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

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services 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 (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cryer, S. A. Articles by van Wesenbeeck, I. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cryer, S. A. Articles by van Wesenbeeck, I. J. Agricola Articles by Cryer, S. A. Articles by van Wesenbeeck, I. J. Related Collections Ecological Risk Assessment Organic Compounds Other Models Agricultural Pesticides Air Pollution

Predicted 1,3-Dichloropropene Air Concentrations Resulting from Tree and Vine Applications in California

Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Example of the use of a Gaussian plume model to simulate air concentrations resulting from agriculturally treated fields (area source terms) within a township.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Cumulative distributions for field size for representative Fresno County tree and vine (T&V) applications.

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Location of randomly distributed source terms in the township of interest for the 20-yr simulation.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Historical tree and vine (T&V) timings for 1,3-dichloropropene applications.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Experimentally measured soil flux rates for 1,3-dichloropropene (25% release) for an application rate of 132 kg/ha (active ingredient) and an injection depth between 30.5 and 45.7 cm (12 and 18 in).

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Location of source terms for the simulation domain (single year) having two-township buffers on all sides of the centrally located township of interest.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Effect of neighboring township sources on 24-h maximum and annual receptor concentrations (C/Cmax-acute [five township] = 447.5 µg/m3).

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Enlargement of Fig. 7 illustrating upper percentiles arising from the effect of neighboring township sources on 24-h maximum and annual receptor concentrations (C/Cmax-acute [five township] = 447.5 µg/m3).

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Overlay of source terms with 24-h maximum and annual receptor concentrations for the single-year simulation (one-township border on each side).

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Location of the top 1000 township receptors for both 24-h maximum and annual average air concentrations of 1,3-D for 1 yr in the tree and vine (T&V) rotation cycle.

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 11. Cumulative distribution for 24-h maximum 1,3-dichloropropene air concentrations for the entire 20-yr simulation interval and the 20-yr annual average.

View larger version (36K): [in a new window]   Fig. 12. Acute 24-h maximum concentrations surrounding each treated field 3 d following an application for the largest field (30.2 ha) in the simulation.