The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Potential Contributions of Smectite Clays and Organic Matter to Pesticide Retention in Soils
Abstract
Soil organic matter (SOM) is often considered the dominant sorptive phase for organic contaminants and pesticides in soil-water systems. This is evidenced by the widespread use of organic-matter-normalized sorption coefficients (K(OM)) to predict soil-water distribution of pesticides, an approach that ignores the potential contribution of soil minerals to sorption. To gain additional perspective on the potential contributions of clays and SOM to pesticide retention in soils, we measured sorption of seven pesticides by a K-saturated reference smectite clay (SWy-2) and SOM (represented by a muck soil). In addition, we measured the adsorption of atrazine by five different K-saturated smectites and Ca-saturated SWy-2. On a unit mass basis, the K-SWy-2 clay was a more effective sorbent than SOM for 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol (DNOC), dichlobenil, and carbaryl of the seven pesticides evaluated, of which, DNOC was sorbed to the greatest extent. Atrazine was sorbed to a similar extent by K-SWy-2 and SOM. Parathion, diuron, and biphenyl were sorbed to a greater extent by SOM than by K-SWy-2. Atrazine was adsorbed by Ca-SWy-2 to a much lesser extent than by K-SWy-2. This appears to be related to the larger hydration sphere of Ca(2+) (compared to that of K(+)) which shrinks the effective size of the adsorption domains between exchangeable cations, and which expands the clay layers beyond the apparently optimal spacing of approximately 12.2 A for sorption of aromatic pesticide structures. Although a simple relation between atrazine adsorption by different K-smectites and charge properties of clay was not observed, the highest charge clay was the least effective sorbent; a higher charge density would result in a loss of adsorption domains. These results indicate that for certain pesticides, expandable soil clays have the potential to be an equal or dominant sorptive phase when compared to SOM for pesticide retention in soil.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Compositions and sorptive properties of crop residue-derived chars
Chun, Y., Sheng, G., Chiou, C. T., & Xing, B. (2004) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es035034w · Cited by 1,079
Mineral surface control of organic carbon in black shale
Kennedy, M. J., Pevear, D. R., & Hill, R. J. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1066611 · Cited by 611
Hybrid materials based on clays for environmental and biomedical applications
Ruiz-Hitzky, E., Aranda, P., Darder, M., & Rytwo, G. (2010) · Journal of Materials Chemistry · doi:10.1039/c0jm00432d · Cited by 325
Enhanced Pesticide Sorption by Soils Containing Particulate Matter from Crop Residue Burns
Yang, Y., & Sheng, G. (2003) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es034006a · Cited by 310
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sheng, G., Johnston, C. T., Teppen, B. J., & Boyd, S. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2001-05-23
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2899-2907
- ISSN
- 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5118
- OpenAlex
- W2070921978
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.