Assessment of Potential Aquatic Herbicide Impacts to California Aquatic Ecosystems

被引:0
|
作者
Geoffrey S. Siemering
Jennifer D. Hayworth
Ben K. Greenfield
机构
[1] San Francisco Estuary Institute,
关键词
Glyphosate; Acrolein; Diquat; Risk Quotient; Fluridone;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
A series of legal decisions culminated in 2002 with the California State Water Resources Control Board funding the San Francisco Estuary Institute to develop and implement a 3-year monitoring program to determine the potential environmental impacts of aquatic herbicide applications. The monitoring program was intended to investigate the behavior of all aquatic pesticides in use in California, to determine potential impacts in a wide range of water-body types receiving applications, and to help regulators determine where to direct future resources. A tiered monitoring approach was developed to achieve a balance between program goals and what was practically achievable within the project time and budget constraints. Water, sediment, and biota were collected under “worst-case” scenarios in close association with herbicide applications. Applications of acrolein, copper sulfate, chelated copper, diquat dibromide, glyphosate, fluridone, triclopyr, and 2,4-D were monitored. A range of chemical analyses, toxicity tests, and bioassessments were conducted. At each site, risk quotients were calculated to determine potential impacts. For sediment-partitioning herbicides, sediment quality triad analysis was performed. Worst-case scenario monitoring and special studies showed limited short-term and no long-term toxicity directly attributable to aquatic herbicide applications. Risk quotient calculations called for additional risk characterizations; these included limited assessments for glyphosate and fluridone and more extensive risk assessments for diquat dibromide, chelated copper products, and copper sulfate. Use of surfactants in conjunction with aquatic herbicides was positively associated with greater ecosystem impacts. Results therefore warrant full risk characterization for all adjuvant compounds.
引用
收藏
页码:415 / 431
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Assessment of potential aquatic herbicide impacts to California aquatic ecosystems
    Siemering, Geoffrey S.
    Hayworth, Jennifer D.
    Greenfield, Ben K.
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY, 2008, 55 (03) : 415 - 431
  • [2] Impacts of atrazine in aquatic ecosystems
    Graymore, M
    Stagnitti, F
    Allinson, G
    [J]. ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, 2001, 26 (7-8) : 483 - 495
  • [3] Impacts of pharmaceutical effluents on aquatic ecosystems
    Kayode-Afolayan, Shola D.
    Ahuekwe, Eze F.
    Nwinyi, Obinna C.
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC AFRICAN, 2022, 17
  • [4] Assessment of biopollution in aquatic ecosystems
    Olenin, Sergej
    Minchin, Dan
    Daunys, Darius
    [J]. MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN, 2007, 55 (7-9) : 379 - 394
  • [5] INTRODUCTION - ASSESSMENT OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
    WHITMAN, RL
    [J]. NATURAL AREAS JOURNAL, 1995, 15 (03) : 215 - 215
  • [6] Distribution of Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Aquatic Ecosystems and Their Impacts on Aquatic Organisms, with Emphasis on Microalgae
    Wan, Jun-Kit
    Chu, Wan-Loy
    Kok, Yih-Yih
    Lee, Choy-Sin
    [J]. REVIEWS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY, VOL 246, 2019, 246 : 133 - 158
  • [7] Invasion impacts on functions and services of aquatic ecosystems
    Flood, Peter J.
    Duran, Alain
    Barton, Mark
    Mercado-Molina, Alex E.
    Trexler, Joel C.
    [J]. HYDROBIOLOGIA, 2020, 847 (07) : 1571 - 1586
  • [8] Impacts of major watershed perturbations on aquatic ecosystems
    Carignan, R
    Steedman, RJ
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC SCIENCES, 2000, 57 : 1 - 4
  • [9] Invasion impacts on functions and services of aquatic ecosystems
    Peter J. Flood
    Alain Duran
    Mark Barton
    Alex E. Mercado-Molina
    Joel C. Trexler
    [J]. Hydrobiologia, 2020, 847 : 1571 - 1586
  • [10] Assessing toxic impacts on aquatic ecosystems in LCA
    Payet, J
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2005, 10 (05): : 373 - 373