Aarhus Universitets segl

No. 759: Control of Pesticides 2008. Chemical Substances and Chemical Preparations.

Teddy Krongaard 2009: Control of Pesticides 2008. Chemical Substances and Chemical Preparations. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet. 25 s.- Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 759.

Summary

The analytical chemical authority control of pesticide products on the Danish market in 2008 is described in this report. Samples of selected groups of pesticides have been collected from the market and analysed to verify whether the actual contents of the respective active ingre­dients in the products comply with the labelled content. The tolerance of deviation from the labelled content of active ingredient is set by the Danish Statutory Order on pesticides. In addition to the examination of the content of active ingredients, most of the collected samples were examined for the content of octylphenol ethoxylates (OPEO) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEO). The industry and the Danish authorities have agreed on removing these compounds from all Danish-sold pesticide formulations produced after June 2000.

Four different groups of products covered by the pesticide regulation were included in the 2008 analytical chemical authority control:

  1. Herbicides containing aclonifen, bromoxynil, ioxynil, fluazifop-P-butyl, fenoxaprop-P-ethyl and mesotrione.
  2. Fungicides containing cyazofamid, fluazinam, pencycuron, prothioconazole, tebuconazole and terbuthylazine.
  3. Insecticides containing alpha-cypermethrin and permethrin.
  4. Plant growth regulators containing paclobutrazol.

Satisfactory results were found for all examined pesticide formulations. Thus, the analysed samples of these formulations complied with the accepted tolerance limits with respect to the content of the active ingredients as specified in Danish Statutory Order on pesticides.

None of the examined samples contained OPEO but one contained NPEO. The manufacturer of the product informed the Danish EPA in 2005 about this specific case so no further action was taken.

On five labels, the content of active ingredient was declared only in g/L, but not in % (w/w) as required by the Statutory Order. On two labels the declared content given in g/L was correct, but the content given in percentage was incorrect.

Full report in pdf (1.5MB)