Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T11:31:40.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confirmation of an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay to Detect Fluometuron in Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark W. Shankle ,
David R. Shaw  and
Michele Boyette
Mark W. Shankle
Affiliation:
North Mississippi Research and Extension Center, 8320 Highway 15 South, Pontotoc, MS 38863
David R. Shaw*
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Michele Boyette
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dshaw@weedscience.msstate.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted to compare the results of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) for detecting fluometuron in the environment. A linear relationship for HPLC (R2 > 0.90) and ELISA (R2 > 0.66) analysis was observed between the natural logarithm of the detected fluometuron concentrations regressed against time in soil collected from a cropped area, a grass filter strip, and a riparian forest. Both methods detected the same initial fluometuron concentration (y-intercept) for two of the three soils evaluated. The ELISA and HPLC measurements of fluometuron concentrations compared favorably with r values from 0.83 to 0.98. Predicted fluometuron half-lives determined from HPLC and ELISA measurements were: 110 and 112 d in the cropped watershed, 28 and 29 d in the riparian area, and 11 and 11 d in the grass filter strip, respectively. Results from both techniques indicated shorter half-lives in soil from the grass filter strip and riparian area than in cropped area soil. There was an inverse correlation between predicted half-lives and soil organic matter, pH, clay, and cation exchange capacity.

Keywords

Herbicide degradationBMPs, best management practicesCEC, cation-exchange capacityDAT, days after treatmentDT50, 50% disappearance timeELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assayHPLC, high-performance liquid chromatographyIC50, analyte concentration that decreases chromogen activity by 50%LDD, least detectable doseMD-MSEA, Mississippi Delta Management Systems Evaluation AreaOM, organic matter
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 669 - 675
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Aga, D. S. and Thurman, E. M. 1997. Environmental immunoassays: alternative techniques for soil and water analysis. In Aga, D. S. and Thurman, E. M., eds. Immunochemical Technology for Environmental Applications. ACS Symposium Series No. 657. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastian, K. C., Thurman, E. M., and Rebich, R. A. 1998. Comparison of enzyme-linked immunoassay with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for analysis of the cotton herbicide fluometuron. Proc. Miss. Water Res. Conf. 28: 45–55.Google Scholar
Benoit, P., Barriuso, E., Vidon, Ph., and Réal, B. 1999. Isoproturon sorption and degradation in a soil from grassed buffer strip. J. Environ. Qual. 28: 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, B. M. 1998. Parameters influencing biotransformation rates of phenylurea herbicides by soil microorganisms. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 60: 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozarth, G. A. and Funderburk, H. H. Jr. 1971. Degradation of fluometuron in sandy loam soil. Weed Sci. 19: 691–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, B. A., Hayes, R. M., Tyler, D. D., and Mueller, T. C. 1994. Effect of tillage and cover crop on fluometuron adsorption and degradation under controlled conditions. Weed Sci. 42: 629–634.Google Scholar
Bushway, R. J., Katz, L. E., Perkins, L. B., Reed, A. W., Fran, T. S., and Young, B. S. 1997. Analysis of hezazinone in soil by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In Aga, D. S. and Thurman, E. M., eds. Immunochemical Technology for Environmental Applications. ACS Symposium Series No. 657. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. pp. 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassel, D. K. and Nielsen, D. R. 1986. Field capacity and available water capacity. In Klute, A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Soil Science Society of America Series No. 5, Part 1. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. pp. 901–926.Google Scholar
Coupe, R. H., Thurman, E. M., and Zimmerman, L. R. 1998. Relation of usage to the occurrence of cotton and rice herbicides in three streams of the Mississippi Delta. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32: 3,673–3,680.Google Scholar
DeBolt, D. C. 1974. A high sample volume procedure for the colorimetric determination of soil organic matter. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 5: 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzantiev, B. B., Zherdev, A. V., Romanenko, O. G., and Trubaceva, J. N. 1997. Development of various enzyme immunotechniques for pesticide detection. In Aga, D. S. and Thurman, E. M., eds. Immunochemical Technology for Environmental Applications. ACS Symposium Series No. 657. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. pp. 87–96.Google Scholar
Gaynor, J. D., Cancilla, D. A., Webster, G.R.B., Sarna, L. P., Graham, K. N., Ng, H.Y.F., Tan, C. S., Drury, C. F., and Welacky, T. 1996. Comparative solid phase extraction, solid phase microextraction, and immunoassay analyses of metolachlor in surface runoff and tile drainage. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44: 2,736–2,741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, G. W. and Bauder, J. W. 1986. Particle size analysis. In Klute, A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Soil Science Society of America Series No. 5, Part 1. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. pp. 383–414.Google Scholar
Hall, J. C., Deschamps, R.J.A., and McDermontt, M. R. 1990. Immunoassays to detect and quantitate herbicides in the environment. Weed Technol. 4: 226–234.Google Scholar
Hartel, P. G. 1998. The soil habitat. In Sylvia, D. M., Fuhrmann, J. J., Hartel, P. G., and Zuberer, D. A., eds. Principles and Applications of Soil Microbiology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. pp. 21–43.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, P. J., Shea, P. J., Takacs, J. M., and Staswick, P. E. 1993. Immunoassay to detect enhanced carbamothioate degradation in soil. Weed Technol. 7: 396–403.Google Scholar
Joseph, R. L., Coupe, R. H., and Zimmerman, L. 1997. Occurrence of selected cotton and rice herbicides and their metabolites in streams and oxbow lakes of Western Mississippi, Northeastern Louisiana, and Eastern Arkansas. Proc. Miss. Water Res. Conf. 27: 133–137.Google Scholar
Knopp, A., Knopp, D., and Niessner, R. 1999. ELISA determination of the sulfonylurea herbicide metsulfuron-methyl in different water types. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33: 358–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozak, J. and Weber, J. B. 1983. Adsorption of five phenylurea herbicides by selected soils of Czechoslovakia. Weed Sci. 31: 368–372.Google Scholar
Lawruk, T. S., Lachman, C. E., Jourdan, S. W., Fleeker, J. R., Herzog, D. P., and Rubio, F. M. 1993. Determination of metolachlor in water and soil by a rapid magnetic particle-based ELISA. J. Agric. Food Chem. 41: 1,426–1,431.Google Scholar
Lowrance, R., Leonard, R., and Sheridan, J. 1985. Managing riparian ecosystems to control nonpoint pollution. J. Soil Water Conserv. 40: 87–91.Google Scholar
McLatchey, G. P. and Reddy, K. R. 1998. Wetlands and aquatic processes, regulations of organic matter decomposition and nutrient release in a wetland soil. J. Environ. Qual. 27: 1,268–1,274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, E. O. 1982. Soil pH and lime requirement. In Page, A. L. et al., eds. Methods of Soil Analysis. Agronomy Series No. 9, Part 2. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. pp. 199–224.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Moorman, T. B., and Snipes, C. E. 1992. Effect of concentration, sorption, and microbial biomass on degradation of the herbicide fluometuron in surface and subsurface soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 40: 2,517–2,522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickard, R. W. and Camper, N. D. 1978. Degradation of fluometuron by Rhizoctonia solani . Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 3: 253–258.Google Scholar
Rhoades, J. D. 1982. Cation exchange capacity. In Page, A. L. et al., eds. Methods of Soil Analysis, Agronomy Series No. 9, Part 2. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. pp. 149–157.Google Scholar
Ross, J. A. and Tweedy, B. G. 1973. Degradation of four phenylurea herbicides by mixed populations of microorganisms from two soil types. Soil Biol. Biochem. 5: 739–746.Google Scholar
Schlaeppi, J. A., Meyer, W., and Ramsteiner, K. A. 1992. Determination of triasulfuron in soil by monoclonal antibody-based enzyme immunoassay. J. Agric. Food Chem. 40: 1,093–1,098.Google Scholar
Shankle, M. W., Shaw, D. R., Kingery, W. L., and Askew, S. D. 1997. Influence of best management practices (BMPs) on fluometuron adsorption. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 165–166.Google Scholar
Smith, R. K. 1997. Organic parameters. In Handbook of Environmental Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: Genium Publishing Corp. 319 p.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. EPA Publication 822-R-96-001. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.Google Scholar
Wagner, S. C. and Zablotowicz, R. B. 1997. Utilization of plant materials of herbicide-contaminated soil. In Kruger, E. L., Anderson, T. A., and Coats, J. R., eds. Phytoremediation of Soil and Water Contaminants. ACS Symposium Series No. 664. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. pp. 65–74.Google Scholar
Wallnöfer, P. R., and Safe, S., and Hutzinger, O. 1973. Microbial demethylation and debutylation of four phenylurea herbicides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 3: 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar