United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994 

iii

Contents

Page No.

Preface .......................................................... vii

Executive Summary .................................................. ix
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994 

v

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Page No.
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994 

vii

Preface

In 1991, the United States Department of PDP continues to focus on the National Academy of

Agriculture (USDA) was charged with implementing a
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994 

viii

Data presented in this summary were collected and Florida Department of Agriculture and

processed through the efforts of the following: Consumer Services
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994 

ix

Executive Summary

The Pesticide Data Program (PDP) was that EPA uses to determine the residue levels in foods 

implemented by the United States Department of and estimate exposure to consumers. Without actual

Agriculture (USDA) in May 1991 to collect data on residue data, initial risk assessments are based on the

pesticide residues in foods. The data are used by the theoretical maximum amounts of pesticide use and

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its risk may overstate dietary exposure. A theoretical risk

assessment process, and for the reregistration and based on these worst case assumptions may

special review of pesticides. PDP has issued significantly exceed the actual risk of pesticide

summaries of data for calendar years 1991, 1992, and residues in the food supply and jeopardize the

1993. This summary contains PDP findings for registration of pesticides important to American

calendar year 1994. 
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994 

1

Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

 Annual Summary CalendarYear 1994

This summary presents PDP data for calendar year 1994, and consists of the following four sections: 

Introduction, Sampling Protocol, Laboratory Operations, and Sample Results and Discussion.

I. Introduction

To implement the Pesticide Data Program (PDP),

the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

utilized the expertise available in four of its agencies: 



Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994 

5

provided was on extraneous residues in foods consumer. This has been corroborated by comparing

(environmental contaminants), pesticide residue the composition of PDP samples with import data

stability data, and PDP’s Proficiency Check Sample compiled by the Economic Analysis Branch, AMS

Program. Fruit and Vegetable Division.

Modifications to PDP’s information management Adjustments to the protocol for 1994 included: (1)
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994 

6

pounds) being 10 times more likely to be selected for by their State, unless they were unable to do so. For
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994 

7

• Synopsis on Sample Collection samples collected during 1994 originated from 39

Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994

9

PDP participating laboratories monitored 71
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994

10

• Sample Analysis pesticide/commodity pairs with residue detections in at

Variations of the Luke extraction procedures

developed by FDA are used by Florida, Michigan,

New York, Ohio, and Texas. California and

Washington use the multiresidue method developed by

the California Department of Food and Agriculture. 

These two methods were determined to produce

equivalent data for PDP analytical purposes. Residues

are extracted from samples using organic solvents

followed by various cleanup procedures. Selective

residue methods, used for 2,4-D, benomyl,

formetanate, and abamectin, were independently

validated by the laboratory(ies) performing analysis.

Various types of chromatography are used for the

initial identification and quantitation of pesticides. 

Confirmation is accomplished by mass spectrometry

or by alternate detection systems, depending on the

concentration reported. Limits of detection for various

selective detectors are lower than those achieved by

mass spectrometry detectors. Confirmation is deemed
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994

11
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994

12

• Post-Harvest Applications dicloran (carrots and peaches) and imazalil (citrus). 

Before PDP began collecting data, most available

information on pesticide use in the United States was

limited to pesticides applied to sustain agricultural

production (pre-harvest applications). Little was

known about pesticides applied to preserve the
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1994

13

• Environmental Contaminants • Non-Detected ResiduesDDT, DDD, and DDE

A total of 7,589 samples were screened for DDT

and its metabolites--DDD and DDE. Use of DDT has

been prohibited in the United States since 1972. 

However, due to the persistence of this chemical in the

environment, residues of this insecticide, and/or its

Appendix A

Sample Origin by Grower, Packer, or Distributor

Appendix A gives the number of samples per State or country of origin and the

number of samples of unknown origin. Where available, origin of fresh commodities is

determined by grower or packer information. For processed commodities, origin is

determined primarily by packer or distributor.

As shown in Appendix A, samples collected during 1994 originated from 39

States and 17 foreign countries.

APPENDIX A. (cont'd) SAMPLE ORIGIN BY GROWER, PACKER, 

OR DISTRIBUTOR (Number of Samples per State/Country)

No. of % of

Part 2. AP BN BR CE CR CS GB GR
Appendix B

Quality Assurance Program Elements

PDP’s Quality Assurance (QA) program covers all aspects of data gathering, from

sample collection to data reporting. QA protocols for sampling are designed to protect

sample integrity from the time of collection to the time of delivery to the testing facilities. 

QA protocols for testing comprise all laboratory operations from the time of sample

receipt to the time data are reported to PDP’s central database. As described in this

appendix, the QA program has five elements: 1) Standard Operating Procedures; 2)

On-site reviews; 3) Proficiency Check Samples; 4) Quality Control Procedures; and

5) Method Performance and Confirmation Procedures.

Appendix C

Distribution of Residues Detected by Pesticide

Appendix C shows residue detections for all pesticide/commodity pairs tested,

Benomyl (analyzed as carbendazim)

Apples 701 72 10.3 0.050 0.35 7.0

Grapes 675 33 4.9 0.050 0.79 10.0

Green Beans 582 76 13.1 0.050 1.6 2.0

Oranges 686 5 0.7 0.050 0.084 10.0

Peaches 399 108 27.1 0.050 2.0 15.0

Sweet Corn 455 1

0.2 0.084 0.084 0.2

Total 295

6. Captan

Apples 677 10 Tj
54 Tÿ 0 TD 0.438 Tf
0.0daj
686
1Y6 2 pl Tc (Tda0) Tj
5en 1b
0(00.04vi64.a2 0 
Chlorothalonil

Broccoli 631 2 0.3 0.013 0.094 5

Celery 176 119 67.6 0.002 0.59 15

Green Beans 589 99 16.8 0.005 1.1 5

Lettuce (V-1) 637 1 0.2 0.005 0.005 NT

Peaches 355 1

0.3 0.010 0.010 0.5

Total 222

10. Chlorpropham

Apples (V-2) 687 2 0.3 0.007 0.007 NT

Carrots 687 4 0.6 0.029 0.033 0.1

Potatoes 693 419 60.5 0.010 16 50

Total 425

Dicloran

Carrots 6877 1.0 0.010 0.37 10

Celery 176 91 51.7 0.005 1.3 15

Grapes 669 27 4.0 0.005 0.59 10

Green Beans 5919 1.5 0.010 0.47 20

Lettuce 6916
Disulfoton (parent)

Carrots (V-1) S2 6871

Methidathion

Oranges 683 32

4.7 0.004 0.030 2.0

Total 32

34. Methomyl

Apples 687 26 3.8 0.013 0.12 1

Broccoli 679 5 0.7 0.015 0.070 3

Celery 176 7 4.0 0.013 0.099 3

Grapes 669 58 8.7 0.013 1.3 5

Green Beans 591 21 3.6 0.013 0.70 2

Lettuce 691 35 5.1 0.013 1.5 5

Peaches 395 1 0.3 0.033 0.033 5

Sweet Peas 433 2 0.5 0.025 0.025 5

Total 155

35. Methoxychlor

Apples 687 121 17.6 0.010 1.0 14

Peaches 396 2 0.5 0.23
Omethoate (see Dimethoate)

Apples 577 62 10.7 0.005 0.122

Broccoli 5563 0.5 0.005 0.0202

Grapes 576 66 11.5 0.003 0.141

Green Beans 462 32 6.9 0.005 0.132
o-Phenylphenol

Apples 356 64 18.0 0.014 0.61 25

Carrots 3081 0.3 0.014 0.014 20

Oranges 352 64 18.2 0.010 0.12 10

Peaches 177 20 11.3 0.017 0.036
Quintozene (PCNB, parent)

Carrots (V-2) 6872 0.3 0.007 0.007 NT

Green Beans 591 20 3.4 0.005 0.012 0.1

Potatoes
Vinclozolin

Grapes 668 76 11.4 0.007 0.74 6.0

Green Beans # (V-5) 479 14 2.9 0.008 0.32 NT

Peaches 391 7

1.8 0.007 3.0 25.0

Total 97

 Total No. of Different Residues Detected: 62

 Total No. of Samples Analyzed: 7589

 Total No. of Residues Detected: 10191

KEY

 S1 2.etabolic products of Aldicarb. 
Appendix D

Frequency of Occurrences at Various Concentration Ranges for

Selected Pesticide/Commodity Pairs

This appendix shows pesticide/commodity pairs with detections in at least 25

percent of the samples tested. Residue detections are grouped in 8 different

concentration ranges, from a low of 0.001 ppm to a high of 10 ppm. Also shown is a

range for non-detects, which are determinations below the limit of detection of the












Appendix E

National Estimates for Concentration Percentiles vs. Tolerance

Appendix E shows 58 pesticide/commodity pairs with detections in at least 10

The 90th percentile is compared to the tolerance established for each

pesticide/commodity pair.
APPENDIX E. NDIONDL ESIMDES FOR 

CONCENTRDION PERCENILES vs. TOLERDNCE

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 10 Percent of Samples)

% of Ratio of 

Commodity Samples with Mean ** Percentiles 90th Percentile
APPENDIX E. (cont'd) NATIONAL ESTIMATES FOR 

CONCENTRATION PERCENTILES vs. TOLERANCE

(Pairs with Residue Detections in d4 Leas4 10 Percent of Samples)

% of Rd4io of 

Commodity Samples with Mean ** Percentiles 90th Percentile

 Pes4icide Detections Lower Upper 50th 75th 90th to Tolerance

6. Grapes

 Captan 31.4 0.046 0.053 * * 0.11 0.002
APPENDIX E. (cont'd) NATIONAL ESTIMATES FOR 

CONCENTRATION PERCENTILES vs. TOLERANCE

(Pairs with Residue Detections in d4 Leas4 10 Percent of Samples)

% of Rd4io of 

Commodity Samples with Mean ** Percentiles 90th Percentile

 Pes4icide Detections Lower Upper 50th 75th 90th to Tolerance

10. Peaches

 Azinphos-methyl 19.9 0.009 0.031 * * *** ***

 Benomyl 27.1 0.038 0.081 * * 0.139 0.009

 Captan 13.5 0.021 0.030 * * 0.038 0.001

 Carbaryl 15.7 0.067 0.089 * * 0.18 0.018

 Dicloran 37.6 0.418 0.422 * 0.32 1.4 0.070
Appendix F

Cumulative Distributions of Residue Concentrations for Selected

Commodity/Pesticide Pairs

In Appendix F, the concentrations detected (in parts per million) are plotted

against the estimated national percentiles for eight pesticide/commodity pairs. The

distributions of residues for all PDP pesticide/commodity pairs have this same curved

shape. The highest percentile graphed in the appendix is the 99th, which is often

considerably lower than the highest concentration detected in the sample (refer to the

value shown in each graph’s legend). Inclusion of the highest concentration would

cause graph distortion, which would obscure concentrations in the low ranges. The

tolerance for the pesticide/commodity pair is also indicated in the legend of each graph.




Appendix G








Appendix H

Percentage of Samples vs. Number of Residues

 Detected per Sample

(Fresh and Processed Commodities)

Appendix H shows the percentage of samples per commodity containing 0 to 10

residues per sample. Shown at the bottom of the graph are the overall number of

samples and percentages (of the total number of samples analyzed) for each detection

group. For example, of the 7,589 samples tested, 38.5 had no detectable residues and

36.3 percent had more than one residue.