DOCSLIB.ORG

Effects of Copper Chelating Agents on Diquat Activity in Diquat Resistant Landoltia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effects of Copper Chelating Agents on Diquat Activity in Diquat Resistant Landoltia LITERATURE CITED Netherland, M. D., K. D. Getsinger and J. G. Skogerboe. 1997. Mesocosm evaluation of the species-selective potential of fluridone. J. Aquat. Plant Barrett, P. R. F. and K. J. Murphy. 1982. The use of diquat-alginate for weed Manage. 35:41-50. control in flowing waters, pp. 200-208. In: Proc. EWRS 6th Int. Symp. on Netherland, M. D., K. D. Getsinger and D. R. Stubbs. Aquatic plant manage- Aquat. Weeds, Euro. Weed Res. Soc., Wageningen, The Netherlands. ment: Invasive species and chemical control. Outlooks Pest Manage. Bashe, W. J. 1988. Determination of diquat and paraquat in drinking waters June 05:1-5. by high performance liquid chromatography with ultra violet detection. Netherland, M. D., K. D. Getsinger and E. G. Turner. 1993. Fluridone con- Technology Applications, Inc. centration and exposure time requirements for control of Eurasian Black, C. C., Jr. 1988. Effects of herbicides on photosynthesis, pp. 1-36. In: watermilfoil and hydrilla. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 31:89-194. Weed Physiology, Vol. II, Herbicide Physiology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Netherland, M. D., W. R. Green and K. D. Getsinger. 1991. Endothall con- Corning, R. V. and N. S. Prosser. 1969. Elodea control in a potable water centrations and exposure time relationships for the control Eurasian supply reservoir. Hyacinth Contr. J. 8:7-12. watermilfoil and hydrilla. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 29:61-67. Filizadeh, Y. and K. J. Murphy. 2002. Response of sago pondweed to combi- Pennington, T. G., J. G. Skogerboe and K. D. Getsinger. 2002. Herbicide/ nations of low doses of diquat, cutting, and shade. J. Aquat. Plant Man- copper combination for improved control of Hydrilla verticillata. J. Aquat. age. 40:72-76. Plant Manage. 39:56-58. Glomski, L. A. M., J. G. Skogerboe and K. D. Getsinger. 2005. Comparative Poovey, A. G. and K. D. Getsinger. 2002. Impacts of inorganic turbidity on efficacy of diquat to two members of the Hydrodcharitaceae Family: Elo- diquat efficacy against Egeria densa. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 40:6-10. dea and hydrilla. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 43:103-105. Poovey, A. G. and J. G. Skogerboe. 2004. Using diquat in combination with Green, W. R. and H. E. Westerdahl. 1990. Response of Eurasian watermilfoil to endothall under turbid water conditions to control hydrilla. Technical 2,4-D concentrations and exposure times. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 28:27-32. Note ERDC/TN APCRP-CC-02, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Hofstra, D. E., J. S. Clayton and K. D. Getsinger. 2001. Evaluation of selected Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 8 pp. herbicides for the control of exotic submerged weeds in New Zealand: II. Skogerboe, J. G. and K. D. Getsinger. 2002. Endothall species selectivity eval- The effects of turbidity on diquat and endothall efficacy. J. Aquat. Plant uations: Northern latitude evaluations. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 40:1-5. Manage. 39:25-27. Smart, R. M. and J. W. Barko. 1985. Laboratory culture of submersed fresh- Langeland, K. A., O. N. Hill, T. J. Koschnick and W. T. Haller. 2002. Evalua- water macrophytes on natural sediments. Aquat. Bot. 21:251-263. tion of a new formulation of Reward Landscape and Aquatic Herbicide Van, T. K., K. K. Steward and R. D. Conant. 1987. Responses of monoecious for control of duckweed, waterhyacinth, waterlettuce, and hydrilla. J. and dioecious hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) to various concentrations Aquat. Plant Manage. 40:51-53. and exposures of diquat. Weed Science 35:247-252 MacDonald, G. E., R. Querns, D. G. Shilling, S. K. McDonald and T. A. Bewick. Weber, J. B., P. W. Perry and R. P. Upchurch. 1965. The influence of temper- 2002. Activity of endothall on hydrilla. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 40:68-71. ature and time on the adsorption of paraquat, diquat, 2,4-D and prome- Moreland, D. E. 1988. Effects of herbicides on respiration, pp. 37-62. In: Weed tone by clays, charcoal, and an anion-exchange resin. Soil Science Physiology, Vol. II. Herbicide Physiology, CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. Society Proceedings 32:678-688. Narine, D. R. and R. D. Guy. 1982. Binding of diquat and paraquat to humic Westerdahl, H. E. and K. D. Getsinger (eds.). 1988. Aquatic Plant Identifica- acid in aquatic environments. Soil Science 133:356-363. tion and herbicide use guide, Vol II: Aquatic plants and susceptibility to Netherland, M. D. and K. D. Getsinger. 1992. Efficacy of triclopyr on Eur- herbicides. TR A-88-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Sta- asian watermilfoil: Concentration and exposure time effects. J. Aquat. tion Vicksburg, MS. 146 pp. Plant Manage. 30:1-5. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 44: 125-132 Effects of Copper Chelating Agents on Diquat Activity in Diquat Resistant Landoltia TYLER J. KOSCHNICK1 AND WILLIAM T. HALLER2 ABSTRACT amine, ethanolamine, and triethanolamine (commonly used in chelated copper algaecides and herbicides) were deter- Organic chelating agents have previously been used to re- mined on a resistant biotype of the duckweed species landoltia duce activity of elevated antioxidant enzyme levels in some bi- [Landoltia punctata (G. Meyer) D.H. Les and D.J. Crawford]. pyridylium resistant plant biotypes to overcome herbicide The three chelating agents significantly increased ion leakage resistance. The activity of the chelating agents: ethylenedi- from landoltia at concentrations exceeding 1.0 mg L-1, and did not visually reduce chlorophyll content. They did not enhance the activity of diquat (1,1’-ethylene-2,2’-bipyridylium dibro- 1Aquatic Research Manager. SePRO Corporation, 11550 N. Meridian St. Ste. 600, Carmel, IN 46032. Formerly at University of Florida, Agronomy mide) at any of the concentrations evaluated, although mem- Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, Center for Aquatic brane permeability was altered either through direct action on and Invasive Plants, 7922 NW 71st Ave., Gainesville, FL 32653. Correspond- the membrane or as a secondary response to phytotoxicity. If ing author e-mail: [email protected]. elevated antioxidant enzymes were the cause of bipyridylium 2 Professor. University of Florida, Agronomy Department, Institute of resistance and chelating agents deactivate these enzymes, the Food and Agricultural Science, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, 7922 NW 71st Ave., Gainesville, FL 32653. Received for publication January 17, results of the studies reported here do not support elevated 2006 and in revised form April 24, 2006. enzymes as the mechanism of resistance in landoltia. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 44: 2006. 125 Key words: ethylenediamine, triethanolamine, ethanolamine. of paraquat exposure, and after dark exposure, plants respond to BP under light. This suggests that BPs are not sequestered, INTRODUCTION and that they become active in plants under light conditions. Therefore, it has been hypothesized that resistance may be the Diquat is a contact herbicide first registered federally for result of detoxification (elevated enzyme hypothesis) of radical aquatic use in 1961. Diquat’s mechanism of action in plants oxygen species generated by the action of diquat and paraquat involves electron interception from photosystem I during in the protoplasts (Lehoczki et al. 1992). light reactions of photosynthesis (Yocum and San Pietro Cross-resistance to BPs occurs in most BP resistant bio- 1969) resulting in the formation of a reduced diquat radical. types, but the resistance factors (resistance factor = resistant The reduced diquat radical is oxidized by molecular oxygen biotype effective concentration/susceptible biotype effective to form a superoxide anion (O2-) and regenerates cationic concentration) are not equal. This poses a potential discrep- diquat. Additional oxygen radicals are formed when super- ancy in the elevated enzyme hypothesis. A biotype of Conyza • × × oxide reacts with H2O2 to form OH (hydroxyl radicals) via canadensis was 100 more resistant to paraquat, but only 10 the metal catalyzed Fenton reaction (Eq. 1 and 2) or Haber- more resistant to diquat when compared to susceptible bio- Weiss reaction (Eq. 3). types. This biotype was not resistant to morfamquat or other structurally related chemicals (Vaughn et al. 1989). Other O - + Fe3+ = O + Fe2+ (1) 2 2 studies have documented differential resistance to BPs (Pre- 2+ • - 3+ H2O2 + Fe = OH + OH + Fe (2) ston et al. 1992, Szigeti et al. 2001). Similar resistance factors would be expected for these chemically similar herbicides if O - + H O = •OH + OH- + O (3) 2 2 2 2 enzyme detoxification were the cause of resistance. This is as- Radical oxygen species superoxide (O2-), hydrogen perox- suming radical oxygen production resulting from BPs mode • ide (H2O2) and hydroxyl ( OH) are formed by reoxidation of action occurs at similar rates and gene expression levels with molecular oxygen and are associated with physiological for elevated enzymes are similar. damage and subsequent toxicity to plants. Unsaturated fatty Chelating agents have been used in combination with BPs acids in the cell membranes and chloroplasts are broken to overcome the resistance mechanism in some BP resistance down by chain reactions caused by the free radicals. This plants that have elevated antioxidant enzyme levels (Gressel leads to their destruction and formation of malondialdehyde, and Shaaltiel 1988). Chelators inactivate Cu-Zn SOD and AP rupturing of the tonoplasts, and almost immediate change in (Cu containing) by chelating the ion cofactor associated with osmotic potential (Calderbank 1966, Dodge 1971). the enzyme (Youngman et al. 1979, Shaaltiel and Gressel The toxic effects of O2- and H2O2 can be neutralized by 1986). Upon addition of a metal chelating agent to BPs, in- plant enzymes [Halliwell-Asada system (Halliwell 1978)], but creased activity of the herbicide was noted in resistant bio- •OH and singlet oxygen cannot be neutralized (Rabinowitch types. Diethyldithiocarbamate (chelating agent) increased and Fridovich 1983). Carotenoids can facilitate the return of the activity of paraquat on resistant plants. However, it did not singlet oxygen to its ground state by quenching or neutraliza- enhance efficacy on susceptible biotypes (Bewick et al.
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]
  • 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]
  • Environmental Health Criteria 39 PARAQUAT and DIQUAT
    Environmental Health Criteria 39 PARAQUAT AND DIQUAT Please note that the layout and pagination of this web version are not identical with the printed version. Paraquat and diquat (EHC 39, 1984) INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA 39 PARAQUAT AND DIQUAT This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, or the World Health Organization. Published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization World Health Orgnization Geneva, 1984 The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization. The main objective of the IPCS is to carry out and disseminate evaluations of the effects of chemicals on human health and the quality of the environment. Supporting activities include the development of epidemiological, experimental laboratory, and risk-assessment methods that could produce internationally comparable results, and the development of manpower in the field of toxicology. Other activities carried out by the IPCS include the development of know-how for coping with chemical accidents, coordination of laboratory testing and epidemiological studies, and promotion of research on the mechanisms of the biological action of chemicals. ISBN 92 4 154099 4 The World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full. Applications and enquiries should be addressed to the Office of Publications, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, which will be glad to provide the latest information on any changes made to the text, plans for new editions, and reprints and translations already available.
    [Show full text]
  • Diquat Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) Depository) 11-2005 Diquat Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report Bureau of Land Management Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs Part of the Life Sciences Commons, and the Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Bureau of Land Management, "Diquat Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report" (2005). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 107. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/107 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bureau of Land Management Reno, Nevada Diquat Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report November 2005 Bureau of Land Management Contract No. NAD010156 ENSR Document Number 09090-020-650 Executive Summary The United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing a program to treat vegetation on up to six million acres of public lands annually in 17 western states in the continental United States (US) and Alaska. As part of this program, the BLM is proposing the use of ten herbicide active ingredients (a.i.) to control invasive plants and noxious weeds on approximately one million of the 6 million acres proposed for treatment. The BLM and its contractor, ENSR, are preparing a Vegetation Treatments Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate this and other proposed vegetation treatment methods and alternatives on lands managed by the BLM in the western continental US and Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Herbicide Groups
    List of herbicides Group Scientific name Trade name clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*, Hoegrass®), fenoxaprop (Cheetah® Gold* , Wildcat®), A Aryloxyphenoxypropionates fluazifop (Fusilade®, Fusion®*), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) butroxydim (Falcon®, Fusion®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim A Cyclohexanediones (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) A Phenylpyrazoles pinoxaden (Axial®) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, B Sulfonylureas Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron, (Logran®, Logran® B Power®*), tribenuron (Express®), trifloxysulfuron (Envoke®, Krismat®*) florasulam (Paradigm®*, Vortex®*, X-Pand®*), flumetsulam B Triazolopyrimidines (Broadstrike®), metosulam (Eclipse®), pyroxsulam (Crusader®Rexade®*) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®,), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, B Imidazolinones Lightning®*, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) B Pyrimidinylthiobenzoates bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) C Amides: propanil (Stam®) C Benzothiadiazinones: bentazone (Basagran®,
    [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]
  • Combinations of Penoxsulam and Diquat As Foliar Applications for Control of Waterhyacinth and Common Salvinia: Evidence of Herbicide Antagonism
    J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 48: 21-25 Combinations of Penoxsulam and Diquat as Foliar Applications for Control of Waterhyacinth and Common Salvinia: Evidence of Herbicide Antagonism RYAN M. WERSAL1 AND J. D. MADSEN1,2 ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes [Mart.] Solms) and Waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes [Mart.] Solms) and common salvinia (Salvinia minima Baker) are two floating common salvinia (Salvinia minima Baker) are widespread aquatic plants that can cause wide-spread problems in the problems in waterways throughout the southern United southern United States. These species can cause reductions States. Waterhyacinth is an invasive free-floating aquatic in ecosystem function as well as the abundance of native plant from the tropical and subtropical regions of South plant species. Herbicides are often used in an attempt to America (Holm et al. 1991). Waterhyacinth effectively dou- control both species; however, few recommendations exist bles the number of plants within 12.5 d (Penfound and Ear- for common salvinia. Penoxsulam (2-(2,2-difluoroethoxy)-N- le 1948), increases dry biomass at a rate of 1.2% d-1, and (5,8 dimethoxy [1,2,4] triazolo [1,5-c] pyrimidin-2-yl)-6 (trif- peak biomass can reach a maximum of 2.5 kg m-2 under op- luoromethyl) benzenesulfonamide) is newly registered for timal conditions (Center and Spencer 1981). Waterhya- use in aquatic environments and is efficacious on floating cinth impedes the recreational use of rivers and lakes plants as a submersed application; however, foliar applica- (fishing, swimming, and boat traffic) and the generation of tion rates are largely undefined. The objectives of these stud- hydroelectric power.
    [Show full text]
  • Diquat Dibromide: Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
    United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738-R-95-016 Environmental Protection And Toxic Substances July 1995 Agency (7508W) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Diquat Dibromide UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Registrant: I am pleased to announce that the Environmental Protection Agency has completed its reregistration eligibility review and decisions on the pesticide chemical case diquat dibromide which icludes the active ingredient 6, 7-dihydrodipyrido(1,2-a:2',1,-c)pyrazinediium dibromide. The enclosed Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) contains the Agency's evaluation of the data base of these chemicals, its conclusions of the potential human health and environmental risks of the current product uses, and its decisions and conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The RED includes the data and labeling requirements for products for reregistration. It may also include requirements for additional data (generic) on the active ingredients to confirm the risk assessments. To assist you with a proper response, read the enclosed document entitled "Summary of Instructions for Responding to the RED". This summary also refers to other enclosed documents which include further instructions. You must follow all instructions and submit complete and timely responses. The first set of required responses are due 90 days from the date of this letter. The second set of required responses are due 8 months from the date of this letter. Complete and timely responses will avoid the Agency taking the enforcement action of suspension against your products. If you have questions on the product specific data requirements or wish to meet with the Agency, please contact the Special Review and Reregistration Division representative Franklin Rubis at (703) 308-8184.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Countless Tons of Arsenic As a Non-Selective Contact and Soil Sterilant
    87 In addition to requiring the user to obtain a permit from, the agricultural commissioner, t4e regulations prescribe certain conditions to be met by those who possess or use sodium arsenite as follows: (a) No pesticide containing sodium arsenite shall be applied on exposed vegetation (other than dormant grapeviries) unless the vegetation to be treated is enclosed within a good and su£ficient fence or otherwis.e made inaccessible to grazing animals, pets, and children. (b) No pesticide containing sodium arsenite sha,11 be applied on soil or vegetation (other than dormant grapevines) in any area penetrated by roots of any plant of value, without the written consent of the owner of such plant. ( c) No pesticide containing sodium arsenite shall be kept or placed in drinking cups, pop bottles, or other containers of a type commonly used for food or drink. (d) No pesticide containing sodium arsenite, whether in concentrated or dilute form, shall be stored, placed, or transported in any container or receptacle which does not bear on the outside a conspicuous poison label which conforms to the label required to be placed on all packages of arsenic compounds and pre:parations sold or delivered within the State. These are only procedures that any careful person would observe in the use of a poisonous material like sodium arsenite. It is just over one year since the regulations became effective. In that time we have heard of no accidental deaths involving sodium arsenite in California and the regulations appear to be serving a good purpose. SUBSTITUTE HERBICIDES FOR SODIUM ARSENITE W.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Paraquat and Diquat: LC-MS Method Optimization and Validation ⇑ Ionara R
    Food Chemistry 209 (2016) 248–255 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Chemistry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchem Analytical Methods Determination of paraquat and diquat: LC-MS method optimization and validation ⇑ Ionara R. Pizzutti a, , Giovana M.E. Vela a, André de Kok b, Jos M. Scholten b, Jonatan V. Dias a, Carmem D. Cardoso a, Germani Concenço c, Rafael Vivian d a Federal University of Santa Maria, Chemistry Department, Center of Research and Analysis of Residues and Contaminants (CEPARC), Santa Maria, RS, Brazil b NVWA – Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, Laboratory of Food and Feed Safety, Chemistry Laboratory, R&D Group, National Reference Laboratory (NRL) for Pesticide Residues in Food and Feed, Wageningen, The Netherlands c Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) – Western Region Agriculture, Dourados, MS, Brazil d Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) – Products and Markets, Brasilia, DF, Brazil article info abstract Article history: This study describes the optimization and single-laboratory validation of a single residue method for Received 27 May 2015 determination of two bipyridylium herbicides, paraquat and diquat, in cowpeas by UPLC-MS/MS in a total Received in revised form 2 December 2015 run time of 9.3 min. The method is based on extraction with an acidified methanol-water mixture. Accepted 18 April 2016 Different extraction parameters (extraction solvent composition, temperature, sample extract filtration, Available online 19 April 2016 and pre-treatment of the laboratory sample) were evaluated in order to optimize the extraction method efficiency. Isotopically labeled internal standards, Paraquat-D6 and Diquat-D4, were used and added to Keywords: the test portions prior to extraction.
    [Show full text]
  • California Turfgrass Culture
    California Turfgrass Culture FORMERLY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TURFGRASS CULTURE OCTOBER 1963 VOLUME 13 - NUMBER 4 Regulation of Sodium Arsenite as an Injurious Material John C. Hillis California Department of Agriculture Sacramento Effective January 1, 1962, sodium arsenite was placed pest or vegetation which it is intended to destroy. Thus under regulation as an injurious material. Since then, an injurious material sold for weed control or control of a persons intending to use it in California have been re- plant disease or of a micro-organism is subject to the quired to obtain a permit from the county agricultural requirement of a permit. On the other hand, if sodium commissioner. In addition, it is illegal to sell or deliver arsenite is sold for a non-agricultural and non-pesticidal it to persons who do not have the required permit. use, for example, in metallurgy, or in drilling to facilitate the operation mechanically, the use would not be subject The regulation was adopted after public hearing and to the requirement of a permit. consideration of the history of accidental deaths over the years as well as injury to property. All sizes of sodium arsenite pesticide containers are subject to the requirement of a permit; however, there is Section 1080 of the Agricultural Code provides that an exemption in that no permit is required to use products “after investigation and hearing the Director shall adopt sold as dilute ready-to-use syrups or dry baits, registered rules and regulations governing the application, in pest and labeled for use as poison baits for the control of control or other agricultural operations, of any material he insects and other arthropods, snails and slugs, or rodents.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economic and Pest Management Evaluation of the Herbicide Dacthal in California Agriculture
    An Economic and Pest Management Evaluation of the Herbicide Dacthal in California Agriculture Prepared for California Department of Food and Agriculture Office of Pesticide Consultation and Analysis Rachael Goodhue1 Steven Fennimore2 Daniel Tregeagle3 Tor Tolhurst4 Hanlin Wei4 1Professor and Chair, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2Extension Specialist and Weed Ecophysiologist, Department of Plant Sciences 3Post-Doc, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics 4PhD Student, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Davis 1 Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................7 Introduction................................................................................................................................8 Background...........................................................................................................................10 Dacthal use and Groundwater Protection Areas....................................................................11 Regulatory process................................................................................................................12 Dacthal Use...............................................................................................................................15 Statewide..............................................................................................................................15 Monterey County..................................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]