APPENDIX 1a – SUMMARY OF APPLICATION METHOD ADJUSTMENT 

FACTORS AND METHOD USE FRACTIONS

Table A1 - 1. Application Method Adjustment Factors for 2004 - 2007.

AMAF

Fumigation 

Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide Metam Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathio

carbonate

Shallow injection 

w/ high 

permeability tarp 

or no tarpbroadcast 61* 64* 74*

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

Shallow injection 

w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast

not 

applicable 44 48

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

Shallow injection 

w/ high 

permeability tarp 

or no tarp-bed

not 

applicable 64* 100* 77*

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

Shallow injection 

w/ low 

permeability tarpbed

not 

applicable 64* 100*

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

Shallow injection 

w/ water treatments 41 20

not 

applicable 21

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

Shallow injection 

w/ soil cap

not 

applicable not applicable

not 

applicable 14

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

Deep injection w/ 

high permeability 

tarp or no tarpbroadcast 41 64* 74*

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

Deep injection w/ 

low permeability 

tarp-broadcast

not 

applicable 44 48

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

Deep injection w/ 

water treatments 27 20

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

Rotovate/rototill not 

applicable not applicable

not 

applicable 14 17

not 

applicable

Sprinkler not 

applicable not applicable

not 

applicable 77*

not 

applicable 10

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

not 

applicable not applicable

not 

applicable 21

not

applicable

not 

applicable

Flood not 

applicable not applicable

not 

applicable 77*

not 

applicable 10

Drip w/ high 

permeability tarp 

or no tarp 29 not applicable

not 

applicable 9

not 

applicable 10

Drip w/ low 

permeability tarp

not 

applicable 15

not 

applicable 9

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

Non-field soil 

(structural/postharvest)not 

applicable 100 100

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

not 

applicable

* These are considered “high-emission” fumigation methods and are prohibited within the San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert, and 

Ventura NAAs during May-October.
Table A1 - 2. 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-

D2 Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide Metam3 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathio 

carbonate4

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 42 37

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 42 36 3

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap 15

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 16 14

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 2 100

Sprinkler 55 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 10 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 10 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 5

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 13 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007. 

2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied. 4 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 3. 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-

D2 Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide Metam3 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathio 

carbonate4

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 29 29

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 29 29 8

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap 25

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 42 42

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 3 100

Sprinkler 60 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 2 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 2

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007. 

2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied. 4 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 4. 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-

D2 Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide Metam3 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathio 

carbonate4

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 50 35

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 50 34 10

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 30 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 50 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 5

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 31 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007. 

2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied 4 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 5. 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Ventura nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-

D2 Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide Metam3 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathio 

carbonate4

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 50 49

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 50 49 20

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 50 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 15 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 15

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 3 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007. 

2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied 4 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 6. 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the South Coast nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-

D2 Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide Metam3 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathio 

carbonate4

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 50 3

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 50 3 20

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 50 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 15 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 15

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 95 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007. 

2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

4 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 7. 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 56.0 11.3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 33.0 6.3

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap 15

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 99

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 11.4

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 45 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 1 9 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 11.0 10

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 70.9 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 8. 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 2

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 97.0 79.5

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 0.6

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap 20

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 97 1.0

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 1.0 16.3

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 35 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 1 14 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 10

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 1.0 3.7 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 9. 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 88 77.1

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 6

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 18.9

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 10

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 1.1

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 75 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 90 5 7 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 5 12

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 2 2.9 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 10. 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Ventura nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 1

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 67 100.0

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 25

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 4

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments 20

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 95 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 33 50

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 11. 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the South Coast nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 40 60.9

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 25

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 36 30.8

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 2

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 0.5

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 20 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 98 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 24 50

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 7.8 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 12. 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 3

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 56.0 11.3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 33.0 6.3

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap 15

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 95

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 11.4

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 45 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 2 9 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 11.0 10

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 70.9 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 13. 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 2

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 97.0 79.5

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 0.6

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap 20

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 97 1.0

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 1.0 16.3

Deep injection w/ water

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 35 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 1 14 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 10

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 1.0 3.7 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 14. 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 88.0 77.1

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 6

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 18.9

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 16

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 0.2 1.1

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 75 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 84 5.0 7 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 5.0 12

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 2.0 2.9 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 15. 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Ventura nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 67.0 100.0

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 25

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 7

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments 20

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 93 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 33.0 50

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 16. 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the South Coast nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 40.0 60.9

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 25

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 36.0 30.8

Shallow injection w/ 

water treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 0.5

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 20 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 100 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 24.0 50

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 7.8 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 17. 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 0.0

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 56.0 11.3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 33.0 6.3

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap 15

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 99.9

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 11.4

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 45 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 0.1 9 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 11.0 10

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 70.9 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 18. 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 0.3

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 97.0 79.5

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 0.6

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap 20

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 99.3 1.0

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 1.0 16.3

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 35 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 0.4 14 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 10

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 1.0 3.7 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 19. 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 0.4

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 88.0 77.1

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 6

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 18.9

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 0.0

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 0.2 1.1

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 75 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 99.6 5.0 7 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 5.0 12

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 2.0 2.9 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 20. 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Ventura nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 67.0 100.0

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 25

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 5.0

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments 20

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 94.9 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 33.0 50

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 21. 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the South Coast nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation 

Method1

1,3-D Chloropicrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

2 Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 40.0 60.9

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 25

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 36.0 30.8

Shallow injection w/ 

water treatments

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarpbroadcast 0.5

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments

Rotovate/rototill 100

Sprinkler 20 33

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments

Flood 33

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 100.0 5 34

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 24.0 50

Non-field soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 7.8 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 22. Application Method Adjustment Factors for 2008.

AMAF

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3-D

Chloro

-picrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

Na

Metam 

K Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate

Chemigation (Drip 

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 19 12

Chemigation (Drip)

1601 10

Chemigation (minisprinkler) 1602 10

Day Chemigation 

(Drip System) 

Nontarpaulin

1408 9 9

Day Chemigation 

(Drip System) 

Tarpaulin

1407 9 9

Day Drench 1413 100 100

Day 

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast or Bed /Two 

Water Treatments

1405 28

Day 

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast or 

Bed/Three Water 

Treatments

1406 21 21

Day Power Mulcher

1410 14 14

Day Rotary Tiller 1409 14

Day Soil Capping 1411 14 14

Day 

Sprinkler/Broadcast or 

Bed/One Water 

Treatment

1401 77 77

Day 

Sprinkler/Broadcast or 

Bed/Three Water 

Treatments

1403 21 21

Day 

Sprinkler/Broadcast or 

Bed/Two Water 

Treatments

1402 28 28

Day or Night Flood 1412 77

Night 4 A.M. 

Start/Sprinkler/

Broadcast or Bed/Two 

Water treatments

1472 35

Night 

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/ 1455 13 13
Broadcast or Bed/Two 

Water Treatments

Night 

Sprinkler/Broadcast or 

Bed/Two Water 

Treatments

1452 77

Nontarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast or Bed 1206 26 64

Other label method -

Methyl Bromide 1190 100 100

Tarpaulin/Deep/Bed 1208 26

Tarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast 1207 26

Tarpaulin/Shallow/Bed 1106 10

Tarpaulin/Deep/Broad

cast 1107 48

Tarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast – Nobel 

Plow

1103 44 48

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 23. 2008 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3-D

Chloro

-picrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam

Na

Metam

K Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate

Chemigation (Drip 

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 3.0 9.6

Day Chemigation 

(Drip System) 

Nontarpaulin

1408 16.5

Day Chemigation 

(Drip System) 

Tarpaulin

1407 83.2

Day Rotary Tiller 1409 16.8 83.5

Nontarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast or Bed 1206 97.0 55.7

Tarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast 1107 74.8

Tarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast – Nobel 

Plow

1103 34.8 25.2

Chemigation (Drip 

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 3.0 9.6

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 24. 2008 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3-D

Chloro

-picrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

Na

Metam 

K Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate

Chemigation (Drip)

1601 97.1

Chemigation (minisprinkler) 1602 2.9

Day Chemigation 

(Drip System) 

Nontarpaulin

1408 1.3 10.5

Day Chemigation 

(Drip System) 

Tarpaulin

1407 0.1 0.2

Day Drench 1413 5.1

Day 

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast or Bed /Two 

Water Treatments

1405 0.2

Day 

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast or 

Bed/Three Water 

Treatments

1406 9.4 2.4

Day Power Mulcher

1410 3.5 42.5

Day Rotary Tiller 1409 5.2

Day Soil Capping 1411 3.0 1.3

Day 

Sprinkler/Broadcast or 

Bed/One Water 

Treatment

1401 1.4 7.6

Day 

Sprinkler/Broadcast or 

Bed/Three Water 

Treatments

1403 14.3 0.7

Day 

Sprinkler/Broadcast or 

Bed/Two Water 

Treatments

1402 7.7 7.1

Day or Night Flood 1412

Night 4 A.M. 

Start/Sprinkler/Broadc

ast or Bed/Two Water 

treatments

1472

Night 

Nontarpaulin/Shallow/ 1455 58.7 17.4
Broadcast or Bed/Two 

Water Treatments

Night 

Sprinkler/Broadcast or 

Bed/Two Water 

Treatments

1452 0.3

Nontarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast or Bed 1206 98.0 19.5

Other label method -

Methyl Bromide 1190 0.4 0.3

Tarpaulin/Deep/Bed 1208 1.2

Tarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast 1207 0.9

Tarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast – Nobel 

Plow

1103 80.1 99.7

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 25. 2008 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3-D

Chloro

-picrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

Na

Metam 

K Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate

Chemigation (Drip 

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 88.3 100.0

Day Chemigation 

(Drip System) 

Nontarpaulin

1408 57.1

Day 

Sprinkler/Broadcast or 

Bed/Three Water 

Treatments

1403 34.2

Day 

Sprinkler/Broadcast or 

Bed/Two Water 

Treatments

1402 1.3

Night 4 A.M. 

Start/Sprinkler/

Broadcast or Bed/Two 

Water treatments

1472 7.4

Nontarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast or Bed 1206 11.7

Tarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast 1107 37.4

Tarpaulin/Shallow/Bed 1106 100.0

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.
Table A1 - 26. 2008 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the Ventura nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3-D

Chloro

-picrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

Na

Metam 

K Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate

Chemigation (Drip 

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 99.5 89.1

Chemigation (minisprinkler) 1602 100.0

Day Chemigation 

(Drip System) 

Nontarpaulin

1408 0.2

Day Chemigation 

(Drip System) 

Tarpaulin

1407 99.8 100.0

Nontarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast or Bed 1206 0.5 0.1

Tarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast – Nobel 

Plow

1103 10.8 100.0

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.

Table A1 - 27. 2008 frequency of fumigation methods used (method use fractions) in 

the South Coast nonattainment area.

% of Amount Applied

Fumigation

Method Code

1,3-D

Chloro

-picrin

Methyl 

Bromide

Metam 

Na

Metam 

K Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate

Chemigation (Drip 

System)/Tarpaulin 1209 100.0 63.4

Other label method -

Methyl Bromide 1190 0.9 2.3

Tarpaulin/Deep/

Broadcast 1107 0.5 4.8

Tarpaulin/Shallow/

Broadcast – Nobel 

Plow

1103 35.2 92.9

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Bary et al., 2007.

2 DPR assumes 100% conversion of metam to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100% conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of 

carbon disulfide applied.