Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:07:00.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of chemical extraction and bioassay for measurement of metsulfuron in soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Anna M. Szmigielska ,
Jeff J. Schoenau  and
Ken Greer
Jeff J. Schoenau
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
Ken Greer
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new extraction method for the HPLC-UV determination of metsulfuron in soil was developed and compared with NaHCO3 extraction and a lentil bioassay technique. The new procedure consisted of metsulfuron extraction using anion exchange membranes followed by a dichloromethane concentration of the membrane eluates. Three soils representing different landscape positions were spiked with metsulfuron to yield concentrations in the range of 0 to 40 μg kg−1 dry soil and were analyzed by the above procedures. At a given spike rate, the efficiency of the anion exchange membrane extraction was highest for the soil from the upper slope position and lowest for the soil from the lower slope position, indicating that the amount of ion-exchangeable sulfonylurea was affected by soil properties. Similar trends in degree of root growth inhibition were observed for lentil response to metsulfuron presence in soil; percent root growth inhibition was related to the landscape position as the amount of membrane-extractable metsulfuron. The percent shoot growth inhibition was not soil dependent and did not differ among soils. The efficiency of NaHCO3 extraction for metsulfuron did not vary with soil type; in the NaHCO3 method, because of the buffered alkaline nature of the extraction, differences in soil properties, particularly soil pH, would have less effect on metsulfuron recovery. Because of similar trends for the results of the membrane extraction method and a lentil root bioassay, anion exchange membrane extraction may provide useful information on bioavailable fractions of sulfonylurea herbicides in soil.

Keywords

Metsulfuronlentil, Lens culinaris L. ‘Laird.'Anion exchange membranesphytotoxicitylandscape positions
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , August 1998 , pp. 487 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ahmad, I. and Crawford, G. 1990. Trace residue analysis of the herbicide chlorsulfuron on soil by gas chromatography—electron capture detection. J. Agric. Food Chem. 38: 138–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. Metsulfuron. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America, pp. 203–205.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L. and Barrett, M. R. 1985. Residual phototoxicity of chlorsulfuron in two soils. J. Environ. Qual. 14: 111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, H. J. and McKercher, R. B. 1989. Soil residual properties of DPX-A7881 under laboratory conditions. Weed Sci. 37: 412–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, H. M. 1990. Mode of action, crop selectivity, and soil relations of the sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 29: 263-281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotterill, E. G. 1992. Determination of the sulfonylurea herbicides chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron methyl in soil, water and plant material by gas chromatography of their pentafluorobenzyl derivatives. Pestic. Sci. 34: 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinelli, G., Vicari, A., and Catizone, P. 1993. Use of capillary electrophoresis for detection of metsulfuron and chlorsulfuron on tap water. J. Agric. Food Chem. 41: 742–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galletti, G. C., Bonetti, A., and Dinelli, G. 1995. High performance liquid chromatographic determination of sulfonylureas in soil and water. J. Chromatogr. 692: 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, K.E.M. and Foster, R. K. 1985. A corn (Zea mays L.) bioassay technique for measuring chlorsulfuron levels in three Saskatchewan soils. Weed Sci. 33: 825–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, M. M., Brown, H. M., and Romesser, J. A. 1985. Degradation of chlorsulfuron by soil microorganisms. Weed Sci. 33: 888–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaffenbach, P. and Holland, P. T. 1993. Analysis of sulfonylurea herbicides by gas-liquid chromatography. 2. Determination of chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron-methyl in soil and warer samples. J. Agric. Food Chem. 41: 396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mersie, W. and Foy, C. L. 1985. Phytotoxicity and adsorption of chlorsulfuron as affected by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33: 564–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, P., Schoenau, J. J., and Huang, W. Z. 1992. Use of ion exchange membranes in routine soil testing. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 23: 1791–1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, P. 1986. Chlorsulfuron dissociation and adsorption on selected adsorbents and soils. Weed Sci. 34: 474–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slates, R. V. and Wilson, M. W. 1988. Chlorsulfuron. Anal. Methods Pestic. Plant Growth Regul. 16: 53–67.Google Scholar
Sunderland, S. L., Santelmann, P. W., and Baughman, T. A. 1991. A rapid, sensitive soil bioassay for sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Sci. 39: 296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thirunarayanan, K., Zimdahl, R. L., and Smika, D. E. 1985. Chlorsulfuron adsorption and degradation in soil. Weed Sci. 33: 558–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, M.J.M. and Michael, J. L. 1987. Reversed phase solid-phase extraction for aqueous environmental sample preparation in herbicide residue analysis. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 25: 345–350.Google Scholar
Zhanow, E. W. 1982. Analysis of the herbicide chlorsulfuron in soil by liquid chromatography. J. Agric. Food Chem. 30: 854–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar