Investigations of the relevance of low-tunnel methodology and air sampling concerning the off-target movement of dicamba were conducted from 2018 to 2022, focused primarily on volatility. This research, divided into three experiments, evaluated the impact of herbicides and adjuvants added to dicamba and the type of surface treated on dicamba volatility. Treatment combinations included glyphosate and glufosinate, the presence of a simulated contamination rate of ammonium sulfate (AMS), the benefit of a volatility reduction agent (VRA), and a vegetated (dicamba-resistant cotton) or soil surface treated with dicamba. Volatility assessments included air sampling collected over 48 h. Dicamba treatments were applied four times to each of two bare soil or cotton trays and placed inside the tunnels. Dicamba from air samples was extracted and quantified. Field assessments included the maximum and average visible injury in bioindicator soybean and the lateral movement of dicamba damage expressed by the farthest distance from the center of the plots to the position in which plants exhibited 5% injury. Adding glufosinate and glyphosate to dicamba increased the dicamba amount in air samples. A simulated tank contamination rate of AMS (0.005% v/v) did not affect dicamba emissions compared to a treatment lacking AMS. Adding a VRA reduced dicamba in air samples by 70% compared to treatment without the adjuvant. Dicamba treatments applied on vegetation generally produced greater detectable amounts of dicamba than treatments applied to bare soil. Field assessment results usually followed differences in dicamba concentration by treatments tested. Results showed that low-tunnel methodology allowed simultaneous comparisons of several treatment combinations concerning dicamba volatility.

Nomenclature: Dicamba; glufosinate; glyphosate; cotton; Gossypium hirsutum L.; soybean; Glycine max (L.) Merr.