AMMONIUM THIOSULFATE AS A UREASE INHIBITOR
A SEGiSDD MECHANISM
A great deal of interest, ard s c a ~controversy, has been g e n e r a w
by my observations (Goos, 1985a; Goos, 1985b; F a i r l i e and Goos, 1986)
t h a t ammonium t h i o s u l f a t e (ATS, 12-0-0-265) can i n h i b i t s o i l u r e a s e
a c t i v i t y when mixed w i t h f e r t i l i z e r s such a s urea-ammonium n i t r a t e
(UAN) . Preliminary f i e l d research (Gascho and Burton, 1987; Fox and
Piekielek, 1987; Lamond e t a l . 1986) has shown some increase i n c r o p
yields o r N u p t a h by adding ATS to surface-applied UAN. However, the
use of ATS a s a urease inhibitor is still controversial. For example,
Ekenmer et a l . (1986) concluded that ATS was of "m practical value" as
a urease inhibitor.
It has been my opinion that the f u l l benefits of the use of ATS as
a urease inhibitor would not be appreciated u n t i l its basic mechanism
was understocd. It was originally speculated that ATS a c t s as a general
mtabol ic inhibitor.
ATS is unique amongst urease i n h i b i t o r s , i n t h a t it has no e f f e c t
on the a c t i v i t y of p r i f i e d urease i n the absem=e of s o i l (Goos, 1985a).
F t m r f u l reducing agents (eg. hydmquhone) can inhibit urease by chemi-
c a l l y a l t e r i n g t h e enzyme. ATS is not powerful enough of a reducing
agent f o r this effect.
. .
S i n e ATS does not d i r e c t l y affect t h e urease e n z y ~ ,an m k r e c t
' s m is prcrposed. n-riosulfate reacts ra i d l y arrd abiotically with
~ f o r m i tetrathionate
y and liberating Feq+ and Mn2+:
Associate Professor of Soil Science, North Dakota S t a t e University,
F q o , ND 58105. ?he author ackmwl&ges t h e support of the Tennessee
Valley Authority, ?he Sulphur Institute, Arcadian, an3 Texas Sulphur
nxducts.
The urease has -8 s u l h y d q l g m q s a t its catalytic center.
Ions such a s Fe= Mn3+ i n a c t i v a t e urease by binding t o these
s u l f h y d q l g m q s (Shaw, 1954):
?his theory, i f substantiated, would explain why ATS has no e f f e c t
on p u r i f i e d urease, and why t h e b e n e f i t s of ATS a s a urease i n h i b i t o r
are Stmqthened by Wribblel' application.
Dmerimental Evidence
The following experiment2 illustrates, to my satisfaction, that
theproposedtheoryiscorrect. A F a r g o s i l t y c l a y w a s a l l a w e d t o ~ c t
overnight w i t h either a Na2S04 o r Na2S203 s o l u t i o n . The next day the
original SO4 o r S O3 treatment was removed by repeated extraction and
centerfqation. &e soil was then tested f o r either urease a c t i v i t y o r
extractable Fe and MIL A portion of the r e s u l t s of this e x p e r h t is
surmnarized i n Table 1.
Table 1. Effect of salt pretreatment on urease activity and extractable
iron and manganese in a Fargo silty clay.
Salt Urease 0.1 M H C l
Pretreatment ? Act ivitry E X ~ K table
~ C
Fe Mn
The original pretreatment was removed by repeated extraction.
+ Standard Error
The Full details o f this experiment are described in a paper currently
in review to the Soil Science Society of America Journal.
The u r e a activity of t h e s o i l w a s inhibited by 40%even after t h e
original t h i o s u l f a t e treatment had been removed by repeated extraction.
There were s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s i n e x t r a c t a b l e Fe and Mn. Thus, the
proposed theory would -lain this e f f e c t of t h i o s u l f a t e on soil urease.
?here are several implications of this research M o s t importantly,
w i l l ATS be e f f e c t i v e i n suppressing t h e urease a c t i v i t y associated with
crop r e s i d u e s ? Crop r e s i d u e s , i f we1 1-colonized with microoryanisms,
have a very high urease a c t i v i t y (Goos, 1 9 8 5 ~ )and ~ a much 1- Fe and
Mn content than soil.
In any case, ATS remains as t h e only urease inhibitor wkich is: 1)
ampatable with caanmon liquid f e r t i l i z e r s , 2) hexpensive, and 3) com-
m e r c i a l l y a v a i l a b l e . More research i n t o the p o t e n t i a l of ATS a s a
urease inhibitor is encmraged.
Bremner, J. M., G. W. McCarty, and H. S. mi. 1986. Evaluation of
ammonium t h i o s u l f a t e a s a s o i l n i t r i f i c a t i o n and urease inhibitor.
Pqron. A b s t . p. 175.
Fairlie, T. E. and R. J. Goos. 1986. U r e a hydrolysis and ammonia vola-
t i l i z a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of l i q u i d f e r t i l i z e r mixtures. 11.
Studies under rnodified f i e l d conditions. J. F e r t i l i z e r Issues 3:86-
90.
Fox, R. H. ard W. P. Piekielek. 1987. Ccanparison of surface amlica-
t i o n methods of n i t r o g e n s o l u t i o n t o n o - t i l l corn. J. F e r t i l i z e r
Issues 4:7-12
Gascho, G. J. and G. W. Wlrton. 1987. Nutrient additions to urea ammo-
nium nitrate f o r improving N management f o r Tifton 44 bennudagrass.
J. F e r t i l i z e r Issues 4:86-90.
G m s , R. J. 1985a. Identification of ammonium thiosulfate as a nitri-
fication and urease inhibitor. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:232-235.
Goos, R. J. 1985b. U r e a hydrolysis and ammonia volatilization
teristics of liquid f e r t i l i z e r m i x t u r e .
I. Laboratory studies. J.
F e r t i l i z e r Issues 2:38-41.
Goos, R. J. 198%. Effect of assay conditions and f i e l d exposwe on
urease a c t i v i t y a s s o c i a t e d with cereal residues. Comm. S o i l S c i .
Plant Anal. 16: 399-409.
Lamond, R. E., D. A. Whitney, J. S. HiclaMn, and L. C. Bonczkawski.
1986. Ccanparisons of nitrCgen rates and placement methods on n o t i l l
grain sorqhnn. I n Kansas f e r t i l i z e r research Report of progress
509, Agric. Exp. Z n . , Kansas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Manhattan, KS. pp.
148-149.
Shaw, W. H. R. 1954. The inhibition of urease by various metal ions.
J. h.Chem. Soc. 76:2160-2163.
Of the Seventeenth
North Central Extension-Industry
Soil Fertility Workshop
Published for
The North Central Extension-Industry Soil F e d i i Workshop
by
Potash G Phosphate Institute
1220 Potter Drive, Suite 108B
W.Lafayette, Indiana 47906-1334
