Hubbry Logo
Copper pesticideCopper pesticideMain
Open search
Copper pesticide
Community hub
Copper pesticide
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Copper pesticide
Copper pesticide
Copper pesticide
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Copper pesticides are copper compounds used as bactericides, algaecides, or fungicides. They can kill bacteria, oomycetes and algae, and prevent fungal spores from germinating. Common forms of fixed copper fungicides include copper sulfate, copper sulfate pentahydrate, copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride sulfate, cuprous oxide, and copper octanoate.[1][2][3][4]

Copper fungicides work by slowly releasing positively charged copper ions Cu+ and Cu2+ in concentrations that interact with nucleic acids, interfere with energy transport, disrupt enzyme activity, and affect the integrity of cell membranes of pathogens.[5][6] Both ions have fungicidal and bactericidal activity. Following absorption into the fungus or bacterium, the copper ions will link to various chemical groups (imidazole, phosphate, sulfhydryl, and, hydroxyl groups) present in many proteins and disrupt their functions. Copper ions can kill pathogen cells on plant surfaces, but once a pathogen enters host plant tissue, it is no longer susceptible to copper treatments at the prescribed concentrations. The prescribed copper ion concentrations lack post-infection activity. Higher copper ion concentrations harm the host plant.[7]

Application

[edit]
The use of copper pesticide in viticulture in 1940

Copper pesticide is applied as a contact protective foliar spray, so it remains deposited on leaf surfaces. A small concentration of copper ions may be taken up by plants as essential nutrients. Copper foliar sprays are also applied to correct plant copper deficiency.[8] Excess absorbed copper ions can kill sensitive cells in copper sensitive plants. The leaves of stone fruit trees are more sensitive to copper phytotoxicity than apple leaves. Copper tolerant plant families include Cruciferae, Caryophyllaceae, Gramineae, Leguminosae and Asteraceae.[9]

Copper phytotoxicity worsens under slow drying conditions. Adding surfactants with copper fungicides may increase injury to plant foliage. Copper ions release more readily under acidic conditions and copper pesticides, except copper sulfate pentahydrate, should not be used with acid forming products.[10] Copper fungicides can be highly effective if applied prophylactically and with complete coverage of all plant foliar surfaces, including the undersides of leaves where the pathogen typically sporulates.[11]

Copper pesticides must be used in quantities that minimizes long term copper accumulation in the soil. Accumulated copper in soils can inhibit root growth and adversely affect microorganisms and earthworms. Finely ground copper formulations are more active than coarsely ground formulations. Coarsely ground formulations should be avoided to limit long term bioaccumulation and toxicity.[12] Copper occurs in soils in different forms (ionic, complexed and precipitated) depending on characteristics such as soil texture, organic matter and pH.

Effectiveness

[edit]

A strategy to maximize the effectiveness of copper ions is to reduce the particle size of the active substance (micronization) and copper microencapsulation. These improve relative coverage of treated plant surfaces or extend copper ion releases. Modern copper application dose rates may be as low as 200-400g per treatment per hectare.

Copper pesticides can be effective in preventing bacterial diseases, including Erwinia soft rot, Pseudomonas and Xanthomonas leaf spots, and fungal diseases including Botrytis, Plasmopara viticola, Pseudoperonospora humuli, Venturia inaequalis, Bremia lactucae, Peronospora destructor, Taphrina deformans, Stemphylium vesicarium, Cercospora beticola, Phytophthora infestans, Puccinia triticina, Puccinia striiformis and Alternaria solani. Several bacterial pathogens have developed resistance to some copper ion concentrations. These include Pseudomonas syringae, Erwinia amylovora and Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria.[13]

Copper pesticides may not prevent Sclerotinia blight, some Phytophthora, and Rhizoctonia,[14]

Bordeaux mixture, made by adding copper sulfate and calcium hydroxide to water, was one of the first fungicides used by Pierre-Marie-Alexis Millardet, a French viticulturist during the mid-1800s.

Use in organic farming

[edit]

In the UK the Soil Association (one of the organic certification authorities) permits farmers to use some copper fungicides on organic land used for the production of certified organic crops only if there is a major threat to crops.[15] The compounds permitted are copper sulfate, copper hydroxide, cuprous oxide, copper oxychloride, copper ammonium carbonate (at a maximum concentration of 25 g/L), and copper octanoate. According to the Soil Association the total copper that can be applied to organic land is 6 kg/ha/year.[16] This limit is designed so that the amount of copper in the soil does not exceed the limits specified in the Soil Association standards for heavy metals.

Notes

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Copper pesticide

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Copper pesticides are inorganic compounds containing ions, primarily utilized as fungicides, bactericides, and algaecides to control plant diseases caused by fungi, , , and in agricultural settings. These agents function by releasing copper ions that bind to and denature proteins and enzymes in cells, disrupting cellular processes and preventing spore germination or infection establishment on surfaces. First developed as —a combination of and lime—in 1882 by French botanist Pierre-Marie-Alexis Millardet to combat in grapevines, copper formulations marked a pivotal advancement in chemical protection, remaining in widespread use over a century later due to their broad-spectrum efficacy and limited resistance development. Employed on diverse crops including fruits, , and ornamentals, copper pesticides are integral to both conventional and systems, where they are explicitly permitted under standards like those of the USDA National Organic Program owing to the paucity of effective synthetic alternatives for certain diseases. Common variants include , copper oxychloride, and fixed copper formulations, applied preventatively to form a protective barrier on foliage. While their non-systemic, contact minimizes risks of residue persistence in harvested produce, prolonged application has raised concerns over accumulation, potential under certain conditions, and ecotoxicological effects on soil microbes, aquatic organisms, and earthworms, prompting calls for judicious use and integrated management strategies to mitigate environmental persistence as a heavy metal.

History

Origins and Invention

The invention of copper-based pesticides traces to the late , primarily through the development of by French botanist Pierre-Marie-Alexis Millardet. In 1885, amid severe outbreaks of (Plasmopara viticola) threatening vineyards—introduced via imported American rootstocks in the 1870s—Millardet observed that grapevines bordering roadsides, treated with a and lime slurry to deter theft by making leaves bitter, remained unaffected by the disease. This empirical observation prompted controlled trials confirming the mixture's fungicidal properties, leading to its formal recommendation for vineyard protection by 1886. Bordeaux mixture, comprising copper(II) sulfate (CuSO₄) at concentrations of 0.9–1.2 kg per 100 liters of mixed with hydrated lime (Ca(OH)₂) in a 1:1 ratio by weight, represented the first effective chemical control for foliar fungal pathogens on a commercial scale. Its adoption spread rapidly across , credited with averting widespread vine devastation and preserving the industry, which faced potential losses exceeding 80% of production without intervention. Earlier, limited applications of copper existed, such as Prévost's 1807 method of steeping seeds in solution for smut control, but these were narrow in scope and predated systematic pesticidal use. The mechanism underlying its efficacy—copper ions disrupting enzymes and —was not fully elucidated until later, but its immediate success stemmed from direct field evidence rather than theoretical models. By the 1890s, variants like Burgundy mixture (copper sulfate with ) emerged, but remained the foundational copper formulation, influencing subsequent inorganic development amid rising synthetic alternatives.

Expansion in Modern Agriculture

The introduction of synthetic fungicides in the mid-20th century, such as dithiocarbamates and benzimidazoles during the and , initially curtailed copper pesticide applications in conventional by offering greater efficacy at lower doses—reducing typical copper rates from 20-30 kg/ha/year or higher in to more targeted uses. However, escalating issues with synthetic resistance, environmental persistence, and regulatory bans—exemplified by EU restrictions on substances like maneb and —reinvigorated copper's role as a reliable, broad-spectrum alternative with minimal resistance development due to its multisite . This resurgence accelerated with the expansion of from the 1990s onward, where copper compounds like and copper hydroxide are among the few permitted fungicides for controlling pathogens such as Plasmopara viticola in grapes and Phytophthora in potatoes. Global organic agricultural land grew from 11 million hectares in 1999 to over 96 million hectares by 2023, amplifying copper demand as organic production emphasized non-synthetic inputs amid rising consumer for residue-free crops. In the EU, organic regulations cap copper at 6 kg/ha/year (with a 28 kg/ha five-year average allowance), yet actual usage in 12 countries reached 3,258 metric tons of copper metal annually as of 2017, concentrated in perennial crops like grapevines (accounting for ~50% of applications), olives, and almonds. Market data underscores this trend: the global copper fungicides sector, valued at $385 million in 2023, is forecasted to expand to $587 million by 2032 at a 4.79% CAGR, driven by organic sector growth and in conventional systems for high-value crops like , tomatoes, and walnuts. In regions like the Mediterranean and , copper applications persist at 2-4 kg/ha/year in organic vineyards, sustaining yields against foliar diseases where synthetic alternatives face phase-outs. This expansion, while enabling pathogen control without reliance on single-site synthetics, has elevated copper levels to over 500 mg/kg in intensively treated orchards and vineyards, prompting ongoing research into minimization strategies like precision spraying and bioalternatives.

Chemical Composition and Mechanism

Common Compounds and Formulations

Copper-based pesticides primarily utilize fixed copper compounds to minimize phytotoxicity while providing effective fungicidal and bactericidal action. The most prevalent active ingredients include copper hydroxide (Cu(OH)₂), which constitutes the majority of fixed copper fungicides due to its low solubility and reduced risk of copper ion release compared to soluble forms. Copper oxychloride (approximately Cu₂Cl(OH)₃) is another widely used compound, often formulated as a 50% wettable powder (WP) containing 50% metallic copper equivalent, valued for its stability in storage and adhesion to plant surfaces. Tribasic copper sulfate (a complex of cupric sulfate, tricupric hydroxide, and hemihydrate) and cuprous oxide (Cu₂O) serve as alternatives in specific applications, offering varying rates of copper release tailored to disease pressure. The foundational formulation, , emerged in the late 19th century and consists of pentahydrate (CuSO₄·5H₂O) combined with hydrated lime (, Ca(OH)₂) in water, typically in a 1:1:100 ratio by weight (e.g., 1 kg , 1 kg lime per 100 liters water for a 1% concentration). This mixture forms an insoluble basic sulfate precipitate that adheres to foliage, releasing ions slowly upon contact with moisture and pathogens; higher concentrations, such as 10-10-100, are used for pastes or severe infections but increase risks. Modern fixed copper products often incorporate these compounds into emulsifiable concentrates, wettable powders, or flowable suspensions, with inert ingredients like enhancing dispersion and coverage; for instance, hydroxide formulations may include fatty acids to form soap-like suspensions for better .
CompoundChemical FormulaTypical Formulation TypeKey Characteristics
Copper HydroxideCu(OH)₂Wettable powder or flowableLow solubility, common in organic-approved products; metallic copper content ~50-60%
Copper OxychlorideCu₂Cl(OH)₃50% WPStable, good adhesion; used globally for broad-spectrum control
Bordeaux MixtureCuSO₄ + Ca(OH)₂Tank-mix suspensionInsoluble precipitate; classic but requires on-site preparation to avoid instability
Tribasic Copper SulfateComplex (CuSO₄·3Cu(OH)₂·½H₂O)Granular or dispersibleIntermediate release rate; less phytotoxic than pure sulfate
Soluble copper sulfate alone is less common in contemporary formulations due to higher from rapid ion release, though it remains a component in some algaecides and is restricted in organic standards to fixed forms. Formulation choice depends on factors like rainfall, crop sensitivity, and regulatory metallic limits, with fixed coppers generally preferred for their predictability in field conditions.

Mode of Action Against Pathogens

Copper pesticides operate as contact protectants, releasing copper ions (primarily Cu²⁺) from formulations such as copper hydroxide or copper oxychloride upon application to plant surfaces, where they exert toxicity against fungal and bacterial pathogens through direct interaction with spores or cells prior to plant infection. These ions are sparingly soluble in fixed copper compounds, providing a slow-release mechanism that maintains effective concentrations on leaf surfaces, enhanced by environmental factors like dew or low pH, which increase solubility without systemic uptake into the plant. Classified by the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC) as Group M1, copper-based fungicides exhibit multi-site activity, targeting multiple essential cellular components in pathogens rather than a single or pathway, which confers a low risk of resistance development compared to single-site inhibitors. The core mechanism involves non-specific denaturation and disruption of proteins and enzymes; copper ions bind to sulfhydryl (-SH) groups and solvent-accessible sulfur atoms in iron-sulfur (Fe-S) cluster proteins, such as those involved in (e.g., isopropylmalate dehydratase) and /repair, thereby inhibiting critical metabolic and replicative processes. Further toxicity arises from copper's redox cycling between Cu⁺ and Cu²⁺ states, generating (ROS) that induce oxidative damage to , lipids, and additional proteins, compromising integrity and leading to cell leakage and . Against fungal spores, this prevents by interfering with early cellular development, while in like or , it similarly disrupts enzymatic functions and energy production without curative effects post-infection. Copper's broad-spectrum action extends to but lacks activity against established infections, necessitating preventive timing in disease management programs.

Agricultural Applications

Targeted Crops and Pathogens


Copper-based pesticides function as broad-spectrum protectants against fungal, oomycete, and bacterial pathogens in diverse agricultural crops, with particular reliance in organic systems where synthetic alternatives are restricted. They are applied preventively, as their contact action requires coverage before pathogen establishment. In perennial crops like grapes, copper formulations such as target caused by Plasmopara viticola and provide partial control of powdery mildew. For tree fruits including apples, pears, peaches, plums, and nectarines, they manage (Erwinia amylovora), bacterial canker (), (Taphrina deformans), shot hole disease (Wilsonomyces carpophilus), scab (Venturia inaequalis in apples), and moniliosis (Monilinia spp.), often via dormant-season sprays such as a 3% copper sulfate solution (300 g per 10 L water) applied in early spring (February-March) before bud swell at average daily temperatures of +5–6°C to target overwintering pathogens. For young trees, a 1% solution is often preferred to avoid phytotoxicity; thorough application covers branches, trunk, and soil under the tree, and should be avoided after bud break to prevent burns. In nuts such as and olives, copper controls (Xanthomonas campestris pv. juglandis) and olive leaf spot. Among vegetables and field crops, solanaceous plants like tomatoes and potatoes receive applications against bacterial spot and speck (Xanthomonas spp.), early blight (Alternaria solani), and late blight (Phytophthora infestans). Brassicas such as cabbage and collards benefit from control of black rot (Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris), while peppers and parsley are protected from bacterial spot. Leafy greens like spinach and lettuce, as well as cucurbits like squash, use copper for downy mildew (Peronospora spp.) and Alternaria leaf spot. Citrus crops employ dormant Bordeaux mixture applications to suppress bacterial blast, Phytophthora brown rot, and Septoria spot.
Crop CategoryKey Targeted Pathogens/Diseases
GrapesDowny mildew (Plasmopara viticola), powdery mildew
Stone Fruits (Peach, Nectarine, Apricot)Peach leaf curl (Taphrina deformans), shot hole (Wilsonomyces carpophilus), bacterial canker (Pseudomonas syringae)
Pome Fruits (Apple, Pear)Fire blight (Erwinia amylovora)
Tomatoes/PotatoesBacterial spot/speck (Xanthomonas spp.), early blight (Alternaria solani), late blight (Phytophthora infestans)
Brassicas (Cabbage, Collards)Black rot (Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris), Alternaria leaf spot
CitrusBacterial blast, Phytophthora brown rot, Septoria spot
Walnuts/OlivesWalnut blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. juglandis), olive leaf spot

Methods of Application and Dosage

Copper pesticides are predominantly applied via foliar spraying to achieve direct contact with surfaces targeted by fungal and bacterial pathogens. This method involves using pressurized sprayers, boom sprayers for field crops, or air-blast equipment for orchards and vineyards to ensure uniform coverage of leaves, stems, and fruits. Formulations such as liquid concentrates, wettable powders, or dispersible granules are diluted in water, often with adjuvants like horticultural oils or to improve adhesion and penetration, though compatibility must be verified to avoid . Fixed copper compounds, exemplified by , require on-site preparation by combining with hydrated lime to reduce phytotoxic free copper ions. Application timing emphasizes prevention, with sprays initiated just before periods of high risk, such as prolonged wet or early-season activity, rather than as a curative measure post-infection. Reapplications occur at intervals of 7-14 days, adjusted for rainfall and disease pressure, using higher rates during conducive conditions. formulations exist but are less common due to drift risks and uneven coverage compared to sprays. Dosages are specified on product labels in terms of metallic equivalent (MCE), standardizing efficacy across formulations, and vary by , severity, and regulatory limits. For instance, liquid concentrates like Bonide Liquid Copper are applied at 12 ounces per gallon of to thoroughly wet , repeated every 7-10 days. oxychloride formulations recommend 2-3 grams per liter of for most . In organic systems, the caps annual application at 6 kilograms per for perennial , with certification bodies enforcing recognition of these rates to minimize accumulation. guidelines defer to label instructions without a federal annual limit, though state laws and best practices advise consulting extension services for -specific rates, such as 0.5-2 pounds MCE per acre per application for . Higher rates are used under high incidence, but always balanced against risks at elevated concentrations above 1-2% .
Crop ExampleFormulationTypical Rate (MCE basis)Source
Vegetables (e.g., tomatoes)Copper hydroxide0.25-1 lb/acre per application
Fruits (e.g., citrus)Copper-based with oil<0.5% copper equivalent
GrapesBordeaux mixtureUp to 6 kg Cu/ha annually (EU organic)

Efficacy Data

Field Trials and Empirical Evidence

Field trials have consistently demonstrated the efficacy of copper-based fungicides, such as and copper hydroxide, in controlling fungal pathogens in various crops, particularly through contact action that disrupts pathogen spore germination and mycelial growth. In replicated plot experiments on potatoes, applications of copper fungicides, including , provided foliage protection against Phytophthora infestans (late blight) comparable to standard treatments, resulting in significant yield increases over untreated controls; for instance, eight trials showed reduced blight severity and higher tuber yields with copper oxychloride and other formulations applied at intervals of 7-14 days. For grapevines, field studies on downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola) have shown copper hydroxide formulations achieving high control rates, with disease incidence limited to under 5% in treated plots versus over 50% in untreated ones when applied preventively every 7-10 days during high-risk periods; combining copper with adjuvants like further enhanced efficacy, reducing sporulation by 80-90% in multi-year trials across European vineyards. Reduced-dose strategies, using 1-2 kg/ha elemental copper, maintained efficacy above 85% while minimizing accumulation, as validated in organic viticulture trials. In citrus, copper hydroxide trials against bacterial canker (Xanthomonas citri) reported lesion reductions of 70-90% on grapefruit foliage with weekly sprays, outperforming untreated benchmarks without inducing resistance due to its multi-site mode of action. Similarly, for coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix), field applications of copper combined with systemic fungicides extended protection durations up to 6 weeks, lowering disease severity by 60-80% in commercial plots in regions like Colombia. These results underscore copper's reliability in empirical settings, though efficacy is weather-dependent, with rainfastness improved by formulation type.

Comparative Performance Against Synthetics

Copper-based pesticides, functioning primarily as contact protectants, demonstrate reliable preventive efficacy against fungal and bacterial pathogens but typically underperform modern synthetic fungicides in overall disease suppression, particularly where curative or systemic action is required. Synthetic alternatives, including multi-site contacts like mancozeb and single-site systemics such as metalaxyl or , often achieve 10-20% higher levels of disease control in high-pressure scenarios due to their ability to penetrate plant tissues and halt established infections. For example, in field trials on potato late blight (Phytophthora infestans), combinations of metalaxyl + mancozeb reduced disease severity more effectively than copper hydroxide or mancozeb alone, with the systemic formulation yielding superior tuber protection and minimizing defoliation. In grapevine downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola), copper formulations like provide 70-90% preventive control when applied frequently, yet synthetic systemics such as ametoctradin or cymoxanil deliver comparable or superior suppression (up to 95%) with fewer applications and better persistence under wet conditions. Empirical data from European vineyards highlight that copper's rain-washoff necessitates 10-15 sprays per season for adequate coverage, whereas synthetics maintain efficacy with 6-8 applications, reducing labor and improving cost-effectiveness. However, copper's multi-site mode of action confers a lower risk of pathogen resistance development compared to single-site synthetics, enabling sustained performance in integrated programs over multiple seasons without efficacy loss.
Crop/PathogenCopper Efficacy (% Control)Synthetic Efficacy (% Control)Key Reference
Potato Late Blight60-75% (preventive)80-90% (systemic/contact combo)[web:45 URL]
Grapevine Downy Mildew72-89% (high dose)85-95% (systemic)[web:38 URL]
Despite these advantages in resistance management, synthetic fungicides generally support higher yields—up to 15-30% greater in comparative trials—by enabling more precise timing and reduced phytotoxicity risks at optimal doses. Copper's edge lies in broad-spectrum coverage without rapid resistance buildup, making it a viable baseline in low-input systems, though synthetics dominate conventional agriculture for superior quantitative performance.

Role in Organic Farming

Integration with Organic Standards

Copper-based pesticides, such as copper sulfate and copper hydroxide, are permitted under the United States Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program (NOP) standards as synthetic substances essential for disease control in the absence of prohibited synthetic alternatives. These compounds are listed on the NOP's National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, with application restricted to levels that do not exceed baseline soil levels or contribute to harmful accumulation, particularly for copper sulfate used as an algicide, parasiticide, or fungicide. The allowance stems from empirical evidence of their broad-spectrum efficacy against bacterial and fungal pathogens on crops like vegetables and fruits, where field trials demonstrate protectant action via protein denaturation on pathogen surfaces without systemic plant uptake. In the European Union, organic regulations under Regulation (EU) 2018/848 authorize copper compounds for fungicidal use, capped at a maximum of 6 kilograms of metallic copper per hectare annually, averaged over a five-year period to accommodate variable application needs across crops like grapevines and olives. This limit reflects causal concerns over long-term soil accumulation, as copper's low mobility and persistence can elevate concentrations beyond natural baselines (typically 10-20 mg/kg soil), potentially disrupting microbial communities and earthworm populations at levels exceeding 100-200 mg/kg depending on soil pH. Usage data from twelve European countries indicate organic farmers apply 0-100% of this allowance, totaling approximately 3,258 metric tons of copper metal yearly, predominantly in perennial crops where synthetic alternatives are barred. Integration into organic standards balances efficacy against environmental risks, as copper's inorganic nature prevents biodegradation, leading to cumulative deposition that peer-reviewed assessments link to reduced soil biodiversity, including mycorrhizal fungi essential for nutrient uptake. Regulatory bodies justify continued permission through first-principles evaluation: copper's targeted contact action provides verifiable yield protection—accounting for over 30% of organic disease management globally in 2025—without the resistance risks or broader toxicity profiles of some organic alternatives like sulfur, though ongoing reforms scrutinize reductions amid accumulation data from intensive viticulture showing mean soil levels of 371 mg/kg irrespective of organic status. Certifiers mandate soil testing and record-keeping to enforce thresholds, ensuring compliance mitigates phytotoxicity and ecosystem impacts while preserving organic integrity against pathogen pressures unsubstitutable by cultural practices alone.

Yield Protection and Economic Impacts

In organic farming, copper-based fungicides are essential for safeguarding yields against fungal and bacterial pathogens where synthetic options are prohibited and alternatives lack comparable efficacy. Late blight (Phytophthora infestans) in potatoes, for example, can inflict yield losses up to 100% without control measures, but copper applications typically reduce average losses by 15-20% through preventive foliage coverage. In viticulture, copper controls downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola), averting reductions exceeding 50% in untreated organic vineyards, as evidenced by field observations across European organic systems. Complete discontinuation of copper would precipitate high yield declines in such crops, given the absence of fully effective substitutes. Economically, copper facilitates the production of high-value organic commodities like grapes (30% of European organic copper use) and olives (39%), sustaining farm revenues amid disease pressures that could otherwise render cultivation unviable. Its low material cost relative to potential harvest losses yields substantial returns; broader fungicide analyses, inclusive of copper in organic contexts, report U.S. agriculture averaging $14.60 in benefits per $1 invested, with grapes showing the highest ratios due to mildew vulnerability. Organic farmers apply copper at rates averaging 52% of permitted limits (e.g., ~3,258 metric tons annually across 12 European countries), balancing protection against accumulation risks while minimizing input expenditures compared to emerging but less reliable biocontrols. Long-term economic considerations include soil copper buildup from repeated use (up to 80 kg/ha/year in intensive systems), which may necessitate remediation costs or constrain future productivity, though immediate yield stabilization outweighs these in current organic economics. Regulatory caps, such as the EU's 4 kg/ha/year threshold since 2018, further incentivize optimized dosing to preserve both yields and cost efficiency.

Environmental Considerations

Soil and Water Dynamics

Copper-based pesticides, such as copper sulfate and copper oxychloride, exhibit strong adsorption to soil particles, primarily binding to organic matter, clay minerals, and iron/manganese oxides, which restricts their vertical mobility and leaching potential in most agricultural soils. This sorption affinity results in long-term persistence, with copper concentrations accumulating over repeated applications; for instance, in European vineyards, decades of fungicide use have led to soil copper levels exceeding 100 mg/kg in topsoils, far above background values of 10-20 mg/kg. Such accumulation can impair soil microbial communities, shifting bacterial diversity and reducing enzymatic activities essential for nutrient cycling, as observed in field studies where copper applications decreased soil respiration and organic matter decomposition rates by up to 30%. In water systems, copper from pesticides primarily enters via surface runoff as particulate-bound fractions rather than dissolved ions, with over 90% associating with suspended solids and algae shortly after application, minimizing free Cu²⁺ bioavailability in receiving waters under neutral conditions. However, erosion from treated fields can transport these particulates into streams and lakes, where gradual dissolution—accelerated by low pH or high organic ligands—releases bioavailable copper, exerting toxicity to aquatic organisms at concentrations as low as 5-10 µg/L for sensitive species like fish embryos and invertebrates. Dissolved organic carbon in natural waters complexes copper, mitigating acute toxicity by reducing free ion activity, though salinity gradients in estuarine environments can either enhance or diminish effects depending on species-specific ionoregulatory responses. Empirical monitoring in agricultural watersheds has documented episodic spikes in copper runoff correlating with rainfall events post-application, contributing to localized exceedances of ecological thresholds in sediments, where chronic bioaccumulation disrupts benthic communities.

Impacts on Ecosystems and Wildlife

Copper-based pesticides, such as those containing copper sulfate or copper hydroxide, persist in soils due to low mobility and minimal degradation, leading to long-term accumulation from repeated applications in agriculture, particularly vineyards and orchards. Studies indicate that vineyard soils can reach copper concentrations exceeding 100 mg/kg after decades of use, impairing soil microbial communities responsible for nutrient cycling and organic matter decomposition. For instance, elevated copper levels reduce bacterial and protist richness while altering fungal community composition, potentially disrupting ecosystem functions like nitrogen fixation and carbon sequestration. Earthworms, key indicators of soil health, exhibit sublethal effects including reduced reproduction and growth at soil copper concentrations above 50-100 mg/kg, with meta-analyses confirming toxicity thresholds where 50% of populations are adversely affected (EC50 values around 200-500 mg/kg depending on soil type). These impacts contribute to diminished soil biodiversity and impaired detrital food webs. In aquatic ecosystems, runoff from treated fields introduces copper ions that are highly bioavailable and toxic to invertebrates, algae, and fish at concentrations as low as 5-20 μg/L. Empirical studies show acute lethality to (water fleas) with LC50 values of 10-50 μg/L for copper sulfate, and chronic exposure causes reproductive failure in mollusks and crustaceans. Fish species, including salmonids, suffer olfactory impairment at sublethal levels (e.g., 2-10 μg/L), increasing predation vulnerability by dulling predator detection, as observed in where copper disrupts sodium channels in sensory neurons. Bioaccumulation in aquatic food chains amplifies risks, with copper concentrating in sediments and affecting benthic organisms, leading to cascading effects on higher trophic levels. Terrestrial wildlife faces indirect threats through contaminated water sources and prey, though direct toxicity is less pronounced than in aquatic systems. Birds and mammals ingesting copper-laden invertebrates or plants may experience oxidative stress and organ damage at chronic exposures, but field data suggest population-level declines are more attributable to habitat degradation from reduced soil fertility than acute poisoning. Overall, copper's persistence fosters ecosystem-wide shifts, including lowered primary productivity in contaminated areas and altered predator-prey dynamics, underscoring the need for monitoring accumulation in agroecosystems.

Health and Toxicity Profiles

Human Exposure and Acute Effects

Human exposure to copper-based pesticides, such as copper sulfate and copper hydroxide used as fungicides in agriculture, primarily occurs through occupational routes during application, including dermal contact with sprays or dusts, inhalation of aerosols or mists, and accidental ingestion from contaminated hands or equipment. Secondary exposure can arise from residues on treated crops or environmental drift, though dietary intake from regulated residues remains low relative to acute thresholds. Acute exposures are most common among farm workers handling concentrated formulations without adequate protective equipment. Dermal contact with copper pesticides can cause immediate irritation, redness, and in severe cases, second-degree burns or corrosive injury, particularly from concentrated solutions like copper sulfate, which acts as a skin irritant due to its astringent and oxidizing properties. Ocular exposure leads to severe irritation, conjunctivitis, and potential corneal damage, with symptoms including pain, tearing, and blurred vision resolving upon irrigation but risking permanent harm if untreated. Inhalation of copper pesticide mists or dusts during spraying induces acute respiratory tract irritation, manifesting as coughing, sneezing, thoracic pain, and runny nose, with higher concentrations potentially causing lung damage or systemic absorption leading to metallic taste and headache. Occupational limits, such as those from monitoring studies showing effects at airborne levels ≥0.107 mg Cu/m³, underscore the need for ventilation and respirators to mitigate these risks. Ingestion of copper pesticides, often accidental or intentional in cases involving 1–30 g of copper sulfate, produces rapid gastrointestinal effects including nausea, vomiting (sometimes blue-tinged), abdominal pain, and diarrhea, progressing in severe instances to hematemesis, intravascular hemolysis, acute kidney injury, hepatic necrosis, and shock. Toxicity thresholds include serum copper elevations above 60 μmol/L (normal 10–25 μmol/L), with lethal doses estimated at 10–20 g of copper sulfate, though emesis often limits absorption unless overridden. Prompt decontamination and chelation with agents like D-penicillamine can attenuate outcomes in non-fatal cases.

Chronic Risks and Epidemiological Data

Chronic exposure to copper pesticides, such as copper sulfate in formulations like Bordeaux mixture, primarily poses risks through occupational inhalation during repeated spraying, leading to conditions like "vineyard sprayer's lung," which involves pulmonary fibrosis, granulomas, and emphysema. Historical studies of Portuguese vineyard workers exposed over decades to aerial copper dust reported histological evidence of lung fibrosis, emphysema, and granulomatous reactions, alongside liver lesions including periportal fibrosis and cirrhosis in severe cases. These findings, documented in autopsies and biopsies from workers applying up to 50 kg of copper annually without modern protective equipment, indicate causal links via chronic dust inhalation at concentrations exceeding 100 mg Cu/m³. Epidemiological data on non-cancer effects remain sparse and mostly occupational. A study of long-term copper sulfate-exposed workers identified an elevated risk of kidney cancer, with standardized incidence ratios suggesting occupational attribution, though confounding factors like co-exposures were not fully controlled. Inhalation studies of factory workers at 111–464 mg Cu/m³ reported hepatomegaly, elevated liver enzymes (AST/ALT), and neurological symptoms including headaches and vertigo, resolving post-exposure cessation. No chronic minimum risk levels have been established for copper due to insufficient dose-response data, but animal models corroborate human liver and kidney oxidative stress at equivalents of 25–130 mg Cu/kg/day orally. Cancer risks lack robust epidemiological support. The U.S. EPA has not classified copper sulfate as carcinogenic, citing inadequate evidence from animal bioassays and absence of genotoxicity in standard tests. Human cohort studies, including smelter workers, show no consistent excess cancer beyond confounders like arsenic, with IARC deeming copper compounds unclassifiable for carcinogenicity. Recent biomarker research links long-term ambient copper pesticide exposure in California's Central Valley to altered DNA methylation patterns in blood, particularly among patients versus controls, suggesting potential epigenetic contributions to neurodegeneration, though causation remains unproven. For the general population, chronic dietary or dermal exposure via residues yields negligible risks, as copper homeostasis limits accumulation below toxic thresholds (e.g., <0.14 mg Cu/kg/day in controlled trials showed no liver effects). Vineyard workers today exhibit elevated buccal cell copper during spraying seasons, correlating with handling intensity, but population-level surveillance reveals no epidemic of chronic diseases attributable to copper pesticides alone. Susceptible subgroups, such as those with Wilson disease impairing copper excretion, face amplified liver risks from any excess, underscoring genetic modifiers over universal toxicity. Overall, data gaps persist, with most evidence deriving from pre-regulatory eras, limiting generalizability to mitigated modern applications.

Regulatory Framework

Global and Regional Policies

Internationally, no binding global treaty specifically governs copper-based pesticides, but the Codex Alimentarius Commission, jointly administered by the FAO and WHO, establishes maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides in food and feed, with copper compounds addressed under guidelines for contaminants and essential minerals rather than synthetic actives due to their natural occurrence and agricultural necessity. The FAO provides technical specifications for copper oxychloride and other formulations to standardize purity and efficacy in plant protection products, aiming to minimize variability in international trade while ensuring products meet basic safety criteria for formulation and labeling. In the European Union, copper compounds remain approved for organic farming under Regulation (EU) 2018/848, but with strict application limits capped at 4 kg of metallic copper per hectare per year since January 1, 2019, down from 6 kg/ha to address long-term soil accumulation evidenced by empirical soil surveys showing elevated levels in perennial crops like vineyards. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) periodically reviews these under the MRL framework, as in its 2025 statement updating residues based on toxicological data indicating no acute dietary risk but potential chronic exposure concerns from repeated applications, influencing ongoing re-approval processes that balance efficacy against environmental persistence. Member states like France enforce national variations, such as a 2025 ban on 20 specific copper fungicides while upholding the EU-wide 4 kg/ha vineyard limit, driven by localized data on runoff impacts in Mediterranean regions. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates copper fungicides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), granting exemptions from tolerance requirements for certain compounds like copper sulfate under 40 CFR 180.1021 when applied to livestock, poultry, or as algicides, based on residue studies demonstrating negligible transfer to edible tissues at approved rates. However, the EPA has cancelled registrations for high-solubility forms such as copper sulfate monohydrate and anhydrous in pesticide applications since the 1990s, citing groundwater leaching risks confirmed by field monitoring, while retaining lower-risk insoluble formulations like copper hydroxide for organic use following interim registration reviews that found acceptable margins for human health and non-target effects. Other regions vary: Canada registers copper products like cupric oxide under Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, as in the February 2025 decision for antimicrobial particles, after assessments deeming risks low when used per label rates in non-agricultural settings. In contrast, countries like India maintain fewer restrictions via the Central Insecticides Board, allowing broader applications amid reliance on copper for staple crop protection, though global harmonization efforts through push for aligned MRLs to facilitate exports. These policies reflect causal trade-offs: empirical evidence of copper's irreplaceable fungicidal efficacy in organics sustains approvals despite accumulation data, with regulatory caution tempered by the absence of equally effective, low-persistence alternatives.

Limits, Bans, and Ongoing Reforms

In the European Union, copper-based fungicides are permitted in organic agriculture under a maximum annual application rate of 4 kilograms of metallic copper per hectare, with a seven-year smoothing mechanism allowing up to 28 kilograms total, as established by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1584 effective from January 1, 2021. This restriction, reduced from a prior limit of 6 kilograms per hectare per year, reflects concerns over copper's soil accumulation and ecotoxicity, designating it a candidate for substitution under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 since 2019, with re-approval extended pending further review. France has implemented stricter measures, with the Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire (ANSES) revoking authorizations for 20 copper-containing products in September 2025, primarily affecting powder formulations and viticulture applications against downy mildew, due to unmitigated user exposure risks. In July 2025, ANSES authorized 34 alternative products with enhanced restrictions, including mandatory seven-day intervals between applications, prohibitions during flowering and harvest periods, and adherence to the 4 kilograms per hectare annual limit to minimize environmental deposition. These actions, informed by 2020-2022 usage data, prioritize substitution where feasible but acknowledge yield threats in copper-reliant crops like grapes and potatoes absent viable alternatives. In contrast, the United States imposes no federal quantity limits on copper pesticides for agricultural use, with copper sulfate exempted from tolerance requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act when below 80 parts per million in formulations, and permitted without restriction in USDA National Organic Program standards based on recommended per-crop rates rather than caps. Globally, outright bans remain rare, though some nations align with EU thresholds; ongoing reforms emphasize research into biological substitutes, as evidenced by European initiatives like the COPPEREPLACE project aiming for phased reduction without yield collapse. EU-level debates continue, with expert panels rejecting exemptions for alternative fungicides in 2025, underscoring copper's entrenched role amid substitution challenges.

Alternatives and Innovations

Biological and Synthetic Substitutes

Biological substitutes for copper pesticides primarily encompass biopesticides derived from microorganisms, plant extracts, or naturally occurring compounds, aimed at controlling fungal and bacterial pathogens through mechanisms such as antagonism, enzyme production, or induced plant resistance. Microbial agents like Bacillus subtilis and Trichoderma species have demonstrated potential in suppressing diseases such as downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola) in vineyards by producing antifungal metabolites or parasitizing pathogens, with field trials in Spanish viticulture showing reductions in copper applications by up to 50% when integrated into spray programs. However, these biopesticides often exhibit variable efficacy under high-disease-pressure conditions, requiring multiple applications and complementary practices like resistant cultivars or canopy management, and they rarely achieve the broad-spectrum, persistent control provided by copper compounds. Potassium bicarbonate and other inorganic salts serve as contact biofungicides that alter pathogen pH or disrupt spore germination, proving effective against powdery mildew in grapes at concentrations of 4-5 g/L, with studies indicating comparable short-term control to low-dose copper in greenhouse settings but diminished performance in rainy climates due to wash-off. Plant-derived options, such as essential oils from neem or garlic, induce systemic acquired resistance but face challenges in scalability and consistency, with peer-reviewed assessments highlighting their role as adjuncts rather than standalone replacements, often necessitating higher frequencies of application that increase labor costs. Empirical data from organic systems underscore that biological substitutes reduce copper loads—e.g., microbial inoculants in U.S. vineyards cut usage by 30-40% in SARE-funded trials—but complete substitution remains elusive, correlating with yield penalties of 10-20% in high-risk regions without synthetic backups. Synthetic substitutes, deployable in conventional agriculture, include site-specific fungicides like triazoles (e.g., tebuconazole) and strobilurins (e.g., azoxystrobin), which target ergosterol biosynthesis or respiration in fungi, offering curative and protective action against pathogens like Venturia inaequalis in apples or Erysiphe necator in grapes with application rates as low as 0.1-0.2 kg/ha. Dodine, a guanidine-based compound, has shown superior efficacy to copper in controlling apple scab, reducing lesion counts by over 80% in 2023-2024 field experiments while exhibiting preventive, curative, and antisporulantant properties at 0.5-1 L/ha doses. These synthetics generally degrade faster than copper's non-biodegradable ions, mitigating long-term soil accumulation, though they pose risks of resistance development due to single-mode-of-action targeting, prompting integrated programs that rotate chemistries to sustain effectiveness. In organic contexts, synthetic options are restricted, amplifying reliance on copper, but innovations like phosphonate-based compounds (e.g., potassium phosphite) bridge the gap by eliciting plant defenses against oomycetes, achieving 70-90% control of downy mildew in trials comparable to copper hydroxide at 2-3 kg/ha equivalents. Overall, while synthetics excel in precision and reduced persistence—e.g., lower bee toxicity profiles than copper in viticulture assessments—adoption barriers include regulatory hurdles and resistance management, with meta-analyses confirming that no universal replacement matches copper's multi-site reliability across diverse pathogens and environments.

Research Advances and Challenges

Recent research has focused on nanotechnology and advanced material formulations to improve the efficacy of copper-based pesticides while minimizing environmental release. Copper-based nanomaterials, including nanoparticles and nanocomposites, have shown promise in reducing the required copper dosage for fungal control by enhancing adhesion and targeted delivery to pathogens, as demonstrated in a 2023 study evaluating three types of copper nanomaterials against plant diseases, which reported effective inhibition at concentrations 10-50 times lower than conventional copper sulfate. Similarly, a 2025 investigation developed a copper-based single-atom catalyst material that effectively controls plant fungal pathogens with reduced persistence in soil compared to traditional formulations, addressing runoff and accumulation concerns through controlled release mechanisms. Dry powder formulations of copper fungicides have outperformed liquid suspensions in field trials for bacterial and fungal disease management, offering better coverage and longevity on plant surfaces. Additives and synergistic combinations represent another advance, with 2024 research indicating that sulfur supplementation enhances the leaf penetration and overall antifungal activity of copper sprays in viticulture, potentially lowering total copper application rates by improving spectrum coverage against downy mildew. These innovations align with integrated pest management strategies, where precision application technologies, such as drone-based spraying, are being tested to optimize deposition and minimize drift, as evidenced by 2025 studies confirming copper's reliability for late-season potato diseases like aerial stem rot under variable weather conditions. Persistent challenges include copper's accumulation in agricultural soils, particularly in perennial crops like vineyards and orchards, where repeated applications over decades have elevated levels beyond natural backgrounds, impairing microbial activity and nutrient cycling. A 2020 review of heavy metal toxicity highlighted that copper from pesticides reduces soil macro-nutrient availability and exacerbates acidity, leading to decreased enzymatic functions in bacteria and fungi essential for decomposition. Long-term field studies, such as a 2020 analysis, found that aged copper in soils induces toxicity to earthworms and microbes at thresholds as low as 100-200 mg/kg, with effects on reproduction and community diversity persisting even after application cessation, unlike acute spiking experiments that overestimate resilience. Toxicity to non-target organisms compounds these issues, with 2024 research establishing avoidance thresholds for earthworms in copper-contaminated vineyard soils at concentrations linked to practical application histories, signaling broader ecosystem disruptions including inhibited nitrification rates critical for nitrogen availability. Climate and soil properties modulate these risks; for instance, higher rainfall and organic matter can mobilize copper, increasing bioavailability and plant uptake toxicity, as reviewed in 2024 studies of orchard and vineyard systems where prolonged use has necessitated remediation for replanting. Regulatory pressures for dose reductions further challenge research, demanding scalable alternatives without compromising yield security, while gaps in long-term epidemiological data on soil-food chain transfers hinder risk modeling.

Controversies and Debates

Proponents' Arguments for Continued Use

![The use of copper in viticulture, 1940 - Touring Club Italiano][float-right] Proponents of copper-based fungicides, particularly organic farmers and viticulturists, emphasize their irreplaceable role in controlling fungal diseases like downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola), which can devastate grape yields without effective alternatives in organic systems. Copper compounds, such as , have been the cornerstone of organic viticulture for over a century, providing broad-spectrum protection against bacterial and fungal pathogens by denaturing proteins and enzymes upon contact. In regions prone to humid conditions, such as European wine-growing areas, copper applications prevent economic losses estimated in billions of euros annually, with organic certification standards explicitly permitting their use due to the absence of equally efficacious synthetic substitutes. Agricultural organizations and researchers argue that copper's low mammalian toxicity and status as an essential micronutrient underpin its safety profile at regulated doses, with acute human poisoning requiring ingestion of grams rather than the microgram levels from residues. Fixed copper formulations minimize phytotoxicity and environmental mobility compared to soluble forms, binding strongly to soil particles and reducing leaching risks, while epidemiological data show no clear link between approved agricultural uses and chronic health issues like neurodegeneration. Proponents highlight that stringent EU limits—capped at 4 kg/ha/year for organic farming since 2018—balance efficacy with soil accumulation concerns, and further reductions, as proposed in France's 2025 revocation of certain products, threaten organic production viability without proven alternatives, potentially forcing de-certification and yield drops of up to 30% in vulnerable crops. Economically, continued use supports sustainable farming by enabling resistance management; copper's multi-site mode of action prevents the rapid resistance seen with single-site synthetics, preserving long-term crop health. Industry data indicate copper fungicides comprise over 30% of organic disease control agents globally as of 2025, underscoring their indispensability amid climate-driven disease pressures. Farmers' groups contend that bans disproportionately penalize organic sectors, which lack the full toolkit of conventional agriculture, risking food security and higher prices without commensurate environmental gains, as copper's persistence does not equate to bioaccumulation in food chains like organic pollutants.

Critics' Concerns and Empirical Counterpoints

Critics of copper-based fungicides highlight their environmental persistence and potential for soil accumulation, particularly in perennial crops like vineyards and orchards, where repeated applications can elevate total soil copper levels to 33.6–196.7 mg/kg, exceeding natural baselines below 30 mg/kg. This buildup is attributed to copper's low mobility and insolubility, leading to long-term retention rather than degradation, with concerns over reduced soil microbial function and enzyme activity, such as dehydrogenase and phosphatase, as observed in vineyard studies. Adverse effects on non-target soil organisms, including earthworms and enchytraeids, are also cited, prompting European regulators to impose stricter limits, reducing the annual cap from 6 kg/ha to 4 kg/ha in organic farming by 2021 to curb accumulation. Runoff from treated fields further raises alarms for aquatic ecosystems, where copper exhibits high toxicity to algae, invertebrates, and fish at concentrations as low as 5–50 µg/L, potentially disrupting food webs. Toxicity to beneficial insects, such as honeybees, represents another focal point, with field studies documenting acute lethal effects from direct contact or residue exposure, exacerbating pressures on pollinators in intensive spray regimes. Human health risks, though less emphasized, include potential chronic effects like elevated kidney cancer incidence among long-term applicators, based on occupational cohort data, alongside acute gastrointestinal and hepatic symptoms from accidental or suicidal ingestions reported in case studies. Critics, often from environmental advocacy groups, argue these issues reflect systemic underestimation in regulatory models, given copper's classification as a heavy metal with no safe dissipation threshold, contrasting with degradable synthetic alternatives. Empirical counterpoints derive from field monitoring indicating that while accumulation occurs, bioavailable fractions remain low (0.06–0.82 mg/kg) due to binding in high-pH s (>6.5), limiting uptake and below critical thresholds of 200–250 mg/kg total for microbial impacts. and assays in copper-treated orchards show no consistent with elevated levels at regulated doses, suggesting resilience in organic matter-rich s managed with practices like mulching. assessments by bodies like EFSA acknowledge risks to macroorganisms but note mitigation through fixed- formulations' controlled release and low , which reduce leaching compared to soluble salts. For , while lab is evident, landscape-scale studies report minimal population-level declines attributable to alone, often confounded by co-exposures. On human exposure, epidemiological data reveal rarity of systemic , with dietary copper's essential role (ADI 0.15–1 mg/kg bw/day) and poor oral absorption (~50% for compounds) supporting safety margins under good agricultural practices; occupational risks are addressable via PPE, as operator exposures exceed thresholds only without mitigation. Regulatory persistence of approvals, despite data gaps, reflects empirical balancing of fungicidal efficacy against quantified hazards, with caps enforcing a 28 kg/ha seven-year average to prevent exceedances observed in unmanaged historical use. These findings underscore that concerns, while grounded, are often amplified beyond field-verified causal chains, where buffering and dose controls attenuate predicted harms.

References

  1. https://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/cuso4tech.html
  2. https://www.vegetables.cornell.edu/pest-management/disease-factsheets/copper-fungicides-for-organic-disease-management-in-vegetables/
  3. https://agriculture.vikaspedia.in/viewcontent/agriculture/agri-inputs/bio-inputs/production-of-ipm-inputs/biopesticides/preparation-of-bordeaux-mixture?lgn=en
  4. https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/apsnetfeatures/Pages/Fungicides.aspx
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7356523/
  6. https://eorganic.org/pages/18360/can-i-use-this-product-for-disease-management-on-my-organic-farm
  7. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOPCopperProductsTR2022.pdf
  8. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b04392
  9. https://pse.agriculturejournals.cz/artkey/pse-202407-0002_copper-contamination-in-agricultural-soils-a-review-of-the-effects-of-climate-soil-properties-and-prolonged.php
  10. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-one-mycologist-saved-frances-wine-among-other-things-180967526/
  11. https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/may/history-of-agricultural-chemicals
  12. https://adlonlinecourses.com/the-history-of-pesticides-part-iii-sulphur-copper-and-arsenic/
  13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3739659
  14. https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/10.1094/PHYTO-10-22-0399-IA
  15. https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5766
  16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37850744/
  17. https://orgprints.org/id/file/581481
  18. https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1747-organic-world-2024_light.pdf
  19. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/12/3/673
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357025330_Copper_use_in_organic_agriculture_in_twelve_European_countries
  21. https://www.snsinsider.com/reports/copper-fungicides-market-3498
  22. https://www.pomais.com/product/copper-oxychloride-fungicide/
  23. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/copper_formulations_for_fruit_crops
  24. https://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease/pesticide-articles/preparing-tank-mix-bordeaux-mixture
  25. https://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease/pesticide-articles/copper-based-bactericides-fungicides
  26. https://plant-pest-advisory.rutgers.edu/growers-guide-to-understanding-the-protectant-fungicides-frac-groups-m1-m11-2/
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4521015/
  28. https://www.greenhousemag.com/article/gmpro-0210-copper-fungicides/
  29. https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/bordeaux-mixture/
  30. https://pochta-sad.ru/blog-i-novosti/primenenie-mednogo-kuporosa.html
  31. https://gcrec.ifas.ufl.edu/static/docs/pdf/strawberry-pathology/Fung-label/2009/copper-count-N.pdf
  32. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArDNyxBurfA
  33. https://bpp.oregonstate.edu/efb/management/use-fungicides
  34. https://www.epicgardening.com/copper-fungicide/
  35. https://southernag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/southernag.com_docs_labels_msds_Liq-Copper-Gal.pdf
  36. https://fedcoseeds.com/ogs/bonide-liquid-copper-concentrate-8672
  37. https://www.awiner.com/product/copper-oxychloride/
  38. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Copper%2520Sulfate%25203%2520TR%25202015.pdf
  39. https://njaes.rutgers.edu/fs1315/
  40. https://journals.ashs.org/view/journals/horttech/30/2/article-p268.xml
  41. https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/horticulture/citrus/citrus-connect/2020-citrusconnect-articles/58-steven-falivene-and-andrew-creek-using-copper-sprays-to-control-diseases-in-citrus
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229534210_Field_trials_of_copper_fungicides_for_the_control_of_potato_blight_I_Foliage_protection_and_yield
  43. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1933.tb07770.x
  44. https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/10.1094/PDIS-06-20-1268-RE
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227160282_Grapevine_downy_mildew_control_using_reduced_copper_amounts_in_organic_viticulture
  46. https://swfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/docs/pdf/squeezer/2011/042111_roberts.pdf
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219425001619
  48. https://eorganic.org/pages/18351/organic-management-of-late-blight-of-potato-and-tomato-with-copper-products
  49. https://www.walshmedicalmedia.com/open-access/effect-of-varieties-and-fungicides-on-potato-late-blight-emphytophthora-infestansem-mont-de-bary-management-2168-9881-1000182.pdf
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10672005/
  51. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10658-024-02845-w
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261219417300285
  53. https://farmonaut.com/blogs/copper-pesticide-fungicide-best-organic-solutions-2026
  54. https://oeno-one.eu/article/view/7429
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10675458/
  56. https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-approved-for-organic-production/
  57. https://www.meiningers-international.com/wine/analysis/eu-threatens-organic-viticulture
  58. https://www.omri.org/copper-accumulation
  59. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Coppers%2520fixed%2520Final%2520Rec.pdf
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749125007298
  61. https://www.inrae.fr/sites/default/files/pdf/can-organic-agriculture-cope-without-copper-for-disease-control-synthesis-of-the-collective-scientific-assessment-report-1.pdf
  62. https://www.quae.com/extract/3851
  63. https://croplifefoundation.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/fungicide-executive-summary.pdf
  64. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c02093
  65. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-025-07278-w
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038071712001484
  67. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=66274
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135400005947
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21541846/
  70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22890509/
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352401659X
  72. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.14437
  73. https://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/cuso4gen.html
  74. https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/june-2018/hitting-the-brakes-on-copper-pollution
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6536136/
  76. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp132.pdf
  77. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=30001G25.TXT
  78. https://extension.psu.edu/potential-health-effects-of-pesticides/
  79. https://www.nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0528.pdf
  80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557456/
  81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40653069/
  82. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22234616/
  83. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/dbs/pestres/en/
  84. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a05507ee-5492-41f4-af74-d570fc9d41d0/content
  85. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/9271
  86. https://www.global-agriculture.com/crop-protection/france-bans-20-copper-fungicides-organic-winegrowers-face-uncertain-future/
  87. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/180.1021
  88. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0212-0129/content.pdf
  89. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/decisions-updates/registration-decision/2025/copper-corning-guardiant-antimicrobial-particles.html
  90. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R1584
  91. https://www.anses.fr/en/content/copper-fungicide-agriculture-health-environmental-and-socio-economic-challenges
  92. https://organic-farmknowledge.org/news-events/news/detail/organic-farming-copper-re-approved-in-europe
  93. https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2025/09/french-ban-on-copper-fungicides-puts-organic-vintners-under-strain/
  94. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/12/27/2013-31101/copper-sulfate-pentahydrate-exemption-from-the-requirement-of-a-tolerance
  95. https://ives-technicalreviews.eu/article/view/8368
  96. https://www.euractiv.com/news/eu-expert-group-rejects-return-of-banned-fungicide-in-organic-wine-production/
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370285169_Biopesticides_as_an_Alternative_to_Reduce_the_Use_of_Copper_in_Viticulture_Main_Trends_in_Their_Adoption
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1161030123002642
  99. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/bp/bp-69-w.pdf
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9978502/
  101. https://projects.sare.org/sare_project/fnc03-467/
  102. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1369048/full
  103. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/07/13/for-organic-and-conventional-farmers-coppers-hard-to-beat-for-treating-mildew/
  104. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/1/137
  105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651324015094
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10253677/
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2095927325008497
  108. https://www.apsnet.org/about/newsroom/releases/Pages/New-Study-Confirms-Copper-Based-Fungicides-as-a-Reliable-Solution-for-Aerial-Stem-Rot-in-Potatoes.aspx
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7996329/
  110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749119351899
  111. https://hal.science/hal-04692571v1/document
  112. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3298/11/6/109
  113. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04661761v1/document
  114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773050623000149
  115. https://ives-technicalreviews.eu/article/view/8242
  116. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-018-0503-9
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7009614/
  118. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/07/23/organic-fungicide-copper-sulfate-poses-dangers-to-humans-animals-insects-how-does-it-compare-to-conventional-pesticides/
  119. https://www.cureus.com/articles/339541-suicidal-human-poisoning-with-fungicide-a-rare-case-from-rural-india
  120. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321974582_The_Use_of_Copper_Pesticides_in_Germany_and_the_Search_for_Minimization_and_Replacement_Strategies
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.