Paulo Vinicius da Silva, Paulo Henrique Vieira dos Santos, Roque de Carvalho Dias, Bruna Ferrari Schedenffeldt, Pedro Jacob Christoffoleti, Edivaldo Domingues Velini, Caio Antônio Carbonari, Elias Silva de Medeiros, Patrícia Andrea Monquero
{"title":"生物测定和分析方法是否等同于甘蔗作物的除草剂浸出应用?","authors":"Paulo Vinicius da Silva, Paulo Henrique Vieira dos Santos, Roque de Carvalho Dias, Bruna Ferrari Schedenffeldt, Pedro Jacob Christoffoleti, Edivaldo Domingues Velini, Caio Antônio Carbonari, Elias Silva de Medeiros, Patrícia Andrea Monquero","doi":"10.1007/s11270-024-07336-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Herbicide leaching studies are extremely important to evaluate the environmental behavior of these products in the environment. However, there are no equivalence analyses in the literature of the most commonly used methods: bioassays and HPLC. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze the leaching of the herbicides imazapic (147 g ai ha<sup>−1</sup>) and sulfentrazone (800 g ai ha<sup>−1</sup>) using bioassays with <i>Cucumis sativus</i> L. and HPLC/MS/MS methodologies when applied to sugarcane straw and directly on the soil and subjected to different periods of drought. Two experiments were performed with soil columns that followed a completely randomized design, with four replicates, in a 3 × 4 × 2 factorial scheme, with three treatments (0, 30 and 60 days after the application), four soil depths (0–0.05; 0.05–0.1; 0.1–0.15 and 0.15–0.2 cm) and in the absence of straw or with 10 t ha <sup>−1</sup> straw for each of the herbicides: imazapic and sulfentrazone. The bioassay and HPLC methodologies were equivalent in the leaching of imazapic to a depth of 0.1 m. Sulfentrazone showed low to moderate leaching, since from 0.10 cm, leaching was inexpressive in both methods, and in the 0.15–0.2 m layers in the HPLC methodology, the amount of herbicide detected was zero. Therefore, both methodologies can be considered equivalent in the study of herbicide leaching because even though they are different quantitative (HPLC) and qualitative (bioassay) methods, they resulted in interpretations similar in relation to the behavior of herbicides in the soil.</p>","PeriodicalId":808,"journal":{"name":"Water, Air, & Soil Pollution","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are bioassays and Analytical Methods Equivalent to the Application of Herbicide Leaching to Sugarcane Crops?\",\"authors\":\"Paulo Vinicius da Silva, Paulo Henrique Vieira dos Santos, Roque de Carvalho Dias, Bruna Ferrari Schedenffeldt, Pedro Jacob Christoffoleti, Edivaldo Domingues Velini, Caio Antônio Carbonari, Elias Silva de Medeiros, Patrícia Andrea Monquero\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11270-024-07336-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Herbicide leaching studies are extremely important to evaluate the environmental behavior of these products in the environment. However, there are no equivalence analyses in the literature of the most commonly used methods: bioassays and HPLC. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze the leaching of the herbicides imazapic (147 g ai ha<sup>−1</sup>) and sulfentrazone (800 g ai ha<sup>−1</sup>) using bioassays with <i>Cucumis sativus</i> L. and HPLC/MS/MS methodologies when applied to sugarcane straw and directly on the soil and subjected to different periods of drought. Two experiments were performed with soil columns that followed a completely randomized design, with four replicates, in a 3 × 4 × 2 factorial scheme, with three treatments (0, 30 and 60 days after the application), four soil depths (0–0.05; 0.05–0.1; 0.1–0.15 and 0.15–0.2 cm) and in the absence of straw or with 10 t ha <sup>−1</sup> straw for each of the herbicides: imazapic and sulfentrazone. The bioassay and HPLC methodologies were equivalent in the leaching of imazapic to a depth of 0.1 m. Sulfentrazone showed low to moderate leaching, since from 0.10 cm, leaching was inexpressive in both methods, and in the 0.15–0.2 m layers in the HPLC methodology, the amount of herbicide detected was zero. Therefore, both methodologies can be considered equivalent in the study of herbicide leaching because even though they are different quantitative (HPLC) and qualitative (bioassay) methods, they resulted in interpretations similar in relation to the behavior of herbicides in the soil.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":808,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Water, Air, & Soil Pollution\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Water, Air, & Soil Pollution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"6\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-024-07336-6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Water, Air, & Soil Pollution","FirstCategoryId":"6","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-024-07336-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
除草剂浸出研究对于评估这些产品在环境中的环境行为极为重要。然而,文献中并没有对最常用的方法(生物测定和高效液相色谱法)进行等效分析。因此,本研究的目的是使用生物测定和 HPLC/MS/MS 方法,分析除草剂咪草烟(147 g ai ha-1)和腙草酮(800 g ai ha-1)在甘蔗秸秆上和直接施用在土壤上并在不同干旱期的浸出情况。在完全随机设计的土壤柱中进行了两次实验,共四次重复,采用 3 × 4 × 2 的析因方案,三种处理(施药后 0 天、30 天和 60 天),四种土壤深度(0-0.05;0.05-0.1;0.1-0.15 和 0.15-0.2 厘米),对每种除草剂:咪鲜胺和磺草酮,均在无秸秆或有 10 t ha -1 秸秆的情况下进行。生物测定法和高效液相色谱法对深度为 0.1 米的咪草烟的沥滤效果相当。磺草酮的沥滤效果为中低,因为两种方法对 0.10 厘米处的沥滤效果都不明显,而在高效液相色谱法的 0.15-0.2 米层中,检测到的除草剂量为零。因此,在除草剂沥滤研究中,这两种方法可被视为等效,因为尽管它们是不同的定量(高效液相色谱法)和定性(生物测定法)方法,但它们对除草剂在土壤中行为的解释是相似的。
Are bioassays and Analytical Methods Equivalent to the Application of Herbicide Leaching to Sugarcane Crops?
Herbicide leaching studies are extremely important to evaluate the environmental behavior of these products in the environment. However, there are no equivalence analyses in the literature of the most commonly used methods: bioassays and HPLC. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze the leaching of the herbicides imazapic (147 g ai ha−1) and sulfentrazone (800 g ai ha−1) using bioassays with Cucumis sativus L. and HPLC/MS/MS methodologies when applied to sugarcane straw and directly on the soil and subjected to different periods of drought. Two experiments were performed with soil columns that followed a completely randomized design, with four replicates, in a 3 × 4 × 2 factorial scheme, with three treatments (0, 30 and 60 days after the application), four soil depths (0–0.05; 0.05–0.1; 0.1–0.15 and 0.15–0.2 cm) and in the absence of straw or with 10 t ha −1 straw for each of the herbicides: imazapic and sulfentrazone. The bioassay and HPLC methodologies were equivalent in the leaching of imazapic to a depth of 0.1 m. Sulfentrazone showed low to moderate leaching, since from 0.10 cm, leaching was inexpressive in both methods, and in the 0.15–0.2 m layers in the HPLC methodology, the amount of herbicide detected was zero. Therefore, both methodologies can be considered equivalent in the study of herbicide leaching because even though they are different quantitative (HPLC) and qualitative (bioassay) methods, they resulted in interpretations similar in relation to the behavior of herbicides in the soil.
期刊介绍:
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution is an international, interdisciplinary journal on all aspects of pollution and solutions to pollution in the biosphere. This includes chemical, physical and biological processes affecting flora, fauna, water, air and soil in relation to environmental pollution. Because of its scope, the subject areas are diverse and include all aspects of pollution sources, transport, deposition, accumulation, acid precipitation, atmospheric pollution, metals, aquatic pollution including marine pollution and ground water, waste water, pesticides, soil pollution, sewage, sediment pollution, forestry pollution, effects of pollutants on humans, vegetation, fish, aquatic species, micro-organisms, and animals, environmental and molecular toxicology applied to pollution research, biosensors, global and climate change, ecological implications of pollution and pollution models. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution also publishes manuscripts on novel methods used in the study of environmental pollutants, environmental toxicology, environmental biology, novel environmental engineering related to pollution, biodiversity as influenced by pollution, novel environmental biotechnology as applied to pollution (e.g. bioremediation), environmental modelling and biorestoration of polluted environments.
Articles should not be submitted that are of local interest only and do not advance international knowledge in environmental pollution and solutions to pollution. Articles that simply replicate known knowledge or techniques while researching a local pollution problem will normally be rejected without review. Submitted articles must have up-to-date references, employ the correct experimental replication and statistical analysis, where needed and contain a significant contribution to new knowledge. The publishing and editorial team sincerely appreciate your cooperation.
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution publishes research papers; review articles; mini-reviews; and book reviews.