Environmental fate of methyl bromide as a soil fumigant

The great variation among results of recent experiments measuring the total emission of MeBr from fields implies that many factors influence MeBr transport and transformation in the soil-water-air system and its ultimate loss from the soil surface. It has been demonstrated that variables related to application methods (e.g., injection depth, use and type of surface tarp), soil properties (e.g., water content, bulk density, soil organic matter), and climatic conditions (e.g.. air temperature, wind speed, barometric pressure) have pronounced effects on MeBr volatilization following soil injection. The following conclusions can be drawn from this experimental information. Tarping consistently, increased the residence time and concentration of MeBr residing in the soil. Prolonged retention of MeBr in the soil resulted in more extensive degradation and reduced cumulative emissions. Research indicates that the polyethylene film typically used for the surface cover is relatively permeable to MeBr and allows significant emissions compared to virtually impermeable plastic films. This effect is more pronounced during periods of high temperature. Soil type, soil water content, and bulk density are important factors affecting MeBr transport and transformation in soil, which ultimately affect volatilization. The total volatilization from a soil with high organic matter content may be drastically reduced relative to that from a low organic matter soil. Amendment of the surface soil with organic matter or nucleophilic compounds that promote increased degradation may offer another method for reducing volatilization. MeBr volatilization may also be decreased by increasing soil water content and bulk density, mainly because of the reduced gas-phase diffusion resulting from reduced soil air-filled porosity. To minimize volatilization, MeBr should be applied during periods of cool temperature, injected relatively deep in organic-rich, moist soil, and the soil surface packed and tarped immediately after the application. Depending on site-specific conditions, a new high-barrier plastic should be used. Injecting MeBr during periods of warm temperature, at a shallow depth in dry, loose soil without the use of low-permeability plastic barriers, will likely result in maximum volatilization rates and therefore should be discouraged. Before adopting any new emission reduction technology, the pest control characteristics of the new methodology should be assessed under soil and environmental conditions typical of the region to optimize efficacy while minimizing environmental contamination. There is considerable current scientific evidence indicating that eliminating MeBr use for soil fumigation may not have a significant impact on stratospheric ozone depletion. Management practices can and have been developed that essentially eliminate atmospheric emissions of MeBr and other fumigant compounds following soil application. Some scientists have suggested that there are natural buffers and various unknown sources of MeBr that make it impossible to ascertain that eliminating soil fumigation with MeBr will significantly improve stratospheric ozone levels. It is quite certain, however, that the phase-out will make it much more difficult for growers to economically provide an adequate and healthful food supply in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. As the phase-out date approaches, there remains a great need for information about MeBr and stratospheric ozone depletion. Stratospheric ozone must be protected, but recent experiments suggest that it can be protected while still allowing MeBr to be used for soil fumigation. A new approach may be warranted in which state and federal regulations recognize that every chemical is a potential environmental contaminant, depending on the properties of the chemical and the environmental conditions prevailing following its application. Ideally, regulations should incorporate incentives to develop technology that minimizes the likelihood that a chemical becomes an environmental and/or public health problem. Rather than instituting an irrevocable ban, allowing for a suspension of chemical use until the appropriate technology is developed to control the undesirable characteristic(s) of the chemical use would provide much more flexibility to growers and may enhance environmental protection by adopting a proactive approach in which growers, chemical manufacturers, regulators, and the public can have confidence.