United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

iii

Contents

Page No.

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

Executive Summary .............................................. ix

Section I.

Background and Organization ....................................... 1

Section II.

Sampling Protocol ................................................... 5

Section III.

Laboratory Operations ................................................ 9

Section IV.

Sample Results and Discussion ......................................... 11

Appendices ................................................... 17

Appendix A Sample Origin by Grower, Packer, or Distributor

Appendix B Distribution of Residues Detected by Pesticide

Appendix C Concentration Percentiles vs. Tolerance in Commodity/Pesticide Pairs

Appendix D Cumulative Distributions of Residue Concentrations for Selected

Commodity/Pesticide Pairs

Appendix E Frequency of Occurrences at Various Concentration Ranges for

Selected Pesticide/Commodity Pairs

Appendix F Multiple Pesticide Residues Detected

Appendix G Tolerance Violations Reported
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

v

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Page No.

Figure 1 Overview of PDP Management and Operations .................... 2

Figure 2 Participating States and Their Geographical Distribution Areas ......... 3

Figure 3 Pesticides in PDP ........................................... 4

Figure 4 Commodity Distribution Percentages--Imported vs. Domestic .......... 8

Tables

Table 1 Samples Collected Per Commodity by Each Participating State ......... 7

Table 2A Number of Samples and Residues Detected, by Commodity

 (Includes Post-Harvest Applications) ......................... 12

Table 2B Number of Samples and Residues Detected, by Commodity

 (Excludes Post-Harvest Applications) ........................ 13
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

vii

Preface

In 1991, the United States Department of It must also be pointed out that, as PDP was going

Agriculture (USDA) was charged with implemen- through its first year of operations, the National

ting a program to collect data on pesticide residues Academy of Sciences was concluding its report on

in food. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. 

was appointed to undertake the creation and The report, released in June 1993, identifies the

implementation of such a program, currently known limitations of existing pesticide residue databases. 

as the Pesticide Data Program (PDP). PDP has been To underline this point, the Academy examined the

in operation since May 1991, and has published its availability of data for foods highly consumed by

findings for calendar years 1991 and 1992. This is nursing and non-nursing infants and concluded that,

the summary for calendar year 1993. for most of these food items, there were no

 PDP was created to collect data on selected from actual sampling. Six of the foods listed in the

pesticides in fresh fruits and vegetables to report were among PDP commodities in 1993. 

strengthen the Government's ability to respond to (More recent surveys place seven of the PDP

food safety concerns, to protect public health, and to commodities among those highly consumed by

provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) children.) Also, PDP sampling and analysis

with data needed to assess the actual dietary risk protocols conform to the recommendations made by

posed by pesticides. EPA registers specific uses for the Academy in these two areas. 

pesticides based on the assumption that all

pesticides are used at the maximum allowable PDP acknowledges the contributions of all

amounts for the maximum number of applications. sampling and technical staff in the participating

This theoretical risk may significantly exceed the States, on whose expertise it relies on a daily basis. 

actual risk of pesticide residues in the food supply The program also thanks Phillip Kott of USDA's

and jeopardize the registration of pesticides National Agricultural Statistics Service, Richard

important to American agriculture. The Food and Schmitt and Edward Zager of EPA, and John Jones

Drug Administration (FDA) protects consumers of FDA, for their cooperation and support. 

from pesticide residues by performing tests on

commodities suspected of containing violative The data presented in this summary were collected

residues. PDP data significantly upgrade the and processed through the efforts of the following:

statistical reliability and extent of information

available on the use of pesticides and the presence of Agricultural Marketing Service

pesticide residues in the food supply. Science Division

The program began in May 1991 by testing 16 Agricultural Marketing Service, Science Division

pesticides and 3 commodities in fresh fruits and 14th and Independence Avenue, S.W.

vegetables. By 1993, PDP had expanded to Room 3507, South Building

encompass 42 additional pesticides and 12 Post Office Box 96456

commodities. This summary does not include data Washington, DC 20090-6456

on processed commodities, as sample collection and

analysis did not begin until April 1994. However, Director: William J. Franks, Jr.

research on collection sites and methodologies for Phone: (202) 720-5231 Fax: (202) 720-6496

analysis of these processed commodities started in Deputy Director: Robert L. Epstein

late 1993. Findings for processed commodities will Phone: (202) 720-2158 

be published in the next summary. 

 

comprehensive data on pesticide residues derived

United States Department of Agriculture
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

viii

Residue Branch Florida Department of Agriculture and

United States Department of Agriculture Consumer Services

Agricultural Marketing Service Division of Fruit and Vegetables

Science Division, Residue Branch 500 3rd Street, Northwest

8700 Centreville Road, Suite 200 Winter Haven, FL 33880

Manassas, VA 22110

Chief: Martha Lamont Laboratory Division

Phone: (703) 330-2300 Fax: (703) 330-6110 1615 South Harrison Road

Staff: Carole Babb East Lansing, MI 48823-5224

 Kathryn Boyle

 Melissa Edwards New York Department of Agriculture and Markets

 Roger Fry Division of Food Safety and Inspection

 Jeffery Haynes Food Laboratory

 Altaf Rahman State Campus, Building 7

 Lisa Raiford Albany, NY 12235

 Robert Smith

 Tiffanie Smith Texas Department of Agriculture

 Paula Todd 200 East Horton Street

Participating State Agencies Washington Department of Agriculture

California Department of Food and Agriculture 2017 South First Street

California Department of Pesticide Regulations Yakima, WA 98903

Colorado Department of Agriculture

Florida Department of Agriculture and

 Consumer Services USDA Laboratories

Michigan Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture

New York Department of Agriculture and Markets Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

North Carolina Department of Agriculture National Residue Monitoring and Analysis 

Ohio Department of Agriculture Laboratory

Texas Department of Agriculture 3505 25th Avenue, Building 9

Washington Department of Agriculture Gulfport, MS 39501

Participating State Laboratories Agricultural Marketing Service

California Department of Food and Agriculture Science Division, Eastern Laboratory

Division of Inspection Services 645 Cox Road

Chemistry Laboratory Gastonia, NC 28054

3292 Meadowview Road

Sacramento, CA 95832

Florida Department of Agriculture and

 Consumer Services

Chemical Residue Laboratory, #3

3125 Conner Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Michigan Department of Agriculture

Brenham, TX 77834

United States Department of Agriculture
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

ix

Executive Summary

The Pesticide Data Program (PDP) was PDP was designed to detect, verify, and report

implemented by the United States Department of low-level concentrations of pesticides in order to

Agriculture (USDA) in May 1991, to collect data on determine the actual residue levels to which

pesticide residues in foods. The data are used by the consumers are exposed. Without actual residue

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their data, risk assessment studies for pesticides are based

risk assessment process, and for the reregistration on the theoretical maximum amounts of pesticide

and special review of pesticides. PDP has issued use. Such studies may overstate the exposure to

summaries of data for calendar years 1991 and consumers and may jeopardize EPA's registration of

1992. This summary contains PDP findings for pesticides important to American agriculture. 

calendar year 1993. Consequently, PDP data are collected as close to the

During 1993, pesticides monitored by PDP consumer practices, only the edible portion of the

included insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and sample is analyzed. PDP samples are collected

growth regulators in fresh fruits and vegetables. without regard for commodity origin or variety, and

Pesticides and commodities were chosen for generally reflect what is available to the consumer

inclusion in the program based on EPA's data needs throughout the year. 

and USDA's food consumption surveys. 

An automated information management system

Planning and policy for PDP are coordinated by an has been designed by the Residue Branch to meet

Executive Steering Committee consisting of the the data storage needs of PDP. This system allows

following USDA agencies: (1) Agricultural for electronic transmission of data from the

Marketing Service (AMS), (2) National Agricultural laboratories to the database maintained by the

Statistics Service (NASS), (3) Economic Research Branch. 

Service (ERS), and (4) Agricultural Research

Service (ARS), as well as EPA and the Food and Enhancements to PDP's sampling protocol were

Drug Administration (FDA). PDP's financial and developed by NASS and introduced in January

administrative issues are handled by the Science 1993. The enhanced protocol takes into account the

Division of AMS, and the Residue Branch oversees different volumes of produce that are distributed

day-to-day sampling and technical procedures. annually by each sampling site, and removes a

Program operations are managed through PDP commodities. 

cooperative agreements with nine State agencies,

which are responsible for sample collection and A total of 7,328 samples of 12 commodities

analysis. Six of the participating States (California, (apples, bananas, broccoli, carrots, celery,

Florida, Michigan, New York, Texas, and grapefruit, grapes, green beans, lettuce, oranges,

Washington) collected and analyzed samples during peaches, and potatoes) were analyzed. Of these

1993. The other three States (Colorado, North samples, 1,237 (16.9 percent) were imports, most of

Carolina, and Ohio) collected samples, but shipped which were limited to bananas, grapes, peaches, and

them to one or more of the other participating green beans. Samples collected originated in 38

laboratories for analysis. Together, these 9 States States and 15 foreign countries. 

represent approximately 50 percent of the Nation's

population.

point of consumption as possible; and, to emulate

potential source of bias for estimates of residues in
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

x

The number of pesticides routinely monitored PDP data also indicate that post-harvest

increased during 1993. This increase led to a higher application of fungicides and growth regulators

number of detections and, in some cases, residues of contributes significantly to the number of residues

several pesticides were found in individual samples. detected in bananas, grapefruit, oranges, and

However, most of these detections continue to be at potatoes, and, to a lesser extent, in apples. Postvery low levels--substantially below tolerances. For harvest applications accounted for 3,441 detections

example, 94 percent of all residues detected were (33 percent) of the total 10,329 residues detected. 

below 1 part per million (ppm), 60 percent were The pesticide most frequently found (1,689

below 0.1 ppm, and about 10 percent were below detections) was the fungicide thiabendazole,

0.01 ppm. representing about 16 percent of all detected

Of the 7,328 samples analyzed, 110 samples (1.5

percent) were found to contain 114 violative PDP continuously strives to improve

residues (4 samples had 2 violative residues). methodologies for the collection, testing, and

Violations were reported in 30 samples (2.4 percent) reporting of data. PDP data are available to EPA

of imported commodities, and in 80 samples (1.3 and other Federal and State agencies charged with

percent) of domestic commodities. Of the 114 regulating and setting policies on the use of

violations reported, 100 (88 percent) were for pesticides. The data are also available to

residues where no tolerance was established for that nongovernment organizations upon request. 

particular commodity/pesticide pair.

residues. 
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

1

Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

 Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

This summary presents PDP data for calendar year 1993, and consists of the following four

sections: (I.) Background and Organization, (II.) Sampling Protocol, (III.) Laboratory Operations,

and (IV.) Sample Results and Discussion.

I. Background and Organization

Instead of creating a new departmental

organization to implement the Pesticide Data

Program (PDP), the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) charged four of its agencies

with identifying their respective expertise and needs,

then melded them into a comprehensive program. 

The four USDA agencies are the Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS), the National Agricultural

Statistics Service (NASS), the Economic Research

Service (ERS), and the Agricultural Research

Service (ARS). AMS was selected as the lead

agency to coordinate and implement the various

facets of the residue program, and manage all

program operations. NASS provides statistically

reliable data on chemical usage at the State level,

and collects economic input data that link chemical

usage with economic characteristics. ERS analyzes

AMS and NASS data to understand producer

behavior and to determine the impact that various

production practices and policies might have on the

Nation's agricultural production, the food supply,

and consumers. ARS conducts nationwide surveys

of individual food intake and household use, and is

developing a Food Grouping System to translate

data on foods as consumed into forms that can be

linked with pesticide residue data.

As the lead agency for implementing PDP, AMS 

selected its Science Division to oversee policy

planning and program development. The Residue

Branch of the Science Division is responsible for

coordinating and managing day-to-day program

activities with the participating State and Federal

facilities. Figure 1 provides an organizational

flowchart of PDP management and operations,

including a breakdown of the three major program

components--sample collection, laboratory analysis,

and database management.

As illustrated in Figure 1, PDP sampling and

analytical operations are performed by nine States

(California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, New

York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and

Washington) through agreements with their

respective State agencies. Thus, a significant

amount of PDP's financial resources (75 percent)

goes directly to the States to cover their operating

expenses. An additional 10 percent of PDP funding

is given to USDA facilities to support State testing

activities. These laboratories provide support

services to the States by performing certain selective

residue analyses that the States agreed were best

conducted by Federal laboratories. 

Four States in the program have a net outflow of

produce to other States. These are: (1) California -

which ships produce to Hawaii and Nevada; (2)

Colorado - to Wyoming and New Mexico; (3) New

York - to the New England States and New Jersey;

and (4) Washington - to Alaska. This is partly due

to the proximity of warehouses and terminal markets

to retail distribution centers. For the other five

States (Florida, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina,

and Texas) the volume of produce coming in and
 Statistically defensible sampling plan

 Data used to make national inferences

 Collected near consumer level

 Represent about 50% of U.S. population

 Commodities consumed most by infants 

 and children

 Origin of product retained 

 Post-harvest fungicides & minor use 

 registration

 Standard Operating Procedures

Laboratory Analysis

Management and Operations

 Provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with 

 high-quality data on pesticide residues in food. The data

 are used for dietary risk assessment to address pesticide 

 reregistration and special reviews

 Address the recommendations of the National Academy

 of Sciences report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants 

 and Children 

 

Sample Collection

 Samples prepared as if for consumption

 State-of-the-art instrumentation used

 Detection at very low levels 

 QA based on EPA Good Laboratory

 Practices 

 Confirmation of detected pesticides

 Multiple residue detection methodology

 Standard Operating Procedures

Database Management

Main Objectives

Executive Steering Committee

 USDA EPA

- AMS FDA

- NASS

- ERS

- ARS

Participating States USDA Laboratories

 Customized query capability

 Electronic transmission of data

 Standardized data summaries

 Science Division / Residue Branch

 California

 Colorado

 Florida

 Michigan

 New York

 North Carolina

 Ohio

 Texas

 Washington

 AMS Eastern Laboratory, Gastonia, NC

 National Residue Monitoring & Analysis Laboratory,

Gulfport, MS

Figure 1. Overview of PDP Management and Operations

Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

2
Hawaii

Figure 2. Participating States and Their Geographical Distribution Areas

Wyoming

Colorado

New 

Mexico

Ohio

North 

Carolina

Washington

California

Texas

Alaska

Michigan

Massachusetts

Vermont

Connecticut

New Jersey

Florida

New York

Nevada

States Where Produce is Directly

Participating States

Marketed from Participating States

Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

3

going out of the State is about the same. For AMS works closely with EPA on a regular basis

example, Florida produce shipped to Georgia is to develop the list of pesticides and commodities

offset by produce entering the Florida panhandle targeted for data collection by PDP. Commodities

from the Mobile, Alabama, area. chosen for inclusion in the program are among those

Figure 2 shows the States participating in the Twelve commodities (apples, bananas, broccoli,

program, which together represent about 50 percent carrots, celery, grapes, grapefruit, green beans,

of the Nation's population. Also shown are the nine lettuce, oranges, peaches, and potatoes) were

other States (Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, sampled and analyzed throughout 1993. The

Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, pesticides requested by EPA consist mainly of those

Vermont, and Wyoming) where, as indicated above, whose toxicity is under evaluation by the agency

a significant amount of produce is directly marketed (pesticides with acute and chronic endpoints,

from the participating States. Although these including suspected carcinogens) and are revised

additional States are not active program periodically to address current EPA data needs. 

participants, PDP data will apply to a large portion Figure 3 provides a list of all the pesticides included

of their population as well. in PDP during 1993.

most prevalently consumed by the American public. 
50.0% EPA Pesticides by MRMs

44.8% Other Pesticides 5.2% EPA Pesticides by SRMs

Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

4

 Figure 3. Pesticides in PDP

Detected by Multiresidue Methods (MRMs)

 EPA Targeted Pesticides - 29 Other Pesticides Found - (26)

Acephate Hexachlorobenzene* Anilazine Methiocarb

Aldicarb Iprodione Benfluralin Myclobutanil

Atrazine* Lindane Captan O-Phenylphenol

Azinphos-Methyl Malathion Carbaryl Ovex

Bromoxynil* Methamidophos Carbofuran + 3 OH Carbofuran Parathion

Chlorothalonil Methidathion Chlorpropham Phorate Sulfone

Chlorpyrifos Methomyl + Thiodicarb** DCPA Phosmet

Diazinon Methoxychlor DDE + DDT + TDE Propargite***

Dichlorvos* Mevinphos Demeton-S Thiabendazole

Dicloran Oxamyl Dimethoate and Toxaphene

Dicofol Parathion-Methyl Omethoate Trifluralin

Disulfoton Pentachlorobenzene Diphenylamine Vinclozolin

Endosulfans Permethrins Imazalil

Ethion Quintozene (PCNB) Linuron

Fenamiphos*

Detected by Selective Residue Methods (SRMs)

EPA Targeted Pesticides - 3

2,4-D, Benomyl, and Formetanate

* Residues of these pesticides were not detected in 1993.

** As the Methomyl Metabolite.

*** Propargite became a required pesticide in October 1993.
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

5

An extensive information management system However, since PDP data would ultimately be used

was developed to compile and store PDP data, for making national inferences for dietary risk

which has been enhanced over time to allow for assessment, AMS, with the assistance of NASS,

customized query capability and standardized data developed an enhanced protocol that was

summaries. The PDP database also allows for implemented in January 1993. The revised,

electronic transmission of data from the individual statistically defensible protocol allows for making

laboratory facilities to the Residue Branch. nearly unbiased estimates of residues for

 commodities collected in the participating States. It

PDP is different from other Federal and State also makes it possible to quantify the accuracy of

regulatory monitoring programs in that participation these estimates for both the participating States and

in the program is completely voluntary. No the Nation as a whole. 

comparisons should be made between PDP and

these enforcement programs because of the Increasing the number of participating States for

differences in mission and operational structure. sample collection, from 6 to 9, raised the proportion

Enforcement programs are designed primarily to of the Nation's population represented by PDP data

target tolerance violations; therefore, their sampling to approximately 50 percent. This percentage may

protocols are not required to be statistically be even higher when the amount of produce

defensible. Also, as specified by Federal distributed from the nine participating States

regulations, samples are analyzed as the unwashed, directly to other States is taken into account. (See

whole, raw commodity--that is, with the peel or skin Figure 2, Participating States and Their

intact; and only tolerance violations are confirmed Geographical Distribution Areas.)

by testing laboratories. PDP is designed to produce 

virtually unbiased, objective data that can be used Other amendments to the protocol for 1993

for risk assessment; therefore, the sampling protocol included: (1) increasing the number of samples

is required to be statistically defensible. PDP collected per commodity each month from 52 to 60;

samples are prepared as if for human consumption, (2) providing the States with Standard Operating

and all residues are verified--regardless of the level Procedures (SOPs) for developing and maintaining

of detection. sampling documentation and performing sample

Another major distinction between the two types SOP-related requirements; and (4) performing onof programs is the quick turnaround time required site reviews of each State's sampling program to

for analysis of enforcement samples. Many confirm compliance with the SOPs, and make 

programs require that the sampled commodity be recommendations for improvements.

detained at the distribution facility while awaiting

the results of the analysis. PDP places emphasis on ê Statistical Sampling Procedures

searching for residues at the lowest detectable levels,

rather than on quick sample turnaround. Analysis of The participating States were assigned a number

PDP samples may take approximately 1 to 2 of samples to collect per commodity each month

months, and does not affect commodity distribution. based on the population of the State. The sample

II. Sampling Protocol

The PDP sampling protocol, in place from the

beginning of the program through December 31,

1992, was objective and random in nature, and

allowed users of the data to make reasonably good

estimates of pesticide residues in the food supply. 

collection; (3) training for Sampling Managers on

numbers remained the same for all of 1993, and

were as follows: California-14, Colorado-2,

Florida-7, Michigan-6, New York-9, North

Carolina-4, Ohio-6, Texas-8, and Washington-4--

for an annual total of 720 samples per commodity. 

Sample size was 5 pounds for each applicable

testing facility, and the following 12 commodities

were included in the program: apples-AP, bananasBN, broccoli-BR, carrots-CR, celery-CE, grapefruitGF, grapes-GR, green beans-GB, lettuce-LT,

oranges-OG, peaches-PC, and potatoes-PO. 
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

6

Each State is responsible for compiling and States were allowed to collect two different

updating a list of sampling sites. The number of commodities at the same site on the same date. 

locations on a State's sampling site list varies However, a site could not be sampled twice within 1

greatly, from 29 in Washington to 358 in California. month for a single commodity. States were asked to

The majority of PDP sampling sites are either collect all samples of the same commodity on one

terminal markets or large chain store distribution date, or within two consecutive dates. Collectors

centers because they are the last stopover before were also asked to ship the samples as soon as

produce reaches retailers, and, ultimately, possible after collection, to ensure they would arrive

consumers. PDP data are collected as close to the at the appropriate testing facility(ies) within 24

consumer as possible, because this provides a better hours. Sample dates continued to be selected at

picture of actual exposure to pesticide residues by random. 

taking into account pesticide degradation that occurs

during transit and storage. Also, sampling at these Participating States were provided with Sample

locations provides information on post-harvest Information Forms, on which to collect the sample

applications of fungicides and growth regulators. data. Four items of information on the form are

The selection of sampling dates and sites was for each sample. These items are: (1) the 2-letter

performed by the States quarterly, and sampling State postal code where the sample was collected;

plans were provided to the Residue Branch. State (2) the date of collection; (3) the site number; and

Sampling Managers were given the option of (4) the 2-letter commodity code. A 3-digit

obtaining assistance and advice from USDA's numerical code is used for the site numbers--which

NASS on developing their sampling plans, are assigned by the States. The 2-letter commodity

particularly with regard to implementing a more codes are determined by the Residue Branch, and are

statistically defensible and accurate method of site used by all States. Other pertinent information

selection. This method required that each site be included on the form is: (1) whether the sample is

given a "size" factor based on the amount of produce domestic or imported; (2) if imported, country of

distributed annually. For instance, a sampling site origin; (3) name of sampling site, grower, and/or

that distributes 100,000 pounds of produce might be packer; and (4) a list of potential or known postgiven a size of "10," and a site that distributes harvest applications.

10,000 pounds of produce might be given a "1." 

This would result in the larger site (distributing ê Synopsis on Sample Collection 

100,000 pounds) being 10 times more likely to be

selected in a given month than the smaller site A total of 7,328 samples of fresh produce was

(distributing 10,000 pounds). The volume of collected during 1993. As shown in Table 1, the

produce distributed by the sampling sites varies number of samples collected per State was: 

depending on their size and geographic location. California - 1,697, Colorado - 246, Florida - 847,

This is true within a State, as well as among the nine Michigan - 743, New York - 1,090 , North Carolina

participating States. - 501, Ohio - 742, Texas - 1,003, and Washington -

combined to generate a unique identification number

459. 
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

7

Table 1. Samples Collected Per Commodity by Each Participating State

 Commodity

State AP BN BR CE CR GB GF GR LT OG PC PO Total

California 149 138 149 152 149 140 146 139 147 144 95 149 1697

Colorado 22 22 22 22 22 18 21 21 22 21 11 22 246

Florida 77 68 74 68 74 69 75 76 77 73 39 77 847

Michigan 66 61 64 64 62 59 64 64 65 65 44 65 743

New York 99 95 96 92 97 81 95 97 97 97 46 98 1090

North Carolina 44 44 44 43 44 41 44 44 44 43 22 44 501

Ohio 66 66 66 65 64 56 66 65 66 64 33 65 742

Texas 88 86 82 87 87 81 84 87 87 88 62 84 1003

Washington 43 40 43 44 43 21 42 38 42 43 17 43 459

Total 654 620 640 637 642 566 637 631 647 638 369 647 7328

Commodities

AP - Apples GF - Grapefruit

BN - Bananas GR - Grapes

BR - Broccoli LT - Lettuce

CE - Celery OG - Oranges

CR - Carrots PC - Peaches

GB - Green Beans PO - Potatoes

 These figures are less than the total number of during 1993 originated from the 9 participating

assigned samples for 1993 due to the unavailability States, 29 other States, and 15 foreign countries.

of product at either the original or alternate The figures listed in the last two columns of

sampling site. This was often caused by the unique Appendix A are the total number of samples per

growing season of each commodity. For example, State/country, and the percentage this number

51 percent of the 720 peach samples were represents of all samples collected. The total

unavailable at the time of collection, particularly number of samples per commodity, and percentage

during the winter months. of all 1993 samples, is listed in the last row of each

Figure 4 shows the total number of samples per

commodity, and the percentage of each that were Because PDP samples represent market

either domestic or imported. availability of produce to the consumer throughout

Appendix A is divided into three parts (sample require sampling a specific number of imports, the

origin as domestic, imported, and unknown) and total samples collected for the year may not always

lists the number of samples originating (grown, correlate to the percentage of actual imports for a

packed, or distributed) from each State or country particular commodity.

per commodity. As indicated, samples collected

part. 

the year, and the PDP sampling protocol does not
Bananas

(620 Samples)

Apples

(654 Samples)

Celery

(637 Samples)

Grapefruit

(637 Samples)

Carrots

(642 Samples)

Peaches

(369 Samples)

Grapes

(631 Samples)

Green Beans

(566 Samples)

Lettuce

(647 Samples)

Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

8

Figure 4. Commodity Distribution Percentages - Imported vs. Domestic
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

9

III. Laboratory Operations

During 1993, nine laboratories (seven State

and two Federal) were performing analyses for

PDP. These laboratories are equipped with stateof-the-art instrumentation capable of detecting

residues at very low levels. The laboratory staff

receives intensive training and must demonstrate

analytical proficiency on an ongoing basis. Senior

scientists continuously test new technologies and

develop new techniques to improve the levels of

detection. Changes in methodology are validated

and documented in accordance with PDP Standard

Operating Procedures before being implemented.

PDP required participating laboratories to

monitor 32 compounds (plus metabolites where

applicable) for which EPA needs data. Of these,

29 are detectable by multiresidue methods

(MRMs) and 3 can be detected only by selective

residue methods (SRMs). Since SRMs are

resource intensive, this type of analysis was

performed only at selected laboratories and in

specific commodities as indicated below: 

 Laboratories Performing SRMs

1. NRMAL, Gulfport, MS

 Pesticide: Benomyl

 Commodities: Apples, Bananas,

 Broccoli, Green Beans, and Peaches

2. AMS Eastern Laboratory, Gastonia, NC

 Pesticide: Formetanate

 Commodities: Apples, Oranges, and

 Peaches

 3. NRMAL, Gulfport, MS and other Selected

State Laboratories

 Pesticide: 2,4-D

 Commodities: Apples, Grapefruit, Grapes,

 Oranges, Peaches, and Potatoes

In addition to the EPA-targeted pesticides,

laboratories routinely tested for approximately 26

other compounds that are detectable by MRMs. 

For a complete list of pesticides, see Figure 3 in

Section I.

ê Quality Assurance Program

The main objectives of the quality

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program are to

ensure the reliability of PDP data, and the

performance equivalency of the participating

laboratories. 

To accomplish these objectives, PDP

established SOPs based on EPA's Good

Laboratory Practices. PDP SOPs outline program

requirements that all facilities must follow. 

Preliminary QA/QC review procedures are

performed on-site by each laboratory's Quality

Assurance Unit (QAU). Final review procedures

are performed by AMS staff, who are responsible

for collating and reviewing data for conformance

with SOPs. Additionally, AMS staff monitor the

participants' performance through proficiency

samples and on-site visits, during which records

are reviewed and laboratory operations are

observed. 

PDP's quality assurance program encompasses

five elements:

1. Proficiency Check Samples - All facilities are

required to participate in PDP's Check Sample

Program. Check samples are issued to

laboratories performing analysis with MRMs

and/or SRMs. Periodically, one to four prepared

commodities, containing pesticide(s) of known

quantities, are sent to the participating

laboratories and tested under the same conditions

as routine samples. The resulting data are used to

determine performance equivalency among the

testing laboratories, and to evaluate individual

laboratory performance.

2. Quality Control - Since quality control

requirements are the same for one sample as for

several samples, it is more economical and

efficient to collect and process the samples as a

set. Laboratories are permitted to refrigerate

incoming samples of the same commodity for up

to 72 hours, to allow for different sample arrival

times from the collection sites. PDP quality

control guidelines require that samples be tested 

as part of an analytical set, which includes the

sample set and the following components:
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

10

a. Reagent Blank: An amount of distilled

water, equivalent to the natural moisture

content of the commodity, is run through the

entire analytical process to determine

glassware cleanliness and system integrity.

b. Matrix Blank: A previously analyzed

sample of the same commodity, which contains

either very low concentrations of known

residues or no detectable residues, is divided

into two portions. The first portion is used to

give background information on naturally

occurring chemicals, and the second one is

used to prepare a matrix spike.

c. Matrix Spike(s): A portion(s) of matrix

blank is spiked with all pesticides of interest to

PDP, prior to extraction. The matrix spike is

used to determine the accuracy of the analyst

and instrument performance.

d. Process Control Spike: A compound of

physical and chemical characteristics, similar

to those of the pesticides being tested, is used

to evaluate the analytical process on a sampleby-sample basis. Each of the analytical set

components, except the reagent and matrix

blanks, is spiked with process controls.

e. Storage Spikes: If a sample set is going to

be frozen as a homogenate for more than 72

hours prior to analysis, analysts are required to

prepare storage spikes. Storage spikes provide

information on whether degradation has

occurred while the sample was frozen, and are

prepared in the same manner as matrix spikes. 

However, they do not replace the requirement

to run a fresh matrix spike at the time of

analysis.

3. Method Performance and Confirmation - 

Laboratories are required to determine the limits

of detection (LOD) and limits of quantitation

(LOQ) for each commodity/pesticide pair. LODs

depend on matrix, analyte, and detector used, and

range from 0.001 to 0.150 ppm. (Information on

specific LODs and LOQs is available upon

request.) Confirmation by mass spectrometry, or

a suitable alternate detection system, is required

for all initial findings. If a finding is violative, the

sample is reanalyzed in duplicate from the frozen

homogenate, along with the appropriate blanks

and a spike of the violative residue at the

suspected level. 

4. Standard Operating Procedures - Written

SOPs are in place to provide uniform

administrative, sampling, and laboratory

procedures. SOPs are revised annually to

accommodate changes in the program. Before

submission, data are reviewed by each QAU for

completeness and adherence to PDP requirements.

5. On-Site Reviews - On-site reviews are

performed to determine compliance with SOPs. 

Improvements in sampling, chain of custody,

recordkeeping, and laboratory procedures were

made as a result of the on-site reviews.

ê Sample Preparation

Upon arrival at the testing facility, samples are

visually examined for acceptability and discarded

if determined to be inedible (e.g., decayed,

extensively bruised). Accepted samples are then

prepared emulating the practices of the average

consumer, to more closely represent actual

exposure to residues. Samples are prepared as

follows: (1) apples and peaches are washed and

cored; (2) bananas, grapefruit, and oranges are

peeled; (3) broccoli, celery, and lettuce are washed

and the inedible portions are removed; (4) green

beans and grapes are washed and stems are

removed; and (5) carrots and potatoes are washed.

Samples are homogenized using choppers

and/or blenders and separated into analytical

portions (aliquots) for analysis. If testing cannot

be performed immediately, the entire analytical set

(sample set plus all quality control samples) is

frozen at -40E C, or lower, according to PDP's

QA/QC requirements. Surplus aliquots, not used

for the initial testing, are retained frozen in the

event that replication of analysis or verification

testing is needed.

ê Sample Analysis
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

11

Variations of the Luke extraction procedures

developed by FDA are used by Florida, Michigan,

New York, 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. Sample extraction and

cleanup preparation procedures, to achieve the

levels of detection required by the program, are

based on organic solvent/partition procedures. 

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

benomyl, and formetanate, 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

when applicable. Confirmation is deemed

necessary due to the complexity of commodity

matrices and the low concentration levels of

detected residues. The confirmatory analysis

provides an extra measure of confidence in the

identification of both the pesticide residue and its

concentration.

IV. Sample Results and 

Discussion

ê Sample Results

Because the number of pesticides routinely

monitored by PDP increased during 1993, the

number of detections also increased. However,

these detections continue to be at levels

substantially below tolerances. For example, 94

percent of all residues detected were below 1 ppm,

60 percent were below 0.1 ppm, and about 10

percent were below 0.01 ppm. The low levels of

detections are also illustrated in Appendix B, C,

D, and E. 

Appendix B shows the distribution of residues

per pesticide per commodity. The minimum and

maximum concentrations detected, tolerances, and

violations are also shown.

Appendix C shows the distribution of residues

for PDP commodity/pesticide pairs with residue

detections in at least 10 percent of the samples. 

As seen in this appendix, for most of these

selected commodity/pesticide pairs, residues were

detected in the very low ppm ranges--substantially

lower than tolerances. For example, for

thiabendazole/bananas, 90 percent of the

detections were at 0.13 ppm or below. Similarly,

75 percent of detections were at 0.075 ppm or

lower, and 50 percent were at 0.017 ppm or lower. 

A ratio of the 90th percentile to tolerance (0.40

ppm) is shown in the last column as equal to 0.33. 

In other words, the amount of residue detected is

33 percent of the tolerance. 

In Appendix D, the distribution frequency has

been converted into a cumulative distribution in

which the percentages of samples with residue

detections at or below specific concentrations are

displayed. (This was done for 8 of the 12

commodity/pesticide pairs with detections in at

least 40 percent of the samples.) The lowest

percentile graphed indicates, approximately, the

percent of samples without detectable residues. 

Using the same bananas/thiabendazole pair,

approximately 45 percent of all detections were at

or below the LOD of the reporting laboratory, 75

percent of the samples were at or below 0.075

ppm, and 95 percent were at or below 0.19 ppm. 

The highest percentile graphed is the 99th, and

does not include the highest concentration

detected. (Inclusion of the highest concentration

causes graph distortion, which obscures

concentrations in the low ranges.) Tolerances and

highest concentrations detected are shown in the

graphs' boxes.

Appendix E shows the percentages of

occurrences at 8 separate concentration ranges for

pesticide/commodity pairs with residue detections

in at least 25 percent of the samples. The graphs'

boxes show the number of samples tested, the

number and percentage of samples with detections

for each individual pair, and the minimum and

maximum concentrations detected. For example,
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

12

for endosulfans/green beans, 59.7 percent of thiabendazole (fungicides), and chlorpropham

samples had no detectable residues, 5.5 percent (growth regulators). Other compounds with posthad residues between 0.001 and 0.009 ppm, 7.6 harvest uses on selected commodities are the

percent had residues between 0.010 and 0.025 fungicides dicloran (carrots and peaches) and

ppm, etc. imazalil (citrus). Therefore, residues from these

ê Post-Harvest Applications harvest uses. PDP data indicate that post-harvest

PDP collects samples at points in the

distribution chain where produce is ready to be

released to the consumer, and where post-harvest

applications of pesticides have already taken

place. Most post-harvest applications are limited

to fungicides (to control mold and fungus) and

growth regulators (to prevent sprouting). PDP

compounds with mostly post-harvest applications

are: diphenylamine, o-phenylphenol,

pesticides can be assumed to result from postapplications contribute significantly to the number

of residues detected in bananas, grapefruit,

oranges, and potatoes, and, to a lesser extent, in

apples. Table 2A shows totals of samples

analyzed, number and percentage of samples with

residues, number of different residues, and total

residue detections for each commodity. Table 2B

displays the same information, excluding residues

resulting from post-harvest applications. 

Table 2A. Number of Samples and Residues Detected, by Commodity

(Includes Post-Harvest Applications)

Total Samples % of Samples Different Total

Samples with Residues with Residues Residues Residue

Commodity Analyzed Detected Detected Detected Detections

Apples 654 634 97 33 2010

Bananas 620 379 61 6 405

Broccoli 640 162 25 15 189

Carrots 642 416 65 21 687

Celery 637 595 93 26 1429

Grapefruit 637 460 72 13 703

Grapes 631 472 75 26 981

Green Beans 566 371 66 25 822

Lettuce 647 327 51 19 532

Oranges 638 507 79 19 955

Peaches 369 337 91 29 887

Potatoes 647 511 79 19 729

Number of Samples Analyzed = 7328

Number of Samples with Residues Detected = 5171

Percent with Residue Detections = 70.6%

Total Number of Residue Detections = 10,329

Total Number of Different Pesticides Detected = 58
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

13

Table 2B. Number of Samples and Residues Detected, by Commodity

 (Excludes Post-Harvest Applications*)

Total Samples % of Samples Different Total

Samples with Residues with Residues Residues Residue

Commodity Analyzed Detected Detected Detected Detections

Apples 654 542 83 27 1217

Bananas 620 7 1 4 7

Broccoli 640 162 25 15 189

Carrots 642 413 64 18 673

Celery 637 578 91 24 1296

Grapefruit 637 92 14 10 107

Grapes 631 465 74 23 947

Green Beans 566 370 65 22 806

Lettuce 647 326 50 18 531

Oranges 638 179 28 16 211

Peaches 369 329 89 25 716

Potatoes 647 160 25 15 188

Number of Samples Analyzed = 7328

Number of Samples with Residues Detected = 3623

Percent with Residue Detections = 49.4%

Total Number of Residue Detections = 6888

Total Number of Different Pesticides Detected = 52

* Excludes Residues of Chlorpropham, Dicloran (carrots and peaches), Diphenylamine, Imazali (citrus),

 o-Phenylphenol, and Thiabendazole

 As these tables indicate, the 5 fungicides listed this chemical in the environment, residues of this

above, along with chlorpropham, accounted for insecticide, and/or its metabolites, were found in

3,441 detections (33 percent of the number of approximately 5.6 percent of all samples tested. 

residue detections). The pesticide most frequently Residues were found primarily in root crops and

found (1,689 detections) was the fungicide none were above action levels.

thiabendazole, representing about 16 percent of all

detections. 

ê Environmental Contaminants

DDT, DDE, and TDE

A total of 7,328 samples were screened for

DDT and its metabolites--DDE and TDE. Use of

DDT has been prohibited in the United States

since 1972. However, due to the persistence of 

ê Acid Herbicides

2,4-D and Bromoxynil

A total of 3,267 samples were tested for 2,4-D,

and 869 were tested for bromoxynil. (Bromoxynil

was removed from the testing profile at the end of

March 1993.) Commodities tested were apples,

grapefruit, grapes, oranges, peaches, and potatoes.

Approximately 2.3 percent of the samples tested
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

14

were found to contain residues, all well below excluded, the percentage becomes approximately

tolerance levels. No residues of bromoxynil were 50. Non-detected residues can result because all

detected in any of the samples tested. analytical methods and instruments have a limit

ê Multiple Residues Detected present. Non-detected residues could also occur

Multiple residues on a commodity could derive dissipates rapidly, or for various other reasons. 

from various sources, such as applications of

different pesticides to the crop during a growing Of the 32 EPA-targeted pesticides; atrazine,

season, spray drift, or environmental bromoxynil, dichlorvos, fenamiphos, and HCB

contamination. The need to evaluate the effects of were not detected in any of the 7,328 samples. 

residues of different compounds in single samples Atrazine, bromoxynil, and HCB have no

was pointed out by the National Academy of registered uses for any of the PDP commodities. 

Sciences in its 1993 report Pesticides in the Diets Dichlorvos does not have registered uses in PDP

of Infants and Children. In this report, the commodities either, although it could be present

academy recommended that, "When using as a breakdown product of the pesticide naled

multiresidue scans to detect different compounds (naled is registered for use in all 12 commodities). 

in one scan of one food sample, all results should However, dichlorvos and fenamiphos dissipate

be recorded together. This will make possible fairly quickly, and likely were not present at

more accurate evaluation of exposure distributions detectable levels at the time samples were

for multiple chemicals." collected. 

PDP's rigorous analytical standards have ê Tolerance Violations

resulted in the detection of residues at very low

concentrations (less than 0.05 ppm for most Tolerances are defined under Section 408 of

pesticides). These residues have been frequently the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as the

found in the same sample, as illustrated in maximum quantity of a pesticide residue

Appendix F. As shown in this appendix, samples allowable on a raw agricultural commodity. 

are grouped by the number of pesticides detected Tolerances are established by EPA for all

in individual samples, the number and percentage pesticides used on food crops. A violation occurs

of samples found in each group, the number of when a residue is found which exceeds the

different residues detected, and the three most tolerance level, or when a residue is found for

prevalent pesticides. For example, in celery, there which there is no tolerance for that particular

were six samples (or 0.9 percent of samples crop. As shown in Appendix B, the tolerances for

analyzed), each containing six different pesticides. the commodity/pesticide pairs cover several orders

In this case, the three most frequently detected of magnitude--from as low as 0.01 ppm for

pesticides were: permethrins with six detections, peaches/chlorpyrifos, to as high as 100 ppm for

chlorothalonil with five, and oxamyl with five. lettuce/captan. 

PDP data could be used to assess the potential

effects of simultaneous exposure to multiple With the exception of meat, poultry, and egg

pesticides with a common mechanism of action. products, for which USDA is responsible,

ê Non-Detected Residues FDA. Although PDP samples are not collected

Approximately 30 percent of the samples are reported to FDA regional and headquarter

analyzed had no detectable levels of pesticide offices. This is done in accordance with a

residues. Memorandum of Understanding between USDA

If post-harvest applications of pesticides are Enforcement action by FDA on PDP samples is

below which analytes cannot be detected even if

because a pesticide was not applied, because it

tolerances for all other foods are enforced by

for enforcement purposes, all tolerance violations

and FDA, for the purpose of pinpointing areas

where closer surveillance may be required. 
Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

15

not generally a viable option due to the time lag ê Synopsis

from sample collection to data reporting.

Appendix G shows that of the 7,328 samples

analyzed, 110 samples (1.5 percent) contained

114 violative residues. Violations were reported

in 30 samples (2.4 percent) of imported

commodities, and in 80 samples (1.3 percent) of

domestic commodities. In some cases, these

residues were detected in separate subsamples by

both the State and Federal laboratories, using

different analytical methods (MRMs and SRMs). 

Appendix G also shows double violations (2

violative residues in the same sample) in 4 of the

samples tested, and 14 samples with residues

exceeding the tolerance. The remainder of the

violations reported, 100 (88 percent), were for

residues where no tolerance was established for

that particular commodity/pesticide pair. For this

last group (no tolerance established), most of the

violative residues were at levels between the LOD

and LOQ, and were reported as "below

quantifiable levels."

In 1993, a total of 7,328 samples were

analyzed using MRMs. As stated before, analysis

using SRMs was performed in certain

commodities only. Accordingly, 2,552 samples

were tested for benomyl, 3,267 were tested for

2,4-D, 869 for bromoxynil, and 415 for

formetanate. Pesticides detected included

insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and growth

regulators. Also detected were DDT and its

metabolites, although their presence is almost

certainly due to environmental contamination, not

the result of prohibited crop application. Eightyone percent of samples tested were domestic, and

17 percent were imported. Of all samples tested,

1.5 percent were found to contain violative

residues, although most of these were for residues

where no tolerance was established. It was also

observed that, for certain commodities, postharvest applications contribute significantly to the

number of residues detected. Overall, levels of

residues detected were substantially below

tolerances, with 94 percent of all residues detected

below 1 ppm.

 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the

basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative

means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the

USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-5881 (voice) or (202) 720-7808 (TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 

20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment

opportunity employer.

June 1995
APPENDIX A. SAMPLE ORIGIN BY GROWER, PACKER, 

OR DISTRIBUTOR (Number of Samples /Commodity)

No. of % of

Part 1. AP BN BR CE CR GB GF GR LT OG PC PO Domestic Total

States = 38 Domestic Samples

Alabama 1 1 <0.1

Arizona 15 4 37 8 16 5 1 86 1.2

Arkansas 1 1 <0.1

California 64 526 445 414 95 198 311 568 467 139 98 3325 45.4

Colorado 13 7 5 18 4 5 1 37 90 1.2

Connecticut 1 1 2 <0.1

Delaware 4 4 0.1

Florida 2 80 39 207 294 11 126 4 19 782 10.7

Georgia 32 1 13 1 47 0.6

Idaho 12 1 126 139 1.9

Illinois 1 2 3 <0.1

Indiana 2 2 <0.1

Maine 3 5 16 24 0.3

Maryland 1 2 3 <0.1

Massachusetts 8 3 11 0.2

Michigan 47 3 28 76 3 1 4 6 31 199 2.7

Minnesota 1 14 15 0.2

Missouri 4 1 5 0.1

Nebraska 1 1 <0.1

Nevada 5 5 0.1

New Jersey 1 1 1 6 2 7 1 19 0.3

New Mexico 2 2 <0.1

New York 70 7 10 19 10 1 6 7 1 1 46 178 2.4

North Carolina 8 16 1 4 29 0.4

North Dakota 9 9 0.1

Ohio 11 3 21 1 1 18 55 0.8

Oklahoma 2 2 <0.1

Oregon 5 2 1 53 61 0.8

Pennsylvania 6 1 3 1 11 0.2

South Carolina 1 1 20 22 0.3

Tennessee 26 26 0.4

Texas 4 21 25 19 14 75 2 3 16 4 33 216 2.9

Utah 3 1 1 5 0.1

Vermont 3 3 <0.1

Virginia 8 1 3 12 0.2

Washington 354 28 27 22 7 2 25 15 75 555 7.6

West Virginia 3 3 <0.1

Wisconsin 24 24 0.3

No. of Domestic 630 0 620 624 615 446 607 330 642 617 214 632 5977 --

% of Total (nearest %) 96 0 97 98 96 79 95 52 99 97 58 98 81.6

Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX A. SAMPLE ORIGIN BY GROWER, PACKER, 

OR DISTRIBUTOR (Number of Samples /Commodity)

No. of % of

Part 2. AP BN BR CE CR GB GF GR LT OG PC PO Import Total

Countries = 15 Imported Samples

Australia 3 3 <0.1

Bahamas 1 1 <0.1

Brazil 2 2 <0.1

Canada 5 3 3 18 10 39 0.5

Chile 7 258 147 412 5.6

Colombia 104 104 1.4

Costa Rica 144 144 2.0

Ecuador 141 141 1.9

Guatemala 68 1 69 0.9

Honduras 58 1 59 0.8

Mexico 61 14 5 8 108 29 4 1 1 231 3.2

New Zealand 8 1 9 0.1

Panama 13 13 0.2

South Africa 1 1 <0.1

Venezuela 9 9 0.1

No. of Import 23 598 17 8 26 109 1 288 4 4 149 10 1237 --

% of Total (nearest %) 4 96 3 1 4 19 <1 46 1 1 40 2 16.9

No. of % of

Part 3. AP BN BR CE CR GB GF GR LT OG PC PO Unknown Total

Unknown Origin

No. of Unknown Origin 1 22 3 5 1 11 29 13 1 17 6 5 114 --

% of Total (nearest %) <1 4 <1 1 <1 2 5 2 <1 3 2 1 1.6

TOTAL = 7328

Commodities

AP - Apples GF - Grapefruit

BN - Bananas GR - Grapes

BR - Broccoli LT - Lettuce

CE - Celery OG - Oranges

CR - Carrots PC - Peaches

GB - Green Beans PO - Potatoes

Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

1. 2,4-D

 Apples 622 7 1.1 0.005 0.092 5

 Grapefruit 630 12 1.9 0.006 0.035 5

 Grapes 623 2 0.3 0.01 0.037 0.5

 Oranges 634 23 3.6 0.01 0.039 5

 Peaches 132 4 3.0 0.01 0.01 0.2

 Potatoes 626 27 4.3 0.006 0.085 0.2

Total 75

2. Acephate

 Celery 634 169 26.7 0.005 1.3 10

 Green Beans 562 108 19.2 0.005 2.4 3

 Grapes (V-1) 621 1 0.2 0.005 0.005 NT*

 Lettuce 647 75 11.6 0.005 0.099 10

Total 353

3. Aldicarb Sulfoxide

 Bananas 614 1 0.2 0.065 0.065 0.3

 Grapefruit 624 7 1.1 0.065 0.15 0.3

 Oranges 623 3 0.5 0.065 0.065 0.3

Total 11

4. Anilazine

 Celery 637 3 0.5 0.01 0.01 10

Total 3

5. Azinphos methyl

 Apples 643 208 32.3 0.023 1.8 2.0

 Broccoli 630 2 0.3 0.04 0.12 2.0

 Celery 634 6 0.9 0.025 0.2 2.0

 Green Beans 562 3 0.5 0.04 0.12 2.0

 Grapefruit 632 1 0.2 0.05 0.05 2.0

 Grapes 621 18 2.9 0.025 0.68 5.0

 Oranges 633 1 0.2 0.05 0.05 2.0

 Peaches 367 78 21.3 0.025 0.93 2.0

Total 317

Page 1 of 12
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

6. Benfluralin

 Carrots (V-3) 642 3 0.5 0.015 0.033 NT*

Total 3

7. Benomyl

 Apples 638 110 17.2 0.05 3.1 7.0

 Bananas 610 4 0.7 0.05 0.12 0.2***

 Broccoli 611 2 0.3 0.05 0.05 0.2

 Green Beans (X-3) 561 106 18.9 0.05 3.4 2.0

 Peaches 132 31 23.5 0.05 0.64 15.0

Total 253

8. Captan

 Apples 648 76 11.7 0.005 0.46 25

 Celery 637 8 1.3 0.02 0.069 50

 Green Beans 563 1 0.2 0.27 0.27 25

 Grapes 619 189 30.5 0.01 1.4 50

 Lettuce 645 2 0.3 0.01 0.48 100

 Peaches 366 34 9.3 0.01 0.85 50

Total 310

9. Carbaryl

 Apples 650 145 22.3 0.007 0.8 10.0

 Bananas 614 1 0.2 0.065 0.065 10

 Broccoli 622 11 1.8 0.02 0.49 10

 Celery 620 15 2.4 0.015 0.28 10

 Green Beans 554 24 4.3 0.02 0.56 10

 Grapefruit 624 34 5.4 0.02 0.82 10

 Grapes 612 17 2.8 0.06 2.6 10

 Oranges 623 52 8.3 0.007 0.5 10

 Peaches 358 45 12.6 0.007 1.3 10

 Potatoes 638 1 0.2 0.065 0.065 0.2

Total 345

10. Carbofuran

 Green Beans (V-1) 554 1 0.2 0.034 0.034 NT*

Total 1

Page 2 of 12
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

11. 3-Hydroxycarbofuran (carbofuran metabolite)

 Grapes 612 5 0.8 0.073 0.17 0.2

Total 5

12. Chlorothalonil

 Broccoli 630 7 1.1 0.002 0.27 5

 Celery 637 318 49.9 0.005 7.1 15

 Carrots 642 1 0.2 0.059 0.059 1

 Green Beans 563 65 11.5 0.007 1.6 5

 Lettuce (V-3) 645 3 0.5 0.012 0.025 NT*

 Peaches 366 1 0.3 0.025 0.025 0.5

Total 395

13. Chlorpropham

 Apples (V-2) 648 2 0.3 0.013 0.02 NT*

 Green Beans 563 1 0.2 0.033 0.033 0.3

 Potatoes 646 399 61.8 0.013 9.7 50

Total 402

14. Chlorpyrifos

 Apples 643 124 19.3 0.005 0.36 1.5

 Broccoli 630 9 1.4 0.005 0.3 1

 Celery (V-6) 634 6 0.9 0.005 0.018 NT*

 Carrots (V-3) 641 3 0.5 0.005 0.005 NT*

 Green Beans (X-2) 562 5 0.9 0.005 0.38 0.05

 Grapefruit 632 2 0.3 0.005 0.005 1.0

 Grapes 621 28 4.5 0.005 0.15 0.5

 Oranges 633 30 4.7 0.003 0.014 1.0

 Peaches (X-5) 367 42 11.4 0.005 0.18 0.01

Total 250

15. DCPA

 Broccoli 630 102 16.2 0.003 0.035 5

 Celery (V-14) 637 14 2.2 0.003 0.054 NT*

 Green Beans 563 19 3.4 0.012 0.12 2

 Lettuce 645 28 4.3 0.002 0.11 2

Total 163

Page 3 of 12
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

16. DDD (DDT metabolite)

 Carrots 642 1 0.2 0.042 0.042 3

Total 1

17. DDE

 Broccoli 630 5 0.8 0.002 0.012 0.5

 Celery 637 45 7.1 0.002 0.046 0.5

 Carrots 642 245 38.2 0.002 0.21 3

 Green Beans 563 3 0.5 0.002 0.013 0.2

 Grapes 619 3 0.5 0.005 0.011 0.05

 Lettuce 645 16 2.5 0.004 0.051 0.5

 Potatoes 646 58 9.0 0.002 0.033 1

Total 375

18. DDT

 Carrots 642 23 3.6 0.01 0.083 3

 Potatoes 646 8 1.2 0.01 0.013 1

Total 31

19. Demeton S

 Apples 643 1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.75

Total 1

20. Diazinon

 Apples 643 15 2.3 0.003 0.33 0.5

 Celery 634 61 9.6 0.005 0.3 0.7

 Carrots 641 30 4.7 0.005 0.042 0.75

 Grapes 621 3 0.5 0.007 0.016 0.75

 Lettuce 647 17 2.6 0.005 0.51 0.7

 Oranges 633 2 0.3 0.005 0.007 0.7

 Peaches 367 39 10.6 0.005 0.066 0.7

Total 167

Page 4 of 12
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

21. Dicloran

 Apples (V-2) 648 2 0.3 0.005 0.013 NT*

 Celery 637 132 20.7 0.005 8.1 15

 Carrots 642 2 0.3 0.008 0.95 10

 Green Beans 563 3 0.5 0.008 0.048 20

 Grapes 619 32 5.2 0.005 0.71 10

 Peaches 366 153 41.8 0.005 12 20

 Potatoes 646 2 0.3 0.024 0.057 0.25

Total 326

22. Dicofol

 Apples 648 18 2.8 0.008 0.14 5

 Grapefruit 616 1 0.2 0.045 0.045 10

 Grapes 619 11 1.8 0.008 1.5 5

 Oranges 591 1 0.2 0.081 0.081 10

 Peaches 366 2 0.5 0.05 0.05 10

Total 33

23. Dimethoate

 Apples 643 54 8.4 0.004 0.6 2

 Broccoli 630 5 0.8 0.004 0.21 2

 Celery 634 4 0.6 0.004 0.098 2

 Green Beans 562 41 7.3 0.004 1.4 2

 Grapes 621 67 10.8 0.003 0.44 1

 Lettuce 647 69 10.7 0.004 0.47 2

 Oranges 633 7 1.1 0.004 0.018 2

 Peaches (V-2) 367 2 0.5 0.005 0.68 NT*

 Potatoes 645 2 0.3 0.005 0.005 0.2

Total 251

24. Diphenylamine

 Apples 653 343 52.5 0.005 4.8 10

 Celery ** 625 1 0.2 0.015 0.015 NT*

 Grapes (V-1) 587 1 0.2 0.15 0.15 NT*

 Peaches ** 366 1 0.3 0.015 0.015 NT*

Total 346

Page 5 of 12
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

25. Disulfoton

 Broccoli 630 1 0.2 0.11 0.11 0.75

Total 1

26. Endosulfans

 Apples 648 94 14.5 0.003 1.3 2.0

 Broccoli 630 20 3.2 0.003 0.054 2.0

 Celery 637 26 4.1 0.005 0.35 2.0

 Carrots 642 17 2.6 0.003 0.09 0.2

 Green Beans 563 227 40.3 0.002 1.22 2.0

 Grapes 619 41 6.6 0.005 0.12 2.0

 Lettuce 645 136 21.1 0.002 1.7 2.0

 Peaches 366 25 6.8 0.005 0.12 2.0

 Potatoes 646 73 11.3 0.005 0.1 0.2

Total 659

27. Ethion

 Apples 643 12 1.9 0.003 1 2.0

 Grapefruit 632 45 7.1 0.002 0.031 2.0

 Oranges 633 36 5.7 0.002 0.089 2.0

Total 93

28. Formetanate HCL

 Apples 298 4 1.3 0.085 0.23 3

 Peaches 117 2 1.7 0.07 0.26 5

Total 6

29. Hexachlorobenzene

 Carrots (V-1) 642 1 0.2 0.006 0.006 NT*

Total 1

30. Imazalil

 Apples (V-1) 653 1 0.2 0.05 0.05 NT*

 Bananas (X-1) 620 59 9.5 0.015 0.21 0.20***

 Grapefruit 634 184 29.0 0.004 0.45 10.0

 Oranges 636 311 48.9 0.009 0.85 10.0

Total 555

Page 6 of 12
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

31. Iprodione

 Apples (V-4) 648 4 0.6 0.014 0.11 NT*

 Broccoli 630 1 0.2 0.16 0.16 25.0

 Celery (V-6) 637 71 11.1 0.014 0.4 NT* (S-18)

 Carrots 642 186 29.0 0.014 0.41 5.0

 Green Beans 563 7 1.2 0.04 0.56 2.0

 Grapes 619 197 31.8 0.014 2.7 60.0

 Lettuce 645 4 0.6 0.025 0.35 25.0

 Peaches 366 237 64.8 0.014 11 20.0

Total 707

32. Lindane

 Celery 637 5 0.8 0.005 0.098 1

 Lettuce 645 1 0.2 0.005 0.005 3

 Peaches 366 1 0.3 0.005 0.005 1

Total 7

33. Linuron

 Carrots 642 14 2.2 0.005 0.067 1

Total 14

34. Malathion

 Apples 643 1 0.2 0.006 0.006 8

 Celery 634 7 1.1 0.003 0.084 8

 Carrots 641 1 0.2 0.006 0.006 8

 Lettuce 647 1 0.2 0.005 0.005 8

 Oranges 633 2 0.3 0.005 0.005 8

 Potatoes 645 1 0.2 0.006 0.006 8

Total 13

35. Methamidophos

 Broccoli 630 6 1.0 0.006 0.16 1.0

 Celery 634 70 11.0 0.004 0.12 1

 Green Beans @ (V-8) 562 113 20.1 0.004 0.49 NT*

 Grapes (V-1) 621 1 0.2 0.004 0.004 NT*

 Lettuce 647 21 3.2 0.003 0.049 1.0

 Potatoes 645 5 0.8 0.005 0.028 0.1

Total 216

Page 7 of 12
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

36. Methidathion

 Grapefruit 632 3 0.5 0.004 0.014 2.0

 Oranges 633 35 5.5 0.002 0.034 2.0

Total 38

37. Methiocarb

 Apples (V-1) 650 1 0.2 0.35 0.35 NT*

 Potatoes (V-3) 638 3 0.5 0.08 0.13 NT*

Total 4

38. Methomyl

 Apples 650 13 2.0 0.15 0.15 1

 Broccoli 622 3 0.5 0.015 0.065 3

 Celery 620 35 5.6 0.011 0.52 3

 Green Beans 554 23 4.2 0.013 0.49 2

 Grapefruit 624 1 0.2 0.065 0.065 2

 Grapes 612 39 6.4 0.013 2 5

 Lettuce 639 27 4.2 0.013 1.6 5

 Oranges 623 6 1.0 0.065 0.28 2

 Peaches 358 4 1.1 0.065 0.21 5

 Potatoes 638 1 0.2 0.065 0.065 0.2

Total 152

39. Methoxychlor

 Apples 648 45 6.9 0.01 1.5 14

 Lettuce 645 1 0.2 0.015 0.015 14

Total 46

40. Mevinphos

 Apples 643 4 0.6 0.003 0.13 0.5

 Celery 634 7 1.1 0.002 0.025 1.0

 Grapes 621 4 0.6 0.003 0.005 0.5

 Lettuce (X-1) 647 40 6.2 0.005 0.53 0.5

 Peaches 367 1 0.3 0.08 0.08 1.0

Total 56

Page 8 of 12
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

41. Myclobutanil

 Apples 653 5 0.8 0.025 0.3 0.5

 Grapes 587 110 18.7 0.015 0.34 1.0

 Peaches 366 1 0.3 0.015 0.015 2.0

Total 116

42. O-Phenylphenol

 Apples 653 41 6.3 0.015 9.6 25

 Carrots 637 7 1.1 0.015 0.036 20

 Grapefruit 634 13 2.1 0.015 0.055 10

 Oranges 636 47 7.4 0.015 0.057 10

 Peaches 366 14 3.8 0.005 0.042 20

 Potatoes (V-1) 637 1 0.2 0.12 0.12 NT*

Total 123

43. Omethoate #

 Apples 643 40 6.2 0.005 0.1 2

 Broccoli 630 2 0.3 0.014 0.092 2

 Celery 634 6 0.9 0.005 0.026 2

 Green Beans 562 30 5.3 0.014 0.21 2

 Grapes 621 60 9.7 0.005 0.38 1

 Lettuce 647 12 1.9 0.005 0.3 2

 Peaches (V-1) 367 1 0.3 0.089 0.089 NT*

Total 151

44. Ovex

 Apples (V-1) 648 1 0.2 0.14 0.14 NT*

Total 1

45. Oxamyl

 Apples 650 45 6.9 0.014 0.68 2

 Bananas 614 1 0.2 0.065 0.065 0.3

 Celery 620 140 22.6 0.014 0.82 3

 Green Beans (V-4) 554 4 0.7 0.057 0.22 NT*

 Grapefruit 624 1 0.2 0.3 0.3 3

 Oranges 623 9 1.4 0.065 0.31 3

 Peaches (V-1) 358 1 0.3 0.014 0.014 NT*

 Potatoes 638 1 0.2 0.065 0.065 0.1

Total 202

Page 9 of 12
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

46. Parathion

 Apples 643 2 0.3 0.003 0.015 1

 Celery 634 4 0.6 0.022 0.055 1

 Carrots 641 5 0.8 0.003 0.013 1

 Green Beans 562 1 0.2 0.38 0.38 1

 Grapes 621 6 1.0 0.003 0.045 1

 Lettuce 647 2 0.3 0.009 0.029 1

 Oranges 633 1 0.2 0.009 0.009 1

 Peaches 367 1 0.3 0.14 0.14 1

Total 22

47. Parathion methyl

 Apples 643 35 5.4 0.004 0.074 1

 Celery 634 7 1.1 0.005 0.16 1

 Carrots 641 2 0.3 0.005 0.008 1

 Grapes 621 17 2.7 0.005 1 1

 Peaches 367 79 21.5 0.005 0.69 1

Total 140

48. Pentachlorobenzene

 Carrots (V-1) 642 1 0.2 0.01 0.01 NT*

 Green Beans 563 1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.1

 Potatoes 646 3 0.5 0.003 0.009 0.1

Total 5

49. Pentachlorophenyl

 Potatoes 646 1 0.2 0.005 0.005 0.1

Total 1

50. Permethrins

 Broccoli 630 13 2.1 0.025 0.2 1.0

 Celery 637 268 42.1 0.008 1.1 5.0

 Green Beans (V-7) 563 7 1.2 0.016 0.2 NT*

 Lettuce 645 76 11.8 0.008 6.7 20.0

 Peaches 366 12 3.3 0.016 0.12 5.0

Total 376

Page 10 of 12
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

51. Phorate Sulfone

 Potatoes 645 2 0.3 0.005 0.005 0.5

Total 2

52. Phosmet

 Apples 643 55 8.6 0.013 0.9 10

 Carrots (V-1) 641 1 0.2 0.015 0.015 NT*

 Grapes 621 3 0.5 0.013 0.17 10

 Oranges 633 2 0.3 0.013 0.04 5

 Peaches 367 34 9.3 0.013 1.4 10

Total 95

53. Propargite

 Apples 282 98 34.8 0.015 2.4 3

 Grapes 190 35 18.4 0.015 0.74 10

 Oranges 195 1 0.5 0.05 0.05 5

 Peaches 96 32 33.3 0.062 1.6 7

Total 166

54. Quintozene

 Celery (V-1) 637 1 0.2 0.005 0.005 NT*

 Green Beans 563 12 2.1 0.005 0.019 0.1

 Potatoes 646 2 0.3 0.005 0.007 0.1

Total 15

55. Thiabendazole

 Apples 653 404 61.9 0.015 7.6 10

 Bananas (X-2) 620 339 54.7 0.006 0.53 0.4***

 Carrots 637 5 0.8 0.1 0.21 10

 Green Beans (V-12) 564 12 2.1 0.006 0.19 NT*

 Grapefruit 634 399 62.9 0.005 0.77 10

 Grapes 587 1 0.2 0.015 0.015 10

 Lettuce (V-1) 646 1 0.2 0.015 0.015 NT*

 Oranges 636 386 60.7 0.006 1.7 10

 Peaches (V-3) 366 3 0.8 0.004 0.065 NT*

 Potatoes 637 139 21.8 0.012 2.1 10

Total 1689

Page 11 of 12
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED

BY PESTICIDE

Total No. of % of Minimum Maximum

Number Samples with Samples with Value Value Tolerance

Pesticide of Samples Detections Detections Detected, ppm Detected, ppm Level, ppm

56. Toxaphene

 Carrots 642 1 0.2 0.92 0.92 7

Total 1

57. Trifluralin

 Carrots 642 138 21.5 0.01 0.28 1.0

Total 138

58. Vinclozolin

 Green Beans (V-3) 563 5 0.9 0.008 0.07 NT* (S-18)

 Grapes 619 90 14.5 0.008 0.88 6.0

 Peaches 366 7 1.9 0.007 0.62 25.0

Total 102

 Total No. of Different Residues Detected: 58

 Total No. of Samples Analyzed: 7328

(V) Residue was found where no tolerance was established by EPA. Following V are the number of occurrences.

(X) Residue was found which exceeds EPA tolerance. Following X are the number of occurrences.

NT* No tolerance level was set for that pesticide/commodity pair.

NT* (S-18) The number of residues detected is not the same as the number of violations due to exemptions 

 under 40 CFR, part 66.1 of FIFRA Section 18 (crisis exemptions).

** Estimated values reported to FDA for informational purposes only.

*** Tolerance applies to banana pulp only.

@ All other residues were detected in combination with acephate, for which a tolerance exists.

# Tolerances listed are for combined residues of dimethoate and omethoate.

Page 12 of 12
APPENDIX C. CONCENTRATION PERCENTILES vs. TOLERANCE

in COMMODITY/PESTICIDE PAIRS

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

% of Maximum Ratio of 

Samples with Percentiles Value Tolerance to

Commodity Detections 50th 75th 90th Detected, ppm 90th Percentile

1. Apples

 Azinphos-methyl 32.3 * 0.038 0.095 1.8 0.048

 Benomyl 17.2 * * 0.10 3.1 0.014

 Captan 11.7 * * 0.014 0.46 0.001

 Carbaryl 22.3 * * 0.11 0.8 0.011

 Chlorpyrifos 19.3 * * 0.015 0.36 0.01

 Diphenylamine 52.5 0.023 0.78 1.5 4.8 0.15

 Endosulfans 14.5 * * 0.01 1.3 0.005

 Propargite 34.8 * 0.16 0.49 2.4 0.16

 Thiabendazole 61.9 0.21 0.6 1.1 7.6 0.11

2. Bananas

 Thiabendazole 54.7 0.017 0.075 0.13 0.53 0.33 @

3. Broccoli

 DCPA 16.2 * * 0.014 0.035 0.003

4. Carrots

 DDE 38.2 * 0.013 0.027 0.21 0.009

 Iprodione 29 * 0.028 0.085 0.41 0.017

 Trifluralin 21.5 * * 0.048 0.28 0.048

5. Celery

 Acephate 26.7 * 0.008 0.078 1.3 0.008

 'Chlorothalonil 49.9 * 0.062 0.21 7.1 0.014

 Dicloran 20.7 * * 0.15 8.1 0.01

 Iprodione 11.1 * * 0.028 0.40 **

 Methamidophos 11 * * 0.004 0.12 0.004

 Oxamyl 22.6 * * 0.105 0.82 0.035

 Permethrins 42.1 * 0.053 0.11 1.1 0.022

6. Grapefruit

 Imazalil 29 * 0.023 0.12 0.45 0.012

 Thiabendazole 62.9 0.044 0.12 0.23 0.77 0.023

Page 1 of 3
APPENDIX C. CONCENTRATION PERCENTILES vs. TOLERANCE

in COMMODITY/PESTICIDE PAIRS

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

% of Maximum Ratio of 

Samples with Percentiles Value Tolerance to

Commodity Detections 50th 75th 90th Detected, ppm 90th Percentile

7. Grapes

 Captan 30.5 * 0.027 0.16 1.4 0.003

 Dimethoate 10.8 * * 0.004 0.44 0.004

 Iprodione 31.8 * 0.048 0.20 2.7 0.003

 Myclobutanil 18.7 * * 0.041 0.34 0.041

 Propargite 18.4 * * 0.163 0.74 0.016

 Vinclozolin 14.5 * * 0.069 0.88 0.012

8. Green Beans

 Acephate 19.2 * * 0.15 2.4 0.05

 Benomyl 18.9 * * 0.19 3.4 0.095

 Chlorothalonil 11.5 * * 0.019 1.6 0.004

 Endosulfans 40.3 * 0.033 0.16 1.22 0.08

 Methamidophos 20.1 * * 0.056 0.49 **

9. Lettuce

 Acephate 11.6 * * 0.006 0.099 0.001

 Dimethoate 10.7 * * 0.004 0.47 0.002

 Endosulfans 21.1 * * 0.022 1.7 0.011

 Permethrins 11.8 * * 0.057 6.7 0.003

10. Oranges

 Imazalil 48.9 * 0.091 0.19 0.85 0.019

 Thiabendazole 60.7 0.05 0.15 0.30 1.7 0.03

11. Peaches

 Azinphos-methyl 21.3 * * 0.091 0.93 0.046

 Benomyl 23.5 * * 0.17 0.64 0.011

 Carbaryl 12.6 * * 0.039 1.3 0.004

 Chlorpyrifos 11.4 * * 0.006 0.18 0.55

 Diazinon 10.6 * * 0.004 0.066 0.005

 Dicloran 41.8 * 0.21 1.7 12 0.085

 Iprodione 64.8 0.19 0.6 1.2 11 0.06

 Parathion-methyl 21.5 * * 0.038 0.69 0.038

 Propargite 33.3 * 0.19 0.35 1.6 0.05

Page 2 of 3
APPENDIX C. CONCENTRATION PERCENTILES vs. TOLERANCE

in COMMODITY/PESTICIDE PAIRS

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

% of Maximum Ratio of 

Samples with Percentiles Value Tolerance to

Commodity Detections 50th 75th 90th Detected, ppm 90th Percentile

12. Potatoes

 Chlorpropham 61.8 0.084 1.3 2.9 9.7 0.058

 Endosulfans 11.3 * * 0.006 0.10 0.003

 Thiabendazole 21.8 * * 0.26 2.1 0.026

(*) Value is Below the limit of detection (LOD).

(**) Ratio is not calculated if tolerance is not established.

@ Tolerance (0.40) used in ratio applies to banana pulp only.

Page 3 of 3
Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)

Apples / Diphenylamine

APPENDIX D. CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTIONS OF RESIDUE

CONCENTRATIONS FOR SELECTED COMMODITY/PESTICIDE PAIRS

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

2.1

2.4

2.7

3.0

3.3

3.6

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

2.1

2.4

2.7

3.0

3.3

3.6

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • •

•

•

•

• • •

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• LEGEND

 Tolerance is 10 ppm

 Highest Level Detected is 4.8 ppm

Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)

Bananas / Thiabendazole

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

0.0

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

0.15

0.18

0.21

0.24

0.27

0.30

0.0

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

0.15

0.18

0.21

0.24

0.27

0.30

••••• ••••• •••••••• ••••••• ••••••••• ••••••••••• •••••••••••• ••

•••••••••••• •• •••••••••••••••• • •• •

•• •••••

• • ••••

••• ••

••

•

• •

•

••

•

•

•

••

•

•

• LEGEND

 Tolerance is 0.4 ppm

 Highest Level Detected is 0.53 ppm
Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)

Celery / Chlorothalonil

APPENDIX D.(CONT’D) CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTIONS OF RESIDUE

CONCENTRATIONS FOR SELECTED COMMODITY/PESTICIDE PAIRS

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

•••••••••••• ••••••••••• •••••••• •••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•

••

••••••

••••

•••

••

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• LEGEND

 Tolerance is 15 ppm

 Highest Level Detected is 7.1 ppm

Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)

Grapefruit / Thiabendazole

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

0.0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •• •• • •• • • ••••••

•• ••

••

•

•••

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•••

•

••

•

•

•

•

• LEGEND

 Tolerance is 10 ppm

 Highest Level Detected is 0.77 ppm
Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)

Oranges / Imazalil

APPENDIX D.(CONT’D) CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTIONS OF RESIDUE

CONCENTRATIONS FOR SELECTED COMMODITY/PESTICIDE PAIRS

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

0.0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

•• •• ••• ••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •• •

• •••

• •• • • •

•••

•••

• •

•

•

•

•

•

• LEGEND

 Tolerance is 10 ppm

 Highest Level Detected is 0.85 ppm

Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)

Peaches / Dicloran

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

• •

••••

•

•

•

•

•

•••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

• LEGEND

 Tolerance is 20 ppm

 Highest Level Detected is 12 ppm
Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)

Peaches / Iprodione

APPENDIX D.(CONT’D) CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTIONS OF RESIDUE

CONCENTRATIONS FOR SELECTED COMMODITY/PESTICIDE PAIRS

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

•••••••••••••••••••• • •••••••• •••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••• •••

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

• LEGEND

 Tolerance is 20 ppm

 Highest Level Detected is 11 ppm

Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)

Potatoes / Chloropropham

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• •• • • •• •••

• • •• •• •• •• •

•

•

•

••

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• LEGEND

 Tolerance is 50 ppm

 Highest Level Detected is 9.7 ppm
ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Acephate/Celery

ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Percentage of Occurrences Percentage of Occurrences

Azinphos Methyl/Apples

634 samples tested

169 detections (26.7%)

min .005 ppm - max 1.3 ppm

Tolerance 10 ppm

643 samples tested

208 detections (32.3%)

min .023 ppm - max 1.8 ppm

Tolerance 2.0 ppm

FOR SELECTED PESTICIDE/COMMODITY PAIRS*

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 25 Percent of Samples)

APPENDIX E. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES AT VARIOUS CONCENTRATION RANGES

Page 1 of 11 
ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Captan/Grapes

ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.051 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Percentage of Occurrences Percentage of Occurrences

Chlorothalonil/Celery

637 samples tested

318 detections (49.9%)

min .005 ppm - max 7.1 ppm

Tolerance 15 ppm

619 samples tested

189 detections (30.5%)

min .01 ppm - max 1.4 ppm

Tolerance 50 ppm

FOR SELECTED PESTICIDE/COMMODITY PAIRS*

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 25 Percent of Samples)

APPENDIX E. (cont'd) FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES AT VARIOUS CONCENTRATION RANGES

Page 2 of 11

 
ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Chlorpropham/Potatoes

ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Percentage of Occurrences Percentage of Occurrences

DDE/Carrots

642 samples tested

245 detections (38.2%)

min .002 ppm - max .21 ppm

Tolerance 3 ppm

646 samples tested

399 detections (61.8%)

min .013 ppm - max 9.7 ppm

Tolerance 50 ppm

FOR SELECTED PESTICIDE/COMMODITY PAIRS*

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 25 Percent of Samples)

Page 3 of 11

APPENDIX E. (cont'd) FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES AT VARIOUS CONCENTRATION RANGES

 
ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Dicloran/Peaches

ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Percentage of Occurrences Percentage of Occurrences

Diphenylamine/Apples

653 samples tested

343 detections (52.5%)

min .005 ppm - max 4.8 ppm 

Tolerance 10 ppm

366 samples tested

153 detections (41.8%)

min .005 ppm - max 12 ppm

Tolerance 20 ppm

FOR SELECTED PESTICIDE/COMMODITY PAIRS*

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 25 Percent of Samples)

Page 4 of 11

APPENDIX E. (cont'd) FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES AT VARIOUS CONCENTRATION RANGES

 
ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Endosulfans/Green Beans

ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Percentage of Occurrences Percentage of Occurrences

Imazalil/Grapefruit

634 samples tested

184 detections (29.0%)

min .004 ppm - max .45 ppm

Tolerance 10.0 ppm

563 samples tested

227 detections (40.3%)

min .002 ppm - max 1.22 ppm

Tolerance 2.0 ppm

FOR SELECTED PESTICIDE/COMMODITY PAIRS*

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 25 Percent of Samples)

Page 5 of 11

APPENDIX E. (cont'd) FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES AT VARIOUS CONCENTRATION RANGES

 
ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Imazalil/Oranges

ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Percentage of Occurrences Percentage of Occurrences

Iprodione/Carrots

642 samples tested

186 detections (29.0%)

min .014 ppm - max .41 ppm

Tolerance 5.0 ppm

636 samples tested

311 detections (48.9%)

min .009 ppm - max .85 ppm

Tolerance 10.0 ppm

FOR SELECTED PESTICIDE/COMMODITY PAIRS*

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 25 Percent of Samples)

Page 6 of 11

APPENDIX E. (cont'd) FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES AT VARIOUS CONCENTRATION RANGES

 
ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Iprodione/Grapes

ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Percentage of Occurrences Percentage of Occurrences

Iprodione/Peaches

366 samples tested

237 detections (64.8%)

min .014 ppm - max 11 ppm

Tolerance 20.0 ppm

619 samples tested

197 detections (31.8%)

min .014 ppm - max 2.7 ppm

Tolerance 60.0 ppm

FOR SELECTED PESTICIDE/COMMODITY PAIRS*

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 25 Percent of Samples)

Page 7 of 11

APPENDIX E. (cont'd) FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES AT VARIOUS CONCENTRATION RANGES

 
ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Permethrins/Celery

ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Percentage of Occurrences Percentage of Occurrences

Propargite/Apples

637 samples tested

268 detections (42.1%)

min .008 ppm - max 1.1 ppm

Tolerance 5.0 ppm

282 samples tested

98 detections (34.8%)

min .015 ppm - max 2.4 ppm

Tolerance 3 ppm

FOR SELECTED PESTICIDE/COMMODITY PAIRS*

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 25 Percent of Samples)

Page 8 of 11

APPENDIX E. (cont'd) FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES AT VARIOUS CONCENTRATION RANGES

 
ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Propargite/Peaches

ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Percentage of Occurrences Percentage of Occurrences

Thiabendazole/Apples

653 samples tested

404 detections (61.9%)

min .015 ppm - max 7.6 ppm

Tolerance 10 ppm

96 samples tested

32 detections (33.3%)

min .062 ppm - max 1.6 ppm

Tolerance 7 ppm

FOR SELECTED PESTICIDE/COMMODITY PAIRS*

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 25 Percent of Samples)

Page 9 of 11

APPENDIX E. (cont'd) FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES AT VARIOUS CONCENTRATION RANGES

 
ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Thiabendazole/Bananas

ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Percentage of Occurrences Percentage of Occurrences

Thiabendazole/ Grapefruit

634 samples tested

399 detections (62.9%)

min .005 ppm - max .77 ppm

Tolerance 10 ppm

620 samples tested

339 detections (54.7%)

min .006 ppm - max .53 ppm

Tolerance 0.4 ppm

FOR SELECTED PESTICIDE/COMMODITY PAIRS*

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 25 Percent of Samples)

Page 10 of 11

APPENDIX E. (cont'd) FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES AT VARIOUS CONCENTRATION RANGES

 
ND * .001-.009 .010-.025 .026-.050 .051-.099 .10-.50 .51-1.0 1.1-9.9 10-above

0

20

40

60

80

Concentration Ranges (ppm)

Thiabendazole/Oranges

Percentage of Occurrences

 * Pesticides found in less than 25 percent of the samples are not 

included.

** These determinations were below the limit of detection of the reporting 

 laboratory, and are not necessarily below .001ppm.

636 samples tested

386 detections (60.7%)

min .006 ppm - max 1.7 ppm

Tolerance 10 ppm

FOR SELECTED PESTICIDE/COMMODITY PAIRS*

(Pairs with Residue Detections in at Least 25 Percent of Samples)

Page 11 of 11

APPENDIX E. (cont'd) FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES AT VARIOUS CONCENTRATION RANGES

 
APPENDIX F. MULTIPLE PESTICIDE RESIDUES DETECTED

APPLES 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

9 1 0.2 9 AZINPHOS-METHYL (1), METHOXYCHLOR (1), DIPHENYLAMINE (1) **AP

8 6 0.9 19 AZINPHOS-METHYL (5), DIMETHOATE (5), ENDOSULFANS (4)

7 14 2.1 20 AZINPHOS-METHYL (11), THIABENDAZOLE (11), DIPHENYLAMINE (10)

6 31 4.7 24 DIPHENYLAMINE (25), THIABENDAZOLE (25), AZINPHOS-METHYL (16)

5 60 9.2 24 THIABENDAZOLE (48), DIPHENYLAMINE (44), AZINPHOS-METHYL (28)

4 119 18.2 26 THIABENDAZOLE (87), DIPHENYLAMINE (81), AZINPHOS-METHYL (51)

3 169 25.8 24 THIABENDAZOLE (122), DIPHENYLAMINE (108), AZINPHOS-METHYL (55)

2 152 23.2 23 THIABENDAZOLE (78), DIPHENYLAMINE (63), AZINPHOS-METHYL (37)

1 82 12.5 17 THIABENDAZOLE (28), PROPARGITE (9), DIPHENYLAMINE (8)

0 20 3.1 0

Total No. of Samples = 654 Total # of Residues = 2010

BANANAS 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

2 26 4.2 4 THIABENDAZOLE (26), IMAZALIL (23), BENOMYL (2)

1 353 56.9 5 THIABENDAZOLE (313), IMAZALIL (36), BENOMYL (2)

0 241 38.9 0

Total No. of Samples = 620 Total # of Residues = 405

BROCCOLI 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

3 4 0.6 8 DCPA (4), CARBARYL (2), ENDOSULFANS (1)

2 19 3.0 11 DCPA (13), ENDOSULFANS (6), CARBARYL (4)

1 139 21.7 12 DCPA (85), ENDOSULFANS (13), PERMETHRINS (11)

0 478 74.7 0

Total No. of Samples = 640 Total # of Residues = 189

Page 1 of 4
APPENDIX F. MULTIPLE PESTICIDE RESIDUES DETECTED

CARROTS 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

4 6 0.9 10 DDE (6), TRIFLURALIN (4), DDT (3)

3 57 8.9 12 DDE (51), IPRODIONE (47), TRIFLURALIN (36)

2 139 21.7 16 IPRODIONE (97), DDE (86), TRIFLURALIN (57)

1 214 33.3 13 DDE (102), TRIFLURALIN (41), IPRODIONE (39)

0 226 35.2 0

Total No. of Samples = 642 Total # of Residues = 687

CELERY 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

6 6 0.9 13 PERMETHRINS (6), CHLOROTHALONIL (5), OXAMYL (5)

5 24 3.8 20 ACEPHATE (17), PERMETHRINS (17), DICLORAN (14)

4 81 12.7 20 CHLOROTHALONIL (57), PERMETHRINS (53), ACEPHATE (50)

3 140 22.0 21 CHLOROTHALONIL (96), PERMETHRINS (74), ACEPHATE (52)

2 185 29.0 20 CHLOROTHALONIL (93), PERMETHRINS (89), OXAMYL (44)

1 159 25.0 16 CHLOROTHALONIL (54), PERMETHRINS (29), ACEPHATE (18)

0 42 6.6 0

Total No. of Samples = 637 Total # of Residues = 1,429

GRAPEFRUIT 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

4 1 0.2 4 ETHION (1), THIABENDAZOLE (1), CHLORPYRIFOS (1) **GF

3 32 5.0 8 THIABENDAZOLE (29), IMAZALIL (29), ETHION (23)

2 176 27.6 12 THIABENDAZOLE (161), IMAZALIL (131), ETHION (20)

1 251 39.4 6 THIABENDAZOLE (208), IMAZALIL (23), CARBARYL (15)

0 177 27.8 0

Total No. of Samples = 637 Total # of Residues = 703

Page 2 of 4
APPENDIX F. MULTIPLE PESTICIDE RESIDUES DETECTED

GRAPES 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

6 4 0.6 15 DIMETHOATE (3), OMETHOATE (3), CAPTAN (2)

5 20 3.2 17 DIMETHOATE (12), OMETHOATE (12), MYCLOBUTANIL (11)

4 31 4.9 16 DIMETHOATE (20), CAPTAN (19), VINCLOZOLIN (18)

3 80 12.7 23 IPRODIONE (44), CAPTAN (36), VINCLOZOLIN (26)

2 156 24.7 18 IPRODIONE (88), CAPTAN (87), VINCLOZOLIN (32)

1 181 28.7 20 IPRODIONE (46), MYCLOBUTANIL (46), CAPTAN (37)

0 159 25.2 0

Total No. of Samples = 631 Total # of Residues = 981

GREEN BEANS 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

8 1 0.2 8 ENDOSULFANS (1), CHLOROTHALONIL (1), METHAMIDOPHOS (1) **GB

7 3 0.5 10 ENDOSULFANS (3), DIMETHOATE (3), OMETHOATE (3)

6 5 0.9 10 CHLOROTHALONIL (5), ENDOSULFANS (4), METHAMIDOPHOS (4)

5 19 3.4 14 METHAMIDOPHOS (17), ENDOSULFANS (16), ACEPHATE (14)

4 32 5.7 16 METHAMIDOPHOS (25), ACEPHATE (25), ENDOSULFANS (21)

3 57 10.1 18 METHAMIDOPHOS (38), ACEPHATE (38), ENDOSULFANS (33)

2 115 20.3 16 ENDOSULFANS (82), BENOMYL (46), METHAMIDOPHOS (26)

1 139 24.6 13 ENDOSULFANS (67), BENOMYL (21), DCPA (14)

0 195 34.5 0

Total No. of Samples = 566 Total # of Residues = 822

LETTUCE 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

5 8 1.2 13 PERMETHRINS (7), MEVINPHOS (5), DIMETHOATE (4)

4 14 2.2 13 METHOMYL (8), PERMETHRINS (8), DIAZINON (7)

3 27 4.2 11 DIMETHOATE (19), ENDOSULFANS (12), ACEPHATE (10)

2 77 11.9 16 ENDOSULFANS (30), PERMETHRINS (27), ACEPHATE (25)

1 201 31.1 13 ENDOSULFANS (88), ACEPHATE (34), DIMETHOATE (26)

0 320 49.5 0

Total No. of Samples = 647 Total # of Residues = 532

Page 3 of 4
APPENDIX F. MULTIPLE PESTICIDE RESIDUES DETECTED

ORANGES 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

6 1 0.2 6 DIAZINON (1), AZINPHOS-METHYL (1), ETHION (1) **OG

5 2 0.3 7 THIABENDAZOLE (2), METHIDATHION (2), IMAZALIL (2)

4 15 2.4 10 THIABENDAZOLE (15), IMAZALIL (14), CARBARYL (9)

3 83 13.0 13 THIABENDAZOLE (80), IMAZALIL (74), O-PHENYLPHENOL (21)

2 224 35.1 13 THIABENDAZOLE (194), IMAZALIL (170), CARBARYL (17)

1 182 28.5 11 THIABENDAZOLE (94), IMAZALIL (51), 2 4-D (6)

0 131 20.5 0

Total No. of Samples = 638 Total # of Residues = 955

PEACHES 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

6 6 1.6 14 CARBARYL (5), DICLORAN (5), PROPARGITE (5)

5 15 4.1 18 IPRODIONE (13), DICLORAN (11), PARATHION-METHYL (9)

4 66 17.9 20 IPRODIONE (58), DICLORAN (46), PARATHION-METHYL (25)

3 75 20.3 24 IPRODIONE (58), DICLORAN (36), AZINPHOS-METHYL (23)

2 112 30.4 18 IPRODIONE (71), DICLORAN (49), AZINPHOS-METHYL (21)

1 63 17.1 11 IPRODIONE (33), AZINPHOS-METHYL (8), DICLORAN (6)

0 32 8.7 0

Total No. of Samples = 369 Total # of Residues = 887

POTATOES 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)

4 4 0.6 7 CHLORPROPHAM (3), ENDOSULFANS (3), THIABENDAZOLE (3)

3 27 4.2 10 CHLORPROPHAM (23), THIABENDAZOLE (18), DDE (18)

2 152 23.5 14 CHLORPROPHAM (130), THIABENDAZOLE (100), ENDOSULFANS (30)

1 328 50.7 10 CHLORPROPHAM (243), ENDOSULFANS (33), THIABENDAZOLE (18)

0 136 21.0 0

Total No. of Samples = 647 Total # of Residues = 729

* Number of samples with detectable residues

**AP - Additional compounds detected: Thiabendazole, Methomyl, Dimethoate, Omethoate, Benomyl, and Propargite

**GF - Additional compound detected: Imazalil

**GB - Additional compounds detected: Dimethoate, Omethoate, Carbofuran, Benomyl, and Acephate

**OG - Additional compounds detected: Thiabendazole, Chlorpyrifos, and Phosmet

Page 4 of 4
APPENDIX G. TOLERANCE VIOLATIONS REPORTED

Commodity Tolerance, ppm Concentration, ppm

1. Apples

Chlorpropham NT 0.02 (2)

Chlorpropham NT 0.013 (2)

Dicloran NT 0.013 (2)

Dicloran NT 0.005 (2)

Imazalil NT 0.05 (2)

Iprodione NT 0.025 (2)

Iprodione * NT 0.014 (2)

Iprodione * NT 0.014 (2)

Iprodione NT 0.11

Methiocarb NT 0.35

Ovex NT 0.14

2. Bananas

Imazalil * 0.2 0.21

Thiabendazole * 0.4 0.47

Thiabendazole * 0.4 0.53

3. Carrots

Benfluralin NT 0.033

Benfluralin NT 0.015 (2)

Benfluralin NT 0.015 (2)

Chlorpyrifos NT 0.005 (2)

Chlorpyrifos NT 0.005 (2)

Chlorpyrifos NT 0.005 (2)

HCB NT 0.006 (2)

Pentachlorobenzene NT 0.01

Phosmet * NT 0.015 (2)

4. Celery

Chlorpyrifos NT 0.005 (2)

Chlorpyrifos NT 0.018 (2)

Chlorpyrifos NT 0.005 (2)

Chlorpyrifos NT 0.005 (2)

Chlorpyrifos, DCPA (1) NT, NT 0.005 (2), 0.005 (2)

Chlorpyrifos, DCPA (1) NT, NT 0.005 (2), 0.005 (2)

DCPA NT 0.012 (2)

DCPA NT 0.010 (2)

DCPA NT 0.012 (2)

DCPA NT 0.012 (2)

Page 1 of 4
APPENDIX G. TOLERANCE VIOLATIONS REPORTED

Commodity Tolerance, ppm Concentration, ppm

4. Celery (cont'd)

DCPA NT 0.012 (2)

DCPA NT 0.002 (2)

DCPA NT 0.007 (2)

DCPA NT 0.012 (2)

DCPA NT 0.012 (2)

DCPA NT 0.012 (2)

DCPA * NT 0.013 (2)

DCPA * NT 0.054

Iprodione NT 0.014 (2)

Iprodione NT 0.011 (2)

Iprodione NT 0.025 (2)

Iprodione NT 0.05 (2)

Iprodione NT 0.18 (2)

Iprodione NT 0.025 (2)

PCNB (Quintozene) NT 0.005 (2)

5. Grapes

Acephate NT 0.005 (2)

Diphenylamine * NT 0.018 (2)

Methamidophos * NT 0.004 (2)

6. Green Beans

Benomyl * 2.0 3.4

Benomyl * 2.0 2.3

Benomyl * 2.0 2.2

Carbofuran NT 0.034

Chlorpyrifos 0.05 0.38

Chlorpyrifos 0.05 0.36

Methamidophos NT 0.006 (2)

Methamidophos NT 0.025

Methamidophos NT 0.006 (2)

Methamidophos NT 0.006 (2)

Methamidophos NT 0.006 (2)

Methamidophos NT 0.006 (2)

Methamidophos * NT 0.006 (2)

Methamidophos, Permethrins (1) NT, NT 0.004 (2), 0.016 (2)

Oxamyl NT 0.13 (2)

Oxamyl NT 0.22

Oxamyl NT 0.057

Oxamyl NT 0.062

Permethrins NT 0.2

Page 2 of 4
APPENDIX G. TOLERANCE VIOLATIONS REPORTED

Commodity Tolerance, ppm Concentration, ppm

6. Green Beans (cont'd)

Permethrins NT 0.14

Permethrins NT 0.16

Permethrins NT 0.2

Permethrins NT 0.063

Permethrins NT 0.2

Thiabendazole * NT 0.05 (2)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.05 (2), 0.15 (4)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.21 (3), 0.05 (4) (2)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.18 (3), 0.12 (4)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.13 (2)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.20 (3), 0.13 (4)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.10 (3), 0.05 (4) (2)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.12 (3), 0.05 (4) (2)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.13 (3), 0.12 (4)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.05 (2)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.27 (3), 0.11 (4) (2)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.20 (3), 0.10 (4)

Vinclozolin NT 0.008 (2)

Vinclozolin NT 0.029

Vinclozolin NT 0.027

7. Lettuce

Chlorothalonil NT 0.012 (2)

Chlorothalonil NT 0.025 (2)

Chlorothalonil * NT 0.012 (2)

Mevinphos 0.5 0.53

Thiabendazole NT 0.015 (2)

8. Peaches

Chlorpyrifos 0.01 0.019

Chlorpyrifos 0.01 0.014

Chlorpyrifos 0.01 0.079

Chlorpyrifos 0.01 0.012

Chlorpyrifos 0.01 0.18

Dimethoate NT 0.005 (2)

Dimethoate, Omethoate (1) * NT, NT 0.68, 0.089

Oxamyl NT 0.014 (2)

Thiabendazole NT 0.045 (2)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.044 (2)

Thiabendazole * NT 0.065 (2)

Page 3 of 4
APPENDIX G. TOLERANCE VIOLATIONS REPORTED

Commodity Tolerance, ppm Concentration, ppm

9. Potatoes

Methiocarb NT 0.12

Methiocarb NT 0.08

Methiocarb NT 0.13

o-Phenylphenol NT 0.12

KEY

NT No tolerance established

* Imported commodity

(1) The sample reported contained two violative pesticide residues

(2) The reported concentration is above the limit of detection (LOD), but less than the limit of quantitation (LOQ)

(3) The samples are subsamples pulled at the same site from the same lot on the same day

The results are from a laboratory which used a multiresidue screen

(4) The samples are the subsamples pulled at the same site from the same lot on the same day;

The results are from a laboratory that uses a procedure specific for benzimidazole-type pesticides

Page 4 of 4