Effect of Mixed Urease Inhibitors on N Losses From Surface-applied Urea

Li, Sifang; Li, Jingjing; Lu, Jing Ci.; Wang, Zhijuan

doi:10.12783/ijast.2015.0301.04

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is most likely because the combination of two urease inhibitor types would inhibit a broader range of ureases present in the soil. The effects of Limus ® on NH 3 volatilization and N utilization on wheat production in northern China exhibited an 83% reduction in NH 3 losses compared to unprotected urea [70]. The study also found that the application of Limus ® did not significantly affect grain yield [71].…”

Section: N-(n-propyl) Thiophosphoric Triamide (Nppt)mentioning

confidence: 76%

Urease and Nitrification Inhibitors—As Mitigation Tools for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Sustainable Dairy Systems: A Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, nitrogen fertilizers are utilized to meet 48% of the total global food demand. The demand for nitrogen fertilizers is expected to grow as global populations continue to rise. The use of nitrogen fertilizers is associated with many negative environmental impacts and is a key source of greenhouse and harmful gas emissions. In recent years, urease and nitrification inhibitors have emerged as mitigation tools that are presently utilized in agriculture to prevent nitrogen losses and reduce greenhouse and harmful gas emissions that are associated with the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers. Both classes of inhibitor work by different mechanisms and have different physiochemical properties. Consequently, each class must be evaluated on its own merits. Although there are many benefits associated with the use of these inhibitors, little is known about their potential to enter the food chain, an event that may pose challenges to food safety. This phenomenon was highlighted when the nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide was found as a residual contaminant in milk products in 2013. This comprehensive review aims to discuss the uses of inhibitor technologies in agriculture and their possible impacts on dairy product safety and quality, highlighting areas of concern with regards to the introduction of these inhibitor technologies into the dairy supply chain. Furthermore, this review discusses the benefits and challenges of inhibitor usage with a focus on EU regulations, as well as associated health concerns, chemical behavior, and analytical detection methods for these compounds within milk and environmental matrices.

show abstract

Section: N-(n-propyl) Thiophosphoric Triamide (Nppt)mentioning

confidence: 76%

Urease and Nitrification Inhibitors—As Mitigation Tools for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Sustainable Dairy Systems: A Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several urea analogues were shown to more effectively inhibit urea hydrolysis in vitro than NBPT [29] but none of the compounds tested by these authors is commercial so far. A formulation containing NBPT and NPPT (N-(n-propyl) thiophosphoric triamide) has been successfully tested [30] , [31] and has reached the market in the past two years under the brand name Limus. A new urease inhibitor, N-(2-nitrophenyl) phosphoric triamide (2-NPT), was developed in Germany in the early 2000s, has been tested under field conditions [32] and is also reaching the market, which is, so far, amply dominated by NBPT.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agronomic efficiency of NBPT as a urease inhibitor: A review

Cantarella

Otto

Soares

et al. 2018

Journal of Advanced Research

331

225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Graphical abstractSchematic diagram of urea dissolution, diffusion and hydrolysis in the soil. (a) Without an inhibitor, hydrolysis is fast (dark blue color) causing NH3/NH4+ accumulation and increasing the pH close to the soil surface around the fertilizer granule, driving NH3 volatilization. As the ammonia species are less mobile in soil, diffusion is limited. (b) The inhibitor maintains urea unhydrolyzed for some time. Urea has no electrical charges and diffuses easily into the soil solution. When the effect of the inhibitor phases down and urea starts to hydrolyze, both the pH and the NH3/NH4+ concentrations are lower (light blue color) as a result of dilution. Part of the urea is incorporated into the soil before hydrolysis; the NH3 produced inside the soil is retained by the negative charges of colloidal material and losses are reduced even if no rain or irrigation incorporates urea into the soil.

show abstract

“…Urea is the single most widely used nitrogen (N) fertilizer in the world and accounted for 57% of the global N fertilizer consumption in 2013 and 2014 (Heffer and Prud'homme, 2016). Urea is a desirable N source due to its low cost and high N content (460 g kg –1 ) and is easy for manufacturers and retailers to handle and store (Li et al, 2015). However, the efficiency of urea can be greatly reduced if N is lost from the soil surface through volatilization as ammonia gas.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil Property and Fertilizer Additive Effects on Ammonia Volatilization from Urea

Sunderlage

Cook

2018

Soil Science Soc of Amer J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Total exchange capacity was the best soil predictor of volatilization from urea. Urease activity and pH were not effective predictors of volatilization from urea. NBPT effectively reduces ammonia volatilization compared with nonamended urea. NBPT efficacy was reduced in more acidic soils. Calcium salt of maleic‐itaconic copolymer did not reduce ammonia volatilization. Urea efficiency can be substantially reduced through nitrogen loss as ammonia (NH3–N), which is controlled by soil properties and environmental conditions. A laboratory incubation measured the effects of a range of soil properties on ammonia volatilization over 7 d from 168 kg N ha–1 as surface‐applied urea and the efficacy of two fertilizer additives: urea plus a commercial formulation of N‐(n‐butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) + N‐(n‐propyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NPPT) (urea + NBPT/NPPT) and urea plus a commercial formulation of calcium salt of maleic‐itaconic copolymer (MIP) from 79 soils across the United States. Total exchange capacity (TEC), 0.01 mol L–1 CaCl2 pH (pH), soil organic matter (SOM), hydroxide buffering capacity (OHBC), clay content, and urease activity were measured as predictors. Generalized regression models identified that TEC, clay content, OHBC, and SOM accounted for most variation in NH3–N losses in urea (R2 = 0.69) and urea + MIP (R2 = 0.67). Total exchange capacity was the strongest predictor of volatilization; greater TEC resulted in lower NH3–N losses. pH and TEC accounted for the most variation in NH3–N loss among soils fertilized with urea + NBPT/NPPT (R2 = 0.58). Volatilization increased with lower pH in urea + NBPT/NPPT, indicating that NBPT efficacy decreases in acidic soils, potentially due to faster chemical degradation. The addition of NBPT/NPPT to urea significantly reduced volatilization from 24.5 to 6.3% of applied N (P < 0.0001), whereas urea + MIP did not reduce volatilization (P = 0.9707).

show abstract

Effect of Mixed Urease Inhibitors on N Losses From Surface-applied Urea

Cited by 7 publications

References 18 publications

Urease and Nitrification Inhibitors—As Mitigation Tools for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Sustainable Dairy Systems: A Review

Urease and Nitrification Inhibitors—As Mitigation Tools for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Sustainable Dairy Systems: A Review

Agronomic efficiency of NBPT as a urease inhibitor: A review

Soil Property and Fertilizer Additive Effects on Ammonia Volatilization from Urea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About