Composition and method for treating plants with exogenous chemicals

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to formulations and methods for enhancing the efficacy of exogenous chemicals used in treating plants. An exogenous chemical, as defined herein, is any chemical substance, whether naturally or synthetically derived, which (a) has biological activity or is capable of releasing in a plant an ion, moiety or derivative which has biological activity, and (b) is applied to a plant with the intent or result that the chemical substance or its biologically active ion, moiety or derivative enter living cells or tissues of the plant and elicit a stimulatory, inhibitory, regulatory, therapeutic, toxic or lethal response in the plant itself or in a pathogen, parasite or feeding organism present in or on the plant. Examples of exogenous chemical substances include, but are not limited to, chemical pesticides (such as herbicides, algicides, fungicides, bactericides, viricides, insecticides, aphicides, miticides, nematicides, molluscicides, and the like), plant growth regulators, fertilizers and nutrients, gametocides, defoliants, desiccants, mixtures thereof, and the like.
Exogenous chemicals, including foliar-applied herbicides, have at times been formulated with surfactants, so that when water is added, the resulting sprayable composition is more easily and effectively retained on the foliage (e.g., the leaves or other photosynthesizing organs) of plants. Surfactants can also bring other benefits, including improved contact of spray droplets with a waxy leaf surface and, in some cases, improved penetration of the accompanying exogenous chemical into the interior of leaves. Through these and perhaps other effects, surfactants have long been known to increase the biological effectiveness of herbicide compositions, or other compositions of exogenous chemicals, when added to or included in such compositions. Thus, for example, the herbicide glyphosate (N-phosphonomethylglycine) has been formulated with surfactants such as polyoxyalkylene-type surfactants including, among other surfactants, polyoxyalkylene alkylamines. Commercial formulations of glyphosate herbicide marketed under the trademark ROUNDUP.RTM. have been formulated with a surfactant composition based on such a polyoxyalkylene alkylamine, in particular a polyethoxylated tallowamine, this surfactant composition being identified as MON 0818. Surfactants have generally been combined with glyphosate or other exogenous chemicals either in a commercial concentrate (herein referred to as a "coformulation"), or in a diluted mixture that is prepared from separate compositions, one comprising an exogenous chemical (e.g. glyphosate) and another comprising surfactant, prior to use in the field (i.e., a tank mix).
Various combinations of exogenous chemicals and surfactants or other adjuvants have been tested in the past. In some instances, the addition of a particular surfactant has not produced uniformly positive or negative changes in the effect of the exogenous chemical on the plant (e.g., a surfactant that may enhance the activity of a particular herbicide on certain weeds may interfere with, or antagonize, the herbicidal efficacy on another weed species).
Some surfactants tend to degrade fairly rapidly in aqueous solutions. As a result, surfactants that exhibit this property can only be used effectively in tank mixes (i.e., mixed with the other ingredients in solution or dispersion in the tank soon before spraying is to occur), rather than being coformulated in an aqueous composition with the other ingredients in the first instance. This lack of stability, or inadequate shelf-life, has hindered the use of certain surfactants in some exogenous chemical formulations.
Other surfactants, though chemically stable, are physically incompatible with certain exogenous chemicals, particularly in concentrate coformulations. For example, most classes of nonionic surfactant, including polyoxyethylene alkylether surfactants, do not tolerate solutions of high ionic strength, as for example in a concentrated aqueous solution of a salt of glyphosate. Physical incompatibility can also lead to inadequate shelf-life. Other problems that can arise from such incompatibility include the formation of aggregates large enough to interfere with commercial handling and application, for example by blocking spray nozzles.
Another problem that has been observed in the past is the effect of environmental conditions on uptake of an exogenous chemical composition into foliage of a plant. For example, conditions such as temperature, relative humidity, presence or absence of sunlight, and health of the plant to be treated, can affect the uptake of a herbicide into the plant. As a result, spraying exactly the same herbicidal composition in two different situations can result in different herbicidal control of the sprayed plants.
One consequence of the above-described variability is that often a higher rate of herbicide per unit area is applied than might actually be required in that situation, in order to be certain that adequate control of undesired plants will be achieved. For similar reasons, other foliar-applied exogenous chemicals are also typically applied at significantly higher rates than needed to give the desired biological effect in the particular situation where they are used, to allow for the natural variability that exists in efficiency of foliar uptake. A need therefore exists for compositions of exogenous chemicals that, through more efficient uptake into plant foliage, allow reduced use rates.
Many exogenous chemicals are commercially packaged as a liquid concentrate that contains a significant amount of water. The packaged concentrate is shipped to distributors or retailers. Ultimately the packaged concentrate ends up in the hands of an end user, who further dilutes the concentrate by adding water in accordance with label instructions on the package. The dilute composition thus prepared is then sprayed on plants.
A significant portion of the cost of such packaged concentrates is the cost of transporting the concentrate from the manufacturing site to the location where the end user purchases it. Any liquid concentrate formulation that contained relatively less water and thus more exogenous chemical would reduce the cost per unit amount of exogenous chemical. However, one important limit on the ability of the manufacturer to increase the loading of the exogenous chemical in the concentrate is the stability of that formulation. With some combinations of ingredients, a limit will be reached at which any further reduction of water content in the concentrate will cause it to become unstable (e.g., to separate into discrete layers), which may make it commercially unacceptable.
Accordingly, a need exists for improved formulations of exogenous chemicals, particularly herbicides, that are stable, effective, less sensitive to environmental conditions, and permit the use of reduced amounts of exogenous chemical to achieve the desired biological effect in or on plants. A need also exists for stable liquid concentrate formulations of exogenous chemicals that contain less water and more exogenous chemical than prior art concentrates.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to novel methods and compositions wherein exogenous chemicals are applied to plants to generate a desired biological response.
One embodiment of the present invention is a plant treatment composition that comprises (a) an exogenous chemical, and (b) a first excipient substance. The first excipient substance is an amphiphilic quaternary ammonium compound or mixture of such compounds, having the formula
R.sup.8 --W.sub.a --X--Y.sub.b --(CH.sub.2).sub.n --N.sup.+ (R.sup.9)(R.sup.10)(R.sup.11) T.sup.- V
wherein R.sup.8 represents the hydrophobic moiety and is a hydrocarbyl or haloalkyl group having from about 6 to about 22 carbon atoms, W and Y are independently O or NH, a and b are independently 0 or 1 but at least one of a and b is 1, X is CO, SO or SO.sub.2, n is 2 to 4, R.sup.9, R.sup.10 and R.sup.11 are independently C.sub.1-4 alkyl, and T is a suitable anion. R.sup.8 in one particular embodiment is hydrocarbyl having about 12 to about 18 carbon atoms. R.sup.8 can also be fluorinated. In one specific embodiment, R.sup.8 is perfluorinated, and preferably has about 6 to about 12 carbon atoms. Suitable agriculturally acceptable anions T include hydroxide, chloride, bromide, iodide, sulfate, phosphate and acetate. In one particularly preferred embodiment, R.sup.8 is saturated perfluoroalkyl having about 6 to about 12 carbon atoms, X is CO or SO.sub.2, Y is NH, a is 0, b is 1, n is 3, R.sup.9, R.sup.10 and R.sup.11 are methyl, and T is selected from the group consisting of chloride, bromide and iodide.
An "excipient substance" as that term is used in this patent is any substance other than an exogenous chemical and water that is added to the composition. "Excipient substances" include inert ingredients, although an excipient substance useful in the present invention does not have to be devoid of biological activity. "Amphiphilic" means having at least one polar, water-soluble head group which is hydrophilic and at least one water-insoluble organic tail which is hydrophobic, contained within the same molecule.
The first excipient substance is present in the composition in an adjuvant amount, i.e. an amount sufficient to provide visibly improved biological effectiveness of the exogenous chemical by comparison with a composition lacking the first excipient substance, and the exogenous chemical is present in the composition in an amount sufficient to provide biological effect in the presence of said adjuvant amount of the first excipient substance. "Visibly improved" in the present context means that, in a side-by-side comparison, a difference in biological effectiveness in favor of the composition of the invention would be evident to an experienced technician in the art relating to the particular class of exogenous chemical being applied; for example a weed scientist in the case where the exogenous chemical is a herbicide.
A wide variety of exogenous chemicals can be used in the compositions and methods of the present invention. A preferred class is foliar-applied exogenous chemicals, i.e. exogenous chemicals that are normally applied post-emergence to foliage of plants. A preferred subclass of foliar-applied exogenous chemicals is those that are water-soluble. By "water-soluble" in this context is meant having a solubility in distilled water at 25.degree. C. greater than about 1% by weight.
Especially preferred water-soluble exogenous chemicals are salts that have an anion portion and a cation portion. In one embodiment of the invention, at least one of the anion and cation portions is biologically active and has a molecular weight of less than about 300. Particular examples of such exogenous chemicals where the cation portion is biologically active are paraquat, diquat and chlormequat. More commonly it is the anion portion that is biologically active.
Another preferred subclass of exogenous chemicals is those that exhibit systemic biological activity in the plant. Within this subclass, an especially preferred group of exogenous chemicals is N-phosphonomethylglycine and its herbicidal derivatives. N-phosphonomethylglycine, often referred to by its common name glyphosate, can be used in its acid form, but is more preferably used in the form of a salt. Any water-soluble salt of glyphosate can be used in the practice of this invention. Some preferred salts include the sodium, potassium, ammonium, mono-, di-, tri- and tetra-C.sub.1-4 -alkylammonium, mono-, di- and tri-C.sub.1-4 -alkanolammonium, mono-, di- and tri-C.sub.1-4 -alkylsulfonium and sulfoxonium salts. The ammonium, monoisopropylammonium and trimethylsulfonium salts of glyphosate are especially preferred. Mixtures of salts can also be useful in certain situations.
In one preferred embodiment, the weight/weight ratio of the first excipient substance to the exogenous chemical is between about 1:3 and about 1:100.
Compositions of the present invention can be used in methods of treating plants. Foliage of a plant is contacted with a biologically effective amount of the composition. "Contacting" in this context means placing the composition on the foliage.
A composition of the present invention comprising an exogenous chemical and a first excipient substance as described above can have a number of different physical forms. For example, the composition can further comprise water in an amount effective to make the composition a dilute aqueous composition ready for application to foliage of a plant. Such a composition typically contains about 0.02 to about 2 percent by weight of the exogenous chemical, but for some purposes can contain up to about 10 percent by weight or even more of the exogenous chemical.
Alternatively, the composition can be a shelf-stable concentrate composition comprising the exogenous chemical substance in an amount of about 10 to about 90 percent by weight. Such shelf-stable concentrates can be, for example, (1) a solid composition comprising the exogenous chemical substance in an amount of about 30 to about 90 percent by weight, such as a water-soluble or water-dispersible granular formulation, or (2) a composition that further comprises a liquid diluent, wherein the composition comprises the exogenous chemical substance in an amount of about 10 to about 60 percent by weight. In this latter embodiment, it is especially preferred for the exogenous chemical substance to be water-soluble and present in an aqueous phase of the composition in an amount of about 15 to about 45 percent by weight of the composition. In particular, such a composition can be, for example, an aqueous solution concentrate or an emulsion having an oil phase. If it is an emulsion, it can more specifically be, for example, an oil-in-water emulsion, a water-in-oil emulsion, or a water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsion.
As described above, one embodiment of the invention is a sprayable composition that comprises an exogenous chemical, an aqueous diluent, and a first excipient substance. The term "spray composition" is sometimes used herein to mean a sprayable composition.
In a related embodiment of the invention, a concentrate composition is provided which, upon dilution, dispersion or dissolution in water forms the sprayable composition just described. The concentrate composition contains a reduced amount of the aqueous diluent, or, in a particular embodiment, is a dry composition having less than about 5% water by weight. Typically a concentrate composition of the invention contains at least about 10% by weight of the exogenous chemical, preferably at least about 15%.
In one embodiment of the invention, the composition further comprises a second excipient substance which is a liposome-forming material. One class of liposome-forming material is an amphiphilic compound or mixture of such compounds, preferably having two hydrophobic moieties, each of which is a saturated alkyl or acyl chain having from about 8 to about 22 carbon atoms. The amphiphilic compound or mixture of such compounds having said two hydrophobic moieties with about 8 to about 22 carbon atoms preferably constitutes from about 40 to 100 percent by weight of all amphiphilic compounds having two hydrophobic moieties present in the liposome-forming material. Preferably the liposome-forming material has a hydrophilic head group comprising a cationic group. More preferably, the cationic group is an amine or ammonium group.
In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the second excipient substance comprises a liposome-forming compound having a hydrophobic moiety comprising two independently saturated or unsaturated hydrocarbyl groups R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 each independently having about 7 to about 21 carbon atoms. A number of subclasses of such liposome-forming compounds are known.
One subclass has the formula
N.sup.+ (CH.sub.2 R.sup.1 ((CH.sub.2 R.sup.2)(R.sup.3)(R.sup.4) Z.sup.-I
wherein R.sup.3 and R.sup.4 are independently hydrogen, C.sub.1-4 alkyl or C.sub.1-4 hydroxyalkyl and Z is a suitable anion.
A second subclass has the formula
N.sup.+ (R.sup.5)(R.sup.6)(R.sup.7)CH.sub.2 CH(OCH.sub.2 R.sup.1)CH.sub.2 (OCH.sub.2 R.sup.2) Z.sup.- II
wherein R.sup.5, R.sup.6 and R.sup.7 are independently hydrogen, C.sub.1-4 alkyl or C.sub.1-4 hydroxyalkyl and Z is a suitable anion.
A third subclass has the formula
N.sup.+ (R.sup.5)(R.sup.6)(R.sup.7)CH.sub.2 CH(OCOR.sup.1)CH.sub.2 (OCOR.sup.2) Z.sup.- III
wherein R.sup.5, R.sup.6, R.sup.7 and Z are as defined above.
A fourth subclass has the formula
N.sup.+ (R.sup.5)(R.sup.6)(R.sup.7)CH.sub.2 CH.sub.2 OPO(O.sup.-)OCH.sub.2 CH(OCOR.sup.1)CH.sub.2 (OCOR.sup.2) IV
wherein R.sup.5, R.sup.6, and R.sup.7 are as defined above.
Compounds of formulas I-IV will have the indicated formulas in an acid medium, for example at a pH of 4 and may have the same formulas at other pH's as well. It should be understood, however, that compositions of the present invention are not limited to use at a pH of 4.
It is preferred that about 40-100 percent of the R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 groups present in the second excipient substance are saturated straight chain alkyl groups having about 7 to about 21 carbon atoms. Examples of suitable agriculturally acceptable anions Z include hydroxide, chloride, bromide, iodide, sulfate, phosphate and acetate.
In all of the above subclasses of liposome-forming substances, the hydrophilic moiety comprises a cationic group, specifically an amine or ammonium group. The compound as a whole is in some cases cationic (as in I, II and III) and in some cases neutral (as in IV). Where the amine group is quaternary, it behaves as a cationic group independently of pH. Where the amine group is secondary or tertiary, it behaves as a cationic group when protonated, i.e. in an acid medium, for example at a pH of 4.
Other subclasses of liposome-forming substances having two hydrophobic chains each comprising a C.sub.7-21 hydrocarbyl group can also be used as the second excipient substance in compositions of the invention. While substances having a cationic group in the hydrophilic moiety are preferred, nonionic or anionic substances can be used if desired.
In another embodiment, the second excipient substance is a phospholipid selected from the group consisting of di-C.sub.8-22 -alkanoylphosphatidylcholines and di-C.sub.8-22 -alkanoylphosphatidylethanolamines. In a particular preferred embodiment the second excipient substance is a dipalmitoyl or distearoyl ester of phosphatidylcholine or a mixture thereof.
Aqueous compositions of the present invention can comprise supramolecular aggregates formed from the first and/or second excipient substances. In one preferred embodiment, the second excipient substance is a vesicle-forming amphiphilic substance, such as a vesicle-forming lipid, and when the substance is dispersed in water the majority (greater than 50% by weight, preferably greater than 75% by weight) of the second excipient substance is present as vesicles or liposomes. In another preferred embodiment the second excipient substance is present as bilayers or multilamellar structures which are not organized as vesicles or liposomes. Compositions of the present invention can also include, without limitation, colloidal systems such as emulsions (water/oil, oil/water, or multiple, e.g., water/oil/water), foams, microemulsions, and suspensions or dispersions of microparticulates, nanoparticulates, or microcapsules. Compositions of the invention can include more than one type of aggregate or colloidal system; examples include liposomes or vesicles dispersed in a microemulsion, and compositions having characteristics of both emulsions and suspensions, e.g. suspo-emulsions. The present invention also encompasses any formulation, which may or may not contain a significant amount of water, that on dilution in an aqueous medium forms such colloidal systems, and/or systems comprising vesicles, liposomes, bilayers or multilamellar structures, so long as the other requirements stipulated herein are met.
The weight ratio of each of the first and second excipient substances to the exogenous chemical preferably is between about 1:3 and about 1:100. We have been surprised by the high level of biological effectiveness, specifically herbicidal effectiveness of a glyphosate composition, exhibited at such low ratios of such excipient substances to exogenous chemical. Higher ratios can also be effective but are likely to be uneconomic in most situations and increase the risk of producing an antagonistic effect on effectiveness of the exogenous chemical. The low amounts of excipient substances present in preferred compositions of the present invention permit high cost-effectiveness by comparison with prior art compositions showing similar effectiveness. It is surprising that the enhancement of biological activity that has been observed when using the present invention can be achieved with the addition of relatively small amounts of such excipient substances.
In any of the above particular embodiments, the exogenous chemical and/or first excipient substance can be encapsulated within or associated with aggregates (e.g., liposomes) formed by the second excipient substance, but do not necessarily have to be so encapsulated or associated. "Associated" in this context means bound to or at least partly intercalated in some fashion in a vesicle wall, as opposed to being encapsulated. In yet another embodiment of the invention where the second excipient substance forms liposomes, the exogenous chemical and/or first excipient substance is not encapsulated in or associated with the liposomes at all. Although the present invention does not exclude the possibility of so encapsulating or associating the exogenous chemical, a presently preferred dilute sprayable liposomal composition encapsulates less than 5% by weight of the exogenous chemical that is present in the overall composition. Another dilute sprayable liposomal embodiment of the present invention has no substantial amount (i.e., less than 1% by weight) of the exogenous chemical encapsulated in the liposomes. As a droplet of such a liposomal composition dries on foliage of a plant, the proportion of the exogenous chemical that is encapsulated in the liposomes may change.
An alternative embodiment is a composition that does not itself comprise an exogenous chemical, but is intended for application to a plant in conjunction with or as a carrier for the application of an exogenous chemical. This composition comprises a first excipient substance and may further comprise a second excipient substance as described above. Such a composition may be sprayable, in which case it also comprises an aqueous diluent, or it may be a concentrate, requiring dilution, dispersion or dissolution in water to provide a sprayable composition. Thus, this embodiment of the invention can be provided as a stand-alone product and applied to a plant, diluted as appropriate with water, simultaneously with the application of an exogenous chemical (for example in tank mix with the exogenous chemical), or before or after the application of the exogenous chemical, preferably within about 96 hours before or after application of the exogenous chemical.
The compositions and methods of the present invention have a number of advantages. They provide enhanced biological activity of exogenous chemicals in or on plants in comparison with prior formulations, either in terms of greater ultimate biological effect, or obtaining an equivalent biological effect while using a reduced application rate of exogenous chemical. Certain herbicide formulations of the present invention can avoid antagonism that has been observed in some prior art herbicide formulations, and can minimize quick production of necrotic lesions on leaves that in some situations hinder overall translocation of herbicide in the plant. Certain herbicide compositions of the invention modify the spectrum of activity of the herbicide across a range of plant species. For example, certain formulations of the present invention containing glyphosate can provide good herbicidal activity against broadleaf weeds while not losing any herbicidal effectiveness on narrowleaf weeds. Others can enhance herbicidal effectiveness on narrowleaf weeds to a greater extent than on broadleaf weeds. Still others can have enhanced effectiveness which is specific to a narrow range of species or even a single species.
Another advantage of the present invention is that it employs relatively small amounts of the first and second excipient substances in relation to the amount of exogenous chemical employed. This makes the compositions and methods of the present invention relatively inexpensive, and also tends to reduce instability problems in specific compositions where one or both excipient substances are physically incompatible with the exogenous chemical.
Further, compositions of the present invention are less sensitive in some instances to environmental conditions such as relative humidity at the time of application to the plant. Also, the present invention allows the use of smaller amounts of herbicides or other pesticides, while still obtaining the required degree of control of weeds or other undesired organisms.
DESCRIPTION OF ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS
Examples of exogenous chemical substances that can be included in compositions of the present invention include, but are not limited to, chemical pesticides (such as herbicides, algicides, fungicides, bactericides, viricides, insecticides, aphicides, miticides, nematicides, molluscicides and the like), plant growth regulators, fertilizers and nutrients, gametocides, defoliants, desiccants, mixtures thereof and the like. In one embodiment of the invention, the exogenous chemical is polar.
A preferred group of exogenous chemicals are those that are normally applied post-emergence to the foliage of plants, i.e. foliar-applied exogenous chemicals.
Some exogenous chemicals useful in the present invention are water-soluble, for example salts that comprise biologically active ions, and also comprise counterions, which may be biologically inert or relatively inactive. A particularly preferred group of these water-soluble exogenous chemicals or their biologically active ions or moieties are systemic in plants, that is, they are to some extent translocated from the point of entry in the foliage to other parts of the plant where they can exert their desired biological effect. Especially preferred among these are herbicides, plant growth regulators and nematicides, particularly those that have a molecular weight, excluding counterions, of less than about 300. More especially preferred among these are exogenous chemical compounds having one or more functional groups selected from amine, carboxylate, phosphonate and phosphinate groups.
Among such compounds, an even more preferred group are herbicidal or plant growth regulating exogenous chemical compounds having at least one of each of amine, carboxylate, and either phosphonate or phosphinate functional groups. Salts of N-phosphonomethylglycine are examples of this group of exogenous chemicals. Further examples include salts of glufosinate, for instance the ammonium salt (ammonium DL-homoalanin-4-yl (methyl) phosphinate).
Another preferred group of exogenous chemicals which can be applied by the method of the invention are nematicides such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,389,680, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. Preferred nematicides of this group are salts of 3,4,4-trifluoro-3-butenoic acid or of N-(3,4,4-trifluoro-1-oxo-3-butenyl)glycine.
Exogenous chemicals which can usefully be applied by the method of the present invention are normally, but not exclusively, those which are expected to have a beneficial effect on the overall growth or yield of desired plants such as crops, or a deleterious or lethal effect on the growth of undesirable plants such as weeds. The method of the present invention is particularly useful for herbicides, especially those that are normally applied post-emergence to the foliage of unwanted vegetation.
Herbicides which can be applied by the method of the present invention include but are not limited to any listed in standard reference works such as the "Herbicide Handbook," Weed Science Society of America, 1994, 7th Edition, or the "Farm Chemicals Handbook," Meister Publishing Company, 1997 Edition. Illustratively these herbicides include acetanilides such as acetochlor, alachlor and metolachlor, aminotriazole, asulam, bentazon, bialaphos, bipyridyls such as paraquat, bromacil, cyclohexenones such as clethodim and sethoxydim, dicamba, diflufenican, dinitroanilines such as pendimethalin, diphenylethers such as acifluorfen, fomesafen and oxyfluorfen, fatty acids such as C.sub.9-10 fatty acids, fosamine, flupoxam, glufosinate, glyphosate, hydroxybenzonitriles such as bromoxynil, imidazolinones such as imazaquin and imazethapyr, isoxaben, norflurazon, phenoxies such as 2,4-D, phenoxypropionates such as diclofop, fluazifop and quizalofop, picloram, propanil, substituted ureas such as fluometuron and isoproturon, sulfonylureas such as chlorimuron, chlorsulfuron, halosulfuron, metsulfuron, primisulfuron, sulfometuron and sulfosulfuron, thiocarbamates such as triallate, triazines such as atrazine and metribuzin, and triclopyr. Herbicidally active derivatives of any known herbicide are also within the scope of the present invention. A herbicidally active derivative is any compound which is a minor structural modification, most commonly but not restrictively a salt or ester, of a known herbicide. These compounds retain the essential activity of the parent herbicide, but may not necessarily have a potency equal to that of the parent herbicide. These compounds may convert to the parent herbicide before or after they enter the treated plant. Mixtures or coformulations of a herbicide with other ingredients, or of more than one herbicide, may likewise be employed.
An especially preferred herbicide is N-phosphonomethylglycine (glyphosate), a salt, adduct or ester thereof, or a compound which is converted to glyphosate in plant tissues or which otherwise provides glyphosate ion. Glyphosate salts that can be used according to this invention include but are not restricted to alkali metal, for example sodium and potassium, salts; ammonium salt; alkylamine, for example dimethylamine and isopropylamine, salts; alkanolamine, for example ethanolamine, salts, alkylsulfonium, for example trimethylsulfonium, salts; sulfoxonium salts; and mixtures thereof. The herbicidal compositions sold by Monsanto Company as ROUNDUP.RTM. and ACCORD.RTM. contain the monoisopropylamnine (IPA) salt of N-phosphonomethylglycine. The herbicidal compositions sold by Monsanto Company as ROUNDUP.RTM. Dry and RIVAL.RTM. contain the monoammonium salt of N-phosphonomethylglycine. The herbicidal composition sold by Monsanto Company as ROUNDUP.RTM. Geoforce contains the monosodium salt of N-phosphonomethylglycine. The herbicidal composition sold by Zeneca as TOUCHDOWN.RTM. contains the trimethylsulfonium salt of N-phosphonomethylglycine. The herbicidal properties of N-phosphonomethylglycine and its derivatives were first discovered by Franz, then disclosed and patented in U.S. Pat. No. 3,799,758, issued Mar. 26, 1974. A number of herbicidal salts of N-phosphonomethylglycine were patented by Franz in U.S. Pat. No. 4,405,531, issued Sep. 20, 1983. The disclosures of both of these patents are hereby incorporated by reference.
Because the commercially most important herbicidal derivatives of N-phosphonomethylglycine are certain salts thereof, the glyphosate compositions useful in the present invention will be described in more detail with respect to such salts. These salts are well known and include ammonium, IPA, alkali metal (such as the mono-, di-, and trisodium salts, and the mono-, di-, and tripotassium salts), and trimethylsulfonium salts. Salts of N-phosphonomethylglycine are commercially significant in part because they are water soluble. The salts listed immediately above are highly water soluble, thereby allowing for highly concentrated solutions that can be diluted at the site of use. In accordance with the method of this invention as it pertains to glyphosate herbicide, an aqueous solution containing a herbicidally effective amount of glyphosate and other components in accordance with the invention is applied to foliage of plants. Such an aqueous solution can be obtained by dilution of a concentrated glyphosate salt solution with water, or dissolution or dispersion in water of a dry (e.g. granular, powder, tablet or briquette) glyphosate formulation.
Exogenous chemicals should be applied to plants at a rate sufficient to give the desired biological effect. These application rates are usually expressed as amount of exogenous chemical per unit area treated, e.g. grams per hectare (g/ha). What constitutes a "desired effect" varies according to the standards and practice of those who investigate, develop, market and use a specific class of exogenous chemicals. For example, in the case of a herbicide, the amount applied per unit area to give 85% control of a plant species as measured by growth reduction or mortality is often used to define a commercially effective rate.
Herbicidal effectiveness is one of the biological effects that can be enhanced through this invention. "Herbicidal effectiveness," as used herein, refers to any observable measure of control of plant growth, which can include one or more of the actions of (1) killing, (2) inhibiting growth, reproduction or proliferation, and (3) removing, destroying, or otherwise diminishing the occurrence and activity of plants.
The herbicidal effectiveness data set forth herein report "inhibition" as a percentage following a standard procedure in the art which reflects a visual assessment of plant mortality and growth reduction by comparison with untreated plants, made by technicians specially trained to make and record such observations. In all cases, a single technician makes all assessments of percent inhibition within any one experiment or trial. Such measurements are relied upon and regularly reported by Monsanto Company in the course of its herbicide business.
The selection of application rates that are biologically effective for a specific exogenous chemical is within the skill of the ordinary agricultural scientist. Those of skill in the art will likewise recognize that individual plant conditions, weather and growing conditions, as well as the specific exogenous chemical and formulation thereof selected, will affect the efficacy achieved in practicing this invention. Useful application rates for exogenous chemicals employed can depend upon all of the above conditions. With respect to the use of the method of this invention for glyphosate herbicide, much information is known about appropriate application rates. Over two decades of glyphosate use and published studies relating to such use have provided abundant information from which a weed control practitioner can select glyphosate application rates that are herbicidally effective on particular species at particular growth stages in particular environmental conditions.
Herbicidal compositions of glyphosate or derivatives thereof are used to control a very wide variety of plants worldwide. Such compositions can be applied to a plant in a herbicidally effective amount, and can effectively control one or more plant species of one or more of the following genera without restriction: Abutilon, Amaranthus, Artemisia, Asclepias, Avena, Axonopus, Borreria, Brachiaria, Brassica, Bromus, Chenopodium, Cirsium, Commelina, Convolvulus, Cynodon, Cyperus, Digitaria, Echinochloa, Eleusine, Elymus, Equisetum, Erodium, Helianthus, Imperata, Ipomoea, Kochia, Lolium, Malva, Oryza, Ottochloa, Panicum, Paspalum, Phalaris, Phragmites, Polygonum, Portulaca, Pteridium, Pueraria, Rubus, Salsola, Setaria, Sida, Sinapis, Sorghum, Triticum, Typha, Ulex, Xanthium, and Zea.
Particularly important species for which glyphosate compositions are used are exemplified without limitation by the following:
Annual broadleaves:
velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti)
pigweed (Amaranthus spp.)
buttonweed (Borreria spp.)
oilseed rape, canola, indian mustard, etc. (Brassica spp.)
commelina (Commelina spp.)
filaree (Erodium spp.)
sunflower (Helianthus spp.)
morningglory (Ipomoea spp.)
kochia (Kochia scoparia)
mallow (Malva spp.)
wild buckwheat, smartweed, etc. (Polygonum spp.)
purslane (Portulaca spp.)
russian thistle (Salsola spp.)
sida (Sida spp.)
wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis)
cocklebur (Xanthium spp.)
Annual narrowleaves:
wild oat (Avena fatua)
carpetgrass (Axonopus spp.)
downy brome (Bromus tectorum)
crabgrass (Digitaria spp.)
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli)
goosegrass (Eleusine indica)
annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum)
rice (Oryza sativa)
ottochloa (Ottochloa nodosa)
bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum)
canarygrass (Phalaris spp.)
foxtail (Setaria spp.)
wheat (Triticum aestivum)
corn (Zea mays)
Perennial broadleaves:
mugwort (Artemisia spp.)
milkweed (Asclepias spp.)
canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)
field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)
kudzu (Pueraria spp.)
Perennial narrowleaves:
brachiaria (Brachiaria spp.)
bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon)
yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus)
purple nutsedge (C. rotundus)
quackgrass (Elymus repens)
lalang (Imperata cylindrica)
perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne)
guineagrass (Panicum maximum)
dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum)
reed (Phragmites spp.)
johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense)
cattail (Typha spp.)
Other perennials:
horsetail (Equisetum spp.)
bracken (Pteridium aquilinum)
blackberry (Rubus spp.)
gorse (Ulex europaeus)
Thus, the method of the present invention, as it pertains to glyphosate herbicide, can be useful on any of the above species.
Effectiveness in greenhouse tests, usually at exogenous chemical rates lower than those normally effective in the field, is a proven indicator of consistency of field performance at normal use rates. However, even the most promising composition sometimes fails to exhibit enhanced performance in individual greenhouse tests. As illustrated in the Examples herein, a pattern of enhancement emerges over a series of greenhouse tests; when such a pattern is identified this is strong evidence of biological enhancement that will be useful in the field.
Compositions of the present invention comprise as a first excipient substance one or more cationic surfactant compounds having formula V above. In compounds of formula V, R.sup.8 unless perfluorinated preferably has from about 12 to about 18 carbon atoms. R.sup.8 is preferably perfluorinated, in which case it preferably has from about 6 to about 12 carbon atoms. Preferably n is 3. R.sup.9 groups are preferably methyl.
Sulfonylamino compounds of formula V are especially preferred. Suitable examples include 3-(((heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl)amino)-N,N,N-trimethyl-1-propaminium iodide, available for example as Fluorad FC-135 from 3M Company, and the corresponding chloride. It is believed that Fluorad FC-754 of 3M Company is the corresponding chloride.
Fluoro-organic surfactants such as the cationic types falling within formula V belong to a functional category of surfactants known in the art as "superspreaders" or "superwetters". As a class "superspreaders" or "superwetters" are very effective in reducing surface tension of aqueous compositions containing relatively low concentrations of these surfactants. In many applications fluoro-organic surfactants can substitute for organosilicone surfactants which are likewise "superspreaders" or "superwetters". An example is found in European patent application 0 394 211 which discloses that either organosilicone or fluoro-organic surfactants can be used interchangeably in solid granular formulations of pesticides to improve dissolution rate.
Two major problems have limited interest in "superspreaders" and "superwetters" by formulators of exogenous chemicals such as pesticides. The first is high unit cost. The second is that although surfactants of this functional category can enhance performance of an exogenous chemical on some species, for example by assisting penetration of the exogenous chemical into the interior of leaves via stomata, they can be antagonistic, sometimes severely so, to performance of the same exogenous chemical on other species.
Surprisingly, a subclass of fluoro-organic surfactants has now been found to be essentially non-antagonistic at concentrations which nevertheless provide useful adjuvant effects. This subclass comprises cationic fluoro-organic surfactants of formula V and others having a property profile in common with those of formula V. The lack of antagonism makes this subclass very different from other fluoro-organic "superspreaders" or "superwetters". Further, it has been found that these non-antagonistic fluoro-organic surfactants can be useful at concentrations low enough to be cost-effective. Data in the Examples herein for compositions comprising Fluorad FC-135 or Fluorad FC-754 illustrate the unexpected properties of this subclass.
Derivatives of Fluorad FC-754, herein described as "FC-acetate" and "FC-salicylate," have been prepared by the following procedure. (1) The solvent in a sample of Fluorad FC-754 is gently evaporated off by heating in a glass beaker at 70-80.degree. C., to leave a solid residue. (2) The solid residue is allowed to cool to room temperature. (3) A 1 g aliquot of the residue is placed in a centrifuge tube and dissolved in 5 ml isopropanol. (4) A saturated solution of potassium hydroxide (KOH) is prepared in isopropanol. (5) This solution is added drop by drop to the solution of FC-754 residue; this results in formation of a precipitate and addition of KOH solution continues until no further precipitate forms. (6) The tube is centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 5 minutes. (7) More KOH solution is added to check if precipitation is complete; if not, the tube is centrifuged again. (8) The supernatant is decanted into another glass tube. (9) A saturated solution of acetic acid (or salicylic acid) is prepared in isopropanol. (10) This solution is added to the supernatant in an amount sufficient to lower pH to 7. (11) Isopropanol is evaporated from this neutralized solution by heating at 60.degree. C. until completely dry. (12) The residue (either the acetate or salicylate salt) is dissolved in a suitable amount of water and is then ready for use.
Compositions of the present invention can optionally comprise a second excipient substance which is one or more amphiphilic liposome-forming substances. These include various lipids of synthetic, animal, or plant origin, including phospholipids, ceramides, sphingolipids, dialkyl surfactants, and polymeric surfactants. A variety of these materials are known to those skilled in the art, and are commercially available. Lecithins are particularly rich in phospholipids and can be derived from a number of plant and animal sources. Soybean lecithin is one particular example of a relatively inexpensive commercially available material that includes such substances.
Many other substances have been described which can be used to form liposomes; the present invention includes compositions comprising any such liposome-forming substances, so long as other requirements set out above are met, and use of such compositions for enhancing biological effectiveness of exogenous chemicals applied to foliage of plants. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,580,859, incorporated here by reference, discloses liposome-forming substances having a cationic group, including N-(2,3-di-(9-(Z)-octadecenyloxy))-prop-1-yl-N,N,N-trimethylammonium chloride (DOTMA) and 1,2-bis(oleoyloxy)-3-(trimethylammonio)propane (DOTAP). Liposome-forming substances which are not themselves cationic, but do contain a cationic group as part of the hydrophilic moiety, include for example dioleoylphosphatidylcholine (DOPC) and dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine (DOPE). Liposome-forming substances that do not contain a cationic group include dioleoylphosphatidylglycerol (DOPG). Any of these liposome-forming substances can be used with or without the addition of cholesterol.
Cationic liposome-forming substances having a hydrophobic moiety comprising two hydrocarbyl chains are accompanied by a counterion (anion), identified as Z in formulas I, II and III above. Any suitable anion can be used, including agriculturally acceptable anions such as hydroxide, chloride, bromide, iodide, sulfate, phosphate and acetate. In a specific embodiment where the exogenous chemical has a biologically active anion, that anion can serve as the counterion for the liposome-forming substance. For example, glyphosate can be used in its acid form together with the hydroxide of a cationic liposome-forming substance such as a compound of formula I.
Compounds of formula I known in the art to be liposome-forming include distearyldimethylammonium chloride and bromide (also known in the art as DODAC and DODAB respectively). Compounds of formula II known in the art to be liposome-forming include DOTMA referenced above and dimyristooxypropyldimethylhydroxyethylammonium bromide (DMRIE). Compounds of formula III known in the art to be liposome-forming include dioleoyloxy-3-(dimethylammonio)propane (DODAP) and DOTAP referenced above. Compounds of formula IV known in the art to be liposome-forming include DOPC and DOPE, both referenced above.
In many liposome-forming substances known in the art, the hydrophobic hydrocarbyl chains are unsaturated, having one or more double bonds. Particularly commonly used in the pharmaceutical art are dioleyl or dioleoyl compounds. A potential problem with these is that in an oxidizing environment they become oxidized at the site of the double bond. This can be inhibited by including in the formulation an antioxidant such as ascorbic acid. Alternatively the problem can be avoided by use of liposome-forming substances wherein a high proportion of the hydrophobic hydrocarbyl chains are fully saturated. Thus in a preferred embodiment of the invention, R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 in formulas I-IV are independently saturated straight-chain alkyl groups. Particularly preferred compositions use liposome-forming substances in which R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 are both palmityl (cetyl) or palmitoyl or, alternatively, are both stearyl or stearoyl groups.
Phospholipids, because of their low cost and favorable environmental properties, are particularly favored among liposome-forming substances in the method and compositions of the invention. Vegetable lecithins, such as soybean lecithin, have successfully been used in accordance with the invention. The phospholipid content of the lecithin product can range from about 10% to close to 100%. While acceptable results have been obtained with crude lecithin (10-20% phospholipid), it is generally preferred to use lecithin that is at least partially de-oiled, so that the phospholipid content is in the region of about 45% or more. Higher grades, such as 95%, provide excellent results but the much higher cost is unlikely to be justified for most applications.
The phospholipid component of lecithin, or any phospholipid composition used in the present invention, may comprise one or more phosphatides of natural or synthetic origin. Each of these phosphatides is generally a phosphoric ester that on hydrolysis yields phosphoric acid, fatty acid(s), polyhydric alcohol and, typically, a nitrogenous base. A phosphatide component may be present in a partially hydrolyzed form, e.g. as phosphatidic acid. Suitable phosphatides include, without limitation, phosphatidylcholine, hydrogenated phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidylserine, phosphatidic acid, phosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylethanolamine, N-acyl phosphatidylethanolamine, and mixtures of any of these.
In vegetable lecithins a high proportion of the hydrophobic hydrocarbyl chains of the phospholipid compounds are typically unsaturated. One preferred embodiment of compositions in accordance with the present invention comprises both saturated phospholipid and unsaturated phospholipid, with the weight ratio of saturated phospholipid to unsaturated phospholipid being greater than about 1:2. In various particularly preferred embodiments, (1) at least 50% by weight of the phospholipids are di-C.sub.12-22 -saturated alkanoyl phospholipid, (2) at least 50% by weight of the phospholipids are di-C.sub.16-18 -saturated alkanoyl phospholipid, (3) at least 50% by weight of the phospholipids are distearoyl phospholipid, (4) at least 50% by weight of the phospholipids are dipalmitoyl phospholipid, or (5) at least 50% by weight of the phospholipids are distearoyl phosphatidylcholine, dipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholine, or a mixture thereof. Higher proportions of saturated alkanoyl phospholipids are generally found in lecithins of animal origin, such as for example egg yolk lecithin, than in vegetable lecithins.
Phospholipids are known to be chemically unstable, at least in acid media, where they tend to degrade to their lyso-counterparts. Thus where phospholipids rather than more stable liposome-forming substances are used, it is usually preferable to adjust the pH of the composition upward. In the case of glyphosate compositions, the pH of a composition based on a mono-salt such as the monoisopropylammonium (IPA) salt is typically around 5 or lower. When phospholipids are used as the first excipient substance in a glyphosate composition of the invention, it will therefore be preferable to raise the pH of the composition, for example to around 7. Any convenient base can be used for this purpose; it will often be most convenient to use the same base as used in the glyphosate salt, for example isopropylamine in the case of glyphosate IPA salt.
Compositions in accordance with the present invention are typically prepared by combining water, the exogenous chemical and the first excipient substance, as well as the second excipient substance if one is used. The first excipient substance typically disperses readily in water. This is the case for example with Fluorad FC-135 or Fluorad FC-754, and simple mixing with mild agitation is usually sufficient to provide an aqueous composition. However, where the second excipient substance requires high shear to disperse in water, as is the case for example with most forms of lecithin, it is presently preferred to sonicate or microfluidize the second excipient substance in water. This can be done before or after the first excipient substance and/or the exogenous chemical is added. The sonication or microfluidization will generally produce liposomes or other aggregate structures other than simple micelles. The precise nature, including average size, of liposomes or other aggregates depends among other things on the energy input during sonication or microfluidization. Higher energy input generally results in smaller liposomes. Although it is possible to entrap or otherwise bind loosely or tightly the exogenous chemical in or on liposomes or with other supramolecular aggregates, the exogenous chemical does not need to be so entrapped or bound, and in fact the present invention is effective when the exogenous chemical is not entrapped or bound in the aggregates at all.
In a particular embodiment of the invention, the liposomes or other aggregates have an average diameter of at least 20 nm, more preferably at least 30 nm. We have determined by light scattering that certain liposomal compositions of the invention have average liposome diameters ranging from 54 to 468 nm as calculated using linear fit and from 38 to 390 nm as calculated using quadratic fit.
The concentrations of the various components will vary, in part depending on whether a concentrate is being prepared that will be further diluted before spraying onto a plant, or whether a solution or dispersion is being prepared that can be sprayed without further dilution.
In an aqueous glyphosate formulation that includes a cationic fluoro-organic surfactant and lecithin, suitable concentrations can be: glyphosate 0.1-400 g a.e./l, fluoro-organic surfactant 0.001-10% by weight, and soybean lecithin 0.001-10% by weight. In the absence of lecithin, the same ranges of concentration given above for glyphosate and fluoro-organic surfactant are useful.
In solid glyphosate formulations, higher concentrations of ingredients are possible because of the elimination of most of the water.
Weight/weight ratios of ingredients may be more important than absolute concentrations. For example, in a glyphosate formulation containing lecithin and a cationic fluoro-organic surfactant, the ratio of lecithin to glyphosate a.e. preferably is in the range from about 1:3 to about 1:100. It is generally preferred to use a ratio of lecithin to glyphosate a.e. close to as high as can be incorporated in the formulation while maintaining stability, in the presence of an amount of the fluoro-organic surfactant s sufficient to give the desired enhancement of herbicidal effectiveness. For example, a lecithin/glyphosate a.e. ratio in the range from about 1:3 to about 1:10 will generally be found useful, although lower ratios, from about 1:10 to about 1: 100, can have benefits on particular weed species in particular situations. The ratio of fluoro-organic surfactant to glyphosate a.e. is likewise preferably in the range from about 1:3 to about 1:100. Because fluoro-organic surfactants tend to have relatively high cost, it will generally be desirable to keep this ratio as low as possible consistent with achieving the desired herbicidal effectiveness.
The ratio of fluoro-organic surfactant to lecithin, where present, is preferably in the range from about 1:10 to about 10:1, more preferably in the range from about 1:3 to about 3:1 and most preferably around 1:1. The ranges disclosed herein can be used by one of skill in the art to prepare compositions of the invention having suitable concentrations and ratios of ingredients. Preferred or optimum concentrations and ratios of ingredients for any particular use or situation can be determined by routine experimentation.
Although the combination of the components might be done in a tank mix, it is preferred in the present invention that the combination be made further in advance of the application to the plant, in order to simplify the tasks required of the person who applies the material to plants. We have found, however, that in some cases the biological effectiveness of a liposome-containing composition prepared from scratch as a dilute spray composition is superior to that of a composition having the same ingredients at the same concentrations but diluted from a previously prepared concentrate formulation.
Although various compositions of the present invention are described herein as comprising certain listed materials, in some preferred embodiments of the invention the compositions consist essentially of the indicated materials.
Optionally, other agriculturally acceptable materials can be included in the compositions. For example, more than one exogenous chemical can be included. Also, various agriculturally acceptable adjuvants can be included, whether or not their purpose is to directly contribute to the effect of the exogenous chemical on a plant. For example, when the exogenous chemical is a herbicide, liquid nitrogen fertilizer or ammonium sulfate might be included in the composition. As another example, stabilizers can be added to the composition. In some instances it might be desirable to include microencapsulated acid in the composition, to lower the pH of a spray solution on contact with a leaf. One or more surfactants can also be included. Surfactants mentioned here by trade name, and other surfactants that can be useful in the method of the invention, are indexed in standard reference works such as McCutcheon's Emulsifiers and Detergents, 1997 edition, Handbook of Industrial Surfactants, 2nd Edition, 1997, published by Gower, and International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1995.
The compositions of the present invention can be applied to plants by spraying, using any conventional means for spraying liquids, such as spray nozzles, atomizers, or the like. Compositions of the present invention can be used in precision farming techniques, in which apparatus is employed to vary the amount of exogenous chemical applied to different parts of a field, depending on variables such as the particular plant species present, soil composition, and the like. In one embodiment of such techniques, a global positioning system operated with the spraying apparatus can be used to apply the desired amount of the composition to different parts of a field.
The composition at the time of application to plants is preferably dilute enough to be readily sprayed using standard agricultural spray equipment. Preferred application rates for the present invention vary depending upon a number of factors, including the type and concentration of active ingredient and the plant species involved. Useful rates for applying an aqueous composition to a field of foliage can range from about 25 to about 1,000 liters per hectare (l/ha) by spray application. The preferred application rates for aqueous solutions are in the range from about 50 to about 300 l/ha.
Many exogenous chemicals (including glyphosate herbicide) must be taken up by living tissues of the plant and translocated within the plant in order to produce the desired biological (e.g., herbicidal) effect. Thus, it is important that a herbicidal composition not be applied in such a manner as to excessively injure and interrupt the normal functioning of the local tissue of the plant so quickly that translocation is reduced. However, some limited degree of local injury can be insignificant, or even beneficial, in its impact on the biological effectiveness of certain exogenous chemicals.
A large number of compositions of the invention are illustrated in the Examples that follow. Many concentrate compositions of glyphosate have provided sufficient herbicidal effectiveness in greenhouse tests to warrant field testing on a wide variety of weed species under a variety of application conditions.
Aqueous compositions tested in the field having a cationic fluoro-organic surfactant as the first excipient substance and soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti) as the second excipient substance have included:
______________________________________ % w/wField Glyphosate Fluorad Fluoradcomposition g a.e./l Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 MON 0818______________________________________F-122 167 6.0 8.3 4.0F-123 168 6.0 8.3 4.0F-124 228 2.0 2.0 0.5F-125 347 3.0 3.0 0.5F-126 344 1.0 1.0 0.5F-127 111 8.0 8.0 0.5F-128 228 6.0 3.0 6.0F-129 228 6.0 6.0 6.0F-130 228 3.3 5.0 0.5F-131 228 5.0 5.0 0.8F-132 372 3.0 3.0 0.8F-133 372 3.0 5.0 0.8F-134 372 3.0 12.0 0.8______________________________________
The above compositions were prepared by process (v) as described in the Examples.
Dry compositions tested in the field have included:
__________________________________________________________________________ % w/w Type ofField Glyphosate Colloidal Type of colloidalcomposition a.e. Lecithin Surfactant particulate surfactant particulate__________________________________________________________________________F-162 67 10.0 10.0 + 1.5 1.0 Fluorad FC-754 + Aerosil 380 Ethomeen T/25F-163 73 7.0 7.0 + 1.5 1.0 Fluorad FC-754 + Aerosil 380 Ethomeen T/25__________________________________________________________________________
The above compositions were prepared by the following procedure. Ammonium glyphosate powder was added to a blender. Excipient ingredients were slowly added, together with sufficient water to wet the powder and form a stiff dough. The blender was operated for sufficient time to thoroughly mix all ingredients. The dough was then transferred to extrusion apparatus and was extruded to form granules, which were finally dried in a fluid bed dryer.

EXAMPLES
In the following Examples illustrative of the invention, greenhouse tests were conducted to evaluate relative herbicidal effectiveness of glyphosate compositions. Compositions included for comparative purposes included the following:
Formulation B: which consists of 41% by weight of glyphosate IPA salt in aqueous solution. This formulation is sold in the USA by Monsanto Company under the ACCORD.RTM. trademark.
Formulation C: which consists of 41% by weight of glyphosate IPA salt in aqueous solution with a coformulant (15% by weight) of a surfactant (MON 0818 of Monsanto Company) based on polyoxyethylene (15) tallowamine. This formulation is sold in Canada by Monsanto Company under the ROUNDUP.RTM. trademark.
Formulation J: which consists of 41% by weight of glyphosate IPA salt in aqueous solution, together with surfactant. This formulation is sold in the USA by Monsanto Company under the ROUNDUP.RTM. ULTRA trademark.
Formulation K: which consists of 75% by weight of glyphosate ammonium salt together with surfactant, as a water-soluble dry granular formulation. This formulation is sold in Australia by Monsanto Company under the ROUNDUP.RTM. DRY trademark.
Formulations B, C and J contain 356 grams of glyphosate acid equivalent per liter (g a.e./l). Formulation K contains 680 grams of glyphosate acid equivalent per kilogram (g a.e./kg).
Various proprietary excipients were used in compositions of the Examples. They may be identified as follows:
__________________________________________________________________________Trade name Manufacturer Chemical description__________________________________________________________________________Aerosil 90 Degussa amorphous silica, 90 m.sup.2 /gAerosol OT Cytec dioctyl sulfosuccinate, Na saltAgrimul PG-2069 Henkel C.sub.9-11 alkylpolyglycosideAluminum oxide C Degussa aluminum oxide, 100 m.sup.2 /gArcosolve DPM Arco dipropyleneglycol monomethyl etherDiacid 1550 Westvaco cyclocarboxypropyl oleic acidEmphos PS-21A Witco alcohol ethoxylate phosphate esterEthomeen C/12 Akzo cocoamine 2EOEthomeen T/25 Akzo tallowamine 15EOFluorad FC-120 3M C.sub.9-10 perfluoroalkyl sulfonate, NH.sub.4 saltFluorad FC-129 3M fluorinated alkyl carboxylate, K saltFluorad FC-135 3M fluorinated alkyl quaternary ammonium iodideFluorad FC-170C 3M fluorainated alcohol EOFluorad FC-171 3M fluorinated alkanol EOFluorad FC-431 3M fluorinated alkyl esterFluorad FC-750 3M fluorinated alkyl quaternary ammonium iodideFluorad FC-751 3M fluorinated amphoteric surfactantFluorad FC-754 3M fluorinated alkyl quaternary ammonium chlorideFluorad FC-760 3M fluorinated alkanol EOGenapol UD-030 Hoechst C.sub.11 oxo alcohol 3EOKelzan Monsanto xanthan gumMON 0818 Monsanto tallowamine 15EO-based surfactantNeodol 25-3 Shell C.sub.12-15 linear alcohol 3EOSilwet 800 Witco heptamethyltrisiloxane EOSilwet L-77 Witco heptamethyltrisiloxane 7EO methyl etherTitanium dioxide P25 Degussa titanium dioxide, average particle size 21 nmTriton RW-20 Union Carbide alkylamine 2EOTriton RW-50 Union Carbide alkylamine 5EOTriton RW-75 Union Carbide alkylamine 7.5EOTriton RW-100 Union Carbide alkylamine 10EOTriton RW-150 Union Carbide alkylamine 15EOWestvaco H-240 Westvaco dicarboxylate surfactant, K salt__________________________________________________________________________
Fluorad FC-135, though defined only generically as above in 3M product literature and in standard directories, has been specifically identified as
C.sub.8 F.sub.17 SO.sub.2 NH(CH.sub.2).sub.3 N.sup.+ (CH.sub.3).sub.3 I.sup.-
in a paper by J. Linert & J. N. Chasman of 3M, titled "The effects of fluorochemical surfactants on recoatability" in the Dec. 20, 1993 issue of American Paint & Coatings Journal, and reprinted as a trade brochure by 3M. Fluorad FC-750 is believed to be based on the same surfactant. Fluorad FC-754 is believed to have the structure
C.sub.8 F.sub.17 SO.sub.2 NH(CH.sub.2).sub.3 N.sup.+ (CH.sub.3).sub.3 Cl.sup.-
that is, identical to Fluorad FC-135 but with a chloride anion replacing iodide.
The following surfactants, identified in the examples as "Surf H1" to "Surf H5", have hydrocarbyl groups as the hydrophobic moiety but otherwise bear some structural similarity to the above Fluorad surfactants. They were synthesized and characterized under contract to Monsanto Company.
Surf H1: C.sub.12 H.sub.25 SO.sub.2 NH(CH.sub.2).sub.3 N.sup.+ (CH.sub.3).sub.3 I.sup.-
Surf H2: C.sub.17 H.sub.35 CONH(CH.sub.2).sub.3 N.sup.+ (CH.sub.3).sub.3 I.sup.-
Surf H3: C.sub.11 H.sub.23 CONH(CH.sub.2).sub.3 N.sup.+ (CH.sub.3).sub.3 I.sup.-
Surf H4: cis-C.sub.8 H.sub.17 CH.dbd.CH(CH.sub.2).sub.7 CONH(CH.sub.2).sub.3 N.sup.+ (CH.sub.3).sub.3 I.sup.-
Surf H5: C.sub.7 H.sub.15 CONH(CH.sub.2).sub.3 N.sup.+ (CH.sub.3).sub.3 I.sup.-
Fatty alcohol ethoxylate surfactants are referred to in the Examples by their generic names as given in the International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1995 (Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, Washington, D.C.). They were interchangeably sourced from various manufacturers, for example:
Laureth-23: Brij 35 (ICI), Trycol 5964 (Henkel).
Ceteth-10: Brij 56 (ICI).
Ceteth-20: Brij 58 (ICI).
Steareth-10: Brij 76 (ICI).
Steareth-20: Brij 78 (ICI), Emthox 5888-A (Henkel), STA-20 (Heterene).
Steareth-30: STA-30 (Heterene).
Steareth-100: Brij 700 (ICI).
Ceteareth-15: CS-15 (Heterene).
Ceteareth-20: CS-20 (Heterene).
Ceteareth-27: Plurafac A-38 (BASF).
Ceteareth-55: Plurafac A-39 (BASF).
Oleth-2: Brij 92 (ICI).
Oleth-10: Brij 97 (ICI).
Oleth-20: Brij 98 (ICI), Trycol 5971 (Henkel).
Where a proprietary excipient is a surfactant supplied as a solution in water or other solvent, the amount to be used was calculated on a true surfactant basis, not an "as is" basis. For example, Fluorad FC-135 is supplied as 50% true surfactant, together with 33% isopropanol and 17% water; thus to provide a composition containing 0.1% w/w Fluorad FC-135 as reported herein, 0.2 g of the product as supplied was included in 100 g of the composition. The amount of lecithin, however, is always reported herein on an "as is" basis, regardless of the content of phospholipid in the lecithin sample used.
Spray compositions of the Examples contained an exogenous chemical, such as glyphosate IPA salt, in addition to the excipient ingredients listed. The amount of exogenous chemical was selected to provide the desired rate in grams per hectare (g/ha) when applied in a spray volume of 93 l/ha. Several exogenous chemical rates were applied for each composition. Thus, except where otherwise indicated, when spray compositions were tested, the concentration of exogenous chemical varied in direct proportion to exogenous chemical rate, but the concentration of excipient ingredients was held constant across different exogenous chemical rates.
Concentrate compositions were tested by dilution, dissolution or dispersion in water to form spray compositions. In these spray compositions prepared from concentrates, the concentration of excipient ingredients varied with that of exogenous chemical.
Except where otherwise indicated, aqueous spray compositions were prepared by one of the following processes (i), (ii) or (iii).
(i) For compositions not containing lecithin or phospholipids, aqueous compositions were prepared by simple mixing of ingredients under mild agitation.
(ii) A weighed quantity of lecithin in powder form was dissolved in 0.4 ml chloroform in a 100 ml bottle. The resulting solution was air-dried to leave a thin film of lecithin, to which was added 30 ml deionized water. The bottle and its contents were then sonicated in a Fisher Sonic Dismembrator, Model 550, fitted with a 2.4 cm probe tip, set at output level 8, and operated continuously for 3 minutes. The resulting aqueous dispersion of lecithin was then allowed to cool to room temperature, and formed a lecithin stock which was later mixed in the required amounts with other ingredients under mild agitation. In some cases, as indicated in the Examples, certain ingredients were added to the lecithin in water before sonication, so that the lecithin and these ingredients were sonicated together. Without being bound by theory, it is believed that by sonicating a formulation ingredient together with lecithin, at least some of that ingredient becomes encapsulated within, or otherwise bound to or trapped by, vesicles or other aggregates formed by phospholipids present in the lecithin.
(iii) The procedure of process (ii) was followed except that, before sonication, the step of forming a lecithin solution in chloroform was omitted. Instead, lecithin in powder form was placed in a beaker, water was added and the beaker and its contents were then sonicated.
Except where otherwise indicated, aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared by one of the following processes (iv), (v), (viii) or (ix).
(iv) A weighed amount of lecithin powder of the type indicated was placed in a beaker and deionized water was added in no more than the amount required for the desired final composition. The beaker and its contents were then placed in a Fisher Sonic Dismembrator, Model 550, fitted with a 2.4 cm probe tip, set at output level 8, and operated for 5 minutes. The resulting lecithin dispersion formed the basis to which other ingredients were added with mild agitation to make the aqueous concentrate formulation. The order of addition of these ingredients was varied and was sometimes found to affect the physical stability of the concentrate formulation. Where a fluoro-organic surfactant such as Fluorad FC-135 or FC-754 was to be included, it was generally added first, followed by other surfactants if required and then by the exogenous chemical. Where the exogenous chemical used was glyphosate IPA salt, this was added in the form of a 62% (45% a.e.) solution by weight, at a pH of 4.4 to 4.6. A final adjustment with water took place if necessary as the last step. In some cases certain ingredients of the concentrate formulation were added before rather than after sonication, so that they were sonicated with the lecithin.
(v) A weighed amount of lecithin powder of the type indicated was placed in a beaker and deionized water was added in sufficient quantity to provide, after sonication as detailed below, a lecithin stock at a convenient concentration, normally in the range from 10% to 20% w/w and typically 15% w/w. The beaker and its contents were then placed in a Fisher Sonic Dismembrator, Model 550, fitted with a 2.4 cm probe tip with the pulse period set at 15 seconds with 1 minute intervals between pulses to allow cooling. Power output was set at level 8. After a total of 3 minutes of sonication (12 pulse periods) the resulting lecithin stock was finally adjusted to the desired concentration if necessary with deionized water. To prepare an aqueous concentrate formulation, the following ingredients were mixed in the appropriate proportions with mild agitation, normally in the order given although this was sometimes varied and was found in some cases to affect the physical stability of the concentrate formulation: (a) exogenous chemical, for example glyphosate IPA salt as a 62% w/w solution at pH 4.4-4.6; (b) lecithin stock; (c) other ingredients if required; and (d) water.
(viii) Surfactant-containing aqueous solution concentrates having no oil component or lecithin were prepared as follows. A concentrated (62% w/w) aqueous solution of glyphosate IPA salt was added in the desired amount to a weighed quantity of the selected surfactant(s). If the surfactant selected is not free-flowing at ambient temperature, heat was applied to bring the surfactant into a flowable condition before adding the glyphosate solution. The required amount of water was added to bring the concentration of glyphosate and other ingredients to the desired level. The composition was finally subjected to high-shear mixing, typically using a Silverson L4RT-A mixer fitted with a medium emulsor screen, operated for 3 minutes at 7,000 rpm.
(ix) For compositions containing a colloidal particulate, the required amount by weight of the selected colloidal particulate was suspended in a concentrated (62% w/w) aqueous solution of glyphosate IPA salt and agitated with cooling to ensure homogeneity. To the resulting suspension was added the required amount by weight of the selected surfactant(s). For a surfactant which is not free-flowing at ambient temperature, heat was applied to bring the surfactant into a flowable condition before adding it to the suspension. In those instances where an oil, such as butyl stearate, was also to be included in the composition, the oil was first thoroughly mixed with the surfactant and the surfactant-oil mixture added to the suspension. To complete the aqueous concentrate, the required amount of water was added to bring the concentration of glyphosate and other ingredients to the desired level. The concentrate was finally subjected to high-shear mixing, typically using a Silverson L4RT-A mixer fitted with a medium emulsor screen, operated for 3 minutes at 7,000 rpm.
(x) The procedure for preparing aqueous concentrate formulations containing lecithin and butyl stearate was different from that followed for other lecithin-containing concentrates. Exogenous chemical, for example glyphosate IPA salt, was first added, with mild agitation, to deionized water in a formulation jar. The selected surfactant (other than lecithin) was then added, while continuing the agitation, to form a preliminary exogenous chemical/ surfactant mixture. Where the surfactant is not free-flowing at ambient temperature, the order of addition was not as above. Instead, the non-free-flowing surfactant was first added to water together with any other surfactant (other than lecithin) required in the composition, and was then heated to 55.degree. C. in a shaker bath for 2 hours. The resulting mixture was allowed to cool, then exogenous chemical was added with mild agitation to form the preliminary exogenous chemical/surfactant mixture. A weighed amount of the selected lecithin was added to the preliminary exogenous chemical/surfactant mixture, with stirring to break up lumps. The mixture was left for about 1 hour to allow the lecithin to hydrate, then butyl stearate was added, with further stirring until no phase separation occurred. The mixture was then transferred to a microfluidizer (Microfluidics International Corporation, Model M-110F) and microfluidized for 3 to 5 cycles at 10,000 psi (69 MPa). In each cycle, the formulation jar was rinsed with microfluidized mixture. In the last cycle, the finished composition was collected in a clean dry beaker.
The following procedure was used for testing compositions of the Examples to determine herbicidal effectiveness, except where otherwise indicated.
Seeds of the plant species indicated were planted in 85 mm square pots in a soil mix which was previously steam sterilized and prefertilized with a 14--14--14 NPK slow release fertilizer at a rate of 3.6 kg/m3. The pots were placed in a greenhouse with sub-irrigation. About one week after emergence, seedlings were thinned as needed, including removal of any unhealthy or abnormal plants, to create a uniform series of test pots.
The plants were maintained for the duration of the test in the greenhouse where they received a minimum of 14 hours of light per day. If natural light was insufficient to achieve the daily requirement, artificial light with an intensity of approximately 475 microeinsteins was used to make up the difference. Exposure temperatures were not precisely controlled but averaged about 27.degree. C. during the day and about 18.degree. C. during the night. Plants were sub-irrigated throughout the test to ensure adequate soil moisture levels.
Pots were assigned to different treatments in a fully randomized experimental design with 3 replications. A set of pots was left untreated as a reference against which effects of the treatments could later be evaluated.
Application of glyphosate compositions was made by spraying with a track sprayer fitted with a 9501E nozzle calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 93 liters per hectare (l/ha) at a pressure of 166 kilopascals (kPa). After treatment, pots were returned to the greenhouse until ready for evaluation.
Treatments were made using dilute aqueous compositions. These could be prepared as spray compositions directly from their ingredients, or by dilution with water of preformulated concentrate compositions.
For evaluation of herbicidal effectiveness, all plants in the test were examined by a single practiced technician, who recorded percent inhibition, a visual measurement of the effectiveness of each treatment by comparison with untreated plants. Inhibition of 0% indicates no effect, and inhibition of 100% indicates that all of the plants are completely dead. Inhibition of 85% or more is in most cases considered acceptable for normal herbicidal use; however in greenhouse tests such as those of the Examples it is normal to apply compositions at rates which give less than 85% inhibition, as this makes it easier to discriminate among compositions having different levels of effectiveness.
EXAMPLE 1
Glyphosate-containing spray compositions were prepared by tank-mixing Formulations B and C with excipients as shown in Table 1.
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 16 days after planting ABUTH and 16 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1__________________________________________________________________________Glyphosate Glyphosate rate Additive rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha Additive % v/v ABUTH ECHCF__________________________________________________________________________Formulation C 175 none 40 75 350 69 89 500 97 100Formulation B 175 none 45 37 350 73 66 500 83 97Formulation B 175 L-77 0.25 64 30 175 0.50 77 27Formulation B 175 FC-135 0.25 55 72 175 0.50 73 61Formulation B 175 FC-135 + L-77 8:1 0.50 71 58 175 FC-135 + L-77 4:1 0.50 76 61 175 FC-135 + L-77 2:1 0.50 63 56 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:1 0.50 77 40 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:2 0.50 54 23 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:4 0.50 76 31 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:8 0.50 53 29Formulation B 175 FC-135 + L-77 8:1 0.25 51 48 175 FC-135 + L-77 4:1 0.25 37 47 175 FC-135 + L-77 2:1 0.25 45 37 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:1 0.25 65 27 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:2 0.25 45 29 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:4 0.25 60 17 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:8 0.25 52 15__________________________________________________________________________
Tank mixtures of Fluorad FC-135 with Formulation B gave markedly superior herbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH by comparison with Formulation C, but did not match the herbicidal effectiveness of Formulation C on ECHCF. The antagonism of glyphosate activity on ECHCF seen with the nonionic organosilicone surfactant Silwet L-77 did not occur with the cationic fluoro-organic surfactant Fluorad FC-135.
EXAMPLE 2
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate sodium or IPA salts and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 2a. Process (ii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (10-20% phospholipid, Sigma Type II-S). Without adjustment, the pH of the compositions was approximately 5. For those compositions having a pH of approximately 7 as shown in Table 2a, the pH was adjusted using the same base (sodium hydroxide or IPA) that formed the glyphosate salt.
TABLE 2a______________________________________ % w/w ComponentsSpray Lecithin Fluorad sonicated Glyphosatecomposition g/l FC-135 L-77 with lecithin salt pH______________________________________2-01 5.0 none IPA 52-02 5.0 0.50 none IPA 52-03 5.0 none Na 72-04 5.0 0.50 none Na 72-05 5.0 none IPA 72-06 5.0 0.50 none IPA 72-07 5.0 none Na 52-08 5.0 0.50 none Na 52-09 2.5 none IPA 52-10 2.5 0.50 none IPA 52-11 5.0 0.50 none IPA 52-12 5.0 0.33 0.17 none IPA 52-13 5.0 0.50 L-77 IPA 52-14 5.0 0.50 L-77 Na 72-15 5.0 0.50 L-77 IPA 72-16 5.0 0.50 L-77 Na 5______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.
Formulation C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 2b.
TABLE 2b______________________________________Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation C 100 8 54 200 54 75 300 77 90Formulation C + 100 62 10Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 91 25 300 95 272-01 100 59 64 200 74 83 300 82 992-02 100 66 44 200 73 45 300 92 762-03 100 17 29 200 37 72 300 70 892-04 100 48 24 200 67 50 300 81 612-05 100 40 44 200 77 89 300 79 952-06 100 76 43 200 87 74 300 90 852-07 100 40 50 200 66 54 300 84 832-08 100 69 34 200 57 70 300 78 662-09 100 44 62 200 83 82 300 90 912-10 100 84 83 200 97 85 300 95 932-11 100 79 65 200 89 84 300 98 982-12 100 74 63 200 93 84 300 94 922-13 100 86 85 200 91 92 300 97 972-14 100 56 17 200 69 48 300 87 812-15 100 61 39 200 87 73 300 83 782-16 100 42 32 200 35 78 300 59 85______________________________________
Surprisingly strong herbicidal effectiveness was observed with compositions 2-10 and 2-11 containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-1 35 on both ABUTH and ECHCF, by comparison with otherwise similar compositions (2-09 and 2-01) lacking the Fluorad FC-135. Herbicidal effectiveness of composition 2-11 at the 100 g a.e./ha glyphosate rate was superior to that of Formulation C at a threefold higher rate on ABUTH and superior to that of Formulation C at a twofold higher rate on ECHCF.
EXAMPLE 3
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 3a. Process (ii), indicated in Table 3a as involving "high" sonication power, was followed for all compositions, except that for composition 3-06 a different sonication procedure, referred to as "low" sonication power, was used. In this procedure the lecithin in water was sonicated in a Fisher Model FS 14H ultrasonic bath for 30 minutes. Soybean lecithin (10-20% phospholipid, Sigma Type II-S) was used for all compositions. Without adjustment, the pH of the compositions was approximately 5. For those compositions having a pH of approximately 7 as shown in Table 3a, the pH was adjusted using the same base (sodium hydroxide or IPA) that formed the glyphosate salt.
TABLE 3a______________________________________Spray Leci- % w/wcompo- thin Fluorad Components Sonicationsition g/l FC-135 L-77 sonicated with lecithin pH power______________________________________3-01 5.0 none 5 high3-02 5.0 0.50 none 5 high3-03 5.0 0.50 L-77 5 high3-04 5.0 0.50 glyphosate 5 high3-05 5.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate 5 high3-06 5.0 none 7 low3-07 5.0 none 7 high3-08 5.0 0.50 none 7 high3-09 5.0 0.50 L-77 7 high3-10 5.0 0.50 glyphosate 7 high3-11 5.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate 7 high3-12 5.0 0.50 none 5 high3-13 5.0 0.50 FC-135 5 high3-14 5.0 0.50 glyphosate 5 high3-15 5.0 0.17 0.33 FC-135, glyphosate 5 high3-16 5.0 0.17 0.33 none 5 high3-17 5.0 0.17 0.33 FC-135, L-77 5 high3-18 10.0 none 5 high3-19 20.0 none 5 high3-20 10.0 0.50 none 5 high3-21 10.0 0.50 L-77 5 high3-22 20.0 0.50 L-77 5 high3-23 20.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate 5 high______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 18 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.
Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 3b.
TABLE 3b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 11 12 200 55 43 300 65 38Formulation B + 100 77 5Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 95 10 300 95 17Formulation C 100 33 42 200 63 98 300 85 99Formulation C + 100 78 7Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 95 19 300 98 543-01 100 63 22 200 77 69 300 92 823-02 100 79 30 200 96 67 300 98 703-03 100 81 29 200 96 70 300 97 863-04 100 85 32 200 94 60 300 98 613-05 100 82 34 200 98 60 300 96 693-06 100 55 40 200 91 69 300 97 903-07 100 77 29 200 93 82 300 97 1003-08 100 83 48 200 95 67 300 94 743-09 100 83 37 200 95 75 300 99 833-10 100 77 36 200 99 75 300 98 693-11 100 81 38 200 94 81 300 97 763-12 100 56 47 200 91 90 300 97 953-13 100 81 41 200 94 58 300 97 843-14 100 77 37 200 94 70 300 96 943-15 100 76 61 200 95 79 300 96 853-16 100 95 84 200 94 56 300 75 323-17 100 78 44 200 93 86 300 94 873-18 100 59 27 200 94 84 300 96 1003-19 100 74 44 200 94 74 300 95 953-20 100 79 62 200 89 78 300 92 933-21 100 66 69 200 80 79 300 86 883-22 100 44 69 200 83 97 300 74 943-23 100 50 71 200 68 91 300 85 76______________________________________
Composition 3-12 containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 again showed surprisingly high herbicidal effectiveness by comparison with composition 3-01, lacking the Fluorad FC-135, and also by comparison with Formulation C. When efforts were made to encapsulate Fluorad FC-135 or glyphosate (compositions 3-13 or 3-14 respectively) in lecithin liposomes by sonication in the presence of the ingredients sought to be encapsulated, some further enhancement of herbicidal effectiveness was evident on ABUTH, but effectiveness was reduced on ECHCF. Overall, the best activity in this test was obtained without encapsulation.
EXAMPLE 4
Compositions 3-01 to 3-12 of Example 3 were tested in this Example. Black nightshade (Solanum nigrum, SOLNI) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 26 days after planting SOLNI and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.
Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha SOLNI______________________________________Formulation B 100 28 200 35 300 70Formulation B + 100 85Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 98 300 97Formulation C 100 30 200 58 300 70Formulation C + 100 78Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 82 300 943-01 100 47 200 77 300 933-02 100 33 200 50 300 783-03 100 36 200 79 300 903-04 100 33 200 72 300 843-05 100 38 200 68 300 823-06 100 84 200 92 300 963-07 100 58 200 75 300 853-08 100 50 200 83 300 913-09 100 50 200 72 300 833-10 100 53 200 75 300 783-11 100 75 200 96 300 1003-12 100 62 200 93 300 99______________________________________
Composition 3-12 containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135, as in the test of Example 3, showed remarkably strong herbicidal effectiveness, this time on SOLNI.
EXAMPLE 5
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 5a. Process (ii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 5a______________________________________ % w/wSpray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet Componentscomposition g/l FC-135 L-77 KCl sonicated with lecithin______________________________________5-01 5.0 glyphosate5-02 5.0 0.50 L-775-03 5.0 0.50 L-775-04 5.0 1.00 L-775-05 5.0 0.20 none5-06 5.0 1.00 none5-07 5.0 0.20 L-77, glyphosate5-08 5.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate5-09 5.0 1.00 L-77, glyphosate5-10 2.5 0.10 L-775-11 2.5 0.25 L-775-12 2.5 0.50 L-775-13 2.5 0.10 none5-14 2.5 0.25 none5-15 2.5 0.10 L-77, glyphosate5-16 2.5 0.25 L-77, glyphosate5-17 2.5 0.50 L-77, glyphosate5-18 5.0 0.50 0.02 L-775-19 5.0 0.50 0.02 L-77, glyphosate5-20 5.0 0.50 none5-21 5.0 0.50 glyphosate5-22 5.0 0.33 0.17 none5-23 5.0 0.33 0.17 glyphosate______________________________________
Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 18 days after planting ABUTH and 16 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.
Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 5b.
TABLE 5b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 200 47 83 300 64 84 400 71 90Formulation B + 200 83 58Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 94 76 400 100 85Formulation C 200 46 96 300 68 90 400 75 93Formulation C + 200 81 66Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 93 68 400 96 865-01 200 70 91 300 74 100 400 93 945-02 200 81 95 300 68 100 400 81 1005-03 200 78 100 300 99 83 400 98 995-04 200 89 95 300 93 95 400 86 1005-05 200 60 89 300 79 100 400 86 1005-06 200 76 100 300 84 100 400 100 965-07 200 65 97 300 78 97 400 77 1005-08 200 82 100 300 95 100 400 96 1005-09 200 78 99 300 89 99 400 90 1005-10 200 66 100 300 79 98 400 89 1005-11 200 67 95 300 81 100 400 97 1005-12 200 76 88 300 79 100 400 95 965-13 200 59 85 300 66 93 400 67 1005-14 200 56 89 300 67 100 400 83 1005-15 200 54 100 300 63 100 400 78 1005-16 200 46 88 300 73 100 400 86 1005-17 200 81 98 300 83 97 400 92 965-18 200 56 92 300 64 100 400 74 1005-19 200 64 94 300 80 97 400 80 965-20 200 88 91 300 96 100 400 98 985-21 200 92 94 300 100 100 400 100 1005-22 200 88 97 300 93 95 400 95 1005-23 200 79 100 300 96 100 400 97 96______________________________________
Glyphosate activity on ECHCF in this test was too high to make meaningful comparisons. However, on ABUTH, composition 5-20 containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 exhibited remarkably strong herbicidal effectiveness by comparison with composition 5-01 (no Fluorad FC-135) and Formulation C. As in previous testing, a slight further advantage on ABUTH was obtained by efforts to encapsulate the glyphosate in lecithin liposomes, as in composition 5-21. Compositions 5-22 and 5-23, containing both Fluorad FC-135 and Silwet L-77 in addition to lecithin, also showed remarkably good herbicidal effectiveness.
EXAMPLE 6
Compositions 5-01 to 5-23 of Example 5 were tested in this Example. Morningglory (Ipomoea spp., IPOSS) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting IPOSS and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.
Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha IPOSS______________________________________Formulation B 200 40 400 66Formulation B + 200 68Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 400 79Formulation C 200 62 400 71Formulation C + 200 70Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 400 725-01 200 64 400 775-02 200 68 400 755-03 200 68 400 725-04 200 69 400 725-05 200 64 400 785-06 200 80 400 895-07 200 69 400 745-08 200 60 400 725-09 200 79 400 845-10 200 69 400 785-11 200 52 400 725-12 200 69 400 885-13 200 72 400 745-14 200 68 400 695-15 200 68 400 705-16 200 55 400 695-17 200 52 400 675-18 200 65 400 675-19 200 54 400 705-20 200 74 400 1005-21 200 72 400 915-22 200 81 400 845-23 200 79 400 90______________________________________
Once again, surprisingly strong herbicidal effectiveness, this time on IPOSS, was exhibited by compositions 5-20 to 5-23, all of which contain lecithin and Fluorad FC-135.
EXAMPLE 7
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 7a. Process (ii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 7a______________________________________ % w/wSpray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet Componentscomposition g/l FC-135 L-77 sonicated with lecithin______________________________________7-01 5.0 0.50 L-777-02 5.0 0.25 L-777-03 5.0 0.10 L-777-04 5.0 none7-05 2.5 0.50 L-777-06 2.5 0.25 L-777-07 2.5 0.10 L-777-08 1.0 0.50 L-777-09 1.0 0.25 L-777-10 2.5 0.10 L-777-11 2.5 0.25 0.25 L-777-12 2.5 0.17 0.33 L-777-13 2.5 0.33 0.17 L-777-14 2.5 0.50 none7-15 2.5 0.25 none7-16 2.5 0.10 none7-17 2.5 0.25 glyphosate7-18 2.5 0.10 glyphosate7-19 2.5 0.50 glyphosate7-20 5.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate7-21 2.5 0.25 L-77, glyphosate7-22 1.0 0.25 L-77, glyphosate7-23 1.0 0.10 L-77, glyphosate______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 20 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF. Planting date for SIDSP was not recorded. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.
Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 7b.
TABLE 7b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 150 33 39 29 250 44 43 66 350 83 45 60Formulation B + 150 81 7 46Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 250 88 21 64 350 96 32 66Formulation C 150 61 59 58 250 77 92 85 350 91 92 83Formulation C + 150 76 10 65Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 250 87 17 60 350 92 39 647-01 150 87 43 47 250 88 41 60 350 96 53 667-02 150 66 51 61 250 85 81 63 350 84 89 757-03 150 66 54 65 250 70 63 60 350 94 96 877-04 150 73 58 61 250 85 83 90 350 91 100 837-05 150 76 44 49 250 85 55 56 350 93 79 647-06 150 64 73 56 250 71 78 61 350 81 79 777-07 150 53 41 59 250 74 78 68 350 78 90 757-08 150 83 33 59 250 82 39 75 350 95 59 697-09 150 78 32 46 250 85 42 75 350 91 62 677-10 150 26 36 43 250 69 73 75 350 76 81 737-11 150 83 79 72 250 96 93 78 350 99 97 847-12 150 78 57 58 250 89 78 66 350 94 93 757-13 150 83 84 54 250 94 93 67 350 99 97 937-14 150 80 68 69 250 85 88 79 350 97 94 997-15 150 75 80 62 250 93 93 76 350 95 91 947-16 150 75 69 60 250 88 91 77 350 89 92 757-17 150 77 69 67 250 88 91 86 350 93 97 967-18 150 71 63 66 250 74 85 82 350 89 85 837-19 150 74 62 77 250 86 80 93 350 92 96 967-20 150 39 46 38 250 80 49 69 350 91 64 697-21 150 65 50 34 250 64 52 52 350 78 67 627-22 150 68 18 35 250 79 42 43 350 87 49 587-23 150 24 46 38 250 62 49 42 350 91 53 67______________________________________
Compositions 7-14 to 7-16, containing 0.25% lecithin together with Fluorad FC-135, provided excellent herbicidal effectiveness on all three species tested. Even at the lowest concentration of Fluorad FC-135 (0.1% in composition 7-16), effectiveness was substantially maintained on ABUTH and ECHCF, although some loss of effectiveness was evident on SIDSP. Compositions 7-11 to 7-13, containing lecithin, Fluorad FC-135 and Silwet L-77, also performed well in this test, not showing the antagonism on ECHCF characteristic of compositions containing Silwet L-77 but no Fluorad FC-135.
EXAMPLE 8
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 8a. Process (ii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti).
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 8a. The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 8a______________________________________ % w/wSpray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet Componentscomposition g/l FC-135 L-77 sonicated with lecithin______________________________________8-01 5.0 0.50 L-778-02 5.0 0.25 L-778-03 5.0 0.10 L-778-04 5.0 none8-05 2.5 0.50 L-778-06 2.5 0.25 L-778-07 2.5 0.10 L-778-08 1.0 0.50 L-778-09 1.0 0.25 L-778-10 2.5 0.10 L-778-11 2.5 0.25 0.25 L-778-12 2.5 0.17 0.33 L-778-13 2.5 0.33 0.17 L-778-14 2.5 0.50 none8-15 2.5 0.25 none8-16 2.5 0.10 none8-17 2.5 0.25 glyphosate8-18 2.5 0.10 glyphosate8-19 2.5 0.50 glyphosate______________________________________
Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus, CYPES) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 21 days after planting CYPES, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 27 days after application.
Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 8b.
TABLE 8b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha CYPES______________________________________Formulation B 500 92 1000 95 5000 100Formulation B + 500 100Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 1000 87 5000 100Formulation C 500 87 1000 96 5000 100Formulation C + 500 98Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 1000 94 5000 1008-01 500 91 1000 100 1500 978-02 500 83 1000 100 1500 1008-03 500 90 1000 88 1500 718-04 500 88 1000 100 1500 1008-05 500 84 1000 99 1500 958-06 500 90 1000 88 1500 998-07 500 78 1000 94 1500 978-08 500 93 1000 96 1500 1008-09 500 87 1000 88 1500 1008-10 500 86 1000 100 1500 1008-11 500 95 1000 94 1500 1008-12 500 92 1000 92 1500 1008-13 500 87 1000 97 1500 1008-14 500 82 1000 100 1500 1008-15 500 85 1000 90 1500 958-16 500 87 1000 91 1500 1008-17 500 83 1000 90 1500 958-18 500 93 1000 100 1500 958-19 500 86 1000 95 1500 100______________________________________
The commercial standard Formulation C exhibited very high herbicidal effectiveness in this test and for this reason it is not possible to discern enhancements. There is a suggestion at the lowest glyphosate rate (500 g a.e./ha), effectiveness of compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 (8-14 to 8-16) on CYPES surprisingly improved with decreasing Fluorad FC-135 concentration.
EXAMPLE 9
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 9a. Process (ii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 9a______________________________________ % w/wSpray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet Componentscomposition g/l FC-135 L-77 sonicated with lecithin______________________________________9-01 5.0 none9-02 5.0 0.50 none9-03 5.0 0.50 L-779-04 2.5 none9-05 2.5 0.50 none9-06 2.5 0.50 L-779-07 1.0 none9-08 1.0 0.50 none9-09 1.0 0.50 L-779-10 0.5 none9-11 0.5 0.50 none9-12 0.5 0.50 L-779-13 1.0 0.25 none9-14 1.0 0.25 L-779-15 1.0 0.10 none9-16 1.0 0.10 L-779-17 1.0 0.50 none9-18 1.0 0.20 none9-19 1.0 0.10 none9-20 0.5 0.50 none9-21 0.5 0.20 none______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. There was no record of the dates of planting. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.
In addition to compositions 9-01 to 9-21, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with 0.5% Fluorad FC-135. Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 9b.
TABLE 9b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 64 77 250 81 80 350 88 97Formulation B + 150 42 38Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 250 56 49 350 67 64Formulation C 150 61 89 250 75 91 350 92 99Formulation C + 150 92 40Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 250 95 40 350 94 74Formulation B + 150 87 34Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 250 90 44 350 97 47Formulation C + 150 79 85Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 250 77 86 350 92 919-01 150 75 69 250 84 89 350 98 989-02 150 86 54 250 96 74 350 99 869-03 150 86 66 250 91 77 350 96 869-04 150 68 73 250 97 85 350 94 929-05 150 90 55 250 96 69 350 91 829-06 150 87 43 250 91 68 350 97 839-07 150 56 76 250 81 88 350 89 969-08 150 85 35 250 93 51 350 98 669-09 150 94 45 250 97 47 350 98 529-10 150 62 60 250 85 78 350 93 889-11 150 90 32 250 92 42 350 98 599-12 150 93 38 250 93 56 350 95 729-13 150 85 39 250 89 66 350 94 799-14 150 83 70 250 93 45 350 93 709-15 150 65 54 250 85 79 350 91 899-16 150 75 65 250 83 79 350 90 849-17 150 81 94 250 88 97 350 100 999-18 150 79 89 250 95 91 350 98 989-19 150 77 85 250 91 96 350 95 979-20 150 77 71 250 86 92 350 100 939-21 150 75 91 250 84 97 350 96 95______________________________________
Compositions of this Example (9-17 to 9-21) containing very low concentrations of lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 exhibited remarkably high herbicidal effectiveness. Even a composition (9-19) with just 0.1% lecithin and 0.1% Fluorad FC-135 was much more effective on ABUTH than commercial standard Formulation C, and equally as effective on ECHCF as Formulation C. The apparently strong antagonism on ECHCF seen when Formulation B was tank mixed with 0.5% Fluorad FC-135 in this test is uncharacteristic and has not been seen in other tests (see, for example, Example 12 herein); indeed the data for this set of treatments is so out of line that it is believed they may be due to an error in application.
EXAMPLE 10
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 10a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 10a______________________________________Spray % w/w Componentscompo- Lecithin Fluorad Silwet Methyl Sodium sonicated withsition g/l FC-135 L-77 caprate cholate lecithin______________________________________10-01 5.0 none10-02 5.0 0.50 none10-03 5.0 0.50 L-7710-04 2.5 none10-05 0.5 none10-06 2.5 0.50 none10-07 2.5 0.50 L-7710-08 0.5 0.50 none10-09 0.5 0.50 L-7710-10 2.5 0.25 none10-11 2.5 0.10 none10-12 2.5 0.05 none10-13 0.5 0.25 none10-14 0.5 0.10 none10-15 0.5 0.05 none10-16 2.5 0.10 Me caprate10-17 2.5 0.10 Na cholate______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 18 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.
In addition to compositions 10-01 to 10-17, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 10b.
TABLE 10b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 200 53 69 300 76 85 400 77 81Formulation B + 200 100 28Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 100 35 400 100 47Formulation C 200 57 81 300 73 90 400 98 94Formulation C + 200 99 28Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 98 53 400 99 56Formulation B + 200 76 85Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 95 81 400 100 100Formulation B + 200 77 70Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 94 81 400 98 87Formulation B + 200 65 73Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 84 94 400 88 96Formulation C + 200 83 78Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 98 94 400 97 95Formulation C + 200 65 66Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 89 86 400 97 89Formulation C + 200 70 78Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 79 84 400 96 9810-01 200 93 71 300 91 89 400 97 9710-02 200 95 59 300 97 68 400 99 7910-03 200 97 55 300 98 62 400 100 7610-04 200 83 72 300 87 84 400 95 10010-05 200 69 78 300 92 93 400 98 9710-06 200 94 61 300 99 67 400 100 7610-07 200 99 52 300 99 63 400 100 8010-08 200 96 47 300 99 57 400 99 5510-09 200 99 23 300 98 58 400 100 5310-10 200 89 91 300 91 99 400 98 10010-11 200 81 91 300 91 99 400 92 10010-12 200 66 96 300 86 100 400 94 9910-13 200 80 97 300 98 98 400 99 10010-14 200 68 92 300 89 100 400 99 9810-15 200 84 95 300 94 100 400 97 10010-16 200 73 94 300 89 100 400 99 10010-17 200 58 94 300 77 96 400 90 90______________________________________
Tank mixture of Fluorad FC-135 at concentrations as low as 0.05% with Formulation B resulted in remarkably strong herbicidal efficacy in this test. The antagonism on ECHCF seen with the nonionic organosilicone surfactant Silwet L-77 did not occur with the cationic fluoro-organic surfactant Fluorad FC-135. Noteworthy was the outstanding herbicidal effectiveness provided by a composition (10-15) containing just 0.05% lecithin and 0.05% Fluorad FC-135. In this test addition of 0.1% methyl caprate to 0.25% lecithin, the methyl caprate being sonicated together with the lecithin, enhanced performance on ECHCF but not on ABUTH (compare compositions 10-16 and 10-04).
EXAMPLE 11
Compositions 10-01 to 10-17 of Example 10, and tank mixtures of Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135, were tested in this Example. Prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 22 days after planting SIDSP, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.
Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 11.
TABLE 11______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 200 46 300 75 400 80Formulation B + 200 96Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 89 400 87Formulation C 200 80 300 98 400 98Formulation C + 200 75Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 91 400 94Formulation B + 200 82Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 94 400 98Formulation B + 200 70Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 93 400 88Formulation B + 200 79Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 92 400 99Formulation C + 200 79Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 97 400 97Formulation C + 200 90Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 96 400 97Formulation C + 200 80Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 96 400 9910-01 200 93 300 97 400 9810-02 200 71 300 89 400 8910-03 200 71 300 87 400 9810-04 200 76 300 100 400 10010-05 200 91 300 99 400 9710-06 200 57 300 95 400 8810-07 200 64 300 68 400 9410-08 200 89 300 96 400 9910-09 200 80 300 77 400 9410-10 200 90 300 94 400 9810-11 200 81 300 100 400 9610-12 200 86 300 92 400 9510-13 200 86 300 99 400 10010-14 200 97 300 100 400 10010-15 200 99 300 100 400 10010-16 200 92 300 100 400 10010-17 200 92 300 99 400 100______________________________________
Herbicidal effectiveness of Formulation C was very high on SIDSP in this test and accordingly enhancements are difficult to discern. However, remarkably strong performance was again seen with composition 10-15, containing just 0.05% lecithin and 0.05% Fluorad FC-135.
EXAMPLE 12
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 12a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 12a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/w ComponentsSpray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet (*) Other sonicated withcomp. g/l FC-135 L-77 Other (*) ingredient lecithin__________________________________________________________________________12-01 5.0 none12-02 5.0 0.50 L-7712-03 2.5 none12-04 2.5 0.50 none12-05 2.5 0.20 none12-06 2.5 0.10 none12-07 5.0 0.50 Diacid 1550 Diacid12-08 5.0 0.10 Diacid 1550 Diacid12-09 2.5 0.25 Diacid 1550 Diacid12-10 2.5 0.25 0.05 Diacid 1550 Diacid12-11 5.0 0.10 0.50 Genapol UD-030 Genapol12-12 5.0 0.05 0.20 Genapol UD-030 Genapol12-13 5.0 0.25 0.50 Neodol 25-3 Neodol12-14 5.0 0.10 0.20 Neodol 25-3 Neodol__________________________________________________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and morningglory (Ipomoea spp., IPOSS) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 16 days after planting ABUTH, 18 days after planting ECHCF and 9 days after planting IPOSS. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
In addition to compositions 12-01 to 12-14, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown II in Table 12b.
TABLE 12b______________________________________ Glyphosate % InhibitionSpray composition rate g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF IPOSS______________________________________Formulation B 200 24 53 33 300 47 37 37 400 64 46 64Formulation B + 200 85 3 66Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 97 19 77 400 98 18 82Formulation C 200 39 69 38 300 71 90 67 400 87 100 76Formulation C + 200 90 8 72Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 95 50 79 400 100 90 73Formulation B + 200 75 71 65Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 300 94 92 79 400 98 100 77Formulation B + 200 75 67 67Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 85 73 71 400 96 97 75Formulation B + 200 61 53 48Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 82 98 72 400 95 86 70Formulation C + 200 81 61 69Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 300 75 75 71 400 84 84 77Formulation C + 200 35 58 67Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 68 97 64 400 92 96 73Formulation C + 200 40 84 51Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 79 94 58 400 99 86 7412-01 200 69 69 62 300 82 82 73 400 88 84 7712-02 200 81 75 67 300 83 74 72 400 95 93 7512-03 200 48 69 70 300 82 93 71 400 94 100 7212-04 200 68 78 64 300 90 94 76 400 96 99 7912-05 200 75 86 68 300 86 95 72 400 96 89 8012-06 200 80 95 57 300 85 82 60 400 96 91 7312-07 200 41 72 64 300 76 82 68 400 80 98 7712-08 200 40 71 70 300 51 91 76 400 77 98 7212-09 200 43 74 64 300 58 95 76 400 73 100 7712-10 200 43 85 65 300 74 75 65 400 83 99 7612-11 200 39 71 66 300 61 88 71 400 89 99 7312-12 200 54 57 59 300 79 77 75 400 89 84 7112-13 200 69 72 69 300 59 66 69 400 86 81 7612-14 200 54 62 65 300 65 77 69 400 84 81 74______________________________________
Tank mixtures of Formulation B with Fluorad FC-135 gave greater herbicidal effectiveness than Formulation C alone, without the attendant antagonism on ECHCF so characteristic of Silwet L-77. Addition of Fluorad FC-135 to glyphosate compositions containing 0.25% lecithin enhanced herbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH and ECHCF, but not, in this test, on IPOSS (compare compositions 12-04 to 12-06 with composition 12-03).
EXAMPLE 13
Compositions 12-01 to 12-14 of Example 12, and tank mixtures of Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135, were tested in this Example. Prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 23 days after planting SIDSP, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.
Formulations B and c, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 13.
TABLE 13______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 200 37 300 47 400 50Formulation B + 200 93Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 100 400 99Formulation C 200 47 300 63 400 86Formulation C + 200 88Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 92 400 99Formulation B + 200 51Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 300 79 400 84Formulation B + 200 49Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 53 400 85Formulation B + 200 44Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 58 400 70Formulation C + 200 74Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 300 89 400 97Formulation C + 200 52Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 70 400 75Formulation C + 200 45Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 74 400 8712-01 200 62 300 76 400 8912-02 200 59 300 54 400 7312-03 200 56 300 89 400 8012-04 200 72 300 89 400 9612-05 200 66 300 87 400 8412-06 200 60 300 74 400 8612-07 200 57 300 78 400 8912-08 200 59 300 67 400 7012-09 200 57 300 65 400 7412-10 200 53 300 77 400 7712-11 200 58 300 71 400 8712-12 200 54 300 70 400 8212-13 200 65 300 75 400 8212-14 200 61 300 77 400 81______________________________________
On SIDSP in this test, tank mix addition of Fluorad FC-135 to Formulation B enhanced herbicidal effectiveness over that obtained with Formulation C alone, only at the 0.5% concentration of Fluorad FC-135. Likewise, when added to a glyphosate composition containing 0.25% lecithin, Fluorad FC-135 enhanced herbicidal effectiveness most significantly at the 0.5% concentration (composition 12-04).
EXAMPLE 14
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 14a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The following compositions had a pH of approximately 5: 14-01, 14-03, 14-07, 14-08, 14-10 and 14-12 to 14-17. All others were adjusted to a pH of approximately 7.
TABLE 14a______________________________________Spray % w/wcompo- Lecithin Fluorad Silwet Diacid Componentssition g/l FC-135 L-77 1550 sonicated with lecithin______________________________________14-01 5.0 none14-02 5.0 none14-03 2.5 none14-04 2.5 none14-05 5.0 glyphosate14-06 5.0 0.50 L-7714-07 5.0 0.50 L-7714-08 2.5 0.50 L-7714-09 2.5 0.50 L-7714-10 2.5 0.25 glyphosate14-11 2.5 0.25 glyphosate14-12 2.5 0.25 none14-13 2.5 0.25 glyphosate14-14 2.5 0.10 none14-15 2.5 0.10 glyphosate14-16 2.5 0.25 0.25 L-77, Diacid14-17 2.5 0.10 0.05 L-77, Diacid______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 17 days after planting ABUTH and 20 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.
In addition to compositions 14-01 to 14-17, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at two concentrations. Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% and 0.25% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 14b.
TABLE 14b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 200 53 43 300 73 50 400 91 74Formulation B + 200 86 24Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 88 15 400 94 58Formulation B + 200 80 22Silwet L-77 0.25% w/v 300 93 38 400 87 38Formulation C 200 56 88 300 86 98 400 94 98Formulation C + 200 87 23Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 93 52 400 91 60Formulation C + 200 79 42Silwet L-77 0.25% v/v 300 83 73 400 87 95Formulation B + 200 79 49Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 89 77 400 94 85Formulation B + 200 73 64Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 89 68 400 92 75Formulation C + 200 73 86Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 75 90 400 90 95Formulation C + 200 53 97Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 89 96 400 91 9914-01 200 71 66 300 89 62 400 97 8514-02 200 83 52 300 89 72 400 82 9314-03 200 54 53 300 89 84 400 93 7714-04 200 81 38 300 94 76 400 98 8814-05 200 85 53 300 95 80 400 94 9114-06 200 80 0 300 95 100 400 98 9414-07 200 72 50 300 95 84 400 98 9214-08 200 81 69 300 99 83 400 100 8014-09 200 86 38 300 94 80 400 96 9014-10 200 58 67 300 82 85 400 92 9014-11 200 83 64 300 88 74 400 90 8814-12 200 89 90 300 100 88 400 100 9814-13 200 95 91 300 93 97 400 100 9814-14 200 88 93 300 93 85 400 98 9014-15 200 85 87 300 98 98 400 96 10014-16 200 76 72 300 83 87 400 89 9714-17 200 53 67 300 48 62 400 82 85______________________________________
Compositions 14-12 to 14-15, containing 0.25% lecithin together with Fluorad FC-135, exhibited much greater herbicidal effectiveness on both ABUTH and ECHCF than composition 14-03, containing 0.25% lecithin but no Fluorad FC-135, or even composition 14-01, containing 0.5% lecithin but no Fluorad FC-135. No great or consistent difference was seen between compositions where glyphosate had been sonicated together with the lecithin (14-13 and 14-15) than where the lecithin had been sonicated alone (14-12 and 14-14).
EXAMPLE 15
Compositions 14-01 to 14-17 of Example 14, and tank mixtures of Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135, were tested in this Example. Prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 22 days after planting SIDSP, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.
Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% and 0.25% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 15.
TABLE 15______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 200 23 300 37 400 32Formulation B + 200 30Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 39 400 45Formulation B + 200 28Silwet L-77 0.25% w/v 300 49 400 28Formulation C 200 41 300 54 400 84Formulation C + 200 43Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 66 400 86Formulation C + 200 17Silwet L-77 0.25% v/v 300 35 400 58Formulation B + 200 48Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 60 400 62Formulation B + 200 31Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 47 400 75Formulation C + 200 43Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 57 400 71Formulation C + 200 32Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 71 400 6314-01 200 51 300 55 400 7614-02 200 51 300 68 400 8414-03 200 55 300 51 400 7214-04 200 50 300 64 400 7514-05 200 46 300 53 400 6114-06 200 40 300 44 400 7314-07 200 23 300 32 400 3914-08 200 18 300 44 400 5714-09 200 25 300 30 400 4314-10 200 19 300 36 400 3814-11 200 35 300 48 400 5714-12 200 65 300 80 400 8814-13 200 68 300 75 400 8714-14 200 76 300 76 400 7214-15 200 54 300 73 400 8414-16 200 44 300 51 400 6314-17 200 23 300 45 400 57______________________________________
Compositions 14-12 to 14-15, containing 0.25% lecithin together with Fluorad FC-135, exhibited greater herbicidal effectiveness on SIDSP than composition 14-03, containing 0.25% lecithin but no Fluorad FC-135, or even composition 14-01, containing 0.5% lecithin but no Fluorad FC-135. No great or consistent difference was seen between compositions where glyphosate had been sonicated together with the lecithin (14-13 and 14-15) than where the lecithin had been sonicated alone (14-12 and 14-14).
EXAMPLE 16
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 16a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 16a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wSpray Lecithin Fluorad (*) Other Componentscomp. g/l FC-135 Other (*) ingredient sonicated with lecithin__________________________________________________________________________16-01 2.5 none16-02 2.5 glyphosate16-03 2.5 0.25 none16-04 2.5 0.25 glyphosate16-05 2.5 0.25 Silwet 800 none16-06 2.5 0.25 Silwet 800 Silwet 80016-07 2.5 0.25 Silwet 800 Silwet, glyphosate16-08 0.5 none16-09 0.5 glyphosate16-10 0.5 0.05 none16-11 0.5 0.05 glyphosate16-12 0.5 0.03 0.02 Silwet L-77 Silwet L-7716-13 0.5 0.05 methyl caprate Me caprate16-14 0.5 0.05 0.05 methyl caprate Me caprate16-15 0.5 0.05 0.05 methyl caprate Me caprate, glyphosate16-16 0.5 0.01 PVA none16-17 0.5 0.01 PVA glyphosate16-18 0.5 0.05 0.01 PVA glyphosate16-19 0.5 0.05 + 0.01 L-77 + PVA Silwet L-77__________________________________________________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 19 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.
In addition to compositions 16-01 to 16-19, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at two concentrations. Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet 800, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 16b.
TABLE 16b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 13 28 250 37 51 350 56 38Formulation B + 150 81 15Silwet 800 0.25% v/v 250 89 17 350 91 20Formulation C 150 32 65 250 59 91 350 85 89Formulation C + 150 91 17Silwet 800 0.25% v/v 250 91 23 350 95 48Formulation B + 150 31 58Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 53 68 350 71 84Formulation B + 150 31 29Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 44 69 350 95 79Formulation C + 150 46 45Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 69 79 350 86 77Formulation C + 150 44 57Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 60 87 350 86 8816-01 150 55 50 250 87 81 350 89 8816-02 150 56 54 250 89 69 350 87 9816-03 150 89 68 250 89 84 350 91 9016-04 150 63 68 250 89 86 350 99 8916-05 150 81 51 250 87 84 350 94 2616-06 150 67 0 250 93 62 350 94 8116-07 150 81 35 250 84 51 350 95 6216-08 150 59 51 250 84 69 350 98 9016-09 150 64 59 250 85 61 350 94 9616-10 150 73 74 250 87 83 350 98 9616-11 150 76 64 250 88 79 350 94 8116-12 150 59 46 250 82 88 350 92 8216-13 150 61 45 250 90 69 350 93 9016-14 150 76 50 250 95 73 350 99 9116-15 150 78 67 250 95 80 350 99 8516-16 150 48 42 250 77 87 350 87 7516-17 150 47 63 250 85 67 350 90 7816-18 150 55 46 250 82 77 350 90 8716-19 150 32 23 250 43 31 350 76 65______________________________________
As in Example 10, glyphosate compositions (16-10 and 16-11) containing just 0.05% lecithin and 0.05% Fluorad FC-135 exhibited surprisingly great herbicidal efficacy in this test. Sonicating the lecithin in the presence of glyphosate in an effort to encapsulate some of the glyphosate (composition 16-11) did not give an advantage in performance over sonicating the lecithin alone (composition 16-10); indeed on ECHCF herbicidal efficacy was slightly better without such efforts to encapsulate the glyphosate. Addition of methyl caprate to compositions containing lecithin with or without Fluorad FC-135 (16-13 to 16-15) improved herbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH but had little effect on ECHCF.
EXAMPLE 17
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 17a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 17a______________________________________ % w/w ComponentsSpray Lecithin Fluorad Other (*) Other sonicated withcomposition g/l FC-135 (*) ingredient lecithin______________________________________17-01 2.5 none17-02 2.5 0.25 none17-03 2.5 0.25 glyphosate17-04 2.5 0.25 0.025 PVA none17-05 1.0 none17-06 1.0 glyphosate17-07 1.0 0.10 none17-08 1.0 0.10 glyphosate17-09 1.0 0.05 none17-10 1.0 0.05 glyphosate17-11 1.0 0.100 PVA none17-12 1.0 0.025 PVA none17-13 1.0 0.05 0.025 PVA none17-14 1.0 0.100 sodium cholate Na cholate17-15 1.0 0.020 sodium cholate Na cholate17-16 1.0 0.05 0.020 sodium cholate Na cholate17-17 0.5 none17-18 0.5 0.05 glyphosate17-19 0.5 0.05 0.020 sodium cholate Na cholate______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 19 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.
In addition to compositions 17-01 to 17-19, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 17b.
TABLE 17b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 200 32 25 300 50 34 400 54 35Formulation C 200 59 92 300 76 100 400 93 97Formulation B + 200 43 48Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 64 52 400 84 71Formulation B + 200 61 78Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 65 59 400 100 86Formulation B + 200 58 30Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 82 55 400 88 77Formulation C + 200 53 55Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 76 68 400 88 93Formulation C + 200 59 70Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 89 85 400 93 83Formulation C + 200 60 72Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 82 100 400 94 9417-01 200 73 52 300 88 80 400 94 9017-02 200 83 80 300 96 83 400 97 9517-03 200 86 73 300 95 79 400 98 9417-04 200 73 72 300 94 86 400 96 9317-05 200 67 68 300 94 74 400 96 9117-06 200 65 61 300 79 82 400 91 8117-07 200 75 65 300 92 84 400 98 9117-08 200 66 70 300 87 96 400 97 9717-09 200 83 73 300 91 83 400 97 8917-10 200 89 70 300 92 79 400 91 7417-11 200 65 58 300 86 86 400 97 10017-12 200 75 64 300 79 85 400 91 8717-13 200 79 53 300 81 83 400 96 8817-14 200 56 69 300 80 95 400 92 9317-15 200 57 77 300 67 91 400 88 9017-16 200 88 82 300 85 87 400 76 7217-17 200 53 66 300 71 72 400 87 8317-18 200 89 85 300 79 72 400 65 6017-19 200 77 65 300 87 85 400 92 94______________________________________
In glyphosate compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135, no consistent difference in herbicidal effectiveness was observed between those where lecithin was sonicated alone (17-02, 17-07, 17-09) and those where glyphosate and lecithin were sonicated together (17-03, 17-08, 17-10). The anomalous inversion of the apparent rate response to glyphosate seen with composition 17-18 is believed to be the result of an error in application or recording and the data for this composition should be ignored in this Example.
EXAMPLE 18
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 18a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 18a______________________________________Spray Lecithin % w/w Componentscomposition g/l Fluorad FC-135 PVA sonicated with lecithin______________________________________18-01 2.5 none18-02 1.0 none18-03 0.5 none18-04 0.2 none18-05 1.0 0.25 none18-06 1.0 0.25 glyphosate18-07 1.0 0.10 none18-08 1.0 0.10 glyphosate18-09 0.5 0.05 none18-10 0.5 0.05 glyphosate18-11 2.5 0.10 none______________________________________
Hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata, SEBEX) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 22 days after planting SEBEX, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 21 days after application.
In addition to compositions 18-01 to 18-11, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone, and Formulation B tank mixed with 0.1% PVA (polyvinyl alcohol), were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 18b.
TABLE 18b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha SEBEX______________________________________Formulation B 500 43 1000 54 1500 44Formulation B + 500 53PVA 0.1% w/v 1000 45 1500 44Formulation C 500 56 1000 62 1500 63Formulation B + 500 40Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 1000 45 1500 60Formulation B + 500 33Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 1000 51 1500 53Formulation B + 500 21Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 1000 18 1500 29Formulation C + 500 34Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 1000 41 1500 58Formulation C + 500 50Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 1000 43 1500 52Formulation C + 500 48Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 1000 49 1500 4618-01 500 22 1000 33 1500 3718-02 500 16 1000 24 1500 2818-03 500 15 1000 24 1500 2718-04 500 17 1000 13 1500 3118-05 500 28 1000 64 1500 6818-06 500 64 1000 51 1500 6118-07 500 65 1000 51 1500 6318-08 500 50 1000 56 1500 3018-09 500 40 1000 59 1500 6618-10 500 31 1000 23 1500 4918-11 500 43 1000 39 1500 74______________________________________
Glyphosate activity on SEBEX was extremely weak in this test and no firm conclusions can be drawn.
EXAMPLE 19
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 19a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 19a______________________________________Spray Lecithin % w/w Componentscomposition g/l Fluorad FC-135 sonicated with lecithin______________________________________19-01 2.5 none19-02 1.0 none19-03 0.5 none19-04 0.2 none19-05 1.0 0.25 none19-06 1.0 0.25 glyphosate______________________________________
Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia, CASOB) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 22 days after planting CASOB, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 21 days after application.
In addition to compositions 19-01 to 19-06, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at two concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 19b.
TABLE 19b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha CASOB______________________________________Formulation B 500 35 800 37 1200 34Formulation C 500 49 800 49 1200 66Formulation B + 500 45Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 50 1200 71Formulation B + 500 49Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 800 49 1200 78Formulation C + 500 60Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 75 1200 68Formulation C + 500 47Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 800 85 1200 7419-01 500 54 800 51 1200 4319-02 500 37 800 69 1200 5219-03 500 35 800 51 1200 4319-04 500 71 800 69 1200 5719-05 500 47 800 73 1200 8919-06 500 49 800 51 1200 73______________________________________
On CASOB, the addition of Fluorad FC-135 to a glyphosate composition containing lecithin significantly enhanced herbicidal effectiveness (compare compositions 19-05 and 19-02). However, where glyphosate was sonicated together with the lecithin (composition 19-06), herbicidal effectiveness was reduced.
EXAMPLE 20
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 20a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 20a______________________________________ % w/wSpray Lecithin Fluorad Diacid Componentscomposition g/l FC-135 1550 sonicated with lecithin______________________________________20-01 2.5 none20-02 0.5 none20-03 0.2 none20-04 2.5 0.05 none20-05 0.5 0.05 none20-06 0.2 0.05 none20-07 0.5 0.05 Diacid______________________________________
Common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album, CHEAL) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 31 days after planting CHEAL, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.
In addition to compositions 20-01 to 20-07, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with 0.5% Fluorad FC-135. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 20b.
TABLE 20b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha CHEAL______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 250 0 350 3Formulation C 150 18 250 68 350 98Formulation B + 150 0Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 10 350 5Formulation C + 150 3Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 50 350 6020-01 150 0 250 27 350 6020-02 150 0 250 5 350 820-03 150 5 250 0 350 820-04 150 18 250 29 350 6320-05 150 17 250 14 350 8720-06 150 44 250 40 350 3820-07 150 10 250 35 350 73______________________________________
Glyphosate activity on CHEAL was very weak in this test and no definitive conclusions can be drawn. However, none of the compositions of the invention performed as well as the commercial standard Formulation C in this test. Fluorad FC-135 at the extremely low concentration of 0.05% was ineffective as a tank-mix additive, but addition of 0.05% Fluorad FC-135 did enhance the performance of compositions containing lecithin (compare compositions 20-04 to 20-06 with 20-01 to 20-03).
EXAMPLE 21
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 21a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 21a______________________________________Spray % w/wcompo- Lecithin Fluorad Aerosol Methyl Componentssition g/l FC-135 OT caprate sonicated with lecithin______________________________________21-01 2.5 none21-02 2.5 glyphosate21-03 1.0 none21-04 1.0 glyphosate21-05 0.5 none21-06 0.5 glyphosate21-07 0.2 none21-08 0.2 glyphosate21-09 0.5 0.05 none21-10 0.5 0.05 AOT, glyphosate21-11 0.5 0.05 AOT21-12 2.5 0.25 none21-13 0.5 0.05 none21-14 0.5 0.05 glyphosate21-15 0.5 0.05 Me caprate21-16 0.5 0.05 0.05 Me caprate21-17 0.2 0.02 none21-18 0.2 0.02 glyphosate21-19 0.2 0.02 Me caprate______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 19 days after planting ABUTH and 22 days after planting ECHCF. No record was found for the planting date for SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.
In addition to compositions 21-01 to 21-19, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 21b.
TABLE 21b______________________________________ Glyphosate % InhibitionSpray composition rate g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 150 16 23 30 250 17 33 57 350 24 43 65Formulation C 150 18 58 53 250 30 71 79 350 49 83 94Formulation B + 150 27 59 56Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 45 84 81 350 55 82 91Formulation B + 150 17 43 56Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 21 56 75 350 64 80 90Formulation B + 150 22 27 38Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 37 49 69 350 48 68 94Formulation C + 150 41 41 59Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 57 53 85 350 67 67 94Formulation C + 150 26 39 67Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 46 66 88 350 75 73 93Formulation C + 150 30 52 66Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 67 50 89 350 61 88 9221-01 150 35 62 64 250 63 77 90 350 71 83 8521-02 150 35 44 67 250 53 79 86 350 58 92 9021-03 150 37 50 71 250 53 76 90 350 73 63 9721-04 150 29 46 61 250 43 77 85 350 70 85 9621-05 150 12 36 59 250 43 55 83 350 53 77 8721-06 150 19 69 67 250 62 47 84 350 58 60 9521-07 150 14 59 59 250 39 63 75 350 46 77 9121-08 150 36 37 64 250 38 68 82 350 47 80 7921-09 150 8 35 27 250 9 51 56 350 36 58 6721-10 150 5 33 24 250 15 73 47 350 30 66 6721-11 150 38 49 73 250 62 75 89 350 71 75 9821-12 150 7 41 21 250 18 67 38 350 30 64 6121-13 150 39 72 65 250 65 55 76 350 70 68 9021-14 150 51 53 66 250 60 82 85 350 65 83 9521-15 150 15 59 61 250 31 54 83 350 57 67 8421-16 150 36 79 66 250 50 60 95 350 71 95 9521-17 150 30 52 75 250 54 60 84 350 48 84 9321-18 150 43 75 69 250 47 78 88 350 missing missing 9021-19 150 13 42 61 250 29 51 79 350 42 69 90______________________________________
In this test the concentration of Fluorad FC-135 which had to be added in tank-mix to Formulation B to bring its herbicidal performance up to that of Formulation C was approximately 0.25% for ECHCF, 0.1% for SIDSP and 0.02% for ABUTH. The herbicidal effectiveness of composition 21-12 (0.25% lecithin, 0.25% Fluorad FC-135) was uncharacteristically weak in this test. However, composition 21-13 (0.05% lecithin, 0.05% Fluorad FC-135) performed well as in previous tests, exceeding the herbicidal effectiveness of Formulation C on ABUTH, at least equalling it on SIDSP and not quite equalling it on ECHCF. Contrary to results obtained in other tests, improved effectiveness on ECHCF and SIDSP was obtained by sonicating the glyphosate with the lecithin (composition 21-14 versus 21-13). The inclusion of methyl caprate (compositions 21-15 and 21-16) also improved efficacy on these species. Surprisingly high herbicidal effectiveness was seen in this test with compositions containing ultra-low concentrations of lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 (0.02% of each, 21-17 and 21-18).
EXAMPLE 22
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 22a. Process (iv) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of these compositions was not recorded.
TABLE 22a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Fluoradcomposition a.e. Lecithin MON 0818 FC-135______________________________________22-01 10 5.022-02 10 10.022-03 10 12.522-04 10 15.022-05 10 20.022-06 10 30.022-07 15 4.0 1.022-08 20 5.0 0.522-09 20 5.0 1.022-10 20 5.0 2.022-11 20 4.0 1.022-12 25 5.0 0.522-13 25 5.0 1.022-14 25 5.0 2.022-15 25 4.0 1.022-16 25 5.0 5.0______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH and 16 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.
Formulation C was applied as a comparative treatment. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 22b.
TABLE 22b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation C 56 13 45 112 43 75 224 64 94 448 88 9722-01 112 38 61 224 56 80 448 76 9722-02 112 50 51 224 69 91 448 81 9722-03 112 51 63 224 64 83 448 81 9622-04 112 53 61 224 71 91 448 78 9522-05 112 41 56 224 70 85 448 75 9722-06 112 38 53 224 63 89 448 75 9422-07 112 48 53 224 49 84 448 75 9022-08 112 31 60 224 53 84 448 66 9022-09 112 26 56 224 53 85 448 78 9622-10 112 36 60 224 53 85 448 79 9822-11 112 41 59 224 49 73 448 76 9522-12 112 30 56 224 50 74 448 65 8922-13 112 34 55 224 44 80 448 73 9522-14 112 39 61 224 56 85 448 69 9122-15 112 31 55 224 56 69 448 79 9522-16 112 29 64 224 58 86 448 78 91______________________________________
None of the concentrate compositions of this Example containing 10% glyphosate a.e. and varying amounts of Fluorad FC-135 (22-01 to 22-06) exhibited greater herbicidal effectiveness than the commercial standard Formulation C. It should be noted that the amounts of Fluorad FC-135 used in this Example were extremely high, the weight/weight ratio of Fluorad FC-135 to glyphosate a.e. ranging from 1:2 to 3:1.
EXAMPLE 23
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 23a. Process (iv) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 23a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Componentscomposition a.e. Lecithin MON 0818 FC-135 sonicated with lecithin__________________________________________________________________________23-01 20 5.0 2.0 none23-02 20 4.0 1.0 none23-03 20 5.0 2.0 glyphosate23-04 20 4.0 1.0 glyphosate23-05 20 5.0 2.0 5.0 none__________________________________________________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 16 days after planting ABUTH and 18 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.
Formulations B and C were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 23b.
TABLE 23b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 112 33 53 224 58 78 336 80 89 448 79 88Formulation C 112 49 79 224 59 94 336 84 100 448 95 10023-01 112 39 66 224 63 93 336 81 98 448 86 10023-02 112 29 46 224 55 83 336 79 91 448 85 9523-03 112 30 59 224 60 98 336 80 100 448 81 10023-04 112 26 51 224 53 83 336 76 86 448 86 9923-05 112 46 51 224 59 89 336 79 96 448 89 98______________________________________
Concentrate composition, 23-05 (5% lecithin, 2% MON 0818, 5% Fluorad FC-135) did not exhibit greater herbicidal effectiveness in this test than composition 23-01 lacking the Fluorad FC-135.
EXAMPLE 24
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 24a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of these compositions was not recorded.
TABLE 24a______________________________________Spray Lecithin % w/w Componentscomposition g/l Fluorad FC-135 sonicated with lecithin______________________________________24-01 2.5 none24-02 1.0 none24-03 0.5 none24-04 0.2 none24-05 0.1 none24-06 2.5 0.25 none24-07 0.5 0.05 none24-08 0.2 0.02 none24-09 0.2 0.02 glyphosate24-10 0.2 0.02 FC-13524-11 0.1 0.01 none24-12 0.1 0.01 glyphosate24-13 0.1 0.02 FC-13524-14 0.5 0.02 none24-15 0.5 0.02 glyphosate24-16 0.5 0.02 FC-135______________________________________
Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus, CYPES) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 29 days after planting, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 33 days after application.
In addition to compositions 24-01 to 24-16, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 24b.
TABLE 24b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha CYPES______________________________________Formulation B 400 32 750 68 1000 70Formulation C 400 25 750 66 1000 89Formulation B + 400 49Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 750 75 1000 82Formulation B + 400 53Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 750 74 1000 64Formulation B + 400 56Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 750 83 1000 83Formulation B + 400 61Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 750 67 1000 88Formulation C + 400 73Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 750 47 1000 79Formulation C + 400 50Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 750 73 1000 81Formulation C + 400 41Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 750 79 1000 81Formulation C + 400 67Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 750 77 1000 7224-01 400 62 750 73 1000 10024-02 400 61 750 85 1000 9224-03 400 81 750 83 1000 8724-04 400 59 750 79 1000 7924-05 400 69 750 69 1000 9124-06 400 75 750 80 1000 9624-07 400 65 750 69 1000 8924-08 400 67 750 69 1000 8724-09 400 76 750 77 1000 8024-10 400 71 750 75 1000 8624-11 400 69 750 77 1000 8524-12 400 59 750 85 1000 9524-13 400 61 750 75 1000 8124-14 400 64 750 83 1000 9024-15 400 53 750 81 1000 8624-16 400 85 750 86 1000 81______________________________________
The tank-mix treatments of this Example show surprisingly little effect on herbicidal effectiveness on CYPES of reducing Fluorad FC-135 concentration from 0.25% all the way down to 0.01%. At this extraordinarily low concentration, the tank mix of Formulation B with Fluorad FC-135 still performed equal or better than Formulation C alone. Lecithin alone was an unexpectedly effective excipient for glyphosate in this test (see compositions 24-01 to 24-05) and the addition of Fluorad FC-135 to lecithin did not in every case give further enhancement of herbicidal efficacy.
EXAMPLE 25
Glyphosate-containing spray compositions were prepared by tank-mixing Formulation B with excipients as shown in Table 25. Soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti) was used in the form of a 10% dispersion prepared by sonication as in process (iii).
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 21 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 21 days after application. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 25.
TABLE 25__________________________________________________________________________Glyphosate Glyphosate rate Add. rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha Additive % w/v ABUTH ECHCF__________________________________________________________________________Formulation B 56 3 17 112 7 38 224 30 58 336 60 67None 0 MON 0818 5.0 7 30 Fluorad FC-135 5.0 5 3 lecithin 5.0 0 0Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.005 0 48 112 3 60 224 53 85 336 58 87Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.01 3 50 112 10 67 224 52 87 336 67 92Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.05 7 52 112 10 67 224 60 93 336 68 96Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.1 10 55 112 12 70 224 57 97 336 80 97Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.2 10 65 112 22 70 224 58 97 336 85 97Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.5 13 65 112 33 77 224 72 99 336 88 100Formulation B 56 MON 0818 1.0 15 68 112 55 80 224 78 98 336 95 100Formulation B 56 MON 0818 2.0 27 75 112 62 78 224 83 100 336 100 99Formulation B 56 MON 0818 5.0 23 55 112 53 77 224 72 90 336 97 88Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.005 2 47 112 10 50 224 25 70 336 55 78Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.01 7 40 112 15 57 224 70 67 336 80 80Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.05 2 48 112 15 57 224 70 78 336 78 88Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.1 5 45 112 18 58 224 75 87 336 80 90Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.2 12 48 112 27 60 224 75 90 336 97 93Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.5 3 47 112 12 57 224 75 80 336 78 83Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 1.0 5 43 112 10 52 224 77 75 336 78 77Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 2.0 7 42 112 10 47 224 65 65 336 72 77Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 5.0 2 38 112 5 47 224 63 60 336 67 63Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.005 0 10 112 10 45 224 67 70 336 67 77Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.01 2 20 112 12 47 224 63 70 336 68 85Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.05 3 32 112 12 52 224 63 73 336 72 82Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.1 8 37 112 10 50 224 65 73 336 78 83Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.2 5 45 112 43 63 224 68 82 336 80 92Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.5 13 50 112 42 65 224 67 88 336 68 87Formulation B 56 lecithin 1.0 13 52 112 50 72 224 67 80 336 68 88Formulation B 56 lecithin 2.0 10 53 112 37 72 224 72 88 336 87 97Formulation B 56 lecithin 5.0 10 50 112 55 73 224 72 80 336 78 95__________________________________________________________________________
This test was an expanded rate titration study of MON 0818, Fluorad FC- 135 and lecithin as tank-mix adjuvants for glyphosate as Formulation B. On ABUTH, the optimum adjuvant concentration was 2.0% for MON 0818, 0.2% for Fluorad FC-135 and 0.2% or higher for lecithin. On ECHCF, the optimum adjuvant concentration was 0.5% to 2.0% for MON 0818, 0.2% for Fluorad FC-135 and 2.0% for lecithin.
EXAMPLE 26
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 26a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 26a______________________________________Spray Lecithin % w/wcomposition g/l Fluorad FC-135 Aerosol OT______________________________________26-01 0.126-02 0.0526-03 0.0226-04 0.1 0.126-05 0.05 0.0526-06 0.02 0.0226-07 1.0 0.1026-08 1.0 0.10 0.1026-09 1.026-10 1.0 0.1026-11 0.526-12 0.5 0.0526-13 0.5 0.0526-14 0.5 0.05 0.0526-15 0.226-16 0.2 0.0226-17 0.2 0.0226-18 0.2 0.02 0.02______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 16 days after planting ABUTH, 19 days after planting ECHCF, and 26 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done for ABUTH and ECHCF 15 days after application and for SIDSP 21 days after application.
In addition to compositions 26-01 to 26-18, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 26b.
TABLE 26b______________________________________ Glyphosate % InhibitionSpray composition rate g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 150 37 71 57 250 57 79 69 400 74 86 80 500 79 89 74Formulation C 150 48 42 58 250 71 80 81 400 88 100 88 500 92 100 86Formulation B + 150 87 62 66Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 87 96 70 400 91 94 75Formulation B + 150 61 48 65Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 81 69 71 400 90 91 67Formulation B + 150 58 32 62Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 75 49 51 400 81 83 73Formulation C + 150 78 61 76Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 79 77 81 400 93 100 78Formulation C + 150 43 86 69Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 79 100 80 400 95 98 84Formulation C + 150 39 56 77Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 77 100 86 400 88 100 8026-01 150 63 48 49 250 70 69 66 400 85 84 6326-02 150 32 36 55 250 64 74 65 400 77 92 6926-03 150 30 78 51 250 59 79 66 400 83 93 7426-04 150 86 50 65 250 74 98 71 400 81 89 7526-05 150 85 55 60 250 81 75 73 400 82 81 6426-06 150 61 67 45 250 66 78 61 400 83 77 6726-07 150 46 38 44 250 56 85 64 400 75 96 7826-08 150 88 63 70 250 87 73 79 400 91 82 7526-09 150 63 72 61 250 87 73 71 400 89 87 8026-10 150 81 72 61 250 85 62 82 400 87 89 7626-11 150 54 57 68 250 80 90 74 400 84 95 6626-12 150 27 53 47 250 57 71 67 400 72 91 7026-13 150 78 59 64 250 80 84 80 400 89 76 7726-14 150 84 52 68 250 88 69 75 400 90 84 6626-15 150 51 57 55 250 81 55 71 400 88 83 6926-16 150 40 68 46 250 74 89 60 400 77 98 6326-17 150 64 44 58 250 80 93 81 400 87 99 6926-18 150 64 87 50 250 77 75 70 400 90 89 50______________________________________
This test was designed in part to explore the relative contribution of Fluorad FC-135 and lecithin to the herbicidal effectiveness of glyphosate compositions comprising both of these excipient substances. Fluorad FC-135 was applied as sole excipient at concentrations of 1.0%, 0.5% and 0.2% (see tank-mix treatments with Formulation B). Lecithin was applied as sole excipient at the same three concentrations in compositions 26-09, 26-11 and 26-15. Combinations of the two excipients at equal concentrations were applied in corresponding compositions 26-10, 26-13 and 26-17. The data are highly variable but an overall trend can be discerned. When only one of the two excipients was present, herbicidal effectiveness tended to drop off as the concentration of that excipient was reduced. When both excipients were present, there was scarcely any decline in herbicidal effectiveness as excipient concentration was reduced. Although averages of data from three glyphosate rates across three species can be misleading, it is helpful in this case to reduce the mass of individual data to the following such averages of percent inhibition:
______________________________________Glyphosate (Formulation B) 68%Glyphosate + 0.1% Fluorad FC-135 81%Glyphosate + 0.05% Fluorad FC-135 71%Glyphosate + 0.02% Fluorad FC-135 63%Glyphosate + 0.1% lecithin 76%Glyphosate + 0.05% lecithin 74%Glyphosate + 0.02% lecithin 68%Glyphosate + 0.1% Fluorad FC-135 + 0.1% lecithin 77%Glyphosate + 0.05% Fluorad FC-135 + 0.05% lecithin 76%Glyphosate + 0.02% Fluorad FC-135 + 0.02% lecithin 75%Glyphosate commercial standard (Formulation C) 73%______________________________________
Thus, when both excipients are used together, a fivefold decrease in excipient concentration results in a decline in overall herbicidal effectiveness of only 2 percentage points, still retaining overall effectiveness at least equal to that of the commercial standard.
EXAMPLE 27
Glyphosate-containing spray compositions were prepared by tank-mixing Formulations B with excipients as shown in Table 27. Soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti) was used in the form of a 10% dispersion prepared by sonication as in process (iii).
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 19 days after planting ABUTH and 15 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 27.
TABLE 27__________________________________________________________________________Glyphosate Glyphosate rate Additive rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha Additive % v/v ABUTH ECHCF__________________________________________________________________________Formulation B 56 none 0 3 112 5 13 224 40 40 336 83 77Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.005 0 7 112 3 10 224 45 53 336 58 78Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.01 0 8 112 2 12 224 45 60 336 67 87Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.05 2 8 112 20 23 224 72 88 336 90 93Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.1 3 10 112 33 38 224 73 88 336 93 92Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.2 10 17 112 33 47 224 77 85 336 93 92Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.5 7 13 112 37 37 224 80 85 336 96 95Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 1.0 3 7 112 27 35 224 72 87 336 88 92Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 2.0 0 0 112 27 18 224 72 75 336 87 87Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 5.0 0 0 112 12 13 224 43 50 336 58 53Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.005 0 2 112 7 13 224 65 63 336 83 82Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.01 0 0 112 3 10 224 42 63 336 73 82Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.05 0 0 112 42 13 224 68 73 336 98 73Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.1 0 0 112 37 20 224 62 68 336 94 77Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.2 0 2 112 33 28 224 67 68 336 100 78Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.5 7 0 112 40 18 224 68 68 336 90 73Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 1.0 17 3 112 43 45 224 83 88 336 95 94Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 2.0 10 23 112 32 42 224 63 73 336 88 87Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 5.0 2 3 112 8 28 224 50 72 336 85 87Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.005 2 2 112 3 10 224 45 50 336 58 72Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.01 0 2 112 2 12 224 40 52 336 65 75Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.05 2 2 112 0 10 224 40 45 336 57 70Formulation B 56 lecithin 2 7 112 2 13 224 33 37 336 48 67Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.2 3 3 112 3 13 224 32 35 336 47 68Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.5 2 3 112 8 15 224 47 53 336 67 65Formulation B 56 lecithin 1.0 2 5 112 10 15 224 33 55 336 70 77Formulation B 56 lecithin 2.0 5 8 112 12 17 224 48 52 336 68 77Formulation B 56 lecithin 5.0 5 17 112 23 17 224 52 55 336 73 78__________________________________________________________________________
This tank-mix study more clearly demonstrates the surprising interaction seen in Example 26 between lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 as excipients for glyphosate. For example, glyphosate alone over four rates gave average inhibition of ABUTH of 32%. Adding Fluorad FC-135 at a concentration of 0.5% boosted the average inhibition to 55%, but adding lecithin at the same concentration did not raise average inhibition above 32%. A 1:1 combination of both excipients at the same total concentration gave an average inhibition of 51 %. At a concentration of 0.1 %, Fluorad FC-135 gave average inhibition of 50%, lecithin 21% (i.e. a reduction in effectiveness of glyphosate) and the 1:1 combination 48%. Thus, as in Example 26, the decline in herbicidal effectiveness with reducing excipient rate was much less pronounced with the combination than with either excipient on its own.
EXAMPLE 28
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 28a. Process (i) was followed for compositions 28-01 to 28-06. Process (iv) was followed for compositions 28-07 to 28-11, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). For compositions 28-12 and 28-13, process (iv) was also used, but Aerosol OT was the aggregate-forming material employed in place of lecithin. The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 28a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Fluorad (*) Othercomposition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 MON 0818 Other (*) components__________________________________________________________________________28-01 20 1.0 PVA28-02 20 5.0 1.0 PVA28-03 20 2.0 1.0 PVA28-04 20 1.0 1.0 PVA28-05 20 0.5 Kelzan28-06 20 2.0 0.5 Kelzan28-07 20 2.0 0.0428-08 20 2.0 2.0 0.0428-09 20 2.0 2.0 0.0228-10 20 2.0 0.04 25.0 Silwet 80028-11 20 2.0 2.0 0.04 25.0 Silwet 80028-12 20 5.0 Aerosol OT28-13 20 5.0 + 25.0 Aerosol OT + Silwet 800__________________________________________________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH and 17 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 38 days after application.
Formulations B and C were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 28b.
TABLE 28b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 56 0 8 112 4 33 224 45 40 336 69 65Formulation C 56 0 10 112 5 43 224 68 73 336 87 9428-01 112 0 40 224 50 76 336 76 8528-02 112 1 35 224 30 70 336 69 9628-03 112 6 35 224 35 58 336 65 8428-04 112 1 35 224 70 60 336 69 8528-05 112 1 35 224 63 68 336 80 8828-06 112 0 25 224 40 55 336 66 7328-07 112 11 35 224 45 68 336 65 8628-08 112 9 38 224 65 60 336 66 7528-09 112 10 33 224 56 60 336 78 7528-10 112 30 5 224 79 30 336 90 3528-11 112 60 5 224 79 33 336 96 3028-12 112 8 11 224 53 40 336 66 6428-13 112 40 6 224 91 33 336 98 38______________________________________
Concentrate compositions 28-08 and 28-09 did not in this test exhibit herbicidal effectiveness equal to Formulation C.
EXAMPLE 29
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 29a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% or 45% phospholipid as indicated below, both sourced from Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 29a______________________________________Spray Lecithin % w/wcomposition g/l phospholipid % Fluorad FC-135______________________________________29-01 0.25 2029-02 0.05 2029-03 0.02 2029-04 0.01 2029-05 0.25 20 0.2529-06 0.05 20 0.0529-07 0.02 20 0.0229-08 0.01 20 0.0129-09 0.25 4529-10 0.05 4529-11 0.02 4529-12 0.01 4529-13 0.25 45 0.2529-14 0.05 45 0.0529-15 0.02 45 0.0229-16 0.01 45 0.01______________________________________
Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus, CYPES) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 27 days after planting CYPES. Evaluation was done 27 days after application.
In addition to compositions 29-01 to 29-15, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and c with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 29b.
TABLE 29b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha CYPES______________________________________Formulation B 500 25 800 41 1200 59Formulation C 500 29 800 43 1200 62Formulation B + 500 60Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 57 1200 79Formulation B + 500 63Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 800 54 1200 65Formulation B + 500 50Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 800 71 1200 60Formulation B + 500 27Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 800 35 1200 81Formulation C + 500 41Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 72 1200 75Formulation C + 500 52Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 800 43 1200 63Formulation C + 500 76Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 800 72 1200 82Formulation C + 500 38Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 800 59 1200 7229-01 500 51 800 70 1200 6429-02 500 58 800 69 1200 7729-03 500 49 800 67 1200 8529-04 500 51 800 76 1200 7729-05 500 37 800 73 1200 10029-06 400 72 750 62 1000 6729-07 400 68 750 75 1000 8629-08 400 59 750 78 1000 8829-09 400 72 750 80 1000 8829-10 400 67 750 77 1000 8929-11 400 67 750 75 1000 6629-12 400 55 750 75 1000 8329-13 400 33 750 59 1000 7329-14 400 63 750 77 1000 7629-15 400 35 750 75 1000 8829-16 400 77 750 66 1000 86______________________________________
This test was conducted to investigate the effect of phospholipid content of lecithin on herbicidal efficacy of lecithin-containing glyphosate compositions. No clear pattern emerged from this study, but overall it appeared that the crude lecithin (20% phospholipid) provided greater herbicidal effectiveness on CYPES than the de-oiled lecithin (45% phospholipid), suggesting that the oil present in crude lecithin might be having an adjuvant effect on this species.
EXAMPLE 30
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 30a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20%, 45% or 95% phospholipid as indicated below, all sourced from Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 30a______________________________________Spray Lecithin % w/wcomposition g/l phospholipid % Fluorad FC-135______________________________________30-01 0.5 2030-02 0.2 2030-03 0.1 2030-04 0.5 4530-05 0.2 4530-06 0.1 4530-07 0.5 9530-08 0.2 9530-09 0.1 9530-10 0.5 20 0.0530-11 0.5 45 0.0530-12 0.5 95 0.0530-13 0.2 20 0.0230-14 0.2 45 0.0230-15 0.2 95 0.0230-16 0.1 20 0.0130-17 0.1 45 0.0130-18 0.1 95 0.01______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 17 days after planting ABUTH, 19 days after planting ECHCF, and 23 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
In addition to compositions 30-01 to 30-18, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 30b.
TABLE 30b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 100 10 25 33 200 22 29 49 300 50 62 61 400 62 62 64Formulation C 100 14 40 34 200 53 98 66 300 74 100 84 400 86 100 93Formulation B + 100 18 25 34Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 200 50 58 52 300 68 83 70Formulation B + 100 10 21 29Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 200 64 40 46 300 79 62 64Formulation B + 100 10 21 34Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 200 34 27 44 300 73 74 69Formulation C + 100 65 53 58Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 200 73 77 65 300 94 99 73Formulation C + 100 68 94 61Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 200 63 93 66 300 85 90 79Formulation C + 100 72 67 53Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 200 69 99 61 300 81 99 8330-01 100 32 26 39 200 72 60 56 300 84 72 6930-02 100 14 23 43 200 70 42 63 300 83 74 6830-03 100 6 25 42 200 55 47 57 300 65 64 7230-04 100 29 31 42 200 55 65 60 300 82 54 7330-05 100 14 22 41 200 32 35 66 300 81 98 7030-06 100 9 26 29 200 47 48 57 300 69 71 7130-07 100 30 22 50 200 73 50 69 300 82 86 6730-08 100 41 23 53 200 57 38 69 300 76 46 8430-09 100 32 17 45 200 60 37 67 300 78 77 7330-10 100 58 27 62 200 91 42 79 300 93 95 7730-11 100 66 58 63 200 91 79 69 300 91 84 8430-12 100 61 27 67 200 90 72 77 300 93 83 8430-13 100 61 24 51 200 88 48 69 300 94 54 7530-14 100 66 25 56 200 90 49 72 300 93 73 8530-15 100 63 23 61 200 88 33 72 300 95 75 8130-16 100 75 25 56 200 87 37 74 300 93 71 7730-17 100 63 17 59 200 92 27 73 300 92 83 7830-18 100 67 22 53 200 91 38 68 300 91 46 77______________________________________
In general, across the three species included in this test, compositions containing the 45% phospholipid grade of soybean lecithin provided slightly greater herbicidal effectiveness than those containing the 20% grade. Any further improvement obtained by using the 95% grade was minimal and would likely not justify the considerably increased cost of this grade. The data of this test clearly show a non-additive interaction between lecithin and Fluorad FC-135. To take just one example for illustration, glyphosate alone (Formulation B) at 200 g a.e./ha gave 22% inhibition of ABUTH, 29% inhibition of ECHCF and 49% inhibition of SIDSP. Adding 0.02% Fluorad FC-135 brought these percentage inhibitions to 64%, 40% and 46% respectively. Alternatively, adding the 45% grade of lecithin at 0.02% (composition 30-05) resulted in percentage inhibitions of 32%, 35% and 36% respectively. Adding both these excipients, each at 0.02% (composition 30-14) gave percentage inhibitions of 90%, 49% and 72% respectively. Even adding both excipients so that the total excipient concentration was 0.02% (composition 30-17) resulted in percentage inhibitions of 92%, 27% and 73% respectively. Thus at least on the broadleaf species (ABUTH and SIDSP) there is strong evidence of a synergistic interaction between these two excipient substances.
EXAMPLE 31
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 31a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using lecithin (20% or 95% phospholipid from soybean, or 95% phospholipid from egg yolk, all sourced from Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 31a______________________________________Lecithin % w/wSpray phospho- Fluorad Fluoradcomposition g/l lipid % source FC-135 FC-754______________________________________31-01 0.05 95 egg yolk31-02 0.02 95 egg yolk31-03 0.01 95 egg yolk31-04 0.05 95 soybean31-05 0.02 95 soybean31-06 0.01 95 soybean31-07 0.05 95 egg yolk 0.0531-08 0.02 95 egg yolk 0.0231-09 0.01 95 egg yolk 0.0131-10 0.05 95 soybean 0.0531-11 0.02 95 soybean 0.0231-12 0.01 95 soybean 0.0131-13 0.05 20 soybean 0.0531-14 0.02 20 soybean 0.02______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 18 days after planting ABUTH and 19 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
In addition to compositions 31-01 to 31-14, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 or Fluorad FC-754 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 31b.
TABLE 31b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 1 27 200 6 28 300 21 35 400 31 46Formulation C 100 10 31 200 28 36 300 62 66 400 77 74Formulation B + 100 19 24Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 200 37 40 300 62 52Formulation B + 100 7 13Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 200 42 27 300 56 57Formulation B + 100 23 19Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 200 43 24 300 60 40Formulation B + 100 19 23Fluorad FC-754 0.05% w/v 200 41 33 300 67 62Formulation B + 100 12 19Fluorad FC-754 0.02% w/v 200 31 44 300 61 45Formulation C + 100 37 39Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 200 49 43 300 66 62Formulation C + 100 18 31Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 200 47 44 300 68 49Formulation C + 100 26 27Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 200 36 44 300 54 82Formulation C + 100 34 32Fluorad FC-754 0.05% w/v 200 47 37 300 62 62Formulation C + 100 28 32Fluorad FC-754 0.02% w/v 200 45 60 300 43 7531-01 100 16 36 200 54 56 300 66 6131-02 100 23 43 200 45 45 300 65 5131-03 100 31 35 200 37 45 300 53 6031-04 100 24 35 200 43 43 300 78 5031-05 100 24 36 200 45 44 300 58 6631-06 100 31 24 200 46 34 300 52 5131-07 100 49 33 200 65 39 300 73 6331-08 100 48 25 200 70 49 300 73 6931-09 100 45 27 200 59 53 300 71 8431-10 100 60 30 200 64 89 300 75 9931-11 100 47 51 200 66 65 300 80 7831-12 100 49 39 200 60 59 300 67 8431-13 100 50 30 200 70 51 300 68 6631-14 100 54 33 200 61 44 300 79 66______________________________________
In this test, glyphosate compositions containing egg yolk lecithin (31-01 to 31-03) performed similarly to those containing soybean lecithin (31-04 to 31-06) on ABUTH but were generally more effective than those containing soybean lecithin on ECHCF, at least in the absence of Fluorad FC-135. Addition of Fluorad FC-135, as in compositions 31-07 to 31-12, enhanced effectiveness of all compositions.
EXAMPLE 32
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 32a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 32a______________________________________Spray Lecithin % w/w Type ofcomposition g/l fluoro-organic fluoro-organic______________________________________32-01 0.20 none32-02 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-13532-03 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-43132-04 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-75132-05 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-170C32-06 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-17132-07 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-75432-08 0.50 none32-09 0.10 none32-10 0.04 none32-11 0.02 none______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Spida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 18 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and 27 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
In addition to compositions 32-01 to 32-11, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with various fluoro-organic surfactants of the Fluorad range, all at 0.02%. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 32b.
TABLE 32b______________________________________ Gly- phosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 150 8 35 35 250 21 47 37 350 31 36 56 450 57 52 64Formulation C 150 29 69 49 250 55 90 67 350 75 91 75 450 82 91 85Formulation B + 150 17 43 36Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 39 58 53 350 52 53 68Formulation B + 150 13 25 32Fluorad FC-170C 0.02% w/v 250 31 47 36 350 31 85 61Formulation B + 150 8 52 15Fluorad FC-171 0.02% w/v 250 10 47 44 350 15 58 55Formulation B + 150 14 36 34Fluorad FC-431 0.02% w/v 250 23 53 53 350 37 61 62Formulation B + 150 12 29 29Fluorad FC-751 0.02% w/v 250 30 38 41 350 43 36 58Formulation B + 150 21 27 33Fluorad FC-754 0.02% w/v 250 31 36 49 350 38 51 59Formulation C + 150 35 31 46Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 66 87 58 350 78 99 80Formulation C + 150 29 68 41Fluorad FC-170C 0.02% w/v 250 54 78 61 350 59 86 78Formulation C + 150 20 96 35Fluorad FC-171 0.02% w/v 250 37 99 62 350 55 100 65Formulation C + 150 20 94 41Fluorad FC-431 0.02% w/v 250 51 85 68 350 66 97 74Formulation C + 150 15 67 38Fluorad FC-751 0.02% w/v 250 36 85 56 350 60 100 72Formulation C + 150 33 78 37Fluorad FC-754 0.02% w/v 250 75 85 66 350 82 94 8032-01 150 25 35 45 250 43 52 63 350 60 90 7732-02 150 65 37 58 250 69 69 67 350 66 69 7832-03 150 14 40 41 250 45 78 63 350 55 92 7532-04 150 19 48 48 250 36 51 63 350 65 69 7032-05 150 47 34 45 250 55 43 55 350 63 58 7532-06 150 23 36 46 250 57 52 59 350 61 73 6732-07 150 67 59 58 250 81 73 72 350 80 76 7632-08 150 37 49 60 250 60 83 69 350 67 93 4932-09 150 19 63 51 250 53 71 62 350 55 74 8232-10 150 19 70 51 250 39 94 61 350 63 87 7332-11 150 16 51 50 250 58 67 66 350 69 92 73______________________________________
Composition 32-07, containing 0.02% lecithin and 0.02% Fluorad FC-754, was equal or superior to composition 32-02, containing 0.02% lecithin and 0.02% Fluorad FC-135, in herbicidal effectiveness. This indicates that Fluorad FC-754 is an acceptable substitute for Fluorad FC-135 in such compositions. The other fluoro-organic surfactants tested in this Example, none of which is cationic, were less effective than the cationic fluoro-organics Fluorad FC-135 and Fluorad FC-754 as excipients in combination with lecithin. A possible exception was Fluorad FC-170C which gave good enhancement of glyphosate effectiveness on ECHCF only.
EXAMPLE 33
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 33a. Process (v) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 33a______________________________________% w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Agrimul Fluoradcomposition a.e. Lecithin MON 0818 PG-2069 FC-135______________________________________33-01 30 3.0 0.25 3.033-02 30 3.0 0.25 1.033-03 30 3.0 0.25 3.033-04 30 1.0 0.50 3.033-05 30 1.0 0.50 3.033-06 30 1.0 1.033-07 30 1.0 0.25 1.033-08 30 3.0 0.50 2.033-09 30 2.0 3.033-10 30 3.0 0.50______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH and 17 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.
Formulations C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 33b.
TABLE 33b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation C 56 3 5 112 49 48 224 79 83 448 99 99Formulation J 56 16 20 112 40 43 224 80 81 448 97 9933-01 56 4 5 112 35 20 224 81 51 448 99 8033-02 56 0 5 112 4 20 224 66 55 448 94 8033-03 56 1 5 112 6 20 224 78 74 448 93 8033-04 56 1 5 112 1 15 224 75 65 448 95 8033-05 56 0 5 112 1 15 224 75 65 448 91 8033-06 56 0 5 112 3 15 224 55 63 448 91 7933-07 56 1 5 112 3 15 224 48 55 448 88 8133-08 56 3 9 112 3 20 224 66 60 448 89 8033-09 56 0 5 112 5 10 224 78 55 448 97 8033-10 56 0 5 112 4 15 224 21 55 448 88 79______________________________________
Concentrate compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 did not exhibit herbicidal effectiveness superior to commercial standard Formulations C and J in this test.
EXAMPLE 34
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 34a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 34a______________________________________Spray Lecithin % w/wcomposition g/l Fluorad FC-135______________________________________34-01 0.2534-02 0.0534-03 0.0234-04 0.0134-05 0.25 0.2534-06 0.05 0.0534-07 0.02 0.0234-08 0.01 0.01______________________________________
Guineagrass (Panicum maximum, PANMA) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 78 days after planting PANMA, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.
In addition to compositions 34-01 to 34-08, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 34b.
TABLE 34b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha PANMA______________________________________Formulation B 400 61 800 89 1500 93 2000 97Formulation C 400 85 800 94 1500 100 2000 100Formulation B + 400 76Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 78 1500 97Formulation B + 400 45Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 800 69 1500 89Formulation B + 400 39Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 800 71 1500 95Formulation B + 400 52Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 800 78 1500 99Formulation C + 400 82Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 97 1500 100Formulation C + 400 63Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 800 93 1500 100Formulation C + 400 73Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 800 98 1500 100Formulation C + 400 66Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 800 97 1500 10034-01 400 38 800 73 1500 9234-02 400 64 800 83 1500 9034-03 400 50 800 75 1500 9934-04 400 48 800 88 1500 9834-05 400 60 800 79 1500 9934-06 400 58 800 86 1500 9934-07 400 55 800 86 1500 9334-08 400 60 800 91 1500 98______________________________________
Exceptionally high glyphosate activity was seen in this test even with Formulation B and no firm conclusions can be drawn. However, none of the compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 exceeded the effectiveness of commercial standard Formulation C on PANMA under the conditions of this test.
EXAMPLE 35
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 35a. Process (v) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 35a______________________________________% w/w Gly-Concentrate phosate Fluorad Fluorad MON Agrimulcomposition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 0818 PG-2069______________________________________35-01 30 3.0 3.0 0.2535-02 30 3.0 1.0 0.2535-03 30 3.0 3.0 0.2535-04 30 1.0 3.0 0.5035-05 30 1.0 3.0 0.5035-06 30 1.0 1.035-07 30 1.0 1.0 0.2535-08 30 3.0 2.0 0.5035-09 30 2.0 3.035-10 30 3.0 0.5035-11 30 3.0 3.0 0.5035-12 30 2.0 1.0 0.37535-13 30 1.0 2.0 0.2535-14 30 3.0 3.0 0.5035-15 30 3.0 3.0 0.5035-16 30 2.0 1.0 0.37535-17 30 1.0 2.0 0.2535-18 30 3.0 3.0 0.50______________________________________
Quackgrass (Elymus repens, AGRRE) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 56 days after planting AGRRE, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.
Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 35b.
TABLE 35b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentration composition g a.e./ha AGRRE______________________________________Formulation B 400 41 800 46 1000 55 1200 70Formulation C 400 38 800 47 1000 77 1200 77Formulation J 400 60 800 84 1000 77 1200 8535-01 400 27 800 76 1000 7935-02 400 49 800 66 1000 7835-03 400 42 800 80 1000 8335-04 400 31 800 71 1000 6435-05 400 32 800 53 1000 5935-06 400 27 800 39 1000 6535-07 400 29 800 54 1000 6135-08 400 38 800 65 1000 8135-09 400 31 800 55 1000 6735-10 400 43 800 38 1000 5835-11 400 34 800 56 1000 7535-12 400 29 800 51 1000 6535-13 400 51 800 69 1000 8335-14 400 39 800 63 1000 6535-15 400 53 800 65 1000 7735-16 400 43 800 65 1000 8235-17 400 69 800 84 1000 9435-18 400 69 800 92 1000 92______________________________________
Compositions of the invention exhibiting superior herbicidal effectiveness to commercial standard Formulation C in this test on AGRRE included 35-01, 35-02, 35-03, 35-13 and 35-15 to 35-18. Compositions 35-17 and 35-18 were the most effective in this test, outperforming commercial standard Formulation J as well as Formulation C.
EXAMPLE 36
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 36a. Process (v) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The order of addition of ingredients was varied in compositions 36-15 to 36-20 as shown below. The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 36a______________________________________ Lec-% w/w ithin order Gly- Agrimul phos- ofConc. phosate Lec- Fluorad PG- MON pho- additioncomp. a.e. ithin FC-135 2069 0818 lipid % (*)______________________________________36-01 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 45 A36-02 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 45 A36-03 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 45 A36-04 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 0.5 45 A(**)36-05 30 3.0 3.0 1.00 45 A36-06 30 3.0 3.0 2.00 45 A36-07 30 3.0 3.0 3.00 45 A36-08 30 3.0 3.0 4.00 45 A36-09 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 A36-10 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 B36-11 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 C36-12 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 D36-13 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 E36-14 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 F36-15 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 A36-16 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 B36-17 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 C36-18 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 D36-19 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 E36-20 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 F______________________________________ (*)Order of addition:
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th______________________________________A lecithin PG-2069 FC-135 water glyphosateB lecithin FC-135 PG-2069 water glyphosateC glyphosate water FC-135 PG-2069 lecithinD glyphosate water PG-2069 FC-135 lecithinE glyphosate lecithin PG-2069 FC-135 waterF glyphosate lecithin FC-135 PG-2069 water______________________________________ (**)where MON 0818 included, added with Agrimul PG2069
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 19 days after planting ABUTH and 22 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.
Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 36b.
TABLE 36b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentration composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 200 38 73 400 51 64 600 67 89 800 72 86Formulation C 200 57 75 400 77 98 600 92 97 800 100 100Formulation J 200 50 52 400 73 99 600 88 99 800 98 9836-01 200 49 64 400 72 59 600 78 8736-02 200 54 72 400 78 71 600 97 9036-03 200 57 62 400 80 78 600 89 8736-04 200 46 39 400 74 64 600 86 7836-05 200 49 29 400 74 79 600 83 9036-06 200 49 65 400 70 88 600 87 8836-07 200 49 51 400 67 77 600 81 8336-08 200 42 59 400 70 67 600 78 8036-09 200 45 28 400 73 85 600 87 9836-10 200 57 82 400 76 89 600 87 9836-11 200 56 80 400 84 84 600 85 10036-12 200 57 81 400 78 98 600 87 9436-13 200 54 86 400 73 72 600 96 9736-14 200 56 73 400 69 98 600 85 9436-15 200 40 41 400 85 88 600 83 9636-16 200 53 59 400 73 76 600 84 7336-17 200 39 53 400 65 86 600 86 8136-18 200 49 31 400 69 52 600 73 7536-19 200 47 50 400 74 86 600 88 9836-20 200 51 42 400 68 94 600 90 98______________________________________
Order of addition of ingredients apparently had some influence on herbicidal effectiveness of compositions 36-09 to 36-20. However, as most of these compositions showed poor short-term stability, it is likely that in at least some cases the uniformity of spray application was affected and the results are therefore difficult to interpret.
EXAMPLE 37
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 37a. Process (iv) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 37a______________________________________Con-centrate Gly- % w/wcom- phosate Aerosol MON Fluorad Methylposition g a.e./l Lecithin OT 0818 FC-754 caprate PVA______________________________________37-01 200 2.0 0.2537-02 300 3.0 0.5037-03 300 3.0 0.50 2.037-04 200 2.0 0.25 1.537-05 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 1.037-06 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 1.037-07 200 2.0 0.25 2.037-08 200 2.0 0.2537-09 300 3.0 0.5037-10 300 3.0 0.50 2.037-11 200 2.0 0.25 1.537-12 200 2.0 0.25 1.037-13 200 2.0 0.25 1.037-14 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 1.537-15 200 2.0 0.25 2.0______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 16 days after planting ABUTH and 13 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.
Compositions containing PVA were too viscous to spray and were not tested for herbicidal effectiveness. Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 37b.
TABLE 37b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 112 5 4 224 48 8 336 73 20 448 94 50Formulation C 112 30 45 224 91 81 336 98 81 448 100 99Formulation J 112 50 35 224 80 65 336 97 88 448 100 9037-01 112 11 8 224 50 40 336 71 61 448 93 7837-02 112 5 6 224 64 58 336 78 60 448 84 6537-07 112 5 3 224 46 38 336 73 83 448 93 6637-08 112 8 13 224 43 46 336 73 65 448 83 7037-09 112 1 5 224 23 25 336 65 33 448 91 5837-12 112 0 5 224 58 48 336 73 63 448 91 6337-13 112 0 10 224 53 38 336 73 45 448 88 5037-15 112 28 10 224 50 53 336 80 63 448 88 91______________________________________
Concentrate compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-754 or methyl caprate did not exhibit herbicidal effectiveness equal to that of the commercial standards in this test.
EXAMPLE 38
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 38a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 38a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Fluorad MONcomposition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 0818______________________________________38-01 30 3.0 3.0 0.7538-02 25 2.5 2.5 0.6338-03 20 2.0 2.0 0.5038-04 15 1.5 1.5 0.3838-05 10 1.0 1.0 0.2538-06 5 0.5 0.5 0.1338-07 30 3.0 3.0 1.5038-08 25 2.5 2.5 0.6338-09 20 2.0 2.0 0.5038-10 15 1.5 1.5 0.3838-11 10 1.0 1.0 0.2538-12 5 0.5 0.5 0.1338-13 25 2.5 2.5 0.9438-14 20 2.0 2.0 0.7538-15 15 1.5 1.5 0.5638-16 10 1.0 1.0 0.3838-17 5 0.5 0.5 0.19______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 19 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.
In addition to compositions 38-01 to 38-17, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at two concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 38b.
TABLE 38b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation C 200 59 98 400 96 96 600 70 93 800 100 97Formulation C + 200 59 92Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 93 93 600 95 100 800 100 97Formulation C + 200 54 73Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 95 76 600 100 82 800 100 95Formulation J 200 55 87 400 92 98 600 97 94 800 99 96Formulation J + 200 67 88Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 89 89 600 94 87 800 96 91Formulation J + 200 71 81Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 75 95 600 96 99 800 100 10038-01 200 53 71 400 74 87 600 98 8738-02 200 51 70 400 88 96 600 89 9938-03 200 51 85 400 81 97 600 96 9438-04 200 51 63 400 81 82 600 96 9738-05 200 47 60 400 73 91 600 94 9438-06 200 54 43 400 73 88 600 92 8738-07 200 60 70 400 84 93 600 90 9838-08 200 49 55 400 76 92 600 88 8338-09 200 57 53 400 79 95 600 91 8738-10 200 55 85 400 90 97 600 94 9638-11 200 64 43 400 77 87 600 93 9638-12 200 54 72 400 85 98 600 96 10038-13 200 61 61 400 84 90 600 95 9938-14 200 57 86 400 82 90 600 99 9838-15 200 59 89 400 78 96 600 93 9738-16 200 53 87 400 81 98 600 96 9838-17 200 48 87 400 81 100 600 91 100______________________________________
As concentrate compositions in previous Examples have tended to exhibit weaker herbicidal effectiveness than has been seen with ready-made spray compositions, this test was conducted to determine if the degree of concentration at which a composition is prepared before dilution for spraying had an influence on effectiveness. No consistent trend was seen in this test.
EXAMPLE 39
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 39a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 39a______________________________________ % w/w Gly- Fluorad Type ofConc. phosate Leci- FC-135 Amine aminecomp. a.e. thin or FC-754 surfactant surfactant______________________________________39-01 20 2.0 0.25 MON 081839-02 20 3.0 0.25 MON 081839-03 20 3.0 3.0 (135) 0.25 MON 081839-04 20 3.0 3.0 (754) 0.25 MON 081839-05 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-2039-06 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-5039-07 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-7539-08 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-10039-09 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-15039-10 20 2.00 Triton RW-2039-11 20 2.00 Triton RW-5039-12 20 2.00 Triton RW-7539-13 20 2.00 Triton RW-10039-14 20 2.00 Triton RW-150______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH and 17 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 21 days after application.
Formulation C was applied as a comparative treatment. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 39b.
TABLE 39b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation C 112 0 10 224 10 20 336 47 30 448 63 4039-01 112 8 15 224 25 35 336 55 56 448 63 6539-02 112 5 10 224 23 33 336 55 64 448 66 6039-03 112 28 15 224 55 35 336 74 58 448 76 6539-04 112 15 8 224 53 45 336 73 55 448 75 6439-05 112 0 8 224 14 45 336 45 70 448 65 6639-06 112 1 13 224 5 43 336 58 64 448 66 7539-07 112 0 15 224 1 53 336 45 78 448 60 8339-08 112 0 10 224 25 45 336 50 79 448 68 8839-09 112 0 13 224 13 45 336 50 75 448 70 8139-10 112 0 18 224 18 35 336 48 65 448 66 7639-11 112 1 0 224 35 25 336 38 55 448 50 7839-12 112 8 25 224 10 38 336 48 70 448 73 8139-13 112 0 25 224 5 33 336 30 70 448 74 7539-14 112 0 12 224 0 30 336 12 70 448 40 80______________________________________
No difference in herbicidal effectiveness was seen between compositions 39-03 and 39-04. The only difference between these compositions is that 39-03 contained Fluorad FC-135 and 39-04 contained Fluorad FC-754.
EXAMPLE 40
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 40a. Process (iii) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% or 45% phospholipid as indicated below, both sourced from Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 40a______________________________________ Leci- Lecithin % w/wSpray thin % Fluorad Fluoradcomposition g/l purity FC-135 FC-754______________________________________40-01 1.0 2040-02 0.5 2040-03 0.2 2040-04 1.0 20 0.1040-05 0.5 20 0.0540-06 0.2 20 0.0240-07 1.0 20 0.1040-08 0.5 20 0.0540-09 0.2 20 0.02 0.0240-10 0.5 45 0.0540-11 0.5 45 0.05______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 18 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.
In addition to compositions 40-01 to 40-11, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 or FC-754 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 40b.
TABLE 40b______________________________________Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 49 100 300 66 92 500 80 76 700 93 96Formulation C 200 57 79 400 93 98 600 100 100 800 100 100Formulation B + 200 58 80Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 63 100 600 82 100Formulation B + 200 37 49Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 67 84 600 74 100Formulation B + 200 33 82Fluorad FC-135 0.02% 400 58 94 600 81 87Formulation B + 200 50 45Fluorad FC-754 0.1% 400 77 82 600 77 94Formulation B + 200 44 45Fluorad FC-754 0.05% 400 71 65 600 74 90Formulation B + 200 31 57Fluorad FC-754 0.02% 400 67 83 600 68 93Formulation C + 200 69 65Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 91 99 600 97 100Formulation C + 200 73 87Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 89 100 600 98 100Formulation C + 200 51 60Fluorad FC-135 0.02% 400 91 100 600 98 100Formulation C + 200 70 81Fluorad FC-754 0.1% 400 85 99 600 98 95Formulation C + 200 68 54Fluorad FC-754 0.05% 400 78 88 600 91 88Formulation C + 200 50 41Fluorad FC-754 0.02% 400 89 91 600 99 10040-01 200 41 37 400 78 84 600 83 10040-02 200 38 82 400 74 94 600 82 9840-03 200 38 62 400 69 85 600 86 10040-04 200 63 69 400 79 75 600 93 8940-05 200 69 66 400 85 81 600 84 8640-06 200 64 38 400 79 74 600 93 9940-07 200 61 43 400 76 71 600 85 8540-08 200 71 52 400 82 85 600 82 10040-09 200 63 55 400 83 73 600 79 9740-10 200 65 54 400 78 80 600 85 9940-11 200 55 33 400 77 74 600 91 97______________________________________
There was a tendency, although not consistently so, for compositions of this Example containing Fluorad FC-754 to show slightly weaker herbicidal effectiveness than corresponding compositions containing Fluorad FC-135.
EXAMPLE 41
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 41a. Process (v) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 41a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Leci- Fluorad Fluorad MONcomposition a.e. thin FC-135 FC-754 0818______________________________________41-01 15.0 4.0 8.0 0.541-02 15.0 6.0 8.0 0.541-03 15.0 8.0 8.0 0.541-04 10.0 4.0 8.0 0.541-05 10.0 6.0 8.0 0.541-06 10.0 8.0 8.0 0.541-07 5.0 4.0 8.0 0.541-08 5.0 6.0 8.0 0.541-09 5.0 8.0 8.0 0.541-10 15.0 4.0 8.0 0.541-11 15.0 6.0 8.0 0.541-12 15.0 8.0 8.0 0.541-13 10.0 4.0 8.0 0.541-14 10.0 6.0 8.0 0.541-15 10.0 8.0 8.0 0.541-16 5.0 4.0 8.0 0.541-17 5.0 6.0 8.0 0.541-18 5.0 8.0 8.0 0.5______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 18 days after planting ABUTH and 20 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
In addition to compositions 41-01 to 41-18, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and J with Fluorad FC-135 at two concentrations. Formulations B and J alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 41b.
TABLE 41b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 49 41 300 41 55 500 76 98 700 82 100Formulation J 150 59 66 300 79 99 500 93 99 700 98 100Formulation B + 150 52 85Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 300 69 93 500 89 97Formulation B + 150 9 61Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 300 71 77 500 77 100Formulation J + 150 52 99Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 300 74 100 500 82 99Formulation J + 150 41 52Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 300 77 83 500 91 10041-01 150 66 51 300 86 91 500 93 10041-02 150 72 88 300 89 93 500 96 9241-03 150 71 91 300 89 95 500 91 10041-04 150 63 90 300 89 89 500 96 9941-05 150 70 79 300 84 94 500 88 9841-06 150 69 76 300 89 84 500 94 10041-07 150 71 87 300 77 82 500 99 9241-08 150 81 87 300 88 94 500 92 9841-09 150 72 83 300 87 83 500 94 9441-10 150 72 70 300 81 80 500 89 9341-11 150 74 85 300 87 96 500 91 9841-12 150 66 92 300 78 98 500 93 10041-13 150 71 76 300 86 95 500 94 9941-14 150 72 75 300 90 97 500 91 9941-15 150 69 82 300 85 98 500 94 10041-16 150 76 87 300 86 100 500 90 9941-17 150 71 83 300 87 94 500 96 10041-18 150 70 81 300 77 98 500 89 98______________________________________
Good herbicidal effectiveness was obtained with the concentrate compositions of this Example containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 or Fluorad FC-754. No great or consistent difference was seen between compositions containing Fluorad FC-135 and their counterparts containing Fluorad FC-754.
EXAMPLE 42
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 42a. Process (v) was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (95% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 42a______________________________________ % w/w Gly- Agri- Fluor- West-Conc. phosate Leci- MON mul ad FC- Fluorad vacocomp. a.e. thin 0818 PG-2069 135 FC-754 H-240______________________________________42-01 30 3.0 0.25 3.0 9.042-02 30 3.0 0.25 1.0 9.042-03 30 3.0 0.25 3.0 9.042-04 30 1.0 0.50 3.0 9.042-05 30 1.0 0.50 3.0 9.042-06 30 1.0 1.0 9.042-07 30 1.0 0.25 1.0 9.042-08 30 3.0 0.50 2.0 9.042-09 30 2.0 3.0 9.042-10 30 3.0 5.042-11 30 3.0 0.50 3.0 9.042-12 30 2.0 0.38 2.0 9.042-13 30 1.0 0.25 1.0 9.042-14 30 3.0 0.50 3.0 9.042-15 15 6.0 2.00 8.342-16 15 6.0 4.00 8.3______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 17 days after planting ABUTH and 20 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
In addition to compositions 42-01 to 42-16, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and J with Fluorad FC-135 at two concentrations. Formulations B and J alone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 42b.
TABLE 42b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 3 33 300 12 90 500 65 98 700 79 100Formulation J 150 2 46 300 76 100 500 98 100 700 98 100Formulation B + 150 10 38Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 300 50 85 500 65 68Formulation B + 150 3 27Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 300 36 82 500 68 99Formulation J + 150 18 79Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 300 57 98 500 79 100Formulation J + 150 2 37Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 300 56 97 500 96 9842-01 150 2 27 300 2 74 500 46 7842-02 150 2 52 300 41 64 500 40 8542-03 150 3 38 300 39 47 500 73 9842-04 150 3 38 300 42 63 500 78 8442-05 150 5 29 300 37 89 500 70 9942-06 150 8 37 300 30 89 500 69 9742-07 150 5 53 300 32 80 500 83 9942-08 150 3 26 300 10 40 500 12 5542-09 150 7 21 300 57 86 500 91 9742-10 150 21 61 300 73 89 500 85 9842-11 150 6 23 300 53 70 500 85 8342-12 150 33 25 300 34 43 500 83 9742-13 150 7 34 300 62 39 500 77 7342-14 150 10 27 300 59 40 500 84 7342-15 150 71 48 300 97 65 500 99 9242-16 150 83 40 300 98 89 500 100 95______________________________________
The only concentrate compositions in this test exhibiting excellent performance, at least on ABUTH, were 42-15 and 42-16.
EXAMPLE 43
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 43a. Process (viii) was followed for composition 43-02 and process (ix) for compositions 43-03 to 43-13 which contain a colloidal particulate together with surfactant. Composition 43-01 contains colloidal particulate but no surfactant. The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 43a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Aerosil Emphoscomposition a.e. FC-135 90 PS-21A______________________________________43-01 20 3.343-02 20 3.343-03 31 1.1 3.3 1.143-04 31 1.1 3.3 2.243-05 31 1.1 3.3 3.343-06 31 2.2 3.3 1.143-07 31 2.2 3.3 2.243-08 31 2.2 3.3 3.343-09 31 3.3 3.3 1.143-10 31 3.3 3.3 2.243-11 31 3.3 3.3 3.343-12 31 3.3 3.343-13 31 3.3 3.3______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH and 17 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 23 days after application.
Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 43b.
TABLE 43b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 8 250 18 25 350 35 40 450 75 50Formulation C 150 30 85 250 92 95 350 100 100 450 100 100Formulation J 150 40 70 250 70 83 350 93 92 450 100 9843-01 150 20 25 250 35 30 350 65 43 450 73 3543-02 150 5 5 250 20 25 350 45 35 450 66 8343-03 150 20 11 250 40 30 350 73 64 450 88 8343-04 150 15 3 250 30 25 350 40 35 450 71 7543-05 150 15 10 250 33 30 350 69 45 450 78 6543-06 150 11 8 250 28 30 350 30 35 450 69 6143-07 150 5 8 250 13 20 350 51 30 450 74 4343-08 150 15 8 250 30 15 350 35 30 450 56 4543-09 150 15 15 250 28 20 350 43 33 450 45 4043-10 150 5 3 250 25 20 350 50 40 450 48 5843-11 150 14 6 250 25 40 350 64 76 450 78 7943-12 150 9 20 250 20 33 350 46 73 450 59 8043-13 150 15 11 250 20 28 350 30 59 450 68 48______________________________________
Most concentrate compositions containing Fluorad FC-135 showed enhanced herbicidal effectiveness by comparison with Formulation B but did not equal the performance of commercial standard Formulations C and J under the conditions of this test.
EXAMPLE 44
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 44a. Process (viii) was followed for compositions 44-01, 44-03, 44-06, 44-07, 44-10, 44-14, 44-15, 44-18 and 44-19 and process (ix) for compositions 44-02, 44-08, 44-09, 44-16 and 44-17 which contain a colloidal particulate together with surfactant. Compositions 44-04, 44-05, 44-12 and 44-13 contain colloidal particulate but no surfactant. The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 44a______________________________________Concen- % w/wtrate Gly- Etho- Alumi-com- phosate Fluorad meen num Titanium Aerosolposite a.e. FC-135 T/25 oxide C dioxide P25 OT______________________________________44-01 20 3.3044-02 20 3.3044-03 20 3.3044-04 20 3.3044-05 20 0.6744-06 20 3.30 3.3044-07 20 3.30 0.6744-08 20 3.30 3.3044-09 20 0.67 3.3044-10 20 3.30 3.3044-11 20 3.30 0.6744-12 20 3.3044-13 20 0.6744-14 20 3.30 3.3044-15 20 3.30 0.6744-16 20 3.30 3.3044-17 20 0.67 3.3044-18 20 3.30 3.3044-19 20 3.30 0.67______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 18 days after planting ABUTH and 20 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 25 days after application.
Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 44b.
TABLE 44b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 8 45 250 37 55 350 40 60 450 50 70Formulation C 150 27 72 250 73 92 350 90 99 450 92 99Formulation J 150 25 66 250 45 88 350 78 99 450 91 10044-01 150 40 82 250 55 93 350 74 100 450 83 10044-02 150 9 20 250 30 73 350 38 73 450 55 9744-03 150 13 23 250 35 79 350 45 78 450 75 10044-04 150 18 45 250 35 65 350 35 70 450 68 8144-05 150 11 43 250 35 50 350 50 55 450 59 7844-06 150 25 75 250 58 93 350 88 100 450 95 10044-07 150 15 88 250 68 100 350 79 100 450 90 10044-08 150 28 38 250 25 38 350 35 55 450 71 7944-09 112 5 13 224 23 48 336 25 70 448 45 6444-10 150 1 20 250 40 74 350 65 55 450 84 9644-11 150 25 25 250 35 65 350 45 61 450 76 9244-12 150 14 28 250 40 43 350 45 70 450 65 7944-13 150 20 45 250 48 33 350 60 55 450 80 7944-14 150 23 79 250 73 100 350 76 99 450 85 9944-15 150 25 83 250 69 99 350 75 99 450 91 10044-16 150 14 28 250 23 40 350 30 79 450 69 8644-17 150 1 20 250 23 33 350 16 45 450 40 6844-18 150 8 15 250 49 56 350 55 58 450 83 8344-19 150 6 15 250 35 60 350 61 63 450 63 70______________________________________
Concentrate compositions containing Fluorad FC-135 showed enhanced herbicidal effectiveness by comparison with Formulation B but did not provide herbicidal effectiveness equal to commercial standard Formulations C and J in this test.
EXAMPLE 45
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 45a. Process (i) was followed for compositions 45-10 to 45-12 and process (iii) for compositions 45-01 to 45-09 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 45a______________________________________Spray % w/wcomposition Lecithin Fluorad FC-135 Surf H1______________________________________45-01 0.1045-02 0.0545-03 0.0245-04 0.10 0.1045-05 0.05 0.0545-06 0.02 0.0245-07 0.10 0.1045-08 0.05 0.0545-09 0.02 0.0245-10 0.1045-11 0.0545-12 0.02______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 23 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
In addition to compositions 45-01 to 45-12, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone and Formulation J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 45b.
TABLE 45b______________________________________Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 16 21 250 68 32 350 68 63 450 67 69Formulation C 150 29 47 250 76 74 350 98 94 450 100 85Formulation J 150 37 31 250 79 72 350 93 82 450 97 97Formulation B + 150 55 15Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 73 28 350 85 57 450 83 83Formulation B + 150 59 15Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 77 41 350 81 72 450 77 51Formulation B + 150 25 12Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 54 27 350 82 38 450 75 47Formulation C + 150 51 26Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 78 63 350 86 71 450 89 79Formulation C + 150 58 23Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 74 89 350 93 78 450 89 9145-01 150 29 26 250 61 47 350 73 48 450 82 6245-02 150 34 34 250 67 34 350 73 54 450 85 4345-03 150 20 29 250 60 49 350 68 84 450 74 6445-04 150 78 24 250 83 33 350 96 64 450 97 5945-05 150 81 21 250 89 27 350 82 34 450 99 3145-06 150 92 14 250 85 64 350 86 31 450 90 6045-07 150 71 27 250 81 46 350 84 66 450 88 6245-08 150 46 29 250 70 43 350 78 61 450 86 5845-09 150 55 25 250 76 33 350 80 50 450 78 6245-10 150 65 26 250 85 28 350 91 37 450 89 5345-11 150 73 27 250 77 28 350 92 41 450 92 4945-12 150 71 20 250 74 31 350 79 39 450 93 53______________________________________
Extremely high herbicidal effectiveness was noted on ABUTH with compositions 45-04 to 45-06, containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135. Replacement of Fluorad FC-135 by "Surf H1", a hydrocarbon-based surfactant of formula C.sub.12 H.sub.25 SO.sub.2 NH(CH.sub.2).sub.3 N.sup.+ (CH.sub.3).sub.3 I.sup.-, gave (in compositions 45-07 to 45-09) effectiveness on ABUTH still superior at low glyphosate rates to commercial standard Formulations C and J but not quite as great as that of compositions 45-04 to 45-06. Performance of compositions 45-04 to 45-12 on ECHCF was relatively low in this test but performance on ABUTH was remarkably high considering the very low surfactant concentrations present.
EXAMPLE 46
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA or tetrabutylammonium salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 46a. Process (i) was followed for compositions 46-10 to 46-13 and 46-15 and process (iii) for compositions 46-01 to 46-09 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.
TABLE 46a______________________________________Spray % w/w Gly-compo- Leci- LI- Fluorad Surf phosatesition thin 700 FC-135 H1 salt______________________________________46-01 0.10 IPA46-02 0.05 IPA46-03 0.02 IPA46-04 0.10 0.10 IPA46-05 0.05 0.05 IPA46-06 0.02 0.02 IPA46-07 0.10 0.10 IPA46-08 0.05 0.05 IPA46-09 0.02 0.02 IPA46-10 0.10 IPA46-11 0.05 IPA46-12 0.02 IPA46-13 (Bu).sub.4 N46-14 0.05 0.05 (Bu).sub.4 N46-15 0.05 (Bu).sub.4 N______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 19 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.
In addition to compositions 46-01 to 46-15, spray compositions were prepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone and Formulation J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 46b.
TABLE 46b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 33 24 300 51 27 500 68 36 700 83 43Formulation C 150 32 30 300 78 68 500 90 81 700 96 89Formulation J 150 16 27 300 74 56 500 88 79 700 93 92Formulation B + 150 22 18Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 71 26 500 73 51Formulation B + 150 19 16Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 60 28 500 72 33Formulation B + 150 14 14Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 300 23 26 500 69 38Formulation C + 150 31 11Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 73 27 500 82 48Formulation C + 150 43 23Fluorad FC 135 0.05% w/v 300 71 49 500 93 5046-01 150 20 18 300 65 29 500 85 3446-02 150 22 19 300 63 35 500 83 5146-03 150 24 29 300 64 35 500 85 4046-04 150 63 21 300 75 31 500 84 4646-05 150 68 10 300 82 29 500 81 5346-06 150 68 21 300 84 30 500 85 4646-07 150 41 35 300 51 39 500 93 6146-08 150 34 22 300 77 27 500 85 3546-09 150 24 17 300 78 39 500 91 5846-10 150 16 19 300 62 28 500 72 5346-11 150 38 25 300 59 38 500 82 5946-12 150 7 23 300 61 40 500 77 6346-13 150 81 48 300 92 51 500 90 4646-14 150 87 30 300 91 69 500 95 8946-15 150 81 37 300 94 41 500 92 63______________________________________
As in the previous Example, compositions containing "Surf H1" did not show as strong enhancement of glyphosate effectiveness as counterpart compositions containing Fluorad FC-135. The tetrabutylammonium salt of glyphosate (compositions 46-13 to 46-15) exhibited extremely high herbicidal effectiveness in this test.
EXAMPLE 47
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 47a. Process (v) was followed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti), except that various orders of addition were tried as indicated below. The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 47a______________________________________Con-cen- % w/wtrate Gly-com- pho- Order ofpo- sate Fluorad Fluorad MON Agrimul additionsition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 0818 PG-2069 (*)______________________________________47-01 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 A47-02 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 B47-03 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 C47-04 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 D47-05 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 E47-06 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 F47-07 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 A47-08 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 B47-09 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 C47-10 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 D47-11 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 E47-12 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 F47-13 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 A47-14 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 B47-15 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 C47-16 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 D47-17 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 E47-18 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 F______________________________________ 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th______________________________________A lecithin MON/PG FC-135/754 water glyphosateB lecithin FC-135 MON/PG water glyphosateC glyphosate water FC-135/754 MON/PG lecithinD glyphosate water MON/PG FC-135/754 lecithinE glyphosate lecithin MON/PG FC-135/754 waterF glyphosate lecithin FC-135/754 MON/PG water______________________________________ MON/PG means MON 0818 or Agrimul PG2069 (*)Order of addition:
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 15 days after planting ABUTH and 18 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
Formulations C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 47b.
TABLE 47b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation C 150 26 69 300 75 100 500 85 99 700 94 100Formulation J 150 38 78 300 76 87 500 87 100 700 90 10047-01 150 10 35 300 51 56 500 71 91 700 77 10047-02 150 24 35 300 57 71 500 77 93 700 94 10047-03 150 11 33 300 48 55 500 73 87 700 83 9347-04 150 37 36 300 50 38 500 68 9447-05 150 24 32 300 48 47 500 77 85 700 76 10047-06 150 12 32 300 61 40 500 83 86 700 88 9547-07 150 17 25 300 58 77 500 73 97 700 86 8147-08 150 12 34 300 53 47 500 69 72 700 79 10047-09 150 10 33 300 47 70 500 67 99 700 83 8147-10 150 13 25 300 49 51 500 70 73 700 85 9247-11 150 10 22 300 56 37 500 77 47 700 85 8547-12 150 13 27 300 61 68 500 78 52 700 86 8547-13 150 14 27 300 62 35 500 72 46 700 87 6747-14 150 15 27 300 59 37 500 76 63 700 85 6147-15 150 10 25 300 40 46 500 72 88 700 79 5147-16 150 12 27 300 53 41 500 63 49 700 71 8547-17 150 23 25 300 59 35 500 70 79 700 75 8647-18 150 10 27 300 56 39 500 69 57 700 74 93______________________________________
No great or consistent differences in herbicidal effectiveness were seen with different orders of addition of ingredients.
EXAMPLE 48
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 48a. Process (v) was followed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Order of addition of ingredients was varied as indicated below. The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 48a______________________________________% w/w Order ofConcentrate Glyphosate Fluorad add-composition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 MON 0818 ition (*)______________________________________48-01 20 6.0 6.0 2.0 A48-02 20 6.0 6.0 2.0 B48-03 20 6.0 6.0 2.0 C48-04 20 6.0 3.0 2.0 A48-05 20 6.0 3.0 2.0 B48-06 20 6.0 3.0 2.0 C48-07 20 6.0 1.0 2.0 A48-08 20 6.0 1.0 2.0 B48-09 20 6.0 1.0 2.0 C48-10 20 6.0 0.0 2.0 A48-11 20 6.0 0.0 2.0 B48-12 20 6.0 0.0 2.0 C48-13 20 2.0 2.0 0.5 A48-14 20 2.0 2.0 0.5 B48-15 20 2.0 2.0 0.5 C______________________________________ 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th______________________________________A lecithin MON 0818 FC-135 water glyphosateB lecithin MON 0818 water FC-135 glyphosateC lecithin water MON 0818 FC-135 glyphosate______________________________________ (*)Order of addition:
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH and 16 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 48b.
TABLE 48b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 0 3 200 17 28 300 38 37 500 78 68Formulation C 100 8 63 200 43 96 300 88 96 500 99 98Formulation J 100 12 10 200 35 60 300 85 90 500 98 9248-01 100 10 0 200 38 13 300 73 28 500 90 7548-02 100 8 0 200 40 23 300 87 43 500 98 6248-03 100 12 0 200 40 25 300 83 47 500 95 7348-04 100 5 5 200 45 38 300 83 65 500 98 8348-05 100 10 3 200 42 48 300 82 53 500 97 9148-06 100 28 0 200 67 43 300 85 68 500 97 9348-07 100 8 8 200 37 35 300 75 72 500 97 9048-08 100 0 1 200 37 45 300 57 68 500 96 9748-09 100 0 7 200 35 40 300 78 60 500 96 9348-10 100 0 3 200 33 57 300 82 72 500 96 9448-11 100 0 5 200 35 50 300 78 82 500 97 8748-12 100 3 5 200 40 37 300 77 78 500 97 8548-13 100 3 0 200 45 33 300 83 38 500 95 7548-14 100 0 0 200 43 33 300 77 50 500 96 6848-15 100 0 0 200 42 30 300 78 47 500 88 73______________________________________
No great or consistent differences were seen with different orders of addition of ingredients.
EXAMPLE 49
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 49a. Process (v) was followed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 49a______________________________________% w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Fluoradcomposition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 MON 0818______________________________________49-01 15 4.0 8.0 0.549-02 15 6.0 8.0 0.549-03 15 8.0 8.0 0.549-04 10 4.0 8.0 0.549-05 10 6.0 8.0 0.549-06 10 8.0 8.0 0.549-07 15 4.0 8.00 0.549-08 15 6.0 8.00 0.549-09 15 8.0 8.00 0.549-10 15 6.0 8.25 0.549-11 15 6.0 8.25 4.049-12 15 8.0 4.00 4.0 0.549-13 10 8.0 8.00 0.549-14 10 8.0 4.00 4.0 0.5______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 22 days after planting ABUTH and 23 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 49b.
TABLE 49b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 20 250 17 37 350 47 47 450 53 60Formulation J 150 27 38 250 68 80 350 78 95 450 87 9549-01 150 15 30 250 78 68 350 97 87 450 97 7849-02 150 47 30 250 92 80 350 97 97 450 98 8549-03 150 30 35 250 83 45 350 97 57 450 97 6749-04 150 47 32 250 80 57 350 95 87 450 97 9649-05 150 32 30 250 81 89 350 94 95 450 98 9449-06 150 60 28 250 80 96 350 92 95 450 98 9649-07 150 50 23 250 70 72 350 92 78 450 97 6049-08 150 45 40 250 72 72 350 90 89 450 97 7749-09 150 53 25 250 80 78 350 89 89 450 96 9349-10 150 72 48 250 89 83 350 98 95 450 98 8049-11 150 50 27 250 77 63 350 93 83 450 97 7249-12 150 52 15 250 83 57 350 94 68 450 98 6349-13 150 50 30 250 75 32 350 88 84 450 97 7749-14 150 67 23 250 84 77 350 97 73 450 97 72______________________________________
In this test compositions prepared with Fluorad FC-754 tended to provide greater herbicidal effectiveness on ECHCF than their counterparts prepared with Fluorad FC-135.
EXAMPLE 50
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 50a. Process (v) was followed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 50a______________________________________Concen- % w/wtrate Glypho-compo- sate Fluorad Fluorad Iso-sition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 MON 0818 propanol______________________________________50-01 15 6.0 8.25 4.050-02 15 6.0 8.25 4.050-03 10 8.0 8.00 0.550-04 10 8.0 8.00 0.550-05 20 2.0 2.00 0.550-06 20 2.0 2.00 0.550-07 30 3.0 3.00 0.550-08 30 3.0 3.00 0.550-09 30 1.0 1.00 0.550-10 30 1.0 1.00 0.550-11 15 6.0 8.25 4.0 5.050-12 15 6.0 8.25 4.0 5.050-13 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 5.050-14 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 5.050-15 30 3.0 3.00 0.850-16 30 3.0 3.00 0.850-17 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 7.550-18 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 7.550-19 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 10.050-20 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 10.050-21 10 8.0 8.00 4.0 5.050-22 10 8.0 8.00 4.0 5.0______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 17 days after planting ABUTH and 19 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 50b.
TABLE 50b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 2 22 250 25 28 350 63 38 450 70 58Formulation C 150 30 47 250 75 82 350 97 97 450 100 99Formulation J 150 10 43 250 58 88 350 87 96 450 98 9350-01 150 63 15 250 78 32 350 83 7050-02 150 60 28 250 80 32 350 88 6550-03 150 53 37 250 80 42 350 91 2750-04 150 72 18 250 83 50 350 96 8050-05 150 50 2 250 77 25 350 78 4350-06 150 22 25 250 77 27 350 87 4050-07 150 27 20 250 58 32 350 87 3750-08 150 32 3 250 78 30 350 82 5250-09 150 5 0 250 42 28 350 68 4350-10 150 2 23 250 52 28 350 75 4250-11 150 72 27 250 80 42 350 85 7350-12 150 58 23 250 82 58 350 87 9750-13 150 70 8 250 83 38 350 85 4550-14 150 68 37 250 90 27 350 89 6750-15 150 28 28 250 63 40 350 87 3550-16 150 23 13 250 45 48 350 82 6850-17 150 67 2 250 88 30 350 87 5850-18 150 60 38 250 85 22 350 95 5350-19 150 74 38 250 80 47 350 95 2850-20 150 70 25 250 85 70 350 97 8150-21 150 78 5 250 83 50 350 90 8350-22 150 73 33 250 82 33 350 95 83______________________________________
Concentrate compositions having a high (20-30% a.e.) loading of glyphosate and consequently a relatively low loading of excipients showed enhancement of herbicidal effectiveness over that obtained with Formulation B, but in this test did not provide efficacy equal to commercial standard Formulations C and J.
EXAMPLE 51
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 51a. Process (i) was followed for compositions 51-13 to 51-20 and process (v) for compositions 51-01 to 51-12 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Compositions were stored in different conditions as indicated below before testing for herbicidal effectiveness. The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 51a__________________________________________________________________________% w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad MONcomposition a.e. Lecithin LI-700 FC-135 FC-754 0818 Storage conditions__________________________________________________________________________51-01 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 60.degree. C., 4 d51-02 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 60.degree. C., 4 d51-03 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 -10.degree. C., 4 d51-04 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 -10.degree. C., 4 d51-05 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 room temperature, 4 d51-06 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 room temperature, 4 d51-07 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 60.degree. C., 8 h then -10.degree. C., 4d51-08 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 60.degree. C., 8 h then -10.degree. C., 4d51-09 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 freshly made51-10 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 freshly made51-11 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 room temperature, 42 d51-12 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 room temperature, 42 d51-13 15.0 18.2551-14 20.0 4.5051-15 15.0 14.25 4.051-16 20.0 4.00 0.551-17 15.0 10.00 8.2551-18 20.0 2.50 2.051-19 15.0 6.00 8.25 4.051-20 20.0 2.00 2.00 0.5__________________________________________________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 16 days after planting ABUTH and 18 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 51b.
TABLE 51b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 27 30 250 37 38 350 60 42 450 69 45Formulation J 150 45 61 250 81 92 350 93 97 450 96 9751-01 150 45 25 250 49 41 350 66 47 450 75 6351-02 150 49 65 250 74 67 350 83 88 450 92 8751-03 150 32 25 250 71 70 350 75 65 450 77 6751-04 150 54 68 250 82 82 350 91 95 450 87 9651-05 150 39 52 250 63 65 350 83 90 450 85 9351-06 150 67 81 250 89 97 350 94 100 450 96 10051-07 150 39 52 250 60 88 350 87 94 450 85 9651-08 150 54 82 250 87 98 350 93 100 450 92 10051-09 150 45 53 250 67 88 350 84 89 450 93 9351-10 150 56 63 250 86 97 350 94 99 450 92 9851-11 150 48 40 250 69 55 350 74 9151-12 150 60 41 250 86 91 350 95 9851-13 150 30 44 250 37 76 350 59 9451-14 150 0 40 250 49 55 350 59 8551-15 150 42 61 250 71 90 350 83 9751-16 150 27 42 250 49 58 350 61 8651-17 150 37 45 250 52 70 350 76 6051-18 150 28 32 250 53 77 350 70 7151-19 150 47 36 250 69 97 350 83 8951-20 150 26 20 250 56 74 350 62 82______________________________________
No great or consistent effect of storage conditions on herbicidal effectiveness of compositions was seen in this test.
EXAMPLE 52
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 52a. Process (v) was followed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 52a__________________________________________________________________________% w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Fluorad MON Ethomeencomposition a.e. Lecithin stearate FC-754 0818 T/25 Ethanol__________________________________________________________________________52-01 20 2.0 0.5 1.25 1.052-02 20 2.0 0.5 1.00 1.00 1.052-03 20 2.0 0.5 1.25 1.052-04 20 6.0 1.5 3.00 3.052-05 20 6.0 1.5 2.00 2.00 2.052-06 20 6.0 1.5 3.00 3.052-07 20 2.0 0.5 0.5052-08 20 2.0 0.5 2.5052-09 20 2.0 0.5 1.25 1.2552-10 20 6.0 1.5 0.5052-11 20 6.0 1.5 3.0052-12 20 6.0 1.5 6.0052-13 20 6.0 1.5 3.00 3.0052-14 20 2.0 2.0 0.5052-15 20 6.0 3.0 6.0052-16 20 6.0 6.0 6.00__________________________________________________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
Formulation J was applied as a comparative treatment. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 52b.
TABLE 52b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation J 150 38 45 250 80 63 350 78 82 450 75 5552-01 150 23 27 250 57 53 350 70 85 450 70 8352-02 150 7 25 250 52 45 350 82 88 450 82 9052-03 150 38 35 250 50 40 350 82 92 450 83 9352-04 150 40 48 250 73 75 350 78 92 450 88 9252-05 150 50 53 250 68 80 350 85 98 450 89 9652-06 150 50 43 250 55 80 350 78 97 450 85 9152-07 150 3 28 250 22 43 350 67 72 450 73 7552-08 150 43 33 250 77 63 350 89 78 450 97 8552-09 150 57 27 250 95 63 350 89 86 450 98 8852-10 150 32 23 250 33 55 350 73 82 450 67 6052-11 150 45 32 250 78 72 350 95 92 450 98 9652-12 150 67 42 250 80 75 350 96 88 450 97 9052-13 150 73 42 250 83 77 350 96 91 450 98 8852-14 150 57 30 250 77 72 350 84 80 450 96 7552-15 150 72 38 250 88 82 350 98 92 450 98 8752-16 150 85 49 250 97 47 350 97 83 450 98 85______________________________________
Very high herbicidal effectiveness was obtained in this test with concentrate compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-754. Composition 52-14, containing each of these excipients at the very low weight/weight ratio to glyphosate a.e. of 1:10, was at least as effective as commercial standard Formulation J, while compositions 52-15 and 52-16 were still more effective. Also performing very well in this test, particularly on ECHCF, were a number of concentrate compositions containing lecithin and butyl stearate.
EXAMPLE 53
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 53a. Process (v) was followed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Order of addition of ingredients was varied for certain compositions as indicated below. The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 53a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/w Order ofConcentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Benzalkonium Butyl MON additioncomposition g/l a.e. Lecithin FC-754/135 Cl stearate 0818 (*)__________________________________________________________________________53-01 345 4.0 0.6653-02 345 4.0 1.0053-03 347 3.0 3.0053-04 347 4.0 4.0053-05 347 4.0 5.0053-06 345 4.6 4.6053-07 348 4.0 2.0 (754) 1.1053-08 351 4.0 4.0 (754) 1.00 A53-09 346 3.9 4.2 (754) 1.00 B53-10 350 4.0 2.0 (135) 1.1053-11 352 4.0 4.0 (135) 1.00 A53-12 349 4.0 4.0 (135) 1.00 B53-13 348 4.0 4.0 (754) 0.50 0.5753-14 347 4.0 0.50 0.5253-15 348 3.7 0.48 3.753-16 348 4.0 0.58 4.0__________________________________________________________________________(*) Order of addition: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5.sup.thA lecithin water Benzalkonium Cl FC-135/754 glyphosateB glyphosate FC-135/754 Benzalkonium Cl water glyphosate
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 21 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 53b.
TABLE 53b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 5 5 200 15 20 300 47 30 400 65 37Formulation J 100 0 8 200 70 37 300 78 70 400 83 7353-01 100 3 10 200 17 27 300 45 37 400 75 4053-02 100 2 5 200 13 30 300 43 40 400 75 4753-03 100 0 8 200 17 43 300 65 78 400 78 8353-04 100 2 10 200 30 37 300 68 72 400 75 8853-05 100 2 20 200 25 65 300 63 88 400 82 8353-06 100 10 17 200 25 33 300 47 77 400 83 7553-07 100 0 10 200 48 30 300 73 37 400 83 4353-08 100 3 10 200 33 30 300 68 37 400 78 4053-09 100 5 10 200 40 27 300 65 50 400 70 5753-10 100 0 10 200 30 27 300 67 40 400 73 4053-11 100 0 10 200 33 27 300 52 37 400 82 4053-12 100 0 10 200 40 20 300 65 40 400 72 4053-13 100 0 10 200 40 20 300 60 33 400 78 3353-14 100 0 10 200 7 47 300 28 33 400 43 4353-15 100 0 13 200 27 33 300 73 53 400 77 6753-16 100 0 13 200 30 37 300 75 47 400 77 68______________________________________
Most concentrate compositions of this Example showed enhanced glyphosate effectiveness by comparison with Formulation B but did not equal the efficacy of commercial standard Formulation J in this test.
EXAMPLE 54
Aqueous spray and concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 54a. Process (i) was followed for spray compositions 54-37 to 54-60 and process (iii) for spray compositions 54-01 to 54-36 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Process (v) was followed for concentrate compositions 54-61 to 54-63 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 54a______________________________________ % w/w Glyphosate Fluoro- Type ofComposition g a.e./l Lecithin organic fluoro-organic______________________________________Spray composition54-01 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-75454-02 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-75454-03 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-75454-04 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-75454-05 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-75054-06 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-75054-07 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-75054-08 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-75054-09 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-75154-10 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-75154-11 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-75154-12 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-75154-13 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-76054-14 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-76054-15 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-76054-16 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-76054-17 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-12054-18 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-12054-19 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-12054-20 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-12054-21 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-17154-22 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-17154-23 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-17154-24 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-17154-25 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-12954-26 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-12954-27 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-12954-28 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-12954-29 1.60 0.027 0.027 .sup. Fluorad FC-170C54-30 2.66 0.045 0.045 .sup. Fluorad FC-170C54-31 3.72 0.062 0.062 .sup. Fluorad FC-170C54-32 4.79 0.080 0.080 .sup. Fluorad FC-170C54-33 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-75454-34 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-75454-35 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-75454-36 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-75454-37 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-75054-38 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-75054-39 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-75054-40 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-75054-41 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-76054-42 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-76054-43 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-76054-44 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-76054-45 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-12054-46 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-12054-47 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-12054-48 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-12054-49 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-17154-50 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-17154-51 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-17154-52 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-17154-53 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-12954-54 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-12954-55 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-12954-56 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-12954-57 1.60 0.027 .sup. Fluorad FC-170C54-58 2.66 0.045 .sup. Fluorad FC-170C54-59 3.72 0.062 .sup. Fluorad FC-170C54-60 4.79 0.080 .sup. Fluorad FC-170CConcentrate compositions:54-61 180 1.5 1.5 Fluorad FC-75454-62 180 2.5 2.5 Fluorad FC-75454-63 180 3.0 6.0 Fluorad FC-754______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 19 days after planting ABUTH and 19 days after planting ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 54b.
TABLE 54b______________________________________Spray or Glyphosate rate % Inhibitionconcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 47 88 250 68 96 350 86 98 450 93 100Formulation J 150 68 89 250 94 97 350 98 100 450 100 9954-01 150 94 8354-02 250 97 9954-03 350 97 9954-04 450 99 10054-05 150 93 7754-06 250 94 9654-07 350 97 9454-08 450 98 9954-09 150 53 7254-10 250 68 8654-11 350 73 9954-12 450 91 9654-13 150 58 7054-14 250 72 9454-15 350 89 9554-16 450 93 9254-17 150 50 6254-18 250 58 7854-19 350 85 9354-20 450 84 9654-21 150 53 6354-22 250 83 8554-23 350 89 9054-24 450 96 8654-25 150 53 5754-26 250 78 8554-27 350 90 9154-28 450 96 9354-29 150 62 7054-30 250 84 9254-31 350 97 9754-32 450 97 9854-33 150 94 7954-34 250 96 9754-35 350 97 9954-36 450 98 9954-37 150 90 8454-38 250 99 9654-39 350 98 10054-40 450 99 10054-41 150 68 7554-42 250 73 8854-43 350 83 9254-44 450 92 9854-45 150 48 5354-46 250 60 8854-47 350 82 9754-48 450 95 9554-49 150 50 4754-50 250 63 8954-51 350 83 9154-52 450 91 9054-53 150 48 5254-54 250 63 7554-55 350 91 9254-56 450 97 9754-57 150 50 8354-58 250 73 9454-59 350 91 9854-60 450 94 9854-61 150 63 52 250 96 96 350 97 9654-62 150 77 77 250 93 87 350 98 9854-63 150 83 89 250 96 96 350 98 98______________________________________
Outstanding herbicidal efficacy, even by comparison with Formulation J, was obtained in this test from spray compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-754 (54-01 to 54-04). Substitution of other fluoro-organic surfactants for Fluorad FC-754 gave varying results. Fluorad FC-750 (compositions 54-05 to 54-08) was an acceptable substitute; however Fluorad FC-751, Fluorad FC-760, Fluorad FC-120, Fluorad FC-171, Fluorad FC-129 and Fluorad FC-170C (compositions 54-09 to 54-32) provided less enhancement. A similar pattern was seen with spray compositions (54-33 to 54-60) containing the same fluoro-organic surfactants as above with the exception of Fluorad FC-751, but no lecithin. It is noteworthy that of all the fluoro-organic surfactants included in this test, only Fluorad FC-754 and Fluorad FC-750 are cationic. Excellent herbicidal efficacy was also noted in this test from concentrate glyphosate compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-754, especially composition 54-63.
EXAMPLE 55
Spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 55a. Compositions were prepared by simple mixing of ingredients. Soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti), where included, was first prepared with sonication in water to make a homogeneous composition. Four different concentrations of glyphosate (not shown in Table 55a) were prepared, calculated to provide, when applied in a spray volume of 93 l/ha, the glyphosate rates shown in Table 55b.
TABLE 55a__________________________________________________________________________% w/wSpray Fluorad Butyl Methyl Oleth-comp. Lecithin FC-754 stearate oleate 20 Lecithin supplied as Methyl oleate supplied__________________________________________________________________________ as55-01 0.05 0.050 soybean lecithin55-02 0.05 0.050 soybean lecithin55-03 0.05 soybean lecithin55-04 0.05055-05 0.05055-06 0.05 LI-70055-07 0.005 0.0555-08 0.01 0.0555-09 0.0555-10 0.00555-11 0.01 pure55-12 0.01 methylated seed oil__________________________________________________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and Prickly sida (Spida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.
Formulations B and C were applied as comparative treatments, representing technical glyphosate IPA salt and a commercial formulation of glyphosate IPA salt respectively. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 55b.
TABLE 55b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 50 0 0 0 100 38 35 35 200 87 50 90 300 95 88 94Formulation C 50 0 2 0 100 32 55 25 200 85 97 93 300 96 99 9655-01 50 78 53 88 100 90 60 95 200 99 96 99 300 99 97 9855-02 50 25 15 43 100 72 30 82 200 94 62 93 300 95 77 9455-03 50 20 8 32 100 52 22 78 200 87 55 91 300 95 65 9355-04 50 62 37 85 100 82 68 92 200 97 96 95 300 98 95 9755-05 50 15 10 25 100 47 27 23 200 85 62 87 300 90 63 9255-06 50 0 2 0 100 20 15 20 200 85 60 82 300 90 65 9055-07 50 67 27 82 100 87 55 93 200 94 92 96 300 97 99 9755-08 50 62 30 75 100 78 63 91 200 93 96 96 300 94 98 9855-09 50 65 45 77 100 80 73 95 200 93 98 97 300 95 99 9955-10 50 10 25 5 100 23 35 37 200 90 50 93 300 92 73 9455-11 50 10 25 0 100 52 33 43 200 88 72 93 300 94 78 9455-12 50 0 15 0 100 43 35 33 200 91 70 90 300 94 82 93______________________________________
Results of this test using glyphosate as the exogenous chemical are summarized as follows:
At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing 45% phospholipid (55-03) was a much more effective excipient than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (55-06) widely used in the art.
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (55-04) or in combination with lecithin (55-01) gave extremely high effectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.
EXAMPLE 56
Spray compositions were prepared containing paraquat dichloride and excipient ingredients. Compositions 56-01 to 56-12 were exactly like compositions 55-01 to 55-12 except that a different active ingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Spida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 8 days after planting ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 12 days after application.
Standards included technical paraquat dichloride and Gramoxone, a commercial formulation of paraquat from Zeneca. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 56.
TABLE 56______________________________________ Paraquat rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.i./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Paraquat dichloride 25 50 83 55(technical) 50 57 78 60 100 73 84 69 200 85 95 99Gramoxone 25 40 72 40(commercial) 50 60 70 52 100 72 58 55 200 72 89 6356-01 25 75 93 67 50 82 97 91 100 95 98 97 200 100 99 9956-02 25 67 80 48 50 68 87 65 100 88 97 93 200 96 99 9856-03 25 55 65 42 50 62 87 65 100 83 96 93 200 95 99 9756-04 25 53 82 45 50 63 94 53 100 88 99 86 200 92 99 9856-05 25 58 67 50 50 60 62 45 100 70 73 62 200 85 90 8856-06 25 53 77 43 50 60 92 40 100 80 93 55 200 96 99 7856-07 25 65 80 45 50 82 92 70 100 96 96 89 200 100 98 9956-08 25 67 80 37 50 82 90 71 100 97 98 65 200 99 99 9356-09 25 72 90 50 50 80 97 57 100 91 99 94 200 97 100 9756-10 25 67 87 45 50 68 75 57 100 78 93 63 200 82 97 8256-11 25 65 80 45 50 73 77 62 100 90 95 62 200 94 98 7856-12 25 67 78 37 50 75 90 55 100 77 97 90 200 85 99 92______________________________________
Results of this test using paraquat as the exogenous chemical are summarized as follows:
At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing 45% phospholipid (56-03) was a much more effective excipient on SIDSP than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (56-06) widely used in the art.
Fluorad FC-754 (56-04) gave extremely high effectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. In the presence of lecithin (56-01), effectiveness was further increased dramatically, suggesting a synergistic interaction between these two excipient substances.
EXAMPLE 57
Spray compositions were prepared containing acifluorfen sodium salt and excipient ingredients. Compositions 57-01 to 57-12 were exactly like compositions 55-01 to 55-12 respectively except that a different active ingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Spida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 15 days after planting ABUTH, 9 days after planting ECHCF and 22 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 10 days after application.
Standards included technical acifluorfen sodium and Blazer, a commercial formulation of acifluorfen from Rohm & Haas. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 57.
TABLE 57______________________________________ Acifluorfen rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.i./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Acifluorfen 25 20 2 15(technical) 50 32 7 17 100 52 18 35 200 62 35 40Blazer 25 30 30 5(commercial) 50 53 53 12 100 55 55 7 200 65 65 3257-01 25 60 7 20 50 63 20 20 100 65 43 33 200 80 70 4857-02 25 25 7 5 50 42 12 25 100 60 30 22 200 68 68 5057-03 25 22 5 10 50 55 7 33 100 62 25 27 200 65 55 4857-04 25 57 7 13 50 67 10 32 100 67 35 32 200 70 70 4557-05 25 30 3 15 50 47 27 27 100 55 42 37 200 65 60 3857-06 25 28 0 3 50 50 0 10 100 55 30 25 200 67 58 4757-07 25 35 20 17 50 55 35 27 100 58 63 32 200 67 67 5557-08 25 40 20 8 50 57 30 28 100 60 60 30 200 70 77 4857-09 25 47 20 22 50 55 35 35 100 62 65 38 200 68 82 5057-10 25 28 0 5 50 48 0 10 100 53 5 25 200 62 35 4057-11 25 35 0 5 50 43 0 30 100 50 0 35 200 65 43 4757-12 25 40 5 5 50 55 18 35 100 60 47 38 200 70 62 48______________________________________
Results of this test using acifluorfen as the exogenous chemical are summarized as follows:
At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing 45% phospholipid (57-03) gave effectiveness similar to that obtained with the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (57-06) widely used in the art.
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (57-04) or in combination with lecithin (57-01) gave effectiveness on ABUTH and SIDSP superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.
EXAMPLE 58
Spray compositions were prepared containing asulam and excipient ingredients. Compositions 58-01 to 58-12 were exactly like compositions 55-01 to 55-12 respectively except that a different active ingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Spida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 11 days after planting ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.
Standards included technical asulam and Asulox, a commercial formulation of asulam from Rhone-Poulenc. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 58.
TABLE 58______________________________________ Asulam rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.i./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Asulam 200 0 12 0(technical) 400 17 27 5 800 48 32 20 1400 42 50 37Asulox 200 3 5 0(commercial) 400 27 30 20 800 52 45 25 1400 50 60 4058-01 200 5 8 13 400 23 45 22 800 50 50 30 1400 60 65 4858-02 200 0 20 17 400 33 40 20 800 47 48 33 1400 53 68 5558-03 200 3 20 3 400 28 52 7 800 50 50 23 1400 50 58 4358-04 200 3 40 7 400 35 45 18 800 52 50 25 1400 58 60 4258-05 200 0 10 3 400 23 30 18 800 33 50 32 1400 45 57 3858-06 200 2 30 10 400 8 47 17 800 50 55 28 1400 52 63 4058-07 200 0 43 3 400 22 48 17 800 40 55 28 1400 52 60 3358-08 200 7 47 22 400 20 48 22 800 53 55 30 1400 57 60 3358-09 200 0 45 7 400 25 50 7 800 53 60 32 1400 55 63 3758-10 200 22 37 10 400 27 45 10 800 50 43 23 1400 52 52 2758-11 200 25 33 5 400 15 37 13 800 48 42 25 1400 42 52 2858-12 200 3 25 17 400 13 42 18 800 50 45 30 1400 52 50 33______________________________________
Results of this test using asulam as the exogenous chemical are summarized as follows:
At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing 45% phospholipid (58-03) gave similar enhancement to that obtained with the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (58-06) widely used in the art.
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (58-04) or in combination with lecithin (58-01) gave effectiveness equal to that obtained with the commercial standard.
EXAMPLE 59
Spray compositions were prepared containing dicamba sodium salt and excipient ingredients. Compositions 59-01 to 59-12 were exactly like compositions 55-01 to 55-12 respectively except that a different active ingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Spida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 8 days after planting ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.
Standards included technical dicamba sodium and Banvel, a commercial formulation of dicamba from Sandoz. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 59.
TABLE 59______________________________________ Dicamba rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.i./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Dicamba 25 47 0 30(technical) 50 63 0 40 100 82 0 50 200 93 5 58Banvel 25 47 0 35(commercial) 50 68 0 40 100 91 0 53 200 93 3 6359-01 25 42 0 38 50 67 0 48 100 92 0 67 200 93 3 7359-02 25 43 0 43 50 58 0 50 100 85 0 62 200 89 8 7259-03 25 50 0 32 50 65 0 45 100 90 0 60 200 94 13 6859-04 25 43 0 35 50 65 0 42 100 94 0 53 200 94 13 6759-05 25 50 0 35 50 68 0 40 100 88 0 53 200 92 15 6059-06 25 40 0 40 50 65 0 45 100 88 0 52 200 92 8 7059-07 25 45 0 42 50 57 0 45 100 88 0 62 200 88 20 6859-08 25 40 0 38 50 62 0 45 100 97 18 62 200 93 17 7359-09 25 33 0 35 50 60 0 45 100 93 0 63 200 96 15 7359-10 25 35 0 30 50 57 0 43 100 90 0 50 200 90 3 7059-11 25 45 0 30 50 53 0 42 100 89 0 55 200 92 0 7359-12 25 38 0 37 50 60 0 45 100 96 0 52 200 93 0 70______________________________________
Results of this test using dicamba as the exogenous chemical are summarized as follows:
At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing 45% phospholipid (59-03) gave similar enhancement of effectiveness to that obtained with the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (59-06) widely used in the art.
Fluorad FC-754 (59-04) provided effectiveness similar to that obtained with the commercial standard. Further enhancement on SIDSP was obtained with the combination of Fluorad FC-754 and lecithin (59-01).
EXAMPLE 60
Spray compositions were prepared containing metsulfuron-methyl and excipient ingredients. Compositions 60-01 to 60-12 were exactly like compositions 55-01 to 55-12 respectively except that a different active ingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Spida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 8 days after planting ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.
Standards included technical metsulfuron-methyl and Ally, a commercial formulation of metsulfuron from Du Pont. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 60.
TABLE 60______________________________________ Metsulfuron rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.i./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Metsulfuron 0.5 72 0 5(technical) 1 90 0 23 5 96 0 50 10 97 30 55Ally 0.5 75 0 5(commercial) 1 85 0 22 5 95 0 42 10 97 25 5360-01 0.5 95 0 47 1 96 20 53 5 97 25 62 10 98 45 6260-02 0.5 87 0 40 1 90 10 55 5 95 10 58 10 96 40 6360-03 0.5 87 0 27 1 90 0 40 5 96 10 57 10 97 33 6360-04 0.5 90 0 33 1 95 10 50 5 98 17 62 10 99 28 5860-05 0.5 85 0 27 1 90 0 33 5 95 0 47 10 95 13 6060-06 0.5 77 0 30 1 89 10 47 5 96 17 62 10 98 33 6060-07 0.5 94 0 55 1 97 10 60 5 98 43 60 10 97 55 6560-08 0.5 93 0 55 1 96 5 58 5 97 42 60 10 97 50 6060-09 0.5 93 0 55 1 97 10 62 5 98 55 62 10 98 65 6360-10 0.5 85 0 28 1 82 0 30 5 95 10 52 10 96 17 5760-11 0.5 73 0 25 1 88 20 28 5 94 25 53 10 96 32 5760-12 0.5 75 0 32 1 85 20 37 5 94 23 55 10 96 25 57______________________________________
Results of this test using metsulfuron as the exogenous chemical are summarized as follows:
At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing 45% phospholipid (60-03) was a slightly more effective excipient than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (60-06) widely used in the art in improving perfromance on ABUTH at the lowest exogenous chemical rate tested.
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (60-04) or in combination with lecithin (60-01) gave high effectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.
EXAMPLE 61
Spray compositions were prepared containing imazethapyr and excipient ingredients. Compositions 61-01 to 61-12 were exactly like compositions 55-01 to 55-12 respectively except that a different active ingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Spida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 14 days after planting ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.
Standards included technical imazethapyr and Pursuit, a commercial formulation of imazethapyr from American Cyanamid. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 61.
TABLE 61______________________________________ Imazethapyr rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.i./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Imazethapyr 5 78 5 20(technical) 10 83 20 30 25 93 35 40 50 94 53 50Pursuit 5 70 5 25(commercial) 10 73 33 30 25 90 50 42 50 93 62 5761-01 5 70 45 35 10 75 62 52 25 92 63 57 50 93 72 6261-02 5 73 57 32 10 75 67 43 25 90 70 52 50 92 72 5761-03 5 70 42 27 10 78 42 35 25 90 53 45 50 92 62 5261-04 5 73 55 33 10 77 68 45 25 93 68 47 50 94 68 6061-05 5 73 47 32 10 73 45 40 25 90 62 47 50 91 68 5261-06 5 78 72 30 10 83 70 35 25 93 77 62 50 94 78 5861-07 5 82 75 38 10 90 90 52 25 93 93 53 50 97 97 6261-08 5 75 77 38 10 90 92 50 25 95 93 57 50 97 99 6361-09 5 78 80 40 10 83 89 63 25 93 93 62 50 96 93 6061-10 5 85 50 37 10 77 50 45 25 91 63 48 50 93 75 5761-11 5 75 38 43 10 80 38 37 25 92 62 45 50 93 73 5361-12 5 75 55 38 10 83 60 43 25 92 67 53 50 93 77 55______________________________________
Results of this test using imazethapyr as the exogenous chemical are summarized as follows:
At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing 45% phospholipid (61-03) was a less effective excipient than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (61-06).
Fluorad FC-754 (61-04) gave effectiveness on ECHCF superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. The combination of Fluorad FC-754 and lecithin (61-01) provided slight further enhancement of effectiveness on SIDSP.
EXAMPLE 62
Spray compositions were prepared containing fluazifop-p-butyl and excipient ingredients. Compositions 62-01 to 62-12 were exactly like compositions 55-01 to 55-12 respectively except that a different active ingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla, BRAPP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 15 days after planting ABUTH, 15 days after planting ECHCF and 16 days after planting BRAPP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 10 days after application.
Standards included technical fluazifop-p-butyl and Fusilade 5, a commercial formulation of fluazifop-p-butyl from Zeneca. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 62.
TABLE 62______________________________________ Fluazifop-p rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.i./ha ABUTH ECHCF BRAPP______________________________________Fluazifop-p butyl 2 0 0 20(technical) 5 0 3 35 15 5 45 65 30 5 57 78Fusilade 5 2 0 0 27(commercial) 5 0 27 33 15 5 52 78 30 7 75 8562-01 2 0 0 20 5 2 27 30 15 5 58 78 30 10 87 8362-02 2 0 7 25 5 0 35 30 15 2 58 75 30 8 78 7562-03 2 0 0 18 5 0 8 27 15 0 45 75 30 0 55 7562-04 2 0 20 32 5 2 42 25 15 2 55 72 30 5 80 7862-05 2 0 13 32 5 2 42 32 15 2 55 72 30 7 58 7362-06 2 2 17 23 5 0 20 25 15 0 50 75 30 0 73 7762-07 2 0 50 40 5 0 52 60 15 0 67 80 30 0 92 8562-08 2 0 43 35 5 0 55 37 15 7 88 82 30 3 96 8562-09 2 0 47 18 5 0 50 35 15 0 80 80 30 3 93 8562-10 2 0 23 10 5 0 37 42 15 5 55 75 30 10 58 8062-11 2 0 7 10 5 0 30 28 15 0 50 62 30 12 53 6862-12 2 0 5 20 5 0 7 35 15 5 48 68 30 12 60 77______________________________________
Results of this test using fluazifop-p-butyl as the exogenous chemical are summarized as follows:
At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing 45% phospholipid (62-03) was a less effective excipient on ECHCF than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (62-06).
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (62-04) or in combination with lecithin (62-01) gave effectiveness equal or superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.
EXAMPLE 63
Spray compositions were prepared containing alachlor and excipient ingredients. Compositions 63-01 to 63-12 were exactly like compositions 55-01 to 55-12 respectively except that a different active ingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Spida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 8 days after planting ECHCF and 14 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 9 days after application.
Standards included technical alachlor and Lasso, a commercial formulation of alachlor from Monsanto Company. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 63.
TABLE 63______________________________________ Alachlor rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.i./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Alachlor 500 0 0 0(technical) 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 0 0 0Lasso 500 0 0 0(commercial) 1000 0 5 13 2000 0 30 17 4000 15 43 6563-01 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 10 0 763-02 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 22 7 4000 12 47 1263-03 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 10 0 063-04 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 5 0 1563-05 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 3 0 563-06 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 13 7 4000 0 37 1263-07 500 0 0 0 1000 0 8 0 2000 0 28 15 4000 12 50 2063-08 500 0 0 0 1000 0 8 0 2000 0 8 0 4000 5 20 563-09 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 3 0 4000 12 42 3263-10 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 0 0 063-11 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 0 0 063-12 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 0 0 0______________________________________
None of the compositions tested enhanced post-emergence foliar-applied herbicidal effectiveness of alachlor in this test. Alachlor is not known as a foliar-applied herbicide.
EXAMPLE 64
Spray compositions were prepared containing glufosinate ammonium salt and excipient ingredients. Compositions 64-01 to 64-12 were exactly like compositions 55-01 to 55-12 respectively except that a different active ingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Spida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 10 days after planting ECHCF and 17 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 11 days after application.
Standards included technical glufosinate ammonium and Liberty, a commercial formulation of glufosinate from AgrEvo. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 64.
TABLE 64______________________________________ Glufosinate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.i./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Glufosinate 50 0 0 5(technical) 100 47 0 10 300 90 23 96 600 98 43 94Liberty 50 77 70 20(commercial) 100 88 96 93 300 98 100 97 600 99 100 9964-01 50 77 33 70 100 95 58 93 300 98 95 97 600 99 99 9864-02 50 33 30 50 100 63 32 93 300 96 52 90 600 98 96 9764-03 50 15 30 38 100 50 33 87 300 92 40 94 600 98 70 9864-04 50 92 47 50 100 90 53 85 300 98 98 96 600 98 99 9864-05 50 35 20 20 100 37 30 20 300 97 45 78 600 91 53 9264-06 50 10 0 20 100 20 3 20 300 89 47 82 600 91 94 8964-07 50 50 35 70 100 73 52 80 300 95 87 98 600 98 98 9764-08 50 48 30 88 100 83 50 93 300 98 97 96 600 98 99 9664-09 50 58 35 92 100 91 62 93 300 98 96 97 600 98 99 9664-10 50 30 30 0 100 43 35 10 300 96 43 92 600 95 70 9164-11 50 33 35 0 100 53 35 7 300 96 43 89 600 97 88 9364-12 50 37 5 5 100 37 20 10 300 95 40 88 600 97 85 93______________________________________
Results of this test using glufosinate as the exogenous chemical are summarized as follows:
At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing 45% phospholipid (64-03) was a much more effective excipient than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (64-06) widely used in the art.
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (64-04) or in combination with lecithin (64-01) gave extremely high effectiveness, similar to that obtained with the commercial standard.
EXAMPLE 65
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 65a. Process (v) was followed for compositions 65-01 to 65-07. Process (viii) was followed for composition 65-16. Process (x) was followed for compositions 65-08 to 65-15, 65-17 and 65-18. All lecithin-containing compositions were made using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti).
TABLE 65a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConc. Glyphosate Fluorad Butyl Ethomeen Ceteareth- Arcosolve Ceteareth-comp. g a.e./l Lecithin FC-754 stearate T/25 20 DPM 27__________________________________________________________________________65-01 348 3.0 3.00 0.7565-02 348 3.8 3.75 5.0065-03 348 3.8 3.75 7.5065-04 348 2.0 5.00 0.7565-05 348 5.0 5.00 0.7565-06 348 2.0 2.0065-07 348 1.0 1.0065-08 220 1.5 1.5 3.00 3.065-09 220 1.5 1.5 3.00 3.065-10 220 1.5 1.5 6.00 3.065-11 220 1.5 1.5 6.00 3.065-12 220 3.0 1.5 3.00 3.065-13 220 3.0 1.5 3.00 3.065-14 348 1.5 1.5 6.00 3.065-15 348 3.0 1.5 3.00 3.065-16 348 3.0065-17 348 3.0 3.065-18 348 5.0 13.00 5.0__________________________________________________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 65b.
TABLE 65b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 28 32 200 41 37 300 73 64 400 22 30Formulation J 100 38 32 200 82 73 300 89 91 400 97 8965-01 100 73 28 200 90 66 300 97 92 400 100 9665-02 100 77 32 200 87 67 300 84 78 400 98 8465-03 100 79 33 200 82 66 300 99 81 400 97 8865-04 100 69 35 200 95 59 300 96 84 400 92 9165-05 100 82 32 200 92 55 300 96 71 400 94 8765-06 100 83 33 200 100 52 300 100 68 400 99 7565-07 100 77 35 200 90 58 300 95 71 400 94 9065-08 100 51 40 200 89 75 300 96 92 400 95 9865-09 100 76 57 200 98 81 300 97 86 400 96 9865-10 100 69 60 200 98 63 300 95 82 400 99 9065-11 100 61 60 200 94 84 300 97 89 400 99 9765-12 100 64 53 200 95 82 300 96 90 400 95 9865-13 100 61 58 200 94 78 300 88 87 400 100 9465-14 100 56 61 200 88 77 300 91 82 400 97 8965-15 100 42 52 200 82 80 300 86 90 400 97 9265-16 100 64 49 200 86 75 300 97 88 400 100 8265-17 100 57 32 200 88 66 300 95 73 400 100 8865-18 100 52 35 200 70 77 300 82 79 400 97 73______________________________________
Concentrate compositions 65-01 to 65-07, containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-754, exhibited outstanding herbicidal effectivness. On ABUTH, several of these were about as effective at 100 g a.e./ha as commercial standard Formulation J at 200 g a.e./ha. On ECHCF, all exhibited strong enhancement over Formulation B but most did not equal Formulation J on this species. The performance of composition 65-07, containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-754 each at the extremely low weight/weight ratio to glyphosate a.e. of about 1:30, was remarkably high. The inclusion of a relatively high concentration of Ethomeen T/25, as in compositions 65-02 and 65-03, was not helpful to herbicidal effectiveness in the presence of lecithin and Fluorad FC-754, and may even have been detrimental. The relatively poor performance of composition 65-18, having a high Ethomeen T/25 concentration but in this case no Fluorad FC-754, is consistent with this observation. Without being bound by theory, it is believed that the presence of such high concentrations of Ethomeen T/25 together with lecithin results in the formation of mixed micelles rather than liposomes in aqueous dispersion. Composition 65-16, containing Fluorad FC-754 at a weight/weight ratio to glyphosate a.e. of about 1:10, but no lecithin, exhibited herbicidal effectiveness similar to that of composition 65-01, suggesting that under the conditions of this test a large part of the enhancement due to the lecithin/Fluorad FC-754 combination was attributable to the Fluorad FC-754 component.
EXAMPLE 66
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 66a. Process (i) was followed for compositions 66-61 to 66-64, 66-67, 66-69 and 66-71 and process (iii) for compositions 66-01 to 66-60, 66-66, 66-68, 66-70 and 66-72 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 66a______________________________________Spray % w/wcompo- Leci- MON Fluorad Ethomeen Ethomeensition thin 0818 FC-754 T/25 C/12______________________________________66-01 0.020 0.025 0.0266-02 0.030 0.025 0.0266-03 0.050 0.025 0.0266-04 0.020 0.025 0.0366-05 0.030 0.025 0.0366-06 0.050 0.025 0.0366-07 0.020 0.025 0.0466-08 0.030 0.025 0.0466-09 0.050 0.025 0.0466-10 0.020 0.025 0.0566-11 0.030 0.025 0.0566-12 0.050 0.025 0.0566-13 0.020 0.0266-14 0.030 0.0266-15 0.050 0.0266-16 0.020 0.0366-17 0.030 0.0366-18 0.050 0.0366-19 0.020 0.0466-20 0.030 0.0466-21 0.050 0.0466-22 0.020 0.0566-23 0.030 0.0566-24 0.050 0.0566-25 0.020 0.02 0.02566-26 0.030 0.02 0.02566-27 0.050 0.02 0.02566-28 0.020 0.03 0.02566-29 0.030 0.03 0.02566-30 0.050 0.03 0.02566-31 0.020 0.04 0.02566-32 0.030 0.04 0.02566-33 0.050 0.04 0.02566-34 0.020 0.05 0.02566-35 0.030 0.05 0.02566-36 0.050 0.05 0.02566-37 0.020 0.02 0.02566-38 0.030 0.02 0.02566-39 0.050 0.02 0.02566-40 0.020 0.03 0.02566-41 0.030 0.03 0.02566-42 0.050 0.03 0.02566-43 0.020 0.04 0.02566-44 0.030 0.04 0.02566-45 0.050 0.04 0.02566-46 0.020 0.05 0.02566-47 0.030 0.05 0.02566-48 0.050 0.05 0.02566-49 0.020 0.02 0.05066-50 0.025 0.03 0.05066-51 0.050 0.02 0.05066-52 0.020 0.03 0.05066-53 0.030 0.03 0.05066-54 0.050 0.03 0.05066-55 0.020 0.050 0.0266-56 0.025 0.050 0.0366-57 0.050 0.050 0.0266-58 0.020 0.050 0.0366-59 0.030 0.050 0.0366-60 0.050 0.050 0.0366-61 0.05066-62 0.05066-63 0.02566-64 0.02566-65 0.050 0.08 0.02566-66 0.025 0.03 0.02566-67 0.0566-68 0.05066-69 0.05 0.05066-70 0.050 0.05066-71 0.050 0.0566-72 0.050 0.050______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
Formulation J was applied as a comparative treatment. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 66b.
TABLE 66b______________________________________Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation J 100 14 42 187 44 87 300 71 90 400 92 9766-01 187 80 8066-02 187 80 9766-03 187 79 9466-04 187 79 9166-05 187 81 8066-06 187 73 8866-07 187 86 9066-08 187 88 9166-09 187 77 8566-10 187 81 8066-11 187 88 6866-12 187 87 7266-13 187 85 6166-14 187 83 4766-15 187 86 6166-16 187 86 5766-17 187 85 4466-18 187 81 6266-19 187 82 6366-20 187 87 6266-21 187 84 4866-22 187 80 6766-23 187 86 8966-24 187 78 6466-25 187 84 8766-26 187 81 8166-27 187 74 8566-28 187 71 9066-29 187 76 7466-30 187 81 8966-31 187 78 8066-32 87 79 8466-33 187 82 8466-34 187 74 8766-35 187 81 8966-36 187 85 7966-37 187 68 8966-38 187 69 8566-39 187 86 8566-40 187 83 8966-41 187 77 7666-42 187 83 7666-43 187 74 8366-44 187 84 6966-45 187 85 7166-46 187 80 8666-47 187 83 9666-48 187 81 8766-49 187 75 9966-50 187 78 9766-51 187 76 9766-52 187 77 9266-53 187 74 8866-54 187 73 8166-55 187 70 8766-56 187 79 8866-57 187 72 8966-58 187 72 7966-59 187 53 8066-60 187 80 7366-61 187 46 7866-62 187 54 9466-63 187 48 9866-64 187 59 9766-65 187 87 8466-66 187 89 9666-67 187 86 6966-68 187 46 4366-69 187 75 9066-70 187 55 8366-71 187 79 8066-72 187 55 82______________________________________
All compositions of this Example containing Fluorad FC-754 showed much greater herbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH at 187 g a.e./ha than did Formulation J at the same rate, in many cases giving inhibition of ABUTH equal to or greater than provided by Formulation J at 300 g a.e./ha. The only compositions of the Example not showing strong improvement over Formulation J on ABUTH were 66-61 to 66-64, 66-68, 66-70 and 66-72. These are the only formulations of the Example not containing Fluorad FC-754.
EXAMPLE 67
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 67a. Process (i) was followed for compositions 67-02, 67-04, 67-06, 67-08, 67-10, 67-12, 67-14 and 67-16 to 67-18, and process (iii) for compositions 67-01, 67-03, 67-05, 67-07, 67-09, 67-11 and 67-13 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 67a______________________________________Spray % w/w Type ofcomposition Lecithin Surfactant surfactant______________________________________67-01 0.05 0.05 Surf H267-02 0.05 Surf H267-03 0.05 0.05 Surf H367-04 0.05 Surf H367-05 0.05 0.05 Surf H467-06 0.05 Surf H467-07 0.05 0.05 Surf H567-08 0.05 Surf H567-09 0.05 0.05 Fluorad FC-75467-10 0.05 Fluorad FC-75467-11 0.05 0.05 Surf H167-12 0.05 Surf H167-13 0.05 0.05 MON 081867-14 0.05 MON 081867-15 0.05 0.05 Ethomeen T/2567-16 0.05 Ethomeen T/2567-17 0.10 MON 081867-18 0.10 Ethomeen T/25______________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 67b.
TABLE 67b______________________________________Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 12 22 200 43 43 300 63 78 400 75 82Formulation J 100 47 27 200 89 83 300 98 98 400 99 9767-01 100 65 60 200 94 84 300 99 97 400 100 9867-02 100 40 45 200 77 75 300 91 90 400 94 9867-03 100 63 37 200 82 82 300 97 99 400 99 9767-04 100 52 38 200 79 73 300 95 98 400 99 9767-05 100 73 68 200 85 94 300 98 99 400 100 9967-06 100 38 58 200 73 92 300 85 100 400 100 9867-07 100 50 43 200 80 78 300 94 86 400 94 9567-08 100 50 48 200 75 62 300 89 77 400 90 7967-09 100 91 47 200 98 75 300 99 97 400 99 9467-10 100 87 38 200 89 73 300 99 83 400 100 9467-11 100 77 73 200 93 79 300 98 96 400 99 9867-12 100 55 52 200 82 89 300 96 99 400 99 10067-13 100 75 63 200 93 92 300 98 99 400 99 9967-14 100 78 82 200 88 86 300 96 99 400 99 10067-15 100 77 68 200 94 95 300 98 97 400 99 9867-16 100 75 75 200 88 99 300 98 99 400 99 10067-17 100 72 77 200 85 98 300 98 100 400 99 9967-18 100 77 77 200 90 96 300 97 99 400 99 100______________________________________
Herbicidal activity with compositions 67-13 to 67-18, based on alkylamine based surfactants known in the art, was very high in this test. Compositions 67-01 to 67-12 of the present invention also exhibited excellent herbicidal effectiveness. Overall, surfactants "Surf H1" to "Surf H5" having hydrocarbon hydrophobes were not quite as effective as Fluorad FC-754 having a fluorocarbon hydrophobe, either when used as sole excipient substance or together with lecithin.
The preceding description of specific embodiments of the present invention is not intended to be a complete list of every possible embodiment of the invention. Persons skilled in this field will recognize that modifications can be made to the specific embodiments described here that would be within the scope of the present invention.

Number	Name	Date
3723512	Niederprum	Mar 1973
4115313	Lyon	Sep 1978
4235871	Papahadjopoulos	Nov 1980
4311712	Evans	Jan 1982
4394149	Szoka	Jul 1983
4481026	Prisbylla	Nov 1984
4506831	Ghyczy	Mar 1985
4567161	Posanski	Jan 1986
4576626	Bauer	Mar 1986
4681617	Ghyczy	Jul 1987
4822407	Esposito	Apr 1989
4840659	Franz	Jun 1989
4874553	Hager	Oct 1989
4902333	Quimby	Feb 1990
5037847	Sutter	Aug 1991
5123950	Homma	Jun 1992
5131946	Franke	Jul 1992
5264213	Shibahara	Nov 1993
5332573	Yamaguchi	Jul 1994
5332714	Albrecht	Jul 1994
5482529	Ahlnas	Jan 1996
5693593	Arnold	Dec 1997
5821195	Sandbrink	Oct 1998

Number	Date	Country
9137382	Jan 1982	AUX
2099631	Jan 1994	CAX
0019384	Jan 1980	EPX
0 068 295	Jan 1983	EPX
0 068 294	Jan 1983	EPX
0 068 293	Jan 1983	EPX
0 124 351	Nov 1984	EPX
0 095 071	Jul 1985	EPX
0 237 880	Sep 1987	EPX

Composition and method for treating plants with exogenous chemicals

Information

Patent Number

Date Filed

Date Issued

Inventors

Original Assignees

Examiners

Agents

CPC

US Classifications

Field of Search

US

International Classifications

Abstract

Description

Claims

Parent Case Info

US Referenced Citations (23)

Foreign Referenced Citations (9)