Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:45:17.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhancing the Biological Activity of Nicosulfuron with pH Adjusters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jerry M. Green  and
William R. Cahill
Jerry M. Green*
Affiliation:
DuPont Crop Protection, Stine–Haskell Research Center, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714-0030
William R. Cahill
Affiliation:
DuPont Crop Protection, Stine–Haskell Research Center, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714-0030
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jerry.m.green@usa.dupont.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adjuvants that increase the pH of the spray mixture and solubilize nicosulfuron can enhance biological activity under specific conditions. These conditions include high nicosulfuron rates, difficult-to-control weeds, low spray volumes, and initially acidic spray conditions. The most effective pH adjusters are tribasic potassium phosphate, sodium carbonate, and triethanolamine. In low spray volumes, these adjusters make the spray mixture alkaline and often enhance the activity of nicosulfuron on common cocklebur and large crabgrass. Alkaline conditions rapidly dissolve the sulfonylurea particles and enhance activity with crop oil concentrate, modified seed oil, and hydrophilic nonionic surfactants. pH adjusters did not enhance activity with lipophilic surfactants. Ammonium sulfate slightly increases the pH of spray mixtures and increases nicosulfuron activity depending on species, adjuvant type, and pH adjuster. These results generally support the concept that herbicide solubilization is necessary to maximize the foliar activity.

Keywords

Nicosulfuroncommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAAdjuvantbasic blendbuffercrop oil concentratefertilizerformulationhydrophilic–lipophilic balancemethylated seed oilmodified seed oilnonionic surfactantpotassium phosphatesoda ashsulfonylureatriethanolaminewater-dispersible granuleAMS, ammonium sulfateCOC, crop oil concentrateHLB, hydrophilic–lipophilic balanceMSO, modified seed oilNIS, nonionic surfactantNPE, nonylphenol ethoxylateTEA, triethanolamineWDG, water-dispersible granule
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 338 - 345
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

Green, J. M. 1999a. Optimizing alcohol ethoxylate surfactant activity at low doses. Weed Technol. 13: 737–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. M. 1999b. Effect of nonylphenol ethoxylation on the biological activity of three herbicides with different water solubilities. Weed Technol. 13: 840–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 2001. Nicosulfuron response to adjuvants, salts, and spray volume. In de Ruiter, Hans, ed. Sixth International Symposium on Adjuvant for Agrochemicals. Amsterdam: ISAA 2001 Foundation. pp. 304–314.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Matysiak, R., and Woznica, Z. 1997. Adjuvants for herbicidal compositions. U.S. Patent 5,658,855.Google Scholar
Russell, M. H., Saladini, J. L., and Lichtner, F. 2002. Sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Outlook 13: 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Rudemo, M., and Jensen, J. E. 1993. Dose-response curves and statistical models. In Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., eds. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. pp. 30–55.Google Scholar
Woznica, Z., Nalewaja, J. D., and Messersmith, C. G. 2001. Sulfosulfuron efficacy is affected by surfactants, pH of spray mixtures, and salts. In Mueninghoff, J. C., Viets, A. K., and Downer, R. A., eds. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems: A New Century for Agricultural Formulations. Volume 21, ASTM STP 1414. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. pp. 11–22.Google Scholar