Advertisement

Fate of Pesticides in Aquatic Environments

  • H. V. Morley
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 10)

Abstract

In the short time available it is obvious justice cannot be done to the subject of this presentation and that a high degree of selectivity combined with a great deal of ability to compress and summarize data will be required. For this reason it will be assumed that the pesticide has already been transported to aquatic ecosystems from direct application, from runoff waters, or from the atmosphere. Once it is in the aquatic system, it may be rapidly degraded by a variety of mechanisms or persist for a period of time. Its persistence and, therefore, its potential for biomagnification will be determined by a variety of factors. Perhaps the most important single factor is the ability to partition into lipid-rich pools. Fat-soluble, water-insoluble materials, e.g., DDT, PCBs, accumulate into “environmental sinks” and, by virtue of their water insolubility, resist the usual transformation and detoxification mechanisms and provide a virtually constant input source of material. These are the environmental “bad guys” and one must be careful not to include all pesticides in this category.

Keywords

Great Lake Agricultural Watershed Heptachlor Epoxide International Joint Commission Persistent Organochlorine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Butler, P. A. 1971. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 177: 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. CCIW. 1973. Canada Centre for Inland Waters Pesticide Survey in Lakes Erie and Ontario, October.Google Scholar
  3. Charnetski, W. A. 1976. Interim Report to Alberta Black Fly Coordinating Committee.Google Scholar
  4. Frank, R., M. Holdrinet, H. E. Braun, G. J. Sirois and B. D. Ripley. 1976. 59th Chemical Institute of Canada Conference, JuneGoogle Scholar
  5. Fredeen, F. J. H., A. P. Arnason and B. Berck. 1953a. Nature 171: 700Google Scholar
  6. Fredeen, F. J. H., A. P. Arnason, B. Berck and J. G. Rempel. 1953b. Can. J. Agric. Sci. 33: 379.Google Scholar
  7. Fredeen, F. J. H. 1974. Can. Ent. 106: 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fredeen, F. J. H: 1975. Can. Ent. 107: 807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fredeen, F. J. H., J. G. Saha and M. H. Balba. 1975. Pest. Monit. J. 8: 241.Google Scholar
  10. Harris, C. R. and J. R. W. Miles. 1975. Residue Reviews 57: 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris, C. R. and J. R. W. Miles. 1976. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  12. Kapoor, I., R. L. Metcalf, R. F. Nystrom and G. K. Sangha. 1970. J. Agric. Food Chem. 18: 1145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. NRC 1973. Chlordane: Its Effects on Canadian Ecosystems and its Chemistry. National Research Council of Canada No. 14094.Google Scholar
  14. Roller, N.F. 1973. Survey of Pesticide Use in Ontario ( Economics Branch, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food )Google Scholar
  15. Sanderson, M. and R. Osborne. 1976. Spring Report. International Joint Commission Office, Windsor.Google Scholar
  16. Weikle, J.H. 1957. Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. Ther. 110: 423.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. V. Morley

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations