Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T05:14:37.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surfactant Structure and Concentration Strongly Affect Rimsulfuron Activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jerry M. Green  and
John H. Green
Jerry M. Green
Affiliation:
Agric. Prod., Stine-Haskell Res. Cent., DuPont Co., Newark, DE 19714
John H. Green
Affiliation:
Agric. Prod., Stine-Haskell Res. Cent., DuPont Co., Newark, DE 19714
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A nonionic surfactant with the appropriate structure and concentration increased rimsulfuron activity 10-fold. Surfactants sharply increased rimsulfuron activity as concentration increased up to 0.05% (w/w) with slightly more enhancement up to 0.1% (w/w). Surfactants with a wide range of 14 chemical, physical, and surface properties were evaluated on giant foxtail, velvetleaf, and corn. Two properties, HLB (hydrophilic-lipophilic balance) and the physical form of the spray deposit, explained the biological variation. The most active surfactants had an HLB from 12 to 17 and formed a moist gel spray deposit on the leaf on all three species. A separate study with 13 chemically pure linear alcohol ethoxylates supported these conclusions and additionally showed that increasing molecular size increases activity. Because crop injury correlates with weed control, the best surfactant strategy is to maximize weed control at the lowest rimsulfuron rate.

Keywords

Rimsulfuron, N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-[pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamidecorn, Zea mays L.giant foxtail Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. # ABUTHMaizeDPX-E9636HLBethylene oxidespray depositmolecular weightsulfonylurea
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 633 - 640
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by the 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

1. Adachi, H. 1985. Approach to a stable field emission electron source. Scanning Electron Source 2:473–487.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, N. H. and Hall, D. J. 1989. The role of dynamic surface tension in the retention of surfactant sprays on pea plants. p. 51–62 in Chow, P.N.P. and Grant, C., eds. Adjuvants and Agrochemicals, Vol. II. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton. FL.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1993. Approved Adjuvant List for Use with DuPont Row Crop and Cereal Herbicides. DuPont Co. Publ. H-42790, Wilmington. DE 19898. 2 p.Google Scholar
4. Anonymous. 1993. Guidelines for Adjuvant Qualifications for Use with DuPont Row Crop and Cereal Herbicides. DuPont Co. Publ. H-42789, Wilmington. DE 19898. 3 p.Google Scholar
5. Anonymous. Titus® Product Label, DuPont Co., Wilmington, DE 19898.Google Scholar
6. Ash, M. and Ash, I. 1980. Encyclopedia of Surfactants, Vol. 1, Chemical Publishing, New York. p. 444.Google Scholar
7. Ash, M. and Ash, I. 1988. What Every Chemical Technologist Wants to Know about Emulsifiers and Wetting Agents, Chemical Publishing, New York. p. 400.Google Scholar
8. Attwood, D. 1992. Structure and physicochemical properties of nonionic surfactants. Abstr. Third Int. Symp. on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals 3:2.Google Scholar
9. Berkson, J. 1944. Application of the logistic function to bioassay. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 39:357–365.Google Scholar
10. Green, J. H. and Green, J. M. 1991. Dynamic surface tension as a predictor of herbicide enhancement by surface active agents. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. 4:323–330.Google Scholar
11. Green, J. M. 1988. Effect of inorganic salts on the efficacy of chlorimuron and DPX-M6316 on soybeans. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 28:16.Google Scholar
12. Green, J. M. and Bailey, S. P. 1987. Herbicide interactions with herbicides and other agricultural chemicals, in McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R., eds., Methods of Applying Herbicides, Weed Science Society of America, 4:37–61.Google Scholar
13. Green, J. M. and Brown, P.A. Influence of surfactant properties on nicosulfuron, DPX-E9636, and thifensulfuron performance in corn, IUPAC Conference, Germany, 1990.Google Scholar
14. Green, J. M., Brown, P. A., King, M. K., and Berengut, D. 1992. Surfactant properties effects on thifensulfuron performance in soybeans. p. 525–532 in Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants and Agrichemicals, CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
15. Green, J. M. and Ulrich, J. F. 1993. Response of corn (Zea mays L.) inbreds and hybrids to sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Sci. (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Hua, X. Y. and Rosen, M. J. 1988. Dynamic surface tension of aqueous surfactant solutions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 124:652–662.Google Scholar
17. Jansen, L. L. 1964. Relation of structure of ethylene oxide ether-type nonionic surfactants to herbicidal activity of water-soluble herbicides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 12:223–227.Google Scholar
18. Kravetz, L. 1989. Influence of hydrophobe structure on biodegradation pathways of nonionic ethoxylates. Shell Chemical Tech. Bull. SC: 1236–91.Google Scholar
19. Kravetz, L., Chung, H., Guin, K. F., Shebs, W. T., Smith, L. S., and Stupel, H. 1982. Ultimate biodegradation of an alcohol ethoxylate and a nonylphenol ethoxylate under realistic conditions. Shell Chemical Co. Tech. Bull. SC:714–91.Google Scholar
20. Nalewaja, J. D., Matysiak, R., and Freeman, T. P. 1992. Spray droplet residual of glyphosate in various carriers. Weed Sci. 40:576–589.Google Scholar
21. McGinness, C. L., Porpiglia, P. J., and Gillespie, G. R. 1992. Primisulfuron plus primary linear alcohol ethoxylates for johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.], shattercane [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], and quackgrass [Etytrigia repens (L.) Nevski] control. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 32:13.Google Scholar
22. McWhorter, C. G. 1963. Effects of surfactants on the herbicidal activity of foliar sprays of diuron. Weeds 14:265–269.Google Scholar
23. McWhorter, C. G. and Wills, G. D. 1982. Adjuvants: A guide to terminology, registered uses, selection, and general reference works. p. 119–137 in Hodgson, R. H., ed. Adjuvants for Herbicides, Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
24. Mysels, K. J. 1986. Improvements in the maximum bubble pressure method of measuring surface tension. Langmuir 2:428–432.Google Scholar
25. Roberts, J. R. 1992. Review of the methodology employed in the laboratory evaluation of spray adjuvants. p. 503–512 in Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants and Agrichemicals, CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
26. Schönherr, J. 1992. Effects of monodisperse alcohol ethoxylates on mobility of pesticides in isolated plant cuticles. Abstr. Third Int. Symp. on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals 3:44.Google Scholar
27. Smith, L. W., Foy, C. L., and Bayer, D. E. 1966. Structure-activity relationships of alkyl-phenol ethylene oxide ether nonionic surfactants and three water-soluble herbicides. Weed Res. 6:233–242.Google Scholar
28. Swisher, R. D. 1970. Surfactant Biodegradation. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. p. 314.Google Scholar