Environmental Health Criteria 39 PARAQUAT and DIQUAT

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

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. Page 1 of 123 Paraquat and diquat (EHC 39, 1984) (c) World Health Organization 1984 Publications of the World Health Organization enjoy copyright protection in accordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers' products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA FOR PARAQUAT AND DIQUAT PARAQUAT 1. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1. Summary 1.1.1. General properties 1.1.2. Environmental distribution and transformation - environmental effects 1.1.3. Kinetics and metabolism 1.1.4. Effects on experimental animals 1.1.5. Effects on man 1.2. Recommendations 1.2.1. General 1.2.2. Prevention and treatment 1.2.3. Experimental work 2. IDENTITY, PROPERTIES AND ANALYTICAL METHODS 2.1. Identity 2.2. Physical and chemical properties 2.3. Analytical methods 3. SOURCES IN THE ENVIRONMENT 3.1. Introduction 3.1.1. Industrial technology 3.1.2. Impurities 3.2. Production and use 3.3. Mechanism of the herbicidal effect 4. ENVIRONMENTAL DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION 4.1. Photochemical degradation 4.1.1. Photochemical degradation on plant surfaces 4.1.2. Photochemical degradation of paraquat on soil and other mineral surfaces Page 2 of 123 Paraquat and diquat (EHC 39, 1984) 4.2. Microbial degradation 4.3. Environmental adsorption and transformation 4.3.1. Soil 4.3.2. Water 4.3.3. Air 4.3.4. Plants 4.3.5. Animals 5. BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY OF RESIDUES 5.1. Soil organisms 5.2. Effect of residues on crop yields 5.3. Effects on fish and aquatic organisms 5.4. Effects on birds 6. KINETICS AND METABOLISM 6.1. Animal studies 6.1.1. Absorption 6.1.1.1 Oral absorption 6.1.1.2 Pulmonary absorption 6.1.1.3 Dermal absorption 6.1.2. Distribution 6.1.3. Metabolic transformation and excretion 6.2. Observations on human beings 6.2.1. Observations on paraquat poisoning after ingestion: non-fatal cases 6.2.2. Observations on paraquat poisoning after ingestion: fatal cases 6.2.3. Significance of paraquat concentrations in cases of paraquat poisoning 6.3. Biochemical mechanisms 7. EFFECTS ON ANIMALS 7.1. Effects on experimental animals 7.1.1. Respiratory system 7.1.1.1 Pathomorphological lung studies 7.1.1.2 Species differences in lung injury 7.1.1.3 Functional lung studies 7.1.2. Renal system 7.1.3. Gastrointestinal tract and liver 7.1.4. Skin and eyes 7.1.5. Other systems 7.1.6. Effects on reproduction, embryotoxicity, and teratogenicity 7.1.6.1 Effects on reproduction 7.1.6.2 Embryotoxicity and teratogenicity 7.1.7. Mutagenicity 7.1.8. Carcinogenicity 7.2. Effects on farm animals 7.3. Dose-effect of paraquat 7.4. Methods for decreasing paraquat toxicity 7.5. Relation between age, sex, and toxicity 8. EFFECTS ON MAN 8.1. Accidental and suicidal poisoning 8.1.1. Case reports 8.1.2. Distribution of cases of paraquat poisoning 8.1.3. Route of entry 8.1.4. Formulations 8.1.5. Dose 8.1.6. Clinical and pathomorphological data Page 3 of 123 Paraquat and diquat (EHC 39, 1984) relating to fatal paraquat poisoning 8.1.6.1 Respiratory system 8.1.6.2 Renal system 8.1.6.3 Gastrointestinal system, the liver, and the pancreas 8.1.6.4 Cardiovascular system 8.1.6.5 Central nervous system 8.1.6.6 Adrenal glands 8.1.6.7 Pregnancy 8.1.7. Recovery from paraquat poisoning 8.2. Occupational exposure 8.2.1. Epidemiological studies and case reports 8.2.1.1 Spraying personnel 8.2.1.2 Formulation workers 8.2.2. Cases of occupational poisoning and local caustic effects 8.2.2.1 Oral ingestion 8.2.2.2 Dermal absorption 8.2.2.3 Local skin and nail effects 8.2.2.4 Ocular damage 8.2.2.5 Inhalation 8.3. Use of marijuana contaminated by paraquat 8.4. Guidelines for the treatment of paraquat poisoning 9. EVALUATION OF RISKS FOR HUMAN HEALTH AND EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 9.1. Exposure 9.2. Poisoning by paraquat 9.2.1. Suicidal ingestion 9.2.2. Accidental poisoning 9.2.3. Occupational poisoning 9.3. Occupational exposure 9.4. Effects 9.4.1. Paraquat toxicity in animals 9.4.2. Paraquat determination in biological fluids and tissues 9.5. Earlier evaluations by international bodies 9.6. Conclusions REFERENCES DIQUAT 1. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1. Summary 1.1.1. General properties 1.1.2. Environmental distribution and transformation - environmental effects 1.1.3. Kinetics and metabolism 1.1.4. Effects on animals 1.1.5. Effects on man 1.2. Recommendations 1.2.1. General 1.2.2. Prevention and treatment 1.2.3. Experimental work 2. PROPERTIES AND ANALYTICAL METHODS 2.1. Physical and chemical properties 2.2. Analytical procedures 3. SOURCES IN THE ENVIRONMENT 3.1. Production and uses Page 4 of 123 Paraquat and diquat (EHC 39, 1984) 4. ENVIRONMENTAL DISTRIBUTION, LEVELS, AND EXPOSURE 4.1. Photochemical and microbial degradation of diquat 4.1.1. Photochemical degradation 4.1.2. Microbial degradation 4.2. Diquat adsorption, residue levels, and exposure in soil 4.2.1. Diquat adsorption on soil particles 4.2.2. Residue levels of diquat in soils 4.2.3. Effect of residual diquat on soil biological activity, and on plants and crop yields 4.3. Diquat transformation, residue levels, and effects on aquatic organisms and crops 4.3.1. Transformation and residue levels of diquat in water 4.3.2. Effects of residual diquat on aquatic organisms and crops 4.4. Diquat exposure and residue levels in plants and animals 4.4.1. Plants 4.4.2. Animals 4.5. Diquat levels in air and exposure of workers 5. KINETICS AND METABOLISM 5.1. Animal studies 5.1.1. Absorption 5.1.2. Distribution 5.1.3. Metabolic transformation and excretion 5.2. Observations on man 6. EFFECTS ON ANIMALS 6.1. Effects on experimental animals 6.1.1. Gastrointestinal system and liver 6.1.2. Renal system 6.1.3. Eyes and skin 6.1.4. Respiratory system 6.1.5. Nervous system 6.1.6. Effects on reproduction, embryotoxicity, and teratogenicity 6.1.6.1 Effects on reproduction 6.1.6.2 Embryotoxicity and teratogenicity 6.1.7. Mutagencity 6.1.8. Carcinogenicity 6.2. Effects on farm animals 6.3. Dose-effect of diquat 7. EFFECTS ON MAN 7.1. Case reports 7.2. Effects on agricultural operators 7.3. First aid and medical treatment 8. EVALUATION OF RISKS FOR HUMAN HEALTH AND EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 8.1. Exposure 8.1.1. Relative contributions of soil, water, air, and food sources to total diquat uptake 8.1.2. General population exposure 8.1.3. Occupational exposure 8.2. Effects 8.2.1. Diquat toxicity in animals 8.3. Earlier evaluations of diquat by international bodies 8.4. Conclusions REFERENCES Page 5 of 123 Paraquat and diquat (EHC 39, 1984) NOTE TO READERS OF THE CRITERIA DOCUMENTS While every effort has been made to present information in the criteria documents as accurately as possible without unduly delaying their publication, mistakes might have occurred and are likely to occur in the future. In the interest of all users of the environmental health criteria documents, readers are kindly requested to communicate any errors found to the Manager of the International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, in order that they may be included in corrigenda, which will appear in subsequent volumes.
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]
  • Delayed Fluorescence Imaging of Photosynthesis Inhibitor and Heavy Metal Induced Stress in Potato
    Cent. Eur. J. Biol. • 7(3) • 2012 • 531-541 DOI: 10.2478/s11535-012-0038-z Central European Journal of Biology Delayed fluorescence imaging of photosynthesis inhibitor and heavy metal induced stress in potato Research Article Jaka Razinger1,*, Luka Drinovec2, Maja Berden-Zrimec3 1Agricultural Institute of Slovenia, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia 2Aerosol d.o.o., 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia 3Institute of Physical Biology, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Received 09 November 2011; Accepted 13 March 2012 Abstract: Early chemical-induced stress in Solanum tuberosum leaves was visualized using delayed fluorescence (DF) imaging. The ability to detect spatially heterogeneous responses of plant leaves exposed to several toxicants using delayed fluorescence was compared to prompt fluorescence (PF) imaging and the standard maximum fluorescence yield of PSII measurements (Fv/Fm). The toxicants used in the study were two photosynthesis inhibitors (herbicides), 100 μM methyl viologen (MV) and 140 μM diuron (DCMU), and two heavy metals, 100 μM cadmium and 100 μM copper. The exposure times were 5 and 72 h. Significant photosynthesis-inhibitor effects were already visualized after 5 h. In addition, a significant reduction in the DF/PF index was measured in DCMU- and MV-treated leaves after 5 h. In contrast, only DCMU-treated leaves exhibited a significant decrease in Fv/Fm after 5 h. All treatments resulted in a significant decrease in the DF/PF parameter after 72 h of exposure, when only MV and Cd treatment resulted in visible symptoms. Our study highlights the power of delayed fluorescence imaging. Abundant quantifiable spatial information was obtained with the instrumental setup. Delayed fluorescence imaging has been confirmed as a very responsive and useful technique for detecting stress induced by photosynthesis inhibitors or heavy metals.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Seed in the U.S. the Untold American Revolution 660 Pennsylvania Ave SE Suite 302 Washington, D.C
    History of Seed in the U.S. The Untold American Revolution 660 Pennsylvania Ave SE Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20003 P (202) 547-9359 F (202) 547-9429 www.centerforfoodsafety.org Save Our Seeds An exhibition at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., What’s Cooking Uncle Sam?, traces the history of U.S. agriculture from “the horse and plow (SOS) to today’s mechanized farm.” While the exhibition contains humorous elements, including a corporate campaign to win the War Food A program of the Administration’s endorsement of its Vitamin Donuts—“For pep and vigor… Center for Food Safety Vitamin Donuts!”—it also chronicles a sobering story of American farming and how the effects of U.S. food and agricultural policies reach far beyond the borders of Uncle Sam. Throughout, it is clear that the path of agriculture begins with the seed. Over the past 40 years, the U.S. has led a radical shift toward commercialization, consolidation, and control of seed. Prior to the advent of industrial agriculture, there were thousands of seed companies and public breeding institutions. At present, the top 10 seed and chemical companies, with the majority stake owned by U.S. corporations, control 73 1 Debbie Barker percent of the global market. International Program Today, fewer than 2 percent of Americans are farmers,2 whereas 90 percent 3 Director of our citizens lived on farms in 1810. This represents perhaps a more transformative revolution than even the Revolutionary War recorded in our history books. August 2012 This report will provide a summary of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Congener Patterns of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins
    Science of the Total Environment 746 (2020) 141098 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv Review Congener patterns of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans and biphenyls as a useful aid to source identification during a contamination incident in the food chain Ron L.A.P. Hoogenboom a,⁎, Rainer Malisch b, Stefan P.J. van Leeuwen a, Huig Vanderperren c, Helge Hove d, Alwyn Fernandes f, Alexander Schächtele b, Martin Rose e,g a Wageningen Food Safety Research, Wageningen UR, Akkermaalsbos 2, 6708 WB Wageningen, the Netherlands b EURL for POPs, CVUA, Bissierstraße 5, 79114 Freiburg, Germany c FLVV, Leuvensesteenweg 17, 3080 Tervuren, Belgium d NIFES, Strandgaten 229, 5004 Bergen, Norway e FERA Science Ltd, Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK f School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK g Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK HIGHLIGHTS GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT • Congener patterns are important tools for source identification. • TEQ contribution may be preferred over contribution to total sum. • Only PCDDs point to clay or chlorophenols, only PCDFs to PCB sources. • Mixed patterns point to minerals or burning processes. • Simple patterns indicate certain pesti- cides or herbicides. article info abstract Article history: Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and biphenyls (PCBs) are still consid- Received 7 May 2020 ered among the most important groups of contaminants in the food chain. Self-control by food producers Received in revised form 13 July 2020 and official control by authorities are important activities that allow contaminant sources to be traced Accepted 18 July 2020 and promote further reduction in food and feed levels.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States' Chemical Defoliant Use During the Vietnam War and Its
    ABSTRACT OATSVALL, NEIL SHAFER. War on Nature, War on Bodies: The United States’ Chemical Defoliant Use During the Vietnam War and Its Consequences. (Under the direction of Matthew Morse Booker.) During most of the Vietnam War, from 1961-1971, the United States military sprayed chemical defoliants on a significant part of the Vietnamese environment in order to gain a military advantage. US forces used these chemicals in an attempt to substitute technology and financial resources for manpower to triumph over a relatively technologically deficient enemy. This effort, dubbed “Operation Ranch Hand,” wrought incredible destruction not only on Vietnam’s natural setting, but also on everyone involved; Vietnamese and American, civilian and soldier. This work examines the consequences of defoliation, and aims to show that those outcomes proved more severe in both scale and efficacy than any anticipated results. It differs from previous studies by combining environmental, military, medical, and cultural factors and considering them as interrelated. Whenever possible this study also tries to bring in a Vietnamese perspective, though that is often impossible due to a lack of available evidence in English. In this war, the United States treated not only the Vietnamese Communists as enemies but also assaulted the natural environment as foe. The interconnections forged during this complicated interpretation of nature and enemy are essential to the study of Operation Ranch Hand and chemical defoliation operations. Nature mattered to both sides, and an
    [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 digitalcommons@usu.edu. 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]
  • Classification of Herbicides
    Title of the course : Weed Management Credit: 3(2+1) Class : 3rd Year IInd Semester Title of the topic : Principles of weed management College : Krishi vigyan Kendra,College of Agriculture, Rewa, JNKVV, Jabalpur Name of Teacher : Dr. (Mrs.) Smita Singh Classification of Herbicides Herbicides: Chemical method of weed control is very effective in certain cases and have great scope provided the herbicides are cheap, efficient and easily available. The chemicals used for killing the weeds or inhibiting growth of weeds are called herbicides (Weedicides). Classification of Herbicides: Herbicides are classified in different ways: A) First Group Chemical Herbicides: I) Classification of herbicides according to chemical composition. II) Classification of herbicides according to their use. III) Classification of herbicides based on time of application. IV) Classification of herbicides according to Formulation. V) Classification of herbicides according to residual effect. B) Second Group – Bio herbicides C) Third Group herbicidal mixtures. Classification of herbicide I) Classification of Herbicide Based on Chemical Nature or Composition Compounds having chemical affinities are grouped together. This is useful in liting and characterising herbicides. i) Inorganic Herbicides:Contain no carbon actions in their molecules. These were the first chemicals used for weed control before the introduction of the organic compounds, example are: a) Acids:Arsenic acid, arsenious acid, arsenic trioxide sulphuric acid. b) Salts:Borax, copper sulphate, ammonium sulphate, Na chlorate , Na arsenite , copper nitrate. ii) Organic Herbicides:Oils and non oils contain carbon and hydrogen in their molecules. a) Oils: Diesel oil, standard solvent, xylene-type, aromatic oils, polycyclic , aromatic oils etc. b) Aliphatics:Dalapon, TCA, Acrolein, Glyphosphate methyl bromide.
    [Show full text]
  • Dioxins: Volume I
    Item D Number 05331 G Not Scanned Author Esposito, M. P. Corporate Author PEDCO Environmental, Inc. RODOrt/ArtiClOTitlO Dioxins: Volume I. Sources, Exposure, Transport, and Control Journal/Book Title Year Month/Day June Color D Number of Images ° DBSBripton Notes Volume I of a three-volume series. Contract No. 68-03-2577; EPA-600/2-80-156; Also includes letter from David R. Watkins to Alvin L. Young, August 7,1980 and distribution list. Tuesday, March 05, 2002 Page 5331 of 5363 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268 AUG 7 1980 Major Alvin L. Young Department of the Air Force School of Air and Space Medicine SAM/EK Brooks AFB, Texas 78235 Dear Major Young: Enclosed are three reports which have been published as a series and are intended to serve as a comprehensive reference on the subject of dioxins. Volume I is a state-of-the-art review of dioxin literature. De- tailed information is presented on the chemistry, sources, degrada- tion, transport, disposal, and health effects of dioxins. Accounts of public and occupational exposure to dioxins are also included. Volume II details the development of an analytical method for detecting part- per-trillion levels of dioxins in industrial wastes. While this report represents the current developments within the EPA (IERL-CI), there are further advancements that have been made by independent laboratories. This report includes a review of the analytical literature on methods of detecting dioxins in various types of environmental samples. Volume III identifies various routes of information of dioxins.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Paraquat and Alachlor on Soil Microorganisms in Peat Soil
    Pertanika 15(2),121-125 (1992) Effects of Paraquat and Alachlor on Soil Microorganisms in Peat Soil ISMAIL SAHID, AINON HAMZAH and PARIDAH M. ARIS Faculty of Life Sciences Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia Keywords: AlacWor, paraquat, microbes, peat soil. ABSTRAK Satu kajian telah dijalankan untuk melihat kesan alachlor dan paraquat ke atas aktiviti mikrob dalam tanah gambut. Kesan racun rumpai ke atas pembebasan CO2 dan aktiviti phosphatase dimonitor selama 12 minggu. Hasil yang diperolehi menunjukkan paraquat dan alachlor yang disembur kepada tanah menyebabkan peningkatan pembebasan CO di peringkat awal pengeraman tetapi berkurangan selepas 53 han. Lebih banyak CO dibebaskan 2 2 dari tanah yang dirawat dengan alachlor berbanding dengan tanah yang dirawat dengan paraquat. Aktiviti phosphatase meningkat di peringkat awal pengeraman bagi tanah yang diperlakukan dengan sama ada alachlor atau paraquat. Aktiviti phosphatase meningkat di peringkat awal pengeraman bagi tanah yang diperlakukan dengan sama ada alachlor atau paraquat tetapi aktiviti phosphatase berkurangan seiepas 12 han eraman. Populasi kulat dan bakteria dipengaruhi oleh kedua-dua racun rumpai yang diuji. Pada kepekatan 250 ppm, alachlor dan paraquat, masing-masing menyebabkan pengurangan populasi bakteria kira-kira 78 dan 95%. Alachlor didapati lebih toksik terhadap kulat berbanding paraquat. ABSTRACT A study was carried out to investigate the effects ofalachlor and paraquat on microbial activities in peat soil. Effects ofthe herbicides on CO2 evolution and phosphatase activity were monitored for 12 weeks in ambient conditions. The results showed that paraquat and alachlor caused an initial increase in CO2 released and subsequently decreased after 53 days of incubation. Comparatively, more CO2 was released from the soil treated with alachlor than that treated with paraquat.
    [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]