Measurement and Assessment of Field Emission Reductions from Soil

Fumigation

Suduan Gao,* Ruijun Qin, Brad Hanson,Dong Wang, Greg Brown, James Gerik

2009 MBAO, Nov. 10-13, San Diego, CA

This project supports emission monitoring for three PAW projects including industry sectors:

Perennial nursery (PI: Brad Hanson)Grapevine orchards (PI: Dong Wang)Almond/stone fruits (PI: Greg Brown)

Objective:To determine the effects of fumigation methods that are applicable for different commodities and various surface sealing treatments on fumigant emission reductions.

Fumigants:1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) and chloropicrin (CP).

• Application Methods:– Deep injection– Drip vs. shank– Local area treatment (strip shank; spot drip)

• Surface Treatment: – Plastic tarp (HDPE, VIF, SIF, TIF)– Irrigation (water seals; pre-irrigation)– Organic amendment (composted manure,

green waste)– Chemical Treatment ( thiosulfate)

Emission Reduction Methods

Dynamic chambers

TriCal

• One field trial each year for each industry sector in 2007 and 2008.

• Emission monitoring using dynamic flow-through flux chambers that give continuous measurements.

• Additional measurements:

• Soil-gas concentration/distribution data.

• Soil sample for residual fumigants in the end.

• Soil moisture and temperature.

Trials and Measurements

Emission Flux Cumulative Emission Loss

Data Collection for Emissions

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336Time (h)

Flux

(ug/

m2 /s

)

cis 1,3-Dtrans 1,3-D

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336Time (h)

Cum

ulat

ive

loss

of 1

,3-D

(% o

f app

lied)

total 1,3-D

Trial Application methods

Treatment 2007 1,3-D emission loss (% of applied)

2008 1,3-D emission loss (% of applied)

Perennial nurseries:

Standard Shank (Telone II)

Bare soilHDPE HDPE gluing stripsVIFVIF gluing stripsWater seals

84 (28)38 (15)

1 (3)

42 (21)22 (6)24 (14)1 (1)2 (2)

34 (7)

Buessing Shank (Telone II)

Bare soilHDPEVIFWater seals

86 (28)36 (5) 5 (3)

65 (12)

50 (22)

Vineyard Standard shank (Telone C35)

Bare soilVIF

89 (38)19 (14)

69 (-) 3 (0)

Subsurface drip (InLine)

Bare soilVIF

50 (41)8 (4)

29 (12)2 (1)

Almond/stonefruit

Standard shank (Telone C35)

Bare soil 77 (34) 92 (15)

Spot-drip (InLine) Cover cropWithout cover crop

23 (31)2 (3)

6 (7)18 (13)

Summary of cumulative emission loss

Standard shank (Telone II):• bare soil (control)• Water treatments• High OM amendment (49 Mg ha-1)• HDPE tarp (continuing and glue joint)• VIF tarp (continuing and glue joint)

2008 Perennial Nursery Trial Treatments: OM amendment

Average

flux

VIF

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336Time (h)

1,3-

D e

mis

sion

flux

(u

g/m

2/s)

1,3-

D e

mis

sion

flux

(µ

g m

-2s-

1 )

Water seals

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336

1,3-

D e

mis

sion

flux

(u

g/m

2/s)

1,3-

D e

mis

sion

flux

(µ

g m

-2s-

1 )

Bare soil - control

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336

1,3-

D e

mis

sion

flux

(u

g/m

2/s)

1,3-

D e

mis

sion

flux

(µ

g m

-2s-

1 )

Manure 20 tons/ac

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336

HDPE

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336Time (h)

b. HDP E - glue joints

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336

d. VIF - glue joints

0

5

10

15

20

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336

Time (h)

c. VIF - continuous sheet

0

5

10

15

20

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336

Time (h)

1,3-

D e

mis

sion

flux

(µ

g/m

^2/s

)1,

3-D

em

issi

on fl

ux

(µg

m-2

s-1 )

a. HDPE - continous sheet

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336

1,3-

D e

mis

sion

flux

(µ

g/m

^2/s

)1,

3-D

em

issi

on fl

ux

(µg

m-2

s-1 )

Concerns on VIF tarp performance in field:

stretching and gluing

Table 1. Cumulative emission loss of 1,3-dichloropropene from 2008 field trial

Treatment† Emission loss (% of applied)

Control 42.4 (±17.0) Manure at 49.4 Mg ha-1

50.5 (±10)Water seals 33.6 (±6.8)HDPE (continuous sheet)HDPE (glue joints)

21.6 (±6.5)23.9 (±15.1)

VIF (continuous sheet)VIF (glue joint)

1.4 (±1.0) 1.9 (±2.4)

Fumigant concentration under tarp

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

10/3 10/5 10/7 10/9 10/11 10/13Date

1,3-

D a

ir co

ncen

tratio

n un

der t

arp

(µ

g cm

-3)

HDPE - Std shank

HDPE - Buessing shank

VIF - Std shank

VIF - Buessing shank

Gaseous 1,3-dichloropropnene in soil profile

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40

d. Water seals Application rate: 391 kg ha-1

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40

b. HDPE Application rate: 408 kg ha-1

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40

24 h48 h120 h216 h336 h

a. Control Application rate: 424 kg ha-1

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20

c. VIF Application rate: 236 kg ha-1

Chamber 4 - Standard PE

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168Time (h)

Flux

(µg

m-2

s-1

)

1,3-D

Chloropic rin

Tarp-cu tt ing

Chamber 5 - VIF (VaporSafeTM)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168Time (h)

Flux

(µg

m-2

s-1)

1,3-Dchloropicr in

Tarp-cutting

Cham ber 4 - Standard PE

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168

Time (h)

Cum

ulat

ive

emis

sion

loss

(%

app

lied)

1,3-DChloropic rin Tarp-cutt ing

Chamber 5 VIF- (VaporSafeTM)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168Time (h)

Cum

ulat

ive e

miss

ion

loss

(%

app

lied)

1,3-Dchloropicrin

Tarp-cu tt ing

Emission flux & cumulative emission loss from September 2009 Strawberry Fumigation Trial (Ajwa, Segawa, Sullivan, Gao)

Summary

• Emission reduction by standard PE tarp, post-fumigation water treatments and organic amendment are limited and affected by specific soil and environmental conditions as well as how the treatments are applied:

Water seals: effective on reducing peak flux; not total emission loss; impact on efficacy in surface soils; water availability; low cost

HDPE tarp – appears effective with moist soil and/or low temperature

OM amendment: not always effective in the field

Summary (Continued)

• VIF has been proven to be the most promising technology to minimize emissions and maximize efficacy; can improve buffer zone; has the potential to use lower rates; but with high cost and concerns about surging emissions upon tarp removal.

Summary (Continued)

• Spot-drip applications and strip-shank applications can result in lower emission loss by reducing fumigant-treated areas of a field (10 or 50%). Spot-drip further gave very low emissions as % of total applied (Wang et al. 2009).

Observations:

• Chamber flow rates of 1.25, 2.5 and 5 L/min did not affect emission loss.

• Collars of 6”, 12” under the chambers did not make difference in emission loss.

• A heating unit (hot-bottle) before flow meters was able to eliminate water condensation in both chamber flow and sample flow meters.

• The raised temperature did not affect fumigant stability.

Dynamic flux chamber update: modifications and field tests for accurate emission measurement from bare soil

Cumulative Fumigant Emission Loss from FULL Rate of Telone C35 & BARE Soil, Parlier Fumigation Trial, Oct. - Nov. 2009

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

10/27/09 10/29/09 10/31/09 11/2/09 11/4/09 11/6/09 11/8/09 11/10/09

Acc

umul

ated

Em

issi

on L

oss/

App

lied

Chamber 5

Total Fumigant Emission Flux from FULL Rate of Telone C35 & BARE Soil Parlier Fumigation Trial, Oct. - Nov. 2009

0

20

40

60

80

100

10/27/09 10/29/09 10/31/09 11/2/09 11/4/09 11/6/09 11/8/09 11/10/09

Tota

l Flu

x µg

/(m^2

*sec

)

Chamber 5

Chamber 5 flows from Parlier Fumigation Trial, Oct.- Nov. 2009

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

10/27/09 10/29/09 10/31/09 11/2/09 11/4/09 11/6/09 11/8/09 11/10/09

Sam

ple

Flow

(ml/m

in)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Cha

mbe

r Flo

w (L

/min

)SampleChamber

Most recent update

Funding

• Almond Board of California• Fruit Tree, Nut Tree and Grapevine Improvement

Advisory Board• California Strawberry Commission• USDA-ARS Pacific Area-Wide Pest Management

Program

In-Kind Donation:

TriCal Inc.; Dow AgroSciences

Acknowledgements