Paper · 1994 · Pesticide Science

Cuticular penetration of 2,4‐D as affected by interaction between a diethylene glycol monooleate surfactant and apple leaf cuticles

Siyuan Tan; Garvin D. Crabtree

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
13
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Impacts of pH and sorption‐desorption of ‘Pegosperse’ 100‐O (PEG. 100‐O; diethylene glycol monooleate, containing 15% diester) surfactant by apple ( Malus pumila M.) leaf cuticles on surfactant‐enhanced cuticular penetration of 2,4‐D [(2,4‐dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] were studied. Glass cylinders were affixed to enzymatically isolated adaxial apple leaf cuticles after the cuticle segments had been soaked in 10 ml liter −1 PEG 100‐O solution and washed for 20 and 120 min, respectively. Quantities of [ 14 C]2,4‐D in the glass‐cuticle chambers passing through the cuticles at pH values from 1 to 6 5 were determined. PEG 100‐O significantly increased cuticular penetration of dissociated 2,4‐D at pH 4–5; the surfactant had no effect on penetration of undissociated 2,4‐D at pH 10. Surfactant‐enhanced penetration of 2,4‐D occurred only when the surfactant was in the cuticles, while the process of surfactant sorption‐desorption alone had no effect on penetration. These results support a ‘hydrophilic channel’ hypothesis, i.e. that surfactants may create hydrophilic channels or increase the area of the channels in the cuticle and, consequently, enhance the passing of polar molecules like dissociated 2,4‐D through the cuticle.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

PEG 100-O increased penetration of dissociated 2,4-D at pH 4–5.

Treatment
PEG 100‐Oe0
Outcome
cuticular penetration of dissociated 2,4‐De0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
pH 4–5e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“PEG 100‐O significantly increased cuticular penetration of dissociated 2,4‐D at pH 4–5”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 630–716 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple leaf cuticles”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 112–131 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The surfactant did not affect undissociated 2,4-D penetration at pH 10.

Treatment
the surfactante0
Outcome
penetration of undissociated 2,4‐De0
Direction
no effecte0
Qualifier
pH 10e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the surfactant had no effect on penetration of undissociated 2,4‐D at pH 10”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 718–793 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple leaf cuticles”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 112–131 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Enhanced 2,4-D penetration occurred only with surfactant in the cuticles.

Outcome
Surfactant‐enhanced penetration of 2,4‐De0
Qualifier
only when the surfactant was in the cuticlese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Surfactant‐enhanced penetration of 2,4‐D occurred only when the surfactant was in the cuticles”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 795–889 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple leaf cuticles”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 112–131 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Surfactant sorption and desorption alone did not affect penetration.

Treatment
surfactant sorption‐desorptione0
Outcome
penetratione0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the process of surfactant sorption‐desorption alone had no effect on penetration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 897–977 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple leaf cuticles”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 112–131 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors interpret the results as supporting hydrophilic channels created or enlarged by surfactants.

Treatment
surfactantse0
Outcome
passing of polar molecules like dissociated 2,4‐D through the cuticlee0
Qualifier
hydrophilic channelse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“surfactants may create hydrophilic channels or increase the area of the channels in the cuticle and, consequently, enhance the passing of polar molecules like dissociated 2,4‐D through the cuticle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1047–1243 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple leaf cuticles”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 112–131 · show in text ↑

surfactant · molecular: metabolites · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

4 papers: 0 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect
See all 4 papers →

drought · molecular: metabolites · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

15 papers: 8 positive, 7 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.