Comparative analysis of copper and zinc based agrichemical biocide products: materials characteristics, phytotoxicity and in vitro antimicrobial efficacy

Parthiban Rajasekaran; Harikishan Kannan; Smruti Das; Mikaeel Young; Swadeshmukul Santra; Parthiban Rajasekaran; Harikishan Kannan; Smruti Das; Mikaeel Young; Swadeshmukul Santra

doi:10.3934/environsci.2016.3.439

AIMS Environmental Science

2016, Volume 3, Issue 3: 439-455. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.3.439

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Comparative analysis of copper and zinc based agrichemical biocide products: materials characteristics, phytotoxicity and in vitro antimicrobial efficacy

1.
NanoScience Technology Center, University of Central Florida, 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32826, United States
2.
Department of Chemistry, University of Central Florida, 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32826, United States
3.
Department of Material Science and Engineering, University of Central Florida, 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32826, United States
4.
Burnett School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Central Florida, 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32826, United States.

Received: 18 May 2016 Accepted: 20 July 2016 Published: 26 July 2016

In the past few decades, copper based biocides have been extensively used in food crop protection including citrus, small fruits and in all garden vegetable production facilities. Continuous and rampant use of copper based biocides over decades has led to accumulation of this metal in the soil and the surrounding ecosystem. Toxic levels of copper and its derivatives in both the soil and in the run off pose serious environmental and public health concerns. Alternatives to copper are in great need for the agriculture industry to produce food crops with minimal environmental risks. A combination of copper and zinc metal containing biocide such as Nordox 30/30 or an improved version of zinc-only containing biocide would be a good alternative to copper-only products if the efficacy can be maintained. As of yet there is no published literature on the comparative study of the materials characteristics and phyto-compatibility properties of copper and zinc-based commercial products that would allow us to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of both versions of pesticides. In this report, we compared copper hydroxide and zinc oxide based commercially available biocides along with suitable control materials to assess their efficacy as biocides. We present a detailed material characterization of the biocides including morphological studies involving electron microscopy, molecular structure studies involving X-ray diffraction, phytotoxicity studies in model plant (tomato) and antimicrobial studies involving surrogate plant pathogens (Xanthomonas alfalfae subsp. citrumelonis, Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae and Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis). Zinc based compounds were found to possess comparable to superior antimicrobial properties while exhibiting significantly lower phytotoxicity when compared to copper based products thus suggesting their potential as an alternative.
- Copper,
- Zinc,
- biocide,
- pesticide,
- agriculture,
- antimicrobial,
- copper toxicity
Citation: Parthiban Rajasekaran, Harikishan Kannan, Smruti Das, Mikaeel Young, Swadeshmukul Santra. Comparative analysis of copper and zinc based agrichemical biocide products: materials characteristics, phytotoxicity and in vitro antimicrobial efficacy[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(3): 439-455. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.3.439

Related Papers:

Abstract

In the past few decades, copper based biocides have been extensively used in food crop protection including citrus, small fruits and in all garden vegetable production facilities. Continuous and rampant use of copper based biocides over decades has led to accumulation of this metal in the soil and the surrounding ecosystem. Toxic levels of copper and its derivatives in both the soil and in the run off pose serious environmental and public health concerns. Alternatives to copper are in great need for the agriculture industry to produce food crops with minimal environmental risks. A combination of copper and zinc metal containing biocide such as Nordox 30/30 or an improved version of zinc-only containing biocide would be a good alternative to copper-only products if the efficacy can be maintained. As of yet there is no published literature on the comparative study of the materials characteristics and phyto-compatibility properties of copper and zinc-based commercial products that would allow us to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of both versions of pesticides. In this report, we compared copper hydroxide and zinc oxide based commercially available biocides along with suitable control materials to assess their efficacy as biocides. We present a detailed material characterization of the biocides including morphological studies involving electron microscopy, molecular structure studies involving X-ray diffraction, phytotoxicity studies in model plant (tomato) and antimicrobial studies involving surrogate plant pathogens (Xanthomonas alfalfae subsp. citrumelonis, Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae and Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis). Zinc based compounds were found to possess comparable to superior antimicrobial properties while exhibiting significantly lower phytotoxicity when compared to copper based products thus suggesting their potential as an alternative.

References

[1]	Wen A, Balogh B, Momol MT, et al. (2009) Management of bacterial spot of tomato with phosphorous acid salts. Crop prot 28: 859-863.
[2]	Graham J, Gruber B, Bock C (2014) Research progress for integrated canker management. Citrus Industry 95: 20-24.
[3]	Arias-Estévez M, López-Periago E, Martínez-Carballo E, et al. (2008) The mobility and degradation of pesticides in soils and the pollution of groundwater resources. Agr Ecosyst Environ 123: 247-260.
[4]	Hoang TC, Rogevich EC, Rand GM, et al. (2008) Copper desorption in flooded agricultural soils and toxicity to the Florida apple snail (Pomacea paludosa): Implications in Everglades restoration. Environ Poll 154: 338-347.
[5]	Behlau F, Belasque J, Graham J, et al. (2010) Effect of frequency of copper applications on control of citrus canker and the yield of young bearing sweet orange trees. Crop Prot 29: 300-305. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2009.12.010
[6]	Schuler LJ, Hoang TC, Rand GM (2008) Aquatic risk assessment of copper in freshwater and saltwater ecosystems of South Florida. Ecotoxicol 17: 642-659. doi: 10.1007/s10646-008-0236-7
[7]	Behlau F, Canteros BI, Jones JB, et al. (2012) Copper resistance genes from different xanthomonads and citrus epiphytic bacteria confer resistance to Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. Eur j plant pathol 133: 949-963. doi: 10.1007/s10658-012-9966-8
[8]	Behlau F, Canteros BI, Minsavage GV, et al. (2011) Molecular characterization of copper resistance genes from Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri and Xanthomonas alfalfae subsp. citrumelonis. Appl environ microb 77: 4089-4096.
[9]	Ed Etxeberria PG, Priyanka Bhattacharya, Parvesh Sharma, et al. (2016) Determining the size exclusion for nanoparticles in citrus leaves. Hortic Sci 51: 1-6.
[10]	Hendricks KE, Donahoo RS, Roberts PD, et al. (2013) Effect of copper on growth characteristics and disease control of the recently introduced Guignardia citricarpa on Citrus in Florida. Am J Plant Sci 4: 282.
[11]	Jorgensen JH, Turnidge JD (2015) Susceptibility Test Methods: Dilution and Disk Diffusion Methods*.
[12]	Young M, Santra S (2014) Copper (Cu)–Silica Nanocomposite Containing Valence-Engineered Cu: A New Strategy for Improving the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Cu Biocides. J agr food chem 62: 6043-6052. doi: 10.1021/jf502350w
[13]	Hans M, Erbe A, Mathews S, et al. (2013) Role of copper oxides in contact killing of bacteria. Langmuir 29: 16160-16166. doi: 10.1021/la404091z
[14]	Balogh B, Jones J, Momol M, et al. (2003) Improved efficacy of newly formulated bacteriophages for management of bacterial spot on tomato. Plant Dis 87: 949-954. doi: 10.1094/PDIS.2003.87.8.949
[15]	Baron M, Arellano JB, Gorge JL (1995) Copper and photosysten II-A controversial relationship. Physiol Plant 94: 174-180. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1995.tb00799.x
[16]	Kuepper H, Goetz B, Mijovilovich A, et al. (2009) Complexation and Toxicity of Copper in Higher Plants. I. Characterization of Copper Accumulation, Speciation, and Toxicity in Crassula helmsii as a New Copper Accumulator. Plant Physiol 151: 702-714.
[17]	Gupta N, Ram H, Kumar B (2016) Mechanism of Zinc absorption in plants: uptake, transport, translocation and accumulation. Rev Environ Sci Bio-Technol 15: 89-109. doi: 10.1007/s11157-016-9390-1
[18]	Haslett BS, Reid RJ, Rengel Z (2001) Zinc mobility in wheat: Uptake and distribution of zinc applied to leaves or roots. Ann Bot 87: 379-386. doi: 10.1006/anbo.2000.1349
[19]	Aslani F, Bagheri S, Julkapli NM, et al. (2014) Effects of Engineered Nanomaterials on Plants Growth: An Overview. Scientific World J 2014: 641759.
[20]	Chichiricco G, Poma A (2015) Penetration and Toxicity of Nanomaterials in Higher Plants. Nanomater 5: 851-873. doi: 10.3390/nano5020851

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)