Advertisement

The Interpretation of Soil Leaching Experiments

  • John W. Hamaker
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 6)

Abstract

Leaching of chemicals through soil is an environmental.concern because of the possibility that they will reach the water table and contaminate the ground water. However, whether a chemical will reach the ground water will depend not only upon its movement through the soil, but also upon its disappearance from the soil. If, for instance, the rate of degradation is sufficiently rapid compared to the rate of leaching, the chemical will disappear before it can reach the ground water and, therefore, will not pose that environmental problem. The determination of soil leaching rates is important because the rate of leaching of a chemical indicates how long a chemical is retained in the top soil where it is most subject to degradation or dissipation. It is important to consider the rate of degradation, but, in spite of this, there have been very few efforts to deal with the problem of simultaneous degradation and leaching (King and McCarty, 1968; Lehav and Kahanovitch). The environmental significance of soil leaching of pesticides will not be properly understood until this is done. This paper discusses only the leaching aspect of the problem.

Keywords

Soil Organic Carbon Ground Water Organic Carbon Content Soil Column Adsorption Dynamic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauer, J.R., R.D. Baker, R.W. Bovey, and J.D. Smith. 1972. Concentration of picloram in the soil profile. Weed Sci. 20: 305.Google Scholar
  2. Block, R.J., E.L. Durrum, and G. Zweig. 1958. A Manual of Paper Chromatography and Paper Electrophoresis. Second Edition. Academic Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
  3. Briggs, G.G. 1973. A simple relationship between soil adsorption of organic chemicals and their octanol/water partition coefficients. Proceedings of 7th British Insecticide and Fungicide Conference.Google Scholar
  4. Burnside, O.C., G.A. Wicks, and C.R. Fenster. 1963. The effect of rainfall and soil type on the disappearance of 2,3,6-TBA. Weeds 11:45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davidson, J.M., and R.K. Chang. 1972. Transport of picloram in relation to soil physical conditions and pore-water velocity. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 36:257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidson, J.M., and J.R. McDougal. 1973. Experimental and predicted movement of three herbicides in a water-saturated soil. J. Environ. Quality 2:428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davidson, J.M., C.E. Rieck, and P.W. Santelmann. 1968. Influence of water flux and porous material on the movement of selected herbicides. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 32:629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, F.L., F.L. Selman, and D.E. Davis. 1954. Some factors affecting the behavior of dinitro herbicides in soil. Proc. Southwest Weed Conf. 7:205.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, W.M., and B.L. Glass. 1971. Methoxychlor and 2,4,5-T in lysimeter percolation and run-off water. Bull. Environ. Contam. and Toxicol. 6:81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glass, B.L., and W.M. Edwards. 1974. Picloram in lysimeter run-off and percolation water. Bull. Environ. Contam. and Toxicol. 11:109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham-Bryce, I.J. 1967. Adsorption of disulfoton by soil. J. Sci. Fd. Agr. 18:73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Green, R.E., V.K. Yamane, and S.R. Obien. 1968. Transport of atrazine in a latosolic soil in relation to adsorption, degradation and soil water variables. Trans. 9th International Soil Sci. Cong. 1:195.Google Scholar
  13. Hamaker, J.W., and J.M. Thompson. 1972. Adsorption. In Organic Chemicals in the Soil Environment. C.A.I. Goring and J.W. Hamaker editors. Marcel Dekker, Inc., N.Y.Google Scholar
  14. Helling, C.S. 1971. Pesticide mobility in soils, II: Applications of soil thin layer chromatography. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 35:737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helling, C.S., and B.C. Turner. 1968. Pesticide mobility: Determination by soil thin layer chromatography. Sci. 162:562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hornsby, A.G. and J.M. Davidson. 1973. Solution and adsorbed fluometron concentration distribution in a water-saturated soil: Experimental and predicted evaluation. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 37:823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huggenberger, F., J. Letey, and W.J. Farmer. 1972. Observed and calculated distribution of lindane in soil columns as influenced by water movement. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 36:544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King, P.H., and P.L. McCarty. 1968. A chromatographic model for predicting pesticide migration in soil. Soil Sci. 106:248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. La Fleur, K.S., G.A. Wojeck, and W.R. McCaskill. 1973. Movement of toxaphene and fluometron through dunbar soil to underlying ground water. J. Environ. Qual. 2:515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lehav, N.J., and Y.Kahanovitch. Transport and persistence of pesticides in soil. Private communication.Google Scholar
  21. Martin, A.J.P., and R.L.M. Synge. 1941. A new form of chromatogram employing two liquid phases. Biochem. J. 35:1358.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Millington, R.J., and J.P. Quirk. 1961. Permeability of porous solids. Trans. Faraday Soc. 57:1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Swanson, R.A., and G.R. Dutt. 1973. Chemical and physical processes of atrazine and distribution in soil systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 37:872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • John W. Hamaker
    • 1
  1. 1.Ag-Organics Research DepartmentDow Chemical U.S.A.Walnut CreekUSA

Personalised recommendations