The acetochlor registration partnership surface water monitoring program for four corn herbicides

A surface drinking water monitoring program for four corn (Zea mays L.) herbicides was conducted during 1995-2001. Stratified random sampling was used to select 175 community water systems (CWSs) within a 12-state area, with an emphasis on the most vulnerable sites, based on corn intensity and watershed size. Finished drinking water was monitored at all sites, and raw water was monitored at many sites using activated carbon, which was shown capable of removing herbicides and their degradates from drinking water. Samples were collected biweekly from mid-March through the end of August, and twice during the off-season. The analytical method had a detection limit of 0.05 microg L(-1) for alachlor [2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)-acetamide] and 0.03 microg L(-1) for acetochlor [2-chloro-N-(ethoxymethyl)-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-acetamide], atrazine [6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine], and metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)-acetamide]. Of the 16528 drinking water samples analyzed, acetochlor, alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor were detected in 19, 7, 87, and 53% of the samples, respectively. During 1999-2001, samples were also analyzed for the presence of six major degradates of the chloroacetanilide herbicides, which were detected more frequently than their parent compounds, despite having higher detection limits of 0.1 to 0.2 microg L(-1). Overall detection frequencies were correlated with product use and environmental fate characteristics. Reservoirs were particularly vulnerable to atrazine, which exceeded its 3 microg L(-1) maximum contaminant level at 25 such sites during 1995-1999. Acetochlor annualized mean concentrations (AMCs) did not exceed its mitigation trigger (2 microg L(-1)) at any site, and comparisons of observed levels with standard measures of human and ecological hazards indicate that it poses no significant risk to human health or the environment.     

Considerations for Manufacturing Bio-Based Plastic Products

One engine that drives the United States’ economic growth is an ever-increasing demand for manufactured products, both at home and abroad. This increase has created a major concern for the environment in terms of disposing used goods and ensuring that these products are safe. As environmental concerns grow, however, renewable resources are gaining increasing attention, especially as industrial ecology and product biodegradability gain importance. Added to this, biological materials are increasingly being utilized to replace traditional materials in manufacturing. To aid both educators as well as researchers, this paper examines several considerations that are essential for manufacturing plastic products that contain biomaterials. These include the selection of materials, the selection of manufacturing processes, manufacturing costs, and the quality of final products. Additionally, several standard methods that are commonly used for the determination of mechanical and physical properties are compiled; thus this paper should be a useful resource for both educators and researchers. The trends discussed here and their implications are critical for those involved in manufacturing, because contrary to conventional wisdom, simultaneously meeting the material production needs of our society, as well as that of the environment are not mutually-exclusive.     

Evaluating factors influencing groundwater vulnerability to nitrate pollution: developing the potential of GIS

The 1991 EU Nitrate Directive was designed to reduce water pollution from agriculturally derived nitrates. England and Wales implemented this Directive by controlling agricultural activities within their most vulnerable areas termed Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. These were designated by identifying drinking water catchments (surface and groundwater), at risk from nitrate pollution. However, this method contravened the Nitrate Directive because it only protected drinking water and not all waters. In this paper, a GIS was used to identify all areas of groundwater vulnerable to nitrate pollution. This was achieved by constructing a model containing data on four characteristics: the quality of the water leaving the root zone of a piece of land; soil information; presence of low permeability superficial (drift) material; and aquifer properties. These were combined in a GIS and the various combinations converted into a measure of vulnerability using expert knowledge. Several model variants were produced using different estimates of the quality of the water leaving the root zone and contrasting methods of weighting the input data. When the final models were assessed all produced similar spatial patterns and, when verified by comparison with trend data derived from monitored nitrate concentrations, all the models were statistically significant predictors of groundwater nitrate concentrations. The best predictive model contained a model of nitrate leaching but no land use information, implying that changes in land use will not affect designations based upon this model. The relationship between nitrate levels and borehole intake depths was investigated since there was concern that the observed contrasts in nitrate levels between vulnerability categories might be reflecting differences in borehole intake depths and not actual vulnerability. However, this was not found to be statistically important. Our preferred model provides the basis for developing a new set of groundwater Nitrate Vulnerable Zones that should help England and Wales to comply with the EU Nitrate Directive.