|
|
|
|
|
| Single and Combined Effects of As (III) and Acetochlor on Phosphatase Activity in Soil |
| ZHANG Yun, ZHANG Feng, ZHANG Guan-cai , GUAN Lian-zhu |
1 College of Land and Environment, Shenyang Agriculture University, Shenyang 110866, P.R.China
2 The Center for Agriculture Quantity and Safe, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing 100081, P.R.China |
|
|
|
摘要 The actions and interactions of acetochlor and As on the soil phosphatase activity were investigated after 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 30 and 60 d of exposure under control conditions. The soils were exposed to various concentrations of acetochlor and As individually and simultaneously. The results showed that acetochlor, As only, and combined pollution all clearly inhibited soil phosphatase activity. The maximum inhibition ratios of soil phosphatase activity by acetochlor, As only and combined pollution were 36.44, 74.12 and 61.29%, respectively. Two kinetic models, ν=c/(1+bi) (model 1) and ν=c(1+ai)/(l+bi) (model 2), were used to describe the relationship between the concentrations of As and acetochlor and the activity of soil phosphatase. The semi-effect dose (ED50) values induced by As and acetochlor stress based on the inhibition of soil phosphatase were 18.1 and 33.11 mg kg-1, respectively, according to calculation by model 1. The interactive effect of acetochlor with As on soil phosphatase primarily consisted of significant antagonism effects at the higher concentrations tested. The step regression results show that the toxicity order was As (III)>acetochlor>As (III)×acetochlor throughout the incubation period.
Abstract The actions and interactions of acetochlor and As on the soil phosphatase activity were investigated after 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 30 and 60 d of exposure under control conditions. The soils were exposed to various concentrations of acetochlor and As individually and simultaneously. The results showed that acetochlor, As only, and combined pollution all clearly inhibited soil phosphatase activity. The maximum inhibition ratios of soil phosphatase activity by acetochlor, As only and combined pollution were 36.44, 74.12 and 61.29%, respectively. Two kinetic models, ν=c/(1+bi) (model 1) and ν=c(1+ai)/(l+bi) (model 2), were used to describe the relationship between the concentrations of As and acetochlor and the activity of soil phosphatase. The semi-effect dose (ED50) values induced by As and acetochlor stress based on the inhibition of soil phosphatase were 18.1 and 33.11 mg kg-1, respectively, according to calculation by model 1. The interactive effect of acetochlor with As on soil phosphatase primarily consisted of significant antagonism effects at the higher concentrations tested. The step regression results show that the toxicity order was As (III)>acetochlor>As (III)×acetochlor throughout the incubation period.
|
|
Received: 30 October 2012
Accepted:
|
| Fund: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41101455). |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Correspondence GUAN Lian-zhu, Tel: +86-24-88493104, E-mail: guanlianzhu1960@163.com
E-mail: guanlianzhu1960@163.com
|
| About author: ZHANG Yun, Tel: +86-24-88493104, E-mail: xingyun92757@163.com |
Cite this article:
ZHANG Yun, ZHANG Feng, ZHANG Guan-cai , GUAN Lian-zhu.
2013.
Single and Combined Effects of As (III) and Acetochlor on Phosphatase Activity in Soil. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 12(6): 1079-1086.
|
| [1]Bhattacharya P, Welch A H, Stollenwerk K G, McLaughlinM S, Bundschunh J, Panaullah G. 2007. Arsenic in theenvironment: biology and chemistry. Science of theTotal Environment, 379, 109-120[2]Bhattacharyya P, Tripathy S, Kim K, Kim S H. 2008. Arsenicfractions and enzyme activities in arsenic-contaminatedsoils by groundwater irrigation in West Bengal.Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 71, 149-156[3]Cao H, Sun H, Yang H, Sun B, Zhao Q G. 2003. A review:soil enzyme activity and its indication for soil quality.Chinese Journal of Applied & Environmental Biology,9, 105-109[4](in Chinese)Dagnac T, Jeannot R, Mouvet C, Baran N. 2002.Determination of oxanilic and sulfonic acid metabolitesof acetochlor in soils by liquid chromatographyelectrosprayionization mass spectrometry. Journalof Chromatography, 957, 69-77[5]Dick R P. 1994. Soil enzyme activities as indicators of soilquality. In: Doran J W, Coleman D C, Bezdicek D F,Stewart B A, eds., Defining Soil Quality for aSustainable Environment. SSSA Special Publication35. Soil Science Society of America, Madison. pp. 107-124[6]Dick R P. 1997. Soil enzyme activities as integrativeindicators of soil health. In: Pankhurst C E, Doube B M,Gupta V V S R, eds., Biological Indicators of SoilHealth. CAB International, Wallingford, New York. pp.121-156[7]Dictor M C, Baran N, Gautier A, Mouvet C. 2008. Acetochlormineralization and fate of its two major metabolites intwo soils under laboratory conditions. Chemosphere,71, 663-670[8]Feron V J, Groten J P. 2002. Toxicological evaluation ofchemical mixtures. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 40,825-839[9]Gao Y, Zhou P, Mao L, Zhi Y, Zhang C H, Shi W J. 2010.Effects of plant species coexistence on soil enzymeactivities and soil microbial community structure underCd and Pb combined pollution. Journal ofEnvironmental Sciences, 22, 1040-1048[10]Ghosh K, Bhattacharyya P, Pal R. 2004. Effect of arseniccontamination on microbial biomass and its activities.Environment International, 30, 491-499[11]He W X, Ma A S, Wu Y J, Zhu M E. 2004. Effect of arsenico n s o i l u r e a s e a c t i v i t y . Chinese Journalof Applied Ecology, 15, 895-898 (in Chinese)[12]Irha N, Slet J, Petersell V. 2003. Effect of heavy metals andPAH on soil assessed via dehydrogenase assay.Environment International, 28, 779-782[13]Liu H J, Zhan X M, Liu W P. 2005. Influence of fouracetanilide herbicides on soil enzyme activity. ChinaEnvironmental Science, 25, 611-614 (in Chinese)[14]Ma J, He R H, Jiang X Y. 2008. Effects of single and combinedpollution of chlorpyrifos and acetochlor on soil enzymeactivity and microbial biomass carbon. Journal ofEcology and Rural Environment, 24, 57-60[15]Maliszewska-Kordybach B, Smreczak B. 2003. Habitatfunction of agricultural soils as affected by heavy metalsand polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contamination.Environment International, 28, 719-728[16]Omar S A, Abdel-Sater M A. 2001. Microbial populationsand enzyme activities in soil treated with pesticides.Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 127, 49-63[17]Poorna V, Kulkarni P R. 1995. A study of inulinaseproduction in Aspergillus niger using fractional design.Bioresource Technology, 54, 315-320[18]Shen G Q, Lu Y T, Hong J B. 2006. Combined effect ofheavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonson urease activity in soil. Ecotoxicology andEnvironmental Safety, 63, 474-480[19]Shen G Q, Lu Y T, Zhou Q X, Hong J B. 2005. Interaction ofpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metalson soil enzyme. Chemosphere, 61, 1175-1182[20]Sikkema J, de Bont J A M, Poolman B. 1995. Mechanisms ofmembrane toxicity of hydrocarbons. MicrobiologicalReview, 59, 201-222[21]Speir T W, Kettles H A, Parshotam A, Searle P L, Vlaar L NC. 1995. A simply kinetic approach to derive theecological dose value, ED50, for the assessment of Cr(V1) toxicity to soil biological properties. Soil Biology& Biochemistry, 27, 801-810[22]Speir T W, Kettles H A, Parshotam A, Searle P L, Vlaar L NC. 1999. Simply kinetic approach to determine thetoxicity of As (V) to soil biological properties. SoilBiology & Biochemistry, 31, 705-713[23]Sukul P. 2006. Enzymatic activities and microbial biomassin soil as influenced by metalaxyl residues. Soil Biologyand Biochemistry, 38, 320-326[24]Tamaki S, Frankenberger J W T. 1992. Environmentalbiogeochemistry of arsenic. Reviews of EnvironmentalContamination and Toxicology, 24, 79-110[25]Tejada M. 2009. Evolution of soil biological properties afteraddition of glyphosate, diflufenican and glyphosatediflufenican herbicides. Chemosphere, 76, 365-373[26]Tejada M, Parrado J, Hernández T, García C. 2011. Thebiochemical response to different Cr and Cdconcentrations in soils amended with organic wastes.Journal of Hazardous Materials, 185, 204-211[27]Wang S, Mulligan C N. 2006. Occurrence of arseniccontamination in Canada: sources, behavior anddistribution. Science of the Total Environment, 366,701-721[28]Weltje L. 1998. Mixture toxicity and tissues interactions ofCd, Cu, Pb and Zn in earthworms (Olignchaeta) inlaboratory and field soil: a critical evaluation of data.Chemosphere, 36, 2643-2660[29]Xiao N W, Jing B B, Ge F, Liu X. 2006. The fate of herbicideacetochlor and its toxicity to Eisenia fetida underlaboratory conditions. Chemosphere, 62, 1366-1373[30]Ye C. 2003. Environmental behavior of the herbicideacetochlor in soil. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 71, 919-923[31]Yokley R A, Mayer L C, Huang S B, Vargo J D. 2002.Analytical method for the determination of metolachlor,acetochlor, alachlor, dimethenamid and theircorresponding ethanesulfonic and oxanillic aciddegradates in water using SPE and LC/ESI-MS/MS.Analytical Chemistry, 74, 3754-3759[32]Zabaloy M C, Gómez M A. 2008. Microbial respiration insoils of the Argentine Pampas after metsulfuron-methyl,2,4-D and glyphosate treatments. Communications inSoil Science and Plant Analysis, 39, 370-385[33]Zhan X H, Wu W Z, Zhou L X, Liang J, Jiang T. 2010.Interactive effect of dissolved organic matter andphenanthrene on soil enzymatic activities. Journal ofEnvironmental Sciences, 22, 607-614[34]Zhang Y M, Wu N, Zhou G Y, Bao W K. 2005. Changes inenzyme activities of spruce (Picea balfouriana) forestsoil as related to burning in the eastern Qinghai-TibetanPlateau. Applied Soil Ecology, 30, 215-225.Zhou Q X. 2004. Ecology of Combined Pollution. ChinaEnvironmental Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
