New National Pesticide Telecommunications Networknpic.orst.edu/reports/NPTN98AR.pdf · 2014. 12. 2. · The greatest number of calls (40.7%) were health-related, whereas 21.8% were

Environmental & Molecular ToxicologyOregon State University

National PesticideTelecommunications

Network1 9 9 8

This is the fourth annual report for the NationalPesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) since itbegan operation at Oregon State University in April,1995. NPTN, a service providing a variety of pesticideand pesticide-related information to the general publicand professionals across the United States and PuertoRico and the Virgin Islands, is a cooperative projectbetween Oregon State University and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. This report, the 1998Annual Report, covers the period April 1, 1998 - March31, 1999, corresponding to NPTN’s fourth grant year.

DISCLAIMERMaterial presented in this report is based on informationas provided to NPTN by individuals who have contactedNPTN for information or to report a pesticide incident. None of this information has been verified or substantiatedby independent investigation by NPTN staff, laboratoryanalysis, or any other means. Thus, if a personalleges/reports a pesticide incident, it likely will berecorded as an incident by NPTN. NPTN qualifies theinformation by assigning a Certainty Index (CI; anindication of the degree of certainty that the purportedincident was related to pesticide exposure) ranging from1 = "definite" to 5 = "unrelated." NPTN makes no claimsor guarantees as to the accuracy of the CI or otherinformation presented in its reports, other than that NPTNhas done its best to accurately document and report theinformation provided to NPTN.

Written and Submitted By:

Terry L. Miller, Ph.D.Director

National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN)Oregon State University

333 Weniger HallCorvallis, OR 97331-6502

800-858-7378

NPTN 1998 ANNUAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary - NPTN 1998 Annual Report . . . . . . . 1

NPTN Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Inquiries and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Associated Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

NPTN Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Personnel Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Call Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Traffic Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Traffic Report Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Traffic Report Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 1 - Monthly Telephone Calls . . . . . . . . . . 12Table 2 - Types of Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Table 3 - Origin of Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Table 4 - Web Site Hits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Table 5 - Type of Caller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Table 6 - Type of Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Table 7 - Reason for Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Table 8 - Action Taken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 9 - Inquiries by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Table 10 - Top 25 Active Ingredients for All Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Table 11 - Top 25 Active Ingredients

for Incident Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Table 12 - Location of Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Table 13 - Environmental Impact . . . . . . . . . . . 24Table 14 - Incident Calls - Certainty Index . . . . 25Table 15 - Description of Victims . . . . . . . . . . . 26Table 16 - Symptoms of Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Table 17 - Additional Outcomes for Victims . . . 28Table 18 - Ages of Human Victims . . . . . . . . . . 29

Report on Subcontracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Oregon Poison Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30National Animal Poison Control Center . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Sub-Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30National Antimicrobial Information Network (NAIN) . . 30

Read The Label! - The Label Is The Law

1998 Annual Report

-1-

Executive Summary -

NPTN 1998 Annual ReportNote: The complete record of the accomplishments of NPTN for the current operational year includes the12 monthly reports and 4 quarterly reports (submitted earlier), in addition to this "1998 Annual Report." This report covers the NPTN grant year: April 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999.

Operations� The NPTN World Wide Web site

is an increasingly popular sourceof information to NPTN clientele -during this operational year the sitereceived 183,127 hits; anadditional 68,832 hits werereceived by the NationalAntimicrobial InformationNetwork (NAIN) web site. NPTNreceived 400 inquiries via email.

� NPTN answered 21,717 callsduring its fourth operational year. Eighty percent of the inquirieswere received between March andOctober, coinciding with that partof the year where most pestpressures are the highest (Table 1,Figure 1).

� The majority of calls (91.3%) werefor information only, i.e., notrelated to an incident; 5.1% relatedto exposure concerns, and 3.7%concerned other non-health-relatedpesticide incidents (Table 7,Figures 8 and 9).

� The greatest number of calls(40.7%) were health-related,whereas 21.8% were forinformation about pesticide usage,and 10.5% were of a regulatorynature (Table 6, Figure 7). Examples of "health-related" callsinclude:

� Caller’s husband sprayed antand roach spray in basement. She is pregnant and wants toknow if it will affect her baby.

� Caller wanted information onDursban (and chlorpyrifos andother organophosphates)because she and her familywere tested and confirmedexposed to Dursban.

� Caller’s workplace was sprayedwith a pesticide during workinghours, including rooms theywere working in at the time. She wanted to know if this wasokay and "safe".

� Pesticide company appliedConquer once a month for thepast 5 years. Caller’s cat (8years) now has been diagnosedwith kidney problems. Shewanted to know if the kidneyproblem could be linked withthe pesticide.

� Of the 21,717 calls, 7.2% (1,562)involved pesticide incidents, while37.9% (8,235 calls) were forinformation about specificpesticide active ingredients orproducts, and 48.9% (10,621 calls)were for general information aboutpesticides and pesticide-relatedissues (Table 2, Figures 2 and 3). Examples of pesticide incidentcalls include:

� Caller is a physician treating a30 yr old female patient thatmisapplied Tempo (cyfluthrin)concentrate in her apartment.The patient had symptoms ofabdominal pain, muscle aching,and sensory loss in feet.Similar symptoms were alsoreported for the patient's 16year old son. A cat and ahamster have also died. Physician needed informationon cyfluthrin.

� Caller has a friend who broughthim a bottle of Protecto 100from Mexico. Contains 5%chlordane. He spilled theentire bottle in garage andwanted to know what he can doabout the spill.

� A two-year old male child (25lbs) ingested a rodent bait - callernot sure how much but there was1 empty packet. He is sleepy andvomiting. Transferred call toOregon Poison Center.

� Caller and wife have been livingin an apartment (FHA housing)for 3 months. PCO treats everymonth. Both have been havingheadaches, dizziness, confusion,and blackouts for 3 months. Thecaller has a 1 month old childwith a heart condition(congestive heart failure) forwhich she is taking twomedications. The caller isworried about his child. Themanager won't give the caller thename of the PCO or what isused.

� Of the 1,562 incident calls, 8.3%were assigned a certainty index of 1or 2; thus, judged to have beeneither definitely or probably causedby the pesticide in question (Table12).

� The active ingredient - chlorpyrifos -generated more inquiries (1,402)(corresponding to 6.5% of all calls,and 17.0% of pesticide-specificcalls) than any other single activeingredient. Of these, 17.1% (240)were incident calls and 82.9% wereinquiries for general information. Of the 240 chlorpyrifos incidentcalls, 8.9% were assigned a certaintyindex of 1 (definite) or 2 (probable). The relatively large number of callsabout chlorpyrifos is likely related toits being one of the most widelyused chemicals in and around thehome (Table 10, Figure 14).

National Pesticide Telecommunications Network

-2-

� For the remaining activeingredients (in the top 25) involvedin incidents, there were a total of765 incidents, with 8.6% of themassigned a certainty index of 1 or2. It is interesting to note that theproportion of chlorpyrifosincidents assigned a certainty indexof 1 or 2 was not much differentthan for the remaining top 24pesticides taken as a group. Mostof the reported incidents involvedhumans (64.0%) and 19.9%involved animals (Table 11, Figure15).

� There were 1,668 victims involvedin the incidents reported to NPTN -61.8% were human, 21.5% animal,and 16.7% other (e.g., building,environment). Of the humanvictims, 35.8% were male, 50.2%female, 12.1% groups, and 1.9%where gender was not stated(Tables 14 and 15, Figures 16 and17).

� Of the 1,030 human victims inincident calls, information aboutsymptoms was given for 968. Ofthese, 63.4% were symptomatic(symptoms matched those forpesticide in question), 18.6% wereasymptomatic, and 18.0% reportedatypical symptoms (Table 16,Figures 18 and 19).

� Amongst the 1,030 human victims,3 deaths were reported, with one ofthese incidents judged to have acertainty index of 1 or 2, making itlikely that the death was a result ofpesticide exposure. Of the 359animal victims, there were 48deaths, with 15 of the incidentsassigned a certainty index of 1 or2, indicating likely pesticideinvolvement (Table 17, Figure 20).

� Victim ages were available for 810of the 1,030 human victims. Aportion (22.3%) of the victimswere less than 5 years old, 10.2%were between the ages of 5 - 14,3.5% were between 15 - 24, 54.4%were between the ages of 25 - 64,and 9.0% over age 64 (Table 18,Figure 21).

� Of the known locations (1,562)where incidents occurred, 84.9%were the home or yard, while 6.2%were agriculturally related and4.4% involved an office buildingor school (Table 12).

� Most of the calls (86.6%;18,802)to NPTN came from the generalpublic, while 4.9% calls camefrom federal/state/local agencies,2.6% from medical personnel,2.4% from information providers,and 2.2% from consumer users(Table 5, Figures 5 and 6).

� Most of the calls to NPTN(83.7%; 18,180) were handled byproviding verbal information tothe caller. Other actions taken bypesticide specialists were to refercallers to EPA and SLA (5.1%), County Extension Service (2.7%),Oregon Poison Center (0.5%),National Animal Poison ControlCenter (0.7%), NationalAntimicrobial InformationNetwork (0.8%), and otherorganizations (4.5%). Somecallers (2.0%) receivedinformation via mail or FAX(Table 8, Figures 10 and 11).

� There were 20,950 inquires toNPTN via telephone (Table 3).

� The largest number of calls werereceived from Texas, California,and New York - states ranked 3, 1,2 respectively, in terms ofpopulation (Table 9, Figure 12).

� By EPA region, 14.1% of the callscame from Region 6, 13.3% fromRegion 4, 13.0% from Region 9,12.8% from Region 3, and 10.6%from Region (Figure 13).

Organization� During its third year of operation,

NPTN hired 8.0 FTE pesticidespecialists at the rank of FacultyResearch Assistant, one of whomalso serves as the NPTN projectcoordinator. Two specialists leftNPTN, and two others reducedtheir hours to part-time. Presently,

NPTN has a staff of 15 full-timepesticide specialists.

� NPTN computer resources wereupgraded to meet the increasingdemand placed on its web site and toprovide capacity for growth in otherareas soon to be initiated by NPTN.

� Fact sheets now posted on theNPTN web site are: Permethrin,Fipronil, Diazinon, Imidacloprid,Cypermethrin, Pyrethrins &Pyrethroids, 2,4-D, and the generaltopic fact sheet Pets and Pesticides. Now posted on the NAIN web siteare the fact sheets SodiumHypochlorite (General Public) andSodium Hypochlorite (MedicalProfessionals).

Work was initiated this year on thefollowing active ingredient factsheets: Chlorpyrifos, DEET,Bacillus thuringiensis,Hexaflumuron, Methoprene,Esfenvalerate, Sulfuryl Fluoride,DDT, Malathion, Chlordane,Bendiocarb, Piperonyl Butoxide,Acephate, Potassium Salts of FattyAcids, and the antimicrobial activeingredients Glutaraldehyde,o-Phenylphenol, Chlorine Dioxideand Bronopol.

The following general topic factsheets are in development:Consumer Labeling Initiative,Fumigation, Inert Ingredients,Pesticides and Wildlife,Biotechnology & Engineered Crops,Risk Assessment, and Pregnancy,Infants & Pesticides.

� NPTN continued its weekly trainingsessions for pesticide specialists. Extensive efforts were put forth tomarket NPTN to a broader base ofclientele, including posterpresentations of NPTN at severalprofessional meetings and a mailingto 3,200 public health officials. Resource files were updated andnew hard copy and electronicresources were acquired.

1998 Annual Report

-3-

NPTN Mission StatementThe primary mission of theNational Pesticide Telecommun-ications Network is to serve as asource of objective, science-basedpesticide information on a widevariety of pesticide-relatedsubjects, including:

� pesticide products� recognition and management

of pesticide poisonings� toxicology� environmental chemistry.

In addition, NPTN providesreferrals for:

� laboratory analyses,investigation of pesticideincidents, and emergencytreatment

� safety practices� health and environmental

effects� clean-up and disposal.

A major goal of NPTN is topromote informed decision makingon the part of the caller.Service provided by NPTN isavailable from 6:30 am - 4:30 pmPacific Time, 7 days per week(excluding holidays), principallythrough a toll free telephone

number available to anyone in theUnited States and its territories. NPTN is sponsored cooperativelyby Oregon State University andthe U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

NPTN is open to questions fromthe public and professionals. It isstaffed by highly qualified andtrained pesticide specialists whohave the toxicology andenvironmental chemistry trainingneeded to provide knowledgeableanswers to questions aboutpesticides. NPTN pesticidespecialists deliver information in auser-friendly manner and areadept at communicating scientificinformation to the lay public. Pesticide specialists can helpcallers interpret and understandtoxicology and environmentalchemistry information aboutpesticides. The services providedby NPTN and its associatedprojects are strictly informationaland have no regulatory orenforcement capabilities.

NPTN maintains a TDD tofacilitate access to pesticideinformation by the hearing-impaired. Also, NPTN has a full-time pesticide specialist fluent inSpanish.

ObjectivesThe objectives of NPTN are:

1) To operate a toll free telephoneservice to callers in the UnitedStates, Puerto Rico, and theVirgin Islands. A recordingdevice is provided to captureoff-hour calls.

2) To serve as a source of factual,unbiased information onpesticide chemistry, toxicology,and environmental fate to allwho call including industry,government, medical, andagricultural personnel, as wellas the general public.

3) To provide the medicalcommunity with diagnostic andcrisis management assistanceinvolving pesticide incidents insituations pertaining to bothhuman and animal patients.

4) To acquire accurate andcomplete information on allcalls considered to be pesticideincidents.

5) To computerize all callinformation as well as pesticideincident data for easyretrievability.

NPTN provides objective,science-based, accurateinformation aboutpesticides and pesticide-related topics to empowercallers to make informeddecisions about pesticideuse...

NPTN pesticidespecialists deliverinformation in a user-friendly manner and areadept at communicatingscientific information tothe lay public...


-4-

HistoryThe pesticide information servicebegan in 1978 with the Texas TechUniversity Health Sciences centerassociated Pesticide HazardAssessment Project (PHAP) in SanBenito, Texas. This service wasoriginally used to report pesticideincidents in EPA Region VIthrough the Pesticide IncidentMonitoring System (PIMS). Later,callers from across the U.S. beganusing the service to obtaininformation on pesticides. In1980, the network was designatedas the National PesticideInformation Clearinghouse(NPIC). In 1984, the NPIC addedthe 24 hour responsibilities ofSouth Carolina’s NationalPesticide TelecommunicationsNetwork (NPTN) and changed itsname to NPTN.

The NPTN system remained inSan Benito until April 1985 whenit moved to the Department ofPreventive Medicine andCommunity Health of the TexasTech University Health SciencesCenter in Lubbock, Texas. NPTNremained at Texas Tech throughMarch, 1995. Following acompetitive renewal process forthe grant supporting theCooperative Agreement betweenthe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency and the co-sponsoringuniversity, NPTN moved toOregon State University onApril 1, 1995.

Inquiries andResources

NPTN receives inquiries fromacross the U.S. and from PuertoRico, the Virgin Islands, Canada,

Mexico, and numerous othercountries. Most of the inquiries toNPTN are from the general public. The nature of the inquiries rangefrom requests for informationabout: health implications ofpesticide use; pesticidetoxicology, environmentalchemistry, regulations, and usepractices; product information;environmental effects ofpesticides; pesticide safety,protective equipment, cleanup anddisposal; pesticide regulations;and current pesticide-relatedissues in the news.

NPTN maintains an extensivecollection of hard-copy andelectronic resources for pesticideinformation, used as necessary bythe pesticide specialists inanswering inquiries. Included inthis collection are: NPTN’s AI filecontaining information on the over200 pesticide active ingredientsabout which NPTN receives thegreatest number of inquiries;numerous compendia of pesticideinformation (e.g., Handbook ofPesticide Toxicology, Code ofFederal Regulations - 40 CFRParts 150 - 189, Pest ControlOperations, Toxicology - TheScience of Poisons, FarmChemicals Handbook, WHOEnvironmental Health Criteriaseries, Herbicide Handbook, ThePesticide Manual, Common-SensePest Control, pesticide productlabels - to name but a few);electronic access to EXTOXNET(EXtension TOXicologyNETwork), CHEMBANK(HSDB, RTECS, IRIS), andPESTBANK; and on-lineliterature searching capabilities(e.g., Medline, Toxline).

Associated ProjectsIn addition to its basic servicedescribed above, NPTNadministers a related sub-project -NAIN (National AntimicrobialInformation Network). NAIN,previously known as ACS(Antimicrobial ComplaintService), provides information (viaits own toll free telephone line anda World Wide Web site) tomedical professionals and thepublic on disinfectants, sanitizers,and sterilants, each classified aspesticides by the U.S. EPA.

FundingFunding for NPTN and NAIN isprovided principally by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,with substantial support beingprovided by Oregon StateUniversity in the form of costsharing, salary support, andfacilities.

NPTN is a cooperativeeffort of Oregon StateUniversity and the U.S.Environmental ProtectionAgency...

1998 Annual Report

-5-

NPTN UpdatePersonnel UpdateDuring the 1998 grant year, NPTNhired 8 full time pesticidespecialists, one of whom alsoserves as the NPTN projectcoordinator. Two specialists leftNPTN, one specialist reduced herhours from full- to part-time, andanother specialist now works halftime with NAIN and half-timewith NPTN. Other part-time staff,including graduate andundergraduate student help, werehired. Presently NPTN employs15 full-time pesticide specialists.

Call UpdateNPTN responded to21,717 telephoneinquiries, 1,562 of whichwere classified aspesticide incidents. Apesticide spill, amisapplication, acontamination of a non-target entity, or anypurported exposure to apesticide (regardless ofinjury) is classified as anincident. Incident callsare reviewed by Dr.Sheldon Wagner and/ora senior pesticidespecialist. On the basis ofinformation provided by the caller,and with reference to establishedcriteria, all incident calls areassigned a certainty index (CI) -this is NPTN’s assessment as towhether the health effects weredefinitely (CI = 1), probably (2),possibly (3), or unlikely (4) tohave been caused by exposure to apesticide, or whether the healtheffects were unrelated (5) to

pesticide exposure. For incidentsin which the caller reported anexposure, accident, or odor, but nohealth effects, a certainty index ofzero (0) is assigned.

AchievementsFacilities

NPTN updated its UNIX operatingsystem to Solaris 2.6 whichprovides for increased computingcapabilities and enhanced securitymeasures. Six personal computerswere purchased and added to theNPTN network. A Sun Enterprise450 Server, with Solaris 2.7operating system, was purchased

to meet increasing demand onNPTN’s Internet resources. NPTNhas taken efforts to increase thesecurity of its UNIX system, and plans to implement a “firewall” tofurther increase security. Softwareand other computer accessoriespurchased include: search enginesoftware, a Fastor tape back-upunit and a new un-interruptiblepower supply.

Telecommunications capabilitieswere improved with the additionof a back-up system that allowsNPTN to receive overflow callswhen all regularly staffed lines arebusy, the purchase of auxiliarytelephone headsets that enablethird parties to listen to calls asthey come in to NPTN (afterinforming the caller and usedprimarily for training and QA/QCpurposes), and the addition of fivetelephones for five newtelecommunications stations. TheOSU telecommunications systemwas upgraded for Y2Kcompliance. Two file cabinetswere purchased and a new keypadsecurity lock was placed onanother NPTN room. NPTNacquired 160 square feet of officespace to accommodate itsexpanding needs. NPTN’s long-standing request for an additional1500 square feet of office space isstill under consideration by OSU.

Resources

NPTN acquired many books,reports, and other documents tosupplement the NPTN library thatserves as a resource for specialistswho respond to pesticide inquiries.

Books acquired during the 1998grant year include: ClinicalVeterinary Toxicology, BasicToxicology, Infectious DiseaseHandbook, Food Safety andToxicology, UnderstandingToxicology, Calculation Methodsfor Industrial Hygiene, PesticideProperties in the Environment,Common Sense Pest Control (5th

edition), Science and Judgement inRisk Assessment, Eighth Report on


-6-

Carcinogens (1998 Summary), ThePesticide Manual, MerckVeterinary Manual (8th edition),The Dispossessed, EnvironmentalIllness: Myth and Reality, andTruman’s Scientific Guide to PestControl Operations (5th edition).

EPA documents received include:40 CFR; Label Review Manual(2nd edition); Consumer LabelingInitiative: Phase I Report; FIFRA;Status of Pesticides inRegistration, Reregistration, andSpecial Review (Rainbow Report,Spring 1998); EPA ReferralDatabase: Quick Guide to EPAPublic Access Lines; two copies ofCFR 21, Parts 170-199; Selectedterms and Acronyms: Office ofPesticide Programs; CommonSynonyms for Chemicals listedunder section 313 of theEmergency Planning andCommunity Right-to-Know Act;Pollution Prevention (P2)Guidance Manual for the PesticideFormulation, Packaging, andRepackaging Industry:Implementing the P2 Alternative;Title III List of Lists: ConsolidatedList of Chemicals Subject to theEmergency Planning andCommunity Right-to-Know Act(EPCRA) and Section 112 (R) ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended; theposter Integrated PestManagement; and the videoPesticide Handlers/WorkerProtection Standard.

World Health Organizationpublications received include:Guidelines for Drinking WaterQuality (2nd edition), Evaluation ofCertain Veterinary Drug Residuesin Food, Pesticide Residues inFood, Environmental HealthCriteria 198 Diazinon andEnvironmental Health Criteria204 Boron.

NPTN obtained the followingReregistration EligibilityDecisions: Boric Acid and itsSodium Salts, DEET, Bacillusthuringiensis, Diphenylamine,Butraline, Sulfuryl Fluoride, ZincPhosphide, the RodenticideCluster (Brodifacoum,Bromadiolone, Bromethalin,Chlorphacinone, Diphacinone andits sodium salt, Pival and itssodium salt), Hexazinone, SiliconDioxide, Phosamine Ammonium,Methiocarb, Triclopyr,Dichlobenil, Methylisothiazolone,Propachlor, Prodione, DEET,Dicofol, DCPA, Aluminum

Magnesium Sulphate, AluminumMagnesium Phosphide,Hydramethylnon, Methomyl,Iprodione, Bromoxynil, 1,3-Dichloropropene, Thiodicarb, andAlachlor.

Other reports obtained include: thedraft document Final ReportGuidance for Total Organics; TheNonoccupational PesticideExposure Study (NOPES); Reporton Multiple Chemical Sensitivity,Predecisional Draft, ATSDR; andThe National Toxicology ProgramFiscal Year 1998 Annual Plan.

1998 Annual Report

-7-

Project and InformationReviewFact Sheets - Fact sheets nowposted on the NPTN web site are:Permethrin, Fipronil, Diazinon,Imidacloprid, Cypermethrin,Pyrethrins & Pyrethroids, 2,4-D,and the general topic fact sheetPets and Pesticides. Now postedon the NAIN web site are the factsheets Sodium Hypochlorite(General Public) and SodiumHypochlorite (MedicalProfessionals). The fact sheetpriority list was updated to includeadditional active ingredients andgeneral topics.

Work was initiatedthis year on thefollowing activeingredient fact sheets:Chlorpyrifos, DEET,Bacillus thuringiensis,Hexaflumuron,Methoprene,Esfenvalerate,Sulfuryl Fluoride,DDT, Malathion,Chlordane,Bendiocarb,Piperonyl Butoxide, Acephate,Potassium Salts of Fatty Acids,and the antimicrobial activeingredients Glutaraldehyde,o-Phenylphenol, Chlorine Dioxideand Bronopol.

The following general topic factsheets are in development:Consumer Labeling Initiative,Fumigations, Inert Ingredients,Pesticides and Wildlife,Biotechnology & EngineeredCrops, Risk Assessment, andPregnancy, Infants & Pesticides.

NPTN Web Site - NPTN web sitedevelopments this year include thestart-up of Internet discussion

groups, including a discussiongroup on the Food QualityProtection Act open to allinterested parties, and Pesticidesand Health Care ProvidersDiscussion Groups to facilitatecommunication betweencommittee members associatedwith the Pesticides and NationalStrategies for Health CareProviders Initiative. Additionally,the new, updated version of theNPTN web site, Version IV, withimproved organization, newinformation and added links, wasimplemented this year. This newversion includes an internal FQPA

Q&A site to assist specialists inanswering FQPA-related calls.

Active Ingredient Files - Reviewand update of the active ingredientfiles continued during grant year1998. Multiple ChemicalSensitivity (MCS) call codingguidelines were developed andimplemented. A Library InventoryDatabase program was developedand implemented to electronicallycatalog NPTN hard-copy holdings,including books, journals, articles,government publications, andother types of hard copy resources.

Personnel - Faculty PositionDescriptions were revised, signed,and submitted to Oregon StateUniversity. NPTN and NAINpersonnel were evaluated forsatisfactory performance and meritsalary increases. NPTN personnelpolicies were reviewed, revised,and posted in the NPTN StandardOperating Procedures Manual.

Training andContinuing EducationThe NPTN Specialist TrainingManual was updated withinclusion of sections on RiskAssessment, Risk Communication,and Telephone Exercises.

Two specialists completed theirattendance at all lectures of the 9-credit, 3-term series of graduate-level introductory toxicologycourses, including: Fundamentalsof Toxicology, Target OrganToxicology, and EnvironmentalToxicology and Risk Assessment.

Weekly NPTN group meetings, aprincipal training and QA/QCactivity for pesticide specialists,continued throughout the year. Internal training seminars werescheduled during many of theseweekly sessions. One internalseminar was on the topic ofherbicides. Several internalseminars were conducted onFQPA in anticipation of increasedcalls to NPTN relating toimplementation of the FQPA. Atone weekly meeting, Dr. Wagnerdiscussed the codingstrategy/classification systembeing developed by NationalInstitute for Occupational Safetyand Health (NIOSH) and pesticidespecialists participated in utilizingthis coding strategy on sample


-8-

pesticide illness reports. Atanother weekly meeting,specialists participated in reviewand training in use of thetelecommunications device for thedeaf (TDD) to facilitate receivingand responding to calls fromhearing-impaired individuals.

Academic activities at OregonState University provide additionalopportunities for specialists’continuing education. Formalseminars or lectures attended byNPTN staff during grant year 1998include: Soil Solarization of SoilBorne Plant Pathogens; Pesticidesand Cancer; How embryos copewith environmental stress: Arethere differences betweenembryo cells and adult cells?;IPM, Pesticides, and LocustControl in Mali; and The Futureof Pesticides.

Two specialists attended theworkshop Conversational Skillsfor Convening People andInfluencing Decisions sponsoredby OSU.

Conferences attended by NPTNpersonnel this year include: ThePesticides and NationalStrategies for Health CareProviders Workshop (Dr. Wagner was a member of theExpert Panel and NPTN wasinvited as an observer), TheSecond Annual AntimicrobialWorkshop, The American MedicalVeterinary AssociationConference, The NationalAssociation of City County HealthOfficials (NACCHO) andAssociation of State and TribalHealth Officials (ASTHO)Conference, The Third PacificNorthwest Pesticide issuesConference: Explaining theScience Behind FQPA, The 1999

Chemical Applicators ShortCourse, and The Association ofAmerican Pesticide ControlOfficials/Association of AmericanPesticide Safety Educators(AAPCO/AAPSE) SpringMeeting.

Publicity

NPTN brochures and othermaterials were distributed at theconferences listed above. Additionally, the NPTN displaywas exhibited at the National

Strategies for Health CareProviders and the NationalAssociation of City County HealthOfficials (NACCHO) andAssociation of State and TribalHealth Officials (ASTHO)Conference. NPTN publicity alsooccurred at the Second AnnualAntimicrobial Workshop wherethe NAIN display was exhibitedalong with information aboutNPTN. At this conference, WadeTrevathan, a NAIN specialist,conducted a breakout session with

a presentation about NAIN/NPTNservices.

Specialists also participated inlocal community outreach. Presentations about NPTN wereconducted for master gardeners atthe Salem, Oregon Public Library,students of the OSU VeterinaryCollege, participants in the OregonDepartment of AgricultureOrnamental Pesticide ApplicatorTraining Program, attendees at theAlbany, Oregon Agricultural Fair,and students of the Department ofPublic Health at OSU.

NPTN brochures were distributedto several local agencies in theCorvallis, Oregon vicinity,including ten elementary schools,Kidco Head Start which servesover 350 children from lowincome families, the BentonCounty Health Department, theLinn County Health Department,and the Lincoln Health Center, aschool-based health center servingmany low income families inBenton County. Two hundredbrochures were mailed to theOregon Health Division fordistribution with their mailings tolocal Public Health Departmentsthroughout the state of Oregon.

NAIN specialists completeddevelopment of a new NAINbrochure.

The U.S. EPA released thebrochure Pesticides and Food:What you and your family need toknow. The NPTN 1-800-number isdisplayed on the brochure as asource of additional informationon pesticides and food safety.

1998 Annual Report

-9-

Other

NPTN personnel periodically meetwith EPA personnel for thepurpose of discussing the progressof NPTN, future directions forNPTN, and other issues of mutualconcern to NPTN and the EPA. This year, Dr. Terry Miller(Director) and Dorothy Tibbetts,the project coordinator hired at thebeginning of grant year 1998,spent a day in April, 1998 at EPAheadquarters in Arlington,Virginia to meet with individualsat the EPA Office of PesticidePrograms for the purpose oforienting Ms. Tibbetts to thefunctions of theOPP and itsrelationship toNPTN. SherriStreet and FrankDavido from theEPA Office ofPesticideProgramsInformationResources andServices Divisionconducted theirannual site visit toNPTN in earlySeptember, 1998.

Terry Miller, Jeff Jenkins, SheldonWagner, Dorothy Tibbetts, TerryBrock, and Dawn Andrews metwith EPA/OPP personnel at theEPA headquarters in Arlington,Virginia in March, 1999. Meetings during this visit wereheld with the NPTN ProjectOfficer, Frank Davido; the NPTNOversight and MonitoringCommittee; and representatives ofother EPA/OPP divisions,including: Information Resourcesand Services, Field and ExternalAffairs, Antimicrobial, and HealthEffects Divisions. The NPTN

delegation also met at this timewith OPP director Marcia Mulkeyand her associates.

NPTN hosted visits byprofessionals interested in learningmore about operations at NPTN. This year, NPTN hosted a visit bySteve Kirkhorn, MD., MPH., whowas engaging in research on ruralhealth and outreach systems. Dr. Kirkhorn observed the NPTNoperation for one week andprovided NPTN with informationabout his work as MedicalDirector of Occupational Healthservices at Immanuel-St. Joseph’s,Mayo Health System, Mankato,

Minnesota. NPTN also hosted avisit by Dr. Anita Janson, MD,MPH. Dr. Janson is a consultantto the Oregon Department ofAgriculture; she spent oneafternoon with NPTN listening tocalls and learning about theproject.

NPTN periodically conductsmeetings with OSU officials toorient them to NPTN. Duringgrant year 1998, the directors ofNPTN met with Dr. LylaHoaglum, Dean and Director ofthe Oregon State University

Extension Service, to tour NPTNand discuss its mission. Alsopresent at this meeting were BillBraunworth, Ag Program Leaderfor the College of AgriculturalSciences, and Michael Stoltz,Regional Director with OSUExtension Service. NPTN wasalso visited by Dean ThayneDutson and Associate DeanLavern Weber (both from Collegeof Agricultural Sciences) and ViceProvost for Research Wilson“Toby” Hayes.

TrafficReportTraffic ReportSummaryNPTN answered 21,717 inquiriesduring its fourth year of operation(April 1998 - March 1999) atOregon State University. Most ofthe calls received by NPTN arequite sophisticated, requiringextensive expertise on the part ofthe pesticide specialists to be ableto provide answers which areobjective, science-based, andaccurate, and, at the same time, arepresented in an understandableway to the caller.

A summary of the number of callsreceived per month is provided inTable 1 and Figure 1. Alsoincluded in Table 1 is a listing ofthe total number of calls bycalender year. Most calls come toNPTN during the period March toOctober.

The types of calls received byNPTN are shown in Table 2 andFigures 2 and 3. Calls range from


-10-

inquiries about general or specificinformation about pesticides toreporting of incidents.

The means by which peoplecontact NPTN is shown in Table 3. The telephone is by far the mostimportant verbal contact route. However, many people accessNPTN through its World WideWeb site - during this year, theweb site received 183,127 hits. During the same time, there were68,832 hits to the web site of aNPTN sub-project, the NationalAntimicrobial InformationNetwork (NAIN) (Table 4 andFigure 4). In addition, there were400 direct inquiries to NPTN viaemail.

The variety ofcallers to NPTN isshown in Table 5and Figure 5. Thepredominant numberof calls received byNPTN are from thegeneral public.

The types ofquestions posed tothe NPTN PesticideSpecialists arepresented in Table 6and Figure 7. Mostof the callersrequestedinformation abouthealth-related issues.

Most of these information callsand others listed in Table 6 wereprompted by concern/knowledgeof the caller (Table 7 and Figures8 and 9). Only about 7% of thecalls are to report a pesticideincident.

The outcome of most calls toNPTN is that the caller receives

verbal information from aPesticide Specialist (Table 8 andFigures 10 and 11). Some callersalso request and receive writteninformation. In addition, manycalls are referred to either EPA,National Pesticide MedicalMonitoring Program (NPMMP, acooperative project betweenOregon State University and theU.S. EPA to provide medicalconsultation and follow-up topotential pesticide exposures), or astate lead agency (such as theDepartment of Agriculture). The callers to NPTN represent all50 states as well as Canada andother foreign nations. Table 9shows the number of calls from

each of the states, Puerto Rico, theVirgin Islands, and other locations. The 10 states from which most ofthe calls are from is presented inFigures 12. Residents from Texas,California, and New York initiatedthe greatest number of calls. Alsoshown in Table 9 and presented inFigure 13 are the number of callsfrom each of the EPA regions.

The total number of calls as wellas the number of information andincident calls for the 25 mostasked about pesticide activeingredients is presented in Table10. For incident calls, the valueshown in parentheses indicates thenumber of incidents with acertainty index of 1 (definite) or 2(probable). The 10 activeingredients mentioned most oftenin calls is presented in Figure 14. The 25 active ingredients mostfrequently mentioned in incidentcalls are listed in Table 11. Incident calls are further classifiedby victim type. The 10 activeingredients most often mentionedin incident calls are presented inFigure 15.

The locations wherepesticide exposureswere purported tohave taken place areshown in Table 12. Of those calls wherethe location wasreported, mostincidents occurred inor around the home.

The environmentalimpact of thepesticides involved inincidents is shown inTable 13.

The incident calls arefurther categorized bywhether the incident

involved a human, animal, orbuilding/other (Table 14 andFigure 16). The incident calls foreach victim type are qualified bythe certainty index. The certaintyindex is an estimate by NPTN asto whether the incident was eitherdefinitely (1), probably (2),possibly (3), or unlikely (4) tohave been caused by exposure to a

1998 Annual Report

-11-

pesticide, or whether the incidentwas unrelated (5) to pesticides. Acertainty index of 0 reflects thosecalls where the caller reportedbeing exposed to a pesticide but nosymptoms were present. Forhuman victims presented in Table14, the certainty index is furthercategorized by gender and group.

Table 15 and Figure 16 list thedescriptions for the victimsinvolved in incidents, as female,male, groups, animals, and other.

Reported symptoms are shown inTable 16 and Figures 18 and 19. Symptoms provided by callersranged from symptomatic, toasymptomatic, to atypical.

The number of deaths, lifethreatening, or interesting/strangecases due to a potential pesticideexposure is shown in Table 17 andFigure 20.

Ages were available for some ofthe victims and are presented inTable 18 and Figure 21.

Traffic Report Tablesand Figures

Pesticide specialists recordpertinent information for everycall that is received at NPTN. This information is entered intothe NPTN Pesticide IncidentDatabase (PID), an electronicdatabase used to recordinformation for all inquiries toNPTN. Broadly speaking, thereare two types of calls received byNPTN - those for general orspecific information aboutpesticides and pesticide-relatedissues and calls about pesticideincidents. For example, a caller

might ask a question about‘pesticides in foods’ (a generalinformation call) or about thetoxicity of a particular pesticide (apesticide-specific informationcall). A call to report an exposureto a pesticide is an example of anincident call. The type andamount of information entered intothe PID depends on whether thecall was for general information orto report a pesticide incident.

Information collected and enteredinto the PID for general information calls includes: originof inquiry (e.g., telephone or e-mail), state from which the inquiryoriginated, type of person (e.g.,general public, governmentagency, or medical personnel),type of inquiry (e.g., request forpesticide information or report ofpesticide incident), reason forinquiry (e.g., concern/knowledgein the case of information calls), and action required (e.g., verbalinformation, referral, or mailedinformation). If a specificpesticide product or activeingredient is discussed, the product

and/or active ingredient is enteredinto the database.

When incidents are reported, moredetailed and specific informationis recorded, including: type ofincident (e.g., exposure, spill,drift), location of the incident andinformation about the victim,including age, gender, nature ofthe exposure, and reportedsymptoms. For incidentsinvolving reported human oranimal health effects, and forenvironmental incidents, acertainty index is assigned. Thecertainty index is an estimate byNPTN (based on informationprovided by the caller) as to thelikelihood that the health effectswere caused by exposure to apesticide. Additionally, if anincident involves an environmentalimpact, the nature of the impact isrecorded in the database (e.g.,impact to air, water, or soil).

Following is a summary ofselected data from the NPTNPesticide Incident Database for the1998 NPTN operational year.


-12-

2181

2486

2891

2608

2188

1790

1544

1132

938 10

47

1214

1698

April

May

June July

Augu

stSe

ptem

ber

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

rD

ecem

ber

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

0

1000

2000

3000

Num

ber

of C

alls

Month

Monthly Calls

NPTN received 21,717 inquiriesduring the 1998 grant year. Figure 1 shows number of callsreceived for each month. Eightypercent of the inquiries werereceived between March andOctober, coinciding with that partof the year when most pestpressures are highest. Total callsreceived during previous grantand calendar years is provided forcomparison in Table 1.

Table 1 -NPTN Monthly Telephone Calls

Month Number of Calls

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999April 1560 2015 2129 2181May 1494 2215 2199 2486June 1612 2111 2441 2891July 1763 2114 2536 2608August 2004 1950 2282 2188September 1633 1638 1904 1790October 1699 1642 1712 1544November 1289 1094 1131 1132December 895 858 1060 938January 1098 1114 1153 1047February 1217 1263 1353 1214March 1511 1557 1937 1698

Calendar1) Year 13949 19463 21328 22206Grant2) Year 17775 19571 21837 21717

1) April 1 through December 31 for 1995; January 1 through December 31, other years.2) April 1 through March 31.

Figure 1 -NPTN Monthly Calls - 1998

“I’ve been told that myhome needs to be treatedwith pesticides to killtermites. I am pregnant,and I am wondering if thechemicals will hurt myunborn baby? What aboutmy other children?””

1998 Annual Report

-13-

Info - Specific Pesticide37.9%

Info - General Pesticide48.9%

Incidents7.2%

Other - Non-Pesticide6.0%

Human victims60.1%

Animal victims22.5%

Building/Other17.3%

Types of Calls

NPTN classifies calls asinformation calls, incident calls, orother (non-pesticide) calls. Thesetypes of calls are summarized inFigures 2 and 3 and Table 2. Themajority of calls (18,856 or86.8%) to NPTN were informationcalls in which the caller isrequesting information aboutpesticides or pesticide-relatedmatters (Figure 2). Informationcalls may involve a discussion of aspecific pesticide, or of pesticidesin general. NPTN responded to8,235 (37.9%) information callsabout specific pesticides, forexample: How long doeschlorpyrifos last indoors? and Can“Corry’s Slug and Snail Death”get into my garden vegetables andcause me to get sick when I eat thevegetables? NPTN responded to10,621 (48.9%) calls relating topesticides in general, for example:What are the least toxic methodsof pest control? and Whatpesticide can be used to controlants?

NPTN responded to 1,562 (7.2%)calls about pesticide incidents. Apesticide incident is a spill, amisapplication, a contamination ofa non-target entity, or anypurported exposure to a pesticide,regardless of injury. The majorityof incident calls involved humanand animal victims (Figure 3). Ofthe 1,562 incident calls, 939(60.1%) involved a human victim,352 (22.5%) involved an animalvictim, and 271 (17.3%) involveddamage to a building such as ahome or office. NPTN also took1,299 (6.0%) calls that were notrelated to pesticides, for example:Is the Peace Lily poisonous? andWho do I call if my neighbor isdumping oil in my back yard?

Table 2 -Types of Calls Received by NPTN

Type of Call Number of Calls

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Information - Specific Pesticide 7215 7757 8953 8235Information - General Pesticide 7973 9243 10482 10621Incidents 1944 1749 1559 1562 Human Victims 1327 1067 1026 939 Animal Victims 276 327 311 352 Building/Other 331 355 221 271Other - Non-Pesticide 643 822 843 1299

Grant Year Total = 17775 19571 21837 21717

Figure 3 -Incidents

Figure 2 -Types of Calls


-14-

Origin of Calls

Table 3 summarizes the origin ofinquiries received by NPTN. Mostinquiries are received bytelephone. Of the 21,717inquiries, 20,950 (96.5%) werereceived by telephone, 470 (2.2%)were recorded by a voice mailsystem, 40 (0.2%) were receivedby postal mail, 4 (0.02%) werewalk-in inquires, 215 (1%) wereby email, and 38 (0.2%) inquirieswere received by NPTN via othermeans. NPTN received anadditional 185 email responses infollow-up to previous emailinquiries.

Table 3 -Origin of Calls to NPTN

Origin of Call Number of Calls

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Telephone 17104 18901 21005 20950Voice Mail 373 455 542 470Mail 117 129 126 40Walk In 7 10 6 4E-Mail - - - 215Other 174 76 158 38

Grant Year Total = 17775 19571 21837 21717

1998 Annual Report

-15-

1203

7

1244

1 1387

0

1443

7 1555

1

1252

3

1734

0

1532

6

1324

4 1477

7

1956

4

2201

7

4867

4736 51

18

5126 55

78

5449

5552

7088

6565

8099

4560

6094

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec Jan

Feb

Mar

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000 NPTN NAIN

Num

ber

of H

its

Month

Web Site Access

The NPTN World Wide Web sitecontinues to be popular source ofinformation to NPTN clientele. The NPTN web site received183,127 hits and the NAIN website received 68,832 hits. Table 4and Figure 4 summarize by monththe number of web site hitsreceived by NPTN and NAINduring 1998. These are substantialincreases over the previous year -174% increase in hits to NPTN and406% for NAIN - when NPTNreceived 105,343 hits and NAINreceived 16,931 hits.

Figure 4 -Web Site Hits for NPTN and NAIN - 1998

Table 4 -Web Site Hits for NPTNand NAIN - 1998

Month # of HitsNPTN

# of HitsNAIN

April 12037 4867

May 12441 4736

June 13870 5118

July 14437 5126

August 15551 5578

September 12523 5449

October 17340 5552

November 15326 7088

December 13244 6565

January 14777 8099

February 19564 4560

March 22017 6094

Total = 183127 68832


-16-

Table 5 -Type of Caller to NPTN

Type of Caller Number of Calls

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999General Public 15357 16743 18304 18802Federal/State/Local Agency Health Agency 122 101 120 171 Government Agency 360 446 637 564 Enforcement Agency 39 50 67 43 Schools/Libraries 239 222 280 261 Fire Department 27 26 26 31Medical Personnel Human Medical 336 423 532 395 Animal Vet./Clinic 92 147 159 168 Migrant Clinic 9 10 16 3Information Groups Media 127 165 228 162 Unions/Info. Service 51 96 104 68 Environmental Org. 119 139 191 150 Pesticide Mfg./Mktg. Co. 128 136 158 133Consumer Users Lawyer/Insurance 98 143 129 69 Lab./Consulting 222 176 149 96 Pest Control 186 167 227 202 Retail Store 55 49 57 51 Farm 51 65 67 57Other 157 267 386 291

Grant Year Total = 17775 19571 21837 21717

1880

2

107

0

566

513

475

291

Gen

eral

Pub

lic

Fede

ral/S

tate

/Loc

al A

gen

Med

ical

Per

sonn

elIn

form

atio

n G

roup

sC

onsu

mer

Use

rs

Oth

er

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Num

ber

of C

alls

Type of Caller

Type of Caller

Figures 5 and 6 and Table 5summarize theprofession/occupation ofindividuals contacting NPTN. Themajority of calls made to NPTNare from the general public. Of the21,717 inquiries received, therewere 18,802 (86.6%) from thegeneral public; 1,070 (4.9%) fromfederal, state, or local governmentagencies; 566 (2.6%) from humanand animal medical personnel; 513(2.4%) from information groupsincluding the media, unions,environmental organizations andpesticide manufacturing ormarketing companies; 475 (2.2%)from consumer users includinglegal or insurance representatives,laboratory or consulting personnel,

pest control operators, retail storepersonnel, or farm personnel; and291 (1.3%) calls from otherprofessions/occupations.

Health Agency16.0%

Government Agency52.7%

Enforcement Agency4.0% Schools/Libraries

24.4%

Fire Department2.9%

Figure 5 -Type of Caller

Figure 6 -Inquiries from Federal/State/Local Agencies

1998 Annual Report

-17-

Health-Related40.7%

Usage Information21.8%

Compliance10.5%

General Info.3.0%

NPTN Questions5.9%

Other18.1%

Type of Question

The types of questions received atNPTN are most often related tohealth effects of pesticides (Figure7 and Table 6). NPTN respondedto 8,794 (40.7%) inquiries relatedto health effects of pesticides,including inquiries about generalhealth, treatment and testing, andlaboratory questions. NPTNresponded to 4,705 (21.8%)inquiries involving requests forpesticide usage information,including questions about use onspecific pests or crops, chemicalinformation, pros and cons ofapplication, safety and applicationquestions, cleanup questions,questions about harvest intervals,and lawn care usage questions.

NPTN responded to 2,278 (10.5%)inquiries involving compliancequestions, including questionsabout regulations, questions aboutdisposal, and complaints. Additionally, NPTN responded to33 (0.15%) inquiries specificallyabout the FQPA brochure, 42(0.19%) inquiries about other foodsafety issues, 18 (0.08%) inquiriesabout the Consumer Reports article[it should be noted that tracking ofthese three items began onlyrecently], 653 (3.0%) inquiriesinvolving general pesticidequestions, 1,266 (5.8%) inquiriesinvolving questions about NPTN,5 (0.02%) inquiries involving non-pesticide questions, and 3,922(18.1%) inquiries not classifiedaccording to type of question.

Table 6 -Type of Question Asked by Callers toNPTN

Type of Question Number of Calls

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Health Related Health 8225 8363 7997 8396 Treatment 172 158 238 284 Testing Lab. 73 97 114 115Usage Information Pest/Crop 1211 1267 1437 1575 Chemical 912 1202 1865 2111 Pros and Cons 162 181 185 104 Safety/Application 278 655 1040 531 Cleanup 273 283 312 252 Harvest Intervals 143 69 105 89 Lawn Care 58 51 54 43Compliance Regulations 1107 1201 1567 1714 Complaints 223 233 279 328 Disposal 210 166 197 236FQPA Brochure - - - 33Food Safety - - - 42Consumer Report Article - - - 18General 1519 1845 1026 653NPTN Questions 973 1033 1407 1266Non-Pesticide Related 460 127 5 5Other 1776 2640 4009 3922

Grant Year Total = 17775 19571 21837 21717

Figure 7 -Type of Question


-18-

Misapplication56.3%

Spill25.2%

Contamination5.6%

Drift12.4%

Fire0.5%

Dermal19.2%Ingestion

21.2%

Inhalation15.3%

Exposure Possible30.3%

Unknown/Many12.0%

Occupational2.0%

Reason for Inquiry

Pesticide specialists identify thereason for inquiry for all callsreceived by NPTN (Table 7 andFigures 8 and 9). The reason forinquiry for all information calls isConcern/Knowledge. The reasonfor inquiry for incident calls variesaccording to the nature of theincident. Of the 1,562 incidentcalls, reasons for inquiry involvedpesticide exposure for 1,107(70.9%) calls, accidents for 412(26.4%) calls, odor only for 28(1.8%) calls, laboratory testing for0 calls, and other reasons for

inquiry for 26 (1.7%) calls. Thereason for all other (non-pesticide)calls is N/A–Unknown.

Table 7 -Reason for Inquiry to NPTN

Reason for Inquiry Number of Calls

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Information Calls Concern/Knowledge 15019 17313 20020 19817Incident Calls Exposures Dermal - Acute 249 239 201 200 Dermal - Chronic 34 32 13 13 Ingestion - Acute 160 175 178 228 Ingestion - Chronic 7 8 3 7 Inhalation - Acute 244 241 176 147 Inhalation - Chronic 45 61 43 22 Exposure Possible 445 357 311 335 Unknown/Many 72 54 83 133 Occupational 79 39 42 22 Accidents Misapplic. - Homeowner 152 116 101 120 Misapplic. - PCO 132 84 111 80 Misapplic. - Other 31 22 39 32 Spill - Indoor 65 47 55 75 Spill - Outdoor 24 18 15 29 Contamination - Home 37 25 21 15 Contamination - Other 36 26 16 8 Drift 81 81 59 51 Fire - Home 3 2 1 0 Fire - Other 3 0 0 2 Industrial Accident 0 0 0 0Odor Only 53 80 58 28Testing Laboratory 6 2 1 0Other 103 76 36 26N/A-Unknown 695 473 254 327

Grant Year Total = 17775 19571 21837 21717

Figure 8 -Pesticide Exposures

Figure 9 -Pesticide Accidents

1998 Annual Report

-19-

Verbal Information83.7%

Referrals to:14.3%

Mailed Information1.6%

FAXed Information0.5%

EPA, State Lead Agencies35.4%

County Extension18.8%

Oregon Poison Center3.6%

NAPCC5.0%

NAIN5.7%

Other Organizations31.4%

Action Taken by NPTN

NPTN specialists respond toinquiries in many ways, includingthe provision of verbalinformation, referrals to otheragencies or organizations, andhard-copy information sent bymail, fax, or email. Actions takenby pesticide specialists in responseto inquiries are summarized inFigures 10 and 11 and Table 8. Most inquiries (18,180; 82.4%)were answered by providing verbalinformation to the caller. Ifspecialists determine that other

agencies or organizations are betterable to respond to an inquiry thanNPTN, a referral is made. Referrals were made for 3,096(14.3%) calls. Common NPTNreferrals include referrals to theEPA, state lead agencies or theNational Pesticide MedicalMonitoring Program; referrals tocounty extension services; referralsto Oregon Poison Center andNational Animal Poison Center;and referrals to the NationalAntimicrobial InformationNetwork (NAIN). Some callers(441; 2.0%) received hard-copyinformation via mail or FAX.

Table 8 -Action Taken by NPTN

Action Taken Number of Calls

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Verbal Information 11590 15078 17948 18180Referrals to:

EPA, State Lead Agencies, National Pesticide Medical Monitoring Program

1763 1363 1404 1095

County Extension 711 500 490 583 Oregon Poison Center 69 45 42 112 National Animal Poison Control Center 100 152 77 155 Antimicrobial Complaint System 103 208 214 178 Other Organizations 2001 1086 915 973Mailed Information, Brochure, Publication 1098 802 576 340Other/FAXED Information 340 337 171 101

Grant Year Total = 17775 19571 21837 21717

Figure 10 -Action Taken by NPTN

Figure 11 -Referrals Made


-20-

2612

2438

1729

1196

1074

892

878

713

672

544

Texa

sC

alifo

rnia

New

Yor

kFl

orid

a

Mas

sach

uset

tsPe

nnsy

lvan

iaO

rego

nVi

rgin

iaM

aryl

and

New

Jer

sey

0

1000

2000

Num

ber

of C

alls

State

1838

2294

2781 28

91

2025

3068

665

630

2828

1335

201

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FN0

1000

2000

3000

Num

ber

of C

alls

EPA Region

Calls Listed by State

Table 9 lists the number of callsfrom each state received by NPTN. The largest number of calls werereceived from Texas, California,and New York–states ranked 3, 1,and 2 respectively in terms ofpopulation (Figure 12). Figure 13summarizes calls by EPA region.NPTN received 14.1% of callsmade from Region 6, 13.3% fromRegion 4, 13.0% from Region 9,12.8% from Region 3, and 10.6%from Region 2.

Table 9 -Listing of States and Foreign Nations Using NPTN During 1998 Operational Year

EPA Region

State Code State Number of

Calls

Not recorded 116310 AK Alaska 234 AL Alabama 2636 AR Arkansas 1029 AZ Arizona 2259 CA California 2438

FN CN Canada 1328 CO Colorado 4321 CT Connecticut 4923 DC Dist. of Columbia 3563 DE Delaware 494 FL Florida 1196

FN FN Foreign 694 GA Georgia 3749 HI Hawaii 837 IA Iowa 92

10 ID Idaho 825 IL Illinois 4965 IN Indiana 2017 KS Kansas 1634 KY Kentucky 1746 LA Louisiana 1341 MA Massachusetts 10743 MD Maryland 6721 ME Maine 675 MI Michigan 3965 MN Minnesota 2017 MO Missouri 304

4 MS Mississippi 548 MT Montana 804 NC North Carolina 4298 ND North Dakota 227 NE Nebraska 1051 NH New Hampshire 802 NJ New Jersey 5446 NM New Mexico 1019 NV Nevada 832 NY New York 17295 OH Ohio 4806 OK Oklahoma 119

10 OR Oregon 8783 PA Pennsylvania 8922 PR Puerto Rico 121 RI Rhode Island 764 SC South Carolina 1628 SD South Dakota 314 TN Tennessee 2406 TX Texas 26128 UT Utah 423 VA Virginia 7132 VI Virgin Islands 41 VT Vermont 49

10 WA Washington 3525 WI Wisconsin 2513 WV West Virginia 1008 WY Wyoming 24

Total = 21717

Figure 12 -Top 10 States Using NPTN

Figure 13 -Calls to NPTN by EPA Region

1998 Annual Report

-21-

Figure 14 -Top 10 Active Ingredients in All Calls

1402

821

666

655

484

407

366

313

311

307

240

91

128

84

26 31 25

67

32 39

CH

LOR

PYR

IFO

SPE

RM

ETH

RIN

DIA

ZIN

ON

PYR

ETH

RIN

SBO

RIC

AC

IDB

END

IOC

AR

BIM

IDA

CLO

PRID

MAL

ATH

ION

GLY

PH

OSA

TEC

YFLU

THR

IN

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Num

ber

of C

alls

Active Ingredient

# All Calls # Incident Calls # Information Calls

Top 10 ActiveIngredients In All Calls

When calls to NPTN involvediscussion of a specific product oractive ingredient, the pesticidespecialist records the product andthe active ingredient in the NPTNPesticide Incident Database. Theactive ingredient chlorpyrifos wasdiscussed in more calls than anyother single active ingredient(Table 10). The relatively largenumber of calls about chlorpyrifosis likely related to its being one ofthe most widely used chemicals inand around the home. Of the 1,402calls involving chlorpyrifos, 240

(17.1%) were incident calls and1,163 (82.9%) were calls forgeneral information. See Table 10and Figure 14 for this and similarinformation for the 25 activeingredients most commonlydiscussed in calls made to NPTN. Note that a call may involvediscussion of more than one activeingredient; thus totals reflect thenumber of times active ingredients

are discussed duringthe course of all calls. Table 10 alsoprovides the certaintyindex assigned to allincident calls. Thecertainty index is anestimate by NPTN asto whether theincident wasdefinitely (1),probably (2), possibly(3), or unlikely (4) tohave been caused byexposure to apesticide, or whetherthe incident wasunrelated (5) topesticides. A certainty

index of zero (0) is assigned tothose calls where the callerreported an exposure, accident, orodor, but no health effects werereported. Of the 240 times thatchlorpyrifos was mentioned duringincident calls in which healtheffects were reported, 8.6% of thecases were assigned a certaintyindex of 1 (definite) or 2(probable).

Table 10 -Top 25 Active Ingredients for All Callsto NPTN in the 1998 Operational Year

Active Ingredient Total Calls Incident1)

CallsInformation

Calls

CHLORPYRIFOS 1402 240 (21) 1163PERMETHRIN 821 91 (13) 730DIAZINON 666 128 (9) 538PYRETHRINS 655 84 (5) 573BORIC ACID 484 26 (1) 458BENDIOCARB 407 31 (1) 376IMIDACLOPRID 366 25 (1) 341MALATHION 313 67 (4) 246GLYPHOSATE 311 32 (1) 279CYFLUTHRIN 307 39 (3) 268CYPERMETHRIN 298 30 (4) 2682,4-D 272 44 (2) 230CHLORDANE 248 23 (1) 225SULFURYL FLUORIDE 229 10 (4) 219CARBARYL 220 31 (1) 190DEET 195 14 (4) 181LAMBDA-CYHALOTHRIN 185 18 (2) 168HYDRAMETHYLNON 169 19 (2) 152HEXAFLUMURON 158 0 (0) 158DICAMBA 145 39 (3) 107MECOPROP 137 40 (4) 97ACEPHATE 135 26 (1) 110ESFENVALERATE 132 14 (1) 118

POTASSIUM SALTS of FATTY ACIDS

132 18 (3) 115

BIFENTHRIN 128 5 (0) 123 Total - Above 8515 1094 (91) 7433 All Other 1292 823 807

1) First number represents the total of purported incidents regardless of certainty index - numbers in parentheses indicate the total of incidents with certainty index of 1 (definite) or 2 (probable).


-22-

240

128

91

84

67

44 40 39 39

32

21

9 13

5 4 2 4 3 3 1

CH

LOR

PYR

IFO

SD

IAZI

NO

NPE

RM

ETH

RIN

PYR

ETH

RIN

SM

ALA

THIO

N2,

4-D

MEC

OP

RO

PC

YFLU

THR

IND

ICA

MB

AG

LYPH

OS

ATE

0

100

200

Num

ber

of C

alls

Active Ingredient

# Total Incidents # Incidents with

Certainty Index of 1 or 2

Figure 15 -Top 10 Active Ingredients in Incident Calls

Top 10 ActiveIngredients in IncidentCalls

The most common activeingredients reported duringincident calls are listed in Table 11and Figure 15. Table 11 alsosummarizes the numbers of humanand animal victims involved inreported incidents of exposure tospecific active ingredients. Of the977 times that one of the top 25active ingredients was mentionedduring incident calls in which

human or animal victims wereinvolved, 8.9% of the cases wereassigned a certainty index of 1(definite) or 2 (probable).

Table 11 -Top 25 Active Ingredients for Incident Calls in the 1998 Operational Year

Active Ingredient Total Incidents1)

Human Incidents

Animal Incidents

Other Incidents

Information Calls

CHLORPYRIFOS 240 (21) 180 (18) 32 (3) 28 (0) 1163DIAZINON 128 (9) 77 (7) 15 (2) 36 (0) 538PERMETHRIN 91 (13) 50 (2) 30 (11) 11 (0) 730PYRETHRINS 84 (5) 63 (3) 10 (2) 11 (0) 573MALATHION 67 (4) 39 (3) 3 (1) 25 (0) 2462,4-D 44 (2) 28 (1) 7 (1) 9 (0) 230MECOPROP 40 (4) 26 (3) 11 (1) 3 (0) 97CYFLUTHRIN 39 (3) 33 (2) 5 (1) 1 (0) 268DICAMBA 39 (3) 26 (2) 5 (1) 8 (0) 107GLYPHOSATE 32 (1) 16 (1) 11 (0) 5 (0) 279BENDIOCARB 31 (1) 23 (1) 2 (0) 6 (0) 376CARBARYL 31 (1) 21 (1) 6 (0) 4 (0) 190CYPERMETHRIN 30 (4) 27 (4) 1 (0) 2 (0) 268ACEPHATE 26 (1) 17 (1) 1 (0) 8 (0) 110BORIC ACID 26 (1) 19 (1) 7 (0) 0 (0) 458DIPHACINONE 25 (2) 1 (0) 23 (2) 1 (0) 32IMIDACLOPRID 25 (1) 8 (0) 12 (1) 5 (0) 341MCPA 25 (2) 21 (2) 2 (0) 2 (0) 34CHLORDANE 23 (1) 16 (1) 0 (0) 7 (0) 225PROPOXUR 21 (1) 4 (1) 10 (0) 7 (0) 77FIPRONIL 20 (0) 2 (0) 18 (0) 0 (0) 92PENDIMETHALIN 20 (0) 12 (0) 5 (0) 3 (0) 51PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE 20 (3) 14 (2) 2 (1) 4 (0) 96HYDRAMETHYLNON 19 (2) 9 (1) 10 (1) 0 (0) 152LAMBDA-CYHALOTHRIN 18 (2) 14 (0) 3 (2) 1 (0) 168 Total - Above Pesticides 1164 (87) 746 (57) 231 (30) 187 (0) 6901 All Other Pesticides = 753 457 177 119 1339


It is interesting to notethat, even though morecalls are received aboutchlorpyrifos than anyother active ingredient,the proportion ofchlorpyrifos incidentsassigned a certaintyindex of 1 or 2 was notmuch different than forthe remaining top 24pesticides taken as agroup.

1998 Annual Report

-23-

Location of Incident

For all incident calls, the NPTNspecialist records the location ofthe reported exposure, accident, orodor. Of the 1,468 knownlocations where incidents occurred,84.9% occurred in the home oryard, 6.2% occurred in anagricultural setting, and 4.4%occurred in an office building orschool (Table 12).

Table 12 -Location Where Exposure to a Pesticide Occurred

Location Number of Incident1) Calls

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Unclear/Unknown 975 (139) 482 (40) 14 (3) 32 (6)Home or Yard 730 (152) 902 (152) 1148 (129) 1246 (97)Agriculturally Related 92 (19) 115 (21) 131 (22) 91 (8)Industrially Related 10 (2) 16 (3) 11 (0) 12 (1)Office Building, School 51 (9) 52 (9) 75 (10) 65 (2)Pond, Lake, Stream Related 8 (3) 4 (1) 6 (3) 5 (0)Nursery, Greenhouse 7 (1) 9 (1) 10 (1) 10 (0)Food Service/Restaurants 6 (3) 6 (0) 4 (1) 4 (0)Retail Store/Business 4 (2) 15 (6) 14 (3) 17 (2)Roadside/Right-of-Way 10 (1) 15 (0) 17 (1) 9 (1)Park/Golf Course 8 (0) 7 (1) 7 (0) 9 (1)Other 43 (16) 126 (20) 122 (28) 62 (12)

Total = 1944 (347) 1749 (254) 1559 (201) 1562 (130)1) First number represents the total of purported incidents regardless of certainty index - numbers in parentheses indicate the total of incidents with certainty index of 1 (definite) or 2 (probable).


-24-

Environmental Impact

NPTN specialists also recordreported environmental impactsdiscussed in incident calls. SeeTable 13. The most commonreported environmental impacts aredamage to property and damage toplant material, including foodcrops and other plants or trees. Multiple environmental impactsmay be reported for each incidentcalls; thus totals reflect the numberof times these locations werediscussed during the course of allincident calls. Of the 210 timesthat a specific environmentalimpact was reported, 6.7% of thecases were assigned a certaintyindex of 1 (definite) or 2(probable).

Table 13 -Reported Environmental Impact from Pesticide Incidents

EnvironmentalImpact Number of Incident1) Calls

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Air 29 (6) 32 (4) 35 (8) 13 (0)Water 24 (5) 19 (1) 15 (1) 17 (1)Soil 17 (2) 22 (3) 41 (6) 21 (3)Food Crops/Process 68 (4) 60 (3) 44 (4) 38 (0)Property 105 (24) 131 (19) 120 (14) 93 (7)Poultry/Livestock 11 (2) 9 (4) 7 (0) 3 (1)Plants/Trees 31 (1) 26 (2) 44 (4) 25 (2)Not Applicable 1647 (297) 1431 (215) 1211 (154) 1333 (112)Other 11 (6) 19 (3) 42 (10) 19 (4)

Total = 1943 (347) 1749 (254) 1559 (201) 1562 (130)1) First number represents the total of purported incidents regardless of certainty index -numbers in parentheses indicate the total of incidents with certainty index of 1 (definite) or 2(probable).

1998 Annual Report

-25-

Information Only (0

)Definite (1

)Probable (2

)Possible (3

)Unlikely (4

)

Unrelated (5)

TOTAL = 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Humans

Animals

Other

Total

# of

Vic

tims

Victim

Certainty Index

Certainty Index

Table 14 and Figure 16summarizes the assignment ofcertainty index for all incident callsreceived by NPTN. Calls aresorted according to type of victim;human victims are further sortedaccording to gender and groups ofvictims. Multiple victims may bediscussed in one incident call; thustotals reflect the number of victims(as opposed to number ofincidents) are discussed during thecourse of incident calls to NPTN. Of the total number of victims(1,668) discussed in incident callsto NPTN, 1.3% of the cases wereassigned a certainty index ofdefinite (1), 7.1% of the cases wereassigned a certainty index ofprobable (2), 39.8% of the caseswere assigned a certainty index ofpossible (3), 15.6% of the caseswere assigned a certainty index ofunlikely (4), 1% of the cases wereassigned a certainty index ofunrelated (5), 35.8% of the casesdid not involve health effects andso were assigned the certaintyindex of zero (0), information only.

Table 14 -Incident Calls Sorted by Certainty Index for the 1998 Operational Year

CI for All Categories of Victims Breakdown of Human Victim Incident Calls

Certainty Index Humans Animals Other Total Male Female Groups GenderNot Stated

Total Calls in Operational Year = 21,717Non-Incident Calls = 20,735Information Only (0) 171 146 272 589 70 83 13 5Definite (1) 9 12 0 21 3 4 1 1Probable (2) 74 44 1 119 32 34 8 0Possible (3) 556 104 3 663 191 276 78 11Unlikely (4) 205 52 3 260 68 111 24 2Unrelated (5) 15 1 0 16 5 9 1 0 TOTAL = 1030 359 279 1668 369 517 125 19

Figure 16 -Certainty Index for Victims


-26-

Females31.0%

Males22.1%

Groups7.5%

Gender Not Stated1.1%

Animals21.5%

Other Victims16.7%

Description of Victims

Table 15 and Figure 17 provide amore detailed summary ofcategories of victims discussed inincident calls. Of the 1,668victims involved in incidentsreported to NPTN, 61.8% werehuman, 21.5% animal, and 16.7%were other types of non-targetentities (building or environment,for example).

Table 15 -Description of Victims Involved in Reported Incidents

Description of Victims Number of Victims1)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999All females - Female 625 (112) 562 (91) 555 (76) 502 (37) Female-pregnant 68 (5) 36 (2) 22 (1) 12 (0) Female suicide attempt 2 (1) 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (1) Total all females = 695 (118) 599 (93) 579 (78) 517 (38)All males - Male 460 (103) 397 (75) 407 (79) 367 (35) Male suicide attempt 2 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 2 (0) Total all males = 462 (104) 397 (75) 408 (80) 369 (35)All groups - Family 144 (40) 90 (15) 88 (10) 94 (7) Non-family group 54 (13) 33 (5) 32 (7) 31 (2) Total all groups = 198 (53) 123 (20) 120 (17) 125 (9)Gender not stated - Child - sex unknown 33 (4) 16 (4) 15 (1) 7 (1) Adult - sex unknown 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Other - sex unknown 15 (1) 4 (0) 22 (4) 12 (0) Total gender not stated = 48 (5) 20 (4) 37 (5) 19 (1) Total all humans = 1403 (280) 1139 (192) 1144 (180) 1030 (83)All animals - Single animal 242 (66) 273 (57) 259 (42) 312 (39) Group of animals 50 (15) 47 (13) 57 (15) 45 (16) Wildlife 18 (4) 19 (4) 6 (1) 2 (1) Total all animals = 310 (85) 339 (74) 322 (58) 359 (56)Other victims: Building-home/office 134 (16) 147 (7) 88 (2) 135 (0) Other places 208 (9) 214 (6) 138 (2) 144 (1) Total other victims = 342 (25) 361 (13) 226 (4) 279 (1)

Total all victims = 2055 (390) 1839 (279) 1692 (242) 1668 (140)1) First number represents the total of purported incidents regardless of certainty index - numbers inparentheses indicate the total of incidents with certainty index of 1 (definite) or 2 (probable).

Figure 17 -Description of Victims

1998 Annual Report

-27-

Symptomatic63.4%

Asymptomatic18.6%

Atypical18.0%

Symptomatic45.8%

Asymptomatic40.8%

Atypical13.3%

Victim Symptoms

Of the 1,030 human victimsdiscussed in incident reports toNPTN, symptoms or absence ofsymptoms were reported for 968victims (Table 16). Of these 968victims, 63.4% reportedsymptomatic health effects (effectsthat would be expected to resultfrom a significant exposure to thepesticide in question), 18.6%reported asymptomatic healtheffects, and 18.0% reportedatypical health effects (Figure 18). Table 16 and Figure 19 providethis and similar information foranimal victims.

Table 16 -Reported Symptoms of Victims Involved in Incident Calls

Reported Symptoms Number of Victims1)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Human symptoms - Symptomatic 721 (263) 605 (187) 651 (202) 614 (138) Asymptomatic 258 (48) 145 (29) 164 (16) 180 (24) Atypical 264 (22) 221 (21) 227 (17) 174 (19) Total humans = 1243 (333) 971 (237) 1042 (235) 968 (181)Animal symptoms - Symptomatic 152 (81) 169 (70) 162 (64) 165 (59) Asymptomatic 77 (10) 78 (8) 108 (6) 147 (5) Atypical 53 (6) 54 (5) 54 (3) 48 (5) Total animals = 282 (97) 301 (83) 324 (73) 360 (69)

Total symptoms = 1525 (430) 1272 (320) 1366 (308) 1328 (250)1) First number represents the total of purported incidents regardless of certainty index -numbers in parentheses indicate the total of incidents with certainty index of 1 (definite) or 2(probable).

Figure 18 -Symptoms - Humans

Figure 19 -Symptoms - Animal


-28-

Humans3.4%

Animals41.0%

Other55.6%

Deaths and OtherOutcomes

Amongst the 1,030 human victims,3 deaths were reported (Table 17). One of these incidents wasassigned a certainty index of 1 or2, making it likely that the deathwas a result of pesticide exposure (it was an apparent homocide withmeasured levels of carbofuran). Ofthe other 2 deaths, one was aperson who died of cancer afterworking in agriculture, and theother a person who died during thecourse of applying Orthene (therewas no evidence of pesticideinvolvement in either of thesecases). Of the 359 animal victims,there were 48 deaths, with 15 ofthe cases assigned a certainty indexof 1 or 2, indicating likelypesticide involvement. Table 17and Figure 20 summarize thisinformation and also list thenumber of victims associated withlife threatening conditions orinteresting or strangecircumstances.

Table 17 -Additional Outcomes for Victims Involved in Incidents

Additional Outcome Number of Victims1)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Human deaths - Male 2 (0) 3 (1) 1 (0) 2 (0) Female 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (1) Total human deaths 2 (0) 3 (1) 2 (0) 3 (1)Animal deaths - Single animal 19 (10) 18 (7) 16 (7) 27 (4) Group of animals 12 (7) 13 (7) 14 (4) 20 (10) Wildlife 5 (2) 10 (1) 4 (1) 2 (1) Total animal deaths = 36 (19) 41 (15) 34 (12) 48 (15)Other - Life threatening 11 (7) 7 (4) 0 (0) 5 (1) Interesting/strange 42 (17) 50 (6) 144 (60) 60 (12) Total other = 53 (24) 57 (10) 144 (60) 65 (13)Total additional outcomes = 91 (43) 101 (26) 180 (72) 117 (29)


Figure 20 -Deaths and Other Outcomes

1998 Annual Report

-29-

Und

er 1

Yea

r1

Year

2 Ye

ars

3 Ye

ars

4 Ye

ars

5 - 9

Yea

rs10

- 14

Yea

rs15

- 24

Yea

rs25

- 44

Yea

rs45

- 64

Yea

rs

Ove

r 64

Year

s

0

50

100

150

200

250

Num

ber

of C

alls

Age

Victim Age

Victim ages were available for 810of the 1,030 human victims. Table18 and Figure 21 summarizeinformation about the ages ofhuman victims discussed inincident calls to NPTN. Of these810 victims, 22.3 were less than 5years of age, 10.7% were betweenthe ages of 5 and 14, 3.5% werebetween the ages of 15 and 24,54.5% were between the ages of 25and 64, and 9% were over age 64.

Table 18 -Reported Ages of Human Victims Involved in Incidents

Age Category Number of Victims

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Under 1 Year 27 24 42 491 Year 19 25 36 392 Years 23 30 19 413 Years 11 8 21 234 Years 9 15 13 295 - 9 Years 20 41 51 6810 - 14 Years 21 17 30 1915 - 24 Years 32 34 33 2825 - 44 Years 201 257 276 24545 - 64 Years 115 198 226 196Over 64 Years 47 66 83 73

Figure 21 -Age of Victims


-30-

Report onSubcontractsOregon PoisonCenterNPTN pesticide specialiststransferred 103 calls to the OregonPoison Center. These calls weretransferred to the center becausethe specialists deemed that thecaller’s situation represented anacute poisoning emergency. TheNPTN Quarterly Reports presentinformation for the callstransferred in that quarter.

National AnimalPoison ControlCenterIn the current year, 160 calls weretransferred to the National AnimalPoison Control Center (NAPCC). The situation presented in each callwas considered to be anemergency; therefore the call wastransferred to NAPCC. The natureof the calls transferred is detailedin the NPTN Quarterly Reports.

Sub-ProjectsNationalAntimicrobialInformation Network(NAIN)The National AntimicrobialInformation Network (NAIN),operated in association with theNational Pesticide

Telecommunications Network, is atoll-free telephone service thatprovides antimicrobial pesticideinformation via telephone and theInternet. Information is providedto health care and antimicrobialindustry professionals, and to thegeneral public. NAIN helps callersunderstand product labels anddetermine permitted uses forspecific products; provides lists ofproducts registered as sterilants,tuberculocides, and productseffective against HIV andHBV/HIV; provides toxicology,health effect and safetyinformation on specificantimicrobial active ingredients;supplies information on regulation

and registration of antimicrobialsin the United States; fieldscomplaints on product efficacy andforwards that information to theEPA; and refers requests that areoutside of the scope of NAINservices to the correct agencies andresources.

NAIN received 1,932 calls duringgrant year 1998. Of these 1932calls, 1,529 were for generalinformation about antimicrobialpesticides, 16 were complaintsabout antimicrobials, and 29 were

incidents purported to involveantimicrobials. The NAIN website received 68832 hits; thecurrent rate of Internet access isabout 5,730 hits/month. Otherhighlights of the year for NAINinclude the following: Use of thenew database began on April 1,1998. The computer database, logsheets, and coding definitions wererevised. The NAIN brochure wasrevised.

Wade Trevathan, JulieVanderkolk, Dorothy Tibbetts andTerry Miller attended the SecondAnnual National AntimicrobialsWorkshop in Washington D.C. During one breakout session of this

workshop, Wade Trevathangave a presentation aboutNAIN. The NAIN display waspresented and at the workshopand NAIN brochures and othermaterials were distributed.

NAIN staffing was increasedfrom 2.0 FTE to 2.5 FTE. TheNAIN web site was updated toinclude new links tomanufacturer contactinformation, links to regulatorydocuments including DIS-TSSdocuments and Draft CFR 152-156 and 158. Fact sheets nowposted on the NAIN web siteare Sodium Hypochlorite forthe General Public and SodiumHypochlorite for Medical

Professionals. Work was initiatedon the following antimicrobial factsheets: Glutaraldehyde, o-Phenylphenol, Chlorine Dioxide andBronopol.

NAIN submits independentquarterly and annual reports to theEPA. For current, detailedinformation about NAIN, see theNational AntimicrobialInformation Network Quarterlyand Annual Reports posted on theNAIN web site athttp://ace.orst.edu/info/nain/.

NAIN provides callers witha variety of antimicrobialpesticide information,including lists of productsregistered as sterilants,tuberculocides, andproducts effective againstHIV and HBV/HIV, andtoxicology, health effectand safety information onspecific antimicrobialactive ingredients..

Documents

New National Pesticide Telecommunications Networknpic.orst.edu/reports/NPTN98AR.pdf · 2014. 12. 2. · The greatest number of calls (40.7%) were health-related, whereas 21.8% were