overview of monsanto’s volatility testing of monsanto’s volatilitytesting monsanto defines...

Download Overview of Monsanto’s Volatility Testing  of Monsanto’s VolatilityTesting Monsanto defines assays to measure volatility 2009 2011 Field studies confirm volatility profile of

Post on 19-Mar-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents

3 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Overview of Monsantos Volatility Testing

  • Overview of Monsantos Volatility Testing

    Monsanto defines assays to measure

    volatility

    2009 2011Field studies confirm

    volatility profile of existing dicamba

    formulations

    Field drift studies help define application

    requirements

    2013 2015Monsanto conducted GLP field volatility (flux) studies

    Full system launch of Roundup Ready Crop

    System

    2017

    Monsanto has conducted extensive volatility testing since 2009 Over 1200 distinct tests in controlled environment (humidome/Hoophouse) Over 25 field studies (representative of multiple field conditions including varying geographies, temperatures, surfaces) Studied multiple dicamba formulations (Banvel, Clarity, Xtendimax) including common tank mixes such as glyphosate & AMS

    Consistent findings between controlled environment and field studies Dicamba-treated fields are not an infinite source of dicamba to the atmosphere

    Majority of dicamba volatilization occurs within 24 hours of application Measured air concentrations indicates that dicamba dissipates rapidly from the treated area GLP field volatility studies and PERFUM model confirm findings from previous field and controlled environment studies

    Supporting on-going volatility demonstration trials by academic researchers in multiple states (results expected early fall)

  • Maximum Minimum AverageUnits F (C) F (C) F (C)

    Air Temperature 98.4 (36.9) 70.4 (21.3) 82.2 (27.9)Soil Temperature at1 mm Depth 154.6 (68.1) 72.7 (22.6) 98.2 (36.8)

    Units Percent Percent PercentRelative Humidity 99.0 18.0 50.8

    Maximum Minimum AverageUnits F (C) F (C) F (C)

    Air Temperature 91.4 (33.0) 56.9 (13.8) 71.4 (21.9)Soil Temperature at1 mm Depth 116.8 (47.1) 61.7 (16.5) 83.7 (28.7)

    Units Percent Percent PercentRelative Humidity 100 7.7 45.1

    GA Field Volatility ConditionsMay 2015*

    TX Field Volatility ConditionsJune 2015

    50

    55

    60

    65

    70

    75

    80

    85

    90

    0 10 700

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    Air T

    empe

    ratur

    e(oF

    )

    Relat

    iveHu

    midit

    y(%)

    Monsanto GLP field volatility studies measured flux under worst case conditions

    Average Hourly Temperature and Relative Humidity for Georgia Field Volatility Study

    20 30 40 50 60Hourly Increments between 7 a.m May 5, 2015 and 7 a.m. May 8, 2015

    Percent Relative Humidity Avg Air Temperature Avg

    Xtendimax Application

    * Soil composition included 88% sand

  • A finite amount of vapor is available for off-targetmovement

    Peak volatility occurs within first24 hours

    Total dicamba mass loss due tovolatility is very small (~0.05%)for Xtendimax

    These results are consistent with previous research beginning in 2009

    0.000

    0.010

    0.020

    0.030

    0.040

    0.050

    0.060

    0.070

    0.080

    0.090

    0.000

    0.001

    0.001

    0.002

    0.002

    0.003

    0.003

    0.004

    0.004

    0.005

    0.005

    0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

    CumulativeMassL

    ossfromField(%

    )

    Flux

    From

    Field(g/m

    2 s)

    TimePostApplication (hours)

    Clarity Flux

    ClarityCumulativeMass Loss

    XtendimaxIncrementalFlux

    XtendimaxCumulativeMass Loss

  • EPAs volatility assessment includes compoundinglevels of conservatism Field studies conducted during near-idealized conditions for measuring volatility

    Timing of application, high temperatures, and sandy soil conditions did not underestimate flux Flux calculated using multiple methods

    Selected worst case (highest) flux value for modeling Air concentrations were modeled for up to four locations using PERFUM

    Used worst case (highest) estimates for volatility assessment Effects data were collected in an enclosed humidome

    Overestimates exposure relative to field exposures EPA concluded that off-site vapor exposures are below NOAEC for non-target plants

  • Monsanto has conducted additional GLP studies thatfurther support EPAs findings regarding volatility

    Xtendimax + PowerMax Field Volatility Study Total dicamba mass lost < 0.2%

    Refined Humidome Plant Effects Refined concentration spacing between

    NOAEC and LOAEC

    0%

    3%11 %

    19%

    25%

    42%

    52%y = 0.0914x + 1.3333

    R = 0.9794

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    0

    7%

    100 500 600

    Symp

    tomolo

    gy(%

    )

    200 300 400Dicamba Acid Air Concentration(ng/m3)

    0.000

    0.050

    0.100

    0.150

    0.200

    0.250

    0.000

    0.010

    0.020

    0.030

    0.040

    0.050

    0.060

    0.070

    0.080

    0 10 20 50 60

    CumulativeMassL

    ossfromField(%

    )

    Increm

    entalM

    assL

    ossFrom

    Field(%

    )

    30 40TimePostApplication (hours)

    70IncrementalMass Loss

    CumulativeMass Loss

  • Monsanto GLP field volatility study with Xtendimax + Powermax measured flux under hot conditions

    Parameter Bareground Application OTT ApplicationApplication Rate (lb/A) 0.5 0.5Plot Size (acres) 4.6 9.1Soil type Clay Loam ClaySoil pH 5.5 6.8Soil Moisture at 1/3 bar (%) 32.4 38.8Average Daytime Temperature (oF) 89 88Average Nighttime Temperature (oF) 74 75Maximum Daily Temperature (oF) 91 - 98 91-97Minimum Daily Temperature (oF) 69 - 75 69 - 72Average Soil Temperature (oF) 83.9 83.9Max Soil Temperature (oF) 124.8 124.8Average Relative Humidity (oF) 80.6 80.6Maximum Relative Humidity (oF) 100 100

  • PERFUM model does not predict levels that would produce symptomology 5 meters outside of the treated fields

    10% Symptomology

    Test locations were representative of typical growing areas

    Compared applications to bare ground and in-crop to plant tissue

    Data generated at the highest testingstandards (GLP)

    Modeled air concentration was calculated 5 meters from edge of field

    Dicamba air concentrations outside of the treated field did not demonstrate levels that would produce a visual response

    5% Symptomology

  • 5% symptomology is not a reliable or meaningful endpoint Visual symptomology is unreliable:

    Lack of single universally accepted rating scale

    Subjectivity of ratings between scientists Symptomology could be due from factors

    other than dicamba exposure, especially at low levels

    5% symptomology equates to slight crinkling in terminal leaves Terminal bud growth not inhibited; therefore,

    no yield impact (Perdue university) Symptomology >> 5% required to impact

    plant height/yield

  • Drift Field

    Soybean symptomology associated with spray drift, volatility, and improper tank cleanout shows a gradient of responses

  • Weight of evidence indicates dicamba volatility is not sufficient to result in landscape-level symptomology

    Based on Monsantos extensive testing and field observations thus far Confident the magnitude and scope of

    symptomology in the fields in 2017 is not attributable to volatility when applying XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology and following all label requirements

    GLP Field Studies

    HumidomeScreening

    Hoop House

    Application Requirements

    Technological Advancements

    (VaporGrip Technology)

    Vapor-phase Plant Effects

    Peer-Reviewed Research

  • Applicator OTM Inquiries - National (as of 9/11/17)Application Requirement Applicator Reported

    Deficiencies

    Required Buffer* 643Approved Nozzle 164

    Boom Height 147Application Rate 53

    Wind Speed 37Application Volume 9

    Ground Speed 8

    Most commonly self-reported error is Inadequate Buffer in61% of cases

    Unapproved Nozzles a factor in 15% of cases Wrong Boom Height a factor in 14% of cases Some applicators self-reported multiple application errors Still evaluating 3 of 10 key label requirements:

    Nozzle Pressure Approved Tank Mix Information Downwind presence of sensitive crops

    Also evaluating: Climate Corps environmental & weather data on wind

    speed, direction and inversion potential Supporting applicators concerned about possible

    contamination through testing Inversions and proximity to fields where other unapproved

    products may be been utilized may be a factor in some cases

    *Includes no/inadequate buffer and applicator reported sensitive crop downwind

    All are factors that are addressable through training and education

Recommended

View more >