Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-92wsb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T02:43:09.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physicochemical Properties of Adjuvants: Values and Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David Stock  and
Geoff Briggs
Geoff Briggs
Affiliation:
Aventis CropScience, Centre de Recherches de La Dargoire, 69009 Lyon, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The physicochemical properties of adjuvants determine their function and impact upon biological activity. Various physicochemical parameters are key to modifying both the preretention events and postretention consequences of adjuvant usage, irrespective of whether the adjuvants are tank-mix additives or built into a formulation. This paper discusses several key adjuvant parameters for a range of adjuvant chemistries alone and in mixtures. In addition, the misleading use of terms such as nonionic surfactant and hydrophile–lipophile balance is addressed. From a more coherent understanding of the parameters involved, it can be shown that there are ways of predicting the required properties of an adjuvant to solve specific delivery problems. The recognition that different problems often require quite different approaches illustrates that good adjuvants do not exist per se, only materials that should be rationally selected for specific reasons. The chemistry of the herbicide and the nature of its targets will dictate adjuvant selection criteria.

Keywords

a.i., active ingredientBO, butylene oxideDUE, deposit per unit emissionEC, emulsifiable concentrateEH, equivalent hydrocarbonEO, ethylene oxideEW, concentrated emulsifierHLB, hydrophile–lipophile balanceLLP, light liquid paraffinNIS, nonionic surfactantNP, nonylphenolPEG, polyethylene glycolPO, propylene oxidePVA, polyvinyl alcohol

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 798 - 806
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Baur, P. 1999. Surfactant effects on cuticular penetration of neutral polar compounds: Dependence on humidity and temperature. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47: 753–761.Google Scholar
Baur, P., Grayson, B. T., and Schönherr, J. 1997. Polydisperse ethoxylated fatty alcohol surfactants as accelerators of cuticular penetration. 1. Effects of ethoxy chain length and the size of the penetrants. Pestic. Sci. 51: 131–152.Google Scholar
Baur, P., Schönherr, J., and Grayson, B. T. 1999. Polydisperse ethoxylated alcohol surfactants as accelerators of cuticular penetration. 2. Separation of effects on driving force and mobility and reversibility of surfactant action. Pestic. Sci. 55: 831–842.Google Scholar
Briggs, G. G. and Bromilow, R. 1994. Influence of physicochemical properties on uptake and loss of pesticides and adjuvants from the leaf surface. In Holloway, P. J., Rees, R. T., and Stock, D., eds. Interactions between Adjuvants, Agrochemicals and Target Organisms. Proc. 12th Schering Foundation Workshop. Berlin: Springer Verlag. pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Grayson, B. T., Webb, J. D., Pack, S. E., and Edwards, D. 1991. Development and assessment of a mathematical model to predict foliar spray deposition under laboratory track spraying conditions. Pestic. Sci. 33: 281–303.Google Scholar
Grayson, B. T., Pack, S. E., Edwards, D., and Webb, J. D. 1993. Assessment of a mathematical model to predict spray deposition under laboratory track-spraying conditions. Part II. Examination with further plant species and diluted formulations. Pestic. Sci. 37: 133–140.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Hazen, J. 1998. Understanding and using adjuvant properties to enhance pesticide activity. In McMullan, P., ed. Proc. Fifth Int. Symp. on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Volume 1. Memphis, TN: Chemicals Producers and Distributors Association. pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
Hall, K. J. 1998. Studies on the mode of action of emulsified oil additives for agrochemicals. Ph.D. thesis. University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K.Google Scholar
Hall, K. J., Western, N. M., Holloway, P. J., and Stock, D. 1997. Effect of adjuvant oil emulsions on foliar retention and spray quality. Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. 1997. pp. 549–554.Google Scholar
Hazen, J. L. 2000. Adjuvants—terminology, classification, and chemistry. Weed Technol. 14: 773–784.Google Scholar
Hess, F. D. and Falk, R. H. 1990. Herbicide deposition on leaf surfaces. Weed Sci. 38: 280–288.Google Scholar
Hess, F. D., Goss, J. R., Buchjoltz, D. L., and Falk, R. H. 1986. The physical form of flamprop-ethyl herbicide on sprayed leaves influences absorption and subsequent efficacy. In Greenhalgh, R. and Roberts, T. R., eds. Pestic. Sci. Biotechnol. Proc. Int. Congr. Pestic. Chem. No. 6. pp. 209–214.Google Scholar
Holloway, P. J. 1994. Physicochemical factors influencing the adjuvant-enhanced spray deposition and coverage of foliage-applied agrochemicals. In Holloway, P. J., Rees, R. T., and Stock, D., eds. Interactions between Adjuvants, Agrochemicals and Target Organisms. Proc. 12th Schering Foundation Workshop. Berlin: Springer Verlag. pp. 83–106.Google Scholar
Hsu, C. and Berger, P. D. 1990. The dynamic properties of surfactants. J. Oil Color Chem. Assoc. 73: 360–365.Google Scholar
MacIsaac, S., Paul, R. N., and Devine, M. D. 1991. A scanning electron microscope study of glyphosate deposits in relation to foliar uptake. Pestic. Sci. 31: 53–64.Google Scholar
Reekmans, S. 1998. Novel surfactants and adjuvants for agrochemicals. In Knowles, D. A., ed. Chemistry and Technology of Agrochemical Formulations. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 179–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, M. D., Holloway, P. J., and Stock, D. 1998. Structure-spray retention enhancement relationships for some polymers and polymeric surfactants. In McMullan, P., ed. Proc. Fifth Int. Symp. on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Volume 1. Memphis, TN: Chemicals Producers and Distributors Association. pp. 79–84.Google Scholar
Schönherr, J. 1993. Effects of alcohols, glycols and monodisperse ethoxylated alcohols on mobility of 2,4-D in isolated plant cuticles. Pestic. Sci. 39: 213–223.Google Scholar
Schwartz, J. 1992. The importance of low dynamic surface tension in waterborne coatings. J. Coat. Technol. 64: 65–74.Google Scholar
Stevens, P.J.G. and Bukovac, M. J. 1987. Studies of octylphenoxy surfactants. Part 1. Effects of oxyethylene content on properties of potential relevance to foliar absorption. Pestic. Sci. 20: 19–35.Google Scholar
Stock, D. 1990. Influence of polyoxyethylene aliphatic alcohol surfactants on the foliar penetration of some model organic compounds. Ph.D. thesis. University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K.Google Scholar
Stock, D., Holloway, P. J., Grayson, B. T., and Whitehouse, P. 1993. Development of a predictive uptake model to rationalize selection of polyoxyethylene surfactant adjuvants for foliage-applied agrochemicals. Pestic. Sci. 37: 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varadaraj, R., Bock, J., Zushma, S., and Brons, N. 1991. Relationships between dynamic contact angle and dynamic surface tension properties for linear and branch ethoxylate, ethoxysulfate and sulfate surfactants. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 147: 403–406.Google Scholar
Wirth, W., Storp, S., and Jacobsen, W. 1991. Mechanisms controlling leaf retention of agricultural spray solutions. Pestic. Sci. 33: 411–420.Google Scholar
Zisman, W. A. 1964. Relation of the equilibrium contact angle to liquid and solid constitution. Adv. Chem. Ser. 43: 1–51.Google Scholar