Oregon Department

of Agriculture

Pesticide Use Reporting System

2007 Annual Report

July 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

Issues................................................................................................................................................. 5

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 6

HOUSEHOLD USE..............................................................................................................................17

Overview ..........................................................................................................................................17

Issues...............................................................................................................................................18

Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................19

APPENDIX ...........................................................................................................................................28

Appendix A – Top 100 Active Ingredients and Pounds Reported.................................................28

Appendix B – Screen Shots from Online System ..........................................................................31

Appendix C- Diary Packet for Household Pesticide Use Survey ..................................................34

Appendix D - Additional Information on Rodenticides ...................................................................40
LIST OF TABLES

ONLINE COMPONENT

Table 1 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) for the Entire State............................................... 8

Table 2 – Pounds Reported by Water Basin ....................................................................................... 8

Table 3 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Water Basin..................................................... 8

Table 4 -Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Site Category ..................................................11

Table 5 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Agriculture..........................13

Table 6 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Urban/General Indoor .......15

Table 7 – Top Five Active Ingredients (in pounds) by Specific Sites in Urban/General Outdoor.....16

HOUSEHOLD COMPONENT

Table 8 – Main Active Ingredients Reported, Presented by Pesticide Type .....................................20
LIST OF FIGURES

ONLINE COMPONENT

Figure 1 – Oregon Water Basin Map .................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2 – Percentage of Pounds of Active Ingredients by Site Category ........................................11

HOUSEHOLD COMPONENT

Figure 3 – State Map with Regions Used in the Household Pesticide Use Survey..........................17

Figure 4 – Number of Participants By Region ....................................................................................18

Figure 5 – Number of Reports of Pesticide Use Received By Region ..............................................18

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

Ingredients...................................................................................................................................21

Figure 7 – Reported Sites for All Data (from all 2,989 total reports received) ..................................21

Figure 8 – Reported Purposes for All Data.........................................................................................21

Figure 9 – Reported Sites for Data with Active Ingredient Information .............................................22

Figure 10 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information....................................22

Figure 11 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 1................22

Figure 12 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 2................23

Figure 13– Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 3.................23

Figure 14 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 4................23

Figure 15 - Active Ingredients by Type – Entire State........................................................................24

Figure 16 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 1 ...........................................................................24

Figure 17 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 2 ...........................................................................24

Figure 18 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 3 ...........................................................................25

Figure 19 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 4 ...........................................................................25

Figure 20 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 5 ...........................................................................25

Figure 21 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 6 ...........................................................................26
Figure 22 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 7 ...........................................................................26

Figure 23 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 8 ...........................................................................26

Figure 24 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 9 ...........................................................................27
1

INTRODUCTION

This is the second 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 2007 was the first full year of reporting.

The Household Pesticide Use Survey collected information for 2006. The first presentations of

household pesticide use survey information were in the PURS Amended 2006 Annual Report.

The PURS 2007 Annual Report includes presentations of household survey information collected

for 2007.
2

ABSTRACT

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

System (PURS). The first full year of collecting non-household pesticide use in PURS was 2007.

Also, 2007 was the second year of collecting information through the Household Pesticide Use

Survey.

For 2007, approximately 5,732 reporters filed 284,984 reports of pesticide use into PURS. These

reports identified that 40,473,773 pounds of active ingredient pesticides were used in Oregon

during 2007. This included approximately 551 active ingredients. The top five active ingredients,

by pounds, for the entire state were:

• Metam-sodium (42%) [soil fumigant],

• Glyphosate (9%) [herbicide],

• Copper naphthenate (7%) [wood preservative],

• 1,3-dichloropropene (5%) [soil fumigant], 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 (84.7%),

• Other (8.8%),

• Forestry (2.8%),

• Aquatic (1.3%),

• Right-of-way (1.1%),

• Urban/General Outdoor (0.7%),

• Urban/General Indoor (0.5%),

• Public Health/Regulatory Pests (0.1%),

• Research (<0.1%).

A number of issues were 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 2007, 1,693 households agreed

to complete use diaries. Only 1,483 households completed at least one month of reporting. More

than 40% of households reported no use of pesticides. The other participants provided 2,989

reports.

Only 40% of the household reports contained sufficient information to calculate pounds of active

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

identified 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. Moss control products accounted for the largest

number of pounds of active ingredients, closely followed by herbicides.
4

ONLINE SYSTEM

Overview

PURS was deployed on January 2, 2007, to receive reports for pesticide applications made

during calendar year 2007. Reporters had until January 31, 2008, to file all reports of pesticide

applications made in 2007. Following the deadline, PURS only accepted reports for applications

made in 2008.

PURS staff were available to help reporters during business hours through a dedicated phone

line and by email. PURS staff also held hands-on help classes throughout the state in the spring

and fall of 2007. These classes provided reporters the opportunity to bring their records to a

computer classroom and receive one-on-one assistance registering in PURS and filing their

reports. In addition to these classes, PURS staff made a number of presentations at training

seminars, sent direct mailings, and updated information presented on the web site.

Some, but not all pesticide applicators are required to be specially licensed. 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.” 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 who are required by PURS to report actually did

so. A number of reporters called following January 31, 2008, to say they had missed the

deadline. It is also assumed many people were still unaware of the PURS requirement.

There were approximately 5,732 reporters who registered in PURS between January 2007 and

the end of January 2008. 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 applicator. There were 242 proxies

registered.

A total of 284,984 reports were submitted for 2007. 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).

Between March 18 and April 11, 2008, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) conducted

an online survey of reporter experiences. A total of 745 reporters completed the survey. When

asked to rate their overall customer service experience, 63% indicated it was good or excellent.

When asked about the quality of information on the web site, 68% marked good or excellent.

Many respondents also provided written comments. Reporters appreciated the outreach efforts

but expressed frustration with online reporting, the type of information collected, and basic

information available online explaining PURS and how to use the system. These comments will

be used to improve outreach efforts and the information presented on the web site.
5

Issues

The first year of reporting revealed 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 on a search result list without

crosschecking with 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 they 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,
6

and submit the new report. PURS staff saw a number of situations where reporters entered

information for one product, submitted the report, and clicked “Make Similar Report.” Reporters

then re-entered 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 PURS 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 PURS staff review. ODA did not

have the resources to review each report.

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. In addition to complications between

PURS and Internet browsers, the screen settings reporters typically use in Internet Explorer did

not show buttons on the far right of the displayed screen. Reporters had to scroll to the right side

of the screen to see these buttons. 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 2007 were due no later than midnight January 31, 2008. After

midnight January 31, PURS only allowed reports to be submitted with use dates of 2008. It was

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

reporters waited until the last week and/or last day to attempt to file reports. The afternoon of

January 31, PURS experienced a load issue probably due to processing reports submitted by

electronic data submission (EDS) that effectively locked other reporters out of the system. Those

reporters who were using the PURS interface to file their reports were getting kicked out of PURS

or were not able to log into the system. Between this and confusion about the deadline being

mandatory, PURS staff received numerous phone calls following January 31 from reporters who

were trying to file reports with dates in 2007 complaining about not being able to submit those

reports.

Conclusions

Five hundred and fifty-one (551) different active ingredients were reported used in 2007. 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. Appendix B provides examples of the screens

reporters used in order to submit their reports. 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.
7

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
8

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

ACTIVE INGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE

Total 40,473,773

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 17,090,499 42%

Glyphosate Herbicide 3,543,403 9%

Copper naphthenate Wood preservative 2,751,392 7%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 2,163,713 5%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 1,631,520 4%

All others Various 13,293,246 33%

Table 2 – Pounds Reported by Water Basin

WATER BASIN LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE

Middle Columbia 22,435,926 55%

Willamette 9,646,485 24%

Middle Snake-Boise 2,640,651 7%

Southern Oregon Coastal 2,210,325 5%

Klamath 951,595 2%

Middle Snake-Powder 833,955 2%

Deschutes 597,561 1%

John Day 314,202 1%

Lower Snake 311,565 1%

Lower Columbia 287,205 1%

Northern Oregon Coastal 189,995 <1%

Oregon Closed Basins 48,448 <1%

Upper Sacramento 4,734 <1%

Black Rock Desert 748 <1%

Northern California Coastal 378 <1%

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

WATER BASIN ACTIVE INGREDIENT PESTICIDE TYPE LBS.

REPORTED

PERCENTAGE1

Black Rock

Desert

748

Carbonic acid,

monopotassium salt

Fungicide 308 41%

Glyphosate Herbicide 111 15%

Propargite Miticide 111 15%

Potassium salts of fatty

acids

Various 83 11%

BT kurstaki Insecticide 41 5%

All others Various 94 13%

Deschutes 597,561

Xylene range aromatic

solvent

Aquatic

herbicide

169,568 28%

Glyphosate Herbicide 95,510 16%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 79,216 13%

2,4-D Herbicide 34,903 6%

Diuron Herbicide 26,914 5%

All others Various 191,450 32%
9

John Day 314,202

Glyphosate Herbicide 152,969 49%

2,4-D Herbicide 121,563 39%

Diuron Herbicide 10,139 3%

Imazamox Herbicide 2,775 1%

Dicamba Herbicide 2,503 1%

All others Various 24,253 8%

Klamath 951,595

Methyl bromide Fumigant/Soil

fumigant

229,672 24%

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 214,377 23%

Chloropicrin Fumigant/Soil

fumigant

168,534 18%

Tralkoxydim Herbicide 61,249 6%

Carfentrazone-ethyl Herbicide 60,993 6%

All others Various 216,770 23%

Lower

Columbia

287,205

Glyphosate Herbicide 76,784 27%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 54,747 19%

Sulfur Fungicide 23,334 8%

2,4-D Herbicide 13,774 5%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 11,655 4%

All others Various 106,911 37%

Lower Snake 311,565

Glyphosate Herbicide 107,416 34%

2,4-D Herbicide 37,414 12%

MCPA Herbicide 17,920 6%

Diuron Herbicide 17,646 6%

Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 13,129 4%

All others Various 118,040 38%

Middle

Columbia

22,435,926

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 15,878,821 71%

Glyphosate Herbicide 1,539,076 7%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 1,255,003 6%

Sulfuric acid Desiccant 775,434 3%

2,4-D Herbicide 546,629 2%

All others Various 2,440,963 11%

Middle SnakePowder833,955

Xylene range aromatic

solvent

Aquatic

herbicide

235,670 28%

Sulfuric acid Desiccant 221,621 27%

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 146,424 18%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 90,234 11%

Glyphosate Herbicide 23,695 3%

All others Various 116,311 14%
10

Middle SnakeBoise2,640,651

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 715,015 27%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 685,982 26%

Potassium NmethyldithiocarbamateSoil fumigant 339,025 13%

Chloropicrin Fumigant/Soil

fumigant

91,863 3%

Mancozeb Fungicide 54,077 2%

All others Various 754,689 29%

Northern

California

Coastal

378

Sulfur Fungicide 288 76%

Basic copper sulfate Fungicide 85 23%

Triclopyr Herbicide5 1%

Northern

Oregon

Coastal

189,995

Triclopyr Herbicide 53,646 28%

Glyphosate Herbicide 50,707 27%

2,4-D Herbicide 20,289 11%

Atrazine Herbicide 15,412 8%

Sulfur Fungicide 8,912 5%

All others Various 41,029 22%

Oregon

Closed Basins

48,448

Glyphosate Herbicide 18,616 38%

Diuron Herbicide 8,442 17%

Hexazinone Herbicide 5,380 11%

Metribuzin Herbicide 4,100 8%

2,4-D Herbicide 3,665 8%

All others Various 8,245 17%

Southern

Oregon

Coastal

2,210,325

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 862,447 39%

Glyphosate Herbicide 307,292 14%

Kaolin Various 272,417 12%

Calcium polysulfide Fungicide 135,743 6%

Atrazine Herbicide 128,099 6%

All others Various 504,327 23%

Upper

Sacramento

4,734

2,4-D Herbicide 1,155 24%

Diuron Herbicide 1,011 21%

Glyphosate Herbicide 715 15%

Ethofumesate Herbicide 425 9%

Propargite Miticide 376 8%

All others Various 1,052 22%
11

Willamette 9,646,485

Copper naphthenate Wood

preservative

2,751,374 29%

Glyphosate Herbicide 983,472 10%

Diuron Herbicide 447,320 5%

2,4-D Herbicide 345,737 4%

Pendimethalin Herbicide 314,712 3%

All others Various 4,803,870 50% 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.

Other

8.8%

Forestry

2.8%

Aquatic

1.3%

Right-of-way

1.1%

Public 

Health/Regulatory 

Pests

0.1%

Urban/General 

Indoor

0.5%

Urban/General 

Outdoor

0.7%

Agriculture

84.7%

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).

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

SITE ACTIVE INGREDIENT PESTICIDE

TYPE

LBS.

REPORTED

PERCENTAGE1

Agriculture 34,270,330

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 16,999,812 50%

Glyphosate Herbicide 2,949,547 9%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 2,163,713 6%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 1,609,352 5%

2,4-D Herbicide 1,043,747 3%

All others Various 9,504,159 28%
12

Aquatic 523,137

Xylene range aromatic

solvent

Aquatic

herbicide

454,775 87%

Acrolein Herbicide 56,321 11%

Copper sulfate

pentahydrate

Algaecide/

Herbicide

7,538 1%

Triclopyr Herbicide 1,317 0.3%

Spiromesifen Insecticide 977 0.2%

All others Various 2,209 0.4%

Forestry 1,141,459

Glyphosate Herbicide 435,207 38%

Atrazine Herbicide 240,573 21%

2,4-D Herbicide 138,493 12%

Triclopyr Herbicide 88,390 8%

Hexazinone Herbicide 74,999 7%

All others Various 163,797 14%

Public Health/

Regulatory

Pest

51,027

Malathion Insecticide 22,350 44%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 8,553 17%

BT israelensis Insecticide 4,429 9%

2,4-D Herbicide 3,267 6%

Piperonyl butoxide Insecticide 2,499 5%

All others Various 9,929 19%

Research 765

2,4-D Herbicide 169 22%

Glyphosate Herbicide 125 16%

Calcium polysulfide Fungicide 92 12%

Picloram Herbicide 53 7%

Imazapyr Herbicide 50 6%

All others Various 276 36%

Right-of-way 430,501

Diuron Herbicide 153,026 36%

Glyphosate Herbicide 94,664 22%

Triclopyr Herbicide 64,447 15%

2,4-D Herbicide 55,239 13%

Methyl isothiocyanate Fungicide 6,473 2%

All others Various 56,652 13%

Urban/General

Indoor

211,147

Copper ammonium

carbonate

Wood

preservative

101,034 48%

Tebuconazole Fungicide 38,688 18%

Boric acid Insecticide 15,190 7%

Methyl bromide Fumigant/Soil

fumigant

14,260 7%

Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 10,312 5%

All others Various 31,663 31%
13

Urban General

Outdoor

301,171

Glyphosate Herbicide 35,181 12%

Bifenthrin Insecticide 25,179 8%

Pentachloronitrobenzene

(PCNB)

Fungicide 19,363 6%

2,4-D Herbicide 17,761 6%

Mineral oil Insecticide 17,526 6%

All others Various 186,161 62%

Other 3,544,237

Copper naphthenate Wood

preservative

2,750,669 78%

Boric acid Insecticide 209,079 6%

Ammonium bromide Biocide 95,336 3%

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 87,231 2%

Copper(I) oxide Marineorganism

control

70,524 2%

All others Various 331,398 9% 1

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

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

SPECIFIC SITE ACTIVE INGREDIENT PESTICIDE

TYPE

LBS.

REPORTED

PERCENTAGE1

Field Crops 18,518,034

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 13,600,013 73%

Glyphosate Herbicide 1,183,432 10%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 851,929 5%

2,4-D Herbicide 480,557 3%

Potassium NmethyldithiocarbamateSoil fumigant 339,025 2%

All others Various 2,063,078 11%

Fruits/Nuts 4,220,852

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 1,550,034 37%

Mineral oil Insecticide 430,996 10%

Sulfur Fungicide 404,069 10%

Kaolin Various 331,468 8%

Calcium polysulfide Fungicide 208,742 5%

All others Various 1,295,543 31%

Livestock/Poultry 2,086

Piperonyl butoxide Insecticide 714 34%

Copper sulfate

pentahydrate

Various 545 26%

Tetrachlorvinphos Insecticide 311 15%

Cyromazine Insecticide 98 5%

Glyphosate Herbicide 69 3%

All others Various 349 17%
14

Nursery/Christmas

Trees

1,525,124

Methyl bromide Fumigant/

Soil fumigant

309,416 20%

Chloropicrin Fumigant/Soil

fumigant

249,363 16%

Glyphosate Herbicide 139,977 9%

Chlorothalonil Fungicide 87,477 6%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 51,900 3%

All others Various 686,991 45%

Oil Crops 132,752

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 82,175 62%

Propargite Insecticide 7,413 6%

Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 6,833 5%

Paraquat dichloride Herbicide 5,605 4%

Terbacil Herbicide 5,184 4%

All others Various 25,542 19%

Pasture/Forage/Hay 290,130

Glyphosate Herbicide 86,646 30%

2,4-D Herbicide 50,660 17%

Paraquat dichloride Herbicide 34,093 12%

Metribuzin Herbicide 22,321 8%

Diuron Herbicide 17,866 6%

All others Various 78,544 27%

Seed Crops 2,936,264

Glyphosate Herbicide 479,972 16%

2,4-D Herbicide 386,365 13%

Diuron Herbicide 294,082 10%

Pendimethalin Herbicide 234,531 8%

Ethofumesate Herbicide 209,573 7%

All others Various 1,331,741 45%

Vegetables 6,313,585

Metam-sodium Soil fumigant 3,249,179 51%

1,3-dichloropropene Soil fumigant 1,139,530 18%

Sulfuric acid Desiccant 997,055 16%

EPTC Herbicide 112,767 2%

Mancozeb Fungicide 82,352 1%

All others Various 732,702 12%

Other 331,504

Glyphosate Herbicide 173,298 52%

2,4-D Herbicide 19,037 6%

EPTC Herbicide 16,321 5%

MCPA Herbicide 9,901 3%

Chloropicrin Fumigant/Soil

fumigant

9,435 3%

All others Various 103,512 31% 1

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

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 30,973

Boric acid Insecticide 14,337 46%

Bifenthrin Insecticide 7,230 23%

Chlorfenapyr Insecticide 6,560 21%

Fipronil Insecticide 692 2%

Permethrin Insecticide 534 2%

All others Various 1,620 5%

Site with Public

Access

7,069

Methyl bromide Fumigant 2,125 30%

Propiconazole Fungicide 965 14%

3-Iodo-2-propynyl

butylcarbamate (IPBC)

Fungicide 952 13%

Boric acid Insecticide 627 9%

Bifenthrin Insecticide 532 8%

All others Various 1,868 26%

Site with Nonpublic Access123,306

Copper ammonium

carbonate

Wood

preservative

101,034 82%

Methyl bromide Fumigant/Soil

fumigant

12,084 10%

Chlorpropham Plant growth

regulator

3,350 3%

1,4-dimethylnaphthalene Plant growth

regulator

1,565 1%

Sodium ophenylphenateFungicide 1,337 1%

All others Various 3,936 3%

Other 49,798

Tebuconazole Fungicide 38,688 78%

Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 10,312 21%

Imidacloprid Insecticide 776 2%

Bifenthrin Insecticide 8 <1%

Chlorfenapyr Insecticide 4 <1%

All others Various 10 <1%
16

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

143,627

Bifenthrin Insecticide 23,604 16%

Mineral Oil Insecticide 13,979 10%

Aliphatic petroleum

hydrocarbons

Insecticide 12,203 8%

Glyphosate Herbicide 8,887 6%

Zinc sulfate

monohydrate

Moss control 8,523 6%

All others Various 76,431 53%

Site with Public

Access

134,728

Glyphosate Herbicide 23,552 17%

Pentachloronitrobenzene

(PCNB)

Fungicide 16,071 12%

Chlorothalonil Fungicide 12,899 10%

2,4-D Herbicide 10,035 7%

Diuron Herbicide 8,624 6%

All others Various 63,547 47%

Site with NonPublic Access21,070

Aluminum phosphide Fumigant 9,896 47%

Glyphosate Herbicide 2,287 11%

Diuron Herbicide 2,037 10%

2,4-D Herbicide 762 4%

Chlorothalonil Fungicide 671 3%

All others Various 5,417 26%

Other 1,746

Diuron Herbicide 702 40%

Glyphosate Herbicide 455 26%

2,4-D Herbicide 141 8%

Chlorothalonil Fungicide 108 6%

Dichlobenil Herbicide 70 4%

All others Various 270 15% 1

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
17

HOUSEHOLD USE

Overview

The Gilmore Research Group (Gilmore) continued the Household Pesticide Use Survey in 2007.

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 12,266 households in 2007. 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 14% 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 (see Appendix C).

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
18

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

158

163

161

263

153

155

158

165

152

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 1,693 households agreed to complete use diaries. However, only 1,483 participants

actually completed at least one month of reporting. Of those, 687 reported that they did not use

any pesticides during the quarter in which they participated. The other 796 participants provided

2,989 reports (Figure 5). Approximately 40% 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 is 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.
19

• 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.

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.

Moss control products accounted for 47% of the pounds of active ingredient, but only 2% 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 6%

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

for 8% of total insecticide poundage, while carbamates accounted for 10%. Of the herbicides,

phenoxies accounted for 49%. Removing sodium nitrate, sulfur and carbon (see Appendix D)

from the list of rodenticides to look at bait products, zinc phosphide accounted for 89%,

strychnine for 6%, brodifacoum 4%, and warfarin 1%.

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

• ferrous sulfate monohydrate (40%) [moss control],

• glyphosate (18%) [weed control],

• 2,4-D (16%) [weed control],

• zinc sulfate monohydrate (6%) [moss control], and

• MCPA (3%) [weed control].

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

• glyphosate (7%) [weed control],

• piperonyl butoxide (6%) [insect control],

• 2,4-D (6%) [weed control],

• fipronil (6%) [insect control], and

• permethrin (5%) [insect control].

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

greatest amount. In total, 101 active ingredients were identified as being used.
20

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

ACTIVE INGREDIENT LBS. REPORTED PERCENTAGE1

INSECTICIDES 9.11 Total

Fipronil 3.15 35%

S-methoprene 2.81 31%

Carbaryl 0.76 8%

Malathion 0.37 4%

Boric acid 0.32 4%

All others 1.70 19%

HERBICIDES 62.52 Total

Glyphosate 27.54 44%

2,4-D 23.40 37%

Mecoprop 2.15 3%

Dicamba 1.51 2%

Nonanoic acid 0.86 1%

All others 7.06 11%

MOSS CONTROL 71.00 Total

Ferrous sulfate monohydrate 60.30 85%

Zinc sulfate monohydrate 8.66 12%

Zinc chloride 1.45 2%

Potassium salts of fatty acids 0.36 1%

Ammonium salts of fatty acids 0.23 <1%

RODENTICIDES 1.91 Total

Sodium nitrate 0.98 51%

Sulfur 0.74 39%

Carbon 0.18 9%

Zinc phosphide 0.01 1%

All others <0.01 <1%

INSECT REPELLENTS 0.41 Total

DEET 0.37 90%

.beta.-Alanine, n-acetyl-Nbutyl-, ethyl ester0.03 7%

Picaridin 0.01 2%

FUNGICIDES 2.17 Total

Calcium polysulfide 1.26 58%

Captan 0.34 16%

Chlorothalonil 0.23 11%

Tebuconazole 0.16 7%

Thiophanate-methyl 0.16 7%

All others 0.02 1%

SLUG/SNAIL CONTROL 3.05 Total

Metaldehyde 2.99 98%

Iron phosphate 0.06 2% 1

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
21

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 1

11.1%

Region 2

6.4%

Region 3

4.9%

Region 4

16.5%

Region 5

11.1%

Region 6

13.7%

Region 7

13.4%

Region 8

12.0%

Region 9

10.9%

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

Active Ingredients

While approximately 60% 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.)

Pets

7.5%

Both

7.7%

No Information

6.8%

Indoor

18.0%

Other

5.2%

Outdoor

54.7%

Figure 7 – Reported Sites for All Data (from all 2,989 total reports received)

Mosquitoes

4.4%

Spiders

2.6%

All Types

 of "Bugs"

63%

Insects

32.7%

Fleas

23.1%

Weeds

18.9%

Snail/Slug

7.3%

Rodents

2.8%

Moss

2.3%

No Information

2.9%

Plant Disease

2.0%

Other

0.9%

Figure 8 – Reported Purposes for All Data
22

Outdoor

56.2%

Other

10.8%

Indoor

19.1%

Both (Indoor/ 

Outdoor) Pets 6.2% 7.7%

Figure 9 – Reported Sites for Data with Active Ingredient Information

Mosquitoes

5.5%

Spiders

1.3%

All Types of 

"Bugs"

67%

Weeds

20.5%

Insects

37.3%

Fleas

22.5% Snail/Slug

5.9%

Rodents

2.7%

Moss

1.7%

Plant Disease

2.1%

Other

0.5%

Figure 10 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information

Moss

4.5%

Plant Disease

0.6%

Rodents

3.4%

Snail/Slug

11.4%

Weeds

14.8%

Spiders

0.6%

Fleas

35.8%

Insects

29.0%

All Types 

of "Bugs"

63%

Figure 11 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 1
23

All Types of 

"Bugs"

56%

Insects

42.1%

Fleas

11.3%

Weeds

30.1%

Snail/Slug

7.0%

Rodents

1.8%

Moss

1.6% Plant Disease

3.6%

Spiders

0.5%

Mosquitoes

2.0%

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

Fleas

16.4%

Mosquitoes

13.1%

Spiders

1.9%

All Types of 

"Bugs"

74%

Insects

42.8%

Weeds

16.4%

Plant Disease

1.9%

Snail/Slug

4.0%

Moss

0.7%

Other

1.2%

Rodents

1.9%

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

Moss

1.4%

Other

0.7%

Rodents

7.0%

Snail/Slug

1.4%

Weeds

10.6%

Spiders

3.5%

Fleas

59.2%

Insects

16.2%

All Types of 

"Bugs"

79%

Figure 14 – Reported Purposes for Data with Active Ingredient Information – Quarter 4
24

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.

Rodenticide

0.7%

Slug/Snail Control

1.2% Fungicide

1.0%

Moss Control

27.9%

Insecticide

3.7%

Insect Repellent

0.2%

Herbicide

65.3%

Figure 15 - Active Ingredients by Type – Entire State

Insect Repellent

5.4%

Herbicide

76.1%

Fungicide

9.5%

Insecticide

9.0%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 16 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 1

Herbicide

90.7%

Rodenticide

Insecticide 4.0%

4.4% Fungicide

0.9%

Note: Insect Repellent was <0.1%

Figure 17 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 2
25

Insecticide

3.3%

Insect Repellent

0.1%

Rodenticide

17.1%

Fungicide

0.5%

Herbicide

78.9%

Figure 18 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 3

Herbicide

71.6%

Insect Repellent

0.5%

Insecticide

25.6%

Fungicide

0.9%

Slug/Snail Control

1.4%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 19 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 4

Herbicide

99.4%

Slug/Snail Control

0.2%

Insecticide

0.5%

Note: Rodenticide and Fungicide were <0.1%

Figure 20 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 5
26

Slug/Snail Control

0.6%

Fungicide

6.5%

Herbicide

23.2%

Insecticide

4.1% Moss Control

65.5%

Note: Insect Repellent was <0.1%

Figure 21 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 6

Moss Control

89.9%

Slug/Snail Control

0.3%

Rodenticide

0.6% Insecticide

0.6%

Herbicide

8.5%

Note: Fungicide and Insect Repellent were <0.1%

Figure 22 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 7

Slug/Snail Control

11.9% Fungicide

0.5%

Herbicide

31.1%

Insect Repellent

0.3%

Insecticide

27.2%

Moss Control

29.0%

Note: Rodenticide was <0.1%

Figure 23 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 8
27

Moss Control

62.2%

Insecticide

1.8%

Herbicide

24.5%

Slug/Snail Control

11.4%

Note: Rodenticide and Fungicide were <0.1%

Figure 24 – Active Ingredients by Type – Region 9
28

APPENDIX

Appendix A – Top 100 Active Ingredients and Pounds Reported

# ACTIVE INGREDIENT LBS. REPORTED

1 Metam-sodium 17,090,499

2 Glyphosate 3,543,403

3 Copper naphthenate 2,751,392

4 1,3-Dichloropropene 2,163,713

5 Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons 1,631,520

6 2,4-D 1,270,276

7 Sulfuric acid 997,055

8 Diuron 605,197

9 Chloropicrin 488,968

10 Sulfur 481,892

11 Mineral oil 464,962

12 Xylene range aromatic solvent 455,339

13 Methyl bromide 434,489

14 Pendimethalin 431,350

15 MCPA 369,477

16 Chlorothalonil 353,538

17 Potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate 339,096

18 Kaolin 332,746

19 Atrazine 298,905

20 Mancozeb 296,126

21 Ethofumesate 263,300

22 Copper hydroxide 242,814

23 Boric acid 238,641

24 Chlorpyrifos 232,507

25 EPTC 228,872

26 Calcium polysulfide 219,733

27 Triclopyr 215,825

28 Dicamba 172,612

29 Copper ammonium carbonate 149,625

30 Paraquat dichloride 142,134

31 Metribuzin 138,944

32 Flufenacet 129,500

33 Hexazinone 115,364

34 Ammonium bromide 95,336

35 Malathion 92,095

36 Bromoxynil 88,550

37 Oxamyl 82,044

38 Copper(I) oxide 81,885

39 Propiconazole 76,611

40 Oxyfluorfen 73,384
29

41 Simazine 69,254

42 Dimethenamid 67,162

43 Carfentrazone-ethyl 66,999

44 Tralkoxydim 61,308

45 Oryzalin 61,219

46 Metolachlor 59,882

47 Acrolein 56,321

48 Isoxaben 52,868

49 Ethoprop 50,434

50 Metaldehyde 49,179

51 Tebuconazole 46,084

52 Zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate 45,790

53 Trifluralin 44,208

54 Imazapyr 43,336

55 Acephate 42,953

56 Methomyl 42,228

57 Sodium bentazon 42,055

58 Diazinon 41,948

59 PCNB 40,260

60 Bifenthrin 39,662

61 Mono- and di- potassium salts of phosphorous acid 39,302

62 Thiophanate-methyl 38,273

63 Copper sulfate pentahydrate 38,152

64 Azoxystrobin 37,330

65 Carbaryl 37,005

66 Aldicarb 35,635

67 Pentachlorophenol 33,936

68 Prohexadione calcium 33,100

69

Didecyl dimethyl ammonium carbonate and didecyl dimethyl ammonium

bicarbonate 32,939

70 Phosmet 30,783

71 Napropamide 30,768

72 Dimethoate 29,057

73 Propargite 27,784

74 Clopyralid 27,023

75 Captan 26,259

76 Glufosinate-ammonium 25,487

77 Iprodione 24,863

78 Endosulfan 24,452

79 Copper ethanolamine complex 23,530

80 Carbonic acid, monopotassium salt 22,590

81 Clethodim 22,457

82 Nonanoic acid 22,305

83 Terbufos 22,167

84 Chlorpropham 21,923

85 Sulfometuron methyl 21,265
30

86 Dazomet 21,133

87 Basic copper sulfate 19,147

88 Trinexapac-ethyl 17,563

89 Maleic hydrazide, potassium salt 16,419

90 Imidacloprid 16,114

91 Pyraclostrobin 15,846

92 Boscalid 15,804

93 Aluminum phosphide 15,491

94 ADBAC 15,101

95 IPBC 14,490

96 Terbacil 14,241

97 Oxadiazon 13,412

98 Dichlobenil 13,174

99 Propyzamide 12,983

100 Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 12,336
31

Appendix B – Screen Shots from Online System

Registration System

Reporting System
32
33
34

Appendix C- Diary Packet for Household Pesticide Use Survey
35
36
37
38
39
40

Appendix D - Additional Information on Rodenticides

Sodium nitrate, sulfur and carbon are active ingredients in a product that is dropped into rodent

holes and creates gases that are intended to kill rodents, including gophers, moles, and rats.

This product has a very different mode of action from other rodenticides. It also contains high

percentages of these active ingredients while many bait rodenticides are less than one percent

active ingredient.