DOCSLIB.ORG

The Occurrence of 12 EU Priority Substances in Swiss Surface Waters and Biota – a Review of Monitoring Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Occurrence of 12 EU Priority Substances in Swiss Surface Waters and Biota – a Review of Monitoring Data The occurrence of 12 EU priority substances in Swiss surface waters and biota – a review of monitoring data 12.9.2017 Imprint Publisher Ecotox Centre, Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology Eawag-EPFL, 8600 Dübendorf Authors Etienne Vermeirssen, Robert Kase and Ecotox Centre, Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology Inge Werner Eawag-EPFL Acknowledgements The Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) part funded the review and commented on the re- port. FOEN also granted access to the MicroPoll Database. Monitoring data from France were provided by Valeria Dulio (INERIS) on behalf of CEP (Expert Prioritisation Committee, France, 2013). The database from the NORMAN Network “EMPODAT” was used as a valuable source of information on European monitoring data. Many other persons contributed with feedback, providing unpublished information and personal comments. Note The analyses contained in this report were conducted up to April 2014 and reflect the available data and EU Water Framework Directive Environmental Quality Standard approaches that were in use at that time. In Switzerland, intensive monitoring programmes on micropollutants were conducted within the NAWA SPEZ programme (www.bafu.admin/nawa) in 2012 and 2015 (one study is underway in 2017). Some data from 2012 are incorporated into this report, other data from 2012 and data from 2015 that are not covered here do not affect the conclusions of this report. Contact Etienne Vermeirssen: [email protected] Title optional Summary In 2000 the European Union set up the Water Framework Directive (WFD) to protect all surface and ground water resources. An integral management tool within the WFD is the implementa- tion of environmental quality standards (EQS) for priority substances. An EQS value represents the concentration of a chemical that should not be exceeded to prevent adverse effects. Three types of EQS values are used: 1) an annual average EQS (AA-EQS), to protect against long- term effects; 2) a MAC-EQS, meant to protect against short-term effect of a maximum allowable concentration (MAC); 3) a biota-EQS, to protect against indirect effects and secondary poison- ing. A first list of EQS values for 33 substances was adopted in 2008. In 2013 the EU added 12 additional substances to this list. EQS values are not only generated for EU priority substances. Individual EU member states generate EQS values for a large number of compounds that have been prioritised according to national guidelines. Within the WFD, these compounds are referred to as river basin specific pollutants. In Switzerland, the Ecotox Centre already established EQS values for more than 60 such compounds. One objective of this report is to derive EQS values for five pharmaceuticals. The main aim of this report is to summarise the exposure situation in Switzerland regarding the 12 new priority substances and the five pharmaceuticals (using available data up to April 20141). Measured concentrations of the compounds were extracted from a national database (the MicroPoll data- base) and searched in the literature. In addition, exposure data from other European countries were collected and compared with Swiss exposure data. When sufficient concentration data were available for a compound, these concentrations were compared with EQS values to eval- uate the probability of EQS exceedance. Finally, compounds were identified for which current monitoring data chemical analytical techniques are not satisfactory. The available data for the 17 compounds are very heterogeneous in terms of their quality, quan- tity and regional distribution. Nonetheless, three main conclusions can be formulated. First, chemical analysis needs to be improved to bring limits of quantification below EQS values. For some compounds this goal is within reach (PFOS, bifenox, cybutryne), for others it will remain a challenge (dicofol, cypermethrin, dichlorvos, HBCD, heptachlor). This conclusion is supported by data from adjacent countries, particularly Germany and France. Second, more water and biota monitoring is required. This involves more sampling as well as a better regional distribu- tion of sampling. Third, although the exposure data is not comprehensive or conclusive, the risk posed by the 17 compounds can be classified as: not existent, low, medium, unknown and high. The conclusions are as follows: • the five pharmaceutical for which EQS values were derived have a risk probability that is low (ciprofloxacin, propranolol) or negligible (irbesartan, valsartan, metformin) • the risk appears low for dicofol and dichlorvos and is medium for terbutryn • for lack of data, the risk posed by quinoxyfen, aclonifen, bifenox, cypermethrin, HBCD and heptachlor is classified as “unknown” • for three priority substances, the risk is high: PFOS, dioxin like PCBs and cybutryne • a number of compounds require additional monitoring: quinoxyfen, aclonifen, bifenox, PFOS and to a lesser extent this also applies to ciprofloxacin • PFOS, dioxins and dl-PCBs, HBCD, heptachlor have been banned but are of long term risk due to their persistence, continued releases from landfills and presence in sediments 1 In Switzerland, intensive monitoring programmes on micropollutants were conducted within the NAWA SPEZ programme in 2012 and 2015 (www.bafu.admin/nawa; e.g. Doppler et al. 2017). Cypermethrin data from 2012 are incorporated into this report, other data from 2012 and data from 2015 that are not covered here do not affect the conclusions of this report. iii Title optional Content Summary iii 1 Background to the Water Framework Directive and EU prioritization process ......................... 1 1.1 The Water Framework directive ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 EU priority substances ....................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Aim of the report ................................................................................................................ 2 2 Exposure and risk assessment of 12 new EU priority substances and five pharmaceuticals for Switzerland ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 MicroPoll database ............................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Information on exposure data from neighbouring countries, literature sources and expert feedback .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Evaluating and classifying the risk of EQS exceedance ................................................... 6 2.4 Surface water and biota concentrations – exposure, risk and recommendations ............. 7 2.4.1 Dicofol AA-EQS = 1.3 ng/L ................................................................................... 7 2.4.2 PFOS AA-EQS = 0.65 ng/L or 230 ng/L .............................................................. 8 2.4.3 Quinoxyfen AA-EQS = 150 ng/L ........................................................................ 10 2.4.4 Dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs biota-EQS = 6.5 ng/kg ........................................ 11 2.4.5 Aclonifen AA-EQS = 120 ng/L ............................................................................ 12 2.4.6 Bifenox AA-EQS = 12 ng/L ................................................................................. 13 2.4.7 Cybutryne (Irgarol) AA-EQS = 2.5 ng/L ............................................................. 15 2.4.8 Cypermethrin AA-EQS = 0.08 ng/L .................................................................... 16 2.4.9 Dichlorvos AA-EQS = 0.6 ng/L ........................................................................... 17 2.4.10 Hexabromocyclododecan AA-EQS = 1.6 ng/L ................................................... 18 2.4.11 Heptachlor and Heptachlorepoxide AA-EQS = 0.0002 ng/L .............................. 19 2.4.12 Terbutryn AA-EQS = 65 ng/L ............................................................................. 20 2.4.13 Irbesartan AA-EQS = 704’000 ng/L ................................................................... 22 2.4.14 Valsartan AA-EQS = 560’000 ng/L ................................................................... 23 2.4.15 Ciprofloxacin AA-EQS = 89 ng/L ....................................................................... 24 2.4.16 Propranolol AA-EQS = 160 ng/L ........................................................................ 25 2.4.17 Metformin AA-EQS = 1’000’000 ng/L ................................................................. 26 2.5 Overall summary of exposure and risk evaluation .......................................................... 27 2.6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 29 3 References .............................................................................................................................. 30 4 Glossary 37 5 Indices 38 5.1 List of Figures .................................................................................................................. 38 5.2 List of Tables ................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix 1 NORMAN Empodat data.......................................................................................... 40 iv Title optional 1 Background to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review of Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation With
    Eurasian watermilfoil in Christmas Lake, 2011 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Prepared for: Prepared by: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Steve McComas Blue Water Science St. Paul, MN 55116 September 2011 1 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Steve McComas, Blue Water Science Table of Contents page number Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Use of Herbicides as an Aquatic Plant Control Technique ...................................................................................... 2 How Herbicides Work and Their Mode of Action ....................................................................................................... 3 Aquatic Herbicide Impacts on Humans and the Ecosystem ....................................................................................... 8 Where to Find Sources of Specific Information on herbicide Products and Their Active Ingredients ....................... 16 Harvesting, Drawdown, and Biocontrol as Aquatic Plant Control Techniques ................................................... 17 Summary of Control Techniques for Non-Native Curlyleaf Pondweed and Eurasian Watermilfoil ................... 25 Control Techniques for Other
    [Show full text]
  • Removal Rate of Herbicide Aclonifen with Isolated Bacteria and Fungi - 351
    Erguven et al.: Removal rate of herbicide aclonifen with isolated bacteria and fungi - 351 - REMOVAL RATE OF HERBICIDE ACLONIFEN WITH ISOLATED BACTERIA AND FUNGI ERGUVEN, G. O.1* ‒ BAYHAN, H.2 ‒ IKIZOGLU, B.2,3 ‒ KANAT, G.2 ‒ DEMİR, G.4 1Tunceli Univesity, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Environmental Engineering, 62000, Tunceli-TURKEY 2Yildiz Technical University, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Environmental Engineering, 34220, Istanbul-TURKEY 3Suleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Emvironmental Engineering, 32260, Isparta-TURKEY 4Kirklareli University, Faculty of Architechture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 39100, Kirklareli-TURKEY *corresponding author e-mail:[email protected] (Received 5th Nov 2015; accepted 5th Mar 2016) Abstract. In this research the microbial biodegradation of aclonifen was investigated using liquid and soil experiments with identified cultures and mixed consortia. Isolated fungi and bacteria consortia showed the highest degradation at 93% of the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) parameter over five days. Bacteria mix and fungi mix performed 90% and 91% degradation in five days, as COD, while 71% and 91% were active ingredients. For Total Organic Carbon (TOC) experimental results, bacteria mix, fungi mix, and bacteria and fungi mix, showed 86%, 88% and 88% respectively. Soil studies with mixed cultures of bacteria and fungi performed the most efficient degradation, at 97% after five weeks. The degradation of aclonifen by 2 ml mixed cultures showed about 63% of degradation in five weeks and 5 ml of mixed cultures showed about 90% in six weeks. Keywords: microbial biodegradation, aclonifen, mixed consortia, chemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon Introduction One of the main factors of environmental pollution is the excessive use of chemicals and pesticides, used on a global scale, to increase production and for the protection of crops.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interactive Database to Explore Herbicide Physicochemical Properties
    Electronic Supplementary Material (ESI) for Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 Supplementary Information An interactive database to explore herbicide physicochemical properties Michael N. Gandy,a Maxime G. Corral,a,b Joshua S. Mylnea,b* and Keith A. Stubbsa* aSchool of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] bARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Perth 6009, Australia Materials and Methods Compound selection To gather a comprehensive list of herbicides the literature was initially surveyed and all compounds listed in previous reviews1 were incorporated. Compounds were also sourced from the World of Herbicides provided by Herbicide Resistance Action Committee and produced by Syngenta as well as from the EU pesticide database, Department of Horticulture database (University of Kentucky), Urban Integrated Pest Management database (University of Arizona) and Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries (Republic of South Africa) and the Pesticide Manual 2. A textual list of the 334 compound names follows: 2,4,5-T; 2,4-D; 2,4-DB; acetochlor; acifluorfen; aclonifen; acrolein; alachlor; allidochlor; alloxydim; ametryne; amicarbazone; amidosulfuron; aminocyclopyrachlor; aminopyralid; amiprophos-methyl; amitrole; anilofos; asulam; atrazine; azafenidin; azimsulfuron; beflubutamid; benazolin; benazolin-ethyl; benfluralin; benfuresate; bensulfuron-
    [Show full text]
  • REGISTRATION REPORT Part a Risk Management
    Part A 102000001708 (Aclonifen & Isoxaflutole SC Registration Report – National Assessment - Country – FRANCE 575) (LAGON) Southern Zone Page 1 of 30 REGISTRATION REPORT Part A Risk Management Product code: 102000001708 (Aclonifen & Isoxaflutole SC 575) Product name: LAGON Active Substances: aclonifen, 500 g/L isoxaflutole, 75 g/L COUNTRY: FRANCE Southern Zone Zonal Rapporteur Member State: France NATIONAL ASSESSMENT FRANCE (marketing authorisation) Applicant: BAYER S.A.S. Date: 08/03/2016 Applicant: BAYER S.A.S. Evaluator: FRANCE Date: 08/03/2016 Part A 102000001708 (Aclonifen & Isoxaflutole SC Registration Report – National Assessment - Country – FRANCE 575) (LAGON) Southern Zone Page 2 of 30 Table of Contents 1 DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 APPLICATION BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 ACTIVE SUBSTANCE APPROVAL ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 REGULATORY APPROACH ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 DATA PROTECTION CLAIMS .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 LETTER(S) OF ACCESS ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inorganic and Organic Complete Product Catalog
    Welcome Spex CertiPrep has been servicing the scientific community since 1954. We have grown into the industry’s most passionate and reliable manufacturer of Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) and Calibration Standards for Analytical Spectroscopy and Chromatography. We are pleased to share with you the latest and greatest Spex CertiPrep Certified Reference Materials catalog. This flip-book style catalog includes our Inorganic Certified Reference Materials on one side and Organic Certified Reference Materials on the other. Our primary focus is to provide Inorganic and Organic CRMs of the highest quality and superior customer support. The Inorganic Standards are manufactured for AA, ICP, ICP-MS, IC, XRF, and other analytical instrumentation. The Organic Standards are manufactured for GC, GC/MS, HPLC, LC/MS, and other analytical instrumentation. Spex CertiPrep Group is accredited by A2LA to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ISO 17034:2016 and by DQS to ISO 9001:2015. Our accreditation is the most comprehensive in the industry and encompasses all of our manufactured products. Our Inorganic product line expands as technology improves. Ninety-nine percent of stock orders ship within 24-48 hours and custom standards are manufactured and shipped within 5 business days. We are proud to offer many new and diverse Inorganic products in this catalog, including: Speciation Standards Carbon Black 1 ppm ICP-MS Single Element Standards USP <232>, <233> & <2232> Elemental Impurities Certified pH Buffers Multi-Element Standards for the latest EPA Methods European Methods Our heritage is our passion for science and dedication to the analytical community. We appreciate your business and look forward to working with you in the years to come.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 5,232,484 Pignatello 45 Date of Patent: Aug
    USOO5232484A United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 5,232,484 Pignatello 45 Date of Patent: Aug. 3, 1993 (54). DEGRADATION OF PESTICIDES BY Waste Disposal Proceedings EPA/600/9-85/030, pp. FERRC REAGENTS AND PEROXDEN 72 to 85. THE PRESENCE OF LIGHT Johnson, L. J., and Talbot, H. W., 39 Experimentia 1236-1246 (1983). 75 Inventor: Joseph J. Pignatello, Hamden, Conn. Mill, T., and Haag, W. R., Preprints of Extended Ab 73 Assignee: The Connecticut Agricultural stracts, 198th Nat. Meeting Amer. Chem. Soc. Div. Experiment Station, New Haven, Env, Chem., A.C.S., Washington, 1969, paper 155, pp. Conn. 342-345. 21 Appl. No.: 744,365 Munnecke, D. M., 70 Residue Rev. 1-26 (1979). Murphy, A. P., et al., 23 Environ. Sci. Technol. 166-169 22 Filed: Aug. 13, 1991 (1989). 51 int. Ci...................... A01N 37/38; A01N 43/70; Nye, J. C., 1985 National Workshop on Pesticide Waste CO2F 1/72 Disposal Proceedings EPA/600/9-85/030 pp. 43 to 52 U.S.C. .................................... 588/206; 210/759; 480. 588/207; 588/210 Plimmer, J. R., et al., 19 J.Agr. Food Chem. 572-573 58 Field of Search ........................... 71/117, 116,93; (1971). 210/749, 758, 759 Schmidt, C., 1986 National Workshop on Pesticide Waste Disposal Proceedings EPA/600/9-87/001, pp. 56) References Cited 45 to 52. U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS Sedlak, D. L. and Andren, A. W., 25 Environ. Sci. 3,819,516 6/1974 Murchison et al. ................... 422A24 Technol. 777-782 (1991). 4,569,769 2/1986 Walton et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Herbicide Resistance: Toward an Understanding of Resistance Development and the Impact of Herbicide-Resistant Crops William K
    Weed Science 2012 Special Issue:2–30 Herbicide Resistance: Toward an Understanding of Resistance Development and the Impact of Herbicide-Resistant Crops William K. Vencill, Robert L. Nichols, Theodore M. Webster, John K. Soteres, Carol Mallory-Smith, Nilda R. Burgos, William G. Johnson, and Marilyn R. McClelland* Table of Contents and how they affect crop production and are affected by management practices, and to present the environmental impacts Executive Summary……………………………………… 2 of herbicide-resistant crops. This paper will summarize aspects of I. Introduction: A Summary of Weed Science Practices herbicide resistance in five different sections: (1) a description of and Concepts………………………………………… 3 basic weed science management practices and concepts, (2) II. Resistance and Tolerance in Weed Science………… 12 definitions of resistance and tolerance in weed science, (3) envi- III. Environmental Impacts of Herbicide Resistance in ronmental impacts of herbicide-resistant crops, (4) strategies for Crops………………………………………………… 15 management of weed species shifts and herbicide-resistant weeds IV. Strategies for Managing Weed Species Shifts and Devel- and adoption by the agricultural community, and (5) gene-flow opment of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds…………………… 16 potential from herbicide-resistant crops. V. Gene Flow from Herbicide-Resistant Crops………… 19 Literature Cited…………………………………………… 24 Section 1: Introduction. To avoid or delay the development of resistant weeds, a diverse, integrated program of weed management practices is required to minimize reliance
    [Show full text]
  • Aclonifen EQS Dossier 2011
    Aclonifen EQS dossier 2011 ACLONIFEN This EQS dossier was prepared by the Sub-Group on Review of the Priority Substances List (under Working Group E of the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive). The dossier was reviewed by the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), which commented that the data do not support P (persistence) classification of Aclonifen. The SCHER took a different view from the Sub-Group on how to consider bound residues and on the appropriateness of applying a temperature correction (to 12oC) to laboratory test results. The issue is likely to require further discussion. 1 CHEMICAL IDENTITY Common name Aclonifen Chemical name (IUPAC) 2-chloro-6-nitro-3-phenoxyaniline Synonym(s) 2-chloro-6-nitro-3-phenoxybenzenamine Chemical class (when available/relevant) Diphenylethers CAS number 74070-46-5 EU number 277-704-1 Molecular formula C12H9ClN2O3 Molecular structure Molecular weight (g.mol-1) 264.7 2 EXISTING EVALUATIONS AND REGULATORY INFORMATION Annex III EQS Dir. (2008/105/EC) Not Included Existing Substances Reg. (793/93/EC) Not applicable Pesticides(91/414/EEC) Included in Annex I Biocides (98/8/EC) Not applicable Not investigated by ex-EU PBT working group, however, aclonifen should be considered as a candidate PBT. • no decline is observed in sediment in a water/sediment PBT substances study (see EFSA conclusion List of endpoints*) • BCF > 2000 L/kg (see 4.1) • NOEC < 0.01 mg/L (fish, algae, see 5.1) POPs (Stockholm convention) Not investigated. * http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/149r.pdf 1 Aclonifen EQS dossier 2011 Aclonifen was discussed under OSPAR and was found to not fulfill the criteria listed for POPs.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Sunflower Weed Control in the Usa
    118373_Vol_1.qxp 8/16/04 10:44 AM Page 435 Crop Production: Weeds ADVANCES IN SUNFLOWER WEED CONTROL IN THE USA Richard K. Zollinger, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5051 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Lack of effective broadleaf herbicides registered in sunflower has made weeds the most important pest infesting U.S. sunflower production. Trifluralin and ethalfluralin were applied to most sunflower land, which control only a few of the weeds infesting sunflower, and require soil incorporation which limits no-till or conservation tillage. Since 1999, three weed control technologies have been developed in the U.S. for weed control in sunflower. First, sulfentrazone, a soil-applied herbicide, provides residual control of most small-seeded broadleaf weeds, has excellent sunflower safety, and has few crop rotation restrictions. Second, “Clearfield” sunflower is resistant to imidazolinone herbicides, is non-transgenic, and has significantly contributed to no-till sunflower production. Imazamox, a postemergence, ALS herbicide controls most annual grass and broadleaf weeds infesting sunflower in “Clearfield” sunflower, does not control ALS resistant weeds, has excellent safety to Clearfield sunflower, and has some follow- crop rotation restrictions to non-legume broadleaf crops. Third, tribenuron (Express)- resistant sunflower is resistant only to tribenuron of all sulfonylurea herbicides and all other herbicides of ALS chemistries, and is non-transgenic. Tribenuron, a postemergence, ALS herbicide controls most annual broadleaf weeds and Circium arvensis, has excellent tribenuron resistant sunflower safety, and has no follow-crop rotation restrictions. These three weed control systems allow control of most grass and broadleaf weeds in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Proving the Mode of Action of Phytotoxic Phytochemicals
    plants Review Proving the Mode of Action of Phytotoxic Phytochemicals Stephen O. Duke 1,* , Zhiqiang Pan 2 and Joanna Bajsa-Hirschel 2 1 National Center for Natural Products Research, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS 38655, USA 2 Natural Products Utilization Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Oxford, MS 38655, USA; [email protected] (Z.P.); [email protected] (J.B.-H.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-662-915-7882 Received: 20 November 2020; Accepted: 7 December 2020; Published: 11 December 2020 Abstract: Knowledge of the mode of action of an allelochemical can be valuable for several reasons, such as proving and elucidating the role of the compound in nature and evaluating its potential utility as a pesticide. However, discovery of the molecular target site of a natural phytotoxin can be challenging. Because of this, we know little about the molecular targets of relatively few allelochemicals. It is much simpler to describe the secondary effects of these compounds, and, as a result, there is much information about these effects, which usually tell us little about the mode of action. This review describes the many approaches to molecular target site discovery, with an attempt to point out the pitfalls of each approach. Clues from molecular structure, phenotypic effects, physiological effects, omics studies, genetic approaches, and use of artificial intelligence are discussed. All these approaches can be confounded if the phytotoxin has more than one molecular target at similar concentrations or is a prophytotoxin, requiring structural alteration to create an active compound.
    [Show full text]