Browsing by Subject "Plant protection product"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1

Einfluss moderner Pflanzenschutzmittel auf die Mobilität von POP-belasteten Agrarflächen am Beispiel von DDT : ein Feldversuch
(2023) Neitsch, Julia Simone; Vetter, Walter
Due to their recalcitrance, the chloropesticide DDT and its structurally related compounds (DDX) are difficult to degrade. Consequently, farmers are still frequently confronted with DDX contamination in their fields that was left over from the 1960s. This problem is particularly prevalent in contaminated soils that are intended to cultivate plants of the Cucurbitaceae family. These plants release so-called root exudates, which function as natural surfactants that mobilize the DDX present in the soils. Furthermore, surfactants are a common constituent of modern plant protection product (PPP) formulations, which can likewise cause DDX mobilization. The higher mobility of DDX caused by these surfactants can result in the absorption and accumulation of chlorinated pesticides in plants. The side effects of such surfactant-containing PPP formulations have historically been overlooked in the context of standard spraying protocols. The potential mobilization of DDX in soils and its accumulation in Cucurbita pepo due to the surfactants present in standard PPPs formulations was investigated using two field trials. One field was treated with a conventional PPP, while the other was treated with a biological PPP; a control field was left untreated, within which pumpkins were cultivated. Soil samples were taken before and after the application of PPP. The DDX content was subsequently determined in extracts from the soil phase samples and soil water fractions. The background DDX contamination of the soils was comparable in all three test fields. The comparative evaluation showed that the field treated with the biological PPP formulation exhibited a considerable increase in DDX mobility compared to the untreated and conventionally cultivated areas (Paper 1). An analysis of its respective water fraction revealed that it was more contaminated with DDX than the control treatments. This increase suggests a higher bioavailability that can be traced back to the presence of surfactants and oils in the PPP formulations (Paper 1). This higher bioavailability may have been accompanied by an increase in the DDX uptake of the cultivated plants. Furthermore, it was found that treatment with specific formulations of emulsifiable concentrates (EC) promoted DDX mobilization. This mobilizing effect was most likely due to the differing composition of the surfactant and proportions of oils in the PPPs. The second field test focused on differential DDX accumulation in Cucurbita pepo cv. Howden by different PPPs. Fields were treated with PPP in accordance with the official spraying plans and regulations set out by the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). Samples from the pumpkin plants roots, shoots, as well as the pumpkins themselves were taken during the cultivation period. The DDX content in the roots from the control fields and the fields with conventional PPP treatments remained virtually unchanged; however, the DDX content increased in the biologically treated area (Paper 2). The pumpkin shoots did not exhibit any increases in DDX concentration during the growing phase regardless of the field sampled. However, an increased DDX content was detected in the shoots of the plants in all test fields shortly before harvesting. At the end of the growing phase, fruits from the biologically treated area showed a higher DDX content than those from the control and conventionally treated areas. In addition, the most critical DDT metabolite, DDE, was found to have been transported to distant parts of the plant, while DDD was detectable in the roots and shoots but not in the fruits of the pumpkins (Paper 2). An assessment of the results of both experiments confirmed a direct correlation between DDX mobilization in the soil and plant uptake. In addition, the bioaccumulation factors of the biologically treated areas were markedly higher than those seen in the conventionally treated and control areas. The results of the field trials show that the mobilization of DDT, as well as the likely mobilization of other lipophilic contaminants, can become problematic for farmers using surfactant-containing EC formulations. However, this observation also provides opportunities for improved phytoremediation by applying EC formulations with high mobilization potentials. The field trials indicate that the mobilizing effects of DDT prompted by EC mixtures depend on the surfactant content in the PPP formulations as well as environmental conditions such as soil conditions, soil water content, and precipitation. Unravelling the optimal range of surfactant-rich formulations and environmental conditions could lead to a promising strategy for soil phytoremediation.