Full TGIF Record # 78177
Item 1 of 1
Web URL(s):https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs001280189
    Last checked: 09/27/2017
    Requires: PDF Reader
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
Publication Type:
i
Report
Author(s):Klonne, D.; Cowell, J.; Mueth, M.; Eberhart, D.; Rosenheck, L.; Ross, J.; Worgan, J.
Author Affiliation:Klonne: Toxicology and Exposure Assessment Services, Inc., Raleigh, NC; Cowell and Mueth: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO; Eberhart: Bayer Corporation, Kansas City, MO; Rosenheck: Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC; Ross: infoscientific.com, Inc., Carmichael, CA; and Worgan: Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Title:Comparative study of five transferable turf residue methods
Source:Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Vol. 67, No. 6, December 2001, p. 771-779.
Publishing Information:New York: Springer-Verlag New York
# of Pages:9
Keywords:TIC Keywords: Pesticide residues; Comparisons; Methodology; Dithiopyr; Flowables; Granules; 2,4-D
Abstract/Contents:Presents a study "to select the best overall transferable turf residue method based on such criteria as sensitivity (lowest amount of residue detectable), repeatability within an individual, reproductibility across individuals, independence from physical-chemical properties and formulation types, and ease of use." Results indicate that "several of the techniques performed well but no one method stood out as the single best transferable turf residue method. Based on the lack of clear-cut results of this study for deciding on a single overall best transferable turf residue method, another follow study was conducted. The polyurethane foam roller technique was not pursued n the second study because of the high CV and lack of sensitivity for the dithiopyr EC on Day 1. The foliar wash technique was dropped because of the disparity of sensitivity for hydrophilic versus lipophilic compounds, and because it was difficult and both labor and equipment-intensive. The drag sled was dropped because of its lack of sensitivity to the dithiopyr EC and because it was not easily amenable to engineering changes to increase its surface area. The California Roller was pursued in the next study because it performed well with regard to both sensitivity and variability, but modifications were made to improve it's [its] ease-of-use. The shoe shuffling technique was pursued because it performed well in this study, but again modifications were made to improve consistency across individuals. In addition, a third technique was developmed as an alternative to the PUF roller and the California Roller techniques. This technique consisted of cheesecloth attached to a large roller, as a type of hybrid technique of the PUF roller and California Roller."
Language:English
References:9
See Also:Other items relating to: 2, 4 - D in Turf
Note:Tables
ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Klonne, D., J. Cowell, M. Mueth, D. Eberhart, L. Rosenheck, J. Ross, et al. 2001. Comparative study of five transferable turf residue methods. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 67(6):p. 771-779.
Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=78177
If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 78177.
Choices for finding the above item:
Web URL(s):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs001280189
    Last checked: 09/27/2017
    Requires: PDF Reader
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
Find Item @ MSU
MSU catalog number: RA 565 .A1 B8
Find from within TIC:
   Digitally in TIC by record number.
Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record)