HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Related articles in JEQ Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Walden, R. R. Articles by Haith, D. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Walden, R. R. Articles by Haith, D. A. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Walden, R. R. Articles by Haith, D. A. Related Collections Evapotranspiration Models Turfgrass Management Turfgrass Pesticides Air Pollution

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Estimating Turf Pesticide Volatilization from Simple Evapotranspiration Models

^a Blue: Land, Water, Infrastructure, 115 E. First St., Clayton, NC 27520
^b Dep. of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Riley-Robb Hall, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853

^* Corresponding author (dah13{at}cornell.edu)

Received for publication May 20, 2002. A previously developed model by Haith et al. (2002) related pesticide volatilization from turf to evapotranspiration (ET) by scaling factors determined from vapor pressures and heats of vaporization. Although the model provided volatilization estimates that compared well with field measurements, it relied on the Penman ET equation, requiring hourly temperature, wind speed, and solar radiation data, none of which are routinely available at field sites. The current study determined that the volatilization model works equally well with a simpler ET equation requiring only daily temperatures. Three daily temperature-based ET models were evaluated as vehicles for estimating pesticide volatilization from turf: Hamon, Hargreaves–Samani, and a modified Priestley–Taylor. When compared with field volatilization measurements for eight pesticides, volatilization estimates produced from the Hargreaves–Samani model most closely approximated both the field observations and the previous estimates based on the more data-intensive Penman model. Mean estimated volatilization exceeded mean observations by 15% and the coefficient of variation (R²) between estimates and observations was 0.65. The comparable values based on Penman ET were 17% and 0.63, respectively.

Abbreviations: ET, evapotranspiration

Related articles in JEQ:

This Issue in Journal of Environmental Quality

JEQ 2003 32: 745-750. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Wolters, M. Klein, and H. Vereecken An Improved Description of Pesticide Volatilization: Refinement of the Pesticide Leaching Model (PELMO) J. Environ. Qual., September 1, 2004; 33(5): 1629 - 1637. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]