2018
DOI: 10.1002/ps.5112
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adsorption, desorption and persistence of fomesafen in soil

Abstract: Fomesafen soil adsorption to soils was not strong and was affected by multiple soil properties. Fomesafen field persistence varied significantly between soil types and under ground cover. The data suggest that soils with a lower pH and higher clay content are less likely to produce crop injury due to greater fomesafen adsorption. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This relationship with OM may be due to the presence of microbial populations associated with the OM and not due to sorption, as previously discussed. Dissipation through leaching may have been reduced due to the increased OM content …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…This relationship with OM may be due to the presence of microbial populations associated with the OM and not due to sorption, as previously discussed. Dissipation through leaching may have been reduced due to the increased OM content …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The DT 50 of dimethachlor is high (see Table ), from 50 to 70 days for all conditions, so this compound would have a medium‐high persistence. These results are similar to those obtained for TCP (transformation product of chlorpyriphos) in soils (DT 50 17–52 days), and other pesticides like thiamethoxan (DT 50 34–60 days) o fomesafen (DT 50 34–48 days), which have similar DT 50 values in soils. In addition, the results were compared with those obtained for two herbicides belonging to the same family, as metazachlor and prochloraz.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, carboxyl and guanidyl) favor the other interactions such as electrostatic forces, H-bonding, and cation bridging. There are two opposite impacts of OM on MC adsorption, that is, direct site competition and/or pore blockage and coadsorption . Presumably, if the hydrophobic interaction was a dominant mechanism accounting for the adsorption of molecules to soil, the organic carbon-normalized sorption coefficient of this molecule ( K OC ; more details are available in SI-1) would be relatively constant across a range of soils . However, this is not the case for MC adsorption on the soils evaluated in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%