4.7 Article

Degradation and mineralization kinetics of acephate in humid tropic soils of Malaysia

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 79, 期 4, 页码 434-440

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.01.046

关键词

Half-lives; Pesticide; Carbon 14; Soil microbes; First order kinetic

资金

  1. University of Copenhagen (KU), Denmark
  2. State Government of Sarawak

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acephate is poorly sorbed to soil, thus the risk of leaching to the aquatic environment is high if it is not quickly degraded. The effect of soil moisture, temperature, microbial activity and application rate on acephate degradation has been studied in three Malaysian soils to examine and identify critical variables determining its degradation and mineralization kinetics. First-order kinetics could be used to describe degradation in all cases (r(2) > 0.91). Acephate degraded faster in air-dry (t(1/2), 9-11 d) and field capacity (t(1/2) 10-16 d) soils than in the wet soils (t(1/2) 32-77 d). The activation energy of degradation was in the range 17-28 kJ mol(-1) and significantly higher for the soil with higher pH and lower clay and iron oxide contents. Soil sterilization caused a 3- to 10-fold decrease in degradation rates compared to non-sterile soils (t(1/2) 53-116 d) demonstrating that acephate degradation is mainly governed by microbial processes. At 5-fold increase in application rates (25 mu g g(-1)), half-life increased slightly (t(1/2) 13-19 d) or was unaffected. Half-life from acephate mineralization was similar to those from degradation but much longer at the 5-fold increase in acephate application rates (t(1/2) 41-96 d) demonstrating that degradation of metabolites is rate limiting. Thus, application of acephate should be restricted or avoided during wet seasons with heavy rainfall and flooded soil as in paddy cultivation. Sandy soils with low microbial activity are more prone to acephate leaching than clayey soils rich in humic matter. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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