Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 - Environmental Impact of Pesticideshttp://hdl.handle.net/1813/55750 Number 139, 1992 ISSN 0362-0069 New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, A Division of the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences A Statutory College of the State University, at Cornell University, Ithaca t i A METHOD TO MEASURE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PESTICIDES J. Kovach, C. Petzoldt, J. Degnil, and J. Tette IPM Program, Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station Geneva, New York 14456 1Current address: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Lewis County, Lowville, New York 13367 Introduction and Background For several years, increased attention has been focused on integrated pest management (IPM) programs and alternative methods of pest control to reduce pesticide use in agricultural systems because of food safety issues, ground water contamina- tion, and increased environmental awareness. By definition, IPM is a pest management strategy that uses a combination of methods (sampling, thresholds, forecasts, biological and cultural controls, etc.) to manage pests without solely relying on chemical pesti- cides to produce a safe, economic crop. If, however, no other control measure is effective in preventing pest damage, a chemi- cal pesticide is recommended. In past IPM programs, pesticides were generally chosen based on their efficacy or cost rather than on their potential environmental impact. Although some growers and pest managementpractitioners did take into account the effect of the pesticides on the applicator or beneficial natural enemies such as predatory,mites when making pesticide recommenda- tions, no formal method was available to assist them in making environmentally based pesticide choices. Because there is no easy method to assess pesticide impacts, each individual had to rely primarily on their own judgment to make these decisions. Some growers (organically approved growers) felt that only natural pesticides should be used in agricultural production sys- tems because they are naturally occurring and are perceived to be less harmful to the environment. Other growers felt that any pesticide registered by the United States Environmental Protec- tion Agency (US EPA) and used according to the label must be environmentally safe. In addition, IPM programs throughout the country use various methods (number of sprays, the amount of active ingredient or formulated product used per acre, dosage equivalents, etc.) to quantify pesticide use and environmental impact to compare different pest management strategies or pro- grams, None of these methods estimate the environmental impact of specific pesticides. Because of the EPA pesticide registration process, there is a wealth of toxicological and environmental impact data for most pesticides that are commonly used in agricultural systems. How- ever, these data are not readily available or organized in a manner that is usable to the IPM practitioner. Therefore, the purpose of this bulletin is to organize the published environmental impact information of pesticides into a usable form to assist growers and other IPM practitioners make more environmentally sound pes- ticide choices. This bulletin presents a method to calculate the environmental impact of most common fruit and vegetable pes- ticides (insecticides, acaricides, fungicides and herbicides) used in commercial agriculture. The values obtained from these calculations can be used to compare different pesticides and pest management programs to ultimately determine which program or pesticide is likely to have the lower environmental impact. Methods Extensive data are available on the environmental effects of specific pesticides, and the data used in this project were gathered from a variety of the sources. TheExtension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET), a collaborative education project between the environmental toxicology and pesticide education departments of Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and the University of California, was the primary source used in developing the database (Hotchkiss et al. 1989). EXTOXNET conveys pesticide -related information on the health and environmental effects of approximately 100 pesticides. A second source of information used was CHEM-NEWS of CENET, the Cornell Cooperative Extension Network. CHEM- NEWS is a computer program maintained by the Pesticide Man- agement and Education Program of Cornell University that con- tains approximately 310 US EPA -Pesticide Fact Sheets, describing health, ecological, and environmental effects of the pesticides that are required for the reregistration of these pesticides (Smith and Barnard 1992). The impact of pesticides on arthropod natural enemies was determined by using the SELCTV database developed at Oregon State (Theiling and Croft 1988). These authors searched the literature and rated the effect of about 400 agrichemical pesticides on over 600 species of arthropod natural enemies, translating all pesticide/natural enemy response data to a scale ranging from 1(0% effect) to 5 (90-100%). Leaching, surface loss poten- tials (runoff), and soil half-life data of approximately 100 compounds are contained in the National Pes- ticide/Soils Database developed by the USDA Agricultural Research Service and Soil Conservation Service. This database was de- veloped from the GLEAMS com- puter model that simulates leach- ing and surface loss potential for a large number of pesticides in various soils and uses statistical methods to evaluate the interac- tions between pesticide properties (solubility, adsorption coefficient, and half-life) and soil properties (surface horizon thickness, organic matter content, etc.). The vari- ables thatprovided thebestestimate of surface loss and leaching were then selected by this model and used to classify all pesticides into risk groups (large, medium, and small) according to their potential for leaching or surface loss. Bee toxicity was determined usingtablesbyMorse (1989) in the 1989 New York State pesticide recommendations, which contain information on the relative toxicity of pesticides to honey bees from laboratory andfield tests conducted at the University of California, Riversidefrom 1950to 1980. More than 260 pesticides are listed in this reference. In order to fill as many data gaps as possible, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSD S) and technical bulletins developed by the agri- cultural chemical industry were also used when available. Health and environmental factors that addressed some of the common concerns expressed by farm workers, consumers, pest management practitioners, and other environmentalists were evaluated and are listed in Figure 1. To simplify the interpretation of the data, the toxicity of the active ingredient of each pesticide and the effect on each environmental factor evaluated were grouped into low, medium, or high toxicity categories and rated on a scale from 1 to 5, with one having a minimal impact on the environment or of a low toxicity and five considered to be highly toxic or having a major negative effect on the environment. Environmental Impact Quotient Reproductive Chronic Toxicity Teratogenic Mutagenic Oncogenic Applicator Effects Acute Toxicity Dermal Toxicity Reproductive Fatmworker Chronic Toxicity Teratogenic Mutagenic Component P Oncogenic Picker Effects Acute Toxicity Dermal Toxicity Consumer Component Consumer Effects Plant Surface Half -Life Reproductive Chronic Toxicity Teratogenic I H Mutagenic Oncogenic Systemicity Soil Half -Life Plant Surface Half -Life Water Half -Life Leaching Potential Solubility Groundwater Effects H HAdsorption Coeffient Soil Properties Water Half Life Surface Loss Solubility Potential Adsorption Coeffient HSoil Properties Aquatic Effects Fish Toxicity Bird Toxicity Ecological g Bird Effects HPlant Soil Half -Life Surface Component Half -Life Bee Toxicity Terrestrial Effects Bee Effects Plant Surface Half -Life Beneficial Arthropod Beneficial Toxicity Plant Surface Effects Half -Life Figure 1. A diagram showing the individual environmental factors that were evaluated in developing the environmental impact quotient of pesticides (EIQ) model. Table 1 lists the specific ratings for the individual factors evalu- ated. All pesticides were evaluated using the same criteria except forthe mode of action andplant surface persistence of herbicides. Because herbicides are generally systemic in nature and are not normally applied to food crops we decided to consider this class of compounds differently, so all herbicides were given a value of 1 for systemic activity. This has no effect on the relative rankings within herbicides but itdoes make the consumer component of the equation for herbicides more realistic. Also, since plant surface persistence is only important for post -emergent herbicides and not pre -emergent herbicides, all post -emergent herbicides were assigned a value of three and pre -emergent herbicides assigned a value of one for this factor. Table 1. The rating system used to develop the environmental impact quotient of pesticides (EIQ) model. 1= least toxic or least harmful, 5 is most toxic or harmful. Mode of Action Toxicity to Fish-96 hr LC50 non -systemic - 1 > 10 ppm - 1 all herbicides - 1 1-10 ppm - 2 systemic - 3 < 1 ppm - 3 Acute Dermal LD50 Toxicity to Birds-8 day LC50 for rabbits/rats(mg/kg) >2000 - 1 > 1000 ppm - 1 200 - 2000 - 3 100-1000 ppm - 3 0-200-5 1-100ppm -5 Long Term Health Effects Toxicityto Bees little or none - 1 relatively non toxic - 1 possible - 3 moderately toxic - 3 definite - 5 highly toxic - 5 Plant Surface Residue Half life Toxicity to Beneficials 1-2 weeks- 1 low impact - 1 2-4 weeks- 3 moderate impact - 3 > 4 weeks - 5 severe impact - 5 pre -emergent herbicides - 1 post -emergent herbicides - 3 Soil Residue Half life Groundwater and Tl/2 <30 days - 1 runoff potential Tl/2=30-100 days - 3 small - 1 Tl/2 >100 days - 5 medium - 3 large - 5 In order to furtherorganize and simplify thedata, a model was developed, called the environmental impact quotient of pesticides (EIQ). This model reduces the environmental impact information to a single value. To accomplish this, an equation was developed based on the three principal components of agricultural produc- tion systems: a farm worker component, a consumer component, and an ecological component. Each component in the equation is given equal weight in the final analysis, but within each compo- nent, individual factors are weighted differently. Coefficients used in the equation to give additional weight to individual factors are also based on a 1 to 5 scale. Factors carrying the most weight are multiplied by five, medium impact factors are multiplied by three, and those factors considered to have the least impact are multiplied by one. A consistent rule throughout the model is that the impact potential of a specific pesticide on an individual environmental factor is equal to the toxicity of the chemical times the potential for exposure. Stated simply, environmental impact is equal to toxicity times exposure. For example, fish toxicity is calculated by determining the inherent toxicity of the compound to fish times the likelihood of the fish encountering the pesticide, In this manner, compounds that are toxic to fish but short lived have lower impact values than compounds that are toxic and long lived. The EIQ Equation The formula for determining the EIQ value of individual pesticides is listed below and is the average of the farm worker, consumer, and ecological component. EIQ= {C(DT*5)+(DT*P)]+[(C*(S+P)2*SY)+(L)]+[(F*R) +(D*(S+P)/2*3)+(Z*P*3)+(B*P*5)11/3 DT = Dermal toxicity D = bird toxicity C = Chronic toxicity S = soil half-life SY = systemicity Z = bee toxicity F = fish toxicity B = beneficial arthropod L = leaching potential toxicity R = surface loss potential P = plant surface half-life Farm worker risk is defined as the sum of applicator exposure (DT*5) plus picker exposure (DT*P) times the long term health effect or chronic toxicity (C). Chronic toxicity of a specific pesticide is calculated as the average of the ratings from various long term laboratory tests conducted on small mammals. These tests are designed to determine potential reproductive effects (ability to produce offspring), teratogenic effects (deformities in unborn offspring), mutagenic effects (permanent changes in hereditary material such as genes and chromosomes), and oncogenic effects (tumor growth). Within the farmworker com- ponent, applicator exposure is determined by multiplying the dermal toxicity (DT) rating to small laboratory mammals (rabbits or rats) times a coefficient of five to account for the increased risk associated with handling concentrated pesticides. Picker expo- sure is equal to dermal toxicity (DT) times the rating for plant surface residue half-life potential (the time required for one-half of the chemical to break down). This residue factor takes into account the weathering of pesticides that occurs in agricultural systems and the days to harvest restrictions that may be placed on certain pesticides. The consumer component is the sum of consumer exposure potential (C*(S+P)/2*SY) plus the potential ground water effects (Q. Ground water effects are placed in the consumer component because it is more of a human health issue (drinking well contami- nation) than a wildlife issue. Consumer exposure is calculated as chronic toxicity (C) times the average for residue potential in soil and plant surfaces (because roots and other plant parts are eaten) times the systemic potential rating of the pesticide (the pesticide's ability to be absorbed by plants). The ecological component of the model is composed of aquatic and terrestrial effects and is the sum of the effects of the chemicals on fish (F*R), birds (D*(S+P)/2*3), bees (Z*P*3), and beneficial arthropods (B*P*5). The environmental impact of pesticides on aquatic systems is determined by multiplying the chemical toxicity to fish rating times the surface runoff potential of the specific pesticide (therunoffpotential takes into account the half-life of the chemical in surface water). The impact of pesticides on terrestrial systems is determined by summing the toxicities of the chemicals to birds, bees, and beneficial arthropods. Because terrestrial organisms are more likely to occur in commercial agricultural settings than fish, more weight is given to the pesticidal effects on these terrestrial organ- isms. Impact on birds is measured by multiplying the rating of toxicity to birds by the average half-life on plant and soil surfaces times three. Impact on bees is measured by taking the pesticide toxicity ratings to bees times the half-life on plant surfaces times three. The effect on beneficial arthropods is determined by taking the pesticide toxicity rating to beneficial natural enemies times the half-life on plant surfaces times five. Because arthropod natural enemies spend almost all of their life in agroecosystem commu- nities (while birds and bees are somewhat transient) their expo- sure to the pesticides, in theory, is greater. To adjust for this increased exposure, the pesticide impacts on beneficial arthropods is multiplied by five. Mammalian wildlife toxicity is not included in the terrestrial component of the equation because mammalian exposure (farm worker and consumer) is already included in the equation and these health effects are theresults of tests conducted on small mammals such as rats, mice, rabbits, and dogs. After the data on individual factors were collected, pesticides were grouped by classes (fungicides, insecticides/miticides, and herbicides) and calculations were conducted for each pesticide. When toxicological datawere missing, theaverage foreach environ- mental factor within a class was determined and this average value was substituted for the missing values. Thus, missing data did not affect the relative ranking of a pesticide within a class. The following tables list over 120 pesticides by chemical class, fungicides (Table 2), insecticides/miticides (Table 3), and herbicides (Table 4). The values of individual effects of each pesticide (applicator, picker, consumer, ground water, aquatic, bird, bee, beneficials), the major components of the equation (farm worker, consumer, and ecological) and the average EIQ value are presented in the tables. The tables also include the factors in theevaluationprocess thatcontained missing data. Less confidence should be placed on the EIQ values of pesticides that have many data gaps and more confidence placed on EIQ values with few or no data gaps. Using the tables, comparisons of environmental toxicity of a given weight (pounds, grams, etc.) of the individual active ingredients can be made within a class of compounds. Field comparisons should not be made with these data. Other considerations, such as the percent of active ingredi- ent in a formulated product and the dose required to provide control, need to be assessed before the desirable or least toxic pesticide choice can be made in the field. Table 2. The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) values for some common fruit and vegetable fungicides and nematicides. Common Name Trade Applicator Picker Consumer Ground Aquatic Bird Bee Benefidals Farmworker Consumer Ecological EIQ Data gaps - Name Effects Effects Effects water Effects Effects Effects Effects Component Component Component _ anilizaine Dyrene 10.0 6.2 4.1 1.0 5.0 6.2 9.3 38.3 16.2 5.1 58.7 26.7 b,p benomyl Benlata 15.0 15.0 45.0 5.0 25.0 15.0 15.0 73.5 30.0 50.0 128.5 69.5 captan Orthoclde 17.5 10.5 7.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 9.0 29.9 28.0 8.0 49.9 28.6 carboxin Vitavax 7.5 1.5 4.5 1.0 15.0 15.0 3.0 1Z4 9.0 5.5 45.4 20.0 - chlorothalonil Bravo 1Z5 1Z5 10.0 1.0 25.0 1Z0 15.0 50.0 25.0 11A 10Z0 46.0 b copper hydroxide Kocide 7.5 4.7 4.1 1.0 10.8 24.3 9.3 38.3 12.2 51 82.7 33.3 - copper sulfate copper 67.5 13.5 13.5 11.13 25.0 9.0 3.0 10.9 81.0 14.5 47.9 47.8 p.r copper sulfate+lime Bordeaux 67.5 40.5 18.0 1D 25.0 1Z0 9.0 30.0 108.0 19.0 76.0 67.7 - dichloran Botran 150 9.3 6.2 1.0 25.0 9.2 9.3 32.9 24.3 7.2 76.4 35.9 b,s,p.r dinocap Karathane 18.3 3.7 11D 1.0 150 3.0 3.0 159 22.0 1Z0 36.9 23.6 m dodine Sylllt 1Z5 7.8 15.4 1.0 150 9.2 9.3 34.4 20.3 16.4 67.9 34.9 t,d.p fenamiphos Nemacur 66.8 41.4 16.4 3.0 150 9.2 46.5 38.3 1081 19.4 109.0 78.9 e,t,rn,o,d,b,p fenadmol Rubigan 10.0 2.0 18.0 5.0 25.0 9.0 3.0 10.0 12.0 23.0 47.0 27.3 fentin hydroxide Du -Ter 150 9.0 4.0 1.0 18.0 1Z0 9.0 30.0 24.0 5.0 69.0 32.7 s,r ferbam Carbamate 5.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.6 1Z0 9.0 48.9 8.0 5.0 73.5 28.8 d flusilazol Nustar 5.0 3.0 8.0 1.0 180 39.8 9.0 15.0 8.0 9.0 81.8 32.9 f,d.b,s,p.r.l folpet Phaitan 5.0 3.1 4.1 1£ 10.8 1Z2 9.3 20.6 81 5.7 52.9 22.2 p,r.l fosetyl-AI Alietto 10.0 2.0 6.0 lio 1.0 3.0 3.0 150 12.0 7.0 22.0 13.7 iprodlone Rovra 5.0 ai Z1 1.0 15.0 6.2 9.3 38.3 81 31 68.7 26.6 e,b,p mancozeb Manzafe 20.0 20.0 16.0 1.0 25.0 1Z0 15.0 78.0 40.0 17.0 130.0 62.3 maneb maneb 20.0 20.0 16.0 1.0 25.0 1Z0 15.0 83.3 40.0 17.0 135.3 64.1 - maneb +dinocap Dikar 20.0 1Z4 1Z2 1.0 20.0 9.2 9.3 55.5 32.4 13.2 93.9 46.5 P metalaxyl Ridomil 5.0 3.0 6.0 5.0 1.0 6.0 9.0 52.5 8.0 110 68.5 29.2 metiram Polyram 25.0 25.0 150 10 5.0 27.0 15.0 54.8 50.0 16.0 101.8 55.9 ern myclobutanil Nova 22.5 14.0 1Z2 1£ 13.7 1Z2 9.3 38.3 36.5 13.8 73.4 41.2 m,c,f,r,b,stp,r,l PCNB Terraclor 1Z5 2.5 7.5 1.0 150 9.0 3.0 15.0 15.0 8.5 42.0 21.8 z streptomycin Agristrep 15.0 3.0 3.0 1£ 13.7 4.5 3.0 12.4 18.0 4.6 33.5 187 f,d,b,r,l sulfur Sulfur 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 3.6 15.0 15.0 87.0 10.0 6.0 120.0 45.5 r thiophanate methyl Topsin-M 150 15.0 27.0 1.0 9.0 9.0 15.0 63.5 30.0 28.0 96.5 51.5 - thiram Thiram 45.0 27.9 6.2 1.0 150 18.5 9.3 40.8 72.9 7.2 83.5 54.5 P triadmefon Bayleton 17.5 10.5 7.0 3.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 35.0 28.0 10.0 62.0 33.3 d,p triforine Funginex 15.0 9.3 24.3 1.6 13.7 1Z2 9.3 38.3 24.3 25.9 73.4 41.2 m,b,p vinclozolin Ronilan 15.0 9.3 6.2 1.0 5.0 9.2 9.3 33.2 24.3 7.2 56.7 29.4 o,d,p zineb Dithane Z 25.0 150 20.0 3.0 10.8 1Z0 9.0 37.1 40.0 23.0 68.9 44.0 b,r Average 191 113 113 1.6 14.2 11£ 10.2 38.4 30.4 1Z9 74.6 39.3 * e=reproductive effects, t=teratogenic, m=mutagenic, o=oncogenic, f=fish toxicity, d=bird toxicity, b=beneficials toxicity, Z=bee toxicity, s=soil half-life, p=plant surface half-life, r=surface loss potential, 1=1eaching potential. 4 Table 3. The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) values for some common fruit and vegetable insecticides and miticides. Common Name Trade Applicator Picker Consumer Ground Aquatic Bird Bee Beneflcials Farmworker Consumer Ecological EIQ Data Gaps` Name Effects Effects Effects water Effects Effects Effects Effects Component Component Component acephate Orthene 5.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 15.0 18.7 6.0 4.0 43.7 17.9 aldicarb Temik 37.5 7.5 9.0 5.0 3.0 30.0 3.0 16.4 45.0 14.0 52.4 37.1 - azinphos-methyl Guthion 30.0 6.0 4.0 1.0 25.0 30.0 15.0 18.3 36.0 5.0 88.3 43.1 ` Bacillus thuringlensis Dipel 10.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.2 6.0 3.0 10.3 12.0 6.0 22.5 13.5 r,l carbaryl Sevin 10.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 9.0 9.0 15.0 19.7 120 3.0 52.7 22.6 carbofuran Furadan 60.0 120 24.0 5.0 5.0 30.0 15.0 19.4 72.0 29.0 69.4 56.8 chlorpyrtfos Lorsban 37.5 7.5 7.5 1.0 25.0 45.0 15.0 19.9 45.0 8.5 104.9 52.8 cryolite Kryocid© 9.5 3.6 4.0 2.0 3.2 6.3 5.7 30.0 M 6.0 45.2 21.4 e,t,m,c,s,p,r,i diazinon Diazinon 125 2.5 5.0 3.0 15.0 30.0 15.0 19.5 15.0 8.0 79.5 34.2 dichiorvos Vapona 50.0 10.0 2.0 1.0 9.6 15.0 15.0 19.2 60.0 3.0 58.8 40.6 r dicofol Kelthane 30.0 6.0 4.0 1.0 25.0 6.0 3.0 14.6 36.0 5.0 48.6 29.9 e,t diflubenzuron Dimilin 7.5 7.5 4.5 1.0 5.0 9.0 15.0 69.0 15.0 5.5 98.0 39.5 dimethoate Cygon 45.0 27.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 30.0 45.0 60.9 72.0 9.0 140.9 74.0 disulfoton Di-Syston 75.0 75.0 27.0 1.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 82.8 150.0 28.0 187.8 1219 - andosulfan Thiodan 30.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 25.0 27.0 9.0 17.6 36.0 7.0 78.6 40.5 ` esfenvalerate Asana 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 25.0 9.0 45.0 57.8 8.0. 4.0 136.8 49.6 ethion Ethion 25.0 9.5 1.5 1.0 25.0 21.8 5.7 33.7 34.5 2.5 86.2 41.0 athoprop Mocap 41.7 15.8 4.1 5.0 9.0 221 17.1 19.0 57.5 9.1 67.2 44.6 tt'P fensulfothion Dasanit 25.0 15.0 120 2.0 9.6 36.0 45.0 56.0 40.0 14.0 146.6 66.9 o,r,l fenvalerate Pydrin 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 25.0 9.0 45.0 57.8 8.0 4.0 136.8 49.6 fonofos Dyfonate 37.5 7.5 3.0 3.0 25.0 30.0 9.0 18.8 45.0 6.0 82.8 44.6 formetanate Carzol 5.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 15.0 9.0 9.0 21.4 6.0 4.0 54.4 21.5 hexakis Vendex 5.0 1.0 1.7 2.0 3.2 5.0 3.0 17.6 6.0 3.7 28.8 128 r,l,s,b malathion Cythion 17.5 3.5 3.5 1.0 5.0 3.0 15.0 21.0 21.0 4.5 44.0 23.2 methamidophos Monitor 25.0 15.0 6.0 5.0 1.0 30.0 45.0 65.3 40.0 110 141.3 64.1 rn methidathion Supracide 37.5 22.5 5.0 3.0 15.0 18.0 45.0 61.8 60.0 8.0 139.8 69.3 methomyl Lannate 5.0 1.0 6.0 5.0 15.0 30.0 15.0 21.5 6.0 110 81.5 32.8 - methoxychlor Marlate 125 125 125 1.0 16.0 1S0 15.0 89.5 25.0 13.5 135.5 58.0 t,o methyl parathion Penncap-M 45.0 9.0 3.0 1.0 9.0 3.0 15.0 20.7 54.0 4.0 47.7 35.2 mevinphos Phosdrin 25.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 13.5 30.0 6.0 48.5 28.2 IT naled Dibrom 45.0 9.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 54.0 4.0 55.0 37.7 e,l,o oil Oil 5.0 3.0 2.7 1.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 45.0 8.0 3.7 71.0 27.5 e,t,m.s oxamyl Vydate 125 2.5 7.5 1.0 3.0 15.0 9.0 18.2 15.0 8.5 45.2 22.9 oxydemeton-methyl Metasytox 60.0 36.0 24.0 5.0 5.0 30.0 27.0 60.6 96.0 29.0 1226 82.5 t,o oxythioquinox Morestan 10.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 25.0 27.0 9.0 49.1 16.0 7.0 1101 44.4 parathion Phoskil 87.5 52.5 7.0 1.0 25.0 30.0 45.0 65.1 140.0 8.0 1651 104.4 permethrin Ambush 125 7.5 7.5 1.0 25.0 9.0 45.0 61.8 20.0 8.5 140.8 56.4 ` phorate Thlmet 25.0 15.0 9.0 1.0 25.0 45.0 27.0 57.6 40.0 10.0 154.6 68.2 0 phosmet Imidan 10.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 150 9.0 150 17.7 120 3.0 56.7 23.9 - phosphamidon Swat 15.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 15.0 150 19.9 18.0 8.0 52.9 26.3 piperonyl butoxide Butacide 25.0 5.0 1.7 2.0 3.2 9.0 3.0 13.5 30.0 3.7 28.7 20.8 I,r,t pirimicarb Pirimor 28.5 5.7 9.4 2.0 3.2 24.8 3.0 15.0 34.2 11.4 45.9 30.5 e.t,m,c,s,r,i propargite Omite 25.0 15.0 5.0 1.0 25.0 9.0 9.0 39.2 40.0 6.0 82.2 42.7 0 propoxur Baygon 45.0 27.0 120 1.0 16.0 60.0 45.0 55.8 72.0 13.0 176.8 87.3 r pyrethrin Pyrenone 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 16.0 9.0 3.0 17.0 6.0 3.0 45.0 18.0 o,r,l rotenone Chem Fish 45.0 9.0 3.0 1.0 16.0 3.0 3.0 19.0 54.0 4.0 41.0 33.0 r ryania Ryania 28.5 17.1 5.0 2.0 9.6 39.8 29.7 34.2 45.6 7.0 113.3 55.3 e,t,m,o,z,s,r,l sabadilla Red Devil 28.5 10.8 4.0 2.0 12.5 20.8 5.7 226 39.3 6.0 61.6 35.6 e,t,m,o,f,d,s,p,r,l soap M-Pede 9.5 19 3.1 2.0 125 16.3 3.0 10.0 11.4 5.1 41.8 19.5 e,t,m,o,f,d,b,s,r,l terbufos Counter 25.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 15.0 15.0 9.0 23.8 30.0 4.0 62.8 32.3 Average 26.3 10.7 6.0 20 129 19.9 181 33.5 37.0 8.0 84.4 43.1 * e=reproductive effects, t=teratogenic, m=mutagenic, o=oncogenic, fish toxicity, d-bird toxicity, b=beneficials toxicity, z=bee toxicity, s=soil half-life, p=plant surface half-life, r=surface loss potential,l=leaching potential. 5 Table 4. The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) values of common fruit and vegetable herbicides. Common Name Trade Name 2.4-D (acid) Weedone acifluorfen Blazer alachlor Lasso ammonium sulfamate Ammate atrazine Atrazine bentazon Basagran bromacil Hyvar chloramben Amiben cyanazino Bladex eyeloate Ro-Neet daiapon Daiapon DCPA Dacthal dichlobenil diethatyl-ethyi diuron EPTC ethaifluralin fluazifop-butyl glyphosate Ilnuron MCPA metolachlor metribuzin napropamide nicosulfuron norflurazon oryzalin oxyfluorfen Casoron Antor Karmex Eptam Sonolan Fusilade Roundup Lorox Bronate Dual Sencor Devrinol Accent Sollcam Surflan Goal Applicator Plchef Consumer Ground Aquatic Bird Bee Effects Effects Effects water Effects Effects Effects 45.0 27.0 6.0 3.0 1.0 1&0 9.0 45.0 27.0 9.0 3.0 3.0 9.0 9.0 1&0 3.0 3.0 3.0 9.0 3.0 3.0 15.0 9.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 9.0 9.0 7.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 15.0 9.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 1&0 9.0 7.5 4.5 6.0 5.0 3.0 120 9.0 125 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.0 21.7 4.3 4.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 22.5 13.5 3.0 5.0 1.0 6.0 9.0 10.0 6.0 8.0 10 5.0 120 9.0 15.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 125 2.5 7.5 3.0 15.0 9.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 25.0 5.0 10.0 1.0 25.0 6.0 3.0 25.0 15.0 10.0 1.0 15.0 6.0 9.0 10.0 6.0 6.0 1X) 15.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 9.0 27.0 9.0 20.0 120 8.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 10.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 27.0 9.0 10.7 21 4.3 5.0 3.0 9.0 3.0 7.5 4.5 0.0 5.0 3.6 6.0 9.0 7.5 1.5 4.5 5.0 9.0 9.0 3.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 1D 9.0 9.0 3.0 125 7.5 7.5 1.0 25.0 27.0 9.0 Beneficials Farmworker Effects Component 60.0 72.0 51.0 72.0 25.0 1&0 60.0 51.0 51.0 30.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 52.5 51.0 17.0 17.0 9.0 17.0 17.0 51.0 41.3 51.0 51.0 17.0 51.0 17.0 51.0 17.0 17.0 51.0 24.0 120 24.0 120 15.0 26.0 6.0 36.0 16.0 1no 6.0 15.0 6.0 30.0 40.0 16.0 16.0 32.0 120 8.0 128 120 9.0 120 20.0 Consumer Component 9.0 12.0 6.0 8.0 9.5 11.0 ILO 5.5 7.3 5.0 8.0 9.0 7.0 3.0 10.5 5.0 ILO 11.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 7.0 8.0 9.3 5.0 9.5 3.0 8.5 Ecological Component 86.0 72.0 40.0 83.0 78.0 81.0 54.0 26.6 26.0 35.0 68.5 77.0 29.0 35.0 36.0 29.0 51.0 81.0 74.3 96.0 69.0 35.0 90.0 32.0 69.6 38.0 38.0 1120 EIO Data Gaps 56.3 52.0 21.3 38.3 33.2 38.7 25.7 15.7 19.8 15.3 37.5 34.0 18.0 14.7 20.5 13.3 30.7 44.0 32.4 40.3 36.7 iao 35.3 18.0 28.9 Ins 17.7 46.8 e,m,b r,b b e,t,o,z,b, b mb o,b e,tm.b o,m,b e,m,o,b e,t,rn,o,d b b b paraquat Gramaxone 45.0 27.0 12.0 1.0 15.0 36.0 9.0 65.0 72.0 13.0 125.0 70.0 b pendimethalin Prowl 125 2.5 7.5 1.0 25.0 9.0 3.0 17.0 15.0 8.5 54.0 25.8 f,d phenmediphan Spin -aid 7.5 4.5 4.5 1.0 120 13.5 9.0 40.1 120 5.5 74.6 30.7 e,b pronamide Kerb 15.0 9.0 9.0 1.0 5.0 9.0 9.0 51.0 24.0 10.0 74.0 36.0 t,b propazine Milogard 15.0 9.0 120 5.0 3.0 120 9.0 51.0 24.0 17.0 75.0 38.7 e,t,m,d,z pryazon Pyramin 5.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 9.0 3.0 20.0 6.0 7.0 35.0 16.0 m.o,b,r,l sethoxydim POast 5.0 3.0 2.0 2.9 3.6 6.0 9.0 51.0 8.0 4.9 69.6 27.5 simizine Princep 10.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 14.2 120 9.0 26.2 15.7 - terbacil Sinbar 10.0 2.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 9.0 3.0 12.5 120 11.0 27.5 16.8 trifluralin Treflan 125 2.5 7.5 1.0 25.0 9.0 3.0 20.0 15.0 8.5 57.0 26.8 Average 14.5 6.5 5.3 3.1 8.2 10.5 6.2 34.6 21.0 8.4 59.5 29.6 * e=reproductive effects, t=teratogenic, m=mutagenic, o=oncogenic, f=fish toxicity, d=bird toxicity, b=beneficials toxicity, z=bee toxicity, s=soil half-life, p=plant surface half-life, t=surface loss potential, bleaching potential. EIQ Field Use Rating Once an EIQ value has been established for the active ingredi- ent of each pesticide, field use calculations can begin. To accurately compare pesticides and pest management strategies, the dose, the formulation or percent active ingredient of the product, and the frequency of application of each pesticide needs to be determined. To account for different formulations of the same active ingredient and differentusepatterns, a simple equation called theEIQ Field Use Rating was developed. This rating is calculated by multiplying the EIQ value for the specific chemical obtained in the tables by the per- cent active ingredient in the formulation by the rate per acre used (usually in pints or pounds of formulated product). EIQ Field Use Rating = EIQ x % active ingredient x Rate With this method, comparisons of environmental impact between pesticides and different pest management programs can be made. For example, if several pesticides can be used against a particular pest, which pesticide is the least toxic choice? Table 5 shows an example comparing the environmental impact of three insecticides: carbaryl (Sevin 50WP), endosulfan (Thiodan 50WP), and azinphos- methyl(Guthion 35WP). Although carbaryl has a lower EIQ (22.6) than endosulfan (40.5) or azinphos-methyl (43.1), it may take more of it to provide equivalent control. For example, 6 lbs/acre of Sevin may provide the same level of control of a certain pest as 3 lbs/acre of Thiodan or 2.2 lbs/acre of Guthion. In this situation, Guthion would have the lowest EIQ Use Rating (33.2) and would be the least toxic choice. Thiodan (60.8) would be the second choice and Sevin (67.8) would be the last. By applying the EIQ Field Use Rating, comparisons can be made between different pest management strategies or programs. To compare different pest management programs, EIQ Field Use Ratings and number of applications throughout the season are determined for each pesticide and these values are then summed to determine the total seasonal environmental impact of the particular strategy. Table 6 compares the theoretical environmental impact of several different pest management approaches that have been used in researchprojects to grow 'Red Delicious' apples in New York. In this example, a traditional pest management approach to growing `Red Delicious' apples that does not rely heavily on pest monitoring methods wouldresult in a total theoretical environmental impactof 938 due to pesticides. An IPM approach that incorporates pest monitoring methods, biological control, and least toxic pesticides would have an environmental impact of only 182. The organic pest management approach, which uses only naturally occurringpesticides, would havea theoretical environmental impact of 1799 according to the model, The environmental impact of the latter approach is so much larger than the other strategies primarily due to the larger quantities of sulfurrequiredand morefrequent applications needed to provide the same level control of apple scab in this variety. By using the EIQ model, it becomes possible for IPM practitioners to rapidly estimate the environmental impact of different pesticides and pest manage- ment programs before they are applied resulting in more environ- mentally sensitive pest management programs being implemented. Table 5. An example showing the EIQ field use rating of three different insecticides to determine which pesticide should be the least toxic choice. Material EIQ al Rate EIQ field use rating Sevin 50WP (carbaryl) 22.6 0.50 6.0 67.8 Thiodan 50WP (endosulfan) 40.5 0.50 3.0 60.8 Guthion 35WP (azinphos-methyl) 43.1 0.35 2.2 33.2 Table 6. Theoretical environmental impact of different pest management strategies used to grow `Red Delicious' apples in New York. Traditional Pest Management Strategy Material EIQ ai Dose Applications Total Rubigan EC 27.3 0.12 0.6 4 8 Captan 50WP 28.6 0.50 3.0 6 257 Lorsban 50WP 52.8 0.50 3.0 2 158 Thiodan 50WP 40.5 0.50 3.0 1 61 Guthion 35WP 43.1 0.35 2.2 2 66 Cygon 4E 74.0 0.43 2.0 3 191 Omite 6EC 42.7 0.68 2.0 2 116 Kelthane 35WP 29.9 0.35 4.5 1 47 Sevin 50WP 22.6 0.50 1.0 3 34 Total environmental impact 938 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Strategy Material EIQ al Dose Applications Total Nova 40WP 41.2 0.40 0.3 4 20 Captan 50WP 28.6 0.50 3.0 1 43 Dipel2X 13.5 0.06 1.5 3 4 Sevin 50WP 22.6 0.50 3.0 1 34 Guthion 35WP 43.1 0.35 2.2 2 66 Total environmental impact 167 Organic Pest Management Strategy Material EIQ all Dose Applications Total Sulfur 45.5 0.90 6 7 1720 Rotenone/pyrethrin 25.5 0.04 12 6 73 Ryania 55.3 0.001 58 2 6 Total environmental impact 1799 Ol Conclusion The Environmental Impact Quotient has been used to orga- nize the extensive toxicological data available on some common fruit and vegetable pesticides into a usable form for field use. It addresses a majority of the environmental concerns that are encountered in agricultural systems including farm worker, con- sumer, and wildlife, health, and safety. By using the EIQ Field Use Rating, IPM practitioners and growers can incorporate envi- ronmental effects along with efficacy and cost into the pesticide decision -making process. IPM programs can also use the EIQ model as another method to measure the environmental impact of different pest management and pesticide programs. As newer biorational pesticides are marketed with lower EIQ values and more emphasis is placed on biologically -based IPM practices, the EIQ field use ratings will continue to decrease and eventually these ratings may some day approach zero, resulting in an envi- ronmentally neutral or benign agricultural production system. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank D. A. Rutz, W. G. Smith, J. W. Gillette, R. Mungari, J. VanKirk, and D. Pimentel for their valuable inputand discussions on the development of this concept and J. Nedrow for help in collecting and organizing the data. We would also like to thank K. M. Theiling for sharing the details of her database. ' Literature Cited Smith, W. G and J. Barnard. 1992. Chem -News Profiles, Pesticide Management and Education Program, CENET, Cornell Cooperative Extension Electronic Information Network, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Hotchkiss, B. E., J. W. Gillett, M. A. Kamrin, J. W. Witt, and A. Craigmill. 1989. EXTOXNET, Extension Toxicology Network. A Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, The University of California, Michigan State University and Oregon State University, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Morse, R. 1989. Bee Poisoning, In the New York State Pesticide Recommendations 1989 edition. The Chemicals -Pesticides Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 28-30. MSDS Reference for Crop Protection Chemicals 1990/91. Chemi- cal and Pharmaceutical Press, John Wiley & Sons, New York. National Pesticide/Soils Database and User Decision Support System for Risk Assessment of Ground and Surface Water Contamination.1990. Soil Conservation Service WaterQual- ity/Quantity Technical Ref. 10: 23-29. Theiling, K.M. and B.A. Croft. 1988. Pesticide Side -Effects on Arthropod Natural Enemies: A Database Summary. Agricul- ture, Ecosystems and Environment, 21: 191-218. It is the policy of Cornell University actively to support equality of educational opportunity. No person shall be denied ae`T' nR a admission to any educational program or activity or be denied employment on the basis of any legally prohibited discrimination involving, but not limited to, such factors as race, color, creed, religion, national or ethnic origin, sex, age or handicap. The University is committed to the maintenance of affirmative action programs which will assure 3 '`� the continuation of such equality of opportunity.