DOCSLIB.ORG

For Benfluralin CERTIFIED MAIL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For Benfluralin CERTIFIED MAIL United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738-R-04-012 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances July 2004 Agency (7508C) Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Benfluralin CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Registrant: This is to inform you that the Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) has completed its review of the available data and public comments received related to the risk assessment for the dinitroaniline pesticide, benfluralin (Balan®). Based on its review, EPA has identified risk mitigation measures that the Agency believes are necessary to address the human health and environmental risks associated with the current use of benfluralin. The EPA is now publishing its reregistration eligibility and risk management decisions for the current uses of benfluralin, and its associated human health and environmental risks. The enclosed “Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Benfluralin,” which was approved on July 30, 2004, contains the Agency’s decision on the individual chemical benfluralin. A Notice of Availability for this Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for benfluralin is published in the Federal Register. To obtain a copy of the RED document, please contact the OPP Public Regulatory Docket (7502C), US EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (703) 305-5805. Electronic copies of the RED and all supporting documents are available on the Internet. See http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm. This document and the process used to develop it are the result of EPA’s program to facilitate greater public involvement and participation in the Agency’s pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment decision making. Since the enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), EPA has undertaken special efforts to increase transparency, consult with stakeholders, and engage the public in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment decisions. The human health and environmental risk assessments for benfluralin were placed in the public docket and issued for public comment through a Federal Register notice on February 25, 2004. At this time, the Agency does not have sufficient data concerning common mechanism issues to determine whether or not benfluralin shares a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances, including other dinitroaniline or other pesticides. Therefore, for the purposes of this action, the Agency has assumed that benfluralin does not share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other chemicals. End-use product labels should be revised by the manufacturer to adopt the changes set forth in Section V of this document. Instructions for registrants on submitting revised labeling and the time frame established to do so can be found in Section V of this document. If you have questions on this document or the proposed label changes, please contact the Special Review and Reregistration Division representative, Katie Hall, at (703) 308-0166. For questions about product reregistration and/or the Product data call-in (DCI) that accompanies this document, please contact Moana Appleyard at (703) 308-8175. Debra Edwards, Ph.D. Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division Attachment Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Benfluralin List B Case 2030 Approved By: ______________________ Debra Edwards, Ph.D. Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division ______________________ Date Table of Contents Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations............................................... i Benfluralin Reregistration Eligibility Decision Team ................................... iii Executive Summary ............................................................ 1 I. Introduction ............................................................. 6 II. Chemical Overview....................................................... 8 A. Regulatory History ................................................. 8 B. Chemical Identification.............................................. 8 C. Use Profile ....................................................... 9 D. Estimated Usage of Pesticide......................................... 10 III. Summary of Benfluralin Risk Assessments .................................... 11 A. Human Health Risk Assessment...................................... 11 1. Dietary Risk from Food....................................... 11 a. Toxicity of Benfluralin ................................. 11 b. FQPA Safety Factor ................................... 15 c. Population Adjusted Dose ............................... 15 1) Acute PAD.................................... 16 2) Chronic PAD .................................. 16 d. Exposure Assumptions ................................. 16 e. Dietary (Food) Risk Assessment .......................... 16 1) Acute Dietary Risk.............................. 16 2) Chronic (Noncancer) Dietary Risk .................. 16 2. Dietary Risk from Drinking Water .............................. 17 a. Surface Water ........................................ 17 b. Ground Water ........................................ 18 3. Residential and Other Nonoccupational Exposure ................... 18 a. Residential Applicator (Handler).......................... 19 1) Exposure, Scenarios, Data, and Assumptions .......... 19 2) Benfluralin Residential Handler Risk Estimates......... 19 b. Residential Postapplication Risk.......................... 21 1) Exposure, Scenarios, Data, and Assumptions .......... 21 2) Benfluralin Postapplication Risk Estimates............ 22 4. Aggregate Risk............................................. 23 a. Short-term Aggregate Risk.............................. 23 b. Chronic Aggregate Risk ................................ 24 5. Cumulative Assessment ...................................... 24 6. Occupational Risk........................................... 25 a. Occupational Toxicity.................................. 25 b. Occupational Handler Exposure .......................... 26 c. Occupational Handler Risk Summary...................... 26 d. Occupational Postapplication Risk Summary for Benfluralin.....31 e. Human Incident Data .................................. 31 B. Environmental Risk Assessment...................................... 32 1. Environmental Fate and Transport............................... 32 2. Ecological Risk............................................. 33 a. Risk to Birds......................................... 34 1) Toxicity (Hazard) Assessment ...................... 34 2) Exposure and Risk .............................. 35 b. Risk to Mammals ..................................... 37 1) Toxicity (Hazard) Assessment ...................... 37 2) Exposure and Risk .............................. 37 c. Risk to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates .....................38 1) Toxicity (Hazard) Assessment for Freshwater Species ....38 2) Toxicity (Hazard) Assessment for Estuarine/Marine Species ............................................. 40 3) Exposure and Risk .............................. 40 d. Risk to Nontarget Insects................................ 45 e. Risk to Nontarget Terrestrial Plants........................ 45 f. Risk to Nontarget Aquatic Plants.......................... 48 g. Food-Chain Effects .................................... 48 h. Risk to Endangered Species ............................. 49 i. Ecological Incident Reports.............................. 50 IV. Risk Management, Reregistration, and Tolerance Reassessment Decision.............51 A. Determination of Reregistration Eligibility .............................. 51 B. Public Comments and Responses ..................................... 51 C. Regulatory Position ................................................ 51 1. Food Quality Protection Act Findings ............................ 52 a. “Risk Cup” Determination .............................. 52 b. Determination of Safety to U.S. Population ..................52 c. Determination of Safety to Infants and Children ..............52 d. Endocrine Disruptor Effects ............................. 53 e. Cumulative Risks ..................................... 53 2. Tolerance Summary ......................................... 54 a. Tolerances Currently Listed Under 40 CFR §180.208 ..........54 b. Codex Harmonization.................................. 55 c. Residue Analytical Methods - Plants and Livestock ............55 D. Regulatory Rationale............................................... 55 1. Human Health Risk Management............................... 56 a. Dietary (Food) Risk Mitigation ........................... 56 b. Drinking Water Risk Mitigation .......................... 56 c. Residential Risk Mitigation .............................. 56 d. Aggregate Risk Mitigation .............................. 57 1) Acute Aggregate Risk............................ 57 2) Short-term Aggregate Risk........................ 57 3) Chronic (Non-Cancer) Aggregate Risk............... 57 e. Occupational Risk Mitigation ............................ 57 1) Handler Exposure ............................... 57 2) Post-application Risk Mitigation .................... 57 2. Environmental Risk Mitigation ................................. 57 3. Other Labeling Requirements.................................. 64 4. Endangered Species Considerations ............................. 65 5. Spray Drift Management...................................... 65 A. Manufacturing Use Products ......................................... 67 1. Additional Generic Data Requirements..........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reduction of Nitroaromatic Pesticides with Zero-Valent Iron
    Chemosphere 54 (2004) 255–263 www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere Reduction of nitroaromatic pesticides with zero-valent iron Young-Soo Keum, Qing X. Li * Department of Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering, University of Hawaii, 1955 East-West Road, Ag Sci 218, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA Received 5 February 2003; received in revised form 4 June 2003; accepted 4 August 2003 Abstract Reduction of eleven nitroaromatic pesticides was studied with zero-valent iron powder. Average half-lives ranged from 2.8 to 6.3 h and the parent compounds were completely reduced after 48–96 h. The di-nitro groups of the 2,6- dinitroaniline herbicides were rapidly reduced to the corresponding diamines, with a negligible amount of partially reduced monoamino or nitroso products. Low levels of de-alkylated products were observed after 10 days. The nitro group of the organophosphorus insecticides was reduced dominantly to the monoamines but in a slower rate than the 2,6-dinitroanilines. A trace amount of oxon products was found. Reduction of nitro to amino was also the predominant reaction for the diphenyl ether herbicides. Aromatic de-chlorination and de-alkylation were minor reactions. These amine products were more stable than the parent compounds and 60% or more of the amines were detected after two weeks. Humic acid decreased the reduction rates of pendimethalin, and dichlone (a known quinone redox mediator) counteracted the effect of humic acid on the reactivity. Storage of iron powder under air decreased the reactivity very rapidly due to iron oxidation. Repeated use of iron powder also showed similar results. The reduced activity of air- oxidized iron was recovered by purging with hydrogen, but not nitrogen.
    [Show full text]
  • Persistence of Dinitroaniline Herbicides and Potential for Injury
    Persistence of Dinitroaniline Herbicides and Potential for Injury to Sugarbeets-l< J. E. Warner, S. R. Winter and A. F. Wiese Received for Publication September 29, 1986 INTRODUCTION Preplant applications of dinitroaniline (DNA) herbi­ cides have been used for weed control in soybeans (Clycinr max (L.) Merr.) and cotton (Cossypium hirs utum L.). Also, layby applications are used in sorghum (Sorghum 6i­ c ol 0 {' ( L .) Moe n c h) and cor n ( Z e a ma y 5 L.). The y are b r 0 a d spectrum herbicides which control most grasses and many broadleaf weeds (7). Many reports show that DNA's dissi­ pate to a nonphytotoxic level in one growing season (2, 6, 9), while others give evidence of persistence for much longer periods (3, 10). Some factors involved in DNA per­ sistence are photodecomposition, volatilization, adsorp­ tion to clay and organlc matter, leaching, runoff, til­ lage, biodegradatlon, soil temperature, and soil moisture ( 6 , 10, 11, 14, 15, 17). Periodic flooding and even windy conditions following application appear to affect persistence (1, 13) . Differences in molecular structure of DNA's also affect persistence and phytotoxicity (5, 8). In recent years, growers have reported injury to sugar- beets (Brt a v ul g ari s L.) when DNA's were used for weed control in soybean, cotton, sorghum, or corn that preceded sugarbeets in rotations. DNA's have been know~ to cause injury to crops including sugarbeets (1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 16) . Abernathy and Keeling (1) showed that DNA residues remaining after a cotton crop could be high enough to in­ jure wheat ( T riti cum u pstivum L.
    [Show full text]
  • Persistence and Management of Dinitroaniline Herbicides Residues in Sandy Loam Soil
    58 Int. J. Environment and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, Nos. 1/2/3, 2010 Persistence and management of dinitroaniline herbicides residues in sandy loam soil P.H. Rathod Institute of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, Volcani Centre, Agricultural Research Organization, Bet-Dagan – 50250, Israel and AICRP on Weed Control, B.A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand – 388110, Gujarat, India E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] R.B. Patel AICRP on Weed Control, B.A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand –388110, Gujarat, India E-mail: [email protected] Amit J. Jhala* Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2P5, Canada E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: The addition of organic manure affects the biological, chemical and physical properties of soil that control the fate of herbicides. Three dinitroaniline herbicides were studied to asses their persistence, dissipation and residue management in sandy loam soil with and without addition of farmyard manure (FYM) under middle western Indian agro-climatic conditions. The herbicides, pendimethalin [N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6- dinitrobenzenamine], trifluralin [2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl) benzenamine] and fluchloralin [N-(2-chloroethyl)-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-4- (trifluoromethyl)benzenamine], were applied at a rate of 0.5 and 1.0 kg ha-1 as a pre-plant incorporation in the field, cropped with Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.). FYM incorporation at a rate of 10 t ha-1 decreased herbicide persistence in all the sampling intervals. Relatively lower half-lives of 44.93, 41.81; 41.23, 39.09 and 39.61, 43.00 days, each at the rate of 0.5 and 1.0 kg ha-1, respectively for pendimethalin, trifluralin and fluchloralin were recorded with FYM incorporation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ust Be Registered by Reregistration EPA, Based on Scientific Studies Showing That They Can Be Used Without Posing Unreasonable Risks to People Or the Environment
    United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA-738-F-04-007 Environmental Protection And Toxic Substances July 31, 2004 Agency (7508C) R.E.D. FACTS Benfluralin Pesticide All pesticides sold or distributed in the United States must be registered by Reregistration EPA, based on scientific studies showing that they can be used without posing unreasonable risks to people or the environment. Because of advances in scientific knowledge, the law requires that pesticides which were first registered before November 1, 1984, be reregistered to ensure that they meet today’s more stringent standards. In evaluating pesticides for reregistration, EPA obtains and reviews a complete set of studies from pesticide producers, describing the human health and environmental effects of each pesticide. To implement provisions of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA considers the special sensitivity of infants and children to pesticides, as well as aggregate exposure of the public to pesticide residues from all sources, and the cumulative effects of pesticides and other compounds with common mechanisms of toxicity. The Agency develops any mitigation measures or regulatory controls needed to effectively reduce each pesticide’s risks. EPA then reregisters pesticides that meet current human health and safety standards and can be used without posing unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. When a pesticide is eligible for reregistration, EPA explains the basis for its decision in a Reregistration Eligibility Document (RED) document. This fact sheet summarizes the information in the RED document for benfluralin (Chemical Code No. 084301; Case No. 2030). Use Profile Benfluralin is a pre-emergent dinitroaniline herbicide used to control grasses and other weed species.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Class Chart
    Chemical Class Chart Volume XIII Greenhouse and Nursery Production Insecticides/Miticides Fungicides Herbicides Plant Growth Regulators REFERENCE GUIDE for GREENHOUSE and NURSERY PRODUCTION INSECTICIDES / MITICIDES RESISTANCE MANAGEMENT When applying insecticides / miticides, always focus on resistance management. Do not rely on one product or tank mix or the same mode of action. When labels permit, make 2 or 3 applications of a product or tank mix in sequence, then rotate to products with different modes of action. Try to avoid applying the same mode of action to more than one generation of the pest. NOTE: THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO PROPERLY DETECT THE PROBLEM PEST AND KEEP GOOD SPRAY RECORDS. Using insecticides / miticides correctly also includes proper timing, understanding the pest life cycle, and the stage that each product controls. The appropriate and labeled (legal) method of application is also a very important factor to con- sider. Low volume (L.V.) applications (smoke generator, thermal fog, cold fog, aerosol, and electrostatic) are commonly used in greenhouses. Low volume sprays generally are more effective against adults than immature stages. Use high volume sprays, directed under the leaves for best results against eggs, nymphs and pupae. Always read the label and check with your state or county extension specialists for further information regarding resistance management. **Use Site(s) KEY: GH = Greenhouse; N = Nursery Insecticides / Miticides (by Mode of Action Group and Class) MOA Use Group* Class Common Name Trade Name REI Site(s)** Company 1A Carbamates Carbaryl Sevin® 12 N Bayer Environmental Science Methiocarb Mesurol® 24 GH/N Gowan Company 1B Organophosphates Acephate Orthene® TT&O 24 GH/N Amvac Chemical Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • 2,4-Dinitrobenzene and 2-(1-Hydroxybenzotriazolyl)-5-Nitropyridine
    Open Journal of Physical Chemistry, 2012, 2, 156-168 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpc.2012.23021 Published Online August 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojpc) Aminolysis of 1-(1-Hydroxybenzotriazolyl)-2,4-dinitrobenzene and 2-(1-Hydroxybenzotriazolyl)-5-nitropyridine Sherine N. Khattab1, Mohamed A. H. Kharaba2, Amal El-Hawary2, Ayman El-Faham1,3,4, Ezzat A. Hamed1* 1Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Alexandria University, Ibrahimia, Egypt 2Department of Chemistry and Physics, Faculty of Education, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt 3Institute for Research in Biomedicine, Barcelona Science Park, Baldiri Reixac, Spain 4Department of Chemistry, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, KSA Email: [email protected] Received April 11, 2012; revised May 15, 2012; accepted June 17, 2012 ABSTRACT The reaction 1-(1-hydroxybenzotriazolyl)-2,4-dinitrobenzene 1 and 2-(1-hydroxybenzotriazolyl)-5-nitro-pyridine 2 with amines undergoes amination followed by elimination of the 1-hydroxyl benzotriazolyl anion. The kinetic data for the reaction of 1 and 2 with Mo, CHA and An in MeOH and AN proceeded by uncatalysed mechanism in which the rate limiting step is the leaving group departure, whereas the reaction with Mo in toluene proceeded by uncatalysed mecha- nism in which the formation of the zwitterionic intermediate is the rate determining step. While the reactions of 1 with CHA and An and the reaction of 2 with CHA in toluene proceeded by SB mechanism in which the rate determining step is the proton transfer process. The reactions of 1 and 2 with Mo in the three solvents and with CHA and An in MeOH and AN is greatly depended on the stability of the zwitterionic intermediate.
    [Show full text]
  • Dinitroaniline Compositions Stabilized by Incorporation of Addition Compound of Bisulfite and Aldéhyde Or Ketone
    Europàisches Patentamt (D '� European Patent Office © Publication number: Q -| 26 591 Office européen des brevets [3 1 © EUROPEAN PATENT SPECIFICATION N 25/22, A 62 D 3/00 (45) Date of publication of patent spécification: 08.04.87 © Int. Cl.4: A 01 (D Application number: 84303159.2 @ Dateoffiling: 10.05.84 ® Dinitroaniline compositions stabilized by incorporation of addition compound of bisulfite and aldéhyde or ketone. (§). Priority: 16.05.83 US 495273 ® Proprietor: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 307, East McCarty Street Indianapolis Indiana 46285 (US) (§) Date of publication of application: 28.11.84 Bulletin 84/48 (72) Inventor: Cannon, William Nathaniel 3865 Cedar Ridge Road, Apt. 2D (4§) Publication of the grant of the patent: Indianapolis Indiana 46236 (US) 08.04.87 Bulletin 87/15 (74) Representative : Crowther, Terence Roger et al (84) Designated Contracting States: Erl Wood Manor BE CH DE FR GB IT LI LU NL SE Windlesham Surrey GU20 6PH (GB) (58) References cited: No relevant documents have been disclosed CD 5> in CO CM O Note: Within nine months from the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent, any person may give notice to the European Patent Office of opposition to the European patent granted. Notice of opposition shall be filed in a written reasoned statement. It shall not be deemed to have been filed until the opposition fee has been paid. (Art. 99(1 ) European patent convention). Courier Press, Leamington Spa, England. Since the discovery, in the late 1970s, of the presence of nitrosamines in dinitroanilines, much effort has been directed to the removal of nitrosamines.
    [Show full text]
  • Pendimethalin C Hemicalwatch Factsheet
    C hemicalWatch Factsheet A Beyond Pesticides/ NCAMP Factsheet Pendimethalin While the systemic herbicide warning: “This pesticide is toxic to is an animal oncogen, mutagen, and pendimethalin is plagued by exten- fish and aquatic organisms. Fish teratogen (causes birth defects), is sive data gaps, including most data may be killed at application rates toxic to the liver, kidney and blood, on chronic toxicity and animal and recommended on the label. Drift and can suppress the immune sys- plant metabolism, existing studies and runoff from treated areas may tem. Animals given MCB developed indicate that it is extremely toxic to be hazardous to fish (and aquatic lymphoid or myeloid depletion of fish and aquatic organisms, and its organisms) in neighboring areas.” the bone marrow, spleen, or thymus use may put several endangered In addition, the Slackwater darter in a 90-day subchronic study. Male species at risk. At least one formula- and certain freshwater mussels are rats given 120 mg/kg MCB daily tion, Prowl™, contains a large per- endangered species at risk from the for five days a week for 103 weeks centage of the highly toxic “inert” use of pendimethalin on co�on. EPA had neoplastic nodules (benign tu- ingredient monochlo- mors) of the liver. MCB- robenzene (MCB). exposed rabbit fetuses Pendimethalin was chemicalWATCH Stats: had birth defects and registered in 1972 for CAS Registry Number: 40487-42-1 visceral (organ) malfor- preemergent and pos- Chemical Class: 2,6-Dinitroaniline herbicide mations. MCB is weakly temergent control of Use: Broadleaf weeds and grassy weed species, resi- mutagenic in adult rat broadleaf and grassy dential lawns and ornamentals liver epithelial cells.1 weeds on many crops, Toxicity Rating: Slightly toxic Pendimethalin is not including: co�on, corn, Signal Word: Caution, Warning highly acutely toxic.
    [Show full text]
  • Trifluralin (Preen) Dissipation from the Surface Layer of a Soilless Plant Growth Substrate1
    Trifluralin (Preen) Dissipation from the Surface Layer of a Soilless Plant Growth Substrate1 Caren A. Judge2, Joseph C. Neal3, and Ross B. Leidy3 Department of Horticultural Science, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609 Abstract Southeastern U.S. container nursery crop production relies upon frequent applications of preemergence herbicides for broad-spectrum weed control. An experiment was conducted to determine the length of residual control and the sensitivity of two grass species to Preen (trifluralin) applied to the surface of a pine bark:sand (7:1 by vol) potting substrate. The experiment was conducted twice at each of two locations during 2001. Samples of the potting substrate were taken 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 42 and 56 days after treatment (DAT) for laboratory analysis. Trifluralin was extracted from the potting substrate and quantified using gas chromatographic techniques. Large crabgrass and perennial ryegrass were seeded 0, 7, 14, 28, 42 and 56 DAT to bioassay for herbicide residues. Shoot and root length were measured two weeks after each seeding date. Preen residues in the surface of the potting substrate decreased rapidly after application and leveled off approximately 21 DAT. Based on the bioassay, March applications of Preen controlled large crabgrass and perennial ryegrass for 37 days or greater while May and June applications of Preen controlled the two species for only 3 to 21 days. These results suggest that trifluralin reapplication should be more frequent than the common interval of 56 to 70 days in the southeastern United States. Index words: herbicide dissipation, container nursery production, dinitroaniline, preemergence herbicides.
    [Show full text]
  • Hazardous Chemicals Handbook
    Hazardous Chemicals Handbook Hazardous Chemicals Handbook Second edition Phillip Carson PhD MSc AMCT CChem FRSC FIOSH Head of Science Support Services, Unilever Research Laboratory, Port Sunlight, UK Clive Mumford BSc PhD DSc CEng MIChemE Consultant Chemical Engineer Oxford Amsterdam Boston London New York Paris San Diego San Francisco Singapore Sydney Tokyo Butterworth-Heinemann An imprint of Elsevier Science Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP 225 Wildwood Avenue, Woburn, MA 01801-2041 First published 1994 Second edition 2002 Copyright © 1994, 2002, Phillip Carson, Clive Mumford. All rights reserved The right of Phillip Carson and Clive Mumford to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright holder except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, England W1T 4LP. Applications for the copyright holder’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publishers British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Dinitroaniline Herbicides Upon Yield and Grade of Five Runner Cultivars' W
    126 PEANUT SCIENCE Effect of Dinitroaniline Herbicides upon Yield and Grade of Five Runner Cultivars' w. James Grichar* and A. Edwin Colburn" ABSTRACT of safety to spanish peanuts and that proper incorporation, . Five runnerpeanut(Arachis hypogaeaL.) cultivars were treated With.f~ur dinitroaniline herbicide treatments or a postemergence including the correct depth, was very important. Boswellet herbicide treatment to determine the effect on pod yield and grade, at. (4) statedthatin greenhousestudies, lateral root develop­ p~rcen~age sound mature kernels + sound splits (SMK+SS). No ment was inhibited within bands of 0.5 to 1.0 ppm concen­ yield differences due to the dinitroaniline herbicide treatments tration of soil treated with trifluralin, benefin [N-butyl-N­ were noted in the three year study. Southern Runner and GK-7 ethyl-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine], and were higher in yield in one of the three test years, however, no ni~r.alin cultivar yield differences were noted in the othertwo years. Grades [4-(methylsulfonyl)-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl were lowerwithpendimethalininthe three years;grades oftrifluralin, amline]. In general, the effects oftrifluralin and nitralin on ethalfluralinand benefin-treatedpeanutswere variable from year to spanish peanut seedlings were comparable, while benefin year. required approximately twice the concentration to produce an equaleffect. In Brazil, trifluralin controlledcertainweeds Key Words: groundnut, dinitroaniline herbicide trifluralin without damaging peanuts (15, 16), while Guse et at. (13) benefin, pendimethalin, ethalfluralin. ', reported that peanuts toleratedbenefin betterthan triflura­ lin. Buchanan et at.(6) found that trifluralin at rates as high as4.48 kgha'did not reducestands ofFlorunner,Florigiant, orGK-3peanuts.
    [Show full text]