Table 1.
Results from the FOCUS modelling as well as the field leaching study in northern Italy and targeted monitoring data from Germany
| Terbuthylazine | Desethyl‐terbuthylazine MT1 | Hydroxy‐terbuthylazine MT13 | Desethyl‐hydroxy‐terbuthylazine MT14 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FOCUS modelling results | ||||
| Number of scenarios > 0.1 μg/L | 0 | 4 | 8 | 8 |
| Number of scenarios < 0.1 μg/L | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Monitoring data | ||||
| Northern Italy (8 field leaching studya, 395 samples) | ||||
| – Detection (% of analysed samples) | 16% | 32% | 1%3) | 40%c |
| – Detection > 0.1 μg/L (% of analysed samples) | 3% | 5% | 0%3) | 29%c |
| Germanyb (targeted monitoring, 25 wells, 29 samples) | ||||
| – Detection (% of analysed samples) | 7% | 7% | 3% | 14% |
| – Detection > 0.1 μg/L (% of analysed samples) | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| LM2 | LM3 | LM4 | LM5 | LM6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FOCUS modelling results | |||||
| Number of scenarios > 0.1 μg/L | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Number of scenarios < 0.1 μg/L | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Monitoring data | |||||
| Northern Italy (7 field leaching studya, 366 samples) | |||||
| – Detection (% of analysed samples) | 37% | 39% | 22% | 52% | 41% |
| – Detection > 0.1 μg/L (% of analysed samples) | 19% | 22% | 11% | 27% | 30% |
| Germanyb (targeted monitoring, 25 wells, 29 samples) | |||||
| – Detection (% of analysed samples) | na | 36% | na | 52% | 48% |
| – Detection > 0.1 μg/L (% of analysed samples) | na | 28% | na | 38% | 38% |
Na: not analysed.
a
The two sites receiving ‘basin irrigation’ are not included.
b
Monitored area being treated with terbuthylazine ranges between 8% and 80% (average 25%).
c
Only 144 samples were analysed for hydroxy‐terbuthylazine and desethyl‐hydroxy‐terbuthylazine.