Talk:Ammonium sulfamate

This compound appears to be much more toxic than the author describes. The compound is described completely at this site: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/ammonium-sulfamate-ext.html.

The lethal dose as measured in rats is comparable to that of other herbicides (2-4 gms AMS/kg body weight). It is extremely toxic to birds; the lethal dose is 2-4 micrograms/kg. It is readily soluble in water, and does not bind to soil, so it is easily transported by groundwater. Its breakdown time is several months.

Comment: the LD50 of NaCl for rats is also 3 g / Kg, but I don't consider salt an overwhelmingly toxic compound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.115.29.242 (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It should not be described as being very safe for use.

Rg7890v (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph seems out of place, focusing on a particular weed at length. Cut this out and merged with the following paragraph. Added references QuiteUnusual 14:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment move from the article

I have moved the following comment from the article to this page. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit - I wish to challenge the completeness and accuracy of this page. The RHS say "The active ingredient ammonium sulphamate and all products containing it are being withdrawn. It can continue to be sold until 22 November 2007, but can be stored and used until 22 May 2008" (see http://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profiles0705/equisetum.asp) If this pesticide has such low toxicity and is as environmentally freindly as this entry claims, why is this product being withdrawn from sale?

Further Edit - I (Geoffg.wpda) made the above edit challenging the accuracy of this page. I am not happy that there is now no reference to the page being disputed in trems of completeness. This is an important matter that needs addressing. I see no justification for removing all reference to this form the main page. I will add it back in, although I have no wish to get into an editing war!

I hope I didn't imply that I disagree with you. It's just that discussions about the article don't belong in the article itself - that's what this page is for. I've added the {{disputed}} tag to the article and I hope you find that satisfactory. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ammonium Sulphamate withdrawal by EC on 22 Nov 2007 and use stocks by 22 May 2008

After a few clicks:

   http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/garden.asp?id=1997

This seems to explain it the 'ban'. Sheer EC burocrasy and deprivation of general public of what seems to be a pretty good brushwood weed killer with apparently very low impact on just about everything else.

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ammosulf.htm gives a USA perspective which supports the useful low toxicity arguement.

Who was supposed to submit the complete dossier (data package) to whom in the EC and didn't do so? They might have submitted the American one or perhaps the burocrats should have done their own research on it and then not withdrawn the chemical and all products containing it.

People like me with a quarter acre of 2m high stinging nettles surrounding our caravan on a leisure plot we bought get no help from this EC action. Other nastier options continue to be sold and used!

84.9.113.244 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Gavin, UK

Gavin adds: Further to above, it materialises, from email exchanges with someone in one leading supplier in the UK of one of several herbicides with various trade names containing ammonium sulphamate, that the EU burorats refused to consider at all an incomplete submission of tests of the chemical because that supplier refused to test it by feeding it to dogs and it seems the other suppliers didn't make submissions separately. (Presumably, the dogs would have to be sacrificed (killed) afterwards as is the general rule for animal experiments). Extonet had already fed it to dogs in the 1990s (see link above).

Problems with this article.

This should be an article about the substance ammonium sulfamate, its properties, manufacture and applications. It is largerly a "how-to guide" describing the use of this chemical as a herbicide in a manner that is not consistent with an encyclopeadia, and advocates its safety and usefulness. While the subject of its "ban" by the EC vs. its safety, environmental friendliness and so on could be discussed more objectively (NPOV) in a "Controversy" section, as it is now, it presents a single point of vue (not necessarily bad, however, POV). This article needs a thorough rewriting.
P.S.: Any agrochemist here? Does anyone know what mechanism of herbicidal action does this substance have? Is it simply a "salt-type" herbicide, killing the weeds by its hyperosmolarity? Some kind of this information would be also useful for the article.--84.163.119.249 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Only the pesticidal uses of Ammonium Sulfamate are being restricted by EU regulation. Ammonium Sulfamate for use as a compost accelerator has not been withdrawn from sale. viz Dax's Root-Out. It is still perfectly legal to sell, store, purchase, use and advertise Ammonium Sulfamate for non pesticidal uses. The point has been made that the withdrawal of its pesticdal approval has not been made on the grounds of safety. It is alleged that the Irish Authorities were not prepared to review the supplied Data Pack as they felt it lacked some specific animal testing that the EU bureaucracy demanded. They appeared unwilling to review what had been submitted and then decide if further animal testing was necessary. The applicant felt that animal testing on the scale demanded by the EU had to be justified following an evaluation of the data supplied. Other experts felt that sufficient data had been submitted to form a valid assessment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngaroberts (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean herbicide right? It is not a bug killer.

What does the Merck give for the LDL ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasw0405 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ammonium sulfamate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013165748/http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/FLUKA/09958 to http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/FLUKA/09958

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)