Appendix 4 

Studies Excluded From the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s 

Evaluation of Fumigant Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

A-64 
Fumigant Reference Comment 

Gan, J., S.R. Yates, D. Wang, and W.F. Spenser. 1996. Effect of soil factors on methyl bromide volatilization after soil application. Environ. Sci. Technol. Vol 30:1629-1636. 

Soil column study. It has not been reliably demoresults reflect field scale results 

Gan, J., S.R. Yates, W.F. Spenser, M.V. Yates, and W.A. Jury. 1997. Laboratory-scale measurements and simulations of effect of application methods on soil methyl bromide emissions. J. Environ. Qual. Vol 26:310-317. 

Soil column study. It has not been reliably demoresults reflect field scale results. 

Majewski, M.S., M.M. McChesney, J.E. Woodrow, H.H. Prueger, and J.N. Seiber. 1995. Aerodynamic measurements of methyl bromide volatilization from tarped and nontarped fields. J. Environ. Qual. Vol 24:742-752. 

Results from these applications are already includatabase as DPR studies. 

Yagi, K., J. Williams, N.-Y. Wang, R.J. Cicerone. 1995. Atmospheric methyl bromide (CH3Br) from agricultural soil 

fumigations. Science Vol 267:19791981. 

This study used chambers to measure flux. Flux experiment differ significantly from a previous susing the same application method (34% mass loSource of the difference was not adequately estabe due to the large variation observed when meachamber method. 

Yates, S.R., J. Gan, F.F. Ernst, A. Mutzinger, and M.V. Yates. 1996. Methyl bromide emissions from a covered field: I. Experimental conditions and degradation in soil. J. Environ. Qual. Vol 25:184-192. 

Although air concentrations were measured on a estimates were included in the paper. The seconthe flux estimates. In this paper, total mass loss bromine measurements. DPR has not used soil bestimate flux and mass loss. 

Methyl Bromide 

Yates, S.R., F.F. Ernst, J. Gan, F. Gao, and M.V. Yates. 1996. Methyl bromide emissions from a covered field: I.I Volatilization. J. Environ. Qual. Vol 25:192-202. 

The air mast sampling timeline is not clearly shoin this set. The text of part I states that the applihrs and that the application was interrupted to inequipment on the field. This seems to indicate thwas not sampled. The authors state in the concluemissions result when MeBr is applied at shallow covered with relatively permeable polyethylene delay in beginning sampling, the flux estimates mif these results were included, the loss estimate wfrom that obtained using the DPR data base excl

A-65 
Yates, S.R., D. Wang, F.F. Ernst, and J. Gan. 1997. Methyl 

bromide emissions from agricultural fields: Bare-soil, deep injection. Environ. Sci. Tech. Vol 31:1136-1143. 

No air samples for direct flux methods were takeapplication. The authors note that the soil bromia 21% mass loss while the direct flux methods e2% and 5%. The authors speculate that the diffedue to emissions during the application. The autloss in a subsequent journal article (phytopatholoindicating that they have placed more weight on In addition, the 68cm injection depth is 8cm dee60cm. 

Yates, S.R., J. Gan, F.F. Ernst, D. Wang, and M.V. Yates. 1996. Emissions of methyl bromide from agricultural fields: Rate estimates and methods of reduction. In: J.N. Seiber, J.A. Knuteson, J.E. Woodrow, N.L. Wolfe, M.V. Yates, and S.R. Yates (Eds). Fumigants: Environmental fate, exposure, and analysis. ACS Symposium Series 652. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC. pp 116-134. 

This book chapter summarizes result presented idata is presented. 

A-66 
1,3-D Gao, S. and T.J. Trout. 2006. Using surface water application to 

reduce 1,3-dichlorpropene emissions from soil fumigation. J. Environ. Qual. Vol 35:1040-1048. 

This paper reports results from soil column expeThe treatments: 

A. Dry soil/no tarp/no water B. Initial water before fumigant injection/nC. Treatment B + more water applied to so

injection 

D. Treatment C + more water applied to so

injection 

E. Dry soil covered with HDPE F. Treatment B covered with HDPE G. Dry soil covered with VIF 

Factors that limit the use of these results in the V1) The dry soil applications do not follow Telone thus, do not reflect practices required by applica2) Treatments C and D required that the soil coluthe additional water to be applied to the soil surffor the speculated effect of the disturbance of the column. However, there was no control column water applied. Therefore, it is impossible to assiin the emissions to the water rather than the distuheadspace and equilibrium (or some interaction authors argue that after the first sample followincolumn following samples “...should not have bnothing is presented to support that assertion. Ththis procedure likely invalidates the results of th

A-67 
Gao, S. and T.J. Trout. 2007. Surface seals reduce 1.3-

dichloropropene and chloropicrin emissions in field tests. J. Environ. Qual. Vol 36:110-119. 

Treatments 

i) control – dry soil ii) dry soil covered with HDPE iii) dry soil covered with VIF iv) Initial water before fumigant injectv) Dry soil injection followed by watevi) Treatment v + additional intermitte

and 48hr 

Factors that limit the use of these results in the V1) The dry soil applications (i, ii, and iii) do not instructions and thus, do not reflect practices reqfield. 2) The intermittent water treatment (vi) pattern iprocedure for applicators to follow. There is no wexperimental results to reflect a more reasonable pattern. 3) Plots were different sizes. The water treatmenThe tarp treatments were 9m x 3m. 4) The plots are separated by 3m buffers. This ithat the water applications to the neighboring plodynamics on the dry plots due to local changes i5) Emission measurements were taken using chaspeculate about the reliability of chamber resultssoil treatments (giving one more reason to not usThey state: “We highly suspect that the passive underestimate fumigant emissions from a bare ana perfect seal between the chamber and the soil wduring the 30 min capture time.” This section of on the reliability of the results. 6) The 30 min capture time is also an issue. Theand how well they characterize loss over longer 7) No emission measurements were taken at nighthat the control treatment peak flux occurred at nD and chloropicrin the total control mass loss is also speculate that the peak flux for the HDPE trthe morning when no measurements were taken. apply the same speculation to any of the other trdesign, the flux profiles are not adequately chara

A-68 
van Wesenbeeck, I.J., C.K. Robb and D.A. Lindsay. 1998. Field 

volatility of 1,3-dichloropropene from an untarped buried drip application in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas Amended Report. Study ID ENV97106 Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indiana. 

This study was not used for the following reasondownwind portion of field led to inconsistency band fluxes and created uncertainty in the flux (2) (current label requires tarping) 

Gan, J., S.R. Yates, F.F. Ernst, and W.A. Jury. 2000. Degradation and volatilization of fumigant chloropicrin after soil treatment. J. Environ. Qual. Vol 29:1391-1397. 

Soil column study. Has not been reliably demonresults reflect field scale results 

Gao, S. and T.J. Trout. 2007. Surface seals reduce 1.3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin emissions in field tests. J. Environ. Qual. Vol 36:110-119. 

See comments for this article in the 1,3-D sectio

Gillis, M. and G.S. Smith. 2002. Chloropicrin emissions and offsite drift from tarped and non-tarped fields treated by a drip irrigation application method. Study TC350. Unpublished report submitted to CDPR. DPR Registration Volume 199-0114. 

This study was not used because the quality assusubmitted in support of the study results was not 

Lee, H., K.V. Natta, and M. Gillis. 1994.. Chloropicrin worker exposure, flux, and offsite monitoring and dispersions modeling for tarped broadcast application – pilot study. Study TC246/BR707. Unpublished report submitted to CDPR. DPR Registration Volume 199-0079. 

This study was not used for the following reasonquality assurance/quality control data was includshowing the flux calculations was included in thmodeling underestimated the observed concentraflux estimates were low. 

Wang, D., J. Juzwik, and S. Fraedrich, K. Spokas, Y. Zhang, and W.C. Koskinen. 2005. Atmospheric emissions of methyl Isothiocyanate and chloropicrin following soil fumigation and surface containment treatment in bare-root forest nurseries. Can. J. For. Res. Vol 35:1202-1221. 

This study was not included because flux was eschambers. Due to significant technical issues wihas elected to omit flux estimates obtained using 

Chloropicrin 

Zhang, Y. and D. Wang. 2007. Emission, distribution, and leaching of methyl Isothiocyanate and chloropicrin under different surface containments. Chemosphere 68:445-454. 

Soil column study. It has not been reliably demoresults reflect field scale results. 

A-69 
Zhang, Y. and D. Wang. 2007. Emission, distribution, and 

leaching of methyl Isothiocyanate and chloropicrin under different surface containments. Chemosphere 68:445-454. 

Soil column study. It has not been reliably demoresults reflect field scale results. 

Sullivan, D.A., M.T. Holdsworth, H. Ajwa, S. Nelson, D. Dickson. 2003. Draft Report. Citra, Florida studies of incorporation and drip irrigation with tarping. Submitted September 24, 2004 on behalf of the Metam Sodium Task Force. DPR Registration Volume number 50150-0159. 

This study was not included for the following reand mitigation methods are not adequately descrassurance/quality control data included, 3) only of flux is provided so no review is possible, 4) efully review the flux estimates was submitted, ththe flux back-calculation used log-transformed dacceptable. 

Sullivan, D.A. and M.T. Holdsworth. 2004 Study of Roozen shank injection rig at Washington Bulb Co. site, Mount Vernon, Washington. Submitted September 24, 2004 on behalf of the Metam Sodium Task Force. DPR Registration Volume number 50150-0158. 

This study was not included for the following reand mitigation methods are not adequately descrassurance/quality control data included, 3) only of flux is provided so no review is possible, 4) efully review the flux estimates was submitted, ththe flux back-calculation used log-transformed dacceptable. 

Sullivan, D.A. and M.T. Holdsworth. 2001. Orange County drip application study modeling results prepared for the MetamSodium Task Force. Sullivan Consulting, Inc. 1900 Elkin Street, Suite 249, Alexandria, VA 22308. Report dated December 18, 2001. 

This study was not included because it is a pilot minimal air concentration sampling not sufficienIn addition, at the time of application the soil wamoisture range. There is no quality assurance/qusubmitted. 

Sullivan, D.A. and M.T. Holdsworth. 2001. Lancaster pilot study of intermittent sealing for a sprinkler irrigation application . Prepared for the Metam Sodium Task Force Sullivan Consulting, Inc. 1900 Elkin Street, Suite 249, Alexandria, VA 22308. Report dated December 18, 2001. 

This study was not included because it is a pilot minimal air concentration sampling not sufficienThe application plots were very narrow rectangleaffect the results. There is no quality assurance/submitted. 

Sullivan, D.A. and M.T. Holdsworth. 2001. Santa Barbara County pilot study of intermittent sealing for a shank injection application. Prepared for the Metam Sodium Task Force Sullivan Consulting, Inc. 1900 Elkin Street, Suite 249, Alexandria, VA 22308. Report dated December 18, 2001. 

This study was not included because it is a pilot minimal air concentration sampling not sufficienThe application plots were very narrow rectangleaffect the results. There is no quality assurance/submitted. 

Sullivan, D.A. and M.T. Holdsworth. 2001. Panama Lane pilot study of intermittent sealing for a chemigation application . Prepared for the Metam Sodium Task Force. Sullivan Consulting, Inc. 1900 Elkin Street, Suite 249, Alexandria, VA 22308. Report dated December 18, 2001. 

This study was not included because it is a pilot minimal air concentration sampling not sufficienThe application plots were very narrow rectangleaffect the results. 

Edison Road 2005. Early start/sunset seal This study has not been submitted to DPR USDA Salinas 2004 Shank/tarp This study has not been submitted to DPR 

Metam Sodium 

USDA Salinas 2004 Drip/tarp This study has not been submitted to DPR 

A-70 
Brawley 2004 Flood This study has not been submitted to DPR 

USDA 2002 Bakersfield shank This study has not been submitted to DPR USDA 2002 Bakersfield chemigation This study has not been submitted to DPR Firebaugh 1992 chemigation This study has not been submitted to DPR. ARB. 1993. Ambient air monitoring in Contra Costa County during March 1993 after an application of Metam Sodium to a Field. Test Report No. C92-070A. July 14, 1993. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/tac/tacpdfs/metamsod.pdf 

This study was not designed to estimate flux. Aand the meteorological data is not available. 

ARB. 1993. Ambient air monitoring for MITC in Kern County during summer 1993. Test Report No. C92-070. April 27, 1994. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/tac/tacpdfs/mitckern.pdf 

This study was not designed to estimate flux. Aand the meteorological data is not available. 

Wang, D., J. Juzwik, and S. Fraedrich, K. Spokas, Y. Zhang, and W.C. Koskinen. 2005. Atmospheric emissions of methyl Isothiocyanate and chloropicrin following soil fumigation and surface containment treatment in bare-root forest nurseries. Can. J. For. Res. Vol 35:1202-1221. 

This study was not included because flux was eschambers. Due to significant technical issues wihas elected to omit flux estimates obtained using 

Zhang, Y. and D. Wang. 2007. Emission, distribution, and leaching of methyl Isothiocyanate and chloropicrin under different surface containments. Chemosphere 68:445-454. 

Soil column study. It has not been reliably demoresults reflect field scale results. 

A-71