Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T02:44:58.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sorption and mobility of flumetsulam in several soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy A. Strebe  and
Ronald E. Talbert
Timothy A. Strebe
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 7270
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flumetsulam sorption and mobility studies were conducted on surface (0 to 15 cm) and subsurface (30 to 46 cm) soil of several southern soils. In a batch equilibrium study using a 1:1 ratio of soil–0.01 M CaCl2, flumetsulam adsorbed ranged from 2.9 to 48.7% and from 4.2 to 63.3% on surface and subsurface soils, respectively. Herbicide soil–solution distribution (K d) and organic carbon (K oc) coefficients ranged from 0.03 to 0.95 and from 5.1 to 77.1, respectively, in surface soils and from 0.04 to 1.72 and from 7.5 to 325.5, respectively, in subsurface soils. K d and K oc were correlated with humic and organic matter in surface soils. K d was correlated with extractable Fe, whereas K oc was inversely correlated to pH in subsurface soils. A desorption study using 0.01 M CaCl2 as an extractant on the Captina silt loam surface soil demonstrated that three to four washes were required to desorb more than 94% of the flumetsulam adsorbed over several equilibration times. Mobility studies on soil thin-layer chromatography plates demonstrated that flumetsulam and imazaquin had similar values, ranging from 0.50 to 0.90 and 0.59 to 0.90, respectively, in the surface soils, and both compounds had the same range of mobility in subsurface soils, with R f values between 0.60 and 0.93. At both soil depths, K d and K oc were inversely correlated with the R f of flumetsulam.

Keywords

FlumetsulamimazaquinAdsorptionanion adsorptionmobilityorganic carbonsulfonamide

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 6 , December 2001 , pp. 806 - 813
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 131–133 and 163–166.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1983. Reference Soil Test Methods for the Southern Region of the United States. South. Coop. Ser. Bull. 289. Athens: University of Georgia. 40 p.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. E. and Konrad, J. G. 1974. Nonbiological degradation of pesticides. Pages 123–131 In Guenzi, W. D., ed. Pesticides in Soil & Water. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Basham, G. W., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35:576–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvet, R. 1980. Adsorption-desorption phenomena. Pages 1–30 In Hance, R. J., ed. Interactions Between Herbicides and the Soil. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Carringer, R. D., Weber, J. B., and Monaco, T. J. 1975. Adsorption-desorption of selected pesticides by organic matter and montmorillonite. J. Agric. Food Chem. 23:568–572.Google Scholar
Fontaine, D. D., Lehmann, R. G., and Miller, J. R. 1991. Soil adsorption of neutral and anionic forms of a sulfonamide herbicide, flumetsulam. J. Environ. Qual. 20:759–762.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajeck, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34:788–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamaker, J. W. and Thompson, J. M. 1972. Adsorption. Pages 49–143 In Goring, C.A.I. and Hamaker, J. W., eds. Organic Chemicals in the Soil Environment. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Helling, C. S. 1970. Pesticide mobility in soils. II. Applications of soil thin-layer chromatography. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35:737–743.Google Scholar
Hocking, R. R., Speed, F. M., and Lynn, M. J. 1976. A class of biased estimators in linear regression. Technometrics 18:425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, S. U. 1978. The interaction of organic matter with pesticides. Pages 137–171 In Schnitzer, M. and Khan, S. U., eds. Soil Organic Matter. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lehmann, R. G., Miller, J. R., Fontaine, D. D., Laskowski, D. A., Hunter, J. H., and Cordes, R. C. 1992. Degradation of a sulfonamide herbicide as a function of soil sorption. Weed Res. 32:197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Adsorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on soil, sediments, and selected adsorbents. Weed Sci. 37:712–718.Google Scholar
Mehlich, A. 1984a. Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: a modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 15:1409–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehlich, A. 1984b. Photometric determination of humic matter in soils, a proposed method. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 15:1417–1422.Google Scholar
Morrison, R. T. and Boyd, R. N. 1973. Organic Chemistry. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. pp. 757–758.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Flurtamone adsorption and mobility in three Georgia soils. Weed Sci. 39:275–279.Google Scholar
Ross, M. A. and Lembi, C. A. 1985. Applied Weed Science. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing. pp. 89–106.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.03. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis System Institute.Google Scholar
Schroeder, J., ed. 1997. Behavior and Fate of Selected Sulfonylurea and Imidazolinone Herbicides in the Southern Environment. S-215 Reg. Res. Proj. So. Coop. Bull. No. 385. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. 67 p.Google Scholar
Shea, P. J. 1986. Chlorsulfuron dissociation and adsorption on selected adsorbents and soils. Weed Sci. 34:474–478.Google Scholar
Shea, P. J. 1989. Role of humified organic matter in herbicide adsorption. Weed Technol. 3:190–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, F. J. 1976. Organic matter reactions involving pesticides in soil. Pages 180–207 In Kaufman, D. D., Still, G. G., Paulson, G. D., and Bandal, S. K., eds. Bound and Conjugated Pesticide Residues. Washington, American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. J. 1982. Humus Chemistry: Genesis, Composition, Reactions. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 403–419.Google Scholar
Walker, A., Cotterhill, E. G., and Welch, S. J. 1989. Adsorption and degradation of chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron-methyl in soils from different depths. Weed Res. 29:281–287.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1986. Soils, herbicide sorption and model plant-soil systems. Pages 155–188 In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1994. Properties and behavior of pesticides in soil. Pages 15–41 In Honeycutt, R. C. and Schabacker, D. J., eds. Mechanisms of Pesticide Movement into Groundwater. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1995. Physicochemical and mobility studies with pesticides. Pages 99–115 In Leng, M. L., Leovey, E.M.K., and Zubkoff, P. L., eds. Agrochemical Environmental Fate: State of the Art. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A. 1993. Adsorption, Mobility, and Photodissipation of Chlorimuron and Imazaquin in Soils. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. 143 p.Google Scholar
Wolt, J. D., Schwake, J. D., Batzer, F. R., et al. 1992. Anaerobic aquatic degradation of flumetsulam [N-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-5-ethyl[1,2,4]triazolo [1,5-a]pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide]. J. Agric. Food Chem. 40:2302–2308.Google Scholar