Skip to main content
ARS Home » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #131342
Title: Volatilization of 1,3-dichloropropene under different application methods

Author
item WANG, D. - UNIV. MN., ST.PAUL, MN.
item Yates, Scott
item ERNST, F. - UC RIVERSIDE, CA
item KNUTESON, J. - DOW AGROSCIENCES,IND., IN

Submitted to: Journal of Water Air and Soil Pollution
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 4/27/2000
Publication Date: 4/1/2001
Citation: Wang, D., Yates, S.R., Ernst, F.F., Knuteson, J.A. 2001. Volatilization of 1,3-dichloropropene under different application methods. Journal Of Water Air And Soil Pollution. 127:109-123.

Interpretive Summary: Emissions from soil fumigation are a significant source of atmospheric pollution. Methods are needed to reduce emissions to protect public and environmental health. One proposed method to apply soil fumigants uses a drip irrigation system, called drip fumigation. The fumigant is applied along with the irrigation water. This application method is considerably different from standard fumigation practices, and the effect on atmospheric emissions is largely unknown. A field study was conducted to measure emissions of the soil fumigant, 1,3-dichloropropene for: (1) standard application, (2) shallow drip fumigation, and (3) deep drip fumigation. Observed emissions were very high for standard application (i.e., 90%). This was attributed to ineffective sealing of the shank fractures caused by the farm application machinery and is not representative of normal fumigation practices. Drip fumigation resulted in lower emissions (66% shallow and 57% deep). Due to the unexpectedly high emission rates, further research is needed to determine if drip fumigation is superior to standard practices.

Technical Abstract: Atmospheric emission of volatile pesticides can be a significant source of air pollution. A field study was conducted to reduce 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) emission by applying the chemical via subsurface drip irrigation with a reduced dosage (4.7 g m-2 or 47 kg ha- 1 ). Comparisons were made between a shallow drip application with the plot covered with a polyethylene film, a deep drip application and a conventional shank injection (at 11.2 g m-2) with the plots left as bare soil surface. For each treatment, seven replicated active flux chambers were used continuously to measure 1,3-D loss until no measurable emission was found. Results indicated that total 1,3-D emission loss was over 90% for the shank injection, and 66 and 57% for the shallow and deep drip plots, respectively. The emission loss was extremely high for shank injection since about 80% were lost from the bed furrows where the slanted shanks left uncompacted fractures. On mass basis, the shank plot lost 10.4 g m-2, whereas the shallow- and deep-drip plots lost 3.1 and 2.7 g m-2, respectively. Applying 1,3-D using subsurface drip irrigation with reduced dosage has a great potential for emission reduction