Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Studies were undertaken to determine the fate and effect of Velpar L (hexazinone) on aquatic systems following application to reforestation plantations. Surface water and groundwater were monitored for hexazinone residues. Conventional flask and microplate algal bioassays were conducted using Selanastrum capricornutum Printz, a Microtox bioassay was undertaken using Photobacterium phosphoreum and a S.O.S. chromotest was undertaken using Escherichia coli. Both lateral off-site migration and vertical migration of hexazinone were observed within the surficial aquifer at the study sites. Lateral movement was limited to the extent that less than 10 µg/L were detected in groundwater samples within 5 m of the application site. Hexazinone residues were detected in test wells for a period of approximately 1000 days following application. Hexazinone appeared to move downward in a relatively narrow band at a rate that was artificially enhanced during the process of groundwater sample extraction. Hexazinone residues were detected within ephemeral pools that formed on treated soils for a period of approximately 1000 days following application. Algal bioassay studies indicated inhibition of primary productivity would occur at relatively low hexazinone concentrations (22.5 µg/L). Velpar L was not mutagenic as evidenced by the S.O.S. chromotest and was relatively non-toxic as indicated by the Microtox bioassay.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dean Williamson (1988) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: