Degradation of the herbicide acetochlor in the unsaturated zone was quantified using two unique in situ field techniques. The DT50 values generated at two different sites on surface soil and two subsoil depths using these techniques were compared with values generated under aerobic laboratory-incubation conditions (typically 20 degrees C, 40% maximum water holding capacity). Additionally, laboratory-degradation data were generated on surface and subsoils from four other sites. All subsoils were treated with acetochlor at 5% of the surface soil application rate. Acetochlor degradation in both field- and laboratory-incubated subsoils was rapid and often exceeded surface soil rates. Field and laboratory DT50 values from all sites ranged from 2 to 88 days in subsoil, compared with a range of 1 to 18 days in surface soils. The DT50 results from in situ field techniques were comparable with those generated from laboratory incubations in the same soils, confirming the validity of performing laboratory-based degradation studies to determine pesticide DT50 values in subsoils. Microbiological characterisation of selected soils revealed that subsoils had a viable and active population, although direct counts of bacteria were consistently lower in subsoil (10(8)-10(9) g-1 dry soil) compared with surface soils (10(10) g-1 dry soil). The leaching models used to perform groundwater risk assessments (e.g. PELMO, PESTLA, MACRO-DB, PRZM and the FOCUS EU leaching scenarios) have provision for inclusion of subsoil degradation rates. However, conservative default estimates are typically used, as no other alternative is available. Results presented here show that these default values may significantly underestimate true subsoil degradation contributions, and therefore not accurately predict pesticide concentrations in groundwater. The degradation data generated for acetochlor were applied to the mathematical model PELMO to demonstrate the importance of the inclusion of subsoil degradation data in groundwater risk assessment models and thereby in the registration of pesticides in Europe.

The Acetochlor Registration Partnership conducted a prospective ground water (PGW) monitoring program to investigate acetochlor [2-chloro-N-(ethoxymethyl)-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-acetamide] transport to ground water at eight sites. The distribution of soil textures among these sites was weighted toward coarser soil types, while also including finer-textured soils that dominate most corn (Zea mays L.)-growing areas of the United States. Each site consisted of a 1.2-ha test plot adjacent to a 0.2-ha control plot. Suction lysimeters and monitoring wells were installed at multiple depths within each test and control plot to sample soil-pore water and near-surface ground water. Irrigation was applied to each site during the growing season to ensure water input of 110 to 200% of average historical rainfall. Acetochlor dissipated rapidly from surface soils at all sites with a DT(50) (time for 50% of the initial residues to dissipate) of only 3 to 9 d, but leaching was not an important loss mechanism, with only 0.25% of the 15,312 soil-pore water and ground water samples analyzed containing parent acetochlor at or above 0.05 microg L(-1). However, quantifiable residues of a soil degradation product, acetochlor ethanesulfonic acid, were more common, with approximately 16% of water samples containing concentrations at or above 1.0 microg L(-1). A second soil degradation product, acetochlor oxanilic acid, was present at concentrations at or above 1.0 microg L(-1) in only 0.15% of water samples analyzed. The acetochlor PGW program demonstrated that acetochlor lacks the potential to leach to ground water at detectable concentrations, and when applied in accordance with label restrictions, is unlikely to move to ground water at concentrations hazardous to human health.

No abstract