Crop Husbandry Composition and Use Thereof

Abstract

The invention relates to a crop husbandry composition comprising an alcohol or mixture of alcohols of the formula (I) R.sub.1—OH (I) wherein R.sub.1 is a linear or branched alkyl having a total number of carbon atoms from 18 to 40; and an alcohol alkoxylate or mixture of alcohol alkoxylates of the formula (II) R.sub.2—O—(C.sub.2H.sub.2zO).sub.x—H (II) wherein R.sub.2 is a linear or branched alkyl having a total number of carbon atoms from 18 to 40, z has a value of 2 or 3, and x has a value of from 1 to 150. The invention extends to a crop husbandry emulsion and to a field solution comprising said crop husbandry composition, and to a method for the cultivation, treatment, and/or protection of plants, crops, seeds, plant propagation material, aquatic environments, soil, or the like.

Claims

1. A crop husbandry composition, the crop husbandry composition comprising: an alcohol or mixture of alcohols of the formula (I)
R.sub.1—OH   (I) and an alcohol alkoxylate or mixture of alcohol alkoxylates of the formula (II)
R.sub.2—O (C.sub.zH.sub.2zO).sub.x—H   (II) wherein: R.sub.1 and R.sub.2 are independently of one another a linear or branched alkyl, each having a total number of carbon atoms from 20 to 32, z has a value of 2 or 3, and x has a value of from 1 to 150, and wherein the alcohol or mixture of alcohols and the alcohol alkoxylate or mixture of alcohol alkoxylates are in a mass ratio of from about 99:1 to about 51:49.

2. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 1, wherein R.sub.1 and R.sub.2 are the same.

3. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 1, wherein z is 2, so that the alcohol alkoxylate of formula (II) is an alcohol ethoxylate or the mixture of alcohol alkoxylates is a mixture of alcohol ethoxylates.

4. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 1, wherein x has a value of from 10 to 50.

5. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 1, wherein the alcohols or mixture of alcohols is present in the crop husbandry composition in a mass percentage of from about 60 wt % to about 90 wt %, based on the total weight of the crop husbandry composition.

6. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 1, wherein the alcohol alkoxylate or mixture of alcohol alkoxylates is present in the crop husbandry composition in a mass percentage of from about 10 wt % to about 40 wt %, based on the total weight of the crop husbandry composition.

7. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 1, wherein the alcohols present are greater than 50 wt % linear alcohols, based on the total weight of linear and branched alcohols present.

8. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 1, wherein the alcohol or mixture of alcohols includes additional components comprising paraffins, esters, ethers or mixtures thereof.

9. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 8, wherein the crop husbandry composition includes from about 0.7 wt % to about 4 wt % paraffins; from about 1.5 wt % to about 9 wt % esters; and from about 1 wt % to about 6 wt % ethers, based on the total weight of the alcohols or mixture of alcohols and the additional components.

10. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 8, wherein the alcohols are present in the alcohol or mixture of alcohols in a mass percentage of from about 65 wt % to about 99 wt %, based on the total weight of the alcohols or mixture of alcohols and the additional components.

11. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 8, wherein the additional components are present in the alcohol or mixture of alcohols in a mass percentage of from about 1 wt % to about 35 wt %, based on the total weight of the alcohols or mixture of alcohols and the additional components.

12. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 1, wherein the crop husbandry composition contains an agrochemically active ingredient in a mass percentage of from about 0.01 wt % to about 10 wt %, based on the total weight of the crop husbandry composition.

13. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 12, wherein the agrochemically active ingredient is a pesticide, a herbicide, a fungicide, a plant growth regulator, a nutrient, a fertilizer, a sun protection agent, or any combination of the aforesaid.

14. The crop husbandry composition according to claim 1, wherein the alcohol or mixture of alcohols and the alcohol alkoxylate or mixture of alcohol alkoxylates are in a mass ratio of from about 70:30 to about 90:10.

15. A crop husbandry emulsion, comprising the crop husbandry composition according to claim 1, and water.

16. The crop husbandry emulsion according to claim 15, wherein the crop husbandry emulsion includes from about 20 wt % to about 99wt % water, based on the total weight of the crop husbandry emulsion.

17. The crop husbandry emulsion according to claim 15, wherein the crop husbandry emulsion is a stable self-emulsifying fluid which is viscoelastic at 25° C. and has an elastic modulus of at least 75% of the viscous modulus.

18. The crop husbandry emulsion according to claim 15, wherein the crop husbandry emulsion absorbs or attenuates UV light in the wavelength range from about 190 nm to about 390 nm.

19. A field solution, comprising the crop husbandry composition according to claim 1 and water, wherein the field solution includes from about 90 wt % to about 99.9 wt % water, based on the total weight of the field solution.

20. The field solution according to claim 19, where in the field solution absorbs or attenuates UV light in the wavelength range from about 190 nm to about 390 nm.

21. A method for the cultivation, treatment, and/or protection of plants, crops, seeds, plant propagation material, aquatic environments, or soil, the method including applying a crop husbandry emulsion according to claim 15 to the plants, crops, seeds, plant propagation material, aquatic environment, or soil.

22. The method according to claim 21, wherein the crop husbandry emulsion forms a coating on the plant, crop, seed or plant propagation material, aquatic environments, or soil, to which it is applied.

23. The method according to claim 21, wherein the coating absorbs or attenuates UV light in the wavelength range from about 190 nm to about 390 nm.

24. (canceled)

25. A method for the cultivation, treatment, and/or protection of plants, crops, seeds, plant propagation material, aquatic environments, or soil, the method including applying a field solution according to claim 19 to the plants, crops, seeds, plant propagation material, aquatic environment, or soil.

Description

EXAMPLES

[0085] The invention will now be described with reference to the following non-limiting examples and Figures.

[0086] In the Figures:

[0087] FIG. 1 is a differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) output for Comparative Composition 1;

[0088] FIG. 2 is a differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) output for Composition 2;

[0089] FIG. 3 is a differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) output for Composition 3;

[0090] FIG. 4 are optical micrographs of stabilized water-in-decane emulsion (top left), Comparative Emulsion EW1 (bottom left), Emulsion EW2 (top right) and Emulsion EW3 (bottom right);

[0091] FIG. 5 are images of the emulsions of each of Comparative Composition 1 (left), Composition 2 (center), and Composition 3 (right);

[0092] FIG. 6 is a graph of transmitted light as a function of centrifuge time for Comparative Emulsion EW1, Emulsion EW2, and Emulsion EW3;

[0093] FIGS. 7a, 7b and 6c are graphs of elastic and viscous modulus for Comparative Emulsion EW1, Emulsion EW2, and Emulsion EW3, respectively;

[0094] FIG. 8 is an image showing the difference in foaming properties between of Comparative Field Solution FS1, Field Solution FS2, and Field Solution FS3;

[0095] FIG. 9 is a graph showing light absorbance as a function of wavelength (UV range absorbance) for Comparative Field Solution FS1, Field Solution FS2, and Field Solution FS3;

[0096] FIG. 10 is an image showing the coating formed by field solutions of Comparative Field Solution FS1 (left) and Field Solution FS2 (right) on a test substrate; and

[0097] FIG. 11 is a figure showing the corresponding coatings of FIG. 9 after washing with water.

Analysis of Starting Alcohols

[0098] The alcohols used in the preparation of Comparative Composition 1, Composition 2 and Composition 3 were analyzed by gas chromatograph (GC) and results are set out in Table 1. GC measurements were conducted using an Agilent 7890A gas chromatograph with an FID detector and a DB-1 polysiloxane column (100% polydimethyl siloxane).

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Alcohol A for Comparative Alcohol B for Alcohol C for Composition 1 Composition 2 Composition 3 Compound (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) C16 alcohol 61.5 — — C18 alcohol 35.3 1.9 3.8 C20 alcohol — 42.8 45.6 C22 alcohol — 18.7 19.4 C24 alcohol — 8.7 9.1 C26 alcohol — 4.3 4.6 C28 alcohol — 1.9 2.2 C30 alcohol — 1.1 1.3 Total alcohols 96.8 79.4 86 Non-Alcohols 3.2 20.6 14 (comprising esters, ethers and paraffins)

Solid Crop Husbandry Compositions—Preparation

[0099] Three solid crop husbandry compositions were prepared for testing and comparison. Comparative Composition 1 is a comparative composition, whereas Composition 2 and Composition 3 reflect compositions within the scope of the present invention.

TABLE-US-00002 Comparative Alcohol A (80 wt %) and C16/ Composition 1 C18 alcohol ethoxylate (21 EO) (20 wt %) mixture Composition 2 Alcohol B (80 wt %) and ethoxylate (30 EO) of Alcohol B (20 wt %) mixture Composition 3 Alcohol C (80 wt %) and ethoxylate (25 EO) of Alcohol C (20 wt %) mixture

[0100] Comparative Composition 1 was prepared by mixing 80 wt % Alcohol A (available under the trade name NAFOL 1618) with 20 wt % of a C16/C18 alcohol ethoxylate (21 EO groups) (available under the trade name GALENOL 2100), heating to 70° C., mixing for approximately 2 hours and then allowing to cool to ambient temperature.

[0101] Composition 2 was prepared by mixing 80 wt % Alcohol B (available under the trade name ALFOL 20+) with 20 wt % of an alcohol ethoxylate (30 EO groups), prepared by ethoxylation of Alcohol B over a calcium hydrotalcite catalyst (Sasol NOVEL catalyst), heating to 70° C., mixing for approximately 2 hours and then allowing to cool to ambient temperature.

[0102] Composition 3 was prepared by mixing 80 wt % Alcohol C (available under the trade name ALFOL 20+) with 20 wt % of an alcohol ethoxylate (25 EO groups), prepared by ethoxylation of the Alcohol C over a calcium hydrotalcite catalyst, heating to 70° C., mixing for approximately 2 hours and then allowing to cool to ambient temperature.

[0103] All three compositions were an opaque, waxy solid at ambient temperature.

[0104] The thermal properties of each of Comparative Composition 1, Composition 2, and Composition 3 were measured by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) analysis. The DSC profiles for Comparative Composition 1, Composition 2, and Composition 3 are shown in FIGS. 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

[0105] Comparative Composition 1 shows four distinct melting phase transitions, whereas those for Composition 2 and Composition 3 show two melting phase transitions. The enthalpies of the melting phase transitions are significantly lower for the inventive formulations of Composition 2 and Composition 3. The enthalpy of melting for Comparative Composition 1 was 194 J/g, whereas the enthalpies of melting for Composition 2 and Composition 3 were 96 J/g and 112 J/g, respectively. Without wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that the reduction in enthalpy of melting is due to non-alcohol components which cause a eutectic depression in the energy required in the melting transitions. This is beneficial, for example, in the pellitization of the crop husbandry compositions.

Emulsions—Preparation and Properties

[0106] Comparative Emulsion EW1, Emulsion EW2, and Emulsion EW3 were prepared by mixing each of Comparative Composition 1, Composition 2, and Composition 3, respectively, in water to provide a 3 wt % emulsion of each of the compositions relative to the total mass of the emulsion, heating the emulsion to 70° C. and mixing for approximately 4 hours, to form emulsions Comparative EW1, EW2 and EW3.

[0107] Optical micrographs were taken of a water-in-decane emulsion stabilized by a C12 ethoxylate (20E0 groups) commercially available under the trade name ALFOL1214-20E0, as well as for the three emulsions (Comparative EW1, EW2, and EW3) as shown in FIG. 4. It was observed that the emulsions are not typical water-in-oil emulsions, since they exhibit a textured morphology and are birefringent. The optical micrographs are suggestive of a lyotropic liquid crystalline microstructure for the emulsion. The microstructure of the emulsion is unique, and the applicant believes that this contributes to its improved adhesion to surfaces relative to known surfactants and wetting agents.

[0108] As shown in FIG. 5, the emulsions were stable for more than 3 months, with no phase separation or creaming occurring. The relative stability of each of the emulsions were determined by centrifugation using a Lumisizer apparatus. A graph of transmitted light as a function of centrifuge time is shown in FIG. 6. EW2 and EW3 exhibited significantly higher stability than Comparative EW1, as evidenced by the smaller slope of the transmitted light versus centrifuge time graph.

[0109] The rheological properties for each of the emulsions are shown in FIGS. 7a, 7b, and 7c. Comparative EW1 (FIG. 7a) exhibits viscoelastic behavior. The viscous modulus is 2× to 7×higher than the elastic modulus over the range of angular frequencies measured. Emulsions EW2 (FIG. 7b) and EW3 (FIG. 7c) also exhibit viscoelastic behavior. However, the viscous modulus of EW2 and EW3 is lower than Comparative EW1. Furthermore, the viscous modulus of EW2 and EW3 is only marginally higher than the elastic modulus up to about 150 s.sup.−1. Thereafter, the elastic modulus increases significantly. At shear oscillation >150 s.sup.−1, EW2 and EW3 are elastic fluids.

[0110] This is particularly advantageous, since where the elastic modulus is greater than the viscous modulus, the result is a reduced “bounce-off” effect of the drops of the emulsions (and thus also the corresponding field solutions) from plant leaves during application, e.g. by spraying. The probability that drops of the emulsion or field solution bounce off the leaf surfaces is reduced, and therefore a larger quantity of the sprayed emulsion or field solution sticks to the leaf surfaces during application, improving overall efficacy and effectiveness.

Field Solutions—Preparation and Properties

[0111] Comparative Field Solution FS1, Field Solution FS2, and Field Solution FS3 were prepared by diluting each of Comparative Emulsion EW1, Emulsion EW2, and Emulsion EW3, respectively, in water to provide a 0.3 wt % emulsion of each of the compositions relative to the total mass of the field solution.

[0112] The foaming properties of the field solutions were studied and FIG. 8 shows a side-by-side comparison of the type of foam generated by each of the field solutions. Foam properties were measured using a Kruss foam apparatus.

[0113] It is clear that FS2 and FS3 not only generate coarse foam, but rapidly defoam upon standing. Coarse (unstable) foam formation and rapid defoaming such as that exhibited by FS2 and FS3 (as compared to Comparative FS1) is desirable in practice, where is it generally desired that foaming is avoided.

[0114] In FIG. 9, the UV absorbance spectrum of Comparative FS1, FS2 and FS3 are shown. FS2 and FS3 exhibit strong UV absorbance in the 190 nm to 350 nm wavelength range, compared with Comparative FS1. This is clearly advantageous in mitigating sun damage to plants, crops, seeds, plant propagation material, aquatic environments, soils, or the like to which FS2 and FS3 have been applied, as well as to mitigating sun damage to the agrochemically active ingredient contained in the Field Solutions.

[0115] FIG. 10 is an image of representative coatings made from Comparative FS1 (left) and FS2 (right) on a glass slide. Each of the glass slides were sprayed for 30 seconds using a laboratory spray bottle positioned about 6 inches from the slide surface to ensure the same amount of fluid was used to produce an even coating on each glass slide. The transparency of the coatings shown in FIG. 10 is a function of the coating thickness. It is clear that FS2 has more favorable physical properties than Comparative FS1, which allows FS2 to form a thicker coating on the substrate than that coating formed from Comparative FS1.

[0116] The coatings were washed with 300 ml distilled water for 5 minutes using a laboratory spray bottle with the spray bottle positioned about 6 inches from the coated surface and photographs taken thereafter. FIG. 11 is an image of the water-washed coatings of FIG. 11. Water washing removes the water soluble ethoxylate and leaves behind the water insoluble alcohol. This washing effect is more pronounced in Comparative FS1, with the result that FS2 leaves behind a thicker coating after washing. In practice, FS2 would provide better protection than Comparative FS1 against dehydration and/or sun damage and retain more agrochemically active ingredient, e.g. pesticide, both directly after first application, and after washing, for example by irrigation or rain.

[0117] The experimental data presented herein, individually or collectively, shows that compositions of the invention (Composition 2 and Composition 3) as used in corresponding emulsions EW2 and EW3, and field solutions FS2 and FS3, have clearly superior thermal, emulsion stability, rheological, foaming, UV absorbance, and coating properties over Comparative Composition 1, emulsion Comparative EW1 and field solution Comparative FS1.