DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquatic Pesticide Best Management Practices and Relational Database for the Protection of NOAA Trust Species by Kelsey L. Gianou

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquatic Pesticide Best Management Practices and Relational Database for the Protection of NOAA Trust Species by Kelsey L. Gianou Aquatic Pesticide Best Management Practices and Relational Database for the Protection of NOAA Trust Species by Kelsey L. Gianou PROJECT PAPER Submitted to Marine Resource Management Program College of Earth, Oceanic, & Atmospheric Sciences Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 2012 In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science Presented April 20, 2012 Commencement June, 2012 © Copyright by Kelsey L. Gianou May 11, 2012 All Rights Reserved Acknowledgements I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Samuel Chan, for giving me guidance and freedom for creativity throughout the project. I also thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Robert Emanuel for his continued support and Dr. Paul Jepson who stimulated several ideas for this project. I would also like to thank my team of Oregon Sea Grant scholars Amanda Slade, Sue Xiong, and especially Jennifer Lam, for without their help the project could not have been completed. Thank you to the program managers who participated in interviews. The quality and details of the case studies would not be so if they hadn’t participated. Last, but certainly not least, I thank my family. Thank you to my parents, who have supported and believed in my ambitions my entire life. And thank you to my husband, Jason Gianou, for his unwavering support, selfless sacrifices, and unconditional love. Contribution of Authors Drs. Samuel Chan, Robert Emanuel, and Paul Jepson have provided guidance and editorial assistance throughout the project. Drs. Chan, Emanuel, and Jepson as well as Jennifer Lam contributed to writing the technical synthesis report for NOAA included in this project paper. Jennifer Lam, Amanda Slade, and Sue Xiong contributed to the database. Abstract Pesticides are widely used to control undesirable pests and may be applied directly to water or lands directly adjacent to water. There can be unintended consequences, however, to native, threatened, and endangered species. There is little information on the impacts of aquatic pesticides and best management practices (BMPs) to NOAA Trust Species. The goal of this project is to provide a set of resources and examples of aquatic pesticide toxicity to NOAA Trust Species and BMPs to NOAA Fisheries Service agents and private and public resource managers. The products produced by this project are 1) an aquatic pesticide and NOAA Trust Species database, 2) a technical report synthesizing case studies and an aquatic pesticide BMP framework for aquatic pest control, and 3) an aquatic pesticide BMP framework applied to salmon habitat restoration programs for peer reviewed publication. The products produced by this project are to assist NOAA Fisheries agents in consulting on the issuance of the EPA’s 2011 National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit and to continue to provide assistance to NOAA Fisheries in determining entity eligibility and helping managers apply for inclusion under the 2011 NPDES Pesticide General Permit. The project products can also be used by private and public resource managers when developing and implementing aquatic pest control action plans with regards to the use of aquatic pesticides. The database highlights substantial gaps in ecotoxicity data of aquatic pesticides impacts to NOAA Trust Species. Taking a BMP approach to pesticide uses can help compensate for these gaps. Pest control managers, habitat restoration managers, and NOAA Fisheries Service agents will benefit from easily accessible, synthesized information on aquatic pesticides, their potential toxicity to NOAA Trust Species, and pesticide BMPs specific to aquatic pest control. Tools that could be utilized by all of these stakeholders could increase communication between these parties. This may lead to increased discussion and evaluation of the current knowledge of pesticide impacts and aquatic pesticide BMPs. Table of Contents Page Part I: Introduction and Summary……………………………………………………………..1 A. Background………………………………………………………………………………..1 B. Goals and Objectives……………………………………………………………………...3 C. Executive Summaries……………………………………………………………………...4 1. Part II: Aquatic Pesticide and NOAA Trust Species Toxicity Database………………….4 2. Part III: A Selected Synthesis of Literature and Case Studies on Best Management Practices for Reducing the Impacts of Pesticides in Aquatic Environments and Protecting NOAA Trust Species……………………………………………………………………...5 3. Part IV: A Best Management Practice Framework for Aquatic Pesticide Management to Limit Impacts to Salmon…………………………………………………………………..6 D. Lessons Learned…………………………………………………………………………...7 E. Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………………9 Part II: Aquatic Pesticide and NOAA Trust Species Toxicity Database……………………11 Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………..11 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………11 B. Why a Database of This Kind is Needed………………………………………………...12 C. Data Collection and Organization………………………………………………………..14 1. Caution Statement………………………………………………………………………..17 2. Pesticide Information…………………………………………………………………….18 2a. General Pesticide Information…………………………………………………………...18 2b. Human Acute and Chronic Toxicity……………………………………………………..18 2c. Environmental Fate………………………………………………………………………18 2d. Ecotoxicity Studies………………………………………………………………………18 2e. Regulatory Guidelines…………………………………………………………………...19 2f. Bioaccumulation…………………………………………………………………………19 3. Toxicity of Pesticide to NOAA Trust Species…………………………………………..19 3a. Acute LC50 (96h)………………………………………………………………………..19 3b. Level of Toxicity…………………………………………………………………………20 3c. Chronic LC50…………………………………………………………………………….20 3d. Sublethal/Behavior……………………………………………………………………….20 3e. Field Studies/Effects……………………………………………………………………..21 3f. Life Stage Categories…………………………………………………………………….21 3f-1. Adults…………………………………………………………………………………….21 3f-2. Egg……………………………………………………………………………………….21 3f-3. Juvenile…………………………………………………………………………………..21 3f-4. Smolt……………………………………………………………………………………..21 4. NOAA Trust Species Life History………………………………………………………21 4a. Life Cycle………………………………………………………………………………...22 4b. Biogeography…………………………………………………………………………….22 4c. Seasonal Pattern………………………………………………………………………….22 5. General IPM Strategies…………………………………………………………………..22 6. BMP Framework…………………………………………………………………………23 7. Abbreviation and Definition Key………………………………………………………...23 8. General Notes for Users………………………………………………………………….25 D. Results……………………………………………………………………………………26 1. Data Gaps………………………………………………………………………………...26 2. Acute Toxicity Rankings………………………………………………………………...29 E. Smartphone Application Development………………………………………………….30 F. Conclusion and Recommendations………………………………………………………31 G. Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………………..34 Part II: List of Tables: Table 1: Pesticides evaluated in this database, associated Chemical Abstract Service numbers, and salmonid acute toxicity rankings……………………………………………………………15 Table 2: NOAA Trust Species included in this database and their status……………………….16 Table 3: Abbreviation and Definition Key………………………………………………………24 Table 4: Frequency of pesticides with data for each NOAA Trust Species and rainbow trout....27 Table 5: Data type present for each pesticide……………………………………………………28 Part III: A Selected Synthesis of Literature and Case Studies on Best Management Practices for Reducing the Impacts of Pesticides in Aquatic Environments and Protecting NOAA Trust Species……………………………………………………………………………37 Abbreviations and Terms………………………………………………………………...38 I. Introduction…………………………………………………………..…………………..39 1. Project Background………………………………………………...…………………….39 2. Likelihood of NOAA Trust Species Exposure……….………………………………….44 3. Introduction to Pesticide and BMP Database…….……………………………………...45 3a How to use the Aquatic Pesticide, NOAA Trust Species, and General BMP/IPM Strategies Database..……………………………………………………………………..46 3b Chemical Information……………………………………………………………………46 3c Organism Life History……………………….…………………………………………..46 3d Toxicity Data…………………………………………………………………………….47 3e Integrated Pest Management/Best Management Practices………………………………47 4. Pesticide Use Background……………………………………………………………….47 5. Defining of Best Management Practice (BMP) …………………………………………49 6. Case Study Selection……………………………………………………………………..50 7. Summary of BMP Components: Rationale for the Case Study Approach ……………...51 7a Alternative Non-Chemical Methods …………………………………………………….52 7b Pesticide(s) and Product(s) Choice………………………………………………………53 7c Adjuvant(s) ……………………………………………………………………………...54 7d Licensing and Certification of Applicators; Professional and Trade Associations……...54 7e Application Method …………………………………………………………………….56 7f Equipment and Calibration………………………………………………………………56 7g Application Rates ………………………………………………………………………..57 7h Application Timing ……………………………………………………………………...58 7i Application Conditions …………………………………………………………………59 7j Mitigation………………………………………………………………………………...61 7k Monitoring ………………………………………………………………………………61 7l Storage of Chemical ……………………………………………………………………..62 7m Disposal of Chemical and Equipment …………………………………………………...63 8. Limitations of this Project ……………………………………………………………….64 II. Pesticide BMP Case Studies …………………………………………………………….65 Chapter 1 Aquatic Herbicide Use in a Restoration Context ……………………………….65 1.1 Osceola County, Florida Case Study: Hydrilla control in Kissimmee Chain of Lakes Florida by Waterway Managers ………………………………………………………...65 1.1.1 Background………………………………………………………………………………65 1.1.2 Introduction to the Invasive Species: Hydrilla…………………………………………..66 1.1.2a History……………………………………………………………………………………66
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative Herbicides in Turfgrass and Organic Agriculture
    1 Volume XXXII, Number 5/6, May/June 2010 Alternative Herbicides in Turfgrass and Organic Agriculture By William Quarles Photo courtesy of Marrone Bio Innovations number of alternative herbi- cides have been developed A and are now either commer- cially available, or waiting for EPA approval. Major markets for these herbicides include the turfgrass industry and organic agriculture. Demand for “green” herbicides in turfgrass is being driven both by environmental concerns and regula- tory action. For instance, a number of provinces in Canada have banned cosmetic application of chemical pesticides such as 2,4-D for broadleaf weed control on lawns. Cultural methods can relieve some weed pressures, but alternative herbicides can make weed manage- ment less labor intensive (Abu- Dieyeh and Watson 2009; Hashman 2011; Bailey et al. 2010; Boyetchko et al. 2009). In organic agriculture, weeds are Alternative herbicides can be effective. Pictured here is an irrigation chan- the number one pest management nel that has been treated with GreenMatch®, a reduced risk herbicide con- problem and conventional synthetic taining d-limonene. herbicides cannot be used. Current organic options include hand weed- commonly used lawn herbicides— weeds is to ignore or tolerate them. ing, cultivation, mulching and flam- 2,4-D, dicamba, and MCPP. About Some “weeds” are even aesthetically ing (Quarles 2004; Sivesind et al. 77% of the Canadian population is pleasing and break up the monoto- 2009). Alternative herbicides can benefiting from reduced exposure to ny of a “perfect” lawn. When lawn reduce or eliminate costs of hand synthetic lawn and garden pesti- weeds reach levels where they can- weeding (Evans and Bellinder 2009; cides (Ottawa 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Practices for Pesticide Applicators
    Standard Practices for Pesticide Applicators 10/09 Printed in Canada BK35 About WorkSafeBC WorkSafeBC (the Workers’ Compensation Board) is an independent provincial statutory agency governed by a Board of Directors. It is funded by insurance premiums paid by registered employers and by investment returns. In administering the Workers Compensation Act, WorkSafeBC remains separate and distinct from government; however, it is accountable to the public through government in its role of protecting and maintaining the overall well-being of the workers’ compensation system. WorkSafeBC was born out of a compromise between B.C.’s workers and employers in 1917 where workers gave up the right to sue their employers or fellow workers for injuries on the job in return for a no-fault insurance program fully paid for by employers. WorkSafeBC is committed to a safe and healthy workplace, and to providing return-to-work rehabilitation and legislated compensation benefits to workers injured as a result of their employment. WorkSafeBC Prevention Information Line The WorkSafeBC Prevention Information Line can answer your questions about workplace health and safety, worker and employer responsibilities, and reporting a workplace accident or incident. The Prevention Information Line accepts anonymous calls. Phone 604 276-3100 in the Lower Mainland, or call 1 888 621-7233 (621-SAFE) toll-free in British Columbia. To report after-hours and weekend accidents and emergencies, call 604 273-7711 in the Lower Mainland, or call 1 866 922-4357 (WCB-HELP) toll-free in British Columbia. Standard Practices for Pesticide Applicators WorkSafeBC Publications Many publications are available on the WorkSafeBC web site.
    [Show full text]
  • OGC Revisions Final Draft IPM Guidelines 4 19 21
    EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES April 2021 INTRODUCTION The East Bay Municipal Utility District (District) is responsible for implementing pest control management practices across approximately 57,000 acres of watershed lands and reservoirs in the East Bay and Sierra foothills. This includes multiple recreation areas, over 100 miles of rights-of-way along our aqueducts, facility grounds at hundreds of sites in five counties and other areas located throughout the District’s water source and service areas. Pests may include a wide range of both plant and animal species capable of creating a nuisance; however, the predominant pest addressed by the District is invasive vegetation. Within the District’s footprint, pests are managed for a number of reasons including but not limited to human health and safety, protection of infrastructure, regulatory requirements, fire risk reduction and preservation of habitat and biodiversity. The District is committed to using the most environmentally safe practices for pest control to ensure the health and safety of the public and District employees, and to protect potable water quality, natural resources and public and private property. The District established an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program in the 1990s to develop a consistent approach toward pest management throughout the District using a combination of physical, biological and cultural controls and includes the use and monitoring of pesticides, which predominantly consist of herbicides. The IPM program provides written guidance for determining the most appropriate pest control methods for a particular situation. Ever evolving IPM procedures and practices are developed with input from industry and academic experts and staff having pest management responsibilities to ensure they are implementable and effective.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticides and Toxic Substances
    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]
  • Pesticide Regulation
    OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR O L A STATE OF MINNESOTA EVALUATION REPORT Pesticide Regulation MARCH 2006 PROGRAM EVALUATION DIVISION Centennial Building – Suite 140 658 Cedar Street – St. Paul, MN 55155 Telephone: 651-296-4708 ● Fax: 651-296-4712 E-mail: [email protected] ● Web site: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us Program Evaluation Division Evaluation Staff The Program Evaluation Division was created James Nobles, Legislative Auditor within the Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) in 1975. The division’s mission, as set forth in law, Joel Alter is to determine the degree to which state agencies Valerie Bombach and programs are accomplishing their goals and David Chein objectives and utilizing resources efficiently. Jody Hauer Adrienne Howard Topics for evaluation are approved by the Daniel Jacobson Legislative Audit Commission (LAC), a Deborah Junod 16-member joint, bipartisan commission. The Carrie Meyerhoff division’s reports, however, are solely the John Patterson responsibility of OLA. Findings, conclusions, and Judith Randall recommendations do not necessarily reflect the Jan Sandberg views of the LAC or any of its members. Jo Vos John Yunker A list of recent evaluations is on the last page of this report. A more complete list is available at OLA's website (www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us), as This document can be made available in alternative are copies of evaluation reports. formats, such as large print, Braille, or audio tape, by calling 651-296-8976 Voice, or the Minnesota The Office of the Legislative Auditor also includes Relay Service at 651-297-5353 or 1-800-627-3529.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive LC/MS/MS Workflow of Pesticide Residues in High Water
    Application Note Food Testing and Agriculture Comprehensive LC/MS/MS Workflow of Pesticide Residues in Food Using the Agilent 6470 Triple Quadrupole LC/MS System Pesticides residue workflow in high water content, high oil content, and high starch content samples Authors Abstract Aimei Zou, Sashank Pillai, A comprehensive LC/MS/MS workflow was developed for the quantitation of Peter Kornas, 510 pesticide residues with the intention to accelerate and simplify routine Melanie Schober, Limian Zhao, laboratory food testing. Compound transitions and optimized parameters were Marco Zanotti, and developed based on the Agilent Pesticide Dynamic MRM Database, which has over Chee Sian Gan 750 pesticides including curated parameters for fast and easy transfer into the Agilent Technologies, Inc. analytical method. The workflow includes sample preparation, chromatographic separation, mass spectrometry (MS) detection, data analysis, and interpretation. The workflow applicability was demonstrated using an Agilent 1290 Infinity II LC system coupled to an Agilent 6470 triple quadrupole LC/MS on three food matrices with different content types: tomato (high water content), wheat (high starch content), and olive oil (high oil content). For sample preparation of the tomato and wheat samples, an Agilent QuEChERS kit was used with dSPE cleanup. Extraction was performed with the QuEChERS kit followed by Agilent Captiva EMR—Lipid cleanup for preparing olive oil samples. Workflow performance was evaluated and verified according to SANTE/12682/2019 based on limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ), calibration curve linearity, and recovery and precision using matrix‑matched calibration standards from 1 to 100 μg/L. Over 95% of analytes demonstrated linearity with R2 ≥0.99, with calibration curves plotted from LOQ to 50 or 100 μg/L.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce
    United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce USDA National Organic Program USDA Science and Technology Programs November 2012 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................1 Figure ES1 – Overview of Results by Sample for All Commodities .........................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................2 Materials and Methods ..............................................................................................................................................2 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................................5 Limitations ..................................................................................................................................................................7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Some Biopesticides and Their Importance in Plant Protection for Commercial Acceptance
    plants Review An Overview of Some Biopesticides and Their Importance in Plant Protection for Commercial Acceptance Jitendra Kumar 1,†, Ayyagari Ramlal 2,† , Dharmendra Mallick 3,‡ and Vachaspati Mishra 4,* 1 Bangalore Bioinnovation Centre (BBC), Life Sciences Park, Electronics City Phase 1, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560100, India; [email protected] 2 Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110012, India; [email protected] 3 Department of Botany, Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi, Delhi 110019, India; [email protected] 4 Department of Botany, Dyal Singh College, University of Delhi, Delhi 110003, India * Correspondence: [email protected] † Equally contributed to work. ‡ Deceased. Abstract: Biopesticides are natural, biologically occurring compounds that are used to control various agricultural pests infesting plants in forests, gardens, farmlands, etc. There are different types of biopesticides that have been developed from various sources. This paper underscores the utility of biocontrol agents composed of microorganisms including bacteria, cyanobacteria, and microalgae, plant-based compounds, and recently applied RNAi-based technology. These techniques are described and suggestions are made for their application in modern agricultural practices for managing crop yield losses due to pest infestation. Biopesticides have several advantages over their chemical counterparts and are expected to occupy a large share of the market in the coming period. Citation: Kumar, J.; Ramlal, A.; Mallick, D.; Mishra, V. An Overview Keywords: biopesticides; agriculture; food supply; microorganisms of Some Biopesticides and Their Importance in Plant Protection for Commercial Acceptance. Plants 2021, 10, 1185. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction plants10061185 The global population is exploding at an exponential rate and is anticipated to reach Academic Editors: Špela Mechora approximately 9.7 billion by 2050, the largest share of which is in Africa and Asia [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Seeking Agricultural Produce Free of Pesticide Residues
    Seeking Agricultural Produce Free of Pesticide Residues Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 17–19 February 1998 Editors: I.R. Kennedy, J.H. Skerritt, G.I. Johnson, and E. Highley Sponsored by: Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (AARD), Indonesia Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Canberra 1998 Seeking agricultural produce free of pesticide residues edited by I.R. Kennedy, J.H. Skerritt, G.I. Johnson and E. Highley ACIAR Proceedings No. 85e (printed version published in 1998) The Australian Centre for International Research (ACIAR) was established in June 1982 by an Act of the Australian Parliament. Its mandate is to help identify agricultural problems in developing countries and to commission collaborative research between Australian and developing country researchers in fields where Australia has a special research competence. Where trade names are used this constitutes neither endorsement of nor dis- crimination against any product by the centre. ACIAR PROCEEDINGS This series of publications includes the full proceedings of research workshops or symposia organised or supported by ACIAR. Numbers in this series are distributed internationally to selected individuals and scientific institutions. © Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, GPO Box 1571, Canberra, ACT 2601. Kennedy, I.R., Skerritt, J.H., Johnson, G.I., and Highley, E., ed., 1998. Seeking Agricul- tural Produce Free of Pesticide Residues. Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 17–19 February 1998. ACIAR Proceedings No. 85, 406p. ISBN 1 86320 227 7 Editing and pre-press production by Arawang Communication Group, Canberra, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of WATER QUALITY on PESTICIDE PERFORMANCE
    PPP-86 the impact of WATER QUALITY on PESTICIDE PERFORMANCE 1 The Impact of Water Quality on Pesticide Performance The Little Factor that Makes a Big Difference Fred WhitFord, Coordinator, Purdue PestiCide Programs donald Penner, Weed sCientist, miChigan state university Bill Johnson, Weed sCientist, Purdue university larry Bledsoe, entomologist, Purdue university norm Wagoner, Business develoPment sPeCialist, agrilead, inC. John garr, President, garrCo ProduCts, inC. Kiersten Wise, Plant Pathologist, Purdue university John oBermeyer, integrated Pest management sPeCialist, Purdue university arlene Blessing, editor and designer, Purdue PestiCide Programs Background photo purchased from fotolia.com 3 Contents The Little Factor that Makes a Big Difference .................................................... 7 Basic Terms Used to Describe Water Quality ...................................................... 10 Water Chemistry Impacts Pesticide Performance ................................................. 15 What Do Pesticide Labels Indicate about Spray Application Water? .................. 18 Testing the Water .................................................................................................. 21 Solving Water Quality Problems .......................................................................... 28 The Importance of Compatibility and Mixing Order ........................................... 32 Leaving Pesticides in the Tank: How Long is Too Long? ................................... 34 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis Grow Facilities: Identification and Handling of Hazardous Wastes, a Problem for Environmental Health Departments Daniel Keenan, Maria Duazo
    Title: Cannabis Grow Facilities: Identification and Handling of Hazardous Wastes, a problem for Environmental Health Departments Daniel Keenan, Maria Duazo Abstract Every new industry has it’s false starts, failed business ventures, and competition from operators that skirt the regulations. Growing marijuana requires the use of pesticides, plant nutrients and plant growth modifiers/regulators. Cannabis Grow Facilities that go out of business, have catastrophic losses from fires or business that are set up outside of the regulatory framework will oftentimes abandon what is most likely hazardous waste when they vacate the premises. This has become a problem for health departments who are oftentimes left “holding the bag” and who find the need to efficiently identify all of the products/wastes that are abandoned in the wake of a business failure. The products/wastes left behind must by law be considered as hazardous waste until otherwise identified. This presentation will introduce a solution to the need for efficient identification of wastes found at a Cannabis Grow Facility. The solution is a qualitative chemical analysis scheme that employs wet chemistry using the commercially available HazCat Kit. This presentation will quickly demonstrate the use of the HazCat Kit on various Cannabis Grow Facility pesticides/nutrient solutions and their identification/hazard classification. Background For the past eighty years, a prohibition era type economy has molded how Marijuana is grown and harvested in the United States [1]. Now that legalization is slowly becoming a realization, many of the practices employed by marijuana growers are coming to light. The environmental impact of marijuana cultivation has suddenly come to the forefront and it is not a pretty picture [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Low Doses of Bioherbicide Favour Prion Aggregation and Propagation in Vivo
    Low doses of bioherbicide favour prion aggregation and propagation in vivo The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Lafon, P., T. Imberdis, Y. Wang, J. Torrent, M. Robitzer, E. Huetter, M. Alvarez-Martinez, et al. 2018. “Low doses of bioherbicide favour prion aggregation and propagation in vivo.” Scientific Reports 8 (1): 8023. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-25966-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-018-25966-9. Published Version doi:10.1038/s41598-018-25966-9 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37160073 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Low doses of bioherbicide favour prion aggregation and propagation in vivo Received: 8 February 2018 Pierre-André Lafon1, Thibaut Imberdis 1,5, Yunyun Wang1,2, Joan Torrent1, Mike Robitzer3, Accepted: 1 May 2018 Elisabeth Huetter1, Maria-Teresa Alvarez-Martinez4, Nathalie Chevallier1, Laurent Givalois1, Published: xx xx xxxx Catherine Desrumaux1, Jianfeng Liu2 & Véronique Perrier 1 Public concerns over the use of synthetic pesticides are growing since many studies have shown their impact on human health. A new environmental movement in occidental countries promoting an organic agriculture favours the rebirth of botanical pesticides. These products confer an efective alternative to chemical pesticides such as glyphosate. Among the biopesticides, the α-terthienyls found in the roots of Tagetes species, are powerful broad-spectrum pesticides.
    [Show full text]