoride, would
result in a reduction in the use of methyl bromide.
Some winter wheat fields in Texas were infected with Karnal bunt disease, Tilletia indica, in
2001. When infected grain was harvested and transferred to storage bins, the bins and grain
handling equipment became infected. MB fumigation of emptied contaminated storage bins
requires a high dosage (240 g m"3) for 96 hours to meet quarantine standards. Steam heating
to a point of runoff in bins also is an effective alternative to MB providing surface
temperatures reach 77°C (Dowdy, 2002). Microwave technology has recently been reported as
effective in controlling Tilletia indica teliospores (karnal bunt of wheat) in 10 seconds compared
to 96 hours using MB (Ingemanson, 1997).
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 23
-------
Alternative treatments to methyl bromide are needed for various snails of quarantine
significance (e.g. Achitinafulica, Cernuella spp., Thebapisana). Methyl bromide fumigation is
usually the only approved quarantine measure for these pests when associated with grain
shipments. Other processes, including HCN and CO2 fumigations, may be more effective (e.g.
Cassells et al. 1994), but are not approved.
Alternatives under Development for Grain
Japan imports about 30 million tonnes of grain (including for example wheat, maize and
soybean). The quantities of MB used for grains in Japan are larger than for any other category
except whole logs (PPS, 2007). Phosphine (PH3) fumigation using aluminum phosphide tablets
has been introduced as part of the plant quarantine treatment schedule in Japan (MAFF, 1971).
This treatment has now, however, been adopted for controlling Sitophilus species because the
pupal stage of Sitophilus granarius (a regulated quarantine pest for Japan) could not be killed
completely at the dosage rates and fumigation conditions used in commercial quarantine
fumigation (Mori and Kawamoto, 1966). On the other hand, sulfuryl fluoride has higher efficacy
against pupal stages of several stored product insects, although the egg stage is the most tolerant
(Furuki et al. 2005; Bell et al. 2003). Fumigating with a mixture of PH3 and SF gas kills all
stages of Sitophilus species, using the good properties of both fumigants. Tests with mixtures of
phosphine and sulfuryl fluoride (PH3 + SF) are in progress in Japan.
Alternatives for Preplant Soil Use - Propagation Materials
The use of methyl bromide for soils falls under three categories, as can be seen from Parties'
responses to Decision XX/6:
1) treatment of soil or substrate as a commodity
2) treatment of soil to eradicate quarantine pests
3) treatment of soils in situ as a preplant fumigation
Treatment of Soil as a Commodity
Soil or substrates as commodities may be treated with MB to ensure pests are controlled upon
export to another country. Other commodities, when shipped between countries, may be
required to be essentially free of soil or treated with MB to ensure any residual soil on the
commodity is fumigated, e.g. flower bulbs. For example, this use is reported by Malaysia,
with a usage of 5.05 tonnes for 2007 in this category. Used equipment with soil attached may
be fumigated with methyl bromide against quarantine pests, where steam treatment is
unsuitable. Several Pacific Island countries import bulk soil and aggregate that is fumigated
against pests, weeds and diseases at export. The quantity of MB used for this use is small,
estimated at less than 100 tons annually.
Treatment of Soil in Situ to Eradicate an Exotic Quarantine Pest
Several cases exist worldwide where an exotic pest has invaded a restricted region within a
country and is under official control. The control of these pests often specifies MB
fumigation or an alternative that prevents further spread of the pest to other regions. MB as a
soil treatment is often the fumigant of choice. For instance, the potato cyst nematode
Globoderapallida is a quarantine pest in the United States with occurrence limited to the
state of Idaho. Regulations 301.86 to 301.89 impose restrictions on the movement of
materials from the state and designate quarantined areas within the state (Federal Register
Vol 73 No. 177, Sept 11, 2008; USDA 2007). An eradication program presently covers a
total of eight fields comprising approximately 445 ha, which are fumigated with MB once a
year, usually in the spring. In both 2007 and 2008, 217 tonnes of MB were used for this
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 24
-------
purpose. The fumigation is followed by a Telone/chloropricrin fumigation 6 months later
(Vick, 2009, pers. comm.; USDA 2007). The program is expected to take several years to
complete.
In a similar quarantine situation, 4.5 tonnes of MB was used to eradicate golden nematode
(Globodera rostochiensis) from an infested area in New York state in 2008.
These examples of treatment of soil in situ against a quarantine pest for purposes of
eradication of that pest are similar to that in other countries, i.e. Australia. Methyl bromide
was used prior to 2006 as a treatment of soil to control and eliminate branched broomrape
{Orobanche sp), an exotic quarantine pest (parasitic plant) of limited distribution within
Australia. This use of MB has since been discontinued as the pest was not effectively
controlled and other products are now used to limit further spread.
Preplant Fumigation of Soils for Nursery Plants and Turf
Preplant fumigation of soils with methyl bromide to produce plants for propagation or turf is
distinct from treatments of soil to eliminate recognised quarantine pests either in soil
transported as a substrate or treated in situ. The key difference is that preplant soil use is often
applied many months prior to harvest of the plants and treatment is used to minimise spread
of common endemic pests. In contrast, treatment of soil or substrate that is either imported or
exported as a commodity (to grow plants in) is sometimes fumigated with MB as a quarantine
measure to ensure freedom from a pest not found in the region to which it is exported.
A very large amount of research and experience has been devoted to the development and
adaptation of alternatives to methyl bromide for pre-plant soil fumigation (MBTOC, 2007,
TEAP, 2008; 2009). A statistical analysis undertaken by MBTOC for expert assistance with
CUNs was conducted to evaluate alternatives to MB for preplant fumigation (Porter el al,
2006). It mainly concentrated on production of strawberry fruit and tomatoes. Analyses from
strawberry fruit trials showed that a large number of alternatives used alone or in various
combinations had mean estimated yields which were within 5% of the estimated yield of the
standard MB treatment (MB/Pic 67:33). Of these, a number of alternatives led to results that
were comparable to MB/Pic. These included chloropicrin alone, 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D)
+ chloropicrin, 1,3-D/Pic + metham sodium and methyl iodide + chloropicrin, which was
registered in the majority of US states in 2008 (excluding California) and which is
undergoing review for registration in several countries. As shown below, these alternatives
are being adopted as effective alternatives for nursery uses in many non A5 countries
(MBTOC, 2007; TEAP, 2008; 2009) that once used MB for nursery uses. Alternatively,
substrates using soilless mixes are proving very effective in replacing MB for many nursery
uses.
Presently, there is widespread adoption of these and other alternatives in many countries,
showing equal effectiveness to methyl bromide (MBTOC, 2007; TEAP, 2008; 2009).
Table 2-4 gives the range of plant types that are grown as propagation material with the aid of
methyl bromide in the US (2004 data).
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 25
-------
Table 2-4. Production of various types of propagation material in the US with associated
methyl bromide usage (2004 data)
Propagative material - source
Tonnes of MB used in US (2004
Bulb growers
261
California deciduous nurseries
127
California rose nurseries
136
Forest nurseries
174
Strawberry nurseries
463
Turfgrass (sod)
266
Western raspberry nurseries
25
Misc.
24
Total
1476
Source: US Response to Decision XVI/10, rounded to nearest tonne
The production of propagation materials is subject to high health standards and often
certification requirements, which are readily achieved with methyl bromide, applied to
production beds. In the case of strawberry runners for example, MB is used to meet the
certification standards for strawberry runner stock. The certification typically specifies a low
tolerance of particular pests and diseases. Since a single strawberry runner grown in year one
can expand to several million runners over three generations in soil, the detrimental impacts
of pests in an early generation of the multiplication process is of particular importance. The
same is true for stock plants used for producing cuttings of many ornamental plants.
In spite of these requirements, there are several measures accepted as alternatives to methyl
bromide for production of propagative material. Methyl iodide and 1,3-D either alone or in
combination with chloropicrin, are proving extremely effective in several countries and for
several US nursery sectors (e.g. Kabir et al., 2005). A recent version of NIPM Item #7
'Approved treatment and handling procedures to ensure against nematode pest infestation'
lists 1,3-D and methyl iodide aside from methyl bromide, as alternative treatments to achieve
certification requirements related to nematode control (CDFA, 2009), although methyl iodide
is not currently registered in California.
Studies have shown that plants grown in soils treated with MB fumigation carry pathogens
which are known to occur in the regions to which they are exported (De Cal, et al., 2004;
2005). Often, the levels of pathogens are lower than the surrounding levels in soils at the site
where they are grown, due to the presence of established endemic pathogens.
Alternatives for Strawberry Runners
1,3-D/Pic and Pic alone have totally replaced the use of MB in the Spanish strawberry runner
industry (Garcia-Mendez et al, 2008; Lopez-Medina et al, 2007; De Cal et al, 2004).
Strawberry production from transplants fumigated with MB alternatives was evaluated in Spain
(Lopez-Medina et al., 2007); results indicated that treatments with 1,3-D alone or 1,3-D/Pic are
efficient alternatives to MB for high elevation strawberry nurseries. These alternative fumigants
are registered and available in regions producing strawberry runners in the US.
Preplant soil treatments with Ml/Pic, Pic followed by dazomet and 1,3-D/Pic followed by
dazomet were shown to be potential alternatives to MB for strawberry runner production in
California (Kabir et al., 2005). Ml/Pic is now being adopted by ths strawberry runner
industry in the SE United States (USA 2009 CUN for strawberry runners). Nursery yields and
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 26
-------
subsequent fruit yields in California were found to be similar to those obtained with MB
when treated with Ml/Pic, or 1,3-D followed by dazomet and chloropicrin followed by
dazomet, although economic considerations influenced adoption (Fennimore etal., 2008).
Alternatives for Forest Nurseries
Research on forest nurseries reports chloropicrin alone in combination with herbicides - when
weeds pose problems - or 1,3D/Pic - when there are nematodes present - as effective alternatives
for MB used as a QPS treatment (South 2008). Methyl iodide has been found to provide control
of pathogens and weeds that is not significantly different to that achieved with MB (Enebak,
2006); chloropicrin alone (South, 2007; 2008); 1,3-D/Pic (South, 2008); 1,3-D /Pic/metham
sodium (South, 2008); metham sodium + Pic (Cram etal., 2007); and dazomet (Muckennfuss el
al. 2005; Enebak et al., 2006). Pic and metham when used in conjunction with barrier films
(LPBF) may provide an effective technical alternative. Enebak (2007) found that with LPBF,
use rates of MB can be significantly reduced.
Alternatives for Other Kinds of Propagation Materials
Further successful trials have been reported on rose nurseries (Hanson etal. 2008; 2009).
Ml/Pic, 1,3-D and 1,3-D/ Pic with high density polyethylene (HDPE) plus 1,3-D/Pic with VIF
appear to provide weed control similar to MB in perennial tree nurseries (Shrestha, et al., 2008,
Schneider et al., 2009).
Non-chemical Alternatives for Nurseries
An alternate approach to chemical soil treatments is the production of nursery stock in bags or
containers of different types, using soilless substrates (MBTOC, 2007). Substrates are becoming
increasingly adopted as they avoid the need for methyl bromide in many countries (Walter et al.,
2008). Strawberry plug plants were found to be a viable alternative to soil fumigation, as long as
specific requirements associated to this technology are met (Durner et al, 2002; Sances, 2005).
Maintaining good hygiene levels for plug plants is essential to their further expansion.
Contamination can produce outbreaks of diseases, especially some airborne diseases which can
proliferate under the controlled conditions of plug production.
Production systems where this approach is economically feasible and allows for the
production of high quality products have been identified. In Japan for example, a simple,
economically feasible system using trays filled with substrate is proving particularly useful
for the production of strawberry runners. Various materials are used as substrates (e.g. rock
wool, peat moss, rice hulls, and coconut husk and bark) and can be reused after sterilising
with solar heat treatment or hot water (Nishi and Tateya, 2006).
Steam is in wide use for treating used substrates recycled for use for the production of
propagation materials in Europe (EC Management Strategy, 2008) as well as in other
countries around the world, including developing countries producing propagation materials
which are subject to certification requirements.
Alternatives Under Development in Nurseries
DMDS + chloropicrin produced promising results in the forest nursery sector, although the
former is not registered (Weiland etal., 2008; Quicke etal., 2007, 2008). Methyl iodide is
gaining more widespread acceptance with new registration pending in several countries (TEAP,
2009).
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 27
-------
Whole Logs
Logs, timber and wooden materials (e.g. sawn timber, wooden packaging materials) are
notorious for their ability to carry a variety of pests of quarantine significance. Some of these
pests potentially attack forests and amenity trees (standing timber), while others can attack
timber in furniture, buildings and other structures. Targets of methyl bromide fumigation may be
insects that infest green and dry wood (Table 6-5), nematodes (particularly pinewood nematode,
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus) and some fungal pests of wood, notably oak wilt fungus
(Ceratocystis fagacearum). Fumigations may also be carried out to eliminate hitchhiker pests of
quarantine significance, including pest insects and snails.
Some wood inhabiting fungi that need to be controlled, usually for quarantine purposes, are:
Antroida carbonica, Ceratocystis fagacearum, Gloeophyllum sepiarium, Lentinus lepideus,
Lenzites sepiaria, L. trabea, Postia placenta and Serpula lacrimans.
Table 2-5. Groups of wood insects containing species of quarantine importance that are
Pest family
Common name
Anobiidae
Wood borers, woodworms
Bostrichidae
Powder-post beetles
Buprestidae
Jewel beetles
Cerambycidae
Longicorn beetles
Curculionidae
Weevils
Isoptera
Termites, white ants
Lyctidae
Powder-post beetles
Oedemeridae
False blister beetles
Scolytidae
Bark beetles
Siricidae
Wood wasps
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 28
-------
Alternatives for Logs
Methyl bromide is the most widely used fumigant for logs but does have some limitations, i.e.
limited penetration, particularly across the grain and into wet timber. Most arthropods associated
with timber are susceptible to methyl bromide but much higher dosages are required to kill fungi
(e.g. see Rhatigan el al. 1998). Green logs are problematic to treat due to the high moisture
content (80%), presence of bark (very adsorbent), size, and large volumes.
Treatments of logs may need to be rapid, such as at point of export or import, to avoid charges
and congestion at ports associated with occupying restricted port area for the treatment. Where
quarantine treatments can be applied outside port areas, such as prior to export or in-transit,
slower systems can be used. Many pests of quarantine significance, which attack green wood, do
not reinfest dry and debarked wood.
There is active research in progress to develop alternatives for logs but gaining the required
efficacy data is very difficult as laboratory rearing has not yet been achieved to the numbers
required, most insects are seasonal, and the commodity is large and variable.
Phosphine in transit on those parts of the shipment carried under deck is the only
commercially used alternative currently available for under bark pests. China has approved a
specific treatment schedule for sulfuryl fluoride on logs for fumigation in Germany and other
countries prior to export.
Methyl iodide (MI)/C02 and the methyl isothocyanate (MITC)/sulfuryl fluoride mixtures
have been registered in Japan but not yet used commercially. Cyanogen shows promise but is
yet to be registered or used commercially.
Research on alternatives for logs evaluating the efficacy of MI and MITC/SF mixtures have
been completed in Japan and both treatments are under the process of inclusion under the
relevant regulations. However, instructions or procedures for conducting gas measurements
and safety devices to protect fumigators from gas exposure still need further work.
As logs are a high volume, and comparatively low value commodity and are shipped long
distances, the trade is very price sensitive to changes in freight costs, exchange rates and
treatment costs. What may be an economic treatment for fruit may not be economic for logs.
Non fumigant methods such as heat, microwaves and irradiation are normally cost prohibitive
for logs.
Specific QPS alternatives for logs are discussed below, followed by discussion of some
processes under development.
Reduction in Fumigation Rate for Logs
Treatment specifications for logs have not been harmonised worldwide and schedules vary with
country of import and target pest. For example, New Zealand's use could be reduced by 53
tonnes per annum by reducing the fumigation rate from 120 to 80 g m"3, as data show that this
can be done without compromising efficacy and if permitted by the importing countries.
A new ISPM is being drafted for the international movement of wood. This will include two
categories of treatments, firstly those already in use in bilateral trades and with efficacies
against specific pests. The second category will be for classes of wood (round wood, sawn
wood and mechanically processed wood) and will be based on the draft criteria for future
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 29
-------
ISPM No. 15 treatment submissions and use the same decision-tree approach.
Alternatives for Logs - Fumigants
Phosphine. New Zealand has pioneered the use of phosphine for the in-transit fumigation of
forest produce destined for China but currently it can only be used for the logs shipped below
deck in the holds, approximately two-thirds of a shipment. It is now in routine use as a QPS
measure, replacing MB use. One of the major disadvantages of phosphine when compared to
methyl bromide is the long exposure time (up to 10 days) required, but this is overcome by
applying the phosphine in transit. Considerable efficacy data has been developed in support of
this methyl bromide alternative (Frontline Biosecurity 2003, Crop & Food 2004, Hosking and
Goss 2005, Zhang 2003, Zhang and van Epenhuijsen 2005). However, efficacy data for the
wood wasp, Sirex noctilio, a quarantine pest of concern for India, has yet to be obtained to the
level required for approval for trade with India.
The current dosage specification is for at least 200 ppm phosphine (v/v, 0.28 g m"3) to be
maintained for 10 days. Due to sorption of the gas by the logs (Zhang 2004) top-up of phosphine
is required five days into the voyage to prevent the concentration falling below 200ppm. In
transit tests have shown an even gas distribution throughout the loaded ship holds. High
concentrations of CO2 also occur within the ship holds during the fumigation period that may
assist efficacy of the fumigant. The current dosage specification is based on Australian
experience with stored grain pests (insects) and is likely to be significantly higher than required
where no insect resistance is involved (Frontline Biosecurity 2005).
Phosphine is typically produced in the reaction of aluminium or magnesium phosphide with
water. There are some formulations of phosphine available in cylinders as technical grade,
pure compressed gas or diluted with CO2. The gas is highly toxic to insects (see section 6.2.2)
and has remarkable penetration ability (Spiers 2003). Because of the relationship between
respiration and efficacy, the egg and pupal stages of insects are generally more tolerant than
larval and adult stages. Phosphine is generally ineffective against fungi infesting timber
(Zhang, pers. com.).
Phosphine has long been used for the treatment of grain insects (see Section 6.2.2) but
repeated treatment of grain silos and poorly conducted fumigations has led to high levels of
phosphine resistance in stored grain pests in some countries (Zettler 1997, Collinson 1999).
Such resistance is not an issue for one way commodities such as forest produce and
extrapolation of data on dosage requirements from grain insects may be misleading for forest
produce.
Research in China and Japan has demonstrated that phosphine killed 10 species of forest
insects of quarantine concern including cerambycids, scolytids and platypodids. Oogita et al.
(1997) fumigated the cerambycids (Semanotus japonica, S. japonicus, Callidiellum
rufipenne, Monochamus alternatus, the scolytids (Phloeosinusperlatus, Cryphalus fulvus and
Xyleboruspfeili) and the platypodids (Platypus quercivorus and P. calamus)) with phosphine
at concentrations of 1.0 and 2.0 g m"3 for 24 and 48 hours at 15°C and 25°C. S. japonica and
P. perlatus eggs were killed at 2.0 g m"3 for 24 hours at 15°C, but larvae and pupae of all
species were not killed at 2.0 g m"3 for 48 hours at 15°C. At 2.0 g m"3 for 48 hours at 25°C,
all stages of C. fulvus and X pfeili, except larvae of C. fulvus, were killed. The work
concluded that more than 48hrs of treatment time was required.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 30
-------
In New Zealand, two phosphine log fumigation trials were completed in 2009 (Wang W. et
al., unpublished), using sea containers loaded with commercial export logs and field collected
insect-infested logs. The initial dosage of aluminium phosphide in the treatment container
was equivalent to 2 g m"3 phosphine gas. Phosphine concentration was maintained at over 200
ppm during the 10-day fumigation period with one to three additional applications of
aluminium phosphide pellets.
Penetration of the phosphine into export logs at an average moisture content of 59% and 79%
respectively to a depth of 80mm achieved an average exposure of 183 ppm.hr and 265
ppm.hr in the two trials.
A total of 680 insects extracted from infested logs in the treatment chambers were dead after
phosphine fumigation and the mortality rate was 100%. All 561 insects extracted from the
controls were alive. Insects included Cerambycidae; Arhopalus ferus (Mulsant) larvae,
Prionopolus reticularis (White) larvae, Ichneumonidae; Rhyssines larvae (Sirex noctilio
parasite) and Scolytidae; Pachycotespergrinus (Chapuis) adults, Hylastes ater (Paykull)
adults, Hylastes eggs, Hylurgus ligniperda (Fabricus) larvae, Hylurgus adults, and
Hexatrichapulverulenta (Westwood) larvae.
This confirms the laboratory trials carried out by Zhang (2004b) that included four replicates
of 94-102 eggs of A. ferus were successfully killed at 200ppm for 10 days. In another later
trial, a further four replicates of 100-253 A. ferus eggs were killed at a mean ppm of 260 over
seven days.
Fumigation of logs using phosphine is effective in controlling bark beetles, wood-wasps,
longhorn beetles and platypodids at a dosage of 1.2 g m"3 for 72h at 15 °C or more. The
length of time required to complete treatments restricts its commercial acceptability.
The "Florani" experiment showed that phosphine could be successfully used as an in-transit
fumigant for eliminating the pinewood nematode from pine chips (Leesch et al. 1989;
Dwinell 2001b).
Sulfuryl Fluoride
While sulfuryl fluoride has similar properties and exposure requirements at some
temperatures to methyl bromide, with significantly better in penetration of wood (Scheffrahn
and Thorns 1993), it is not as effective at lower temperatures and requires significantly higher
dosages. Most treatments of logs occur in temperate climates that have temperatures of less
than 25°C for much of the year which would make the treatment uneconomic in comparison
with methyl bromide treatment. The recommended minimum temperature is 15°C. Sulfuryl
fluoride has a large global warming potential (Papadimitriou at al. 2008).
Sulfuryl fluoride has long been used for termite control in the USA where it is marketed
under the trade name Vikane. The fumigant has been shown to be effective against adult bark
and timber insects. However, its efficacy against eggs drops sharply below 21°C requiring
increased application rates (USDA 1991a). Dwinnel (2001) recommends a treatment schedule
for 24 h sulfuryl fluoride fumigation of unseasoned pine for control of pinewood nematode
(Bursaphelenchus xylophilus) of 3000 g h m"3 at 15°C down to 1000 g h m"3 at 35°C or greater.
It does not appear effective against the pinewood nematode (Soma et al. 2001) either at 40 g
m"3 for 24hrs or 20 g m"3 for 48hrs at 15°C. Its performance against the wide range of fungi of
quarantine significance is unclear, though sulfuryl fluoride has successfully killed oak wilt
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 31
-------
fungus in 72 hrs at rates similar to methyl bromide (Carpenter et al. 2000; Tubajika 2006).
Also at 30 g m"3 all eight wood fungi tested failed to grow after re-isolation (Zhang and van
Epenhuijsen 2005).
Methyl Isothocyanate/Sulfuryl Fluoride Mixture
The mixed gas of MITC and SF was registered in Japan in 2004 for logs infested with forest
insect pests. MITC does have high sorption characteristics and an odour (UNEP 2001). MITC
used in mixture with C02 is effective against wood borers, bark beetles, and ambrosia beetles
at 40-60 g m"3 for 24hrs at 15°C (Naito et al., 1998). It has been found to be particularly
effective against pinewood nematode (Soma et al., 2001).
Soma et al. (2004), using the fumigant mixture of SF and MITC (sulfuryl fluoride 30%,
MITC 30% and carbon dioxide 40%, w/w), demonstrated that all stages of three kinds of
forest insect species, alnus ambrosia beetle (Xyleborus germanus), ambrosia beetle
(Xyleborus pfeili) and pine bark beetle (Cryphalus fulvus) and adult stage of smaller
Japanese cedar longicorn (Callidiellum rufipenne) were killed 100% at the dosages of SF15
g m"3 + MITC 15 g m"3 and of SF 21 g m"3 + MITC 21 g m"3 at temperature range of 18.3-
21.2°C. However, achieving a complete kill for each of species tested was difficult when the
insects had been fumigated with single gas of SF or MITC. These four species were
considered less tolerant to mixture fumigant than pinewood nematode (B. xylophilius) and a
large scale mortality test using pine wood nematode provided complete kill of 97,400, 59,500
and 22,700 individuals with SF 27 g m"3 + MITC 27 g m"3 at 10°C, SF 21 g m"3 + MITC 21 g
m"3 at 15°C, and SF 15 g m"3 + MITC 15 g m"3 at 25°C, respectively (Soma et al., 2006).
The sulfuryl fluoride/methyl isothiocyanate mixture was recently registered as an
agrochemical in Japan.
Methyl Iodide
In Japan, the development of alternative chemicals to methyl bromide for imported logs has
been carried out by a research institute on plant protection of the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF 2009), manufacturers and other bodies concerned with MB
use as
Complete mortality of the pinewood nematode and the longhorn beetles, Monochamus
alternatus and Arhopalus rusticus, were attained at 84 g m"3 at 10 °C, 60 g m"3 at 15 °C, 64 g
m"3 at 20 °C, 48 g m"3 at 25 °C respectively using methyl iodide 50% and carbon dioxide 50%
(Kawakami et. al 2004). This mixture is now registered in Japan for timber treatment. The
limited amount of research that has been undertaken suggests it is no better than methyl
bromide in controlling pathogens in wood and may in fact be inferior (Schmidt and
Amburgey 1997).
Nine kinds of insect pest species for logs, smaller Japanese cedar longicorn {Callidiellum
rufipenne), Japanese pine sawyer (Monochamus alternatus), cryptomeria bark borer
(Semanotus japonicus), pine bark beetle (Cryphalus fulvus), larch ips (Ips cembrae),
ambrosia beetle (Xyleborus pfeili), alnus ambrosia beetle (Xylosandrus germanus), yellow-
spotted pine weevil (Pissodes nitidus), and pine weevil {Shirahoshizo rufescens) were
fumigated with methyl iodide and the egg stages were found to be more susceptible. Also,
larval and pupal stages showed similar susceptibilities. All tested species except for smaller
Japanese cedar longicorn (C. rufipenne) were killed completely with the fumigation of
methyl iodide at 50 g m"3 for 24 hours at 15°C (Naito et al., 2003).
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 32
-------
Mortality tests for pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus), which indicated
almost equal tolerance to methyl iodide with above mentioned nine species, provided more
than 99% mortality for nematodes that were fumigated with methyl iodide at 30 g m"3 at 15°C
and 100% mortality was obtained with 40 g m"3 of dosage (Soma et al., 2005). Subsequently,
a large scale mortality test for pine wood nematode was examined at three different
temperatures and 10,800, 33,500 and 22,400 individuals were killed completely at 10°C with
60 g m"3, 15°C with 40-50 g m"3 and 25°C with 30 g m"3, respectively (Soma et al., 2005).
Thus, 87,800 nematodes in total were completely killed by lower dosages than the nominated
standards of plant quarantine. It is expected to be adopted as a quarantine treatment in the
near future.
Methyl iodide has successfully killed oak wilt fungus at rates similar to methyl bromide
(Tubajika, 2006). This material was recently registered as an agrochemical in Japan.
Cyanogen
Cyanogen, sometimes referred to as ethanedinitrile, has been investigated as a replacement
for methyl bromide. Registration is currently being sought in Australia. Ren et al. (2006)
found direct exposure of Asian longhorned beetle larvae at 21 °C required a 67-product of
56.6 g h m"3 over 6 hours to give 99.5% mortality, equivalent to an exposure of 9.4 g m"3 over
6 hours. At a low temperature of 4.4 °C, an exposure to 94 g m"3 over 3 hours was required
for 99.5%) mortality. Trials reported by Dowsett et al. (2004) showed cyanogen to be more
effective than methyl bromide on a cv-product basis against all life stages of two species of
timber beetles and one species of termite. At 50 g m"3 and at 4.1°C for 1 day cyanogen caused
>96.5% mortality of the pinewood nematode Bursapelenchus xylophilus and the nematode
Steinernema carpocapsae, a beneficial, was killed at 40 g m"3 and 20°C after a 5 hour
exposure.
Full scale trials using cyanogen on stacks of sawn timber have been carried out in Malaysia
under MLF-funded demonstration trials for methyl bromide alternatives (UNDP -
MAL/99/G68/A/2G/99). Cyanogen penetrates wood quite rapidly both across and along the
grain, in contrast to methyl bromide that travels along the grain but poorly across the grain
(Ren et al. 1997). Unlike methyl bromide, it appears to penetrate high moisture content
timber well. More data is needed on this. It appears to have considerable potential as a methyl
bromide alternative for logs (Wright et al. 2002).
Alternatives - Non-fumigants
Heat treatment has been accepted as a quarantine treatment for logs and timber to be shipped to
the USA and many other countries for many years (e.g. USDA 1996). The general specification
has been to reach a core temperature of 71°C for 60 minutes. Kiln drying of timber to a moisture
content of less than 20% using temperatures over 70°C is often a commercial requirement but
also has long been accepted as a quarantine treatment by most importing countries. Currently
56°C for 30 minutes core temperature is sufficient for wood packaging.
Heat treatment of unprocessed logs is an approved risk mitigation measure for import into the
USA (Morrell 1995) but because of the energy required and the bulk of the commodity, it is
rarely an economic alternative to fumigation. Steam heat is a more effective quarantine measure
than dry heat (USDA 1994, Dwinell 2001).
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 33
-------
Hot water and steam treatment has long been used for risk mitigation for hardwood veneer
logs imported into New Zealand. Such logs are invariably attacked by pinhole borers
(Scolytidae and Platypodidae) before shipment. Moist heat treatment is an integral part of log
conditioning prior to peeling but has the additional benefit of eliminating quarantine risk.
A considerable volume of literature addresses thermal mortality of insects and has been
reviewed by Hosking (2002a). Jamieson et al (2003) provides a good general summary of the
literature on heat mortality of insects and fungi. A summary of heat treatment applications for
forestry produce is that of Dwinell (2001).
This literature suggests few if any insects and their close relatives can survive even short
exposure (less than 24h) to temperatures above 50°C, but some fungi are more tolerant.
Direct exposure trials of gypsy moth eggs (Hosking 2001) found 100% mortality for the
lowest temperature (55°C) and shortest exposure time (5minutes) tested. Fungi have been
shown to be more variable in temperature mortality threshold and the required exposure time,
some requiring exposures up to 6 hours at 57°C (Morrell 1995) while others are killed at
60°C for 10 minutes (Ridley and Crabtree 2001). Heat treatment by steam has been shown to
eradicate all tested fungi when 66°C is held at the centre of wood for 1.25 hour (Miric and
Willeitner 1990, Newbill and Morrell 1991), but Dwinell (2002) reported that neither the
APHIS-approved MB treatment for timber nor heat treatment up to 81°C killed all
saprophytic fungal pathogens in imported hardwood pallets. Many fungal pathogens are also
very tolerant of methyl bromide (e.g. see Rhatigan et al. 1998)
Irradiation
Gamma irradiation has been suggested as a treatment for wood and wood products
(Reichmuth, 2002), and is currently approved for logs imported into Australia at a rate of 10
kGray (1.0 Mrad). However, its practical application must overcome a number of hurdles, not
the least being the construction of large irradiators to handle logs and bulk wood products.
The technology is also limited by poor penetration into freshly cut logs, potential damage and
degradation of wood products such as fibre board and paper, variation in effect on different
insect groups, and very high dosages required to eliminate fungi (Morrell 1995).
Irradiation to eradicate the pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus) in pine chips
has been investigated. Pine wood nematode-infested wood chips were exposed (for periods
from 1 h to 2 weeks) to gamma ray doses up to 12 kGy. Lethal doses lay in the range above 6
to 9 kGy, which was considered too high to make irradiation an economically attractive
means of decontaminating commercial wood chips. Forintek Canada Corp. researchers
reported that a similar dosage of 7 kGy was required to kill pine wood nematodes in aqueous
solution, which supports the contention that a higher dosage is necessary to eliminate the pine
wood nematode in vivo than in vitro. Recent studies on irradiation effects on other nematodes
confirmed the relatively high dosages required to cause mortality (i.e. a dose of 7.5 kGy was
required to kill all J2 larvae of Meloidogyne javanica). The use of irradiation for
decontaminating logs in export trade does not appear to be economically feasible at this time,
but may be useful in managing pests on high-value forest products that cannot normally be
heat-treated or fumigated.
Water soaking or immersion provides a process for control of pests on imported logs.
Immersion of some logs destined for plywood manufacture is a useful process as it improves
the quality of the products. The storage of logs in water or under water spray has long been
accepted as an effective treatment for terrestrial insects and fungi. Salt water immersion for
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 34
-------
30 days is an approved treatment for logs imported into Japan but contamination of
waterways with bark is an issue. The upper surface of the logs above the water level is
sprayed with an insecticide mixture such as dichlorvos as part of the pest management
strategy (Reichmuth 2002).
The potential for use of water soaking for quarantine treatment of imported logs is limited by
the large area of water required and the undesirable side effects of ponding large volumes of
logs, making its application on a large scale unlikely.
Debarking
Bark removal has long been a key strategy in reducing contamination of logs and reducing
the risk that logs and sawn timber carry insects and fungi of quarantine concern. While
debarking removes surface contamination and also bark and cambium, areas particularly
prone to pest attack; it does not affect insects and fungi already in the wood (USDA, 1992).
Many countries require debarking of all imported logs. Because of the high cost, and the
requirement by customers in major Asian markets that bark remain on logs, its application as
a quarantine treatment is limited and frequently only carried out on high value logs.
Microwave Treatment
This is essentially a heat treatment using electromagnetic energy in the 10 - 30,000 MHz
range. The relationship between field intensity, exposure time and mortality of individual
insect species is not well understood, but has been shown to include considerable variability
(Ria et al. 1972, Ikediala et al. 1999).
Forest produce poses special problems in the use of microwaves for disinfestation both in the
wide variation in moisture content and the variety of target insects. However, recent research
by Fleming et al. (2003) has shown microwave irradiation to be highly effective against
Asian longhorned beetle in both green and dry wood packaging up to 100 x 100 x 100 mm.
Microwave irradiation has also been shown to be effective against termites (Lewis et al.
2000). It seems unlikely, however, that microwave irradiation has application in the treatment
of logs in the quantities exported, and even scaling up the technology to deal with quarantine
risk wood packaging poses some serious challenges.
Trends in the Log Trade
It is recognized that unmanufactured wood, especially in raw log form, is a particularly high-risk
pathway for movement of forest insects and pathogens into new environments and treatment is
usually required either preshipment or on arrival. The main approved treatment is methyl
bromide with a small volume in trade using phosphine. The increasing world trade in logs and
unmanufactured wood articles to fast growing economies such as China and India has amplified
the consumption of methyl bromide in this sector.
From 1999 to 2007 the imports of logs into China grew by 230%. While the bulk of the logs
going into China are from Russia via the land border and do not require treatment, a significant
proportion is shipped by sea and requires treatment, as do those logs shipped from other
countries. India has experienced a 92% increase over the same period and is likely to continue to
grow. These increases have been offset slightly by a decrease in the log trade to both Japan
(down 46%) and S. Korea (down 14%) over the same period. The net effect has been a 56%
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 35
-------
increase in imports over the eight year period, with increased need for quarantine treatment of
some kind.
Fig 2-6: Trends in log trade in Asia 1999 — 2007
Log Imports 1999-2007
45,000,000 -|
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
0)
1 25,000,000
o 20,000,000
0)
fO
E
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
Japan
Korea
China
India
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Heat Treatment of Wood Packaging Materials
The only alternative treatment to methyl bromide treatment accepted internationally under ISPM
15 for treatment of wood packaging materials (WPM) is heat treatment, including kiln drying. A
temperature of at least 56°C, core temperature, must be maintained for at least 30 minutes
(IPPC, 2006). The 2009 version of the ISPM 15 standard (IPPC 2009) specifically encourages
use of heat where feasible in preference to methyl bromide. There is substantial use of the heat
treatment in many countries to meet ISPM 15. In general, heat treatment requires a higher level
of infrastructure compared with methyl bromide fumigation.
There are some trends to comply with the ISPM 15 standard entirely with heat treatments and
without using methyl bromide. The EC has published a manual of options and alternatives to
achieve the objectives of ISPM 15 without using MB (Vermeulen and Kool, 2006). Also, in
this manual, two possible alternatives to MB, controlled atmosphere and sulfuryl fluoride, are
discussed.
A variety of facilities are in use to achieve the specified heat dosage for ISPM 15. They
include timber kilns (present in many countries), hot water dipping (e.g. Bangladesh (Kabir,
2005)), and modified freight containers or similar enclosures with either hot water heating
(China) or electrical or gas heating (Australia, Jamaica). Heat has been used in many A5
countries for many years (e.g. Morocco, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador) and is made easier
due to the fact that it can be integrated with kiln drying. CFIA (2007) describes procedures
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 36
-------
for measuring and achieving ISPM15 heat conditions with both green and dried wood. The
AQIS standard for heat treatment (AQIS 2009) gives procedures for measuring heat dosages
to meet ISPM 15 and for treatment of other commodities.
Chemical Alternatives in WPM
In cases where WPM has to be treated together with heat-vulnerable cargoes or goods to meet
ISPM 15, there is no chemical option at present other than MB treatment2, but alternative
chemicals are being evaluated. The 2009 revision of ISPM 15 (IPPC 2009) did not recognise
any alternative to methyl bromide except heat, but several potential alternatives to heat and
methyl bromide are under continued testing. The Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Measures
(TPPT), the panel that advises the CPM on technical evaluations on alternatives, reports that
several potential alternatives have been submitted to the IPPC and are under evaluation.
The alternatives listed in Table 2-7 were submitted to IPPC and have been evaluated in
accordance with the IPPC process. The evaluation panels have requested additional efficacy data
for all the potential alternatives. It seems that species of Agrilusplanipennis (Emerald Ash
Borer), Anoplophora glabripennis (Asian longhorned beetle, ALB) and Bursaphelenchus
xylophilus (Pinewood nematode, PWN) are key pests that at least need to be controlled to a very
high level of quarantine security by any alternative.
2
ISPM 15 requires the wood packing material to be treated to the required standard before it is stamped.
However, on some occasions, it appears that stamping occurs prior to treatment. This gives potential to expose
heat sensitive articles to the treatment.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 37
-------
Table 2-7: List ofpotential treatments for ISPM-15 under IPPC evaluation
Sulfuryl fluoride
Sulfuryl fluoride and MITC mixture
Hydrogen cyanide
Microwave irradiation
Phosphine
Methyl iodide
Of the alternatives for ISPM 15 being considered, the data submitted for sulfuryl fluoride are
sufficient to support Probit-9 efficacy for SF fumigation against Anoplophora glabripennis
in wood packaging material, but not for pinewood nematode. The TPPT has sufficient
information to support the 99.99683% (Probit-9) efficacy of a methyl iodide schedule against
PWN with but not for Anoplophora. Phosphine data submitted are not yet sufficient to
demonstrate efficacy against either of the two key pests.
A new ISPM is being drafted for the international movement of wood that will include two
categories of treatments, firstly those already in use in bilateral trades and with efficacies
against specific pests. The second category will be for classes of wood (round wood, sawn
wood and mechanically processed wood) and will be based on the draft criteria for future
ISPM No. 15 treatment submissions and use the same decision-tree approach.
Not in-kind Alternatives for WPM
Not-in-kind alternatives exist for wood pallets and other wooden packaging materials. These
avoid the need for MB fumigation or heat treatment. Plastic pallets (often made from recycled
plastic and reusable) are commercially available and are used by many companies in the EC, the
US3 and many other regions of the world. Cardboard pallets can be suitable for loads of about
3,000 kg, for example, and are available commercially in Australia, the EC, Kenya, New
Zealand, the US and others4. Plastic, cardboard, plywood and particle board can also be used,
instead of wood packing materials, for boxes, containers and staves which prevent goods
moving within packed shipping containers. These materials are exempt from the requirements
for MB or heat treatments under the ISPM 15 standard, which refers only to solid wood
packaging materials. The ISPM 15 standard excludes non-wood packaging (plastic, cardboard)
and specifically excludes plywood, particle board, oriented strand board and similar processed
wood that has been subjected to glue or pressure during processing (IPPC 2009, Appendix 4,
section 2.1). As a side benefit, a reduction in the volume of new timber used for wood pallets
would bring benefits to countries where forest resources are under pressure. Kenya, for example,
is estimated to use about 250,000 to 300,000 wood pallets per annum for tea exports alone. This
3 Examples of plastic pallets can be found at www.USplasticpallets.com.www.cabka.com. www.plasticpallet. eu.
www.goplasticpallets.com, www.rwrpaletten.be,www.craemer.de.www.permapallets.nl.www.palletower.com.
www.plastibac.eu.
4 Examples of cardboard pallets can be found at www.cardboardpalletcompanv.com.au.www.tripla.com.
http://www.impholdings.com.au/palletscorrugated.html. www.farusa.dk. www.doubleEco.co,nz.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 38
-------
volume of pallets comprises about 5,500-6,600 tonnes of cut timber, which requires the felling
or importation of about 8,330 - 10,000 tonnes of raw timber per annum (Rodwell, 2007). This
demand for timber causes problems in Kenya where the tree cover is rapidly dwindling due to
other pressures such as the need for firewood (Rodwell, 2007).
Alternatives Under Development for WPM
The requirement for mortality data showing a high level of effectiveness for wide range of pests
is a major barrier to development and approval of additional alternative treatments for ISPM 15.
Details of current requirements for submission of potential alternatives are given in ISPM 28.
Criteria for future ISPM 15 treatment submissions are being considered by the TPPT.
Some NPPOs recognise other treatments for wood packaging materials and similar products
where ISPM is not applied. These treatments may be post entry or prior to export. Australia,
for instance, accepts off-shore treatments of timber packaging and dunnage not treated in
accordance with ISPM 15 must at specified dosages of several alternatives, including
fumigation with sulfuryl fluoride, or ethylene oxide or treatment with heat, gamma irradiation
or some timber preservatives (ICON 2009)
Evaluation and use of alternatives was reported by the EC in 2007 as follows (Touchdown,
2009):
• Heat treatments were used in their territories for the disinfestation of pallets and
packaging materials (Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, the
Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain). Heat treatment facilities were registered in
Portugal and the UK;
• Research was underway on sulfuryl fluoride (SF) to control a range of pests infesting
wood (France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain). The Netherlands
registered SF in 2007 and Greece in 2009.
• Hungary researched hydrogen cyanide (HCN) for the control of wood boring insects.
There was collaboration between Hungary and a company in the Czech Republic that
was the owner of the HCN formulation. There was interest in obtaining IPPC
accreditation for the use of HCN, perhaps as one of the alternatives listed under ISPM
15.
Uses Where No Alternatives Have Been Identified
Given existing gaps of information, lack of research on effectiveness of some alternatives and
regulatory constraints affecting their implementation in some situations, it is presently
difficult to clearly identify QPS uses of methyl bromide where no alternatives exist. In some
cases, although alternatives exist, they may not be available for a particular situation or
country. Nevertheless, in the light of information available, the QPSTF was able to identify
some areas where implemetation of alternatives seems particularly complicated or difficult.
For perishable commodities, the QPSTF noted there were currently no approved alternatives
for certain economically important exports (the list is not all inclusive):
• Apple, pear and stonefruit that are hosts to codling moth, for example
• Nectarines from USA, codling moth
• Nectarine from New Zealand, codling moth
• Apples from New Zealand, codling moth
• Apples from France, MED fly and codling moth
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 39
-------
• Apples from Australia (Tasmania), codling moth
• Cherries from Chile, codling moth
• For certain pests on berryfruit
• For grapes infested with, for example mites, exported to some countries (although
Chile has developed a systems approach allowing export to the USA)
• Some root crops exported by countries if soil was present or pests of concern were
detected on arrival
• Post entry quarantine treatment of cut flowers and some other perishables as an
alternative to destruction or rejection of the cargo.
Similarly, there are certain current QPS uses of methyl bromide on durables for which
QPSTF did not identify any existing alternatives. These were disinfestation of (not an
exhaustive list):
• Seed-borne nematodes from alfalfa and some other seeds for planting.
• Treatments against khapra beetle or risk thereof in grain and packaged goods at risk of
carrying the pest. Moderate heat is not approved. Phosphine treatment is also not
approved, and possibly unwise in view of phosphine resistance with this pest.
• Treatments against snails, particularly white snails such as Thebapisana in grain. MB
does not work well but is only available treatment.
• Treatment of whole logs at risk of carrying both insect quarantine (regulated) pests
and Bursaphelencus nematodes.
• Treatment of oak logs and oak products at risk of carrying oak wilt fungus.
• Treatment of wood packaging material to ISPM 15 requirements, where heat
treatment is not feasible (however, as decsribed above there are not in kind options
available).
• Treatment of large bulks of soil as a commodity, where steaming cannot be used for
disinfestation against quarantine fungi and weed seeds.
For preplant soil uses of methyl bromide classified as QPS, there are alternatives that are
effective for almost all instances, but lack of regulation of a key alternative, methyl iodide
and future concerns over regulation of a number of other fumigant alternatives may limit
future options.
In areas where methyl iodide is not registered, MB is the key fumigant required to eradicate
quarantine and regulated non-quarantine pests and pathogens such as potato cyst nematode
and golden nematode.
Feasible alternative options are a)inspection programmes prior to shipment, b) total
prohibition of a particular trade, or c) processing products prior to export (e.g. exporting cut
dried timber rather than raw, whole logs) in order to avoid excessive risk of carrying
quarantine pests. For some commodities, methyl bromide fumigation may be the only
approved treatment at present to allow the trade (e.g. export of apples to Japan from
Tasmania).
Summary: Alternatives to Methyl Bromide
All of the categories appearing in the sections above have approved non-methyl bromide
alternatives in at least some applications. Specific alternatives may not be available for a
particular trade or situation because of the risk or presence of particular quarantine pests, lack
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 40
-------
of approval by the importing NPPO, or lack of registration or commercial supply of the
particular treatment.
Section III. Opportunities for Emission Reduction and
Recovery
In the absence of effective containment and recapture or reuse technologies, most methyl
bromide applied to a QPS fumigation is subsequently released or lost by leakage to the
atmosphere. The fraction of applied methyl bromide that is lost from a specific fumigation
depends on the quantity of the applied methyl bromide that reacts with various components in
the commodity and associated materials and structures. This reaction leads to non-volatile
bromine ion residues. Estimates of the fraction emitted from particular categories of
fumigation, including for QPS purposes, can be found in MBTOC (2006) and previous
Assessments.
There are a variety of measures that can be taken to reduce the relative or absolute fraction of
the applied methyl bromide emitted in a particular QPS application. These are discussed
below. The various emission reduction techniques can affect the proportion of initially
applied methyl bromide that is subsequently available for recapture and potentially, reuse.
At this time, recapture technologies are commercially available for QPS and other treatments
using methyl bromide on commodities and structures, but not for soil treatment in situ. There
are a variety of emission mitigation measures that can be applied to QPS and other methyl
bromide fumigations for soils in situ.
Quantities of QPS Methyl Bromide Emissions Available for Recapture and Destruction
The total quantity of methyl bromide emitted from a fumigation, during dosing, by leakage
during the exposure, by venting at the end of the exposure and by subsequent airing off of
sorbed methyl bromide, provides an upper limit to the quantity of methyl bromide available
for recapture. The remaining fraction of the initial applied gas is converted to non-volatile
bromide ion residues.
Different commodities vary widely in their ability to sorb methyl bromide and to react with
methyl bromide. In the QPS commodity treatment sector, fresh fruit and vegetables treated in
gastight fumigation chambers at short exposure times absorb little methyl bromide and over
95% of the applied dosage may be available for recapture. High protein, milled commodities
such as oilseed expeller cake may absorb more than 80% of applied dosage over a 24 hour
exposure, leaving less that 20% of dosage available for recapture. Temperature and load
factor also influence methyl bromide available for recapture in the absence of significant
leakage.
Some treatment schedules for QPS treatments of commodities specify a minimum retention
of concentration of methyl bromide at the end of the exposure period. While this is usually
specified to ensure an adequate exposure (cv-product) is achieved for effectiveness against the
target QPS pests, this does give an indication of the likely potential emissions from the
processes at the end of the treatment, in the absence of any recapture or destruction process.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 41
-------
Table 3-1 gives examples of minimum retention of methyl bromide specified by some QPS-
related standards. These schedules approximately define the minimum quantity of methyl
bromide readily available for recapture or destruction under the schedule.
There is some uncertainty as to the actual residual quantity present after fumigation, as the
measurements relate only to concentration. In normal fumigation practice, it is usually
assumed that the methyl bromide is present at the measured concentration throughout the
fumigation enclosure and the product of enclosure volume and concentration indicates the
quantity present. However this does not take into account either the exclusion volume of the
fumigated materials nor the quantity of gas that may be sorbed, unchanged, on these
materials.
Table 3-1. Examples of standard QPS methyl bromide treatment schedules that specify end
point concentrations.
Treatment schedule or standard
Exposure period
Minimum % of initial
specified dosage rate
AQIS (2008a) Methyl Bromide Fumigation
Standard
2 h
60%
ISPM 15 (2009) for Solid Wood Packing Material
24 h
50%
MAFF (1951) standard for imported logs
24h
31%
AQIS (2008a) Methyl Bromide Fumigation
Standard
24 h
30%
T404-d treatment (70-79F) against wood borers
and khapra beetle (USDA 2009)
24h
30%
MAFF (1951) standard for imported logs
48h
25%
MAFF (1951) standard for imported logs
72h
21%
Estimates of total methyl bromide emitted from fumigations under standard industrial
practice differ from those based on residual concentration data. Total emissions include
losses during initial application and leakage during the exposure, in addition to quantities
vented from the fumigation at the end of the exposure and subsequent airing off of residual
sorbed gas.
Table 3-2 gives calculations of total emissions from various categories of QPS treatment,
including soils treatments, for the year 2007. Annual methyl bromide emissions are likely to
have been similar in magnitude over the previous 5 years, since annual consumption has
remained approximately constant over these years. The overall actual annual emission rate is
dependent on the rate of accumulation or use of any stocks in each year.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 42
-------
Table 3-2. Estimates of emissions from various commodities fumigated with methyl
bromide
Fumigated material or situation
MB used (2007,
tonnes)b
Estimated % MB
emitted, with
standard industrial
practice0
Estimated MB
emitted (tonnes)
Grains, nuts and dried fruit
1618
51-70
825- 1132
Timber and wood packaging
3865
88
3401
Fresh fruit and vegetables and other
perishables
821
85-95
698-780
Other commodities and unidentified
use
651
80-95
521-618
Soils, in situ
1531
40-92
612-1409
Totals and weighted3 estimates
8486
71-86
6057-7341
Discrepancy (total reported
consumption, less use, Table 4-6)
1824
71-86
a estimates weighted by tonnage
b data from Table 4-6, this report
c based on estimates from Table 9.1 of MBTOC (1998)
Table 3-2 shows that emissions from QPS treatments are likely to be in the range of 71 -
86%, with a mean estimate of 79%, of applied methyl bromide in absence of recapture and
destruction processes and with standard industrial practice. Assuming that recapture from soil
fumigation is not technically and commercially feasible at this time, the estimated total
methyl bromide available for recapture in 2007 from QPS commodity fumigations is 5,445 -
5,932 tonnes, being about 67% of estimated 2007 annual QPS use of 8,486 tonnes and a
mean of 82% of QPS methyl bromide applied to commodities.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 43
-------
Emission Reduction Processes and Technologies
Reducing Volumes of Methyl Bromide Use as a Phytosanitary Measure
The IPPC recommendation 'Replacement or reduction of the use of methyl bromide as a
phytosanitary measure' (IPPC 2008) states that the reduction of methyl bromide emissions can
be achieved through the use of reduced dosages of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary measure
or decreased treatment frequency. In addition, existing methyl bromide use should be
analysed carefully to determine if the treatment is appropriate and necessary.
The following approaches may, where appropriate, be pursued to reduce the use of methyl
bromide as a phytosanitary measure (IPPC 2008):
• inspection-based fumigation instead of mandatory fumigation (i.e. to detect and identify
the quarantine pest of concern)
• avoidance of unjustified re-fumigation with methyl bromide (i.e. re-fumigation should be
used only when a quarantine pest situation is evident)
• improvement of treatment facilities as appropriate to maximize efficiency of fumigation,
thus reducing replenishment or re-fumigation requirements
• increasing exposure time with a view to reducing dosage, where technically feasible
• compliance with phytosanitary requirements for exporting commodities
• avoidance of application in situations where efficacy is doubtful or marginal
• reassessment of doses and exposure times in order to reduce them
• use of optimal temperatures when fumigating
• use of appropriately sized treatment facilities
• evaluation of pest risk and treatment efficacy (through a pest risk analysis) to determine if
a more appropriate dose or alternative treatment is possible.
Application of Best Practices
Several quarantine authorities (NPPOs) have codes of practice or similar documents that
detail best practice in use of methyl bromide for QPS treatment of commodities. These
include sections in the USDA PPQ manual (USDA 2009, USA), AQIS Methyl Bromide
Fumigation Standard (AQIS 2009a, Australia) and Theory and Practice of Plant Quarantine
Treatments (JFTA 2002, Japan). The FAO web-based document 'Guide to Fumigation under
Gas-Proof Sheets' (FAO 2009) also provides instruction on use of methyl bromide for QPS
treatments. Use of best practices for QPS treatment of commodities minimises emission
losses (leakage) prior to venting at the end of treatment, while maximising effectiveness of a
particular dosage of methyl bromide.
Treatment of commodities for QPS purposes under best practice is typically carried out in
well sealed enclosures designed to retain the fumigant gas at effective levels throughout the
exposure time of the treatment. The level of sealing should be such as to minimise
unintentional fumigant loss, caused by atmospheric forces such as wind and temperature
changes (e.g. van Someren Graver and Banks, 2008). There are a range of standards set for
sealing of enclosures (freight containers, fumigation chambers, sheeted stacks, silo bins,
sheds etc.) for fumigation with methyl bromide. These standards vary with circumstances and
country regulations or codes of practice. They are typically based either on a pressure test or
a gas retention test, with a pressure half life of 10 seconds to 5 minutes and gas retentions
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 44
-------
exceeding 70% of initial dosage at the end of a 24h exposure in an empty fumigation
enclosure, with circulation fans running, if applicable.
A fumigation enclosure used with methyl bromide must be well sealed in order to minimise
gas loss for both industrial safety and efficacy reasons. In practice, methyl bromide
treatments of commodities, for both QPS and other purposes, are often carried out in poorly
sealed enclosures with substantial rates of gas loss. To compensate for this loss, some NPPOs
and other authorities (e.g. AQIS 2009, USDA 2009) allow 'top up', a process of adding
additional methyl bromide during the course of a fumigation to maintain effective gas
concentrations. This top up process may give a good treatment from QPS point of view, but
leads to increased methyl bromide use and emissions compared with adoption of better
sealing. This is under conditions where gas loss occurs from leakage, not reaction and
sorption on the commodity and packaging.
Application of audited best practice for QPS fumigations in several countries that trade with
Australia under the AFAS scheme has saved (avoided use of) substantial quantities of methyl
bromide. It is estimated that AFAS countries (India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand) have
collectively reduced methyl bromide usage by 153 tonnes from 2004 to 2008 (Fox 2008, Cox
2008) This saving was achieved largely through avoiding repeated methyl fumigations after
failures in the initial treatments were detected.
Gas Transfer Systems
Some savings in methyl bromide usage can be obtained from transferring the residual methyl
bromide gas in a fumigation to another undosed fumigation enclosure loaded with material to
be treated.
As an example, two large fumigation systems located at the Taicang port in Jiangsu province
and the Putian port in Fujian province have been constructed in China for methyl bromide
fumigation of imported timber. They each have an annual treatment capacity of 1.5 million
m3. Automatic control and monitoring systems were incorporated into these two facilities.
These include dosage, recirculation, concentration monitoring, and gas transfer between
tanks. After each fumigation cycle, half of the gas residue in one tank can be transferred
through the recirculation fan and pipe system to any other tank in the system. After one and
half years in operation, more than 2.5 million m3 of imported timber have been treated at
these two facilities and MB usage for the purpose has been reduced by more than 60 tonnes
of methyl bromide.
Prolonged Exposures
In theory, extending the exposure period or contact time that methyl bromide has with a
reactive fumigated commodity allows more of the added fumigant to decompose to non-
volatile residues, thus reducing methyl bromide emissions. Prolonged exposures at a
particular dosage may also result in greater ct-products, giving scope for dosage reduction
and, consequently, reduced emissions.
Prolonged exposures combined with barrier films are in use with soil fumigations as a means
of extending fumigation periods and reducing dosage requirements, and incidentally,
emissions. Prolonged exposures, as a means of reducing emissions, tends to be unsuitable in
practice for commodity treatments. Many commodities, particularly perishables, are damaged
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 45
-------
by prolonged exposure to methyl bromide. In port situations, where QPS commodity
fumigations are typically carried out, a rapid rate of treatment is required for logistic reasons.
Technologies for MB Recovery, Containment and Recycling from Commodity
Treatments
Recapture of Methyl Bromide from QPS Commodity Treatments
Methyl bromide QPS treatments of commodities, carried out under best practice, are well
suited to the application of recapture systems for minimising emissions of methyl bromide.
Good sealing of the fumigation enclosure is a prerequisite for efficient recapture of methyl
bromide as it minimises leakage from the enclosure during the exposure to the gas.
There are many different possible systems with potential to destroy methyl bromide gas
vented from fumigations or recapture methyl bromide for reclamation and recycling or for
destruction. All these systems should be capable of handling methyl bromide gas
concentrations in the range of about 10 - 100 g m"3, typical of gas concentration remaining
after a fumigation exposure period is complete, with high recapture or destruction efficiency.
MBTOC (2002, 2007) summarised approaches to methyl bromide recapture and destruction,
with details of several commercial installations.
TEAP (2007) summarized responses from Parties to Decision XVII/11 that read in part:
"To encourage Parties who have deployed in the past, currently deploy or plan to deploy
technologies to recapture/recycle/destroy or reduce methyl bromide emissions from fixed
facilities or sea container fumigation applications to submit to the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel details of efficacy, including destruction and removal efficiency (DRE),
logistical issues and the economic feasibility of such fumigations, by 1 April 2006".
Commercially available systems for recapture of methyl bromide, known to QPSTF at this
time are detailed in Table 3-3, together with destruction efficiencies as obtained under
Decision XVII/11.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 46
-------
Table 3-3. Available systems for recapture of MB
Supplier
System
Unit or
Installations
Disposal of
URL
module
sorbed
capacity
methyl
bromide
Desclean,
Absorption on
Carbon
Transportable
Incineration or
www.desclean.be
Belgium
activated
loadings of up
system -
thermal
charcoal, with
to 1: 3 by
Belgium
desorption and
cooling
weight,
reuse
typically for
fumigated
freight
containers
Nordiko,
Absorption on
Typical carbon
Australia,
Reaction with
www.nordiko.com.au
Australia
activated
loadings of 1:5
Malaysia,
sodium
charcoal,
by weight.
Belgium, China,
thiosulphate
ambient
Installations
New Zealand etc
solution or
temperature
for permanent
landfill
fumigation
chambers,
freight
containers and
fumigations
under sheets
TIGG, USA
Absorption on
Fitted to large
Houston and
Incineration
www.tiss.com
activated
fumigation
Watsonville,
off-site in
charcoal,
chambers
USA
specialized
ambient
facility, with
temperature
recovery of
bromine
component
All operational commercial recovery units known to QPSTF, given in Table 3-3, are based on
recapture of methyl bromide on activated carbon. Subsequent treatment of the carbon loaded
with methyl bromide varies with supplier and situation. Most systems have chosen to operate
with a destruction component for the recaptured methyl bromide, but potentially the methyl
bromide absorbed on the carbon can be released for reuse by heating the carbon to typically
130-170°C. The Desclean system operates by initially cooling the carbon absorption bed to
increase absorption capacity, followed by a heating phase to release sorbed gas for further
use. It is claimed (E. Williame, pers. comm.) that the process leads to about 30% to 70%
reduction in new methyl bromide use, depending on the situation of the fumigated enclosure
(e.g. freight container) and what load is treated These estimates are consistant with expected
residual concentrations from good practice fumigations, such as those indicated in Table 3-1.
A model for absorption on a carbon bed at ambient tremperature, followed by higher
temperature desorption, is given in Joyce and Bielski (2008).
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 47
-------
An example of a commercial installation of a carbon-based recapture system is in operation at
Nelson, New Zealand. This port has a substantial trade in export timber that require QPS
fumigation with methyl bromide. The installation commenced operation recently (summer
2009) and was required to meet recently modified local air quality standards. The Nelson air
quality standards, unique to this port, require capture to 5ppm v/v for containers, and for bulk
timber fumigations, reduction until emissions in the ventilation system do not exceed 2.2
g/sec in all flues combined.
The company uses two of the standard sized Nordiko units for shipping containers either on
their own or in series. Each filter contains 70 kg of carbon and either single filters or two
filters in a series are used, depending on their degree of saturation. The original idea was to
build a single large unit to handle the larger export timber fumigations but the two container
sized units have been utilised by breaking down the stack sizes to smaller multiple stacks, an
arrangement which likely uses more MB.
The typical volume of under-tarp fumigation of export timber was 200 m3, with a recapture
time for timber stacks of 2-4 hours for 48 or 56 g m"3(according to temperature) for the
under-tarp QPS fumigations against the wood pest, Arhopalus tristis. The total volume of
under-tarpaulin fumigation over four months was approximately 15,000 m3 with an input of
around 780 kg of MB. With an expected 5% leakage and high sorption into timber frequently
only 40% of the gas input is available for capture. Approximately 3.5 tonnes of absorption
carbon were used.
The carbon-based recapture/destruction systems have similar Destruction and Removal
Efficiencies (DREs), >95%, to the destruction processes for the only dilute source so far
approved by the Parties and added to the list of Approved Destruction Processes (TEAP
2006). These are the municipal waste incineration and rotary kiln incineration processes for
dilute CFC sources obtained from foams (Annex II, Report of 15MOP).
The DRE values are based on the assumption that the destruction system used, thiosulphate
washing or incineration, is 100% efficient and that there are no inadvertent losses during the
destruction process. Measurements in support of this assumption have not been supplied.
None of the submissions described any toxic byproducts arising from the destruction
processes.
Subject to the constraints on good housekeeping and emissions set out in Annex III and IV of
the Report of the 15th MOP, appropriately amended to take into account the special chemical
and use features of methyl bromide, Parties may wish to consider adding carbon-based
recapture/ destruction systems (thiosulphate washing or incineration) to the list of Approved
Destruction Processes. A stipulation that the processes must achieve a DRE of >95% would
be consistent with restrictions on Approved Destruction Processes for dilute ODS sources
from foams.
Economics of Recapture, Reuse and Destruction Technologies
At this time, recapture technologies generally have not been fitted to methyl bromide
fumigations in response to the need to restrict emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances.
This is despite Decisions VII/5 and XI/13, both of which urge, in part, fitting of recapture
equipment where technically and economically feasible. Some local regulations restrict
quantities of methyl bromide that are released from fumigations. Others provide stringent
limits on the maximum concentrations of methyl bromide that can occur in the workspace
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 48
-------
and environment around a fumigation. These regulations and requirements are related to local
air quality and the need to restrict emitted methyl bromide to very low levels. It is these
regulations associated with local health and safety considerations that have mainly driven the
installation and use of recapture equipment.
Fitting recapture equipment increases the overall cost of carrying out QPS and other methyl
bromide fumigations. The actual cost increase per fumigation is highly dependent on
situation and throughput. To a first approximation, it appears that fitting and operation of
recapture equipment typically doubles the cost of a fumigation with methyl bromide.
In a presentation to MBTOC-QSC (E. Willaume, pers. com.), it was stated that the Desclean
recapture/reuse system would cost an extra 34 euro per container fumigation, with a present
cost of methyl bromide fumigation without recapture of about 150 euro. This is for treatment
of 1000 containers a year over 3 years - a high and sustained rate of treatment.
For an installation on export log fumigations in Nelson, New Zealand, recapture has doubled
the cost of fumigation per m3 of timber. Exact costs in practice have not yet been determined
as the problem of disposal of the loaded carbon has not yet been fully solved. As the major
fumigations in Nelson are seasonal, the equipment is on long term lease and the equipment
cannot be used elsewhere, the costs have to be carried and loaded onto the fumigations. Some
exporters have already switched export ports to ones not requiring recapture to avoid the
extra costs.
Regeneration or disposal of the carbon that is loaded with recaptured methyl bromide is a
significant component of the recapture process. Recovery and reuse of the methyl bromide is
an attractive option, avoiding these costs. The sorbed methyl bromide can be released by
various forms of heating of the loaded carbon bed to temperatures of 100-180°C, with
appropriate temperatures depending on the desorption isotherms for the particular carbons
used and degree of recovery needed. The Desclean system (Desclean 2009) can effectively
recover recaptured methyl bromide for reuse.
The quantity of methyl bromide that is potentially and in practice available for reuse depends
on local design of the fumigation system and the commodity treated. Specifications for
efficiency of recapture for certification by Belgian authorities for recapture units require the
unit to be able to recapture at least 80% of methyl bromide remaining in the free space from a
dosed empty enclosure. In practice, because of sorption and other losses, recapture
efficiencies are often substantially less than this (see Table 3-1), limiting the quantity of
methyl bromide available for reuse. Thus for new fumigations, it is necessary to top up any
dosing from recaptured gas with newly produced methyl bromide.
The cost of newly produced methyl bromide is small compared with the cost of recaptured
gas. Thus, in absence of other considerations, the cost savings for using recovered methyl
bromide do not, on their own, justify its use compared with recovery and destruction systems.
There is continued debate in some jurisdictions on the registration status of recaptured methyl
bromide for reuse.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 49
-------
Recapture Systems Under Development
An Indian manufacturer of methyl bromide, Intech Pharma Pvt Ltd, is currently developing a
scrubbing and destruction system for methyl bromide released from fumigations (IPPL
2009). Commercial installations of methyl bromide recapture equipment are typically limited
in size to absorption capacities of less than 50 kg methyl bromide. An installation capable of
absorbing 484 kg per fumigation is to be installed at Stockton, California, USA, on a
fumigation facility processing imported grapes from Chile. The unit is based on a carbon bed
absorber with regeneration with a thiosulphate wash (Joyce P. pers. comm., BACT 2009).
In New Zealand, most QPS methyl bromide is used for large capacity fumigation of export
logs. Feasibility of a capture system with the appropriate capacity, possibly 500kg methyl
bromide, is being investigated.
Studies are in progress in China (Wang Yuejin, QPSTF member) on selection of different
types of activated carbon and modification of the characteristics of the activated carbon to
reduce the sorption energy of methyl bromide on the carbon for easy recovery. The results
show that a much lower temperature of 110°C was needed for complete recovery of methyl
bromide from a new type of activated carbon, compared with cocoanut based activated
carbon of up to 170°C. Lower recovery temperatures have several advantages, particularly
decreased losses from hydrolytic decomposition of sorbed methyl bromide.
Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction in Soil Fumigation
Methyl bromide emissions to the atmosphere from soil fumigation come from any of three
major sources (MBTOC 2002; 2007):
• MB emitted through plastic sheets during fumigation;
• MB lost from edges during fumigation; and
• MB emerging from soil after lifting the sheets after fumigation.
It has been estimated that emissions range from is 40-92% from the standard polyethylene
(PE) sheeting and from 35-87% for low permeability barrier films (LPBF) (MBTOC, 2002;
2007) Fluxes of MB through LPBF tarps are very low, but loss can occur after lifting the tarp.
This is very dependent on the duration of tarping and the soil type and conditions (Yates,
2005; Fraser etal., 2006; Ou etal, 2007; MBTOC, 2007). Experimentally, very low
emissions can be obtained (e.g. 6%, Yates, 2005). The total MB emitted is unlikely to be
100%) of that applied because of breakdown of applied MB in the soil (MBTOC 2002; 2007).
Degradation is due to reaction with soil organic matter and some mineral constituents as well
as other reaction pathways such as hydrolysis (De Heer et al. 1983).
Emission volume release and release rate to the atmosphere during soil fumigation depend on
a large number of key factors. Of these, the type of surface covering and condition; period of
time that a surface covering is present; soil conditions during fumigation; MB injection depth
and rate; and whether the soil is strip or broadacre fumigated are considered to have the
greatest effect on emissions.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 50
-------
Barrier Films
Studies under field conditions in a number of regions and countries, together with the large-
scale adoption of barrier films in Europe, and more recently the USA, support the use of
these films as a means to reduce MB dosage rates and emissions (Lopez-Aranda et al., 2000;
Hamil, et al., 2004; Gilreath and Santos, 2005; Hanson et al., 2009). Controlled studies have
also shown substantial reductions in MB emissions (Wang, 1997; Yates, 2005; Fraser et al.,
2006). The State of California in the US, however, has a regulation which prevents
implementation of VIF (California Code of Regulations Title 3 Section 6450(e)). It was
implemented because of concerns over possible worker exposure due to altered flux rates of
MB when the film is removed or when seedlings are planted.
Barrier films consists of either 1) multi-layer laminates with outer layers of low density
polyethylene and a barrier layer of polyamide or ethylene vinyl alcohol, or 2) a mixture of
these materials, often called an 'alloy' or 3) two layer, metallised polyethylene films.
Barrier films reduce MB emissions from soil fumigation by keeping the MB in the soil to
allow for degradation (Yates et al. 1998) when:
• The entire field is covered with VIF film;
• All film strip over-laps are well glued and sealed;
• The VIF film edges are sealed (buried under soil);
• The MB is injected deeply in the soil;
• The film is kept on the field, completely sealed, for 10 to 20 days; and
• The soil temperature, moisture and organic matter content are optimal - medium
temperatures, moist soil, and high organic matter.
Barrier films are less effective at reducing MB emissions from soil fumigation (Rice et al.,
1996; Thomas, 1998; Wang et al., 1999) when:
• Only part of the field is covered with VIF;
• Any of the film strip over-laps become unglued or are otherwise unsealed;
• Any of the film edges anywhere around the field become unsealed;
• The film seal is broken before 10 to 20 days have passed; and
• Soil temperature, moisture, organic matter are in any way sub-optimal (hot, soil dry or
very wet with little organic matter).
Studies have shown that, with traditionally laid plastic films, most unreacted MB either
passed through the films or was emitted from the edges of the film (Yates, 2005). In general
fumigation films remain in place for 5 to 7 days and with standard films this ensures
maximum effectiveness of the applied dose. With barrier films, even though lower doses of
MB are used, longer periods of tarping may be required to ensure complete degradation of
MB dosage applied and to effectively reduce MB emissions and avoid off gassing.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 51
-------
Increased Chloropicrin Content with Decreased MB
One key strategy to reduce MB dosage and therefore relative emissions has been the adoption
of MB:Pic formulations with lower concentrations of MB (e.g. MB:Pic 50:50, 30:70 or less).
MB/Pic formulations with lower concentrations of MB (e.g. MB/Pic 50:50, 45:55 or less) are
considered to be equally effective in controlling soilborne pathogens as formulations
containing higher quantities of MB (e.g. 98:2, 67:33) (e. g. Porter et al., 1997; Melgarejo et
al., 2001; Lopez-Aranda et al., 2003; Santos et al., 2007; Hamill et al., 2004; Carey and
Godbehere, 2004; Gilreath and Santos, 2005; Hanson et al., 2006; Hanson et al, 2009).
Where such formulations are registered or otherwise permitted, they can be used for pre-plant
soil fumigation with excellent results. Their use can be achieved with similar application
machinery that allows co-injection of MB and Pic or by use of premixed formulations.
Consistent performance has been demonstrated with both barrier and non-barrier films. This
includes rates as low as 75 kg/ha (7.5 g/m2) in 250 kg/ha of 30:70 or 33:67 mixtures or 100
kg/ha (10 g/m2) of MB in 250 kg/ha of 50:50 MB/Pic mixtures in conjunction with barrier
films as these have shown similar effectiveness to higher rates of MB in 67:33 MB/Pic and
335 to 800 kg/ha (33.5 to 80 g/m2) of MB 98% with standard polyethylene.
Irrespective of what type of surface barrier is used to contain MB during soil fumigation,
there are a number of key factors which affect emissions of MB during soil fumigation.
Recent reports (Yates, 2005; 2006) have shown that manipulation of many other factors can
reduce emissions of applied MB, but the extent to which these factors are practiced by
industry is unreported.
Yates concluded that emissions can be reduced by improving containment of the methyl
bromide gas and by increasing degradation time, however natural soil degradation is
insufficient to reduce fumigant emissions to the atmosphere. Methods to improve
containment included barrier films as discussed above, but also improvements in cultural
factors of the cropping system including soil management, e.g. strip verses broadacre
treatment, increased containment time, addition of sulphur containing fertilizers, increasing
organic matter, soil water content, soil compaction and surface sealing with water (MBTOC,
2007).
Phytosanitary Standards of IPPC and Recommendations on Use of MB
IPPC Phytosanitary standards have approved the use of methyl bromide for specific
phytosanitary treatments, provided that practical measures are taken to control or reduce its
emission during use. The non-availability of commercially available cost-effective
alternatives to methyl bromide does also influence IPPC standards to continue to approve use
of methyl bromide where necessary. The recent IPPC Recommendation on the 'Replacement
or Reduction of the Use of Methyl Bromide as a Phytosanitary Measure' has encouraged
parties to put in place a strategy that will help them to reduce the use of MB and/or reduce
emissions (IPPC, 2008, p.4-5). In addition, the latest ISPM 15 standard encourages NPPOs to
promote the use of the alternative (heat) treatments approved in the standard (IPPC, 2009b).
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 52
-------
Section IV. Conclusion
During its review of regulations, the MBTOC encountered very few regulations which
mandated or specified MB use only. However, there are many regulations that require plants
to be free of insects and other pests, with MB as the fumigant of choice. Often, the data have
not been generated to prove effective control of all pests with an alternative to a standard
similar to MB, and Parties are unwilling to adopt the alternative in the face of possible
increased risk.
Additionally, the required standard of efficacy for quarantine uses is extremely high because
the consequences of exotic pests surviving treatments can be catastrophic to regions where
the new pest becomes established. As compared to normal pest control and pre-shipment
treatments, quarantine treatments seek to wholly prevent entry of any pest individuals into a
country and as such must be as close to 100% effective as possible. A common quarantine
standard is probit 9, which states that 99.9968% of pests in the shipment must be killed or
made reproductively sterile by the treatment—an extremely difficult target to reach.
In summary, the main barrier to moving completely into methyl bromide alternatives is lack
of data about alternatives. The U.S. EPA encourages applicators - commodity owners,
shippers, and their agents to review potential alternatives outlined in this document as well as
any others that may be missing, and also to submit additional efficacy data, to promote the
complete transition away from methyl bromide for all uses.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. S3
-------
10. References
APHIS (2001) Proposed Rule for Mexican Hass Avocado Import Program Expansion Final Environmental
Assessment October 2001 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/hass.pdf
APHIS (2004) Final Rule for the Importation of Mexican Hass Avocados. Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, US Department of Agriculture, p.8.
APHIS (2008a) Eastern Treatment Facilities Listing by State. List of approved treatment facilities in the
Eastern region, update: 10/02/08. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, US Department of
Agriculture.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/Eastern_Facilities.pdf
APHIS (2008b) Western Treatment Facilities Listing by State. List of approved treatment facilities in the
Western region, update: 10/02/08. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, US Department of
Agriculture.
http://www.aphis.usda. gov/import export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/Western Facilities.pdf
APHIS (2009a) Cut Flowers and Greenery Import Manual. Plant Protection and Quarantine. Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/cut flower imports.pdf
APHIS (2009b) Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Designated Pest(s) Free Areas that Meet APHIS Requirements for
Pest-free Areas Listed in 7 CFR 319.56-5, Revision 20090226 005. USDA. 4pp.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/DesignatedPestFreeAreas.p
df
APHIS (2009c) Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Import Manual. Plant Protection and Quarantine. Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/IV.pdf
APHIS (2009d) Fruit and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) database. Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture, https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/index.cfm
APHIS (2009e) Treatment Manual. Plant Protection and Quarantine. Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, US Department of Agriculture.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import export/plants/manuals/ports/treatment.shtml
APVMA 2007 The Reconsideration of Registrations of Products Containing Methyl Bromide and their
Associated Approved Labels.
AQIS (2008) PHYTO database on Plants and Plant products Export Conditions. V4.00. Australian Quarantine
and Inspection Service. [Compilation of information on national requirements, not a definitive guide.]
http://www.aais.gov.au/phvto/asp/ex home.asp
AQIS (2009) Import Conditions database. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.
http://www.aais.gov.au/icon32/asp/ex quervcontent.asp
AQIS (2009) Import conditions for fresh mango from Taiwan and the Philippines. Import Conditions database.
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.
http://www.aais.gov.au/icon32/asp/ex casecontent.asp?intNodeId=8764723&intCommoditvId=6241&
Tvpes=none&WhichOuerv=Go+to+Ml+text&intSearch=l&LogSessionID=Q (Taiwan) and
http://www.aqis.gov.au/icon32/asp/ex casecontent.asp?intNodeId=8764710&intCommoditvId=6241&
Tvpes=none&WhichOuerv=Go+to+Ml+text&intSearch=l&LogSessionID=Q (the Philippines).
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 54
-------
AQIS (2009a) Methyl Bromide Alternatives Information System (MBAIS) http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-
plant-health/plant/methvl bromide alternatives information system (accessed 14 May 2009)
AQIS (2009b) PHYTO Database - Plants and Plant Products Export Conditions
http://www.daff.gov.au/aais/export/plants-grains-hort/phvto (accessed 14 May 2009).
AQIS. (2008a). Treatments and Fumigants. AQIS Methyl Bromide Fumigation Standard. Version 1.3. January
2008. http://www.daff.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0010/734464/atf-methbro-fumigation-
standard.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2008.
AQIS. (2008b). Treatments and Fumigants. AQIS Heat Treatment Standard. Version 1. 2008.
http://www.daff.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0006/734424/atf-heat-treat-standard.pdf. Accessed 18
September 2008.
BACT (2009). BACT determination detail. http://www.arb.ca.gov/bact/bactnew/determination.php7vaF975.
Accessed 21 September 2009.
Batchelor, T.A and Miller, M.K. (2008) The role of the Montreal Protocol in reducing quarantine and pre-
shipment uses of methyl bromide. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Controlled
Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products. Chengdu, 21-26 September 2008. p.88-93
Battu G.S., Bains, S.S. and Atwal, A.S. (1975) The lethal effects of high temperature on the survival of the
larvae of Trogoderma granarium Everts. Indian J. Ecol., 2, 98-102.
Bell, C. H., Harral, B. B., Wontner-Smith, T. J., Conyers, S. T., Mills, K. A., Cardwell, S. K. and Llewellin, B.
E. (2003). Modified atmospheres at raised temperature, an alternative to methyl bromide as a means of
ensuring clean, pest-free, hygienic standards in food commodities. U.K. Link Project - AFM87: 1-83.
Bell, C. H., T. J. Wontner-Smith and N. Sawidou (2003) Some properties of sulphuryl fluoride in relation to its
use as a fumigant in the cereals industry. Advances in stored product protection proceedings of the 8th
international working conference on stored product protection, York, UK 22-26 July 2002. 2003; 910-
915.
BNZ (2008) Approved Biosecurity Treatment for Risk Goods Directed for Treatment, BNZ-STD-ABTRT,
version 08/04/2008. Biosecurity New Zealand, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington.
http://www.biosecuritv.govt.nz/files/regs/stds/bnz-std-abtrt.pdf
Brockerhoff E. G, et al (unpublished): Eradication of invasive forest insects: concept, methods, costs and
benefits New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science
Carey, W. and Godbehere, S. (2004). Effects of VIF and solvent carrier on control of nutsedge and on
populations of Trichoderma at two nurseries in 2003. In: Annual International Research Conference on
Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA, 2003.
Cardinal Products. (2009). METH-O-GAS® Q COMMODITY FUMIGANT.
http://www.cardinalproproducts.com/LabelsandMSDS/LabelsandMSDS.htm. Accessed 2 October
2009.
Carpenter, J., Gianessi, L. and Lynch, L. (2000). The economic impact of the scheduled U.S. phaseout of methyl
bromide, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, DC
Cassells J., Banks H. J. and Annis P. C. (1994). Mortality of snails, Cernuella virgata and Cochlicella acuta,
exposed to fumigants, controlled atmospheres or heat disinfestation. Proc. 6th International Working
Conference on Stored-Product Protection, 17-23 April 1994, Canberra, Australia, pp. 50-55.
CDFA (2009). California Departent of Food an Agriculture.
http://www.cdfa.ca. gov/phpps/PE/Nurserv/pdfs/NIPM 7.pdf
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 55
-------
CFIA (2007). CFIA Canadian Forest Industry Assiciation. Canadian Food Inspection Agency - PI-07 4th
Revision - The technical heat treatment www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/for/cwpc/htreate.shtml
Chemtura (2009).
http://www.chemtura.com/mp/v/index.isp?vgnextoid=2d4e737b65a08110VgnVCM10000053d7010aR
CRD&vgnextchannel=2d4e737b65a08110VgnVCM10000053d7010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default.
Accessed 16 September 2009.
Clamp P. and Moore D. (2000). Nitrogen treatment of grain, Newcastle Grain Terminal. In' Stored Grain in
Australia 2000'. CSIRO Stored Grain Research Laboratory, Canberra, pp. 184-186.
Colautti R.I, et al (2006): Characterised and projected costs of nonindigenous species in Canada. Biological
Invasions (2006) 8: 45-59
Collinson (1999) Commodity fumigation: future strategies. International Pest Control May/June 1999, 96-98.
Cox D. (2008). Regulation and management of fumigations through the Australian Fumigation Accreditation
Scheme (AFAS). Proc. 8th International Conference on Controlled Atmospheres and Fumigation in
Stored Products, eds. Guo Daolin et al., 21-26 Sept. 2008, Chengdu, PRC. p. 573.
CPHST (2009a) Electronic index of PPQ treatment schedules. Treatment Quality Assurance Unit, Center for
Plant Health Science and Technology, Animal and Plant health Inspection Service, US department of
Agriculture. https://manuals.cphst.org/Tindex/treatmentSearch.cfm
CPHST (2009b) In-transit cold treatment ship database. Treatment Quality Assurance Unit, Center for Plant
Health Science and Technology, Animal and Plant health Inspection Service, US department of
Agriculture. https://treatments.cphst.org/vessels/printVesselDB.cfm.
CPHST (2009c) In-transit cold treatment container database. Treatment Quality Assurance Unit, Center for
Plant Health Science and Technology, Animal and Plant health Inspection Service, US department of
Agriculture. https ://treatments .cphst. org/vessels/containerList. cfm
Cram, M., S.A. Enebak, S.W. Fraedrich, L.D. Dwinell and S.J. Zarnoch. (2007) Evaluation of fumigants, EPTC
herbicide and Paenibacilus macerans in the production of loblolly pine seedlings. Forest Science
53(1): 73 - 83
De Cal, A., A. Martinez-Terceno, T. Salto, J.M. Lopez-Aranda and P. Melgarejo (2005). Effecto of chemical
fumigation on soil fungal communities in Spanish strawberry nurseries. Applied Soil Ecology 28: 47-
56
De Cal, A., Martinez-Terceno, A., Lopez-Aranda, J.M. and Melgarejo P. (2004). Alternatives to methyl bromide
in Spanish strawberry nurseries. Plant Disease 88(2): 210-214.
De Heer, H., Hamaker, P. and Tuinstra, C.G.M. (1983). Use of gas tight plastic films during fumigation of
glasshouse soils with MB. Acta Horticulturae, 152, 109-126.
Desclean (2009). www.desclean.com
Dowdy, A.K. (2002). Use of non-chemical methyl bromide alternatives in the USA. Proc. International
Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 5-8 March 2002, Sevilla. Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg.
Dowsett, H.A., Yonglin, Ren., and Waterford, C.J. (2004). Toxicity of ethanedinitrile (C2N2) to timber or wood
related insect pests. In: Proceedings of Annual International Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-6 November, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 56
-------
Durner, E.F., E. B. Poling and J. L. Maas, 2002 Recent Advances in Strawberry Plug Transplant Technology.
HorTechnology 12(4): 545 - 550
Dwinell, L., Thorns, E. and Prabhakaran, S. (2003). Effect of Sulfuryl Fluoride on the pinewood nematode in
pine wood. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA. Paper 95.
Dwinell, L.D. (2001). Potential use of elevated temperature to manage pests in transported wood. Exotic Forest
Pests Online Symposium, April 2001.
EC. European Community (2008). European Community Management Strategy for the phase-out of critical uses
of Methyl Bromide. July, 2008
Enebak, 2007. Methyl bromide and the Montreal Protocol: An update on the Critical Use Exemption and
Quarantine Pre-shipment process. USD A Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-50 pp 135 -141
Enebak, S., T. Starkey, and D. McCraw. (2006). Tree seedling quality and weed control with Basamid, MBR
and methyl iodide. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives,
Orlando, FL, USA.
FAO (2009) Agricultural trade statistics, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, http://faostat.fao.org
FAO. 2009. Guide to Fumigation under Gas-Proof Sheets.
http://www.fao.org/inpho/content/documents/vlibrarv/ad416e/faohomeindex.htm. Accessed 20
September 2009.
Faruki, S.I., Miyanoshita, A., and Imamura, T. (2005). Toxicity of sulfuryl fluoride to the developmental stages
of the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais at different exposure periods. International Pest Control 47(3)
133-138
Federal Register (2008). United States of America Vol. 73 No. 177, Sept 11, 2008
Fennimore, S.A., Duniway, J.M., Browne, G.T., Martin, F.N., Ajwa, H.A., Westerdahl, B.B., Goodhue, R.E.,
Haar, M., Winterbottom, C.Q. (2008). Methyl bromide alternatives for California strawberry nurseries.
California Agriculture. April-June 2008:62-67
Fleming, M.R., Hoover, K., Janowiak, J.J., Fang, Y., Wang, X., Liu, W.,Wang, Y., Hong, X., Agrawal, D.,
Mastro, V.C., Lance, D.R., Shield, J.E., and Roy, R. (2003). Microwave irradiation of wood packing
material to destroy the Asian longhorned beetle. Forest Products Journal 53(1): 46-52
Fox P. 2008. AFAS: methyl bromide and beyond. Proc. 2008 Annual International Research Conference on
Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 10-13 November 2006, San Diego, Calif., p.
79-1.
Fraser, P, Coram, S., Dunse, B. Macfarling-Meure and Derek, N. (2006). Methyl bromide emissions through
barrier films. CSIRO Report to Department of Primary Industries Victoria, August, 2006
Frontline Biosecurity 2003 Reducing methyl bromide use in the forestry sector; phosphine validation trials.
Unpublished report
Frontline Biosecurity 2005). In transit monitoring of phosphine concentration. Misola Shina - September 2004.
Unpublished report.
Furuki S. I., A. Miyanoshita and T. Imamura (2005) Toxicity of sulfuryl fluoride to the developmental stages of
the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curdulionidae), at different exposure
periods. International pest control 47(3): 133-138.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 57
-------
Galvin, T.J., & Wyss, J.H. (1996). Screwworm eradication program in Central America. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 791, 233-240.
Garcia-Mendez', E., D. Garcia-Sinovas, M. Becerril, A. De Cal, P. Melgarejo, A. Martinez-Treceno, S A.
Fennimore, C. Soria, J. J. Medina and Jose M. Lopez-Aranda (2008) Chemical Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide for Weed Control and Runner Plant Production in Strawberry Nurseries. HortScience 43 (6):
177-182
Gillman, H. (1992). The New World screwworm eradication programme. North Africa 1988-1992. Rome, Italy:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T.N., Santos, B.M. (2005). Cyperus spp. Control with reduced methyl bromide plus
chloropicrin doses under virtually impermeable films in pepper. Crop Protection. 24: 285-287.
Hamill, J. E., Dickson, D. W., T-Ou, L., Allen, L. H., Burelle, N. K. and Mendes, M. L. (2004). Reduced rates
of MBR and C35 under LDPE and VIF for control of soil pests and pathogens. In: Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 31
October - 3 November, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 2-1.
Hanson, B., J. Gerik and S. Schneider (2006). Evaluation of reduced Methyl Bromide rates and alternative
fumigants in field grown perennial crop nurseries. In: Annual International Research Conference on
Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2006.
Hanson, B.D., J.S. Gerik, and S.M. Schneider.(2009). Evaluation of reduced Methyl Bromide rates in field
grown perennial crop nurseries. Proceedings Western Society of Weed Science. 62:17
Hendrichs, J., Robinson, A.S., Cayol, J.P., & Enkerlin, W. (2002). Medfly area wide sterile insect technique
programmes for prevention, suppression or eradication: The importance of mating behavior studies.
Florida Entomologist, 85, 1-13.
Hole, B.D., Bell, C.H., Mills, K.A. and Goodship, G. (1976). The toxicity of phosphine to all developmental
stages of thirteen species of stored product beetles. Journal of Stored Products Research, 12, 235-244.
Holmes T. P, et al (2009): Economic Impacts of Invasive Species in Forests Past, Present, and Future. The Year
in Ecology and Conservation Biology, 2009: Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1162: 18-38 (2009).
Horn, F. and Horn, P. (2004) Fresh fruit fumigation with pure phosphine as alternative for methyl bromide. In:
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions
31 October - 3 November, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Horn, F. (2009) DrFranziskus Horn, Santiago, Chile. Personal communication.
Hosking, G. and Goss, .(2005) - Phosphine Fumigation of Logs April 2005 -Frontline Biosecurity.
Husain, M.A (1923) Preliminary observation on lethal temperatures for the larvae of Trogoderma khapra, pest
of stored wheat. Proc. Fourth Entomological Meeting, Pusa, 1921, 240-248.
ICON. 2009. Timber packaging and dunnage. All countries.
http://www.aais.gov.au/icon32/asp/ex casecontent.asp?intNodeId=8849077&intCommoditvId=17670
&Tvpes=none&WhichOuerv=Go+to+full+text&intSearch=l&LogSessionID=Q. Accessed 18
September 2008.
Ikediala, J.N., Tang,L, Neven, L.G. and Drake, S.R. 1999. Quarantine treatment of cherries using 915 MHz
microwaves: temperature mapping, codling moth mortality and fruit quality. Postharvest Biological
Technology 16: 127-137.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 58
-------
IMO 2008a. Recommendations on the safe use of pesticides in ships applicable to the fumigation of cargo
transport units. MSC. 1/Circ. 1265. 9 June 2008. 11 pp.
IMO 2008b. Recommendations on the safe use of pesticides in ships applicable to the fumigation of cargo
holds. MSC. 1/Circ. 1264. 27 May 2008. 15 pp.
IMO. (1996). Recommendations on the safe use of pesticides in ships. International Maritime Organisation,
London. ISBN 92-801-1426-3.
Ingemanson, M. (1997). MIDS infrared technology - effective, benign, affordable. Proc. Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3-5, San
Diego, California.
IPPC (2006). ISPM No. 15. Guidelines for regulating wood packaging material in international trade (2002)
with modifications to Annex 1 (2006). IPPC: Rome. 11 pp.
IPPC (2008). IPPC Recommendation. Replacement or reduction of the use of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary
measure. Appendix 6. Report of the Third Session of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures,
Rome, 7-11 April 2008, 10 pp.
IPPC (2000). International standards for phytosantary measures. Revision of ISPM No. 15. Regulation of wood
packaging material in international trade.
https://www.ippc.int/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0xMzM5QSY2PWVuJiMzPSomMzc9a29z
IPPL. 2009. Methyl bromide neutralisation device, http://www.ippl.co.in/uses.html. Accessed 18 September
2008.
Jamieson, L.E., Stephens, A.E.A. and Dentener, P.R. (2003). Alternatives to methyl bromide as a quarantine
treatment for forestry exports - literature review. Unpublished HortResearch client report No. 9746.
JFTA (2002). Theory and Practice of Plant Quarantine Treatments (revised edition 2002). Japan Fumigation
Association, 222 pp. (in Japanese).
Joyce P. J. and Bielski R. (2008). Two stage system for the destruction of methyl bromiide from fumigation
ventilation streams. Proc. 8th International Conference on Controlled Atmospheres and Fumigation in
Stored Products, eds. Guo Daolin et al., 21-26 Sept. 2008, Chengdu, PRC. pp. 352 - 355.
Joyce P (2009). pers. comm.,
Kabir et al (2005). Alternatives to MB for strawberry runner plant production. HortScience 40:1709-1715
Kabir M. H. (2005). Presentation to UNEP Thematic Meeting on Remaining Challenges to Phase out Methyl
Bromide. Hua Hin, Thailand. 13-14 October 2005.
Kawakami, F. Y. Soma, H. Komatsu and Y. Matsumoto (2004) Effects of Some Fumigants on the Pine Wood
Nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus Infesting Wooden Packages. 4. Mortality and CT Product in
Methyl Bromide Fumigation with High Loading of Wood Packing Materials. Res. Bull. PI. Prot. Japan
40: 7_12.
Larsen, B (2009) pers. Comm.
Lee, R. (2009) Colombian Association of Flower Exporters, personal communication.
Leesch, J.G., Davis, R., Simonaltis, R.A. and Dwinell, L.D. (1989). In-transit shipboard fumigation of pine
woodchips to control Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. EPPO Bull. 19: 173-181.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 59
-------
Lewis, V.R., Power, A.B., and Haverty, M.H. (2000). Laboratory evaluation of microwaves for control of the
western drywood termite. Forest Products Journal 50(5): 79-87.
Lindgren, D.L.. Vincent, L.E. and Krohne, H.E. (1955) The khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium Everts.
Hilgardia, 24, 1 - 36.
Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., and Dominguez, F. (2000). Three Years of Short-Term
Alternatives To MB on Huelva Strawberries. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2000. 6-9 November, 2000, Orlando, Florida, USA,
pp. 10-1.
Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., De Los Santos, B., Dominguez, F., Sanchez-Vidal, M. D.,
Lopez-Medina, J., and Flores, F. (2001). Agronomic Behaviour of Strawberry Coming From Different
Types of Soil Fumigation in Nurseries. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California,
USA, pp. 38-1.
Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Miranda, L., Romero, F., De Los Santos, B., Montes, F., Vega, J. M., Paez, J. I., Bascon,
J., Medina, J. J. (2003). Alternatives to MB for Strawberry Production in Huelva (Spain). 2003
Results. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions 2003. November, 2003, San Diego, California, USA pp. 33-1.
Lopez-Medina, J., J. M. Lopez-Aranda, J. J. Medina, L. Miranda, C. Soria, F. Dominguez, E. Vazquez-Ortiz 1
and F. Flores (2007). Strawberry production from transplants fumigated with methyl bromide
alternatives. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 5(3): 407-416
MAFF (1950) Ordinance for Enforcement of the Plant protection Act, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries. (Latest amendment, Jun. 2009
http://www.pps.go.jp/law active/Notification/basis/4/12/html/12.html (in Japanese)
MAFF (2009). Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan, 2009
MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries) (1971). Quarantine prospectus for import grains.
Director's notice Nosei, No.2628, 6 February 1971 (in Japanese)
MAFF, Japan (2009) Plant Protection Station, Plant quarantine statistics
MAFF. 1951. Quarantine prospectus for import logs. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan.
Director notice Noukyoku, No. 1843, November 22, 1951. Latest amendment, 2001.
MBTOC (1995). 1994 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP,
Nairobi.
MBTOC (1998). 1998 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP,
Nairobi.
MBTOC (2002). 2002 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP
Nairobi.
MBTOC (2007). 2006 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP,
Nairobi, Kenya, 485 pp.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 60
-------
Melgarejo, P., A. Martinez-Treceno, A. de Cal, T. Salto, M.L Martinez-Beringola, J.M. Garcia-Baudin, I.
Santin, E. Bardon, J. Palacios, M. Becerril, J.J. Medina and J.M. Lopez-Aranda (2003). Chemical
alternatives to MB for strawberry nurseries in Spain. 2002 Results. In: Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, November 3-6, 2003, San
Diego, California, USA.
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia de Costa Rica - Ministerio de Agricultura de Chile (2007) Acuerdo para
el establecimiento de medidas de seguridad cuarentenaria contra la falsa aranita roja de la vid
(Brevipalpus chilensis, Baker), en uvas de mesa a exportarse desde Chile a Costa Rica.
http://www.sag.gob.cl/OpenDocs/asp/pagVerRegistro.asp?
boton=Doc50&argInstanciaId=50&argCarpetaId=61&argTreeNodosAbiertos=(61)(-
50)&argTreeNodoActual=61&argTreeNodoSel=4&argRegistroId=3826
Miric, M. and Willeitner H., (1990). Lethal temperature for some wood-destroying fungi with respect to
eradication by heat treatment. Hamburg, Institute of Wood Biology and Wood Preservation, 24pp.
Misumi et al., (In press, 2009) Development of a methyl bromide fumigation standard for imported vegetables
to reduce usage based on insect pest susceptibility. Res. Bull. PI. Prot. Japan No. 45
MLF (2004) 'Technical Assistance for a Philippine National Methyl Bromide Phaseout Strategy'. World Bank
project, Multilateral Fund, Montreal.
Mookheijee, P.B., Jotwani, M.G., Yadav T.D. and Sircar, P. (1968) Disinfestation of stored seeds by heat
treatment. Indian J. Ent., 30, 197-202.
Mori, T. and N. Kawamoto (1966). Studies on the properties and effect of fumigant aluminum phosphide. Res.
Bull. PI. Prot. Japan 3:24-35 (in Japanese).
Morrell, J.J 1995: Importation of unprocessed logs into North America: A review of pest mitigation procedures
and their efficacy. Forestry Products Journal 45(9):41-50.
Myers, J.H., Savoie, A., & van Randen, E. (1998). Eradication and pest management. Annual Review of
Entomology, 43, 471—491.
Myers, J.H., & Hosking, G. (2002). Eradication. In G.J. Hallman & C.P. Schwalbe (Eds.) Invasive Arthropods
in Agriculture - Problems and Solutions (pp. 293-307). Enfield, New Hampshire: Science Publishers.
Naito H., M. Goto, N. Ogawa, Y. Soma and F. Kawakami (2003) Effects of Methyl Iodide on Mortality of
Forest Insect Pests. Res. Bull. PI. Prot. Japan No.39: 1-6.
Naito H., Y.Soma, I. Matsuoka, T.Misumi, T. Akagawa, M.Mizobuchi and F. Kawakami. 1999; Effects of
methyl isothiocyanate on forest insects pests. Res. Bull. PI. Prot. Jap. 35:1-4
Newbill, M.A. and J.J. Morrell J.J. 1991. Effects of elevated temperatures on survival of Basidiomycetes that
colonize untreated Douglas-fir poles. For. Prod. J. 41:31-33.
Nishi, K. and A. Tateya, (2006b). Independence of methyl bromide pre-planting soil fumigation by the
application of tray-rack culture system for strawberry fruit and runner production in Japan.
Contribution for MBTOC progress report of May 2006.
Oogita, T., Soma, Y., Mizobuchi, M., Oda,Y. & Matsuoka, T.K. 1997: Mortality tests for forest insect pests by
phosphine fumigation. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service Japan. No.33:17-20.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1993) Harmful Nonindigenous Species in the United States.
Government report, OTA-F-565, Washington, DC, 391 pp
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 61
-------
Ou, L., Joy, P.J., Thomas, J.E.;,Hornsby, A.G. (1997). Stimulation of microbial degradation of MB in soil
during oxidation of an ammonia fertilizer by nitrifiers. Environmental Science and Technology. 31,
717-722.
Papadimitriou V. C., Portmann R. W., Fahey D. W., Miihle J., Weiss R. F. and Burkholder J. B. (2009).
Experimental and theoretical study of the atmospheric chemistry and Global Warming Potential of
S02F2. J. Phys. Chem. A, 2008, 112 (49): 12657-12666.
Pimental D, et al (2000): Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States
2000/Vol. 50No. 1. Bioscience
Porter, I., R. Brett B. Wiseman and J. Rae. (1997). Methyl bromide for preplant soil disinfestation in temperate
horticultural crops in Australia in perspective. Annual International Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-5 November, San Diego, California USA.
Porter, I.J., Trinder, L. and Partington, D. (2006b). Special report validating the yield performance of
alternatives to Methyl Bromide for preplant fumigation. TEAP/MBTOC Special Report, UNEP
Nairobi, May 2006 97pp.PPS, 2007)
PPS (Plant Protection Statistics) (2007) Report of imported plants for categories in 2007 (in Japanese).
Quicke, M., T. Starkey and S. Enebak (2008) Area-Wide demonstration of alternatives: Forest nurseries in the
southern US . In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11 - 14, 2008
Quicke, M., T. Starkey, and S. Enebak. (2007). Area-wide demonstration of alternatives: forest nurseries in the
southern US. In: Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conf. on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. San Diego, CA, USA
Reichmuth, C.H. (2002). Alternatives to methyl bromide for the treatment of wood, timber and artefacts in the
European community. In: International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, March 2002,
Seville, Spain.
Ren Y., Wang Y., Barak A.V., Wang X., Liu Y. and Dowsett H.A. (2006). Toxicity of ethanedinitrile to
Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerabmbycidae) larvae. Journal of Economic Entomology 99:
308-312.
Ren Y.L., Desmarchelier J.M. and O'Brien I.G. (1997). Improved methodology for studying diffusion, sorption
and diffusion in timber fumigation. Journal of Stored Products Research 33: 199- 208.
Ren Yonglin, O'Brien G, Desmarchelier JM. 1997. Improved methodology for studying diffusion, sorption and
desorption in timber fumigation. J. stored Prod. Res. 33: 199-208.
Rhatigan RG, Morrell JJ, Filip GM. 1998. Toxicity of methyl bromide to four pathogenic fungi in larch
heartwood. Forest Products Journal 48: 63-67.
Ria, P.S., Ball, H.J., Nelson, S.O., and Stetson, L.E. (1972). Lethal effects of radio-frequency energy on the
eggs of Tenebrio molitor. Annals Entomological Society of America. 65: 807-810.
Rice, P., Anderson, T., Clink, J. and J. Coats. (1996). The influence of soil environment variables on the
degradation and volatility of methyl bromide in soil. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15(10): 1723-1729
Ridley, G. and Crabtree, R. (2001). Temperature mortality thresholds for insects and fungi. Unpublished report,
Frontline Biosecurity.
Rodwell, P. (2007) Cardboard tea pallet. Mombasa, Kenya.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 62
-------
Rojas, J. P. (2009) Colombian Association of Flower Exporters, personal communication.
Runia, W.T., Molendijk, L.P.G. and Evenhuis, B. (2007) Desk Study on Efficacy of Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide Against Soilborne Fungi and Plant Parasitic Nematodes in Strawberry Runners. PPO no.
3250070000 part 1. Applied Research PPO-AGV, University of Wageningen, Wageningen.
Sances, F. (2005). Ten years of methyl bromide alternatives research and development: Lessons learned. In:
Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions. San Diego, CA, USA
Santos, B.M., J.P. Gilreath, J.M. Lopez-Aranda, L. Miranda, C. Soria, and J.J. Medina. (2007). Comparing
Methyl Bromide alternatives for strawberry in Florida and Spain. Journal of Agronomy 6(1): 225 - 227
Sarty, M. (2007). Fire ant eradicated at Port of Napier. Biosecurity, 73, 11.
Scheffrahn, H., Su Nan-Yao and Hsu Ruei-Ching (1992) Diffusion of methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride
through selected structural wood matrices during fumigation. Material und Organismen 27 147 - 155.
Scheffrahn, R.H. and Thomas, E.M. (1993). Penetration of sulfuryl fluoride and methyl bromide through
selected substrates during fumigation. Down to Earth 48 (1).
Schmidt, E.L. and Amburgey, T.L. (1997). Iodomethane as a methyl bromide alternative for prevention of non-
microbial enzyme stain (grey stain) of hardwoods by log fumigation. Forest Products Journal 47: 88-
90.
Schneider, S. M., B.D. Hanson, J.S. Gerik, A. Shrestha, T.J. Trout, and S. Gao. (2009). Comparison of Shank-
and Drip-Applied Methyl Bromide Alternatives in Perennial Crop Field Nurseries. HortTechnology
19:331-339.
Semple, R. L. and K.I. Kirenga. (1997). Facilitating regional trade of agricultural commodities in Eastern,
Central and Southern Africa. Phytosanitary standards to restrict the further rapid spread of the larger
grain borer (LGB) in the region. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Dar Es Salaam University Press.
Shrestha, A., G. T. Browne, B. D. Lampinen, S. M. Schneider, L. Simon, and T. J. Trout (2008) Perennial crop
nurseries treated with methyl bromide and alternative fumigants: Effects on weed seed viability, weed
densities, and time required for hand weeding. Weed Technology 22(2): 267-274.
Simberloff, D. (2002). Today Tiiitiri Matangi, tomorrow the world! Are we aiming too low in invasives control?
In C.R. Veitch & M.N. Clout (Eds.) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species (pp. 4-12).
Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 27, IUCN SSC Invasive Species
Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K: IUCN.
Simberloff, D. (2003). Eradication: preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Science, 51, 247-53.
Soma Y., H. Naito, Y. Abe, T. Itabashi, Y. Matsumoto and F. Kawakami (2006) Effects of Some Fumigants on
Mortality of the Pine Wood Nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus Infesting Wooden Packages; 7.
Fumigation Schedules for Pine Wood Nematode by Mixture Gas of Methyl Isothiocyanate and Sulfuryl
Fluoride. Res. Bull. PL Prot. Japan No.42: 15-22.
Soma Y., H. Naito, Y. Abe, T. Misumi, M. Mizobuchi, Y Tsuchiya, I Matsuoka and F. Kawakami (2001)
Effects of Some Fumigants on Mortality of the Pine Wood Nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus
Infesting Wooden Packages; 1. susceptibility of Pine Wood Nematode to methyl bromide, Methyl
Isothiocyanate and Sulfuryl Fluoride. Res. Bull. PI. Prot. Japan No.37: 19-26.
Soma Y., M. Goto, N. Ogawa, H. Naito and K. Hirata (2005) Effects of Some Fumigants on Mortality of Pine
Wood Nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus Infecting Wooden Packages; 5. Mortality of Pine Wood
Nematode and Fumigation Standards by Methyl Iodide. Res. Bull. PI. Prot. Japan No.41: 1-7.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 63
-------
Soma Y., M. Goto, N. Ogawa, H. Naito, F. Kawakami, H. Komatsu, A. Tateya, A. Arita, M. Nomura, T. Sato,
F. Mori, Y. Abe, T. Itabashi, Y. Hisada and H. Miyachi (2004) Mortalities of Forest Insect Pests by
Mixture Fumigants. Res. Bull. PI. Prot. Japan No.40: 19-23.
South (2007). Chloropicrin as a soil fumigant treatment in southern pine nurseries. Southern Journal of Applied
Forestry 31(1) 2007
South D. B. (2008). Comments on alternatives to methyl bromide for quarantine purposes in forest nurseries. In:
Dumroese RK, Riley LE, technical coordinators. National Proceedings: Forest and Consevation
Nursery Associations 2008.
Spiers, A.G. (2003). Fumigation of export logs using phosphine. Unpublished report, Frontline Biosecurity.
Stephens, A.E.A., Suckling, D.M., Burnip, G.M., Flynn, A., & Richmond, J. (2007). Field records of painted
apple moth (Teia anartoides: Lep.: Lymantriidae) on plants and inanimate objects in Auckland, New
Zealand.. Australian Journal of Entomology, 46, 152-159.
Suckling, D.M, Barrington, A.M., Chhagan, A., Stephens, A.E.A., Burnip, G.M., Charles, J.G., & Wee, S.L.
(2007a). Eradication of the Australian Painted Apple Moth Teia anartoides in New Zealand: Trapping,
inherited sterility, and male competitiveness. InM.J.B. Vreysen, A.S. Robinson, & J. Hendricks (Eds.),
Area-wide Control of Insect Pests (pp. 603-615). Vienna, Austria: IAEA.
Suckling, D.M., Jang, E.B., Carvalho, L.A., Nagata, J.T., Schneider, E.L., & El-Sayed, A.M. (2007b). Can
menage-a-trois be used for controlling insects? Journal of Chemical Ecology, 33, 1494-1504.
TEAP (2000). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. Progress Report. May, 2000.
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment
Programme, NairobiTEAP (2007)
TEAP (2003) Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. Progress Report. May, 2003.
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment
Programme, NairobiTEAP (2007)
TEAP, 2008 Report of the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel. October 2008. Ozone Secretariat,
UNEP, Nairobi
TEAP, 2009 Report of the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel. May, 2009. Ozone Secretariat, UNEP,
Nairobi
TEAP. (1999). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel April 1999, Volume 2: Essential
Use Exemptions, QPS Applications for Methyl Bromide, Progress and Control of Substances and other
Reporting Issues. UNEP:Nairobi: 227pp.
TEAP. (2006). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. Progress Report. May, 2006.
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment
Programme, NairobiTEAP (2007)
Thomas, W. (1998). Feasibility of using gas impermeable tarps to reduce MB emissions associated with soil
fumigation in the United States. United States Environmental Protection Agency Report. Jan 26, 1998.
Thorpe G. E., Evans D. E. and Sutherland J. W. 1984. The development of a continuous-flow fluidized-bed
high-temperature grain disinfestation process. In 'Controlled Atmospheres and Fumigation in Grain
Storages', eds B. E. Ripp et al. Elsevier: Amsterdam, pp. 617-622.
Touchdown Consulting (2009) The use f methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment applications in the
European union for the period 1 January to 31 December 2007. Touchdown Consulting, La Hulpe,
Belgium 20pp
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 64
-------
Tubajika,K.M and Barak, A.V.: Methyl Iodide and Sulfuryl Fluoride as Quarantine treatments for Solid Wood
Packing Material. MBAO Conference, Orlando, Florida, 2006 UNDP (1999). Demonstration project on
methyl bromide alternatives in Malaysia (UNDP - MAL/99/G68/A/2G/99)
UNEP (2001). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. Progress Report. May, 2001.
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi
UNEP, 2007. Protecting the Ozone Layer. Malaysia implementing the Montreal Protocol. UNEP, Nairobi, 48 pp
UNEP/ IPPC, 2008. Methyl Bromide: Quarantine and Preshipment uses. United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 16 pp.
UNEP/ ROAP 2008. Report to UNEP CAP ROAP Programme Bangkok. Quarantine and preshipment used for
methyl bromide in ROAP and potential for their replacement. Prepared by Jonathan Banks, 45 pp
USDA (1991) An Efficacy review of control measures for potential pest of imported Soviet timer. USDA
APHIS Miscellaneous Publication No. 1496
USDA (1992): Pest risk assessment of the importation of Pinus radiata and Douglas fir logs from New Zealand.
USDA, Forest Service. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1508
USDA (2007). Potato cyst nematode in Idaho. Amended environmental assessment, July 2007. United States
Department of Agriculture, Riverdale, MD, United States. 37 pp.
USDA. (2008) National Program 308 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Annual Report FY 2008. Agricultural
Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?np_code=308&docid=16834
USDA. (1994). Importation of logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles: environmental impact
statement.
USDA. (1996). Importation of logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles. 7CFR319.40 USDA
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Washington, DC.USDA 1996
USDA. 2009. PPQ Treatment Manual.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import export/plants/manuals/ports/treatment.shtml. Accessed Accessed 20
September 2009.
Van Someren Graver J. E. and Banks H. J. 2008. Freight containers - are they sufficiently gastight for
Quarantine & Pre-shipment Fumigation with methyl bromide in the 21st century? Proc. 8th International
Conference on Controlled Atmospheres and Fumigation in Stored Products, eds. Guo Daolin et al., 21-
26 Sept. 2008, Chengdu, PRC. pp. 441 - 445.
Vermeulen and Kool (2006). Phase-out of methyl bromide as ISPM-15 treatment. Analysis of options to reduce
the use of methyl bromide and possible alternatives. CLM Research and Advice, Oulemborg, Holland,
29 pp.
Vick, Ken (2009). USDA. QPSTF member. Personal Communication.
Walters, T., T. Miller, M. Particka, J. N. Pinkerton and I. Zasada (2008) Methyl bromide alternatives for
raspberry nurseries. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 11- 14, 2008
Wang, D., Yates, S., Gan, J. and J. Knuteson. (1999). Atmospheric volatilization of methyl bromide, 1,3-
dichloropropene, and propargyl bromide through two Plastic films: transfer coefficient and temperature
effect. Atmospheric Environment. 33: 401-407.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 65
-------
Wang W, Goss M., Burridge P., Glassey K., Bain J (2009).: Phosphine as a Phytosanitary Disinfestation
Treatment for New Zealand Grown Pine logs Destined for India 2009 Unpublished.
Wang Yuejin (2009), QPSTF member
Wang, D.; Yates, S.R.; Ernst, F.F.; Gan, J.; Jury, W.A. (1997b). Reducing MB emission with a high barrier
plastic film and reduced dosage. Environmental Science and Technology. 31: 3686-3691.
Watson, C.R., Pruthi, N., Bureau, D., Macdonald, C. and J. Roca. (1999). Intransit disinfestation of bulk and
bagged commodities: a new approach to safety and efficiency. Proc. 7th International Working
Conference on Stored-product Protection, Beijing, 1998, pp. 462-471.
Weiland, J., J. N. Pinkerton, W. Littke, J. Browning, C. Masters, R. Rose, D. Haase, T. Miller, B. Edmonds and
A. Leon (2008) Methyl Bromide alternatives in Oregon and Washington forest tree nurseries . In:
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions,
Orlando, Florida, November 11- 14, 2008
WHO (1995) Environmental Health Criteria 166. Methyl Bromide. International Programme on Chemical
Safety, World Health Organisation, Geneva.
Williame, E. (2009), pers. comm.
Wright E. J., Sinclair E. A. and Annis P. C. 2002. Laboratory determination of the requirements for control of
Trogoderma variabile (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) by heat. Journal of Stored Products Research. 38:
147-155.
Wright E. J., Ren Y.L. and Dowsett H.A. (2002). Cyanogen: a new fumigant with potential for timber. Proc.
2002 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions 6-8 Nov. 2002, Orlando, Fl. pp. 48-1 - 48-2.
Yates, S.R. (2005). Reducing bystander exposure by emission reduction. Annual International
ResearchConference on MB Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Oct 31 - Nov 3, 2005. San Diego,
California, USA
Yates, S. (2006). Developing a simple low-cost approach for evaluating emissio reduction methods. In: Annual
International Research Conference on MB Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Orlando, Florida,
USA, November 3 -6, 2006
Yates, S. R.; Wang, D.; Gan, J. and F.F. Ernst. (1998). Minimizing methyl bromide emissions from soil
fumigation. Geophysical Research Letters, 25(10): 1633-1636.
Yu KY, Chung YW, Lee MH, Jae JW. (1984). Study on shipboard fumigation of the imported logs. Korea
Journal of Plant Protection 23: 37-41
Zakladnoi G. A., Men'shenin A. I., Pertsovskii E. S., Salimov R. A., Cherepkov V. G. and Krsheminskii V. S.
1982. Industrial application of radiation disinsectification of grain. Soviet Atomic Energy 52: 74-78.
Zettler (1997) Influence of resistance on future fumigation technology. In Donahaye,E., Navarra,S,Varnava, A
(Eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in
Stored Porducts, 21-26 April. Printco Ltd., Nicosa, Cyprus pp 45-57
Zhang, Z. (2009) Pers. comm
Zhang Z, C W van Epenhuijsen, D Brash & K G Somerfield (2003) - In-transit Phosphine fumigation for export
logs and timber without top-up - is it possible? March 2003 - Crop & Food Research Confidential
Report No 1619
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 66
-------
Zhang, Z, van Epenhuijsen C W, Brach D & Hosking G P (2004) - Phosphine as a Fumigant to control Hylastes
ater and Arhopalus Ferns, Pests of Export Logs - 2004 - Crop & Food Research.
Zhang, Z. - Fumigating export logs using Phosphine to eliminate insect pests (2003). March 2003 - Crop &
Food Research Confidential Report No 834
Zhang, Z. (2004). Review of phosphine sorbtion and depletion during fumigation. Crop & Food unpublished
report No. 1374.
Zhang, Z. and van Epenhuijsen, C.W. (2005). Phosphine as a fumigant to control pests in export logs. Crop &
Food unpublished report No. 1375.
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 67
-------
MeBr Alternatives for Applicators, Commodity Owners, Shippers and their Agents, p. 68
------- |