| Literature DB >> 33458474 |
Caixia Sun1,2,3, Ke Bei4, Yanmei Xu1, Zhiyan Pan1.
Abstract
Although biochar is a promising soil enhancement material, we have limited understanding of its effect on certain pesticide in soils and plants under field conditions. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of walnut shell biochar (Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33458474 PMCID: PMC7807468 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.0c04268
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Structures and Physiochemical Properties of CAP and Acetochlor
Figure 1Characterization of WSB (a. TGA–DTG curves of WSB, b. NMR curve of WSB, c. Raman curve of WSB, and d. XRD curve of WSB).
Figure 2Height of B. chinensis L. with and without WSB application.
Figure 3Concentrations of CAP in soil and on B. chinensis L. with and without amendment of WSB and with different application dosages (a. low dosage in soil, b. high dosage in soil, c. low dosage on B. chinensis L., and d. high dosage on B. chinensis L.).
Half-Lives of CAP in Soils and B. chinensis L. with and without Amendment of Biochara
| Soil | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| time days | with WSB | without WSB | with WSB | without WSB | ||||
| 41.25 g a.i.ha–1 | 61.87 g a.i.ha–1 | 41.25 g a.i.ha–1 | 61.87 g a.i.ha–1 | 41.25 g a.i.ha–1 | 61.87 g a.i.ha–1 | 41.25 g a.i.ha–1 | 61.87 g a.i.ha–1 | |
| regression equation | C | C | C | C | C | C | C | C |
| 0.913 | 0.903 | 0.923 | 0.929 | 0.931 | 0.913 | 0.960 | 0.987 | |
| 17.3 | 17.3 | 17.3 | 17.3 | 5.33 | 5.77 | 5.77 | 5.33 | |
T1/2 means half-life days.
Figure 4Concentrations of acetochlor in soil and on B. chinensis L. with and without amendment of WSB and with different application dosages (A. low dosage in soil, B. high dosage in soil, C. low dosage on B. chinensis L., D. high dosage on B. chinensis L.).
Degradation Dynamics of Acetochlor on B. chinensis L. and Soil
| soil | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| time days | with
WSB | without
WSB | with
WSB | without
WSB | ||||
| 675 ga.i.ha–1 | 1012.5 ga.i.ha–1 | 675ga.i.ha–1 | 1012.5 ga.i.ha–1 | 675 ga.i.ha–1 | 1012.5 ga.i.ha–1 | 675 ga.i.ha–1 | 1012.5 ga.i.ha–1 | |
| regression equation | Ct = 1.083e–0.10t | Ct = 1.349e–0.10t | Ct = 1.719e–0.07t | Ct = 2.041e–0.07t | Ct = 15.65e–0.15t | Ct = 23.88e–0.15t | Ct = 15.45e–0.15t | Ct = 31.04e–0.15t |
| 0.995 | 0.959 | 0.991 | 0.982 | 0.987 | 0.979 | 0.991 | 0.967 | |
| 6.93 | 6.93 | 9.90 | 9.90 | 4.62 | 4.62 | 4.62 | 4.62 | |
BCF of CAP in Brassica chinensis L. with and without WSB for Selected Aging Time
| | low
dosage | high
dosage | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| days after CAP/acetochlor application | with WSB | without WSB | with WSB | without WSB | |
| CAP | 14 | 13.37 | 18.51 | 16.25 | 11.68 |
| 21 | 12.16 | 7.71 | 16.30 | 8.29 | |
| 28 | 1.656 | 2.19 | 1.89 | 3.30 | |
| acetochlor | 14 | 4.90 | 3.16 | 6.92 | 4.15 |
| 21 | 4.12 | 2.79 | 4.59 | 2.69 | |
| 28 | 4.71 | 1.97 | 5.93 | 2.17 | |
Physical and Chemical Properties of WSB and Soil
| samples | pH | density g ml–1 | EC ms cm–1 | CEC cmol kg–1 | element
analysis (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | P | K | TOC | |||||
| WSB | 6.78 | 0.332 | 3.52 | 40.23 | 1.26 | 0.038 | 3.82 | 93.9 |
| Soil | 6.64 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 13.7 | 0.0836 | 0.0026 | 0.0055 | 2.26 |