A Method to Determine the Relative Volatility of Auxin Herbicide Formulations

Gavlick, Walter K.; Wright, Daniel R.; MacInnes, Alison; Hemminghaus, John W.; Webb, Julie K.; Yermolenka, Viktar I.; Su, Wen-Hao

doi:10.1520/stp158720150006

Cited by 8 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This research was conducted in the fall of 2017 and used methods from previous research by Mueller et al (2013) and Gavlick et al (2016). Expendable supplies included plastic trays to hold the sprayed material, clear plastic vented humidity domes, soil, and the aforementioned sampling media.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dicamba volatility in humidomes as affected by temperature and herbicide treatment

Mueller

Steckel²

2019

Weed Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examined dicamba measurements following an application to soil inside a humidome. The dicamba formulations examined were the diglycolamine (DGA) and diglycolamine plus VaporGrip® (DGA+VG), both applied with glyphosate. Post-application dicamba measurements were related to ambient temperature, with more dicamba detected as the temperature increased. There also appeared to be a minimum temperature of ~15 C at which dicamba decreased to low levels. The addition of glyphosate to dicamba formulations decreased the spray mixture pH and increased the observed dicamba air concentrations. Adding glyphosate to DGA+VG increased detectable dicamba air concentrations by 2.9 to 9.3 times across the temperature ranges examined. Particle drift would not be expected to be a factor in the research, as applications were made remotely before treated soil was transported into the greenhouse. The most probable reason for the increased detection of dicamba at higher temperatures and with mixtures of glyphosate is via volatility.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dicamba volatility in humidomes as affected by temperature and herbicide treatment

Mueller

Steckel²

2019

Weed Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bio-indicator crops placed downwind of dicamba treatments were injured for 3 d after applications in the field (Behrens 1979). Other published methods (Strachan et al 2010) assessed volatility of synthetic auxin herbicides by exposing sensitive plants in enclosed chambers for 6 h, and Gavlick et al (2016) assessed volatility for 24 h. Both methods may not have assessed the complete time frame in which volatility could occur. Furthermore, only bare soil was treated in the system used by Gavlick et al (2016), and Strachan et al (2010) treated a glass surface as a source to generate vapors.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other published methods (Strachan et al 2010) assessed volatility of synthetic auxin herbicides by exposing sensitive plants in enclosed chambers for 6 h, and Gavlick et al (2016) assessed volatility for 24 h. Both methods may not have assessed the complete time frame in which volatility could occur. Furthermore, only bare soil was treated in the system used by Gavlick et al (2016), and Strachan et al (2010) treated a glass surface as a source to generate vapors. Both methods may underestimate the volatility of synthetic auxin herbicides when applied to crop foliage (Bedos et al 2002).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The system utilized by Sciumbato et al (2004) did not quantify herbicide concentration in the air, but rather relied on correlating plant response with a dose response from direct foliar applications of the herbicide. Strachan et al (2010) determined volatility by quantifying the loss of herbicide from a glass surface in an open system and compared the relative difference in plant injury from volatility of herbicide from a glass surface in a closed system for 6 h. Gavlick et al (2016) quantified volatility from a soil surface. The approaches used by Strachan et al (2010) and Gavlick et al (2016) do not account for volatility from leaf surfaces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A New Approach to Quantify Herbicide Volatility

Ouse¹,

Gifford²,

Schleier³

et al. 2018

Weed Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herbicide active ingredients, formulation type, ambient temperature, and humidity can influence volatility. A method was developed using volatility chambers to compare relative volatility of different synthetic auxin herbicide formulations in controlled environments. 2,4-D or dicamba acid vapors emanating after application were captured in air-sampling tubes at 24, 48, 72, and 96 h after herbicide application. The 2,4-D or dicamba was extracted from sample tubes and quantified using liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. Volatility from 2,4-D dimethylamine (DMA) was determined to be greater than that of 2,4-D choline in chambers where temperatures were held at 30 or 40 C and relative humidity (RH) was 20% or 50%. Air concentration of 2,4-D DMA was 0.399 µg m−3at 40 C and 20% RH compared with 0.005 µg m−3for 2,4-D choline at the same temperature and humidity at 24 h after application. Volatility from 2,4-D DMA and 2,4-D choline increased as temperature increased from 30 to 40 C. However, volatility from 2,4-D choline was lower than observed from 2,4-D DMA. Volatility from 2,4-D choline at 40 C increased from 0.00458 to 0.0263 µg m−3and from 0.00341 to 0.025 µg m−3when humidity increased from 20% to 50% at 72 and 96 h after treatment, respectively, whereas, volatility from 2,4-D DMA tended to be higher at 20% RH compared with 50% RH. Air concentration of dicamba diglycolamine was similar at all time points when measured at 40 C and 20% RH. By 96 h after treatment, there was a trend for lower air concentration of dicamba compared with earlier timings. This method using volatility chambers provided good repeatability with low variability across replications, experiments, and herbicides.

show abstract

“…Several dicamba formulations with different physicochemical properties are available in the market (BASF, 2016; Bayer CropScience, 2018; DuPont, 2017; MicroFlow, 2014; Monsanto, 2016), and it is known that they have different vapor pressures (Egan & Mortensen, 2012; Kelly, Wax, Hager, & Riechers, 2005). Some older formulations, such as dimethylamine salt, are 55 times more volatile than newer formulations, such as diglycolamine (DGA) salt (Gavlick et al., 2016). The largest focus for drift reduction practices has been on increasing spray droplet size and selecting newer formulations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tank contamination and simulated drift effects of dicamba‐containing formulations on soybean cultivars

Alves

Vieira

Ynfante

et al. 2020

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to (a) investigate the spray drift potential of dicamba (3,6‐dichloro‐2‐methoxybenzoic acid) formulations with different nozzles in a low‐speed wind tunnel and (b) evaluate the effects of sublethal rates of dicamba‐containing formulations on non–dicamba‐tolerant (DT) soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars. The dicamba formulations used were diglycolamine (DGA), N,N‐Bis‐(3‐aminopropyl)methylamine, and diglycolamine with VaporGrip (DGAvg). The wind tunnel drift study was conducted with these three dicamba formulations, two nozzle types (AIXR110015 and TTI110015), and five downwind distances from the nozzle (1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 m). The dicamba rate was 560 g ae ha−1, simulating a 140 L ha−1 carrier volume. The soybean exposure study was conducted in two experimental runs with three sublethal dicamba rates (0.112, 0.56, and 5.6 g ae ha−1), the three dicamba formulations aforementioned, and five non‐DT soybean cultivars (Asgrow A3253, Asgrow AG2636, Credenz CZ2601LL, DynaGro 39RY25, and Hoegemeyer 2511NRR). Applications were made using a spray chamber with a single AI9502EVS even nozzle that delivered 140 L ha−1. During applications, soybean plants were at three‐leaf growth stage. Dicamba formulations had different drift deposition across the AIXR and TTI nozzles. The soybean cultivars had different levels of sensitivity to dicamba and depended on rate vs. formulation interaction. The DGA caused greater biomass reduction on soybean cultivars compared with DGAvg, especially for Credenz CZ2601LL, which was one of the most dicamba‐sensitive cultivars along with Hoegemeyer 2511NRR. Additional care must be taken to mitigate off‐target movement from dicamba applications with these cultivars nearby.

show abstract

A Method to Determine the Relative Volatility of Auxin Herbicide Formulations

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Dicamba volatility in humidomes as affected by temperature and herbicide treatment

Dicamba volatility in humidomes as affected by temperature and herbicide treatment

A New Approach to Quantify Herbicide Volatility

Tank contamination and simulated drift effects of dicamba‐containing formulations on soybean cultivars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About