Skip to Main Content
Skip Nav Destination
ASTM Selected Technical Papers
29th Symposium on Pesticide Formulations and Delivery Systems
By
Richard Zollinger
Richard Zollinger
1
North Dakota State University
,
Fargo, ND, Symposium Chair and Editor
Search for other works by this author on:
Arlean Rohde
Arlean Rohde
2
ExxonMobile
,
Houston, TX, Symposium Co-chair
Search for other works by this author on:
ISBN:
978-0-8031-7506-8
No. of Pages:
187
Publisher:
ASTM International
Publication date:
2009

The objective of this work was to develop a repeatable methodology for bioassaying simulated levels of aerially applied glyphosate at deposition levels ranging from 1∕3 to 1∕100 of labeled rate at droplet sizes of 100 μm in a spray table environment. These drift deposition levels are consistent with downwind drift measurements out to 200 m seen in previous field studies focusing on quantitative drift assessment. Additionally, full rate applications were included for comparative purposes. The deposition levels were obtained by varying nozzle traverse speed and plant location under the nozzle. Ten replications were conducted at each targeted rate applying glyphosate to container grown-plant samples. Deposition was measured on Mylar cards through fluorometric analysis. Plant health measures [height and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)] were taken at 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14 days after treatment. An equal number of nontreated control plants were analyzed alongside treated plants. Deposition and plant health data were used to generate dose-response relationships. Dose-response curves relating change in plant height and change in measured NDVI values corresponding to deposition levels were generated. This methodology is one that can be implemented across a wide variety of plant and pesticide combinations. Collected data from this and future studies will be tested under field conditions and ultimately be included in application decision support systems that integrate spray drift modeling results with established dose-response relationships.

1.
EPA
2001
.
Pesticide registration (PR) notice 2001-x draft: Spray and dust drift label statements for pesticide products
. http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/prdraft-spraydrift801.htm.
2.
Yates
,
W. E.
,
Akesson
,
N. B.
, and
Coutts
,
H. H.
, “
Drift Hazards Related to Ultra-Low-Volume and Diluted Sprays Applied by Agricultural Aircraft
,”
Trans. ASAE
 0001-2351, Vol.
10
,
1967
, pp. 628–638.
3.
Teske
,
M. E.
, and
Thistle
,
H. W.
, “
A Simulation of Release Height and Wind Speed Effects for Drift Minimization
,”
Trans. ASAE
 0001-2351, Vol.
42
,
1999
, pp. 583–591.
4.
Thistle
,
H. W.
, “
The Role of Stability in Fine Pesticide Droplet Dispersion in the Atmosphere: A Review of Physical Concepts
,”
Trans. ASAE
 0001-2351, Vol.
43
,
2000
, pp. 1409–1413.
5.
Fritz
,
B. K.
, “
Meteorological Effects on Deposition and Drift of Aerially Applied Sprays
,”
Trans. ASABE
 0001-2351, Vol.
49
,
2006
, pp. 1295–1301.
6.
Salyani
,
M.
, “
Spray Drift from Ground and Aerial Applications
,”
Trans. ASAE
 0001-2351, Vol.
35
,
1992
, pp. 1113–1120.
7.
Hoffmann
,
W. C.
, and
Tom
,
H. H.
, “
Effects of Lowering Spray Boom in Flight on Swath Width and Drift
,”
Appl. Eng. Agric.
 0883-8542, Vol.
16
,
2000
, pp. 217–220.
8.
Nordby
,
A.
, and
Skuterud
,
R.
, “
The Effects of Boom Height, Working Pressure and Wind Speed on Spray Drift
,”
Weed Res.
 0043-1737, Vol.
14
,
1974
, pp. 385–395.
9.
Lawson
,
T. J.
, and
Uk
,
S.
, “
The Influence of Wind Turbulence, Crop Characteristics and Flying Height on the Dispersal of Aerial Sprays
,”
Atmos. Environ.
 1352-2310, Vol.
13
,
1979
, pp. 711–715.
10.
Franz
,
E.
,
Bouse
,
L. F.
,
Carlton
,
J. B.
,
Kirk
,
I. W.
, and
Latheef
,
M. A.
, “
Aerial Spray Deposit Relations with Plant Canopy and Weather Parameters
,”
Trans. ASAE
 0001-2351, Vol.
41
,
1998
, pp. 959–966.
11.
Kirk
,
I. W.
, “
Aerial Spray Drift from Different Formulations of Glyphosate
,”
Trans. ASAE
 0001-2351, Vol.
43
,
2000
, pp. 555–559.
12.
Hewitt
,
A. J.
,
Johnson
,
D. R.
,
Fish
,
J. D.
,
Hermansky
,
C. G.
, and
Valcore
,
D. L.
, “
Development of the Spray Drift Task Force Database for Aerial Applications
,”
Envir. Toxicol. Chem.
 0730-7268, Vol.
21
,
2002
, pp. 648–658.
13.
Bird
,
S. L.
,
Perry
,
S. G.
,
Ray
,
S. L.
, and
Teske
,
M. E.
, “
Evaluation of the AgDISP Aerial Spray Algorithms in the AgDRIFT Model
,”
Envir. Toxicol. Chem.
 0730-7268, Vol.
21
,
2002
, pp. 672–681.
14.
Roider
,
C. A.
Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Response to Simulated Drift of Glyophosate
,” M.S. thesis,
Louisiana State University
, Baton Rouge,
2006
.
15.
Richard
,
E. P.
, Jr.
, “
Sensitivity of Sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) to Glyphosate
,”
Weed Sci
 0043-1745, Vol.
39
,
1991
, pp. 73–77.
16.
Al-Khatib
,
K.
,
Parker
,
R.
, and
Fuerst
,
E. P.
, “
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) Response to Simulated Herbicide Spray Drift
,”
Weed Technol.
 0890-037X, Vol.
6
,
1992
, pp. 975–979.
17.
Bailey
,
J. A.
, and
Kapusta
,
G.
, “
Soybean (Glycine max) Tolerance to Simulated Drift of Nicosulfuron and Primisulfuron
,”
Weed Technol.
 0890-037X, Vol.
7
,
1993
, pp. 740–745.
18.
Donald
,
W. W.
, “
Estimating Relative Crop Yield Loss Resulting from Herbicide Damage Using Crop Ground Cover or Rated Stunting, with Maize and Sethoxydim as a Case Study
,”
Weed Res.
 0043-1737, Vol.
38
,
1998
, pp. 425–431.
19.
Marrs
,
R. H.
,
Frost
,
A. J.
,
Plant
,
R. A.
, and
Lunnis
,
P.
, “
Aerial Applications of Asulam: A Bioassay Technique for Assessing Buffer Zones to Protect Sensitive Sites in Upland Britain
,”
Biol. Conserv.
 0006-3207, Vol.
59
,
1992
, pp. 19–23.
20.
Pankiw
,
T.
, and
Jay
,
S. C.
, “
Aerially Applied Ultra-Low-Volume Malathion Effects on Caged Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Caged Mosquitos (Diptera: Culicidae), and Malathion Residues
,”
J. Econ Entomol.
 0022-0493, Vol.
85
,
1992
, pp. 687–691.
21.
Longley
,
M.
, and
Sotherton
,
N. W.
, “
Factors Determining the Effects of Pesticides Upon Butterflies Inhabiting Arable Farmland
,”
Agric., Ecosyst. Environ.
 0167-8809, Vol.
61
,
1997
, pp. 1–12.
22.
Arts
,
G. H. P.
,
Buijse-Bogdan
,
L. L.
,
Belgers
,
J. D. M.
,
Van Rhenen-Kersten
,
C. H.
,
Van Wijngaarden
,
R. P. A.
,
Roessink
,
I.
,
Maund
,
S. J.
,
van den Brink
,
P. J.
, and
Brock
,
T. C. M.
, “
Ecological Impact in Ditch Mesocosms of Simulated Spray Drift from a Crop Protection Program for Potatoes
,”
Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.
, Vol.
2
,
2006
, pp. 105–125.
23.
Ray
,
J. W.
,
Richardson
,
B.
,
Schou
,
W. C.
,
Teske
,
M. E.
,
Vanner
,
A. L.
, and
Coker
,
G. W. R.
, “
Validation of SpraySafe Manager, an Aerial Herbicide Application Decision Support System
,”
Can. J. For. Res.
, Vol.
29
,
1999
, pp. 875–882.
24.
Marrs
,
R. H.
,
Williams
,
C. T.
,
Frost
,
A. J.
, and
Plant
,
R. A.
, “
Assessment of the Effects of Herbicide Spray Drift on a Range of Plant Species of Conservation Interests
,”
Environ. Pollut.
 0269-7491, Vol.
59
,
1989
, pp. 71–86.
25.
Fritz
,
B. K.
, and
Hoffmann
,
C. H.
Atmospheric Effects on Fate of Aerially Applied Agricultural Sprays
,”
Int. Agric. Eng. J.
 0858-2114, Vol.
X
: Manuscript PM08 008,
2008
, pp. 1–15.
26.
ASTM Standard E1260, “
Standard Test Method for Determining Liquid Drop Size Characteristics in a Spray Using Optical Nonimaging Light-Scattering Instruments
,”
Annual Book of ASTM Standards
,
ASTM International
,
West Conshohocken, PA
,
2003
.
27.
ASTM Standard E1620, “
Standard Terminology Relating to Liquid Particles and Atomization
,”
Annual Book of ASTM Standards
,
ASTM International
,
West Conshohocken, PA
,
2004
.
28.
Sellers
,
P. J.
, “
Canopy Reflectance, Photosynthesis, and Transpiration
,”
Int. J. Remote Sens.
 0143-1161, Vol.
6
,
1985
, pp. 1335–1372.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this chapter.
Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal