Advertisement

Effect of Light and pH on Persistence of Flubendiamide

  • Shaon Kumar Das
  • Irani Mukherjee
Article

Abstract

Persistence of flubendiamide in soil as affected by UV and sunlight exposure and in water as affected by pH was studied. At field capacity moisture regime, soil was treated with flubendiamide and exposed to UV and sunlight. Dissipation for the pesticide followed mono-phasic first order kinetics. Residues of flubendiamide, as thin film on petri-plates and soil thin film, dissipated with half-lives of 7.0 and 9.1 days under UV light and 12.0 and 19.1 days under sunlight, respectively. Residues of flubendiamide dissipated faster under UV light as compared to sunlight. Persistence study in aqueous medium under different pH condition indicated that flubendiamide residues persisted in water beyond 250 days with half-lives ranging from 250.8 to 301.0 days. Dissipation in water was faster at pH 4.0 (T1/2 250.8 days), followed by pH 9.2 (T1/2 273.6 days) and 7.0 (T1/2 301.0 days).

Keywords

Flubendiamide Dissipation Soil Ultra violet light Sunlight pH 

References

  1. Black CA (1965) Method of soil analysis (parts 1 and 2). American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  2. Fernandez MD, Perez RA, Sanchez-Brunete C, Tadeo JL (2001) Persistence of simazine and hexazinone in soil. Fresenius Environ Bull 10:490–494Google Scholar
  3. Ganier CP, Breuzin C, Portal JM, Schiavon M (1996) Availability and persistence of isoproturon under field and laboratory conditions. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 35:226–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jackson ML (1967) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Katagi T (2004) Photodegradation of pesticides on plant and soil surfaces. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 182:1–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Klopffer W (1992) Photochemical degradation of pesticides and other chemicals in the environment: a critical assessment of the state of the art. Sci Total Environ 123(124):145–159Google Scholar
  7. Konstantinou IK, Zarkadis AK, Albanis TA (2001) Photodegradation of selected herbicides in various natural waters and soils under environmental conditions. J Environ Qual 30:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Miller GC, Zepp RG (1983) Extrapolating photolysis rates from the laboratory to the environment. Residue Rev 85:89–110Google Scholar
  9. Sanyal D, Yaduraju NT, Kulshrestha G (2000) Metolachlor persistence in laboratory and field soils under Indian tropical conditions. J Environ Sci Health B 35:571–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Scheunert I (1992) Physical and physicochemical processes governing the residue behaviour of pesticides in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Ebing W (ed) Chemistry of plant protection, vol. 8. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  11. Shane H (2006) Flubendiamide: the next generation in lepidoptera pest management. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Entomological Society of America (ESA) held at research Triangle Park, NC, December 10–13Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Agricultural ChemicalsIndian Agricultural Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations