Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:11:15.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological Activity and Dissipation of IPC and CIPC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. V. Parochetti  and
G. F. Warren
J. V. Parochetti
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Purdue University
G. F. Warren
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Purdue University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conflicting reports on the dissipation of ie isopropyl N-phenylcarbamate (IPC) and isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl) carbamate (CIPC) prompted the present investigation on the dissipation and biological activity of these two herbicides. The dissipation patterns of IPC and CIPC were similar. Under the field and laboratory conditions described, more than 90% of both herbicides was gone in 4 weeks. CIPC was biologically more active than IPC on all plants tested, and both herbicides were nearly 10 times more toxic to buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.) in quartz sand as in a silt loam soil. Although both herbicides were present in equal amounts throughout their dissipation, CIPC appears to persist longer in field applications, as it is more toxic to most plants than IPC.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 1968 , pp. 13 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Burschel, P. and Freed, V. H. 1959. The decomposition of herbicides in soils. Weeds 7:157–161.Google Scholar
2. Crafts, A. S. and Drever, H. 1960. Experiments with herbicides in soils. Weeds 8:12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Danielson, L. L. 1953. Experimental and field use of 3-chloro IPC on vegetable crops in tidewater Virginia. Proc. NEWC 7:73–79.Google Scholar
4. DeRose, H. R. 1951. Crabgrass inhibition with 0-isopropyl-N-(3-chlorophenyl)-carbamate. Agron. J. 43:139–143.Google Scholar
5. Jones, L. 1958. Effect of propham and CIPC on grass seed crops sprayed in the year of sowing. Proc. British Weed Control Conf. 4:175–177.Google Scholar
6. Kaufman, D. D. and Kearney, P. C. 1965. Microbial degradation of isopropyl-N-3-chlorophenylcarbamate and 2-chlorophenylcarbamate. Appl. Microbiol. 13:443–446.Google Scholar
7. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.Google Scholar
8. Parochetti, J. V. and Warren, G. F. 1966. Volatility of IPC and CIPC. Weeds 14:281–285.Google Scholar
9. Roberts, H. A. 1965. Comparative tolerance of some dicotyledons to chloropropham. Weed Res. 5:61–67.Google Scholar
10. Roberts, H. A. and Wilson, B. J. 1962. Note on the bioassay of chloropropham in soil. Weed Res. 2:60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Wiese, A. F. and Dunham, R. S. 1954. The period of toxicity of IPC and CIPC when applied to the soil at various times of the year. Res. Report. NCWCC 11:46.Google Scholar
12. Whitman, E. D. and Newton, W. F. 1951. Chloro IPC-a new herbicide. Proc. NEWCC 5:45–46.Google Scholar