DOCSLIB.ORG

Combining Bensulide and Pendimethalin Controls Weeds in Onions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Combining Bensulide and Pendimethalin Controls Weeds in Onions UC Agriculture & Natural Resources California Agriculture Title Combining bensulide and pendimethalin controls weeds in onions Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/91w4d06x Journal California Agriculture, 55(1) ISSN 0008-0845 Authors Bell, Carl E. Boutwell, Brent Publication Date 2001 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Onion field trials comparing bensulide and bensulide plus pendimethalin to DCPA and untreated control. Areas with green seed lines of onion without weeds are either DCPA or bensulide plus pendimethalin. Combining bensulide and pendimethalin controls weeds in onions Carl E. Bell P Brent E. Boutwell DCPA was the principal preemer- ry bulb onions (Allium cepn L.) ing does not allow room for cultiva- gence herbicide for controlling D are grown throughout Califor- tion equipment. Any hand weeding weeds in onions until its manufac- nia for fresh consumption and for that is done requires the use of as- ture was discontinued in 1996, processing into dried products. In paragus knives, which are about 1.5 although it may be reintroduced in 1997 there were about 46,000 acres of inches wide, or hand pulling rather 2001. The purpose of this research dry bulb onions in California, worth than hoes. Using hoes would take was to test the effectiveness of a over $140 million. Weed control in out at least as many onions as weeds. onions relies heavily on herbicides Another reason for reliance on her- combination of two herbicides, for several reasons. One reason is the bicides is the slow germination of the bensulide and pendimethalin, as close spacing of the crop. Most on- onion from seed and the slow growth a replacement weed-control treat- ions are direct seeded on the tops of of small onions; both factors allow ment. Results are encouraging; beds spaced at 40 to 42 inches (Voss weeds to get a head start on the crop this combination performed as well and Mayberry 1999a; Voss and (Rubin 1990). A third reason for the re- as DCPA in 12 onion field trials Mayberry 1999b). The top of the bed, liance on herbicides is that onions do conducted in the Imperial Valley. which is about 22 inches wide, has not compete well against weeds, espe- Onion yields in fields treated with four to six seedlines just far enough cially early in the production cycle bensulide and pendimethalin were apart to accommodate the mature (Rubin 1990). Onions have narrow, up- comparable to that of fields treated bulbs. The crop is planted to a stand, right leaves that do not shade the with DCPA. so no thinning takes place. This spac- ground to inhibit competitors. CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2001 35 These reasons demonstrate the need soil-active herbicide registered for on- cause none met the criteria for adop- for preemergence herbicides, which ions that is used only after the crop tion cited in the previous paragraph. are used when seeds are sown, to give has emerged. This herbicide is not reg- the onions a chance early in the season istered for preemergence use because Cooperative grower trials against much quicker growing and it has been shown to cause significant All of these experiments were con- competitive weeds. In addition, onion stand loss and injury at rates ducted in cooperative grower fields in postemergence herbicides are used to typically used when growing more tol- the Imperial Valley of southeastern keep fields weed-free in order to pro- erant crops, such as cotton. However, California. In this area, onions are duce optimum yield, quality and ease .a very low rate of this herbicide may planted in the fall, around mid-October, of harvest. be safe enough for the crop while suf- for a spring harvest. The first year of DCPA has been the staple preemer- ficiently improving weed control the study, referred to as 1998, spanned gence herbicide for onions for about 3 when combined with bensulide. the winter season of 1997-1998. The decades. It is a versatile and reliable In 1997 we initiated field research second year, referred to as 1999, herbicide, effectively controlling most to evaluate bensulide - applied alone spanned the 1998-1999 growing sea- annual weeds of onions, except those at 4 and 6 lb ai/acre (pounds of active son. Twelve experiments are reported, grown in soils high in organic matter. ingredient per acre) - and a com- six in 1998 and six more in 1999, each Unfortunately, in 1996, manufacture of bined treatment of bensulide at 4 lb on a different field. Two in each year DCPA herbicide was discontinued, ai/acre plus pendimethalin at 0.25 lb were on fields planted to dry bulb leaving onion growers in North ai/acre as alternatives to DCPA at 9 lb market onions (Imperial Valley America and elsewhere without an ef- ai/acre. For adoption of this treatment Sweets); the rest of the experiments fective alternative. Another manufac- by onion growers in California, a suc- were on dry bulb dehydrator onions, turer has acquired the production and cessful treatment had to include weed those destined for drying and process- marketing rights to DCPA and intends control equivalent to DCPA and ad- ing. We recorded soil type, planting to have it available in the spring of equate crop safety. An important fea- date (which is the same as the herbi- 2001. The only other currently regis- ture of these two alternative herbicide cide application date) and harvest tered preemergence herbicide for on- treatments was that they were both al- dates for each field (table 1). ions is bensulide. Previous experi- ready registered for use in onions in Herbicides were applied by hand ence with bensulide has shown that the United States, including California, with a C0,-pressured sprayer at 30 it does not control nearly as many and only slight changes in label direc- psi, using 8003 flat fan nozzles and weeds as DCPA and that there is tions were required to allow the differ- typically delivering 35 gallons per acre some risk of crop injury at dosages ent uses tested here. spray volume. After the preemergence normally used to achieve optimal A selection of other herbicides, both herbicides were applied, the growers weed control in other crops, such as old and new, was included in this re- did all subsequent postemergence her- melons and lettuce. search. The older herbicides were bicide applications as part of their in- those that had shown some promise in dividual production practices. Herbi- Combining two herbicides previous research in California on on- cides varied by grower and field, but At the suggestion of a local pest ions. The new herbicides were those may have included bromoxynil and/ control adviser (see acknow- that had not been tested on onions, to or oxyfluourfen for broadleaf weeds, ledgements), we conducted experi- our knowledge, but that were already and fluazifop, sethoxydim or cletho- ments to test bensulide at a low rate registered on other crops, such as corn dim for grasses. Fields were visually combined with a very low rate of or soybean. Data on the results of evaluated for weed control and crop pendimethalin. Pendimethalin is a these herbicides were not included be- vigor when the crop had one to two true leaves, before these postemer- gence herbicides were applied. Stand counts, a measure of onion plant den- sity, were made on all experiments af- ter the crop had finished germinating, generally at the two-to-four-leaf stage of growth. Yield data was obtained from nine of the fields when the rest of the field was being harvested, includ- ing all eight of the dehydrator onion fields but only one of the market onion fields. Onion plant density and yield data were subjected to factorial analysis of 36 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, VOLUME 55, NUMBER 1 variance. Because of significant inter- cept for nettleleaf goosefoot, bensulide DCPA and satisfied one of our crite- actions between years, locations and alone did not control these weeds well ria for success. location within years with treatment, enough to be acceptable to typical on- each trial was analyzed separately us- ion growers, especially at the lower Crop safety and yield ing two-way analysis of variance. dosage of 4 lb ai/acre. These results The other important criterion for Treatment means were separated us- are consistent with previous experi- this study was crop safety, which was ing Fisher’s Protected LSD (0.05). ments with bensulide on other crops measured as crop stand (population Some of these treatment means were such as melons and lettuce. The com- density) and yield. DCPA did not ad- also compared using single degree of bination treatment of bensulide plus versely affect onion density compared freedom class comparisons (orthogo- pendimethalin controlled all four to the untreated control in any of the nal contrasts). Visual evaluations were weed species. This was in spite of the 12 field trials (table 3). Bensulide, how- not analyzed statistically. fact that the rates used for each her- ever, did reduce onion density in five bicide were lower than normally fields in the 1999 experiments, but did Weed control used in other row crops. A typical not affect any of the fields adversely in Four weed species - nettleleaf bensulide rate is 6 lb ai/acre, com- 1998. In 1999, bensulide, when applied goosefoot, little mallow, London pared to the 4 lb ai/acre used here, at the higher rate, reduced onion den- rocket and annual sowthistle - were and a rate of 0.75 to 1.0 lb ai/acre is sity 4% to 70% in four of the fields abundantly represented in 4 (annual typical for pendimethalin instead of compared to the DCPA treatment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comments of Teresa Homan with Attachments
    Teresa Homan Watertown, SD 57201 I am a landowner in Deuel County, South Dakota. Our land boarders the Deuel Harvest Wind Project in Deuel county, Docket # EL 18-053. There are 112 towers cited in the project, with 9 towers within a mile of our property. We have spent over three decades developing this property to enhance wildlife and for the enjoyment of our family. Can you imagine how we felt when we found we have a population of eastern bluebirds? We have yellow warblers, which by the way feed on the web worms that form in our trees. We have orioles, cedar waxwings, brown thrashers, rose breasted grosbeaks, gold finches, purple finches, robins, blue jays, nuthatches, eastern kingbirds, bitterns, dark eyed juncos, red winged blackbirds, morning doves, owls, cow birds, northern mocking birds, grey cat birds, wood thrushes, tufted titmouse, king fishers, indigo buntings, scarlet tanagers, bobolinks, meadowlarks, many woodpeckers, turkeys, turkey vultures, even humming birds and bald eagles. There are more, just to numerous to list. Many of these birds we have seen for the first time in our lives on this property in the past 1 O years. Not only are these birds beautiful and fun to watch, they have their purpose in the ecosystem. We also see northern long eared bats, that are on the endangered list in South Dakota. These birds are making a come back after the use of insecticides that nearly wiped out many. In the 1940's the insecticide DDT was introduced for public use, it is now banned from sale. In 1976 the herbicide Roundup was introduced to the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Acute Noaels and Benchmark Doses for Female Brain Cholinesterase Inhibition
    Supplemental Material for: February 5-8, 2002 SAP 25 January 2002 Comparison of Acute NOAELs and Benchmark Doses for Female Brain Cholinesterase Inhibition In cumulative risk assessment, it is important to characterize both the time frame for exposure (e.g., What is the exposure duration?) and for the toxic effect (e.g., What are the time to peak effects and the time to recovery?). In the Preliminary Cumulative Risk Assessment of the Organophoshate Pesticides (OPs) relative potency factors (RPFs) for 29 chemicals and points of departure (PODs) and the index chemical were determined based on whole brain cholinesterase (ChE) data from toxicity studies of 21 days and longer. The Office of Pesticide Programs has argued that the use of steady state data for relative potency determination generates relative potency factors (RPFs) that are reproducible and reflect less variability than RPFs derived from single-dose or short-term studies where the extent of inhibition changes rapidly immediately following dosing. OPP has posed a question to the FIFRA SAP for the February 5-8, 2002 review concerning how best to evaluate risk, taking into account the temporal characteristics of the hazard endpoint (i.e., cholinesterase inhibition) and the temporal characteristics of the exposure patterns for the food, drinking water, and residential/nonoccupational pathways. In order to facilitate the panel discussion, a table listing the available single dose toxicity studies performed with OPs has been made. Most of the studies are acute neurotoxicity (ACN) studies (OPPT Guideline 870.6200, OPP Guideline 81-8) administered by gavage. Acute lethality studies were not included. Dose levels, no- observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs), and no-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs) for female brain ChE are also listed in the table.
    [Show full text]
  • For Methyl Parathion
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs TO: Jim Jones, Director Office of Pesticide Programs As you know, EPA has completed its assessment of the cumulative risks from the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition, the individual OPs have also been subject to review through the individual- chemical review process. The Agency’s review of individual OPs has resulted in the issuance of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) for 22 OPs, interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for 8 OPs, and a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for one OP, malathion.1 These 31 OPs are listed in Appendix A. EPA has concluded, after completing its assessment of the cumulative risks associated with exposures to all of the OPs, that: (1) the pesticides covered by the IREDs that were pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment (listed in Attachment A) are indeed eligible for reregistration; and 1 Malathion is included in the OP cumulative assessment. However, the Agency has issued a RED for malathion, rather than an IRED, because the decision was signed on the same day as the completion of the OP cumulative assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Role in the Chemical and Biological Disarmament Regimes
    ERIC CRODDY China’s Role in the Chemical and Biological Disarmament Regimes ERIC CRODDY Eric Croddy is a Senior Research Associate at the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies. He is the author of Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Comprehensive Survey for the Concerned Citizen (New York: Copernicus Books, 2001). odern China has been linked with the prolif- least—and with considerable diplomatic effort—China eration of nuclear, chemical, and missile weap- broadcasts its commitment to both the CWC and the Mons technology to states of proliferation con- BWC. cern, and its compliance with arms control and disarma- Few unclassified publications analyze the role that CBW ment is seen as key to the effectiveness of weapons of have played in Chinese military strategy, nor is much in- 1 mass destruction (WMD) nonproliferation efforts. In this formation available on Beijing’s approach to negotiating context, the answer to Gerald Segal’s question, “Does CBW disarmament treaties. This is not surprising: China 2 China really matter?” is most definitely, “Yes.” In the is an extremely difficult subject for study where sensitive realm of chemical and biological weapons (CBW), military matters are concerned. A 1998 report by Dr. Bates Beijing’s role is closely linked to its view of the multilat- Gill, Case Study 6: People’s Republic of China, published eral disarmament regimes for CBW, namely the Chemi- by the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, cal Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological and was the first to seriously address the issue of China and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC), and of related mul- CBW proliferation.
    [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]
  • 400 Part 180—Tolerances And
    Pt. 180 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–11 Edition) (iv) The data and information sub- 180.4 Exceptions. mitted in support of the petition. 180.5 Zero tolerances. (v) The notice of filing of the peti- 180.6 Pesticide tolerances regarding milk, tion. eggs, meat, and/or poultry; statement of policy. (3) Any order issued under § 180.29(f) of this chapter to which the objection Subpart B—Procedural Regulations related, the regulation that was the subject of that order, and each related 180.7 Petitions proposing tolerances or ex- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. emptions for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities or proc- (4) The comments submitted by mem- essed foods. bers of the public in response to the 180.8 Withdrawal of petitions without preju- Notice of Filing or Notice of Proposed dice. Rulemaking, and the information sub- 180.9 Substantive amendments to petitions. mitted as part of the comments, the 180.29 Establishment, modification, and rev- Administrator’s response to comments ocation of tolerance on initiative of Ad- and the documents or information re- ministrator. lied on by the Administrator in issuing 180.30 Judicial review. 180.31 Temporary tolerances. the regulation or order. 180.32 Procedure for modifying and revoking (5) All other documents or informa- tolerances or exemptions from toler- tion submitted to the docket for the ances. rulemaking in question under parts 177 180.33 Fees. or part 180 of this chapter. 180.34 Tests on the amount of residue re- (6) The Notice of Hearing published maining. under § 179.20.
    [Show full text]
  • For Bensulide Will Be Finalized Once the Cumulative Assessment for All of the Organophosphate Pesticides Is Complete
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs TO: Jim Jones, Director Office of Pesticide Programs As you know, EPA has completed its assessment of the cumulative risks from the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition, the individual OPs have also been subject to review through the individual- chemical review process. The Agency’s review of individual OPs has resulted in the issuance of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) for 22 OPs, interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for 8 OPs, and a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for one OP, malathion.1 These 31 OPs are listed in Appendix A. EPA has concluded, after completing its assessment of the cumulative risks associated with exposures to all of the OPs, that: (1) the pesticides covered by the IREDs that were pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment (listed in Attachment A) are indeed eligible for reregistration; and 1 Malathion is included in the OP cumulative assessment. However, the Agency has issued a RED for malathion, rather than an IRED, because the decision was signed on the same day as the completion of the OP cumulative assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Glyphosate - Not an Organophosphate
    GLYPHOSATE - NOT AN ORGANOPHOSPHATE Glyphosate, an active ingredient in Roundup branded herbicides, is periodically referred to as an organophosphate. This contributes to the incorrect perception that glyphosate is a cholinesterase inhibitor like various well-known insecticides. As a result, some patients who ingested Roundup brandeds herbicide have received inappropriate medical treatment which may have worsened their condition. The intent of this bulletin is to clarify the structural/biological characteristics of glyphosate and prevent improper medical care. It has become customary to generically refer to any organic compound containing phosphorous as an “organophosphate”. However, there are actually different classes of “organic phosphate” compounds that are determined by the atoms attached to the phosphorus. The phosphorus atom of a true 1 organophosphate is attached only to oxygen atoms (Figure 1). OR1 | Figure 1. R2 - O - P = O | OR3 where R1-3 are compound -specific side chains The structure of glyphosate is different in two important respects. First, the phosphorus atom is attached to the remainder of the molecule by a carbon atom, not an oxygen (Figure 2). This classifies the glyphosate molecule as an “organophosphonate”1. Secondly, there are no other side chains attached to the phosphorus atom. Glyphosate consists of a glycine moiety and a phosphonomethyl moiety. O H H OH || | | | Figure 2. HO - C - C - N - C - P = O | | | | H H H OH These distinctions are important for the following reason. The nature of the groups attached to the phosphorous determine how strongly the molecule will interact with the enzyme cholinesterase1. The groups attached to the phosphorus of a true organophosphate allow it to be readily broken by cholinesterase.
    [Show full text]
  • Ehab Shaaban Mohamed EL-Osely M.B., B
    INFLUENCE OF SOME PESTICIDES ON HUMORAL AND CELLULAR IMMUNITY OF EXPOSED WORKERS IN PESTICIDES INDUSTRIES By Ehab Shaaban Mohamed EL-Osely M.B., B. Ch. Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams university1994 Master in radiodiagnosis, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams university1998 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree In Environmental Science Department of Medical Science Institute of Environmental Studies & Research Ain Shams University Under The Supervision of: 1- Prof. Dr. Mostafa Mohamed EL Rasad Prof. of Biochemistry Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University 2- Dr. Mahmoud Lotfy Sakr Associate Prof. of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University 3- Prof. Dr. Zidan Hindy Abdel Hamid Zidan Prof. of Pesticides Chemistry and Toxicology Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University 4- Dr. Amany Mohamed Ezz El-Din Associate Prof. in Radiation Health Research Department National Center for Radiation Research and Technology 5- Dr. Inas Mohamed Fawzy Gaballah Associate Prof. of Industrial medicine Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University 2010 - 1 - Acknowledgement First and foremost thanks to ALLAH to whom I relate any success in achieving any work in my life. I would like to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to the sole of Prof. Dr. Mostafa Mohamed EL- Rasad, Professor of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine Ain Shams University, for suggesting and planning this study. No words can express my deepest thanks to him. My sincere appreciation and special thanks to assistant professor Dr. Mahmoud Lotfy Sakr, assistant professor of clinical toxicology, Faculty of Medicine Ain Shams University, for his overwhelming kindness and encouragement, his keen supervision, continuous guidance, experienced advice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods Regulations
    1 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND WASTE DANGEROUS GOODS E-10.2 REG 3 The Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods Regulations being Chapter E-10.2 Reg 3 (effective April 1, 1989) as amended by Saskatchewan Regulations 25/92, 107/92, 28/94, 3/95 and 63/2000. NOTE: This consolidation is not official. Amendments have been incorporated for convenience of reference and the original statutes and regulations should be consulted for all purposes of interpretation and application of the law. In order to preserve the integrity of the original statutes and regulations, errors that may have appeared are reproduced in this consolidation. 2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND E-10.2 REG 3 WASTE DANGEROUS GOODS Table of Contents 1 Title 11 Decision to grant approval INTERPRETATION 12 Approval not assignable, exception 2 Interpretation 13 Duties of operator, owner HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 14 Prohibition re storage in above-ground tanks 3 Designation of hazardous substances 15 Prohibition re storage in underground tanks 16 Prohibition re storage in certain containers or DESIGNATION AS HAZARDOUS WASTES stockpiles 3.1 Designation of waste dangerous goods 17 Decommissioning as hazardous wastes TRANSFERAL OF WASTE DANGEROUS GOODS CHARACTERIZATION OF SUBSTANCES 18 Transferal of waste dangerous goods 4 Characteristics of certain hazardous substances EXEMPTION FROM REQUIREMENTS Appendix A 5 General Exemptions INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 6 Underground storage facilities Appendix B 7 Above-ground storage facilities ACUTE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 8 Storage in small containers Appendix C APPROVAL TO STORE ENVIRONMENTAL PERSISTENT OR 9 Approval to store CHRONIC HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT Appendix D 10 Approval to construct WASTE DANGEROUS GOODS 3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND WASTE DANGEROUS GOODS E-10.2 REG 3 CHAPTER E-10.2 REG 3 The Environmental Management and Protection Act Title 1 These regulations may be cited as The Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods Regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Recombinant Expression and Potential Applications of Bacterial Organophosphate
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Texas A&M Repository THE RECOMBINANT EXPRESSION AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF BACTERIAL ORGANOPHOSPHATE HYDROLASE IN Zea mays L. A Dissertation by TERRENCE SCOTT PINKERTON Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2004 Major Subject: Biochemistry THE RECOMBINANT EXPRESSION AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF BACTERIAL ORGANOPHOSPHATE HYDROLASE IN Zea mays L. A Dissertation by TERRENCE SCOTT PINKERTON Submitted to Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved as to style and content by: James R. Wild John A. Howard (Chair of Committee) (Member) J. Martin Scholtz William D. Park (Member) (Member) Stephen H. Safe Gregory D. Reinhart (Member) (Head of Department) May 2004 Major Subject: Biochemistry iii ABSTRACT The Recombinant Expression and Potential Applications of Bacterial Organophosphate Hydrolase in Zea mays L. (May 2004) Terrence Scott Pinkerton, B.S., University of Nebraska-Lincoln Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. James R. Wild Organophosphate hydrolase (OPH, EC 3.1.8.1) is a bacterial enzyme with a broad spectrum of potential substrates that include organophosphorus pesticides, herbicides, and chemical warfare agents. OPH has been expressed successfully in bacterial, fungal, and insect cell culture systems; however, none of these systems produces amounts of enzyme suitable for applications outside of the research laboratory. Therefore, a transgenic Zea mays L. (maize) system was developed to express OPH as an alternate to the current OPH expression systems.
    [Show full text]
  • FQPA: Economic Impact on Potatoes, Onions, Cabbage and Watermelon Produced in Texas
    E-36 3-00 FQPA: Economic Impact on Potatoes, Onions, Cabbage and Watermelon Produced in Texas Kent D. Hall and Rodney L. Holloway* *Extension Associate, Pesticide Assessment; and Associate Professor and Extension Pesticide Assessment Specialist, The Texas A&M University System. i Figure 1. Map of Texas displaying the major growing areas of the study. ii CONTENTS Executive Summary. .. 1 Introduction .................................................................. 2 Methods ..................................................................... 3 Results...................................................................... 4 Potatoes ............................................................... 5 Insects and Insecticides ............................................. 5 High Plains................................................. 5 Winter Garden.............................................. 6 Lower Rio Grande Valley ..................................... 6 All of Texas................................................ 7 Weeds and Herbicides.............................................. 7 High Plains................................................. 7 Winter Garden.............................................. 7 Lower Rio Grande Valley ..................................... 8 All of Texas................................................ 8 Diseases and Fungicides ............................................ 8 High Plains................................................. 8 Winter Garden.............................................. 9 Lower Rio Grande
    [Show full text]