Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T17:00:43.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fungicidal Properties of Certain Spray-Fluids, IX. The Fungicidal Properties of the Products of Hydrolysis of Sulphur

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. Martin  and
E. S. Salmon
H. Martin
Affiliation:
(Research Department, South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.)
E. S. Salmon
Affiliation:
(Research Department, South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The action of the following sulphur compounds on the conidial stage of the hop powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca Humuli) has been examined:

Sodium sulphite, prepared by direct solution or by the neutralisation of solutions of sodium metabisulphite and applied with either 0·5 per cent, gelatine or 0·5 per cent. Agral I as the spreader, proved fungicidal at a content of 0·25 per cent, sulphur, and non-fungicidal at a content of 0·16 per cent, sulphur. The solutions, at these concentrations, caused injury to the leaves, which is not prevented by the neutralisation of solutions of sodium metabisulphite by calcium hydroxide instead of sodium hydroxide.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , July 1932 , pp. 596 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1932

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

REFERENCES

(1)Barker, B. T. P.Ann. Rep. Agric. and Hort. Res. Sta., Long Ashton (1927), p. 72; (1929), p. 130.Google Scholar
(2)Bassett, H. and Durrant, R. G. J.Chem. Soc. (1927), p. 1401.Google Scholar
(3)Bassett, H. and Durrant, R. G. J.J. Chem. Soc. (1931), p. 2919.Google Scholar
(4)Bewley, W. F.Diseases of Glasshouse Plants. London (1923), p. 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Divers, E. and Shimtdzu, T.J. Chem. Soc. (1884), 45, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Eyre, J. V. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1916), 7, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Eyre, J. V., Salmon, E. S. and Wormald, L. K.J. Agric. Sci. (1919), 9, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Foerster, F.Z. anorg. Chem. (1928), 177, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Goodwin, W., Martin, H. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1926), 16, 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Goodwin, W., Martin, H. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1930), 20, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Goodwin, W., Martin, H. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1930), 20, 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Hollingsworth Smith, J.J. Amer. Chem. Soc. (1921), 43, 1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Horton, E. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1922), 12, 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Hurt, R. H. and Schneiderhan, F. J.Virginia Agric. Exp. Sta. (1929). Tech. Bull. 36.Google Scholar
(15)Marsh, R. W.J. Pom. Hort. Sci. (1929), 7, 237.Google Scholar
(16)Martin, H.J. Agric. Sci. (1930), 20, 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)Mccallan, S. E. A. and Wilcoxon, F.Contr. Boyee Thompson Inst. (1931), 3, 13.Google Scholar
(18)Stiles, W. and Kidd, F.Proc. Roy. Soc. B (1919), 90, 487.Google Scholar
(19)Tomoda, Y. J.Soc. Chem. Ind. (1929), 48, 76T.Google Scholar