2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.03.046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Faster degradation of herbicidally-active enantiomer of imidazolinones in soils

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
32
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…in chiral environments. For example, chiral pesticide enantiomers can differ in their toxicity and biological degradation due to the fact that the molecular receptor responsible for the toxicity or biological degradation of a pesticide is often an enzyme, the active center of which is also chiral and in turn enantioselective [2,[11][12][13][14][15]. Abiotic processes such as chemical, distribution, or transport processes are supposed to affect both enantiomers equally and are generally assumed to be non-enantioselective [10,16,17].…”
Section: Optical Isomers or Enantiomers Have Practically Identical Chmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…in chiral environments. For example, chiral pesticide enantiomers can differ in their toxicity and biological degradation due to the fact that the molecular receptor responsible for the toxicity or biological degradation of a pesticide is often an enzyme, the active center of which is also chiral and in turn enantioselective [2,[11][12][13][14][15]. Abiotic processes such as chemical, distribution, or transport processes are supposed to affect both enantiomers equally and are generally assumed to be non-enantioselective [10,16,17].…”
Section: Optical Isomers or Enantiomers Have Practically Identical Chmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is well known that the degradation of chiral pesticides in soil is usually enantioselective, primarily due to the enantioselectivity of soil biological degradation processes (Buerge et al, 2006;Garrison et al, 1996;Kurt-Karakus et al, 2005;Li et al, 2006;Ramezani et al, 2010); however, information on factors influencing such enantioselective degradation is still scarce (Buerge et al, 2003;Garrison, 2006;Lewis et al, 1999;Romero et al, 2001;Tan et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These concentrations would not represent a risk for freshwater algae considering the EC50 for P. subcapitata obtained in our study, which was 1,000 times greater than that concentration. However, imazethapyr is degraded slowly in soils, having a half-life between 30 and 60 days under laboratory conditions and between 2.6 and 10.6 months under field conditions (Ramezani et al 2010). While there is no information about its degradability in water, it would be relatively slow as in soil and thus may remain for some time in the aquatic ecosystems, increasing algae exposure.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%