Advertisement

Biology and Fertility of Soils

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 131–141 | Cite as

The disappearance kinetics of fenhexamid in sterile and non-sterile conditions, as revealed by a mixed-effects model analysis

  • Ottorino-Luca PantaniEmail author
  • Irene Lozzi
  • Luca Calamai
  • Samuele Falciani
  • Marinella Bosetto
Original Paper

Abstract

A kinetic model was used to evaluate rate and capacity of both sorption and degradation of fenhexamid in four soils under laboratory conditions. This molecule was chosen for its stability to chemical hydrolysis at environmental pH values and its very fast disappearance in soil. The biotic contribution to disappearance was determined in experiments conducted on four soils that were either unsterilised or sterilised by: chloroform fumigation (CHCl3), autoclaving or phenylmercuric acetate (PMA) addition. Sterilisation with CHCl3 was the least efficient method as proven by microbial counts. The clayey soils sterilised by autoclave showed a sudden down-step around 50–75 h in disappearance kinetics. Biotic contribution should be minimal because soils were sterilised as shown by plate counts and the disappearance might be due to new sorption surfaces, available after 50–75 h as a consequence of the disruption of some aggregates. Sterilisation of the soil with the highest organic matter content by PMA increased the instantaneous sorption, and in some cases, the fast sorption of fenhexamid. The treatment of soil A with PMA did not completely inhibit microbial activity. A non-linear regression analysis with mixed-effects models was a valuable tool in describing the disappearance kinetics in soils because it showed small differences among treatments. The analysis showed that three processes were important in the disappearance of fenhexamid: instantaneous sorption, fast sorption and slow sorption/degradation. The biotic contribution probably depended on soil type, being predominant only in one soil, whereas sorption (instantaneous and fast) was prevailing in the other soils.

Keywords

KBR2738 Hydroxyanilides Mixed-effects models Lab experiments Kinetics 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study was carried out within the subproject “Interactions of pesticides with the inorganic suspended fraction of surface waters” (MIUR-COFIN 2002) of the project “Surface water protection against contamination from pesticides”.

References

  1. Alef K (1995) Sterilization of soil and inhibition of microbial activity. In: Alef K, Nannipieri P (eds) Methods in applied soil microbiology and biochemistry. Academic, San Diego, pp 52–54Google Scholar
  2. Anderson C, Brumhard B, Ditgens K, Reiner H (1999) Metabolism of fenhexamid (KBR 2738) in plants, animals, and the environment. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 52:227–251Google Scholar
  3. Bates DM, Watts DG (1988) Non linear regression analysis and its application. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoit P, Barriuso E, Houot S, Calvet R (1996) Influence of the nature of soil organic matter on the sorption–desorption of 4-chlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol and the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). Eur J Soil Sci 47:567–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection (2000) Review report for the active substance fenhexamid. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/plant/protection/evaluation/newactive/list1-04_en.pdf
  6. Fletcher LC, Kaufman DD (1980) Effect of sterilization methods on 3-chloroaniline behavior in soil. J Agric Food Chem 28:667–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gabrielsson J, Weiner D (2000a) Modeling strategies: discrimination between rival models. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data analysis: concepts and applications. Swedish Pharmaceutical Society, Kristianstadts Boktryckeri, pp 314–317Google Scholar
  8. Gabrielsson J, Weiner D (2000b) Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data analysis: concepts and applications. Swedish Pharmaceutical Society, Kristianstadts BoktryckeriGoogle Scholar
  9. Gamst J, Olesen T, De Jonge H, Moldrup P, Rolston DE (2001) Nonsingularity of naphthalene sorption in soil: observations and the two-compartment model. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:1622–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gee GW, Bauder JW (1986) Hydrometer method. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp 404–408Google Scholar
  11. Getenga ZM, Dorfler U, Reiner S, Sabine K (2004) Determination of a suitable sterilization method for soil in isoproturon biodegradation studies. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 72:415–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamaker JW, Goring CAI (1976) Turnover of pesticide residues in soil. In: Kaufman DD, Still GG, Paulson GD (eds) Bound and conjugated pesticide residues. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 219–243Google Scholar
  13. Health Canada Information Service Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division Pest Management Regulatory Agency (2003) Fenhexamid proposed regulatory decision document. http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/prdd/prdd2003-04-e.pdf
  14. Hill BD, Schaalje GB (1985) A two-compartment model for the dissipation of deltamethrin on soil. J Agric Food Chem 33:1001–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hobbie SE (1998) Chloroform fumigation direct extraction (CFDE) protocol for microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen. http://www.stanford.edu/group/Vitousek/cfde.htm
  16. Jenneman GE, McInerey MJ, Crocker ME, Knapp RM (1986) Effect of sterilization by dry heat or autoclaving on bacterial penetration through Berea Sandstone. Appl Environ Microbiol 51:39–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Loeppert RH, Suarez DL (1996) Carbonate and gypsum. In: Sparks DL (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp 437–474Google Scholar
  18. Lotrario JB, Stuart BJ, Lam T, Arands RR, O’Connor OA, Kosson DS (1995) Effects of sterilization methods on the physical characteristics of soil: implications for sorption isotherms analyses. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 54:668–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McNamara NP, Black HIJ, Beresford NA, Parekh NR (2003) Effects of acute gamma irradiation on chemical, physical and biological properties of soils. Appl Soil Ecol 24:117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nose K (1987) A multi-site decay model of pesticide in soil. J Pestic Sci 12:505–508Google Scholar
  21. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-plus. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. R Development Core Team (2004) A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org
  23. Ratkowsky DA (1983) Introduction to regression models. Nonlinear regression modeling. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  24. Sumner ME, Miller WP (1996) Cation exchange capacity and exchange coefficients. In: Sparks DL (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp 1201–1229Google Scholar
  25. Torsvik V, Soerheim R, Goksoeyr J (1996) Total bacterial diversity in soil and sediment communities—a review. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 17:170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Trevors JT (1996) Sterilization and inhibition of microbial activity in soil. J Microbiol Methods 26:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tuominen L, Kairesalo T, Hartikainen H (1994) Comparison of methods for inhibiting bacterial activity in sediment. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:3454–3457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Genuchten MT, Wagenet RJ (1989) Two-site/two-regions models for pesticide transport and degradation: theoretical development and solution. Soil Sci Soc Am J 53:1303–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wolf DC, Dao TH, Scott HD, Lavy TL (1989) Influence of sterilization methods on selected soil microbiological, physical and chemical properties. J Environ Qual 18:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wolf DC, Skipper HD (1994) Soil sterilization. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2 Microbiological and biochemical properties. SSSA, Madison, WI, pp 41–51Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ottorino-Luca Pantani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Irene Lozzi
    • 1
  • Luca Calamai
    • 1
  • Samuele Falciani
    • 1
  • Marinella Bosetto
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienza del Suolo e Nutrizione della PiantaUniversità di FirenzeFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations