Four years of effort to try and stop the City from putting the chemical “vaporooter” down the drain to dissolve tree roots illustrated that there are no known protocols for identifying, let alone removing, some (many?) of the drugs and chemicals we are putting into water supplies.
Which is worsened: for ONE of the chemicals in vaporooter, a one-time test for presence costs $3000 (in 2003).
(Use “Search” on the blog (upper right corner) – enter vaporooter – for more info.)
We are very stupidly poisoning ourselves. Some people develop MS, some develop cancer, others dementia, children are autistic (a word I had not heard until I was in my 40’s. Today, very few people have not heard of autism).
How idiotic to think we can put carcinogens and teratogens into the environment and NOT have caner and developmental problems as a consequence. We know about bio-accumulation, we know about synergistic effects, we know what has happened to fish in remote areas like the Arctic, and so on. It seems we cannot add 2 + 2.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Re: Metam + Dichlobenil = Vapo-rooter:
Prepared by Paule Hjertaas for Sandra Finley July 25. 2004
General statements:
– Neither of the active chemicals or the breakdown products (except hydrogen sulfide) or listed formulants (inerts) have water quality standards either in Canada or the US.
– Dichlobenil and its byproduct are very residual in water and cause problems in plants and soils at low levels.
– Sanifoam vaporooter II lists 70 % secret inert ingredients in the metam portion and 50 % in the dichlobenil. That is a lot we know nothing about, other than that they are added to increase the effectiveness of the formulation.
Out of the NCAP fact sheets:
Neither fact sheet lists culling roots out of sewers as a use for either pesticide.
DICHLOBENIL:
– p18:”Manufacturers of dichlobenil herbicides have found that water contamination, and subsequent movement of the herbicide, is a problem”
– NO systematic monitoring for dichlobenil done in US ( likely absolutely none in Canada)
– “also the most commonly detected herbicide in monitoring of rainwater in Italy”
– “one study found that 75 % of the dichlcobenil applied to aquatic ecosystems volatilized”
– also volatilizes off leaves, soil, etc therefore ends up in air
– has “narcotizing”effect on many invertebrate species, gill irritation in damselflies, immobilization in caddisflies
– breakdown product 2,6 dichlorobenzamide is “very water soluble and weakly absorbed by soil”
METAM
– MITC is “very highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates” according to EPA. (Metam changes into MITC very quickly. If you are measuring for metam, you need to measure for MITC. See notes below. )
Vaporooter
PMRA label quote:
EFFLUENT FROM TREATED LINES MAY BE HARMFUL TO FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC LIFE.
DO NOT USE IN CONFINED AREAS WITHOUT ADEQUATE VENTILATION.
SPECIAL NOTICE: SANAFOAM ® VAPOROOTER ® should not be used to treat roots in storm sewers or other drains where waste water will not be treated or controlled.
(NOTE: This brings 2 questions:
1. how and where do they use it? label also shows size of line and how much is used for each meter of line. According to label, use in untreated storm sewer water for instance is illegal.
2. what is the proper waste water treatment to remove metam, dichlobenil and byproducts from water?)
As seen in the following, dichlobenil 50W( panna data base) has been cancelled by the EPA as an individual product since 1995, although by company request. Or Canada ( under that name anyhow)
| U.S. Product Registration History for Dichlobenil 50w |
| U.S. EPA Product Reg No: | 34704-636 |
Top of Form Bottom of Form |
| Product Registration Status: | Cancelled | |
| Approval Date: | May 17, 1989 | |
| Cancellation Date: | Dec 15, 1995 | |
| Cancel/Transfer Reason: | Company request | |
Next is Exerpts From (link no longer valid)
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
(updated 03/05/2001)
Douglas Products
& Packaging
1550 E. OLD 210 HWY. – LIBERTY, MO. 64068-9459
(816)-781-4250
PRODUCT NAME: SANAFOAM® VAPOROOTER® (restricted use product)
EPA Registration No: 1015-70
Labels:
Sodium methyldithiocarbarnate 30.00%
Inert ingredients 70.00%
100.00%
Dichlobenil 50W 50.00%
Inert ingredients 50.00%
100.00%
Chemical Names: Sodium methyldithiocarbanate, metam-sodium CAS 137-42-8
2.6-dichlorobenzonitrile, dichlobenil CAS 1194-65-6
also contains a small amount of isopropyl alcohol CAS 67-63-0
SECTION III – REACTIVITY DATA
The LIQUID is corrosive to brass, copper, zinc and aluminum.
( NOTE: I wonder what the pipes are made of?)
The product will decompose in extreme heat. There is no indication of hazardous polymerization.
SECTION VIII – STORAGE
To extend product quality:
Avoid prolonged exposure to temperatures below 33* F to prevent package damage.
Avoid prolonged exposure to temperatures above 90* F to protect foam quality. Never store near heat source or in direct sunlight.
(NOTE: Storage issues: not only it is hazardous to use and requires a number of precautions and trained personnel ( extra costs) but it has particular storage needs which may increase the cost of using it in SK) Q: under what conditions is it stored, and for how long?
——
| Product Identification for Sanafoam vaporooter ii |
| Basic Identification Information About This Product | |
| MSDS and Product Label | |
| U.S. EPA Product Reg No Product Registration Status Formulation Acute Hazard Warning Label Restricted Use Product PAN Bad Actor Product: No. of names this product is sold under |
1015-70 Active Soluble concentrate 1 Danger Yes Yes 1 (See bottom of page for complete list of products) |
(Note the danger label, highest acute hazard)
| Toxicity for Sanafoam vaporooter ii |
| Summary Toxicity Information for the Active Ingredients in this Product For detailed chemical information click on the chemical names below |
||||||||
| Active Ingredients Chemical Name | Percent | PAN Bad Actor Chemical 1 |
Acute Toxicity 2 |
Carcinogen | Cholinesterase Inhibitor |
Developmental or Reproductive Toxin |
Endocrine Disruptor |
Acute Aquatic Toxicity |
| Dichlobenil | 1.96 % | Not Listed | Slight | Possible | No | Moderate | ||
| Metam-sodium | 24.3 % | No | ||||||
| Indicates high toxicity in the given toxicological category. | Indicates no available weight-of-the-evidence assessment. For additional information on toxicity from scientific journals or registration documents, see the “Additional Resources for Toxicity ” section of the chemical detail page for each active ingredient. | ||
| 1. PAN Bad Actors are chemicals that are one or more of the following: highly acutely toxic, cholinesterase inhibitor, known/probable carcinogen, known groundwater pollutant or known reproductive or developmental toxicant. NOTE! Because there are no authoritative lists of Endocrine Disrupting (ED) chemicals, EDs are not yet considered PAN Bad Actor chemicals. | |||
| 2. The acute toxicity reported here is for the pure active ingredient only and may not reflect the acute toxicity of individual pesticide products. The acute toxicity of this product can be found in the Product ID section of this page, the Acute Hazard Warning Label. | |||
NOTE: metam only becomes toxic when it is transformed into MITC, which it does readily.
Metam
| Water Pollution Potential and Criteria for Metam-sodium |
| Water Pollution Potential | ||||
| PAN Ground Water Contaminant Rating | Insufficient Data | |||
| Physical Property Data Related to Water Contamination Potential | ||||
| Water Solubility (Avg, mg/L) Adsorption Coefficient (Koc) Hydrolysis Half-life (Avg, Days) Aerobic Soil Half-life (Avg, Days) Anaerobic Soil Half-life (Avg, Days) |
– – 3.17 0.02 1.00 |
|||
| Sorry, no water quality standards or criteria have been established for this chemical by the U.S. or Canadian governments; however, there may be criteria established for related chemicals. | ||||
Note: This table indicates that water testing for metam would be useless unless done very fast after use and in the proper place as the chemical hydrolises rapidly ( 3. 17 days)
It would be much more productive to test for MITC which has an average ½ life of 20 days. As a matter of fact, MITC is the active pesticide form( NCAP fact sheet), or test for 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile, dichlobenil which are residual a lot longer ( average 130 days for dichlobenil in water and at least 5-10 months in sediments. In Ireland, dichlobenil was found in groundwater at least 3 years after the pollution stopped.
Dichlobenil, in particular, has had severe aquatic ecosystems effects ( NCAP fact sheet)
Now we know that “pulse” exposures are very important for an ecosystem and also for human health. It may indicate where the contamination passed through. Even if we don’t find it now n water, it may be in sediments and may have passed through with a lot of devastation. Another complication.
____
The following is out of the report you sent. Bold indicates important statements.
The report does not deal with water at all. We know that metam breaks down into several byproducts in soil, but there is not very much on whether the same happens in the same proportions in water, except that MITC has been identified.
18. Metam-sodium in aqueous solution produces MITC. Therefore, drinking water
administration of metam-sodium to laboratory animals may provide data relevant to the toxicological evaluation of MITC in air. The available drinking water studies did not, however, quantify the MITC present in metam-sodium treated water.
NOTE: It also produced MITC in air.
If the water was sampled for metam and not MITC, they likely would not have found anything
20. Chronic exposure to metam-sodium via drinking water produced angiosarcomas in male mice and rats; the draft TAC evaluation document did not provide detailed data.
25. In the mouse drinking water study, a small increase in cutaneous fibrosarcomas was observed in the highest dose group of both males and females. When the data from both sexes are combined, the increase in tumor incidence (from 0% to 4.3%), is statistically significant (~’0.05). In conclusion, there is a suggestion of animal carcinogenicity, but the data are inadequate and further investigation is required.
28. Three developmental toxicity studies were reviewed, one in rats and two in rabbits. These studies showed decreased fetal body weight and size at doses that also produced maternal adverse effects such as decreased feed consumption and body weight gain. The maternal effects were noted in both species.
MIC (byproduct of metam sodium use)
29. MIC in Bhopal
30. In three controlled exposures of human volunteers to MIC, eye irritation and lacrimation were observed after exposures ranging from 0.5 ppm to 5 ppm for10 seconds to 50 minutes.
Health Effects of Other By-products of Metam Sodium Use
33. Brief summaries of the toxicity of hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, methylamine, and carbonyl sulfide are provided in the TAC evaluation. Based on the limited available exposure information, H2S poses the greatest exposure concern of these compounds. H2S is a highly toxic, imtant gas that causes respiratory symptoms and eye irritation after acute exposure. At high concentration it paralyzes the sense of smell. Airborne concentrations of 700 ppm and more cause immediate death through cytotoxic asphyxia.
Human Health Risks
34. Risks of exposure to metam-sodium were not assessed for this document because metam sodium is not present in air after agricultural use.
( This is an interesting statement as NCAP sheet as well as the 2003 CPR report on Secondhand pesticides indicate distinct measurements several days after use…)
36. A subchronic LOAEL of 1.7 ppm MITC was identified from a 4 week inhalation study in
rats, based on increased atrophy of the nasal epithelium in exposed animals compared to controls. A subchronic NOAEL of 100 ppb was estimated from the LOAEL by adjusting to continuous exposure and applying an uncertainty factor of 3. Benchmark dose analysis of the dose-response data yields similar results.
40. DPR developed a NOAEL and REL for acute exposure to MIC. A LOAEL of 500 ppb for a 10 minute exposure was selected from the three available studies of human eye imtation (finding #30). This yielded an acute REL of 0.98 ppb.
42. Concentrations of hydrogen sulfide related to metam-sodium applications were measured in only one of the available studies. The report noted that the highest measured concentration, 76 ppb, is more than twice the California Ambient Air Quality Standard of 30 ppb. There is a need for better data and control of exposure at metam-sodium treated fields, similar to that noted for MIC.
45. The limited data available indicate that MIC and HzS concentrations may exceed benchmark risk levels during applications of metam sodium. However, most exposure studies assessed only MITC concentrations. Risk assessment of metam sodium use based only on MITC may significantly underestimate human health risks. The combined risk of exposure to the mixture of irritants is the most relevant benchmark by which risk management strategies for metam sodium should be measured. To adequately characterize the risk resulting from a metam sodium application, exposure data for all toxic breakdown products is necessary.
Further air monitoring studies to assess exposures resulting from metam-sodium application are needed, and should include assessment of MITC, MIC and HzS.
(NOTE: incomplete data then.- Sorry we did not know it was important….!)
51. The Panel recommends that the Director of DPR initiate regulatory steps to list MITC as a Toxic Air Contaminant pursuant to FAC 3 14023(d). In addition, because MITC in air derives overwhelmingly from applications of metam sodium, with a smaller part contributed by metam potassium and dazomet, we recommend that these three pesticides be listed as TACs.
Other pesticides, not noted in this document, that break down to MITC should also be identified as TACs. Other breakdown products resulting from metam sodium use must also be considered. MIC and CS2 are automatically listed as TACs due to their status as Hazardous Air Pollutants. Hydrogen sulfide should be identified as a TAC, based on its known toxicity and release as a breakdown product of metam sodium.
(NOTE: IN order to determine effects on aquatic fauna and flora, it would be essential to get an idea of the final concentration in micrograms/L) although it is only relevant if the water from the treated lines ends up in the river.)