Higher Chemistry Unit 1 Questions And Answers

[Gabby Dreher]

DenverPublic Schools teachers, working with a team of researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder and Northwestern University, designed five units, which address common high school physical science performance expectations in the NGSS for high school Chemistry.

The units are organized around coherent storylines, in which students ask and investigate questions related to an anchoring phenomenon or design challenge. Students use science and engineering practices to figure out Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI) and crosscutting concepts needed to make sense of and explain the phenomena or solve the problem presented in the challenge.

The phenomena that students work together to explain in chemistry are what to search for in looking for life on other planets (Search for Life), the potential of hydrogen (Fuels Unit) and nuclear energy (Nuclear Unit) as a greener fuel, and why oysters are dying at high rates (Oysters). Each has been chosen with input from thousands of students in a national survey as to what would be interesting and engaging to students like them.

Students engage with all eight science and engineering practices, becoming more proficient in learning when and how to use the practices. Lessons engage students in practices where they investigate, make sense of phenomena and problems, construct and critique models, and develop explanations and arguments. The units are designed to support students in becoming more sophisticated in their use of practices over the school year. Design challenges help students integrate knowledge across units; over time, students are expected to take more and more responsibility in problem solving within them.

There are multiple assessments embedded in the materials that can be used for formative and summative purposes. These include exit tickets with multiple-choice questions that assess both student experience and understanding, student models of phenomena, and 3D transfer tasks in which students apply what they have learned to a new phenomenon.

These answers are not intended to create significant new guidance or require any changes to previously accepted labeling. The Agency will contact registrants directly about how to correct problematic labels as appropriate. Changes to EPA accepted labeling will only be required in accordance with standard agency procedures. These answers are primarily based on federal law, regulations and policies implemented by EPA. States, tribes, territories, and other federal agencies may have additional requirements relevant to their jurisdictions.

Consumers can readily determine if a pesticide product contains an active ingredient (e.g., DEET) by reviewing the active ingredients listed on the front panel of the label in accordance with 40 CFR 156.10(g). Because all active ingredients must be listed, the absence of an active ingredient in the ingredient statement would indicate it is not in the product.

One exception is products containing no toxicants that are intended to exclude pests only by providing a physical barrier against pest access are not considered pesticides because EPA has determined they are not intended for a pesticidal purpose. 40 CFR 152.10(c). Unless the mulch fits this exception or is otherwise exempt, it would need to be registered to be sold or distributed in the United States. For more detail on what pesticide products are exempt from registration requirements see Pesticide Registration Manual: Chapter 1.

Historically, EPA has allowed the claim "new" to be used on labeling for a period of six months following approval of a new registration. "New" has not historically been allowed as part of a product name. Terms or marketing claims such as "improved," "next generation," etc. are reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are false or misleading and therefore not allowable. A review of the complete label is needed to determine the acceptability of such terms. See Label Review Manual, Chapter 12, Section VII.

Please note that distributor products are not allowed to add claims to the label that have not been approved on the parent product's label. 40 CFR 152.132(d). Therefore, a distributor may not add advertising for its other products unless such advertising is also on the parent product's label.

It is important to point out, however, that Section 12(a) is limited to unlawful sale or distribution, which is defined in FIFRA 2(gg) to exclude "the holding or application of registered pesticides ... by any applicator who provides a service of controlling pests without delivering any unapplied pesticide to any person so served." See also FIFRA 2(e)(1). This limits EPA's authority to regulate advertising claims made by certain home lawn care service companies that do not sell or distribute pesticides but merely apply them. To the extent EPA lacks regulatory authority over advertising of services, however, the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) broad authority to regulate advertising provides a means to regulate and enforce against excessive or misleading claims made by lawn care operators. Therefore, lawn care operators that do not sell or distribute pesticides but make false or misleading claims about their services, may be subject to enforcement by the FTC.

While the Agency reviews proposed contact times for disinfectant products on a product-by-product basis, in general, the Agency does not accept a hard surface disinfectant contact time of greater than 10 minutes unless the material to be disinfected is to be immersed in the disinfectant product solution as part of the disinfection process. Disinfectants that are applied to surfaces that are not immersed in the disinfectant product solution will dry out and therefore contact with the disinfectant product solution will generally not last longer than 10 minutes.

The Agency recommends the use of the AOAC International Use-Dilution Methods or the AOAC International Hard Surface Carrier Test Methods (distilled water only) to develop efficacy data to support a disinfectant claim. These methods specify a contact time of 10 minutes or less. In addition, on January 27, 2010 the Agency made available to the public for comment its draft proposed 810.2000 Series Product Performance Guidelines which included draft proposed guidelines for disinfectant treatment of hard surfaces. The proposed disinfectant guidelines for use of antimicrobials on hard surfaces (810.2200) would, once they are final, specify that disinfection of hard surfaces be achieved within a disinfectant product contact time of 10 minutes or less.

EPA does not have jurisdiction over cleaning products that make no pesticidal claims. However, a label that compares properties of a cleaning product to those of a registered pesticide product appears to make a pesticidal claim, which would likely result in the need to register the cleaning product bearing such claim.

Residues of sodium hypochlorite in water are measured as available chlorine. In 1998, the Office of Water (OW) working with the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) established a maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL) of 4.0 mg/L (ppm) for chlorine (40 CFR 141.54) that is allowable in community water systems (CWSs) and nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWs) from either a primary or secondary disinfectant treatment. View the Federal Register Notice for the final rule (88 pp, 1,011K, About PDF).

In general, the Agency does not identify and/or recommend specific pesticide products. Therefore, we suggest that you contact your local water utility to determine what disinfectant products they may be using.

In general, there are no differences in the precautionary statements required for a hospital product versus a residential product. Precautionary statements may vary among specific products due to the hazards that may be posed by the particular product in question. The major differences between product labels for hospital products versus residential products are differences in the use directions including the use sites and pests.

In general, the Agency requires registrants to submit efficacy data to support all public-health-related label claims. If a registrant wants to list a specific public-health microorganism on their product label, they would need to generate and submit efficacy data showing the product is effective against that specific microorganism.

In the case of H1N1, the Agency believed a different approach was needed due to the emerging threat posed by the spread of Pandemic 2009 H1N1 Influenza A Virus. Thus, the Agency used an approach based on the determination that data submitted to support a claim for control of any Influenza A virus was sufficient to support a label claim against Pandemic 2009 H1N1 Influenza A virus. This determination was in part based on the fact that efficacy data that support use against Influenza A also support use against different strains within the same type of virus. See Guidance for Testing and Labeling Claims against Pandemic 2009 H1N1 Influenza A Virus. Search EPA Archive

However, in the case of Salmonella, 1) the pandemic scenario is not present and 2) the genus of Salmonella is a much broader category of organisms than is encompassed by the Influenza A virus type. Species of Salmonella include those that are resistant to antibiotics as well as those associated with food-borne illness or typhoid fever. Efficacy data on a singles species are not adequate to support a general Salmonella claim; therefore, data must be submitted to support each Salmonella species listed on the label.

On the other hand, an antimicrobial product label may bear instructions for use in the hospital or medical environment if, among other things, the product passes efficacy testing for such use(s). The efficacy testing guidelines for such products are contained in 91-2(d)(3) of Subdivision G of the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines. Specifically, to be registered for use in a hospital or medical setting (such as a nursing home, day care center, doctors office), the product must be approved as a broad spectrum disinfectant and also must be proven through efficacy testing to be effective against the nosocomial bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Additional claims may be made if testing against other specified microorganisms demonstrates that the product is efficacious. Information on efficacy testing for such products can be found in the Subdivision G testing guidelines and at Disinfectants for Use on Hard Surfaces.

3a8082e126