4.7 Article

Estimating sorption of monovalent acidic herbicides at different pH levels using a single sorption coefficient

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 76, 期 8, 页码 2693-2698

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ps.5815

关键词

ionizable compound; acidic pesticide; soil; sediment; agricultural efficacy; environmental behavior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Monovalent acidic pesticide sorption can be determined for any soil pH if the dissociation constant of the compound is known, and sorption coefficients are available for at least two different pH values, measured in a wide enough range to enable estimating both neutral and anionic form coefficients. Sorption estimates have also been made from a single sorption coefficient available, assuming a non-compound specific value of the anionic form sorption coefficient or considering a generic ratio between sorption coefficients of the two forms. A compound-specific procedure for adjustment of parameters of the equation for estimating sorption of monovalent acidic herbicides at different pH levels, from a single sorption coefficient, is proposed and evaluated. RESULTS The quality of fits was good for sorption of all three herbicides studied, especially for 2,4-D and flumetsulam at pH above 5, even for diverse soils and experimental procedures and conditions. The best fits resulted in the following ratios of theoretical maximum organic-carbon sorption coefficients for neutral and anionic forms (Kocn':Koca'): 440:1 for 2,4-D; 132:1 for flumetsulam; and 55:1 for sulfentrazone. CONCLUSION The ratios of theoretical maximum sorption coefficients for neutral and anionic forms (Kocn':Koca') are compound-specific, thus this procedure should also be applied to pH-sorption datasets for other acidic pesticides to provide the respective ratio between the theoretical maximum sorption coefficients, instead of using generic assigned values. More calibration research is recommended and validation of this approach is required to demonstrate applicability of the method.

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