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 method of applying an exogenous chemical to a plant, comprising the steps of (a) contacting foliage of the plant with a biologically effective amount of the exogenous chemical, and (b) contacting the same foliage with an aqueous composition that comprises a first excipient substance that is amphiphilic. The weight/weight ratio of said first excipient substance to the exogenous chemical is between about 1:3 and about 1:100. Further, the aqueous composition forms anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer as explained below. "Contacting" in this context means placing the substance or composition on the foliage. "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.
In this method, step (b) can occur simultaneously with or within about 96 hours before or after step (a). In embodiments of the method in which the two steps occur simultaneously, either the exogenous chemical and the aqueous composition can be applied to the plant separately, for example by two spray nozzles directed at the same foliage, or the exogenous chemical can be contained within the aqueous composition, for example in a tank mix or coformulation.
Formation of anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer is determined by a test described in detail subsequently herein. In general, the test, as it applies to a composition comprising an exogenous chemical, comprises the steps of (1) providing a glass microscope slide coated with a thin, uniform layer of wax, such that the wax layer on the slide exhibits a dark field when illuminated by transmitted polarized light and examined through a microscope, (2) preparing a sample of an aqueous solution or dispersion of the composition to be tested, diluted or concentrated if necessary such that the concentration of exogenous chemical is about 15% to about 20% by weight of the composition, (3) positioning the wax-coated slide on the stage of a microscope that transmits polarized light through the slide, (4) placing a drop of the sample on the wax on the slide to form an assay slide, (5) maintaining the assay slide at approximately ambient temperature for a period of about 5 to about 20 minutes, and (6) determining, at the end of that period, whether when transmitting polarized light the locus of the drop on the slide displays birefringence. Birefringence at 5-20 minutes indicates the presence of anisotropic aggregates in or on the wax layer, while the absence of birefringence at that time indicates the absence of anisotropic aggregates as defined herein.
The test, as it applies to an aqueous composition of one or more excipient substances, not itself containing an exogenous chemical but intended for application to foliage of a plant in conjunction with an exogenous chemical, is as just described, except that in step (2) the composition is diluted or concentrated so that the concentration of the first excipient substance is approximately 5% to 7% by weight.
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.
Another embodiment of the present invention is a plant treatment composition comprising (a) an exogenous chemical, and (b) a first excipient substance that is amphiphilic. As described above, the weight/weight ratio of said first excipient substance to the exogenous chemical is between about 1:3 and about 1:100, and in presence of water said composition forms anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer. This composition can be used in a method of treating plants, in which foliage of the plant is contacted with a biologically effective amount of a composition as described above and further comprising an aqueous diluent.
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.
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. By "shelf-stable" in this context it is meant that the composition does not exhibit phase separation when stored at ambient temperature for a period of time dependent on the particular circumstances. 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. In one particular embodiment of the invention, the solid or aqueous composition further comprises a solid inorganic particulate colloidal material.
As described above, one embodiment of the invention is a sprayable composition having the property that it forms anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer. This composition comprises an exogenous chemical, an aqueous diluent, and a first excipient substance which is amphiphilic. In the sprayable composition, the weight/weight ratio of the first excipient substance to the exogenous chemical is between about 1:3 and about 1:100. A sprayable composition conforms to this embodiment of the invention even if the formation of anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer occurs only following concentration of the composition on the wax layer by evaporation of water. 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%.
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 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, or before or after the application of the exogenous chemical.
In all embodiments, it is believed that the first excipient substance forms supramolecular aggregates in aqueous solution or dispersion. In particular it is believed that aqueous compositions of the present invention form aggregates in aqueous solution or dispersion the majority of which are not simple micelles. "Majority" means that more than 50% by weight of the first excipient substance present is in the form of complex aggregates other than simple micelles, e.g. as bilayers or multilamellar structures. Preferably, more than 75% by weight is in the form of complex aggregates other than simple micelles.
Whether or not an amphiphilic substance forms such aggregates depends on its molecular architecture. The effects of molecular architecture on supramolecular self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules, as set forth for example by J. N. Israelachvili, D. J. Mitchell and B. W. Ninham in Faraday Transactions II, Volume 72, pp. 1525-1568 (1976) and in numerous later articles and monographs, are well known and understood. An important aspect is "critical packing parameter" (P) which is defined in the literature by the following equation:
P=V/lA
where V is the volume of the hydrophobic tail of the molecule, l is the effective length of the hydrophobic tail, and A is the area occupied by the hydrophilic headgroup. These dimensions can be calculated from physical measurements as described in the literature and have been published for numerous amphiphilic compounds.
It is believed that amphiphilic substances useful as the first excipient substance herein have a critical packing parameter greater than 1/3. The first excipient substance forms aggregates in aqueous solution or dispersion which preferably have at least one dimension that is greater than two times the molecular length of the first excipient substance.
In one embodiment of the invention, an aqueous composition comprises supramolecular aggregates of the first excipient substance which have an average diameter of at least 20 nm, preferably at least 30 nm.
These supramolecular aggregates can take a number of forms. In one preferred embodiment, the first 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 first excipient substance is present as vesicles or liposomes. In another preferred embodiment the first 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 the first excipient substance to the exogenous chemical is between about 1:3 and about 11:100. We have been surprised by the high level of biological effectiveness, specifically herbicidal effectiveness of a glyphosate composition, exhibited at such low ratios of excipient substance 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.
Prior art exogenous chemical compositions that have included liposome-forming excipient substances have typically contained a higher percentage of the liposome-forming excipient substance than of the exogenous chemical. Compositions of the present invention, in contrast, contain less of the excipient substance than the exogenous chemical, and in some embodiments much less. This makes the compositions of the present invention much less expensive than the above-described prior art compositions. 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 one embodiment of the invention the first excipient substance is a liposome-forming material that comprises an amphiphilic compound or mixture of such compounds 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 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 first excipient substance comprises a liposome-forming compound having a hydrophobic moiety comprising two saturated or unsaturated hydrocarbyl groups R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 each 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 --PO.sub.4.sup.- --CH.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 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.
R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 preferably are independently saturated straight-chain alkyl groups each 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.
In a preferred embodiment, the first 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 particularly preferred embodiment, the first excipient substance is a dipalmitoyl or distearoyl ester of phosphatidylcholine or a mixture thereof.
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 first 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 of the invention, the first excipient substance is an amphiphilic quaternary ammonium compound or mixture of such compounds. The hydrophobic moiety of the quaternary ammonium compound is a saturated alkyl or haloalkyl group having about 6 to about 22 carbon atoms. In this embodiment, the first excipient substance is not necessarily a liposome-forming substance, but it is believed to form aggregates in aqueous solution or dispersion as described above.
Preferred quaternary ammonium compounds (other than those which are liposome-forming and have two hydrocarbyl chains) for use as the first excipient substance in compositions of the invention have 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 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.
In a further embodiment of the invention, the first excipient substance is an alkylether surfactant or mixture of such surfactants having the formula
R.sup.12 --O--(CH.sub.2 CH.sub.2 O).sub.n (CH(CH.sub.3)CH.sub.2 O).sub.m --R.sup.13 VI
wherein R.sup.12 is an alkyl or alkenyl group having about 16 to about 22 carbon atoms, n is an average number of about 10 to about 100, m is an average number of 0 to about 5 and R.sup.13 is hydrogen or C.sub.1-4 alkyl. Preferably R.sup.12 is a saturated straight-chain alkyl group, R.sup.13 is hydrogen, m is 0 and n is from about 10 to about 40, more preferably from about 20 to about 40. Most preferably the alkylether surfactant is a polyoxyethylene cetyl or stearyl ether or mixture thereof having 20-40 moles of ethylene oxide (EO). The term "alkylether" as used herein should be understood to include alkenylether surfactants.
Compositions of the present invention can optionally further comprise a second excipient substance having at least one hydrophobic moiety, wherein if the second excipient substance has one hydrophobic moiety, the hydrophobic moiety is a hydrocarbyl or haloalkyl group having about 6 to about 22 carbon atoms, and wherein if the second excipient substance has a plurality of hydrophobic moieties, each such hydrophobic moiety is a hydrocarbyl or haloalkyl group having more than 2 carbon atoms, said plurality of hydrophobic moieties having a total of about 12 to about 40 carbon atoms. The second excipient substance, if present, may or may not itself be one that forms supramolecular aggregates as described above. In a particular embodiment of the invention where the first excipient substance is a liposome-forming substance of formula I, II, III or IV above, a second excipient substance is present and is a quaternary ammonium compound or mixture of such compounds. Among preferred quaternary ammonium compounds for use as the second excipient substance in this embodiment are compounds of formula V above.
In another particular embodiment of the invention where the first excipient substance is a liposome-forming substance of formula I, II, III or IV above, a second excipient substance is present and is a compound or mixture of compounds of formula
R.sup.14 --CO--A--R.sup.15 VII
wherein R.sup.14 is a hydrocarbyl group having about 5 to about 21 carbon atoms, R.sup.15 is a hydrocarbyl group having 1 to about 14 carbon atoms, the total number of carbon atoms in R.sup.14 and R.sup.15 is about 11 to about 27, and A is O or NH.
R.sup.14 preferably has about 11 to about 21 carbon atoms, R.sup.15 preferably has 1 to about 6 carbon atoms and A is preferably O. More preferably, the second excipient substance is a C.sub.1-4 alkyl ester of a C.sub.12-18 fatty acid, for example a propyl, isopropyl or butyl ester of a C.sub.12-18 fatty acid. Butyl stearate is an especially preferred example. The aqueous composition in embodiments comprising a compound of formula VII preferably is an emulsion comprising an oil phase that comprises said second excipient substance, for example a water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsion or an oil-in-water emulsion. Alternatively, a second excipient substance of formula VII is associated in some way with a liposome-forming first excipient substance.
In yet another particular embodiment of the invention, the first excipient substance is an alkylether surfactant of formula VI and a second excipient substance is present and is a compound or mixture of compounds of formula VII.
In any of the above particular embodiments, the exogenous chemical and/or second excipient substance can be encapsulated within or associated with aggregates (e.g., liposomes) formed by the first 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 first excipient substance forms liposomes, the exogenous chemical and/or second 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. Compositions of the present invention that include an exogenous chemical can be applied to foliage of plants in an amount that is effective to achieve the desired biological effect of the exogenous chemical. For example, when the exogenous chemical is a post-emergence herbicide, the composition can be applied to a plant in a herbicidally effective amount.
Without being bound by theory, it is believed that that the method and compositions of the present invention create or enlarge hydrophilic channels through the epicuticular wax of the plant cuticle, these channels being capable of accommodating the mass transfer of a water-soluble exogenous chemical into the plant, and thus transporting the exogenous chemical into the plant more rapidly or more completely than an epicuticular wax layer lacking such formation or enlargement of hydrophilic channels. Of course, certain compositions of the present invention can also enter a plant through stomata, but this generally requires a very low surface tension which is not an essential feature of the present compositions. The enhanced cuticular penetration believed to be achieved by the compositions of the present invention enhances the overall delivery and effectiveness of the exogenous chemical. Whereas an exogenous chemical such as glyphosate, formulated as an aqueous solution or dispersion with surfactants which do not have the property of forming anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer, normally penetrates through the epicuticular wax very slowly (e.g., in 1-4 days), a substantial portion of the exogenous chemical in compositions of the present invention penetrates much more quickly (e.g., in from about 10 minutes to a few hours, preferably in less than about 30 minutes).
Thus, methods and compositions of the invention are believed to owe their superior effectiveness at least in part to accelerated uptake into plant foliage. In conventional methods of treating plants with exogenous chemicals, in particular polar exogenous chemicals, the epicuticular wax layer presents an almost continuous barrier through which such exogenous chemicals diffuse with difficulty, even in the presence of surfactants which increase diffusive mobility but do not introduce the possibility of rapid mass transfer through hydrophilic channels.
Again without being bound by theory, it is believed that the hydrophilic channels are created within the epicuticular wax layer by the self-assembly of molecules of the first excipient substance which has a hydrophobic moiety that associates with the wax and a hydrophilic moiety that attracts water to form an aqueous continuum across the epicuticular wax layer linking up with hydrophilic pathways in the cuticle proper. A polar exogenous chemical can move by mass transfer along such an aqueous continuum to enter the plant.
Again without being bound by theory, it is believed that when the composition is present on the leaf of a plant as a droplet of aqueous solution or dispersion, in an aqueous microdomain on the cuticular surface (i.e., the aqueous region at the interface between the water droplet and the epicuticular wax), the majority (i.e., more than 50% by weight) of the aggregate-forming substance is present in a form other than a monolayer, for example as a bilayer or multilamellar (liquid crystal) structure. The aggregate-forming substances employed have several preferred characteristics that are believed to contribute to the formation of transcuticular hydrophilic channels. For instance, they have a tendency to form extended self-assembled structures in the presence of water and the kinds of waxes encountered in cuticles. Generally, materials that form non-simple (i.e., not small spherical micellar structures) aggregates in solution, such as vesicles or cylindrical, discotic, or ribbon-like micellar structures are preferred. These tend to form more complex adsorbed and absorbed layers with hydrophobic substrates than those simple micellar systems that tend to produce simple adsorbed monolayers. These substances also tend to produce lyotropic mesophases such as lamellar, hexagonal or reversed hexagonal phases in the compositions established in the aqueous microdomains in or on the cuticle.
In one embodiment of the invention, a cationic headgroup on the first excipient substance is also preferred. The cationic group is believed to enhance initial adhesion to the leaf surface, since the majority of such surfaces carry an overall negative charge. The cationic group is also believed to contribute to the hydrophilicity of channels in the epicuticular wax formed or enlarged by the method and compositions of the invention. Cationic groups, in particular amine or ammonium groups, attract water molecules which further enlarge the hydrophilic channels and thereby provide an improved pathway of entry for exogenous chemicals that are polar or water-soluble.
It is further believed that the creation or enlargement of hydrophilic channels in epicuticular wax results in the wax becoming plasticized. A further embodiment of the invention is thus a method for applying an exogenous chemical to a plant having an epicuticular wax layer, comprising (a) plasticizing the epicuticular wax layer in conjunction with (b) contacting the epicuticular wax layer with the exogenous chemical. In this embodiment the step of plasticizing the epicuticular wax layer is accomplished by contacting the layer with an aqueous composition comprising a first excipient substance as defined above and optionally a second excipient substance as defined above. The weight ratio of the first excipient substance to the exogenous chemical is between about 1:3 and about 1:100.
Herbicidal compositions in accordance with the present invention are also useful in methods for enhancing the yield of a field crop. Such a method can comprise the steps of (a) planting a crop in a field, (b) substantially freeing the field of one or more weed species that would diminish the yield of the crop by applying to the weed species a herbicidally effective amount of a composition as described above, (c) allowing the crop to mature, and (d) harvesting the crop. Alternatively, the method can comprise the steps of (a) substantially freeing the field of one or more weed species that would diminish the yield of the crop by applying to the weed species a herbicidally effective amount of the composition, (b) planting the crop in the field, (c) allowing the crop to mature, and (d) harvesting the crop.
In one particular method in accordance with the present invention, a herbicidal composition as described above can be applied to a complex of weeds that are present in a single field, the weeds being, for example, velvetleaf, morningglory, and prickly sida. The composition is applied in a herbicidally effective amount, and provides herbicidal control of each of the weed species in the complex.
Another embodiment of the present invention is a herbicidal method, comprising contacting the foliage of a plant with a herbicidally effective amount of a composition as described above, whereby the herbicidal effectiveness of the composition on the plant to which it is applied is visibly better than the herbicidal effectiveness on that same species of plant, under substantially the same conditions, of a composition containing a similar amount of surfactant but that does not form anisotropic aggregates. "Visibly better" in this context means that the difference in herbicidal effect of the two compositions on the plants is readily noticeable to the eye of an experienced weed scientist.
Another embodiment of the present invention is a herbicidal method which can be used in a field that contains both weed and crop plants, where the crop plants are resistant to the effects of a particular herbicide at the rate that herbicide is used. The method comprises contacting the foliage of both the weeds and the crops in the field with a composition as described above. The composition will have a herbicidal effect on the weeds (i.e., it will partially or entirely kill the weeds) but it will not harm the crops. This herbicidal method applies to any combination of a selective post-emergence herbicide (e.g. 2,4-D) and a crop on which that herbicide can be used selectively to kill weeds (e.g., in the case of 2,4-D, wheat). This herbicidal method also applies to any combination of a normally non-selective post-emergence herbicide and a crop bred or genetically modified to be resistant to that herbicide. An example of a suitable combination of herbicide and herbicide-resistant crop is ROUNDUP.RTM. herbicide and ROUNDUP READY.RTM. crops, developed by Monsanto Company.
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 (e.g., alkylether surfactants in solutions of high ionic strength, such as concentrated glyphosate salt solutions).
Even at the low concentrations of the excipient substances used in the present invention, there may be limits on the maximum concentration of exogenous chemical that can be used without causing compatibility problems (e.g., separation of the composition into discrete layers). In some preferred embodiments of the invention, composition stability at high loadings of exogenous chemical is maintained by adding other ingredients such as, for example, colloidal particulates. Some compositions of the present invention exhibit enhanced biological activity and have a higher loading of exogenous chemical than possible in prior art compositions.
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 SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS
When the phrase "anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer" is used herein, it relates to determinations made by the following test procedure. We have found this test to predict with a high degree of reliability whether a composition comprising water and an exogenous chemical, or a composition comprising water which is to be used in conjunction with an exogenous chemical, will show enhanced biological effectiveness when applied to foliage of plants. Modifications can be made to the test; however a procedure modified in some major respect will not necessarily give the same results and will not necessarily predict enhanced effectiveness as reliably as the procedure described here.
The first stage in the procedure is to prepare a wax-coated slide. We have found a preferred wax for the purpose to be a blend of carnauba wax and beeswax in a weight/weight ratio of approximately 10:1. A clear wax mixture is prepared consisting of 5% carnauba wax and 0.5% beeswax in isopropanol, and is maintained at a temperature of approximately 82.degree. C. The end of a glass 2.4 cm.times.7.2 cm microscope slide is immersed perpendicularly in the wax mixture to a depth of approximately one-third of the length of the slide. After 10 to 15 seconds, the slide is very slowly and steadily withdrawn from the wax mixture and allowed to cool, leaving a wax layer deposited on both faces of the slide.
Visual examination of the slide can give a preliminary indication of the thickness and uniformity of the wax coating. If imperfections are evident the slide is rejected. If the slide shows no obvious imperfections, the wax coating is carefully removed from one face of the slide by wiping with acetone. Further evaluation of the acceptability of the wax-coated slide for the test is done by examining the slide under a microscope. The slide is selected for use in the test if, on microscopic examination using a 4.9.times. objective, the wax coating is uniformly thick and there is uniform density of wax particles across the slide. Preference is for a coating that has few observable wax particles and exhibits a very dark field when examined under polarized light.
The next stage in the procedure is to conduct the test. For this purpose, samples of an exogenous chemical composition to be tested are diluted, if necessary, to 15% to 20% by weight of the exogenous chemical. In the case of glyphosate, the desired concentration in a composition sample is 15% to 20% acid equivalent (a.e.). Samples of reference compositions are also prepared; in the case of glyphosate, Formulations B and J as defined in the Examples herein are appropriate.
For a composition of a first excipient substance not containing an exogenous chemical but to be applied in conjunction with an exogenous chemical, the desired concentration is approximately 5% to 7% by weight of the first excipient substance.
The following instrumentation, or equivalent, items are required or useful:
Nikon SMZ-10A stereoscopic microscope equipped for polarized light observation, photomicrography, and video observation and recording.
3CCD MTI camera.
Diagnostic Instruments 150 IL-PS power supply.
Sony Trinitron color video monitor, model PVM-1353MD.
Mitsubishi time-lapse video cassette recorder, model HS-S5600.
Hewlett Packard Pavillion 7270 computer, with Windows 95 and Image-Pro Plus version 2.0 electronic imaging program installed.
Hewlett Packard Deskjet 870Cse printer.
A wax-coated slide, prepared and selected as described above, is positioned on the microscope stage, with the system set to provide transmitted light, both straight and polarized. A 1 .mu.l drop of the sample to be tested is applied to the wax surface using a thoroughly cleaned 1 .mu.l Hamilton syringe. This and subsequent operations are followed through the microscope at 4.9.times. objective. Duplicate or triplicate tests are done for each composition. Numerous tests can be conducted simultaneously on a single slide. Progression of change in the microscopic appearance of the sample is observed through the microscope and recorded at designated time intervals. We have found useful intervals to be 1 minute, 10 minutes, 2 hours and >24 hours after application of the drop to the wax surface. Observations can also be made at intermediate times to capture possible significant transitions occurring at such times.
The temperature of the wax layer tends to increase with prolonged exposure to the microscope light. In many cases we have found this does not significantly interfere with the results obtained. However, in some cases temperature does affect the outcome of the test and in such cases it is preferred to illuminate the sample only for the short periods necessary to make observations, so that the temperature of the wax layer remains close to ambient temperature. An example of a composition of the invention where it is believed to be important to keep temperature close to ambient is one containing a fatty acid ester such as butyl stearate.
At dark field (polarized light) the wax layer is observed for birefringence, and at light field the character of the drop surface is observed, at each time interval. The following records are made:
birefringence (yes/no);
time of initial appearance of birefringence;
character of the birefringence;
appearance of drop surface as composition "dries";
degree of spread of the drop;
effects of temperature (warming of the slide) if any;
other noticeable changes.
Optionally, images are recorded at significant times using the 3CCD MTI camera and the Image-Pro Plus program as documentation of observed changes. Tests may if desired also be recorded on video, especially during the first 15 minutes. In addition to images captured using 4.9.times. objective, overall-field views using 0.75.times. objective can be recorded to provide clear comparisons of different samples tested on the same slide.
A particularly useful parameter for predicting enhanced effectiveness is the observation of birefringence (yes/no) 5-20 minutes after deposition of the test drop on the wax-coated slide. We have found 10-15 minutes after deposition to be an especially suitable time for observation of this parameter. The following results for oil-in-water emulsion compositions comprising glyphosate IPA salt, butyl stearate and alkylether surfactants are typical of those obtained. Each of compositions WCS-1 to WCS-5 contained 15% w/w glyphosate a.e., 0.5% w/w butyl stearate and 5% w/w alkylether surfactant. Formulations B and J are commercial standard compositions of glyphosate defined in the Examples section later herein, and were diluted to 15% glyphosate a.e. for the test.
______________________________________ Birefringence Composition Alkylether at 10 min______________________________________WCS-1 Brij 78 (steareth-20) yes WCS-2 Plurafac A-38 (ceteareth-27) yes WCS-3 Brij 98 (oleth-20) yes WCS-4 Brij 35 (laureth-23) no WCS-5 Neodol 1-9 (C.sub.11 linear alcohol 9E0) no Formulation B no Formulation J no______________________________________
It will be noted that where the hydrophobic moiety of the alkylether was a C.sub.11 (WCS-5) or C.sub.12 (WCS-4) hydrocarbyl group, the composition did not show anisotropic properties in the form of birefringence 10 minutes after application to the wax-coated slide. However, where the hydrophobic moiety had a carbon chain length of 16 to 18 (WCS-1 to WCS-3), birefringence was evident, indicating the presence of anisotropic aggregates in or on the wax layer. The intensity of birefringence was greatest with WCS-1 (containing steareth-20), followed by WCS-2 (containing ceteareth-27) and then WCS-3 (oleth-20).
Tests of alkylether compositions, as evidenced in Examples herein, have shown that in general those containing alkylethers of hydrophobe carbon chain length 16 or greater show greater biological effectiveness than those having a shorter hydrophobe. In general greater biological effectiveness has been obtained where the hydrophobe is saturated (as, for example, in steareth-20 and ceteareth-27) than where it is unsaturated (as, for example, in oleth-20).
The following compositions were made containing 15% glyphosate a.e. and 5% alkylether surfactant, but no butyl stearate. In WCS-10 the surfactant was steareth-10, in WCS-11 oleth-10 and in WCS-12 steareth-8 (laboratory sample from Sigma).
______________________________________ Birefringence Composition Alkylether at 15 min______________________________________WCS-10 Brij 76 (steareth-10) yes WCS-11 Brij 97 (oleth-10) no WCS-12 steareth-8 yes______________________________________
The property of forming anisotropic aggregates as determined by this test appears to require, on a C.sub.16-18 straight-chain alcohol, a minimum of about 10 moles of ethylene oxide (EO). Where the alcohol is oleyl, an EO chain of 10 units is already too short, but where the alcohol is stearyl, even as short an EO chain as 8 units appears to suffice. It should be noted, however, that the steareth-8 used in composition WCS-12 was obtained as a laboratory sample and is likely chemically purer than the commercial surfactants used in other compositions. Commercial grade steareth-8 will not necessarily give the same result.
As further evidence of the usefulness of the present anisotropy test in predicting biological effectiveness of exogenous chemical compositions, compositions WCS-6, WCS-7 and WCS-8 were prepared, each containing 30% glyphosate a.e. by weight, and were then diluted to 15% glyphosate a.e. for the test. All contained soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti) and were prepared by process (v) as detailed in the Examples herein. Composition WCS-6, before dilution, contained 5% lecithin, 5% Fluorad FC-754 and 0.75% Ethomeen T/25. Composition WCS-7, before dilution, contained 2% lecithin and 2% Fluorad FC-754. Composition WCS-8, before dilution, contained 2% lecithin and 0.75% Ethomeen T/25. In addition, Composition WCS-9 was prepared containing 15% glyphosate a.e. and 5% soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The following results were obtained.
______________________________________ Birefringence Composition Excipient ingredients at 10 min.______________________________________WCS-6 lecithin + FC-754 + Ethomeen T125 yes WCS-7 lecithin + FC-754 yes WCS-8 lecithin + Ethomeen T/25 no WCS-9 lecithin no______________________________________
As evidenced in the Examples herein, enhanced biological effectiveness is a feature of compositions containing lecithin as the first excipient substance and Fluorad FC-754 as the second excipient substance. In the absence of Fluorad FC-754 or like material, lecithin, either alone or together with a tertiary alkylamine surfactant such as Ethomeen T/25 or MON 0818, does not consistently generate the desired enhancement.
In a further demonstration of the usefulness of the present anisotropy test, compositions WCS-13 and WCS-14 were prepared, each containing 20% glyphosate a.e. by weight, and were then diluted to 15% glyphosate a.e. for the test. Both contained soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Composition WCS-13 was made by process (x) as described in the Examples herein and, before dilution, contained 6% lecithin, 6% Ethomeen T/25 and 1.5% butyl stearate. Composition WCS-14 was identical except that it contained no butyl stearate. Particular care was taken in this study to avoid excessive warming of the wax-coated slide by prolonged illumination. The following results were obtained.
______________________________________ Birefringence Composition Excipient ingredients at 15 min.______________________________________WCS-13 lecithin + Ethomeen T/25 + butyl stearate yes WCS-14 lecithin + Ethomeen T/25 no______________________________________
The addition of a small quantity of butyl stearate was thus sufficient to confer, on a glyphosate+lecithin+Ethomeen T/25 composition, the property of forming anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer. The Examples herein illustrate the unexpected enhancement of biological effectiveness observed when an exogenous chemical is formulated with lecithin and a fatty acid ester such as butyl stearate.
Thus where, for reasons of economy, compatibility with the exogenous chemical, or other considerations it is desired to provide an exogenous chemical composition having a relatively low content of excipient substances (for example a weight ratio of each excipient substance to exogenous chemical of about 1:3 or less), the anisotropy test provided here is an in vitro assay method which can be used to identify biologically effective compositions in advance of extensive testing in vivo.
The in vitro assay method just described, together with modifications thereof that will be readily apparent to those of skill in the art, is a further embodiment of the present invention.
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, sulfonylurcas 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 monoisopropylamine (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.
Aggregate-forming substances useful as the first excipient substance in compositions of the present invention include a wide variety of amphiphilic materials, of which three classes are preferred.
The first preferred class of aggregate-forming substances can be defined as 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.
These substances contain portions that are hydrophilic and hydrophobic within the same molecule. They have the ability to self-assemble in aqueous solution or dispersion into structures that are more complex than simple micelles. The nature of the aggregate that will be formed can be related to the critical packing parameter P by the following equation:
P=V/lA
where V is the volume of the hydrophobic tail of the molecule, l is the effective length of the hydrophobic tail, and A is the area occupied by the hydrophilic headgroup in the surface of the aggregate. The most probable self-assembled structures are spherical micelles when P is less than 1/3, rodlike micelles when P is between 1/3 and 1/2, lamellar when P is between 1 and 1/2, and inverse structures when P is greater than 1. The preferred materials in the present invention have P greater than 1/3.
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 phosphatidyleholine, 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.
Amphiphilic compounds useful as the first excipient substance herein are not limited to those having two hydrophobic hydrocarbyl groups such as the compounds of formulas I to IV. The second preferred class of aggregate-forming substances useful in the invention are 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. (I) 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.
The third preferred class of aggregate-forming substance useful as the first excipient substance according to the present invention is a long-chain alkylether surfactant having the formula VI above. R.sup.12 can be branched or unbranched, saturated or unsaturated. R.sup.12 is preferably straight chain saturated C.sub.16 alkyl (cetyl) or straight chain saturated C.sub.1-8 alkyl (stearyl). In preferred alkylethers m is 0, n is an average number from about 20 to about 40 and R.sup.13 is preferably hydrogen. Among especially preferred alkylether surfactants are those identified in the International Cosmetic Ingredient Directory as ceteth-20, ceteareth-20, ceteareth-27, steareth-20 and steareth-30.
Of the classes of aggregate-forming substance useful as the first excipient substance, not all give rise to anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer, as required by the present invention, when used as the sole excipient substance in the composition at a weight ratio of 1:3 to 1:100 with the exogenous chemical. Many compounds of formulas V and VI are sufficient in the absence of a second excipient substance, but in general the liposome-forming substances of formulas I to IV require the presence of a second excipient substance to exhibit the required anisotropic behavior. However, even in the presence of a first excipient substance of formulas V or VI, there may be advantages in also including a second excipient substance as herein defined.
The second excipient substance has one or more hydrophobic moieties. If there is only one hydrophobic moiety, it is a hydrocarbyl or haloalkyl group having about 6 to about 22 carbon atoms. If there is more than one hydrophobic moiety, each such moiety is a hydrocarbyl or haloalkyl group having more than 2 carbon atoms, and the total number of carbon atoms in the hydrophobic moieties is about 12 to about 40.
One class of second excipient substance useful in the present invention is quaternary ammonium compounds. Among quaternary ammonium compounds that may be used are compounds of formula
N.sup.+ (R.sup.16)(R.sup.17)(R.sup.18)(R.sup.19)Q.sup.- VIII
where R.sup.16, R.sup.17, R.sup.18 and R.sup.19 are independently C.sub.3-6 alkyl groups and Q is a suitable anion, such as for example hydroxide, chloride, bromide, iodide, sulfate, phosphate or acetate. In preferred compounds of formula VIII all R groups are the same. Particularly preferred compounds of formula VIII are tetrabutylammonium salts. Where the exogenous chemical comprises a biologically active anion, a salt of formula VIII where Q is that anion is an option providing both the exogenous chemical and second excipient substance. An example is the tetrabutylammonium salt of glyphosate.
Other quaternary ammonium compounds that may be useful include compounds having a single C.sub.12-22 hydrocarbyl group and three C.sub.1-4 alkyl groups attached to the quaternary nitrogen atom. One or more of the C.sub.1-4 alkyl groups in such compounds can be replaced by a benzyl group. Specific examples include cetyltrimethylammonium bromide and benzalkonium chloride. Yet other quaternary ammonium compounds useful as the second excipient substance include compounds of formula I, where the first excipient substance is not of formula I.
Preferred quaternary ammonium compounds useful as the second excipient substance are compounds of formula V, where the first excipient substance is not of formula V. The same specific compounds of formula V are especially preferred whether a compound of formula V is the first or the second excipient substance. Particularly good results have been obtained where the first excipient substance is lecithin and the second excipient substance is Fluorad FC-135 or FC-754 or chemical equivalents thereof.
Another class of compound useful as the second excipient substance is an amide or ester of formula VII above.
R.sup.14 in formula VII is preferably aliphatic and has about 7 to about 21 carbon atoms, more preferably about 13 to about 21 carbon atoms. It is especially preferred that R.sup.14 be a saturated straight-chain alkyl group. R.sup.15 is preferably an aliphatic group having 1-6 carbon atoms, more preferably alkyl or alkenyl having 2-4 carbon atoms. An especially preferred compound of formula VII for use as the second excipient substance is butyl stearate.
As compounds of formula VII, including butyl stearate, are generally oily liquids, aqueous compositions containing them are typically emulsions having at least one aqueous phase and at least one oil phase, with the compound of formula VII being present predominantly in the oil phase. Such emulsions may be water-in-oil, oil-in-water or water-in-oil-in-water (W/O/W) multiple emulsions.
Aqueous concentrate compositions where the first excipient substance is an alkylether of formula VI and the second excipient substance, if present, is a fatty acid ester of formula VII are limited in the degree to which an exogenous chemical such as glyphosate can be loaded. At some point, as the loading of exogenous chemical is increased, the composition will not remain suitably stable. Addition of a small amount of colloidal particulate to such compositions has surprisingly been found to greatly increase loading ability while retaining desired stability. Oxides of silicon, aluminum and titanium are preferred colloidal particulate materials. Particle size is preferably such that specific surface area is in the range from about 50 to about 400 m.sup.2 /g. Where the exogenous chemical is glyphosate, the use of colloidal particulate enables loadings of at least 30% by weight for compositions containing sufficient alkylether and fatty acid ester to show enhanced herbicidal effectiveness, or at least 40% for compositions containing alkylether but no fatty acid ester, and showing herbicidal effectiveness at least equal to current commercial products loaded at about 30%. We have found especially useful improvement in storage stability can be obtained using colloidal particulates having specific surface area between about 180 and about 400 m.sup.2 /g.
Other means of improving stability of highly loaded compositions comprising an alkylether of formula VI, with or without a fatty acid ester, may also be possible and are within the scope of the present invention.
Compositions in accordance with the present invention are typically prepared by combining water, the exogenous chemical (unless it is a formulation which will not contain an exogenous chemical) and the aggregate-forming substance. Where the aggregate-forming substance is one that disperses readily in water, as is the case for example with Fluorad FC-135 or Fluorad FC-754, simple mixing with mild agitation may be sufficient. However, where the aggregate-forming 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 aggregate-forming substance in water. This can be done before or after a surfactant 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 dialkyl surfactant, for example a cationic dialkyl surfactant of formula I, suitable concentration ranges are: glyphosate 0.1-400 grams acid equivalent (a.e.)/liter, and dialkyl surfactant 0.001-10% by weight. In an aqueous glyphosate formulation using 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 an aqueous glyphosate formulation that includes a C.sub.16-18 alkylether surfactant and butyl stearate, suitable concentrations can be: glyphosate 0.1-400 g a.e./l, alkylether surfactant 0.001-10% by weight, and butyl stearate 0.001-10% by weight. To achieve the higher concentrations in these ranges, it is often beneficial to add other ingredients to provide acceptable storage stability, for example colloidal particulate silica or aluminum oxide at 0.5-2.5% by weight. In an aqueous glyphosate formulation that includes a C.sub.16-18 alkylether surfactant but no butyl stearate, glyphosate concentration can suitably be increased to 500 g a.e./l or more, in the presence of a colloidal particulate at 0.5-2.5% by weight.
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. 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 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, when present, 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, where present, to lecithin 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. Water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsion compositions tested in the field have included:
__________________________________________________________________________ % w/w Fatty Type of Field Glyphosate acid Emulsifier Emulsifier % in inner aq. phase Emulsifier Emulsifier fatty acidcomposition g a.e./l ester #1 #2 Water Glyphosate #1 #2 ester__________________________________________________________________________F-1 100 18.0 3.0 5.0 13.8 20 Span 80 Tween 20 Bu stearate F-2 100 7.5 3.0 5.0 5.6 20 Span 80 Tween 20 Bu stearate F-3 100 7.5 3.0 5.0 5.6 0 Span 80 Tween 20 Bu stearate F-4 160 7.5 3.0 5.0 5.6 0 Span 80 Tween 20 Bu stearate__________________________________________________________________________
The above compositions were prepared by process (vi) as described in the Examples.
Aqueous compositions tested in the field having an alkylether surfactant as the first excipient substance and/or containing a fatty acid ester have included:
______________________________________ % w/wField Gly- Fatty Type compo- phosate acid Sur- Type of of fatty sition g a.e./l ester factant surfactant acid ester______________________________________F-5 163 1.0 10.0 oleth-20 Bu stearate F-6 163 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 Bu stearate F-7 163 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 Bu stearate F-8 163 1.0 10.0 steareth-20 Bu stearate F-9 163 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-12 Bu stearate F-10 105 7.5 10.0 Tween 80 Bu stearate F-11 163 0.5 5.0 oleth-20 Bu stearate F-12 163 0.3 5.0 oleth-20 Bu stearate F-13 163 0.3 2.5 oleth-20 Bu stearate F-14 163 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-12 Bu stearate F-15 163 0.3 5.0 Genapol UD-110 Bu stearate F-16 163 0.5 5.0 steareth-20 Bu stearate F-17 163 0.5 5.0 ceteth-20 Bu stearate F-18 163 0.5 5.0 laureth-23 Bu stearate F-19 163 0.5 5.0 ceteareth-27 Bu stearate F-20 163 0.5 5.0 Neodol 25-12 Bu stearate F-21 163 0.5 5.0 Neodol 25-20 Bu stearate F-22 163 5.0 steareth-20 F-23 163 5.0 ceteth-20 F-24 163 5.0 laureth-23 F-25 163 0.3 5.0 ceteareth-27 Bu stearate F-26 163 0.3 2.5 ceteareth-27 Bu stearate F-27 163 5.0 ceteareth-27 F-28 163 0.5 5.0 ceteareth-27 Me stearate F-29 163 0.5 5.0 steareth-20 Me stearate F-30 163 0.5 5.0 oleth-20 F-31 163 0.5 5.0 Neodol 45-13 Bu stearate F-32 163 5.0 Neodol 45-13 F-33 163 0.5 5.0 ceteareth-15 Bu stearate F-34 163 5.0 ceteareth-15 F-35 163 0.5 5.0 steareth-30 Bu stearate______________________________________
The above compositions were prepared by process (vii) if they contain fatty acid ester and by process (viii) if they do not. Both processes are described in the Examples.
Aqueous compositions tested in the field containing colloidal particulates have included:
__________________________________________________________________________ % w/w Fatty Type of Type of Field Glyphosate acid Sur- Coll. Type of colloidal fatty acid Other composition g a.e./l ester factant partic. Other surfactant particulat e ester ingredients__________________________________________________________________________F-36 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-37 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 oleth-20 Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-38 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 steareth-30 Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-39 360 10.0 1.3 steareth-30 Aerosil 380 F-40 360 0.8 Aerosil 90 F-41 350 0.8 Al oxide C F-42 360 3.0 0.8 Ethomeen Al oxide C T/25 F-43 360 3.0 0.1 Ethomeen Al oxide C T/25 F-44 360 0.3 Al oxide C F-45 360 3.0 0.3 Ethomeen Al oxide C T/25 F-46 360 6.0 0.8 Agrimul Al oxide C PG-2069 F-47 360 3.0 0.8 Tween 20 Al oxide C F-48 480 1.0 0.4 Neodol 1-7 Aerosil 90 F-49 480 2.0 0.4 Agrimul Aerosil 90 PG-2069 F-50 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 Bu stearate 15 F-51 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 ceteth-20 Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-52 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-53 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 oleth-20 Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-54 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 Bu stearate 27 F-55 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 steareth-30 Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-56 360 10.0 1.3 steareth-30 Aerosil 380 F-57 360 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27 F-58 360 10.0 1.3 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 F-59 360 10.0 1.3 oleth-20 Aerosil 380 F-60 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 Me stearate 27 F-61 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 Me palmitate 27 F-62 300 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27 F-63 240 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27 F-64 360 6.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27 F-65 300 6.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27 F-66 240 6.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27 F-67 360 0.6 Aerosil 90 F-68 360 3.1 Aerosil 90 F-69 360 0.6 Al oxide C F-70 360 3.1 Al oxide C F-71 360 0.8 Aerosil 90 F-72 360 0.8 Al oxide C F-73 360 3.0 0.8 Ethomeen Aerosil 90 T/25 F-74 360 3.0 0.8 Ethomeen Al oxide C T/25 F-75 360 3.0 0.3 Ethomeen Al oxide C T/25 F-76 360 3.0 0.8 Ethomeen Nalco 1056 T/25 F-77 360 3.0 0.8 Ethomeen Nalco 1056 C/25 F-78 480 3.0 + 0.4 Ethomeen Al oxide C 1.0 T/25 + Agrimul PG-2069 F-79 480 3.0 + 0.4 Ethomeen Al oxide C 3.0 T/25 + Agrimul PG-2069 F-80 360 3.0 0.8 Agrimul Aerosil 90 PG-2069 F-81 360 3.0 0.8 Tween 20 Aerosil 90 F-82 360 3.1 + 0.8 7.1 Ethomeen Aerosil 90 (Bu).sub.4 NOH 3.1 T/25 + Tween 20 F-83 360 0.8 7.1 Aerosil 90 (Bu).sub.4 NOH F-84 480 3.0 0.8 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 F-85 480 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 Aerosil 380 F-86 480 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 Aerosil MOX-170 F-87 480 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 Aerosil OX-50 F-88 480 3.0 1.5 Velvetex Aerosil 380 AB-45 F-89 480 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 2 F-90 480 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 Aerosil blend 2 F-91 480 4.5 1.5 oleth-20 Aerosil 380 F-92 480 4.5 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 F-93 480 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-94 480 1.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-95 480 6.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-96 480 4.5 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend propylene 2 glycol F-97 480 6.0 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend propylene 2 glycol F-98 480 6.0 1.5 0.5 oleth-20 Aerosil blend propylene 2 glycol F-99 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend propylene 2.3 + 2 glycol Ethomeen T/25 F-100 480 6.0 1.5 steareth-20 Al oxide C F-101 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 Al oxide C propylene 2.3 + glycol Ethomeen T/25 F-102 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 Al oxide C propylene 1.0 + glycol Ethomeen T/25 F-103 480 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 F-104 480 4.5 1.5 steareth-20 Al oxide C F-105 480 6.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 F-106 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 propylene 1.0 + glycol Ethomeen T/25 F-107 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 propylene 2.3 + glycol Ethomeen T/25 F-108 480 4.5 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 2 F-109 480 6.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 2 F-110 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend propylene 1.0 + 2 glycol Ethomeen T/25 F-111 480 4.5 1.5 steareth-30 Aerosil blend 2 F-112 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend propylene 1.0 + 2 glycol Ethomeen T/25 F-113 480 6.0 1.5 steareth-30 Aerosil blend 2 F-114 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend propylene 2.3 + 2 glycol Ethomeen T/25 F-115 480 10.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 2 F-116 480 4.5 1.5 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27 F-117 480 6.0 1.5 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27 F-118 480 4.5 1.5 ceteareth- Aerosil blend 27 2 F-119 480 6.0 1.5 ceteareth- Aerosil blend 27 2 F-120 480 4.5 1.5 ceteareth- Al oxide C 27 F-121 480 6.0 1.5 ceteareth- Al oxide C 27__________________________________________________________________________ Aerosil blend 1: Aerosil MOX80 + Aerosil MOX170 (1:1) Aerosil blend 2: Aerosil MOX80 + Aerosil 380 (1:2)
The above compositions were prepared by process (ix) as described in the Examples.
Aqueous compositions tested in the field having soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti) as the first excipient substance and fatty acid ester as the second excipient substance have included:
______________________________________ % w/wField Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad MON composition g a.e./l Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 0818______________________________________F-122 167 6.0 8.3 4.0 F-123 168 6.0 8.3 4.0 F-124 228 2.0 2.0 0.5 F-125 347 3.0 3.0 0.5 F-126 344 1.0 1.0 0.5 F-127 111 8.0 8.0 0.5 F-128 228 6.0 3.0 6.0 F-129 228 6.0 6.0 6.0 F-130 228 3.3 5.0 0.5 F-131 228 5.0 5.0 0.8 F-132 372 3.0 3.0 0.8 F-133 372 3.0 5.0 0.8 F-134 372 3.0 12.0 0.8______________________________________
The above compositions were prepared by process (v) as described in the Examples.
Aqueous compositions tested in the field having soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti) as the first excipient substance and fatty acid ester as the second excipient substance have included:
__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wField Glyphosate MON Fatty acid Type of Type of composition g a.e./l Lecithin 0818 ester Surfactant surfactant fatty acid ester__________________________________________________________________________F-135 360 0.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-136 360 6.0 4.5 1.5 3.0 + 4.5 ceteareth-27 + Bu stearate Ethomeen T/25 F-137 228 6.0 3.0 1.5 3.0 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-138 228 0.8 3.8 3.0 + 3.0 ceteareth-27 + Bu stearate Ethomeen T/25 F-139 228 1.5 1.5 3.0 + 3.0 ceteareth-27 + Bu stearate Ethomeen T/25 F-140 228 6.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-141 228 6.7 1.7 0.7 1.7 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-142 228 6.7 3.3 0.7 3.3 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-143 228 3.3 0.8 0.7 0.8 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-144 228 3.3 1.7 0.7 1.7 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-145 228 3.3 2.5 0.7 2.5 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-146 228 3.3 3.3 0.7 3.3 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-147 228 6.7 2.5 0.7 2.5 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-148 228 3.0 0.5 3.0 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-149 228 2.0 2.5 0.5 2.5 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-150 228 4.0 6.0 0.5 Bu stearate F-151 228 4.0 6.0 2.0 Bu stearate F-152 228 4.0 6.0 1.0 Bu stearate F-153 228 2.0 2.0 0.5 Bu stearate F-154 228 2.0 4.0 0.5 Bu stearate F-155 228 6.0 0.5 Bu stearate__________________________________________________________________________
The above compositions were prepared by process (x) as described in the Examples.
Dry compositions tested in the field have included:
__________________________________________________________________________% w/w Type ofField Glyphosate Butyl Surfac- Coll. Type of colloidal Other composition a.e. Lecithin stearate tant partic. Other surfactant particulate ingredients__________________________________________________________________________F-156 64 25.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-157 68 20.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-158 72 15.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-159 64 25.0 1.0 ceteth-20 Aerosil 380 F-160 65 25.0 1.0 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 F-161 65 25.0 1.0 oleth-20 Aerosil 380 F-162 67 10.0 10.0 + 1.0 Fluorad Aerosil 380 1.5 FC-754 + Ethomeen T/25 F-163 73 7.0 7.0 + 1.0 Fluorad Aerosil 380 1.5 FC-754 + Ethomeen T/25 F-164 64 12.0 3.0 12.0 MON 0818 F-165 64 6.7 6.7 13.2 MON 0818 F-166 68 20.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-167 66 2.0 20.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-168 68 20.0 2.0 oleth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-169 66 2.0 20.0 2.0 oleth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-170 66 2.0 20.0 2.0 ceteareth-27 Aerosil blend 1 F-171 48 14.1 36.1 ceteareth-27 NH.sub.4 phosphate F-172 65 20.0 5.0 ceteareth-27 Na acetate F-173 70 20.0 ceteareth-27__________________________________________________________________________ Aerosil blend 1: Aerosil MOX80 + Aerosil MOX170 (1:1)

The above compositions were prepared by the process described for dry granular compositions in the Examples.
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 /g Aerosil 200 Degussa amorphous silica, 200 m.sup.2 /g Aerosil 380 Degussa amorphous silica, 380 m.sup.2 /g Aerosil MOX-80 Degussa amorphous silica/aluminum oxide, 80 m.sup.2 /gm Aerosil MOX-170 Degussa amorphous silica/aluminum oxide, 170 m.sup.2 /g Aerosil OX-50 Degussa amorphous silica, 50 m.sup.2 /g Aerosil R-202 Degussa amorphous hydrophobic silica (dimethylsiloxane surface group) Aerosil R-805 Degussa amorphous hydrophobic silica (octyl surface group) Aerosil R-812 Degussa amorphous hydrophobic silica (trimethylsilyl surface group) Aerosol OS Cytec diisopropyl naphthalene sulfonate, Na salt Aerosol OT Cytec dioctyl sulfosuccinate, Na salt Agrimer AL-25 ISP 1-ethenyl hexadecyl-2-pyrrolidinone Agrimer AL-30 ISP 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone polymer Agrimul PG-2069 Henkel C.sub.9-11 alkylpolyglycoside Alcodet 218 Rhone-Poulenc isolauryl 10EO thioether Aluminum oxide C Degussa aluminum oxide, 100 m.sup.2 /g Amidox L-5 Stepan lauramide 5EO Ammonyx CO Stepan palmitamine oxide Ammonyx LO Stepan lauramine oxide Arcosolve DPM Arco dipropyleneglycol monomethyl ether Diacid 1550 Westvaco cyclocarboxypropyl oleic acid Dowanol PNB Dow propylene glycol n-butyl ether Dowanol TPNB Dow tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether Emerest 2421 Henkel glyceryl oleate Emerest 2661 Henkel PEG-12 laurate Emid 6545 Henkel oleic diethanolamide Emphos CS-121 Witco alkylaryl ethoxylate phosphate ester Emphos CS-131 Witco alkylaryl ethoxylate phosphate ester Emphos CS-141 Witco nonylphenol 10EO phosphate Emphos CS-330 Witco alkylaryl ethoxylate phosphate ester Emphos PS-21A Witco alcohol ethoxylate phosphate ester Emphos PS-121 Witco linear alcohol ethoxylate phosphate ester, acid form Emphos PS-400 Witco linear alcohol ethoxylate phosphate ester, acid form Ethomeen C/12 Akzo cocoamine 2EO Ethomeen C/25 Akzo cocoamine 15EO Ethomeen T/12 Akzo tallowamine 2EO Ethomeen T/25 Akzo tallowamine 15EO Ethoquad T/20 Akzo methyltallowammonium chloride 10EO Exxate 700 Exxon C.sub.7 alkyl acetate Exxate 1000 Exxon C.sub.10 alkyl acetate Exxol D-130 Exxon dearomatized aliphatic solvent Fluorad FC-120 3M C.sub.9-10 perfluoroalkyl sulfonate, NH4 salt Fluorad FC-129 3M fluorinated alkyl carboxylate, K salt Fluorad FC-135 3M fluorinated alkyl quaternary ammonium iodide Fluorad FC-170C 3M fluorinated alkanol EO Fluorad FC-171 3M fluorinated alkanol EO Fluorad FC-431 3M fluorinated alkyl ester Fluorad FC-750 3M fluorinated alkyl quaternary ammonium iodide Fluorad FC-751 3M fluorinated amphoteric surfactant Fluorad FC-754 3M fluorinated alkyl quaternary ammonium chloride Fludrad FC-760 3M fluorinated alkanol EO Genapol UD-030 Hoechst C.sub.11 oxo alcohol 3EO Genapol UD-110 Hoechst C.sub.11 oxo alcohol 11EO Isopar V Exxon isoparaffinic oil Kelzan Monsanto xanthan gum LI-700 Loveland lecithin-based adjuvant Makon 4 Stepan nonylphenol 4EO Makon 6 Stepan nonylphenol 6EO Makon 30 Stepan nonylphenol 30EO Makon NF-5 Stepan polyalkoxylated aliphatic base MON 0818 Monsanto tallowamine 15EO-based surfactant Myrj 52 ICI PEG-40 stearate Myrj 59 ICI PEG-100 stearate Nalco 1056 Nalco silica (26%)/aluminum oxide (4%); average particle size 20 nm Neodol 1-12 Shell C.sub.11 linear alcohol 12EO Neodol 1-7 Shell C.sub.11 linear alcohol 7EO Neodol 1-9 Shell C.sub.11 linear alcohol 9EO Neodol 25-12 Shell C.sub.12-15 linear alcohol 12EO Neodol 25-20 Shell C.sub.12-15 linear alcohol 20EO Neodol 25-3 Shell C.sub.12-15 linear alcohol 3EO Neodol 25-7 Shell C.sub.12-15 linear alcohol 7EO Neodol 25-9 Shell C.sub.12-15 linear alcohol 9EO Neodol 45-13 Shell C.sub.14-15 linear alcohol 13EO Neodol 91-2.5 Shell C.sub.9-11 linear alcohol 2.5EO Neodox 25-11 Shell C.sub.12-15 linear alcohol ethoxycarboxylate 11EO Ninate 411 Stepan amine dodecylbenezene sulfonate Ninol 40-CO Stepan coco diethanolamide Orchex 796 Exxon paraffinic oil Pluronic 31-R1 BASF 21PO-7EO-21PO block copolymer Pluronic F-108 BASF 128EO-54PO-128EO block copolymer Pluronic F-127 BASF 98EO-67PO-98EO block copolymer Pluronic F-68 BASF 75EO-30PO-75EO block copolymer Pluronic L-35 BASF 11EO-16PO-11EO block copolymer Pluronic L-43 BASF 7EO-21PO-7EO block copolymer Pluronic L-81 BASF 6EO-39PO-6EO block copolymer Pluronic P-84 BASF 27EO-39PO-27EO block copolymer Polystep B-25 Stepan decyl sulfate, Na salt Reax 88B Westvaco highly sulfonated lignin, Na salt Sident 9 Degussa abrasive silica, 50 m.sup.2 /g Silwet 800 Witco heptamethyltrisiloxane EO Silwet L-77 Witco heptamethyltrisiloxane 7EO methyl ether Simulsol SL-4 Seppic alkyl polyglucoside Simulsol SL-10 Seppic alkyl polyglucoside Simulsol SL-62 Seppic alkyl polyglucoside Sipernat 22 Degussa hydrophilic precipitated silica, 190 m.sup.2 /g, av. aggregate size 100 .mu.m Sipernat 22S Degussa hydrophilic precipitated silica, 190 m.sup.2 /g, av. aggregate size <10 .mu.m Span 60 ICI sorbitan monostearate Span 65 ICI sorbitan tristearate Span 80 ICI sorbitan monooleate Span 85 ICI sorbitan trioleate Steol CS-370 Stepan lauryl EO sulfate, Na salt Stepanol WAC Stepan lauryl sulfate, Na salt Stepfac 8170 Stepan nonylphenol EO phosphate Surfynol 104 Air Products tetramethyldecyne diol Surfynol 465 Air Products tetramethyldecyne diol 10EO Tergitol 15-S-15 Union Carbide C.sub.15 branched secondary alcohol 15EO Tergitol 15-S-20 Union Carbide C.sub.15 branched secondary alcohol 20EO Tergitol 15-S-30 Union Carbide C.sub.15 branched secondary alcohol 30EO Tergitol 15-S-40 Union Carbide C.sub.15 branched secondary alcohol 40EO Titanium dioxide P25 Degussa titanium dioxide, average particle size 21 nm Toximul 8240 Stepan PEG-36 castor oil Toximul 8302 Stepan alcohol EO blend Triton RW-20 Union Carbide alkylamine 2EO Triton RW-50 Union Carbide alkylamine 5EO Triton RW-75 Union Carbide alkylamine 7.5EO Triton RW-100 Union Carbide alkylamine 10EO Triton RW-150 Union Carbide alkylamine 15EO Tryfac 5552 Henkel decyl EO phosphate, free acid Tween 20 ICI sorbitan monolaurate 20EO Tween 40 ICI sorbitan monopalmitate 20EO Tween 80 ICI sorbitan monooleate 20EO Tween 85 ICI sorbitan trioleate 20EO Velvetex AB-45 Henkel cocobetaine Westvaco 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.
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, these 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) to (x).
(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.
(vi) Water-in-oil-in-water (W/O/W) multiple emulsions were prepared as follows. First a water-in-oil emulsion was prepared. To do this, the required amounts of the selected oil and a first emulsifier (referred to in the Examples as "emulsifier #1") were mixed thoroughly. If it was desired to prepare the formulation with glyphosate in the inner aqueous phase, a measured amount of concentrated (62% w/w) aqueous solution of glyphosate IPA salt was added to the mixture of oil and first emulsifier with agitation to ensure homogeneity. The amount of water required in the inner aqueous phase was then added to complete the water-in-oil emulsion, which was finally subjected to high-shear mixing, typically using a Silverson L4RT-A mixer fitted with a fine emulsor screen operated for 3 minutes at 10,000 rpm. The required amount of a second emulsifier (referred to in the Examples as "emulsifier #2") was next added to the water-in-oil emulsion with agitation to ensure homogeneity. If it was desired to prepare the formulation with glyphosate in the outer aqueous phase, a measured amount of concentrated (62% w/w) aqueous solution of glyphosate IPA salt was added to the blend of the water-in-oil emulsion and the second emulsifier with further agitation. To complete the water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsion composition, the amount of water required in the outer aqueous phase was added. The composition was finally subjected to high-shear mixing, typically using a Silverson L4RF-A mixer fitted with a medium emulsor screen, operated for 3 minutes at 7,000 rpm.
(vii) Oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions were prepared as follows. The required amount of the selected oil and surfactant (sometimes referred to in the Examples as "emulsifier #2" as it corresponds to the second emulsifier in process (vi)) were mixed thoroughly. If the surfactant selected was not free-flowing at ambient temperature, heat was applied to bring the surfactant into a flowable condition before mixing with the oil. A measured amount of concentrated (62% w/w) aqueous solution of glyphosate IPA salt was added to the surfactant-oil mixture with agitation. 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.
(viii) Surfactant-containing aqueous solution concentrates having no oil component 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 microcinsteins 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 97 100 Formulation B 175 none 45 37 350 73 66 500 83 97 Formulation B 175 L-77 0.25 64 30 175 0.50 77 27 Formulation B 175 FC-135 0.25 55 72 175 0.50 73 61 Formulation 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 29 Formulation 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 Glyphosate composition g/l FC-135 L-77 with lecithin salt pH______________________________________2-01 5.0 none IPA 5 2-02 5.0 0.50 none IPA 5 2-03 5.0 none Na 7 2-04 5.0 0.50 none Na 7 2-05 5.0 none IPA 7 2-06 5.0 0.50 none IPA 7 2-07 5.0 none Na 5 2-08 5.0 0.50 none Na 5 2-09 2.5 none IPA 5 2-10 2.5 0.50 none IPA 5 2-11 5.0 0.50 none IPA 5 2-12 5.0 0.33 0.17 none IPA 5 2-13 5.0 0.50 L-77 IPA 5 2-14 5.0 0.50 L-77 Na 7 2-15 5.0 0.50 L-77 IPA 7 2-16 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 90 Formulation C + 100 62 10 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 91 25 300 95 27 2-01 100 59 64 200 74 83 300 82 99 2-02 100 66 44 200 73 45 300 92 76 2-03 100 17 29 200 37 72 300 70 89 2-04 100 48 24 200 67 50 300 81 61 2-05 100 40 44 200 77 89 300 79 95 2-06 100 76 43 200 87 74 300 90 85 2-07 100 40 50 200 66 54 300 84 83 2-08 100 69 34 200 57 70 300 78 66 2-09 100 44 62 200 83 82 300 90 91 2-10 100 84 83 200 97 85 300 95 93 2-11 100 79 65 200 89 84 300 98 98 2-12 100 74 63 200 93 84 300 94 92 2-13 100 86 85 200 91 92 300 97 97 2-14 100 56 17 200 69 48 300 87 81 2-15 100 61 39 200 87 73 300 83 78 2-16 100 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-135 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 % w/w Sonica-compo- Lecithin Fluorad Components tion sition g/l FC-135 L-77 sonicated with lecithin pH power______________________________________3-01 5.0 none 5 high 3-02 5.0 0.50 none 5 high 3-03 5.0 0.50 L-77 5 high 3-04 5.0 0.50 glyphosate 5 high 3-05 5.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate 5 high 3-06 5.0 none 7 low 3-07 5.0 none 7 high 3-08 5.0 0.50 none 7 high 3-09 5.0 0.50 L-77 7 high 3-10 5.0 0.50 glyphosate 7 high 3-11 5.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate 7 high 3-12 5.0 0.50 none 5 high 3-13 5.0 0.50 FC-135 5 high 3-14 5.0 0.50 glyphosate 5 high 3-15 5.0 0.17 0.33 FC-135, glyphosate 5 high 3-16 5.0 0.17 0.33 none 5 high 3-17 5.0 0.17 0.33 FC-135, L-77 5 high 3-18 10.0 none 5 high 3-19 20.0 none 5 high 3-20 10.0 0.50 none 5 high 3-21 10.0 0.50 L-77 5 high 3-22 20.0 0.50 L-77 5 high 3-23 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______________________________________Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 11 12 200 55 43 300 65 38 Formulation B + 100 77 5 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 95 10 300 95 17 Formulation C 100 33 42 200 63 98 300 85 99 Formulation C + 100 78 7 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 95 19 300 98 54 3-01 100 63 22 200 77 69 300 92 82 3-02 100 79 30 200 96 67 300 98 70 3-03 100 81 29 200 96 70 300 97 86 3-04 100 85 32 200 94 60 300 98 61 3-05 100 82 34 200 98 60 300 96 69 3-06 100 55 40 200 91 69 300 97 90 3-07 100 77 29 200 93 82 300 97 100 3-08 100 83 48 200 95 67 300 94 74 3-09 100 83 37 200 95 75 300 99 83 3-10 100 77 36 200 99 75 300 98 69 3-11 100 81 38 200 94 81 300 97 76 3-12 100 56 47 200 91 90 300 97 95 3-13 100 81 41 200 94 58 300 97 84 3-14 100 77 37 200 94 70 300 96 94 3-15 100 76 61 200 95 79 300 96 85 3-16 100 95 84 200 94 56 300 75 32 3-17 100 78 44 200 93 86 300 94 87 3-18 100 59 27 200 94 84 300 96 100 3-19 100 74 44 200 94 74 300 95 95 3-20 100 79 62 200 89 78 300 92 93 3-21 100 66 69 200 80 79 300 86 88 3-22 100 44 69 200 83 97 300 74 94 3-23 100 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 % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha SOLNI______________________________________Formulation B 100 28 200 35 300 70 Formulation B + 100 85 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 98 300 97 Formulation C 100 30 200 58 300 70 Formulation C + 100 78 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 82 300 94 3-01 100 47 200 77 300 93 3-02 100 33 200 50 300 78 3-03 100 36 200 79 300 90 3-04 100 33 200 72 300 84 3-05 100 38 200 68 300 82 3-06 100 84 200 92 300 96 3-07 100 58 200 75 300 85 3-08 100 50 200 83 300 91 3-09 100 50 200 72 300 83 3-10 100 53 200 75 300 78 3-11 100 75 200 96 300 100 3-12 100 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 Components composition g/l FC-135 L-77 KCl sonicated with lecithin______________________________________5-01 5.0 glyphosate 5-02 5.0 0.50 L-77 5-03 5.0 0.50 L-77 5-04 5.0 1.00 L-77 5-05 5.0 0.20 none 5-06 5.0 1.00 none 5-07 5.0 0.20 L-77, glyphosate 5-08 5.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate 5-09 5.0 1.00 L-77, glyphosate 5-10 2.5 0.10 L-77 5-11 2.5 0.25 L-77 5-12 2.5 0.50 L-77 5-13 2.5 0.10 none 5-14 2.5 0.25 none 5-15 2.5 0.10 L-77, glyphosate 5-16 2.5 0.25 L-77, glyphosate 5-17 2.5 0.50 L-77, glyphosate 5-18 5.0 0.50 0.02 L-77 5-19 5.0 0.50 0.02 L-77, glyphosate 5-20 5.0 0.50 none 5-21 5.0 0.50 glyphosate 5-22 5.0 0.33 0.17 none 5-23 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 90 Formulation B + 200 83 58 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 94 76 400 100 85 Formulation C 200 46 96 300 68 90 400 75 93 Formulation C + 200 81 66 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 93 68 400 96 86 5-01 200 70 91 300 74 100 400 93 94 5-02 200 81 95 300 68 100 400 81 100 5-03 200 78 100 300 99 83 400 98 99 5-04 200 89 95 300 93 95 400 86 100 5-05 200 60 89 300 79 100 400 86 100 5-06 200 76 100 300 84 100 400 100 96 5-07 200 65 97 300 78 97 400 77 100 5-08 200 82 100 300 95 100 400 96 100 5-09 200 78 99 300 89 99 400 90 100 5-10 200 66 100 300 79 98 400 89 100 5-11 200 67 95 300 81 100 400 97 100 5-12 200 76 88 300 79 100 400 95 96 5-13 200 59 85 300 66 93 400 67 100 5-14 200 56 89 300 67 100 400 83 100 5-15 200 54 100 300 63 100 400 78 100 5-16 200 46 88 300 73 100 400 86 100 5-17 200 81 98 300 83 97 400 92 96 5-18 200 56 92 300 64 100 400 74 100 5-19 200 64 94 300 80 97 400 80 96 5-20 200 88 91 300 96 100 400 98 98 5-21 200 92 94 300 100 100 400 100 100 5-22 200 88 97 300 93 95 400 95 100 5-23 200 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. Momingglory (Ipomoea spp., IPOSS) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 14 days after 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 % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha IPOSS______________________________________Formulation B 200 40 400 66 Formulation B + 200 68 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 400 79 Formulation C 200 62 400 71 Formulation C + 200 70 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 400 72 5-01 200 64 400 77 5-02 200 68 400 75 5-03 200 68 400 72 5-04 200 69 400 72 5-05 200 64 400 78 5-06 200 80 400 89 5-07 200 69 400 74 5-08 200 60 400 72 5-09 200 79 400 84 5-10 200 69 400 78 5-11 200 52 400 72 5-12 200 69 400 88 5-13 200 72 400 74 5-14 200 68 400 69 5-15 200 68 400 70 5-16 200 55 400 69 5-17 200 52 400 67 5-18 200 65 400 67 5-19 200 54 400 70 5-20 200 74 400 100 5-21 200 72 400 91 5-22 200 81 400 84 5-23 200 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/w ComponentsSpray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet sonicated with composition g/l FC-135 L-77 lecithin______________________________________7-01 5.0 0.50 L-77 7-02 5.0 0.25 L-77 7-03 5.0 0.10 L-77 7-04 5.0 none 7-05 2.5 0.50 L-77 7-06 2.5 0.25 L-77 7-07 2.5 0.10 L-77 7-08 1.0 0.50 L-77 7-09 1.0 0.25 L-77 7-10 2.5 0.10 L-77 7-11 2.5 0.25 0.25 L-77 7-12 2.5 0.17 0.33 L-77 7-13 2.5 0.33 0.17 L-77 7-14 2.5 0.50 none 7-15 2.5 0.25 none 7-16 2.5 0.10 none 7-17 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 7-18 2.5 0.10 glyphosate 7-19 2.5 0.50 glyphosate 7-20 5.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate 7-21 2.5 0.25 L-77, glyphosate 7-22 1.0 0.25 L-77, glyphosate 7-23 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______________________________________Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 150 33 39 29 250 44 43 66 350 83 45 60 Formulation B + 150 81 7 46 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 250 88 21 64 350 96 32 66 Formulation C 150 61 59 58 250 77 92 85 350 91 92 83 Formulation C + 150 76 10 65 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 250 87 17 60 350 92 39 64 7-01 150 87 43 47 250 88 41 60 350 96 53 66 7-02 150 66 51 61 250 85 81 63 350 84 89 75 7-03 150 66 54 65 250 70 63 60 350 94 96 87 7-04 150 73 58 61 250 85 83 90 350 91 100 83 7-05 150 76 44 49 250 85 55 56 350 93 79 64 7-06 150 64 73 56 250 71 78 61 350 81 79 77 7-07 150 53 41 59 250 74 78 68 350 78 90 75 7-08 150 83 33 59 250 82 39 75 350 95 59 69 7-09 150 78 32 46 250 85 42 75 350 91 62 67 7-10 150 26 36 43 250 69 73 75 350 76 81 73 7-11 150 83 79 72 250 96 93 78 350 99 97 84 7-12 150 78 57 58 250 89 78 66 350 94 93 75 7-13 150 83 84 54 250 94 93 67 350 99 97 93 7-14 150 80 68 69 250 85 88 79 350 97 94 99 7-15 150 75 80 62 250 93 93 76 350 95 91 94 7-16 150 75 69 60 250 88 91 77 350 89 92 75 7-17 150 77 69 67 250 88 91 86 350 93 97 96 7-18 150 71 63 66 250 74 85 82 350 89 85 83 7-19 150 74 62 77 250 86 80 93 350 92 96 96 7-20 150 39 46 38 250 80 49 69 350 91 64 69 7-21 150 65 50 34 250 64 52 52 350 78 67 62 7-22 150 68 18 35 250 79 42 43 350 87 49 58 7-23 150 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/w ComponentsSpray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet sonicated with composition g/l FC-135 L-77 lecithin______________________________________8-01 5.0 0.50 L-77 8-02 5.0 0.25 L-77 8-03 5.0 0.10 L-77 8-04 5.0 none 8-05 2.5 0.50 L-77 8-06 2.5 0.25 L-77 8-07 2.5 0.10 L-77 8-08 1.0 0.50 L-77 8-09 1.0 0.25 L-77 8-10 2.5 0.10 L-77 8-11 2.5 0.25 0.25 L-77 8-12 2.5 0.17 0.33 L-77 8-13 2.5 0.33 0.17 L-77 8-14 2.5 0.50 none 8-15 2.5 0.25 none 8-16 2.5 0.10 none 8-17 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 8-18 2.5 0.10 glyphosate 8-19 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______________________________________Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./ha CYPES______________________________________Formulation B 500 92 1000 95 5000 100 Formulation B + 500 100 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 1000 87 5000 100 Formulation C 500 87 1000 96 5000 100 Formulation C + 500 98 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 1000 94 5000 100 8-01 500 91 1000 100 1500 97 8-02 500 83 1000 100 1500 100 8-03 500 90 1000 88 1500 71 8-04 500 88 1000 100 1500 100 8-05 500 84 1000 99 1500 95 8-06 500 90 1000 88 1500 99 8-07 500 78 1000 94 1500 97 8-08 500 93 1000 96 1500 100 8-09 500 87 1000 88 1500 100 8-10 500 86 1000 100 1500 100 8-11 500 95 1000 94 1500 100 8-12 500 92 1000 92 1500 100 8-13 500 87 1000 97 1500 100 8-14 500 82 1000 100 1500 100 8-15 500 85 1000 90 1500 95 8-16 500 87 1000 91 1500 100 8-17 500 83 1000 90 1500 95 8-18 500 93 1000 100 1500 95 8-19 500 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 9______________________________________ % w/w ComponentsSpray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet sonicated with composition g/l FC-135 L-77 lecithin______________________________________9-01 5.0 none 9-02 5.0 0.50 none 9-03 5.0 0.50 L-77 9-04 2.5 none 9-05 2.5 0.50 none 9-06 2.5 0.50 L-77 9-07 1.0 none 9-08 1.0 0.50 none 9-09 1.0 0.50 L-77 9-10 0.5 none 9-11 0.5 0.50 none 9-12 0.5 0.50 L-77 9-13 1.0 0.25 none 9-14 1.0 0.25 L-77 9-15 1.0 0.10 none 9-16 1.0 0.10 L-77 9-17 1.0 0.50 none 9-18 1.0 0.20 none 9-19 1.0 0.10 none 9-20 0.5 0.50 none 9-21 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______________________________________Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 64 77 250 81 80 350 88 97 Formulation B + 150 42 38 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 250 56 49 350 67 64 Formulation C 150 61 89 250 75 91 350 92 99 Formulation C + 150 92 40 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 250 95 40 350 94 74 Formulation B + 150 87 34 Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 250 90 44 350 97 47 Formulation C + 150 79 85 Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 250 77 86 350 92 91 9-01 150 75 69 250 84 89 350 98 98 9-02 150 86 54 250 96 74 350 99 86 9-03 150 86 66 250 91 77 350 96 86 9-04 150 68 73 250 97 85 350 94 92 9-05 150 90 55 250 96 69 350 91 82 9-06 150 87 43 250 91 68 350 97 83 9-07 150 56 76 250 81 88 350 89 96 9-08 150 85 35 250 93 51 350 98 66 9-09 150 94 45 250 97 47 350 98 52 9-10 150 62 60 250 85 78 350 93 88 9-11 150 90 32 250 92 42 350 98 59 9-12 150 93 38 250 93 56 350 95 72 9-13 150 85 39 250 89 66 350 94 79 9-14 150 83 70 250 93 45 350 93 70 9-15 150 65 54 250 85 79 350 91 89 9-16 150 75 65 250 83 79 350 90 84 9-17 150 81 94 250 88 97 350 100 99 9-18 150 79 89 250 95 91 350 98 98 9-19 150 77 85 250 91 96 350 95 97 9-20 150 77 71 250 86 92 350 100 93 9-21 150 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 with sition g/l FC-135 L-77 caprate cholate lecithin______________________________________10-01 5.0 none 10-02 5.0 0.50 none 10-03 5.0 0.50 L-77 10-04 2.5 none 10-05 0.5 none 10-06 2.5 0.50 none 10-07 2.5 0.50 L-77 10-08 0.5 0.50 none 10-09 0.5 0.50 L-77 10-10 2.5 0.25 none 10-11 2.5 0.10 none 10-12 2.5 0.05 none 10-13 0.5 0.25 none 10-14 0.5 0.10 none 10-15 0.5 0.05 none 10-16 2.5 0.10 Me caprate 10-17 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______________________________________Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH BCHCF______________________________________Formulation B 200 53 69 300 76 85 400 77 81 Formulation B + 200 100 28 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 100 35 400 100 47 Formulation C 200 57 81 300 73 90 400 98 94 Formulation C + 200 99 28 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 98 53 400 99 56 Formulation B + 200 76 85 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 95 81 400 100 100 Formulation B + 200 77 70 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 94 81 400 98 87 Formulation B + 200 65 73 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 84 94 400 88 96 Formulation C + 200 83 78 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 98 94 400 97 95 Formulation C + 200 65 66 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 89 86 400 97 89 Formulation C + 200 70 78 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 79 84 400 96 98 10-01 200 93 71 300 91 89 400 97 97 10-02 200 95 59 300 97 68 400 99 79 10-03 200 97 55 300 98 62 400 100 76 10-04 200 83 72 300 87 84 400 95 100 10-05 200 69 78 300 92 93 400 98 97 10-06 200 94 61 300 99 67 400 100 76 10-07 200 99 52 300 99 63 400 100 80 10-08 200 96 47 300 99 57 400 99 55 10-09 200 99 23 300 98 58 400 100 53 10-10 200 89 91 300 91 99 400 98 100 10-11 200 81 91 300 91 99 400 92 100 10-12 200 66 96 300 86 100 400 94 99 10-13 200 80 97 300 98 98 400 99 100 10-14 200 68 92 300 89 100 400 99 98 10-15 200 84 95 300 94 100 400 97 100 10-16 200 73 94 300 89 100 400 99 100 10-17 200 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 % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 200 46 300 75 400 80 Formulation B + 200 96 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 89 400 87 Formulation C 200 80 300 98 400 98 Formulation C + 200 75 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 91 400 94 Formulation B + 200 82 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 94 400 98 Formulation B + 200 70 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 93 400 88 Formulation B + 200 79 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 92 400 99 Formulation C + 200 79 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 97 400 97 Formulation C + 200 90 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 96 400 97 Formulation C + 200 80 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 96 400 99 10-01 200 93 300 97 400 98 10-02 200 71 300 89 400 89 10-03 200 71 300 87 400 98 10-04 200 76 300 100 400 100 10-05 200 91 300 99 400 97 10-06 200 57 300 95 400 88 10-07 200 64 300 68 400 94 10-08 200 89 300 96 400 99 10-09 200 80 300 77 400 94 10-10 200 90 300 94 400 98 10-11 200 81 300 100 400 96 10-12 200 86 300 92 400 95 10-13 200 86 300 99 400 100 10-14 200 97 300 100 400 100 10-15 200 99 300 100 400 100 10-16 200 92 300 100 400 100 10-17 200 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 5 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 with comp. g/l FC-135 L-77 Other (*) ingredient Lecithin__________________________________________________________________________12-01 5.0 none 12-02 5.0 0.50 L-77 12-03 2.5 none 12-04 2.5 0.50 none 12-05 2.5 0.20 none 12-06 2.5 0.10 none 12-07 5.0 0.50 Diacid 1550 Diacid 12-08 5.0 0.10 Diacid 1550 Diacid 12-09 2.5 0.25 Diacid 1550 Diacid 12-10 2.5 0.25 0.05 Diacid 1550 Diacid 12-11 5.0 0.10 0.50 Genapol UD-030 Genapol 12-12 5.0 0.05 0.20 Genapol UD-030 Genapol 12-13 5.0 0.25 0.50 Neodol 25-3 Neodol 12-14 5.0 0.10 0.20 Neodol 25-3 Neodol__________________________________________________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) and momingglory (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 in Table 12b.
TABLE 12b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF IPOSS______________________________________Formulation B 200 24 53 33 300 47 37 37 400 64 46 64 Formulation B + 200 85 3 66 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 97 19 77 400 98 18 82 Formulation C 200 39 69 38 300 71 90 67 400 87 100 76 Formulation C + 200 90 8 72 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 95 50 79 400 100 90 73 Formulation B + 200 75 71 65 Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 300 94 92 79 400 98 100 77 Formulation B + 200 75 67 67 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 85 73 71 400 96 97 75 Formulation B + 200 61 53 48 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 82 98 72 400 95 86 70 Formulation C + 200 81 61 69 Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 300 75 75 71 400 84 84 77 Formulation C + 200 35 58 67 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 68 97 64 400 92 96 73 Formulation C + 200 40 84 51 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 79 94 58 400 99 86 74 12-01 200 69 69 62 300 82 82 73 400 88 84 77 12-02 200 81 75 67 300 83 74 72 400 95 93 75 12-03 200 48 69 70 300 82 93 71 400 94 100 72 12-04 200 68 78 64 300 90 94 76 400 96 99 79 12-05 200 75 86 68 300 86 95 72 400 96 89 80 12-06 200 80 95 57 300 85 82 60 400 96 91 73 12-07 200 41 72 64 300 76 82 68 400 80 98 77 12-08 200 40 71 70 300 51 91 76 400 77 98 72 12-09 200 43 74 64 300 58 95 76 400 73 100 77 12-10 200 43 85 65 300 74 75 65 400 83 99 76 12-11 200 39 71 66 300 61 88 71 400 89 99 73 12-12 200 54 57 59 300 79 77 75 400 89 84 71 12-13 200 69 72 69 300 59 66 69 400 86 81 76 12-14 200 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 % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 200 37 300 47 400 50 Formulation B + 200 93 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 100 400 99 Formulation C 200 47 300 63 400 86 Formulation C + 200 88 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 92 400 99 Formulation B + 200 51 Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 300 79 400 84 Formulation B + 200 49 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 53 400 85 Formulation B + 200 44 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 58 400 70 Formulation C + 200 74 Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 300 89 400 97 Formulation C + 200 52 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 70 400 75 Formulation C + 200 45 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 74 400 87 12-01 200 62 300 76 400 89 12-02 200 59 300 54 400 73 12-03 200 56 300 89 400 80 12-04 200 72 300 89 400 96 12-05 200 66 300 87 400 84 12-06 200 60 300 74 400 86 12-07 200 57 300 78 400 89 12-08 200 59 300 67 400 70 12-09 200 57 300 65 400 74 12-10 200 53 300 77 400 77 12-11 200 58 300 71 400 87 12-12 200 54 300 70 400 82 12-13 200 65 300 75 400 82 12-14 200 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 Components sition g/l FC-135 L-77 1550 sonicated with lecithin______________________________________14-01 5.0 none 14-02 5.0 none 14-03 2.5 none 14-04 2.5 none 14-05 5.0 glyphosate 14-06 5.0 0.50 L-77 14-07 5.0 0.50 L-77 14-08 2.5 0.50 L-77 14-09 2.5 0.50 L-77 14-10 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 14-11 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 14-12 2.5 0.25 none 14-13 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 14-14 2.5 0.10 none 14-15 2.5 0.10 glyphosate 14-16 2.5 0.25 0.25 L-77, Diacid 14-17 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 74 Formulation B + 200 86 24 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 88 15 400 94 58 Formulation B + 200 80 22 Silwet L-77 0.25% W/V 300 93 38 400 87 38 Formulation C 200 56 88 300 86 98 406 94 98 Formulation C + 200 87 23 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 93 52 400 91 60 Formulation C + 290 79 42 Silwet L-77 0.25% v/v 300 83 73 400 87 95 Formulation B + 200 79 49 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 89 77 400 94 85 Formulation B + 200 73 64 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 89 68 400 92 75 Formulation C + 200 73 86 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 75 90 400 90 95 Formulation C + 200 53 97 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 89 96 400 91 99 14-01 200 71 66 300 89 62 400 97 85 14-02 200 83 52 300 89 72 400 82 93 14-03 200 54 53 300 89 84 400 93 77 14-04 200 81 38 300 94 76 400 98 88 14-05 200 85 53 300 95 80 400 94 91 14-06 200 80 0 300 95 100 400 98 94 14-07 200 72 50 300 95 84 400 98 92 14-08 200 81 69 300 99 83 400 100 80 14-09 200 86 38 300 94 80 400 96 90 14-10 200 58 67 300 82 85 400 92 90 14-11 200 83 64 300 88 74 400 90 88 14-12 200 89 90 300 100 88 400 100 98 14-13 200 95 91 300 93 97 400 100 98 14-14 200 88 93 300 93 85 400 98 90 14-15 200 85 87 300 98 98 400 96 100 14-16 200 76 72 300 83 87 400 89 97 14-17 200 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% 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 32 Formulation B + 200 30 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 39 400 45 Formulation B + 200 28 Silwet L-77 0.25% w/v 300 49 400 28 Formulation C 200 41 300 54 400 84 Formulation C + 200 43 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 66 400 86 Formulation C + 200 17 Silwet L-77 0.25% v/v 300 35 400 58 Formulation B + 200 48 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 60 400 62 Formulation B + 200 31 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 47 400 75 Formulation C + 200 43 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 57 400 71 Formulation C + 200 32 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 71 400 63 14-01 200 51 300 55 400 76 14-02 200 51 300 68 400 84 14-03 200 55 300 51 400 72 14-04 200 50 300 64 400 75 14-05 200 46 300 53 400 61 14-06 200 40 300 44 400 73 14-07 200 23 300 32 400 39 14-08 200 18 300 44 400 57 14-09 200 25 300 30 400 43 14-10 200 19 300 36 400 38 14-11 200 35 300 48 400 57 14-12 200 65 300 80 400 88 14-13 200 68 300 75 400 87 14-14 200 76 300 76 400 72 14-15 200 54 300 73 400 84 14-16 200 44 300 51 400 63 14-17 200 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 (*) Other Components sonicated comp. g/l FC-135 (*) ingredient with lecithin______________________________________16-01 2.5 none 16-02 2.5 glyphosate 16-03 2.5 0.25 none 16-04 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 16-05 2.5 0.25 Silwet 800 none 16-06 2.5 0.25 Silwet 800 Silwet 800 16-07 2.5 0.25 Silwet 800 Silwet, glyphosate 16-08 0.5 none 16-09 0.5 glyphosate 16-10 0.5 0.05 none 16-11 0.5 0.05 glyphosate 16-12 0.5 0.03 0.02 Silwet Silwet L-77 L-77 16-13 0.5 0.05 methyl Me caprate caprate 16-14 0.5 0.05 0.05 methyl Me caprate caprate 16-15 0.5 0.05 0.05 methyl Me caprate, glyphosate caprate 16-16 0.5 0.01 PVA none 16-17 0.5 0.01 PVA glyphosate 16-18 0.5 0.05 0.01 PVA glyphosate 16-19 0.5 0.05 + L-77 + Silwet L-77 0.01 PVA______________________________________
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 38 Formulation B + 150 81 15 Silwet 800 0.25% v/v 250 89 17 350 91 20 Formulation C 150 32 65 250 59 91 350 85 89 Formulation C + 150 91 17 Silwet 800 0.25% v/v 250 91 23 350 95 48 Formulation B + 150 31 58 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 53 68 350 71 84 Formulation B + 150 31 29 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 44 69 350 95 79 Formulation C + 150 46 45 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 69 79 350 86 77 Formulation C + 150 44 57 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 60 87 350 86 88 16-01 150 55 50 250 87 81 350 89 88 16-02 150 56 54 250 89 69 350 87 98 16-03 150 89 68 250 89 84 350 91 90 16-04 150 63 68 250 89 86 350 99 89 16-05 150 81 51 250 87 84 350 94 26 16-06 150 67 0 250 93 62 350 94 81 16-07 150 81 35 250 84 51 350 95 62 16-08 150 59 51 250 84 69 350 98 90 16-09 150 64 59 250 85 61 350 94 96 16-10 150 73 74 250 87 83 350 98 96 16-11 150 76 64 250 88 79 350 94 81 16-12 150 59 46 250 82 88 350 92 82 16-13 150 61 45 250 90 69 350 93 90 16-14 150 76 50 250 95 73 350 99 91 16-15 150 78 67 250 95 80 350 99 85 16-16 150 48 42 250 77 87 350 87 75 16-17 150 47 63 250 85 67 350 90 78 16-18 150 55 46 250 82 77 350 90 87 16-19 150 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 with composition g/l FC-135 (*) ingredient lecithin______________________________________17-01 2.5 none 17-02 2.5 0.25 none 17-03 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 17-04 2.5 0.25 0.025 PVA none 17-05 1.0 none 17-06 1.0 glyphosate 17-07 1.0 0.10 none 17-08 1.0 0.10 glyphosate 17-09 1.0 0.05 none 17-10 1.0 0.05 glyphosate 17-11 1.0 0.100 PVA none 17-12 1.0 0.025 PVA none 17-13 1.0 0.05 0.025 PVA none 17-14 1.0 0.100 sodium cholate Na cholate 17-15 1.0 0.020 sodium cholate Na cholate 17-16 1.0 0.05 0.020 sodium cholate Na cholate 17-17 0.5 none 17-18 0.5 0.05 glyphosate 17-19 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 35 Formulation C 200 59 92 300 76 100 400 93 97 Formulation B + 200 43 48 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 64 52 400 84 71 Formulation B + 200 61 78 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 65 59 400 100 86 Formulation B + 200 58 30 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 82 55 400 88 77 Formulation C + 200 53 55 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 76 68 400 88 93 Formulation C + 200 59 70 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 89 85 400 93 83 Formulation C + 200 60 72 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 82 100 400 94 94 17-01 200 73 52 300 88 80 400 94 90 17-02 200 83 80 300 96 83 400 97 95 17-03 200 86 73 300 95 79 400 98 94 17-04 200 73 72 300 94 86 400 96 93 17-05 200 67 68 300 94 74 400 96 91 17-06 200 65 61 300 79 82 400 91 81 17-07 200 75 65 300 92 84 400 98 91 17-08 200 66 70 300 87 96 400 97 97 17-09 200 83 73 300 91 83 400 97 89 17-10 200 89 70 300 92 79 400 91 74 17-11 200 65 58 300 86 86 400 97 100 17-12 200 75 64 300 79 85 400 91 87 17-13 200 79 53 300 81 83 400 96 88 17-14 200 56 69 300 80 95 400 92 93 17-15 200 57 77 300 67 91 400 88 90 17-16 200 88 82 300 85 87 400 76 72 17-17 200 53 66 300 71 72 400 87 83 17-18 200 89 85 300 79 72 400 65 60 17-19 200 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______________________________________ % w/wSpray Lecithin Fluorad Components composition g/l FC-135 PVA sonicated with lecithin______________________________________18-01 2.5 none 18-02 1.0 none 18-03 0.5 none 18-04 0.2 none 18-05 1.0 0.25 none 18-06 1.0 0.25 glyphosate 18-07 1.0 0.10 none 18-08 1.0 0.10 glyphosate 18-09 0.5 0.05 none 18-10 0.5 0.05 glyphosate 18-11 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 % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha SEBEX______________________________________Formulation B 500 43 1000 54 1500 44 Formulation B + 500 53 PVA 0.1% w/v 1000 45 1500 44 Formulation C 500 56 1000 62 1500 63 Formulation B + 500 40 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 1000 45 1500 60 Formulation B + 500 33 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 1000 51 1500 53 Formulation B + 500 21 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 1000 18 1500 29 Formulation C + 500 34 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 1000 41 1500 58 Formulation C + 500 50 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 1000 43 1500 52 Formulation C + 500 48 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 1000 49 1500 46 18-01 500 22 1000 33 1500 37 18-02 500 16 1000 24 1500 28 18-03 500 15 1000 24 1500 27 18-04 500 17 1000 13 1500 31 18-05 500 28 1000 64 1500 68 18-06 500 64 1000 51 1500 61 18-07 500 65 1000 51 1500 63 18-08 500 50 1000 56 1500 30 18-09 500 40 1000 59 1500 66 18-10 500 31 1000 23 1500 49 18-11 500 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 Components composition g/l Fluorad FC-135 sonicated with lecithin______________________________________19-01 2.5 none 19-02 1.0 none 19-03 0.5 none 19-04 0.2 none 19-05 1.0 0.25 none 19-06 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 34 Formulation C 500 49 800 49 1200 66 Formulation B + 500 45 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 50 1200 71 Formulation B + 500 49 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 800 49 1200 78 Formulation C + 500 60 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 75 1200 68 Formulation C + 500 47 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 800 85 1200 74 19-01 500 54 800 51 1200 43 19-02 500 37 800 69 1200 52 19-03 500 35 800 51 1200 43 19-04 500 71 800 69 1200 57 19-05 500 47 800 73 1200 89 19-06 500 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 Components composition g/l FC-135 1550 sonicated with lecithin______________________________________20-01 2.5 none 20-02 0.5 none 20-03 0.2 none 20-04 2.5 0.05 none 20-05 0.5 0.05 none 20-06 0.2 0.05 none 20-07 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 3 Formulation C 150 18 250 68 350 98 Formulation B + 150 0 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 10 350 5 Formulation C + 150 3 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/w 250 50 350 60 20-01 150 0 250 27 350 60 20-02 150 0 250 5 350 8 20-03 150 5 250 0 350 8 20-04 150 18 250 29 350 63 20-05 150 17 250 14 350 87 20-06 150 44 250 40 350 38 20-07 150 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 Components sition g/l FC-135 OT caprate sonicated with lecithin______________________________________21-01 2.5 none 21-02 2.5 glyphosate 21-03 1.0 none 21-04 1.0 glyphosate 21-05 0.5 none 21-06 0.5 glyphosate 21-07 0.2 none 21-08 0.2 glyphosate 21-09 0.5 0.05 none 21-10 0.5 0.05 AOT, glyphosate 21-11 0.5 0..05 AOT 21-12 2.5 0.25 none 21-13 0.5 0.05 none 21-14 0.5 0.05 glyphosate 21-15 0.5 0.05 Me caprate 21-16 0.5 0.05 0.05 Me caprate 21-17 0.2 0.02 none 21-18 0.2 0.02 glyphosate 21-19 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 Spray rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 150 16 23 30 250 17 33 57 350 24 43 65 Formulation C 150 18 58 53 250 30 71 79 350 49 83 94 Formulation B + 150 27 59 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 45 84 81 350 55 82 91 Formulation B + 150 17 43 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 21 56 75 350 64 80 90 Formulation B + 150 22 27 38 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 37 49 69 350 48 68 94 Formulation C + 150 41 41 59 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 57 53 85 350 67 67 94 Formulation C + 150 26 39 67 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 46 66 88 350 75 73 93 Formulation C + 150 30 52 66 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 67 50 89 350 61 88 92 21-01 150 35 62 64 250 63 77 90 350 71 83 85 21-02 150 35 44 67 250 53 79 86 350 58 92 90 21-03 150 37 50 71 250 53 76 90 350 73 63 97 21-04 150 29 46 61 250 43 77 85 350 70 85 96 21-05 150 12 36 59 250 43 55 83 350 53 77 87 21-06 150 19 69 67 250 62 47 84 350 58 60 95 21-07 150 14 59 59 250 39 63 75 350 46 77 91 21-08 150 36 37 64 250 38 68 82 350 47 80 79 21-09 150 8 35 27 250 9 51 56 350 36 58 67 21-10 150 5 33 24 250 15 73 47 350 30 66 67 21-11 150 38 49 73 250 62 75 89 350 71 75 98 21-12 150 7 41 21 250 18 67 38 350 30 64 61 21-13 150 39 72 65 250 65 55 76 350 70 68 90 21-14 150 51 53 66 250 60 82 85 350 65 83 95 21-15 150 15 59 61 250 31 54 83 350 57 67 84 21-16 150 36 79 66 250 50 60 95 350 71 95 95 21-17 150 30 52 75 250 54 60 84 350 48 84 93 21-18 150 43 75 69 250 47 78 88 350 missing missing 90 21-19 150 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 equaling it on SIDSP and not quite equaling 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 Fluorad composition a.e. Lecithin MON 0818 FC-135______________________________________22-01 10 5.0 22-02 10 10.0 22-03 10 12.5 22-04 10 15.0 22-05 10 20.0 22-06 10 30.0 22-07 15 4.0 1.0 22-08 20 5.0 0.5 22-09 20 5.0 1.0 22-10 20 5.0 2.0 22-11 20 4.0 1.0 22-12 25 5.0 0.5 22-13 25 5.0 1.0 22-14 25 5.0 2.0 22-15 25 4.0 1.0 22-16 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 97 22-01 112 38 61 224 56 80 448 76 97 22-02 112 50 51 224 69 91 448 81 97 22-03 112 51 63 224 64 83 448 81 96 22-04 112 53 61 224 71 91 448 78 95 22-05 112 41 56 224 70 85 448 75 97 22-06 112 38 53 224 63 89 448 75 94 22-07 112 48 53 224 49 84 448 75 90 22-08 112 31 60 224 53 84 448 66 90 22-09 112 26 56 224 53 85 448 78 96 22-10 112 36 60 224 53 85 448 79 98 22-11 112 41 59 224 49 73 448 76 95 22-12 112 30 56 224 50 74 448 65 89 22-13 112 34 55 224 44 80 448 73 95 22-14 112 39 61 224 56 85 448 69 91 22-15 112 31 55 224 56 69 448 79 95 22-16 112 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/w ComponentsConcentrate Glyphosate MON Fluorad sonicated composition a.e. Lecithin 0818 FC-135 with lecithin______________________________________23-01 20 5.0 2.0 none 23-02 20 4.0 1.0 none 23-03 20 5.0 2.0 glyphosate 23-04 20 4.0 1.0 glyphosate 23-05 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 88 Formulation C 112 49 79 224 59 94 336 84 100 448 95 100 23-01 112 39 66 224 63 93 336 81 98 448 86 100 23-02 112 29 46 224 55 83 336 79 91 448 85 95 23-03 112 30 59 224 60 98 336 80 100 448 81 100 23-04 112 26 51 224 53 83 336 76 86 448 86 99 23-05 112 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 Components composition g/l Fluorad FC-135 sonicated with lecithin______________________________________24-01 2.5 none 24-02 1.0 none 24-03 0.5 none 24-04 0.2 none 24-05 0.1 none 24-06 2.5 0.25 none 24-07 0.5 0.05 none 24-08 0.2 0.02 none 24-09 0.2 0.02 glyphosate 24-10 0.2 0.02 FC-135 24-11 0.1 0.01 none 24-12 0.1 0.01 glyphosate 24-13 0.1 0.02 FC-135 24-14 0.5 0.02 none 24-15 0.5 0.02 glyphosate 24-16 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 % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha CYPES______________________________________Formulation B 400 32 750 68 1000 70 Formulation C 400 25 750 66 1000 89 Formulation B + 400 49 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 750 75 1000 82 Formulation B + 400 53 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 750 74 1000 64 Formulation B + 400 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 750 83 1000 83 Formulation B + 400 61 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 750 67 1000 88 Formulation C + 400 73 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 750 47 1000 79 Formulation C + 400 50 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 750 73 1000 81 Formulation C + 400 41 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 750 79 1000 81 Formulation C + 400 67 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 750 77 1000 72 24-01 400 62 750 73 1000 100 24-02 400 61 750 85 1000 92 24-03 400 81 750 83 1000 87 24-04 400 59 750 79 1000 79 24-05 400 69 750 69 1000 91 24-06 400 75 750 80 1000 96 24-07 400 65 750 69 1000 89 24-08 400 67 750 69 1000 87 24-09 400 76 750 77 1000 80 24-10 400 71 750 75 1000 86 24-11 400 69 750 77 1000 85 24-12 400 59 750 85 1000 95 24-13 400 61 750 75 1000 81 24-14 400 64 750 83 1000 90 24-15 400 53 750 81 1000 86 24-16 400 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 67 None 0 MON 0818 5.0 7 30 Fluorad FC-135 5.0 5 3 lecithin 5.0 0 0 Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.005 0 48 112 3 60 224 53 85 336 58 87 Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.01 3 50 112 10 67 224 52 87 336 67 92 Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.05 7 52 112 10 67 224 60 93 336 68 96 Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.1 10 55 112 12 70 224 57 97 336 80 97 Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.2 10 65 112 22 70 224 58 97 336 85 97 Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.5 13 65 112 33 77 224 72 99 336 88 100 Formulation B 56 MON 0818 1.0 15 68 112 55 80 224 78 98 336 95 100 Formulation B 56 MON 0818 2.0 27 75 112 62 78 224 83 100 336 100 99 Formulation B 56 MON 0818 5.0 23 55 112 53 77 224 72 90 336 97 88 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.005 2 47 112 10 50 224 25 70 336 55 78 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.01 7 40 112 15 57 224 70 67 336 80 80 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.05 2 48 112 15 57 224 70 78 336 78 88 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.1 5 45 112 18 58 224 75 87 336 80 90 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.2 12 48 112 27 60 224 75 90 336 97 93 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.5 3 47 112 12 57 224 75 80 336 78 83 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 1.0 5 43 112 10 52 224 77 75 336 78 77 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 2.0 7 42 112 10 47 224 65 65 336 72 77 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 5.0 2 38 112 5 47 224 63 60 336 67 63 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.005 0 10 112 10 45 224 67 70 336 67 77 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.01 2 20 112 12 47 224 63 70 336 68 85 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.05 3 32 112 12 52 224 63 73 336 72 82 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.1 8 37 112 10 50 224 65 73 336 78 83 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.2 5 45 112 43 63 224 68 82 336 80 92 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.5 13 50 112 42 65 224 67 88 336 68 87 Formulation B 56 lecithin 1.0 13 52 112 50 72 224 67 80 336 68 88 Formulation B 56 lecithin 2.0 10 53 112 37 72 224 72 88 336 87 97 Formulation 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/vcomposition g/l Fluorad FC-135 Aerosol OT______________________________________26-01 0.1 26-02 0.05 26-03 0.02 26-04 0.1 0.1 26-05 0.05 0.05 26-06 0.02 0.02 26-07 1.0 0.10 26-08 1.0 0.10 0.10 26-09 1.0 26-10 1.0 0.10 26-11 0.5 26-12 0.5 0.05 26-13 0.5 0.05 26-14 0.5 0.05 0.05 26-15 0.2 26-16 0.2 0.02 26-17 0.2 0.02 26-18 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 rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 150 37 71 57 250 57 79 69 400 74 86 80 500 79 89 74 Formulation C 150 48 42 58 250 71 80 81 400 88 100 88 500 92 100 86 Formulation B + 150 87 62 66 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 87 96 70 400 91 94 75 Formulation B + 150 61 48 65 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 81 69 71 400 90 91 67 Formulation B + 150 58 32 62 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 75 49 51 400 81 83 73 Formulation C + 150 78 61 76 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 79 77 81 400 93 100 78 Formulation C + 150 43 86 69 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 79 100 80 400 95 98 84 Formulation C + 150 39 56 77 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 77 100 86 400 88 100 80 26-01 150 63 48 49 250 70 69 66 400 85 84 63 26-02 150 32 36 55 250 64 74 65 400 77 92 69 26-03 150 30 78 51 250 59 79 66 400 83 93 74 26-04 150 86 50 65 250 74 98 71 400 81 89 75 26-05 150 85 55 60 250 81 75 73 400 82 81 64 26-06 150 61 67 45 250 66 78 61 400 83 77 67 26-07 150 46 38 44 250 56 85 64 400 75 96 78 26-08 150 88 63 70 250 87 73 79 400 91 82 75 26-09 150 63 72 61 250 87 73 71 400 89 87 80 26-10 150 81 72 61 250 85 62 82 400 87 89 76 26-11 150 54 57 68 250 80 90 74 400 84 95 66 26-12 150 27 53 47 250 57 71 67 400 72 91 70 26-13 150 78 59 64 250 80 84 80 400 89 76 77 26-14 150 84 52 68 250 88 69 75 400 90 84 66 26-15 150 51 57 55 250 81 55 71 400 88 83 69 26-16 150 40 68 46 250 74 89 60 400 77 98 63 26-17 150 64 44 58 250 80 93 81 400 87 99 69 26-18 150 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 arc 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 77 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.005 0 7 112 3 10 224 45 53 336 58 78 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.01 0 g 112 2 12 224 45 60 336 67 87 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.05 2 8 112 20 23 224 72 88 336 90 93 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.1 3 10 112 33 38 224 73 88 336 93 92 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.2 10 17 112 33 47 224 77 85 336 93 92 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.5 7 13 112 37 37 224 80 85 336 96 95 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 1.0 3 7 112 27 35 224 72 87 336 88 92 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 2.0 0 0 112 27 18 224 72 75 336 87 87 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 5.0 0 0 112 12 13 224 43 50 336 58 53 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.005 0 2 112 7 13 224 65 63 336 83 82 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.01 0 0 112 3 10 224 42 63 336 73 82 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.05 0 0 112 42 13 224 68 73 336 98 73 Formulation B 56 leeithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.1 0 0 112 37 20 224 62 68 336 94 77 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.2 0 2 112 33 28 224 67 68 336 100 78 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.5 7 0 112 40 18 224 68 68 336 90 73 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 1.0 17 3 112 43 45 224 83 88 336 95 94 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 2.0 10 23 112 32 42 224 63 73 336 88 87 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 5.0 2 3 112 18 28 224 50 72 336 85 87 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.005 2 2 112 3 10 224 45 50 336 58 72 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.01 0 2 112 2 12 224 40 52 336 65 75 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.05 2 2 112 0 10 224 40 45 336 57 70 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.1 2 7 112 2 13 224 33 37 336 48 67 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.2 3 3 112 3 13 224 32 35 336 47 68 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.5 2 3 112 8 15 224 47 53 336 67 65 Formulation B 56 lecithin 1.0 2 5 112 10 15 224 33 55 336 70 77 Formulation B 56 lecithin 2.0 5 8 112 12 17 224 48 52 336 68 77 Formulation 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 of51%. 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______________________________________Concen- trate % w/wcompo- Glyphosate Fluorad MON Other (*) Other sition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 0818 (*) components______________________________________28-01 20 1.0 PVA 28-02 20 5.0 1.0 PVA 28-03 20 2.0 1.0 PVA 28-04 20 1.0 1.0 PVA 28-05 20 0.5 Kelzan 28-06 20 2.0 0.5 Kelzan 28-07 20 2.0 0.04 28-08 20 2.0 2.0 0.04 28-09 20 2.0 2.0 0.02 28-10 20 2.0 0.04 25.0 Silwet 800 28-11 20 2.0 2.0 0.04 25.0 Silwet 800 28-12 20 5.0 Aerosol OT 28-13 20 5.0 + Aerosol 25.0 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 65 Formulation C 56 0 10 112 5 43 224 68 73 336 87 94 28-01 112 0 40 224 50 76 336 76 85 28-02 112 1 35 224 30 70 336 69 96 28-03 112 6 35 224 35 58 336 65 84 28-04 112 1 35 224 70 60 336 69 85 28-05 112 1 35 224 63 68 336 80 88 28-06 112 0 25 224 40 55 336 66 73 28-07 112 11 35 224 45 68 336 65 86 28-08 112 9 38 224 65 60 336 66 75 28-09 112 10 33 224 56 60 336 78 75 28-10 112 30 5 224 79 30 336 90 35 28-11 112 60 5 224 79 33 336 96 30 28-12 112 8 11 224 53 40 336 66 64 28-13 112 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 20 29-02 0.05 20 29-03 0.02 20 29-04 0.01 20 29-05 0.25 20 0.25 29-06 0.05 20 0.05 29-07 0.02 20 0.02 29-08 0.01 20 0.01 29-09 0.25 45 29-10 0.05 45 29-11 0.02 45 29-12 0.01 45 29-13 0.25 45 0.25 29-14 0.05 45 0.05 29-15 0.02 45 0.02 29-16 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 29-16, 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 % Inhibition Spray Composition g a.e./ha CYPBS______________________________________Formulation B 500 25 800 41 1200 59 Formulation C 500 29 800 43 1200 62 Formulation B + 500 60 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 57 1200 79 Formulation B + 500 63 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 800 54 1200 65 Formulation B + 500 50 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 800 71 1200 60 Formulation B + 500 27 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 800 35 1200 81 Formulation C + 500 41 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 72 1200 75 Formulation C + 500 52 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 800 43 1200 63 Formulation C + 500 76 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 800 72 1200 82 Formulation C + 500 38 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 800 59 1200 72 29-01 500 51 800 70 1200 64 29-02 500 58 800 69 1200 77 29-03 500 49 800 67 1200 85 29-04 500 51 800 76 1200 77 29-05 500 37 800 73 1200 100 29-06 400 72 750 62 1000 67 29-07 400 68 750 75 1000 86 29-08 400 59 750 78 1000 88 29-09 400 72 750 80 1000 88 29-10 400 67 750 77 1000 89 29-11 400 67 750 75 1000 66 29-12 400 55 750 75 1000 83 29-13 400 33 750 59 1000 73 29-14 400 63 750 77 1000 76 29-15 400 35 750 75 1000 88 29-16 400 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 20 30-02 0.2 20 30-03 0.1 20 30-04 0.5 45 30-05 0.2 45 30-06 0.1 45 30-07 0.5 95 30-08 0.2 95 30-09 0.1 95 30-10 0.5 20 0.05 30-11 0.5 45 0.05 30-12 0.5 95 0.05 30-13 0.2 20 0.02 30-14 0.2 45 0.02 30-15 0.2 95 0.02 30-16 0.1 20 0.01 30-17 0.1 45 0.01 30-18 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 64 Formulation C 100 14 40 34 200 53 98 66 300 74 100 84 400 86 100 93 Formulation B + 100 18 25 34 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 200 50 58 52 300 68 83 70 Formulation B + 100 10 21 29 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 200 64 40 46 300 79 62 64 Formulation B + 100 10 21 34 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 200 34 27 44 300 73 74 69 Formulation C + 100 65 53 58 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 200 73 77 65 300 94 99 73 Formulation C + 100 68 94 61 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 200 63 93 66 300 85 90 79 Formulation C + 100 72 67 53 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 200 69 99 61 300 81 99 83 30-01 100 32 26 39 200 72 60 56 300 84 72 69 30-02 100 14 23 43 200 70 42 63 300 83 74 68 30-03 100 6 25 42 200 55 47 57 300 65 64 72 30-04 100 29 31 42 200 55 65 60 300 82 54 73 30-05 100 14 22 41 200 32 35 66 300 81 98 70 30-06 100 9 26 29 200 47 48 57 300 69 71 71 30-07 100 30 22 50 200 73 50 69 300 82 86 67 30-08 100 41 23 53 200 57 38 69 300 76 46 84 30-09 100 32 17 45 200 60 37 67 300 78 77 73 30-10 100 58 27 62 200 91 42 79 300 93 95 77 30-11 100 66 58 63 200 91 79 69 300 91 84 84 30-12 100 61 27 67 200 90 72 77 300 93 83 84 30-13 100 61 24 51 200 88 48 69 300 94 54 75 30-14 100 66 25 56 200 90 49 72 300 93 73 85 30-15 100 63 23 61 200 88 33 72 300 95 75 81 30-16 100 75 25 56 200 87 37 74 300 93 71 77 30-17 100 63 17 59 200 92 27 73 300 92 83 78 30-18 100 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 Fluorad composition g/l lipid % source FC-135 FC-754______________________________________31-01 0.05 95 egg yolk 31-02 0.02 95 egg yolk 31-03 0.01 95 egg yolk 31-04 0.05 95 soybean 31-05 0.02 95 soybean 31-06 0.01 95 soybean 31-07 0.05 95 egg yolk 0.05 31-08 0.02 95 egg yolk 0.02 31-09 0.01 95 egg yolk 0.01 31-10 0.05 95 soybean 0.05 31-11 0.02 95 soybean 0.02 31-12 0.01 95 soybean 0.01 31-13 0.05 20 soybean 0.05 31-14 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 46 Formulation C 100 10 31 200 28 36 300 62 66 400 77 74 Formulation B + 100 19 24 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 200 37 40 300 62 52 Formulation B + 100 7 13 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 200 42 27 300 56 57 Formulation B + 100 23 19 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 200 43 24 300 60 40 Formulation B + 100 19 23 Fluorad FC-754 0.05% w/v 200 41 33 300 67 62 Formulation B + 100 12 19 Fluorad FC-754 0.02% w/v 200 31 44 300 61 45 Formulation C + 100 37 39 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 200 49 43 300 66 62 Formulation C + 100 18 31 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 200 47 44 300 68 49 Formulation C + 100 26 27 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 200 36 44 300 54 82 Formulation C + 100 34 32 Fluorad FC-754 0.05% w/v 200 47 37 300 62 62 Formulation C + 100 28 32 Fluorad FC-754 0.02% w/v 200 45 60 300 43 75 31-01 100 16 36 200 54 56 300 66 61 31-02 100 23 43 200 45 45 300 65 51 31-03 100 31 35 200 37 45 300 53 60 31-04 100 24 35 200 43 43 300 78 50 31-05 100 24 36 200 45 44 300 58 66 31-06 100 31 24 200 46 34 300 52 51 31-07 100 49 33 200 65 39 300 73 63 31-08 100 48 25 200 70 49 300 73 69 31-09 100 45 27 200 59 53 300 71 84 31-10 100 60 30 200 64 89 300 75 99 31-11 100 47 51 200 66 65 300 80 78 31-12 100 49 39 200 60 59 300 67 84 31-13 100 50 30 200 70 51 300 68 66 31-14 100 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 of composition g/l fluoro-organic fluoro-organic______________________________________32-01 0.20 none 32-02 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-135 32-03 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-431 32-04 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-751 32-05 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-170C 32-06 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-171 32-07 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-754 32-08 0.50 none 32-09 0.10 none 32-10 0.04 none 32-11 0.02 none______________________________________
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 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______________________________________ Glyphosate 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 64 Formulation C 150 29 69 49 250 55 90 67 350 75 91 75 450 82 91 85 Formulation B + 150 17 43 36 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 39 58 53 350 52 53 68 Formulation B + 150 13 25 32 Fluorad FC-170C 0.02% 250 31 47 36 w/v 350 31 85 61 Formulation B + 150 8 52 15 Fluorad FC-171 0.02% w/v 250 10 47 44 350 15 58 55 Formulation B + 150 14 36 34 Fluorad FC-431 0.02% w/v 250 23 53 53 350 37 61 62 Formulation B + 150 12 29 29 Fluorad FC-751 0.02% w/v 250 30 38 41 350 43 36 58 Formulation B + 150 21 27 33 Fluorad FC-754 0.02% w/v 250 31 36 49 350 38 51 59 Formulation C + 150 35 31 46 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 66 87 58 350 78 99 80 Formulation C + 150 29 68 41 Fluorad FC-170C 0.02% 250 54 78 61 w/v 350 59 86 78 Formulation C + 150 20 96 35 Fluorad FC-171 0.02% w/v 250 37 99 62 350 55 100 65 Formulation C + 150 20 94 41 Fluorad FC-431 0.02% w/v 250 51 85 68 350 66 97 74 Formulation C + 150 15 67 38 Fluorad FC-751 0.02% w/v 250 36 85 56 350 60 100 72 Formulation C + 150 33 78 37 Fluorad FC-754 0.02% w/v 250 75 85 66 350 82 94 80 32-01 150 25 35 45 250 43 52 63 350 60 90 77 32-02 150 65 37 58 250 69 69 67 350 66 69 78 32-03 150 14 40 41 250 45 78 63 350 55 92 75 32-04 150 19 48 48 250 36 51 63 350 65 69 70 32-05 150 47 34 45 250 55 43 55 350 63 58 75 32-06 150 23 36 46 250 57 52 59 350 61 73 67 32-07 150 67 59 58 250 81 73 72 350 80 76 76 32-08 150 37 49 60 250 60 83 69 350 67 93 49 32-09 150 19 63 51 250 53 71 62 350 55 74 82 32-10 150 19 70 51 250 39 94 61 350 63 87 73 32-11 150 16 51 50 250 58 67 66 350 69 92 73______________________________________
Composition 32-07containing 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/w Concentrate Glyphosate Agrimul Fluorad composition a.e. Lecithin MON 0818 PG-2069 FC-135______________________________________33-01 30 3.0 0.25 3.0 33-02 30 3.0 0.25 1.0 33-03 30 3.0 0.25 3.0 33-04 30 1.0 0.50 3.0 33-05 30 1.0 0.50 3.0 33-06 30 1.0 1.0 33-07 30 1.0 0.25 1.0 33-08 30 3.0 0.50 2.0 33-09 30 2.0 3.0 33-10 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 99 Formulation J 56 16 20 112 40 43 224 80 81 448 97 99 33-01 56 4 5 112 35 20 224 81 51 448 99 80 33-02 56 0 5 112 4 20 224 66 55 448 94 80 33-03 56 1 5 112 6 20 224 78 74 448 93 80 33-04 56 1 5 112 1 15 224 75 65 448 95 80 33-05 56 0 5 112 1 15 224 75 65 448 91 80 33-06 56 0 5 112 3 15 224 55 63 448 91 79 33-07 56 1 5 112 3 15 224 48 55 448 88 81 33-08 56 3 9 112 3 20 224 66 60 448 89 80 33-09 56 0 5 112 5 10 224 78 55 448 97 80 33-10 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/w composition g/l Fluorad FC-135______________________________________34-01 0.25 34-02 0.05 34-03 0.02 34-04 0.01 34-05 0.25 0.25 34-06 0.05 0.05 34-07 0.02 0.02 34-08 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 % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha PANMA______________________________________Formulation B 400 61 800 89 1500 93 2000 97 Formulation C 400 85 800 94 1500 100 2000 100 Formulation B + 400 76 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 78 1500 97 Formulation B + 400 45 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 800 69 1500 89 Formulation B + 400 39 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 800 71 1500 95 Formulation B + 400 52 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 800 78 1500 99 Formulation C + 400 82 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 97 1500 100 Formulation C + 400 63 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 800 93 1500 100 Formulation C + 400 73 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 800 98 1500 100 Formulation C + 400 66 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 800 97 1500 100 34-01 400 38 800 73 1500 92 34-02 400 64 800 83 1500 90 34-03 400 50 800 75 1500 99 34-04 400 48 800 88 1500 98 34-05 400 60 800 79 1500 99 34-06 400 58 800 86 1500 99 34-07 400 55 800 86 1500 93 34-08 400 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______________________________________Concen- trate % w/wcompo- Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad MON Agrimul sition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 0818 PG-2069______________________________________35-01 30 3.0 3.0 0.25 35-02 30 3.0 1.0 0.25 35-03 30 3.0 3.0 0.25 35-04 30 1.0 3.0 0.50 35-05 30 1.0 3.0 0.50 35-06 30 1.0 1.0 35-07 30 1.0 1.0 0.25 35-08 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 35-09 30 2.0 3.0 35-10 30 3.0 0.50 35-11 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 35-12 30 2.0 1.0 0.375 35-13 30 1.0 2.0 0.25 35-14 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 35-15 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 35-16 30 2.0 1.0 0.375 35-17 30 1.0 2.0 0.25 35-18 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 % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./ha AGRRE______________________________________Formulation B 400 41 800 46 1000 55 1200 70 Formulation C 400 38 800 47 1000 77 1200 77 Formulation J 400 60 800 84 1000 77 1200 85 35-01 400 27 800 76 1000 79 35-02 400 49 800 66 1000 78 35-03 400 42 800 80 1000 83 35-04 400 31 800 71 1000 64 35-05 400 32 800 53 1000 59 35-06 400 27 800 39 1000 65 35-07 400 29 800 54 1000 61 35-08 400 38 800 65 1000 81 35-09 400 31 800 55 1000 67 35-10 400 43 800 38 1000 58 35-11 400 34 800 56 1000 75 35-12 400 29 800 51 1000 65 35-13 400 51 800 69 1000 83 35-14 400 39 800 63 1000 65 35-15 400 53 800 65 1000 77 35-16 400 43 800 65 1000 82 35-17 400 69 800 84 1000 94 35-18 400 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__________________________________________________________________________% w/wConc. Glyphosate Fluorad Agrimul MON Lecithin order of comp. a.e. Lecithin FC-135 PG-2069 0818 phospholipid % addition__________________________________________________________________________ (*)36-01 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 45 A 36-02 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 45 A 36-03 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 45 A 36-04 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 0.5 45 A(**) 36-05 30 3.0 3.0 1.00 45 A 36-06 30 3.0 3.0 2.00 45 A 36-07 30 3.0 3.0 3.00 45 A 36-08 30 3.0 3.0 4.00 45 A 36-09 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 A 36-10 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 B 36-11 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 C 36-12 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 D 36-13 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 E 36-14 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 F 36-15 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 A 36-16 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 B 36-17 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 C 36-18 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 D 36-19 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 E 36-20 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 F__________________________________________________________________________
(*) Order of addition:
______________________________________1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th______________________________________A lecithin PG-2069 FC-135 water glyphosate B lecithin FC-135 PG-2069 water glyphosate C glyphosate water FC-135 PG-2069 lecithin D glyphosate water PG-2069 FC-135 lecithin E glyphosate lecithin PG-2069 FC-135 water F 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 and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 33b.
TABLE 36b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 200 38 73 400 51 64 600 67 89 800 72 86 Formulation C 200 57 75 400 77 98 600 92 97 800 100 100 Formulation J 200 50 52 400 73 99 600 88 99 800 98 98 36-01 200 49 64 400 72 59 600 78 87 36-02 200 54 72 400 78 71 600 97 90 36-03 200 57 62 400 80 78 600 89 87 36-04 200 46 39 400 74 64 600 86 78 36-05 200 49 29 400 74 79 600 83 90 36-06 200 49 65 400 70 88 600 87 88 36-07 200 49 51 400 67 77 600 81 83 36-08 200 42 59 400 70 67 600 78 80 36-09 200 45 28 400 73 85 600 87 98 36-10 200 57 82 400 76 89 600 87 98 36-11 200 56 80 400 84 84 600 85 100 36-12 200 57 81 400 78 98 600 87 94 36-13 200 54 86 400 73 72 600 96 97 36-14 200 56 73 400 69 98 600 85 94 36-15 200 40 41 400 85 88 600 83 96 36-16 200 53 59 400 73 76 600 84 73 36-17 200 39 53 400 65 86 600 86 81 36-18 200 49 31 400 69 52 600 73 75 36-19 200 47 50 400 74 86 600 88 98 36-20 200 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______________________________________Concen- trate Glypho- % w/wcompo- sate Aerosol MON Fluorad Methyl sition g a.e./l Lecithin OT 0818 FC-754 caprate PVA______________________________________37-01 200 2.0 0.25 37-02 300 3.0 0.50 37-03 300 3.0 0.50 2.0 37-04 200 2.0 0.25 1.5 37-05 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 1.0 37-06 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 1.0 37-07 200 2.0 0.25 2.0 37-08 200 2.0 0.25 37-09 300 3.0 0.50 37-10 300 3.0 0.50 2.0 37-11 200 2.0 0.25 1.5 37-12 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 37-13 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 37-14 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 1.5 37-15 200 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, 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 50 Formulation C 112 30 45 224 91 81 336 98 81 448 100 99 Formulation J 112 50 35 224 80 65 336 97 88 448 100 90 37-01 112 11 8 224 50 40 336 71 61 448 93 78 37-02 112 5 6 224 64 58 336 78 60 448 84 65 37-07 112 5 3 224 46 38 336 73 83 448 93 66 37-08 112 8 13 224 43 46 336 73 65 448 83 70 37-09 112 1 5 224 23 25 336 65 33 448 91 58 37-12 112 0 5 224 58 48 336 73 63 448 91 63 37-13 112 0 10 224 53 38 336 73 45 448 88 50 37-15 112 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 MON composition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 0818______________________________________38-01 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 38-02 25 2.5 2.5 0.63 38-03 20 2.0 2.0 0.50 38-04 15 1.5 1.5 0.38 38-05 10 1.0 1.0 0.25 38-06 5 0.5 0.5 0.13 38-07 30 3.0 3.0 1.50 38-08 25 2.5 2.5 0.63 38-09 20 2.0 2.0 0.50 38-10 15 1.5 1.5 0.38 38-11 10 1.0 1.0 0.25 38-12 5 0.5 0.5 0.13 38-13 25 2.5 2.5 0.94 38-14 20 2.0 2.0 0.75 38-15 15 1.5 1.5 0.56 38-16 10 1.0 1.0 0.38 38-17 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______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation C 200 59 98 400 96 96 600 70 93 800 100 97 Formulation C + 200 59 92 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 93 93 600 95 100 800 100 97 Formulation C + 200 54 73 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 95 76 600 100 82 800 100 95 Formulation J 200 55 87 400 92 98 600 97 94 800 99 96 Formulation J + 200 67 88 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 89 89 600 94 87 800 96 91 Formulation J + 200 71 81 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 75 95 600 96 99 800 100 100 38-01 200 53 71 400 74 87 600 98 87 38-02 200 51 70 400 88 96 600 89 99 38-03 200 51 85 400 81 97 600 96 94 38-04 200 51 63 400 81 82 600 96 97 38-05 200 47 60 400 73 91 600 94 94 38-06 200 54 43 400 73 88 600 92 87 38-07 200 60 70 400 84 93 600 90 98 38-08 200 49 55 400 76 92 600 88 83 38-09 200 57 53 400 79 95 600 91 87 38-10 200 55 85 400 90 97 600 94 96 38-11 200 64 43 400 77 87 600 93 96 38-12 200 54 72 400 85 98 600 96 100 38-13 200 61 61 400 84 90 600 95 99 38-14 200 57 86 400 82 90 600 99 98 38-15 200 59 89 400 78 96 600 93 97 38-16 200 53 87 400 81 98 600 96 98 38-17 200 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 Fluorad Conc. Glyphosate FC-135 or Amine Type of comp. a.e. Lecithin FC-754 surfactant amine surfactant______________________________________39-01 20 2.0 0.25 MON 0818 39-02 20 3.0 0.25 MON 0818 39-03 20 3.0 3.0 0.25 MON 0818 (135) 39-04 20 3.0 3.0 0.25 MON 0818 (754) 39-05 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-20 39-06 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-50 39-07 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-75 39-08 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-100 39-09 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-150 39-10 20 2.00 Triton RW-20 39-11 20 2.00 Triton RW-50 39-12 20 2.00 Triton RW-75 39-13 20 2.00 Triton RW-100 39-14 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______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation C 112 0 10 224 10 20 336 47 30 448 63 40 39-01 112 8 15 224 25 35 336 55 56 448 63 65 39-02 112 5 10 224 23 33 336 55 64 448 66 60 39-03 112 28 15 224 55 35 336 74 58 448 76 65 39-04 112 15 8 224 53 45 336 73 55 448 75 64 39-05 112 0 8 224 14 45 336 45 70 448 65 66 39-06 112 1 13 224 5 43 336 58 64 448 66 75 39-07 112 0 15 224 1 53 336 45 78 448 60 83 39-08 112 0 10 224 25 45 336 50 79 448 68 88 39-09 112 0 13 224 13 45 336 50 75 448 70 81 39-10 112 0 18 224 18 35 336 48 65 448 66 76 39-11 112 1 0 224 35 25 336 38 55 448 50 78 39-12 112 8 25 224 10 38 336 48 70 448 73 81 39-13 112 0 25 224 5 33 336 30 70 448 74 75 39-14 112 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______________________________________ % w/wSpray Lecithin Lecithin Fluorad Fluorad composition g/l % purity FC-135 FC-754______________________________________40-01 1.0 20 40-02 0.5 20 40-03 0.2 20 40-04 1.0 20 0.10 40-05 0.5 20 0.05 40-06 0.2 20 0.02 40-07 1.0 20 0.10 40-08 0.5 20 0.05 40-09 0.2 20 0.02 0.02 40-10 0.5 45 0.05 40-11 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______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 49 100 300 66 92 500 80 76 700 93 96 Formulation C 200 57 79 400 93 98 600 100 100 800 100 100 Formulation B + 200 58 80 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 63 100 600 82 100 Formulation B + 200 37 49 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 67 84 600 74 100 Formulation B + 200 33 82 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% 400 58 94 600 81 87 Formulation B + 200 50 45 Fluorad FC-754 0.1% 400 77 82 600 77 94 Formulation B + 200 44 45 Fluorad FC-754 0.05% 400 71 65 600 74 90 Formulation B + 200 31 57 Fluorad FC-754 0.02% 400 67 83 600 68 93 Formulation C + 200 69 65 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 91 99 600 97 100 Formulation C + 200 73 87 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 89 100 600 98 100 Formulation C + 200 51 60 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% 400 91 100 600 98 100 Formulation C + 200 70 81 Fluorad FC-754 0.1% 400 85 99 600 98 95 Formulation C + 200 68 54 Fluorad FC-754 0.05% 400 78 88 600 91 88 Formulation C + 200 50 41 Fluorad FC-754 0.02% 400 89 91 600 99 100 40-01 200 41 37 400 78 84 600 83 100 40-02 200 38 82 400 74 94 600 82 98 40-03 200 38 62 400 69 85 600 86 100 40-04 200 63 69 400 79 75 600 93 89 40-05 200 69 66 400 85 81 600 84 86 40-06 200 64 38 400 79 74 600 93 99 40-07 200 61 43 400 76 71 600 85 85 40-08 200 71 52 400 82 85 600 82 100 40-09 200 63 55 400 83 73 600 79 97 40-10 200 65 54 400 78 80 600 85 99 40-11 200 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/w Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad composition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 MON 0818______________________________________41-01 15.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-02 15.0 6.0 8.0 0.5 41-03 15.0 8.0 8.0 0.5 41-04 10.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-05 10.0 6.0 8.0 0.5 41-06 10.0 8.0 8.0 0.5 41-07 5.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-08 5.0 6.0 8.0 0.5 41-09 5.0 8.0 8.0 0.5 41-10 15.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-11 15.0 6.0 8.0 0.5 41-12 15.0 8.0 8.0 0.5 41-13 10.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-14 10.0 6.0 8.0 0.5 41-15 10.0 8.0 8.0 0.5 41-16 5.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-17 5.0 6.0 8.0 0.5 41-18 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______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 49 41 300 41 55 500 76 98 700 82 100 Formulation J 150 59 66 300 79 99 500 93 99 700 98 100 Formulation B + 150 52 85 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 300 69 93 500 89 97 Formulation B + 150 9 61 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 300 71 77 500 77 100 Formulation J + 150 52 99 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 300 74 100 500 82 99 Formulation J + 150 41 52 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 300 77 83 500 91 100 41-01 150 66 51 300 86 91 500 93 100 41-02 150 72 88 300 89 93 500 96 92 41-03 150 71 91 300 89 95 500 91 100 41-04 150 63 90 300 89 89 500 96 99 41-05 150 70 79 300 84 94 500 88 98 41-06 150 69 76 300 89 84 500 94 100 41-07 150 71 87 300 77 82 500 99 92 41-08 150 81 87 300 88 94 500 92 98 41-09 150 72 83 300 87 83 500 94 94 41-10 150 72 70 300 81 80 500 89 93 41-11 150 74 85 300 87 96 500 91 98 41-12 150 66 92 300 78 98 500 93 100 41-13 150 71 76 300 86 95 500 94 99 41-14 150 72 75 300 90 97 500 91 99 41-15 150 69 82 300 85 98 500 94 100 41-16 150 76 87 300 86 100 500 90 99 41-17 150 71 83 300 87 94 500 96 100 41-18 150 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/wConc. Glyphosate MON Agrimul Fluorad Fluorad Westvaco comp. a.e. Lecithin 0818 PG-2069 FC-135 FC-754 H-240__________________________________________________________________________42-01 30 3.0 0.25 3.0 9.0 42-02 30 3.0 0.25 1.0 9.0 42-03 30 3.0 0.25 3.0 9.0 42-04 30 1.0 0.50 3.0 9.0 42-05 30 1.0 0.50 3.0 9.0 42-06 30 1.0 1.0 9.0 42-07 30 1.0 0.25 1.0 9.0 42-08 30 3.0 0.50 2.0 9.0 42-09 30 2.0 3.0 9.0 42-10 30 3.0 5.0 42-11 30 3.0 0.50 3.0 9.0 42-12 30 2.0 0.38 2.0 9.0 42-13 30 1.0 0.25 1.0 9.0 42-14 30 3.0 0.50 3.0 9.0 42-15 15 6.0 2.00 8.3 42-16 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______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 3 33 300 12 90 500 65 98 700 79 100 Formulation J 150 2 46 300 76 100 500 98 100 700 98 100 Formulation B + 150 10 38 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 300 50 85 500 65 68 Formulation B + 150 3 27 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 300 36 82 500 68 99 Formulation J + 150 18 79 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 300 57 98 500 79 100 Formulation J + 150 2 37 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 300 56 97 500 96 98 42-01 150 2 27 300 2 74 500 46 78 42-02 150 2 52 300 41 64 500 40 85 42-03 150 3 38 300 39 47 500 73 98 42-04 150 3 38 300 42 63 500 78 84 42-05 150 5 29 300 37 89 500 70 99 42-06 150 8 37 300 30 89 500 69 97 42-07 150 5 53 300 32 80 500 83 99 42-08 150 3 26 300 10 40 500 12 55 42-09 150 7 21 300 57 86 500 91 97 42-10 150 21 61 300 73 89 500 85 98 42-11 150 6 23 300 53 70 500 85 83 42-12 150 33 25 300 34 43 500 83 97 42-13 150 7 34 300 62 39 500 77 73 42-14 150 10 27 300 59 40 500 84 73 42-15 150 71 48 300 97 65 500 99 92 42-16 150 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 Emphos composition a.e. FC-135 Aerosil 90 PS-21A______________________________________43-01 20 3.3 43-02 20 3.3 43-03 31 1.1 3.3 1.1 43-04 31 1.1 3.3 2.2 43-05 31 1.1 3.3 3.3 43-06 31 2.2 3.3 1.1 43-07 31 2.2 3.3 2.2 43-08 31 2.2 3.3 3.3 43-09 31 3.3 3.3 1.1 43-10 31 3.3 3.3 2.2 43-11 31 3.3 3.3 3.3 43-12 31 3.3 3.3 43-13 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______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 8 250 18 25 350 35 40 450 75 50 Formulation C 150 30 85 250 92 95 350 100 100 450 100 100 Formulation J 150 40 70 250 70 83 350 93 92 450 100 98 43-01 150 20 25 250 35 30 350 65 43 450 73 35 43-02 150 5 5 250 20 25 350 45 35 450 66 83 43-03 150 20 11 250 40 30 350 73 64 450 88 83 43-04 150 15 3 250 30 25 350 40 35 450 71 75 43-05 150 15 10 250 33 30 350 69 45 450 78 65 43-06 150 11 8 250 28 30 350 30 35 450 69 61 43-07 150 5 8 250 13 20 350 51 30 450 74 43 43-08 150 15 8 250 30 15 350 35 30 450 56 45 43-09 150 15 15 250 28 20 350 43 33 450 45 40 43-10 150 5 3 250 25 20 350 50 40 450 48 58 43-11 150 14 6 250 25 40 350 64 76 450 78 79 43-12 150 9 20 250 20 33 350 46 73 450 59 80 43-13 150 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 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__________________________________________________________________________% w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Ethomeen Aluminum Titanium composition a.e. FC-135 T/25 oxide C dioxide P25 Aerosol OT__________________________________________________________________________44-01 20 3.30 44-02 20 3.30 44-03 20 3.30 44-04 20 3.30 44-05 20 0.67 44-06 20 3.30 3.30 44-07 20 3.30 0.67 44-08 20 3.30 3.30 44-09 20 0.67 3.30 44-10 20 3.30 3.30 44-11 20 3.30 0.67 44-12 20 3.30 44-13 20 0.67 44-14 20 3.30 3.30 44-15 20 3.30 0.67 44-16 20 3.30 3.30 44-17 20 0.67 3.30 44-18 20 3.30 3.30 44-19 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______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 8 45 250 37 55 350 40 60 450 50 70 Formulation C 150 27 72 250 73 92 350 90 99 450 92 99 Formulation J 150 25 66 250 45 88 350 78 99 450 91 100 44-01 150 40 82 250 55 93 350 74 100 450 83 100 44-02 150 9 20 250 30 73 350 38 73 450 55 97 44-03 150 13 23 250 35 79 350 45 78 450 75 100 44-04 150 18 45 250 35 65 350 35 70 450 68 81 44-05 150 11 43 250 35 50 350 50 55 450 59 78 44-06 150 25 75 250 58 93 350 88 100 450 95 100 44-07 150 15 88 250 68 100 350 79 100 450 90 100 44-08 150 28 38 250 25 38 350 35 55 450 71 79 44-09 112 5 13 224 23 48 336 25 70 448 45 64 44-10 150 1 20 250 40 74 350 65 55 450 84 96 44-11 150 25 25 250 35 65 350 45 61 450 76 92 44-12 150 14 28 250 40 43 350 45 70 450 65 79 44-13 150 20 45 250 48 33 350 60 55 450 80 79 44-14 150 23 79 250 73 100 350 76 99 450 85 99 44-15 150 25 83 250 69 99 350 75 99 450 91 100 44-16 150 14 28 250 23 40 350 30 79 450 69 86 44-17 150 1 20 250 23 33 350 16 45 450 40 68 44-18 150 8 15 250 49 56 350 55 58 450 83 83 44-19 150 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 0.10 45-02 0.05 45-03 0.02 45-04 0.10 0.10 45-05 0.05 0.05 45-06 0.02 0.02 45-07 0.10 0.10 45-08 0.05 0.05 45-09 0.02 0.02 45-10 0.10 45-11 0.05 45-12 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______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 16 21 250 68 32 350 68 63 450 67 69 Formulation C 150 29 47 250 76 74 350 98 94 450 100 85 Formulation J 150 37 31 250 79 72 350 93 82 450 97 97 Formulation B + 150 55 15 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 73 28 350 85 57 450 83 83 Formulation B + 150 59 15 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 77 41 350 81 72 450 77 51 Formulation B + 150 25 12 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 54 27 350 82 38 450 75 47 Formulation C + 150 51 26 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 78 63 350 86 71 450 89 79 Formulation C + 150 58 23 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 74 89 350 93 78 450 89 91 45-01 150 29 26 250 61 47 350 73 48 450 82 62 45-02 150 34 34 250 67 34 350 73 54 450 85 43 45-03 150 20 29 250 60 49 350 68 84 450 74 64 45-04 150 78 24 250 83 33 350 96 64 450 97 59 45-05 150 81 21 250 89 27 350 82 34 450 99 31 45-06 150 92 14 250 85 64 350 86 31 450 90 60 45-07 150 71 27 250 81 46 350 84 66 450 88 62 45-08 150 46 29 250 70 43 350 78 61 450 86 58 45-09 150 55 25 250 76 33 350 80 50 450 78 62 45-10 150 65 26 250 85 28 350 91 37 450 89 53 45-11 150 73 27 250 77 28 350 92 41 450 92 49 45-12 150 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-base 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 were 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 tetrabutylammonuium salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 46a. Process (i) was followed for compositions 46-10 to 46-13 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______________________________________% w/wSpray Fluorad Glyphosate composition Lecithin LI-700 FC-135 Surf H1 salt______________________________________46-01 0.10 IPA 46-02 0.05 IPA 46-03 0.02 IPA 46-04 0.10 0.10 IPA 46-05 0.05 0.05 IPA 46-06 0.02 0.02 IPA 46-07 0.10 0.10 IPA 46-08 0.05 0.05 IPA 46-09 0.02 0.02 IPA 46-10 0.10 IPA 46-11 0.05 IPA 46-12 0.02 IPA 46-13 (BU).sub.4 N 46-14 0.05 0.05 (BU).sub.4 N 46-15 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 43 Formulation C 150 32 30 300 78 68 500 90 81 700 96 89 Formulation J 150 16 27 300 74 56 500 88 79 700 93 92 Formulation B + 150 22 18 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 71 26 500 73 51 Formulation B + 150 19 16 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 60 28 500 72 33 Formulation B + 150 14 14 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 300 23 26 500 69 38 Formulation C + 150 31 11 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 73 27 500 82 48 Formulation C + 150 43 23 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 71 49 500 93 50 46-01 150 20 18 300 65 29 500 85 34 46-02 150 22 19 300 63 35 500 83 51 46-03 150 24 29 300 64 35 500 85 40 46-04 150 63 21 300 75 31 500 84 46 46-05 150 68 10 300 82 29 500 81 53 46-06 150 68 21 300 84 30 500 85 46 46-07 150 41 35 300 51 39 500 93 61 46-08 150 34 22 300 77 27 500 85 35 46-09 150 24 17 300 78 39 500 91 58 46-10 150 16 19 300 62 28 500 72 53 46-11 150 38 25 300 59 38 500 82 59 46-12 150 7 23 300 61 40 500 77 63 46-13 150 81 48 300 92 51 500 90 46 46-14 150 87 30 300 91 69 500 95 89 46-15 150 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__________________________________________________________________________% w/w Order ofConcentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad MON Agrimul addition composition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 0818 PG-2069 (*)__________________________________________________________________________47-01 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 A 47-02 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 B 47-03 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 C 47-04 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 D 47-05 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 E 47-06 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 F 47-07 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 A 47-08 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 B 47-09 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 C 47-10 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 D 47-11 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 E 47-12 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 F 47-13 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 A 47-14 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 B 47-15 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 C 47-16 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 D 47-17 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 E 47-18 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 F__________________________________________________________________________
(*) Order of addition:
______________________________________1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th______________________________________A lecithin MON/PG FC-135/754 water glyphosate B lecithin FC-135 MON/PG water glyphosate C glyphosate water FC-135/754 MON/PG lecithin D glyphosate water MON/PG FC-135/754 lecithin E glyphosate lecithin MON/PG FC-135/754 water F glyphosate lecithin FC-135/754 MON/PG water______________________________________ MON/PG means MON 0818 or 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 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 94 100 Formulation J 150 38 78 300 76 87 500 87 100 700 90 100 47-01 150 10 35 300 51 56 500 71 91 700 77 100 47-02 150 24 35 300 57 71 500 77 93 700 94 100 47-03 150 11 33 300 48 55 500 73 87 700 83 93 47-04 150 37 36 300 50 38 500 68 94 47-05 150 24 32 300 48 47 500 77 85 700 76 100 47-06 150 12 32 300 61 40 500 83 86 700 88 95 47-07 150 17 25 300 58 77 500 73 97 700 86 81 47-08 150 12 34 300 53 47 500 69 72 700 79 100 47-09 150 10 33 300 47 70 500 67 99 700 83 81 47-10 150 13 25 300 49 51 500 70 73 700 85 92 47-11 150 10 22 300 56 37 500 77 47 700 85 85 47-12 150 13 27 300 61 68 500 78 52 700 86 85 47-13 150 14 27 300 62 35 500 72 46 700 87 67 47-14 150 15 27 300 59 37 500 76 63 700 85 61 47-15 150 10 25 300 40 46 500 72 88 700 79 51 47-16 150 12 27 300 53 41 500 63 49 700 71 85 47-17 150 23 25 300 59 35 500 70 79 700 75 86 47-18 150 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/wConcentrate Glyphosate Fluorad MON Order of composition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 0818 addition (*)______________________________________48-01 20 6.0 6.0 2.0 A 48-02 20 6.0 6.0 2.0 B 48-03 20 6.0 6.0 2.0 C 48-04 20 6.0 3.0 2.0 A 48-05 20 6.0 3.0 2.0 B 48-06 20 6.0 3.0 2.0 C 48-07 20 6.0 1.0 2.0 A 48-08 20 6.0 1.0 2.0 B 48-09 20 6.0 1.0 2.0 C 48-10 20 6.0 0.0 2.0 A 48-11 20 6.0 0.0 2.0 B 48-12 20 6.0 0.0 2.0 C 48-13 20 2.0 2.0 0.5 A 48-14 20 2.0 2.0 0.5 B 48-15 20 2.0 2.0 0.5 C______________________________________
(*) Order of addition:
______________________________________1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th______________________________________A lecithin MON FC-135 water glyphosate 0818 B lecithin MON water FC-135 glyphosate 0818 C lecithin water MON FC-135 glyphosate 0818______________________________________
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 68 Formulation C 100 8 63 200 43 96 300 88 96 500 99 98 Formulation J 100 12 10 200 35 60 300 85 90 500 98 92 48-01 100 10 0 200 38 13 300 73 28 500 90 75 48-02 100 8 0 200 40 23 300 87 43 500 98 62 48-03 100 12 0 200 40 25 300 83 47 500 95 73 48-04 100 5 5 200 45 38 300 83 65 500 98 83 48-05 100 10 3 200 42 48 300 82 53 500 97 91 48-06 100 28 0 200 67 43 300 85 68 500 97 93 48-07 100 8 8 200 37 35 300 75 72 500 97 90 48-08 100 0 1 200 37 45 300 57 68 500 96 97 48-09 100 0 7 200 35 40 300 78 60 500 96 93 48-10 100 0 3 200 33 57 300 82 72 500 96 94 48-11 100 0 5 200 35 50 300 78 82 500 97 87 48-12 100 3 5 200 40 37 300 77 78 500 97 85 48-13 100 3 0 200 45 33 300 83 38 500 95 75 48-14 100 0 0 200 43 33 300 77 50 500 96 68 48-15 100 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/w Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad composition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 MON 0818______________________________________49-01 15 4.0 8.0 0.5 49-02 15 6.0 8.0 0.5 49-03 15 8.0 8.0 0.5 49-04 10 4.0 8.0 0.5 49-05 10 6.0 8.0 0.5 49-06 10 8.0 8.0 0.5 49-07 15 4.0 8.00 0.5 49-08 15 6.0 8.00 0.5 49-09 15 8.0 8.00 0.5 49-10 15 6.0 8.25 0.5 49-11 15 6.0 8.25 4.0 49-12 15 8.0 4.00 4.0 0.5 49-13 10 8.0 8.00 0.5 49-14 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 60 Formulation J 150 27 38 250 68 80 350 78 95 450 87 95 49-01 150 15 30 250 78 68 350 97 87 450 97 78 49-02 150 47 30 250 92 80 350 97 97 450 98 85 49-03 150 30 35 250 83 45 350 97 57 450 97 67 49-04 150 47 32 250 80 57 350 95 87 450 97 96 49-05 150 32 30 250 81 89 350 94 95 450 98 94 49-06 150 60 28 250 80 96 350 92 95 450 98 96 49-07 150 50 23 250 70 72 350 92 78 450 97 60 49-08 150 45 40 250 72 72 350 90 89 450 97 77 49-09 150 53 25 250 80 78 350 89 89 450 96 93 49-10 150 72 48 250 89 83 350 98 95 450 98 80 49-11 150 50 27 250 77 63 350 93 83 450 97 72 49-12 150 52 15 250 83 57 350 94 68 450 98 63 49-13 150 50 30 250 75 32 350 88 84 450 97 77 49-14 150 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______________________________________% w/w Concentrate Glypho- Fluorad Fluorad MON Iso- composition sate a.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 0818 propanol______________________________________50-01 15 6.0 8.25 4.0 50-02 15 6.0 8.25 4.0 50-03 10 8.0 8.00 0.5 50-04 10 8.0 8.00 0.5 50-05 20 2.0 2.00 0.5 50-06 20 2.0 2.00 0.5 50-07 30 3.0 3.00 0.5 50-08 30 3.0 3.00 0.5 50-09 30 1.0 1.00 0.5 50-10 30 1.0 1.00 0.5 50-11 15 6.0 8.25 4.0 5.0 50-12 15 6.0 8.25 4.0 5.0 50-13 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 5.0 50-14 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 5.0 50-15 30 3.0 3.00 0.8 50-16 30 3.0 3.00 0.8 50-17 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 7.5 50-18 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 7.5 50-19 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 10.0 50-20 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 10.0 50-21 10 8.0 8.00 4.0 5.0 50-22 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______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 2 22 250 25 28 350 63 38 450 70 58 Formulation C 150 30 47 250 75 82 350 97 97 450 100 99 Formulation J 150 10 43 250 58 88 350 87 96 450 98 93 50-01 150 63 15 250 78 32 350 83 70 50-02 150 60 28 250 80 32 350 88 65 50-03 150 53 37 250 80 42 350 91 27 50-04 150 72 18 250 83 50 350 96 80 50-05 150 50 2 250 77 25 350 78 43 50-06 150 22 25 250 77 27 350 87 40 50-07 150 27 20 250 58 32 350 87 37 50-08 150 32 3 250 78 30 350 82 52 50-09 150 5 0 250 42 28 350 68 43 50-10 150 2 23 250 52 28 350 75 42 50-11 150 72 27 250 80 42 350 85 73 50-12 150 58 23 250 82 58 350 87 97 50-13 150 70 8 250 83 38 350 85 45 50-14 150 68 37 250 90 27 350 89 67 50-15 150 28 28 250 63 40 350 87 35 50-16 150 23 13 250 45 48 350 82 68 50-17 150 67 2 250 88 30 350 87 58 50-18 150 60 38 250 85 22 350 95 53 50-19 150 74 38 250 80 47 350 95 28 50-20 150 70 25 250 85 70 350 97 81 50-21 150 78 5 250 83 50 350 90 83 50-22 150 73 33 250 82 33 350 95 83______________________________________
Concentrate compositions having a high (20-30% a.c.) 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 MON Storage composition a.e. Lecithin LI-700 FC-135 FC-754 0818 conditions__________________________________________________________________________51-01 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 60.degree. C., 4d 51-02 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 60.degree. C., 4 d 51-03 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 -10.degree. C., 4 d 51-04 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 -10.degree. C., 4 d 51-05 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 room temperature, 4 d 51-06 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 room temperature, 4 d 51-07 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 60.degree. C., 8 h then -10.degree. C., 4 d 51-08 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 60.degree. C., 8 h then -10.degree. C., 4 d 51-09 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 freshly made 51-10 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 freshly made 51-11 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 room temperature,42 d 51-12 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 room temperature, 42 d 51-13 15.0 18.25 51-14 20.0 4.50 51-15 15.0 14.25 4.0 51-16 20.0 4.00 0.5 51-17 15.0 10.00 8.25 51-18 20.0 2.50 2.0 51-19 15.0 6.00 8.25 4.0 51-20 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 45 Formulation J 150 45 61 250 81 92 350 93 97 450 96 97 51-01 150 45 25 250 49 41 350 66 47 450 75 63 51-02 150 49 65 250 74 67 350 83 88 450 92 87 51-03 150 32 25 250 71 70 350 75 65 450 77 67 51-04 150 54 68 250 82 82 350 91 95 450 87 96 51-05 150 39 52 250 63 65 350 83 90 450 85 93 51-06 150 67 81 250 89 97 350 94 100 450 96 100 51-07 150 39 52 250 60 88 350 87 94 450 85 96 51-08 150 54 82 250 87 98 350 93 100 450 92 100 51-09 150 45 53 250 67 88 350 84 89 450 93 93 51-10 150 56 63 250 86 97 350 94 99 450 92 98 51-11 150 48 40 250 69 55 350 74 91 51-12 150 60 41 250 86 91 350 95 98 51-13 150 30 44 250 37 76 350 59 94 51-14 150 0 40 250 49 55 350 59 85 51-15 150 42 61 250 71 90 350 83 97 51-16 150 27 42 250 49 58 350 61 86 51-17 150 37 45 250 52 70 350 76 60 51-18 150 28 32 250 53 77 350 70 71 51-19 150 47 36 250 69 97 350 83 89 51-20 150 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 Ethomeen composition a.e. Lecithin stearate FC-754 0818 T/25 Ethanol__________________________________________________________________________52-01 20 2.0 0.5 1.25 1.0 52-02 20 2.0 0.5 1.00 1.00 1.0 52-03 20 2.0 0.5 1.25 1.0 52-04 20 6.0 1.5 3.00 3.0 52-05 20 6.0 1.5 2.00 2.00 2.0 52-06 20 6.0 1.5 3.00 3.0 52-07 20 2.0 0.5 0.50 52-08 20 2.0 0.5 2.50 52-09 20 2.0 0.5 1.25 1.25 52-10 20 6.0 1.5 0.50 52-11 20 6.0 1.5 3.00 52-12 20 6.0 1.5 6.00 52-13 20 6.0 1.5 3.00 3.00 52-14 20 2.0 2.0 0.50 52-15 20 6.0 3.0 6.00 52-16 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______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation J 150 38 45 250 80 63 350 78 82 450 75 55 52-01 150 23 27 250 57 53 350 70 85 450 70 83 52-02 150 7 25 250 52 45 350 82 88 450 82 90 52-03 150 38 35 250 50 40 350 82 92 450 83 93 52-04 150 40 48 250 73 75 350 78 92 450 88 92 52-05 150 50 53 250 68 80 350 85 98 450 89 96 52-06 150 50 43 250 55 80 350 78 97 450 85 91 52-07 150 3 28 250 22 43 350 67 72 450 73 75 52-08 150 43 33 250 77 63 350 89 78 450 97 85 52-09 150 57 27 250 95 63 350 89 86 450 98 88 52-10 150 32 23 250 33 55 350 73 82 450 67 60 52-11 150 45 32 250 78 72 350 95 92 450 98 96 52-12 150 67 42 250 80 75 350 96 88 450 97 90 52-13 150 73 42 250 83 77 350 96 91 450 98 88 52-14 150 57 30 250 77 72 350 84 80 450 96 75 52-15 150 72 38 250 88 82 350 98 92 450 98 87 52-16 150 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 Benzalk- Butyl MON addition composition g/l a.e. Lecithin FC-754/135 onium Cl stearate 0818__________________________________________________________________________ (*)53-01 345 4.0 0.66 53-02 345 4.0 1.00 53-03 347 3.0 3.00 53-04 347 4.0 4.00 53-05 347 4.0 5.00 53-06 345 4.6 4.60 53-07 348 4.0 2.0 (754) 1.10 53-08 351 4.0 4.0 (754) 1.00 A 53-09 346 3.9 4.2 (754) 1.00 B 53-10 350 4.0 2.0 (135) 1.10 53-11 352 4.0 4.0 (135) 1.00 A 53-12 349 4.0 4.0 (135) 1.00 B 53-13 348 4.0 4.0 (754) 0.50 0.57 53-14 347 4.0 0.50 0.52 53-15 348 3.7 0.48 3.7 53-16 348 4.0 0.58 4.0__________________________________________________________________________
(*) Order of addition:
______________________________________1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th______________________________________A lecithin water Benzalkonium FC-135/754 glyphosate Cl B glyphosate FC-135/754 Benzalkonium water glyphosate Cl______________________________________
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______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 5 5 200 15 20 300 47 30 400 65 37 Formulation J 100 0 8 200 70 37 300 78 70 400 83 73 53-01 100 3 10 200 17 27 300 45 37 400 75 40 53-02 100 2 5 200 13 30 300 43 40 400 75 47 53-03 100 0 8 200 17 43 300 65 78 400 78 83 53-04 100 2 10 200 30 37 300 68 72 400 75 88 53-05 100 2 20 200 25 65 300 63 88 400 82 83 53-06 100 10 17 200 25 33 300 47 77 400 83 75 53-07 100 0 10 200 48 30 300 73 37 400 83 43 53-08 100 3 10 200 33 30 300 68 37 400 78 40 53-09 100 5 10 200 40 27 300 65 50 400 70 57 53-10 100 0 10 200 30 27 300 67 40 400 73 40 53-11 100 0 10 200 33 27 300 52 37 400 82 40 53-12 100 0 10 200 40 20 300 65 40 400 72 40 53-13 100 0 10 200 40 20 300 60 33 400 78 33 53-14 100 0 10 200 7 47 300 28 33 400 43 43 53-15 100 0 13 200 27 33 300 73 53 400 77 67 53-16 100 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______________________________________Glyphosate % w/w Type ofComposition g a.e./l Lecithin Fluoro-organic fluoro-organic______________________________________Spray composition 54-01 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-754 54-02 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-754 54-03 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-754 54-04 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-754 54-05 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-750 54-06 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-750 54-07 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-750 54-08 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-750 54-09 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-751 54-10 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-751 54-11 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-751 54-12 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-751 54-13 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-760 54-14 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-760 54-15 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-760 54-16 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-760 54-17 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-120 54-18 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-120 54-19 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-120 54-20 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-120 54-21 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-171 54-22 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-171 54-23 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-171 54-24 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-171 54-25 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-129 54-26 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-129 54-27 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-129 54-28 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-129 54-29 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-170C 54-30 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-170C 54-31 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-170C 54-32 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-170C 54-33 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-754 54-34 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-754 54-35 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-754 54-36 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-754 54-37 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-750 54-38 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-750 54-39 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-750 54-40 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-750 54-41 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-760 54-42 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-760 54-43 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-760 54-44 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-760 54-45 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-120 54-46 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-120 54-47 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-120 54-48 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-120 54-49 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-171 54-50 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-171 54-51 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-171 54-52 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-171 54-53 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-129 54-54 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-129 54-55 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-129 54-56 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-129 54-57 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-170C 54-58 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-170C 54-59 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-170C 54-60 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-170CConcentrate compositions: 54-61 180 1.5 1.5 Fluorad FC-754 54-62 180 2.5 2.5 Fluorad FC-754 54-63 180 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 a comparative treatment. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 54b.
TABLE 54b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray or concentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 47 88 250 68 96 350 86 98 450 93 100 Formulation J 150 68 89 250 94 97 350 98 100 450 100 99 54-01 150 94 83 54-02 250 97 99 54-03 350 97 99 54-04 450 99 100 54-05 150 93 77 54-06 250 94 96 54-07 350 97 94 54-08 450 98 99 54-09 150 53 72 54-10 250 68 86 54-11 350 73 99 54-12 450 91 96 54-13 150 58 70 54-14 250 72 94 54-15 350 89 95 54-16 450 93 92 54-17 150 50 62 54-18 250 58 78 54-19 350 85 93 54-20 450 84 96 54-21 150 53 63 54-22 250 83 85 54-23 350 89 90 54-24 450 96 86 54-25 150 53 57 54-26 250 78 85 54-27 350 90 91 54-28 450 96 93 54-29 150 62 70 54-30 250 84 92 54-31 350 97 97 54-32 450 97 98 54-33 150 94 79 54-34 250 96 97 54-35 350 97 99 54-36 450 98 99 54-37 150 90 84 54-38 250 99 96 54-39 350 98 100 54-40 450 99 100 54-41 150 68 75 54-42 250 73 88 54-43 350 83 92 54-44 450 92 98 54-45 150 48 53 54-46 250 60 88 54-47 350 82 97 54-48 450 95 95 54-49 150 50 47 54-50 250 63 89 54-51 350 83 91 54-52 450 91 90 54-53 150 48 52 54-54 250 63 75 54-55 350 91 92 54-56 450 97 97 54-57 150 50 83 54-58 250 73 94 54-59 350 91 98 54-60 450 94 98 54-61 150 63 52 250 96 96 350 97 96 54-62 150 77 77 250 93 87 350 98 98 54-63 150 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
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 55a. Concentrate compositions 55-01 to 55-07, 55-17 and 55-18 were prepared by process (v). Concentrate compositions 55-08 to 55-15 were prepared by process (x). The other concentrate compositions of this Example were included for comparison purposes.
TABLE 55a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConc. Glyphosate Fluorad Butyl Ethomeen Arcosolve comp. g a.e./1 Lecithin FC-754 stearate T/25 Ceteareth-20 DPM Ceteareth- 27__________________________________________________________________________55-01 348 3.0 3.00 0.75 55-02 348 3.8 3.75 5.00 55-03 348 3.8 3.75 7.50 55-04 348 2.0 5.00 0.75 55-05 348 5.0 5.00 0.75 55-06 348 2.0 2.00 55-07 348 1.0 1.00 55-08 220 1.5 1.5 3.00 3.0 55-09 220 1.5 1.5 3.00 3.0 55-10 220 1.5 1.5 6.00 3.0 55-11 220 1.5 1.5 6.00 3.0 55-12 220 3.0 1.5 3.00 3.0 55-13 220 3.0 1.5 3.00 3.0 55-14 348 1.5 1.5 6.00 3.0 55-15 348 3.0 1.5 3.00 3.0 55-16 348 3.00 55-17 348 3.0 3.0 55-18 348 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 55b.
TABLE 55b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 28 32 200 41 37 300 73 64 400 22 30 Formulation J 100 38 32 200 82 73 300 89 91 400 97 89 55-01 100 73 28 200 90 66 300 97 92 400 100 96 55-02 100 77 32 200 87 67 300 84 78 400 98 84 55-03 100 79 33 200 82 66 300 99 81 400 97 88 55-04 100 69 35 200 95 59 300 96 84 400 92 91 55-05 100 82 32 200 92 55 300 96 71 400 94 87 55-06 100 83 33 200 100 52 300 100 68 400 99 75 55-07 100 77 35 200 90 58 300 95 71 400 94 90 55-08 100 51 40 200 89 75 300 96 92 400 95 98 55-09 100 76 57 200 98 81 300 97 86 400 96 98 55-10 100 69 60 200 98 63 300 95 82 400 99 90 55-11 100 61 60 200 94 84 300 97 89 400 99 97 55-12 100 64 53 200 95 82 300 96 90 400 95 98 55-13 100 61 58 200 94 78 300 88 87 400 100 94 55-14 100 56 61 200 88 77 300 91 82 400 97 89 55-15 100 42 52 200 82 80 300 86 90 400 97 92 55-16 100 64 49 200 86 75 300 97 88 400 100 82 55-17 100 57 32 200 88 66 300 95 73 400 100 88 55-18 100 52 35 200 70 77 300 82 79 400 97 73______________________________________
Concentrate compositions 55-01 to 55-07, containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-754, exhibited outstanding herbicidal effectiveness. 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 55-07, 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 55-02 and 55-03, 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 55-18, 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 55-16, 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 55-01, 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.
Compositions 55-08 to 55-15, containing lecithin, butyl stearate, Ethomeen T/25 and a C.sub.16-18 alkylether surfactant (ceteareth-20 or ceteareth-27) exhibited a very high degree of herbicidal effectiveness. Not only was performance, at least of 55-08 to 55-13, on ABUTH substantially better than that of Formulation J, these compositions performed considerably better than Formulation J on ECHCF as well.
Example 56
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 56a. Process (i) was followed for compositions 56-61 to 56-64, 56-67, 56-69 and 56-71 and process (iii) for compositions 56-01 to 56-66, 56-68, 56-70 and 56-72 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 56a______________________________________% w/w Spray Fluorad Ethomeen Ethomeen composition Lecithin MON 0818 FC-754 T/25 C/12______________________________________56-01 0.020 0.025 0.02 56-02 0.030 0.025 0.02 56-03 0.050 0.025 0.02 56-04 0.020 0.025 0.03 56-05 0.030 0.025 0.03 56-06 0.050 0.025 0.03 56-07 0.020 0.025 0.04 56-08 0.030 0.025 0.04 56-09 0.050 0.025 0.04 56-10 0.020 0.025 0.05 56-11 0.030 0.025 0.05 56-12 0.050 0.025 0.05 56-13 0.020 0.02 56-14 0.030 0.02 56-15 0.050 0.02 56-16 0.020 0.03 56-17 0.030 0.03 56-18 0.050 0.03 56-19 0.020 0.04 56-20 0.030 0.04 56-21 0.050 0.04 56-22 0.020 0.05 56-23 0.030 0.05 56-24 0.050 0.05 56-25 0.020 0.02 0.025 56-26 0.030 0.02 0.025 56-27 0.050 0.02 0.025 56-28 0.020 0.03 0.025 56-29 0.030 0.03 0.025 56-30 0.050 0.03 0.025 56-31 0.020 0.04 0.025 56-32 0.030 0.04 0.025 56-33 0.050 0.04 0.025 56-34 0.020 0.05 0.025 56-35 0.030 0.05 0.025 56-36 0.050 0.05 0.025 56-37 0.020 0.02 0.025 56-38 0.030 0.02 0.025 56-39 0.050 0.02 0.025 56-40 0.020 0.03 0.025 56-41 0.030 0.03 0.025 56-42 0.050 0.03 0.025 56-43 0.020 0.04 0.025 56-44 0.030 0.04 0.025 56-45 0.050 0.04 0.025 56-46 0.020 0.05 0.025 56-47 0.030 0.05 0.025 56-48 0.050 0.05 0.025 56-49 0.020 0.02 0.050 56-50 0.025 0.03 0.050 56-51 0.050 0.02 0.050 56-52 0.020 0.03 0.050 56-53 0.030 0.03 0.050 56-54 0.050 0.03 0.050 56-55 0.020 0.050 0.02 56-56 0.025 0.050 0.03 56-57 0.050 0.050 0.02 56-58 0.020 0.050 0.03 56-59 0.030 0.050 0.03 56-60 0.050 0.050 0.03 56-61 0.050 56-62 0.050 56-63 0.025 56-64 0.025 56-65 0.050 0.08 0.025 56-66 0.025 0.03 0.025 56-67 0.05 56-68 0.050 56-69 0.05 0.050 56-70 0.050 0.050 56-71 0.050 0.05 56-72 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 56b.
TABLE 56b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation J 100 14 42 187 44 87 300 71 90 400 92 97 56-01 187 80 80 56-02 187 80 97 56-03 187 79 94 56-04 187 79 91 56-05 187 81 80 56-06 187 73 88 56-07 187 86 90 56-08 187 88 91 56-09 187 77 85 56-10 187 81 80 56-11 187 88 68 56-12 187 87 72 56-13 187 85 61 56-14 187 83 47 56-15 187 86 61 56-16 187 86 57 56-17 187 85 44 56-18 187 81 62 56-19 187 82 63 56-20 187 87 62 56-21 187 84 48 56-22 187 80 67 56-23 187 86 89 56-24 187 78 64 56-25 187 84 87 56-26 187 81 81 56-27 187 74 85 56-28 187 71 90 56-29 187 76 74 56-30 187 81 89 56-31 187 78 80 56-32 187 79 84 56-33 187 82 84 56-34 187 74 87 56-35 187 81 89 56-36 187 85 79 56-37 187 68 89 56-38 187 69 85 56-39 187 86 85 56-40 187 83 89 56-41 187 77 76 56-42 187 83 76 56-43 187 74 83 56-44 187 84 69 56-45 187 85 71 56-46 187 80 86 56-47 187 83 96 56-48 187 81 87 56-49 187 75 99 56-50 187 78 97 56-51 187 76 97 56-52 187 77 92 56-53 187 74 88 56-54 187 73 81 56-55 187 70 87 56-56 187 79 88 56-57 187 72 89 56-58 187 72 79 56-59 187 53 80 56-60 187 80 73 56-61 187 46 78 56-62 187 54 94 56-63 187 48 98 56-64 187 59 97 56-65 187 87 84 56-66 187 89 96 56-67 187 86 69 56-68 187 46 43 56-69 187 75 90 56-70 187 55 83 56-71 187 79 80 56-72 187 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 56-61 to 56-64, 56-68, 56-70 and 56-72. These are the only formulations of the Example not containing Fluorad FC-754.
Example 57
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 57a. Process (i) was followed for compositions 57-02, 57-04, 57-06, 57-08, 57-10, 57-12, 57-14 and 57-16 to 57-18, and compositions 57-01, 57-03, 57-05, 57-07, 57-09, 57-11 and 57-13 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 57a______________________________________Spray % w/w Type ofcomposition Lecithin Surfactant surfactant______________________________________57-01 0.05 0.05 Surf H2 57-02 0.05 Surf H2 57-03 0.05 0.05 Surf H3 57-04 0.05 Surf H3 57-05 0.05 0.05 Surf H4 57-06 0.05 Surf H4 57-07 0.05 0.05 Surf H5 57-08 0.05 Surf H5 57-09 0.05 0.05 Fluorad FC-754 57-10 0.05 Fluorad FC-754 57-11 0.05 0.05 Surf H1 57-12 0.05 Surf H1 57-13 0.05 0.05 MON 0818 57-14 0.05 MON 0818 57-15 0.05 0.05 Ethomeen T/25 57-16 0.05 Ethomeen T/25 57-17 0.10 MON 0818 57-18 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 57b.
TABLE 57b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 12 22 200 43 43 300 63 78 400 75 82 Formulation J 100 47 27 200 89 83 300 98 98 400 99 97 57-01 100 65 60 200 94 84 300 99 97 400 100 98 57-02 100 40 45 200 77 75 300 91 90 400 94 98 57-03 100 63 37 200 82 82 300 97 99 400 99 97 57-04 100 52 38 200 79 73 300 95 98 400 99 97 57-05 100 73 68 200 85 94 300 98 99 400 100 99 57-06 100 38 58 200 73 92 300 85 100 400 100 98 57-07 100 50 43 200 80 78 300 94 86 400 94 95 57-08 100 50 48 200 75 62 300 89 77 400 90 79 57-09 100 91 47 200 98 75 300 99 97 400 99 94 57-10 100 87 38 200 89 73 300 99 83 400 100 94 57-11 100 77 73 200 93 79 300 98 96 400 99 98 57-12 100 55 52 200 82 89 300 96 99 400 99 100 57-13 100 75 63 200 93 92 300 98 99 400 99 99 57-14 100 78 82 200 88 86 300 96 99 400 99 100 57-15 100 77 68 200 94 95 300 98 97 400 99 98 57-16 100 75 75 200 88 99 300 98 99 400 99 100 57-17 100 72 77 200 85 98 300 98 100 400 99 99 57-18 100 77 77 200 90 96 300 97 99 400 99 100______________________________________
Herbicidal activity with compositions 57-13 to 57-18, based on alkylamine based surfactants known in the art, was very high in this test. Compositions 57-01 to 57-12 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.
Example 58
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 58a. These compositions are water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsions and were prepared by process (vi) described above.
TABLE 58a__________________________________________________________________________% w/wConc. Glyphosate Butyl Emulsifier Emulsifier % in inner aq. phase Emulsifier Emulsifiercomp. a.e. stearate #1 #2 Water Glyphosate #1 #2__________________________________________________________________________58-01 10 18.0 3.0 5.0 9.0 20 Span 80 Tween 20 58-02 10 7.5 3.0 5.0 4.5 20 Span 80 Tween 20 58-03 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104 Neodol 25-12 58-04 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104 Neodol 25-20 58-05 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104 Tergitol 15-S-15 58-06 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104 Tergitol 15-S-20 58-07 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104 Tween 20 58-08 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104 ceteareth-55 58-09 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104 Tergitol 15-S-30 58-10 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Neodol 25-3 ceteareth-55 58-11 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 o Neodol 25-3 Tergitol 15-S-30 58-12 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Span 60 ceteareth-55 58-13 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Span 60 Tergitol 15-S-30 58-14 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 oleth-2 ceteareth-55 58-15 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 oleth-2 Tergitol 15-S-30 58-16 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Emid 6545 ceteareth-55 58-17 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Emid 6545 Tergitol 15-S-30__________________________________________________________________________
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 35 days after planting ABUTH and 33 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 58b.
TABLE 58b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 0 250 35 40 350 50 63 450 60 43 Formulation C 150 63 63 250 80 96 350 92 98 450 98 87 Formulation J 150 43 30 250 75 85 350 82 98 450 96 95 58-01 150 65 53 250 85 70 350 90 87 450 98 73 58-02 150 63 5 250 78 53 350 88 80 450 97 87 58-03 150 75 0 250 87 22 350 88 72 450 97 17 58-04 150 84 0 250 90 10 350 95 70 450 98 60 58-05 150 77 0 250 83 3 350 93 30 450 95 10 58-06 150 72 0 250 83 47 350 94 60 450 98 20 58-07 150 75 0 250 77 40 350 96 47 450 96 50 58-08 150 87 40 250 97 82 350 99 83 450 100 77 58-09 150 82 10 250 82 40 350 96 67 450 97 67 58-10 150 82 13 250 94 83 350 99 85 450 99 83 58-11 150 73 17 250 83 60 350 88 73 450 96 63 58-12 150 80 20 250 93 85 350 96 82 450 96 82 58-13 150 78 20 250 83 50 350 92 90 450 92 85 58-14 150 80 30 250 97 85 350 99 99 450 97 96 58-15 150 82 30 250 87 75 350 99 92 450 99 93 58-16 150 82 53 250 96 82 350 96 97 450 87 82 58-17 150 72 20 250 80 63 350 92 75 450 95 87______________________________________
Considerable variation was seen in herbicidal effectiveness of water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsions of this Example, especially on ECHCF. Among the most efficacious were 58-08, 58-10, 58-12, 58-14 and 58-16. All of these contained a C.sub.16-18 alkylether surfactant, ceteareth-55. When Tergitol 15-S-30, a C.sub.12-15 secondary alkylether surfactant, replaced ceteareth-55, as in 58-09, 58-11, 58-13, 58-15 and 58-17, herbicidal effectiveness, at least on ECHCF, was in most cases markedly reduced.
Example 59
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 59a. Concentrate compositions 59-01 and 59-02 are water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsions and were prepared by process (vi), using Span 80 as emulsifier #1. Concentrate compositions 59-03 to 59-12 and 59-14 to 59-17 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate composition 59-13 is an aqueous solution concentrate and was prepared by process (viii), the component indicated below as "emulsifier #2" being the surfactant component.
TABLE 59a__________________________________________________________________________% w/wConc. Glyphosate Butyl Emulsifier % in inner aq. Phase Emulsifiercomp. a.e. stearate Span 80 #2 Water Glyphosate #2__________________________________________________________________________59-01 10 18.0 3.0 5.0 12.2 20 Tween 20 59-02 10 7.5 3.0 5.0 5.3 20 Tween 20 59-03 10 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-04 10 3.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-05 10 1.0 5.0 Neodol 25-20 59-06 10 3.0 5.0 Neodol 25-20 59-07 15 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-08 15 3.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-09 15 1.0 5.0 Neodol 25-20 59-10 15 3.0 5.0 Neodol 25-20 59-11 20 1.0 5.0 Neodol 25-20 59-12 20 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-13 10 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-14 10 7.5 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-15 10 7.5 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-16 10 7.5 10.0 steareth-20 59-17 10 7.5 10.0 oleth-20__________________________________________________________________________
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 18 days after application.
Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, average for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 59b.
TABLE 59b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 30 250 10 40 350 37 73 450 58 68 Formulation C 150 42 79 250 77 98 350 99 97 450 97 93 Formulation J 150 43 67 250 73 90 350 94 98 450 77 78 59-01 150 58 76 250 75 77 350 88 93 450 95 83 59-02 150 27 63 250 60 87 350 82 98 450 77 92 59-03 150 47 76 250 65 92 350 94 99 450 95 91 59-04 150 70 86 250 86 95 350 97 98 450 99 90 59-05 150 42 80 250 72 90 350 90 93 450 99 96 59-06 150 48 57 250 78 92 350 94 99 450 96 92 59-07 150 78 95 250 96 96 350 98 98 450 100 97 59-08 150 88 96 250 98 98 350 100 99 450 100 99 59-09 150 82 93 250 94 96 350 99 97 450 99 93 59-10 150 72 83 250 97 93 350 99 100 450 100 98 59-11 150 87 83 250 98 97 350 100 99 450 100 99 59-12 150 93 99 250 99 99 350 99 97 450 100 99 59-13 150 70 90 250 91 88 350 97 94 450 99 86 59-14 150 67 76 250 93 80 350 98 95 450 95 78 59-15 150 68 65 250 90 87 350 97 80 450 98 93 59-16 150 83 73 250 90 93 350 99 100 450 100 100 59-17 150 80 66 250 98 77 350 99 83 450 100 85______________________________________
Very high herbicidal activity was evident in compositions 59-13 to 59-17, which have a very high ratio of surfactant to glyphosate a.e. of 1:1. Activity was too high to clearly distinguish among these compositions, but 59-16 and 59-17, containing steareth-20 and oleth-20 respectively, exbited greater effectiveness on ABUTH at the lowest glyphosate rate than 59-14 and 59-15, containing Neodol 25-20 and Neodol 25-12 respectively.
Example 60
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 60a. Concentrate compositions 60-01 and 60-02 are water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsions and were prepared by process (vi), using Span 80 as emulsifier #1. Concentrate compositions 60-03 to 60-12 and 60-14 to 60-17 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate composition 60-13 is an aqueous solution concentrate and was prepared by process (viii), the component indicated below as "emulsifier #2" being the surfactant component.
TABLE 60a__________________________________________________________________________% w/wConc. Glyphosate Butyl Emulsifier % in inner aq. phase Emulsifiercomp. a.e. stearate Span 80 #2 Water Glyphosate #2__________________________________________________________________________60-01 10 18.0 3.0 5.0 12.2 20 Tween 20 60-02 10 7.5 3.0 5.0 5.3 20 Tween 20 60-03 10 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 60-04 10 3.0 10.0 Tween 80 60-05 10 1.0 5.0 Tween 80 60-06 10 3.0 5.0 Tween 80 60-07 15 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 60-08 15 3.0 10.0 Tween 80 60-09 15 1.0 5.0 Tween 80 60-10 15 3.0 5.0 Tween 80 60-11 20 1.0 5.0 Tween 80 60-12 20 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 60-13 10 10.0 Tween 80 60-14 10 7.5 10.0 Tween 80 60-15 10 7.5 10.0 Neodol 25-20 60-16 10 7.5 10.0 steareth-20 60-17 10 7.5 10.0 oleth-20__________________________________________________________________________
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 18 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 60b.
TABLE 60b______________________________________Composition Glyphosate rate % Inhibitionapplied g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 0 250 3 10 350 17 20 450 20 30 Formulation C 150 70 33 250 80 70 350 85 80 450 97 77 Formulation J 150 7 20 250 70 80 350 78 80 450 83 80 60-01 150 40 7 250 48 20 350 73 23 450 75 30 60-02 150 3 0 250 10 17 350 47 23 450 50 30 60-03 150 0 2 250 33 13 350 63 40 450 68 43 60-04 150 17 7 250 43 20 350 78 63 450 78 63 60-05 150 10 3 250 20 13 350 58 40 450 75 40 60-06 150 3 0 250 27 20 350 60 23 450 72 23 60-07 150 32 10 250 68 20 350 75 50 450 86 60 60-08 150 27 20 250 68 30 350 82 40 450 90 73 60-09 150 43 10 250 60 33 350 72 63 450 75 73 60-10 150 33 10 250 62 30 350 77 60 450 83 70 60-11 150 48 13 250 72 63 350 83 80 450 87 80 60-12 150 23 13 250 60 50 350 75 80 450 86 78 60-13 150 32 13 250 47 40 350 75 50 450 78 70 60-14 150 27 20 250 75 53 350 82 70 450 92 67 60-15 150 70 20 250 78 30 350 92 80 450 93 80 60-16 150 68 40 250 73 30 350 93 80 450 93 77 60-17 150 73 20 250 85 30 350 93 60 450 95 63______________________________________
Compositions 60-16 and 60-17, containing steareth-20 and oleth-20 respectively, exhibited very high herbicidal activity on ABUTH. At the very high surfactant to glyphosate a.e. ratio (1:1) of these compositions, no difference was evident between these compositions and an otherwise similar composition (60-15) containing Neodol 25-20 in place of steareth-20 or oleth-20.
Example 61
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 61a. All are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).
TABLE 61a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition g a.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant______________________________________61-01 163 1.00 10.0 Tween 80 61-02 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 25-12 61-03 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 25-20 61-04 163 1.00 10.0 steareth-20 61-05 163 1.00 10.0 oleth-20 61-06 163 1.00 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-40 61-07 163 1.00 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-15 61-08 163 1.00 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-20 61-09 163 0.50 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-40 61-10 163 0.50 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-15 61-11 163 0.50 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-20 61-12 163 0.50 5.0 Tergitol 15-S-40 61-13 163 0.50 5.0 Tergitol 15-S-15 61-14 163 0.50 5.0 Tergitol 15-S-20 61-15 163 0.25 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-40______________________________________
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 19 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 61b.
TABLE 61b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 2 20 250 2 30 350 5 53 450 45 75 Formulation C 150 45 63 250 77 93 350 83 99 450 93 100 Formulation J 150 15 40 250 70 73 350 78 98 450 92 99 61-01 150 42 50 250 72 89 350 80 96 450 93 98 61-02 150 45 80 250 72 83 350 85 91 450 97 98 61-03 150 60 80 250 75 87 350 82 96 450 86 99 61-04 150 65 60 250 82 70 350 93 80 450 98 87 61-05 150 72 60 250 83 87 350 95 93 450 98 97 61-06 150 50 45 250 68 70 350 77 85 450 83 90 61-07 150 25 40 250 65 50 350 80 77 450 83 80 61-08 150 37 33 250 72 80 350 77 87 450 80 90 61-09 150 32 47 250 65 73 350 77 75 450 80 94 61-10 150 17 30 250 65 70 350 75 70 450 78 89 61-11 150 35 33 250 68 68 350 77 77 450 92 75 61-12 150 13 35 250 57 40 350 75 57 450 77 83 61-13 150 35 40 250 63 43 350 77 77 450 83 75 61-14 150 30 25 250 67 53 350 78 85 450 83 77 61-15 150 13 37 250 65 50 350 77 57 450 87 82______________________________________
At a surfactant to glyphosate a.e. weight/weight ratio of about 1:1.5, compositions containing steareth-20 or oleth-20 (61-04 and 61-05 respectively) exhibited herbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH similar to one containing Neodol 25-20 (61-03).
Example 62
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 62a. All are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).
TABLE 62a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition g a.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant______________________________________62-01 163 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 62-02 163 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-12 62-03 163 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 62-04 163 1.0 10.0 steareth-20 62-05 163 1.0 10.0 oleth-20 62-06 163 1.0 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-40 62-06 163 1.0 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-15 62-08 163 1.0 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-20 62-09 163 0.5 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-40 62-10 163 0.3 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-15 62-11 163 0.3 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-20 62-12 163 0.3 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-40 62-13 163 0.3 5.0 Tergitol 15-S-15 62-14 163 0.3 5.0 Tergitol 15-S-20 62-15 163 0.3 5.0 Tergitol 15-S-40______________________________________
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 21 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 62b.
TABLE 62b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 23 250 0 40 350 5 53 450 13 57 Formulation C 150 0 47 250 28 87 350 72 98 450 97 97 Formulation J 150 5 40 250 20 63 350 67 93 450 82 92 62-01 150 2 40 250 30 50 350 50 70 450 57 85 62-02 150 10 50 250 33 50 350 75 72 450 75 88 62-03 150 17 53 250 60 60 350 70 92 450 78 94 62-04 150 57 45 250 70 70 350 82 93 450 83 95 62-05 150 47 45 250 70 80 350 80 88 450 88 92 62-06 150 2 42 250 20 60 350 35 75 450 58 89 62-07 150 0 42 250 30 68 350 40 75 450 77 82 62-08 150 2 40 250 25 60 350 50 83 450 75 86 62-09 150 2 43 250 27 83 350 40 73 450 70 78 62-10 150 2 42 250 32 47 350 43 63 450 70 82 62-11 150 0 30 250 25 53 350 35 75 450 70 75 62-12 150 2 40 250 13 57 350 25 75 450 40 83 62-13 150 5 42 250 23 62 350 38 63 450 67 60 62-14 150 2 33 250 13 48 350 30 53 450 70 88 62-15 150 2 33 250 18 48 350 30 75 450 43 65______________________________________
In this test, herbicidal effectiveness overall was lower than in the previous Example, particularly on ABUTH. In these circumstances, at a surfactant to glyphosate a.e. weight/weight ratio of about 1:1.5, compositions containing steareth-20 or oleth-20 (62-04 and 62-05 respectively) exhibited greater herbicidal effectiveness on both ABUTH and ECHCF than one containing Neodol 25-20 (62-03).
Example 63
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate ammonium or IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 63a. Concentrate composition 63-01 is a water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsion and was prepared by process (vi), using Span 80 as emulsifier #1. Concentrate compositions 63-02 to 63-11 and 63-17 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 63-12 to 63-16 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii), the component indicated below as "emulsifier #2" being the surfactant component.
TABLE 63a__________________________________________________________________________% w/wConc. Glyphosate Butyl Emulsifier % in inner aq. phase Emulsifier Glyphosatecomp. a.e. stearate Span 80 #2 Water Glyphosate #2 salt__________________________________________________________________________63-01 10 18.0 3.0 5.0 9.0 20 Tween 20 IPA 63-02 15 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 IPA 63-03 15 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-12 IPA 63-04 15 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 IPA 63-05 15 1.0 10.0 steareth-20 IPA 63-06 15 1.0 10.0 oleth-20 IPA 63-07 15 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 ammonium 63-08 15 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-12 ammonium 63-09 15 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 ammonium 63-10 15 1.0 10.0 steareth-20 ammonium 63-11 15 1.0 10.0 oleth-20 ammonium 63-12 15 10.0 Tween 80 IPA 63-13 15 10.0 Neodol 25-12 IPA 63-14 15 10.0 Neodol 25-20 IPA 63-15 15 10.0 steareth-20 IPA 63-16 15 10.0 oleth-20 IPA 63-17 15 1.0 10.0 Emerest 2661 IPA__________________________________________________________________________
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 20 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 63b.
TABLE 63b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 2 5 250 3 25 350 28 30 450 53 50 Formulation C 150 5 25 250 60 50 350 85 83 450 88 88 Formulation J 150 2 10 250 70 40 350 82 53 450 87 83 63-01 150 23 20 250 72 30 350 80 80 450 85 69 63-02 150 5 18 250 72 38 350 82 63 450 85 83 63-03 150 25 20 250 70 57 350 85 68 450 90 83 63-04 150 25 27 250 77 67 350 85 62 450 88 70 63-05 150 60 25 250 82 62 350 87 73 450 85 80 63-06 150 50 32 250 78 78 350 91 91 450 98 98 63-07 150 5 25 250 55 77 350 77 86 450 83 99 63-08 150 0 13 250 58 78 350 80 85 450 85 87 63-09 150 7 25 250 57 72 350 77 83 450 91 92 63-10 150 50 25 250 80 55 350 86 87 450 92 82 63-11 150 53 30 250 78 80 350 87 89 450 95 98 63-12 150 0 25 250 50 77 350 77 90 450 83 94 63-13 150 2 30 250 55 75 350 72 92 450 85 80 63-14 150 12 30 250 75 78 350 84 90 450 96 94 63-15 150 55 35 250 78 80 350 80 94 450 86 98 63-16 150 50 35 250 73 63 350 84 83 450 89 95 63-17 150 0 10 250 10 53 350 53 83 450 62 87______________________________________
Compositions containing steareth-20 or oleth-20 (63-05, 63-06, 63-10, 63-11, 63-15, 63-16) generally exhibited superior herbicidal effectiveness to counterparts containing Neodol 25-20 (63-04, 63-09, 63-14) at least on ABUTH. The presence of a small amount of butyl stearate tended to enhance effectiveness on ABUTH (compare 63-05 and 63-06 with 63-15 and 63-16).
Example 64
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 64a. Concentrate composition 64-01 is a water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsion and was prepared by process (vi), using Span 80 as emulsifier # 1. Concentrate compositions 64-02 to 64-08, 64-14, 64-16 and 64-17 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 64-09 to 64-13 and 64-15 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii), the component indicated below as "emulsifier #2" being the surfactant component.
TABLE 64a__________________________________________________________________________% w/wConc. Glyphosate Butyl Emulsifier % in inner aq. phase Emulsifiercomp. a.e. stearate Span 80 #2 Water Glyphosate #2__________________________________________________________________________64-01 10 18.0 3.0 2.5 9.0 20 Tween 20 64-02 15 1.0 10.0 Emerest 2661 64-03 15 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 64-04 15 1.0 10.0 oleth-20 64-05 15 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 64-06 15 1.0 10.0 ceteareth-27 64-07 15 1.0 10.0 ceteareth-55 64-08 15 1.0 10.0 Genapol UD-110 64-09 15 10.0 ceteareth-27 64-10 15 10.0 ceteareth-55 64-11 15 10.0 Genapol UD-110 64-12 15 10.0 oleth-20 64-13 10 10.0 oleth-20 64-14 10 1.0 10.0 oleth-20 64-15 20 10.0 oleth-20 64-16 15 0.5 5.0 oleth-20 64-17 15 0.5 10.0 oleth-20__________________________________________________________________________
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, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 64b.
TABLE 64b______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 0 250 8 20 350 27 40 450 62 50 Formulation C 150 27 50 250 75 70 350 92 80 450 97 92 Formulation J 150 23 30 250 72 50 350 94 63 450 95 80 64-01 150 22 30 250 60 40 350 83 57 450 90 67 64-02 150 12 33 250 45 50 350 73 63 450 83 83 64-03 150 27 43 250 68 50 350 80 63 450 87 87 64-04 150 68 47 250 95 73 350 99 78 450 95 90 64-05 150 50 50 250 77 77 350 90 83 450 98 83 64-06 150 78 67 250 93 82 350 97 87 450 99 97 64-07 150 87 57 250 96 73 350 99 85 450 99 97 64-08 150 42 30 250 73 53 350 82 85 450 95 89 64-09 150 67 40 250 95 73 350 99 95 450 99 98 64-10 150 85 60 250 96 68 350 96 91 450 100 88 64-11 150 13 10 250 67 50 350 78 60 450 88 73 64-12 150 72 43 250 97 68 350 98 83 450 99 93 64-13 150 73 57 250 88 70 350 98 87 450 99 96 64-14 150 80 50 250 96 70 350 99 85 450 98 88 64-15 150 70 43 250 96 53 350 97 82 450 99 89 64-16 150 62 53 250 88 72 350 99 81 450 99 91 64-17 150 72 58 250 95 68 350 100 89 450 100 93______________________________________
The greatest herbicidal effectiveness in this test was exhibited by compositions containing a C.sub.16-18 alkylether surfactant (oleth-20, ceteareth-27 or ceteareth-55).
Example 65
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 65a. All are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).
TABLE 65a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition g a.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant______________________________________65-01 163 1.00 10.0 Tween 80 65-02 163 1.00 10.0 Emerest 2661 65-03 326 1.00 10.0 Genapol UD-110 65-04 326 0.50 10.0 Genapol UD-110 65-05 326 0.25 10.0 Genapol UD-110 65-06 163 0.25 10.0 Genapol UD-110 65-07 163 1.00 10.0 Genapol UD-110 65-08 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 1-9 65-09 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 1-12 65-10 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 25-20 65-11 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 25-12 65-12 163 1.00 10.0 Neodox 25-11 65-13 163 1.00 10.0 laureth-23 65-14 163 1.00 10.0 ceteth-20 65-15 163 1.00 10.0 steareth-20 65-16 163 1.00 10.0 oleth-20______________________________________
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 234 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 65b.
TABLE 65b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 0 250 25 22 350 60 40 450 65 52 Formulation C 150 43 52 250 72 83 350 87 98 450 97 95 Formulation J 150 50 43 250 75 91 350 86 96 450 95 97 65-01 150 50 30 250 75 75 350 85 87 450 90 92 65-02 150 35 47 250 58 77 350 75 85 450 80 96 65-03 150 33 32 250 57 53 350 75 78 450 84 94 65-04 150 20 25 250 55 68 350 78 91 450 82 97 65-05 150 37 12 250 58 42 350 81 70 450 86 73 65-06 150 50 8 250 65 40 350 81 65 450 92 85 65-07 150 50 30 250 63 48 350 84 68 450 98 84 65-08 150 43 35 250 52 65 350 73 85 450 84 85 65-09 150 55 40 250 68 58 350 79 65 450 97 73 65-10 150 69 40 250 81 68 350 94 92 450 99 96 65-11 150 58 50 250 84 60 350 90 83 450 94 93 65-12 150 50 40 250 57 67 350 65 84 450 75 98 65-13 150 57 53 250 78 73 350 89 97 450 98 97 65-14 150 68 67 250 85 73 350 97 98 450 100 97 65-15 150 72 50 250 88 89 350 89 98 450 99 97 65-16 150 65 53 250 87 72 350 97 85 450 100 95______________________________________
Activity overall in this test was very high, and differences among compositions in herbicidal effectiveness are difficult to discern clearly.
Example 66
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 66a. All are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 66a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition g a.e./l Stearate Surfactant surfactant______________________________________66-01 163 1.00 10.0 Tween 80 66-02 163 1.00 10.0 Emerest 2661 66-03 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 25-20 66-04 163 1.00 10.0 oleth-20 66-05 163 0.50 5.0 oleth-20 66-06 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 66-07 163 0.50 2.5 oleth-20 66-08 163 0.50 1.0 oleth-20 66-09 163 0.25 5.0 oleth-20 66-10 326 1.00 10.0 Neodol 1-12 66-11 326 0.50 10.0 Neodol 1-12 66-12 326 0.25 10.0 Neodol 1-12 66-13 326 1.00 5.0 Neodol 1-12 66-14 326 0.50 5.0 Neodol 1-12 66-15 326 0.25 5.0 Neodol 1-12 66-16 326 0.10 5.0 Neodol 1-12______________________________________
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 ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 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 66b.
TABLE 66b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 7 50 250 45 60 350 73 73 450 80 78 Formulation C 150 75 77 250 87 100 350 96 99 450 99 97 Formulation J 150 72 77 250 83 89 350 97 99 450 97 98 66-01 150 60 75 250 80 85 350 93 97 450 98 98 66-02 150 57 75 250 70 83 350 87 83 450 90 94 66-03 150 77 80 250 87 92 350 97 87 450 99 98 66-04 150 80 89 250 93 92 350 99 99 450 100 99 66-05 150 83 83 250 92 93 350 97 90 450 100 93 66-06 150 77 77 250 80 91 350 90 99 450 98 99 66-07 150 77 83 250 82 89 350 90 91 450 97 98 66-08 150 47 82 250 73 82 350 80 97 450 92 91 66-09 150 73 78 250 87 88 350 97 94 450 99 99 66-10 150 52 67 250 70 80 350 93 88 450 93 94 66-11 150 40 68 250 72 85 350 87 96 450 93 96 66-12 150 37 60 250 68 83 350 85 85 450 93 75 66-13 150 28 63 250 53 80 350 85 97 450 88 97 66-14 150 37 63 250 58 73 350 83 96 450 90 91 66-15 150 30 70 250 47 83 350 82 89 450 87 89 66-16 150 40 53 250 53 82 350 80 80 450 88 77______________________________________
Composition 66-04, containing 1% butyl stearate and 10% oleth-20 (surfactant to glyphosate a.e. weight/weight ratio about 1:1.5), exhibited marginally greater herbicidal effectiveness than composition 66-03, containing 1% butyl stearate and 10% Neodol 25-20. At this very high surfactant to glyphosate ratio, however, both performed extremely well. Surprisingly, when the butyl stearate and oleth-20 concentrations were significantly lowered, this high level of performance was maintained to a remarkable degree. Even when butyl stearate was reduced to 0.25% and oleth-20 to 2.5% (surfactant to glyphosate a.e. ratio about 1:6), as in composition 66-06, herbicidal effectiveness was still similar to that obtained with commercial standard Formulations C and J.
Example 67
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 67a. Concentrate compositions 67-01 to 67-08 and 67-11 to 67-16 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 67-09 and 67-10 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.
TABLE 67a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition a.e. Stearate Surfactant surfactant______________________________________67-01 15.0 0.25 5.0 Emerest 2661 67-02 15.0 0.25 5.0 Tween 80 67-03 15.0 0.25 5.0 Neodol 25-20 67-04 15.0 0.25 5.0 laureth-23 67-05 15.0 0.25 5.0 ceteth-20 67-06 15.0 0.25 2.5 Tween 80 67-07 15.0 0.10 1.0 Tween 80 67-08 15.0 1.00 10.0 Tween 80 67-09 15.0 5.0 laureth-23 67-10 15.0 5.0 ceteth-20 67-11 15.0 1.00 10.0 Neodol 25-20 67-12 15.0 1.00 10.0 oleth-20 67-13 15.0 0.50 5.0 oleth-20 67-14 15.0 0.25 5.0 oleth-20 67-15 15.0 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 67-16 15.0 0.25 5.0 Genapol UD-110______________________________________
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 12 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, 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 67b.
TABLE 67b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 2 10 250 5 20 350 43 30 450 58 43 Formulation C 150 68 50 250 92 79 350 96 90 450 98 85 Formulation J 150 57 43 250 90 63 350 95 80 450 95 95 67-01 150 7 33 250 50 43 350 77 53 450 80 93 67-02 150 17 50 250 72 70 350 80 80 450 80 93 67-03 150 43 40 250 75 68 350 87 75 450 96 95 67-04 150 33 47 250 73 63 350 80 77 450 90 93 67-05 150 73 37 250 92 57 350 95 88 450 95 73 67-06 150 25 35 250 68 47 350 80 92 450 88 85 67-07 150 3 30 250 57 40 350 77 53 450 80 67 67-08 150 53 43 250 77 62 350 80 88 450 93 80 67-09 150 32 60 250 77 53 350 93 73 450 97 93 67-10 150 75 35 250 92 77 350 96 77 450 97 93 67-11 150 75 53 250 90 78 350 95 89 450 98 97 67-12 150 80 43 250 95 73 350 96 92 450 98 89 67-13 150 75 53 250 92 97 350 97 99 450 96 93 67-14 150 78 70 250 90 92 350 93 97 450 95 93 67-15 150 70 60 250 83 98 350 95 99 450 97 99 67-16 150 27 52 250 75 73 350 80 98 450 83 99______________________________________
Extremely high herbicidal effectiveness was again observed with a composition (67-15) containing 15% glyphosate a.e. and just 2.5% oleth-20 together with 0.25% butyl stearate. A comparison of 15% glyphosate a.e. compositions containing 5% alkylether surfactant and 0.25% butyl stearate provided the following ranking of alkylethers in descending order of effectiveness: oleth-20 (67-14)>ceteth-20 (67-05)>Neodol 25-20 (67-03)=laureth-23 (67-04).
Example 68
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 68a. All are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).
TABLE 68a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition g a.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant______________________________________68-01 163 0.50 5.0 oleth-20 68-02 163 0.25 5.0 oleth-20 68-03 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 68-04 163 1.00 10.0 oleth-20 68-05 163 0.50 5.0 steareth-20 68-06 163 0.25 5.0 steareth-20 68-07 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-20 68-08 163 1.00 10.0 steareth-20______________________________________
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 ECHCF, 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 68b.
TABLE 68b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 30 250 20 43 350 43 53 450 68 57 Formulation C 150 60 47 250 75 53 350 87 80 450 87 78 Formulation J 150 42 43 250 83 60 350 87 73 450 93 87 68-01 150 60 60 250 78 63 350 87 89 450 92 78 68-02 150 70 43 250 80 91 350 87 86 450 96 87 68-03 150 52 43 250 75 72 350 83 93 450 87 94 68-04 150 72 50 250 93 73 350 97 95 450 97 91 68-05 150 72 43 250 80 78 350 87 91 450 93 85 68-06 150 68 40 250 80 50 350 93 75 450 95 85 68-07 150 63 37 250 78 55 350 87 84 450 83 82 68-08 150 70 50 250 80 70 350 92 84 450 94 98______________________________________
All compositions containing butyl stearate and either oleth-20 or steareth-20 showed a very high level of performance by comparison with commercial standard Formulations C and J.
Example 69
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 69a. All are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).
TABLE 69a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition g a.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant______________________________________69-01 163 0.50 5.0 oleth-20 69-02 163 0.25 5.0 oleth-20 69-03 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 69-04 163 1.00 10.0 oleth-20 69-05 163 0.50 5.0 steareth-20 69-06 163 0.25 5.0 steareth-20 69-07 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-20 69-08 163 1.00 10.0 steareth-20______________________________________
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 18 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 69b.
TABLE 69b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 3 10 250 28 23 350 72 37 450 73 50 Formulation C 150 57 43 250 87 62 350 93 83 450 99 95 Formulation J 150 27 47 250 70 53 350 92 75 450 94 92 69-01 150 68 50 250 85 47 350 97 70 450 99 83 69-02 150 67 40 250 78 50 350 96 63 450 99 68 69-03 150 52 40 250 72 50 350 95 63 450 97 85 69-04 150 72 40 250 97 53 350 97 77 450 99 90 69-05 150 75 40 250 missing 53 350 88 53 450 96 78 69-06 150 98 40 250 93 50 350 97 68 450 97 82 69-07 150 73 40 250 92 50 350 98 63 450 98 80 69-08 150 77 43 250 93 57 350 97 77 450 98 88______________________________________
All compositions containing butyl stearate and either oleth-20 or steareth-20 showed a very high level of performance by comparison with commercial standard Formulations C and J.
Example 70
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 70a. All contain colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).
All compositions of this example showed acceptable storage stability. The compositions containing oleth-20 were not acceptably storage-stable in the absence of the colloidal particulate.
TABLE 70a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition g a.e./l stearate Oleth-20 Aerosil Aerosil______________________________________70-01 488 3.0 0.4 OX-50 70-02 488 3.0 0.8 OX-50 70-03 488 3.0 1.5 OX-50 70-04 488 0.4 OX-50 70-05 488 0.8 OX-50 70-06 488 1.5 OX-50 70-07 488 3.0 0.4 MOX-80 70-08 488 3.0 0.8 MOX-80 70-09 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-80 70-10 488 0.4 MOX-80 70-11 488 0.8 MOX-80 70-12 488 1.5 MOX-80 70-13 488 3.0 0.4 MOX-170 70-14 488 3.0 0.8 MOX-170 70-15 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-170 70-16 488 0.4 MOX-170 70-17 488 0.8 MOX-170 70-18 488 1.5 MOX-170 70-19 488 3.0 3.0 1.5 MOX-80______________________________________
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 ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 70b.
TABLE 70b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 27 250 17 37 350 47 57 450 60 60 Formulation J 150 57 50 250 82 87 350 95 99 450 98 99 70-01 150 37 60 250 73 70 350 96 97 450 96 99 70-02 150 43 50 250 73 63 350 93 96 450 98 99 70-03 150 53 60 250 83 87 350 87 97 450 98 98 70-04 150 45 40 250 57 60 350 78 95 450 94 100 70-05 150 47 50 250 60 82 350 92 96 450 95 99 70-06 150 38 53 250 68 96 350 82 99 450 83 95 70-07 150 50 57 250 87 88 350 91 99 450 98 98 70-08 150 53 50 250 88 85 350 96 97 450 97 100 70-09 150 40 30 250 37 47 350 57 80 450 77 94 70-10 150 47 50 250 70 95 350 75 99 450 77 98 70-11 150 27 60 250 72 85 350 82 98 450 75 99 70-12 150 37 57 250 73 86 350 80 99 450 85 100 70-13 150 45 53 250 85 94 350 95 100 450 98 99 70-14 150 50 50 250 78 83 350 94 98 450 98 99 70-15 150 53 67 250 75 88 350 93 97 450 96 99 70-16 150 42 50 250 47 96 350 70 98 450 90 99 70-17 150 27 83 250 57 98 350 87 99 450 87 100 70-18 150 33 60 250 47 94 350 83 99 450 93 99 70-19 150 45 47 250 80 73 350 96 94 450 99 98______________________________________
Remarkably high levels of herbicidal effectiveness were obtained in this test with compositions containing oleth-20 at a weight/weight ratio to glyphosate a.e. of about 1:14, and stabilized with colloidal particulates. In some cases the colloidal particulate alone contributed a major part of the efficacy enhancement. Results with composition 70-09 are out of line with other data and an application problem is suspected.
Example 71
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 71a. Concentrate compositions 71-01 to 71-04, 71-06, 71-08, 71-09, 71-11, 71-12, 71-14 and 71-16 are oil-in-water emulsion and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 71-05, 71-07, 71-10, 71-13, 71-15 and 71-17 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii).
TABLE 71a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition g a.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant______________________________________71-01 163 0.25 2.5 Neodol 1-12 71-02 163 0.25 2.5 laureth-23 71-03 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-10 71-04 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-20 71-05 163 2.5 steareth-20 71-06 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-100 71-07 163 2.5 steareth-100 71-08 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-10 71-09 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 71-10 163 2.5 oleth-20 71-11 163 0.25 2.5 ceteth-10 71-12 163 0.25 2.5 ceteth-20 71-13 163 2.5 ceteth-20 71-14 326 0.50 5.0 ceteareth-27 71-15 326 5.0 ceteareth-27 71-16 163 0.25 2.5 ceteareth-55 71-17 163 2.5 ceteareth-55______________________________________
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.
Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 71b.
TABLE 71b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 33 250 20 43 350 63 63 450 75 70 Formulation C 150 53 55 250 80 87 350 94 97 450 98 99 Formulation J 150 40 57 250 80 90 350 96 99 450 98 99 71-01 150 52 40 250 65 73 350 77 70 450 77 70 71-02 150 37 70 250 75 80 350 83 97 450 95 99 71-03 150 47 53 250 77 86 350 83 97 450 93 100 71-04 150 80 60 250 93 83 350 96 85 450 99 99 71-05 150 80 43 250 93 79 350 96 94 450 98 96 71-06 150 77 53 250 85 83 350 94 99 450 97 99 71-07 150 63 50 250 80 88 350 85 96 450 96 99 71-08 150 27 45 250 75 83 350 77 99 450 96 98 71-09 150 75 57 250 80 82 350 97 95 450 99 98 71-10 150 70 40 250 85 83 350 97 98 450 99 99 71-11 150 53 37 250 75 63 350 88 93 450 92 98 71-12 150 70 40 250 78 75 350 90 91 450 98 98 71-13 150 72 40 250 92 80 350 97 90 450 99 97 71-14 150 78 53 250 89 88 350 97 95 450 99 100 71-15 150 80 60 250 95 97 350 98 100 450 99 99 71-16 150 60 63 250 87 78 350 96 94 450 98 99 71-17 150 73 60 250 85 57 350 93 80 450 99 85______________________________________
In combination with butyl stearate, steareth-20 (composition 71-04) gave greater herbicidal effectiveness than steareth-10 (71-03) on ABUTH. Similarly, oleth-20 (71-09) was more efficacious than oleth-10 (71-08) and ceteth-20 (71-12) than ceteth-10 (71-1). In the absence of butyl stearate, ceteareth-55 (71-17) was noticeably weaker on ECHCF than ceteareth-27 (71-15) but inclusion of butyl stearate (71-16) tended to correct this weakness. Note that while compositions 71-14 and 71-15 contained twice as high a concentration of excipients as the other compositions of the test, the concentration of glyphosate was also twice as high, thus the concentrations as sprayed were the same.
Example 72
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 72a. Concentrate compositions 72-01 to 72-05, 72-07, 72-08, 72-10 and 72-12 to 72-16 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 72-06, 72-09 and 72-11 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii).
TABLE 72a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition g a.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant______________________________________72-01 163 0.25 2.5 Neodol 1-12 72-02 163 0.25 2.5 laureth-23 72-03 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-10 72-04 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-20 72-05 163 0.25 2.5 Pluronic F-68 72-06 163 2.5 Pluronic F-68 72-07 326 1.00 5.0 Pluronic F-108 72-08 326 0.50 5.0 Pluronic F-108 72-09 326 5.0 Pluronic F-108 72-10 163 0.25 2.5 Pluronic F-127 72-11 163 2.5 Pluronic F-127 72-12 326 0.50 5.0 ceteareth-27 72-13 163 0.25 2.5 ceteareth-55 72-14 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 72-15 163 0.25 2.5 ceteth-20 72-16 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-100______________________________________
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.
Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 72b.
TABLE 72b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 5 0 250 47 5 350 70 23 450 75 43 Formulation C 150 73 47 250 99 50 350 98 67 450 99 75 Formulation J 150 73 43 250 89 50 350 97 83 450 98 77 72-01 150 37 30 250 70 33 350 77 40 450 90 47 72-02 150 52 37 250 77 67 350 90 77 450 92 75 72-03 150 40 30 250 77 70 350 80 82 450 90 83 72-04 150 75 37 250 95 53 350 99 91 450 99 82 72-05 150 58 37 250 65 53 350 80 80 450 75 68 72-06 150 40 30 250 75 33 350 78 43 450 80 43 72-07 150 50 30 250 75 33 350 78 53 450 86 53 72-08 150 47 30 250 75 33 350 77 40 450 80 50 72-09 150 43 33 250 77 40 350 78 63 450 83 50 72-10 150 27 40 250 77 43 350 80 50 450 92 40 72-11 150 37 30 250 72 33 350 80 60 450 95 40 72-12 150 78 37 250 98 40 350 99 53 450 100 50 72-13 150 75 30 250 88 40 350 98 47 450 100 65 72-14 150 73 30 250 87 40 350 98 50 450 99 53 72-15 150 72 30 250 93 40 350 96 43 450 99 50 72-16 150 73 40 250 83 40 350 98 40 450 100 47______________________________________
Composition 72-04 containing steareth-20 outperformed its counterpart 72-03 containing steareth-10, though both gave greater herbicidal effectiveness, especially on ECHCF, than 72-02 containing laureth-23 or 72-01 containing Neodol 1-12.
Example 73
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 73a. Concentrate compositions 73-01 to 73-07 and 73-09 to 73-15 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 73-08 and 73-16 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii).
TABLE 73a______________________________________Gly-Concentrate phosate % w/w Type of Type ofcomposition g a.e./l Oil Surfactant oil surfactant______________________________________73-01 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate oleth-20 73-02 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate oleth-20 73-03 163 0.5 5.0 methyl oleate oleth-20 73-04 163 0.5 5.0 butyl oleate oleth-20 73-05 163 0.5 5.0 methyl laurate oleth-20 73-06 163 0.5 5.0 butyl laurate oleth-20 73-07 163 0.5 5.0 Orchex 796 oleth-20 73-08 163 5.0 none oleth-20 73-09 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate Neodol 1-9 73-10 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate Neodol 1-9 73-11 163 0.5 5.0 methyl oleate Neodol 1-9 73-12 163 0.5 5.0 butyl oleate Neodol 1-9 73-13 163 0.5 5.0 methyl laurate Neodol 1-9 73-14 163 0.5 5.0 butyl laurate Neodol 1-9 73-15 163 0.5 5.0 Orchex 796 Neodol 1-9 73-16 163 5.0 none Neodol 1-9______________________________________
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 19 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 73b.
TABLE 73b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 3 10 250 58 57 350 78 53 450 77 53 Formulation C 150 60 98 250 87 99 350 95 98 450 99 100 Formulation J 150 60 75 250 89 87 350 93 90 450 98 99 73-01 150 75 96 250 99 97 350 97 99 450 99 100 73-02 150 60 60 250 97 67 350 99 98 450 100 95 73-03 150 63 40 250 83 82 350 97 86 450 97 88 73-04 150 73 40 250 94 82 350 97 100 450 99 100 73-05 150 67 47 250 86 67 350 97 88 450 99 100 73-06 150 60 43 250 78 91 350 97 83 450 94 86 73-07 150 70 53 250 80 53 350 97 82 450 97 92 73-08 150 70 62 250 83 83 350 91 87 450 98 98 73-09 150 45 42 250 72 72 350 77 73 450 78 89 73-10 150 40 30 250 82 80 350 78 98 450 89 93 73-11 150 40 30 250 65 60 350 77 90 450 96 92 73-12 150 20 30 250 63 73 350 80 75 450 93 86 73-13 150 20 27 250 67 60 350 82 91 450 88 92 73-14 150 7 30 250 72 81 350 87 78 450 80 85 73-15 150 20 23 250 65 60 350 77 81 450 87 88 73-16 150 12 30 250 57 53 350 68 85 450 85 85______________________________________
Composition 73-08, containing as sole excipient substance oleth-20 at a 1:3 weight/weight ratio to glyphosate a.e., exhibited high herbicidal effectiveness, at least equal to commercial standard Formulations C and J on ABUTH but a little weaker on ECHCF. By comparison, composition 73-16, wherein the sole excipient substance was Neodol 1-9 at the same ratio to glyphosate, had much weaker activity. Addition of a small amount of fatty acid ester in most cases enhanced effectiveness, especially on ECHCF. In this study the most efficacious composition was 73-01, containing oleth-20 and methyl stearate. When added to Neodol 1-9, butyl stearate was more efficacious than methyl stearate, methyl oleate or butyl oleate. The mineral oil Orchex 796 did not substitute effectively for butyl stearate, either with oleth-20 or with Neodol 1-9.
Example 74
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 74a. Concentrate compositions 74-01, 74-03, 74-05 to 74-08, 74-10 and 74-14 to 74-17 are oil-in-water emulsions prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 74-02, 74-04, 74-09 and 74-11 to 74-13 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Some compositions contained a coupling agent as indicated in Table 74a; the coupling agent was added with the surfactant.
TABLE 74a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConc. Glyphosate Butyl Coupling Type of Type of comp. g a.e./l stearate Surfactant agent coupling agent surfactant__________________________________________________________________________74-01 326 1.0 5.0 2.5 Arcosolve DPM oleth-20 74-02 326 5.0 2.5 Arcosolve DPM oleth-20 74-03 163 0.5 2.5 none oleth-20 74-04 163 2.5 none oleth-20 74-05 326 1.0 5.0 none ceteareth-27 74-06 326 1.0 5.0 2.5 PEG-400 ceteareth-27 74-07 326 1.0 5.0 2.5 Dowanol TPNB ceteareth-27 74-08 326 1.0 5.0 2.5 Dowanol PNB ceteareth-27 74-09 163 2.5 none ceteareth-27 74-10 326 0.5 5.0 none ceteareth-27 74-11 326 5.0 2.5 PEG-400 ceteareth-27 74-12 326 5.0 2.5 Dowanol TPNB ceteareth-27 74-13 326 5.0 2.5 Dowanol PNB ceteareth-27 74-14 163 0.5 2.5 none Neodol 1-9 74-15 163 0.5 2.5 none laureth-23 74-16 163 0.5 2.5 none steareth-20 74-17 163 0.5 2.5 none ceteareth-27__________________________________________________________________________
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 18 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 74b.
TABLE 74b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 5 250 38 20 350 63 30 450 70 70 Formulation C 150 70 75 250 92 94 350 99 99 450 99 98 Formulation J 150 65 50 250 88 92 350 97 99 450 98 97 74-01 150 58 83 250 77 88 350 93 96 450 93 99 74-02 150 40 76 250 75 100 350 92 100 450 92 100 74-03 150 48 75 250 83 96 350 92 100 450 99 100 74-04 150 40 82 250 78 99 350 87 99 450 98 100 74-05 150 68 92 250 87 99 350 95 99 450 99 99 74-06 150 55 60 250 83 99 350 97 99 450 98 98 74-07 150 63 57 250 80 96 350 95 97 450 99 98 74-08 150 73 75 250 90 90 350 95 97 450 100 97 74-09 150 73 68 250 87 73 350 92 90 450 97 95 74-10 150 70 63 250 87 80 350 98 94 450 99 96 74-11 150 73 60 250 90 77 350 99 93 450 100 95 74-12 150 72 67 250 83 75 350 90 82 450 99 94 74-13 150 73 70 250 80 83 350 99 94 450 100 92 74-14 150 5 20 250 55 63 350 77 93 450 78 99 74-15 150 43 57 250 78 88 350 88 98 450 90 98 74-16 150 65 57 250 83 82 350 88 98 450 95 97 74-17 150 72 50 250 80 93 350 88 90 450 95 97______________________________________
The superiority of herbicidal effectiveness provided by C.sub.16-18 alkylethers (oleth-20, ceteareth-27, steareth-20) over that provided by shorter chain alkylethers (Neodol 1-9, laureth-23) was very pronounced in this test.
Example 75
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 75a. Concentrate compositions 75-01 to 75-07 and 75-09 to 75-15 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 75-08 and 75-16 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii).
TABLE 75a______________________________________Gly-Concentrate phosate % w/w Type of Type ofcomposition g a.e./l Oil Surfactant oil surfactant______________________________________75-01 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate steareth-20 75-02 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate steareth-20 75-03 163 0.5 5.0 methyl oleate steareth-20 75-04 163 0.5 5.0 butyl oleate steareth-20 75-05 163 0.5 5.0 methyl laurate steareth-20 75-06 163 0.5 5.0 butyl laurate steareth-20 75-07 163 0.5 5.0 Orchex 796 steareth-20 75-08 163 5.0 none steareth-20 75-09 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate ceteareth-27 75-10 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate ceteareth-27 75-11 163 0.5 5.0 methyl oleate ceteareth-27 75-12 163 0.5 5.0 butyl oleate ceteareth-27 75-13 163 0.5 5.0 methyl laurate ceteareth-27 75-14 163 0.5 5.0 butyl laurate ceteareth-27 75-15 163 0.5 5.0 Orchex 796 ceteareth-27 75-16 163 5.0 none ceteareth-27______________________________________
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 ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 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 75b.
TABLE 75b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 15 5 250 57 20 350 83 50 450 78 73 Formulation C 150 65 63 250 87 93 350 92 94 450 98 100 Formulation J 150 50 73 250 90 90 350 94 98 450 98 99 75-01 150 72 70 250 88 85 350 96 83 450 99 86 75-02 150 73 53 250 83 87 350 97 99 450 97 98 75-03 150 68 33 250 87 92 350 93 97 450 98 93 75-04 150 72 50 250 87 88 350 94 86 450 98 97 75-05 150 72 67 250 83 82 350 99 97 450 98 98 75-06 150 73 33 250 95 83 350 99 95 450 99 88 75-07 150 73 55 250 93 73 350 95 83 450 98 91 75-08 150 75 40 250 94 60 350 98 86 450 99 92 75-09 150 77 50 250 90 50 350 98 92 450 99 98 75-10 150 72 53 250 92 77 350 96 86 450 99 99 75-11 150 72 60 250 87 87 350 97 97 450 97 99 75-12 150 70 57 250 90 90 350 96 96 450 98 99 75-13 150 68 40 250 90 77 350 99 95 450 99 98 75-14 150 77 33 250 94 70 350 96 82 450 99 93 75-15 150 75 30 250 96 75 350 97 88 450 99 92 75-16 150 77 40 250 99 47 350 98 67 450 98 78______________________________________
Steareth-20 and ceteareth-27, as sole excipient substances (compositions 75-08 and 75-16 respectively) provided excellent herbicidal effectiveness, but further enhancements, especially on ECHCF, were obtained by inclusion of a small amount of fatty acid ester in the composition.
Example 76
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 76a. Concentrate compositions 76-13 and 76-14 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 76-01 to 76-12 and 76-15 are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix). Concentrate compositions 76-16 and 76-17 contained colloidal particulates but no surfactant.
Compositions 76-13 and 76-14 (both containing 162 g a.e./l glyphosate) showed acceptable storage stability. However, at glyphosate loadings>480 g a.e./l (as in compositions 76-01 to 76-12 and 76-15) storage-stable compositions containing 3% oleth-20 could not be made except with the addition of colloidal particulate as shown below.
TABLE 76a______________________________________Gly- % w/wConcentrate phosate Oleth- Type of composition g a.e./l 20 Glycerin Aerosil Aerosil______________________________________76-01 492 3.00 2.0 0.8 380 76-02 492 3.00 5.0 1.5 380 76-03 492 3.00 2.0 0.8 380 76-04 492 3.00 5.0 1.5 380 76-05 492 3.00 0.8 OX-50 76-06 492 3.00 1.5 OX-50 76-07 492 3.00 0.8 380/OX-50 blend 76-08 492 3.00 1.5 380/OX-50 blend 76-09 492 3.00 0.8 380 76-10 492 3.00 1.5 380 76-11 492 3.00 0.8 380 76-12 492 3.00 1.5 380 76-13 162 1.13 none 76-14 162 1.13 none 76-15 492 3.00 2.0 1.5 380 76-16 488 0.8 380 76-17 488 1.5 380______________________________________
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 76b.
TABLE 76b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 18 40 250 57 53 350 72 63 450 83 85 Formulation J 150 70 65 250 85 95 350 98 98 450 100 99 76-01 150 62 67 250 72 93 350 99 96 450 99 97 76-02 150 57 50 250 70 91 350 92 97 450 99 99 76-03 150 48 40 250 68 67 350 97 97 450 98 98 76-04 150 55 50 250 82 83 350 95 90 450 99 94 76-05 150 65 43 250 87 87 350 100 94 450 96 95 76-06 150 55 53 250 75 82 350 95 95 450 100 96 76-07 150 45 83 250 78 82 350 90 93 450 95 99 76-08 150 55 47 250 75 88 350 93 99 450 99 97 76-09 150 47 47 250 65 82 350 78 99 450 97 97 76-10 150 47 40 250 72 96 350 77 80 450 85 97 76-11 150 37 53 250 73 82 350 80 83 450 90 92 76-12 150 35 57 250 70 82 350 80 97 450 90 99 76-13 150 50 40 250 68 75 350 95 92 450 99 95 76-14 150 40 33 250 70 82 350 93 89 450 98 93 76-15 150 23 33 250 67 73 350 83 91 450 94 92 76-16 150 13 40 250 45 50 350 62 72 450 77 77 76-17 150 7 33 250 50 50 350 60 70 450 75 73______________________________________
Several high-loaded (492 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions containing oleth-20 at just 3% exhibited surprisingly high herbicidal effectiveness, approaching or equaling that of commercial standard Formulation J, which is loaded at only about 360 g a.e./l and has a much higher surfactant to glyphosate ratio.
Example 77
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 77a. Concentrate composition 77-08 to 77-14 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 77-15 to 77-17 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 77-01 to 77-07 contain colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).
Compositions 77-08 to 77-17 (all containing 163 g a.e./l glyphosate) showed acceptable storage stability. However, at a glyphosate loading of 400 g a.e./l (as in compositions 77-01 to 77-07) storage-stable compositions containing 0.5-1% butyl stearate and 5-10% alkylether surfactant could not be made except with the addition of colloidal particulate as shown below.
TABLE 77a______________________________________Gly- % w/wConcentrate phosate Butyl Type of composition g a.e./l stearate Surfactant Aerosil 90 surfactant______________________________________77-01 400 1.0 10.0 1.0 ceteareth-27 77-02 400 1.0 10.0 1.0 steareth-20 77-03 400 0.5 5.0 1.0 ceteareth-27 77-04 400 0.5 5.0 1.0 steareth-20 77-05 400 1.0 5.0 1.0 ceteareth-27 77-06 400 1.0 5.0 1.0 steareth-20 77-07 400 1.0 5.0 1.0 steareth-30 77-08 163 0.5 5.0 oleth-20 77-09 163 0.5 5.0 steareth-20 77-10 163 0.5 5.0 ceteth-20 77-11 163 0.5 5.0 laureth-23 77-12 163 0.5 5.0 ceteareth-27 77-13 163 0.5 5.0 Neodol 25-12 77-14 163 0.5 5.0 Neodol 25-20 77-15 163 5.0 steareth-20 77-16 163 5.0 ceteth-20 77-17 163 5.0 laureth-23______________________________________
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 19 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 77b.
TABLE 77b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate applied g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 0 40 250 20 60 350 68 82 450 83 96 Formulation C 150 68 93 250 93 99 350 100 100 450 100 100 Formulation J 150 43 89 250 93 100 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-01 150 78 97 250 96 100 350 98 100 450 100 100 77-02 150 91 98 250 100 100 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-03 150 90 97 250 99 99 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-04 150 77 98 250 100 100 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-05 150 82 93 250 100 99 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-06 150 83 85 250 100 99 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-07 150 83 87 250 100 100 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-08 150 90 92 250 100 100 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-09 150 90 85 250 100 98 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-10 150 80 85 250 100 92 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-11 150 83 88 250 96 99 350 100 98 450 100 100 77-12 150 93 85 250 100 99 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-13 150 72 73 250 92 97 350 100 99 450 100 100 77-14 150 72 80 250 99 99 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-15 150 100 93 250 100 99 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-16 150 100 98 250 100 100 350 100 100 450 100 100 77-17 150 83 83 250 100 99 350 100 99 450 100 99______________________________________
Outstanding herbicidal effectiveness was provided by compositions containing C.sub.16-18 alkylether surfactants (ceteareth-27, steareth-20, steareth-30, oleth-20, ceteth-20). High-loaded (400 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions containing a C.sub.16-18 alkylether surfactant, butyl stearate and a colloidal particulate (Aerosil 90) to stabilize the compositions performed especially impressively in this test.
Example 78
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 78a. Concentrate composition 78-01 to 78-09, 78-11 to 78-14, 78-16 and 78-17 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 78-10 and 78-15 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii).
TABLE 78a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConc. Glyphosate Oleth- Other Type of Other comp. g a.e./l Oil 20 surfactant oil surfactant__________________________________________________________________________78-01 163 0.25 2.5 methyl laurate 78-02 163 0.25 2.5 methyl myristate 78-03 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitoleate 78-04 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitate 78-05 163 0.25 2.5 methyl linoleate 78-06 163 0.25 2.5 methyl oleate 78-07 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate 78-08 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl stearate 78-09 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate 78-10 163 2.5 none 78-11 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitoleate MON 0818 78-12 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitate MON 0818 78-13 163 0.25 2.5 methyl oleate MON 0818 78-14 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate MON 0818 78-15 163 2.5 none MON 0818 78-16 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate laureth-23 78-17 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate Neodol 1-9__________________________________________________________________________
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 20 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, 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 78b.
TABLE 78b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 2 35 200 52 67 300 77 83 400 78 87 Formulation C 100 25 77 200 72 99 300 87 100 400 99 100 Formulation J 100 13 73 200 70 97 300 90 100 400 97 100 78-01 100 22 55 200 65 86 300 78 98 400 89 98 78-02 100 20 63 200 67 91 300 83 99 400 97 100 78-03 100 30 75 200 63 98 300 83 99 400 94 100 78-04 100 23 63 200 60 98 300 90 99 400 95 100 78-05 100 27 57 200 62 91 300 83 96 400 93 98 78-06 100 23 50 200 63 89 300 83 99 400 96 99 78-07 100 25 53 200 65 94 300 83 99 400 92 99 78-08 100 13 47 200 53 88 300 89 97 400 95 99 78-09 100 27 53 200 60 85 300 83 97 400 97 98 78-10 100 13 53 200 62 94 300 83 97 400 88 99 78-11 100 23 60 200 50 90 300 85 98 400 95 99 78-12 100 17 55 200 35 94 300 78 98 400 94 99 78-13 100 8 50 200 43 90 300 73 98 400 90 99 78-14 100 30 63 200 45 92 300 80 98 400 94 98 78-15 100 20 63 200 70 96 300 82 99 400 94 98 78-16 100 18 62 200 62 83 300 80 97 400 97 97 78-17 100 17 52 200 58 85 300 75 90 400 95 98______________________________________
Not great or consistent enhancement of herbicidal effectiveness of glyphosate compositions containing oleth-20 was obtained by adding a small amount of any of a variety of fatty acid esters in this study (compare 78-10 with 78-01 to 78-09).
Example 79
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 79a. Concentrate composition 79-01 to 79-09, 79-11 to 79-14, 79-16 and 79-17 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 79-10 and 79-15 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii).
TABLE 79a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Oleth- Other Type of Other composition g a.e./l Oil 20 surfactant oil surfactant__________________________________________________________________________79-01 163 0.25 2.5 isopropyl myristate 79-02 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl myristate 79-03 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitate 79-04 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl palmitate 79-05 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl linoleate 79-06 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl oleate 79-07 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate 79-08 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl stearate 79-09 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate 79-10 163 2.5 none 79-11 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitate MON 0818 79-12 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate MON 0818 79-13 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl stearate MON 0818 79-14 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl oleate MON 0818 79-15 163 2.5 none MON 0818 79-16 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate laureth-23 79-17 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate Neodol 1-9__________________________________________________________________________
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 ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 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 79b.
TABLE 79b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 12 33 200 45 43 300 73 63 400 80 63 Formulation C 100 43 57 200 75 88 300 95 99 400 100 99 Formulation J 100 53 60 200 77 75 300 96 95 400 99 98 79-01 100 35 40 200 73 72 300 83 91 400 99 97 79-02 100 38 30 200 70 43 300 87 82 400 96 80 79-03 100 25 27 200 68 50 300 90 73 400 96 82 79-04 100 27 27 200 75 50 300 80 73 400 96 80 79-05 100 33 27 200 68 43 300 83 70 400 97 91 79-06 100 33 28 200 72 53 300 83 60 400 99 70 79-07 100 37 25 200 72 40 300 83 50 400 97 65 79-08 100 32 25 200 73 43 300 87 60 400 98 67 79-09 100 35 25 200 75 43 300 95 57 400 98 63 79-10 100 35 27 200 73 40 300 83 76 400 97 73 79-11 100 35 33 200 67 67 300 80 86 400 92 70 79-12 100 25 30 200 67 70 300 83 76 400 88 80 79-13 100 27 33 200 70 66 300 78 63 400 93 60 79-14 100 33 30 200 67 47 300 80 70 400 92 77 79-15 100 20 30 200 68 40 300 83 75 400 90 72 79-16 100 30 25 200 62 43 300 73 73 400 77 70 79-17 100 30 23 200 58 40 300 75 60 400 80 73______________________________________
In this study, isopropyl myristate (composition 79-01) was the most effective of the fatty acid esters tested as additives to oleth-20 (79-10) in glyphosate compositions.
Example 80
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 80a. Concentrate composition 80-01 to 80-13 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 80-14 to 80-17 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii).
TABLE 80a______________________________________Gly- % w/wConcentrate phosate Surf- Type of Type of composition g a.e./l Oil actant oil surfactant______________________________________80-01 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate laureth-23 80-02 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate steareth-20 80-03 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate ceteareth-20 80-04 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate ceteareth-15 80-05 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate Neodol 45-13 80-06 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate steareth-20 80-07 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate ceteareth-20 80-08 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate ceteareth-15 80-09 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate Neodol 45-13 80-10 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitate steareth-20 80-11 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitate ceteareth-20 80-12 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitate ceteareth-15 80-13 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitate Neodol 45-13 80-14 163 2.5 none steareth-20 80-15 163 2.5 none ceteareth-20 80-16 163 2.5 none ceteareth-15 80-17 163 2.5 none Neodol 45-13______________________________________
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 24 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, 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 80b.
TABLE 80b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 10 37 200 30 40 300 43 57 400 23 33 Formulation C 100 50 67 200 75 96 300 85 99 400 94 100 Formulation J 100 40 75 200 73 94 300 93 98 400 95 99 80-01 100 63 77 200 67 94 300 77 99 400 88 96 80-02 100 63 75 200 83 88 300 93 98 400 95 99 80-03 100 67 75 200 82 95 300 95 99 400 98 99 80-04 100 60 75 200 82 97 300 96 99 400 98 100 80-05 100 63 73 200 75 89 300 80 98 400 87 97 80-06 100 58 63 200 78 93 300 93 99 400 98 100 80-07 100 60 67 200 78 93 300 93 99 400 100 99 80-08 100 missing missing 200 missing missing 300 78 95 400 98 99 80-09 100 23 30 200 65 83 300 80 98 400 93 99 80-10 100 65 67 200 83 95 300 97 99 400 99 99 80-11 100 72 73 200 90 98 300 96 97 400 99 99 80-12 100 68 63 200 90 92 300 98 99 400 97 99 80-13 100 43 73 200 72 87 300 83 98 400 93 96 80-14 100 62 77 200 78 99 300 95 99 400 98 100 80-15 100 52 60 200 78 93 300 94 98 400 97 99 80-16 100 38 68 200 68 99 300 87 97 400 94 99 80-17 100 55 75 200 68 91 300 83 96 400 87 98______________________________________
Herbicidal effectiveness exceeding that of commercial standard composition J, at least on ABUTH, was recorded with several compositions, including 80-02 (steareth-20 plus butyl stearate), 80-03 (ceteareth-20 plus butyl stearate), 80-04 (ceteareth-15 plus butyl stearate), 80-10 (steareth-20 plus methyl palmitate), 80-11 (ceteareth-20 plus methyl palmitate) and 80-12 (ceteareth-15 plus methyl palmitate). Compositions lacking fatty acid ester performed slightly less well overall than those containing butyl stearate or methyl palmitate.
Example 81
Spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 81a. 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 81a) were prepared, calculated to provide, when applied in a spray volume of 93 l/ha, the glyphosate rates shown in Table 81b.
TABLE 81a__________________________________________________________________________% w/wSpray Butyl Methyl Oleth- Lecithin Methyl oleate comp. Lecithin FC-754 stearate oleate 20 supplied as supplied as__________________________________________________________________________81-01 0.05 0.050 soybean lecithin 81-02 0.05 0.050 soybean lecithin 81-03 0.05 soybean lecithin 81-04 0.050 81-05 0.050 81-06 0.05 LI-700 81-07 0.005 0.05 81-08 0.01 0.05 81-09 0.05 81-10 0.005 81-11 0.01 pure 81-12 0.01 methylated seed oil__________________________________________________________________________
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 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.
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 81b.
TABLE 81b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionComposition applied g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF SIDSP______________________________________Formulation B 50 0 0 0 (technical) 100 38 35 35 200 87 50 90 300 95 88 94 Formulation C 50 0 2 0 (commercial) 100 32 55 25 200 85 97 93 300 96 99 96 81-01 50 78 53 88 100 90 60 95 200 99 96 99 300 99 97 98 81-02 50 25 15 43 100 72 30 82 200 94 62 93 300 95 77 94 81-03 50 20 8 32 100 52 22 78 200 87 55 91 300 95 65 93 81-04 50 62 37 85 100 82 68 92 200 97 96 95 300 98 95 97 81-05 50 15 10 25 100 47 27 23 200 85 62 87 300 90 63 92 81-06 50 0 2 0 100 20 15 20 200 85 60 82 300 90 65 90 81-07 50 67 27 82 100 87 55 93 200 94 92 96 300 97 99 97 81-08 50 62 30 75 100 78 63 91 200 93 96 96 300 94 98 98 81-09 50 65 45 77 100 80 73 95 200 93 98 97 300 95 99 99 81-10 50 10 25 5 100 23 35 37 200 90 50 93 300 92 73 94 81-11 50 10 25 0 100 52 33 43 200 88 72 93 300 94 78 94 81-12 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 (81-03) was a much more effective excipient than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (81-06) widely used in the art.
Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (81-05) did not greatly enhance effectiveness.
The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (81-02) gave surprisingly strong enhancement of effectiveness, suggesting a synergistic interaction between these two excipient substances.
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (81-04) or in combination with lecithin (81-01) gave extremely high effectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.
Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (81-09) gave extremely high effectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (81-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (81-08) did not provide further enhancement.
Example 82
Spray compositions were prepared containing paraquat dichloride and excipient ingredients. Compositions 82-01 to 82-12 were exactly like compositions 81-01 to 81-12 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 (Sida 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 82.
TABLE 82______________________________________ 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 99 Gramoxone 25 40 72 40 (commercial) 50 60 70 52 100 72 58 55 200 72 89 63 82-01 25 75 93 67 50 82 97 91 100 95 98 97 200 100 99 99 82-02 25 67 80 48 50 68 87 65 100 88 97 93 200 96 99 98 82-03 25 55 65 42 50 62 87 65 100 83 96 93 200 95 99 97 82-04 25 53 82 45 50 63 94 53 100 88 99 86 200 92 99 98 82-05 25 58 67 50 50 60 62 45 100 70 73 62 200 85 90 88 82-06 25 53 77 43 50 60 92 40 100 80 93 55 200 96 99 78 82-07 25 65 80 45 50 82 92 70 100 96 96 89 200 100 98 99 82-08 25 67 80 37 50 82 90 71 100 97 98 65 200 99 99 93 82-09 25 72 90 50 50 80 97 57 100 91 99 94 200 97 100 97 82-10 25 67 87 45 50 68 75 57 100 78 93 63 200 82 97 82 82-11 25 65 80 45 50 73 77 62 100 90 95 62 200 94 98 78 82-12 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 (82-03) was a much more effective excipient on SIDSP than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (82-06) widely used in the art.
Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (82-05) did not enhance effectiveness.
The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (82-02) gave surprisingly strong enhancement of effectiveness, suggesting a synergistic interaction between these two excipient substances.
Fluorad FC-754 (82-04) gave extremely high effectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. In the presence of lecithin (82-01), effectiveness was further increased dramatically, suggesting a synergistic interaction between these two excipient substances.
Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (82-09) gave extremely high effectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (82-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (82-08) did not provide further enhancement.
Example 83
Spray compositions were prepared containing acifluorfen sodium salt and excipient ingredients. Compositions 83-01 to 83-12 were exactly like compositions 81-01 to 81-12 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 (Sida 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 83.
TABLE 83______________________________________ 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 40 Blazer 25 30 30 5 (commercial) 50 53 53 12 100 55 55 7 200 65 65 32 83-01 25 60 7 20 50 63 20 20 100 65 43 33 200 80 70 48 83-02 25 25 7 5 50 42 12 25 100 60 30 22 200 68 68 50 83-03 25 22 5 10 50 55 7 33 100 62 25 27 200 65 55 48 83-04 25 57 7 13 50 67 10 32 100 67 35 32 200 70 70 45 83-05 25 30 3 15 50 47 27 27 100 55 42 37 200 65 60 38 83-06 25 28 0 3 50 50 0 10 100 55 30 25 200 67 58 47 83-07 25 35 20 17 50 55 35 27 100 58 63 32 200 67 67 55 83-08 25 40 20 8 50 57 30 28 100 60 60 30 200 70 77 48 83-09 25 47 20 22 50 55 35 35 100 62 65 38 200 68 82 50 83-10 25 28 0 5 50 48 0 10 100 53 5 25 200 62 35 40 83-11 25 35 0 5 50 43 0 30 100 50 0 35 200 65 43 47 83-12 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 (83-03) gave effectiveness similar to that obtained with the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (83-06) widely used in the art.
Butyl stearate at 0.05% alone (83-05) and in combination with lecithin (83-02) enhanced effectiveness, particularly on ECHCF.
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (83-04) or in combination with lecithin (83-01) gave effectiveness on ABUTH and SIDSP superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.
Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (83-09) gave effectiveness superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (83-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (83-08) did not provide further enhancement.
Example 84
Spray compositions were prepared containing asulam and excipient ingredients. Compositions 84-01 to 84-12 were exactly like compositions 81-01 to 81-12 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 (Sida 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 84.
TABLE 84______________________________________ 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 37 Asulox 200 3 5 0 (commercial) 400 27 30 20 800 52 45 25 1400 50 60 40 84-01 200 5 8 13 400 23 45 22 800 50 50 30 1400 60 65 48 84-02 200 0 20 17 400 33 40 20 800 47 48 33 1400 53 68 55 84-03 200 3 20 3 400 28 52 7 800 50 50 23 1400 50 58 43 84-04 200 3 40 7 400 35 45 18 800 52 50 25 1400 58 60 42 84-05 200 0 10 3 400 23 30 18 800 33 50 32 1400 45 57 38 84-06 200 2 30 10 400 8 47 17 800 50 55 28 1400 52 63 40 84-07 200 0 43 3 400 22 48 17 800 40 55 28 1400 52 60 33 84-08 200 7 47 22 400 20 48 22 800 53 55 30 1400 57 60 33 84-09 200 0 45 7 400 25 50 7 800 53 60 32 1400 55 63 37 84-10 200 22 37 10 400 27 45 10 800 50 43 23 1400 52 52 27 84-11 200 25 33 5 400 15 37 13 800 48 42 25 1400 42 52 28 84-12 200 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 (84-03) gave similar enhancement to that obtained with the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (84-06) widely used in the art.
Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (84-05) enhanced effectiveness on ECHCF.
The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (84-02) gave greater enhancement of effectiveness than either excipient substance alone.
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (84-04) or in combination with lecithin (84-01) gave effectiveness equal to that obtained with the commercial standard.
Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (84-09) gave, at low exogenous chemical rates, effectiveness on ECHCF superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (84-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (84-08) did not provide further enhancement.
Example 85
Spray compositions were prepared containing dicamba sodium salt and excipient ingredients. Compositions 85-01 to 85-12 were exactly like compositions 81-01 to 81-12 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 (Sida 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 85.
TABLE 85______________________________________ 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 58 Banvel 25 47 0 35 (commercial) 50 68 0 40 100 91 0 53 200 93 3 63 85-01 25 42 0 38 50 67 0 48 100 92 0 67 200 93 3 73 85-02 25 43 0 43 50 58 0 50 100 85 0 62 200 89 8 72 85-03 25 50 0 32 50 65 0 45 100 90 0 60 200 94 13 68 85-04 25 43 0 35 50 65 0 42 100 94 0 53 200 94 13 67 85-05 25 50 0 35 50 68 0 40 100 88 0 53 200 92 15 60 85-06 25 40 0 40 50 65 0 45 100 88 0 52 200 92 8 70 85-07 25 45 0 42 50 57 0 45 100 88 0 62 200 88 20 68 85-08 25 40 0 38 50 62 0 45 100 97 18 62 200 93 17 73 85-09 25 33 0 35 50 60 0 45 100 93 0 63 200 96 15 73 85-10 25 35 0 30 50 57 0 43 100 90 0 50 200 90 3 70 85-11 25 45 0 30 50 53 0 42 100 89 0 55 200 92 0 73 85-12 25 38 0 37 50 60 0 45 100 96 0 52 200 93 0 70______________________________________
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 (85-03) gave similar enhancement of effectiveness to that obtained with the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (85-06) widely used in the art.
Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (85-05) provided slight enhancement of effectiveness.
The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (85-02) gave greater enhancement of effectiveness on SIDSP than either of these two excipient substances alone.
Fluorad FC-754 (85-04) 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 (85-01).
Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (85-09) gave, effectiveness on SIDSP superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (85-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (85-08) did not provide further enhancement.
Example 86
Spray compositions were prepared containing metsulfuron-methyl and excipient ingredients. Compositions 86-01 to 86-12 were exactly like compositions 81-01 to 81-12 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 (Sida 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 DuPont. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 86.
TABLE 86______________________________________ 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 55 Ally 0.5 75 0 5 (commercial) 1 85 0 22 5 95 0 42 10 97 25 53 86-01 0.5 95 0 47 1 96 20 53 5 97 25 62 10 98 45 62 86-02 0.5 87 0 40 1 90 10 55 5 95 10 58 10 96 40 63 86-03 0.5 87 0 27 1 90 0 40 5 96 10 57 10 97 33 63 86-04 0.5 90 0 33 1 95 10 50 5 98 17 62 10 99 28 58 86-05 0.5 85 0 27 1 90 0 33 5 95 0 47 10 95 13 60 86-06 0.5 77 0 30 1 89 10 47 5 96 17 62 10 98 33 60 86-07 0.5 94 0 55 1 97 10 60 5 98 43 60 10 97 55 65 86-08 0.5 93 0 55 1 96 5 58 5 97 42 60 10 97 50 60 86-09 0.5 93 0 55 1 97 10 62 5 98 55 62 10 98 65 63 86-10 0.5 85 0 28 1 82 0 30 5 95 10 52 10 96 17 57 86-11 0.5 73 0 25 1 88 20 28 5 94 25 53 10 96 32 57 86-12 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% phospolipid (86-03) was slightly more effective excipient than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (86-06) widely used in the art in improving perfromance on ABUTH at the lowest exogenous chemical rate tested.
Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (86-05) enhanced effectiveness to a level superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.
The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (86-02) gave greater enhancement of effectiveness than was obtained with either of these two excipient substances alone.
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (86-04) or in combination with lecithin (86-01) gave high effectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.
Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (86-09) gave high effectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (86-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (86-08) did not provide further enhancement.
Example 87
Spray compositions were prepared containing imazethapyr and excipient ingredients. Compositions 87-01 to 87-12 were exactly like compositions 81-01 to 81-12 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 (Sida 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 87.
TABLE 87______________________________________ 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 50 Pursuit 5 70 5 25 (commercial) 10 73 33 30 25 90 50 42 50 93 62 57 87-01 5 70 45 35 10 75 62 52 25 92 63 57 50 93 72 62 87-02 5 73 57 32 10 75 67 43 25 90 70 52 50 92 72 57 87-03 5 70 42 27 10 78 42 35 25 90 53 45 50 92 62 52 87-04 5 73 55 33 10 77 68 45 25 93 68 47 50 94 68 60 87-05 5 73 47 32 10 73 45 40 25 90 62 47 50 91 68 52 87-06 5 78 72 30 10 83 70 35 25 93 77 62 50 94 78 58 87-07 5 82 75 38 10 90 90 52 25 93 93 53 50 97 97 62 87-08 5 75 77 38 10 90 92 50 25 95 93 57 50 97 99 63 87-09 5 78 80 40 10 83 89 63 25 93 93 62 50 96 93 60 87-10 5 85 50 37 10 77 50 45 25 91 63 48 50 93 75 57 87-11 5 75 38 43 10 80 38 37 25 92 62 45 50 93 73 53 87-12 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 (87-03) was a less effective excipient than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (87-06).
Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (87-05) significantly enhanced effectiveness on ECHCF and slightly on SIDSP.
The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (87-02) gave enhancement of effectiveness on ECHCF greater than that obtained with either of these two excipient substances alone.
Fluorad FC-754 (87-04) gave effectiveness on ECHCF superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. The combination of Fluorad FC-754 and lecithin (87-01) provided slight further enhancement of effectiveness on SIDSP.
Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (87-09) gave extremely high effectiveness, greatly superior to that obtained with the commercial standard, especially on ECHCF. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (87-07) further enhanced performance of low exogenous chemical rates on ABUTH more effectively than addition of 0.01% methyl oleate (87-08).
Example 88
Spray compositions were prepared containing fluazifop-p-butyl salt and excipient ingredients. Compositions 88-01 to 88-12 were exactly like compositions 81-01 to 81-12 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 88.
TABLE 88______________________________________ 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 78 Fusilade 5 2 0 0 27 (commercial) 5 0 27 33 15 5 52 78 30 7 75 85 88-01 2 0 0 20 5 2 27 30 15 5 58 78 30 10 87 83 88-02 2 0 7 25 5 0 35 30 15 2 58 75 30 8 78 75 88-03 2 0 0 18 5 0 8 27 15 0 45 75 30 0 55 75 88-04 2 0 20 32 5 2 42 25 15 2 55 72 30 5 80 78 88-05 2 0 13 32 5 2 42 32 15 2 55 72 30 7 58 73 88-06 2 2 17 23 5 0 20 25 15 0 50 75 30 0 73 77 88-07 2 0 50 40 5 0 52 60 15 0 67 80 30 0 92 85 88-08 2 0 43 35 5 0 55 37 15 7 88 82 30 3 96 85 88-09 2 0 47 18 5 0 50 35 15 0 80 80 30 3 93 85 88-10 2 0 23 10 5 0 37 42 15 5 55 75 30 10 58 80 88-11 2 0 7 10 5 0 30 28 15 0 50 62 30 12 53 68 88-12 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 (88-03) was a less effective excipient on ECHCF than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (88-06).
Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (88-05) and in combination with lecithin (88-02) enhanced effectiveness, especially on ECHCF.
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (88-04) or in combination with lecithin (88-01) gave effectiveness equal or superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.
Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (88-09) gave extremely high effectiveness on ECHCF, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (88-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (88-08) did not provide significant further enhancement.
Example 89
Spray compositions were prepared containing alachlor and excipient ingredients. Compositions 89-01 to 89-12 were exactly like compositions 81-01 to 81-12 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 (Sida 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 89.
TABLE 89______________________________________ 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 0 Lasso 500 0 0 0 (commercial) 1000 0 5 13 2000 0 30 17 4000 15 43 65 89-01 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 10 0 7 89-02 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 22 7 4000 12 47 12 89-03 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 10 0 0 89-04 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 5 0 15 89-05 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 3 0 5 89-06 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 13 7 4000 0 37 12 89-07 500 0 0 0 1000 0 8 0 2000 0 28 15 4000 12 50 20 89-08 500 0 0 0 1000 0 8 0 2000 0 8 0 4000 5 20 5 89-09 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 3 0 4000 12 42 32 89-10 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 0 0 0 89-11 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 0 0 0 89-12 500 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 90
Spray compositions were prepared containing glufosinate ammonium salt and excipient ingredients. Compositions 90-01 to 90-12 were exactly like compositions 81-01 to 81-12 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 (Sida 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.
Standard 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 90.
TABLE 90______________________________________ 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 94 Liberty 50 77 70 20 (commercial) 100 88 96 93 300 98 100 97 600 99 100 99 90-01 50 77 33 70 100 95 58 93 300 98 95 97 600 99 99 98 90-02 50 33 30 50 100 63 32 93 300 96 52 90 600 98 96 97 90-03 50 15 30 38 100 50 33 87 300 92 40 94 600 98 70 98 90-04 50 92 47 50 100 90 53 85 300 98 98 96 600 98 99 98 90-05 50 35 20 20 100 37 30 20 300 97 45 78 600 91 53 92 90-06 50 10 0 20 100 20 3 20 300 89 47 82 600 91 94 89 90-07 50 50 35 70 100 73 52 80 300 95 87 98 600 98 98 97 90-08 50 48 30 88 100 83 50 93 300 98 97 96 600 98 99 96 90-09 50 58 35 92 100 91 62 93 300 98 96 97 600 98 99 96 90-10 50 30 30 0 100 43 35 10 300 96 43 92 600 95 70 91 90-11 50 33 35 0 100 53 35 7 300 96 43 89 600 97 88 93 90-12 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 (90-03) was a much more effective excipient than the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (90-06) widely used in the art.
Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (90-05) enhanced effectiveness on ECHCF.
The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (90-02) gave greater enhancement of effectiveness than either of these two excipient substances alone.
Fluorad FC-754, either alone (90-04) or in combination with lecithin (90-01) gave extremely high effectiveness, similar to that obtained with the commercial standard.
Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (90-09) gave extremely high effectiveness, superior on SIDSP to that obtained with the commercial standard.
Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (90-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (90-08) did not provide further enhancement.
Example 91
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 91a. Concentrate compositions 91-01 to 91-12 are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix). Concentrate compositions 91-13 to 91-18 contained colloidal particulates but no surfactant.
The colloidal particulates of this example were in general too large to confer good storage stability to the compositions tested.
TABLE 91a______________________________________Glypho-Concentrate sate % w/w Type of Type ofcomposition g a.e./l Surfactant Silica surfactant silica______________________________________91-01 488 3.0 0.8 steareth-20 Sident 9 91-02 488 3.0 0.8 steareth-20 Sipernat 22 91-03 488 3.0 0.8 steareth-20 Sipernat 22S 91-04 488 3.0 0.8 oleth-20 Sident 9 91-05 488 3.0 0.8 oleth-20 Sipernat 22 91-06 488 3.0 0.8 oleth-20 Sipernat 22S 91-07 488 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 Sident 9 91-08 488 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 Sipernat 22 91-09 488 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 Sipernat 22S 91-10 488 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 Sident 9 91-11 488 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 Sipernat 22 91-12 488 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 Sipernat 22S 91-13 488 0.8 none Sident 9 91-14 488 1.5 none Sipernat 22 91-15 488 0.8 none Sipernat 22S 91-16 488 1.5 none Sident 9 91-17 488 0.8 none Sipernat 22 91-18 488 1.5 none Sipernat 22S______________________________________
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 ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 91B.
TABLE 91b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 3 37 200 10 57 300 43 87 400 57 88 Formulation J 100 33 80 200 72 98 300 96 99 400 97 99 91-01 100 47 89 200 78 97 300 87 99 400 98 99 91-02 100 37 83 200 70 99 300 90 99 400 95 100 91-03 100 40 89 200 70 99 300 90 100 400 95 100 91-04 100 37 94 200 58 98 300 87 99 400 95 100 91-05 100 30 60 200 73 95 300 85 99 400 97 99 91-06 100 33 67 200 70 97 300 78 99 400 92 100 91-07 100 32 81 200 60 99 300 83 98 400 88 100 91-08 100 40 63 200 65 93 300 90 99 400 90 100 91-09 100 43 70 200 55 98 300 88 99 400 94 100 91-10 100 33 91 200 70 99 300 83 99 400 94 99 91-11 100 20 63 200 70 97 300 92 100 400 94 100 91-12 100 48 67 200 70 93 300 88 98 400 94 100 91-13 100 20 50 200 60 83 300 83 97 400 94 99 91-14 100 43 43 200 67 88 300 83 97 400 91 99 91-15 100 30 50 200 67 73 300 77 96 400 97 96 91-16 100 43 43 200 75 79 300 87 94 400 87 91 91-17 100 40 27 200 68 53 300 87 92 400 93 98 91-18 100 47 10 200 75 37 300 83 63 400 92 88______________________________________
Many of the high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate formulations of this Example exhibited herbicidal effectiveness equal to or greater than that obtained with commercial standard Formulation J, in spite of containing only 3% alkylether surfactant.
Example 92
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 92a. Concentrate compositions 92-01 to 92-12 and 92-14 to 92-16 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate composition 92-13 is an aqueous solution concentrate and was prepared by process (viii).
TABLE 92a______________________________________ Glypho- % w/wConcentrate sate Surfac- Type of Type of composition g a.e./l Oil tant oil surfactant______________________________________92-01 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate steareth-30 92-02 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate steareth-30 92-03 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate Neodol 45-13 92-04 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate Neodol 45-13 92-05 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate ceteareth-15 92-06 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate ceteareth-15 92-07 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate laureth-23 92-08 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate oleth-20 92-09 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate steareth-20 92-10 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate ceteareth-27 92-11 163 0.3 5.0 butyl stearate ceteareth-27 92-12 163 0.3 2.5 butyl stearate ceteareth-27 92-13 163 5.0 none ceteareth-27 92-14 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate ceteareth-27 92-15 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate steareth-20 92-16 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate oleth-20______________________________________
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 20 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, 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 92b.
TABLE 92b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 45 57 200 35 53 300 50 57 400 38 33 Formulation C 100 70 98 200 90 99 300 97 100 400 100 100 Formulation J 100 72 88 200 93 99 300 97 99 400 98 99 92-01 100 83 97 200 97 100 300 99 100 400 100 100 92-02 100 80 99 200 96 100 300 99 100 400 99 100 92-03 100 73 98 200 92 100 300 98 99 400 99 100 92-04 100 73 98 200 87 99 300 97 99 400 99 100 92-05 100 80 98 200 87 100 300 98 100 400 100 100 92-06 100 78 97 200 95 98 300 98 100 400 99 100 92-07 100 78 98 200 88 100 300 96 100 400 98 100 92-08 100 75 98 200 93 99 300 97 99 400 100 99 92-09 100 83 93 200 95 100 300 98 100 400 100 100 92-10 100 80 97 200 95 98 300 98 99 400 100 100 92-11 100 80 97 200 93 99 300 98 100 400 100 99 92-12 100 77 93 200 88 100 300 99 100 400 99 100 92-13 100 80 73 200 95 95 300 99 100 400 100 100 92-14 100 77 94 200 92 99 300 98 100 400 100 99 92-15 100 78 92 200 94 99 300 98 100 400 99 100 92-16 100 77 93 200 90 98 300 98 99 400 99 100______________________________________
Extremely high herbicidal effectiveness was provided by ceteareth-27 (composition 92-13); this was further enhanced by addition of a small amount of butyl stearate (92-10, 92-11) or methyl stearate (92-14). Compositions performing better than commercial standard Formulations C and J, at least on ABUTH, included those containing steareth-30, steareth-20 or ceteareth-27; in this test oleth-20 was not quite as effective as these saturated alkylethers.
Example 93
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 93a. All are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti) was first dispersed in water using sonication.
TABLE 93a______________________________________Concen- trate Glypho- % w/wcompo- sate Butyl Ethomeen Ceteareth- Ceteareth- sition g a.e./l Lecithin stearate T/25 20 27______________________________________93-01 220 0.75 0.75 1.5 93-02 220 0.75 0.75 1.5 93-03 220 0.75 0.75 3.0 93-04 220 0.75 7.50 1.5 93-05 220 0.75 7.50 3.0 93-06 220 3.75 3.75 3.0 93-07 220 1.50 1.50 3.0 93-08 220 1.50 1.50 1.5 93-09 220 3.75 3.75 1.5 1.5 93-10 220 1.50 1.50 1.5 1.5 93-11 220 3.75 7.50 1.5 1.5 93-12 220 3.75 1.50 1.5 1.5 93-13 220 0.75 3.75 1.5 1.5 93-14 220 0.75 7.50 1.5 1.5 93-15 220 0.75 3.75 3.0 3.0 93-16 220 0.75 7.50 3.0 3.0 93-17 220 7.50 3.0 93-18 220 0.75 7.50 3.0______________________________________
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 23 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 93b.
TABLE 93b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 12 62 200 5 55 300 23 63 400 43 78 Formulation J 100 27 82 200 62 98 300 88 95 400 96 99 93-01 100 13 79 200 68 95 300 82 99 400 95 91 93-02 100 27 82 200 60 97 300 81 95 400 87 99 93-03 100 37 77 200 62 96 300 78 98 400 89 90 93-04 100 37 84 200 57 95 300 84 99 400 89 100 93-05 100 33 77 200 65 100 300 78 97 400 88 97 93-06 100 43 78 200 62 95 300 87 97 400 95 96 93-07 100 48 78 200 80 91 300 90 99 400 76 93 93-08 100 48 83 200 67 89 300 86 96 400 93 97 93-09 100 62 84 200 82 98 300 85 99 400 91 97 93-10 100 63 80 200 75 96 300 85 99 400 99 99 93-11 100 42 75 200 78 98 300 92 99 400 93 100 93-12 100 52 80 200 73 93 300 86 99 400 97 97 93-13 100 55 83 200 75 97 300 97 99 400 92 99 93-14 100 52 87 200 73 95 300 91 97 400 87 98 93-15 100 57 83 200 92 96 300 98 100 400 100 98 93-16 100 79 88 200 87 97 300 99 99 400 97 94 93-17 100 58 83 200 47 94 300 88 98 400 91 93 93-18 100 58 87 200 75 91 300 83 99 400 91 98______________________________________
Outstanding herbicidal effectiveness was provided by composition 93-18, containing lecithin, ceteareth-27 and butyl stearate. Addition of 3% Ethomeen T/25 (93-16) further enhanced effectiveness. Slightly reduced effectiveness at the lowest glyphosate rate was observed on ABUTH when the butyl stearate concentration was cut in half (93-15).
Example 94
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 94a. Concentrate compositions 94-01 to 94-04, 94-06, 94-08, 94-10 and 94-18 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions 94-05, 94-07 and 94-09 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 94-11 to 94-17 contain colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).
The compositions of this example all showed acceptable storage stability. The compositions shown as containing colloidal particulate were not storage-stable unless the colloidal particulate was included as shown.
TABLE 94a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Surfac- Aerosil Type of composition g a.e./l stearate tant 380 surfactant______________________________________94-01 163 0.5 5.0 steareth-20 94-02 163 0.5 5.0 ceteareth-27 94-03 163 0.5 5.0 oleth-20 94-04 163 0.5 5.0 ceteth-20 94-05 163 5.0 ceteth-20 94-06 163 0.5 5.0 Neodol 45-13 94-07 163 5.0 Neodol 45-13 94-08 163 0.5 5.0 ceteareth-15 94-09 163 5.0 ceteareth-15 94-10 163 0.5 5.0 steareth-30 94-11 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 ceteth-20 94-12 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 Neodol 45-13 94-13 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 ceteareth-15 94-14 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 steareth-30 94-15 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 steareth-20 94-16 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 94-17 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 ceteareth-27 94-18 163 0.5 5.0 laureth-23______________________________________
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 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 94b.
TABLE 94b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 0 30 200 2 60 300 17 75 400 50 73 Formulation J 100 20 63 200 42 98 300 75 100 400 83 98 94-01 100 27 57 200 67 98 300 80 99 400 87 98 94-02 100 27 63 200 53 87 300 77 99 400 87 99 94-03 100 12 50 200 53 99 300 65 100 400 83 99 94-04 100 20 63 200 50 98 300 73 98 400 87 98 94-05 100 18 70 200 57 93 300 80 99 400 83 99 94-06 100 17 63 200 35 95 300 60 100 400 75 100 94-07 100 3 43 200 43 95 300 62 100 400 68 96 94-08 100 20 43 200 43 88 300 75 99 400 80 97 94-09 100 37 57 200 55 93 300 83 100 400 83 99 94-10 100 37 50 200 60 96 300 83 99 400 88 99 94-11 100 8 37 200 37 93 300 68 99 400 70 97 94-12 100 13 43 200 40 91 300 67 100 400 77 96 94-13 100 25 40 200 40 80 300 62 97 400 78 98 94-14 100 23 33 200 37 86 300 75 99 400 78 94 94-15 100 23 30 200 43 78 300 53 93 400 78 98 94-16 100 23 37 200 37 95 300 63 97 400 78 95 94-18 100 18 50 200 45 88 300 75 69 400 73 93 94-19 100 missing missing 200 missing missing 300 missing missing 400 missing missing______________________________________
Compositions exhibiting herbicidal effectiveness greater than that provided by commercial standard Formulation J included 94-01 (steareth-20 plus butyl stearate), 94-09 (ceteareth-15) and 94-10 (steareth-20 plus butyl stearate).
Example 95
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 95a. All are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).
TABLE 95a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition g a.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant______________________________________95-01 163 1.00 10.0 laureth-23 95-02 163 0.50 5.0 laureth-23 95-03 163 0.25 2.5 laureth-23 95-04 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 1-9 95-05 163 0.50 5.0 Neodol 1-9 95-06 163 0.25 2.5 Neodol 1-9 95-07 163 1.00 10.0 steareth-10 95-08 163 0.50 5.0 steareth-10 95-09 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-10 95-10 163 0.50 5.0 steareth-20 95-11 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-20 95-12 163 0.25 1.0 steareth-20 95-13 163 0.50 5.0 oleth-20 95-14 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 95-15 163 0.25 1.0 oleth-20 95-16 163 0.50 5.0 ceteareth-27 95-17 163 0.25 2.5 ceteareth-27 95-18 163 0.25 1.0 ceteareth-27______________________________________
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 ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 95b.
TABLE 95b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 0 42 200 0 43 300 23 50 400 0 28 Formulation J 100 0 73 200 57 85 300 68 93 400 87 94 95-01 100 18 75 200 58 92 300 85 90 400 94 95 95-02 100 3 77 200 47 90 300 65 89 400 87 95 95-03 100 13 80 200 53 88 300 72 98 400 82 99 95-04 100 0 0 200 53 88 300 67 95 400 83 95 95-05 100 2 60 200 50 83 300 70 93 400 85 92 95-06 100 0 52 200 55 83 300 62 96 400 77 98 95-07 100 8 70 200 68 95 300 91 99 400 95 100 95-08 100 10 65 200 67 99 300 78 99 400 93 100 95-09 100 5 80 200 52 98 300 75 100 400 86 98 95-10 100 0 65 200 62 84 300 58 94 400 75 100 95-11 100 5 83 200 50 99 300 63 97 400 87 99 95-12 100 10 76 200 60 96 300 72 100 400 100 100 95-13 100 20 85 200 67 100 300 91 100 400 96 98 95-14 100 23 68 200 62 89 300 80 100 400 99 99 95-15 100 5 57 200 55 93 300 89 95 400 90 98 95-16 100 30 68 200 68 94 300 83 98 400 100 100 95-17 100 43 68 200 62 99 300 78 100 400 100 99 95-18 100 25 52 200 53 84 300 85 94 400 98 95______________________________________
Compositions having a 1:3 or lower weight/weight ratio of surfactant to glyphosate a.e., yet outperforming commercial standard Formulation J at least on ABUTH in this test, included those containing just 1% alkylether surfactant (ratio about 1:15) together with 0.25% butyl stearate, where the alkylether surfactant was steareth-20 (95-12), oleth-20 (95-15) or ceteareth-27 (95-18).
Example 96
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 96a. All are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).
The compositions of this example all showed acceptable storage stability. The compositions shown as containing colloidal particulate were not storage-stable unless the colloidal particulate was included as shown.
TABLE 96a__________________________________________________________________________Conc. Glyphosate % w/w Type of Type of Othercomp. g a.e./l Surfactant Aerosil Other surfactant Aerosil component__________________________________________________________________________96-01 488 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 96-02 488 4.5 1.5 steareth-20 380 96-03 488 4.5 1.5 steareth-20 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 96-04 488 4.5 1.5 steareth-20 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:2) 96-05 488 6.0 1.5 4.12 steareth-20 380 glycerin 96-06 488 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 380 96-07 488 3.0 1.5 7.12 oleth-20 380 propylene glycol 96-08 488 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 96-09 488 4.5 1.5 oleth-20 380 96-10 488 4.5 1.5 oleth-20 MOX-80/380 (1:2)__________________________________________________________________________
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 ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 96b.
TABLE 96b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 0 25 200 35 27 300 48 28 400 47 48 Formulation J 100 50 75 200 80 90 300 97 96 400 99 98 96-01 100 53 33 200 83 52 300 98 72 400 98 79 96-02 100 43 27 200 80 57 300 87 73 400 96 78 96-03 100 48 30 200 81 70 300 98 78 400 63 57 96-04 100 45 32 200 87 75 300 97 73 400 98 83 96-05 100 38 27 200 37 23 300 45 32 400 35 18 96-06 100 42 40 200 78 52 300 91 72 400 96 80 96-07 100 37 43 200 48 32 300 73 58 400 55 28 96-08 100 43 37 200 68 57 300 84 62 400 89 82 96-09 100 37 32 200 83 67 300 94 82 400 63 48 96-10 100 32 40 200 75 68 300 90 88 400 65 63______________________________________
Several high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions exhibited herbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH equal to commercial standard Formulation J, but none was equal to Formulation J on ECHCF in this test.
Example 97
Dry granular concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate ammonium salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 97a. The preparation procedure was as follows. 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.
TABLE 97a__________________________________________________________________________% w/w Type ofConc. Glyphosate Butyl Colloidal Type of colloidal comp. a.e. Lecithin stearate Surfactant particulate surfactant particula te__________________________________________________________________________97-01 68.7 21.0 steareth-20 97-02 66.0 2.2 22.0 steareth-20 97-03 66.1 24.0 oleth-20 97-04 66.0 2.2 22.0 oleth-20 97-05 67.9 10.0 2.0 10.0 MON 0818 97-06 59.2 10.0 20.0 + 2.0 FC-754 + MON 0818 97-07 68.0 21.0 0.8 Flomo 1407 Aerosil 90 97-08 68.0 21.0 0.8 Flomo 1407 Aluminum oxide C 97-09 66.1 24.0 ceteth-20 97-10 66.0 2.2 22.0 ceteth-20 97-11 71.2 16.1 2.0 ceteth-20 Aerosil 380 97-12 71.1 16.3 1.0 ceteth-20 Aerosil blend (*) 97-13 71.2 16.1 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 97-14 71.2 16.1 1.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend (*) 97-15 68.0 20.0 1.9 oleth-20 Aerosil-380 97-16 70.8 16.6 1.0 oleth-20 Aerosil blend (*)__________________________________________________________________________ (*) Aerosil MOX80 + Aerosil MOX170 (1:1)
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 21 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.
Formulations J and K were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 97b.
TABLE 97b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation J 100 52 80 200 90 96 300 96 100 400 97 99 Formulation K 100 33 70 200 67 93 300 83 99 400 93 100 97-01 100 47 60 200 87 98 300 97 98 400 100 98 97-02 100 47 63 200 80 94 300 90 99 400 98 100 97-03 100 62 62 200 83 93 300 97 96 400 97 100 97-04 100 47 57 200 78 94 300 87 100 400 98 100 97-05 100 25 53 200 60 88 300 80 97 400 83 98 97-06 100 35 37 200 65 62 300 83 83 400 90 95 97-07 100 63 55 200 72 97 300 83 100 400 94 100 97-08 100 30 65 200 72 94 300 87 100 400 92 99 97-09 100 37 63 200 77 83 300 88 99 400 97 99 97-10 100 40 55 200 83 93 300 94 96 400 98 99 97-11 100 42 55 200 78 94 300 88 92 400 94 99 97-12 100 38 58 200 78 97 300 92 97 400 95 100 97-13 100 25 50 200 80 88 300 96 95 400 98 98 97-14 100 50 53 200 88 92 300 98 99 400 99 99 97-15 100 33 57 200 75 91 300 94 97 400 98 99 97-16 100 33 55 200 77 90 300 88 99 400 96 100______________________________________
Several dry granular compositions of this Example outperformed commercial standard composition K, at least on ABUTH. They included 97-01 to 97-04 and 97-10 to 97-16, all containing an alkylether surfactant (steareth-20, oleth-20 or ceteth-20).
Example 98
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 98a. All are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti) was first dispersed in water either by ultrasonication or by use of a microfluidizer as indicated in the column of Table 98a headed "Process".
TABLE 98a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConc. Glyphosate Butyl Ethomeen MON Ceteareth- Ceteareth- Process comp. g a.e./l Lecithin stearate T/25 0818 20 27 (*)__________________________________________________________________________98-01 220 0.75 3.75 3.0 3.0 B 98-02 220 0.75 0.75 3.0 3.0 B 98-03 220 0.75 3.75 3.0 3.0 B 98-04 220 0.75 0.75 3.0 3.0 B 98-05 220 6.00 1.50 3.0 3.0 B 98-06 220 6.00 1.50 3.0 3.0 B 98-07 220 4.00 1.00 3.0 3.0 B 98-08 220 4.00 1.00 3.0 3.0 B 98-09 220 0.75 3.75 3.0 3.0 A 98-10 220 0.75 0.75 3.0 3.0 A 98-11 220 0.75 3.75 6.0 B 98-12 220 0.75 3.75 6.0 B 98-13 345 6.00 1.50 4.5 4.5 B 98-14 345 6.00 1.50 6.0 3.0 B 98-15 345 6.00 1.50 6.0 6.0 B 98-16 345 0.50 7.50 12.0 B 98-17 345 6.00 1.50 4.5 4.5 3.0 B__________________________________________________________________________ (*) Process: A Ultrasonicated B Microfluidized, 3 cycles
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 ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 98b.
TABLE 98b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 45 82 250 55 71 350 80 72 450 88 77 Formulation J 150 55 83 250 89 88 350 97 93 450 99 93 550 99 87 98-01 150 92 83 250 96 96 350 99 96 450 100 86 98-02 150 85 93 250 97 78 350 97 90 450 99 90 98-03 150 87 85 250 98 92 350 99 95 450 100 95 98-04 150 87 89 250 97 92 350 99 94 450 99 91 98-05 150 87 77 250 98 89 350 99 93 450 99 84 98-06 150 12 18 250 96 73 350 99 85 450 99 84 98-07 150 82 89 250 88 96 350 96 98 450 97 97 98-08 150 88 94 250 95 90 350 99 98 450 99 98 98-09 150 94 94 250 95 100 350 97 99 450 99 98 98-10 150 94 94 250 98 99 350 99 97 450 99 96 98-11 150 83 81 250 94 88 350 98 93 450 99 99 98-12 150 68 79 250 95 96 350 98 100 450 99 98 98-13 150 86 98 250 95 98 350 99 100 450 100 98 98-14 150 85 98 250 98 98 350 99 98 450 100 98 98-15 150 86 95 250 97 97 350 99 95 450 100 96 98-16 150 93 94 250 98 98 350 99 98 450 100 97 98-17 150 95 96 250 98 100 350 100 100 450 100 98______________________________________
Many compositions containing lecithin and butyl stearate outperformed commercial standard Formulation J in this test.
Example 99
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 99a. Concentrate compositions 99-04 and 99-05 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 99-06 to 99-13 are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix). Concentrate compositions 99-01 to 99-03 contain colloidal particulate but no surfactant.
The compositions of this example containing colloidal particulate all showed acceptable storage stability. Of those containing steareth-20 but no colloidal particulate, composition 99-04 was acceptable storage-stable but composition 99-05 was not.
TABLE 99a__________________________________________________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate % w/w Type ofcomposition g a.e./l Steareth-20 Oleth-20 Aerosil Aerosil__________________________________________________________________________99-01 484 1.5 MOX-80 99-02 484 1.5 380 99-03 484 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 99-04 484 1.5 none 99-05 484 3.0 none 99-06 484 3.0 1.5 MOX-170 99-07 484 3.0 1.5 380 99-08 484 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 99-09 484 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 99-10 484 3.0 1.5 MOX-80 99-11 484 3.0 1.5 MOX-170 99-12 484 3.0 1.5 380 99-13 484 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1)__________________________________________________________________________
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 20 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 99b.
TABLE 99b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 3 38 200 28 63 300 37 75 400 55 78 Formulation J 100 23 73 200 43 92 300 67 96 400 92 97 99-01 100 23 60 200 40 77 300 65 91 400 75 92 99-02 100 18 50 200 25 53 300 33 75 400 67 82 99-03 100 27 57 200 35 72 300 50 86 400 70 93 99-04 100 42 67 200 48 78 300 78 82 400 80 85 99-05 100 28 43 200 45 77 300 70 92 400 80 95 99-06 100 42 57 200 70 75 300 89 87 400 94 94 99-07 100 43 68 200 62 90 300 88 92 400 97 92 99-08 100 53 57 200 72 87 300 88 94 400 92 97 99-09 100 27 60 200 62 75 300 75 92 400 83 90 99-10 100 47 43 200 73 73 300 82 88 400 97 93 99-11 100 48 57 200 63 75 300 80 91 400 89 98 99-12 100 30 40 200 42 63 300 68 75 400 73 83 99-13 100 37 40 200 57 75 300 73 80 400 78 94______________________________________
Remarkably strong herbicidal effectiveness was provided by composition 99-05, in spite of its very low surfactant (steareth-20) to glyphosate a.e. ratio of about 1:13. Activity, at least on ABUTH, was further improved to a significant degree by inclusion in the composition of colloidal particulates such as Aerosil MOX-170 (99-06), Aerosil 380 (99-07), a blend of Aerosil MOX-80 and Aerosil 380 (99-08), and a blend of Aerosil MOX-80 and Aerosil MOX-170 (99-09).
Example 100
Aqueous and dry granular concentrate compositions were prepared as shown in Table 100a. Dry granular concentrate compositions 100-01 to 100-11 contain glyphosate ammonium salt, and were prepared by the process described in Example 97.
Aqueous concentrate compositions 100-12 to 100-16 contain glyphosate IPA salt and were prepared by process (v), using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti).
TABLE 100a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/w Type ofConc. Glyphosate Glyphosate Butyl Colloidal Type of colloidal comp. g a.e./l a.e. Lecithin stearate Surfactant particulate surfactant particulate__________________________________________________________________________100-01 68.7 21.0 steareth-20 100-02 66.1 24.0 oleth-20 100-03 67.9 10.0 2.0 10.0 MON 0818 100-04 59.2 10.0 20.0 + 2.0 FC-754 + MON 0818 100-05 66.1 24.0 ceteth-20 100-06 71.2 16.1 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 100-07 71.2 16.1 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 100-08 68.0 20.0 1.9 oleth-20 Aerosil 380 100-09 63.5 25.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 100-10 67.9 20.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 100-11 72.2 15.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 100-12 370 4.7 4.7 steareth-20 100-13 350 4.9 4.9 ceteareth-27 100-14 348 5.0 5.0 ceteareth-15 100-15 348 5.0 5.0 oleth-20 100-16 351 4.4 5.0 steareth-30__________________________________________________________________________ Aerosil blend: Aerosil MOX80 + Aerosil MOX170 (1:1)
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 20 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.
Formulations J and K were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 100b.
TABLE 100b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation J 100 0 20 200 28 57 300 58 96 400 73 99 Formulation K 100 22 13 200 42 83 300 48 91 400 58 95 100-01 100 28 30 200 48 80 300 80 97 400 85 99 100-02 100 43 52 200 68 80 300 72 88 400 86 94 100-03 100 23 37 200 50 83 300 75 88 400 85 96 100-04 100 50 45 200 73 80 300 85 92 400 95 94 100-05 100 18 45 200 65 83 300 87 95 400 94 86 100-06 100 47 50 200 62 68 300 82 94 400 91 87 100-07 100 50 47 200 60 78 300 87 87 400 93 93 100-08 100 30 55 200 55 77 300 82 85 400 88 97 100-09 100 45 50 200 57 78 300 83 83 400 84 89 100-10 100 42 50 200 57 80 300 73 91 400 91 90 100-11 100 28 48 200 50 75 300 70 87 400 82 89 100-12 100 20 40 200 63 80 300 67 96 400 80 88 100-13 100 27 35 200 50 85 300 77 90 400 84 86 100-14 100 27 25 200 40 70 300 68 94 400 89 91 100-15 100 17 20 200 47 82 300 58 89 400 91 95 100-16 100 22 20 200 41 80 300 84 89 400 99 98______________________________________
All compositions of the invention in this study exhibited greater herbicidal effectiveness on both ABUTH and ECHCF, in some cases by a very substantial margin, than commercial standard Formulation K.
Example 101
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 101a. All contain colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).
The compositions of this example all showed acceptable storage stability. The compositions shown as containing colloidal particulate were not storage-stable unless the colloidal particulate was included as shown.
TABLE 101a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConc. Glyphosate Aerosil Type of Type of comp. g a.e./l Oil Surfactant 380 oil surfactant__________________________________________________________________________101-01 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 butyl stearate oleth-20 101-02 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 stearylamine oleth-20 101-03 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 stearyl alcohol oleth-20 101-04 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 docosane oleth-20 101-05 360 10.0 1.25 none oleth-20 101-06 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 butyl stearate steareth-30 101-07 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 stearylamine steareth-30 101-08 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 stearyl alcohol steareth-30 101-09 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 docosane steareth-30 101-10 360 10.0 1.25 none steareth-30 101-11 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none oleth-20 + steareth-20 101-12 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none oleth-20 + steareth-30 101-13 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none oleth-20 + ceteareth-27 101-14 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none oleth-20 + ceteareth-15 101-15 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none steareth-30 + steareth-20 101-16 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none steareth-30 + ceteareth-27 101-17 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none steareth-30 + ceteareth-15 101-18 360 10.0 1.25 none laureth-23__________________________________________________________________________
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 19 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 101b.
TABLE 101b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 0 60 200 15 73 300 33 88 400 57 91 Formulation J 100 5 70 200 37 92 300 80 99 400 77 96 101-01 100 13 88 200 32 85 300 48 98 400 90 93 101-02 100 10 70 200 45 98 300 72 99 400 80 98 101-03 100 3 77 200 25 94 300 47 98 400 75 99 101-04 100 7 67 200 23 94 300 40 99 400 7 47 101-05 100 7 76 200 25 88 300 45 96 400 75 97 101-06 100 12 96 200 30 97 300 45 98 400 15 60 101-07 100 8 83 200 12 97 300 35 94 400 50 98 101-08 100 15 72 200 30 88 300 40 99 400 0 33 101-09 100 5 73 200 15 94 300 47 99 400 5 53 101-10 100 7 79 200 15 95 300 45 98 400 62 99 101-11 100 5 84 200 13 98 300 30 98 400 55 100 101-12 100 3 95 200 17 99 300 28 99 400 67 100 101-13 100 5 90 200 17 99 300 30 100 400 60 98 101-14 100 3 98 200 25 97 300 38 100 400 57 100 101-15 100 5 97 200 25 97 300 40 100 400 40 99 101-16 100 10 97 200 15 98 300 52 100 400 0 47 101-17 100 7 97 200 25 94 300 40 98 400 33 97 101-18 100 7 96 200 25 99 300 55 100 400 73 100______________________________________
Percent inhibition data for the 400 g a.e./ha glyphosate rate in this test are unreliable and should be ignored. Neither oleth-20 (composition 101-05) nor steareth-20 (101-10) provided herbicidal effectiveness equal to Formulation J in this study, and no great or consistent further enhancement was obtained by adding butyl stearate.
Example 102
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 102a. Concentrate compositions 102-01 to 102-03 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Compositions 102-04 to 102-18 all contain colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix). Different mixing methods were employed in the final stage of preparation of these compositions, as indicated in the column of Table 102a headed "Process".
The compositions of this example all showed acceptable storage stability. The compositions shown as containing colloidal particulate were not storage-stable unless the colloidal particulate was included as shown.
TABLE 102a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Aerosil Type of Process composition g a.e./l stearate Surfactant 380 surfactant (*)__________________________________________________________________________102-01 163 0.5 5.0 oleth-20 102-02 163 0.5 5.0 steareth-20 102-03 163 0.5 5.0 ceteareth-27 A 102-04 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 ceteareth-15 A 102-05 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 ceteth-20 A 102-06 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 steareth-20 A 102-07 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 A 102-08 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 ceteareth-27 A 102-09 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 steareth-30 A 102-10 360 10.0 1.25 steareth-30 A 102-11 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 A 102-12 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 B 102-13 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 C 102-14 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 D 102-15 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 E 102-16 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 F 102-17 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 G 102-18 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 A__________________________________________________________________________ (*) Process: A Silverson mixer, medium screen, 3 minutes at 7000 rpm B Silverson mixer, coarse screen, 3 minutes at 7000 rpm C Fann mixer, 50% output, 5 minutes D Turrax mixer, 3 minutes at 8000 rpm E Overhead stirrer, low speed F Overhead stirrer, high speed G Hand shaking, 3 minutes
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 19 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 102b.
TABLEe 102b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 20 40 200 45 50 300 65 72 400 78 85 Formulation J 100 43 53 200 80 80 300 96 82 400 99 94 102-01 100 45 57 200 80 72 300 89 78 400 98 83 102-02 100 53 57 200 80 78 300 89 77 400 93 83 102-03 100 45 60 200 83 75 300 97 73 400 97 85 102-04 100 45 45 200 80 80 300 83 83 400 95 95 102-05 100 42 42 200 77 77 300 93 93 400 98 98 102-06 100 30 30 200 42 42 300 27 30 400 3 20 102-07 100 40 40 200 77 75 300 90 93 400 97 86 102-08 100 43 50 200 80 80 300 92 93 400 96 98 102-09 100 0 2 200 82 75 300 83 96 400 90 88 102-10 100 57 60 200 80 70 300 88 88 400 95 93 102-11 100 35 47 200 72 75 300 80 75 400 85 77 102-12 100 47 47 200 72 77 300 80 90 400 86 78 102-13 100 55 50 200 75 83 300 78 92 400 91 92 102-14 100 52 50 200 75 78 300 83 88 400 99 92 102-15 100 47 47 200 70 73 300 87 87 400 75 63 102-16 100 43 40 200 78 75 300 88 88 400 87 91 102-17 100 43 43 200 67 88 300 80 75 400 92 83 102-18 100 27 40 200 63 57 300 82 73 400 87 70______________________________________
Results obtained with composition 102-06 are out of line with other data in this Example and an error in formulation or application is suspected. Some differences in herbicidal effectiveness were evident when a composition containing 360 g a.e./l glyphosate, 1% butyl stearate, 10% oleth-20 and 1.25% Aerosil 380 was processed in different ways (102-11 to 102-17). However, as compositions 102-07 and 102-11 were identically processed yet differed in effectiveness, no firm conclusions can be drawn from this test.
Example 103
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 103a. Concentrate compositions 103-01 to 103-09 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 103-10 to 103-18 are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).
Compositions of this example containing 3% or 6% surfactant were not acceptably storage-stable except in the presence of colloidal particulate as shown.
TABLE 103a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wComposition Glyphosate Steareth- Oleth- Velvetex Type of no. g a.e./l 20 20 AB-45 Aerosil Aerosil__________________________________________________________________________103-01 488 1.0 none 103-02 488 3.0 none 103-03 488 6.0 none 103-04 488 1.0 none 103-05 488 3.0 none 103-06 488 6.0 none 103-07 488 1.0 none 103-08 488 3.0 none 103-09 488 4.6 none 103-10 488 1.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 103-11 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 103-12 488 6.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 103-13 488 1.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 103-14 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 103-15 488 6.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 103-16 488 1.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 103-17 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 103-18 488 4.6 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1)__________________________________________________________________________
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 18 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 103b.
TABLE 103b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 10 40 200 38 67 300 70 80 400 86 92 Formulation J 100 43 58 200 65 82 300 91 94 400 100 95 103-01 100 23 60 200 40 65 300 73 87 400 80 92 103-02 100 38 67 200 77 82 300 95 83 400 99 93 103-03 100 33 67 200 78 73 300 90 94 400 100 96 103-04 100 23 63 200 48 81 300 68 87 400 72 88 103-05 100 30 63 200 63 80 300 78 89 400 95 93 103-06 100 25 85 200 68 93 300 77 93 400 99 95 103-07 100 13 60 200 42 80 300 57 95 400 92 96 103-08 100 20 73 200 43 92 300 83 93 400 72 96 103-09 100 30 73 200 50 94 300 65 96 400 75 98 103-10 100 10 65 200 53 88 300 72 94 400 83 95 103-11 100 15 50 200 57 77 300 82 95 400 92 97 103-12 100 30 70 200 68 98 300 78 97 400 96 98 103-13 100 15 77 200 43 93 300 68 95 400 77 99 103-14 100 10 73 200 40 93 300 68 98 400 78 98 103-15 100 missing missing 200 missing missing 300 missing missing 400 missing missing 103-16 100 0 60 200 30 93 300 40 99 400 50 99 103-17 100 2 83 200 43 99 300 67 100 400 67 100 103-18 100 5 95 200 37 100 300 60 100 400 78 100______________________________________
In high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions, steareth-20 at 3% or 6% provided greater herbicidal effectiveness in this test than the same concentrations of oleth-20. Even at just 3%, steareth-20 (composition 103-02) gave effectiveness equal to commercial standard Formulation J. Addition of a blend of colloidal particulates to stabilize the composition (103-11) slightly reduced effectiveness in this study.
Example 104
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 104a. Concentrate compositions 104-01 to 104-04 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 104-08 to 104-18 are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix). Concentrate compositions 104-05 to 104-07 contain colloidal particulate but no surfactant.
All compositions of this example except 104-01 to 104-03 were acceptably storage-stable.
TABLE 104a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Steareth- Steareth- MON Type of composition g a.e./l 20 100 0818 Aerosil Aerosil__________________________________________________________________________104-01 488 3.0 104-02 488 4.5 104-03 488 6.0 104-04 488 3.0 104-05 488 1.5 380 104-06 488 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 104-07 488 3.0 MOX-80/380(1:1) 104-08 488 1.5 104-09 488 3.0 3.0 1.5 380 104-10 488 4.5 3.0 1.5 380 104-11 488 6.0 3.0 1.5 380 104-12 488 3.0 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 104-13 488 4.5 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 104-14 488 6.0 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 104-15 488 3.0 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 104-16 488 4.5 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 104-17 488 6.0 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 104-18 488 4.5 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1)__________________________________________________________________________
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 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 104b.
TABLE 104b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionConcentrate composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 2 23 200 18 50 300 42 67 400 63 80 Formulation J 100 20 47 200 40 86 300 83 98 400 93 98 104-01 100 10 75 200 62 83 300 80 96 400 93 99 104-02 100 40 60 200 77 92 300 87 97 400 93 99 104-03 100 23 40 200 38 63 300 78 91 400 97 91 104-04 100 20 38 200 23 77 300 43 94 400 73 94 104-05 100 7 30 200 25 37 300 42 60 400 67 63 104-06 100 7 30 200 20 53 300 52 67 400 83 67 104-07 100 5 35 200 20 63 300 57 80 400 43 85 104-08 100 22 83 200 47 99 300 86 98 400 78 100 104-09 100 12 45 200 25 77 300 40 83 400 37 95 104-10 100 13 53 200 73 99 300 85 98 400 99 99 104-11 100 25 50 200 60 88 300 93 99 400 99 99 104-12 100 25 45 200 57 88 300 85 97 400 100 94 104-13 100 30 52 200 68 87 300 93 99 400 100 92 104-14 100 40 45 200 73 88 300 81 98 400 100 99 104-15 100 8 57 200 33 96 300 81 99 400 95 99 104-16 100 10 62 200 48 83 300 99 98 400 100 100 104-17 100 27 58 200 65 92 300 75 98 400 93 99 104-18 100 5 40 200 33 87 300 55 98 400 75 98______________________________________
Among stabilized high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions providing herbicidal effectiveness superior to commercial standard Formulation J, at least on ABUTH, were 104-10 and 104-11 (respectively 4.5% and 6% steareth-20+3% MON 0818+1.5% Aerosil 380), 104-13 (4.5% steareth-20+3% MON 0818+1.5% MOX-80/MOX-170 blend) and 104-16 (4.5% steareth-20+3% MON 0818+1.5% Aerosil MOX-80/380 blend). The relatively poor performance of composition 104-04 and the good performance of composition 104-02 shows that the excellent results obtained with the stabilized compositions listed above are primarily attributable to the steareth-20 component.
Example 105
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 105a. Concentrate compositions 105-01 to 105-09 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 105-10 to 105-18 are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).
Compositions of this example containing 3% or 6% surfactant were not acceptably storage-stable except in the presence of colloidal particulate as shown.
TABLE 105a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Steareth- Oleth- Velvetex Type of composition g a.e./l 20 20 AB-45 Aerosil Aerosil__________________________________________________________________________105-01 488 1.5 none 105-02 488 3.0 none 105-03 488 6.0 none 105-04 488 1.5 none 105-05 488 3.0 none 105-06 488 6.0 none 105-07 488 1.5 none 105-08 488 3.0 none 105-09 488 4.5 none 105-10 488 1.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 105-11 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 105-12 488 6.0 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 105-13 488 1.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 105-14 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 105-15 488 6.0 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 105-16 488 1.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 105-17 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1) 105-18 488 4.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:1)__________________________________________________________________________
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 15 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 22 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 105b.
TABLE 105b______________________________________ Glyphosate Concentrate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 0 10 200 3 27 300 13 30 400 33 40 Formulation J 100 2 53 200 30 97 300 70 99 400 80 99 105-01 100 5 67 200 30 89 300 58 98 400 80 100 105-02 100 20 60 200 45 90 300 78 99 400 80 100 105-03 100 20 57 200 47 93 300 78 96 400 83 98 105-04 100 3 57 200 30 83 300 63 99 400 82 98 105-05 100 5 53 200 27 83 300 47 98 400 77 100 105-06 100 5 40 200 23 70 300 47 92 400 77 99 105-07 100 3 53 200 30 85 300 60 94 400 72 97 105-08 100 3 50 200 22 88 300 53 97 400 80 100 105-09 100 0 40 200 20 83 300 40 99 400 67 99 105-10 100 0 40 200 27 60 300 47 83 400 78 94 105-11 100 5 47 200 25 77 300 57 96 400 87 97 105-12 100 15 43 200 52 88 300 87 98 400 87 98 105-13 100 0 40 200 17 70 300 35 83 400 53 88 105-14 100 0 33 200 18 67 300 28 90 400 62 98 105-15 100 2 33 200 25 70 300 53 85 400 72 97 105-16 100 0 30 200 17 50 300 27 67 400 72 87 105-17 100 0 0 200 7 63 300 32 88 400 47 90 105-18 100 0 5 200 12 60 300 25 83 400 45 97______________________________________
Compositions containing steareth-20 generally performed better than counterparts containing oleth-20 in this study, both in the presence and in the absence of colloidal particulates.
Example 106
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 106a. All contain colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).
The compositions of this example all showed acceptable storage stability. The compositions shown as containing colloidal particulate were not storage-stable unless the colloidal particulate was included as shown.
TABLE 106a__________________________________________________________________________% w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Aerosil Type of Type of composition a.e. Oil Surfactant 380 oil surfactant__________________________________________________________________________106-01 31 1.0 10.0 1.25 Butyl stearate steareth-20 106-02 31 1.0 10.0 1.25 Butyl stearate oleth-20 106-03 31 1.0 10.0 1.25 Butyl stearate steareth-30 106-04 31 10.0 1.25 none steareth-30__________________________________________________________________________
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Treatments were applied at four different hours of the day. Applications of spray compositions were made 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 22 days after application.
Formulation J was applied as a comparative treatment. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 106b.
TABLE 106b______________________________________ Hour Glyphosate Concentrate when rate % Inhibitioncomposition applied g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation J 1000 100 5 33 200 42 75 300 67 83 400 77 93 106-01 1000 100 7 33 200 40 70 300 50 82 400 78 91 106-02 1000 100 18 33 200 37 73 300 48 91 400 80 92 106-03 1000 100 30 33 200 40 75 300 82 85 400 83 80 106-04 1000 100 30 30 200 43 78 300 78 92 400 93 95 Formulation J 1200 100 5 38 200 35 87 300 53 96 400 88 99 106-01 1200 100 10 30 200 47 91 300 70 89 400 78 97 106-02 1200 100 5 37 200 40 75 300 48 87 400 70 94 106-03 1200 100 20 37 200 50 82 300 78 98 400 83 97 106-04 1200 100 33 33 200 45 93 300 75 98 400 95 100 Formulation J 1400 100 15 40 200 30 90 300 55 100 400 80 100 106-01 1400 100 17 40 200 45 70 300 75 97 400 80 98 106-02 1400 100 17 47 200 35 83 300 67 97 400 63 97 106-03 1400 100 30 40 200 63 80 300 77 97 400 78 100 106-04 1400 100 23 40 200 45 87 300 73 100 400 78 100 Formulation J 1600 100 10 37 200 32 83 300 52 97 400 75 98 106-01 1600 100 27 43 200 40 89 300 77 99 400 95 99 106-02 1600 100 20 53 200 40 95 300 53 98 400 80 98 106-03 1600 100 27 60 200 60 93 300 78 97 400 96 100 106-04 1600 100 15 37 200 43 83 300 67 97 400 78 96______________________________________
Composition 106-03 illustrates the consistency of high-level performance obtainable with, in this case, steareth-30 at an approximately 1:3 weight/weight ratio to glyphosate a.e., together with a small amount of butyl stearate and Aerosil 380. An average of percent inhibition of ABUTH across all four glyphosate rates shows the following comparison of 106-03 with Formulation J, applied at four different hours of the day:
______________________________________Hour Formulation J Composition 106-03______________________________________1000 48 59 1200 45 58 1400 48 62 1600 42 65______________________________________
Example 107
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 107a. Concentrate compositions 107-01 to 107-07 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 107-08 to 107-18 are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).
Compositions 107-01 to 107-06 were not acceptably storage-stable. All other compositions showed acceptable storage stability.
TABLE 107a______________________________________Glypho- % w/wConcentrate sate Steareth- Steareth- Agrimul Aerosil composition g a.e./l 30 20 PG-2069 380______________________________________107-01 488 3.00 107-02 488 4.50 107-03 488 6.00 107-04 488 3.00 107-05 488 4.50 107-06 488 6.00 107-07 488 2.0 107-08 488 3.00 107-09 488 4.50 1.5 107-10 488 6.00 1.5 107-11 488 3.00 1.5 107-12 488 4.50 1.5 107-13 488 6.00 1.5 107-14 488 1.50 1.50 1.5 107-15 488 2.25 2.25 1.5 107-16 488 3.00 3.00 1.5 107-17 488 2.25 2.25 2.0 1.5 107-18 488 3.00 3.00 2.0 1.5______________________________________
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 23 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 107b.
TABLE 107b______________________________________ Glyphosate Concentrate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 2 20 200 22 33 300 35 67 400 68 73 Formulation J 100 32 63 200 78 90 300 83 93 400 92 97 107-01 100 38 57 200 50 63 300 62 80 400 75 89 107-02 100 20 57 200 63 70 300 75 88 400 80 96 107-03 100 47 53 200 72 80 300 87 96 400 100 99 107-04 100 33 30 200 48 60 300 75 73 400 90 83 107-05 100 10 30 200 43 50 300 68 82 400 83 92 107-06 100 22 40 200 43 50 300 75 83 400 83 87 107-07 100 10 37 200 40 63 300 78 86 400 95 96 107-08 100 23 43 200 68 63 300 92 88 400 98 93 107-09 100 47 57 200 78 70 300 95 92 400 100 96 107-10 100 37 57 200 85 68 300 92 85 400 100 93 107-11 100 28 43 200 63 73 300 85 83 400 95 96 107-12 100 40 53 200 75 88 300 90 92 400 100 97 107-13 100 40 53 200 75 75 300 99 92 400 100 98 107-14 100 30 43 200 68 72 300 83 82 400 96 97 107-15 100 38 47 200 77 72 300 94 92 400 100 96 107-16 100 33 43 200 75 67 300 92 88 400 100 94 107-17 100 25 43 200 68 82 300 78 96 400 99 96 107-18 100 13 37 200 72 70 300 87 80 400 99 85______________________________________
Several stabilized high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions of this Example provided herbicidal effectiveness equal or superior, at least on ABUTH, to that obtained with commercial standard Formulation J.
Example 108
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 108a. Concentrate compositions 108-12 to 108-14 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 108-01 to 108-11 and 108-15 to 108-17 are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).
TABLE 108a__________________________________________________________________________ % w/wConc. Glyphosate Steareth- Ethomeen Propylene Type of comp. g a.e./l 20 T/25 glycol Aerosil Aerosil__________________________________________________________________________108-01 488 3.0 0.8 380 108-02 488 6.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:1) 108-03 488 4.5 1.5 380 108-04 488 4.5 2.25 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 108-05 488 4.5 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 108-06 488 6.0 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 108-07 488 3.0 1.50 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 108-08 488 6.0 3.00 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 108-09 488 3.0 1.50 0.5 1.5 380 108-10 488 4.5 2.25 0.5 1.5 380 108-11 488 6.0 3.00 0.5 1.5 380 108-12 488 1.50 0.5 none 108-13 488 2.25 0.5 none 108-14 488 3.00 0.5 none 108-15 488 1.50 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 108-16 488 2.25 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 108-17 488 3.00 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380 (1:2)__________________________________________________________________________
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 20 days after application.
Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 108b.
TABLE 108b______________________________________ Glyphosate Concentrate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 100 0 3 200 10 12 300 43 22 400 47 27 Formulation J 100 13 15 200 25 22 300 58 53 400 68 82 108-01 100 30 20 200 60 53 300 73 88 400 87 96 108-02 100 40 23 200 63 55 300 88 87 400 93 93 108-03 100 42 20 200 72 55 300 82 83 400 90 88 108-04 100 60 32 200 70 57 300 90 88 400 90 93 108-05 100 47 32 200 67 57 300 88 85 400 94 88 108-06 100 33 37 200 68 67 300 82 80 400 90 88 108-07 100 35 37 200 67 70 300 87 85 400 97 93 108-08 100 32 35 200 67 77 300 85 92 400 97 95 108-09 100 27 33 200 57 67 300 88 83 400 93 95 108-10 100 13 33 200 62 58 300 80 80 400 92 92 108-11 100 13 20 200 60 57 300 88 63 400 93 82 108-12 100 10 27 200 53 53 300 70 67 400 88 85 108-13 100 3 28 200 50 57 300 67 70 400 90 82 108-14 100 3 28 200 55 57 300 70 83 400 87 87 108-15 100 10 20 200 58 43 300 70 72 400 83 85 108-16 100 12 22 200 55 57 300 73 77 400 92 90 108-17 100 7 20 200 53 55 300 70 75 400 85 88______________________________________
Several stabilized high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions of this Example provided herbicidal effectiveness equal or superior, on both ABUTH and ECHCF, to that obtained with commercial standard Formulation J.
Example 109
Glyphosate-containing spray compositions were prepared by tank-mixing Formulation B with excipients as shown in Table 109.
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 22 days after application. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 109.
TABLE 109______________________________________ Glypho- sate Ratio Glyphosate rate add./ % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha Additive a.e. ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 none 18 25 250 73 58 350 80 82 Formulation J 150 none 47 90 250 77 93 350 95 94 Formulation B 150 steareth-10 1:0.3 53 88 250 83 94 350 98 98 Formulation B 150 steareth-10 1:1 48 73 250 67 97 350 93 99 Formulation B 150 steareth-10 1:1.5 52 60 250 65 95 350 86 99 Formulation B 150 steareth-10 1:3 48 73 250 65 83 350 80 98 Formulation B 150 steareth-10 1:6 50 81 250 60 87 350 85 97 Formulation B 150 steareth-20 1:0.3 76 92 250 100 93 350 100 99 Formulation B 150 steareth-20 1:1 65 75 250 94 96 350 99 99 Formulation B 150 steareth-20 1:1.5 52 95 250 84 92 350 98 98 Formulation B 150 steareth-20 1:3 53 82 250 82 100 350 98 93 Formulation B 150 steareth-20 1:6 47 62 250 68 93 350 92 97 Formulation B 150 steareth-30 1:0.3 63 88 250 97 100 350 100 100 Formulation B 150 steareth-30 1:1 53 72 250 88 96 350 97 97 Formulation B 150 steareth-30 1:1.5 50 79 250 81 89 350 96 100 Formulation B 150 steareth-30 1:3 50 67 250 78 88 350 97 91 Formulation B 150 steareth-30 1:6 47 58 250 75 99 350 89 99 Formulation B 150 ceteareth-30 1:0.3 55 86 250 89 91 350 99 100 Formulation B 150 ceteareth-30 1:1 50 86 250 85 95 350 97 100 Formulation B 150 ceteareth-30 1:1.5 43 75 250 80 100 350 88 98 Formulation B 150 ceteareth-30 1:3 33 73 250 60 92 350 94 100 Formulation B 150 ceteareth-30 1:6 37 73 250 53 89 350 88 100 Formulation B 150 Ethomeen 1:0.3 67 90 250 T/25 92 99 350 100 100 Formulation B 150 Ethomeen 1:1 58 94 250 T/25 83 96 350 93 98 Formulation B 150 Ethomeen 1:1.5 50 73 250 T/25 86 100 350 99 100 Formulation B 150 Ethomeen 1:3 45 83 250 T/25 89 95 350 100 100 Formulation B 150 Ethomeen 1:6 35 82 250 T/25 73 98 350 88 98______________________________________
Steareth-20, steareth-30 and ceteareth-30 were more effective additives for Formulation B than steareth-10 in this study.
Example 110
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 110a. Process (iii) was followed for spray compositions 110-01 to 110-22 and 110-26 to 110-72, using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Process (i) was followed for spray compositions 110-23 to 110-25.
TABLE 110a______________________________________ % w/wSpray Butyl MON compositions Lecithin stearate 0818______________________________________110-01 0.10 0.10 110-02 0.10 0.08 110-03 0.10 0.05 110-04 0.10 0.03 110-05 0.10 0.01 110-06 0.08 0.10 110-07 0.05 0.10 110-08 0.03 0.10 110-09 0.01 0.10 110-10 0.08 0.01 110-11 0.05 0.01 110-12 0.03 0.01 110-13 0.01 0.01 110-14 0.01 0.03 110-15 0.01 0.05 110-16 0.01 0.08 110-17 0.03 0.03 110-18 0.05 0.05 110-19 0.08 0.08 110-20 0.08 0.03 110-21 0.03 0.08 110-22 0.05 110-23 0.05 110-24 0.09 110-25 0.03 110-26 0.09 0.02 0.09 110-27 0.09 0.02 0.05 110-28 0.01 0.01 0.01 110-29 0.01 0.01 0.03 110-30 0.01 0.01 0.05 110-31 0.01 0.01 0.08 110-32 0.01 0.01 0.10 110-33 0.01 0.05 0.01 110-34 0.01 0.05 0.03 110-35 0.01 0.05 0.05 110-36 0.01 0.05 0.08 110-37 0.01 0.05 0.10 110-38 0.01 0.10 0.01 110-39 0.01 0.10 0.03 110-40 0.01 0.10 0.05 110-41 0.01 0.10 0.08 110-42 0.01 0.10 0.10 110-43 0.05 0.01 0.01 110-44 0.05 0.01 0.03 110-45 0.05 0.01 0.05 110-46 0.05 0.01 0.08 110-47 0.05 0.01 0.10 110-48 0.05 0.05 0.01 110-49 0.05 0.05 0.03 110-50 0.05 0.05 0.05 110-51 0.05 0.05 0.08 110-52 0.05 0.05 0.10 110-53 0.05 0.10 0.01 110-54 0.05 0.10 0.03 110-55 0.05 0.10 0.05 110-56 0.05 0.10 0.08 110-57 0.05 0.10 0.10 110-58 0.10 0.01 0.01 110-59 0.10 0.01 0.03 110-60 0.10 0.01 0.05 110-61 0.10 0.01 0.08 110-62 0.10 0.01 0.10 110-63 0.10 0.05 0.01 110-64 0.10 0.05 0.03 110-65 0.10 0.05 0.05 110-66 0.10 0.05 0.08 110-67 0.10 0.05 0.10 110-68 0.10 0.10 0.01 110-69 0.10 0.10 0.03 110-70 0.10 0.10 0.05 110-71 0.10 0.10 0.08 110-72 0.10 0.10 0.10______________________________________
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.
Formulations C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 110b.
TABLE 110b______________________________________ Glyphosate Spray rate % Inhibitioncompositions g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation C 280 71 73 Formulation J 280 65 77 110-01 280 60 49 110-02 280 46 47 110-03 280 34 48 110-04 280 33 35 110-05 280 50 33 110-06 280 49 52 110-07 280 39 42 110-08 280 48 38 110-09 280 51 42 110-10 280 37 30 110-11 280 48 30 110-12 280 56 34 110-13 280 41 45 110-14 280 52 56 110-15 280 38 40 110-16 280 53 33 110-17 280 45 40 110-18 280 52 38 110-19 280 37 34 110-20 280 36 28 110-21 280 40 38 110-22 280 44 47 110-23 280 60 42 110-24 280 92 76 110-25 280 87 69 110-26 280 89 88 110-27 280 79 80 110-28 280 74 73 110-29 280 91 76 110-30 280 94 92 110-31 280 87 81 110-32 280 93 77 110-33 280 88 73 110-34 280 92 85 110-35 280 90 82 110-36 280 92 77 110-37 280 87 77 110-38 280 88 77 110-39 280 84 74 110-40 280 87 68 110-41 280 93 76 110-42 280 94 78 110-43 280 80 59 110-44 280 69 54 110-45 280 88 74 110-46 280 94 79 110-47 280 95 79 110-48 280 71 63 110-49 280 81 72 110-50 280 81 79 110-51 280 79 85 110-52 280 98 69 110-53 280 69 70 110-54 280 74 69 110-55 280 84 78 110-56 280 86 68 110-57 280 98 82 110-58 280 71 69 110-59 280 95 79 110-60 280 92 70 110-61 280 93 70 110-62 280 98 80 110-63 280 81 74 110-64 280 84 73 110-65 280 89 70 110-66 280 91 65 110-67 280 94 81 110-68 280 87 81 110-69 280 72 79 110-70 280 87 76 110-71 280 94 71 110-72 280 97 73______________________________________
Compositions outperforming commercial standard Formulations C and J on both ABUTH and ECHCF in this test included 110-26, 110-27, 110-30, 110-34, 110-35, 110-51 and 110-57, all containing lecithin, butyl stearate and MON 0818.
Example 111
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 111a. Concentrate compositions 111-01 to 111-06 were prepared by process (x), using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Compositions 111-07 was prepared by precess (viii).
TABLE 111a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl Ethomeen composition g a.e./l Lecithin stearate T/25______________________________________111-01 200 6.0 2 6.0 111-02 200 3 6.0 111-03 200 1.5 9.0 111-04 200 3 9.0 111-05 200 6.0 1.5 9.0 111-06 200 6.0 1.5 3.0 111-07 200 9.0______________________________________
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 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 111b.
TABLE 111b______________________________________ Glyphosate Concentrate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 29 22 250 41 29 350 53 32 450 68 35 Formulation J 150 43 32 250 76 43 350 86 47 450 94 66 111-01 150 67 33 250 85 40 350 96 71 450 97 59 111-02 150 65 36 250 81 52 350 97 68 450 98 62 111-03 150 67 40 250 85 77 350 94 77 450 97 63 111-04 150 69 38 250 86 58 350 93 84 450 98 62 111-05 150 73 40 250 83 53 350 93 75 450 96 61 111-06 150 45 30 250 71 38 350 91 45 450 89 39 111-07 150 59 39 250 83 44 350 95 63 450 95 70______________________________________
Data for the 450 g a.e./ha glyphosate rate in this study are unreliable. Application error is suspected. The high levels of Ethomeen T/25 included in compositions of this Example tends to obscure the effects of lecithin and butyl stearate, but composition 111-05, for example, showed outstanding effectiveness.
Example 112
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 112a. Process (vii) was followed for concentrate composition 112-08 and process (x) for concentrate compositions 112-01 to 112-07 and 112-09, using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti).
TABLE 112a______________________________________ % w/wConcentrate Glyphosate Butyl composition g a.e./l Lecithin stearate MON 0818______________________________________112-01 220 4.0 6.0 112-02 220 4.0 0.5 6.0 112-03 220 4.0 1.0 6.0 112-04 220 4.0 2.0 6.0 112-05 220 2.0 0.5 2.0 112-06 220 2.0 0.5 4.0 112-07 220 2.0 0.5 6.0 112-08 220 0.5 6.0 112-09 220 6.0 1.5 6.0______________________________________
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 C were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 112b.
TABLE 112b______________________________________ Glyphosate Concentrate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 40 59 250 68 61 350 90 91 450 93 94 Formulation C 150 74 78 250 93 90 350 97 96 450 100 94 112-01 150 79 85 250 93 98 350 96 97 450 97 95 112-02 150 71 87 250 93 96 350 96 94 450 98 94 112-03 150 87 99 250 94 100 350 99 97 450 97 94 112-04 150 89 100 250 94 99 350 97 98 450 98 95 112-05 150 73 100 250 90 100 350 95 98 450 96 94 112-06 150 80 99 250 94 96 350 95 100 450 99 98 112-07 150 88 83 250 94 92 350 96 92 450 100 90 112-08 150 81 91 250 92 96 350 97 89 450 99 92 112-09 150 90 96 250 93 93 350 95 95 450 94 98______________________________________
Herbicidal effectiveness overall was very high under the conditions of this study but a tendency can be discerned in compositions 112-01 to 112-04 for performance to improve as butyl stearate concentration was increased from zero to 2%.
Example 113
Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing various tetraalkylammonium salts of glyphosate and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 113a. Process (iii) was followed for spray compositions 113-02 to 113-04, 113-06 to 113-08, 113-10 to 113-12 and 113-14 to 113-16, using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Compositions 113-01, 113-05, 113-09 and 113-13 are simple solutions of the tetraalkylammonium salts of glyphosate in water.
TABLE 113a______________________________________Spray % w/w Glyphosate composition Lecithin salt______________________________________113-01 (Me).sub.4 N 113-02 0.10 (Me).sub.4 N 113-03 0.05 (Me).sub.4 N 113-04 0.02 (Me).sub.4 N 113-05 (Et).sub.4 N 113-06 0.10 (Et).sub.4 N 113-07 0.05 (Et).sub.4 N 113-08 0.02 (Et).sub.4 N 113-09 (Pr).sub.4 N 113-10 0.10 (Pr).sub.4 N 113-11 0.05 (Pr).sub.4 N 113-12 0.02 (Pr).sub.4 N 113-13 (Bu).sub.4 N 113-14 0.10 (Bu).sub.4 N 113-15 0.05 (Bu).sub.4 N 113-16 0.02 (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 18 days after planting ABUTH and 20 days after planting ECHCF and evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.
Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. In addition,
Formulations B and C were tank-mixed with a pre-dispersed lecithin composition prepared from soybean lecithin (45% phospholid, Avanti). Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 113b.
TABLE 113b______________________________________ Glyphosate rate % InhibitionSpray composition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECUCF______________________________________Formulation B 200 23 34 400 43 38 600 69 54 800 75 41 Formulation B + 200 7 15 lecithin 0.1% w/v 400 31 36 600 58 37 Formulation B + 200 10 17 lecithin 0.05% w/v 400 34 40 600 61 47 Formulation B + 200 11 17 lecithin 0.025% w/v 400 27 39 600 63 39 Formulation C 200 38 62 400 90 91 600 96 100 800 100 99 Formulation C + 200 36 55 lecithin 0.1% w/v 400 81 93 600 100 95 Formulation C + 200 35 53 lecithin 0.05% w/v 400 79 90 600 91 99 Formulation C + 200 32 55 lecithin 0.025% w/v 400 77 88 600 96 100 Formulation J 200 40 34 400 83 78 600 87 96 800 100 95 113-01 200 27 34 400 74 52 600 84 46 113-02 200 39 37 400 73 64 600 89 68 113-03 200 24 35 400 73 59 600 88 75 113-04 200 29 43 400 71 59 600 82 90 113-05 200 51 43 400 79 48 600 98 49 113-06 200 58 47 400 84 81 600 86 97 113-07 200 69 41 400 83 84 600 90 94 113-08 200 55 48 400 79 79 600 93 92 113-09 200 73 60 400 96 58 600 98 73 113-10 200 69 75 400 94 94 600 99 91 113-11 200 72 62 400 94 98 600 100 99 113-12 200 76 65 400 97 79 600 100 100 113-13 200 85 64 400 97 58 600 99 65 113-14 200 83 87 400 99 84 600 99 98 113-15 200 87 66 400 94 96 600 100 100 113-16 200 91 87 400 97 91 600 100 94______________________________________
Addition of lecithin to composition B (glyphosate IPA salt) did not provide significant enhancement of herbicidal effectiveness. However, when lecithin was added to tetraalkylammonium salts of glyphosate, significant improvements were obtained. In some cases adding a very low amount of lecithin (0.02%) gave better results than adding a larger amount (0.1%). Outstanding effectiveness, for example, was obtained with composition 113-16, containing the tetrabutylammonium salt of glyphosate and 0.02% lecithin.
Example 114
Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 114a. Process (v) was followed for all concentrate compositions, using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti).
TABLE 114a______________________________________Concentrate Glyphosate % w/wcomposition g a.e./l Lecithin Benzalkonium Cl______________________________________114-01 363 8.1 5.4 114-02 363 8.1 4.1 114-03 363 8.1 3.0 114-04 363 8.1 2.1 114-05 372 8.3 2.5 114-06 363 6.8 4.0 114-07 362 6.8 2.9 114-08 355 3.5 10.0 114-09 354 3.0 13.3 114-10 352 2.5 16.7 114-11 352 2.0 20.0 114-12 295 5.0 10.0 114-13 295 4.5 13.3 114-14 294 4.0 16.7 114-15 294 3.5 20.0 114-16 292 3.0 23.3______________________________________
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 18 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 114b.
TABLE 114b______________________________________ Glyphosate Concentrate rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF______________________________________Formulation B 150 52 27 250 72 40 350 87 60 450 88 77 Formulation J 150 82 90 250 92 99 350 99 99 450 100 100 114-01 150 78 97 250 87 99 350 98 99 450 99 100 114-02 150 68 83 250 73 99 350 96 99 450 98 99 114-03 150 65 53 250 77 92 350 93 99 450 98 100 114-04 150 62 76 250 83 88 350 96 98 450 95 99 114-05 150 68 57 250 90 88 350 95 98 450 98 99 114-06 150 72 57 250 83 98 350 93 98 450 98 100 114-07 150 77 69 250 85 85 350 97 98 450 98 99 114-08 150 80 85 250 93 99 350 99 100 450 100 100 114-09 150 88 88 250 95 99 350 100 99 450 100 100 114-10 150 99 97 250 97 100 350 100 100 450 99 99 114-11 150 98 92 250 98 97 350 99 99 450 100 100 114-12 150 83 92 250 95 99 350 98 99 450 99 99 114-13 150 91 95 250 94 97 350 99 100 450 99 100 114-14 150 93 96 250 90 97 350 98 99 450 99 98 114-15 150 90 97 250 99 97 350 100 100 450 99 99 114-16 150 92 94 250 98 100 350 99 100 450 100 99______________________________________
Overall herbicidal effectiveness in this study was extremely high and enhancements over commercial standard Formulation J are therefore difficult to discern. However, particularly outstanding performance was obtained with compositions 114-10, 114-11 and 114-13 to 114-16 containing lecithin and benzalkonium chloride.
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
3888828	Grossmann	Jun 1975
3918958	Neumiller	Nov 1975
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
4722749	Lee	Feb 1988
4822407	Esposito	Apr 1989
4834908	Hazen	May 1989
4840659	Franz	Jun 1989
4855090	Wallach	Aug 1989
4874553	Hager	Oct 1989
4902333	Quimby	Feb 1990
4944791	Schroder	Jul 1990
5037847	Sutter	Aug 1991
5123950	Homma	Jun 1992
5131946	Franke	Jul 1992
5147444	Decor	Sep 1992
5180416	Katou	Jan 1993
5264213	Shibahara	Nov 1993
5310724	Kondo	May 1994
5332573	Yamaguchi	Jul 1994
5332714	Albrecht	Jul 1994
5415877	Winston	May 1995
5466458	Martin	Nov 1995
5466659	Keeney	Nov 1995
5468716	Winston	Nov 1995
5476835	Johnson	Dec 1995
5482529	Ahlnas	Jan 1996
5512079	Jahnke	Apr 1996
5558806	Policello	Sep 1996
5580567	Roberts	Dec 1996
5693593	Arnold	Dec 1997
5821195	Sandbrink	Oct 1998

Number	Date	Country
9137382	Jan 1982	AUX
6070294	Jul 1995	AUX
2081254	Apr 1993	CAX
2099631	Jan 1994	CAX
0 019 384	Nov 1980	EPX
0 068 294	Jan 1983	EPX
0 068 293	Jan 1983	EPX
0 068 295	Jan 1983	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 (40)

Foreign Referenced Citations (8)