Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:51:36.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trifluralin Vapor Emission from Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles W. Swann  and
Richard Behrens
Charles W. Swann
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron. and Plant Genet., Univ. of Minnesota
Richard Behrens
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron. and Plant Genet., Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vapor of a,a,a-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-loluidine (trifluralin) emitted from soils was collected in xylene and assayed by gas chromatography. Increasing the trifluralin application rate in soil surface treatments from 0.56 to 4.48 kg/ha resulted in substantial increases in vaporization from soils during the 2 hr immediately after treatment. Increasing the spray volume from 2.34 to 300 kl/ha with water reduced the rate of trifluralin vapor emission by approximately half. When trifluralin was applied as a spray (2.34 kl/ha) and then incorporated into soils of varying moisture contents, 4 to 10 times more trifluralin volatilized in 12 hr than when it was percolated into air-dry soils with sufficient water to yield equivalent soil moisture contents. The techniques employed were not sufficiently sensitive to detect trifluralin vapor loss occurring more than 12 hr after treatment. The amount of trifluralin lost during the first 12 hr was less than 5% of that applied to the soil, even under the most favorable conditions for volatilization.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , March 1972 , pp. 147 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Brannock, L. D., Montgomery, M. and Freed, V. H. 1967. Considerations of the vapor pressure of dichlobenil affecting its use and procedure for residue analysis. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2:178–181.Google Scholar
2. Dawson, J. H. 1963. Development of barnyardgrass seedlings and their response to EPTC. Weeds 11:60–66.Google Scholar
3. Gray, R. A. and Weierich, A. J. 1965. Factors affecting the vapor loss of EPTC from soils. Weeds 13:141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Ketchersid, M. L., Bovey, R. W., and Merkle, M. G. 1969. The detection of trifluralin vapors in air. Weed Sci. 17:484–485.Google Scholar
5. Massini, P. 1961. Movement of 2,4-dichlorobenzonitrile in soils and in plants in relation to its physical properties. Weed Res. 1:142–146.Google Scholar
6. Pinck, L. A., Holton, W. F., and Allison, F. E. 1961. Antibiotics in soils: 1. Physicochemical studies of antibioticclay complexes. Soil Sci. 91:22–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Swann, C. W. and Behrens, R. 1972. Phytotoxicity of trifluralin vapors from soil. Weed Sci. 20: (In Press).Google Scholar
8. Wright, W. L. and Warren, G. F. 1965. Photochemical decomposition of trifluralin. Weeds 13:329–331.Google Scholar