UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON
D.
C.,
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Copper
(
Cu++)
Alternatives
Analysis
for
the
Primary
Aquatic
Uses
(
DP#
329640)

FROM:
William
Phillips,
II,
Ph.
D.,
Agronomist
Biological
Analysis
Branch
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
(
7503P)

Kevin
Costello,
Acting
Team
Leader
Reregistration
Branch
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
(
7508P)

THRU:
Arnet
Jones,
Chief
Biological
Analysis
Branch
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
(
7503P)

TO:
Rosanna
Louie,
Chemical
Review
Manager
Reregistration
Branch
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
(
7508P)

PRODUCT
REVIEW
PANEL:
June
14,
2006
SUMMARY
Copper
compounds
are
a
unique
group
of
chemicals
that
are
used
to
control
diseases
on
various
terrestrial
crop
plants,
as
well
as
being
used
to
control
aquatic
algae,
weeds,
and
some
invertebrate
pests.
When
used
in
aquatic
applications,
copper
compounds
are
applied
directly
to
water
bodies
for
use
as
algaecides,
aquatic
herbicides,
molluscicides,
as
well
as
leech
and
tadpole
shrimp
controls.
The
use
of
the
water
bodies
dictates
the
use
of
copper
compounds.
Aquaculture
requires
a
very
refined
and
detailed
2
maintenance
of
water
quality
in
an
effort
to
produce
a
fish
that
is
marketable.
Drinking
water
systems
take
on
forms
from
that
of
large
water
bodies
resulting
from
dams
to
almost
constantly
moving
water
in
conveyance
canals.
Irrigation
water
is
much
like
that
of
drinking
water;
however,
parts
of
these
systems
are
perennial
in
nature
as
the
water
is
only
needed
during
a
peak
period
of
the
crop
growing
months.
Quiescent
water
bodies
such
as
impoundments,
lakes,
and
ponds
range
from
vary
large
recreational
water
bodies
to
small
farm
ponds.

As
an
algaecide,
copper
sulfate
pentahydrate
captured
95­
99%
of
the
total
market
in
2001;
however,
as
an
aquatic
herbicide
the
primary
copper
compound
used,
copper
EDA
complex,
captured
only
5­
10%
of
the
market.
The
safety
of
the
copper
compounds
for
human
health
is
indirectly
stated
in
the
lack
of
a
holding
period
for
treated
potable
water.
In
addition,
use
sites
such
as
aquaculture
facilities
have
no
other
compound
that
can
be
applied
to
water,
or
water
margins,
where
fish
are
present.

INTRODUCTION
Copper
compounds
are
a
unique
group
of
chemicals
that
are
used
to
control
diseases
on
various
terrestrial
crop
plants,
as
well
as
being
used
to
control
aquatic
algae,
weeds,
and
some
invertebrate
pests.
When
used
in
aquatic
applications,
copper
compounds
are
applied
directly
to
water
bodies
for
use
as
algaecides,
aquatic
herbicides,
molluscicides,
as
well
as
leech
and
tadpole
shrimp
controls.
The
rates
and
frequencies
of
application
for
the
control
of
target
pests
in
aquatic
use
sites
is
provided
in
BEAD's
February
15,
2006
memorandum,
Typical
Applications
Information
for
Copper
Products
for
Algaecide,
Aquatic
Herbicide,
Molluscicide,
Leech,
and
Tadpole
Shrimp
Control
(
DP#
324176)
(
Phillips
and
Zinn,
2006).
It
is
for
this
reason
that
only
a
cursory
overview
of
use
and
use
rates
will
be
given
in
this
memorandum.
This
analysis,
and
the
aforementioned
analysis,
were
conducted
using
product
labels,
research
articles,
relevant
authoritative
publications,
and
direct
input
from
the
researchers.
Therefore,
BEAD
believes
that
the
information
provided
herein
is
the
best
available
at
this
time.

In
an
effort
to
clarify
some
confusing
nomenclature
issues,
as
well
as
maintain
an
already
established
convention
for
discussing
chemicals
such
as
algaecides
and
herbicides,
it
is
important
to
point
out
the
necessity
to
refer
to
these
compounds
by
their
active
ingredients
(
ai).
The
use
of
the
ai
as
the
common
reference,
rather
than
product
names,
will
avoid
much
of
the
confusion
which
exists
among
open
literature
publications
as
well
as
the
current
product
labels.
Often
what
is
mistaken
for
the
ai
in
copper
containing
products
is
elemental
copper
and
not
the
copper
containing
compound,
or
complex.
To
provide
clarity,
the
nomenclature
and
calculation
conventions
discussed
herein
will
be
adhered
to
throughout
this
memorandum.
In
addition,
the
Agency
has
elected
to
regulate
copper
compounds
based
on
the
copper
element,
or
cupric
ion
(
Cu++),
as
a
strategy
to
uniformly
assess
potential
copper
toxicity.
Therefore,
all
references
to
copper
concentrations/
rates
herein
will
be
in
terms
of
Cu++.
3
Due
to
different
molecular
weights
of
the
copper
ai,
or
compounds,
there
is
often
a
need
for
them
to
be
reflected
in
a
common
scale
on
which
to
compare
compounds.
While
this
may
seem
to
confuse
the
above
discussion
regarding
ai,
it
is
specifically
due
to
this
point
that
this
"
standard"
measure
is
needed.
The
following
is
an
example;
if
copper
compound
"
A"
requires
a
dilution
of
1.0
ppm
for
algae
control
and
copper
compound
"
B"
requires
2.0
ppm,
then
logic
would
have
it
that
there
would
be
twice
as
much
copper
in
the
treated
site
if
"
B"
were
used.
However,
given
the
fact
that
molecule
"
B"
has
a
molecular
weight
twice
that
of
"
A",
this
would
not
be
so.
As
long
as
both
molecules
contain
the
same
amount
of
copper,
compound
"
A"
at
1.0
ppm
and
compound
"
B"
at
2.0
ppm
result
in
the
same
concentration
of
elemental
copper.

Application
rates
for
the
copper
compounds,
as
expressed
above,
are
always
calculated
as
a
measure
of
the
concentration
of
the
Cu++
that
is
in
solution
in
the
water
where
the
treatment
is
made.
Aquatic
copper
algaecide
and
herbicide
application
rates
range
from
0.2
to
1.0
part
per
million
(
ppm)
of
elemental
copper.
Average
copper
rates
for
algae
control
are
0.5
ppm
for
susceptible
species
and
0.75
­
1.0
ppm
for
those
species
that
are
difficult
to
control
(
Phillips
and
Zinn,
2006).
Average
copper
rates
for
weed
control
are
0.2
­
0.5
ppm
for
susceptible
species
and
up
to
1.0
ppm
for
those
species
that
are
difficult
to
control
(
Phillips
and
Zinn,
2006).
In
aquaculture
when
fish
are
present
in
the
pond
at
the
time
of
treatment
a
lower
application
rate
range
of
0.1
to
0.4
ppm
Cu++
is
used,
with
a
concentration
of
0.125
being
the
most
commonly
recommended.
A
full
discussion
of
rates
is
given
in
the
above
mentioned
paper
by
Phillips
and
Zinn,
2006.

Labeled
copper
use
rates
for
snail
control
range
from
1.0
ppm
to
as
high
as
2.5
ppm.
Direct
water
application
of
copper
sulfate
pentahydrate
for
snail
control
was
found
to
be
within
the
1.0
to
1.5
ppm
concentration.
Control
of
snails,
leeches,
and
trematodes
have
been
demonstrated
to
be
necessary
in,
and
around,
ponds
and
other
associated
quiescent
water
bodies
for
human
as
well
as
agricultural,
aquacultural,
and
environmental
concerns.
Rice
production
systems
rely
on
direct
water
applications
for
the
control
of
snails
and
tadpole
shrimp
at
rates
of
1.0
to
2.5
ppm
concentration
of
Cu++.

Without
diminishing
the
role
of
the
pest
type
in
the
decision
as
to
which
copper
compound
to
use,
what
rate
to
use,
or
when
to
use
it;
within
this
memo
coppers
will
be
discussed
in
a
manner
designed
around
water
body
types.
The
use
of
this
design
for
the
memo
will
maintain
consistency
with
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
document.
A
pest
based
discussion
of
the
copper
compounds
can
be
found
in
Phillips
and
Zinn,
2006.
Various
water
bodies
are
involved
when
discussing
the
use
of
copper
compounds.
Aquaculture
requires
a
very
refined
and
detailed
maintenance
of
water
quality
in
an
effort
to
produce
a
fish
that
has
acceptable
flesh
fit
for
market.
Drinking
water
systems
take
on
forms
from
that
of
large
water
bodies
resulting
from
dams
to
almost
constantly
moving
water
in
conveyance
canals.
Irrigation
water
is
much
like
that
of
drinking
water;
however,
parts
of
these
systems
are
perennial
in
nature
as
the
water
is
only
needed
during
a
peak
period
of
the
crop
growing
months.
Quiescent
water
bodies
4
such
as
impoundments,
lakes,
and
ponds
range
from
vary
large
recreational
water
bodies
to
small
farm
ponds.

The
analysis
to
follow
in
this
memorandum
focuses
on
some
general
characterization
of
the
use
and
benefits
of
the
copper
compounds.
In
addition,
EPA
proprietary
data
has
been
used
to
establish
the
relative
importance
of
the
primarily
applied
copper
compounds,
with
respect
to
their
market
competitors.
Finally,
a
comparison
of
the
primary
copper
compounds
and
their
market
competitors
are
presented
on
a
standardized
(
per
acre­
foot)
treatment
basis
for
a
relative
cost
comparison.

ANALYSIS
I.
Primary
Algaecide
Uses
There
are
various
types
of
copper
compounds
used
as
algaecides
in
quiescent
and
moving
water
bodies.
Many
of
the
water
bodies
where
copper
compounds
are
applied
for
algal
control
include
aquaculture
facilities,
canals
(
conveyance
and
irrigation),
lakes,
ponds,
and
potable
water
reservoirs.

As
an
algaecide,
copper
compounds
captured
95%
of
the
total
market
in
2004
(
Table
1).
Copper
compounds
used
as
algaecides
are
applied
to
maintain
water
quality
and/
or
water
flow,
as
well
as
to
avoid
the
potential
build­
up
of
harmful
algal
toxins.
There
are
many
copper
ai
labeled
for
these
uses
including
chelated
copper
compounds,
copper
hydroxide,
copper
citrate,
copper­
ethanolamine
and
copper­
triethanolamine.
However,
as
stated
above,
copper
sulfate
pentahydrate
and
the
copper
complexes
captured
the
major
market
share
for
2004
(
Table
1).

Aquaculture
Systems
Off­
flavor
fish
from
aquaculture
ponds
containing
cyanobacteria
(
blue­
green
algae)
is
a
problem
of
major
importance
in
fish
farming
(
van
der
Ploeg
et
al.,
2001).
The
off­
flavors
in
farm­
raised
fish
are
due
to
chemical
compounds
produced
by
certain
species
of
cyanobacteria.
Unlike
many
other
marketed
animal
or
grain
crop
products,
an
off­
flavor
in
farm­
raised
fish
does
not
result
in
a
payment
penalty;
it
results
in
the
rejection
of
all
fish
being
sold
from
a
farm.
As
a
result,
prophylactic
full­
pond
treatments
with
copper
are
sometimes
relied
upon
for
cyanobacteria
control.
An
advantage
to
copper
treatment
for
control
is
that
the
copper
compounds
can
be
applied
directly
to
the
water
while
fish
inhabit
the
ponds.
These
applications
have
the
added
benefit
of
also
controlling
certain
diseases
in
fish
(
Watson
and
Yanong,
2002).
While
prophylactic
measures
can
be
used,
application
can
occur
within
the
month
before
harvest
to
avoid
offflavors
but
more
commonly
it
is
undertaken
as
soon
as
fish­
tasting
tests
detect
the
muddy/
musty
off­
flavors.
An
alternative
to
copper
treatments
would
be
to
transfer
the
fish
to
"
clean"
water
bodies.
This
transfer
method
would
be
cost
prohibitive.
Depending
upon
the
size
and
fat
content
of
the
fish,
once
in
a
clean
water
environment
it
may
take
5
less
than
a
week
for
the
off­
flavor
to
be
purged
from
the
fish.
The
less
expensive
route
is
to
treat
the
water
body
with
copper.
In
the
past
there
have
been
Section
18'
s
granted
by
the
Agency
for
the
use
of
diuron
to
control
cyanobacteria
in
catfish
and
hybrid
striped
bass
ponds
(
Anonymous,
2004;
Anonymous,
2004).
These
Section
18'
s
were
necessary
due
to
the
rejection
of
fish
that
had
mud
or
musty
flavors.

Drinking
Water
Systems
Algae
can
clog
water
filters,
reducing
filter
run
times
and
requiring
frequent
backwashing.
This
can
lead
to
greater
coagulant
demand
and
more
expensive
water
treatment.
Drinking­
water
regulations
include
taste
and
odor
(
T/
O)
as
secondary
drinking
water
standards,
with
which
water­
treatment
plants
must
comply
(
Anonymous,
2006).
Some
species
of
algae
can
cause
a
number
of
off­
flavors
in
drinking
water,
but
cyanobacteria
can
produce
chemicals
called
cyanotoxins,
which
lead
to
earthy
and
musty
flavors.
These
chemicals/
flavors
are
more
difficult
and
expensive
to
remove
by
water
treatment.
Algae
can
clog
water
filters,
reducing
filter
run
times
and
requiring
frequent
backwashing.
This
can
lead
to
greater
coagulant
demand
and
more
expensive
water
treatment.
Copper
compounds
are
used
to
treat
source
water
(
e.
g.
lakes
and
reservoirs)
prior
to
drinking
water
intakes.
Copper
compounds
are
labeled
to
be
used
in
potable
water
systems
up
to
1.0
ppm.
This
use
for
the
control
of
algae
can
be
quite
expensive
but
often
necessary.

Only
rarely
are
T/
O
problems
the
result
of
the
presence
of
toxins
in
the
water
(
Watson,
2004).
The
development
of
T/
O
problems
in
drinking
water,
caused
by
cyanobacteria,
is
not
consistent,
but
often
arises
quickly
in
the
dry­
hot
summer.
Early
detection
and
treatment
of
algae
is
preferred
so
as
not
to
miss
the
narrow
treatment
window.
The
need
for
treatment
varies
from
year
to
year;
drought
years
require
higher
application
rates
than
most.
There
still
remains
the
controversy
as
to
whether
to
control
full
scale
algae
blooms.
There
is
the
belief
that
this
will
allow
the
cellular
toxins
to
be
released
potentially
resulting
in
poisoning
those
who
come
in
contact,
or
maybe
those
who
drink
the
finished
water.
However,
more
recently
the
thinking
is
that
this
does
not
become
the
case
and
that
control
is
still
advised.

Irrigation
Systems
Regular
maintenance
of
distribution
canals
is
important
to
optimum
water
flow.
In
addition
to
flow,
dense
mats
of
vegetation
can
be
a
mechanical
hindrance
to
valves
and
gates
which
divert
and
stop
the
flow
of
water.
Cyanobacteria
and
filamentous
algae
can
also
lead
to
clogging
of
water
intake
screens
in
lakes
and
aqueducts.

It
is
very
important
to
maintain
irrigation
and
conveyance
canals
systems
in
parts
of
the
western
United
States
where
68%
of
the
crops
rely
on
surface
water
for
irrigation.
A
reduction
in
flow
can
result
in
millions
of
dollars
lost
due
to
failed
crops
as
well
as
upsystem
flooding
of
areas
surrounding
the
canal.
Many
who
maintain
irrigation
waterways
prefer
to
use
the
copper
compounds
where
possible.
Alternative
chemicals
such
as
dyes
and
colorants
cannot
be
used
in
moving
waters
with
an
outflow;
biocides
such
as
acrolein
and
xylene
can
potentially
pose
a
public
health
and/
or
environmental
threat.
6
Quiescent
Waters
Excess
algae
in
quiescent,
or
near
quiescent,
water
bodies
can
have
large
impacts
on
water
quality.
Simply
stated,
this
quality
can
be
reduced
in
two
basic
ways;
physical
and
chemical.
However,
within
any
discussion
it
becomes
apparent
that
these
two
are
not
mutually
exclusive.
First,
latent
waters
can
be
affected
by
the
formation
of
dense
mats
of
algae.
These
mats
can
block
sunlight
from
reaching
submerged
biota,
and
can
become
physical
barriers
as
well.
These
two
physical
characteristics
of
algae
growth
lead
directly
to
changes
in
the
water
chemistry
characteristics.
A
water
body
with
an
algal
growth
problem
would
have
some
light
penetration
problems,
with
the
extreme
resulting
in
a
change
in
water
chemistry.
Second,
the
ultimate
death
of
the
floating
mats
of
algae
would
decrease
the
dissolved
oxygen
content
(
DOC)
as
a
result
of
microbial
decay.
Cyanobacteria,
another
important
algal
species,
are
known
to
produce
toxins,
such
as
hepatotoxin,
which
makes
their
control
necessary
as
they
are
potentially
harmful
to
humans
and
other
mammals.
These
problems
are
common
in
many
areas
under
the
hot,
dry
conditions
already
mentioned.
The
waters
that
could
be
affected
are
lakes
and
ponds
used
for
recreation
and
drinking
water
supplies.
As
discussed
already,
copper
compounds
are
very
favorable
in
these
systems
and
will
be
discussed
further
in
the
"
Primary
Aquatic
Herbicidal
Uses"
section.

Algaecide
Alternatives
Table
1.
A
comparison
of
the
rates,
costs,
and
characterizations
of
copper
containing
algaecides
and
alternative
algaecides.

Algaecide1.
Average
Rates
Cost/

Acre
Foot
Treatment
%
of
Total
Sales
Notes
Coppers
1.00
gal
$
15.00
Liquid
copper
complexes
3
60.00
lb
$
100.00
50
Granular
copper
sulfate
3.00
lb
$
1.75
45
Alternatives
Diuron
na
na
>
1.0
Others
na
na
>
2.0
1.
The
list
of
alternatives
was
determined
by
market
share
and
published
recommendations.
Market
share,
as
reflected
above
was
provided
by
EPA
proprietary
sources
for
2004.
2
Percentages
are
of
the
total
pounds
of
the
indicated
active
ingredients
for
the
United
States
in
2004.
na=
Not
Available
7
II.
Primary
Aquatic
Herbicidal
Uses
There
are
various
types
of
copper
compounds
used
as
herbicides
in
quiescent
and
moving
water
bodies.
Many
of
the
water
bodies
where
copper
compounds
are
applied
for
weed
control
include
canals
(
conveyance
and
irrigation),
lakes,
ponds,
and
potable
water
reservoirs.

Copper
compounds
are
used
as
aquatic
herbicides
for
control
of
several
invasive
aquatic
weeds.
The
major
target
pests
are
Elodea
spp.,
Hydrilla
verticillata,
Potamogeton
spp.,
Sago
Pondweed
(
Stukenia
pectinatus),
Irrigation
Canal
Weed
(
Zannichellia),
and
Annual
Naiads
(
Najas
sp.).
Compounds
associated
with
this
use
include
copper
sulfate
pentahydrate,
chelated
copper
compounds,
copper
citrate,
copper
ethylenediamine
and
copper­
ethanolamine
complex.

Irrigation
Systems
Irrigation
systems
vary
across
the
country
with
much
of
the
irrigation
taking
place
in
the
western
United
States.
The
portion
of
an
irrigation
system
requiring
treatment
for
aquatic
weeds
is
the
irrigation
or
conveyance
canals.
Since
the
water
in
these
canals
ultimately
ends
up
on
the
crops,
the
timing
and
the
type
of
herbicide
is
important.
Aquatic
weed
control
is
essential
since
debris
from
weeds
can
decrease
water
flow.
In
addition,
physical
clogging
by
weed
debris
could
cause
obstructions
to
valves
and
gates
which
are
important
to
turning
off
or
diverting
water
flow.

Multiple
herbicides
would
be
required
to
replace
the
copper
compounds
in
these
systems.
Some
aquatic
herbicides
only
control
vegetation
that
is
growing
at
or
above
the
surface
of
the
water,
while
others
only
control
dicotyledonous
plants
(
Table
2.)
In
addition
there
are
some
contact
herbicides
that
only
damage
the
portion
of
the
plant
that
they
contact,
which
explains
the
need
for
some
herbicides
to
have
a
longer
exposure
time
(
Getsinger,
K
and
M.
Netherland,
2006).
As
discussed
for
algae
control
in
these
systems,
biocides
such
as
acrolein
and
xylene
can
potentially
pose
a
public
health
and/
or
environmental
risk,
a
potential
that
many
applicators
would
rather
avoid.

Quiescent
Waters
Control
of
aquatic
weeds
in
quiescent
water
bodies
is
needed
to
maintain
recreational
activities
that
include
fishing,
water
sports
or
swimming.
In
addition,
many
of
these
water
bodies
are
dual
use
as
recreational
and
also
as
drinking
water
supplies.
In
order
to
maintain
the
safety
of
recreants
and
maintain
the
operation
of
drinking
water
acquisition
it
is
important
that
these
water
bodies
be
treated
with
herbicides
safely
and
expediently.
Copper
compounds
and
glyphosate
are
two
fairly
innocuous
herbicides
with
respect
to
human
safety.
Glyphosate,
being
a
systemic
herbicide,
meets
many
control
requirements;
however,
glyphosate
only
controls
vegetation
which
is
above
the
waterline.
Fluridone
may
be
an
alternative;
however,
due
to
its
toxicity
and
the
emergence
of
tolerant
weed
species,
it
may
not
be
the
best
choice
for
all
situations.
In
addition,
8
fluridone
is
not
labeled
for
use
in
drinking
water
sources.
Finally,
for
efficacious
aquatic
weed
control,
diquat
mixed
with
copper
compounds
is
most
often
effective
(
Table
2).

Copper
Herbicide
Alternatives
Table
2.
A
comparison
of
the
rates,
costs,
and
characterizations
of
copper
containing
herbicides
and
alternative
herbicides.

Herbicides1.
Average
Rates2
Cost/

Surface
Acre
%
of
Total
Sales2
Notes
Copper
copper
EDA
complex3
1.00
gal
$
15.00
<
2
Alternatives
0.60
gal
$
6.50
Liquid
Not
effective
on
most
monocots
2,4­
D
113
lb
$
232.00
<
5
Granular
Not
effective
on
most
monocots
diquat
dibromide
1.00
gal
$
134.00
10­
15
Contact
control
only.
Add
copper
for
a
broader
spectrum
of
weed
controlled.

1.75
gal
$
82.00
Liquid
Contact
control
only.
endothall
75­
150
lb
$
167.00­
$
307.00
15­
20
Granular
Contact
control
only.

0.60
gal
$
713.00
Liquid
Not
for
spot
treatments
due
to
prolonged
exposure
time
requirements
fluridone
22.0
lb
$
426.00
50­
55
Pelleted
Not
for
spot
treatments
due
to
prolonged
exposure
time
requirements
glyphosate
0.70
gal
$
12.00
<
3
Not
effective
on
submerged
species.

Other
na
na
<
2
na
1.
The
list
of
alternatives
was
determined
by
market
share
and
published
recommendations.
Market
share
as
reflected
above
was
provided
by
EPA
proprietary
sources
for
2004.
2
Percentages
are
of
the
total
sales
of
the
indicated
active
ingredients
for
the
United
States
in
2004.
3
Rate
and
Cost
were
obtained
from
EPA
proprietary
sources
for
2004.
na=
Not
Available
9
III.
Aquatic
Invertebrate
Control
Uses
(
A
major
portion
of
the
this
section
has
been
excerpted
from
the
February
15,
2006
memorandum,
Typical
Applications
Information
for
Copper
Products
for
Algaecide,
Aquatic
Herbicide,
Molluscicide,
Leech,
and
Tadpole
Shrimp
Control
(
DP#
324176)
(
Phillips
and
Zinn,
2006))

Quiescent
Waters
The
macro­
invertebrates
that
are
controlled
by
copper
sulfate
pentahydrate
are
leeches
and
tadpole
shrimp.
Leeches
are
often
a
problem
in
ponds
and
quiescent
waters
under
drought
conditions.
While
most
leeches
are
a
problem
for
fish,
humans
splashing
in
water
can
become
an
alternate
host.
At
the
current
time,
copper
sulfate
pentahydrate
is
the
only
registered
compound
for
leech
control
in
open
water.
Tadpole
shrimp
are
often
a
problem
in
the
production
of
lowland/
wetland
rice.
These
crustaceans
damage
rice
plants
primarily
through
their
feeding
on
newly
emerging
plants.
Copper
sulfate
pentahydrate
and
carbaryl
are
labeled
for
this
pest,
however,
the
use
of
copper
sulfate
pentahydrate
as
a
control
for
tadpole
shrimp
is
acceptable
for
organic
production
(
Godfrey,
2005
).

Copper
sulfate
can
be
used
to
control
schistosome­
infected
snails
for
human
health.
The
organism
causing
"
Swimmers
Itch"
is
a
trematode
that
spends
a
portion
of
it's
lifecycle
in
the
water
and
a
portion
in
the
tissue
of
a
snail.
To
control
these
snails
the
application
of
copper
sulfate
crystals
can
be
applied
to
the
shoreline
or
snail
beds
of
swimming
areas.
Second,
a
direct
water
application
can
be
made
using
broadcast
methods
(
to
include
aerial)
or
by
using
an
under
water
dispenser.

In
catfish
production
ponds,
the
trematode
Bolbophorus
sp.
may
have
significant
impacts
on
production.
The
first
intermediate
host
of
Bolbophorus
is
the
Ram's
Horn
Snail.
Copper
sulfate
may
be
used
to
control
the
snail
at
the
pond
margin.
Copper
sulfate
is
applied
in
a
6­
foot
band
around
the
perimeter
of
the
pond
often
as
a
mix
of
copper
sulfate
plus
citric
acid.
Alternatives
include
hydrated
lime
and
niclosamide.
However,
niclosamide
was
only
available
as
a
Section
18
in
MS
until
2003
(
to
date
there
is
no
section
3
registration)
and
can
only
be
used
in
ponds
with
no
fish.
Controlling
aquatic
vegetation
not
only
improves
chemical
treatment
effectiveness,
but
also
eliminates
a
potential
habitat
for
snails.
This
is
important
since
there
is
no
treatment
available
for
affected
fish
(
Terhune,
et
al,
2003).
10
References
Anonymous,
2004,
Registration
Numbers:
04AL01,
04AL01,
04AR06,
04AR18,
04MS02,
04MS04,
04TX03,
04TX04,
04TX10.
EPA
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Information
Network
(
OPPIN).

Anonymous,
2003,
2004,
2005,
Registration
Numbers:
05AL07,
05AL09,
05AR05,
05MS05,
05TX09.
EPA
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Information
Network
(
OPPIN).

Anonymous,
2006.
A
LC/
MS
Method
for
the
Determination
of
Cyanobacteria
Toxins
in
Water.
Government
Performance
Results
Act
(
GPRA)
Goal
#
2,
Annual
Performance
Measure
#
457.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
nerl/
research/
2005/
g2­
3.
html
Getsinger,
K
and
M.
Netherland.
January
26,
2006.
Email
communication
with
William
Phillips,
II.

Godfrey,
L.
2005.
Rice
Tadpole
Shrimp.
University
of
California
IPM
Online.
Accessed
February
2006,
Web
address:
http://
www.
ipm.
ucdavis.
edu/
PMG/
r682500111.
html.

Phillips,
W.
and
N.
Zinn.
2006.
Typical
Applications
Information
for
Copper
Products
for
Algaecide,
Aquatic
Herbicide,
Molluscicide,
Leech,
and
Tadpole
Shrimp
Control
(
DP#
324176).

Terhune,
J.,
D.
Wise,
J.
Avery,
L.
Khoo,
and
A.
Goodwin,
2003,
Infestations
of
the
Trematode
Bolbophorus
sp.
in
Channel
Catfish,
Southern
Regional
Aquaculture
Center,
Web
address:
http://
srac.
tamu.
edu/
tmppdfs/
9919857­
1801fs.
pdf
van
der
Ploeg,
M.,
C.
Tucker,
J.
Steeby,
and
C.
Weirich.
2001.
Management
Plan
for
Blue­
Green
Off­
Flavors
in
Mississippi
Pond­
Raised
Catfish.
Mississippi
State
University
http://
msucares.
com/
pubs/
publications/
p2001.
htm
Watson,
C.
and
R.
Yanong.
2002.
Use
of
Copper
in
Freshwater
Aquaculture
and
Farm
Ponds.
Fact
Sheet
FA­
13.
Florida
Cooperative
Extension
Service,
Institute
of
Food
and
Agricultural
Sciences,
University
of
Florida.
http://
edis.
ifas.
ufl.
edu/
FA008
Watson,
S.
2004.
Aquatic
taste
and
odor:
a
primary
signal
of
drinking­
water
integrity.
J.
Toxicol
Environ
Health
A.
26:
67(
20­
22):
1779­
17795
