Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T18:22:57.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Surfactants on the Herbicidal Activity of Several Herbicides in Aqueous Spray Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

L. L. Jansen ,
W. A. Gentner  and
W. C. Shaw
L. L. Jansen
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Beltsville, Maryland
W. A. Gentner
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Beltsville, Maryland
W. C. Shaw
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Beltsville, Maryland
Get access

Extract

Formulation and preparation of herbicidal chemicals for the selective control of weeds in mechanized crop production have become increasingly more difficult with the introduction of a wide variety of organic and inorganic herbicides during recent years. Commercial herbicides and experimental chemicals are usually applied in systems which contain not only the active ingredients but also various solvents, cosolvents, surfactants (surface-active agents), carriers, and other adjuvants. Formulations of herbicides are usually evaluated for their maximum effects on weeds and minimum effects on crop plants. The manner in which the inactive constituents of formulations influence the ultimate herbicidal activity of the active ingredients is not well understood and extensive research will be required to obtain the fundamental information needed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , July 1961 , pp. 381 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © 1961 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. Blackman, G. E. Selective toxicity in relation to specific differences in retention, penetration, and uptake. IVth Intern. Congr. of Crop Protection, Hambourg, 1957. Vol. I. Braunschweig. p. 481–487. 1959.Google Scholar
2. Blackman, G. E., Bruce, R. S., and Holly, K. Studies in the principles of phytotoxicity. V. Interrelationships between specific differences in spray retention and selective toxicity. J. Exp. Botany 9:175–205. 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Cooper, W. F., and Nuttall, W. H. The theory of wetting, and the determination of the wetting power of dipping and spraying fluids containing a soap basis. J. Agr. Sci. 7:219–239. 1915.Google Scholar
4. Cory, E. N., and Langford, G. S. Sulfated alcohols in insecticides. J. Econ. Entom. 28:257–260. 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Crafts, A. S., Currier, H. B., and Drever, H. R. Some studies on the herbicidal properties of maleic hydrazide. Hilgardia 27:723–757. 1958.Google Scholar
6. Currier, H. B., and Dybing, C. D. Foliar penetration of herbicides—review and present status. Weeds 7:195–213. 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Dills, L. E., and Menusan, H. Jr. A study of some fatty acids and their soaps as contact insecticides. Boyce Thompson Inst., Contrib. 7:63–82. 1935.Google Scholar
8. Dozier, H. L. Sodium lauryl sulfate as a contact spray. J. Econ. Entom. 30:968. 1937.Google Scholar
9. Dybing, C. D., and Currier, H. B. A fluorescent dye method for foliar penetration studies. Weeds 7:214–222. 1959.Google Scholar
10. Ennis, W. B. Jr., Williamson, R. E., and Dorschner, K. P. Studies on spray retention by leaves of different plants. Weeds 1:274–286. 1952.Google Scholar
11. Freed, V. H., and Montgomery, M. The effect of surfactants on foliar absorption of 3–amino–1,2,4–triazole. Weeds 6:386–389. 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Furmidge, G. G. L. Physico-chemical studies on agricultural sprays. I.—General principles of incorporating surface-active agents as spray supplements. J. Sci. Food Agr. 10:267–273. 1959.Google Scholar
13. Furmidge, G. G. L. Physico-chemical studies on agricultural sprays. II.—The phototoxicity of surface-active agents on leaves of apple and plum trees. J. Sci. Food Agr. 10:274–282. 1959.Google Scholar
14. Furmidge, G. G. L. Physico-chemical studies on agricultural sprays. III.—Variation of phytotoxicity with the chemical structure of surface-active agents. J. Sci. Food Agr. 10:419–425. 1959.Google Scholar
15. Gast, R., and Early, J. Phytotoxicity of solvents and emulsifiers used in insecticide formulations. Agr. Chem. 11 (4):42–45, 137, 139. 1956.Google Scholar
16. Gillette, C. P. Experiments with arsenites. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 10:401–420. 1890.Google Scholar
17. Hitchcock, A. E., and Zimmerman, P. W. Activation of 2,4–D by various adjuvants. Boyce Thompson Inst., Contrib. 15:173–193. 1948.Google Scholar
18. Hull, H. M. Studies on herbicidal absorption and translocation in velvet mesquite seedlings. Weeds 4:22–42. 1956.Google Scholar
19. Marth, P. C., Davis, F. F., and Mitchell, J. W. Herbicidal properties of 2,4–dichlorophenoxyacetic acid applied in dusts containing hygroscopic agents. Botan. Gaz. 107:131–136. 1945.Google Scholar
20. Mitchell, J. W., and Hamner, C. G. Polyethylene glycols as carriers for growth-regulating substances. Botan. Gaz. 105:474–483. 1944.Google Scholar
21. Mitchell, J. W., and Linder, P. J. Absorption and translocation of radioactive 2,4–DI by bean plants as affected by cosolvents and surface agents. Science 112:54–55. 1950.Google Scholar
22. Mitchell, J. W., and Linder, P. J. Absorption and translocation of plant regulating compounds. In Comar, C. L., ed. Atomic energy and agriculture. A. A. A. S. Symposium No. 49. The Horn-Shafer Co., Baltimore. p. 165–182. 1957.Google Scholar
23. Moore, W. Spreading and adherence of arsenical sprays. Minnesota Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 2. 50 p. 1921.Google Scholar
24. Moore, W. and Graham, S. A. Physical properties governing the efficacy of contact insecticides. J. Agr. Res. 13:523–538. 1918.Google Scholar
25. Orgell, W. C., and Weintraub, R. L. Influence of some ions on foliar absorption of 2,4–D. Botan. Gaz. 119:88–93. 1957.Google Scholar
26. Schwartz, A. M., and Perry, J. W. Surface active agents. Vol. I. Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York. 579 p. 1949.Google Scholar
27. Smith, A. E., Zukel, J. W., Stone, Gracie M., and Riddell, J. A. Factors affecting the performance of maleic hydrazide. Agr. Food Chem. 7:341–344. 1959.Google Scholar
28. Staniforth, D. W., and Loomis, W. E. Surface action in 2,4–D sprays. Science 109:628–629. 1949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Wilcoxon, F., and Hartzell, A. Some factors affecting the efficiency of contact insecticides. I. Surface forces as related to wetting and tracheal penetration. Boyce Thompson Inst., Contrib. 3:1–12. 1931.Google Scholar
30. Yamaguchi, S., and Crafts, A. S. Autoradiographic method for studying absorption and translocation of herbicides using C14-labeled compounds. Hilgardia 28:161–191. 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Zimmerman, P. W., and Hitchcock, A. E. Substituted phenoxy and benzoic acid growth substances and the relation of structure to physiological activity. Boyce Thompson Inst., Contrib. 12:321–343. 1942.Google Scholar