Fate and transport of chlormequat in subsurface environments
- 578 Downloads
Background, aim and scope
Chlormequat (Cq) is a plant growth regulator used throughout the world. Despite indications of possible effects of Cq on mammalian health and fertility, little is known about its fate and transport in subsurface environments. The aim of this study was to determine the fate of Cq in three Danish subsurface environments, in particular with respect to retardation of Cq in the A and B horizons and the risk of leaching to the aquatic environment. The study combines laboratory fate studies of Cq sorption and dissipation with field scale monitoring of the concentration of Cq in the subsurface environment, including artificial drains.
Materials and methods
For the laboratory studies, soil was sampled from the A and B horizons at three Danish field research stations—two clayey till sites and one coarse sandy site. Adsorption and desorption were described by means of the distribution coefficient (K d) and the Freundlich adsorption coefficient (K F,ads). The dissipation rate was estimated using soil sampled from the A horizon at the three sites. Half life (DT50) was calculated by approximation to first-order kinetics. A total of 282 water samples were collected at the sites under the field monitoring study— groundwater from shallow monitoring screens located 1.5–4.5 m b.g.s. at all three sites as well as drainage water from the two clayey sites and porewater from suction cups at the sandy site, in both cases from 1 m b.g.s. The samples were analysed using LC-MS/MS. The field monitoring study was supported by hydrological modelling, which provided an overall water balance and a description of soil water dynamics in the vadose zone.
The DT50 of Cq from the A horizon ranged from 21 to 61 days. The Cq concentration-dependant distribution coefficient (K d) ranged from 2 to 566 cm3/g (median 18 cm3/g), and was lowest in the sandy soil (both the A and B horizons). The K F,ads ranged from 3 to 23 (µg1 − 1/n (cm3)1/n g−1) with the exponent (1/n) ranging from 0.44 to 0.87, and was lowest in the soil from the sandy site. Desorption of Cq was very low for the soil types investigated (<10%w). Cq in concentrations exceeding the detection limit (0.01 µg/L) was only found in two of the 282 water samples, the highest concentration being 0.017 µg/L.
That sorption was highest in the clayey till soils is attributable to the composition of the soil, the soil clay and iron content being the main determinant of Cq sorption in both the A and B horizons of the subsurface environment. Cq was not detected in concentrations exceeding the detection limit in either the groundwater or the porewater at the sandy site. The only two samples in which Cq was detected were drainage water samples from the two clayey till sites. The presence of Cq here was probably attributable to the hydrogeological setting as water flow at the two clayey till sites is dominated by macropore flow and less by the flow in the low permeability matrix. In contrast, water flow at the sandy site is dominated by matrix flow in the high permeability matrix, with negligible macropore flow. Given the characteristics of these field sites, Cq adsorption and desorption can be expected to be controlled by the clay composition and content and the iron content. Combining these observations with the findings of the sorption and dissipation studies indicates that the key determinant of Cq retardation and fate in the soil is sorption characteristics and bioavailability.
The leaching risk of Cq was negligible at the clayey till and sandy sites investigated. The adsorption and desorption experiments indicated that absorption of Cq was high at all three sites, in particular at the clayey till sites, and that desorption was generally very limited. The study indicates that leaching of Cq to the groundwater is hindered by sorption and dissipation. The detection of Cq in drainage water at the clayey till sites and the evidence for rapid transport through macropores indicate that heavy precipitation events may cause pulses of Cq.
Recommendations and perspectives
The present study is the first to indicate that the risk of Cq leaching to the groundwater and surface water is low. Prior to any generalisation of the present results, the fate of Cq needs to be studied in other soil types, application regimes and climatic conditions to determine the Cq retardation capacity of the soils. The study identifies bioavailability and heavy precipitation events as important factors when assessing the risk of Cq contamination of the aquatic environment. The possible effects of future climate change need to be considered when assessing whether or not Cq poses an environmental risk.
KeywordsCCC Chlormequat Chlorocholine chloride Cycocel Freundlich isotherm Groundwater Pesticide Quaternary ammonium herbicides Soil Sorption
The project was supported financially by Copenhagen Energy (Københavns Energi A/S). We wish to thank P. Stockmarr (GEUS) for skilled technical assistance in connection with method development and sample analysis, P. Olsen (Aarhus University), L. Gudmundsson (GEUS), C. Andersen (Jyndevad Research Station), P. Boesen (Estrup Research Station) and J. Molbo (Silstrup Research Station) for assistance with the field leaching experiments, and D. I. Barry for linguistic assistance.
- Alder L, Startin JR (2005) Determination of chlormequat and mepiquat in foods by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry: interlaboratory study. J AOAC Int 88:1762–1776Google Scholar
- Alexopoulos AA, Akoumianakis KA, Passam HC (2006) Effect of plant growth regulators on the tuberisation and physiological age of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tubers grown from true potato seed. Can J Plant Sci 86:1217–1225Google Scholar
- Anonymous (1999a) The pesticide manual, 11th edn. British Crop Protection Council, SurreyGoogle Scholar
- Anonymous (1999b) Soil taxonomy—a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys, 2nd edn. USDA-NRCS Agricultural Handbook, vol 436. United States Department of Agriculture, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Anonymous (2000) Adsorption-desorption using a batch equilibrium method. Section 1: physical chemical properties, 106, OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Anonymous (2006) Reregistration eligibility decision for aliphatic alkyl quaternaries (DDAC). EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0338/EPA 739-R-06-008. US Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Anonymous (2007a) The use of plant protection products in the European Union, data 1992-2003. Nadin, Pierre. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. ISBN 92-79-03890-7. Eurostat, European Communities, Luxembourg
- Anonymous (2007b) Reregistration eligibility decision for chlormequat chloride (RED). EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0968/EPA 738-R-07-014. US Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Barlebo HC, Rosenbom AE, and Kjaer J (2007) Evaluation of pesticide scenarios for the registration procedure. Environmental Project No. 1178, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Berry PM, Sterling M, Spink JH, Baker CJ, Sylvester-Bradley R, Mooney SJ, Tams AR, Ennos AR (2004) Understanding and reducing lodging in cereals. Adv Agron Vol 84(84):217–271Google Scholar
- Hughes RG (1967) Chlormequat to control lodging in wheat. Agriculture 74:133Google Scholar
- Juhler RK, Vahl M (1999) Residues of chlormequat and mepiquat in grain—results from the Danish National Pesticide Survey. J AOAC Int 82:331–336Google Scholar
- Kramers PGN, Knaap AGAC, Voogd CE (1975) Lack of mutagenicity of chlormequat chloride in Drosophila and in bacteria. Mutat Res 31:65–68Google Scholar
- Langhammer M, Kuhla S, Schneider F, Renne U, Spitschak M, Hagemeister H (1999) Effects of chlorocholine chloride-treated wheat on special fertility traits in laboratory mice. J Anim Physiol An N 81:190–202Google Scholar
- Lesueur C, Gartner M, Mentler A, Fuerhacker M (2007) Qualitative and quantitative analysis of polar pesticide multiresidues in leaf samples with a liquid chromatography-ion-trap mass-selective detector. Int J Environ Anal Chem 87:1013–1032Google Scholar
- Lindhardt B, Abiltrup C, Vosgerau H, Olsen P, Torp S, Iversen BV, Jørgensen OJ, Plauborg F, Rasmussen P, Gravesen P (2001) The Danish Pesticide Leaching Assessment Programme, Site characterization and monitoring design. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, GEUS, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Rademacher W (2000) Growth retardants: effects on gibberellin biosynthesis and other metabolic pathways. Annu Rev Plant Phys 51:501–531Google Scholar
- Rosenbom AE, Ernstsen V, Fluhler H, Jensen KH, Refsgaard JC, Wydler H (2008) Fluorescence imaging applied to tracer distributions in variably saturated fractured clayey till. J Environ Qual 37:448–458Google Scholar
- Ueberschar KH, Danicke S, Wolff J (2003) Gaschromatic determination of chlormequat in silo cereals and bran. Landbauforsch Volk 53:37–42Google Scholar
- Wang JH, Lu XY, Huang M, Wu Z, Ma GP, Xu CY (2007) Rapid screening and confirmation of chlormequat and mepiquat residues in tomato and its products using liquid chromatography with electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. Chin J Anal Chem 35:1509–1512Google Scholar