The Acetochlor Registration Partnership: Prospective Ground Water Monitoring Program

Newcombe, Andrew C.; Gustafson, David I.; Fuhrman, John D.; Wesenbeeck, I. J. van; Simmons, Nick D.; Klein, Andrew J.; Travis, Kim Z.; Harradine, Kevin J.

doi:10.2134/jeq2004.0428

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not surprising given that subsequent site‐specific investigations revealed that these sites, like others among the 14 with detections, were subject to direct interactions between ponded runoff water and the well. PRZM is unable to cope with either this process or preferential flow, the latter of which has been implicated in the only PGW (Prospective Ground Water Monitoring study) where parent acetochlor was detected, albeit only at trace (<0.10 μg L −1 ) levels, in shallow ground water (Newcombe et al, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Acetochlor Registration Partnership State Ground Water Monitoring Program

Guzman¹,

Hendley

Gustafson

et al. 2005

J of Env Quality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Acetochlor Registration Partnership (ARP) conducted a 7-yr ground water monitoring program at a total of 175 sites in seven states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. While acetochlor [2-chloro-N-(ethoxymethyl)-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-acetamide] was the primary focus, the analytical methods also quantified alachlor [2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)-acetamide], atrazine [6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine], metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)-acetamide], and two classes of soil degradates for acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor. Ground water samples were collected monthly for five years and quarterly for two additional years. All samples were analyzed for the presence of parent herbicides, and degradates were monitored during the last three years. Parent acetochlor was detected above 0.1 microg L(-1) in three or more samples at just seven sites. Alachlor and metolachlor were also rarely detected, but atrazine was detected in 36% of all samples analyzed. Even more widespread were the tertiary amide sulfonic acid (ethanesulfonic acid, ESA) degradates of acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor, which were detected at 81, 76, and 106 sites, respectively. The other class of monitored soil degradates (oxanilic acid, OXA) was detected less frequently, at 26, 16, and 63 sites for acetochlor OXA, alachlor OXA, and metolachlor OXA, respectively. The geographic distribution of detections did not follow the pattern originally expected when the study began. Rather than being a function primarily of soil texture, the detection of these herbicides in shallow ground water was related to site-specific factors associated with local topography, the occurrence of surface water drainage features, irrigation practices, and the vertical positioning of the well screen.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This publication describes the methods, results, and interpretation of the GWM. The ARP's surface water monitoring program and the field leaching studies are described in companion publications (Hackett et al, 2005; Newcombe et al, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Acetochlor Registration Partnership State Ground Water Monitoring Program

Guzman¹,

Hendley

Gustafson

et al. 2005

J of Env Quality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Values of DT50 for surface horizons obtained in the present study are greater than those measured in the field. For example, Mueller et al reported a DT50 value of 6.3 d for the upper 8 cm of a soil, Ma et al reported a value of 9 d for the top 10 cm of 2 soils, and Newcombe et al reported 3 to 9 d for the top 15 cm of soil depth. Similarly, Taylor et al reported laboratory‐determined DT50 values of approximately 9, 12, and 13 d for depth ranges of between 0 and 30 cm, 100 and 130 cm, and 270 and 300 cm, which suggest no clear effect of depth on DT50, something that was also observed by Vaughan et al and Dictor et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistence of acetochlor, atrazine, and S‐metolachlor in surface and subsurface horizons of 2 typic argiudolls under no‐tillage

Bedmar

Giménez

Costa

et al. 2017

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variations in soil properties with depth strongly influence the degradation and persistence of herbicides, underlining the importance of studying these processes in soil horizons with distinctively different properties. The persistence of the herbicides acetochlor, atrazine, and S-metolachlor was measured in samples of the A, B, and C horizons of 2 Typic Argiudolls from Argentina under no-till management. The soils studied differed in soil organic carbon (OC) content, pH, particle size distribution, and structure. Quantification of herbicides in soil was done through high-performance liquid chromatography with diode array detector. There were interactions of herbicide × horizon (p < 0.01) that resulted in degradation rates (k) of all herbicides decreasing, and their corresponding dissipation half-life (DT50) values increasing, with soil depth. Herbicide persistence across all soils and horizons ranged from 15 to 73 d for acetochlor, 13 to 29 d for atrazine, and 82 to 141 d for S-metolachlor, which had significantly (p < 0.01) greater persistence than atrazine and acetochlor. The DT50 values of herbicides were negatively correlated with the contents of OC (correlation coefficients ranging from -0.496 to -0.773), phosphorus (-0.427 to -0.564), and nitrogen-nitrate (-0.507 to -0.662), and with microbial activity (-0.454 to -0.687) and the adsorption coefficient (-0.530 to -0.595); DT50s were positively correlated with pH (0.366 to 0.648). Adsorption was likely the most influential process in determining persistence of these herbicides in surface and subsurface horizons. The present study can potentially improve the prediction of the fate of acetochlor, atrazine, and S-metolachlor in soils because it includes much needed information on the degradation of the herbicides in subsurface horizons. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:3065-3073. © 2017 SETAC.

show abstract

“…This paper presents the methods, results, and interpretation of the acetochlor surface water monitoring program. Two distinct acetochlor ground water monitoring programs are described in companion publications (de Guzman et al, 2005; Newcombe et al, 2005). We begin with the methods used, focusing on site selection and sampling logistics.…”

Section: Acetanilide Herbicides and Their Degradates Included In The mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Acetochlor Registration Partnership Surface Water Monitoring Program for Four Corn Herbicides

et al. 2005

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A surface drinking water monitoring program for four corn (Zea mays L.) herbicides was conducted during 1995-2001. Stratified random sampling was used to select 175 community water systems (CWSs) within a 12-state area, with an emphasis on the most vulnerable sites, based on corn intensity and watershed size. Finished drinking water was monitored at all sites, and raw water was monitored at many sites using activated carbon, which was shown capable of removing herbicides and their degradates from drinking water. Samples were collected biweekly from mid-March through the end of August, and twice during the off-season. The analytical method had a detection limit of 0.05 microg L(-1) for alachlor [2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)-acetamide] and 0.03 microg L(-1) for acetochlor [2-chloro-N-(ethoxymethyl)-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-acetamide], atrazine [6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine], and metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)-acetamide]. Of the 16528 drinking water samples analyzed, acetochlor, alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor were detected in 19, 7, 87, and 53% of the samples, respectively. During 1999-2001, samples were also analyzed for the presence of six major degradates of the chloroacetanilide herbicides, which were detected more frequently than their parent compounds, despite having higher detection limits of 0.1 to 0.2 microg L(-1). Overall detection frequencies were correlated with product use and environmental fate characteristics. Reservoirs were particularly vulnerable to atrazine, which exceeded its 3 microg L(-1) maximum contaminant level at 25 such sites during 1995-1999. Acetochlor annualized mean concentrations (AMCs) did not exceed its mitigation trigger (2 microg L(-1)) at any site, and comparisons of observed levels with standard measures of human and ecological hazards indicate that it poses no significant risk to human health or the environment.

show abstract

The Acetochlor Registration Partnership: Prospective Ground Water Monitoring Program

Cited by 13 publications

References 10 publications

The Acetochlor Registration Partnership State Ground Water Monitoring Program

The Acetochlor Registration Partnership State Ground Water Monitoring Program

Persistence of acetochlor, atrazine, and S‐metolachlor in surface and subsurface horizons of 2 typic argiudolls under no‐tillage

The Acetochlor Registration Partnership Surface Water Monitoring Program for Four Corn Herbicides

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About