| Literature DB >> 35889414 |
Paulina Książek-Trela1, Ewelina Bielak1, Dominika Węzka1, Ewa Szpyrka1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the influence of effective microorganisms (EM) present in biological formulations improving soil quality on degradation of two herbicides, diflufenican and flurochloridone. Three commercially available formulations containing EM were used: a formulation containing Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Streptococcus, Bacillus, and Rhodopseudomonas bacteria and the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae; a formulation containing Streptomyces, Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Rhodococcus, Cellulomonas, Arthrobacter, Paenibacillusa, and Pseudonocardia bacteria; and a formulation containing eight strains of Bacillus bacteria, B. megaterium, B. amyloliquefaciens, B. pumilus, B. licheniformis, B. coagulans, B. laterosporus, B. mucilaginosus, and B. polymyxa. It was demonstrated that those formulations influenced degradation of herbicides. All studied formulations containing EM reduced the diflufenican degradation level, from 35.5% to 38%, due to an increased acidity of the soil environment and increased durability of that substance at lower pH levels. In the case of flurochloridone, all studied EM formulations increased degradation of that active substance by 19.3% to 31.2% at the most. For control samples, equations describing kinetics of diflufenican and flurochloridone elimination were plotted, and a time of the half-life of these substances in laboratory conditions was calculated, amounting to 25.7 for diflufenican and 22.4 for flurochloridone.Entities:
Keywords: biodegradation; diflufenican; effective microorganisms; flurochloridone; pesticides
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35889414 PMCID: PMC9319521 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27144541
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Chemical structure of diflufenican [19].
Figure 2Diflufenican dissipation in the soil.
Percentage diflufenican degradation following application of formulations containing EM versus control samples (the content of herbicide in control samples, on each sampling day, was assumed as 100%; ‘−’ means that the degradation rate decreased).
| Number of Days | Degradation (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| EmFarma Plus™ | Rewital PRO+ | BACILLUS VIP Probiotic Microorganisms | |
| 11 | −36.5 ** | −35.5 | −32.6 |
| 25 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 7.2 |
| 39 | 3.5 | −25.0 * | −38.0 |
| 60 | 2.4 | −9.1 | −10.0 |
p < 0.05 (*) and p < 0.01 (**).
Figure 3Chemical structure of flurochloridone [19].
Figure 4Flurochloridone dissipation in the soil.
Percentage degradation of flurochloridone following application of formulations containing EM versus control samples (the content of herbicide in control samples, on each sampling day, was assumed as 100%).
| Number of Days | Degradation (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| EmFarma Plus™ | Rewital PRO+ | BACILLUS VIP Probiotic Microorganisms | |
| 11 | 18.3 | 7.1 | 22.0 |
| 25 | 4.9 | 27.7 | 29.8 |
| 39 | 4.4 | 17.9 | 17.8 |
| 60 | 19.3 | 30.5 * | 31.2 * |
p < 0.05 (*).
Figure 5Changes in the DHA of the soil with diflufenican and following application of formulations with EM in time. Statistically significant p values are shown as p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***).
Figure 6Changes in the DHA of the soil with flurochloridone and following application of formulations with EM in time. Statistically significant p values are shown as p < 0.05 (*) and p < 0.01 (**).
Study plan.
| Samples Number | Title 3 |
|---|---|
| 1–3 | soil + diflufenican |
| 4–6 | soil + diflufenican + EmFarma Plus™ |
| 7–9 | soil + diflufenican + Rewital PRO+ |
| 10–12 | soil + diflufenican + BACILLUS VIP Probiotic Microorganisms |
| 13–15 | soil + flurochloridone |
| 16–18 | soil + flurochloridone + EmFarma Plus™ |
| 19–21 | soil + flurochloridone + Rewital PRO+ |
| 22–24 | soil + flurochloridone + BACILLUS VIP Probiotic Microorganisms |