Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:25:50.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Citric Ester Surfactants as Adjuvants with Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Heather E. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
James L. Hazen
Affiliation:
Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry, LLC., 5777 Frantz Road, Dublin, OH 43017
Donald Penner*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: pennerd@msu.edu

Abstract

Research was conducted to evaluate structure–function relationships of citric acid esters that varied in alkyl chain number (mono-, di-, and tri-), ethylene oxide number (EO 4,7,9,25,35,52), and alkyl chain length (C8, C12/14, C16/18). Adjuvant efficacy was evaluated on two weed species for each of the four herbicides. The experimental adjuvants were applied with glyphosate and glufosinate on giant foxtail and common lambsquarters, imazamox on velvetleaf and common lambsquarters, and nicosulfuron on giant foxtail and large crabgrass. Adjuvant efficacy was weed and herbicide specific. EO number and alkyl chain length and number influenced adjuvant efficacy with the effectiveness of various combinations dependent on both herbicide and weed species. EO numbers as high as 52 were shown to be effective for glyphosate, glufosinate, and imazamox.

Type
Commentary
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

Gaskin, R. E. and Holloway, P. J. 1992. Some physiochemical factors influencing foliar uptake enhancement of glyphosate-mono-(isopropylammonium) by polyoxyethylene surfactants. Pestic. Sci. 34: 195206.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1999a. Effect of nonylphenol ethoxylation on the biological activity of three herbicides with different water solubilities. Weed Technol. 13: 840842.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1999b. Optimizing alcohol ethoxylate surfactant activity at low doses. Weed Technol. 13: 737740.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, R. C. 1993. Use and mode of action of adjuvants for herbicides; a review of some current work. Pestic. Sci. 38: 93102.Google Scholar
Koskinen, W. C. and Harper, S. S. 1984. Herbicide Properties and Processes Affecting Application. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 917.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. 1982. The Use of Adjuvants. Adjuvants for Herbicides. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 1021.Google Scholar
Penner, D. 2000. Activator adjuvants. Weed Technol. 14: 785791.Google Scholar
Riechers, D., Wax, L., Liebl, R., and Bullock, D. 1995. Surfactant effects on glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 9: 281285.Google Scholar
Smith, L. W. and Foy, C. L. 1966. Penetration and distribution studies in bean, cotton, and barley from foliar and root applications of Tween 20-C14, fatty acid and oxyethylene labelled. J. Agric. Food Chem. 14: 117122.Google Scholar
Tann, R. S., Haggard, D., and McMullan, P. 1995. Effect of various carbon chain length methyl esters as agricultural tank mix adjuvants. Fourth International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals; Melbourne, Australia. pp. 7277.Google Scholar
Thelen, K., Jackson, E. P., and Penner, D. 1995. Utility of nuclear magnetic resonance for determining the molecular influence of citric acid and an organosilicone adjuvant on glyphosate activity. Weed Sci. 43: 566571.Google Scholar