DOCSLIB.ORG

The Influence of Multiple Herbicide Resistance on Growth And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Influence of Multiple Herbicide Resistance on Growth And Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2018 The influence of multiple herbicide resistance on growth and development of Amaranthus tuberculatus and the efficacy of the very long chain fatty acid-inhibiting herbicides on multiple herbicide-resistant Amaranthus tuberculatus; Investigating a putative 4-hydroxylphenylpyruvate dioxygenase-inhibiti Eric Alexander Lyle Jones Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Agricultural Science Commons, Agriculture Commons, and the Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Jones, Eric Alexander Lyle, "The influence of multiple herbicide resistance on growth and development of Amaranthus tuberculatus and the efficacy of the very long chain fatty acid-inhibiting herbicides on multiple herbicide-resistant Amaranthus tuberculatus; Investigating a putative 4-hydroxylphenylpyruvate dioxygenase-inhibiti" (2018). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 16386. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/16386 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The influence of multiple herbicide resistance on growth and development of Amaranthus tuberculatus and the efficacy of the very long chain fatty acid-inhibiting herbicides on multiple herbicide-resistant Amaranthus tuberculatus; Investigating a putative 4-hydroxylphenylpyruvate dioxygenase-inhibiting herbicide–resistant Ambrosia trifida population by Eric Alexander Lyle Jones A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major: Agronomy (Weed Science) Program of Study Committee: Micheal D.K. Owen, Co-Major Professor Robert G Hartzler, Co-Major Professor Allen D. Knapp The student author, whose presentation of the scholarship herein was approved by the program of study committee, is solely responsible for the content of this thesis. The Graduate College will ensure this thesis is globally accessible and will not permit alterations after a degree is conferred. Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2018 Copyright © Eric Alexander Lyle Jones, 2018. All rights reserved. ii DEDICATION I dedicate my thesis to Gary Park, Robert Park, and Turner Jones. I love and greatly miss you three. While I may not have adopted the “outlaw” lifestyle as most Park and Jones men are destined to, I hope you all are looking down upon me with smiling faces. You all shaped me into the person I am today. The many fond memories I have with you three will continue to bring me joy. You all left too early and I am eager until we meet again. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv ABSTRACT vi CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND LITERAURE REVIEW 1 CHAPTER 2 INFLUENCE OF MULTIPLE HERBICIDE RESISTANCE ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN AMARANTHUS TUBERCULATUS 12 CHAPTER 3 INVESTIGATING EFFICACY OF SELECTED VERY LONG CHAIN FATTY ACID-INHIBITING HERBICIDES ON AMARANTHUS TUBERCULATUS POPULATIONS WITH EVOLVED MULTIPLE HERBICIDE RESISTANCES 36 CHAPTER 4 INVESTIGATING A PUTATIVE HPPD-RESISTANT AMBROSIA TRIFIDA POPULATION 56 CHAPTER 5 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY 75 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Foremost, I would like to address my Mother, Leah Jones, for providing me a life that only the finest people deserve. From cleaning my wrestling clothes in years past to helping me figuring out the “real world”, my Mother has been my number one consultant. Secondly, I would like to address my father, Terry Jones. My father taught me how to have a strong work ethic and to never half-heartedly finish a job and be satisfied with the outcome. I am forever grateful for my parent’s guidance and love during my presently short journey of life. Next, I would like to thank my committee consisting of Drs. Micheal Owen, Robert Hartzler, Allen Knapp, and John Hinz. I will be forever grateful to be the last “gradual” student of Dr. Owen’s prestigious lab group. I was granted the freedom to study my specific interests in weed science. I will always appreciate the guidance you offered and the challenge of your hands-off approach. It has also been a pleasure to share a similar lineage, interests, and hobbies with my major professor. I would like to thank Dr. Hartzler for challenging my understanding of weed science topics and allowing me to assist in teaching his famed weed identification class (Agronomy 217). While I may not have been the greatest teaching assistant, I would like to say it was a great opportunity to teach future agronomists a valuable skill. It should be mentioned our weekly chats (discussion, civil arguments, etc.) were never taken in vain; you are a great teacher, mentor, and “nozzle head” (despite your many notions that you are indeed not!). v Dr. Knapp provided me with my basic understanding of plant physiology (Agronomy 316), which did not seem basic at the time. Prior knowledge of the two photosystems, carotenoids, and plastoquinones has made learning herbicide physiology easier than expected. Your helpful comments and insights were invaluable to writing this thesis and journal manuscripts. I would like to thank Dr. John Hinz for exposing me to the addictive subject of “weed science”. What may have been an internship to another Iowa State University student became my lifelong passion. I am glad you decided to give this “city slicker” a chance to prove himself! I would like to extend my thanks to Angela Rieck-Hinz as well for contributing to improve my interest in agronomy and weed science. Finally, I would like to acknowledge Damian (Damos) Franzenburg, James (Jimmi) Lee, Iththiphonh (Alex) Macvilay, James (Lux-um-burger) Lux, and Daniel (Dandy Danielson) Kohlhase. I am certain without the help and guidance from all of you I would not have made it to this point. It is doubtful I will ever be able to work with another group that will be able to rival the fun and memories I established with you all. vi ABSTRACT Iowa farmers rely mainly on herbicides for weed management. Inconsistent and unsatisfactory weed control is being realized as the spread of herbicide-resistant weed populations has increased. Populations of waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J.D. Sauer) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) have evolved resistance to glyphosate and other herbicides commonly used in crop fields. This research focuses on the growth and development of multiple herbicide-resistant waterhemp and assessing the evolution of new herbicide-resistant waterhemp and giant ragweed populations. Significant differences in growth, flowering, accumulated biomass, and seed production were detected when the multiple herbicide-resistant waterhemp populations were compared to a herbicide-susceptible waterhemp population. While statistically significant differences were detected, the small differences are not likely to select herbicide-susceptible waterhemp populations over MHR waterhemp populations. Thus, it can be concluded that plants with multiple herbicide resistances are not likely incurring a fitness penalty and may remain in the agroecosystem. Currently, very long chain fatty acid- and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD, EC 1.13.11.27)-inhibiting herbicides are still efficacious on many waterhemp and giant ragweed populations, respectively. Since herbicides impart such a large selection pressure on weed populations, the recurrent use of specific herbicides may decrease efficacy longevity as only herbicide-resistant individuals will remain. 1 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION Introduction Weeds are plants with the ability to colonize areas disturbed by man, a consequence of plant domestication (Harlan 1992, Dekker 2011). Every control tactic that has been employed to eradicate weeds has failed (Gressel et al. 2016). Herbicides, once considered the end-all-be- all weed control tools, are becoming less efficacious as the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds increases. In addition to selecting for herbicide-resistant weeds, herbicides have caused shifts in weed population demographics to more resilient weed species (Keeley 1987). If farmers want to continue to manage weeds successfully, basic weed biology must be learned (Swanton and Weise 1991). An integrated weed management (IWM) approach will consist of “many little hammers” rather than “one big hammer”, meaning many less efficacious tactics used together will provide high efficacy with relatively low selection pressure (Liebman and Gallandt 1997). Little hammer tactics, including tillage, row spacing, cover crops, and utilization of grainivores, all rely on knowledge of weed biology in order to kill weeds efficiently (Liebman and Gallandt 1997, Harrison et al. 2003). Herbicide Resistance Besides tillage, herbicides provide the highest selection pressure for evolution in agricultural weeds (Gressel 2009, Zelaya and Owen 2005). Select individuals within the population possess natural mutations that allow the plant to survive a lethal herbicide dose. When the herbicide is applied, herbicide-susceptible individuals will die and herbicide-resistant individuals will produce seeds and add to the soil seed bank. Recurrent application of the same herbicide(s) will likely lead to the evolution of a herbicide-resistant weed population. 2 Weeds with multiple herbicide
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Relative Tolerance of Peanuts to Alachlor and Metolachlor' Materials
    Relative Tolerance of Peanuts to Alachlor and Metolachlor' Glenn Wehtje*, John W. Wilcut, T. Vint Hicks2. and John McGuire3 ABSTRACT vealed that peas were most sensitive across all the sub- Field studies were conducted during 1984, 1985, and 1987 to evaluate weed control and the relative tolerance of peanuts stituted amide herbicides when the application was (Arachis hypogaea) to alachlor and metolachlor when applied at made 2 days after planting. This time of application cor- rates from 2.2 to 13.4 kg adha. Both single and split responded to shoot emergence, which is considered to preemergence, and postemergence applications were in- be the most sensitive portion of the seedling, through cluded. In 1984 and 1985, neither herbicide adversely affected the surface of the treated soil. Later applications re- yields compared to a hand-weeded control. In 1987, metolachlor at a rate of 9.0 kgha and alachlor at 13.4 k&a re- sulted in progressively less injury, indicating that the duced yields. Across all years, at least a two-fold safety factor foliar portion of the developing pea was relatively toler- existed between the maximum registered rate and the rate ant once emerged. Field studies indicated injury was necessary for peanut injury. Occurrence of injury appears to be markedly influenced by rainfall soon after planting. related to rainfall. Metolachlor was slightly more mobile than alachlor in soil chromatography trials, which may be a factor in Putnam and Rice (7) evaluated the factors associated its slightly greater propensity to be injurious under certain with alachlor injury on snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris conditions of extensive leaching and/or slow peanut L.).
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Growth Regulation and Other Secondary Effects of Herbicides Edivaldo D
    Weed Science 2010 58:351–354 Growth Regulation and Other Secondary Effects of Herbicides Edivaldo D. Velini, Maria L. B. Trindade, Luis Rodrigo M. Barberis, and Stephen O. Duke* As all herbicides act on pathways or processes crucial to plants, in an inhibitory or stimulatory way, low doses of any herbicide might be used to beneficially modulate plant growth, development, or composition. Glyphosate, the most used herbicide in the world, is widely applied at low rates to ripen sugarcane. Low rates of glyphosate also can stimulate plant growth (this effect is called hormesis). When applied at recommended rates for weed control, glyphosate can inhibit rust diseases in glyphosate-resistant wheat and soybean. Fluridone blocks carotenoid biosynthesis by inhibition of phytoene desaturase and is effective in reducing the production of abscisic acid in drought-stressed plants. Among the acetolactate synthase inhibitors, sulfometuron-methyl is widely used to ripen sugarcane and imidazolinones can be used to suppress turf species growth. The application of protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors can trigger plant defenses against pathogens. Glufosinate, a glutamine synthetase inhibitor, is also known to improve the control of plant diseases. Auxin agonists (i.e., dicamba and 2,4-D) are effective, low-cost plant growth regulators. Currently, auxin agonists are still used in tissue cultures to induce somatic embryogenesis and to control fruit ripening, to reduce drop of fruits, to enlarge fruit size, or to extend the harvest period in citrus orchards. At low doses, triazine herbicides stimulate growth through beneficial effects on nitrogen metabolism and through auxin-like effects. Thus, sublethal doses of several herbicides have applications other than weed control.
    [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]
  • Agricultural Herbicide Use and Risk of Lymphoma and Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Shelia K
    Agricultural Herbicide Use and Risk of Lymphoma and Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Shelia K. Hoar, ScD; Aaron Blair, PhD; Frederick F. Holmes, MD; Cathy D. Boysen; Robert J. Robel, PhD; Robert Hoover, MD; Joseph F. Fraumeni, Jr, MD A population-based case-control study of soft-tissue sarcoma (STS), Hodgkin's agents for leather and textiles, and disease (HD), and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in Kansas found farm medications.1 For these reasons, a pop¬ herbicide use to be associated with NHL (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence ulation-based case-control study was interval [CI], 0.9, 2.6). Relative risk of NHL increased significantly with number conducted to clarify whether agricul¬ of of herbicide and Men to herbicides tural use of herbicides and insecticides days exposure per year latency. exposed and NHL in than 20 had sixfold increased risk of NHL 95% affects risk of STS, HD, more days per year a (OR, 6.0; the United States. CI, 1.9, 19.5) relative to nonfarmers. Frequent users who mixed or applied the herbicides themselves had an OR of 8.0 (95% CI, 2.3, 27.9) for NHL. Excesses METHODS were associated with use of phenoxyacetic acid herbicides, specifically Kansas, a major wheat-producing acid. Neither STS nor HD was associated with 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic state, was chosen as the location for pesticide exposure. This study confirms the reports from Sweden and several the study, since herbicides have been US NHL states that is associated with farm herbicide use, especially used more frequently than other pesti¬ phenoxyacetic acids.
    [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]
  • Target-Site Mutations Conferring Herbicide Resistance
    plants Review Target-Site Mutations Conferring Herbicide Resistance Brent P. Murphy and Patrick J. Tranel * Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-217-333-1531 Received: 4 September 2019; Accepted: 26 September 2019; Published: 28 September 2019 Abstract: Mutations conferring evolved herbicide resistance in weeds are known in nine different herbicide sites of action. This review summarizes recently reported resistance-conferring mutations for each of these nine target sites. One emerging trend is an increase in reports of multiple mutations, including multiple amino acid changes at the glyphosate target site, as well as mutations involving two nucleotide changes at a single amino acid codon. Standard reference sequences are suggested for target sites for which standards do not already exist. We also discuss experimental approaches for investigating cross-resistance patterns and for investigating fitness costs of specific target-site mutations. Keywords: D1 protein; acetolactate synthase; tubulin; ACCase; EPSPS; phytoene desaturase; PPO; glutamine synthetase; auxin 1. Introduction Herbicide-resistance mechanisms broadly fall under two categories: target-site mechanisms and non-target-site mechanisms [1,2]. The former involves a change to the molecular target of the herbicide (usually an enzyme) that decreases its affinity for the herbicide. Although much less common, target-site resistance can also occur via increased expression of the target, which results in more herbicide required to achieve a lethal effect [3,4]. Non-target-site resistance encompasses any mechanism that reduces the amount of herbicide that reaches the target site, or that ameliorates the effect of the herbicide despite its inhibition of the target site.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate Were
    A f Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate August 2020 GLYPHOSATE II DISCLAIMER Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Public Health Service, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. GLYPHOSATE III FOREWORD This toxicological profile is prepared in accordance with guidelines developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The original guidelines were published in the Federal Register on April 17, 1987. Each profile will be revised and republished as necessary. The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for these toxic substances described therein. Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a substance's toxicologic properties. Other pertinent literature is also presented, but is described in less detail than the key studies. The profile is not intended to be an exhaustive document; however, more comprehensive sources of specialty information are referenced. The focus of the profiles is on health and toxicologic information; therefore, each toxicological profile begins with a relevance to public health discussion which would allow a public health professional to make a real-time determination of whether the presence of a particular substance in the environment poses a potential threat to human health. The adequacy of information to determine a substance's
    [Show full text]
  • RR Program's RCL Spreadsheet Update
    RR Program’s RCL Spreadsheet Update March 2017 RR Program RCL Spreadsheet Update DNR-RR-052e The Wisconsin DNR Remediation and Redevelopment Program (RR) has updated the numerical soil standards in the August 2015 DNR-RR- 052b RR spreadsheet of residual contaminant levels (RCLs). The RCLs were determined using the U.S. EPA RSL web- calculator by accepting EPA exposure defaults, with the exception of using Chicago, IL, for the climatic zone. This documentThe U.S. provides EPA updateda summary its Regionalof changes Screening to the direct-contact Level (RSL) RCLs website (DC-RCLs) in June that2015. are To now reflect in the that March 2017 spreadsheet.update, the The Wisconsin last page ofDNR this updated document the has numerical the EPA exposuresoil standards, parameter or residual values usedcontaminant in the RCL levels calculations. (RCLs), in the Remediation and Redevelopment program’s spreadsheet of RCLs. This document The providesU.S. EPA a RSL summary web-calculator of the updates has been incorporated recently updated in the Julyso that 2015 the spreadsheet.most up-to-date There toxicity were values no changes for chemi - cals madewere certainlyto the groundwater used in the RCLs,RCL calculations. but there are However, many changes it is important in the industrial to note that and the non-industrial web-calculator direct is only a subpartcontact of the (DC) full RCLsEPA RSL worksheets. webpage, Tables and that 1 andthe other 2 of thissubparts document that will summarize have important the DC-RCL explanatory changes text, generic tablesfrom and the references previous have spreadsheet yet to be (Januaryupdated.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, Metolachlor + Metribuzin EC,04/15
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA Reg. Number: Date of Issuance: Office of Pesticide Programs Registration Division (7505P) 42750-360 4/15/20 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: METOLACHLOR + METRIBUZIN EC Name and Address of Registrant (include ZIP Code): Albaugh, LLC P.O. Box 2127 Valdosta, GA 31604-2127 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). You must comply with the following conditions: 1. Submit and/or cite all data required for registration/reregistration/registration review of your product under FIFRA when the Agency requires all registrants of similar products to submit such data.
    [Show full text]
  • Alachlor in Drinking-Water
    WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/31 English only Alachlor in Drinking-water Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality ______________________________ Originally published in Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 2nd ed. Vol.2. Health criteria and other supporting information. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1996. © World Health Organization 2003 All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization can be obtained from Marketing and Dissemination, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel: +41 22 791 2476; fax: +41 22 791 4857; email: [email protected]). Requests for permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or for noncommercial distribution – should be addressed to Publications, at the above address (fax: +41 22 791 4806; email: [email protected]). 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 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. The World Health Organization does not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use.
    [Show full text]