UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

JAN 2 2 2015 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Mancozeb (014504) 

FROM: 

THRU: 

TO: 

Carl Chen, Plant Pathologist 

Biological Analysis Branch 

C.\ , I 

Science 

Cynthia 

Information 

Doucoure, Environmenta

and Analysis 

l 

Branch 

Protection Specia

~ 

list ~ 

Economic 

Derek Berwald, 

Analysis 

Economist 

Branch 

~~ 

Biological and Economic Analy · 

Arnet Jones, Chief 

Biological Analysis Branc 

Diann Sims, Chief~ Science Information and Analysis Branch 

Timothy 

Economic 

Kiely, 

Analysis 

Chief 

Branch 

Ql \AA-~ 

Biological and Economic Analy · Division (7 ) 

Christina Schelterha, Chemical Review Manager 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch III 

.Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Product Review Panel date: November 26, 2014 

Page 1 of 11 
SUMMARY . 

Mancozeb, a broad spectrum fungicide, was first registered in the U.S. in 1948. A Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision (RED) was issued for mancozeb in September 2005. Review of recent use 

patterns and previous assessments of mancozeb indicate that it is an important fungicide in many 

areas of agriculture. 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this document is to convey usage information and a broad overview of the pest 

management roles of mancozeb that is beginning to undergo registration review. The anticipated 

audience consists of the team of EPA staff currently evaluating the registration status ofmancozeb, and eventually the general public. This document builds upon the data BEAD 

provides in the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) to Registration Review teams. The 

document is based on information and data available to BEAD as of November 2014. 

IDSTORY OF BEAD ASSESSI\1ENTS FOR MANCOZEB 

BEAD prepared a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) in August 2014 that provided 

average percent crop treated (PCT) values for 35 crops. The crops with the highest PCT values 

are onions (60%), potatoes (55%), potatoes (seed treatment), pears, and watermelon (45% each), 

apples ( 40% ), and walnuts (35% ). Other crops with PCT values between 20% and 30% are 

cucumbers, lettuce, squash, and tomatoes. 

The crops with the highest average annual pounds a.i. applied are potatoes (2.2 million), apples 

(1.2 million), tomatoes (500,000), and onions and walnuts (4QO,OOO each). Other crops with 

average annual pounds a.i. applied of between 100,000 and 300,000 include cucumbers, grapes, 

pears, sweet corn, and watermelon. 

Other recent BEAD assessments for mancozeb include evaluation of Section 18 emergency 

exemption uses for mancozeb in walnut (Yourman 2012, 2011, and 2009, ginseng (Chandgoyal 

2010 and 2008), and peppers (Yourman and Faulkner, 2010), all high value crops. These 

assessments echo the information in the 2005 mancozeb Reregistration Eligibility Decision (EPA 

2005), which indicates that mancozeb is an important tool to manage resistance to other 

fungicides such as copper. The section 18 requests for walnuts in particular were longstanding, 

having been granted since the early 1990s. Mancozeb was granted a Section 3 registration on 

walnuts in 2013. 

COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION .METHODS 

Mancozeb is formulated as either a dry flowable, flowable concentrate, wettable powder, or dust 

and applied via ground sprays, aircraft, chemigation, seed treaters, drenchers or dip tanks. 

Page 2 of 11 
USE SITES 

Agricultural Use Sites 

Mancozeb is registered for use on fruit, including pome fruit, tropical fruit, bananas, cranberry, 

grapes, and papaya; vegetables, including cucurbits, cruciferslbrassica, asparagus, beets, sugar 

beet, carrots, lettuce, peppers, spinach, tomatoes, endive escarole, fennel, Swiss chard, garlic, 

leek, onion, shallot, and parsnip; herbs, including coriander, parsley, dill, and arugula; nut trees, 

including almonds and walnuts; row crops.1 including corn, cotton, peanuts, potatoes, tobacco, 

and cereal grains (barley, oat, rye, wheat, triticale, and rice); and other crops, including plantain, 

caprifig, flax, ginseng, safflower, and sorghum. Mancozeb is also used on the seeds of row 

crops, flax, safflower, sorghum, and tomatoes. 

Non-Agricultural Use Sites: 

Mancozeb is registered for use on ornamentals plants in nurseries and greenhouses, conifers, sod 

farms, and commercial lawns and turf (golf courses, parks, cemeteries, etc.). 

MANCOZEB USAGE 

Agricultural Usage Trend 

Based on available private and public market research, mancozeb use in terms of pounds a.i. 

applied in the U.S. has remained fairly constant during the 1998-2012 time frame with very 

slight decreases in years (2006-2009) as shown in Figure 1. Similar trends were found for total 

area treated, as shown in Figure 2. During the 1998-2012 time frame, approximately 6.4 million 

pounds a.i. were applied on average annually to treat 4.5 million acres at an overall average a.i. 

application rate of 1.4 lbs a.i. per acre. During the 2008-2012 time frame, approximately 6 

million pounds a.i. were applied annually on average to treat 4 million acres at overall average 

a.i. application rate of 1.5 lbs a.i. per acre. 

Page 3 of 11 
Figure 1. Mancozeb Pounds A.I. Applied, 1998-2012 

"'0 

~ 

a. 

0.. 

<! 

<i 

Ill 

"'0 

c: 

::l 

0 

0.. 

8,000,000 

0 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Year 

Source: Proprietary Data, 1998-2012 

Figure 2. Mancozeb Total Area Treated (In Acres), 1998-2012 

6,000,000 

0 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Year 

Source: Proprietary Data, 1998-2012 

Page 4 of 11 
Mancozeb Top Crops, 2008-2012 

During the 2008-2012 time frame, mancozeb is reported to be used on over 30 crops. However, 

in terms of the percent of total pounds a.i. applied, mancozeb is used predominantly on potatoes 

(33%) and apples (23%) as shown in Table 1. Together, these crops constitute over 50% of the 

total mancozeb use during this period. For potatoes, approximately 2 million pounds a.i. were 

applied on average annually to 1.8 million acres at an application rate of approximately 1.0 lb 

a.i. per acre. For apples, approximately 1.4 million pounds a.i. were applied on average annually 

to 550,000 acres at an application rate of2.6lbs a.i. per acre. The remainder of the mancozeb 

use is divided amongst the 28 remaining crops with extensive use (5-6% of total pounds a.i. 

applied) on onions, tomatoes, walnuts, and watermelon. 

T a bl e 1 M ancoze bT op C rops, 2008 -2012 

Top Crops Percentage Percentage Avg A.I. Rate Labeled Max App 

of Total of Total (lb a.i./acre) Rate per 

Pounds A.I. Area Application 

Applied Treated (lb a.i./acre) 

Potatoes 33% 43% 1.0 1.6 

Apples 23% 13% 2.6 4.9 

Onions 6% 6% 1.4 2.4 

Tomatoes 5% 7% 1.0 2.4 

Walnuts 5% 4% 1.8 1.8 

Watermelon 5% 5% 1.4 2.4 

Other* 23% 22% 

*Other crops include almonds, asparagus, beans, broccoli, cabbage, cantaloupes, carrots, 

cauliflower, cherries, cotton, cucumbers, garlic, grapes (raisin, table, and wine), lettuce, oranges, 

peaches, peanuts, pears, peppers, pumpkins, spinach, squash, sugar beets, sweet com, tobacco, and 

wheat (spring and winter). 

Sources: Propnetary Data, 2008-201 2 

Mancozeb LUIS Report, EPA, 2014 

Mancozeb Top States, 2008-2012 

During the 2008-2012 time frame, mancozeb is reported to be used in over 30 states. However, 

in terms of the percent of total pounds a.i. applied, mancozeb is used predominantly in the states 

of California (17%), New York (13%), Florida (12%), Michigan (12%), and Idaho (8%) as 

shown in Table 2. Together, these states constitute 60% of the total mancozeb use during this 

period. 

Page 5 of 11 
T a e bl 2 M ancoze bT op S tates, 2008 -2012 

Top States Percentage of Percentage of A vg A. I. Rate 

Total Pounds A.I. Total Area (lb a.i./acre) 

Applied Treated 

California 17% 15% 1.6 

New York 13% 9% 2.0 

Florida 12% 17% 1.0 

Michigan 12% 8% 2.2 

Idaho 8% 10% 1.0 

Other* 38% 41% 

*Other states include AL, AR, CO, DE, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, ME, MD, MA, MN, Ml, MT, 

NE, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, and WI. 

Source: Propnetary Data, 2008-2012 

Agricultural Use Intensity of Mancozeb Use in the U.S. 

Another measure of usage is the use intensity. In this analysis, the use intensity is expressed as 

the average annual amount (in pounds) of the active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres of crop 

acres grown. This differs from the application rate, which is expressed as the pounds a.i. applied 

per treated area. Figure 3 spatially represents mancozeb's use intensity in the U.S. in New York, 

which is driven by production of apples, wine grapes, and onions; in California, which is driven 

by production of walnuts, pears, lettuce, and table grapes; in Florida, which is driven by 

production of tomatoes, sweet corn and watermelon; and in Michigan, which is driven by 

production of apples and potatoes. The higher use intensity in New Jersey, Maine, and 

Massachusetts results from low crop acres grown within the states. For more information on 

Figure 3, see Appendix A. 

Page 6 of 11 
Figure 3. Annual average agricultural use intensity of Mancozeb (2008-2012). 

Pounds Active Ingredient 

per 1 ,000 Crop Acres Grown 

CJNoData 

< 1 

1 - 10 

- 10 - 100 

- 100 - 250 

- > 250 

(Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012) 

Non-agricultural Usage 

BEAD reviewed available data on mancozeb use in the non-agricultural markets and found that 

the major non-agricultural use reported was in the nursery and floriculture market and on golf 

course turf In 2009, approximately 367,400 lbs a.i. were applied in the U.S. nursery and 

floriculture market at an average a.i. application rate of 1.3 lbs a.i. per acre as shown in Table 3. 

In 2011, approximately 278,000 lbs a.i. were applied on golf courses in the U.S., which 

constitutes nearly 90% of the total pounds a.i. applied in the professional turf market as shown in 

Table 4, although it appears that lawn care operators applied more than ten times as much 

mancozeb in 2004 than they did in 2011. 

Page 7 of 11 
Table 3. Mancozeb Use in Nursery & Floriculture 

Sector Year Total Lbs A.I. A vg A .I. Rate 

(lbs A.I./acre) 

Nursery & 2006 623,000 

Floriculture 2009 367,400 

Source: USDA NASS, Ag Chemtcal Usage Reports, 2006 and 2009 

Table 4. Mancozeb Use in Professional Turf Market 

Sector 2004 

Golf Courses 249,000 

Landscape 

Contractors 33,000 

Lawn Care Operators 174,000 

Institutional Turf 4,000 

Turf Farms N/A 

Total 460,000 

Sources: Kltne & Company, 2004 and 2006 

Proprietary Data, 20 II 

Total Lbs A.I. 

2006 

242,000 

15,000 

13,000 

N/A 

10,000 

280,000 

1.3 

1.3 

2011 

278,000 

N/A 

13,000 

7,000 

13,000 

311,000 

BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO MANCOZEB 

Mancozeb is a broad-spectrum non-systemic protectant fungicide and an EBDC (ethylene 

bisdithiocarbamate) fungicide. It belongs to the chemical group of dithiocarbamates and 

relatives classified by the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC) as M3 and generally 

considered as a low risk group without any signs of resistance developing to the fungicides 

(FRAC, 2014). Its multi-site contact activity with a low risk in resistance development is an 

asset in a disease control and resistance management program. 

ROLE OF MANCOZEB IN PEST MANAGEMENT 

Mancozeb is registered for control of many important plant diseases. Late blight and early blight 

are the top two diseases targeted in mancozeb uses, each of which with over one million acres 

treated annually in the United States (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). Apple scab is among other 

top diseases targeted by mancozeb use, which is the most common serious apple disease 

worldwide, mainly controlled with fungicide sprays (USDA, 2001; USDA, 2004). In the United 

States, approximately two thirds of apple acreage treated by mancozeb, in terms of total acres 

treated, was for control of apple scab (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). 

Page 8 of 11 
Mancozeb is registered for use on numerous crops including vegetables, field crops, tree crops, 

and ornamentals. In 2012, it was the either No. 1 or No. 2 fungicide among all fungicides in 

terms of total acres treated in the United States on crops such as apple, cucumber, lettuce, onion, 

pepper, potato, squash, walnut, and watermelon (Proprietary Data, 2012). 

Mancozeb plays an important role for control of plant bacterial diseases. Proprietary Data 

(2008-20 12) provided information on the top five bacterial diseases in terms of total acres treated 

in the United States, and mancozeb was the most-applied chemical (except for copper hydroxide) 

to control four of them. One ofthem was walnut blight where mancozeb had been used under 

emergency exemptions through Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) on approximately 45 percent of walnut acreage in California 

(Proprietary Data, 2011-2012). Mancozeb is now registered for use on walnuts. 

Mancozeb has also been used in some states through FIFRA Section 24(c) for pest management 

including tobacco diseases in Connecticut, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South 

Carolina, and Virginia; pear psylla nymphs in Oregon and Washington; and diseases of smallseeded vegetable seed crops in Oregon and Washington (CDMS, 2014 ). 

In summary, mancozeb is an important fungicide in many areas of agriculture, including its 

significant role in pest management, resistance management, and the U.S. fungicide market. 

INFORMATION THAT MAY BE USEFUL FOR BEAD'S FUTURE WORK ON 

MANCOZEB 

The Agency currently does not have complete information on mancozeb. Obtaining the 

following usage information may improve future assessments conducted by the Agency related 

to the use and importance of mancozeb: the importance of mancozeb for resistance management 

with other fungicides, and any new information on alternatives to mancozeb. 

REFERENCES 

CDMS. 201 3. Crop Data Management Systems. Available at http://premier.cdms.net/webapls. 

Accessed November 2014. 

EPA. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Mancozeb, September 2005 

EPA, Mancozeb Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA), August 2014 

FRAC. 2013. Fungicide Resistance Action Committee. Available at 

http://www.frac.info/frac/index.htrn. Accessed November 2014. 

Proprietary Data, 1998-2012. 

USDA. 2001. Crop Profile for Apples in Washington. Available at: 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/WAApples.pdf. Accessed November 2014. 

Page 9 ofll 
USDA. 2004. Crop Profile for Apples in Michigan. Available at: 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/Mlapples.pdf. Accessed November 2014. 

USDA NASS, Ag. Nursery and Floriculture, 2006 and 2009. 

Yourman, Leonard. A Review of a Request for an Exemption to Use Mancozeb for a Long 

Running Emergency of Walnut Blight in California (09-CA-13; DP366085). July 9, 2009. 

Yourman, Leonard. A Review of a Recertification Request for an Emergency Exemption to Use 

Mancozeb to Treat Walnut Blight in California (11 CA01; DP3857 19) February 18, 2011. 

Y ourman, Leonard. A Review of an Emergency Exemption Request to Use Mancozeb in 

California on Walnut Trees to Control Walnut Blight (13CA03; DP 407267). December 19, 

2012. 

Yourman, Leonard and John Faulkner. Request for an Emergency Exemption to Use Mancozeb 

to Manage Bacterial Leaf Spot on Peppers (IOOADI, DP3 7685 7; 10KY04, DP377474; 

lONJDI, DP3 76863). July 8, 2010. 

Chandgoyal, Tara. Review of a Section 18 Request for the Emergency Exemption Use of 

Mancozeb on Ginseng in Michigan (07-MI-07, DP # 35041·0) to Control Phytophthora 

cactorum Leaf Blight and Root Rot Diseases. April 16,2008. 

Chandgoyal, Tara. BEAD Review of Wisconsin Emergency Exemption Request for Use of 

Gavel 75DF (a premix ofzoxarnide and mancozeb) on Ginseng to Control Phytophthoro 

cactorum Blight (10-WI-08, DP # 378965). July 29, 2010. 

Page 10 of 11 
APPENDIX A 

The map included herein is primarily for the use of the risk assessors in the Environmental Fate 

and Effects Division. The map provides a very broad geographical view of the average annual 

amount (in pounds) of the active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres of crop acres grown. These 

data are included in the maps because risk assessors are interested in the amount of a pesticide 

used across agricultural land. The calculated values presented in the map are not equivalent to 

an application rate (lb ai/ A). 

The data used to make these maps have several limitations. Any interpretation of the maps 

should consider the underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. 

The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based on private market surveys of pesticide 

use in agriculture averaged over the last five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). These surveys 

cover about 60 crops and are targeted in states that produce the majority of the crop. Although 

the surveys capture most of the use of a particular active ingredient in agriculture, there are 

several limitations to these surveys. 

• States with minor production of a surveyed crop are not sampled 

• Not all types of pesticides are surveyed in every crop in every year 

• Many specialty crops with very small acreages are not included in the survey 

The result of these limitations is that states that show no usage may actually have a small amount 

of the active ingredient being used. In some cases the displayed use intensity may be distorted 

because the surveyed crops and the reported pesticide usage may not accurately represent the 

actual pesticide usage on the crops produced in the state. 

The denominator (1,000 crop acres grown) was also obtained from the same private market 

survey database. The "Crop Acres Grown" variable represents the total acres grown in a given 

state of all of the surveyed crops. This value is independent of pesticide usage and pesticide 

registration. It is important to note that the surveyed crops (about 60) are sampled from states 

that are major producers of each crop. Therefore, there are cases where the actual crop acreage in 

a state is higher than that reported by crop acres grown in the survey because either that state 

and/or crop was not included in the survey. 

The reader should pay particular attention to the figure legends and realize that a map prepared 

for a particular chemical is not directly comparable to a map prepared for a different chemical as 

the legend bins will likely be different. 

Page 11 of 11