Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T06:46:22.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil and pH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Timothy L. Grey*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5412
Robert H. Walker
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5412
Glenn R. Wehtje
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5412
H. Gary Hancock
Affiliation:
FMC Corp., Hamilton, GA 31811
*
Corresponding address: 1733 N Longgrove Rd., Cecilia, KY 42724.

Abstract

Laboratory experiments were conducted to evaluate soil adsorption and mobility of sulfentrazone. Sulfentrazone is a new phenyl triazolinone herbicide intended for use in soybean. Adsorption was evaluated through a soil solution technique, and mobility was evaluated with soil thin-layer chromatography. Experimental variables included soil, sulfentrazone concentration (adsorption study only), and pH. Adsorption was influenced by all experimental variables; however, pH had the greatest effect. Adsorption generally decreased in response to increasing pH. However, the greatest decrease occurred above the pKa of sulfentrazone (i.e., 6.56). Mobility generally reflected adsorption.

Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the 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

Adams, F., Burmester, C., Hue, N. V., and Long, F. L. 1982. A comparison of column displacement and centrifuge methods of obtaining soil solution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 44: 733735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albro, P. W., Parker, C. E., Abusteit, E. O., Mester, T. C., Hass, J. R., Sheldon, Y. S., and Corbin, F. T. 1984. Determination of the pKa values of metribuzin and three of its metabolites: a comparison of spectrophotometric and Potentiometrie methods. J. Agric. Food Chem. 32: 212217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, B. L. and Hajek, B. F. 1982. Mineral occurrence in soil environments. in Dixon, J. B. and Weed, S. B., eds. Minerals in Soil Environments. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America, pp. 199278.Google Scholar
Bailey, B. W., Whit, J. L., and Rothberg, T. 1968. Adsorption of organic herbicides by montmorillonite: role of pH and chemical character of adsorbate. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32: 222234.Google Scholar
Bohn, H. L., McNeal, B. L., and O&Conner, G. A. 1985. Anion and molecular retention. in Soil Chemistry. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 184207.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Green, H. M., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996a. Postemergence activity of sulfentrazone: effects of surfactants and leaf surfaces. Weed Sci. 44: 797803.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996b. Physiological basis for differential sensitivity to sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis). Weed Sci. 44: 1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FMC Corp. 1989. Tech. Bull. of sulfentrazone (F6285). Philadelphia: Agricultural Chemical Group. 6 p.Google Scholar
Giles, C. H., MacEwan, T. H., Nakhwa, S. N., and Smith, D. 1960. Studies in sorption. Part XI. A system of classification of solution sorption isotherms, and its use in diagnosis of sorption mechanisms and in measurement of specific surface areas of solids. Chem. Soc. J. 1960: 39733993.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G., and Hajek, B. F. 1989. Sorption and mobility of chlorimuron in Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 37: 428433.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34: 788793.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. H. 1996. Sorption and mobility of bentazon in Coastal Plain Soil. Weed Sci. 44: 166170.Google Scholar
Hancock, H. G. 1992. Weed spectrum of F6285 in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45: 49.Google Scholar
Hancock, H. G. 1994. Post-emergent activity of F6285 in soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47: 63.Google Scholar
Harper, S. S. 1994. Sorption-desorption and herbicide behavior in soil. in Duke, S. O., ed. Review of Weed Science 6. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America, pp. 207225.Google Scholar
Helling, S. C. 1971a. Pesticide mobility in soils. I. Parameters of thin-layer chromatography. Soil Sci. 35: 732737.Google Scholar
Helling, S. C. 1971b. Pesticide mobility in soils. II. Applications of soil thin-layer chromatography. Soil Sci. 35: 737743.Google Scholar
Helling, S. C. 1971c. Pesticide mobility in soils. III. Influence of soil properties. Soil Sci. 35: 743747.Google Scholar
Helling, S. C. and Turner, B. C. 1968. Pesticide mobility: determination by soil thin-layer chromatography. Science 162: 562563.Google Scholar
Hingston, F. J., Posner, A. M., and Quirk, J. P. 1972. Anion sorption by goethite and gibbsite. J. Soil Sci. 23: 177192.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. W. 1981. Soil Survey of Tuscaloosa County Alabama, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 118 p.Google Scholar
Karathanasis, A. D. and Hajek, B. F. 1982. Revised methods for rapid quantitative determination of minerals in soil clays. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46: 419425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loos, M. A. 1975. Phenoxyacetic acids. in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel-Dekker, pp. 2550.Google Scholar
McBride, M. B. 1989. Surface chemistry of soil minerals. in Dixon, J. B. and Weed, S. B., eds. Minerals in Soil Environments. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America, pp. 3588.Google Scholar
McNutt, R. B. 1981. Soil survey of Lee County, Alabama. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 100 p.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36: 7883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, D. G. 1989. An introduction to soil mineralogy. in Dixon, J. B. and Weed, S. B., eds. Minerals in Soil Environments. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America, pp. 134.Google Scholar
Schumacher, W. J., Day, J. W., Amacher, M. C., and Miller, F. J. 1988. Soils of the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain in Louisiana. Bull. 796. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. 275 p.Google Scholar
Tisdale, S. L., Werner, S. L., and Beaton, J. D. 1985. Basic soil-plant relationships. in Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. 4th ed. New York: Macmillan, pp. 95111.Google Scholar
Walker, R. H. 1994. F6285 applied postemergence in soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47: 64.Google Scholar
Walker, R. H., Richburg, J. S., and Jones, R. E. 1992. F6285 efficacy as affected by rate and method of application. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45: 51.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1970a. Adsorption of s-triazines by montmorillonite as a function of pH and molecular structure. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 34: 401404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1970b. Mechanisms of adsorption of s-triazines by clay colloids and factors affecting plant availability. in Gunther, F. A. and Gunther, J. D., eds. Residue Reviews. Volume 32. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 93130.Google Scholar