Effects of Feedds and EDDS on Peat-Based Substrate Ph and Cu
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HORTSCIENCE 47(2):269–274. 2012. was reported by Albano (2011) and Albano and Merhaut (2012) where it was found that plants supplied with FeEDDS were not differ- Effects of FeEDDS and EDDS on ent in growth or foliar Fe concentration than plants supplied with FeEDTA, FeDTPA, Peat-based Substrate pH and Cu, Fe, FeEDDHA, or FeSO4. Leachate solution spec- tral properties and chemistry differed, how- Mn, and Zn Solubility ever, between these Fe chelates. It was found that FeEDDS maximally absorbed at a shorter Joseph P. Albano1 wavelength (238 nm) than either FeEDTA USDA-ARS-U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory, 2001 South Rock Road, (258 nm) or FeDTPA (260 nm) and that Fe- Fort Pierce, FL 34945-3030 catalyzed photodegradation of FeEDDS oc- curred at a rate close to twice that of FeEDTA Additional index words. chelate, complexone, ligand, water quality, bedding plants, fertilizer, when exposed to light (Albano, 2011). It was aminopolycarboxylic acid, media also found that FeEDDS leached less Fe and Mn than FeEDTA, FeDTPA, or FeEDDHA Abstract. Common chelating agents used in horticultural fertilizers like ethylenediamine- during the production cycle of marigold tetraacetic acid (EDTA), diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), and ethylenediami- (Albano and Merhaut, 2012). Therefore, the nedi(o-hydroxyphenylacetic) acid (EDDHA) are not readily biodegradable and may persist broad objectives of this study were to gain in the environment, maintaining the capacity to solubilize heavy metals. For this reason, knowledge on FeEDDS and EDDS interac- biodegradable chelating agents like ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid (EDDS) are being tions with peat-based substrate. Specific objec- evaluated for use in horticultural crop production. Therefore, the objectives of the study tives were to 1) compare effects of Fe source were to determine the effects of FeEDDS and EDDS on substrate pH and copper (Cu), iron (FeEDDS, FeEDTA, FeDTPA, FeEDDHA, (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn) solubility in peat-based substrate compared with and FeSO4); and 2) compare effects of chelate- various Fe and chelate-ligand sources. Extractions were performed using the 1:2 by volume ligand (EDDS, EDTA, and DTPA) on peat- substrate analysis method with an incubation period of 24 hours. The control was distilled based substrate pH and solubility of Cu, Fe, –1 deionized water extractions. Iron-source (FS) extractants consisted of 1 mgÁL Fe solutions Mn, and Zn. derived from FeEDDS, FeEDTA, FeDTPA, FeEDDHA, and FeSO4. Iron-source extractant solution pH ranged from 7.1 (FeEDDS) to 5.4 (FeSO ). The extract pH for all Fe-source 4 Materials and Methods treatments was similar at pH 6.7, demonstrating the buffering capacity of the peat-based substrate. Iron recovery rates for FS treatments were determined after subtracting Fe that Extractions. Substrate analysis was per- was freely extracted with distilled-deionized water: FeSO4 (13%), FeEDDHA (68%), formed using the 1:2 by volume extraction FeEDDS (73%), FeEDTA (102%), and FeDTPA (121%). Iron-source treatments were not method (Sonneveld and van den Ende, 1971; –1 –1 –1 different for Mn, averaging 0.03 mgÁL , and Cu (0.04 mgÁL ) and Zn (0.24 mgÁL )were Sonneveld et al., 1990). In 250-mL LDPE greatest in the FeEDDS treatment. Chelate-ligand (CL) extractants consisted of 5 mM bottles, 100 cm3 of peat-based substrate (Fafard solutions of EDDS, EDTA, and DTPA. Chelate-ligand extractant solution pH ranged from 4P; Conrad Fafard, Inc., Agawam, MA) com- 9.7 (EDDS) to 2.3 (DTPA), and extract solution pH ranged from 7.2 (EDDS) to 4.7 (DTPA). posed of Canadian sphagnum peatmoss (45%), Extractant solutions of EDDS and DTPA resulted in the lowest and highest levels of Cu processed pine bark, perlite, vermiculite, dolo- –1 –1 (0.06 and 0.14 mgÁL , respectively) and Fe (4.3 and 13.1 mgÁL , respectively) in extract mite, wetting agent, and a preplant fertilizer solutions. Overall, these results suggest that there are no negative implications for the use (i.e., nutrient starter charge) (<http://www. of FeEDDS with peat-based substrate in terms of horticultural crop production based on fafard.com/Products/MiddleWeightMixes.aspx> substrate Fe solubility, which was not different from FeEDTA. accessed 15 Nov. 2011) (moisture content was 45% ± 1%, n = 6) was combined with 200 mL extractant solution. Bottles were capped and Soluble fertilizers are typically formulated synthetically produced and not readily bio- placed on a flatbed shaker set at 160 rpm for a with metal-aminopolycarboxylic acids [APCA degradable (Borowiec et al., 2007; Sillanpa¨a¨, 24-h incubation period. Extract solutions were (i.e., chelating agents)] of Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn. 1997). In Europe, these chelating agents, gravity filtered (Whatman 541; Whatman, Int., These metal–APCA complexes, however, are especially EDTA, are persistent in the envi- Kent, U.K.) with filtrates analyzed for pH using also applied as single-metal chelate solutions ronment and are believed to have the ability a glass electrode, temperature-compensated to foliage, soil/substrate, or both for correcting to extract and mobilize heavy metals from pH meter (AR50 pH meter; Fisher Scientific, micronutrient deficiency like Fe chlorosis sediments in surface and groundwaters; trans- Suwannee, GA), and subsequently analyzed for (Mortvedt, 1991). Common chelating agents porting extracted metals in the water column Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn by inductively coupled used in fertilizers include EDTA, DTPA, and (complete review in Albano, 2011). For these plasma–optical emission spectroscopy (iCAP EDDHA (Lucena, 2003). These chelating reasons, in Europe, EDTA is being replaced 6500; ThermoScientific, West Palm Beach, agents differ in stability/formation constants, where possible with biodegradable chelating FL) according to U.S. EPA Method 6010B i.e., the chemical bond-strength of the ion- agents like [S, S#]-EDDS (EDDS), which is (1997) with quality assurance as described by ligand complex with metals as a function of a structural isomer of EDTA that is reported Hoskins and Wolf (1998). The extractants for pH, but they share a common trait; they are to have similar functionality as a chelate Expt. 1 were 1 mgÁL–1 Fe solutions derived (Metsa¨rinne et al., 2001; Neal and Rose, from FeEDDS, FeEDTA, FeDTPA, FeEDDHA, 1973). However, several other readily bio- or FeSO4 (FS). The extractants for Expt. Received for publication 21 Sept. 2011. Accepted degradable ‘‘green’’ chelating agents are also 2were5mM solutions of EDDS, EDTA, or for publication 25 Dec. 2011. being considered as replacements including DTPA (CL). Extractants in Expts. 1 and 2 were This work is associated with USDA-ARS Research methylglycinediacetic acid, L-aspartic acid not buffered, and the control in both ex- Project 6618-13000-003-00D and was partially N, N-diacetic acid, sodium diethanolglycine/ periments was distilled-deionized (DI) water supported by the USDA-ARS Floriculture and 2-hydroxyliminodiacetic acid, iminodisuc- extractant. Chemical reagent sources were: Nursery Research Initiative. cinic acid with salts, glutamic acid diacetic [S, S#]-EDDS trisodium salt (Fluka Analytical, I thank Chris Lasser, Loretta Myers, and Marcus Martinez for technical assistance and Randy Niedz acid, and N-(1,2-dicarboxyethyl)-D,L-aspartic Steinheim, Germany), EDTA disodium salt and Kim Bowman for organizational reviews of the acid (Glauser et al., 2010; Lucena et al., 2008). dihydrate (Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., St. Louis, MO), manuscript. Little is known about the use of EDDS in DTPA (Sigma-Aldrich), FeEDDS (prepared as 1To whom reprint requests should be addressed; horticultural crop production. Its use as an Fe- described in Albano, 2011), FeEDTA sodium e-mail [email protected]. chelating agent in the production of marigold salt hydrate (Sigma-Aldrich), FeDTPA disodium HORTSCIENCE VOL. 47(2) FEBRUARY 2012 269 salt hydrate (Sigma-Aldrich), FeEDDHA (Se- questrene 138; Becker Underwood, Inc., Ames, IA), and Fe(II)SO4 heptahydrate (Fisher Scien- tific, Fair Lawn, NJ). Ultraviolet/Visible absorbance of iron source and chelate-ligand extract solutions. All absorption spectra were determined using a scanning ultraviolet/visible spectrophotom- eter (Beckman DU 800; Beckman Coulter, Inc., Brea, CA). Spectra of extracts for Expt. 1 (FS) and Expt. 2 (CL) were determined by scanning from 200 to 500 nm and 200 to 400 nm, respectively, at 1-nm intervals at 1200 nm per minute. Extract solutions for analysis by spectrophotometer received an additional filtration (initial filtration was Whatman 541) through a syringe filter disc (Puradisc 25TF, PTFE, 1.0-mm pore size; Whatman) before scans. In Expt. 1, extract solutions were blanked against the DI water control extract, and in experiment 2, extract solutions were blanked against the DI water control extract with the CL extractant solution absorbance subtracted to yield spectra specifically asso- ciated with Fe-chelates. Statistics. Extractions were run in tripli- cate. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance to determine the main effects of FS or CL on the dependent variables pH, Cu, Fe, Fig. 1. Extraction (•) and extract (°) solution pH for Expt. 1 [iron-source (FS)]. Vertical bars represent SEM. Mn,andZn.Calculationswereperformedby When not present, bars fall within the symbol. n = 3. the general linear model procedure of SAS (Version 9.2; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Means were separated and planned comparisons were made using Tukey when P # 0.05. Results Expt. 1: Iron-source interaction. Effects of FS were significant for pH, Cu, Fe, and Zn at P # 0.001 and not significant for Mn. Extrac- tant solutions were unbuffered and ranged in pH from 7.1 (FeEDDS) to 5.4 (FeSO4) (Fig. 1). The pH of extract solutions as a mean of all treatments including the DI water control after 24-h incubation was similar at 6.7 ± 0.1 demonstrating the buffering capacity of the substrate (Fig. 1). This mean pH (6.7) is at the upper limits of what is broadly considered suitable for the production of bedding plants in peat-based soilless substrate (pH 5.4–6.8; Nelson, 1999) and is consistent with the initial substrate pH for the same brand substrate used in the study as reported by others (Dekkers et al., 2000).