4.7 Article

Dissipation of Fungicides in a Vineyard Soil Amended with Different Spent Mushroom Substrates

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 60, 期 28, 页码 6936-6945

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf301322h

关键词

fungicide; soil; spent mushroom substrate; degradation; mass balance; dehydrogenase activity

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [AGL2007-61674/AGR]
  2. Spain's Research Council (CSIC)
  3. FEDER-FSE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The degradation kinetics and formation of metabolites for fungicides of different chemical classes (iprovalicarb, metalaxyl, penconazole, and pyrimethanil) and determination of bound residues for metalaxyl and penconazole were studied in both an unamended vineyard soil and in the same soil amended with two spent mushroom substrates (composted (C-SMS1) and fresh (F-SMS2)). The degradation kinetics was fitted to single first-order or first-order multicompartment patterns. Degradation rates decreased in C-SMS1-amended soils for all fungicides as compared to unamended soil, but in F-SMS2-amended soils, they decreased only for iprovalicarb and penconazole. The DT50 values were higher by up to 1.8 (metalaxyl), 3.8 (pyrimethanil), 4.1 (iprovalicarb), and >1000 (penconazole) times in the soil plus C-SMS1 compared to those for soil plus F-SMS2 or unamended soil. The dissipation mechanism recorded the highest mineralization in the unamended soil for C-14-metalaxyl and C-14-penconazole, with the highest formation of nonextractable residues in the F-SMS2-amended soil for C-14-metalaxyl. The results are consistent with (1) the chemical characteristics of each SMS (total and soluble organic carbon) controlling sorption and the bioavailability of fungicides and (2) the microbial activity of SMS-amended soils, which affects fungicide biodegradation. The findings of this work highlight the potential of SMS amendments with different characteristics to decrease or increase the degradation rate of a fungicide in a vineyard soil.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据