Environmental Toxicology and Water Quality - 1998 - Caux

<} }<
Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for Linuron

P.-Y. Caux, R. A. Kent, G. T. Fan, C. Grande
Aquatic Guidelines and Assessements, Evaluation and Interpretation Branch, Environment Canada,
351 St. Joseph Blvd., Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0H3
Received 25 March 1996; revised 10 December 1996; accepted 17 February 1997
ABSTRACT: The environmental chemistry, fate, and toxicology of the herbicide, linuron, is reviewed.
Linuron is a phenylurea herbicide used for selective control of annual weeds in fruit and field crops and
noncrop areas. Linuron is soluble in water which suggests that it may leach readily through soils. Its log
K oc for soil is 2.83, which indicates a moderate adsorption potential and a moderate mobility. Its half-life
is less than 4 weeks in water and approximately 2 months in soil. The primary mode of degradation is
microbial. In regions of intensive agriculture, linuron concentrations up to 1100 and 2800 m g Ly1 have
been detected in Canadian surface waters and ground waters, respectively. Duckweed ( Lemna minor ),
the most sensitive freshwater species for which data were available, had a 5-d lowest-observed-effect
level of 70 m g Ly1 for growth inhibition. The most sensitive crop species was the tomato ( Lycopersicum
esculentum) with a LOEAR of 0.018 kg ha y1 for reduced fresh weight. Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines (CWQG) specify levels of contaminants that should not be exceeded in order to protect and
sustain the major beneficial uses of water in Canada. For linuron, sufficient toxicity data were available to
derive an interim CWQG of 7 m g Ly1 for the protection of freshwater life, a full CWQG of 0.071 m g Ly1
for irrigation water to protect cereals, tame hays, and pasture, and an interim CWQG of 3.3 m g Ly1 for
irrigation water to protect other crops. Q 1998 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Environ Toxicol Water Qual 13: 1]41,
1998
Keywords: linuron; herbicide; water quality; guideline; contaminant; fate; half-life; toxicity
1. USES AND PRODUCTION stracts Service ŽCAS. registry number is 41205-21-4.

The trade names and various formulations of linuron,
Linuron is the common name of a substituted pheny- including those that contain linuron in combination
lurea herbicide used in Canada to selectively control with another active ingredient Že.g., metolachlor., that
newly established broadleaf weeds and grasses in fruit are registered in Canada are listed in Table I ŽAgricul-
and field crops, cereals, and shelter belts wAgriculture ture and Agri-Food Canada, 1994..
Canada, 1990; Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Linuron is registered for use on field and garden
Food, ŽOMAF., 1990x. It was initially registered for use crops such as corn, soybeans, carrots, potatoes, aspara-
in Canada in 1962 ŽAgriculture Canada, 1990. and in gus, fruit trees, Saskatoon berries, wheat, oats, and
the United States in 1966 wU.S. Environmental Protec- barley at application rates ranging from 0.28 to 4.3 kg
tion Agency ŽEPA., 1984bx. It is produced in the United ai hay1 depending on the crop and soil type ŽDu Pont,
States for the Canadian market by E.I. Du Pont de 1991.. Linuron controls a variety of annual weeds,
Nemours & Co., Inc. and by Hoechst NOR-Am AgrEvo, including barnyard grass, chickweed, corn spurry, velvet
Inc. Its IUPAC chemical name is 3-Ž3,4-dichloro- leaf, fall panicum, foxtail, goosefoot, goose grass,
phenyl.-1-methoxy-1-methylurea. The Chemical Ab- groundsel, knot weed, lamb’s quarters, red-root pig-
weed, purslane, common ragweed, shepherd’s purse,
Correspondence to: R. A. Kent smartweed, stinkweed, wild buckwheat, witch grass,
Q 1998 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 1053-4725 / 98 / 010001-41
1
10982256, 1998, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2256(1998)13:1<1::AID-TOX1>3.0.CO;2-B by Aul - University Of New, Wiley Online Library on [21/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 CAUX ET AL.
TABLE I. Pesticide products containing linuron registered for use in Canadaa
Product Name Active Ingredient Formulation Registrant
Afolan F linuron flowable Linuron Ž450 g Ly1 . Suspension Hoechst NOR-AM AgrEvo, Inc.,
herbicide Regina, Saskatchewan
Afolan F herbicide Linuron Ž480 g Ly1 . Suspension Hoechst NOR-AM AgrEvo, Inc.,
Regina, Saskatchewan
Dualin 500EC agricultural Linuron Ž200 g Ly1 . Emulsifiable concentrate Ciba-Geigy Canada, Ltd.,
herbicide Metolachlor Ž300 g Ly1 . Mississauga, Ontario
Lorox L herbicide liquid Linuron Ž480 g Ly1 . Suspension Dupont Canada, Inc.,
suspension Mississauga, Ontario
Technical linuron Linuron Ž92%. NA Dupont Canada, Inc.,
Mississauga, Ontario
Lorox DF herbicide dry Linuron Ž50%. Wettable granules Du Pont Canada, Inc.,
flowable Mississauga, Ontario
Lorox DF herbicide Linuron Ž50%. Wettable granules Du Pont Canada, Inc.,
dispersible granule Mississauga, Ontario
Linuron technical Linuron Ž95%. Solid I.PI.CI. Industria Prodotti CH.,
Milan, Italy
Clean crop linuron 400 L Linuron Ž400 g Ly1 . Suspension United Agri Products,
herbicide Dorchester, Ontario
Linuron 50W herbicide Linuron Ž50%. Wettable powder United Agri Products,
Dorchester, Ontario
Clean crop linuron 480 Linuron Ž480 g Ly1 . Suspension United Agri Products,
herbicide liquid suspension Dorchester, Ontario
Checkmate EC herbicide Linuron Ž200 g Ly1 . Emulsifiable concentrate United Agri Products,
Žagricultural . Metolachlor Ž300 g Ly1 . Dorchester, Ontario
a
Source: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Ž1994..
worm-seed mustard, dandelion seedlings, plantain, and concentrations ranging from 5.5 to 28 and 1.9 to 0.05
sow thistle ŽOMAF, 1990; Du Pont, 1991.. It is also mg kgy1 for TCAB and TCAOB, respectively. TCAB
registered for noncrop use at application rates ranging contamination also was reported by Hill et al. Ž1981. at
from 1.1 to 3.4 kg ai hay1 wWeed Science Society of 2.4]460 mg kgy1 and by Di Muccio et al. Ž1984. at
America ŽWSSA., 1989x to control broadleaf and an- 0.1]28.4 mg kgy1 . R. Frank Ž1991, Ontario Ministry of
nual grasses on turf grass, shelter belts, and rights-of- Agriculture and Food, personal communication. exam-
way, and is often used to control triazine-resistant ined 14 formulations of linuron and found TCAB and
weeds. In Ontario in 1988, linuron accounted for al- TCAOB present at levels ranging from 0.7 to 32 and
most 4% of the total herbicides applied to field crops, - 0.002 mg kgy1 , respectively. The lowest levels were
fruits, and vegetables, which was the seventh highest in described by Hashimoto et al. Ž1993., who found con-
terms of kilograms applied. This represented 1.75% of centrations of TCAB varying from 0.00071 to 2.8 m g
the total amount of all pesticides used in Ontario gy1 in the commercial herbicide formulas and concen-
ŽMoxley, 1989.. In 1990, 272 t of linuron were sold in trations varying from 0.085 to 14 m g gy1 in bulk
reagents.
Canada, with 80% of it sold in Ontario, mainly for
application on fruits and vegetables ŽAgriculture
Canada and Environment Canada, 1990.. 1.1. Application Rates
Linuron is synthesized by the reaction of 3,4-phenyl- Application rates of linuron are determined by the
isocyanate and methoxymethylamine wOntario Pesti- species of targeted crop, the herbicide formulation, and
cides Advisory Committee ŽOPAC. 1990; Pyne et al., the type of soil. Lower rates are recommended for use
1974x. Contaminants formed during synthesis are on lighter soils Žthose with low organic matter and clay
3,4,39,49-tetrachloroazobenzene ŽTCAB. ŽCAS number content., whereas higher rates are recommended for
1404-09-7 . and 3,4,39,49,2-tetrachlorazoxybenzene soils with high organic matter and clay content. Lin-
ŽTCAOB.. Chart I contains structures of compounds uron is not recommended for use on sandy soils be-
related to linuron. Sundstrom et al. Ž1978. found both cause of an increased potential injury to crops. A
contaminants in technical and commercial linuron at summary of the types of applications, the application
LINURON WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES 3
Chart I. Structures of compounds related to inuron.
rates, and the frequency of applications recommended Linuron is applied directly to the soil via a directed
for use on different crops is presented in Table II. surface spray or incorporated into the soil to minimize
Linuron can be applied preemergence, postemer- losses due to volatilization and crop phytotoxicity. Be-
gence, or directed postemergence, generally as a single cause sensitivity of the different shoot zones to soil-
application. Product formulations registered in Canada applied herbicides is variable and generally species-
include suspensions, emulsifiable concentrates, solids, specific ŽO’Donovan and Prendeville, 1975., treatment
wettable granules, and wettable powders ŽAgriculture of soil with linuron in a specific shoot zone will often
and Agri-Food Canada, 1994.. increase selectivity of the herbicide to the crop. Lin-
4 CAUX ET AL.
TABLE II. Recommended application rates of linuron for cropsa
Application
Application Rate Frequency
Target Crop Žkg ai hay1 . or Interval Type of Application Reference
Wheat, barley, 0.21]0.28 Žmixed with MCPA NR Broadcast postemergence Du Pont Ž1991.
oats amine at 0.42]0.56.
Wheat 0, 0.28, 0.56, 1.12, and 2.24 Single Postemergence at 3-leaf stage Elliot et al. Ž1975.
Field corn 0.38]0.75 Žwith atrazine or NR Band or broadcast Du Pont Ž1991.
metolachlor. preemergence
1.15]2.15 Žwith oil emulsion Single Directed postemergence Du Pont Ž1991.
at low pressure. to soil
0.84 Žalone or in combination with NR Postemergence 180 L hay1 Dale and Chandler
atrazine and cyanazine. in water-directed spray Ž1979.
1.12 and 2.24 Single Preemergence Oxford precision Ludwig Ž1973a.
sprayer 225 L hay1
0.28, 0.56, 1.12 linuron Single Preemergence Oxford precision Ludwig Ž1973a.
with 0.56 atrazine sprayer 225 L hay1
1.68 and 3.36 Single Preemergent spray from Ludwig Ž1973b.
backpack sprayer 281 L hay1
2.2 Single Preemergence Marriage and
Saidak Ž1974.
Soybeans 0.91]1.56 Single Preemergence after preplant Du Pont Ž1991.
incorporation of trifluralin
1.13]2.3 Single Preemergence alone Du Pont Ž1991.
0.94]1.15 Single, Preemergence with a tank Du Pont Ž1991.
mixed, mix or split application
or split with metolachlor
1.12 Single Directed postemergence when Johnson Ž1971.
plants were 15]25-cm tall
2.8 Žwith metribuzin. Single Preemergence Shaw and Coats
Ž1988.
0.6 Žwith 2,4-DB. Double 6 weeks postemergence Shaw and Coats
directed spray Ž1988.
Carrots 0.55]1.63 Single Preemergence Du Pont Ž1991.
1.13]2.25 Single Postemergence Du Pont Ž1991.
0.94]1.15 2 weeks apart Pre- and postemergence Du Pont Ž1991.
1.46 Single Postemergence Kuratle and Rahn
Ž1968.
0.9 Single Postemergence Kuratle and Rahn
Ž1968.
1.8 Žtwice the label Single, NR Heinonen-Tanski
recommended rate. annually et al. Ž1986.
for 5 years
Potatoes 1.13]2.25 Single Preemergence Du Pont Ž1991.
Asparagus 1.65]2.15 Single Preemergence Du Pont Ž1991.
1.65]2.15 Single after Preemergence Du Pont Ž1991.
last cutting
Fruit orchards 4.32 Žwith surfactant . Single Ground application before Du Pont Ž1991.
) 10 years weeds were 10-cm high
or 1 year in
peaches
Saskatoon 2]6 Single Directed basal spray Cessna Ž1988.
berries
a
NR denotes not reported.
uron in the soil shoot zone of the first internode did

not affect plant growth in peas, whereas in the shoot
zones of the second and third internodes, growth was
markedly reduced ŽO’Brien and Prendeville, 1979..
1.2. Physical and Chemical Properties

Fig. 1. Chemical structure of linuron.
Pure linuron is a colorless crystalline solid that has an
empirical formula of C 9 H 10 Cl 2 N2 O 2 ŽFig. 1. and a
molecular weight of 249.1 ŽU.S. EPA, 1984a.. It is
soluble in water Ž81 mg Ly1 at 248C. and acetone Ž50% environmental matrices such as water, soil, air,
by weight. and moderately soluble in ethanol and aro- plants, and animal tissue ŽTable IV.. Gas chromatogra-
matic hydrocarbons. It is considered stable in neu- phy ŽGC. analysis of linuron is possible because, unlike
tral aqueous media, but can hydrolyze in acidic or other phenylureas, linuron does not decompose into
alkaline solutions at elevated temperatures. Technical isocyanates at high temperatures ŽGudehn ´ and
grade is generally 0 94% ŽWorthing and Walker, 1987.. Kolmodin-Hedman, 1987.. For soil samples, the limit of
Other chemical and physical properties are presented detection ranges from 0.01 to 0.03 mg kgy 1
in Table III. ŽHeinonen-Tanski et al., 1986..
An alternative to GC analysis is high performance
liquid chromatography ŽHPLC. with ultraviolet ŽUV.,
1.3. Analytical Methods electrochemical, or mass spectrometric detection. At
A number of analytical methodologies have been devel- equal injection volumes, however, HPLC is less sensi-
oped to measure linuron concentrations in various tive than GC. HPLC is limited by a lower sensitivity
TABLE III. Physical and chemical properties of linuron
Property Value Reference
Physical state Solid crystal U.S. EPA Ž1984a.

Color White or colorless U.S. EPA Ž1984a.
Odor Odorless U.S. EPA Ž1984a.
Melting point 93]948C U.S. EPA Ž1984a.; Martin and
Worthing Ž1977.
Solubility in water 81 mg Ly1 at 248C U.S. EPA Ž1984a.
75 mg Ly1 at 258C Martin and Worthing Ž1977.
Solvent solubility Žother than water. Kidd and James Ž1991.
Acetone 500 g kg ] 1
Benzene 150 g kg ] 1
Ethanol 150 g kg ] 1
Xylene 130 g kg ] 1
Heptane 15 g kg ] 1
Vapor pressure 2.0 mPa at 248C Worthing and Walker Ž1987.
330 mPa at 608C
Molecular weight 249.1 U.S. EPA Ž1984a.
Stability Hydrolyzes in acidic or alkaline OPAC Ž1990.; Martin and
solution or at elevated Worthing Ž1977.
temperatures.
Stable toward oxidation U.S. EPA Ž1984a.
and moisture under
conventional conditions;
decomposes at
180]1908C
Log sedimentrwater partition 2.83 Means and Wijayaratne Ž1982.
coefficient Žlog K oc .
Log octanolrwater coefficient 2.76 Briggs Ž1981.
Žlog K ow .
6
TABLE IV. Analytical methods to measure linuron and its metabolites in various environmental matrices a
Percentage
Environmental Detection of
Matrix Extraction Procedure Chemical b Application Rate Analytical Method c Limit Recovery Reference
CAUX ET AL.
Water NR Linuron NA HPLCrUVD Ž254 nm. 15 m g Ly1 NR Senin et al. Ž1986.

Partisil ODS Ž5 m m.
separation
Chromosorb 102
adsorption
NR Linuron NA TSP LCrMS with NR NR Barcelo
´ Ž1989.
ammonium
formate as
a buffer
Chesapeake C 18 SEP-PAK Linuron 0.58 and 8.37 HPLC NR NR Gaskill and
Bay water extraction Ž97%. m g Ly1 Jayanty Ž1981.
Estuarine NR Linuron NA HPLCrUVD NR NR Means and
water Bondapak-phenyl Wijayaratne
column Ž1982.
Soil Methanol Linuron 1.8 kg hay1 GC 0.02 mg kgy1 95% Heinonen-Tanski
extraction et al. Ž1986.
Acetone extraction 0.03 mg kgy1 91%
Methanol Linuron 1.8 kg hay1 HPLC 0.01 mg kgy1 92% Heinonen-Tanski
Methanol DCMOU, 1.8-kg hay1 GC 0.01 mg kgy1 77% Heinonen-Tanski
extraction DCMU, linuron et al. Ž1986.
DCU, DCA
Acetone DCMOU, 1.8-kg hay1 GC 0.03 mg kgy1 91% Heinonen-Tanski
DCU, DCA
Methanol DCMOU, 1.8-kg hay1 HPLC NR NR Heinonen-Tanski
DCU, DCA
Air NR Linuron Aerosols GCrNPD 30 pg injected ) 90% Gudehn
´ and
Ž99%. from Kolmodin-
standard Hedman Ž1987.
solutions in
dichloro-
methane
Saskatoon Methanol Linuron 4 kg hay1 HPLCrMWD 10 m g kgy1 86% Cessna Ž1988.
berries extraction, Ž248 nm.
Ž Amelanchier methylene chloride
anifolia. partition, Florisil
column cleanup,
Bondapak, Nova-Pak
Vegetables Methanol Linuron with 0.05 and 0.5 FC, LCrFD 0.004 mg kgy1 96% Luchtefeld Ž1987.
extraction, other mg kgy1 Ž340r455 nm. for methanol]
methylene substituted water mobile
chloride ureas phase,
partition 0.005 mg kgy1
for acetonitrile ]
water mobile
phase
Potatoes Extraction with Linuron and 0, 1, and 2 kg LCrUVD Ž248 nm. 0.015 m g gy1 80]102% Miliadis et al.
acetone: dichloro- DCMU, ai hay1 for linuron, Ž1990.
methane Ž1:1. DCU, DCMU,
Cleanup with and DCA and DCU
silica cartridges.
Separation with a 60]78% for
LiChrosorb NH 2 DCA
5-m m column and
ispropanol-isooctane
gradient as the
mobile phase
Potatoes Luke multiresidue Linuron NR GCrMS 0.1 ppm 112% at Mattern et al.
extraction 0.5 ppm Ž1989.
procedure 110% at
0.2 ppm
Carrots Dichloromethane Linuron 1.8 kg hay1 GC 0.02 mg kgy1 92% Heinonen-Tanski
Applesrbeansr Luke multiresidue Linuron NA Žspiked HPLCrMS NR 75]90% Mattern et al.
lettucerpeppers extraction procedure samples. Žwith a Spheri-5 Ž1991.
potatoesrtomatoes reversed-phase
C-18 column.
Wild turkey NR Linuron NR GCrECD NR NR Bridges and
adipose tissue Andrews Ž1977.
a
NR denotes not reported; NA denotes not applicable.
b
Metabolites of linuron: DCA, 3,4-dichloroaniline; DCMOU, 3-Ž3,4-dichlorophenyl.-1-methoxyurea; DCMU, 3-Ž3,4-dichlorophenyl.-1-methylurea; DCU, 3-Ž3,4-dichlorophenyl.-urea.
c
Analytical methods: ECD, electron capture detection; FC, Florisil chromatography; FD, fluorescence detection; GC, gas chromatography; HPLC, high performance liquid chromatogra-
phy; LC, liquid chromatography; MS, mass spectrometry; MWD, multiwavelength detection; NPD, nitrogen phosphorus detection; TSP, thermal spray; UVD, ultraviolet detection.
LINURON WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES
7
8 CAUX ET AL.
despite enhancement by derivatization, specific detec- provides a means of determining exposure routes and
tors, and on-line preconcentration ŽGudehn ´ and hazards of linuron to terrestrial and aquatic resources.
Kolmodin-Hedman, 1987.. Despite the extensive use of linuron in Canada,
HPLC methods are considered more useful than GC there is little information regarding the environmental
methods for the analysis of water samples because GC concentrations of linuron in ecosystems. Only three
methods require the conversion of phenylureas to ther- studies have looked for linuron in water, two have
mally stable derivatives and are unable to separate looked for linuron in soils, and no studies have deter-
linuron, diuron, monolinuron, buturon, and monuron. mined concentrations in air.
Improvements in the limit of detection by chemical
trapping on porous polymeric sorbents and gradient
elution resulted in a limit of detection for HPLC of 15 2.1. Surface Water and Groundwater
m g Ly1 ŽSenin et al., 1986..
In New Brunswick, linuron was detected in 1 of 24
Some studies on environmental concentrations of
surface water samples collected 4 July 1986 at the
linuron reported detection limits much lower than 15
m g Ly1 . It is not unusual to find analytical methodolo- Little Presque Isle Stream in the St. John River Valley,
gies that report detection limits 3 orders of magnitude with a level of 0.031 m g Ly1 Ždetection limit s 0.008
above environmental concentrations. Purposes of de- m g Ly1 ; O’Neill and Bailey, 1987.. A 1991 study moni-
tection vary. Higher detection limits are reported when toring tile drain discharge for linuron in the St. John
testing for purity of formulation than when testing River Valley indicated the presence of linuron at two
environmental samples that have much lower linuron out of five monitored sites at levels of 0.023 and 0.245
concentrations. m g Ly1 Ždetection limit s 0.009 m g Ly1 ; H. J. O’Neill,
Methanol is the preferred solvent for extraction of 1992, Environment Canada, Atlantic Region, personal
linuron from soils ŽMcKone, 1969., although a mixture commmunication.. Water from two wells in Simcoe
of dichloromethane and isopropyl alcohol Ž85 : 15. is County Žsouthern Ontario., 9 and 15 m deep, had
also very efficient ŽAbraham et al., 1987.. linuron concentrations of 500 and 2800 m g Ly1 , respec-
tively ŽFrank et al., 1987b.. The authors concluded that
contamination occurred through mixing and loading of
1.4. Mode of Action pesticides in the vicinity of the wells rather than con-
Plants most readily absorb linuron through their root tamination through groundwater or surface water. Sur-
systems rather than through foliage or stems. Linuron face water from the Holland River, which drains the
is transported passively, via the xylem, to the leaves Holland Marsh in Simcoe County, contained levels of
where it inhibits photosynthesis by disrupting photosys- 1100 m g Ly1 Ždetection limit s 100 m g Ly1 ; Frank et
tem II Žphotosynthetic electron transport. ŽU.S. EPA, al., 1987b.. No explanation was offered for the contam-
1984a.. Linuron is generally most effective when ap- ination of the river. Pesticide concentrations in water
plied to the soil Žband or broadcast. because absorption from 359 farm wells were examined over a 5-year
and translocation through leaves are poor ŽBayer and period Ž1979 to 1984. by the Ontario government. Of
Yamaguchi, 1965.. The selective phytotoxicity of lin- 15 wells thought to be contaminated with linuron, only
uron results from the differential uptake, translocation, 1 had a linuron concentration above the detection limit
and metabolism of linuron by different plant species of 0.1 m g Ly1 ŽFrank et al., 1987a..
ŽOMAF, 1990.. In Quebec, linuron was detected in 76 samples of
576 Ž13%. surface water samples collected in regions of
intensive corn cultivation. The concentrations ranged
2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS from the detection limit Ž0.08 m g Ly1 . to 3.4 m g Ly1
ŽBerryman and Giroux, 1994.. Linuron was also de-
Contamination of terrestrial and aquatic environments tected in some private wells situated near a potato field
occurs from direct application or indirectly by pro- ŽParadis et al., 1991; Giroux, 1994.. The concentrations
cesses such as spray drift, leaching, runoff events, and in the groundwater ranged from the detection limit to
dryrwet deposition events. Extreme pollution may re- 1.38 m g Ly1 .
sult from spills, dumping of tank residues, or equip- The British Columbia Ministry of Health recently
ment-washing operations. Distribution of linuron completed a survey of pesticides in the groundwater of
among the various environmental compartments is gov- the Fraser Valley. Linuron was not detected in any of
erned by its physicochemical properties and environ- the water samples collected from 81 community and
mental conditions. Assessment of environmental con- private wells Ždetection limit s 1 m g Ly1 ; Carmichael
tamination in conjunction with toxicity information et al., 1995..
Soils bated with radiolabelled linuron Žat 5 mg Ly1 . for 52

weeks. The half-life for linuron was shortest Ž7 d. in the
A peach orchard growing on sandy loam near Harrow,
unsterilized waterrsediment system with highest or-
Ontario, was treated with 4.5 kg hay1 of linuron every
ganic matter content and acidic pH Ž6.5.. The half-life
May for nine consecutive years. Several months after
for linuron was 22 d in the unsterilized, slightly alkaline
the last application, the top 15 cm of the soil contained
ŽpHs 7.8. waterr sediment system. The half-life was 42
3.08 kg hay1 of linuron ŽSmith, 1982.. The soils of 12
weeks in the sterilized alkaline waterr sediment system
vegetable farms in the Fraser Valley of British
compared to 3.5 weeks in the sterilized acidic waterr
Columbia were analyzed for their linuron content ŽSzeto
sediment system. The major degradation products were
and Price, 1991.. The soils were classified as either
identified as desmethoxy linuron Žresulting from a loss
muck, silt loam, or loamy sand on the basis of organic
of a methoxy group., desmethoxy monolinuron Žloss of
matter content. The organic matter content of muck
a methoxy group and a chlorine., and norlinuron Žre-
ranged from 27.0 to 56.3%, silt loam ranged from 3.7 to
sulting from loss of a methoxy and a methyl group. Žsee
6.5%, and loamy sand ranged from 1.0 to 1.8%. Lin-
Fig. 2..
uron was consistently detected in muck soils at concen-
trations ranging from 331 to 1260 ng gy1 . The detec-
3.1.2. Hydrolysis
tion limit was 10 ng gy1 .
El-Dib and Aly Ž1976a. studied the persistence of
phenylamides in natural waters and observed that lin-
2.3. Atmosphere
uron, as opposed to the rest of the phenylureas, which
Losses of linuron from soils via volatilization are gener- is the most stable group of the phenylamides, is easily
ally considered insignificant, and soil incorporation re- attacked by OHy ions, probably because of its methoxy
duces potential volatilization. In 1985, 79 samples of group. The authors also reported that phenylureas hy-
rain water, collected from various sites in the north- drolyze in high alkaline solutions, but not at pH values
eastern United States, were analyzed for 19 pesticides, found in natural waters. The hydrolysis reaction is
including linuron. Linuron was not detected in any of second order and its rate was reported to increase two
the samples Ždetection limit s 1.5 m g Ly1 ; Richards to three times for each 108C rise in temperature.
et al., 1987..
3.1.3. Photolysis
Tanaka et al. Ž1985. irradiated aqueous samples of
3. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
linuron with natural sunlight and ultraviolet light. Pho-
AND PERSISTENCE
tolysis of linuron by either natural sunlight or ultravio-
let light resulted in the formation of biphenyl com-
After entry into the environment, linuron is distributed
pounds. The yield under natural sunlight was no higher
into various environmental compartments according to
than 1%, since the biphenyls were even more photola-
its physical and chemical properties and local environ-
bile than the parent compound. The exposure period to
mental conditions. Some of the processes that deter-
natural sunlight was selected to approximate the same
mine its fate include hydrolysis, photolysis, adsorption,
degree of degradation as was observed with ultraviolet
and microbial degradation. The irrigation regime, fre-
lamps.
quency and intensity of rain events, and wind condi-
The fate of linuron in natural water depends in part
tions during and after application may further affect
on its sorption to sediments and suspended particles.
the fate and persistence of linuron.
Sorption may enhance the degradation of chemicals by
surface-associated chemical and microbial processes
3.1. Water ŽMeans and Wijayaratne, 1982.. Wauchope and Myers
Ž1985. studied the absorption]desorption kinetics of
Stephenson and Kane Ž1984., using small enclosures in
linuron in freshwater sediment slurries and concluded
ponds, found that linuron disappeared from natural
that both processes occur very rapidly, approaching
waters exponentially, with calculated half-life values
75% equilibrium values within 3]6 min, and that the
ranging from 16 to 40 d.
processes are reversible.
3.1.1. Microbial Degradation
3.2. Soil
The degradation rate of linuron under anaerobic con-
ditions in an aquatic environment was studied by Half-life values reported for linuron in soil are vari-
Du Pont Ž1986g.. Sterilized and unsterilized waterr able. Brown Ž1978. described values for the DT50 and
sediment samples from two different ponds were incu- DT90 of linuron of 24 and 169 d, respectively. The
10 CAUX ET AL.
Fig. 2. Proposed metabolic pathway for linuron in anerobic Aquatic Environments (from
Du Pont 1986g).
half-life of a preemergence application of 0.5 kg ai conditions of temperature and moisture. Both an in-
hay1 to sandy loam soils in a sorghum]legume inter- crease in temperature Žfrom 10 to 208C. and an in-
cropping system was 7 d ŽAbraham et al., 1987.. Lin- crease in moisture Žfrom 7.0 to 13.1%. were found to
uron applied to carrots at 0.23]0.46 kg ai hay1 had a reduce the half-life of linuron in soils from 76 to 36 d
half-life of 8 weeks in soils, and residues could not be and from 55 to 36 d, respectively ŽWalker, 1987.. Simi-
detected after 6 months ŽFryer and Kirkland, 1970.. lar results were found by Kempson-Jones and Hance
Smith and Emmond Ž1975. studied the persistence Ž1979.. An increase in temperature or in the percent-
of linuron in four sites in Saskatchewan. Five months age of moisture decreased the half-life of linuron in
after treatment Ž2.2 kg ai hay1 ., 28]42% of the applied soil samples incubated in the lab. They also found that,
linuron was recovered, but 18 months after application, in the case of Deal soil, the half-life was longest for
linuron was still detectable at all sites. linuron incubated with soil sampled at the lowest depth.
Although the degradation pathway was not de-
scribed, the half-life of linuron applied at 2.0 kg ai 3.2.1. Biodegradation
hay1 to loam soil and silt loam in a laboratory at 358C
was 28 and 35 d, respectively ŽWalker and Zimdahl, Linuron dissipates from soil primarily through micro-
1981.. At 58C, the respective half-lives were 126 and bial co-metabolic degradation ŽHeinonen-Tanski, 1989;
154 d. At a moisture level of 12.4%, the respective Glad et al., 1980.. Co-metabolism refers to microbial
half-lives were 50 and 62 d at 258C. At a moisture level degradation in which substances are degraded without
of 5.1% at the same temperature, the half-life became being used as sources of energy. The processes involved
109 d in loam and 136 d in silt loam. Dissipation of include oxidation, reduction, and hydrolysis. Torstens-
linuron in soils occurs more rapidly at higher tempera- son Ž1977. isolated five species of fungi that biodegrade
tures and moisture levels, both of which favor the linuron by demethylation and demethoxylation via co-
growth of microorganisms. Higher temperatures also metabolism. He suggested that co-metabolism might
favor faster degradation rates on a chemical kinetics occur in the field as well ŽTorstensson, 1977.. There are
basis. also microbial isolates that use linuron as a primary
In a laboratory experiment, samples of soil were energy source, and some have been identified ŽBowen,
placed in polypropylene containers, treated with lin- 1967; Hill et al., 1985.. El-Dib and Aly Ž1976c. showed
uron Ž4 mg kgy1 of soil., and incubated in different that linuron can be degraded by a heavy inoculum of
Bacillus cereus to 3,4-dichloroaniline, 3-Ž3,4-dichloro- ŽMcRae, 1991.. The GUS is a value, based on the
phenyl. urea, 3-Ž3,4-dichlorophenyl.-1-methyl urea, and persistence and mobility of an active ingredient, that is
3-Ž3,4-dichlorophenyl.-1-methoxy urea. Degradation of used to assess the leachability of the active ingredient
linuron can occur under both aerobic and anaerobic ŽGustafson, 1989.. The K oc value for soil is 670 Žlog
conditions. In easily acidified Finnish soils, increasing K oc s 2.83. ŽMeans and Wijayaratne, 1982., which indi-
the soil pH, by liming, was shown to stimulate the rate cates a moderate adsorption potential and a moderate
of degradation by increasing microbial activity mobility. Linuron adsorbs to bentonite clay ŽEl-Dib
ŽHeinonen-Tanski, 1989.. The pH of the soil after and Aly, 1976b.. Grover Ž1975. studied the adsorptionr
liming was 6.7. desorption mechanism of some phenylurea herbicides
The rate of degradation of linuron in soils is de- in different soils and found that linuron is more readily
pendent on the herbicide concentration. Hance and adsorbed to soils with increasing organic matter con-
McKone Ž1972. demonstrated that lower initial concen-
tent.
trations degraded more rapidly than high initial levels.
Francis et al. Ž1985. demonstrated that linuron was
Residues were detectable in soils 4]8, 12]18, and
readily leached from quartz sand of artificial terrestrial
34]36 months after applications of 1.1]2.2, 4.4, and
microcosms. In field situations, however, linuron did
22]67 kg ai hay1 linuron, respectively ŽHill et al.,
1985.. not migrate through soil to the same extent. Smith and
Emmond Ž1975. applied linuron at 2.2 kg ai hay1 in
May 1972 to four Saskatchewan soils Žheavy clay, sandy
3.2.2. Photodegradation
loam, fine sandy loam, and fine sandy irrigated loam.
Abraham et al. Ž1987. studied the persistence of lin- with pH values of 7.3, 6.7, 5.6, and 5.6, respectively.
uron sprayed on the soil surface 1 d after crop sowing. Residues in these soils after 18 months were 12, 3, 18,
One month after treatment, 94% of the linuron had and 7%, respectively. The irrigated soil had about 50%
disappeared. The main dissipation routes were leaching less linuron than the nonirrigated soil. Less than 5% of
and runoff, but photodegradation was also in large part the residues were found between depths of 5 and 10
accountable for the herbicide removal. The degrada- cm, indicating that leaching was minimal. When the
tion of wphenylŽU.- 14 Cx-linuron in soil ŽKeyport silt product was applied in October, 50]60% of the prod-
loam. was studied by Du Pont Ž1986f.. The silt was uct remained in the soil the following May Ž7 months
under continuous light for 15 d, which resulted in a later.. Eighteen months later, about 30% remained,
half-life of 49 d. This would correspond to a half-life of
indicating a higher persistence of linuron when applied
98 d for soil exposed to the 12-h lightrdark cycle.
in winter.
Desmethyl linuron, desmethoxy linuron, and nor-
Linuron, applied for 5 or 6 years as a soil-incorpo-
linuron were identified as three major breakdown
rated broadcast spray directed to the base of cotton
products.
Ž Gossypium hirsutum. at 1.1 and 2.2 kg hay1 , depressed
cotton yields within the first growing season ŽMiller
3.2.3. Volatilization
et al., 1978.. After the second year of application,
The vapor pressure of linuron indicates that it has low however, crop injury was no longer evident. Linuron
to moderate volatility. Soil incorporation is the recom- residues were found throughout the upper 120-cm layer
mended method of application to minimize losses due of soil until the fourth year of application. After the
to potential volatilization. fifth treatment, linuron disappeared from the layer of
soil 90]120 cm deep. Therefore, linuron moved well
3.2.4. Adsorption/ Mobility below the tilled zone in the soil. There was no evi-
Walker Ž1987. determined that 8.5% of linuron applied dence, however, of linuron accumulation over time
ŽMiller et al., 1978.. Linuron was considered to be
at a rate of 1.5 kg ai hay1 to sandy loam Ž1.7% organic
matter, 17% clay, 77% sand, pHs 6.7. remained after moderately persistent and moderately mobile in
255 d. Movement of linuron in the soil was greater Panoche loam.
after a fall application than after a spring application; Linuron was also found to be a moderately mobile
however, the herbicide did not migrate lower than 12 compound when applied to five different Swedish soils
cm below the surface in either case. Linuron is water ŽTorstensson and Stenstrom,¨ 1990.. Moreover, in the
soluble enough to raise concerns about its potential to soils situated in the center of Sweden, linuron residues
leach through soil and contaminate groundwater. Lin- were found as long as 2 years after treatment.
uron has been categorized as a transitional herbicide Samples of Keyport-type field soil that had been
between potential leacher and potential nonleacher, treated with a single application of linuron Ž2.2 kg
with a groundwater ubiquity score ŽGUS. of 1.8]2.8 hay1 . were analyzed for their content in 3,39,4,49-tetra-
12 CAUX ET AL.
chloroazobenzene ŽTCAB., a contaminant of linuron ŽDu Pont, 1988c. sprayed postemergence with radiola-
formed during synthesis ŽBelasco and Please, 1969.. No belled linuron at 1.7 kg hay1 Žthe maximum use rate.
TCAB was detected in any of the samples. and at 0.14 kg hay1 , respectively. In both crop species,
The above data, although very variable, suggest that the three metabolites, desmethyl linuron, desmethoxy
linuron may be quite persistent and mobile. linuron, and DCPU, were present, and neither TCAB
nor TCAOB was detected. In corn, the total radioactiv-
ity concentration dropped from 66.1 m g gy1 Žfresh
3.3. Biota
weight. to 7.8 m g gy1 Žfresh weight. and 2.05 m g gy1
Žfresh weight., 5 and 31 d after application, respec-
3.3.1. Plants
tively, showing rapid metabolism of the herbicide.
Linuron is readily taken up by most plants and translo- However, the authors measured radioactivity residue
cated via the xylem to the leaves. Depending on the levels of 0.011 m g gy1 in grain, 0.031]0.05 m g gy1 in
plant species, linuron may be either absorbed, metabo- cobs and husks, and 0.84]1.1 m g gy1 in the fodder, 98
lized, or bound. Resistant plant species are capable of to 116 d after treatment. In the foliage of potato plants,
degrading or metabolizing the compound by N-dealky- the 14 C-linuron was rapidly metabolized to polar
lation, deamination, decarboxylation, andror liberation metabolites. The half-life was estimated at 5 d. Residues
of 3,4-dichloroaniline ŽMcEwen and Stephenson, 1979.. in the potatoes were 0.004 m g gy1 when harvested 98 d
Nashed and Ilnicki Ž1970. studied the fate of linuron in after application.
corn, soybean, and crabgrass. They observed the forma- In some cases where linuron was applied with or
tion of several metabolites following uptake, the latter following application of some insecticides, residues of
being a passive process that occurs with entrance of linuron in plants were persistent. Chang et al. Ž1971.
water. Both 3-Ž3,4-dichlorophenyl.-1-methoxyurea and demonstrated that the metabolism of linuron in wheat,
3,4-dichloroaniline were present in all three species, bean, and plantain was inhibited by organophosphorus
showing metabolization of linuron, partly through insecticides. This inhibition may be associated with the
demethylation. In the same study, some metabolites, mixed function oxidase system of the plants, which
including 3,4-dichloroaniline, were shown to have little preferentially degrades organophosphorus insecticides
or no herbicidal effect on crabgrass, indicating that ŽG. R. Webster, 1995, Faculty of Agriculture and Food
demethylation could be a detoxifying process for the Sciences, University of Manitoba, personal communi-
plant species. Hogue and Warren Ž1968. found high cation..
levels of an unidentified derivative of carbonyl-labelled
linuron in the leaves of parsnip Ž Pastinaca sati¨ um., a 3.3.1.1. Bioaccumulation. Plants resistant to linuron
species resistant to the herbicide. Only small amounts may still take up and accumulate linuron. Worobey and
were found in the tomato Ž Lycopersicum esculentum., Shields Ž1991. applied radiolabelled linuron and 3,4-di-
which is sensitive to linuron. chloroaniline ŽDCA. at concentrations of 3.88 mg Ly1
A study by Du Pont Ž1988a. showed that linuron is and 10.71 mg Ly1 , respectively, preemergence on a
rapidly metabolized by soybeans. Lorox W L, containing carrot field. Residue concentrations of 14 C-linuron and
y1
linuron radiolabelled on the phenyl ring, was sprayed 14 C-DCA in the mature carrots were 0.73 m g g
postemergence on young soybean planted in Keyport y1
Žgiven as ppm in the study. and 0.60 m g g , respec-
silt loam at 1.12 kg hay1 Ž1 pound per acre.. The total tively. These results demonstrate the uptake of linuron
concentration of radioactivity in the soybean plants and its degradation product ŽDCA., which could lead to
declined to 56 and 34% of the original level, 6 and 15 d bioaccumulation.
after application, respectively. The radioactivity in the Cessna Ž1990. studied the linuron residue concentra-
mature soybeans Ž83 d after application. was 0.4% of tion in asparagus Ž Asparagus officinalis L.. for 2 years
the concentration of plants harvested at day 0 after in British Columbia. After application of 1.1 and 2.2 kg
application. The major degradation products identified hay1 , maximum residue levels of 10 and 400 m g kgy1
in the soybean foliage were desmethyl linuron, were detected in the asparagus, when linuron was ap-
desmethoxy linuron, and 1-Ž3,4-dichlorophenyl. urea plied pre- and postemergence, respectively.
ŽDCPU.. Although they could not be characterized, the
metabolites in the mature soybeans were determined to
3.3.2. Livestock
be derivatives of 3,4-dichloroaniline. Neither of the
products that are formed during the synthesis of lin- The potential for bioaccumulation of linuron by terres-
uron Ž3,4,39,49-tetrachloroazobenzene wTCAB x or trial animals is low. Linuron concentrations ranging
3,4,39,49-tetrachloroazoxybenzene wTCAOBx. was de- from 0.06 to 0.13 mg kgy1 were found in the adipose
tected in the soybeans. Similar studies were made tissue of wild turkeys collected from southern Illinois in
on forage corn ŽDu Pont, 1988b. and potato plants 1974 ŽBridges and Andrews, 1977.. Linuron was de-
tected in all tissues sampled Ž54 birds., but measured The metabolism of linuron in lactating nanny goats
concentrations were below the tolerance levels set for was studied by Du Pont Ž1980.. Two lactating nanny
poultry in the United States. The varied diet Žnuts, goats were given five daily doses of 14 C-phenyl-labelled
fruits, cultivated crops, grasses, and invertebrates . was linuron at levels of 1 and 5 m g gy1 in their diet. It was
believed to be the route of pesticide exposure. found that approximately 74% of the radioactivity was
Carrots grown in soils spiked with 3.8 ppm of 14 C- eliminated in the urine and 11]12% in the feces. The
linuron or with 10.71 ppm of 14 C-3,4-dichloroaniline remaining radioactivity was distributed in the tissues,
ŽDCA., a metabolite of linuron, contained radioactivity blood, and rumen and intestinal contents. Average
equivalent to 0.73-ppm linuron and 0.60-ppm DCA, levels found in the milk were - 0.01 and 0.03 m g gy1
respectively ŽWorobey and Shields, 1991.. Rats were when the animals were fed 1 and 5 m g gy1 , respec-
fed by gavage with either these carrots, as is, or with tively. The meat from the goats that had been given 1
carrots from which the extractable residues had been and 5 m g gy1 contained - 0.01 and 0.01 m g gy1 ,
removed, leaving only bound residue Žwhich contained respectively. All the radioactivity found in the milk,
some radioactivity.. Radioactivity in the rats’ livers, tissues, or urine was in the form of metabolites of
kidneys, muscles, adrenals, thyroids, spleens, and blood linuron identified as 1-Ž3,4-dichlorophenyl.-3-methox-
was ( 1% of the total dose. A total of 31 and 28% of yurea, 1-Ž3,4-dichlorophenyl.-3-methylurea, 1-Ž3,4-di-
the applied 14 C-linuron was found in the urine and chlorophenylurea., and all their respective ring hydrox-
feces, respectively, of rats fed ‘‘unextracted’’ carrots ylated analogues, and in 4,5-dichloro-2-hydroxy aniline
and 0 and 51% were found in urine and feces, respec- ŽDu Pont, 1980..
tively, of rats fed ‘‘extracted’’ carrots. This indicates
that approximately 31% of the radioactive linuron was 3.3.3. Aquatic Organisms
bioavailable to the rats and that linuron does not
bioaccumulate. A total of 10 and 51% of the applied There are few data available regarding the bioaccumu-
14
C-DCA was found in the urine and feces, respec- lation and bioconcentration of linuron in aquatic or-
tively, of rats fed ‘‘unextracted’’ carrots, and 3 and 73% ganisms. Du Pont Ž1984. exposed bluegill sunfish to 0.1
were found in urine and feces, respectively, of rats fed and 0.95 mg Ly1 of linuron for 4 weeks in a dynamic
‘‘extracted’’ carrots. This indicates that approximately study to measure the accumulation and distribution of
14
10% of the radioactive DCA was bioavailable to the C residues in the tissues. Results were similar with
rats. the two test concentrations, with fish bioconcentration
Du Pont Ž1962. studied the fate of linuron in the factors of 49 and 38 for the low and high exposure
tissue and milk of livestock that had been fed corn levels, respectively. The radioactive residues were
contaminated with the herbicide. In one part of the mostly concentrated in the viscera, with bioconcentra-
experiment, the corn was treated postemergence at the tion factors of 240 and 170 for the low and high
maximum registered use rate of 3.36 kg hay1 and at a exposure levels, respectively. In the muscle tissues and
rate equal to twice the maximum registered use rate the remaining carcass, the bioconcentration factors
Ži.e., 6.72 kg hay1 .. Linuron residues were not found in were all between 27 and 39, similar to the results found
the milk or muscle tissues Ž‘‘meat’’. of dairy cows or in for the whole fish ŽDu Pont, 1984..
the muscle tissue of beef heifers ŽHereford. fed for Another study assessed the fate and effects of a
about 30 d. ŽThe detection limit was 0.05 m g gy1 .. Low mixture of 14 C-labelled Ž2-mg. and unlabelled Ž3-mg.
levels were detected in the liver Ž0.09 m g gy1 . and linuron by injecting it into the sand of Metcalf model
kidneys Ž0.08 m g gy1 . of one of the beef heifers. ecosystems ŽFrancis et al., 1985.. The latter consisted of
In a second part of the same study ŽDu Pont, 1962., a 38-L glass aquarium with a sandy shore and a 7-L
the corn was spiked at levels of 1 and 50 m g gy1 Žas pond inhabited by plankton, algae, snails, mosquito
parts per million in the study. and fed to two dairy larvae, and fish in the water and sorghum plants grow-
cows for 30 d. Linuron residues were not found in the ing in the sand. On day 26 of the experiment, 300
milk or muscle tissue of the animals after they ingested mosquito larvae were added. Three days later, 50
levels of 1 m g gy1 in the corn. Their livers and kidneys mosquito larvae and 50 daphnids were collected and
were found to contain levels between 0.4 and 0.7 m g analyzed for linuron residues and three mosquito fish
gy1 . When the animals were fed concentrations of 50 were added. Water samples were collected and ana-
m g gy1 of linuron in the corn, residues were found in lyzed on days 29 and 32. On day 32, the experiment was
both milk and muscle tissues at levels of ) 0.3 and 0.48 terminated and the remaining physical and biological
m g gy1 , respectively. Du Pont Ž1962. also demonstrated compartments were analyzed for linuron residues and
the excretion of linuron in the urine and feces of transformation products. The ecological magnification
livestock species at all tested levels of the herbicide. ŽEM. or bioconcentration factor ŽBCF. for snails and
14 CAUX ET AL.
fish, which represents the ratio of linuron content in 4.3. Organoleptic Effects
the water to the linuron content in the organism, were
No information was found on the concentrations of
540 and 2310, respectively. These values indicate low to
linuron that result in taste and odor problems in water
moderate uptake by aquatic biota Ž Ad Hoc Science
or edible fish tissues that would cause tainting.
Group on Criteria, 1995.. The bioconcentration index
ŽBI. for fish was 0.08, where BI is the ratio of polar to
nonpolar metabolites in the fish. BI values indicate the 4.4. Removal by Water Treatment Operations
ability of an organism to depurate the parent chemical.
No information was found on the treatment technolo-
BI values less than 1 indicate that the compound is
gies available for removing linuron from contaminated
excretable, whereas BI values greater than 1 indicate
raw water supplies.
compounds that are bioaccumulable. An earlier study,
where the chemical was applied to the foliage, gener-
ated EM values for snails and fish of 108 and 535 and
5. AQUATIC LIFE
BI values of 0.17 for both groups of organisms ŽFrancis
and Metcalf, 1981.. These differences suggest that
5.1. Freshwater Life
movement from sand to water via leaching was greater
than from foliage to water. Linuron tissue levels in 5.1.1. Fish
snails and fish were 0.54 and 2.31 mg kgy1 , respec-
Among the eight studies found on acute toxicity of
tively, and the concentration in water was 0.0010 mg
linuron to fish, six were evaluated as being acceptable
Ly1 . Kenaga Ž1980. reported values of 48 and 54 for
studies and all ranked as secondary according to the
the bioconcentration factor of linuron, predicted from
protocol for the derivation of water quality guidelines
the K oc and water solubility, respectively.
for the protection of aquatic life wCandadian Council
of Ministers of the Environment ŽCCME., 1991x
ŽTable V.. A value for the LC 50 was found for four
4. RAW WATER FOR DRINKING species native to Canada, i.e., rainbow trout Ž Oncorhyn-
WATER SUPPLY chus mykiss; Linders et al., 1990; Lysak and Marcinek,
1972; Du Pont, 1973, 1986h., bluegill sunfish Lepomis
4.1. Guideline macrochirus; Du Pont, 1973., channel catfish Ž Ictalurus
The Federal]Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking punctatus; Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986., and brown bull-
Water of the Federal]Provincial Advisory Committee head Ž Ictalurus nebulosus; Linders et al., 1990.. The
on Environmental and Occupational Health has not channel catfish was found to be the most sensitive to a
recommended guidelines for linuron residues in drink- solution containing linuron of technical grade with an
ing water ŽHealth and Welfare Canada, 1993.. No LC 50 of 2.9 mg Ly1 in a static 96-h test.
maximum acceptable concentration ŽMAC. or interim
maximum acceptable concentration ŽIMAC. value has 5.1.2. Invertebrates
been developed by Health Canada for linuron. Because Acute toxicity values ranged from 0.27 for the water
linuron is oncogenic in rats and mice at concentrations flea Ž Daphnia magna. to 2.9 mg Ly1 for the larval
0 50 ppm ŽU.S. EPA, 1984a, b., the preferred concen- midges Ž Chironomus plumosus; Mayer and Ellersieck,
tration in water for the protection of human health is 1986. ŽTable VI.. The most sensitive species is D.
zero. Because there is no drinking water quality guide- magna. Linuron was found to exhibit extreme toxicity
line for linuron in Canada, no guideline for raw drink- to D. magna ŽDu Pont, 1985b. under static unaerated
ing water can be recommended at this time. test conditions during a 48-h exposure period. The 48-h
EC 50 was 0.12 mg Ly1 , based on the immobility of the
tested organisms. When a first instar was exposed to
4.2. Concentrations in Drinking Water
linuron Ž95.1% ai; Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986. in a
Occurrence of linuron in surface water and groundwa- static 48-h test, the concentration that caused immobi-
ter systems that could potentially be used as drinking lization of 50% of the population was reported to be
water supplies in Canada was described in Section 2.1. 0.27 mg Ly1 . Linders et al. Ž1990. exposed 24-h-old
While the frequency of detection is generally low, D. magna to similar conditions and reported an EC 50
contamination may occur in areas of intensive use. of 0.75 mg Ly1 . Two life stages of the same water flea
Frequency of detection greatly depends on the fre- species were exposed to a technical grade of linuron
quency and method of sampling, the cycle of applica- Ž80% ai. in a study by Stephenson and Kane Ž1984..
tion, and the analytical method used to obtain the They found 24-h EC 50 values of 0.31 and 0.59 mg Ly1
reported results. for the adult and - 24-h-old D. magna, respectively.
TABLE V. Toxicity of linuron to freshwater vertebrates a
Test Duration Temperature Dissolved Hardness Data

Species Life Stage Typeb Žh. Dose Žmg L-1 .rEffect pH Ž8C. Oxygen Žmg L-1 . Žmg L-1 . Formulation Type c Reference
Rainbow trout 2 years old R, U 48 LC 100 s 50 NR 16]21.5 8.4 NR NR 2 Lysak and

Ž Oncorhynchus LC 0 s 8.3 Marcinek Ž1972.
mykiss.
5.7]7.5 g S, U 96 LC 50 s 3.2 7.5]8.5 11.9]13 11.5]4.1 44 95]97% ai 2 Linders et al.
Ž t s 0]96 h. Ž1990.
1g S, U 96 NOEL s 5.6 7.1 11 8.6]5.4 38 Powder 2 Du Pont Ž1973.
Ž30 mm. 24-h LC 50 s 31.5 Ž100% ai.
48-h LC 50 s 30.6
96-h LC 50 s 16.4
0.767 g S, U 96 LC 50 s 3.3 NR 11.4]12.9 NR NR NR 2 Du Pont Ž1986h.
Ž3.6 cm.
Bluegill sunfish 1.2 g S, U 96 NOEL s 7.5 7.1 21 8.6]5.4 38 Powder 2 Du Pont Ž1973.
Ž Lepomis Ž34 mm. LC 50 s 16.2 Ž100% ai.
macrochirus.
Carp NR NR 48 LC 50 s 7 NR NR NR NR NR UN WSSA Ž1989.
Ž Cyprinius
carpio.
Fry U NR LOEL s 5 NR NR NR NR NR UN Lakota et al.
Žsublethal . Ž1977.
Hyperemia
ischemia,
necrotic foci
in branchi
Channel catfish 0.4 g S, U 96 LC 50 s 2.9 7.4 22 NR 40 Technical 2 Mayer and
Ž Ictalurus grade Ellersieck
punctatus. Ž95.1% ai. Ž1986.
Brown bullhead 2.6 g S, U 96 LC 50 s 5.2 7.1]8.0 21]22 9.2]3.2 45 95]97% ai 2 Linders et al.
Ž I. nebulosus. Ž6.3 cm. Ž t s 0]96 h. Ž1990.
Guppy NR NR 96 EC 50 s 8.6 NR NR NR NR NR UN Tscheu-Schluter
¨
Ž Lebistes and Winter
reticulatus. Ž1985.
Tadpole NR NR 48 LC 50 ) 40 NR NR NR NR Linuron UN U.S. EPA Ž1984a.
a
b Testtype: R, renewal; S, static; U, unmeasured concentration.
c Data type: 2, secondary; UN, unacceptable.
15
16
CAUX ET AL.
TABLE VI. Toxicity of linuron to freshwater invertebrates a
Test Temperature Dissolved Hardness Data

Species Life Stage Typeb Duration Dose Žmg L-1 .rEffect pH Ž8C. Oxygen Žmg L-1 . Žmg L-1 . Formulation Type c Reference
Daphnia magna 24 h old S, U 48 h EC 50 s 0.75 7.6]7.8 20.5 7.6]7.8 44 95%]97% ai 2 Linders et al.
Ž0.7]1.0 mm. Žirritation and Ž t s 0]96 h. Ž1990.
uncoordinated
movements.
D. magna 1st instar S, U 48 h EC 50 s 0.27 7 17 NR 43 95.1% ai 2 Mayer and Ellersieck
Ž1986.
- 24 h old S, U 24 h EC 50 s 0.59 NR 19.5 " 1 NR 250 Technical 2 Stephenson and Kane
Ž0.54]0.64. Ž80% ai. Ž1984.
Žimmobilization.
Adult S, U 24 h EC 50 s 0.31 NR 19.5 " 1 NR 250 Technical 2 Stephenson and Kane
Žimmobilization. Ž80% ai. Ž1984.
- 24 h old S, U 48 h EC 50 s 0.12 NR 19.95 NR NR NR 2 Du Pont Ž1985b.
D. pulexr NR S, U 24 h EC 50 s 0.36 NR 19.5" 1 NR 250 Technical 2 Stephenson and Kane
D. longispina Ž0.28]0.5. Ž80% ai. Ž1984.
Žimmobilization.
Copepod NR S, U 24 h EC 50 s 0.33 NR 19.5 " 1 NR 250 Technical 2 Stephenson and Kane
Ž Diaptomus Žimmobilization. Ž80% ai. Ž1984.
gracilis.
Larval midges 3rd instar S, U 48 h EC 50 s 2.9 7 22 NR 43 Technical 2 Mayer and
Ž Chironomus material Ellersieck Ž1986.
plumosus. Ž95.1% ai.
Crayfish NR NR 72 h LC 50 ) 40 NR NR NR NR NR UN U.S. EPA
Ž1984a.
Protozoa 6 d culture S, U 6d LOEL s 10 NR 30 NR NR NR 2 Prescott
Ž Acanthamoeba Ž0.5]1 = 10 4 Ž38% decrease et al. Ž1977.
castellanii. amoeba mLy1 . in growth.
a
b
Test type: S, static; U, unmeasured concentration.
c
Data type: 2, secondary; UN, unacceptable.
The same test conditions were applied to unspecified
Prendeville Ž1979.
life stages of D. pulex, D. longispina, and a species of
Nishiuchi Ž1974.
Stephenson and
Reference
copepod, Diaptomus gracilis; the values for the EC 50
Kane Ž1984.
O’Brien and
were 0.36, 0.36, and 0.33 mg Ly1 , respectively, with the
endpoint being immobilization ŽStephenson and Kane,
1984..
A 6-d-old culture of the protozoa Acanthamoeba
castelanii was exposed to linuron for 6 d, and a concen-
Typec
Data
UN
tration of 10 mg Ly1 caused a 38% reduction in growth
2
ŽPrescott, et al. 1977.. According to these data, fresh-
water invertebrates appear to be less tolerant of lin-
methanol Ž0.1%.
Linuron Žwettable
uron than fish.
Formulation
80% pure.
Technical in
Žtechnical
powder.
5.1.3. Plants
Linuron
O’Brien and Prendeville Ž1979. evaluated the toxicity
of technical linuron in 0.1% methanol to duckweed
Ž Lemna minor; Table VII.. Plants Ž100 fronds. were
Žmg Ly1 .
Hardness
exposed at 238C for 96 h in plastic dishes at 215 lux for
NR
NR
NR
16 h per day to various concentrations of linuron in
solution. The objective of the experiment was to deter-
mine the lowest concentration required to cause an
Dissolved
Žmg Ly1 .
Oxygen
increase in cell membrane permeability over a 96-h
NR
NR
NR
exposure period. This was measured by removing plants
at 6- to 9-h intervals and incubating them in 10 mL of
deionized water for 5 h before measuring the specific Temperature
conductance of the ambient solution. Linuron at 10y2 Ž8C.
mM Ž2500 m g Ly1 . increased cell membrane perme-
23
25
25
ability after 12 h, but subsequent visible injury to the
plants was not reported.
Stephenson and Kane Ž1984. measured growth inhi-
NR
NR
NR
pH
bition in Lemna minor exposed to linuron in 120 mL of

Hutners medium for 5 d at 258C. Each 250-mL test
fronds decreased.
Dose Žmg Ly1 .r
flask was inoculated with six fronds and at the end of

permeability
LOEL s 0.070
5 d, the number of fronds was counted and the lowest-

Žmembrane
NOEL s 0.25
Žnumber of
decreased.
Effect
increased.
LOEL s 2.5
observed-effect level ŽLOEL. was determined to be

0.07 mg Ly1 . The range of exposure concentrations was
reported to be 0]235 m g Ly1 , but concentrations were
NR
TABLE VII. Toxicity of linuron to freshwater plantsa
not measured. Because these experiments were static

and the concentrations of linuron were not measured,
Duration
they were considered secondary data.

12 h
72 h
7d
5d
5.1.4. Algae
Typeb
S, U
S, U
Test
Cullimore Ž1975. examined the toxicity of linuron to

U
several species of green algae ŽChlorophyceae. in liquid

or agar medium ŽTable VIII.. The media were adjusted
100 fronds
Life Stage
to pH 7.0 and sterilized before linuron Žanalytical grade.

6 fronds
in sterile aqueous solution was added to give final

NR
concentrations of 0.01, 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5,

and 10 mg Ly1 . The test algae, impregnated onto filter
Ž Lemna minor .
paper discs, were placed on the agar surface or liquid

L. paucicostata
medium. Incubation was at 22.58C under continuous

Duckweed
illumination; exposure durations were 5, 10, 20, and 30

Species
d. Growth was expressed as a function of absorbance

b
a
on each disc at 600 nm using a reflectance attachment

18
TABLE VIII. Toxicity of linuron to freshwater algae a
Dissolved
Test Dose Žmg Ly1 .r Temperature Oxygen Hardness Data
Species Life Stage Typeb Duration Effect pH Ž8C. Žmg Ly1 . Žmg Ly1 . Formulation Type c Reference
Chlorophyta
CAUX ET AL.
Chlorella 0.02]0.06 optical S, U 18]36 h I 50 s 1 NR NR 3% CO 2 NR Linuron 2 Kratky and

pyrenoidosa density at Žchlorophyll content at continuously Žtechnical grade Warren Ž1971.
550 nm 440 nm. fed 80% pure.
Chlorella 5 = 10 3 cells mLy1 S, U 3]7 d EC 50 s 0.05 NR NR NR NR Linuron 2 Stephenson and
¨ ulgaris ŽCoulter Žmean relative growth Žtechnical Kane Ž1984.
counter. rate. grade 80%
S pure.
Coccomyxa 3-week slope S, U 30 d 5 - EC 50 - 2 7 22.5 NR NR Analytical 2 Cullimore
subellipsoidea cultures Žinhibition of growth. grade Ž1975.
Haematococcus 3-week slope S, U 30 d 5 - EC 50 - 2 7 22.5 NR NR Analytical 2 Cullimore
lacustris cultures Žinhibition of growth. grade Ž1975.
Hormidium 3-week slope S, U 30 d EC 50 s 5 7 22.5 NR NR Analytical 2 Cullimore
falccidum cultures Žgrowth rate. grade Ž1975.
Hormidium 3-week slope S, U 30 d 1 - EC 50 - 5 7 22.5 NR NR Analytical 2 Cullimore
stoechidium cultures Žgrowth rate. grade Ž1975.
Mesotaenium 3-week slope S, U 30 d 5 - EC 50 - 10 7 22.5 NR NR Analytical 2 Cullimore
caldariorum cultures Žgrowth rate. grade Ž1975.
Spongiochloris 3-week slope S, U 30 d EC 50 s 2 7 22.5 NR NR Analytical 2 Cullimore
excentrica cultures grade Ž1975.
Stichococcus 3-week slope S, U 30 d 2 - EC 50 - 5 7 22.5 NR NR Analytical 2 Cullimore
bacillaris cultures grade Ž1975.
Cyanophyta
Anabaena sp. NR S, U 15 d 2000 NR 30 NR NR NR UN Venkataraman and

Strain 316 Žmaximum Rajyalakshmi
concentration Ž1972.
permitting growth.
Strain 288 NR S ,U 15 d 1000 NR 30 NR NR NR UN Venkataraman and
Žmaximum Rajyalakshmi
permitting growth.
Strain 310 NR S, U 15 d 10 NR 30 NR NR NR UN Venkataraman and
permitting growth.
permitting growth.
Chlorophyta
Anabaena sp. NR S, U 15 d 5 NR 30 NR NR NR UN Venkataraman and

Strain 299 Žmaximum Rajyalakshmi
permitting growth.
permitting growth.
permitting growth.
9 strains NR S, U 15 d No effect at 200 kg hay1 NR 30 NR NR Linuron 2 Venkataraman and
permitting growth.
Anabaena NR S, U 1h 1 NR 30 NR NR NR UN Venkataraman and
cylindrica Žmaximum Rajyalakshmi
Strain 287 concentration Ž1972.
permitting growth.
Anabaena NR S, U 15 d 1 NR 30 NR NR NR UN Venkataraman and
¨ ariabilis Žmaximum Rajyalakshmi
Strain 290 concentration Ž1972.
permitting growth.
Anacystis NR S, U 15 d 5 NR 30 NR NR Linuron 2 Venkataraman and
nidulans Žmaximum Rajyalakshmi
permitting growth.
NR S, U 15 d No effect at 10 kg hay1 NR 30 NR NR Linuron 2 Venkataraman and
permitting growth.
Aulosira NR S, U 15 d Decreased growth at NR 30 NR NR Linuron 2 Venkataraman and
fertilissima 2 kg hay1 Rajyalakshmi
Žmaximum Ž1972.
concentration
permitting growth.
Nostoc sp. NR S, U 15 d 100 NR 30 NR NR Linuron 2 Venkataraman and
Strain 261 Žmortality. Rajyalakshmi
Ž1972.
Ž continued.
19
20
TABLE VIII. ( Continued )
Dissolved
Test Dose Žmg Ly1 .r Temperature Oxygen Hardness Data
Species Life Stage Typeb Duration Effect pH Ž8C. Žmg Ly1 . Žmg Ly1 . Formulation Typec Reference
Chlorophyta
CAUX ET AL.
Nostoc sp. NR S, U 15 d 500 NR 30 NR NR Linuron 2 Venkataraman and

Strain 238 Žmortality. Rajyalakshmi
Ž1972.
Strain 211 NR S, U 15 d 2000 NR 30 NR NR Linuron 2 Venkataraman and
Žmortality. Rajyalakshmi
Ž1972.
Ž1972.
Ž1972.
Ž1972.
Ž1972.
Ž1972.
Ž1972.
Ž1972.
Ž1972.
Ž1972.
Ž1972.
16 strains NR S, U 15 d No effect at NR 30 NR NR Linuron 2 Venkataraman and
200 kg hay1 Rajyalakshmi
Žmaximum Ž1972.
concentration
permitting growth.
Nostoc sp. Exponential S, U 1h 10 NR 25 NR NR Linuron 2 DaSilva et al.
growth Žinhibition of Ž1975.
N2 fixation.
Nostoc Exponential S, U 1h 10 NR 25 NR NR Linuron 2 DaSilva et al.
muscorum growth Žinhibition of Ž1975.
N2 fixation.
Phormidium sp. NR S, U 3h 0.006 NR NR NR NR Exposed on UN Noll and Bauer
Žinhibition of filter paper Ž1974.
trichrome stain
migration.
Tolypothrix NR S, U 15 d No effect at NR 30 NR NR Linuron 2 Venkataraman and
tenuis 2000 kg ha ] 1 Rajyalakshmi
Ž1972.
Žmaximum
concentration
permitting
growth.
NR S, U 15 d 1000 NR 30 NR NR Linuron 2 Venkataraman and
Ž1972.
Exponential S, U 1h 10 NR 25 NR NR Linuron 2 DaSilva et al.
growth Žinhibition of Ž1975.
N2 fixation.
Westiellopsis sp. Exponential S, U 1h 10 NR 25 NR NR Linuron 2 DaSilva et al.
growth Žinhibition of N2 Ž1975.
fixation.
a
NR denotes are not reported.
b
c
21
22 CAUX ET AL.
ŽCullimore and McCann, 1972.. Toxicity was deter- mg Ly1 ; three untreated enclosures served as controls.
mined graphically. A number of algal species were Water chemistry parameters, macrophyte growth, zoo-
unaffected by the selected exposure concentrations plankton, and macroinvertebrates were monitored over
ŽThese results are not shown in Table VIII.. These a 24-d pretreatment period and 42-d posttreatment
include Chlorella ellipsoidea, C. pyrenoidosa, C. ¨ ulgaris, period. Dissipation of linuron from the water was also
Haematococcus lacustris Žstrains 34-1a, and 34-1b., measured. Linuron dissipation was variable among en-
Hormidinum barlowi, H. flaccidum, and Scenedesmus closures with calculated half-lives ranging from 16 to
quadricauda ŽCullimore, 1975.. The ranges of concen- 40 d. Biomass and species composition of vegetation
trations that reduced algal growth by approximately harvested on day 49 indicated that no angiosperms or
50% ŽTable VIII. were 0.5]2 mg Ly1 for Coccomyxa filamentous algal species were present in the linuron-
subellipsoidea and Haematococcus lacustris, 1]5 mg Ly1 treated corrals. Chlorophyll a also declined to below
for Hormidium stoechidium, 5]10 mg Ly1 for Mesotae- the detection limit of 0.5 m g Ly1 from day 7 to 33
nium caldariorum, and 2]5 mg Ly1 for Stichococcus posttreatment. The densities of Cyclops spp., Diatomus
bacillaris. Hormidium falccidum and Spongiochloris ex- gracilis, and Daphnia spp. dramatically decreased within
centrica underwent 50% growth inhibition at 5 and 2 5 d posttreatment, but toward the end of the experi-
mg Ly1 , respectively. In addition, the author ranked ment Žday 33., small numbers of Cyclops spp. and
the relative toxicities of 17 herbicides based on the Diatomus nauplii started to appear. Diversity of
percentage of algae inhibited by each herbicide at a set macroinvertebrates was unaffected. Phytotoxicity of lin-
concentration. Linuron, with an algal inhibition of 41%, uron was confirmed and predictions from laboratory
had an intermediate level of toxicity when compared toxicity data were validated in the field.
to the others whose algal inhibition ranged from 0
to 88%. 5.1.5. Summary of Existing Guidelines
Laboratory growth inhibition bottle tests were con-
ducted with the green algal species Chlorella ¨ ulgaris A worldwide survey of international, federal, provincial,
and linuron Žtechnical 80% ai.. The critical inoculum territorial, and state regulatory agencies indicated that
density was 5 = 10 3 cells mLy1 and incubation at 258C no water quality criteria, guidelines, objectives, or stan-
was with continuous light and agitation. Cell density dards for linuron applicable to the protection of aquatic
was determined at days 3 and 7 with an electronic life currently exist.
particle counter. The EC 50 value was 0.05 mg Ly1
ŽStephenson and Kane, 1984.. 5.1.6. Interim Guideline
Kratky and Warren Ž1971. used the green algal The database on the toxicity of linuron to freshwater
species Chlorella pyrenoidosa in a bioassay for the life was insufficient to derive a full guideline; however,
‘‘rapid’’ assessment of toxicity of herbicides. Linuron adequate data were available to derive an interim
was one of the herbicides used in these assays. The guideline ŽCCME, 1991..
endpoint criterion was the I 50 value Ž50% growth inhi- The lowest concentration with a toxic effect was
bition.. A 3-mL aliquot of log-phase stock culture was reported by Stephenson and Kane Ž1984., which mea-
added to 97 mL of nutrient solution and the herbicide. sured growth inhibition in Lemna minor. Thus this
The flask was aerated Ž3% CO 2 .. After 18]36 hours, study was used to derive the guideline. The guide-
the cells in 10 mL were filtered onto a glass fibre filter line was derived by multiplying the reported lowest-
and washed with water. The algae and filter were observed-effect level ŽLOEL; 70 m g Ly1 . for growth
placed in 15 mL of methanol to extract and dissolve the inhibition by the application factor of 0.1 ŽCCME,
chlorophyll, which was isolated by centrifugation. The 1991.. This calculation resulted in an interim water
chlorophyll content was determined spectrophotometri- quality guideline of 7.0 m g Ly1 for the protection of
cally at 440 nm. Two exposure concentrations Ž1 and 10 freshwater life and applies to the total concentration of
mg Ly1 . were used in the assays and both concentra- linuron and its metabolites and transformation prod-
tions resulted in an inhibition of 50% or greater in ucts in freshwater environments.
Chlorella pyrenoidosa.
In a mesocosm study, the persistence and effects of
5.1.7. Data Gaps
linuron in small shallow enclosures in ponds were ex-
amined ŽStephenson and Kane 1984.. Each 1-m3 trans- In order to derive a full guideline, at least three studies
parent polyethylene enclosure isolated a compartment, on three or more freshwater species resident in North
which included an intact water column with its associ- America, including at least one cold-water and one
ated flora and fauna and waterrair and waterrsedi- warm-water species, are required, two of which must be
ment interfaces within the pond. Linuron was applied chronic studies. At least two chronic studies on inverte-
to three enclosures to give a final concentration of 1.0 brates from two different classes, one of which includes
a planktonic species resident in North America, are A study on the toxicity of linuron to corn made over
also required. At least one study on a freshwater vascu- a growing season showed that the herbicide applied to
lar plant or freshwater algal species resident in North soil preemergence at a rate of 0.80 kg hay1 had no
America is also required ŽCCME, 1991.. A comparison effect on the plant ŽAbdel Halim et al., 1987.. Ludwig
of the phytotoxicity of linuron with the phytotoxicity of Ž1973a. did not observe any effect on maize of linuron
other herbicides for which guidelines have been devel- applied preemergence during a field experiment at a
oped suggest that linuron is not highly phytotoxic. level of 2.24 kg hay1 .
Therefore, the additional freshwater plant or algal Pregerminated sorghum seeds Žat the one-leaf stage.
studies required for highly phytotoxic variables are not were grown in a nutrient solution containing concen-
required for linuron. trations of linuron varying from 24.9 to 0.249 mg Ly1 .
After 11 d, the minimum lethal concentration was
5.2. Marine Life found to be 1.1 mg Ly1 for sorghum ŽHilton and
Nomura, 1964..
5.2.1. Summary of Existing Guidelines Field experiments in India demonstrated the phyto-
toxic effect on oats Ž A¨ ena sati¨ a. of linuron applied
A worldwide survey of international, federal, provincial,
preemergence ŽSinha and Singh, 1987.. Observation of
territorial, and state regulatory agencies indicated that
no water quality criteria, guidelines, objectives, or stan- morphological characters during two seasons resulted
dards for linuron applicable to the protection of aquatic in a no-observable-effect application rate ŽNOEAR. of
life currently exist. 0.5 kg hay1 and a lowest-observable-effect application
rate ŽLOEAR. of 0.75 kg hay1 . The main effect was a
5.2.2. Guideline significant decrease in leaf area after 65 d of growth. In
a similar test, rates of 0.28 and 0.56 kg hay1 were
No data were found on the toxicity of linuron to applied on oats, postemergence, and only a yield in-
marine organisms. Therefore, a complete set of toxico- crease was observed ŽReeves and Lumb, 1972..
logical data is required to support the derivation of Two studies showed that wheat ŽTriticum aesti¨ um.
marine environmental guidelines ŽCCME, 1991.. is not particularly sensitive to linuron. Hilton and No-
mura Ž1964. treated plants of wheat in the same way as
for sorghum Žgrown in solution containing nutrient and
6. AGRICULTURAL USES linuron. and reported a minimum lethal concentration
of 0.34 mg Ly1 . Bishnoi and Pancholi Ž1987. studied
6.1. Irrigation
the effect of linuron on three crop species: wheat,
Data on the phytotoxicity of linuron were found for a triticale ŽX Triticosecale., and rye Ž Secale cereale L...
total of six species of cereals, tame hays, and pastures, The herbicide was applied in three different ways:
and 28 other crop species ŽTable IX.. preemergence, postemergence, or incorporated in the
soil. Wheat was found to remain unaffected by linuron
6.1.1. Cereals, Tame Hays, and Pastures at the three levels tested, i.e., 0.84, 1.12, and 1.14 kg
Linuron is registered for use on fruit and field crops, hay1 , following any application method. However, a
indicating that some of these species will be resistant. decreased grain yield was reported for the other species
The effect of linuron on nontarget plants is dependent tested, resulting in a NOEAR and a LOEAR for each
on soil moisture ŽHogue, 1976., time of application, mode of application. The triticale and rye crops were
and life stage of the plant ŽBishnoi and Pancholi, 1987.. most sensitive to the herbicide when it was applied
Muschinek et al. Ž1979. found a phytotoxic effect on postemergence Žat the 2- to 3-leaf stage., and the
corn Ž Zea mays. by day 7 after the plants were exposed reported LOEARs were 0.84 and 1.12 kg hay1 , respec-
to linuron applied preemergence at a rate of 0.85 kg tively ŽBishnoi and Pancholi, 1987..
hay1 . Investigation of the mode of action of the herbi-
cide revealed that, although the primary effect is the 6.1.2. Other Crops
inhibition of photosynthetic electron transport and sub-
sequent decrease in carbon fixation, secondary effects The grain yield of lentils was affected by linuron ap-
include the peroxidative breakdown of polyunsaturated plied preemergence. In a field experiment, Sandhu
membrane lipids, destruction of pigments Žcarotenoids., et al. Ž1991. reported a significant decrease in grain
disorganization of the chloroplast membrane, and accu- yield, compared to a hand-weeded control, independent
mulation of toxic organic peroxides ŽMuschinek et al., from inoculation with Rhizobium leguminosarum. The
1979.. resulting LOEAR was 0.75 kg hay1 .
24 CAUX ET AL.
TABLE IX. Toxicity of linuron to nontarget plantsa
Application Rate Data

Species Life Stage Žkg hay1 .) Effect Žkg hay1 .) Formulation Type c Reference
Cereals, Tame Hays, and Pastures
Corn seedlings Preemergence 0.85 7-d EC 50 Žinhibition of Wettable powder 2 Muschinek et al.
Ž Zea mays . photosynthetic Ž50% ai. Ž1979.
ŽKSC 260. electron transport
and decreased CO 2
fixation.
Maize Preemergence 0.80 No toxic effect Wettable powder 1 Abdel Halim et al.
Ž Z. mays . observed Ž50% ai. Ž1987.
Preemergence 2.24 No effect on yield of NR 2 Ludwig Ž1973a.
dry material
Sorghum 1 leaf 24.9 2.49, and 1.1 mg Ly1 Ž4.37 m M. NR 2 Hilton and
Ž Sorghum 0.249 mg Ly1 s minimum lethal Nomura Ž1964.
¨ ulgare. concentration
Oat Preemergence 0.25, 0.5, NOEARs 0.5 NR 2 Sinha and
Ž A¨ ena sati¨ as . and 0.75 LOEARs 0.75 Singh Ž1987.
Postemergence 0.28 and 0.56 No toxic effects NR 2 Reeves and Lumb Ž1972.
Ž2]3 leaves or observed
tillered.
Wheat 1 leaf 24.9 2.49, and 0.34 mg Ly1 NR 2 Hilton and
ŽTriticum 0.249 mg Ly1 Ž1.38 m M. s minimum Nomura Ž1964.
aesti¨ um. lethalconcentration
Soil 0.84, 1.12, No toxic effects NR 1 Bishnoi and Pancholi
incorporated and 1.14 observed Ž1987.
Preemergence 0.84, 1.12, No toxic effects NR 1 Bishnoi and Pancholi
and 1.14 observed Ž1987.
Postemergence 0.84, 1.12, No toxic effects NR 1 Bishnoi and Pancholi
Ž2]3 leaves. and 1.14 observed Ž1987.
Triticale Soil 0.84, 1.12, NOEARs 0.84 NR 1 Bishnoi and Pancholi
ŽX Triticosecale incorporated and 1.14 LOEARs 1.12 Ž1987.
Wittmarck. Ždecreased grain
yield.
Preemergence 0.84, 1.12, NOEARs 1.12 NR 1 Bishnoi and Pancholi
and 1.14 LOEARs 1.14 Ž1987.
Ždecreased grain
yield.
Postemergence 0.84, 1.12, NOEARs 0 NR 1 Bishnoi and Pancholi
Ž2]3 leaves. and 1.14 LOEARs 0.84 Ž1987.
Ždecreased grain
yield.
Rye Ž Secale Soil 0.84, 1.12, NOEARs 1.12 NR 1 Bishnoi and Pancholi
cereale. incorporated and 1.14 LOEARs 1.14 Ž1987.
Ždecreased grain
yield.
Preemergence 0.84, 1.12, NOEARs 1.12 NR 1 Bishnoi and Pancholi
and 1.14 LOEARs 1.14 Ž1987.
Ždecreased grain
yield.
Postemergence 0.84, 1.12, NOEARs 0.84 NR 1 Bishnoi and Pancholi
Ž2]3 leaves. and 1.14 LOEARs 1.12 Ž1987.
Ždecreased grain
yield.
Other Crops
Lentils Preemergence 0.5 and 0.75 NOEARs 0.5 NR 2 Sandhu et al. Ž1991.
Ž Lens culinaris LOEARs 0.75
Med.. Žreduction in
grain yield.
Ž continued.
TABLE IX. ( Continued )

Species Life Stage Žkg hay1 .) Effect Žkg hay1 .) Formulation Typec Reference
Other Crops
Soybean Preemergence 1.12 No effect on seed yield, NR 2 Johnson Ž1971.

Ž Glycine max . seed quality, and stand
Preemergence 2.8 No effect on seed NR 2 Stoller et al. Ž1973.
composition
Lupin Preemergence 0.5]39.8 mg Ly1 No effect on germination; NR 2 Fernandez-Pascual
Ž Lupinus albus. Ž24 h, 288C in Ž2]160 m M. plants were desiccated et al. Ž1988.
and micro- Petri dishes in at 20 mg Ly1
symbiont pesticidernutrient Ž80 m M. by day 10;
Ž Bradyrhizobium solution. significant reduction of
sp.. weight of aerial parts
at 3 mg Ly1
Ž12 m M. ŽLOEC.
Lupin Preemergence 1.1 and 2.2 NOEARs 1.1 Wettable powder 2 Allen Ž1977.
Ž L. angustifolius. LOEARs 2.2 Ž50% ai.
Pea Ž Pisum sati¨ um. Preemergence 0.5 and 0.75 No effect on grain Lorox Ž50% ai, 2 Kundra and Gill
yield observed wettable powder. Ž1990.
Lettuce 2 leaves 0.04]0.15 m g NOECs 0.04 m g mLy1 NR 2 Walker and
Ž Lactuca sati¨ a. mLy1 LOEC s 0.06 m g mLy1 Schmidt Ž1974.
Sunflower Preemergence 1.4 Severe plant injury at 5]7 NR 1 Johnson Ž1972.
Ž Helianthus weeks and significantly
annuus. reduced seed yield
Root 10 mg Ly1 Inhibition of root growth NR 2 Mugnier Ž1988.
Cornflower Root 10 mg Ly1 Inhibition of root growth NR 2 Mugnier Ž1988.
Ž Centaurea cyanus.
Ragweed Root 10 mg Ly1 Inhibition of root growth NR 2 Mugnier Ž1988.
Ž Ambrosia
artemisiifolia.
Tomato Preemergence 0]0.56 LOEARs 0.56 Wettable powder 2 Hogue and
Ž Lycopersicum Ž50% ai. Warren Ž1968.
esculentum.
Postemergence 0]0.070 LOEARs 0.018 Wettable powder 2 Hogue and
Ž3]4 leaves. Žfresh weight was 65% Ž50% ai. Warren Ž1968.
of control.
2]4 inches high 0.0175 LOEARs 0.032 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.
0.032 Ž100% reduction
in fresh weight
compared to the
control.
Preemergence NR I 50 s 0.56 Žfresh weight. Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.
Preemergence 0.5, 1, and 2 LOEARs 2.1 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1976.
Žfresh weight signifi- Ž50% ai.
cantly reduced.
Postemergence 1, 1.5, and 2 NOEARs 0 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1976.
Ž1 leaf. LOEARs 1 Ž50% ai.
Žfresh weight reduced.
Root 10 m g cmy3 Inhibition of root growth NR 2 Mugnier Ž1988.
Potato Preemergence 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 No observable effect on NR 2 Paul et al. Ž1974.
Ž Solanum ash, crude fiber, fat,
tuberosum. starch, and sugars content
and dry weight
Turnip 2 leaves 0.04]0.15 m g LOEC s 0.04 m g mLy1 NR 2 Walker and
Ž Brassica rapa L.. mLy1 Schmidt Ž1974.
Parsnip Preemergence 0]9.03 LOEARs 2.26 Wettable powder 2 Hogue and
Ž Pastinaca Žfresh weight was 65% Ž50% ai. Warren Ž1968.
sati¨ a. of control.
Postemergence 0]18.1 LOEARs 4.5 Wettable powder 2 Hogue and Warren
Ž2]3 leaves. Žfresh weight was 65% Ž50% ai. Ž1968.
of control.
Preemergence NR I 50 s 13.45 Žfresh weight. Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.
Ž continued.
26 CAUX ET AL.
TABLE IX. ( Continued )

Species Life Stage Žkg hay1 .) Effect Žkg hay1 .) Formulation Typec Reference
Other Crops
Carrot Preemergence NR I 50 s 6.7 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.

Ž Daucus carota. Žfresh weight.
Celery Preemergence NR I 50 s 3.36 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.
Ž Apium Žfresh weight.
gra¨ eolens.
Postemergence 0.84]5.6 NOEARs 1.3 Wettable powder 2 Kuratle and Rahn 1968
LOEARs 1.7 Ž50% ai.
Cucumber 1 leaf 24.9, 2.49, 0.249, 0.0702 mg Ly1 Purified by 2 Hilton and
Ž Cucumis sati¨ us . and 0.0249 mg Ly1 Ž0.282 m M. recrystallization Nomura Ž1964.
s minimum lethal
concentration
Indian mustard Preemergence 0.5 and 1, 2 LOEARs 0.5 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1976.
Ž Brassica juncea. Žfresh weight reduced Ž50% ai.
significantly compared
to control.
White mustard Preemergence 0.38, 0.75, 1.5, NOECs 0.11 m g gy1 NR 2 Nilsson Ž1988.
Ž B. hirta. and 3 LOEC s 0.22 m g gy1
Anise Preemergence NR I 50 s 1.68 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.
Ž Pimpinella Žfresh weight.
anisum.
Caraway Preemergence NR I 50 s 2.52 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.
Ž Carum car¨ i . Žfresh weight.
Coriander Preemergence NR I 50 s 33.62 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.
Ž Coriandrum Žfresh weight.
sati¨ um.
Postemergence 2.25 and 4.48 LOEARs 2.25 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.
Ž3]4 inches Žfresh weight reduced
high. to 54.2% of control.
Dill Preemergence NR I 50 s 0.84 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.
Ž Anethum Žfresh weight.
gra¨ eolens.
Postemergence 1 Leaf burn, chlorosis, NR 2 Wall and Friesen Ž1986.
Ž4 cm high. and stunting
Parsley Preemergence NR I 50 Žfresh weight. s 6.16 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.
Ž Petroselisum
crispum.
Garlic 3 leaves 2.2 No effects observed Afalon 2 Cessna Ž1991.
Ž Allium
sati¨ um L..
Black locust Preemergence 1.7 and 3.3 LOEARs 1.7 Lorox 1 Geyer and Long Ž1991.
Ž Robinia
pseudoacacia L..
Honey locust Preemergence 1.7 and 3.3 LOEARs 1.7 Lorox 1 Geyer and Long Ž1991.
Ž Gleditsia
triacanthos.
Kentucky coffee Preemergence 1.7 and 3.3 NOEARs 3.3 Lorox 1 Geyer and Long Ž1991.
Ž Gymnocladus
dioica.
Gladiolus Cormels 1.5 Necrosis of the Afalon 2 Mynett and Jagusz Ž1990.
Ž Gladiolus sp.. Ž- 4 cm. leaf tips
Corms 1.5 No toxic effects Afalon 2 Mynett and Jagusz Ž1990.
Ž8]10 cm. observed
a
b
Unless otherwise indicated.
c
Data type: 1, primary; 2, secondary.
No effects on soybean were observed by either John- when applied preemergence, and 0.018 and 4.5 kg hay1
son Ž1971. or Stoller et al. Ž1973. when levels of 1.12 when applied postemergence. The main effect was a
and 2.8 kg hay1 of linuron were applied preemergence. reduction in fresh weight compared to the controls.
Two studies were performed on the toxicity of lin- The two crop species were also exposed to linuron,
uron to lupin. Fernandez-Pascual et al. Ž1988. found radiolabelled on the carbonyl carbon, which translo-
that concentrations as high as 39.8 mg Ly1 of the cated the herbicide in different manners. The tomato
herbicide did not affect lupin Ž Lupinus albus. germina- transported radiolabelled, unmetabolized linuron to the
tion. However, when the herbicide was applied poste- leaves, whereas the parsnip retained most of it in the
mergence, by the tenth day of growth the plants were roots. The leaves of the parsnip contained a small
desiccated at a level of 20 mg Ly1 , and by the thirtieth amount of radiolabelled linuron metabolites, which
day of growth 3 mg Ly1 had caused a significant were not identified.
reduction in the weight of aerial parts. In a different The toxicity of linuron to the tomato plant was also
reported by Hogue Ž1970.. First, preemergence applica-
study, rates of 2.2 kg hay1 caused severe damage to the
tion of a wettable powder formulation on tomatoes was
lupin Ž Lupinus angustifolius. crop in one of two experi-
performed to obtain results for the lowest application
mental sites when applied preemergence ŽAllen, 1977..
rate that produced a 50% reduction in fresh weight
Rates of 0.5 and 0.75 kg hay1 were found to have no ŽI 50 .. A postemergence application of linuron was used
effect on the grain yield of the field pea Ž Pisum sati¨ um. to determine a value for the LOEAR. The LOEAR
when applied preemergence ŽKundra and Gill, 1990.. was found to be 0.032 kg hay1 , and the I 50 was 0.56 kg
Walker and Schmidt Ž1974. examined shoots of let- hay1 . In 1976, Hogue found different results. The
tuce Ž Lactuca sati¨ a. and turnip Ž Brassica rapa L.. LOEAR for tomato was reported to be 2.1 kg hay1 of
grown in a nutrient solution containing linuron and linuron Ž50% ai, wettable powder. applied preemer-
showed that phytotoxicity was influenced by exposure gence and 1 kg hay1 applied postemergence, causing a
duration, herbicide concentration, and age of seedling. reduction in fresh weight in both cases.
The older the seedling, the more sensitive it was to Hogue Ž1970. studied the toxicity of linuron on
linuron. The concentrations tested varied from 0.04 to other crop species such as anise, caraway, carrot, cel-
0.15 m g mLy1 , and the resulting lowest-observed-effect ery, coriander, dill, parsley, and parsnip. A value for
concentration ŽLOEC. was 0.06 m g mLy1 for lettuce the I 50 was found for each of these species as described
and 0.04 m g mLy1 for turnip. The toxicity symptoms in Table IX. For coriander, the LOEAR was deter-
were not described. mined to be 2.25 kg hay1 , a concentration that caused
The effect of linuron, applied preemergence, on a reduction in fresh weight.
sunflower plants was studied over 3 years ŽJohnson, A weed-control experiment showed that linuron had
1972.. It was reported that a treatment with 1.4 kg no observable effect on the dry weight or ash, crude
hay1 caused severe plant injury 5]7 weeks after plant- fiber, fat, starch, and sugar content of potato tubers
ing and significantly reduced the sunflower seed yield. ŽPaul et al., 1974..
Another study on sunflower reported the effect of When testing the effect of linuron on weed control,
linuron on roots. The roots were cultured in a liquid Kuratle and Rahn Ž1968. observed crop injury to car-
medium in Petri dishes containing 10 mg Ly1 of lin- rots when a rate of 1.7 kg hay1 was applied postemer-
uron ŽMugnier, 1988., a concentration that was found gence. The herbicide was in the form of a wettable
powder Ž50% ai..
to inhibit growth. The same test was performed on
Hilton and Nomura Ž1964. tested concentrations
roots of cornflower Ž Centaurea cyanus., ragweed Ž Am-
varying from 24.9 to 0.0249 mg Ly1 Ž10y4 ]10y7 M. of
brosia artemisiifolia., tomato Ž Lycopersicum esculentum.,
linuron for lethal effects on pregerminated cucumber
and various other species. Growth of all root species Ž Cucumis sati¨ us . seeds. The plants were grown in a
was reported to be inhibited by the 10-mg Ly1 concen- solution of nutrient and herbicide, and the minimum
tration of linuron. The latter is a high concentration of lethal concentration was reported as 0.0702 mg Ly1
herbicide compared to concentrations or application Ž0.282 m M. after 11 d of growth.
rates usually tested in phytotoxicity studies, and since Hogue Ž1976. studied the toxicity of linuron to In-
the application rate was given as a concentration in dian mustard Ž Brassica juncea. by using a dual-pot
liquid medium, these results were not considered rele- method. Roots from the plant growing in the upper pot
vant for the purpose of deriving an irrigation guideline. were placed on the soil surface of the lower plant and
Hogue and Warren Ž1968. studied the resistance of the herbicide applied to the soil directly at rates of 0.5,
tomato and parsnip to linuron when applied pre- and 1, and 2 kg hay1 . The lowest concentration causing a
postemergence. The LOEAR for tomato and parsnip reduction in fresh weight compared to the control was
were reported to be 0.56 and 2.26 kg hay1 , respectively, 0.5 kg hay1 .
28 CAUX ET AL.
White mustard Ž B. hirta. was also analyzed for its with the label specifications. For each nontarget crop
tolerance to linuron ŽNilsson, 1988.. Linuron was ap- species for which a LOEAR and a NOEAR were
plied preemergence at rates of 0.38, 0.75, 1.5, and 3 kg available, the AAR was calculated by dividing the geo-
hay1 to three different types of soil in pots. The lowest metric mean of the LOEAR and the NOEAR by an
concentration causing visible damage to the plant appropriate uncertainty factor ŽUF..
ŽLOEC. was applied in a clay soil and was 0.22 m g gy1 ; Some researchers identified a LOEAR without a
the NOEC was 0.11 m g gy1 . value for the NOEAR. In those cases, the NOEAR was
Wall and Friesen Ž1986. observed that postemer- estimated by NOEARs LOEAR% 4.5 ŽCCME, 1993..
gence application of 1 kg hay1 on dill Ž Anethum gra¨ e- The minimum UF of 10 was used for the calculation of
olens. resulted in leaf burn, chlorosis, and stunting. the acceptable soil concentration ŽASC; see next para-
Postemergence application of rates up to 2.2 kg graph. or the AAR since no justification existed to
hay1 in field plots did not cause any damage to crops increase it ŽCCME, 1993.. Uncertainty in the estimate
of garlic Ž Allium sati¨ um L.; Cessna, 1991.. of the AAR or ASC may occur because of differences
Geyer and Long Ž1991. observed the effect of lin- in sensitivity within the species Ždue to genetic variabil-
uron on black locust Ž Robinia pseudoacacia L.., honey ity andror life stage tested., duration of exposure Ži.e.,
locust Ž Gleditsia triacanthos., and Kentucky coffee if the results of short-term tests are used., the nature
Ž Gymnocladus dioica. applied preemergence. Seeds and severity of the effects measured, and a number of
were planted in pots in a greenhouse, and the effect on other factors. If there is a higher degree of uncertainty
survival rate, plant height, and dry weight was exam- Že.g., chemical persistence, extrapolation of acute tests
ined after a month of growth. The herbicide had no to chronic exposures, or site-specific considerations., a
effect on Kentucky coffee; however, a rate of 1.7 kg UF of 100 may be used.
hay1 caused a significant reduction in percent of sur- For white mustard, a LOEC of 0.22 mg kgy1 of soil
vival in the other two species tested. was measured instead of a LOEAR. Thus the ASC was
An ornamental species of gladiolus was shown to be calculated by dividing the geometric mean of the LOEC
sensitive to linuron. Necrosis of the leaf tips occurred and NOEC by an appropriate UF. The calculated ASC
when 1.5 kg hay1 of Lorox was applied on gladiolus was 0.0156 mg kgy1 soil.
cormels Žsecondary corms - 4 cm; Mynett and Jagusz, For white mustard, the allowable contaminant mass
1990.. The same application rate had no effect when ŽACM. in 1 ha of soil was calculated based on the ASC
applied on corms Ž8]10 cm. of the same species. and soil parameters. Since linuron has little potential
to leach, a depth of 0.1 m was used to protect the root
6.1.3. Summary of Existing Guidelines zone of crops ŽCCME, 1993.. This depth is the maxi-
mum depth at which linuron has been detected in
Canadian soils, based on a study in Saskatchewan by
Smith and Emmond Ž1975.. This calculation resulted in
no water quality criteria, guidelines, objectives, or stan-
dards for linuron applicable to the protection of non- an ACM of 2.03= 10 4 mg for white mustard.
target plants currently exist. The AAR Žor ACM. was then divided by the maxi-
mum irrigation rate ŽIR. used in Canada to calculate
the species maximum acceptable toxicant concentration
6.1.4. Guideline ŽSMATC.. This ensures that the guideline subsequently
The toxicological database for linuron was sufficient to developed will be adequate for use in areas with high
develop a full water quality guideline for irrigation rates of irrigation we.g., the Okanagan Valley in British
water for cereals, tame hays, and pastures and an Columbia, which requires 1200 mm of irrigation per
interim guideline for other crops ŽCCME, 1993.. year Žequivalent to 1.2= 10 7 L hay1 .; CCME, 1993x.
The first step in calculating the guideline for irriga- For those species for which a LOEC in milligrams
tion water was the determination of acceptable applica- per liter was measured instead of a LOEAR Žsorghum,
tion rates ŽAARs. in kilograms of active ingredient per wheat, lupin, lettuce, turnip, and cucumber., the
hectare Žkg ai hay1 . for each nontarget crop species for SMATC was calculated by dividing the geometric mean
which adequate data were available ŽCCME, 1993.. of the NOEC and LOEC by an appropriate UF.
The AAR is an estimate of the pesticide application The SMATCs were calculated for all crops for which
rate that would not result in adverse effects on nontar- adequate data were found and then sorted into the two
get crop species, if applied over the course of one groups of crops irrigated in Canada: Ž1. cereals, tame
growing season. The AAR should not be confused with hays, and pastures and Ž2. other crops ŽTable X.. The
the application rates that are recommended by the lowest of the SMATCs pertaining to studies evaluated
manufacturer when the pesticide is used in accordance as being primary was adopted as the guideline for
TABLE X. Calculated species maximum acceptable toxicant concentrations (SMATCs) for nontarget crop species
NOEAR LOEAR NOEC LOEC AAR Žkg hay1 . or SMATC

Species Žkg hay1 . Žkg hay1 . Žmg Ly1 . a Žmg Ly1 . ASC Žmg kgy1 . Ž m g Ly1 .
Cereals, Tame Hays, and Pastures
Sorghum } } 0.244b 1.1c } 51.8

Oat 0.5 0.75 } } 0.0612 5.1
Wheat } } 0.076 b 0.34 c } 16.1
Triticale 0.187 d 0.84 } } 0.0396 3.3
Rye 0.84 1.12 } } 0.097 8.1
Other Crops
Lentils 0.5 0.75 } } 0.0612 5.1

Lupin 1.1 2.2 } } 0.155 12.9
Lettuce } } 0.04 0.06 } 4.9
Carrot 1.3 1.7 } } 0.1486 12.4
Sunflower 0.311d 1.4 } } 0.0660 5.5
Tomato 0.004d 0.018 } } 0.00085 0.071
Turnip } } 0.009 b 0.04 } 1.89
Parsnip 0.502 d 2.26 } } 0.107 8.9
Cucumber } } 0.0156 b 0.0702 c } 3.3
Indian mustard 0.111d 0.5 } } 0.0236 2.0
White mustard } } 0.11 mg kgy1 0.22 mg kgy1 0.0156 1.7
Coriander 0.5d 2.25 } } 0.106 8.8
Honey locust 0.378 d 1.7 } } 0.0802 6.7
Kentucky coffee 0.378 d 1.7 } } 0.0802 6.7
Gladiolus 0.333d 1.5 } } 0.0707 5.9
a
Unless otherwise indicated.
b
Estimated by NOECs LOEC % 4.5.
c
The minimum lethal concentration was used.
d
Estimated by NOEARs LOEAR% 4.5.
cereals, tame hays, and pastures, namely, 3.3 m g Ly1 This new contaminant mass is then used in the calcula-
Žtriticale .. The lowest of the SMATCs pertaining to tion of the SMATC as outlined above to determine the
studies evaluated as being secondary was adopted as site-specific objective.
the interim guideline for other crops, namely, 0.071 m g
Ly1 Žtomato.. The lower of the guidelines developed, 6.1.5. Data Gaps
0.071 m g Ly1 , then became the Canadian water quality
In order to derive a full guideline, at least two studies
guideline for linuron in irrigation waters for all crops.
on four or more crop species grown in Canada are
SMATC values were calculated for all crops that
required, including at least one of the following fami-
showed adverse effects to allow for site-specific objec-
lies: Leguminosae, Cruciferae, Cucurbitaceae, Lili-
tives. The guideline value may require modification
aceae, Solanaceae, Umbelliferae, and Chenopodiceae.
because certain areas may not grow the most sensitive
Of the above studies, at least one must be a chronic
species Župon which the guideline was based.. In these
test Žentire growing season; CCME, 1991..
cases, the SMATC for each of the crops listed in Table
X may be used as a site-specific objective for that crop
only. As well, if sources of the contaminant other than 6.2. Livestock Watering
irrigation water Že.g., background levels, atmospheric
inputs, etc.. are present, a site-specific objective may be 6.2.1. Mammals
calculated by determining a new ACM that corrects for
Few toxicological data relevant to livestock species
background and other sources of the toxin as follows:
reared in Canada were available.
Site-specific ACM 6.2.1.1. Acute Toxicity. Linuron is moderately toxic to
rodents ŽTable XI.. The LD50 for Lorox W 50 DF Ž54%
s Ž ASCy background y other sources . ? soil mass. ai. was reported to be 4060 mg kgy1 for young female
30 CAUX ET AL.
TABLE XI. Acute toxicity of linuron to mammalsa
Route of Data
Species Exposure Life Stage Sex Duration DoserEffect Formulation Typeb Reference
Rat Intragastric Young MrF 14 d LD50 s 4833 mg kgy1 ŽM. Lorox W 50 DF 2 Du Pont Ž1986a.
intubation adults LD50 s 4060 mg kgy1 ŽF. Ž54% ai.
Oral NR NR NR 1500 mg kgy1 NR UN Merck Ž1983.
Žacute lethal dose.
NR MrF NR LD50 s 1254 mg kgy1 ŽM. NR UN WSSA Ž1989.
LD50 s 1196 mg kgy1 ŽF.
NR MrF NR LD50 s 4833 mg kgy1 ŽM. Lorox UN Du Pont Ž1990.
LD50 s 4060 mg kgy1 ŽF. Ž50% ai.
NR NR NR LD50 s 1146 mg kgy1 NR UN Occupational Health
Services Ž1991.
Diet 130 g MrF 1 month NOECs 6]8 mg kgy1 c Lorox 2 Hodge et al. Ž1968.
LOEC s 30 mg kgy1 c ŽM. Ž50% ai.
LOEC s 120 mg kgy1 c
ŽF. Žgrowth.
Lungs NR NR NR 4-h lethality s 48 mg my3 per 4 h NR UN Occupational Health
LOEC s 29 mg my3 per 4 h Ž1991.
Mouse Oral NR NR NR LD50 s 2400 mg kgy1 NR UN Occupational Health
Services Ž1991.
Rabbit Oral NR NR NR LD50 s 2250 mg kgy1 NR UN Occupational Health
Services Ž1991.
Dog Oral NR NR NR LD50 s 500 mg kgy1 NR UN Occupational Health
Services Ž1991.
Diet NR M 1 week NOECs 1.5 mg kgy1 Lorox Ž50% ai. UN Hodge et al. Ž1968.
LOEC s 150 mg kgy1
Žweight loss. Ž n s 1.
a
NR denotes not reproted.
b
c
Conversion from parts per million to milligrams per kilogram per day according to Lehman Ž1954..
rats and 4833 mg kgy1 for young male rats ŽDu Pont, treatment produced a transient very mild to no con-
1986a.. junctival irritation in some rabbits ŽDu Pont, 1986c..
6.2.1.2. Dermal and Ocular Toxicity. A concentration as 6.2.1.3. Chronic Toxicity. Chronic toxicity studies iden-
high as 2000 mg kgy1 of Lorox W 50 DF Ž54% ai., tified several no-observable-effect levels ŽNOELs. and
applied on the skin of albino rabbits for 24 h, did not lowest-observable effect levels ŽLOELs. for different
have any effect ŽDu Pont, 1986b. ŽTable XII.. In an- species of rats ŽTable XIII.. Toxicity tests performed
other skin irritation study, an aqueous paste of 0.5 g of on CD W rats resulted in a NOEL of 6.25 mg kgy1 dy1
Lorox W 50 DF was applied to the shaved, abraded and when the animals were exposed to technical grade
linuron Ž97% ai. for 4 weeks through their diet ŽDu
nonabraded skin of male rabbits for 24 h. No signifi-
Pont, 1981.. Exposure to higher levels Ž6.25]62.5 mg
cant effects were observed ŽDu Pont, 1986d.. A similar
kgy1 dy1 . resulted in a decreased body weight. The
study was conducted on guinea pigs of the Duncan
LOEL was reported to be 31.2 mg kgy1 dy1 . The same
Hartley albino variety ŽDu Pont, 1986e. with Lorox W 60
results were found when the rats were exposed to the
DF Ž60% ai.. Again, no significant dermal reaction was same range of concentrations for 2 years. Because of
observed. When a 50% solution of linuron Ž96.2% ai. the length of the test, additional effects were observed,
was rubbed on the skin of young male guinea pigs, such as increased mortality among males. In the same
moderate erythema was observed. When a 1% solution study, it was found that Rochester rats were slightly
of linuron Ž96.2% ai. was injected in the skin of guinea more sensitive to Lorox Ž97% ai.. When exposed to
pigs, blanching and the appearance of necrotic centres linuron for 1 month through their diet, males were
were observed. Linuron is therefore considered to be a found to be much more sensitive than females, with
sensitizer in guinea pigs ŽDu Pont, 1988d.. values for the NOEL and LOEL of 3 and 15 mg kgy1
The right eyes of nine albino rabbits were treated dy1 , respectively, for the males and 30 and 60 mg kgy1
with 0.1 mL Ž47 mg. of Lorox W 50 DF Ž54% ai.. This dy1 , respectively, for the females. When Rochester rats
TABLE XII. Dermal and ocular toxicity of linuron to mammalsa
Route of Data
Species Exposure Life Stage Sex Duration DoserEffect Formulation Type b Reference
Rabbit Dermal NR MrF 24-h Žwith 14-d 2000 mg kgy1 Lorox W 50 DF 2 Du Pont Ž1986b.
Žalbino. observation . Žno effect observed. Ž54% ai.
Rabbit Dermal NR M 24 h Žwith 6 d 0.5 g Žmild to moderate Lorox W 50 DF 2 Du Pont Ž1986d.
observation . erythema . Ž54% ai.
Dermal NR NR NR LD 50 ) 2000 mg kg y1 Lorox UN Du Pont Ž1990 .
Guinea pig Dermal NR MrF 24- and 48-h 3 and 30% solutions Lorox W 60 DF 2 Du Pont Ž1986e .
rubbing observation Žno significant Ž60% ai.
dermal reaction .
Intradermal NR MrF 4 weeks 1% solution Lorox W 60 DF 2 Du Pont 1986e
injection Žmild to moderate Ž60% ai.
Ž1 each week . erythema .
Dermal injection Young M 4 weeks of injections 5, 30, and 50% Linuron 1 Du Pont Ž1988d.
Ž1 each week. adult and dermal rubbing solutions Žmoderate Ž96.2% ai.
and rubbing 2 weeks after erythema at 50% .
last injection
Intradermal Young M 4 weeks 1% solution Linuron 1 Du Pont Ž1988d.
injection adult Žblanching and Ž96.2% ai.
Ž1 each week. observation
of necrotic centers .
Guinea pig Dermal NR NR NR 10% solution Aqueous UN WSSA Ž1989 .
Žmild to moderate suspension
skin irritation . of wettable
powder Ž50% ai.
Rabbit Eye NR M 1 application Mild, transient Lorox W 50 DF 2 Du Pont Ž1986c .
Žalbino. Žwith 9-d conjunctival Ž54% ai.
observation . irritation
Rabbit Eye NR NR NR Mild conjunctivitis, Lorox Ž50% . UN Du Pont Ž1990 .
reversed in 9 d
a
b
Data type: 1, primary; 2, secondary; UN, unacceptable.
were exposed to a similar range of concentrations for 2 Long-Evans hooded rats, at weaning, fed by gavage
years, the NOEL was reported to be 1.25 mg kgy1 dy1 10-, 20-, or 40-mg linuron per kilogram of body weight
and growth depression and increased mortality among for 10 weeks, had reduced total femur cross-sectional
males were observed at a level of 31.2 mg kgy1 dy1 areas at the highest dose and significantly reduced
ŽLOEL; Du Pont, 1981.. medullary cross-sectional areas at the two highest doses.
Du Pont Ž1981. also performed a 2-week subacute Despite these morphological manifestations, there was
test on male rats in which the animals were exposed to no significant effect on calcium metabolism at any of
10 doses of one level Ž200 mg kgy1 dy1 . administered the doses ŽAndrews and Gray, 1990..
orally. Clinical signs of discomfort and central nervous Du Pont Ž1981. fed young mice with levels of Lorox
Ž97% ai. in their diet ranging from 1.09 to 32.6 mg kgy1
system depression were observed. There was also re-
dy1 . Decreased body weight gain was observed when
duced body weight gain. However, no compound-related
the mice were fed concentrations of 32.6 mg kgy1 dy1
gross or histopathologic abnormalities were reported in
ŽLOEL., and no effect were observed at levels of 3.26
the tissues examined.
mg kgy1 dy1 ŽNOEL..
Hodge et al. Ž1968. studied the toxicity of Lorox
Decreased red blood cell count, hemoglobin values,
Ž50% ai. on rats. Rats were fed levels ranging from 3 to
and hematocrit percentages were found in male dogs
300 mg kgy1 dy1 for 1 month and levels ranging from exposed to 15.6 mg kgy1 dy1 of Lorox Ž50% ai. in their
2.5 to 62.5 mg kgy1 dy1 for 2 years. Exposure for a diet for 2 years. No effects were observed at a level of
month resulted in NOEL and LOEL values of 60 and 3.12 mg kgy1 dy1 . Females were more sensitive to the
120 mg kgy1 dy1 , respectively, for the female rats and herbicide, showing signs of anemia when fed with 3.12
6 and 30 mg kgy1 dy1 , respectively, for the male rats. mg kgy1 dy1 for 2 years. The NOEL was reported to
When the rats were exposed for 2 years, a depression be 0.63 mg kgy1 dy1 ŽHodge et al., 1968..
of growth was observed at a level of 62.5 mg kgy1 dy1 Bohme and Ernst Ž1965. described the metabolism
ŽLOEL., and a NOEL was found to be 12.5 mg kgy1 and excretion of linuron to be essentially the same as
dy1 ŽHodge et al., 1968.. that for monuron and diuron. The main difference is
32
TABLE XIII. Chronic toxicity of linuron to mammalsa
Life Route of Dose Data

Species Stage Sex Duration Exposure Žmg kgy1 dy1 . Effect Žmg kgy1 dy1 . Formulation Typeb Reference
Rat ŽCD W . NR MrF 4 weeks Diet 0, 6.25, 31.2, 46.2, NOEL s 6.25c Lorox 2 Du Pont Ž1981.
and 62.5c LOEL s 31.2 c Ž97% ai.
CAUX ET AL.
Ždecreased body weight.

NR MrF 3 months Diet 0, 4, 20, and 100 c NOEL s 20 c Lorox 2 Du Pont Ž1981.
LOEL s 100 c Ž97% ai.
Žgrowth retardation,
decreased food
consumption, decreased
average tibia length.
NR MrF 2 years Diet 0, 2.5, 6.25, NOEL s 6.25c Lorox 2 Du Pont Ž1981.
and 31.2 c LOEL s 31.2 c Žgrowth Ž97% ai.
depression, increased
mortality among males.
Rochester rat NR MrF 1 month Diet 0, 1.5, 3, 15, 30, NOEL s 3 Lorox 2 Du Pont Ž1981.
60, and 150 c LOEL s 15c ŽM. Ždecreased Ž97% ai.
body weight gain.
NOEL s 30
LOEL s 60 c ŽF.
Ždecreased body weight
gain.
NR MrF 2 years Diet 0, 1.25, 6.25, NOEL s 1.25c Lorox 2 Du Pont Ž1981.
and 31.2 c LOEL s 31.2 c Ž97% ai.
Žgrowth depression,
increased mortality
among males.
Rat NR M 2 weeks Oral 200 Clinical signs of discomfort, Lorox 2 Du Pont Ž1981.
central nervous system Ž97% ai.
depression, reduced body
weight gain
Young MrF 1 month Diet 0, 3, 6, 30, 60, NOEL s 6 d ŽM. Lorox 2 Hodge et al. Ž1968.
Ž130 g. 120, and 300 d LOEL s 30 d ŽM. Ž50% ai.
NOEL s 60 d ŽF.
LOEL s 120 d ŽF.
NR 3 months Diet NR NOEL s 40 d 95% ai 2 Hodge et al. Ž1968.
LOEL s 200 d
MrF 2 years Diet 0, 2.5, 12.5, NOEL s 12.5d Lorox 2 Hodge et al. Ž1968.
and 62.5d LOEL s 62.5d Ž50% ai.
Ždepression of growth.
Long-Evans Weanling M 10 weeks Gavage 10, 20, or 40 20 and 40 Žsignificantly 95.1% pure 2 Andrews and Gray
hooded rat reduced medullary Ž1990.
cross-sectional area.
40 Žreduced total femur
cross-sectional area.
Wistar rat NR NR 3 days Gavage 1r6 of LD50 Increased microsomal NR UN Schoket and
epoxide hydrolase Vincze Ž1986.
activity by 160%
Rat NR NR NR Diet 4 Decreased red blood NR UN Occupational
cell counts, hemoglobin Health Services
values, and hematocrit Ž1991.
percentages
NR F NR Diet 31.2 c Decreased body weight; NR UN Occupational
increased resorption of Health Services
embryos Ž1991.
NR NR NR Diet Žonco- 2.5, 6.25, Increased incidence of NR UN Kaplan et al.
genicity. and 31.2 c testicular tumors Ž1980.
Žnonmalignant interstitial
cell adenomas.
Mouse Young MrF 2 years Diet 1.09, 3.26, NOEL s 3.26 Lorox 1 Du Pont Ž1981.
Ž21.4 g. and 32.6 LOEL s 32.6 Ž97% ai.
Ždecreased body weight
gain.
NR NR 2 years Diet NR Increased hepatocellular NR UN Occupational
adenomas Žliver Health Services
changes. Ž1991.
Dog NR M 1 month Diet 1 and 6 NOEL s 6 Ž n s 1. Lorox UN Hodge et al.
Ž50% ai. Ž1968.
NR MrF 2 years Diet NR NOEL s 3.12 e ŽM. Lorox 2 Hodge et al.
LOEL s 15.6 e ŽM. Ž50% ai. Ž1968.
Ždecreased red blood
cell count, hemoglobin
values, and hematocrit
percentages.
NOEL s 0.63e ŽF.
LOEL s 3.12 e ŽF.
Žsigns of anemia.
a
b
Data type: 1, primary; 2, secondary; UN, unacceptable.
c
The dose conversion from parts per million to milligrams per kilogram per day was based on Lehman Ž1954., assuming that the average weight of the animal was 400 g Žthe weight of an
old rat..
d
The dose conversion from parts per million to milligrams per kilogram per day was based on Lehman Ž1954., knowing that the average weight of the animal was approximately 100 g.
e
The dose conversion from parts per million to milligrams per kilogram per day was based on Lehman Ž 1954., assuming that the average weight of the animal was 10 kg.
33
34 CAUX ET AL.
the character of the major metabolite, which is N-Ž2- levels of 0, 2.3, and 11.3 mg kgy1 dy1 of Lorox wettable
hydroxy-4,5-dichlorophenyl. urea for metabolism of lin- powder Ž50% ai.. wThese concentrations were converted
uron and N-Ž3, 4-dichlorophenyl. urea for metabolism from parts per million to milligrams per kilogram per
of monuron or diuron. day, based on Lehman Ž1954..x No significant differ-
6.2.1.4. Reproducti¨ e, Teratogenic, and Mutagenic Ef- ences were observed between the controls and the
fects. Reproductive effects were observed when female treated animals with respect to reproductive perfor-
rats were exposed to a technical grade of linuron mance and fetal development.
Ž95.1% ai. at a level of 200 mg kgy1 dy1 ŽTable XIV.. It should be noted that both formulation contami-
After exposure from day 6 to 15 of gestation, an nants, tetrachloroazobenzene ŽTCAB. and tetra-
increased number of abnormal fetuses was reported chloroazoxybenzene ŽTCAOB., are teratogenic to the
ŽKhera et al., 1978.. chick embryo ŽSchrankel et al., 1982. and mice ŽHas-
Teratogenicity studies are conducted to detect the soun et al., 1984; D’Argy et al., 1984; Hassoun and Arif,
potential production of fetal abnormalities. Assessment 1988.. Fetotoxicity in mice occurred at dose levels of 16
of effects on reproduction include chemical impacts on mg kgy1 ŽHassoun et al., 1984..
functions and processes such as lactation, fertility, go- A few studies have documented the mutagenic po-
nadal function, oestrus cycles, mating behavior, concep- tential of linuron; however, none has been found ac-
tion rates, and parental care. Hodge et al. Ž1968. fed ceptable. Seiler Ž1978. reported that linuron at 500 mg
pregnant rabbits of the New Zealand white variety with kgy1 significantly depressed testicular DNA synthesis,
TABLE XIV. Reproductive effects, teratogenicity, and mutagenicity of linurona
Dose Data
Species Life Stage Sex Žmg kgy1 dy1 . Effect Formulation Typeb Reference
Reproductive Effects
Rat Ž175]200 g. F LOEC s 200 Increased number of Technical grade 2 Khera et al. Ž1978.
days 6]15 of abnormal fetuses Ž95.1% ai.
gestation
NR F NOECs 0 Reduced weight of Lorox wettable 2 Hodge et al. Ž1968.
LOEC s 12.5c the F2 and F3 powder Ž50% ai.
generations
3 generations NR 6.25d No effects on Lorox UN Du Pont Ž1990.
reproduction Ž50% ai.
Teratogenicity
Rat Chronic NR 2.5, 6.25, and No embryotoxic or Lorox UN Du Pont Ž1990.

31.2 d teratogenic effects Ž50% ai.
Rabbit Days 8]16 of F 0, 2.3, and 11.3 No effect on reproduction Lorox 2 Hodge et al. Ž1968.
ŽNew Zealand white. gestation or fetal development Ž50% ai.
Mutagenicity
Bacillus subtilis Rec-assay NR NR No mutagenic effect Lorox UN Du Pont Ž1990.

Ž50% ai.
Salmonella Ames test NR NR No mutagenic effect Lorox UN Du Pont Ž1990.
typhimurium Žreverse Ž50% ai.
mutation.
Host-mediated NR NR No mutagenic effect Lorox UN Du Pont Ž1990.
assay Ž50% ai.
CHO cells Point mutation NR NR No mutagenic Lorox UN Du Pont Ž1990.
ŽChinese hamster. effect Ž50% ai.
Rat hepatocytes DNA assay NR NR No DNA damage Lorox UN Du Pont Ž1990.
Ž50% ai.
a
b
c
The dose conversion from parts per million to milligrams per kilogram per day was based on Lehman Ž1954., assuming that the average
weight of the animal was 400 g.
d
The dose conversion from parts per million to milligrams per kilogram per day was based on Lehman Ž1954., knowing that the average
weight of the animal was approximately 100 g.
but the Salmonella-microsome test for mutagenicity lyzed the toxicity of linuron to 17-week-old bobwhite
was negative. quails Ž Colinus ¨ irginianus.. Single doses ranging from
6.2.1.5. Carcinogenicity. Hodge et al. Ž1968. exposed 292 to 2250 mg kgy1 were given to the birds, and the
dogs to a dietary level of 125-mg kgy1 linuron and acute oral LD50 was determined to be 940 mg kgy1 .
found no evidence of carcinogenicity. However, the Signs of toxicity such as loss of coordination and
U.S. EPA concluded from the Guidance Document lethargy were observed at the lowest level tested Ž292
ŽU.S. EPA, 1984b. that linuron induced oncogenic ef- mg kgy1 ..
fects Ži.e., benign or cancerous tumorigenic effects . in
mammalian species as a result of dietary exposure. 6.2.3. Summary of Existing Guidelines
Rats developed dose-related interstitial cell testicular
adenomas in a 2-year chronic study at all dosages Ž50,
125, and 625 ppm; Kaplan et al., 1980.. In a 2-year
no water quality criteria, guidelines, objectives, or stan-
mouse study involving a control and three dose groups
Ž0, 50, 150, and 1500 ppm., there were hepatocellular dards for linuron applicable to the protection of live-
stock currently exist.
abnormalities in both sexes ŽWood et al., 1982.. For
females, there was a significant increase in hepatocellu-
lar adenomas in the highest dose group. The results 6.2.4. Guideline
were not as clear for male mice and apparently not Linuron toxicity data were insufficient to develop a
dose dependent. On the basis of these studies, an guideline for livestock water.
estimate of the risk associated with dietary exposure
Ž2 = 10y5 . was significant. The calculated lifetime risk
associated with applicator exposure was significant at 6.2.5. Data Gaps
5 = 10y5 to 3 = 10y4 ŽU.S. EPA, 1984a.. Therefore, in In order to develop a full guideline for the protection
1984 the U.S. EPA published a notice in the Federal of livestock, toxicity studies on at least two different
Register that a special review of linuron had been livestock species raised in Canada are required; one of
initiated. The special review was concluded 27 January these species must be a ruminant. At least one of the
1989 without further regulatory action. The U.S. EPA two livestock studies must be long term and at least
concluded that linuron should not be regulated as a one study on the bioaccumulation of linuron in the
carcinogen because the evidence supporting carcino- tissues of at least one livestock species is required. Also
genicity of linuron in humans is of a limited nature, required is at least one acceptable long-term study on
and human carcinogenic potential resulting from expo- the toxicity of linuron to a domestic poultry species.
sure to linuron is low ŽU.S. EPA, 1989.. In order to be able to develop an interim guideline,
at least one study on the toxicity of linuron to at least
6.2.2. Birds
one livestock species is needed, as well as at least one
Only one study on the toxicity of linuron to birds was acute or chronic study on one or more avian livestock
found acceptable ŽTable XV.. Du Pont Ž1985a. ana- species raised in Canada.
TABLE XV. Acute toxicity of linuron to birdsa
Route of Data
Species Life Stage Sex Duration Exposure DoserEffect Formulation Typeb Reference
Bobwhite 17 weeks MrF Single dose Oral 292, 486, 810, 1350, Solid 1 Du Pont Ž1985a.
Ž Colinus Ž162]216 g. with 21-d intubation and 2250 mg kgy1
¨ irginianus. observation LOEL s 292 mg kgy1
Žlethargy, loss of
coordination, coma.
LD50 s 940 mg kgy1
Japanese quail 14 d MrF 5 d Oral LC 50 ) 5000 ppm in diet Chemical UN Hill and
Ž Coturnix japonica. grade Camardese
Ž1986.
Ring-necked pheasant NR NR 8d Oral 8-d LC 50 s 3438 ppm NR UN WSSA Ž1989.
Ž Phaisianus colchicus. in diet
Mallard duckling NR NR 8d Oral 8-d LC 50 s 3083 ppm NR UN WSSA Ž1989.
Ž Anas platyrhynchus. in diet
a
b
Data type: 1, primary; UNs unacceptable.
36 CAUX ET AL.
7. RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY Žed.., Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on

AND AESTHETICS Soil Biology and Conservation of the Biosphere, Budapest,
Vol. 1.
7.1. Summary of Existing Guidelines Abraham, C.T., S.P. Singh, and G. Kulshrestha. 1987. Persis-
tence of herbicides in soil in sorghum]legume intercrop-
Guidelines for recreational water quality have been ping system. Indian J. Agron. 32:253]257.
developed for microbiological characteristics Žindicator Ad Hoc Science Group on Criteria. 1995. Toxic Substance
and pathogenic organisms., physical characteristics Management Policy}Persistence and Bioaccumulation
Žtemperature, turbidity, clarity, and color., chemical Criteria. Final Report, Commercial Chemicals and Evalua-
characteristics ŽpH, oil, and grease., and aesthetics tion Branch, Environment Canada, Ottawa.
ŽHealth and Welfare Canada, 1984.. These recreational Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1994. Pesticide Informa-
water quality guidelines do not include recommenda- tion Hotline Ž1-800-267-6315., Ottawa.
tions for pesticides. Agriculture Canada. 1990. Regulatory Information on Pesti-
No information was found on the concentrations of cide Products, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health
linuron that result in taste and odor problems in water. and Safety, Hamilton, Ontario.
Similarly, no data were found on the levels in edible Agriculture Canada and Environment Canada. 1990. Pesti-
fish tissues that would cause tainting problems. There- cide Registrant Survey, 1990 Report, Pesticides Directorate
fore, it was not possible to establish thresholds for of Agriculture Canada and Commercial Chemicals Branch
sensory detection of linuron in water or other media. of Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Allen, J. M. 1977. The response of narrow-leafed lupins to
pre-emergence herbicides in weeds in grain lupins. Aust. J.
7.2. Guideline Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 17:118]125.
At present, there is no evidence to indicate that recre- Andrews, J. E. and L. E. Gray. 1990. Effects of lindane and
ational water quality and aesthetics would be impaired linuron on calcium metabolism, bone morphometry and
by pesticide residues that might result from registered the kidney in rats. Toxicol. 60:99]107.
uses of linuron Žin accordance with label instructions .. ´ D. 1989. Effect of ammonium formate as ionizing
Barcelo,
Therefore, water quality guidelines for this use are not additive in thermospray liquid chromatography]mass spec-
recommended at this time. trometry for the determination of triazine phenylurea and
chlorinated phenoxyacetic acid herbicides. Org. Mass Spec-
trom. 24:219]224.
Bayer, P. E., and S. Yamaguchi. 1965. Adsorption and distri-
8. INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLIES bution of diuron-C 14. Weeds 13:232]235.
Belasco, J.J., and H.L. Please. 1969. Degradation of diuron
8.1. Summary of Existing Guidelines and linuron-treated soils for 3,39,4,49-tetrachloroazoben-
A worldwide survey of international, federal, provincial, zene. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 17:1414]1417.
territorial, and state regulatory agencies indicated that Berryman, D., and I. Giroux. 1994. La Contamination des
no water quality criteria, guidelines, objectives, or stan- ´
Cours d’Eau par les Pesticides dans les Regions de Culture
dards for linuron applicable to the protection of indus- ¨ Campagnes D’echantillonnage
Intensive de Mais, ´ de 1992
trial water supplies currently exist. ´ ´
et 1993. Direction des Ecosystemes ´
Aquatiques, Ministere
de l’Environnement et de la Faune. Envirodoq EN940594,
Rapport PES-4.
8.2. Guideline Bishnoi, U. R., and D. K. Pancholi. 1987. Effect of diclofop
and linuron on rye grass Ž Lolium multiflorum., control in
At present there is no indication that industrial water triticale ŽX Triticosecale., wheat ŽTriticum aesti¨ um., and
uses would be impaired by pesticide residues that might rye Ž Secale cereale.. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 158:241]245.
result from registered uses of linuron Žin accordance Bohme, C., and W. Ernst. 1965. The metabolism of urea
with label instructions .. Therefore, water quality guide- herbicides in the rat. Part III. Diuron and afalon ŽEnglish
lines for industrial use are not recommended at this abstract .. Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 3:797]802.
time. Bowen, J. E. 1967. Influence of environmental factors on the
efficacy of preemergence diuron applications. Weed Sci.
15:317]322.
REFERENCES Bridges, J. M., and R. D. Andrews. 1977. Agricultural pesti-
cides in wild turkeys in southern Illinois. Trans. Ill. State
Abdel Halim, M. A., M. M. Mahmound, and A. M. Keleg. Acad. Sci. 69:473]484.
1987. Synergistic effect between different fertilizers and Briggs, G. G. 1981. Adsorption of pesticides by some Aus-
herbicides on the growth and yield of maize. In J. Szegi tralian soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 19:69]78.
Brown, A. W. A. 1978. Ecology of Pesticides. John Wiley & Du Pont. 1980. The Metabolism of 14 C-Phenyl Labelled
Sons, New York. Linuron in the Lactating Nanny Goat. Du Pont Canada,
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1991. A Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
Protocol for the Derivation of Water Quality Guidelines Du Pont. 1981. Long-Term Feeding Study with 3-Ž3,4-dichlo-
for the Protection of Aquatic Life. In Canadian Water rophenyl.-1-methoxy-1-methylurea ŽLorox W ; Linuron;
Quality Guidelines, Appendix IX. Prepared by the Task INZ-326. in Mice. Report 758-82, Haskell Laboratory, Du
Force on Water Quality Guidelines of the Canadian Coun- Pont Canada, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
cil of Resource and Environment Ministers. Du Pont. 1984. Laboratory Studies of Phenyl- 14 CŽu. Linuron
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1993. Bioconcentration in Bluegill Sunfish. HLR 575-84, MR
Protocols for Deriving Water Quality Guidelines for the 7350-001. Du Pont Canada, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
Protection of Agricultural Water Uses. In Canadian Water Du Pont. 1985a. An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the
Quality Guidelines, Appendix XIV. Prepared by the Task Bobwhite. Final Report, Project 112-164, Du Pont Canada,
Force on Water Quality Guidelines of the Canadian Coun- Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
cil of Resource and Environment Ministers. Du Pont. 1985b. 48-Hour EC 50 to Daphnia magna. HLR
Carmichael, V., M. Wei, and L. Ringham. 1995. Fraser Valley 103-85, MR 4581-252. Du Pont Canada, Inc., Mississauga,
Groundwater Monitoring Program. Final Report, B.C. Ontario.
Ministry of Health, Victoria, British Columbia. Du Pont. 1986a. Oral LD50 test. HLR 123-79. Du Pont
Cessna, A. J. 1988. The determination of the herbicide lin- Canada, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
uron in Saskatoon berries using HPLC with column switch- Du Pont. 1986b. Skin absorption LD50 in Male and Female
ing. J. Liq. Chromatogr. 11:725]736. rabbits. HLR 131-79. Du Pont Canada, Inc., Mississauga,
Cessna, A. J. 1990. HPLC determination of linuron residues Ontario.
in asparagus following pre- and early postemergence appli- Du Pont. 1986c. Eye Irritation in Rabbits. HLR 2-79. Du
cations. Can. J. Plant Sci. 70:591]597. Pont Canada, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
Cessna, A. J. 1991. Residue analysis of garlic Ž Allium sati¨ um Du Pont. 1986d. Skin Irritation Test on Rabbit for EPA
L.. cloves following a postemergence application of lin- Pesticide Registration. HLR 138-79. Du Pont Canada Inc.,
uron. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71:951]955. Mississauga, Ontario.
Chang, F. Y., L. W. Smith, and G. R. Stephenson. 1971. Du Pont. 1986e. Skin Sensitization Test of Lorox W 60 DF in
Insecticide inhibition of herbicide metabolism in leaf tis- Guinea Pigs for EPA Pesticide Registration. HLR 472-85.
sues. J. Agric. Food Chem. 19:1183]1186. Du Pont Canada, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
Cullimore, D. R. 1975. The in ¨ itro sensitivity of some species Du Pont. 1986f. Photodegradation of wPhenylŽU.- 14 Cx-Lin-
of Chlorophyceae to a selected range of herbicides. Weed uron on Soil. Laboratory Project AMR-644-86, Du Pont
Res. 15:401]406. Canada, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
Cullimore, D. R., and A. E. McCann. 1972. Initial studies on Du Pont. 1986g. Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of
a method of algal assay for nutrient parameters in water. wPhenylŽU.- 14 Cx-Linuron. Laboratory Project AMR-622-86,
J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29:195]198. Du Pont Canada, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
Dale, J. E., and J. M. Chandler. 1979. Herbicide]crop rota- Du Pont. 1986h. Static Acute 96-Hour LC 50 of Linuron
tion for Johnson grass Ž Sorghum halepense. control. Weed ŽINZ-326-118. to Rainbow Trout Ž Salmo gairdneri.. HLR
Sci. 27:479]485. 525-86, MR 4581-420. Du Pont Canada, Inc., Mississauga,
D’Argy, R., E. Hassoun, and L. Dencker. 1984. Teratogenicity Ontario.
of TCDD and the congenes 3,39, 4,49-tetrachloroazoxyben- Du Pont. 1988a. Metabolism of 14C-Linuron in Field-Grown
zene in sensitive and non-sensitive mouse strains. Toxicol. Soybean Plants. AMR-570-86, Du Pont Canada, Inc., Mis-
Lett. ŽAmst.. 21:197]292. sissauga, Ontario.
DaSilva, E. J., L. E. Henricksson, and E. Henriksson. 1975. Du Pont. 1988b. Metabolism of 14 C-Linuron by Corn Plants.
Effect of pesticides on blue]green algae and nitrogen-fixa- AMR-642-86, Du Pont Canada Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
tion. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 3:193]204. Du Pont. 1988c. Metabolism of 14 C-Linuron by Potato Plants.
Di Muccio, A., I. Camoni, and R. Dommarco. 1984. 3,39,4,49- Laboratory Project AMR-559-86. Du Pont Canada, Inc.,
Tetrachloroazobenzene and 3,39,4,49-tetrachloroazoben- Mississauga, Ontario.
zene in technical grade herbicides: Propanil, diuron, lin- Du Pont. 1988d. Dermal Sensitization Study With INZ-326-
uron and neburon. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 8:511]515. 118 in Guinea Pigs. HLR 152-87. Du Pont Canada, Inc.,
Du Pont. 1962. Linuron, Livestock Feeding Studies, Milk and Mississauga, Ontario.
Meat. Du Pont Canada, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario. Du Pont. 1990. Material Safety Data Sheet: Lorox DF Herbi-
Du Pont. 1973. Acute Toxicity of H-7952, MR-581 to Bluegill cide. DuPont Canada, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
Ž Lepomis macrochirus. and Rainbow Trout Ž Salmo gaird- Du Pont. 1991. Lorox W DF T M Herbicide Specimen Label.
neri .. INZ-326. Du Pont Canada, Inc., Mississauga, On- Agricultural Products, Du Pont Canada, Inc., Mississauga,
tario. Ontario.
38 CAUX ET AL.
El-Dib, M. A., and O. A. Aly. 1976a. Persistence of some uron, metoxuron and trifluralin from air. J. Chromatogr.
phenylamide pesticides in the aquatic environment. I. Hy- 387:420]427.
drolysis. Water Res. 10:1047]1050. Gustafson, D. I. 1989. Groundwater ubiquity score: A simple
El-Dib, M. A., and O. A. Aly. 1976b. Persistence of some method for assessing pesticide leachability. Environ. Toxi-
phenylamide pesticides in the aquatic environment. II. col. Chem. 8:339]357.
Adsorption on clay minerals. Water Res. 10:1051]1053. Hance, R. J., and C. E. McKone. 1972. Effect of concentra-
El-Dib, M. A., and O. A. Aly. 1976c. Persistence of some tion on the decomposition rates in soil of atrazine, linuron
phenylamide pesticides in the aquatic environment. III. and picloram. Pestic. Sci. 2:31]34.
Biological degradation. Water Res. 10:1055]1059. Hashimoto, S., S. Shneider, and M. Morita. 1993. Levels of
Elliott, B. R., J. M. Lumb, T. G. Reeves, and T. E. Telford. 3,39,4,49-tetrachoroazobenzene in herbicides and bulk
1975. Yield losses in weed-free wheat and barley due to reagents. Chemosphere 26:2161]2165.
post-emergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 15:107]111. Hassoun, E. A., and A. T. Arif. 1988. Effect of D,L-a-di-
Fernandez-Pascual, M., J. M. Pozuelo, M. T. Serra, and M. R. fluromethyl orthinine on cleft palate induced by the TCDD
De Felipe. 1988. Effects of cyanazine and linuron on congener 3,39,4,49-tetrachloroazoxybenzene in the fetuses
chloroplast development, nodule activity and protein meta- of mice. Toxicology 51:77]85.
bolism in Lupinus albus L. J. Plant Physiol. 133:288]294. Hassoun, E. A., R. D’Argy, L. Dencker, and G. Sundstrom.
Francis, B. M., and R. L. Metcalf. 1981. Screening of Pesti- 1984. Teratological studies on the TCDD congener
cides for Potential Adverse Environmental Effects in Illi- 3,39,4,49-tetrachloroazoxybenzene in sensitive and nonsen-
nois. Institute for Environmental Studies, University of sitive mouse strains. Evidence for direct effect on embry-
Illinois, Urbana, IL. onic tissues. Arch. Toxicol. 55:20]26.
Francis, B. M., R. L. Lampman, and R. L. Metcalf. 1985. Health and Welfare Canada. 1984. Guidelines for Canadian
Model ecosystem studies of the environmental fate of five Recreational Water Quality. Federal]Provincial Working
herbicides used in conservation tillage. Arch. Environ. Group on Recreational Water Quality, Federal]Provincial
Contam. Toxicol. 14:693]704. Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational
Health, Ministry of National Health and Welfare, Supply
Frank, R., B. S. Clegg, B. D. Ripley, and H. E. Braun. 1987a.
and Services Canada, Ottawa.
Investigations of pesticide contaminations in rural wells,
1979]1984, Ontario, Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. Tox- Health and Welfare Canada. 1993. Guidelines for Canadian
icol. 16:9]22. Drinking Water Quality Ž5th ed... Federal]Provincial Sub-
committee on Drinking Water Quality, Federal]Provincial
Frank, R., B. D. Ripley, H. E. Braun, B. S. Clegg, R. Johnson,
Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational
and T. J. O’Neill. 1987b. Survey of farm wells for pesticides
Health, Ministry of National Health and Welfare, Supply
residues, Southern Ontario, Canada, 1981]1982, 1984.
and Services Canada, Ottawa.
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:1]8.
Heinonen-Tanski, H. 1989. The degradation of linuron in
Fryer, J. D., and K. Kirkland. 1970. Field experiments to
sandy soil. J. Agric. Sci. Finl. 61:39]44.
investigate long-term effects of repeated applications of
MCPA, tri-allate, simazine and linuron: report after 6 Heinonen-Tanski, H., H. Siltanen, S. Kilpi, P. Simojoki,
years. Weed Res. 10:133]158. C. Rosenberg, and S. Makinen. 1986. The effect of the
annual use of some pesticides on soil microorganisms pesti-
Gaskill, A., Jr., and R.K.M. Jayanty. 1981. A quality assur- cide residues in soil and carrot Daucus carota yields. Pes-
ance program for determination of herbicides in estuarine tic. Sci. 17:135]142.
waters. Environ. Sci. Health B 16:453]463.
Hill, E. F., and M. B. Camardese. 1986. Lethal Dietary
Geyer, W. A., and C. E. Long. 1991. Tolerance of selected Toxicities of Environmental Contaminants and Pesticides
tree seed to combinations of preemergent herbicides. J. to Coturnix. Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 2, Fish
Environ. Hortic. 9:44]46. and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Giroux, I. 1994. Contamination de l’Eau Souterraine par les Washington, DC.
´
Pesticides et les Nitrates dans les Regions de Culture de Hill, R. H., Jr., Z. J. Rollen, R. D. Kimbrough, D. F. Groce,
´
Pommes de Terre Ž Preliminaire . . Direction des
and L. L. Needham. 1981. Tetrachloroazobenzene in 3,4-
´
Écosystemes ´ de l’Environnement et
Aquatiques, Ministere dichloroaniline and its herbicidal derivatives: Propanil, di-
de la Faune. uron, linuron and neburon. Archiv. Environ. Health
Glad, G., H. Nilsson, T. Popoff, O. Theander, and N. T. L. 36:11]14.
Torstensson. 1980. Performance of linuron in four Swedish Hill, G. D., J. W. McGahen, H. M. Baker, D. W. Finnerty,
soil types. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 10:133]137. and C. W. Bingeman. 1985. The fate of substituted urea
Grover, R. 1975. Adsorption and desorption of urea herbi- herbicides in agricultural soil. Agron. J. 47:93]194.
cides on soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 55:127]135. Hilton, W. W., and N. Nomura. 1964. Phytotoxicity of herbi-
´ A., and B. Kolmodin-Hedman. 1987. Sampling and
Gudehn, cides as measured by root absorption. Weed Res.
determination of fenitrothion, dimethoate, mevinphos, lin- 4:216]222.
Hodge, H. C., W. L. Downs, D. W. Smith, and E. A. Maynard. Health and Environmental Protection, Bilthoven, The
1968. Oral toxicity of linuron Ž3,-Ž3,4-dichlorophenyl.-1- Netherlands.
methoxy-1-methylurea. in rats and dogs. Food Cosmet. Luchtefeld, R. G. 1987. Multiresidue method for determining
Toxicol. 6:171]183. substituted urea herbicides in foods by liquid chromatogra-
Hogue, E. J. 1970. Molecular structure and herbicidal activity phy. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 70:740]745.
of some substituted ureas. Weed Sci. 18:580]582. Ludwig, J. W. 1973a. The use of a low dose of atrazine alone
Hogue, E. J. 1976. Effects of soil surface drying on linuron and in mixtures with other herbicides in the maize crop.
activity in organic soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 56:175]180. Weed Res. 13:12]18.
Hogue, E. J., and G. F. Warren. 1968. Selectivity of linuron Ludwig, J.W. 1973b. Effects of herbicides on the productivity
on tomato and parsnip. Weed Sci. 16:51]54. of fodder maize with special reference to pre-emergence
applications of 2,4-D-amine. Weed Res. 13:1]11.
Johnson, B. J. 1971. Response of weeds and soybeans to
vernolate and other herbicides. Weed Sci. 19:372]377. Lysak, A., and J. Marcinek. 1972. Multiple toxic effect of
simultaneous action of some chemical substances on fish.
Johnson, B.J. 1972. Effects of herbicides applied preplant or Rocz. Nauk Roln. Ser. H Rybactivo 94:53]63. Cited in U.S.
preemergence on weeds and sunflowers. Crop Sci. 12: Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
650]653.
Marriage, P. B., and W. J. Saidak. 1974. Control of barnyard
Kaplan, A. M., J. W. McLack, and C. L. Hall. 1980. Long-Term grass and yellow foxtail by herbicides in relation to the
Feeding Study in Rats with 3Ž3,4-dichlorophenyl.-1- sucrose content of the seedling leaves. Weed Res. 14:
methoxy-1-methylurea INZ-326; Lorox W Linuron. Report 115]118.
100-80, Haskell Laboratory. Submitted by E. I. du Pont de Martin, H., and C. R. Worthing. 1977. Pesticide Manual:
Nemours& Co., Inc., Wilmington, DE ŽMD-00029680, un- Basic Information on the Chemicals Used as Active Com-
published.. Cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ponents of Pesticides. British Crop Protection Council,
1984b. Croydon, UK.
Kempson-Jones G. F., and R. J. Hance. 1979. Kinetics of Mattern, G. C., G. M. Singer, J. Louis, M. Robson, and J. D.
linuron and metribuzin degradation in soil. Pestic. Sci. Rosen. 1989. Pesticides and industrial chemical residues.
10:449]454. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 72:970]974.
Kenaga, E. E. 1980. Predicted bioconcentration factors and Mattern, G. C., C.-H. Liu, J. B. Louis, and J. D. Rosen. 1991.
soil sorption coefficients of pesticides and other chemicals. GCrMS and LCrMS determination of 20 pesticides for
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 4:26]38. which dietary oncogenic risk has been estimated. J. Agric.
Khera, K. S., C. Whalen, and G. Trivett. 1978. Teratogenicity Food Chem. 39:700]704.
studies on linuron, malathion, and methoxychlor in rats. Mayer, F. L., Jr., and M. R. Ellersieck. 1986. Manual of
Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 45:435]444. Acute Toxicity: Interpretation and Data Base for 410
Kidd, H., and D. R. James Žeds... 1991. The Agrochemicals Chemicals and 66 Species of Freshwater Animals. Re-
Handbook Ž3rd ed.. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cam- source Publication 160, U.S. Fish and Wildife Service,
bridge, England. Washington, DC.
Kratky, B. A., and G. F. Warren. 1971. The use of three McEwen, F. L., and G. R. Stephenson. 1979. The Use and
Significance of Pesticides in the Environment. John Wiley
simple, rapid bioassays on forty-two herbicides. Weed Res.
&Sons, Toronto.
11:257]262.
McKone, C. E. 1969. The determination of some substituted
Kundra, H. C., and H. S. Gill. 1990. Comparative efficacy and
urea herbicide residues in soil by electron-capture gas
selectivity of herbicides for weed control in field pea Ž Pisum
chromatography. J. Chromatogr. 44:60]66.
sati¨ um L... J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univ. 27:207]212.
McRae, B. 1991. Backgrounder: The Characterization and
Kuratle, H., and E. M. Rahn. 1968. Weed control in carrots Identification of Potentially Leachable Pesticides and Ar-
with linuron and prometryne. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. eas Vulnerable to Groundwater Contamination by Pesti-
92:465]472. cides in Canada. Report 91-01, Pesticides Directorate,
Lakota, S., A. Raszka, J. Roszkowski, S. Hlond, F. Kozlowski, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.
and J. Stefan. 1977. Badania nad toksycznoscia diuronu, Means, J. C., and R. Wijayaratne. 1982. Role of natural
linuronu, monolinuronu oraz monuronu dla narybku karpia colloids in the transport of hydrophobic pollutants. Science
w tescie ostrym. Med. Weter. 34:20]22. Cited in U.S. 215:968]970.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
Merck. 1993. Merck Index. An Encyclopedia of Chemicals,
Lehman, A. J. 1954. Assoc. Food Drug Off. Q. Bull. 10:66. Drugs, and Biologicals. Ž10th ed... Merck, Rahway, NJ.
Linders J. B. H. J., R. Luttik, J. M. Knoop, and D. van de Miliadis G. E., P. A. Siskis, and G. S. Vasilikiotis. 1990.
Meent. 1990. Assessment of the Behavior of Pesticides in Simplified cleanup and liquid chromatographic ultraviolet
Connection with Exposure of Water Organisms Žin Dutch.. determination of linuron and three metabolites in pota-
RIVM Report 678611002, National Institute of Public toes. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 73:435]437.
40 CAUX ET AL.
Miller, J. H., P. E. Keeley, R. J. Thullen, and C. H. Carter. Paul, Y., M. S. Saimbhi, B. N. Sharma, and K. Verma. 1974.
1978. Persistence and movement of ten herbicides in soil. Influence of some herbicides on the chemical composition
Weed Sci. 26:20]27. of potato tubers. J. Agric. Sci. 44:800]803.
Moxley, J. 1989. Survey of pesticide use in Ontario, 1988: Prescott, L. M., M. K. Kubovec, and D. Tryggestad. 1977. The
Estimates of pesticides used on field crops, fruits and effects of pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and metals
vegetables. Economics Information Report 89-08, Ontario on the growth and reproduction of Acanthamoeba castel-
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Toronto. lanii. Bull. Enviro. Contam. Toxicol. 18:29]34.
Mugnier, J. 1988. Behaviour of herbicides in dicotyledonous Pyne, W. J., S. S. Szabo, and R. E. Holm. 1974. Synthesis and
roots transformed by Agrobacterium rhizogenes. I. Selectiv- herbicidal activity of pyrrolidinecarboxanilides. J. Agric.
ity. J. Exp. Bot. 39:1045]1056. Food 22:921]926.
Muschinek, G. Y., I. Garab, L. A. Mustardy,´ and A. Faludi- Reeves, T. G., and J. M. Lumb. 1972. Selective chemical
´
Daniel. 1979. The mechanism of linuron phytotoxicity in control of capeweed in wheat and oats. Aust. J. Exp. Agric.
maize. Weed Res. 19:101]107. Anim. Husb. 12:60]64.
Mynett, M., and M. Jagusz. 1990. Effect of herbicides on
Richards, R. P., J. W. Kramer, D. B. Baker, and K. A.
gladiolus plants cultivated from corms and cormels. Acta
Krieger. 1987. Pesticides in rainwater in the northeastern
Hortic. 266:557]560.
United States. Nature 327:129]131.
Nashed, R. B., and R. D. Ilnicki. 1970. Absorption, distribu-
Sandhu, P. S., K. K. Dhingra, S. C. Bhandari, and R. P.
tion and metabolism of linuron in corn, soybean and crab-
Gupta. 1991. Effect of hand-hoeing and application of
grass. Weed Sci. 18:25]28.
herbicides on nodulation, nodule activity and grain yield of
Nilsson, H. 1988. Phytotoxic persistence of a herbicide in soil
Lens culinaris. Med. Plant Soil 135:293]296.
in relation to its half-life. In Weeds and Weed Control,
29th Swedish Weed Conference, Vol. 1. Department of Schoket, B., and I. Vincze. 1986. Induction of rat hepatic
Plant Husbandry and Research Information Centre, Upp- microsomal epoxide hydrolase by substituted urea herbi-
sala, Sweden. cides. Acta Pharmacol. Toxicol. 58:156]158.
Nishiuchi, Y. 1974. Control effect of pesticide to duckweed. Schrankel, K. R., B. L. Kreamer, and M. T. S. Hsia. 1982.
Bull. Agric. Chem. Insp. Stn. ŽTokyo. 14:69]72. Embryotoxicity of 3,394,49-tetrachloroazobenzene and
Noll, M., and U. Bauer. 1974. Phormidium autumnale as 3,39,4,49-tetrachloroazoxybenzene in the chick embryo.
Indicator Organism for Algicidal Substances in Water. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11:195]202.
OPP Registration Standard, U.S. Environmental Protec- Seiler, J. P. 1978. Herbicidal phenylalkylureas as possible
tion Agency, Washington, DC. Cited in U.S. Environmen- mutagens: mutagenicity tests with some urea herbicides.
tal Protection Agency, 1990. Mutat. Res. 58:353]359.
O’Brien, M. C., and G. N. Prendeville. 1979. Effect of herbi- Senin, N. N., Yu. S. Filippov, N. F. Tolikina, G. A. Smol’ya-
cides on cell membrane permeability in Lemna minor. ninov, S. A. Volkov, and V. S. Kukushkin. 1986. Chromato-
Weed Res. 19:331]334. graphic determination of some trace organic impurities in
Occupational Health Services. 1991. Material Safety Data natural and waste waters with preliminary adsorption trap-
Sheet. Occupational Health Services, Inc., New York. ping. J. Chromatogr. 364:315]321.
O’Donovan, J. T., and G. N. Prendeville. 1975. Shoot zone Shaw, D. R., and G. E. Coats. 1988. Herbicides and cultiva-
uptake of soil-applied herbicides in some legume species. tion for sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia control in soybeans
Weed Sci. 15:413]417. Glycine max. Weed Technol. 2:187]190.
O’Neill, H. J., and H. S. Bailey. 1987. 1986 New Brunswick Sinha, N. C. and R. P. Singh. 1987. Influence of linuron on
Pesticide Survey: A Survey of Tree Streams Draining Agri- physiological activity and seed yield on forage oat. Indian J.
cultural Areas. Report IrL-AR-WQB-87-132, Water Qual- Plant Physiol. 30:226]271.
ity Branch, Inland Waters and Lands Directorate, Atlantic Smith, A. E. 1982. Herbicides and the soil environment in
Region, Environment Canada, Moncton, New Brunswick. Canada. Can. J. Soil Sci. 62:433]460.
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1990. Guide to
Smith, A. E and G. S. Emmond. 1975. Persistence of linuron
Weed Control. OMAF publication 75, Ontario Ministry of
in Saskatchewan soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 55:145]148.
Agriculture and Food, Toronto.
Stephenson, R. R., and D. F. Kane. 1984. Persistence and
Ontario Pesticides Advisory Committee. 1990. Dichloroani-
effects of chemicals in small enclosures in ponds. Arch.
line Based Herbicides: Their Contaminants, Toxicology
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13:313]326.
and Carcinogenic Potential. A Review of the Scientific
Literature. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, Stoller, E. W., E. J. Weber, and L. M. Wax. 1973. The effects
Toronto. of herbicides on soybean seed constituents. J. Environ.
´ de
Paradis, D., P. J. Bernier, and P. Levallois. 1991. Qualite Qual. 2:241]244.
´
l’eau souterrain dans la MRC de Portneuf. Departement Sundstrom, G., B. Jansson, and L. Renberg. 1978. Determina-
de Sante ´ Communautaire du Centre Hospitalier de l’Uni- tion of the toxic impurities 3,3;,4,49-tetrachloroazoxyben-
versite´ Laval, Ministere
´ de l’Environnement, Ministere ´ de zene in commercial diuron, linuron, and 3,4-dichloroaniline
ˆ
l’Agriculture des Pecheries et l’Alimentation, Quebec City. samples. Chemosphere 7:973]979.
Szeto, S. Y., and P. M. Price. 1991. Persistence of pesticide Walker, A. 1987. Evaluation of a simulation model for predic-
residues in mineral and organic soils in the Fraser Valley tion of herbicide movement and persistence in soil. Weed
of British Columbia. J. Agric. Food Chem. 39:1679]1684. Res. 27:143]152.
Tanaka, F. S., B. L. Hoffer, and R. G. Wien. 1985. Detection Walker, A., and K. T. Schmidt. 1974. Effects of concentration
of halogenated biphenyls from sunlight photolysis of chlori- and time of exposure on the phytotoxicity of linuron. J.
nated herbicides in aqueous solution. Pestic. Sci. 16: Exp. Bot. 25:514]520.
265]270.
Walker, A., and R. L. Zimdahl. 1981. Simulation of the
Torstensson, L. 1977. Microbial degradation of linuron. In persistence of atrazine, linuron and metolachlor in soil at
Weeds and Weed Control. 1. Reports of the 18th Swedish different sites in the USA. Weed Res. 21:255]265.
Weed Conference, pp. I6]I10. Agricultural College of Swe-
Wall, D. A., and G. H. Friesen. 1986. The effect of herbicides
den Uppsala, Sweden.
and weeds on the yield and composition of dill Anethum
¨ 1990. Persistence of herbi-
Torstensson, L., and J. Stenstrom.
Gra¨ eolens oil. Crop Prot. 5:137]142.
cides in forest nursery soils. Scand. J. For. Res. 5:457]469.
Wauchope, R. D., and R. S. Myers. 1985. Adsorption]
¨
Tscheu-Schluter, M., and W. Winter. 1985. Zur Aquatoxizitat ¨ desorption kinetics of atrazine and linuron in freshwater]
¨
ausgewahlter Harnstoffherbizide und zu ihrer Kategori-
sediment aqueous slurries. J. Environ. Qual. 14:132]136.
sierung als Wasserschadstoffe. Acta Hydrochim. Hydro-
biol. 13:489]497. Weed Science Society of America. 1989. Herbicide Hand-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a. Pesticide fact book. Weed Science Society of America, Champaigne, IL.
sheet: Linuron. In Pesticide Fact Handbook, pp. 484]490. DF T M herbicide specimen label. Agricultural Products, Du
Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, NJ. Pont Canada Inc., Mississauga, Ontario.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Guidance for Wood, C., R. Rickard, and C. Hall. 1982. Long-Term Feeding
the Reregistration of Pesticide Products Containing Lin- Study with ŽLorox W ; Linuron; INZ-326. in Mice. Report
uron as the Active Ingredient. PB 85-149011, EPA 758-82, Haskell Laboratory. Submitted by E. I. duPont de
540rRS-84-005, Office of Pesticide Program, U.S. Environ- Nemours & Co. Inc., Wilmington, DE. ŽMD-0012419, un-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. published.. Cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Linuron: Con- 1984b.
clusion of the special review. Federal Register 54:4072. Worobey, B. L., and J. B. Shields. 1991. Preliminary studies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Aquatic Toxic- on the bioavailability and disposition of bioincurred carrot
ity Information Retrieval Database ŽAQUIRE., Environ- residues of w 14 Cx linuron and w 14 Cx 3,4-dichloroaniline in
mental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protec- rats. Food Addit. Contam. 8:193]200.
tion Agency, Duluth, MN. Worthing, C. R., and C. D. Walker Žeds... 1987. The Pesticide
Venkataraman, G. S., and B. Rajyalakshmi. 1972. Relative Manual: A World Compendium Ž8th ed... British Crop
tolerance of nitrogen-fixing blue]green algae to pesticides. Protection Council, The Lavenham Press Ltd., Lavenham,
Indian J. Agric. Sci. 42:119]121. UK.

Environmental Toxicology and Water Quality - 1998 - Caux

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Toxicology and Water Quality - 1998 - Caux

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

<} }<

Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for Linuron

Received 25 March 1996; revised 10 December 1996; accepted 17 February 1997

1. USES AND PRODUCTION stracts Service ŽCAS. registry number is 41205-21-4.

Q 1998 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 1053-4725 / 98 / 010001-41

TABLE I. Pesticide products containing linuron registered for use in Canadaa

Product Name Active Ingredient Formulation Registrant

Chart I. Structures of compounds related to inuron.

TABLE II. Recommended application rates of linuron for cropsa

uron in the soil shoot zone of the first internode did

1.2. Physical and Chemical Properties

TABLE III. Physical and chemical properties of linuron

Property Value Reference

Physical state Solid crystal U.S. EPA Ž1984a.

Water NR Linuron NA HPLCrUVD Ž254 nm. 15 m g Ly1 NR Senin et al. Ž1986.

Soils bated with radiolabelled linuron Žat 5 mg Ly1 . for 52

Test Duration Temperature Dissolved Hardness Data

Rainbow trout 2 years old R, U 48 LC 100 s 50 NR 16]21.5 8.4 NR NR 2 Lysak and

TABLE VI. Toxicity of linuron to freshwater invertebrates a

Test Temperature Dissolved Hardness Data

The same test conditions were applied to unspecified

bition in Lemna minor exposed to linuron in 120 mL of

flask was inoculated with six fronds and at the end of

5 d, the number of fronds was counted and the lowest-

observed-effect level ŽLOEL. was determined to be

not measured. Because these experiments were static

Test type: S, static; U, unmeasured concentration.

they were considered secondary data.

Data type: 2, secondary; UN, unacceptable.

Cullimore Ž1975. examined the toxicity of linuron to

several species of green algae ŽChlorophyceae. in liquid

NR denotes not reported.

to pH 7.0 and sterilized before linuron Žanalytical grade.

in sterile aqueous solution was added to give final

concentrations of 0.01, 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5,

paper discs, were placed on the agar surface or liquid

medium. Incubation was at 22.58C under continuous

illumination; exposure durations were 5, 10, 20, and 30

d. Growth was expressed as a function of absorbance

on each disc at 600 nm using a reflectance attachment

TABLE VIII. Toxicity of linuron to freshwater algae a

Chlorella 0.02]0.06 optical S, U 18]36 h I 50 s 1 NR NR 3% CO 2 NR Linuron 2 Kratky and

Anabaena sp. NR S, U 15 d 2000 NR 30 NR NR NR UN Venkataraman and

Anabaena sp. NR S, U 15 d 5 NR 30 NR NR NR UN Venkataraman and

TABLE VIII. ( Continued )

Nostoc sp. NR S, U 15 d 500 NR 30 NR NR Linuron 2 Venkataraman and

TABLE IX. Toxicity of linuron to nontarget plantsa

Application Rate Data

Cereals, Tame Hays, and Pastures

TABLE IX. ( Continued )

Application Rate Data

Soybean Preemergence 1.12 No effect on seed yield, NR 2 Johnson Ž1971.

TABLE IX. ( Continued )

Application Rate Data

Carrot Preemergence NR I 50 s 6.7 Wettable powder 2 Hogue Ž1970.

NOEAR LOEAR NOEC LOEC AAR Žkg hay1 . or SMATC

Cereals, Tame Hays, and Pastures

Sorghum } } 0.244b 1.1c } 51.8

Lentils 0.5 0.75 } } 0.0612 5.1

TABLE XI. Acute toxicity of linuron to mammalsa

TABLE XII. Dermal and ocular toxicity of linuron to mammalsa

TABLE XIII. Chronic toxicity of linuron to mammalsa

Life Route of Dose Data

Ždecreased body weight.