Oregon Department

of Agriculture

Pesticide Use Reporting System

2008 Annual Report

June 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 1

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................ 2

ONLINE SYSTEM.................................................................................................................................. 4

Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Continued Issues............................................................................................................................... 5

Issues Specific to 2008 ..................................................................................................................... 6

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 7

HOUSEHOLD USE..............................................................................................................................19

Overview ..........................................................................................................................................19

Issues...............................................................................................................................................20

Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................21

APPENDIX ...........................................................................................................................................30

Appendix A – Top 100 Active Ingredients and Pounds Reported.................................................30
LIST OF TABLES

ONLINE COMPONENT

Table 1 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) for the Entire State............................................... 9

Table 2 – Pounds Reported by Water Basin ....................................................................................... 9

Table 3 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Water Basin..................................................... 9

Table 4 - Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Site Category .................................................13

Table 5 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Agriculture..........................15

Table 6 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Urban/General Indoor .......16

Table 7 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Urban/General Outdoor.....17

HOUSEHOLD COMPONENT

Table 8 – Main Active Ingredients Reported, Presented by Pesticide Type .....................................22
LIST OF FIGURES

ONLINE COMPONENT

Figure 1 – Oregon Water Basin Map .................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2 – Percentage of Pounds of Active Ingredients by Site Category ........................................12

HOUSEHOLD COMPONENT

Figure 3 – State Map with Regions Used in the Household Pesticide Use Survey..........................19

Figure 4 – Number of Participants By Region ....................................................................................20

Figure 5 – Number of Reports of Pesticide Use Received By Region ..............................................20

Figure 6 – Percentage by Region of Reports that Had Sufficient Information to Determine Active

Ingredients...................................................................................................................................23

Figure 7 – Reported Sites for All Data (from all 3,036 total reports received) ..................................23

Figure 8 – Reported Purposes for All Data.........................................................................................24

Figure 9 – Reported Sites for Data with Active Ingredient Information .............................................24

Figure 10 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information....................................24

Figure 11 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 1................25

Figure 12 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 2................25

Figure 13– Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 3................25

Figure 14 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 4................26

Figure 15 - Active Ingredients by Type – Entire State........................................................................ 26

Figure 16 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 1 ...........................................................................26

Figure 17 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 2 ...........................................................................27

Figure 18 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 3 ...........................................................................27

Figure 19 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 4 ...........................................................................27

Figure 20 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 5 ...........................................................................28

Figure 21 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 6 ...........................................................................28
Figure 22 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 7 ...........................................................................28

Figure 23 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 8 ...........................................................................29

Figure 24 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 9 ...........................................................................29
1

INTRODUCTION

This is the third annual report published for Oregon’s Pesticide Use Reporting System (PURS).

The 1999 Oregon Legislature directed the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) to develop

and implement a system to collect, organize, and report information on all categories of pesticide

use in Oregon. In order to meet this requirement, PURS includes both an online reporting

component (for all non-household applicators) and a household pesticide use survey component.

The online component was partially implemented in 2002 but did not collect a complete year of

reports due to funding issues. Calendar year 2008 was the second full year of reporting.

The Household Pesticide Use Survey began collecting information in 2006. The first

presentations of household pesticide use survey information were in the PURS Amended 2006

Annual Report. The PURS 2008 Annual Report includes presentations of household survey

information collected for 2008.
2

ABSTRACT

The 1999 Oregon Legislature authorized development of the Oregon Pesticide Use Reporting

System (PURS). The second full year of collecting non-household pesticide use in PURS was

2008. Also, 2008 was the third year of collecting information through the Household Pesticide

Use Survey.

In 2008, reporters filed 343,565 reports of pesticide use into PURS. These reports identified that

19,696,784 pounds of active ingredient pesticides were used in Oregon during 2008. This

included approximately 572 active ingredients. The top five active ingredients, by pounds, for the

entire state were:

• Metam-sodium (20%) [soil fumigant],

• Glyphosate (10%) [herbicide],

• 1,3-dichloropropene (6%) [soil fumigant],

• Sulfuric acid (6%) [desiccant], and

• Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons (4%) [insecticide].

The greatest percentage of pounds of active ingredients was from the site category of Agriculture.

Because of licensing requirements for pesticide use on agricultural and forest crops, and

outreach to agricultural and forestry pesticide applicators, the assumption could be made that

PURS compliance was greatest among these reporters. Each of the site categories and

percentage of pounds of active ingredients are as follows:

• Agriculture (77.3%),

• Other (11.1%),

• Forestry (4.2%),

• Right-of-way (3.5%),

• Urban/General Outdoor (2.5%),

• Aquatic (1.1%),

• Urban/General Indoor (0.7%),

• Public Health/Regulatory Pests (0.2%),

• Research (<0.1%).

A number of issues were again identified regarding pesticide reporters filing electronic reports into

PURS. Among these issues were:

• Reporters had trouble identifying the product used.

• Reporters had varying skill levels and access regarding online reporting.

• Reporters experienced difficulty in communication between PURS and their

computers.

• Reporters did not understand the reporting deadline was mandatory.

In the Household Pesticide Use Survey component of PURS for 2008, 1,717 households agreed

to complete use diaries. Only 1,513 households completed at least one month of reporting. More

than 51% of households reported no use of pesticides. The other participants provided 3,036

reports.

Only 60% of the household reports contained sufficient information to calculate pounds of active

ingredients. Reasons for reports lacking sufficient information to conduct these calculations

continue to include:

• Participants were unable to specify the amount of pesticide used.

• Participants were unable to determine what products were pesticides.

• Participants were unable to provide correct product identification.
3

Because of these difficulties, household information was insufficient to extrapolate to all

households in Oregon. The greatest percentages of pesticide applications were reported to have

taken place outdoors. All types of “bugs” (fleas, insects, mosquitoes, and spiders) represented

the largest percentage of purpose for control. Herbicides accounted for the largest number of

pounds of active ingredients, closely followed by moss control products.
4

ONLINE SYSTEM

Overview

Reporters had until January 31, 2009, to file all reports of pesticide applications made in 2008.

Following the deadline, PURS only accepted reports for applications made in 2009.

Staff were available to help reporters during business hours through a dedicated phone line and

by e-mail. Staff also held hands-on help classes throughout the state in the fall of 2008. These

classes provided reporters the opportunity to bring their records to a computer classroom and

receive one-on-one assistance registering and filing their reports. In addition to these classes,

staff made a number of presentations at training seminars, sent direct mailings, and updated

information presented on the Web site. An update of the PURS system was released in October

2008. Most of the changes were minor visual changes. Some major changes involved how

reporters submitted their reports, including:

1) combining the two reporting pages into one,

2) making it clearer on how to use the “Make Similar Report” button,

3) improving instructions available on each page, and

4) enhancing the search process for previous reports.

By law, a “‘pesticide user’ means any person who uses or applies a pesticide in the course of

business or any other for-profit enterprise, or for a governmental entity, or in a location that is

intended for public use or access.” Some, but not all pesticide applicators are required to be

licensed. Because of this, it is difficult to determine the number of entities that should be reporting

into PURS. It is assumed that not all applicators that are required by PURS to report actually did

so. A number of reporters called following January 31, 2009, to say they had missed the

deadline.

Between 2007 and 2008, there were approximately 6,290 reporters registered in PURS. PURS

allows the business or organization to register as the reporter. PURS also allows individual

persons actually making the pesticide application to register as the reporter. Therefore, the

number of reporters does not represent the number of persons making pesticide applications.

Some reporters decided to use proxies in filing their pesticide use reports. A proxy is an outside

entity filing reports on behalf of the reporter. Of the 6,290 registered reporters, 264 were proxies.

A total of 343,565 reports were submitted for 2008. The number of reports does not equal the

number of applications. PURS allows reporters to aggregate their reports if they meet specific

criteria. In order to aggregate, applications must be made within the same calendar month to the

same site category and/or specific site in the same location (waterbasin or ZIP code).
5

Continued Issues

The second year of reporting continued to reveal a number of issues (discussed in detail below),

including problems with:

• Product identification,

• Computer literacy, and

• PURS requirements.

Reporters had trouble correctly identifying the product used. This issue is due, in part, to

how pesticides are regulated. Products are assigned a unique identification (ID) number, by the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), when they are registered for use. This ID

number, called the EPA registration number, is unique to product formulation. For marketing

purposes, manufacturers may sell a product under a variety of trade names but the formulation

and EPA registration number remain the same. In addition, product names are sometimes used

to generically refer to an active ingredient. PURS includes all products that have been registered

by the EPA or by ODA. Reporters can use either the EPA registration number or trade name of

the product to search for the specific product used.

Reporters who used the product name to search may not have selected the actual product used.

Some reporters may have selected the first product returned in a search result list without

crosschecking the EPA registration number. Therefore, they may have reported an old canceled

product. Or, they may have reported a product containing different active ingredients and/or

percentages of active ingredients than the product used.

Reporters also expressed frustration when searching by EPA registration number that there were

multiple returns for what they considered to be the same product. Under Oregon law, different

product names are different products even if the products have the same formulation and the

same EPA registration number. Different names can be due to a variety of reasons, one of which

is marketing and labeling targeted at homeowners vs. professional applicators.

EPA registration numbers are two or three part numbers separated by dashes and do not

typically include letters (4-59; 9622-56-8705). The inclusion and placement of the dashes are

important. The system allows reporters to manually enter the product used and that product’s

EPA registration number. When the manually entered product did not match any product, the

report went under review. Such situations were additional irritations for reporters.

Reporters had varying skill levels and access regarding online reporting. While many

people are familiar with computers, requiring online reporting was difficult for some reporters.

Many reporters have never used, owned, or had access to a computer. Internet is still not

available statewide. The available Internet in some areas consists of very slow dial-up access

that can make reporting a difficult and time-consuming process. ODA attempted to build PURS

with these reporters in mind. Graphics and other program items that slow the process down were

kept to a minimum.

It was also clear that reporters had difficulty navigating drop-down menus. An example would be

reporters accidentally choosing Upper Sacramento for water basin when they intended to choose

Willamette. Because the water basins are in alphabetical order, it is an easy mistake to select the

incorrect water basin when using a mouse to select from a dropdown list.

In addition to problems with Internet access and familiarity with computers in general, reporters

had varying degrees of understanding of the terms used by PURS. In situations where a reporter

applied the same product month after month, PURS allowed the reporter to basically make a

copy of a report they had already submitted. Reporters submitted the first report and then clicked

a button titled “Make Similar Report.” After clicking “Make Similar Report,” a new report was

returned on the screen, pre-filled with all the data from the previous report except for the date.

Reporters could then enter the new date, change quantity as needed, add additional products,

and submit the new report. Staff saw a number of situations where reporters entered information
6

for one product, submitted the report, and clicked “Make Similar Report.” Reporters then reentered the same date and added a second product to the report. This process could be

repeated multiple times. By doing this, reporters submitted the first product 20 times, the second

product 19 times, etc. In situations where staff were aware of the problem and able to discuss it

with the reporters, the reporters indicated they thought they were adding the products to the same

report and did not understand that each one was a new report. A number of “Make Similar

Report” issues were corrected but it is clear that a number of these were neither identified nor

corrected. Only reports with special units (e.g. bait stations to be converted to ounces or grams)

or manually entered products automatically came under staff review. ODA did not have the

resources to review each report.

In order to prevent the above situation, an updated version of PURS was released in October

2008. While in the past, PURS pre-filled in the amount when users clicked “Make Similar Report”

the updated version left the amount blank. A user could not save the new report unless they

either filled in the amount or removed the product from the list. It is expected that this change, in

addition to better instructions, greatly reduced the number of unintentional duplicate reports.

Reporters experienced difficulty in communication between PURS and their computers. It

appeared that some Internet browsers were kicking reporters out of PURS or creating other

issues when reporters were trying to navigate the system. This varied from annoying to extremely

frustrating for reporters not familiar with computers.

Reporters did not understand the reporting deadline was mandatory. Reports for

applications made in calendar year 2008 were due no later than midnight January 31, 2009. After

midnight January 31, PURS only allowed reports to be submitted with use dates of 2009. It was

obvious from the call load that many reporters waited until January to file their reports. ODA was

clear from the beginning of PURS that January 31 is the reporting deadline. Some reporters

indicated they had assumed that because the reporting deadline fell on a weekend day, that they

would have until the following Monday to file their reports. It was announced on the PURS

website that January 31, 2009, was the reporting deadline and that Staff would be available

between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm on the deadline. Staff still received numerous phone calls

following January 31 from reporters who were trying to file reports with dates in 2008 unable to

submit their reports.

Issues Specific to 2008

2008 had a couple situations that were new.

2008 saw an increase in the total number of reports along with a nearly 50% reduction in

the total pounds of active ingredient reported. It is likely the increased reports were from pest

control companies who submit their reports via electronic data submission (EDS). Many pest

control companies maintain their records in electronic software. While the software companies

provided many of these pest control companies upgrades that allowed them to file their PURS

reports using EDS, many of the software companies did not provide these upgrades until 2008.

Because they were waiting for the upgrades, a lot of the pest control companies told staff they did

not file reports for 2007. The products that pest control companies use typically contain very low

percentages of active ingredients. Because of this, the increase in reports would not contribute

much to the total pounds active ingredients.

It is likely that the upgrade in October 2008 greatly reduced the number of duplicate reports.

While there is no way to quantify the number of duplicate reports submitted in 2007, staff agree

that the number was likely a large percentage. With education and changes to the system to

2008, it is possible that the reduction to duplicate reports likely contributed to the reduction in total

pounds active ingredients.
7

In 2007, copper naphthenate was number three in the top five active ingredients (in

pounds). After the 2007 report was released, one of the companies that use large amounts of

copper naphthenate contacted the Department of Agriculture and explained that they had

mistakenly reported the diluted amount of product used rather than amount of undiluted. This

meant that the active ingredient was artificially elevated in the list. After the reporting deadline for

2008, the same company contacted the Department of Agriculture and explained that rather than

over report the product, they had failed to report at all for 2008. This too contributed to the drop

in total pounds active ingredients.

Conclusions

Five hundred and seventy-two (572) different active ingredients were reported used in 2008.

Below are the top five pesticides by pounds of active ingredient. The top 100 pesticides used, in

pounds of active ingredient, can be found in Appendix A. This report does not include an analysis

of pesticide use trends since only two years worth of data have been collected.

Additional tables follow providing information by water basin. Information for Urban/General

Indoor and Urban/General Outdoor were reported by ZIP code. In order to compare all

information by water basin, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) was used to determine the

predominant water basin for each ZIP code. On the next page, a map of Oregon water basins, as

well as a list of site categories and specific sites, is presented.
8

Figure 1 – Oregon Water Basin Map

Site Categories and/or Specific Sites

• Agriculture

o Field crops

o Fruits/nuts

o Livestock/poultry

o Nursery/Christmas tress

o Oil Crops

o Pasture/forage/hay

o Seed crops

o Vegetables

o Other

• Aquatic

• Forestry

• Public health/regulatory pests

• Research

• Right-of-way

• Urban/general indoor

o Dwelling/residence

o Site with public access

o Site with non-public access

o Other

• Urban/general outdoor

o Site associated with dwelling/residence

o Site with public access

o Site with non-public access

o Other

• Other
9

Table 1 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) for the Entire State

ACTIVE INGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE

Total 19,696,784

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 3,980,871 20%

Glyphosate Herbicide 1,914,144 10%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 1,214,251 6%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Desiccant 1,097,237 6%

Sulfuric acid Insecticide 852,789 4%

All others Various 10,637,492 54%

Table 2 – Pounds Reported by Water Basin

WATER BASIN LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE

Middle Columbia 7,482,839 38%

Willamette 4,515,486 23%

Southern Oregon Coastal 3,098,503 16%

Middle Snake-Boise 1,537,464 8%

Klamath 898,157 5%

Lower Columbia 735,262 4%

Middle Snake-Powder 445,819 2%

Deschutes 333,055 2%

John Day 240,586 1%

Lower Snake 214,744 1%

Northern Oregon Coastal 123,611 <1%

Oregon Closed Basins 63,531 <1%

Upper Sacramento 5,203 <1%

Black Rock Desert 2,105 <1%

Northern California Coastal 419 <1%

Table 3 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Water Basin

WATER BASIN ACTIVE INGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS.

REPORTED

PERCENTAGE1

Black Rock

Desert

2,105

Diuron Herbicide 1,160 55%

Glyphosate Herbicide 468 22%

Potassium

permanganate

Disinfectant 107 5%

Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 73 3%

Pyraclostrobin Fungicide

All others Various 247 12%

Deschutes 333,055

Xylene range aromatic

solvent

Aquatic

herbicide

48,551 15%

2,4-D Herbicide 41,457 12%

Glyphosate Herbicide 35,931 11%

Boric acid Insecticide 35,097 11%

Diuron Herbicide 20,092 6%

All others Various 151,927 46%
10

John Day 240,586

Glyphosate Herbicide 105,040 44%

2,4-D Herbicide 67,572 28%

Boric acid Insecticide 40,910 17%

Diuron Herbicide 7,747 3%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 2,672 1%

All others Various 16,645 7%

Klamath 898,157

Methyl bromide Fumigant/soil

fumigant

265,977 30%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 175,671 20%

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 173,533 19%

Chloropicrin Fumigant/soil

fumigant

172,505 19%

Tebuconazole Fungicide 15,136 2%

All others Various 95,336 11%

Lower

Columbia

735,262

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 232,383 32%

Glyphosate Herbicide 93,950 13%

Boric acid Insecticide 75,280 10%

Copper hydroxide Fungicide 50,994 7%

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 46,091 6%

All others Various 236,564 32%

Lower Snake 214,744

Glyphosate Herbicide 68,315 32%

2,4-D Herbicide 20,537 10%

Diuron Herbicide 14,567 7%

MCPA Herbicide 14,287 7%

Paraquat dichloride Herbicide 10,188 5%

All others Various 86,848 40%

Middle

Columbia

7,482,839

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 3,129,778 42%

Glyphosate Herbicide 760,251 10%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 633,870 8%

Sulfuric acid Desiccant 609,106 8%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 466,556 6%

All others Various 1,883,278 25%

Middle SnakePowder445,819

Sulfuric acid Desiccant 243,655 55%

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 43,826 10%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 42,019 9%

Xylene range aromatic

solvent

Aquatic

herbicide

23,339 5%

Chloropicrin Fumigant/soil

fumigant

11,957 3%

All others Various 81,023 18%
11

Middle SnakeBoise1,537,464

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 459,860 30%

Potassium NmethyldithiocarbamateSoil fumigant 364,991 24%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 318,917 21%

Xylene range aromatic

solvent

Aquatic

herbicide

77,093 5%

Glyphosate Herbicide 46,793 3%

All others Various 269,811 18%

Northern

California

Coastal

419

2,4-D Herbicide 189 45%

Triclopyr Herbicide 170 41%

Glyphosate Herbicide 30 7%

Difenoconazole Fungicide 13 3%

Thiamethoxam Insecticide 10 2%

All others Various 7 2%

Northern

Oregon

Coastal

123,611

Glyphosate Herbicide 31,032 25%

Atrazine Herbicide 16,426 13%

2,4-D Herbicide 12,191 10%

Sulfur Fungicide 11,985 10%

Hexazinone Herbicide 11,118 9%

All others Various 40,859 33%

Oregon

Closed Basins

63,531

Glyphosate Herbicide 16,987 27%

2,4-D Herbicide 15,453 24%

Diuron Herbicide 6,846 11%

Atrazine Herbicide 5,877 9%

Hexazinone Herbicide 5,009 8%

All others Various 13,360 21%

Southern

Oregon

Coastal

3,098,503

Boric acid Insecticide 672,503 22%

Copper ethanolamine

complex

Algaecide 600,546 19%

Copper ammonium

carbonate

Wood

preservative

427,195 14%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 308,906 10%

Kaolin Various 232,540 8%

All others Various 856,812 28%
12

Upper

Sacramento

5,203

Diuron Herbicide 1,684 32%

2,4-D Herbicide 1,326 25%

Glyphosate Herbicide 681 13%

Hexazinone Herbicide 215 4%

Dicamba Herbicide 200 4%

All others Various 1,098 21%

Willamette 4,515,486

Glyphosate Herbicide 635,750 14%

2,4-D Herbicide 257,805 6%

Diuron Herbicide 251,660 5%

Pendimethalin Herbicide 163,495 4%

Methyl bromide Fumigant/soil

fumigant

154,339 3%

All others Various 3,052,438 68% 1

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Breaking out the pounds of active ingredients reported by site category, agriculture accounted for

the largest percentage. Because of licensing requirements for pesticide use on agricultural and

forest crops, and outreach to agricultural and forestry pesticide applicators, the assumption could

be made that PURS compliance was greatest among these reporters. There is no mechanism

within PURS to determine compliance with PURS requirements. Figure 2, below, shows all site

categories by percentage pounds of active ingredients reported.

Public 

health/regulatory 

pest

0.2%

Forestry

4.2%

Urban/

general indoor

0.7%

Right-of-way

3.5%

Urban/

general outdoor

2.5%

Other

11.1%

Aquatic

1.1%

Agriculture

77.3%

Note: Research was <0.1%

Figure 2 – Percentage of Pounds of Active Ingredients by Site Category

Below are additional tables that show the top five active ingredients by pounds reported for each

of the site categories and/or specific sites (Agriculture, Urban/General Indoor, and Urban/General

Outdoor all have specific sites).
13

Table 4 - Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Site Category

SITE ACTIVE INGREDIENT PESTICIDE

TYPE

LBS.

REPORTED

PERCENTAGE1

Agriculture 15,221,190

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 3,957,670 26%

Glyphosate Herbicide 1,563,656 10%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 1,214,251 8%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 1,081,302 7%

Sulfuric acid Desiccant 852,787 6%

All others Various 6,555,524 43%

Aquatic 206,961

Xylene range aromatic

solvent

Aquatic

herbicide

142,646 69%

Acrolein Herbicide 46,475 22%

Sodium percarbonate Algaecide 10,200 5%

Copper sulfate

pentahydrate

Algaecide/

herbicide

5,624 3%

Glyphosate Herbicide 508 <1%

All others Various 1,509 1%

Forestry 820,541

Glyphosate Herbicide 226,225 28%

Atrazine Herbicide 181,539 22%

2,4-D Herbicide 150,895 18%

Hexazinone Herbicide 77,754 9%

Triclopyr Herbicide 65,868 8%

All others Various 118,260 14%

Public Health/

Regulatory

Pest

32,383

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 5,677 18%

Malathion Insecticide 5,294 16%

2,4-D Herbicide 4,702 15%

BT israelensis Insecticide 4,134 13%

Naled Insecticide 3,135 10%

All others Various 9,441 29%

Research 923

Glyphosate Herbicide 238 26%

Calcium polysulfide Fungicide 108 12%

2,4-D Herbicide 77 8%

Oryzalin Herbicide 73 8%

Dimethoate Insecticide 48 5%

All others Various 379 41%

Right-of-way 683,408

Boric acid Insecticide 155,181 23%

Diuron Herbicide 110,170 16%

Sodium bifluoride Wood

preservative

100,395 15%

Glyphosate Herbicide 71,969 11%

2,4-D Herbicide 58,805 9%

All others Various 186,888 27%
14

Urban/General

Indoor

144,851

Copper ammonium

carbonate

Wood

preservative

65,008 45%

Tebuconazole Fungicide 33,344 23%

Methyl bromide Fumigant/soil

fumigant

15,422 11%

Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 7,484 5%

Boric acid Insecticide 6,262 4%

All others Various 17,330 12%

Urban/General

Outdoor

391,700

Cyfluthrin Insecticide 101,677 26%

Bifenthrin Insecticide 37,174 9%

Oryzalin Herbicide 30,994 8%

Glyphosate Herbicide 30,757 8%

2,4-D Herbicide 20,453 5%

All others Various 170,655 44%

Other 2,190,827

Boric acid Insecticide 663,552 30%

Copper ethanolamine

complex

Algaecide 600,546 27%

Copper ammonium

carbonate

Wood

preservative

427,195 19%

Chromic acid Wood

preservative

122,935 6%

Copper oxides Marine

organism

control/wood

prervative

120,705 6%

All others Various 255,894 12% 1

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
15

Table 5 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Agriculture

SPECIFIC SITE ACTIVE INGREDIENT PESTICIDE

TYPE

LBS.

REPORTED

PERCENTAGE1

Field Crops 6,056,435

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 2,837,319 47%

Glyphosate Herbicide 877,631 14%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 699,486 12%

2,4-D Herbicide 348,805 6%

Potassium NmethyldithiocarbamateSoil fumigant 332,280 5%

All others Various 960,913 16%

Fruits/Nuts 2,846,295

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 1,044,558 37%

Mineral oil Insecticide 316,474 11%

Kaolin Various 238,344 8%

Sulfur Fungicide 215,002 8%

Glyphosate Herbicide 126,184 4%

All others Various 905,733 32%

Livestock/Poultry 6,170

Tetrachlorvinphos Insecticide 2,154 35%

Phosmet Insecticide 1,077 17%

Glyphosate Herbicide 794 13%

Piperonyl butoxide Insecticide 758 12%

MCPA Herbicide 367 6%

All others Various 1,020 17%

Nursery/Christmas

Trees

1,210,355

Methyl bromide Fumigant/soil

fumigant

396,880 33%

Chloropicrin Fumigant/soil

fumigant

252,300 21%

Glyphosate Herbicide 64,713 5%

Chlorothalonil Fungicide 49,303 4%

Oxyflurofen Herbicide 33,188 3%

All others Various 413,972 34%

Oil Crops 27,671

Terbacil Herbicide 3,544 13%

Propargite Insecticide 3,199 12%

Ethoprop Insecticide 3,155 11%

Glyphosate Herbicide 3,015 11%

Acephate Insecticide 2,867 10%

All others Various 11,892 43%

Pasture/Forage/Hay 181,855

Glyphosate Herbicide 50,538 28%

2,4-D Herbicide 30,162 17%

Paraquat dichloride Herbicide 20,275 11%

Diuron Herbicide 15,317 8%

Metribuzin Herbicide 10,790 6%

All others Various 54,774 30%
16

Seed Crops 1,589,048

Glyphosate Herbicide 261,091 16%

Diuron Herbicide 148,744 9%

Pendimethalin Herbicide 126,571 8%

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 102,956 6%

2,4-D Herbicide 99,276 6%

All others Various 850,411 54%

Vegetables 3,071,305

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 1,014,538 33%

Sulfuric acid Desiccant 852,642 28%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 451,603 15%

Potassium NmethyldithiocarbamateSoil fumigant 151,718 5%

EPTC Herbicide 71,945 2%

All others Various 528,858 17%

Other 236,055

Glyphosate Herbicide 133,785 57%

2,4-D Herbicide 28,325 12%

Chloropicrin Fumigant/soil

fumigant

22,293 9%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 10,721 5%

Imidacloprid Insecticide 5,663 2%

All others Various 35,268 15% 1

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Table 6 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Urban/General Indoor

SPECIFIC SITE ACTIVE INGREDIENT PESTICIDE

TYPE

LBS.

REPORTED

PERCENTAGE

Dwelling/Residence 11,824

Boric acid Insecticide 5,817 49%

Bifenthrin Insecticide 2,662 23%

Diuron Herbicide 717 6%

Sulfuryl fluoride Fumigant 520 4%

Cyhalothrin Insecticide 257 2%

All others Various 1,850 16%

Site with Public

Access

3,775

Sulfuryl fluoride Fumigant 592 16%

Aluminum phosphide Fumigant 414 11%

Boric acid Insecticide 397 11%

Glyphosate Herbicide 277 7%

Bifenthrin Insecticide 275 7%

All others Various 1,819 48%
17

Site with Nonpublic Access86,960

Copper ammonium

carbonate

Wood

preservative

65,008 75%

Methyl bromide Fumigant/soil

fumigant

15,422 18%

Thiram Fungicide 1,194 1%

Chloropropham Plant growth

regulator

1,016 1%

Sodium ophenylphenateFungicide 710 1%

All others Various 3,610 4%

Other 42,292

Tebuconazole Fungicide 33,344 79%

Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 7,484 18%

Imidacloprid Insecticide 667 2%

3-iodo-2-propynyl

butylcarbamate (IPBC)

Fungicide 354 1%

Propiconazole Fungicide 342 1%

All others Various 101 <1%

Table 7 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Urban/General

Outdoor

SPECIFIC SITE ACTIVE INGREDIENT PESTICIDE

TYPE

LBS.

REPORTED

PERCENTAGE1

Site Associated w/

Dwelling/Residence

217,812

Cyfluthrin Insecticide 101,302 47%

Bifenthrin Insecticide 35,949 17%

Mineral oil Insecticide 14,389 7%

Oryzalin Herbicide 11,728 5%

Boric acid Insecticide 6,602 3%

All others Various 47,842 22%

Site with Public

Access

142,792

Glyphosate Herbicide 23,436 16%

Oryzalin Herbicide 18,914 13%

Pentachloronitrobenzene

(PCNB)

Fungicide 16,245 11%

Chlorothalonil Fungicide 12,015 8%

2,4-D Herbicide 11,789 8%

All others Various 60,392 42%

Site with NonPublic Access26,088

Aluminum phosphide Fumigant 4,006 15%

Diuron Herbicide 3,711 14%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 3,267 13%

Glyphosate Herbicide 2,631 10%

2,4-D Herbicide 1,419 5%

All others Various 11,055 42%
18

Other 5,009

2,4-D Herbicide 2,582 52%

Dicamba Herbicide 861 17%

Diuron Herbicide 696 14%

Glyphosate Herbicide 331 7%

Bifenthrin Insecticide 229 5%

All others Various 308 6% 1

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
19

HOUSEHOLD USE

Overview

The Gilmore Research Group (Gilmore) continued the Household Pesticide Use Survey in 2008.

Gilmore telephone screeners were used to recruit households to participate in the diary portion of

the survey. Using a purchased sample of phone numbers selected randomly from throughout

Oregon, Gilmore contacted a total of 13,737 households in 2008. During the telephone contact,

respondents were asked if they would be willing to use a diary form to keep track of the use of

pest control products over a three-month period. Approximately 12% of all households contacted

agreed to participate in the diary portion of the survey. For those who agreed to participate in the

diary portion, Gilmore mailed reporting forms within one week of recruitment. The mailing

included a letter from the ODA director thanking the respondent for agreeing to participate and

provided phone numbers and a web site.

To address the fact that many households did not fill out diary forms on a regular basis or with

complete information, Gilmore made monthly telephone calls to participants. The calls were used

to remind participants to keep track of their use of pest control products. Through these calls,

Gilmore obtained interim monthly pesticide use information, which was later compared with the

contents of submitted diary forms.

The state was divided into nine regions according to counties (Figure 3). Each quarter, attempts

were made to obtain minimum numbers of participants for each region totaling at least 250

participants per quarter from the entire state. The percentage of participants for each region was

to be 10% with the exception of region 6 at 17%. This method was used to obtain information

from throughout Oregon rather than just from the areas of highest population, such as in and

around the Portland Metro area.

Figure 3 – State Map with Regions Used in the Household Pesticide Use Survey
20

Figure 4, below, illustrates the number of participants by region.

179

180

262

181

182

183

181

181

188

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Region 9

Region 8

Region 7

Region 6

Region 5

Region 4

Region 3

Region 2

Region 1

Figure 4 – Number of Participants By Region

A total of 1,717 households agreed to complete use diaries. However, only 1,513 participants

actually completed at least one month of reporting. Of those, 776 reported that they did not use

any pesticides during the quarter in which they participated. The other 737 participants provided

3,036 reports (Figure 5). Approximately 60% of the reports contained sufficient information to

calculate pounds of active ingredients.

0 100 200 300 400 500

Region 9

Region 8

Region 7

Region 6

Region 5

Region 4

Region 3

Region 2

Region 1

All data Data with sufficient information to determine active ingredients

Figure 5 – Number of Reports of Pesticide Use Received By Region

Issues

The most significant issue continues to be not being able to calculate pounds of active ingredient

used from the information reported. Several reasons why reports contained insufficient

information to calculate pounds of active ingredients included:

• Participants were unable to specify amount of pesticide used. For some

products, such as those in spray cans, it is difficult to provide actual amounts used.

• Participants were unable to determine what products were pesticides. Under

federal and Oregon law, “pesticide” is a very broad term that includes insecticides,

herbicides, rodenticides, fungicides, etc. Basically, anything that kills, repels, or

mitigates a pest is a pesticide. Many persons do not understand this meaning of

“pesticide.” Thus, some products that are pesticides may not have been reported.

And, some products that are not pesticides were reported. It is because of this

confusion that ODA chose to use the term “pest control products” rather than

“pesticide” when conducting the Household Pesticide Use Survey.
21

• Participants did not provide correct product identification.

1. Each pesticide product is assigned a unique registration number by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This EPA registration number

is on the label of each product and identifies that product. The survey used this

EPA registration number to identify specific products used. A number of reports

did not include the EPA registration number. Some reports included another

number, such as the barcode, instead of the EPA registration number.

2. Relying only upon a product’s name may not identify the specific product used.

For example, there are about 75 different products that contain “RoundupTM” in

the trade name. Some contain the single active ingredient glyphosate but in

varying concentrations. Some contain additional active ingredients. In addition,

there are a number of “generic” products containing glyphosate that some

persons may refer to as “RoundupTM.” Despite education outreach activities by

ODA and Gilmore, many participants did not understand how to identify the

product used.

3. The Department did ask Gilmore to collect bar code information during 2008 in

hopes of having an alternative way to identify the product. This did not work

however. Participants did not always provide the barcode and many of the

barcodes provided did not adequately identify the product used.

Conclusions

Households that reported continue to show that participants have difficulty identifying pesticide

products. There are also continued concerns about the ability of pesticide users to read the label

and correctly identify information.

Herbicides accounted for the greatest percentage of pounds active ingredient in 2008 at 53%. By

reported purpose, herbicides accounted for 22% of the reports. Of the herbicides, phenoxies (a

chemical family) accounted for 28%.

Moss control products accounted for 33% of the pounds of active ingredient, but only 1.3% of the

reports identified moss control as the purpose. Moss control products contain higher percentages

of active ingredients and typically have higher application rates, than do other types of products.

One specific chemical grouping, including pyrethrins and synthetic pyrethroids, accounted for 9%

of total insecticide poundage. Organophosphates, another insecticide chemical group, accounted

for 67% of total insecticide poundage, while carbamates accounted for 5%.

Overall, looking at pounds of active ingredient, the greatest number of pounds reported were for:

• glyphosate (30%) [weed control],

• ferrous sulfate monohydrate (21%) [moss control],

• 2,4-D (12%) [weed control],

• zinc sulfate monohydrate (11%) [moss control], and

• malathion (6%) [insect control].

The main five active ingredients by greatest number of records were:

• permethrin (8%) [insect control],

• glyphosate (7%) [weed control],

• tetramethrin (5%) [insect control],

• methoprene (5%) [insect control], and

• imidacloprid (4%) [insect control].
22

Table 8, identifies active ingredients by type and highlights those that were reported in the

greatest amount. In total, 99 active ingredients were identified as being used.

Table 8 – Main Active Ingredients Reported, Presented by Pesticide Type

ACTIVE INGREDIENT LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE1

INSECTICIDES 15.87 Total

Malathion 10.29 65%

Canola oil 0.92 6%

Carbaryl 0.78 5%

Bifenthrin 0.59 4%

Diatomaceous earth 0.45 3%

All others 2.85 18%

HERBICIDES 85.64 Total

Glyphosate 48.44 57%

2,4-D 18.69 22%

MCPA 3.37 4%

Dicamba 2.67 3%

Triclopyr 2.49 3%

All others 9.98 12%

MOSS CONTROL 53.76 Total

Ferrous sulfate monohydrate 33.79 63%

Zinc sulfate monohydrate 18.22 34%

Ferric sulfate 1.42 3%

Ammonium salts of fatty acids 0.34 1%

RODENTICIDES2 0.0093 Total

Zinc phosphide 0.0042 45%

Strychnine 0.0038 40%

Bromadiolone 0.0080 9%

Brodifacoum 0.0050 5%

Diphacinone 0.0001 1%

All others <0.0001 <1%

INSECT REPELLENTS 1.89 Total

DEET 1.26 67%

Oil of citronella 0.61 32%

Picaridin 0.02 1%

FUNGICIDES 0.49 Total

Calcium polysulfide 0.16 34%

Captan 0.14 28%

Tebuconazole 0.07 15%

Sulfur 0.05 10%

Triforine 0.03 6%

All others 0.04 8%

SLUG/SNAIL CONTROL 3.22 Total

Metaldehyde 2.87 89%

Iron phosphate 0.35 11%

ANIMAL REPELLENT 0.42 Total

Castor oil 0.42 100% 1

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

2

Rodenticides contain very low percentages of active ingredient. Therefore, the total poundage used was quite low and are

presented to the fourth decimal place.
23

The number of reports with sufficient information to determine pounds of active ingredients varied

some among the nine regions. Figure 6, below, illustrates this.

Region 9

13.0%

Region 8

9.9%

Region 7

14.8%

Region 6

15.9%

Region 5

8.3%

Region 4

11.4%

Region 1

7.1%

Region 3

13.7%

Region 2

5.9%

Figure 6 – Percentage by Region of Reports that Had Sufficient Information to Determine

Active Ingredients

While approximately 40% of the reports contained insufficient information to determine pounds of

active ingredient used, most did contain information about site of pesticide application and the

intended purpose for the application. Following are summaries about site and purpose of

reported pesticide use, both for all reports and those that contained sufficient information to

calculate pounds of active ingredients. The purpose of product use, presented by quarter is also

included for reports that contained sufficient data to calculate pounds of active ingredient. (Note:

Percentages in the following charts may not add to 100% due to rounding.)

Indoor

16.9%

Both

2.1%

No Information

0.5%

Pets

22.8%

Outdoor

57.1%

Other

0.7%

Figure 7 – Reported Sites for All Data (from all 3,036 total reports received)
24

Other

2.4% No Information

0.4%

Moss

1.5%

Plant Disease

1.8%

Rodents

4.6%

Snail/Slug

8.1%

Weeds

20.5%

Mosquitoes

4.4%

Spiders

1.5%

Fleas

23.3%

Insects

31.5% All Types of

 "Bugs"

62%

Figure 8 – Reported Purposes for All Data

Outdoor 

60.9%

Other 

1.0%

Pets 

17.5%

Both 

1.2%

Indoor 

19.4%

Figure 9 – Reported Sites for Data with Active Ingredient Information

Spiders 

1.3%

Mosquitoes 

4.8%

Fleas 

18.4%

Other 

2.0% Moss 

1.3%

Plant Disease 

1.9%

Rodents 

4.9%

Snail/Slug 

9.3%

Weeds 

21.6%

Insects 

All Types of 34.4%

"Bugs"

58.9%

Figure 10 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information
25

Moss 

2.7%

Other 

2.3%

Plant Disease 

2.3%

Rodents 

7.7%

Snail/Slug 

1.8% Fleas 

40.5%

Mosquitoes 

0.5%

Spiders 

3.6%

Weeds 

16.4%

Insects 

22.3% All Types of 

"Bugs"

66.8%

Figure 11 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 1

Other 

2.4%

Plant Disease 

3.0%

Rodents 

2.3%

Fleas 

9.5%

Mosquitoes 

8.5%

Spiders 

0.5%

Insects 

29.6%

Moss 

1.5%

Snail/Slug 

15.1%

Weeds 

27.7%

All Types of

"Bugs"

48.1%

Figure 12 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 2

Other 

2.0%

Plant Disease 

1.2%

Rodents 

4.7%

Snail/Slug 

6.7%

Weeds 

21.6%

Fleas 

12.9%

Mosquitoes 

4.0%

Spiders 

1.6%

Moss 

0.3%

Insects 

All Types of 44.9%

"Bugs"

63.5%

Figure 13– Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 3
26

Other 

0.4%

Plant Disease 

0.4%

Rodents 

10.8%

Snail/Slug 

5.2%

Fleas 

39.2%

Spiders 

1.2%

Moss 

2.4%

Weeds 

8.4%

Insects 

32.0% All Types of

"Bugs"

72.4%

Figure 14 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 4

The following (Figure 15) illustrates the pesticide types reported by percentage pounds of active

ingredient. Additional charts are included below that separate this information out for the nine

regions. Type of pesticide is related to purpose information previously presented. For example,

herbicides are used for weed control, insecticides are used for “bug” control, etc.

Animal repellent

0.3%

Fungicide

0.3%

Slug/snail control

2.0%

Moss control

33.3%

Insect repellent

1.2%

Insecticide

9.8%

Herbicide

53.1%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 15 - Active Ingredients by Type – Entire State

Insecticide

5.7%

Moss Control

38.8%

Herbicide

53.8%

Fungicide

1.8%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 16 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 1
27

Herbicide

89.4%

Fungicide

Insecticide 0.1%

10.5%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 17 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 2

Insecticide

9.2%

Insect repellent

16.9%

Herbicide

73.4%

Slug/snail control

0.5%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 18 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 3

Insecticide

9.0%

Fungicide

0.7%

Herbicide

52.4%

Slug/snail control

0.9%

Moss control

36.9%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 19 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 4
28

Herbicide

81.3%

Moss control

6.8%

Insecticide

11.7%

Fungicide

0.3%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 20 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 5

Fungicide

Slug/snail control 0.3%

2.0%

Moss control

66.4%

Insecticide

2.1%

Herbicide

29.2%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 21 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 6

Moss control

38.9%

Insecticide

1.1%

Herbicide

58.8%

Fungicide

0.1%

Slug/snail control

1.0%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 22 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 7
29

Moss control

1.8%

Insect repellent

4.5%

Slug/snail control

4.5%

Insecticide

9.1%

Herbicide

80.1%

Note: Rodenticide and Fungicide were <0.1%

Figure 23 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 8

Slug/snail control

6.4%

Fungicide

0.2%

Moss control

17.5%

insect Repellent

0.2%

Insecticide

46.6%

Herbicide

29.0%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 24 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 9
30

APPENDIX

Appendix A – Top 100 Active Ingredients and Pounds Reported

# ACTIVE INGREDIENT LBS. REPORTED

1 Metam-sodium 3,980,871

2 Glyphosate 1,914,144

3 1,3-Dichloropropene 1,214,251

4 Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons 1,097,237

5 Sulfuric acid 852,789

6 Boric acid 837,341

7 2,4-D 778,878

8 Copper ethanolamine complex 600,636

9 Copper ammonium carbonate 492,203

10 Potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate 483,999

11 Methyl bromide 435,656

12 Chloropicrin 400,936

13 Diuron 385,174

14 Mineral oil 339,466

15 Sulfur 255,627

16 Kaolin 240,653

17 MCPA 240,142

18 Atrazine 228,305

19 Pendimethalin 222,578

20 Chlorothalonil 211,140

21 Mancozeb 192,842

22 Chlorpyrifos 184,265

23 Copper hydroxide 166,010

24 Xylene range aromatic solvent 149,012

25 Triclopyr 125,542

26 Copper oxide 124,358

27 Chromic acid 122,935

28 Ethofumesate 121,520

29 EPTC 120,030

30 Calcium polysulfide 114,912

31 Hexazinone 105,284

32 Cyfluthrin 105,082

33 Sodium bifluoride 100,395

34 Dicamba 96,964

35 Trifluralin 95,759

36 Paraquat dichloride 94,046

37 Flufenacet 87,992

38 Arsenic acid anhydride 86,702

39 Metribuzin 83,186

40 Bromoxynil 79,103

41 Oryzalin 70,222
31

42 Malathion 62,245

43 Copper naphthenate 60,658

44 Oxyfluorfen 59,499

45 Oxamyl 58,606

46 Tebuconazole 57,174

47 Metaolachlor 55,969

48 Propiconazole 54,489

49 Bifenthrin 51,882

50 Clopyralid 48,592

51 Acrolein 46,732

52 Dimethenamid 42,538

53 Ethoprop 40,004

54 Trifloxystrobin 34,768

55 Diazinon 33,491

56 PCNB 33,295

57 Pentachlorophenol 30,770

58 Prohexadione calcium 30,327

59 Imazapyr 29,859

60 Imidan 29,352

61 Pine oil 28,963

62 Simazine 28,855

63 Ziram 27,030

64 Thiophanate-methyl 26,799

65 Aluminum phosphide 26,582

66 Methomyl 25,652

67 Sodium bentazon 25,244

68 Iprodione 25,144

69 Dazomet 24,891

70 Acephate 23,975

71 Dimethoate 21,352

72 Maleic hydrazide 21,251

73 Metaldehyde 20,763

74 Napropamide 20,702

75 Chlorpropham 20,385

76 Basic copper sulfate 20,018

77 Copper sulfate pentahydrate 19,529

78 Azoxystrobin 18,949

79 Propargite 18,937

80 Endosulfan 18,576

81 Carbaryl 17,189

82 Imidacloprid 16,922

83 Sulfometuron methyl 16,866

84 Diclofop-methyl 16,713

85 Sodium percarbonate 15,607

86 Ammonia 14,989

87 Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki 14,880
32

88 Isoxaben 14,847

89 phosphorous acid 14,315

90 Trinexapac-ethyl 13,982

91 Captan 13,030

92 Pyraclostrobin 12,935

93 Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 12,646

94 Aminopyralid 12,466

95 IPBC 12,433

96 Zinc phosphide 12,367

97 Carbonic acid, monopotassium salt 12,250

98 Azinphos-Methyl 11,734

99 Bromacil 11,189

100 Dichlobenil 10,746