Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:52:17.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of 2,4-D Formulation and Quinclorac on Spray Droplet Size and Deposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Audie S. Sciumbato ,
Scott A. Senseman ,
Jim Ross ,
Tom C. Mueller ,
James M. Chandler ,
Joe T. Cothren  and
Ivan W. Kirk
Audie S. Sciumbato
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2474
Scott A. Senseman*
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2474
Jim Ross
Affiliation:
Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology, and Weed Science, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003
Tom C. Mueller
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996-4561
James M. Chandler
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843–2474
Joe T. Cothren
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843–2474
Ivan W. Kirk
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 2771 F&B Road, College Station, TX 77845
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: s-senseman@tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted on the campuses of Texas A&M University in College Station, TX, and New Mexico State in Las Cruces, NM, to determine the spray droplet size spectra produced by quinclorac and 2,4-D as the liquid, dry, and emulsion formulations during application with various nozzle sizes using a laser spectrometer. Quinclorac and 2,4-D formulations were also sprayed through three different nozzle sizes in a drift chamber and allowed to settle on glass slides placed downwind. The amounts of each herbicide deposited on the slides were quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography/photodiode array (HPLC/PDA) analysis to assess spray deposition of each formulation at different wind velocities. Data from the laser spectrometer suggested that formulations of 2,4-D affected droplet size, particularly when the 380 ml/min flat-fan nozzle was used. Quinclorac droplet sizes were similar to water regardless of nozzle size. Liquid and dry-formulated 2,4-D tended to be deposited downwind in greater quantities than the emulsion formulation when using the 380 and 760 ml/min spray nozzles with wind velocity of 15 km/h.

Keywords

2,4-DquincloracLaser spectrometerdrift chamberHPLC, high performance liquid chromatographyHSD, honestly significant differencePDA, photodiode array
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 1030 - 1036
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Akesson, N. B., Steinke, W. E., and Yates, W. E. 1994. Spray atomization characteristics as a function of pesticide formulations and atomizer design. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B Pestic. Food Contam. Agric. Wastes 29:785–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apodaca, M. A., Sanderson, R., Huddleston, E. W., Clason, D. L., Hewitt, A. J., Ledson, T. M., Ross, J. B., and Ortiz, M. 1996. Drift control polymers and formulation type affect volumetric droplet size spectra of propanil sprays. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B Pestic. Food Contam. Agric. Wastes 31:859–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arle, H. F. 1954. The sensitivity of Acala 44 cotton to 2,4-D. Proc. West. Weed Control Conf. 14:20–25.Google Scholar
Bode, L. C. 1987. Spray application technology. in McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R., ed. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 85–121.Google Scholar
Burn, A. 2003. Pesticide buffer zones for the protection of wildlife. Pest Manag. Sci. 59:583–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derksen, R. C., Ozkan, H. E., Fox, R. D., and Brazee, R. D. 1999. Droplet spectra and wind tunnel evaluation of venturi and pre-orifice nozzles. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 42:1573–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, J. E. 1995. Effect of drift retardant adjuvants on spray droplet size of water and paraffinic oil applied at ultralow volume. Weed Technol. 9:380–384.Google Scholar
Himel, C. M., Loats, H., and Bailey, B. W. 1990. Pesticide sources to the soil and principles of spray physics. in Pesticides in the Soil Environment: Processes, Impacts, and Modeling, Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America Book Series 2. Pp. 7–50.Google Scholar
Hobson, P. A., Miller, P. C. H., Walklate, P. J., Tuck, C. R., and Western, N. M. 1993. Spray drift from hydraulic spray nozzles: the use of a computer simulation model to examine factors influencing drift. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 54:293–305.Google Scholar
Kwong, W. T. J., Ho, S. L., and Coates, A. L. 2000. Comparison of nebulized particle size distribution with Malvern laser diffraction analyzer versus Andersen cascade impactor and low-flow marple personal cascade impactor. J. Aerosol Med. 13:303–314.Google Scholar
Miller, P. C. H. and Ellis, M. C. B. 2000. Effects of formulation on spray nozzle performance for applications from ground-based boom sprayers. Crop Protect 19:609–615.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H., Kempen, H. M., Wilderson, J. A., and Fox, C. L. 1963. Response of cotton to 2, 4-D and related phenoxy herbicides. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, USDA Technical Bulletin 1289.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Womac, A. R. 1997. Effect of formulation and nozzle type on droplet size with isopropylamine and trimesium salts of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:639–643.Google Scholar
Rawle, A. 1995. Basic principles of particle size analysis. Malvern, U.K.: Malvern Instruments Limited.Google Scholar
Sanderson, R., Hewitt, A. J., Huddlerston, E. W., and Ross, J. B. 1997. Relative drift potential and droplet size spectra of aerially applied propanil formulations. Crop Prot. 16:717–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, 5th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. p. 586.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. D. and Singh, M. 2001. Surfactants increase toxicity of glyphosate and 2,4-D to Brazil pusley. Hort. Sci. 36:726–728.Google Scholar
Spraying Systems, Co. 1995. TeeJet Agricultural Spray Products, catalog 45. Wheaton, IL: Spraying Systems Co. 721 p.Google Scholar
Talbert, R. E., Lovelace, M. L., Schmidt, L. A., and Scherder, E. F. 2000. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) response and residues from drift rates of quinclorac. Proceedings of the Rice Technical Working Group. Crowley, LA: Louisiana State University Agricultural Center 28:157.Google Scholar
Texas Agriculture Code. 1984. Ch. 75. St. Paul, MN.: West Publishing Co. Google Scholar
Ucar, T. and Hall, F. R. 2001. Windbreaks as a pesticide drift mitigation strategy: a review. Pest Manag. Sci. 57:663–675.Google Scholar
Woznica, Z., Nalewaja, J. D., Messersmith, C. G., and Milkowski, P. 2003. Quinclorac efficacy as affected by adjuvants and spray carrier water. Weed Technol. 17:582–588.Google Scholar
Yates, W. E. and Akesson, N. B. 1974. Effect of spray adjuvants on drift hazards. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Abstracts Paper No. 74-1008.Google Scholar