CALIFORNIA OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

PESTICIDE ELEMENT 

ENCLOSURE 6 

EMISSION INVENTORY METHODOLOGY 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

Mary-Ann Warmerdam 

Director M E M O R A N D U M Arnold Schwarzenegger 

Governor 

1001 I Street • P.O. Box 4015 • Sacramento, California 95812-4015 • www.cdpr.ca.gov

A Department of the California Environmental Protection Agency 

 Printed on recycled paper, 100% post-consumer--processed chlorine-free. 

TO: Randy Segawa 

 Environmental Program Manager I 

 Environmental Monitoring Branch 

FROM: Rosemary Neal, Ph.D. Original signed by Pam Wofford for

 Staff Environmental Scientist 

 Environmental Monitoring Branch 

 (951) 684-8625 

DATE: November 5, 2008 

SUBJECT: UPDATE TO THE PESTICIDE VOLATILE ORGANIC INVENTORY: 

ESTIMATED EMISSIONS 1990–2006, AND PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES FOR 

2007 

I. OVERVIEW 

This memorandum summarizes the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR’s) update of 

estimated pesticide volatile organic compound (VOC) emission data, for the May–October “ozone 

season” in California’s five nonattainment areas (NAAs): (1) Sacramento Metro, 

(2) San Joaquin Valley, (3) Southeast Desert, (4) Ventura, and (5) South Coast. An electronic file 

containing detailed statewide 1990–2006 data is available by download from DPR’s Web page at 

<http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/vocproj/vocmenu.htm> along with a variety of VOC 

documentation. 

The 1990–2007 VOC inventories incorporate new emission potential (EP) data for several hundred 

products, and DPR’s 2007 pesticide use data. Inventory calculations for 2005–2006 are based on 

the final report of pesticide use data for those years. Data for 2007 has yet to be finalized and 

should be, for the purposes of this memorandum, considered draft. These EP data reflect new 

thermogravimetric analyses (TGA) requested by DPR in 2005. Thermogravimetric analysis is 

currently the most accurate method for estimating the VOC content of pesticide products. DPR 

requested the data for most liquid products included in the inventory that had not been tested 

previously. The VOC emissions described here incorporate the TGA data submitted, reviewed, and 

approved as of August 2007. 

The emissions are compared to two sets of NAA goals (Table 1). The first set of goals are those 

required by an April 26, 2006, federal district court order (now overturned), and reflected in 

Title 3, California Code of Regulations section 6452.2. These are the goals shown as the “VOC 

regulation benchmarks” and represent a 20 percent reduction from the pesticide VOC emissions in 

1991 for all NAAs. The VOC regulations also show benchmarks specific to Ventura that 

incorporate a phase-in of the 20 percent VOC reductions from 1991 levels between 2008 and 2012. 

On August 20, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court action, finding 

that it had no jurisdiction to issue its order. The second set goals are those described in the 1994 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 2 

California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) (62 Fed. Reg. at 1170,1997) and Appendix H to the 

2007 SIP (73 Fed. Reg. 41277, 2008). These “SIP goals” are a 20 percent reduction from 1990 for 

the Sacramento Metro, Southeast Desert, and South Coast NAAs; a 12 percent reduction from 

1990 for the San Joaquin Valley NAA; and a phase-in of the reductions for the Ventura NAA, with 

a final reduction for Ventura of 20 percent from 1990 by 2012. 

Table 1: Nonattainment Area Goals for 2009–2012. 

NAA 

VOC Regulation Benchmark 

(tons/day) 

2009–2012 

SIP Goal 

(tons/day) 

2009–2012 

1–Sacramento Metropolitan 2.4 2.234 

2–San Joaquin Valley 16.0 18.139 

3–Southeast Desert 0.62 0.923 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 4–Ventura 

3.630 3.230 2.930 2.600 4.030 3.630 3.330 3.029 

5–South Coast 4.1 8.672 

To date, DPR has reported an unadjusted emission inventory that assumes the entire volatile 

portion of a fumigant product eventually volatilizes, contributing to atmospheric VOC loadings. 

However, field studies have shown that actual emissions from soil-applied fumigants such as 

methyl bromide vary by application method and are generally less than 100 percent. DPR has 

developed an adjustment procedure to account for the effect of application method on reducing 

fumigant VOC emissions. 

Procedure for Calculating Unadjusted and Adjusted Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

The unadjusted inventory is based on the premise that the VOC emission from a single application 

of fumigant or nonfumigant product is equal to the amount used times the EP (Spurlock, 2002; 

2006). 

emission = lbs _ use× EP

In the adjusted inventory the emission from a single application of a fumigant active ingredient (AI) 

is equal to the amount of AI used times the EP times the Application Method Adjustment Factor 

(AMAF), also referred to as the emission rating. AMAFs have been determined from field study data 

and are AI and application method specific (Barry et al., 2007). Since the AMAFs are application 

method- and fumigant-specific they yield more refined estimates of fumigant VOC emissions than 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 3 

previous (unadjusted) assumptions. Emission ratings for application methods not found on Tables A1-

2 through A1-6 pertaining to the 1990 application methods may be modified based on more recent data. 

emission = lbs _ use× EP× AMAF

At this time nonfumigant product emissions calculations use the same procedure as in the 

unadjusted inventory. 

Usually there are several different types of application methods used for a particular fumigant 

in any particular NAA. Each method of use (e.g. drip, sprinkler, shank, tarp, etc.) represents 

a fraction of the total number of methods used and is referred to as the Method Use 

Fraction (MUF). The sum of all MUFs for any particular (NAA/fumigant AI) combination is 

one. Use practices change over time so that different MUFs are used for the baseline year (1990) 

as opposed to more recent inventory years. MUFs are determined in a number of different ways. 

For 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) the MUFs are determined from use data collected by the 

registrant in support of DPR’s township application caps; for metam sodium and metam potassium 

grower/applicator surveys were conducted to determine types of applications for different crops 

and areas. Methyl bromide and chloropicrin MUFs are based on expert opinion and regulatory 

history. Finally, MUFs for dazomet and sodium tetrathiocarbonate equal one because the AMAFs 

for each of these two fumigants are constant, independent of application method. 

A detailed discussion of how MUF and AMAFs are calculated can be found in the 

September 29, 2007, memorandum by Barry et al. Tables detailing the AMAFs and method 

use fractions for 1990, 2005, 2006, and 2007 in each of the nonattainment areas are included 

in the appendix of this document (Tables A1–1 to A1–21). The AMAFs are unchanged from the 

Barry et al. memorandum. 

VOC emissions were calculated for each nonattainment area and summed according to primary AI, 

application site, and emission category as defined by the Air Resources Board (ARB). The primary 

AI is defined as the pesticide AI present at the highest percentage in a product. If a pesticide 

product contains 20 percent of AI “A” and 10 percent of AI “B,” all estimated emissions from that 

product are assigned to the primary AI “A.” This approach prevents “double-counting” of 

emissions from products containing two AIs. Both unadjusted and adjusted emission inventory 

data for the top ten primary AIs contributing to May–October ozone in 2005, 2006 and 2007 are 

included in this memorandum. Emissions attributed to application sites (or commodities), 

however, are unadjusted because it is not possible to determine the adjusted emissions with the 

currently available data. The ARB defines four VOC emission categories: methyl bromide 

emissions from agricultural applications, nonmethyl bromide emissions from agricultural 

applications, methyl bromide emissions from structural applications, and nonmethyl bromide 

emissions from structural applications. Emissions were calculated for May–October, the ozone 

season, and are reported as U.S. tons per day (tpd).
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 4 

Revised Emission Potential Values 

Propylene oxide is used exclusively for post-harvest fumigation, and is widely used in the 

Sacramento Metro and San Joaquin Valley NAAs. In the past DPR has included these applications 

in its VOC inventory. Since the Air Pollution Control Districts also include these uses in their 

inventories emissions are being double counted. In addition, DPR has concluded that the use of 

propylene oxide is not an agricultural use, and therefore its products have been eliminated from 

DPR’s VOC inventory. 

EPs for all sulfur products with dust/powder formulations that do not contain any organic 

components have been set to zero. Most of these products had low or zero EP values in previous 

inventories, but recent findings by U.S. Department of Agriculture (McConnell et al., 2008) have 

shown that 132 products have zero EP.

Stakeholders raised concerns to an earlier draft version of this memo because the EP value 

assigned to a certain high use spray oil product was anomalously high. DPR re-reviewed the initial 

TGA of the oil products 10951-15 (Britz 415 Supreme Spray Oil and Britz Citrus Supreme Spray 

Oil; EP = 23.95) and 11656-97 (First Choice Narrow Range 415 Spray Oil and Leaf Life Gavicide 

Green 415; EP = 19.98) and determined that the TGA data were unacceptable because the TGA 

experimental conditions deviated significantly from DPR’s experimental protocol (McKinney, 

2008). In response, the EP values for these products have been set to the spray oil special default 

value of 1.53 until valid TGA data is received. A TGA data reporting error was also identified for 

product 48813-1 (Saf-T-Side products and Synergy Super Fine Spray Oil Emulsion. After 

correctly accounting for the water content of the product, the experimental TGA-measured VOC 

EP value of the product and all of its ten sub-registration products are equal to zero (water is not a 

VOC). The net effect of this latter change on the inventory was minor because these products have 

very low use. 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 5 

II. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND INVENTORY RESULTS 

The main text of this document summarizes the adjusted pesticide VOC emission inventory data 

for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Data for the unadjusted emission inventory are given in Appendix 2. 

Previous reports included a summary of pesticide VOC emissions by commodity/site. At this 

time it is not possible to determine the breakdown of adjusted emissions by commodity, so only 

the unadjusted emissions are shown by commodity in Appendix 2. Tables 2a and 2b and Figure 1 

summarize the adjusted pesticide VOC emissions for 2004 through 2007, and compare them to 

the 1990 base year and goals. Emissions from 1991 used to determine the regulation benchmarks 

are shown for comparison. 

TABLE 2a: May–October (ozone season) adjusted pesticide VOC emissions and goals. 

NAA 

1990 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

1991 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

SIP 

Goal 

(tons/day)

VOC 

Regulation 

Benchmark 

(tons/day) 

2004 

Emissions

(tons/day)

2005 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2006 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2007 

Emissions

(tons/day)

1 – 

Sacramento 

Metropolitan 2.792 3.056 2.234 2.4 1.238 1.246 1.359 1.062 

2 – 

San Joaquin 

Valley 20.612 19.847 18.139 16.0 17.327 20.828 21.419 17.279 

3 – 

Southeast 

Desert 1.154 0.784 0.923 0.62 0.995 0.741 0.635 0.764 

4 – 

Ventura 3.787 3.320 3.029 a 2.6 a 3.924 3.616 3.682 3.361 

5 – 

South Coast 10.840 5.020 8.672 4.1 1.922 1.984 1.492 1.495 

a

 These numbers reflect the SIP goal and VOC Regulation Benchmark for 2012 in Ventura, and do not reflect the 

phase in of reductions between 2008 and 2012. 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 6 

Since 2004, even after adjusting for field conditions (AMAFs), fumigants continue to contribute 

the most pesticide VOC emissions in the Southeast Desert and Ventura NAAs. Also consistent 

with previous years, pesticides formulated as emulsifiable concentrates are the other major 

pesticide VOC contributors, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley NAA. In almost all cases, it is 

the solvents included as inert ingredients of emulsifiable concentrates that contribute most of the 

VOCs, not the AIs 

TABLE 2b: May–October (ozone season) fumigant and nonfumigant pesticide VOC emissions. 

NAA 

1990 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

1991 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2004 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2005 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2006 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2007 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

1 – Sacramento Metro 

Fumigants 0.384 (14%) 0.317 (10%) 0.111 (9%) 0.085 (7%) 0.162 (12%) 0.191 (18%) 

NonFumigants 2.408 (86%) 2.739 (90%) 1.126 (91%) 1.161 (93%) 1.197 (88%) 0.871 (82%) 

2 - San Joaquin Valley 

Fumigants 5.536 (27%) 7.164 (36%) 6.362 (37%) 6.910 (33%) 6.808 (32%) 6.146 (36%) 

NonFumigants 15.076 (73%) 12.682 (64%) 10.965 (63%) 13.918 (67%) 14.611 (68%) 11.134 (64%)

3 - Southeast Desert 

Fumigants 0.840 (73%) 0.401 (51%) 0.762 (77%) 0.474 (64%) 0.413 (65%) 0.575 (75%) 

NonFumigants 0.313 (27%) 0.383 (49%) 0.233 (23%) 0.267 (36%) 0.222 (35%) 0.189 (25%) 

4 - Ventura 

Fumigants 3.140 (83%) 2.751 (83%) 3.302 (84%) 3.119 (86%) 3.175 (86%) 2.933 (87%) 

No-Fumigants 0.647 (17%) 0.568 (17%) 0.622 (16%) 0.497 (14%) 0.508 (14%) 0.428 (13%) 

5 – South Coast 

Fumigants 9.372 (86%) 3.614 (72%) 0.702 (37%) 0.597 (30%) 0.422 (28%) 0.411 (28%) 

NonFumigants 1.468 (14%) 1.406 (28%) 1.220 (63%) 1.387 (70%) 1.069 (72%) 1.084 (72%) 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 7 

In comparison to 2004: 

• Sacramento Metro NAA: VOC emissions increased between 2004 and 2006 but decreased in 

2007. Emissions remain well below the SIP goal and the VOC regulation benchmark. In 

2007, 82 percent of emissions were derived from nonfumigants. 

• San Joaquin Valley NAA: VOC emissions increased in 2005 and 2006 and then decreased to 

below 2004 levels in 2007. The 2007 emissions are below the SIP goal but exceed the VOC 

regulation benchmark by 1.279 tpd. Two thirds of emissions are derived from nonfumigants. 

• Southeast Desert NAA: VOC emissions decreased annually through 2006, but then increased 

in 2007. Emissions in this NAA meet the SIP goal but exceed the VOC regulation 

benchmark. Emissions from fumigants account for approximately two thirds of total. 

• Ventura NAA: VOC emissions have decreased, but do not meet the regulation benchmark 

and SIP goal for 2012, but do meet the regulation benchmark 2009 of 3.63 tpd. More than 

85 percent of emissions are derived from fumigants. 

• South Coast NAA: VOC emissions decreased and remain well below the emission targets. 

1. Sacramento Metropolitan Area–NAA 1 

The emissions in NAA 1 in 2007 are below those of the three previous years. Adjusted emissions 

in 2004 were 1.238 tpd, increased to 1.359 tpd in 2006 and decreased to 1.062 tpd in 2007 

(Table 2a, Figure 1). Chlorpyrifos, a widely used insecticide, was the primary contributor and 

accounted for an average of 11.4 percent of the emissions over the three years (Tables 3a, 3b, 

and 3c). Emissions from chlorpyrifos use decreased from 0.186 tpd in 2005 to 0.116 tpd in 2007 

(Tables 3a and 3c). The rice herbicide molinate accounted for the second highest amount of 

emissions in 2005 (0.093 tpd), down from 0.198 tpd in 2004. Molinate use is being phased out, 

and this is reflected by a further reduction in emissions in 2007 to 0.011 tpd. This is consistent 

with reported use in NAA 1, which decreased from over 150,000 pounds AI used in 2004 to 

52,000 pounds in 2005, just over 30,000 lbs in 2006, and 14,000 lbs in 2007. Emissions from 

metam-sodium, a pre-plant fumigant, increased from 0.028 tpd in 2005 to 0.063 tpd in 2006, but 

decreased to 0.022 tpd in 2007 (Tables 3a and 3b). Major commodities/sites include processing 

tomatoes, structural pest control, walnuts, and rice (Appendix 2). 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 8 

TABLE 3a: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 1 May–Oct 

2005 Adjusted Emissions 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.186 14.93 

MOLINATE 0.093 7.49 

THIOBENCARB 0.070 5.64 

TRIFLURALIN 0.064 5.11 

PERMETHRIN 0.057 4.58 

ETHALFLURALIN 0.048 3.83 

CYPERMETHRIN 0.044 3.50 

SETHOXYDIM 0.039 3.11 

DIMETHOATE 0.038 3.08 

N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE 

DICARBOXIMIDE 0.037 2.94 

TABLE 3b: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 1 May–Oct 

2006 Adjusted Emissions 

TRIFLURALIN 0.123 9.06 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.115 8.43 

ETHALFLURALIN 0.082 6.03 

METAM-SODIUM 0.063 4.66 

1,3-D 0.055 4.02 

HYDROPRENE 0.047 3.48 

MOLINATE 0.046 3.38 

THIOBENCARB 0.040 2.97 

OXYFLUORFEN 0.040 2.94 

CYPERMETHRIN 0.035 2.57 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 9 

TABLE 3c: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 1 May–Oct 

2007 Adjusted Emissions 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.116 10.95 

1,3-D 0.109 10.26 

TRIFLURALIN 0.057 5.40 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.055 5.19 

DIMETHOATE 0.049 4.66 

THIOBENCARB 0.039 3.70 

OXYFLUORFEN 0.038 3.57 

PROPANIL 0.029 2.72 

PENOXSULAM 0.027 2.51 

ETHALFLURALIN 0.025 2.40 

2. San Joaquin Valley–NAA 2 

Adjusted emissions in 2004 were 17.327 tpd and increased in 2005 to 20.828 tpd, and 21.419 tpd 

in 2006. However, 2007 emissions showed a marked decline to 17.279 tpd (Table 2a). All three 

years’ emissions are above the VOC regulation benchmark of 16 tpd (Table 2a and Figure 1), but 

the 2007 emissions are below the SIP goal of 18.139 tpd. Fumigants accounted for between 31.8 

and 35.6 percent of adjusted emissions for the 3 years (Tables 2b, 4a, 4b and 4c). The top 

emission contributor for 2005 through 2007 was the nonfumigant, chlorpyrifos, which accounted 

for 3.868 and 3.990 tpd in 2005 and 2006, respectively, but fell to 2.263 tpd in 2007. Major 

commodities/sites include carrots, cotton, almonds, and oranges (Appendix 2). It should be noted 

that unadjusted emissions from cotton fell sharply between 2006 and 2007 from 2.609 tpd to 

1.049 tpd, respectively (Tables A2-2e and A2-2f). 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 10 

TABLE 4a: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 2 May–Oct 

2005 Adjusted Emissions 

CHLORPYRIFOS 3.868 18.57 

METAM-SODIUM 2.843 13.65 

1,3-D 2.364 11.35 

METHYL BROMIDE 1.073 5.15 

OXYFLUORFEN 0.749 3.60 

DIMETHOATE 0.650 3.12 

GIBBERELLINS 0.628 3.02 

ACROLEIN 0.572 2.75 

ABAMECTIN 0.523 2.51 

TRIFLURALIN 0.467 2.24 

TABLE 4b: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 2 May–Oct 

2006 Adjusted Emissions 

CHLORPYRIFOS 3.990 18.63 

METAM-SODIUM 2.572 12.01 

1,3-D 2.059 9.61 

METHYL BROMIDE 1.121 5.23 

OXYFLUORFEN 0.779 3.64 

POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.770 3.59 

GIBBERELLINS 0.679 3.17 

TRIFLURALIN 0.677 3.16 

DIMETHOATE 0.645 3.01 

ACROLEIN 0.600 2.80 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 11 

TABLE 4c: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 2 May–Oct 

2007 Adjusted Emissions 

CHLORPYRIFOS 2.263 13.10 

1,3-D 2.169 12.55 

METAM-SODIUM 2.088 12.08 

METHYL BROMIDE 1.005 5.82 

OXYFLUORFEN 0.944 5.46 

GIBBERELLINS 0.712 4.12 

POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.650 3.76 

DIMETHOATE 0.643 3.72 

ABAMECTIN 0.542 3.14 

ACROLEIN 0.455 2.63 

3. Southeast Desert–NAA 3 

Total adjusted emissions for the Southeast Desert declined steadily from 0.995 tpd in 2004 to 

0.635 tpd in 2006 (Table 2a and Figure 1), but increased to 0.754 tpd in 2007. The 2007 rate is 

below the SIP goal of 0.923 tpd, but above the VOC regulation benchmark of 0.62 tpd. 

Metam-sodium is the primary contributor, accounting for an average of 46.3 percent of the 

adjusted emissions over the 3 years (Tables 5a, 5b, and 5c). The increased percentage to 

53.2 percent in 2006 corresponds to a reduction in the adjusted methyl bromide emissions from 

0.048 tpd in 2005 to less than 0.008 tpd in 2006. Methyl bromide emissions increased to 0.170 tpd 

in 2007 and are responsible for the increase in total adjusted emissions in this NAA. Major 

commodities/sites include carrots, strawberries, peppers, and structural pest control (Appendix 2). 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 12 

TABLE 5a: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 3 May–Oct 

2005 Adjusted Emissions 

METAM-SODIUM 0.323 43.53 

PERMETHRIN 0.079 10.61 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.048 6.46 

1,3-D 0.035 4.76 

POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.031 4.19 

MALATHION 0.011 1.47 

EPTC 0.011 1.45 

BENSULIDE 0.010 1.41 

TRICLOPYR, BUTOXYETHYL ESTER 0.009 1.28 

MEFENOXAM 0.009 1.21 

TABLE 5b: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 3 May–Oct 

2006 Adjusted Emissions 

METAM-SODIUM 0.338 53.27 

1,3-D 0.041 6.40 

PERMETHRIN 0.032 4.97 

BENSULIDE 0.028 4.40 

GLYPHOSATE, ISOPROPYLAMINE SALT 0.009 1.40 

MEFENOXAM 0.009 1.38 

GIBBERELLINS 0.009 1.35 

PENDIMETHALIN 0.008 1.22 

MALATHION 0.008 1.21 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.008 1.21 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 13 

TABLE 5c: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 3 May–Oct 

2007 Adjusted Emissions 

METAM-SODIUM 0.323 42.32 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.170 22.22 

1,3-D 0.036 4.74 

PERMETHRIN 0.020 2.65 

BENSULIDE 0.017 2.18 

EPTC 0.010 1.26 

GLYPHOSATE, ISOPROPYLAMINE SALT 0.008 1.09 

MALATHION 0.008 1.05 

MEFENOXAM 0.007 0.94 

METHOMYL 0.006 0.84 

4. Ventura–NAA 4 

Ozone season adjusted emissions decreased from 3.924 tpd in 2004 to 3.616 tpd in 2005, 

increased to 3.682 tpd in 2006 and decreased to 3.361 tpd in 2007 (Table 2a and Figure 1). 

Emissions did not meet the SIP goal for 2012 (3.029 tpd), but did meet the SIP goal for 2009 

(4.029 tpd) and the VOC regulation benchmark for 2009 (3.63 tpd). As in previous years, 

fumigants dominate the pesticide inventory for this NAA, accounting for upward of 85 percent 

of the emissions (Table 2b, 6a, 6b, and 6c). The adjusted emissions for NAA 4 in 2004 differ 

significantly from those estimated by Barry, et al. (2007), due to a revision of the MUFs. For 

2004 in NAA 4, the adjusted emissions changed from 4.826 tpd to 3.924 tpd. The difference is 

due to information indicating more frequent use of lower emission fumigation methods than 

previously estimated. Major commodities/sites include strawberries, tomatoes, raspberries, and 

lemons (Appendix 2). 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 14 

TABLE 6a: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 4 May–Oct 

2005 Adjusted Emissions 

METHYL BROMIDE 1.227 33.93 

CHLOROPICRIN 1.166 32.25 

1,3-D 0.659 18.21 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.086 2.37 

METAM-SODIUM 0.060 1.66 

PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.046 1.27 

OXAMYL 0.029 0.80 

CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF 

NEEM OIL 0.029 0.80 

ABAMECTIN 0.027 0.73 

MINERAL OIL 0.026 0.71 

TABLE 6b: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 4 May–Oct 

2006 Adjusted Emissions 

METHYL BROMIDE 1.218 33.07 

CHLOROPICRIN 1.164 31.60 

1,3-D 0.723 19.63 

METAM-SODIUM 0.069 1.89 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.066 1.79 

PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.047 1.28 

OXAMYL 0.036 0.98 

AZADIRACHTIN 0.035 0.95 

ABAMECTIN 0.027 0.72 

CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 0.023 0.64 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 15 

TABLE 6c: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 4 May–Oct 

2007 Adjusted Emissions 

CHLOROPICRIN 1.252 37.26 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.934 27.80 

1,3-D 0.674 20.04 

METAM-SODIUM 0.071 2.12 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.045 1.33 

MINERAL OIL 0.035 1.06 

PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.032 0.96 

CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF 

NEEM OIL 0.032 0.94 

ABAMECTIN 0.025 0.74 

OXAMYL 0.024 0.70 

5. South Coast–NAA 5 

In the South Coast NAA, adjusted emissions have declined steadily since 2004. Adjusted 

emissions were 1.922 tpd in 2004, and although they increased slightly to 1.984 tpd in 2005, 

they declined to 1.495 tpd in 2007, well below the SIP goal of 8.672 tpd and the VOC regulation 

benchmark of 4.1 tpd. The fumigants methyl bromide, chloropicrin and 1,3-D, contributed to 

28.96 percent of 2005 adjusted emissions, 27.46 percent of 2006 adjusted emissions and 

26.04 percent of 2007 adjusted emissions (Tables 7a, 7b, and 7c). Permethrin, an insecticide 

used on a wide range of commodities, was the largest single contributor to the adjusted inventory 

accounting for approximately 20 percent of the emissions. Major commodities/sites include 

structural pest control, strawberries, and landscape maintenance. 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 16 

TABLE 7a: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast.

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 5 May–Oct 

2005 Adjusted Emissions 

PERMETHRIN 0.455 22.95 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.348 17.53 

CHLOROPICRIN 0.147 7.43 

BIFENTHRIN 0.081 4.07 

IMIDACLOPRID 0.081 4.06 

1,3-D 0.079 4.00 

N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE 

DICARBOXIMIDE 0.068 3.45 

LIMONENE 0.056 2.85 

PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE 0.053 2.66 

CYFLUTHRIN 0.051 2.59 

TABLE 7b: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 5 May–Oct 

2006 Adjusted Emissions 

PERMETHRIN 0.279 18.73 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.247 16.56 

CHLOROPICRIN 0.119 8.00 

IMIDACLOPRID 0.096 6.44 

N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE 

DICARBOXIMIDE 0.072 4.83 

BIFENTHRIN 0.067 4.48 

FIPRONIL 0.045 3.00 

CYFLUTHRIN 0.044 2.94 

1,3-D 0.043 2.90 

CYPERMETHRIN 0.039 2.60 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 17 

TABLE 7c: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 May–October ozone season adjusted

VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast. 

Primary AI 

Total Product 

Adjusted Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Percent of All NAA 5 May–Oct 

2007 Adjusted Emissions 

PERMETHRIN 0.275 18.40 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.235 15.72 

LIMONENE 0.121 8.11 

CHLOROPICRIN 0.107 7.13 

BIFENTHRIN 0.077 5.14 

N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE 

DICARBOXIMIDE 0.069 4.59 

1,3-D 0.048 3.19 

CYFLUTHRIN 0.042 2.81 

CYPERMETHRIN 0.042 2.80 

DISODIUM OCTABORATE TETRAHYDRATE 0.042 2.78 

III. PRELIMINARY PROJECTION FOR 2009 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND 

EMISSIONS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, SOUTHEAST DESERT, AND 

VENTURA NONATTAINMENT AREAS 

Regulations require DPR to establish a fumigant limit for NAAs that exceed 80 percent of the 

pesticide VOC benchmark. (NOTE: Benchmark is 20 percent reduction or 80 percent of 1991 

emissions and a phase-in of reductions for Ventura. Trigger for fumigant limit is 64 percent 

[80 percent of 80 percent] of 1991 emissions). The regulations also require DPR to determine the 

fumigant limit for the upcoming year by subtracting the nonfumigant emissions from the 

regulatory benchmark. DPR proposes to determine nonfumigant emissions for the upcoming year 

by using the data from the single most recent year. For example, DPR proposes to use the 

nonfumigant emissions for 2007 to determine the fumigant limit for 2009. At the time of this 

memo, DPR has released pesticide use data for 2005 and 2006, and is awaiting publication of the 

2007 pesticide use report. For the purposes of this memorandum, preliminary projected 

emissions for 2009 are based on a draft edition of 2007 data, and should be regarded merely as a 

guideline (Table 8). Projections for 2009 will be revised once the final version of the 2007 data 

has been released. 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 18 

TABLE 8: Preliminary projection for 2009 VOC emissions for NAAs 2, 3, and 4. The 2009 

projected fumigant limits are determined by subtracting the 2007 nonfumigant emissions from 

the SIP goals and VOC regulation benchmarks. 

NonAttainment 

Area 

SIP 

Goal 

(tons/day) 

VOC 

Regulation 

Benchmark 

(tons/day) 

2007 

Nonfumigant 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2009 

Projected 

Fumigant 

Limit, Based 

on SIP Goal 

(tons/day) 

2009 Projected 

Fumigant 

Limit, Based on 

Regulation 

Benchmark 

(tons/day) 

2007 

Adjusted 

Fumigant 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2–San Joaquin 

Valley 18.139 16.0 11.134 7.005 4.866 6.146 

3–Southeast 

Desert 0.923 0.62 0.189 0.734 0.431 0.575 

4–Ventura 4.030 a 3.63 a 0.428 3.602 3.202 2.933 a

 The Ventura SIP Goal and VOC Regulation Benchmark for 2009 are shown. 

Based on the available data, the San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert, and Ventura NAAs are 

likely to exceed their fumigant limit triggers based on VOC regulation benchmarks for 2009 

(Table 8 and Figure 1). 

In 2007, fumigant emissions in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area were calculated to be 

6.146 tpd (Table 8), more than the projected fumigant limit based on the VOC regulation 

benchmark of 4.866 tpd. In the Southeast Desert NAA, a reduction in fumigant emissions of 

0.144 tpd or more from 2007 levels would meet the projected fumigant limit for 2009 based on 

the VOC regulation benchmark. Overall emissions have declined for NAA 4 (Ventura) between 

2004 and 2007. The total adjusted fumigant emissions for 2007 were 2.933 tpd, which is below 

the projected fumigant limit for 2009. 

IV. CONCLUSIONS 

In 2005, 2006 and 2007 NAA 1 (Sacramento Metropolitan) and NAA 5 (South Coast) were the 

only regions with emission rates below their respective VOC regulation benchmarks. The South 

Coast NAA continues a downward trend, whereas Sacramento NAA emissions increased in both 

2005 and 2006, but decreased in 2007. Emission rates for NAA 3 (Southeast Desert) were 

significantly lower in 2007 than those in 2004, but are up compared to emissions in 2006. 

NAA 2 (San Joaquin Valley) produced successively higher emissions from 2004 to 2006, with 

most of the increase due to nonfumigants (Figure 2). Total adjusted emissions in 2007 were 

largely due to nonfumigants that declined by over three tpd. It may be necessary to address the 

issue of nonfumigant emissions if VOC regulation benchmark emission goals are to be met in 

this NAA. Emissions declined for NAA 4 (Ventura) between 2004 and 2007. NAA 4 emissions 

meet the 2009 regulation benchmark for 2009. Fumigants were a major source of emissions in 

NAA 3 and NAA 4, whereas nonfumigants contributed significantly to the Sacramento Metro, 

San Joaquin Valley, and South Coast nonattainment areas. Unless these emissions are 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 19 

significantly reduced, especially the increased use of emulsifiable concentrate formulations in the 

San Joaquin Valley, NAA 2 may continue to fail to meet its attainment goal. 

cc: Christopher Reardon, Chief Deputy Director 

Charles M. Andrews, Associate Director 

 Polly Frenkel, Chief Counsel 

 John S. Sanders, Ph.D., Environmental Program Manager 

 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 20 

V. REFERENCES 

Barry, T., F. Spurlock and R. Segawa. September 29, 2007, memorandum to John S. Sanders, 

Ph.D.: Pesticide Volatile Organic Compound Emission Adjustments For Field Conditions And 

Estimated Volatile Organic Compound Reductions–Revised Estimates. Available at: 

<http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/ehapreps/analysis_memos/1955_sanders.pdf>. 

Federal Register. 1997. January 8, 1997, page 1170, Emission Reductions. 

Federal Register. 2008. July 18, 2008, page 41277, Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan; Pesticide Element; Ventura County. 

McConnell, L. L., Zeinali, M., Hapeman, C. J. and Schmidt, W. June 12, 2008. USDA ARS 

Report to CDPR on the Thermogravimetric and FT-IR Analysis of Sulfur Fungicide Products. 

USDA-ARS Environmental Management and Byproduct Utilization Laboratory, Beltsville, 

Maryland. Available at: 

<http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/usda_ars_rpt.pdf>. 

McKinney, M. August 26, 2008. memorandum to Randy Segawa: Analysis of Anomalously 

High Emission Potential Values for Certain Spray Oil Products. Available at:

<http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/ehapreps/analysis_memos/2079_segawa.pdf>.

Spurlock, F., 2006. July 18, 2006, memorandum to John S. Sanders Ph.D.: 2006 Revisions to 

Procedures for Estimating Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Pesticides. Available at: 

<http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/voc_calc_revision071805.pdf>. 

Spurlock, F. January 7, 2002 memorandum to John S. Sanders Ph.D. Methodology for 

determining VOC emission potential of pesticide products. Available at: 

<http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/intro.pdf>. 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 21 

FIGURE 1: Annual ozone season pesticide VOC emissions by NAA. These figures show 

adjusted emissions, VOC regulation benchmarks (reductions from 1991 emissions) and SIP goals 

(reductions from 1990 emissions). 

• Adjusted Emissions 

(1990, 1991, 2004, 2005 & 

2006)

VOC Regulation Benchmarks 

 ▬ ● ▬ SIP Commitments 

NAA 1 Sacramento Metropolitan

Year

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Emission Rate (tpd)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

NAA 2 San Joaquin Valley 

Year

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Emission Rate (tpd)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

NAA 3 Southeast Desert 

Year

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Emission Rate (tpd)

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

NAA 4 Ventura

Year

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Emission Rate (tpd)

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

NAA 5 South Coast

Year

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Emission Rate (tpd)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

• Adjusted Emissions 

(1990, 1991, 2004, 2005 

& 2006)

VOC Regulation 

Benchmarks 

 ▬ ● ▬ SIP Goals
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 22 

FIGURE 2: Pesticide VOC emissions for the San Joaquin Valley NAA, May–October. 

Emissions for each year are divided into fumigants and nonfumigants. Fumigant emissions are 

adjusted to account for fumigation method. Emissions for 2004 are shown for comparison. The 

solid line indicates the emissions benchmark specified in VOC regulations (20 percent reduction 

from 1991). 

APPENDIX 1:Summary Of Application Method 

Adjustment 

Factors And MUF 

0

5

10

15

20

25

2004 2005 2006 2007

VOC Emissions (tons/day)

Nonfumigants

Fumigants
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 23 

Table A1–1: Application Method Adjustment Factors.

AMAF 

Fumigation 

Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide Metam Dazomet

Na 

Tetrathio 

carbonate

Shallow injection w/ 

high permeability tarp 

or no tarp-broadcast 61* 64* 74* 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

Shallow injection w/ 

low permeability 

tarp-broadcast 

not 

applicable 44 48 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

Shallow injection w/ 

high permeability tarp 

or no tarp-bed 

not 

applicable 64* 100* 77* 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

Shallow injection w/ 

low permeability 

tarp-bed 

not 

applicable 64* 100* 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

Shallow injection w/ 

water treatments 41 20 

not 

applicable 21 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

Shallow injection w/ 

soil cap 

not 

applicable not applicable 

not 

applicable 14 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

Deep injection w/ 

high permeability tarp 

or no tarp-broadcast 41 64* 74* 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability 

tarp-broadcast 

not 

applicable 44 48 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

Deep injection w/ 

water treatments 27 20 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

Rotovate/rototill not 

applicable not applicable 

not 

applicable 14 17 

not 

applicable 

Sprinkler not 

applicable not applicable 

not 

applicable 77* 

not 

applicable 10 

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments 

not 

applicable not applicable 

not 

applicable 21 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

Flood not 

applicable not applicable 

not 

applicable 77* 

not 

applicable 10 

Drip w/ high 

permeability tarp or 

no tarp 29 not applicable 

not 

applicable 9 

not 

applicable 10 

Drip w/ low 

permeability tarp 

not 

applicable 15 

not 

applicable 9 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

Nonfield soil 

(structural/postharvest) 

not 

applicable 100 100 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

not 

applicable 

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

Southeast Desert, and Ventura NAAs during May–October.
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 24 

Table A1–2; 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Sacramento Metro

nonattainment area.1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 

3 DPR assumes 100 pecent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of 

MITC applied. 

4 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D2 Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide Metam3 Dazomet3 Na Tetrathio 

carbonate4 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 42 37 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 42 36 3 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 15 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 16 14 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 2 100 

Sprinkler 55 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 10 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 10 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 5 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 13 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 25 

Table A1–3: 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area. 

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

2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

4 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D2 Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide Metam3 Dazomet3 

Na 

Tetrathio 

carbonate4 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 29 29 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 29 29 8 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 25 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 42 42 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 3 100 

Sprinkler 60 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp or 

no tarp 2 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 2 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 26 

Table A1–4: 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Southeast Desert 

nonattainment area. 

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

4 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Perceny of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D2 Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide Metam3 Dazomet3 

Na 

Tetrathio 

carbonate4 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 50 35 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 50 34 10 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 30 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 50 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp or 

no tarp 5 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 5 

Non-field soil (structural/postharvest) 31 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 27 

Table A1–5: 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Ventura 

nonattainmetn area. 

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

4 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D2 Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide Metam3 Dazomet3 Na Tetrathio 

carbonate4 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 50 49 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 50 49 20 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 50 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 15 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 15 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 3 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 28 

Table A1–6: 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the South Coast 

nonattainment area.

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

2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

4 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D2 Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide Metam3 Dazomet3 

Na 

Tetrathio 

carbonate4 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 50 3 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 50 3 20 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 50 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp or 

no tarp 15 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 15 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 95 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 29 

Table A1–7. 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Sacramento Metro 

nonattainment area. 

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 56.0 11.3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 33.0 6.3 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 15 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 99 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 11.4 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 45 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 1 9 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 11.0 10 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 70.9 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 30 

Table A1–8: 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area. 

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 2 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 97.0 79.5 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 0.6 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 20 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 97 1.0 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 1.0 16.3 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 35 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 1 14 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 10 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 1.0 3.7 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 31 

Table A1–9: 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Southeast Desert 

nonattainment area. 

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 88 77.1 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 6 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 18.9 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 10 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 1.1 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 75 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 90 5 7 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 5 12 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 2 2.9 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 32 

Table A1–10: 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Ventura 

nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 1 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 67 100.0 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

 tarp-bed 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 25 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 4 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 20 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 95 5 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 33 50 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 33 

Table A1–11: 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the South Coast 

nonattainment area. 

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 40 60.9 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 25 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 36 30.8 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil 

cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 2 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 0.5 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 20 33 

Sprinkler w/ water 

treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability 

tarp or no tarp 98 5 34 

Drip w/ low permeability 

tarp 24 50 

Nonfield soil 

(structural/post-harvest) 7.8 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 34 

Table A1–12: 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Sacramento Metro 

nonattainment area. 

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 3 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 56.0 11.3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 33.0 6.3 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 15 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 95 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 11.4 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 45 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 2 9 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 11.0 10 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 70.9 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 35 

Table A1–13: 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the San Joaquin 

Valley nonattainment area. 

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 2 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 97.0 79.5 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 0.6 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 20 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 97 1.0 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 1.0 16.3 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 35 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 1 14 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 10 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 1.0 3.7 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 36 

Table A1–14: 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Southeast Desert 

nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 88.0 77.1 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 6 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 18.9 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 16 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 0.2 1.1 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 75 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 84 5.0 7 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 5.0 12 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 2.0 2.9 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 37 

Table A1–15: 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Ventura 

nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 67.0 100.0 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 25 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 7 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 20 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 93 5 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 33.0 50 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 38 

Table A1–16: 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the South Coast 

nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 40.0 60.9 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 25 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 36.0 30.8 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 0.5 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 20 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 100 5 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 24.0 50 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 7.8 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 39 

Table A1–17: 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Sacramento 

Metro nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 0.0 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 56.0 11.3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 33.0 6.3 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 15 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 99.9 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 11.4 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 45 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 0.1 9 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 11.0 10 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 70.9 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 40 

Table A1–18: 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the San Joaquin 

Valley nonattainment area. 

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 0.3 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 97.0 79.5 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 21 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 0.6 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 20 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 99.3 1.0 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 1.0 16.3 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 35 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 0.4 14 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 10 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 1.0 3.7 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 41 

Table A1–19: 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Southeast Desert 

nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 0.4 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 88.0 77.1 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 6 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 18.9 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 0.0 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 0.2 1.1 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 75 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 99.6 5.0 7 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 5.0 12 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 2.0 2.9 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 42 

Table A1–20: 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Ventura 

nonattainment area.

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

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 67.0 100.0 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no tarpbed 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 25 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 5.0 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 20 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 94.9 5 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 33.0 50 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 43 

Table A1–21: 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the South Coast 

nonattainment area.

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

2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount 

of MITC applied. 

3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are 

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

Percent of Amount Applied 

Fumigation Method1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl 

Bromide 

Metam 

2 Dazomet2 

Na 

Tetrathiocarbonate3 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 40.0 60.9 

Shallow injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-bed 25 

Shallow injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-bed 36.0 30.8 

Shallow injection w/ water 

treatments 

Shallow injection w/ soil cap 

Deep injection w/ high 

permeability tarp or no 

tarp-broadcast 

Deep injection w/ low 

permeability tarp-broadcast 0.5 

Deep injection w/ water 

treatments 

Rotovate/rototill 100 

Sprinkler 20 33 

Sprinkler w/ water treatments 

Flood 33 

Drip w/ high permeability tarp 

or no tarp 100.0 5 34 

Drip w/ low permeability tarp 24.0 50 

Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 7.8 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 44 

APPENDIX 2–SUMMARY OF UNADJUSTED PESTICIDE VOC EMISSIONS 

1. Sacramento Metropolitan Area–NAA 1 

TABLE A2-1a: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 

2005 emissions 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.186 14.17 

MOLINATE 0.093 7.11 

THIOBENCARB 0.070 5.36 

TRIFLURALIN 0.064 4.85 

1,3-D 0.062 4.74 

PERMETHRIN 0.057 4.34 

METAM-SODIUM 0.051 3.91 

ETHALFLURALIN 0.048 3.63 

CYPERMETHRIN 0.044 3.32 

SETHOXYDIM 0.039 2.96 

TABLE A2–1b: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 

2006 emissions 

1,3-D 0.143 9.45 

TRIFLURALIN 0.123 8.14 

METAM-SODIUM 0.116 7.64 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.115 7.58 

ETHALFLURALIN 0.082 5.42 

HYDROPRENE 0.047 3.13 

MOLINATE 0.046 3.04 

THIOBENCARB 0.040 2.67 

OXYFLUORFEN 0.040 2.64 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.040 2.62 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 45 

TABLE A2–1c: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 

2007 emissions 

1,3-D 0.274 21.77 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.116 9.25 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.068 5.37 

TRIFLURALIN 0.057 4.56 

DIMETHOATE 0.049 3.94 

METAM-SODIUM 0.041 3.24 

THIOBENCARB 0.039 3.13 

OXYFLUORFEN 0.038 3.01 

PROPANIL 0.029 2.30 

PENOXSULAM 0.027 2.12 

TABLE A2–1d: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2005 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 

2005 emissions 

RICE 0.229 17.48 

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.219 16.70 

WALNUT 0.164 12.50 

TOMATO, PROCESSING 0.131 9.96 

GRAPE, WINE 0.064 4.88 

RIGHTS OF WAY 0.063 4.82 

ALFALFA 0.059 4.51 

SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.054 4.13 

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.044 3.37 

SUNFLOWER 0.041 3.12 

TABLE A2–1e: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2006 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 

2006 emissions 

TOMATO, PROCESSING 0.247 16.33 

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.218 14.41 

WALNUT 0.177 11.71 

RICE 0.176 11.67 

SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.094 6.24 

SUNFLOWER 0.083 5.52 

RIGHTS OF WAY 0.073 4.84 

ALFALFA 0.044 2.94 

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.043 2.87 

GRAPE, WINE 0.040 2.63 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 46 

TABLE A2–1f: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2007 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 

2007 emissions 

WALNUT 0.300 23.86 

RICE 0.160 12.73 

TOMATO, PROCESSING 0.143 11.39 

RIGHTS OF WAY 0.076 6.03 

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.066 5.28 

SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.061 4.83 

N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 0.053 4.23 

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.047 3.71 

UNCULTIVATED AG 0.045 3.60 

GRAPE, WINE 0.043 3.39 

TABLE A21g: Unadjusted 2005 May–October VOC emissions in NAA1 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 1–2005 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.035 0.000 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 1.055 0.219 

TABLE A2–1h: Unadjusted 2006 May–October VOC emissions in NAA1 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA–2006 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.037 0.000 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 1.255 0.218 

TABLE A2–1i: Unadjusted 2007 May–October VOC emissions in NAA1 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 1–2007 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.062 0.000 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 1.124 0.066 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 47 

2. San Joaquin Valley–NAA 2 

TABLE A2–2a: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 

2005 emissions 

1,3-D 5.938 20.25 

METAM-SODIUM 5.912 20.17 

CHLORPYRIFOS 3.868 13.19 

METHYL BROMIDE 2.461 8.39 

POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.928 3.16 

OXYFLUORFEN 0.749 2.56 

DIMETHOATE 0.650 2.22 

GIBBERELLINS 0.628 2.14 

ACROLEIN 0.572 1.95 

ABAMECTIN 0.523 1.78 

TABLE A2–2b: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 

2006 emissions 

METAM-SODIUM 5.350 18.05 

1,3-D 5.094 17.18 

CHLORPYRIFOS 3.990 13.46 

METHYL BROMIDE 2.645 8.92 

POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 1.601 5.40 

OXYFLUORFEN 0.779 2.63 

GIBBERELLINS 0.679 2.29 

TRIFLURALIN 0.677 2.29 

DIMETHOATE 0.645 2.17 

ACROLEIN 0.600 2.02 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 48 

TABLE A2–2c: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 

2007 emissions 

1,3-D 5.465 22.02 

METAM-SODIUM 4.342 17.49 

METHYL BROMIDE 2.319 9.34 

CHLORPYRIFOS 2.263 9.12 

POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 1.351 5.44 

OXYFLUORFEN 0.944 3.80 

GIBBERELLINS 0.712 2.87 

DIMETHOATE 0.643 2.59 

ABAMECTIN 0.542 2.18 

ACROLEIN 0.455 1.83 

TABLE A2–2d: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2005 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 

2005 emissions 

CARROT 5.096 17.38 

COTTON 3.017 10.29 

ALMOND 2.641 9.01 

ORANGE 1.945 6.63 

N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 1.857 6.33 

GRAPE, WINE 1.175 4.01 

GRAPE 1.152 3.93 

WALNUT 1.114 3.80 

ALFALFA 1.013 3.46 

POTATO 0.878 2.99 

TABLE A2–2e: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2006 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 

2006 emissions 

CARROT 4.308 14.53 

ALMOND 3.816 12.87 

COTTON 2.609 8.80 

N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 1.597 5.39 

ORANGE 1.569 5.29 

SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 1.152 3.89 

POTATO 1.105 3.73 

WALNUT 1.079 3.64 

ALFALFA 1.029 3.47 

GRAPE 0.975 3.29 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 49 

TABLE A2–2f: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2007 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 

2007 emissions 

CARROT 3.943 15.89 

ALMOND 3.922 15.80 

GRAPE 1.400 5.64 

ORANGE 1.303 5.25 

N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 1.068 4.30 

WALNUT 1.063 4.28 

COTTON 1.049 4.23 

POTATO 0.942 3.79 

SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.774 3.12 

TOMATO, PROCESSING 0.764 3.08 

TABLE A2–2g: Unadjusted 2005 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 2 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 2–2005 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 2.126 0.008 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 26.490 0.367 

TABLE A2–2h: Unadjusted 2006 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 2 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 2–2006 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 2.200 0.029 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 26.707 0.293 

TABLE A2–2i: Unadjusted 2007 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 2 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 2–2007 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 1.905 0.012 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 22.210 0.291 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 50 

3. Southeast Desert–NAA 3 

TABLE A2–3a: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 

2005 emissions 

METAM-SODIUM 0.503 44.50 

1,3-D 0.181 15.98 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.106 9.39 

PERMETHRIN 0.079 6.96 

POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.048 4.28 

DAZOMET 0.025 2.17 

MALATHION 0.011 0.96 

EPTC 0.011 0.95 

BENSULIDE 0.010 0.92 

TRICLOPYR, BUTOXYETHYL ESTER 0.009 0.84 

TABLE A2–3b: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 

2006 emissions 

METAM-SODIUM 0.527 54.26 

1,3-D 0.201 20.72 

PERMETHRIN 0.032 3.25 

BENSULIDE 0.028 2.87 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.015 1.52 

GLYPHOSATE, ISOPROPYLAMINE SALT 0.009 0.91 

MEFENOXAM 0.009 0.90 

GIBBERELLINS 0.009 0.88 

PENDIMETHALIN 0.008 0.80 

MALATHION 0.008 0.79 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 51 

TABLE A2–3c: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 2007 

emissions 

1,3-D 3.705 40.80 

METHYL BROMIDE 2.995 32.97 

CHLOROPICRIN 1.446 15.92 

METAM-SODIUM 0.496 5.46 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.045 0.49 

MINERAL OIL 0.035 0.39 

PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.032 0.36 

CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF 

NEEM OIL 0.032 0.35 

ABAMECTIN 0.025 0.27 

OXAMYL 0.024 0.26 

TABLE A2–3d: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2005 May–October 

ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 2005 

emissions 

CARROT 0.196 17.31 

STRAWBERRY 0.161 14.25 

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.129 11.39 

PEPPER, FRUITING 0.125 11.05 

UNCULTIVATED AG* 0.086 7.65 

GRAPE 0.081 7.21 

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.054 4.76 

CELERY 0.048 4.28 

POTATO 0.046 4.04 

CAULIFLOWER 0.041 3.65 

* Treatment of an area prior to determining which crop will be planted. 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 52 

TABLE A2–3e: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2006 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 

2006 emissions 

UNCULTIVATED AG* 0.205 21.07 

PEPPER, FRUITING 0.188 19.34 

STRAWBERRY 0.163 16.80 

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.072 7.43 

CARROT 0.047 4.80 

WATERMELON 0.043 4.42 

POTATO 0.039 4.05 

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.039 4.05 

CELERY 0.031 3.22 

LETTUCE, LEAF 0.024 2.49 

*Treatment of an area prior to determining which crop will be planted. 

 

TABLE A2–3f: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2007 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 

2007 emissions 

PEPPER, FRUITING 0.311 24.39 

TURF/SOD 0.207 16.19 

STRAWBERRY 0.184 14.44 

POTATO 0.121 9.46 

UNCULTIVATED AG 0.083 6.54 

GRAPE 0.073 5.70 

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.059 4.65 

WATERMELON 0.043 3.37 

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.023 1.84 

CELERY 0.019 1.49 

* Treatment of an area prior to determining which crop will be planted. 

TABLE A2–3e: Unadjusted 2005 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 3 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 3–2005 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.081 0.000 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.894 0.130 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 53 

TABLE A2–3f: Unadjusted 2006 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 3 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 3–2006 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.013 0.000 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.884 0.074 

TABLE A2–3g: Unadjusted 2007 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 3 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 3–2007 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.286 0.000 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.897 0.061 

4. Ventura–NAA 4 

TABLE A2–4a– Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 2005 

emissions 

METHYL BROMIDE 3.734 39.99 

1,3-D 3.633 38.90 

CHLOROPICRIN 1.008 10.80 

METAM-SODIUM 0.418 4.47 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.086 0.92 

PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.046 0.49 

POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.034 0.36 

OXAMYL 0.029 0.31 

CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF 

NEEM OIL 0.029 0.31 

ABAMECTIN 0.027 0.28 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 54 

TABLE A2–4b: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 

2006 emissions 

1,3-D 3.970 41.26 

METHYL BROMIDE 3.868 40.21 

CHLOROPICRIN 0.787 8.18 

METAM-SODIUM 0.482 5.01 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.066 0.68 

PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.047 0.49 

OXAMYL 0.036 0.37 

AZADIRACHTIN 0.035 0.37 

ABAMECTIN 0.027 0.28 

CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF 

NEEM OIL 0.023 0.24 

TABLE A2–4c: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 

2007 emissions 

1,3-D 3.705 40.80 

METHYL BROMIDE 2.995 32.97 

CHLOROPICRIN 1.446 15.92 

METAM-SODIUM 0.496 5.46 

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.045 0.49 

MINERAL OIL 0.035 0.39 

PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.032 0.36 

CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF 

NEEM OIL 0.032 0.35 

ABAMECTIN 0.025 0.27 

OXAMYL 0.024 0.26 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 55 

TABLE A2–4d:. Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2005 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 

2005 emissions 

STRAWBERRY 6.644 71.15 

SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 1.579 16.91 

LEMON 0.207 2.22 

RASPBERRY 0.190 2.03 

TOMATO 0.180 1.93 

UNCULTIVATED AG 0.131 1.40 

PEPPER, FRUITING 0.094 1.00 

N-OUTDR FLOWER 0.062 0.67 

CELERY 0.035 0.37 

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.035 0.37 

TABLE A2–4e:. Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2006 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 

2006 emissions 

STRAWBERRY 6.363 66.15 

SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 2.200 22.86 

TOMATO 0.237 2.47 

LEMON 0.179 1.86 

RASPBERRY 0.099 1.03 

CELERY 0.099 1.03 

PEPPER, FRUITING 0.086 0.90 

N-OUTDR FLOWER 0.059 0.62 

PEPPER, SPICE 0.054 0.57 

ARTICHOKE, GLOBE 0.036 0.38 

TABLE A2–4f: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2007 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 

2007 emissions 

STRAWBERRY 5.117 56.34 

SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 3.459 38.09 

LEMON 0.152 1.67 

TOMATO 0.098 1.08 

RASPBERRY 0.052 0.57 

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.038 0.42 

PEPPER, FRUITING 0.024 0.26 

CELERY 0.018 0.20 

TURF/SOD 0.018 0.19 

AVOCADO 0.017 0.18 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 56 

TABLE A2–4g: Unadjusted 2005 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 4 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tons per day, tpd). 

NAA 4–2005 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 2.556 0.000 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 5.400 0.035 

TABLE A2–4h: Unadjusted 2006 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 4 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 4–2006 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 2.537 0.000 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 5.729 0.024 

TABLE A2–4i: Unadjusted 2007 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 4 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 4–2007 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 1.946 0.000 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 6.049 0.038 

5. South Coast - NAA 5 

TABLE A2–5a: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 

2005 emissions 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.688 25.56 

PERMETHRIN 0.455 16.92 

1,3-D 0.446 16.57 

CHLOROPICRIN 0.082 3.06 

BIFENTHRIN 0.081 3.00 

IMIDACLOPRID 0.081 2.99 

N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE 

DICARBOXIMIDE 0.068 2.54 

LIMONENE 0.056 2.10 

DAZOMET 0.056 2.09 

PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE 0.053 1.96 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 57 

TABLE A2–5b: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 

2006 emissions 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.487 24.77 

PERMETHRIN 0.279 14.20 

1,3-D 0.245 12.46 

CHLOROPICRIN 0.127 6.48 

IMIDACLOPRID 0.096 4.88 

N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE 

DICARBOXIMIDE 0.072 3.66 

BIFENTHRIN 0.067 3.40 

FIPRONIL 0.045 2.28 

CYFLUTHRIN 0.044 2.23 

CYPERMETHRIN 0.039 1.97 

TABLE A2–5c: Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 May–October ozone season 

unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast. 

Primary AI Total Product 

Emissions (tons/day) 

Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 

2007 emissions 

METHYL BROMIDE 0.473 24.04 

PERMETHRIN 0.275 13.99 

1,3-D 0.271 13.77 

LIMONENE 0.121 6.17 

CHLOROPICRIN 0.078 3.95 

BIFENTHRIN 0.077 3.91 

N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE 

DICARBOXIMIDE 0.069 3.49 

CYFLUTHRIN 0.042 2.14 

CYPERMETHRIN 0.042 2.13 

DISODIUM OCTABORATE TETRAHYDRATE 0.042 2.11 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 58 

TABLE A2–5d: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2005 May-October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 

2005 emissions 

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 1.041 38.67 

STRAWBERRY 0.856 31.80 

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.214 7.95 

TURF/SOD 0.213 7.89 

FUMIGATION, OTHER 0.068 2.51 

RIGHTS OF WAY 0.050 1.85 

N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 0.048 1.77 

SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.038 1.42 

PEPPER, FRUITING 0.036 1.34 

COMMODITY FUMIGATION 0.026 0.95 

TABLE A2–5e: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2006 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 

2006 emissions 

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.781 39.68 

STRAWBERRY 0.747 37.98 

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.163 8.30 

FUMIGATION, OTHER 0.087 4.42 

RIGHTS OF WAY 0.036 1.83 

N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 0.032 1.65 

SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.029 1.48 

COMMODITY FUMIGATION 0.019 0.99 

PEPPER, FRUITING 0.012 0.64 

AVOCADO 0.008 0.41 

TABLE A2–5f: Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2007 May–October ozone 

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5. 

Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 

2007 emissions 

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.786 39.94 

STRAWBERRY 0.752 38.21 

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.161 8.18 

FUMIGATION, OTHER 0.058 2.94 

N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 0.043 2.17 

RIGHTS OF WAY 0.036 1.83 

SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.033 1.68 

COMMODITY FUMIGATION 0.027 1.38 

AVOCADO 0.009 0.44 

GRAPEFRUIT 0.008 0.40 
Randy Segawa 

November 5, 2008 

Page 59 

TABLE A2–5g: Unadjusted 2005 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 5 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 5–2005 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.508 0.003 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.963 1.041 

TABLE A2–5h: Unadjusted 2006 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 5 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 5–2006 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.360 0.003 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.698 0.782 

TABLE A2–5i: Unadjusted 2007 May–October VOC emissions in NAA 5 by ARB emission 

inventory classification (tpd). 

NAA 5–2007 Agricultural 

Applications Structural Applications 

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.344 0.002 

NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.707 0.788