<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JWARP</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Water Resource and Protection</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1945-3094</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jwarp.2017.95030</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JWARP-75536</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Half-Life of Glyphosate on the Control of Water Hyacinths in Water Tanks
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Evandro</surname><given-names>L. C. Souza</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Luiz</surname><given-names>L. Foloni</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>José</surname><given-names>T. Filho</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Edivaldo</surname><given-names>D. Velini</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Luis</surname><given-names>M. Siono</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>José</surname><given-names>R. M. Silva</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Plant Breeding an Protection, College of Agricultural Sciences, S&amp;amp;#227o Paulo State University, Botucatu, Brazil</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>School of Agricultural Engineering, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>elcorrea77@hotmail.com(ELCS)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>17</day><month>04</month><year>2017</year></pub-date><volume>09</volume><issue>05</issue><fpage>470</fpage><lpage>481</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>January</day>	<month>31,</month>	<year>2017</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>Accepted:</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>17,</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>April</day>	<month>20,</month>	<year>2017</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  The present study had the purpose to assess the behavior of the herbicide glyphosate in the control of water hyacinths, in a water environment through half-life, in a controlled and closed experimental field, in order to contribute to the analysis of the risk of the environmental impact of the use of this product. Eight fiber-cement tanks with the storage capacity of 250 liters were used under the conditions without water flow and without replacement of water. The experiment was designed in two treatments with four repetitions, the first being colonized by water hyacinths and the second without the presence of the macrophyte. The recommended dose, according to the manufacturer, was 7.0 
  L
  &#183;
  ha
  <sup style="white-space:normal;">-1</sup> or 3402 g
  &#183;ha
  <sup>-1</sup> of equivalent acid. For the application in the tanks, we have used carbon dioxide (CO2) precision equipment, providing a flow rate of 200 L
  &#183;ha
  <sup>-1</sup>. The samples were collected on the day of the application (day zero) and 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 days thereafter (DAP). The method used for determination of residues was by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and mass spectrometry with a mass selective detector. From the mathematical model of charge decay, the half-life of glyphosate in water was estimated to six days for the tanks without water hyacinths and sixteen days for the tanks colonized by macrophytes. The result obtained permits to conclude that the glyphosate in water is quickly degraded in closed water environments and does not leave residues that would prevent its use.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Herbicides</kwd><kwd> &lt;i&gt;Eichhornia crassipes&lt;/i&gt;</kwd><kwd> Residues</kwd><kwd> Environmental Impact</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The chemical method, which advocates the use of specific herbicides to control aquatic plants, has been the most widely used in different places in the world due to low cost and especially the speed, easy of application and control efficiency [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref3">3</xref>] . The world’s most used herbicides to control aquatic macrophytes are: 2,4-D; diquat; endothall, a copper-based compound; fluridone; imazapyr and glyphosate [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref4">4</xref>] . The production of knowledge in this area in Brazil has been small, given the prohibitive legislation in loco studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref5">5</xref>] . The studies developed in the country, reason of that prohibition, have been performed in controlled environments and in closed systems, with results showing herbicide use efficiency in controlling several species of aquatic plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref9">9</xref>] .</p><p>According to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref5">5</xref>] , the chemical control of aquatic plants is restricted to a few herbicides due to restrictions imposed by legislation, to the environmental impact, to the market size for the private sector and to the application of technology. The environmental restrictions are the most important factors because the waterways are used for many purposes, such as a source of water for human and animal consumption, crop irrigation, leisure activities, navigation and hydraulic energy generation.</p><p>Although the different work done to prove efficiency of the use of various active ingredients in the control of aquatic macrophytes, few environmental impact studies have been conducted. Environmental impact studies have been little exploited to date due to the limitation of the use of chemicals in aquatic environments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref10">10</xref>] for the protective intervention of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources). However, much more important than the action of the product in the management of macrophytes is its direct action on integration with the environment in question. Among studies performed, the ones mentioned are those monitoring the effects of the herbicides on the quality of the water and the sediments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref14">14</xref>] and more rarely those that have investigated, besides the water quality parameters, the molecule residues in plants and in the water, in the reservoirs or mesocosms [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref15">15</xref>] .</p><p>Thus, an accurate study of the use of herbicides to control the aquatic macrophytes in closed aquatic environment, from the point of view of environmental impact, may systematize data scientifically treated, and form knowledge to evaluate its behavior within the environment. Therefore, it will contribute in the definition of public policies by regulatory agencies in facing the serious problem represented by the uncontrolled proliferation of macrophytes in water bodies, particularly, by obstruction of the turbines in reservoirs for power generation. This fact has a direct effect on the production cost of electrical energy, which is essential for economic, technological and social development of the country.</p><p>In the present experiment the herbicide glyphosate was chosen because it is registered in several countries for the control of aquatic macrophytes, being one of the main products studied, used in the world and with great potential in the management of aquatic weeds. Thus, it was chosen to study it in a controlled and closed experimental field, in the management of (Eichhorniacrassipes) in reservoirs. The behavior of the product’s half-life was analyzed, aiming to contribute to the risk analysis formulation of environmental impact of the use of this product to control aquatic weeds.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><p>The study was developed in the Experimental Area of the N&#250;cleo de Pesquisas Avan&#231;adasem Matologia (NUPAM) belonging to the Faculdade de Ci&#234;ncias Agron&#244;micas da UNESP (Department of Agronomic Sciences of the University of S&#227;o Paulo), Botucatu (SP) campus, during the months from May to November 2011. The local climate, according to the K&#246;ppen method, is classified as hu- mid mesotherm (Cfa), presents average temperature of the hottest month above 22˚C and small water deficiency between April and August. Eight (08) fiber-ce- ment tanks were used, four for each treatment with a storage capacity of 250 liters, without water flow and without replacement of the evapotranspired water (“worst case”). The water supplying the tanks came from the Companhia de Saneamento B&#225;sico do Estado de S&#227;o Paulo (SABESP) (Sanitation Utility of the State of S&#227;o Paulo). The samples were collected in the lower third of the tanks.</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Treatments</title><p>The treatments used in the experiment were called: 1―tank without water hyacinths and with application of glyphosate; 2―tanks with water hyacinths and with application of glyphosate.</p><p>For the set of conditions of the tanks containing macrophytes, the species analyzed was Eichhorniacrassipes (Mart.) Solms (water hyacinth). The plants were collected from the Tiet&#234; River, Botucatu region (SP) and placed in boxes to provide 90% occupancy of the tank surface.</p><p>The herbicide control was carried out by application of glyphosate in the recommended maximum dose since the recommendations for the study of environmental impact are to look for the worst scenario “worst case”. According to the former registration of the product, the Rodeo, in Brazil, the recommended dose was 7.0 L∙ha<sup>−1</sup> or 3402 g∙ha<sup>−1</sup> of acid equivalent. The surfactant Alterbane was added to the herbicide stock at a concentration of 0.5% (466.6 g∙L<sup>−1</sup>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref16">16</xref>] .</p><p>The tanks were sprayed, using the carbon dioxide precision equipment (back- pack sprayer), provided with plywood bar containing two flat jet nozzles Jacto XR 110.02, operating at a pressure of 2 kgf∙cm<sup>−2</sup> (20 Kpa), providing an even distribution of the glyphosate in the tank and a solution consumption corresponding to 200 L∙ha<sup>−1</sup>. The calibration was performed on site based on the applicator speed in regards to the area worked.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Evaluations</title><p>The values obtained in the control efficiency of water hyacinth were submitted to variance analysis and to Tukey test, considering a 5% level of significance. The evaluations of effectiveness were carried out visually after 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 days after application (DAA), using percentage scale, where 0 (zero) represents no control and 100%, the total plant control [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>The water samples to determine the glyphosate residues were collected on the day of the application (day zero) and on 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 DAA, in the morning, always at the same time, at 11 a.m. The depth of the collection was conducted between 15 - 30 cm below the water level, and the samples were placed in plastic containers of 200 mL and stored in a freezer at −18˚C, in which the residue analyses were subsequently performed.</p><p>The concentrations (mg∙Kg<sup>−1</sup>) of glyphosate and AMPA (main metabolite of glyphosate) residues were determined. For determination of compounds in water, the samples were thawed, stirred, and filtered directly on Millex HV filter (Millipore) 0.45 μm, provided with a 13 mm durapore membrane, and placed in a 9 mm amber-colored vial (Flow Supply), with a capacity of 2 mL, for further quantification by LC-MS/MS.</p><p>The molecular mass and fragments generated from each molecule are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. The fragment used for quantification of each of the compounds was always the first presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>, for each compound. The analytical curves for the compounds were constructed in the concentration ranges described in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>. The linear model used in the equations was quite adequate.</p><p>The method used was by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and mass spectrometer with a mass selective detector, presenting detection limit of compounds at 0.001 mg∙kg<sup>−1</sup> of the glyphosate.</p><p>Before each collection, the volumes of the tanks were measured so that, later, the load (mass) of glyphosate could be calculated in time. The measurement was made with a ruler, considering the relationship between the height/volume of the initial mark of each tank and the height/volume of the mark corresponding to the level of the water at the time of the collection.</p><p>The mathematical model of decay was applied to describe the decrease in the concentration of glyphosate and loads in water and to determine the half-life of the compounds.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Molecular mass and secondary ions of the analyzed compounds</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Compounds</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mass Molecular</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Secundary Ions (fragments)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Glyphosate</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >169.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63,100</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >78,900</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >150,000</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >AMPA</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >169.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62,900</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >78,900</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >80,800</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Analytical curves and concentration ranges for each compound analyzed</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Compounds</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Equation of the line (y = ax + b)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >r<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Linear range (&#181;g∙L<sup>−1</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Glyphosate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = 371x + −349</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9959</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.69 - 600</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AMPA</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = 138x + −316</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9968</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.69 - 600</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>In this experiment two tanks, repetition 1 (No 1) of the treatment plant with glyphosate application and repetition 1 (No 5) without treatment plant application of glyphosate, had to be discarded. The reason was the failure to identify residues in the 1st analysis, immediately after the application, to the tank N˚ 1 and small concentration to the tank N˚ 5; in the following analyses of this tank, no residues were detected. Since the calibration was carried out with water before application, a volume was certainly left in the system, between the bar and the spray nozzles. Moreover, as these tanks were the first to receive the herbicide application and since they were set in sequence in the experimental field, it is easy to understand why no residues were found.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussion</title><p>The data obtained in the present experiment with the use of the herbicide glyphosate, in the evaluated dose, showed a percentage of average control of 91.3%, presenting excellent efficiency in the control of the water hyacinths, agreeing with previous works [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref18">18</xref>] .</p><p>The values of the glyphosate residues (concentrations and mass) and tank volumes found from dates 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 DAA, for both sets of tanks, are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Values of glyphosate residues (concentration and mass) and tank volumes found from dates 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 Days after Application (DAA)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >With water hyacinth and with application of glyphosate</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Without water hyacinth and with application of glyphosate</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Days</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vol. (L)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conc. (mg∙kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mass (mg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vol. (L)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conc. (mg∙kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mass (mg)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >Tank 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0413</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.6730</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5060</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >111.3200</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0096</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.0160</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2410</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.0200</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0089</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8690</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1470</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.3400</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >205</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0039</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0751</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.7710</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >180</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0044</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7920</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >195</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0240</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.6800</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >177</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3186</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >195</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0075</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4625</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >148</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2516</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >157</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0033</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5181</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >Tank 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1500</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.5000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4380</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.3600</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0533</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1930</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2350</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.7000</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0473</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.9330</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2250</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.5000</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >205</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0072</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4760</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >215</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.4300</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >185</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0126</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3310</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1800</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.8000</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >179</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0121</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1659</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >200</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0126</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5200</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >148</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2284</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >182</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0479</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.7178</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >Tank 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1900</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.9000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5670</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >124.7400</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1390</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.1900</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1700</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.4000</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0621</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.0410</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0604</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.2880</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >205</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0359</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3595</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >205</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0253</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.1865</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >178</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0287</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.1086</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >185</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0082</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5170</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >170</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0241</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.0970</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >180</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0060</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0800</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >142</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0096</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3632</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >151</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0054</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8154</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>For those tanks which have not received plants, it can be verified that there was a reduction of loads in 99.5%, 90.9% and 99.3%, in boxes 2, 3 and 4, respectively. As for the tanks colonized by the water hyacinth, the decay in the boxes 2, 3 and 4 represented, respectively, 97.1%, 96.1% and 96.6%.</p><p>Likewise the concentration, the average load of glyphosate found in the tanks was greater, sooner after the application, being four times greater where there was no presence of water hyacinth.</p><p>However, over time, the mass found in the reservoirs without plants matched the one found in reservoirs containing plants. From 32 DAA onward, the loads found in the tanks without the hyacinth were lower compared to the tank containing plants. The results show that from the metabolism of glyphosate and subsequent control effectiveness or death of the plants onward, the process of decomposition of dead plants released the product into the water in the tanks keeping its content, even if low, but higher thanks that received direct application of the product.</p><p>To calculate the AMPA mass in the water in the treatments with and without water hyacinths, the water volumes were used in the tanks in each moment of sample collections and the respective concentrations are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>. In the analysis of AMPA parameter, it was expected to see the same behavior in the mass obtained for the glyphosate. However, as can be seen, the larger masses found in the treatment that received the direct application of the product without the presence of water hyacinth, lasted throughout the study period. This behavior suggests that the metabolism of AMPA through the bioaccumulation pro- cess is superior to glyphosate. It was not possible to compare results of glyphosate and AMPA loads with other studies, since these are lacking in the available literature.</p><p>In order to adjust the data observed of glyphosate residues in water over time, it was used a mathematical model described by Equation (1):</p><disp-formula id="scirp.75536-formula356"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-9403110x2.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where: M<sub>t</sub>―glyphosate mass at moment t; M<sub>0</sub>―glyphosate mass at the initial time considered; k―decay coefficient and t―time.</p><p>Applying the Naperian logarithm in the Equation (1), it is obtained:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.75536-formula357"><label>(2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-9403110x3.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>This equation represents a linear model where the coefficient (K) identifies the mass decay of glyphosate over time. Since three tanks were used in the experiment, the average load was calculated, at times considered of the samples, to determine the average decay value for glyphosate. In order to obtain this value, the logarithm (Ln) was applied to mass values observed (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>) getting the decay value for the tanks without plants of 0.115 day<sup>−1</sup>.</p><p>From the value found in the coefficient of average load decay of glyphosate, average values of glyphosate were simulated using the mathematical model of Equation (1) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). With this model, it was possible to estimate the half-life of glyphosate applied directly to the water, without the presence of water hyacinths. Considering the estimated average load, the half-life was six days.</p><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Logarithm of the observed values of average mass (mg) of glyphosate in the tanks with hyacinth and with application of glyphosate</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-9403110x4.png"/></fig><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Values of AMPA mass (mg) in the water in the treatments, in each tank, in the treatments with and without water hyacinth from dates 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 Days after Application (DAA)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >With water hyacinth and with application of glyphosate</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Without water hyacinth and with application of glyphosate</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Days</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vol. (L)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conc. (mg∙kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mass (mg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vol. (L)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conc. (mg∙kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mass (mg)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >Tank 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0022</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4620</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0173</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.8060</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0203</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4660</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0026</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5460</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0231</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.0820</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >205</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0016</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3280</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0258</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.4180</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >180</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4500</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >195</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0233</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5435</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >177</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >195</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0168</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2760</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >148</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >157</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0070</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0990</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >Tank 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0076</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5960</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0145</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1900</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0042</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8820</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0072</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5840</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0041</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8610</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0080</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7600</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >205</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3690</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >215</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0088</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8920</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >185</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0038</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7030</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0075</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5750</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >179</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0024</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4296</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >200</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0091</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8200</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >148</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2812</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >182</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0109</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9838</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >Tank 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0110</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0207</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5540</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0060</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2600</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0227</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9940</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0060</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2600</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0425</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.3500</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >205</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0043</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8815</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >205</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0295</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.0475</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >178</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0062</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.1036</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >185</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0155</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8675</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >170</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0036</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6120</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >180</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0094</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6920</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >142</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0031</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4402</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >151</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0049</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7399</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><fig id="fig2"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> Observed and simulated values of average mass (mg) of glyphosate in the tanks with water hyacinth. Back symbols are values of average mass. Bars are values of average mass maximum and minimum. Dashed lines are simulated values of average mass</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-9403110x5.png"/></fig><p>Likewise, the simulation was performed for the tanks receiving the colonization of water hyacinth. The value of the coefficient K and the observed and simulated values of the average load are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>, respectively. For the conditions of the colonized tanks by water hyacinth, the decay value was calculated equal to 0.043 day<sup>−1</sup>. From Equation (2), it was estimated the glyphosate half-life in water for the treatment with the macrophyte, resulting value of 16 days.</p><p>The simulated values for the half-life of glyphosate in water, in both situations, are in accordance to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref19">19</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref22">22</xref>] which reports that the average life of the molecule in water can range from 1 to 51 days and to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref23">23</xref>] , which states that, depending on the conditions of the water body, particularly to those linked to the full microbe activity can vary between a few days to two weeks.</p><p>Studies performed in a forest ecosystem [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref24">24</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref25">25</xref>] have shown that glyphosate had quickly dissipated in the lake waters with many suspended sediments, with the half-life ranging from 1.5 and 11.2 days.</p><p>According to FPPD 2012 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref26">26</xref>] , Mackay et al. 2006 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref27">27</xref>] and Gassemini et al. 1981 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref28">28</xref>] , cited by Mercurio et al. 2014 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref29">29</xref>] , the half-life of glyphosate in fresh water was estimated between 28 and 87 days.</p><p>Furthermore, in the study developed by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref30">30</xref>] , which was a river water body (open system), it was observed that the half-life of glyphosate in this environment had varied between 60 and 100 hours.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref31">31</xref>] evaluated the environmental fate of glyphosate in the water-sediment system with focus on its microbial metabolization. The results found demonstrated the key role of sediments in its degradation. Also, Glyphosate was detected below detection limit in the water compartment at forty days.</p><p>In compliance with [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref32">32</xref>] , this is a low toxicity herbicide that quickly dissipates in the environment. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75536-ref33">33</xref>] compliments reporting that low bioavailability of glyphosate in natural waters is due to its quick degradation and quick microbial decomposition.</p><fig id="fig3"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref></label><caption><title> Logarithm of the observed values of average mass (mg) of glyphosate in the tanks without water hyacinth and with application of glyphosate</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-9403110x6.png"/></fig><fig id="fig4"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref></label><caption><title> Observed and simulated values of average mass (mg) of glyphosate in the tanks without water hyacinth. Back symbols are values of average mass. Bars are values of average mass maximum and minimum. Dashed lines are simulated values of average mass</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/4-9403110x7.png"/></fig></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusions</title><p>The study has shown that glyphosate applied directly to the water surface or to controlling water hyacinth plants in closed aquatic environments is rapidly degraded and has no residues which would preclude its use. The average life of glyphosate in water for the control of macrophytes was estimated at 16 days and the decay calculated value was equal to 0.043 day<sup>−1</sup>.</p><p>Therefore, the use of glyphosate in the control of aquatic plants can be recommended for use in continuous flow aquatic environments, since it has more favorable characteristics to dissipate and degrade herbicides, due to being less drastic than the one evaluated in this work.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We thank the School of Agricultural Engineering―University of Campinas and the Weed Science Center (NUPAM) of the College of Agricultural Sciences S&#227;o Paulo State University for generous support in this project.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Souza, E.L.C., Foloni, L.L., Filho, J.T., Velini, E.D., Siono, L.M. and Silva, J.R.M. (2017) Half-Life of Glyphosate on the Control of Water Hyacinths in Water Tanks. Journal of Water Re- source and Protection, 9, 470-481. https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2017.95030</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.75536-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fairchild, F.J., Ruessler, D.S. and Carsol, A.R. (1998) Comparative Sensitivity of Five Species of Macrophytes and Six Species of Algae to Atrazine, Metribuzin, Alachlor, and Metolachlor. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 17, 1830-1834.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Velini, E.D. (2000) Aquatic Weeds Control. XXII Brazilian Congress of Weed Science, Lectures, SBCPD, Foz do Iguacu, 137-147.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Martins, D., Velini, E.D. and Negrisoli, E. (2005) Control of Egeria densa and Egeria najas in Water Tanks Using Diquat. Planta Daninha, 23, 381-385. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582005000200029</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Martins, D. (1998) Aquatic Plants Control. Workshop Aquatic Plants Control, Brasilia, Anais, IBAMA, 30-31.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Pitelli, R.A., Martins, D. and Velini, E.D. (2008) Interference and Control of Aquatic Weeds. In: Vargas, L. and Roman, E.S., Eds., Manual Management and Weed Control, HRAC-BR, Passo Fundo, 299-328.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Carvalho, F.T., Velini, E.D., Negrisoli, E. and Rossi, C.V.S. (2005) Efficiency of Carfentrazone-Ethyl in Controlling Large-Leafed Aquatic Plants Using Boxes of Water. Planta Daninha, 23, 305-310. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582005000200018</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Foloni, L.L. and Pitelli, R.A. (2005) Assessment of Sensitivity of Several Aquatic Weeds to Carfentrazone-Ethyl under Controlled Environment. Planta Daninha, 23, 329-334. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582005000200021</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cícero, E.A.S., Pittelli, R.A., Sena, J.A.D. and Ferraudo, A.S. (2007) Genetic Variability and Sensitivity of Pistia stratiotes Accesses to Glyphosate. Planta Daninha, 25, 3, 579-587. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582007000300018</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Martins, D., Velini, E.D., Costa, N.V., Cardoso, L.A. and Souza, G.S.F. (2011) Chemical Control of Eichhornia crassipes and Brachiaria subquadripara with Diquat under Reservoir Conditions. Planta Daninha, 29, 51-57. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582011000100006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Velini, E.D., Negrisoli, E., Cavenaghi, A.L., Correa, M.R., Bravin, L.F.N., De March, S.R., Trindade, M.L.B., Arruda, D.P. and Padilha, F.S. (2005) Characterization of Water and Sediment Quality at the Americana Reservoir Related to the Occurrence of Aquatic Plants. Planta Daninha, 23, 215-223. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582005000200007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tanaka, R.H., Velini, E.D., Martins, D., Bronhara, A.A., Silva, M.A.S., Cavenaghi, A.L. and Tomazela, M.S. (2002) Efficacy of Fluridone in Controlling Egeria spp. in Tanks and in a Small Pond without Water Flow. Planta Daninha, 20, 73-81. (Special Edition)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Marcondes, D.A.S., Velini, E.D., Martins, D., Tanaka, R.H., Carvalho, A.L., Cavenaghi, A.L. and Bronhara, A.A. (2002) Fluridone Efficacy in Controlling Submersed Aquatic Weeds and Its Effects on Some Environmental Characteristics. Planta Daninha, 20, 63-71. (Special Edition)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Guimaraes, G.L. (2003) Impacts of Macrophytes Control Using 2,4-D Herbicide on Mesocosms. Thesis (Doctorate in Agricultural Engineering), Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, State University of Campinas, Campinas.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Martins, A.T. and Pitelli, R.A. (2005) Effects of Water Hyacinth Management on Water Quality under Mesocosmic Conditions. Planta Daninha, 23, 233-242. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582005000200009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Negrisoli, E., Martins, D., Velini, E.D. and Ferreira, W.L.B. (2003) Diquat Degradation under Small-Tank Conditions with and without Egeria Plants. Planta Daninha, 21, 93-98. (Special Edition) https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582003000400014</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Monsanto (1988) Herbicides to Aquatic Plants. Rodeo, Technical Manual.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brazilian Society of Weed Science—SBCPD (1995) Procedures for Installation, Evaluation and Analysis of Experiments with Herbicides, Londrina.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cruz, C., Nader Neto, A., Girio, A.C.F. and Pitelli, R.A. (2012) Efficacy of Glyphosate in Floating Macrophytes and Effects on Bioindicators. XXVIII Brazilian Congress of Weed Science, Campo Grande, 12-16.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Paterson, M. (2004) Glyphosate Analysis of Risks to Endangered and Threatened Salmon and Steelhead. http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/effects/glyphosate-analysis.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">European Commission (2002) Review Report for the Active Substance Glyphosate. Finalised in the Standing Committee on Plant Health at its Meeting on 29 June 2001 in View of the Inclusion of Glyphosate in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC. European Commission, Health &amp; Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Brussels, 56 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Battaglin, W.A., Kolpin, D.W., Scribner, E.A., Kuivila, K.M. and Sandstrom, M.W. (2005) Glyphosate, Others Herbicides, and Transformation Products in Midwestern Streams, 20021. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41, 323-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03738.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Estes, T.L. (2007) Estimation of Kinetic Parameters to Describe Dissipation of Glyphosate in Water-Sediment Systems, Using Data from Heintze, 1996. Monsanto Study XX-2005-066, Prepared by Stone Environmental Inc. Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri, 61 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Giesy, J.P., Dobson, S. and Solomon, K.R. (2000) Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment for Roundup Herbicide. In: Ware, G.W., Ed., Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 167, Springer, New York, 35-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1156-3_2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Feng, J.C., Thompson, D.G. and Reynolds, P.E. (1990) Fate of Glyphosate in a Canadian Forest Watershed. Aquatic Residues and Off-Target Deposit Assessment. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 38, 1110-1118. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00094a045</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Goldsborough, L.G. and Brown, D.J. (1993) Dissipation of Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Water and Sediments of Boreal Forest Ponds. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 12, 1139-1147. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620120702</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">FPPD (2012) Glyphosate. “Fooprint” Pesticide Properties Database. http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/index2.htm</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mackay, D., Shiu, W., Ma, K.C. and Lee, S.C. (2006) Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals. 2nd Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ghassemi, M., Fargo, L., Painter, P. and Quinlivan, S. (1981) Environmental Fates and Impacts of Major Forest Use Pesticides. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington DC.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mercurio, P., Flores, F., Mueller, J.F., Carter, S. and Negri, A.P. (2014) Glyphosate Persistence in Seawater. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 85, 385-390.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mallat, E. and Barceló, D. (1998) Analysis and Degradation Study of Glyphosate and of Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Natural Waters by Means of Polymeric and Ion-Exchange Solid-Phase Extraction Columns Followed by Ion Chromatography-Post-Column Derivatization with Fluorescence Detection. Journal of chromatography, 823, 129-136.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wang, S., Seiwert, B., Kastner, M., Miltner, A., Schaffer, A., Reemtsma, T., Yang, Q. and Nowak, K. (2016) (Bio)degradation of Glyphosate in Water-Sediment Microcosms—A Stable Isotope Co-Labeling Approach. Water Research, 99, 91-100.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Centeno, A.J. (2009) Glyphosate: An Environmental Vision. In: Velini, E.D., Meschede, D.K., Carbonari, C.A. and Trindade, M.L.B., Eds., Glyphosate, Fepaf, Botucatu, 145-152.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75536-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Pitelli, R.A. (2009) Glyphosate in the Control of Aquatic Weeds. In: Velini, E.D., Meschede, D.K., Carbonari, C.A. and Trindade, M.L.B., Eds., Glyphosate, Fepaf, Botucatu, 413-427.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>