DOCSLIB.ORG

Pesticides in Iowa's Water Resources: Historical Trends and New Issues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PesticidesPesticides inin IowaIowa’’ss WaterWater Resources:Resources: HistoricalHistorical TrendsTrends andand NewNew IssuesIssues MaryMary P.P. SkopecSkopec andand KatieKatie ForemanForeman WatershedWatershed MonitoringMonitoring andand AssessmentAssessment IowaIowa DepartmentDepartment ofof NaturalNatural ResourcesResources OutlineOutline PesticidePesticide UseUse inin IowaIowa CurrentCurrent StatusStatus andand HistoricalHistorical TrendsTrends NewNew ApproachesApproaches forfor UnderstandingUnderstanding Occurrence of Pesticides in Water Resources Function of: 1. Use 2. Soil Characteristics 3. Rainfall Timing and Amount 4. Pesticide Properties Land Use in Iowa (2002) Percent of Iowa Acres Treated Herbicides Insecticides Yes No Source: Pesticide Movement: What Farmers Need to Know, Iowa State Extension, PAT-36 2000, Non-City Stream Sites 2001, Non-City Stream Sites 2002, Non-City Stream Sites 2,4-D* 2,4,5-T* Acetochlor Acifluoren* Alachlor Ametryn Atrazine Atrazine, Deethyl Atrazine, Deisopropyl Bentazon* Bromacil* Some Bromoxynil* Butylate Very Chloramben* Cyanazine Dalapon* Common; Herbicides Dicamba* Dichloprop* Others Dimethenamid EPTC Less so Metolachlor Metribuzin Pendimethalin* Picloram* Prometon Propachlor Propazine Simazine Triclopyr* Trifluralin Carbaryl* Carbofuran* Chlordane* Chlorpyrifos* es DDD* DDE* id DDT* Few ic Diazinon* ct Dieldrin* Detects Fonofos* Lindane (gamma-BHC)* Inse Malathion* Parathion* Phorate* 0 204060801000 204060801000 20406080100 Detection Rate, in Percent Detection Rate, in Percent Detection Rate, in Percent * Parameters analyzed April through July; all others analyzed monthly. Pesticide Concentration for Non-City Sites Pesticide Concentration for City Sites 160 60 140 50 120 L) 40 g/ g/L) 100 (u on tion (u 80 30 a r entrati ncent 60 o 20 C Conc 40 10 20 0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month (2001) Month (2001) Acetochlor Acetochlor Alachlor Alachlor Atrazine Atrazine Cyanazine Cyanazine Dimethenamid Dimethenamid Metolachlor Metolachlor Prometon Prometon Simazine Simazine Trifluralin Trifluralin Median Pesticide Concentration 2000-2002 (µg/L) $T #S #S #S #S #S #S #S $T #S $T #S $T #S $T$T #S #S$T $T $T$T #S $T $T $T $T $T $T $T #S #S #S $T $T $T $T $T$T #S $T $T $T $T $T #S $T $T%U %U $T %U $T%U $T %U %U %U$T %U $T %U %U %U %U %U %U $T %U %U $T %U %U $T %U Median Atrazine 2000-2002 (µg/L) %U #S <0.05 $T 0.05 - 0.1 %U >0.1 Major River Basins Rivers Counties Median Pesticide Concentration 2000-2002 (µg/L) #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S#S #S #S #S #S#S #S $T#S #S #S #S $T #S $T $T #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S#S #S %U #S #S #S #S #S $T #S #S #S$T #S #S #S #S #S $T #S #S $T#S #S #S $T #S #S #S %U $T #S $T #S #S #S %U #S #S Median Metolachlor 2000-2002 (µg/L) #S #S <0.05 $T 0.05 - 0.1 %U >0.1 Major River Basins Rivers Counties LimitedLimited MonitoringMonitoring HistoricallyHistorically ProjectProject DrivenDriven StudiesStudies FewFew LongLong TermTerm SitesSites (16(16 ambientambient sincesince 19861986 withwith quarterlyquarterly sampling)sampling) IAPESTIAPEST –– CompilationCompilation databasedatabase ofof allall availableavailable pesticidepesticide datadata inin IowaIowa id enam Herbicide Use - eIowath Metolachlorhosate p Dim ralin Gly Triflu 2001 2000 poral Trends in 1999 Tem 1998 Acetochlor 1997 Alachlor Atrazineanazine 1996 Cy 1995 1994 20000 1993 1992 15000 1991 Year 1990 1989 10000 1988 1987 5000 1986 Annual Use (1000 lbs) 0 1985 Mean Concentrations of Surface Water Sites 1990-2002 10 Year vs Atrazine Year vs Alachlor Year vs Acetochlor Year vs Cyanazine L) Year vs Metolachlor g/ µ on ( i 1 at r oncent Mean C 0.1 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Mean Concentrations of Groundwater Sites 1 Year vs Atrazine Year vs Alachlor Year vs Acetochlor Year vs Metolachlor g/L) µ ion ( Mean Concentrat 0.1 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 LinkingLinking UseUse toto OccurrenceOccurrence LackingLacking detaileddetailed datadata onon pesticidepesticide useuse RequiresRequires indirectindirect methodsmethods ofof estimationestimation IowaIowa GroundwaterGroundwater ProtectionProtection ActAct ofof 19901990 SalesSales ofof pesticidespesticides reportedreported byby DealerDealer Process for Converting Reported Sales Data Sales Data Reported to IDALS Dollars are Converted to Lbs –> ISU Ext Link Lbs to Zip Code and Sum by County GIS Coverage of Sales Stream Watersheds with Zip Codes Superimposed N W E S Distributing Sales by Point Locations Kernel Modeling: Decay Function from centroid to boundary # # # N W E S HowHow DoesDoes ModelModel Compare?Compare? SalesSales vs.vs. MeasuredMeasured WaterWater QualityQuality EnvironmentalEnvironmental LagsLags maymay blurblur resultsresults MonitoringMonitoring maymay notnot perfectlyperfectly matchmatch salessales locationslocations oror densitydensity graphsgraphs Median Pesticide Concentration 2000-2002 (µg/L) $T #S #S #S #S #S #S #S $T #S $T #S $T #S $T$T #S #S$T $T $T$T #S $T $T $T $T $T $T $T #S #S #S $T $T $T $T $T$T #S $T $T $T $T $T #S $T $T%U %U $T %U $T%U $T %U %U %U$T %U $T %U %U %U %U %U %U $T %U %U $T %U %U $T %U Median Atrazine 2000-2002 (µg/L) %U #S <0.05 $T 0.05 - 0.1 %U >0.1 Major River Basins Rivers Counties Water Quality from Selected Watersheds r Big Spring (BSP) Iowa River at Columbus Jct E. Nishnabotna R. nr Shenandoah e in z a Atr ing Spr Big 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 10 1994 1992 ear 1990 Y L 1 µg/ 1988 1986 1984 0.1 1982 ver at Shenandoah a Ri n Atrazine shnabot Ni East 2004 2003 2002 100 2001 2000 10 1999 Year 1998 µg/L 1 1997 1996 0.1 1995 Atrazine 10 IowIowaa Riv Riverer at Col atu mColumbusbus Junction Junction 1 µg/L 0.1 19 19 20 2 20 0 9 98 0 02 04 6 0 Year SummarySummary UseUse ofof ““traditionaltraditional”” herbicidesherbicides droppeddropped ChangingChanging useuse reflectedreflected inin locallocal watershedswatersheds SomeSome watershedswatersheds havehave experiencedexperienced locallocal increases;increases; othersothers decreasesdecreases ImproveImprove targetedtargeted managementmanagement activitiesactivities Questions?Questions? [email protected] Alachlor ESA Degradate Concentrations in Surface Water 1995-2002 100 10 ) L g/ µ 1 A ( r ES o 0.1 achl Al 0.01 0.001 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Acetochlor ESA Degradate Concentrations Surface Water 1995-2004 100 10 ) L g/ µ A ( 1 or ES hl c 0.1 Aceot 0.01 0.001 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year.
Recommended publications

  • MN2000 FSAC 006 Revised1978.Pdf

    -i .., ,,, (I-,~-- -' d ~-- C:::- ,, AG RIC UL TURAL EXTENSION SERVICE Afr{ ,<"·<,'>· , -> ',' "\, '. '' ~'¥) AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS FACT SHEET No. 6-1978 Chemicals for'Weed Cop: GERALD R. MILLER . \~:::sr" This fact sheet is intended only as a summary of suggested Herbicide names and formulations alternative chemicals for weed control in corn. Label informa­ Common Trade Concentration and tion should be read and followed exactly. For further informa­ name name commercial formulation 1 tion, see Extension Bulletin 400, Cultural and Chemical Weed Control in Field Crops. Alachlor Lasso 4 lb/gal L Lasso 11 15% G Selection of an effective chemical or combination of chemicals Atrazine AAtrex, 80% WP, 4 lb/gal L should be based on consideration of the following factors: others 80%WP -Clearance status of the chemical Atrazine and propachlor AAtram 20% G -Use of the crop Bentazon Basagran 4 lb/gal L -Potential for soil residues that may affect following crops Butylate and protectant Sutan+ 6.7 lb/gal L -Kinds of weeds Cyanazine Bladex 80% WP, 15% G, 4 lb/gal L -Soil texture Dicamba Banvel 4 lb/gal L -pH of soil Dicamba and 2,4-D Banvel-K 1.25 lb/gal dicamba -Amount of organic matter in the soil 2.50 lb/gal 2,4-D -Formulation of the chemical EPTC and protectant Eradicane 6.7 lb/gal L -Application equipment available Linuron Lorox 50%WP -Potential for drift problems Metolachlor Dual 6 lb/gal L Propachlor Bexton, 65% WP, 20% G, 4 lb/gal L Ramrod 2,4-D Several Various 1 G = granular, L = liquid, WP= wettable powder Effectiveness of herbicides on
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid

    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid

    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
  • USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No

    USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No

    SERA TR 02-43-13-03b Triclopyr - Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Final Report Prepared for: USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0082F USDA Forest Service BPA: WO-01-3187-0150 USDA Purchase Order No.: 43-1387-2-0245 Task No. 13 Submitted to: Dave Thomas, COTR Forest Health Protection Staff USDA Forest Service Rosslyn Plaza Building C, Room 7129C 1601 North Kent Street Arlington, VA 22209 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Telephone: (315) 637-9560 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com March 15, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................... iv LIST OF WORKSHEETS ...................................................... v LIST OF ATTACHMENTS .................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... viii ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS .............................. ix COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................... xi CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION .................................... xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... xiii 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1-1 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................ 2-1 2.1. OVERVIEW
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA

    Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA

    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
  • Herbicide Mode of Action Table High Resistance Risk

    Herbicide Mode of Action Table High Resistance Risk

    Herbicide Mode of Action Table High resistance risk Chemical family Active constituent (first registered trade name) GROUP 1 Inhibition of acetyl co-enzyme A carboxylase (ACC’ase inhibitors) clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Agixa®*, Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold* Decision®*, Hoegrass®), Aryloxyphenoxy- fenoxaprop (Cheetah®, Gold*, Wildcat®), fluazifop propionates (FOPs) (Fusilade®), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) Cyclohexanediones (DIMs) butroxydim (Factor®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) Phenylpyrazoles (DENs) pinoxaden (Axial®) GROUP 2 Inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS inhibitors), acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) Imidazolinones (IMIs) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, Lightning®*, Midas®* OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) Pyrimidinyl–thio- bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) benzoates Sulfonylureas (SUs) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*, Trimac Plus®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron (Logran®, Logran® B-Power®*), tribenuron (Express®),
  • Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans

    Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans

    AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: BENEFITS OF TRANSGENIC SOYBEANS Leonard P. Gianessi Janet E. Carpenter April 2000 National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy 1616 P Street, NW, First Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-328-5048 Fax: 202-328-5133 [email protected] Preparation of this report was supported financially with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. U.S. Soybean Production 3. Soybean Products 4. Soybean Physiology 5. Soybeans – Agronomic Factors 6. Soybean Genetic Improvements A. Introduction B. Reproductive Process C. Artificial Cross Breeding D. Mutation Breeding E. Transgenic Plants 7. Weed Competition – Soybeans 8. Weed Control in Soybeans: 1940’s – 1950’s 9. Herbicides – An Overview 10. Herbicide Use in Soybeans: 1960’s – 1995 A. Introduction B. Historical Overview 1. The Early 1960’s 2. Soil Applied Herbicides 3. Postemergence Herbicides 4. Sulfonylurea/Imidazolinone Herbicides 5. Burndown Herbicides C. Summary of Usage: 1995 11. Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans A. Glyphosate – An Overview B. Performance of Roundup Ready Soybeans C. Herbicide Ratings D. Adoption Impacts: 1995 – 1998 1. Herbicide Costs 2. Soybean Yields 3. Returns 4. Other Aggregate Studies 5. Herbicide Treatments 6. Herbicide Use Amounts 7. Other Impacts 12. Summary and Conclusions 13. References Appendix 1: Soybean Processing – A Description 1. Introduction Soybeans and other crops have been improved genetically for many decades through traditional crop breeding – a technique that requires that species be sexually compatible. With the development of biotechnology methods, scientists have the ability to transfer single genes from one living organism into another, regardless of species or sexual compatibility. Varieties that are developed through the transfer of genes between species that are not sexually compatible are referred to as “transgenic.” Transgenic soybean plants have been developed with a gene from a soil bacteria that allows the use of an herbicide that would normally kill soybeans.
  • Triclopyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Corrected Final Report

    Triclopyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Corrected Final Report

    SERA TR-052-25-03c Triclopyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Corrected Final Report Submitted to: Paul Mistretta, COR USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region 1720 Peachtree RD, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-06-0010 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-43ZP-D-09-0034 SERA Internal Task No. 52-25 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 8125 Solomon Seal Manlius, New York 13104 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com May 24, 2011 October 20, 2011 (Minor Correction) July 9, 2016 (Corrections) Error Notes October 20, 2011 In the original release of the final report (SERA TR-052-25-03a dated May 24, 2011), Tables 2 and 22 incorrectly listed the water solubility of TCP as 100 mg/L. As indicated in Table 1, the correct value, from Knuteson (1999), is 49,000 mg/L. This error was noted by Dr. K. King (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). The error has been corrected. While the Gleams-Driver runs were made using the 100 mg/L water solubility, re-runs using the water solubility of 49,000 mg/L yielded results that are indistinguishable from the original runs. Thus, the appendices have not been change. Water solubility is not a sensitive parameter in GLEAMS unless the soil water is saturated. This did not occur in the Gleams-Driver modeling. July 9, 2016 During an audit of WorksheetMaker (Version 6.00.15), it was noted that the chronic toxicity values of TCP to aquatic invertebrates had been entered incorrectly into the WorksheetMaker database and the aquatic toxicity values of TCP for algae had been omitted.
  • Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station

    Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station

    ORTMAL DO ;10T REMOVE 7.9 m FILE Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station Oregon State University, Corvallis I FIELD APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES--AVOIDING DANGER TO FISH Erland T. Juntunen Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon and Logan A. Norris Pacific Northwest Forestry Sciences Laboratory and Range Experiment Station Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture Corvallis, Oregon April, 1972 Trade names are used in this publication solely to provide specific information. No endorsement of products is intended nor is criticism implieLl to products mentioned or omitted. Recommendations are not made concerning safe use of products nor is any guarantee or warranty of results or effects of the products intended or implied. ii Chemical weed and brush control with herbicides is an important land management practice in modern agriculture and forestry. In some cases, herbicides are applied directly to bodies of water for aquatic weed control. More commonly, herbicides are applied to lands adjacent to waterways for general weed and brush control. The responsible applicator will avoid damage to fishery resources by being fully aware of a particular herbicides potential hazard to fish. Herbicide applications should be considered hazardous to fish when there is the probability fish will be exposed to herbicide concen- trations which are harmful. This bulletin offers information that will aid in selecting the particular herbicides and formulations of least hazard to fish considering the toxicity of the herbicide and the poten- tial for its entry into streams, lakes, or ponds. Entry of Herbicides into the Aquatic Environment In aquatic weed control, the effective concentration of herbicide in the water depends on the rate of application, the rate of the spread of the chemical, the size and chemical composition of the body of water, the rate of degradation or adsorption of the chemical on sediments, and the rate of mixing of treated water with untreated water.
  • MC(' Potential Exposure of Humans to 2

    MC(' Potential Exposure of Humans to 2

    (MC( FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED TOXICOLOGY 1:3 3 9-3 4 6 (1981) Potential Exposure of Humans to 2,4,5-T and TCDD in the Oregon Coast Ranges MICHAEL NEWTON" and LOGAN A. NORRISB "Professor of Forest Ecology, Oregon State University, Corvallis; BChief Research Chemist, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, Oregon ABSTRACT Potential Exposure of Humans to 2,4,5-T and TCDD in Humans may be exposed to herbicides through drift; inges- the Oregon Coast Ranges. Newton, M. and Norris, L.A. tion of wild and domestic meat, vegetables, and fruit; con- (1981). F.undam. AppL Toxicol. 1:339-346. Research on the sumption of water; and dermal contact while handling the use of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) contami- chemicals, equipment, and treated vegetation. The range of -8 nated with 2.5 X 10 parts 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p- potential exposure extends from zero, if there is no encounter dioxin (TCDD) in forests of the Oregon Coast Ranges per- with the herbicide, to the worst situation where the person has mits estimates of human exposures for both compounds. encountered the highest levels of water contamination, drift Estimated total exposure of nearby ( ^ 1/8 mile distant) resi- exposure, meat contamination, and dermal exposure simul- dents during the first week after application is 0.0039 mg/kg taneously. We have brought estimates of all sources together of 2,4,5-T for a 70-kg adult. Exposure to TCDD in the same to determine the possible range of total exposure from episode would be 1.9 X 10 b ° mg/kg.
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES

    INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES

    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
  • ACTION: Original DATE: 08/20/2020 9:51 AM

    ACTION: Original DATE: 08/20/2020 9:51 AM

    ACTION: Original DATE: 08/20/2020 9:51 AM TO BE RESCINDED 3745-100-10 Applicable chemicals and chemical categories. [Comment: For dates of non-regulatory government publications, publications of recognized organizations and associations, federal rules, and federal statutory provisions referenced in this rule, see paragraph (FF) of rule 3745-100-01 of the Administrative Code titled "Referenced materials."] The requirements of this chapter apply to the following chemicals and chemical categories. This rule contains three listings. Paragraph (A) of this rule is an alphabetical order listing of those chemicals that have an associated "Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)" registry number. Paragraph (B) of this rule contains a CAS registry number order list of the same chemicals listed in paragraph (A) of this rule. Paragraph (C) of this rule contains the chemical categories for which reporting is required. These chemical categories are listed in alphabetical order and do not have CAS registry numbers. (A) Alphabetical listing: Chemical Name CAS Number abamectin (avermectin B1) 71751-41-2 acephate (acetylphosphoramidothioic acid o,s-dimethyl ester) 30560-19-1 acetaldehyde 75-07-0 acetamide 60-35-5 acetonitrile 75-05-8 acetophenone 98-86-2 2-acetylaminofluorene 53-96-3 acifluorfen, sodium salt [5-(2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy)-2- 62476-59-9 nitrobenzoic acid, sodium salt] acrolein 107-02-8 acrylamide 79-06-1 acrylic acid 79-10-7 acrylonitrile 107-13-1 [ stylesheet: rule.xsl 2.14, authoring tool: RAS XMetaL R2_0F1, (dv: 0, p: 185720, pa:
  • Weed Control in Corn Tjay 11 1932 Gerald R

    Weed Control in Corn Tjay 11 1932 Gerald R

    MN d-ooo E-f- b'-f/ EXTENSION FOLDER 641-1982 Weed Control in Corn tJAY 11 1932 Gerald R. Miller, Extension Agronomist Richard Behrens, Professor, Agronomy and Plant Genetics Weed control in corn should be based on an optimum com­ or preemergence herbicides have been applied, unless a prop­ bination of cultural, mechanical, and chemical practices. The erly timed postemergence herbicide treatment is planned. ideal combination for each field will depend on several factors Set cultivators for shallow operation to avoid pruning the including crop being grown, kinds of weeds, severity of the corn roots and to reduce the number of weed seeds brought weed infestation, soil characteristics, tillage practices, cropping to the surface. Throw enough soil into the row to cover small systems, and availability of time and labor. weeds, but avoid excessive ridging that may encourage erosion or interfere with harvesting. Shallow cultivation should be re­ Cultural Practices peated as necessary to control newly germinated weeds. Cultural practices for weed control in corn include seedbed preparation, establishing an optimum stand, adequate fertility, Herbicides and timely cultivations. Weeds that germinate before planting When selecting an appropriate herbicide or combination of can be destroyed with tillage operations or herbicides. Killing herbicide treatments, consider carefully the following factors: weeds just before planting gives the young crop seedlings a -Label approval for use competitive advantage and often improves performance of -Use of the crop preplanting or preemergence herbicides. -Corn tolerance to the herbicide Early cultivations are most effective for killing weeds and -Potential for chemical residues that may affect later crops for preventing crop yield reduction due to weed competition -Kinds of weeds or corn root damage.