DOCSLIB.ORG

Selective and Sensitive Quantification of Acetochlor and S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Selective and Sensitive Quantification of Acetochlor and S agriculture Article Selective and Sensitive Quantification of Acetochlor and S-Metolachlor in Maize and Soybean Plant Samples by Gas Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Irina Gabriela Cara 1,*,†, Denis Topa 2,*,†, Lucian Raus 2,*, Anca Elena Calistru 2, Feodor Filipov 2 and Gerard Jitareanu 2 1 Research Institute for Agriculture and Environment, “Ion Ionescu de la Brad” University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 700490 Iasi, Romania 2 Department of Pedotechnics, Faculty of Agriculture, “Ion Ionescu de la Brad” University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 700490 Iasi, Romania; [email protected] (A.E.C.); ffi[email protected] (F.F.); [email protected] (G.J.) * Correspondence: [email protected] (I.G.C.); [email protected] (D.T.); [email protected] (L.R.) † These authors contributed equally to this paper. Abstract: Herbicide residue analysis has gained importance worldwide, mainly for food quality control to minimize potentially adverse impacts on human health. A Gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS) method for quantitative analysis of acetochlor and s-metolachlor in maize and soybean straw has been developed, validated and applied to analyze the residues of anilide herbicides. Straw material was dried, homogenized and extracted with a mixture of n- Citation: Cara, I.G.; Topa, D.; Raus, hexane and acetone by an accelerated solvent extraction method. Chromatographic separation L.; Calistru, A.E.; Filipov, F.; Jitareanu, of the target analytes was performed on an Agilent 7832 GC equipped with a mass spectrometer G. Selective and Sensitive detector, a split-splitless injector and an HP-5 MS (5% phenylmethyl siloxane) capillary column Quantification of Acetochlor and × × µ S-Metolachlor in Maize and Soybean (30 m 0.25 mm 0.25 m). Under these parameters, the limit of detection (LOD) values were −1 −1 Plant Samples by Gas 0.2 ng g for acetochlor and 0.07 ng g for s-metolachlor, with average recoveries between 86% Chromatography-Tandem Mass and 119.7%. The method was validated for acetochlor and s-metolachlor in maize and soybean −1 Spectrometry. Agriculture 2021, 11, straw at 0.5 and 0.01 mg kg . Furthermore, the final residues of the two herbicides in maize and 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/ soybean straw were below the maximum residue limit (MRL) at harvest time. The proposed method agriculture11040283 is suitable for routine analysis. Academic Editors: Gianluca Caruso, Keywords: acetochlor; s-metolachlor; residues; plant samples; GC-MS László Baranyai and Vasile Stoleru Received: 10 March 2021 Accepted: 22 March 2021 1. Introduction Published: 25 March 2021 Maize (Zea Mays L.) and soybean (Glycine hispida L.) crops are valuable resources that Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral meet the requirements for human consumption and animal feed as well as for energy with regard to jurisdictional claims in production [1]. To obtain the expected yield, the losses related to pests, insects and published maps and institutional affil- disease are managed using chemicals pesticides, which inevitably leads to residues in iations. the environment [2]. Acetochlor and s-metolachlor are highly efficient and long-lasting pre-emergent herbicides applied to maize or soybean crops to control a wide range of annual grasses and broadleaf weeds [3,4]. Both are systemic herbicides absorbed mainly by shoots and roots of germinating weeds and then translocated to the foliage. The mode of action of these herbicides is via inhibition of cell division and elongation in plants Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. due to the interference with a number of enzymes [4]. Because of their strong herbicidal This article is an open access article activities, there are already 654 types of commercially available acetochlor products and distributed under the terms and approximately 4.2% of the global s-metolachlor herbicide usage is in Europe [5,6]. The conditions of the Creative Commons long-term and extensive applications of these herbicide (controlled by temperature, soil Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// properties and application history) has resulted in nonpoint source pollution, linked creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ with half-lives ranging between 3 and 9 weeks for acetochlor [7] and 5 and 19 weeks −1 4.0/). for s-metolachlor [8]. Due to its high water solubility (233 mg L for acetochlor and Agriculture 2021, 11, 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040283 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture Agriculture 2021, 11, 283 2 of 10 530 mg L −1 for s-metolachlor) and moderate to long persistence in soil and water bodies, these active compounds are ones of the most frequently found herbicides in European freshwaters [9–12]. Furthermore, acetochlor and s-metolachlor are endocrine-disrupting chemicals and potential human carcinogens, which can induce endocrine disruption, oxidative stress, and immune-toxicity in nontarget organisms [13]. Towards food safety, the European Union (EU) has established maximum residue limits (MRLs) for acetochlor and s-metolachlor in different products, varying from 0.02 to 0.05 mg kg−1 [12,14]. Considering the complexity of plant matrices, a sensitive, rapid and reliable sample preparation method is required, which should accelerate extraction, enhance enrichment of the target compound and minimize interference as much as possible. Analytical methods for acetochlor and s-metolachlor quantification require their analysis by efficient analytical instruments such us tandem mass spectrometry (MS) associated with gas chromatography (GC) [15] or liquid chromatography (LC) [16,17]. Owing to low concentrations of analytes in samples, and the complexity of matrices of real samples, an efficient sample preparation and enrichment process is necessary [15,18]. Common sample processing methods for detecting herbicide residues in different products currently include ultrasound-assisted extraction [19], accelerated solvent extrac- tion [17], ultrasonic solvent extraction or pressurized liquid extraction [18], as well as microwave-assisted [20] and hollow fiber-liquid phase microextraction [21]. However, all these methods usually have required sample manipulation to minimize sample contamina- tion and achieve the desired sensitivity and selectivity. Accelerated solvent extraction is a reliable extraction technique where different condi- tions are used to increase the extraction performance. Various parameters and extraction conditions (high temperature and/or pressure) increase the solvent solubilizing capacity and penetration power to enter into sample matrix and increase the contact time for solvent and sample [17]. In addition, the cycle time of Accelerated Solvent extraction (ASE) ensures the possibility of equilibrium time for intra- and extracellular solutions. The end result is a smaller solvent quantity with more contact time and more effective solubilization in a short period of time under high pressure. As it has different advantages, ASE offers the versatility of extracting a wide range of compounds from different chemical families [22]. Integrated ASE/GC-MS has been successfully used for the analysis of various pesticide residues in food, soil, sediments and water [23]. ASE/GC-MS, characterized by its low solvent consumption, shorter extraction time and high analyte recovery, has been recommended as the standard USEPA Method SW-8463545A [21]. The continued increased global inquiry has raised concerns about agricultural prod- ucts safety because pesticide residues in maize, soybean and other cereals could present a significant risk to human health [1,14]. Maximum Residues Limits (MRLs) are typically enforced at European Union or international levels to avoid health hazards and excessive exposure [11]. In the conditions where MRLs are exceeded, the consumers can be at risk. Currently, health risk assessment of human pesticide exposure through dietary intake is widely used as a valuable tool for food quality and safety monitoring [11,16]. With this background, the aim of this work is to develop and validate an analytical method for quantitative analysis of acetochlor and s-metolachlor in soybean and maize plants. The method presents a short analytical run time and produces accurate and repeat- able results as confirmed through validation. Moreover, the developed method was applied to real samples collected from Experimental Farm of Agriculture University, Romania, in order to monitor the environmental state in these regions. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Chemicals and Materials Acetochlor (95% purity) and s-metolachlor (97% purity) reference standard was pro- vided by Dr. Ehrenstorfer Chemical Industries (Augsburg, Germany). Their molecu- lar structures are shown in Figure1. Chromatography grade acetone, n-hexane and dichloromethane were purchased from Merck, Germany. Stock solution of the individ- Agriculture 2021, 11, × FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Chemicals and Materials Acetochlor (95% purity) and s-metolachlor (97% purity) reference standard was pro- Agriculture 2021, 11, 283 3 of 10 vided by Dr. Ehrenstorfer Chemical Industries (Augsburg, Germany). Their molecular structures are shown in Figure 1. Chromatography grade acetone, n-hexane and dichloro- methane were purchased from Merck, Germany. Stock solution of the individual stand- ards (1000 ualmg L standards−1) were dissolved (1000 mg in L acetone−1) were and dissolved stored at in 4 acetone°C. Working and standard stored at solu- 4 ◦C. Working tions were standardprepared
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Corn and Soybean Mode of Action Herbicide Chart
    By Premix Corn and Soybean This chart lists premix herbicides alphabetically by their trade names so you can identify the premix’s component herbicides and their respective site of action groups. Refer Herbicide Chart to the Mode of Action chart for more information. Component Repeated use of herbicides with the same Site of Premix Trade Active Action site of action can result in the development of Trade Name ® Name ® Ingredient Group* herbicide-resistant weed populations. Authority First ............... Spartan sulfentrazone 14 FirstRate cloransulam 2 Axiom ........................... Define flufenacet 15 This publication was designed for commercial printing, color shifts may occur on other printers and on-screeen. Sencor metribuzin 5 Basis . ........................... Resolve rimsulfuron 2 Harmony GT thifensulfuron 2 By Mode of Action (effect on plant growth) Bicep II Magnum .......... Dual II Magnum s-metolachlor 15 AAtrex atrazine 5 This chart groups herbicides by their modes of action to assist Bicep Lite II Magnum .... Dual II Magnum s-metolachlor 15 AAtrex atrazine 5 you in selecting herbicides 1) to maintain greater diversity in Boundary ...................... Dual Magnum s-metolachlor 15 herbicide use and 2) to rotate among herbicides with different Sencor metribuzin 5 Breakfree ATZ ............... Breakfree acetochlor 15 sites of action to delay the development of herbicide resistance. atrazine atrazine 5 Breakfree ATZ Lite ........ Breakfree acetochlor 15 Number of atrazine atrazine 5 resistant weed Buctril + Atrazine ......... Buctril bromoxynil 6 atrazine atrazine 5 species in U.S. Bullet ............................ Micro-Tech alachlor 15 Site of Chemical Active atrazine atrazine 5 Action Product Examples Camix ........................... Callisto mesotrione 28 Group* Site of Action Family Ingredient (Trade Name ®) Dual II Magnum s-metolachlor 15 Lipid Canopy DF ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse and Field Evaluation of Isoxaflutole for Weed Control In
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Greenhouse and field evaluation of isoxaflutole for weed control in maize in China Received: 27 June 2017 Ning Zhao, Lan Zuo, Wei Li, Wenlei Guo, Weitang Liu & Jinxin Wang Accepted: 18 September 2017 Greenhouse and field studies were conducted to provide a reference for pre-emergence (PRE) Published: xx xx xxxx application of isoxaflutole on maize in China. In greenhouse study, the isoxaflutole PRE application at 30 g active ingredient (a.i.) ha−1 could effectively control large numbers of weeds, especially some large-seeded broadleaves, tested in this study. The tolerance results indicated 21 maize hybrids showed different responses to isoxaflutole under greenhouse conditions. In 2015 and 2016, field experiments were conducted to determine and compare the weed control efficacy and safety to Zhengdan 958 maize with 6 herbicide treatments. In both years, isoxaflutole PRE at 100 to 250 g a.i. ha−1 was sufficient to provide satisfactory full-season control of the dominant common broadleaf and grass weeds in the field. Temporary injury to maize was observed with isoxaflutole treatments of 125, 150, and 250 g a.i. ha−1 in both years, but plants recovered within 4 to 6 wk. To maximize maize yield and provide satisfactory weed control, a range of 100 to 150 g a.i. ha−1 of isoxaflutole is recommended, depending on the soil characteristics, weather, and weed species present at the experimental site. Based on the results, isoxaflutole PRE has good potential for weed control in maize in China. Maize was planted on more hectares than any other crops in China from 2010 to 2014, with an average of 35 million ha planted per year and yield averaging 5,779 kg per ha per year1.
    [Show full text]
  • Exposure to Herbicides in House Dust and Risk of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
    Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2013) 23, 363–370 & 2013 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved 1559-0631/13 www.nature.com/jes ORIGINAL ARTICLE Exposure to herbicides in house dust and risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia Catherine Metayer1, Joanne S. Colt2, Patricia A. Buffler1, Helen D. Reed3, Steve Selvin1, Vonda Crouse4 and Mary H. Ward2 We examine the association between exposure to herbicides and childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Dust samples were collected from homes of 269 ALL cases and 333 healthy controls (o8 years of age at diagnosis/reference date and residing in same home since diagnosis/reference date) in California, using a high-volume surface sampler or household vacuum bags. Amounts of agricultural or professional herbicides (alachlor, metolachlor, bromoxynil, bromoxynil octanoate, pebulate, butylate, prometryn, simazine, ethalfluralin, and pendimethalin) and residential herbicides (cyanazine, trifluralin, 2-methyl-4- chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA), mecoprop, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), chlorthal, and dicamba) were measured. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by logistic regression. Models included the herbicide of interest, age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income, year and season of dust sampling, neighborhood type, and residence type. The risk of childhood ALL was associated with dust levels of chlorthal; compared to homes with no detections, ORs for the first, second, and third tertiles were 1.49 (95% CI: 0.82–2.72), 1.49 (95% CI: 0.83–2.67), and 1.57 (95% CI: 0.90–2.73), respectively (P-value for linear trend ¼ 0.05). The magnitude of this association appeared to be higher in the presence of alachlor.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program
    U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program Stream water-quality analytes Major ions and trace elements­schedule 998 (20 constituents) Pesticides ­­schedule 2437 (229 compounds) Alkalinity 1H­1,2,4­Triazole Arsenic 2,3,3­Trichloro­2­propene­1­sulfonic acid (TCPSA) Boron 2,4­D Calcium 2­(1­Hydroxyethyl)­6­methylaniline Chloride 2­[(2­Ethyl­6­methylphenyl)amino]­1­propanol Fluoride 2­Amino­N­isopropylbenzamide Iron 2­Aminobenzimidazole Lithium 2­Chloro­2',6'­diethylacetanilide 2­Chloro­4,6­diamino­s­triazine {CAAT} Magnesium (Didealkylatrazine) pH 2­Chloro­4­isopropylamino­6­amino­s­triazine Potassium 2­Chloro­6­ethylamino­4­amino­s­triazine {CEAT} Total dissolved solids 2­Chloro­N­(2­ethyl­6­methylphenyl)acetamide Selenium 2­Hydroxy­4­isopropylamino­6­amino­s­triazine 2­Hydroxy­4­isopropylamino­6­ethylamino­s­triazin Silica e {OIET} Sodium 2­Hydroxy­6­ethylamino­4­amino­s­triazine Specific conductance 2­Isopropyl­6­methyl­4­pyrimidinol Strontium 3,4­Dichlorophenylurea Sulfate 3­Hydroxycarbofuran Turbidity 3­Phenoxybenzoic acid Vanadium 4­(Hydroxymethyl)pendimethalin 4­Chlorobenzylmethyl sulfoxide Suspended sediment 4­Hydroxy molinate 4­Hydroxychlorothalonil Nutrients­schedule 2430 (18 constituents) 4­Hydroxyhexazinone A Inorganic carbon, suspended Acephate Dissolved inorganic carbon Acetochlor ammonia + organic nitrogen (unfiltered­Kjeldahl) Acetochlor oxanilic acid ammonia + organic nitrogen (filtered­Kjeldahl) Acetochlor sulfonic acid Ammonia as N, filtered Acetochlor sulfynilacetic acid nitrite, filtered Alachlor
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • Jamesdanieljonesiiithesis.Doc-After Defense
    The Evaluation of HPPD-Inhibitors for Full-Season Control of Morningglory (Ipomoea) Species in Corn (Zea mays L.) by James Daniel Jones III A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 15, 2018 Keywords: Ipomoea, corn, HPPD, postemergence Approved by Dr. Dennis Delaney, Chair, Extension Specialist, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Andrew Price, Affiliate Associate Professor, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Audrey Gamble, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences i Abstract Due to late-season morningglory harvest interference concerns in corn, field studies were conducted in 2017 and 2018 at the Prattville Agricultural Research Unit in Prattville, Alabama and at the Sand Mountain Research and Extension Center in Crossville, Alabama to evaluate late season control of morningglory species using HPPD- inhibitors postemergence (POST) applied alone, following atrazine preemergence (PRE), or in combination with atrazine. Additionally, Amaranthus spp. and Senna spp. were evaluated for control. An incomplete randomized design with a split-plot treatment arrangement with four replications was utilized. The trial was divided into two sections: one with a PRE application of atrazine and a second without a preemergence application of atrazine. Eleven herbicides were applied POST without atrazine including: tembotrione; mesotrione; topramezone+dimethenamid; mesotrione+S- metolachlor+glyphosate; tembotrione+thiencarbazone; topramezone; mesotrione+S- metolachlor+atrazine; mesotrione+S-metolachlor+atrazine+bicyclopyrone; mesotrione+nicosulfuron; isoxaflutole; isoxaflutole+thiencarbazone-methyl; non-treated with atrazine applied PRE, and a true non-treated check. The same herbicides, excluding the two treatments that contain atrazine in the premixture, were also applied with atrazine.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, SHARDA ACETOCHLOR 30.2% +
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA Reg. Number: Date of Issuance: Office of Pesticide Programs Registration Division (7505P) 83529-119 9/21/20 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 NOTICE OF PESTICIDE: Term of Issuance: X Registration Reregistration Conditional (under FIFRA, as amended) Name of Pesticide Product: Sharda Acetochlor 30.2% + Fomesafen 7.1% SE II Name and Address of Registrant (include ZIP Code): Anna Armstrong Agent for Sharda USA LLC c/o Wagner Regulatory Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 640 Hockessin, DE 19707 Note: Changes in labeling differing in substance from that accepted in connection with this registration must be submitted to and accepted by the Registration Division prior to use of the label in commerce. In any correspondence on this product always refer to the above EPA registration number. On the basis of information furnished by the registrant, the above named pesticide is hereby registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Registration is in no way to be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of this product by the Agency. In order to protect health and the environment, the Administrator, on his motion, may at any time suspend or cancel the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the Act. The acceptance of any name in connection with the registration of a product under this Act is not to be construed as giving the registrant a right to exclusive use of the name or to its use if it has been covered by others. This product is conditionally registered in accordance with FIFRA section 3(c)(7)(A).
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Trends in Major Rivers of the United States, 1992–2010
    National Water-Quality Assessment Program Pesticide Trends in Major Rivers of the United States, 1992–2010 Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5135 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. View of Missouri River from Double Ditch Indian Village Historic Site, north of Bismarck, North Dakota, September 26, 2006 (photograph by Kathleen Macek-Rowland). Pesticide Trends in Major Rivers of the United States, 1992–2010 By Karen R. Ryberg, Aldo V. Vecchia, Robert J. Gilliom, and Jeffrey D. Martin National Water-Quality Assessment Program Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5135 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Ryberg, K.R., Vecchia, A.V., Gilliom, R.J., and Martin, J.D., 2014, Pesticide trends in major rivers of the United States, 1992–2010: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Chemical Fact Sheets
    1212 ChemicalChemical factfact sheetssheets A conceptual framework for Introduction implementing the Guidelines (Chapter 1) (Chapter 2) he background docudocu-- ments referred to in FRAMEWORK FOR SAFE DRINKING-WATER SUPPORTING Tments referred to in INFORMATION thisthis chapterchapter (as the princi-princi- Health-based targets Public health context Microbial aspects pal reference for each fact (Chapter 3) and health outcome (Chapters 7 and 11) sheet) may be found on Water safety plans Chemical aspects (Chapter 4) (Chapters 8 and 12) thethe Water, Sanitation, HyHy-- System Management and Radiological Monitoring giene and Health web site assessment communication aspects at http://www.who.int/ (Chapter 9) Acceptability Surveillance water_sanitation_health/ aspects (Chapter 5) dwq/chemicals/en/indewater-quality/guidelines/x. (Chapter 10) htmlchemicals/en/. A complete. A complete list of rlist eferences of references cited citedin this in Application of the Guidelines in specic circumstances chapter,this chapter, including including the (Chapter 6) background documents Climate change, Emergencies, Rainwater harvesting, Desalination forfor each cchemical, hemical, is pro-pro- systems, Travellers, Planes and vided in Annex 22.. ships, etc. 12.1 Chemical contaminants in drinking-water Acrylamide Residual acrylamideacrylamide monomermonomer occursoccurs inin polyacrylamidepolyacrylamide coagulantscoagulants used used in in thethe treattreat-- ment of drinking-water. In general, thethe maximummaximum authorizedauthorized dosedose ofof polymerpolymer isis 11 mg/l. mg/l. At a monomer content of 0.05%, this corresponds to a maximum theoretical concen-- trationtration ofof 0.5 µg/l of the monomer in water.water. Practical concentrations maymay bebe lowerlower byby aa factor factor of 2–3. This applies applies to to thethe anionic anionic and and non-ionic non-ionic polyacrylamides, polyacrylamides, but but residual residual levelslevels fromfrom cationic polyacrylamides maymay bebe higher.higher.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Minnesota Chemicals of High Concern List
    Minnesota Department of Health, Chemicals of High Concern List, 2019 Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (PBT) or very Persistent, very High Production CAS Bioaccumulative Use Example(s) and/or Volume (HPV) Number Chemical Name Health Endpoint(s) (vPvB) Source(s) Chemical Class Chemical1 Maine (CA Prop 65; IARC; IRIS; NTP Wood and textiles finishes, Cancer, Respiratory 11th ROC); WA Appen1; WA CHCC; disinfection, tissue 50-00-0 Formaldehyde x system, Eye irritant Minnesota HRV; Minnesota RAA preservative Gastrointestinal Minnesota HRL Contaminant 50-00-0 Formaldehyde (in water) system EU Category 1 Endocrine disruptor pesticide 50-29-3 DDT, technical, p,p'DDT Endocrine system Maine (CA Prop 65; IARC; IRIS; NTP PAH (chem-class) 11th ROC; OSPAR Chemicals of Concern; EuC Endocrine Disruptor Cancer, Endocrine Priority List; EPA Final PBT Rule for 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene x x system TRI; EPA Priority PBT); Oregon P3 List; WA Appen1; Minnesota HRV WA Appen1; Minnesota HRL Dyes and diaminophenol mfg, wood preservation, 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol Eyes pesticide, pharmaceutical Maine (CA Prop 65; IARC; NTP 11th Preparation of amino resins, 51-79-6 Urethane (Ethyl carbamate) Cancer, Development ROC); WA Appen1 solubilizer, chemical intermediate Maine (CA Prop 65; IARC; IRIS; NTP Research; PAH (chem-class) 11th ROC; EPA Final PBT Rule for 53-70-3 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Cancer x TRI; WA PBT List; OSPAR Chemicals of Concern); WA Appen1; Oregon P3 List Maine (CA Prop 65; NTP 11th ROC); Research 53-96-3 2-Acetylaminofluorene Cancer WA Appen1 Maine (CA Prop 65; IARC; IRIS; NTP Lubricant, antioxidant, 55-18-5 N-Nitrosodiethylamine Cancer 11th ROC); WA Appen1 plastics stabilizer Maine (CA Prop 65; IRIS; NTP 11th Pesticide (EPA reg.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Weed Control
    2014 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual The 2014 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual is published by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, N.C. State University, Raleigh, N.C. These recommendations apply only to North Carolina. They may not be appropriate for conditions in other states and may not comply with laws and regulations outside North Carolina. These recommendations are current as of November 2013. Individuals who use agricultural chemicals are responsible for ensuring that the intended use complies with current regulations and conforms to the product label. Be sure to obtain current information about usage regulations and examine a current product label before applying any chemical. For assistance, contact your county Cooperative Extension agent. The use of brand names and any mention or listing of commercial products or services in this document does not imply endorsement by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service nor discrimination against similar products or services not mentioned. VII — CHEMICAL WEED CONTROL 2014 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual VII — CHEMICAL WEED CONTROL Chemical Weed Control in Field Corn ...................................................................................................... 224 Weed Response to Preemergence Herbicides — Corn ........................................................................... 231 Weed Response to Postemergence Herbicides — Corn ........................................................................
    [Show full text]