Agrochemical concentrates containing alkyl polyglucoside and non-ionic surfactant

Abstract

This invention relates to a mixture of an alkyl polyglucoside with a (biological performance improving) adjuvant which is a non-ionic surfactant, the mixture improving the biological performance of an agrochemical. The biological performance effect of the alkyl polyglucoside is poorer than the partner adjuvant but the biological performance effect of the mixture is as good as that delivered by a much larger amount of that better, partner adjuvant alone.

Claims

1. A composition, which is a suspension concentrate, comprising: (i) an alkyl polyglucoside of formula (I) ##STR00003## where n is a mean value and is from 7 to 11; and m is a mean value and is from 1 to 3; (ii) a non-ionic surfactant which is not an alkyl polyglucoside and which has a Griffin HLB of from 13.5 to 16; and (iii) an agrochemical, or a salt of an agrochemical, which has a water solubility of less than 300 g/l at 25° C.; where the concentration by weight of component (i) is greater than or equal to the concentration by weight of component (ii).

2. The composition of claim 1, where the agrochemical is selected from the group consisting of isopyrazam, epoxiconazole, fomesafen, mesotrione, pinoxaden, abamectin, nicosulfuron or azoxystrobin.

3. The composition of claim 1, where the weight ratio of component (i) to component (ii) is from 1:1 to 10:1.

4. The composition of claim 1, where the composition further comprises water and the total concentration of components (i) and (ii) in the water is at least 0.05% by volume.

5. The composition of claim 4, where the weight ratio of component (i) to component (ii) is from 1:1 to 10:1.

6. The composition of claim 3, where m is 1.4 to 1.8.

7. The composition of claim 3, where the water solubility of the agrochemical of less than 5 g/l at 25° C.

8. The composition of claim 3, where the weight ratio of component (i) to component (ii) is from 2.5:1 to 3.5:1.

9. The composition of claim 1, where the non-ionic surfactant is a butylene oxide/ethylene oxide copolymer of a C13-C15 alcohol.

10. The composition of claim 1, where the non-ionic surfactant is a butyl ether of a fatty alcohol ethoxylate with an average of 20 moles of ethoxylate.

Description

EXAMPLE 1

(1) This example shows that a mixture of three parts of an APG with 1 part of a standard high quality adjuvant was as effective against the fungus Septoria tritici as a formulation containing an equivalent weight of just the standard adjuvant. Wheat plants were sprayed with water (actually a 12.5% v/v isopropanol in water mixture to avoid retention problems on the leaf surface) at a rate of 200 litres per hectare, the water containing isopyrazam, at a concentration which achieved an isopyrazam application rate of 0.6, 2, 6 or 20 grams per hectare. The isopyrazam was supplied as a suspension concentrate formulation. Each adjuvant system tested was added at a rate of 0.1% by volume (v/v) of the total spray mixture. As comparisons to the with-adjuvant applications, the izopyrazam suspension concentrate formulation was also tested without an adjuvant; and in addition a blank formulation without agrochemical or adjuvant was tested (this meant that the blank formulation was merely an isopropanol/water mixture; the blank had the same amount of isopropanol as the other formulations tested in this example). Each experiment was replicated 12 times. The wheat plants were inoculated four days before being sprayed; 14 days after spraying, the percentage disease (infection) on each wheat plant was assessed visually.

(2) The infection results were analyzed using Tukeys HSD test (which compares mean results) and a letter was assigned to each experiment; experiments with different letters produced results which were statistically different to each other.

(3) In this test the commercial adjuvant Aqnique® PG8107 (see Table B) was used as the APG and the adjuvant Agnique® FOH9 OC-20B was used as the standard adjuvant; the adjuvant system was either Aqnique® PG8107 alone (at 0.1% v/v); Agnique® FOH9 OC-20B alone (at 0.1% v/v); or a 3 to 1 ratio by weight of the APG of Aqnique® PG8107 to the non-ionic surfactant of Agnique® FOH9 OC-20B (Ag 20B) (at a total of 0.1% v/v).

(4) Table 1 shows the mean percentage Septoria tritici control for the adjuvants used across the four concentrations of isopyrazam as well as the standard experiment without adjuvant and the blank (isopropanol/water) test; where low levels of infection mean good control. It can be seen that the APG adjuvant was not as good as either the ‘3 APG to 1 Standard’ adjuvant system or the standard adjuvant.

(5) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 1 Mean % Performance c.f. Adjuvant System infection Letter Agnique ® 20B alone APG 83.3 A Worse Blank 71.5 A Worse No adjuvant 68.4 A Worse Standard adjuvant 45.9 BC Equal 3 APG to 1 Standard 37.3 CD Equal

EXAMPLE 2

(6) Like Example 1, this example shows that a mixture of three parts by weight of an APG with 1 part of a standard high quality adjuvant was as effective against the fungus Septoria tritici as a formulation containing an equivalent weight of just the standard adjuvant; the difference being that instead of isopyrazam, the fungicide used was epoxiconazole. The epoxiconazole was supplied as a suspension concentrate formulation.

(7) Table 2 shows the mean percentage Septoria tritici control for the adjuvants used across the four concentrations of epoxiconazole as well as the standard experiment without adjuvant and the blank (isopropanol/water) test; where low levels of infection mean good control. It can be seen that the ‘3 APG to 1 Standard’ formulation was as good as the standard adjuvant formulation.

(8) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 2 Mean % Performance c.f. Adjuvant System infection Letter Agnique ® 20B alone Blank 72.7 A Worse No adjuvant 41.2 B Worse APG 28.8 BC Worse 3 APG to 1 Standard 18.1 CD Equal Standard 11.4 D Equal

EXAMPLE 3

(9) This Example is identical in approach to Example 1. In this test the commercial adjuvant Aqnique® PG8107 was used as the APG and the adjuvants Agnique® FOH9 OC-20B, Tween® 20, Synperonic® A7 and Plurafac® LF221 were used as examples of highly effective adjuvants.

(10) Table 3 shows the mean percentage Septoria tritici control for the adjuvants used, averaged across the four levels of isopyrazam, as well as a standard formulation without adjuvant and a blank formulation. It can be seen that the APG adjuvant alone was not as good as Ag 20B alone nor the 3 to 1 APG blends with Agnique® 20B, Synperonic® A7 or Plurafac® LF221. All of the APG blends except that with Tween® 20 were as good as Agnique® 20B alone.

(11) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 3 Mean % Adjuvant System infection Letter No adjuvant 75.5 A Blank 63.9 AB APG 58.0 B 3:1 APG:Tween ® 20 55.7 B 3:1 APG:Synperonic ® A7 31.7 C 3:1 APG:Agnique ® 20B 31.5 C 3:1 APG:Plurafac ® LF221 30.7 C Agnique ® 20B 26.5 C

EXAMPLE 4

(12) This Example is identical in approach to Example 2. In this test the commercial adjuvant Aqnique® PG8107 was used as the APG and the adjuvants Agnique® FOH9 OC-20B, Tween® 20, Synperonic® A7 and Plurafac® LF221 were used as examples of highly effective adjuvants.

(13) Table 4 shows the mean percentage Septoria tritici control for the adjuvants used, averaged across the four levels of epoxiconazole, as well as a standard formulation without adjuvant and a blank formulation. It can be seen that all the APG mixture systems were as good as the Agnique® 20B adjuvant.

(14) TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 4 Mean % Adjuvant System infection Letter Blank 62.0 A No adjuvant 57.7 A APG 35.9 B 3:1 APG:Tween ® 20 27.2 BC 3:1 APG:Synperonic ® A7 25.7 BC 3:1 APG:Plurafac ® LF221 25.1 BC Agnique ® 20B 19.5 C 3:1 APG:Agnique ® 20B 19.1 C

EXAMPLE 5

(15) Individual plants of soyabean, bean or Chinese cabbage were sprayed with aqueous solutions of various adjuvant systems, at a total spray rate of 200 l/ha. The concentration of adjuvant in the spray water was either 0.1, 0.2 or 0.5% by volume. Visual damage to the plants was recorded 7 days after application as percentages of the surface showing phytotoxicity. Four adjuvants were tested, these were Agnique® 20 B; Agnique® PG8108; a blend of 1:1 by weight of the two adjuvants of those products; and a blend of 1:3 by weight of the non-ionic of Agnique® 20 B to the APG of Agnique® PG8108. Table 5 shows the resulting phytotoxicity scores; spray solutions with higher loadings of APG were less phytotoxic than those with equivalent levels of Agnique® 20B. All experiments were carried out twice and averaged.

(16) TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 5 Phytotoxicity assessments. Rate % Agnique ® Ag 20B: Ag 20B: APG Plant v/v 20B (alone) APG 1:1 APG 1:3 (alone) Soybean 0.50% 15 20 10 2 0.20% 10 10 5 1 0.10% 2 2 1 0 Bean 0.50% 10 5 2 0 0.20% 5 0 0 0 0.10% 0 0 0 0 Chinese 0.50% 20 20 2 0 cabbage 0.20% 10 5 1 0 0.10% 5 2 0 0

EXAMPLE 6

(17) Adjuvants were tested in a glasshouse against four weed species in combination with the herbicide nicosulfuron. An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2% v/v of the adjuvant in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Nicosulfuron was applied at either 30 or 60 grams of pesticide per hectare on weeds which had been grown in a glasshouse. The weed species were Chenopodium album (CHEAL) BBCH leaf stage 1.4-1.5, Abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH) BBCH leaf stage 1.3, Setaria viridis (SETVI) BBCH leaf stage 1.3-1.4, and Digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA) BBCH leaf stage 1.4.

(18) Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were assessed at time periods of 14 and 21 days following application. The results shown in Table 6 below are mean averages over the two rates of nicosulfuron, three replicates and the two assessment timings. The results of a mixture of the alkyl polyglucoside (Agnique® PG 8107) with a commercially available adjuvant Agnique OC 20B® (BASF SE), are compared to the two components tested singly, as well as an adjuvant free formulation, and also another commercially available adjuvant for nicosulfuron, Atplus 411F® (Clariant GmbH), tested at the recommended level of 0.5% by volume.

(19) A letter has been ascribed to each result according to Tukey's HSD test. Samples with the same letter provide the same statistical level of performance. It can be seen that in all cases the mixture of two surfactants was as good as Agnique FOH9 OC-20B or Atplus 411F. The alkyl polyglucoside alone was not as good on any weed species as Agnique FOH9 OC-20B.

(20) TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 6 Adjuvant SETVI CHEAL ABUTH DIGSA Atplus ® 411F 91.8 A 78.3 AB 60.0 AB 84.2 A Agnique ® 92.2 A 80.0 A .sup.  65.0 A .sup.  82.5 A FOH 9 OC-20B Agnique ® 20B/APG 91.8 A 76.7 AB 56.7 AB 82.9 A 1:3 Agnique ® PG 8107 79.6 C 68.3 B.sup.  54.6 B.sup.  47.1 B No Adjuvant 86.3 B 38.3 C.sup.  62.1 AB  6.7 C

EXAMPLE 7

(21) Adjuvants were tested in a glasshouse against four weed species in combination with the herbicide fomesafen. An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2% v/v of the adjuvant in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Fomesafen was applied at either 100 or 200 grams of pesticide per hectare. The weed species were Chenopodium album (CHEAL) BBCH leaf stage 1.6, Abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH) BBCH leaf stage 1.3, Setaria viridis (SETVI) BBCH leaf stage 1.4, and Ipomea hederacea (IPOHE) BBCH leaf stage 1.2.

(22) Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were assessed at time periods of 14 and 21 days following application. The results shown in Table 7 below are mean averages over the two rates of fomesafen, three replicates and the two assessment timings.

(23) The results of a mixture of the alkyl polyglucoside (Agnique® PG 8107) with a commercially available adjuvant Agnique OC 20B® (BASF SE), are compared to the two components tested singly, as well as an adjvant free formulation, and also another commercially available adjuvant for fomesafen, Turbocharge® D (Syngenta crop protection Canada Ltd), tested at the recommended level of 0.5% by volume.

(24) A letter has been ascribed to each result according to Tukey's HSD test. Samples with the same letter provide the same statistical level of performance. It can be seen that in all cases the mixture of two surfactants was as good as Agnique FOH9 OC-20B. The alkyl polyglucoside alone was not as good as either of the standard adjuvants on CHEAL, or as good as Turbocharge D on ABUTH.

(25) TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 7 Adjuvant SETVI CHEAL ABUTH IPOHE Turbocharge ® D 63.0 A 74.8 A 78.5 A .sup.  90.8 A Agnique ® 72.4 A  .sup. 71.7 AB 66.5 B.sup.  97.7 A FOH 9 OC-20B Agnique ® 20B/APG 57.2 A  .sup. 60.5 BC 69.0 AB 96.4 A 1:3 Agnique ® PG 8107 49.7 A 57.5 C 59.0 B.sup.  89.2 A No Adjuvant 52.1 A 39.1 D 69.5 AB 54.1 B

EXAMPLE 8

(26) Adjuvants were tested in a glasshouse against three weed species in combination with the herbicide mesotrione. An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2% v/v of the adjuvant in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Mesotrione was applied at either 60 or 120 grams of pesticide per hectare on weeds which had been grown to the 1.3 or 1.4 leaf stage. The weed species were Polygonum convolvulus (POLCO) BBCH growth stage 1.4, Brachiaria platyphylla (BRAPP) BBCH growth stage 1.4, and Digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA) BBCH growth stage 1.4.

(27) Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were assessed at time periods of 14 and 21 days following application. The results shown in Table 8 below are mean averages over the two rates of mesotrione, three replicates and the two assessment timings.

(28) The results of a mixture of the alkyl polyglucoside (Agnique® PG 8107) with a commercially available adjuvant Agnique FOH 9 OC 20B® (BASF SE), are compared to the two components tested singly, as well as an adjvant free formulation, and also another commercially available adjuvant for mesotrione, Tween 20® (Croda Europe Limited), tested at the recommended level of 0.5% by volume.

(29) A letter has been ascribed to each result according to Tukey's HSD test. Samples with the same letter provide the same statistical level of performance. It can be seen that in all cases the adjuvants performed better than the sample without an adjuvant. The mixture of alkylpolyglucoside was as good as the single adjuvant samples. While in this test it has not been shown that the alkyl polyglucoside mixture is statistically better than the single APG adjuvant, it has been shown to be numerically better, and statistically just as good.

(30) TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 8 Adjuvant BRAPP DIGSA POLCO Tween ® 20 54.2 A 82.1 A  .sup. 83.2 AB Agnique ® 62.9 A 74.6 A 86.3 A FOH 9 OC-20B Agnique ® 20B/APG 57.5 A 77.5 A 87.8 A 1:3 Agnique ® PG 8107 54.6 A 73.8 A 87.7 A No Adjuvant 33.8 B 37.1 B 74.8 B

EXAMPLE 9

(31) Adjuvants were tested in a glasshouse against four weed species in combination with the herbicide pinoxaden. An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2% v/v of the adjuvant in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare.

(32) Pinoxaden was applied at either 7.5 or 15 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species. The weed species and their growth stage at spraying were Alopecurus myosuroides (ALOMY; BBHC growth stage 1.3), Avena fatua (AVEFA; BBHC growth stage 1.2); Lolium perenne (LOLPE; BBHC growth stage 1.3), Setaria viridis (SETVI; BBHC growth stage 1.3-1.4).

(33) Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were assessed at time periods of 14 and 21 days following application. The results shown in Table 9 below are mean averages over the two rates of pinoxaden, three replicates and the two assessment timings.

(34) The results of a mixture of the alkyl polyglucoside (Agnique® PG 8107) with a commercially available adjuvant Agnique OC 20B® (BASF SE), are compared to the two components tested singly, as well as an adjvant free formulation, and also another commercially available adjuvant for pinoxaden, Synergen TEHP® (Clariant GmbH), tested at the recommended level of 0.5% by volume.

(35) A letter has been ascribed to each result according to Tukey's HSD test. Samples with the same letter provide the same statistical level of performance. It can be seen that in all cases the mixture of two surfactants was as good as Agnique FOH9 OC-20B. The alkyl polyglucoside alone was not as good on any weed species as Agnique FOH9 OC-20B, with the exception of ALOMY. In that case the mixture of APG with Agnique 20B was statistically better than the APG single adjuvant.

(36) TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 9 Adjuvant AVEFA LOLPE SETVI ALOMY TEHP 85.0 A 81.7 A 91.4 A 28.8 A  Agnique ® 77.9 B 44.3 B 89.8 A .sup. 12.0 BC FOH 9 OC-20B Agnique ® 20B/APG 76.3 B 38.1 B 88.0 A 15.8 B  1:3 Agnique ® PG 8107  8.6 C  3.8 C 39.5 B 4.1 C No Adjuvant  5.6 C  2.4 C  7.3 C 4.0 C