4.7 Article

Emissions of 1,3-Dichloropropene and Chloropicrin after Soil Fumigation under Field Conditions

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 63, Issue 22, Pages 5354-5363

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b01309

Keywords

soil fumigation; volatilization; emissions; Telone C-35; 1,3-dichloropropene; chloropicrin; bare soil; field experiment; shank injection; Industrial Source Complex Short-Term model (ISCST3); CALPUFF dispersion model; aerodynamic gradient method

Funding

  1. California Air Resources Board [05-351]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soil fumigation is an important agronomic practice in the production of many high-value vegetable and fruit crops, but the use of chemical fumigants can lead to excessive atmospheric emissions. A large-scale (2.9 ha) field experiment was conducted to obtain volatilization and cumulative emission rates for two commonly used soil fumigants under typical agronomic practices: 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) and chloropicrin. The aerodynamic method and the indirect back-calculation method using ISCST3 and CALPUFF dispersion models were used to estimate flux loss from the treated field. Over the course of the experiment, the daily peak volatilization rates ranged from 12 to 30 mu g m(-2) s(-1) for 1,3-D and from 0.7 to 2.6 mu g m(-2) s(-1) for chloropicrin. Depending on the method used for quantification, total emissions of 1,3-D and chloropicrin, respectively, ranged from 16 to 35% and from 0.3 to 1.3% of the applied fumigant. A soil incubation study showed that the low volatilization rates measured for chloropicrin were due to particularly high soil degradation rates observed at this field site. Understanding and quantifying fumigant emissions from agricultural soil will help in developing best management practices to reduce emission losses, reducing adverse impacts to human and ecosystem health, and providing inputs for conducting risk assessments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available