Article
Effects of Soil pH and Soil Water Content on Prosulfuron Dissipation
Address correspondence to this author at the School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907 (e-mail hultgren@ ecn.purdue.edu).
University of Illinois.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Abstract
The sulfonylurea herbicide prosulfuron, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyltriazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)phenylsulfonyl]urea, is used for the selective control of broadleaf weeds in corn, sorghum, and cereal grains. To investigate its fate in soils, this study examined the effects of soil pH and water content on the rates of dissipation processes and the products formed under aerobic conditions. Radiometry and chromatography analyses were used to quantify the degradation products and bound residues formed in incubations of 10 different soils. The pH-dependent hydrolysis of the sulfonylurea bridge to form phenyl sulfonamide was the primary transformation process. Significant microbial degradation of prosulfuron occurred in 2 of the 10 soils, yielding 14CO2 and desmethyl prosulfuron among the major products. The time required for 50% dissipation of the herbicide (DT50) was determined for each soil and water content treatment. At equivalent water contents, prosulfuron DT50 values were positively correlated with soil pH (P < 0.0001), varying from 6.5 days at pH 5.4 to 122.9 days at pH 7.9. Soil pH and water content strongly influence the fate of sulfonylurea herbicides in agricultural fields. Differences in the effect of soil water content on dissipation kinetics in a comparison of two soils were attributed to differences in soil pH, texture, and the ability of indigenous microorganisms to transform the herbicide.
Keywords: Prosulfuron; environmental fate; aerobic dissipation; soil pH; soil water content; DT50
View: Full Text HTML | Hi-Res PDF
Tools
-
Add to Favorites
-
Download Citation
-
Email a Colleague -
Permalink
Order Reprints
Rights & Permissions
Citation Alerts
History
- Published In Issue May 22, 2002
- Received for review November 6, 2001. Revised manuscript received March 5, 2002. Accepted March 7, 2002. Partial support for this research was provided by the Illinois Council for Agricultural Research. Names are necessary to report factually on available data; however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of the product, and the use of the name by the USDA implies no approval of the product to the exclusion of others that may also be suitable.
Cart


