中文简体  |  ENGLISH

减少三唑类杀菌剂对植物产生药害的方法

  • Agnique ME890-G, methyl ester of plant oils available from Cognis
  •  

  • Witconol 2309, methyl ester of plant oils available from Witco Corporation
  •  

  • Selvesso 100, blend of aromatic hydrocarbons, available from Exxon.
  •  

  • Edenor ME C6-C10, methyl ester of plant oils available from Cognis
  •  

  • Edenor ME C12 98/100, methyl ester of plant oils available from Cognis
  •  

  • DISPER AP3, phosphoric acid ester available from KORIO
  •  

  • Phenylsulfonat CA, 70%支链十二烷基苯磺酸钙

     

    Example 1- preparation of formulation
    Tebuconazole, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and Agnique ME890-G and octanol are mixed in the order specified in the table below. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are done in order to dissolve the tebuconazole. The emulsifiers, DISPER AP3 and Phenylsulfonat CA, are added. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are continued until the formulation is homogenous. When still warm, i.e. 40-50°C, the formulation is filtered through Celatom filter aid. The product is a homogenous and transparent liquid. By mixing with water, spray liquids are prepared from the product thus obtained.

    INGREDIENTS g/1000 g g/liter
    a) Tebuconazole 260.6 253.3
    c) N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone 154.5 150.1
    b) Agnique ME 890-G 317.9 309.0
    d) Octanol 167.0 162.3
    e) DISPER  AP3 50.00 48.6
    e) Phenylsulfonat CA 50.00 48.6

     


    Example 2- preparation of formulation

    Tebuconazole, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and Agnique ME890-G and octanol are mixed in the order specified in the table below. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are done in order to dissolve the tebuconazole. The emulsifiers, DISPER AP3 and Phenylsulfonat CA, are added. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are continued until the formulation is homogenous. When still warm, i.e. 40-50°C, the formulation is filtered through Celatom filter aid. The product is a homogenous and transparent liquid. By mixing with water, spray liquids are prepared from the product thus obtained.

    INGREDIENTS g/1000 g g/liter
    a) Tebuconazole 213.7 204.5
    c) N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone 157.9 151.1
    b) Agnique ME890-G 349.6 334.6
    d) Octanol 178.8 171.1
    e) DISPER AP3 40.00 38.3
    e) Phenylsulfonat CA 60.00 57.4

     


    Example 3 - preparation of formulation

    Preparation of the product and mixing the finished product with water are done as described in example 1 and 2.

    INGREDIENTS g/1000 g
    a) Tebuconazole 255.7
    c) N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone 161.0
    b) Witconol 2309 316.6
    d) Octanol 166.7
    e) DISPER  AP3 40.00
    e) Phenylsulfonat CA 60.00

     


    Example 4 - preparation of formulation

    Tebuconazole, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, Witconol 2309, Solvesso 100 and DL-lactate are mixed in the order specified in the table below. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are done in order to dissolve the tebuconazole. The emulsifiers, DISPER AP3and Phenylsulfonat CA, are added. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are continued until the formulation is homogenous. The product is a homogenous and transparent liquid. By mixing with water, spray liquids are prepared from the product thus obtained.

    INGREDIENTS g/1000 g
    a) Tebuconazole 255.7
    c) N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone 192.7
    b) Witconol 2309 198.3
    d) Solvesso 100 198.3
    e) DISPER  AP3 40.00
    e) Phenylsulfonat CA 60.00
    f) DL-lactate 55.00

     


    Example 5 - preparation of formulation

    Preparation of the product and mixing of the finished product with water are done as described in example 4.

    INGREDIENTS g/1000 g
    a) Tebuconazole 250.0
    c) N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone 156.7
    b) Edenor ME C6-C10 190.0
    b) Edenor ME C12 98/100 126.6
    d) Octanol 166.7
    e) DISPER AP3 50.00
    e) Phenylsulfonat CA 50.00
    f) Dem. water 10.00

     


    Example 6 - preparation of formulation

    Tebuconazole, gamma-butyrolactone, Agnique ME890-G and octanol are mixed in the order specified in the table below. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are done in order to dissolve the tebuconazole. DISPER AP3 and Phenylsulfonat CA, are added. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are continued until the formulation is homogenous. When still warm, i.e. 40-50°C, the formulation is filtered through Celatom filter aid. The product is a homogenous and transparent liquid. By mixing with water, spray liquids are prepared from the product thus obtained.

    INGREDIENTS g/1000 g
    a) Tebuconazole 263.3
    c) Gamma-butyrolactone 157.2
    b) Agnique ME 890-G 312.5
    d) Octanol 167.0
    e) DISPER AP3 50.00
    e) Phenylsulfonat CA 50.00

     


    Example 7 - preparation of formulation

    Tebuconazole, dimethyl sulfoxide, diethyl phthalate, Agnique ME890-G and octanol are mixed in the order specified in the table below. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are done in order to dissolve the tebuconazole. The emulsifiers, DISPER AP3  and Phenylsulfonat CA, are added. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are continued until the formulation is homogenous. When still warm, i.e. 40-50°C, the formulation is filtered through Celatom filter aid to obtain a homogenous and transparent liquid. By mixing with water, spray liquids are prepared from the product thus obtained.

    INGREDIENTS g/1000 g
    a) Tebuconazole 267.7
    c) Dimethyl sulfoxide 127.5
    b) Agnique ME 890-G 275.5
    d) Octanol 141.8
    e) DISPER AP3 50.00
    e) Phenylsulfonat CA 50.00
    f) Diethyl phthalate 87.5

     


    Example 8 - preparation of formulation

    Flutriafol, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and Agnique ME890-G and octanol are mixed in the order specified in the table below. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are done in order to dissolve the flutriafol. DISPER AP3 and Phenylsulfonat CA are added. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are continued until the formulation is homogenous. When still warm, i.e. 40-50°C, the formulation is filtered through Celatom filter aid. The liquid product is homogenous and transparent. By mixing with water, spray liquids are prepared from the product thus obtained.

    INGREDIENTS g/1000 g g/liter
    a) Flutriafol 110.1 105.4
    c) N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone 172.6 165.2
    b) Agnique ME 890-G 412.1 394.3
    d) Octanol 206.0 197.1
    e) DISPER  AP3 39.68 37.97
    e) Phenylsulfonat CA 59.52 56.96

     


    Example 9 - preparation of formulation

    Tebuconazole, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and Agnique ME890-G and n-hexanol are mixed in the order specified in the table below. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are done in order to dissolve the tebuconazole. The emulsifiers, DISPER AP3 and Phenylsulfonat CA, are added. Stirring and heating to maximum 50°C are continued until the formulation is homogenous. When still warm, i.e. 40-50°C, the formulation is filtered through Celatom filter aid. The product is a homogenous and transparent liquid. By mixing with water, spray liquids are prepared from the product thus obtained.

    INGREDIENTS g/1000 g g/liter
    a) Tebuconazole 267.7 260.2
    c) N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone 152.7 148.4
    b) Agnique ME 890-G 314.3 305.5
    d) n-Hexanol 165.3 160.7
    e) DISPER  AP3 50.00 48.6
    e) Phenylsulfonat CA 50.00 48.6

     


    Example 10 - comparison of phytotoxicity on soybean I

    In field tests the following commercially available products comprising tebuconazole as active ingredient were applied in officially recommended doses on soybeans: Folicur 200 g/l EC from BayerCropSciences, Rival 250 g/l EC from Agripec, and a formulation composed as shown in example 2.

    In one series of tests the products were applied on the soybeans together with an oil penetration enhancer. Oil penetration enhancers are often used to improve the efficacy of insecticides applied together with fungicides. The oil penetration enhancers are known to augment the phytotoxicity caused by triazole fungicides.

    In other series of tests the neat fungicide formulations were applied.

    In all series of tests, either with or without oil penetration enhancer, the range of phytotoxicity response, i.e. necrotic areas on the leaves, was identical. In all series the formulation produced according to example 2 gave much less phytotoxicity than the two commercial products did, i.e., Folicur 200 g/l EC and Rival 250 g/l EC.


    Example 11- comparison of phytotoxicity on soybean II

    In two green house tests on soybeans, Folicur 200 g/l and 250 g/l EC were compared with formulations prepared according to example 1 and 2. In both tests the two Folicur products gave far more phytotoxicity, i.e., necrotic spots or necrotic areas on the leaves, than the formulations, prepared according to example 1 and 2, gave rise to.
    The results of the test are given in the table below.

    Product and dose
    (g ai/ha)
    Average % necrotic areas on soy bean leaves - each treatment tested on 4 plants
    No treatment
    (Control)
    0 0 0 0
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    600 g ai/ha
    25 20 25 15
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    10 5 20 15
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    600 g ai/ha
    0 15 15 5
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    0 5 5 0
    Product according to Example 1
    600 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 1
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 2
    600 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 2
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0

     


    Example 12 - comparison of phytotoxicity on peanuts.

    In a green house phytotoxicity test on peanut plants, formulations produced according to example 1 and 2 were compared with Folicur 250 and 200 g/l EC. The Folicur formulations gave more phytotoxicity on peanut plants than the formulations produced according to example 1 and 2 did. The results are tabulated below.

    Product and dose
    (g ai/ha)
    Average % necrotic areas on peanut leaves - each treatment tested on 4 plants
    No treatment
    (Control)
    0 0 0 0
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    1200 g ai/ha
    30 30 30 30
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    600 g ai/ha
    10 5 15 15
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    3 3 25 3
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    1200 g ai/ha
    20 20 30 35
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    600 g ai/ha
    7 7 10 10
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 1
    1200 g ai/ha
    5 5 5 0
    Product according to Example 1
    600 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 3
    Product according to Example 1
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 3
    Product according to Example 2
    1200 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 2
    600 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 2
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0

     


    Example 13 - comparison of phytotoxicity on cucumber, cotton and common beans

    In several green house tests Folicur 250 g/l and 200 g/l EC were compared with formulations prepared according to example 1 and 2. In some tests the plants were grown under stressful dry conditions.

    The Folicur EC formulations gave much more phytotoxicity than the formulations prepared according to example 1 and 2, whether stressful dry conditions were applied or not.

    Some of the phytotoxicity test results on cucumber, cotton and beans are tabulated below.

    Product and dose
    (g ai/ha)
    Average % necrotic areas on cucumber leaves - each treatment tested on 5 plants
    No treatment
    (Control)
    0 0 0 0 0
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    10 2 20 5 40
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    5 2 1 30 50
    Product according to Example 1
    300 g ai/ha
    1 0 0 0 0
    Product ac- cording to Example 2
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0 0
    Product and dose
    (g ai/ha)
    Average % necrotic areas on cotton leaves - each treatment tested on 5 plants
    No treatment
    (Control)
    0 0 0 0 0
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    40 20 25 5 20
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    20 3 1 25 20
    Product according to Example 1
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 2
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0 0
    Product and dose
    (g ai/ha)
    Average % necrotic areas on common bean leaves - each treatment tested on 4 plants
    No treatment
    (Control)
    0 0 0 0
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    600 g ai/ha
    40 50 40 60
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    600 g ai/ha
    80 35 35 50
    Product according to Example 1
    600 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 2
    600 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0

     


    Example 14 - comparison of phytotoxicity on barley, wheat and oat

    In several green house phytotoxcity tests Folicur 250 g/l and 200 g/l EC were compared with formulations produced according to example 1 and 2. The Folicur formulations gave more phytotoxicity on wheat, barley and oat than the formulations produced according to example 1 and 2. Some of the results are tabulated below.

    Product and dose
    (g ai/ha)
    Average % necrotic areas on wheat leaves - each treatment tested on 5 plants
    No treatment
    (Control)
    0 0 0 0 0
    Folicur 250 g/l EC 300 g ai/ha 5 5 15 10 5
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    5 15 5 10 5
    Product according to Example 1
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 2
    300 g ai/ha
    1 1 1 3 1
    Product and dose
    (g ai/ha)
    Average % necrotic areas on barley leaves - each treatment tested on 5 plants
    No treatment
    (Control)
    0 0 0 0 0
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    1200 g ai/ha
    10 10 5 10 10
    Product according to Example 1
    1200 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 5 0

     


    Example 15 - comparison of phytotoxicity on tomatoes

    In a green house phytotoxicity test on tomatoes, formulations produced according to example 1 and 2 were compared with Folicur 250 and 200 g/l EC. The Folicur formulations gave much more phytotoxicity on tomatoes than the formulations produced according to example 1 and 2 did. The results are tabulated below.

    Product and dose
    (g ai/ha)
    Average % necrotic areas on tomato leaves - each treatment tested on 4 plants
    No treatment
    (Control)
    0 0 0 0
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    1200 g ai/ha
    75 75 70 75
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    600 g ai/ha
    30 30 30 40
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    7 7 3 7
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    1200 g ai/ha
    75 60 40 60
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    600 g ai/ha
    25 7 7 7
    Folicur 200 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 1 1200 g ai/ha 0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 1
    600 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 1
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 2
    1200 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 2
    600 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0
    Product according to Example 2
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0

     


    Example 16 - comparison of phytotoxicity on coffee plants

    In a green house phytotoxicity test on coffee plants, a formulation produced according to example 1 was compared with Folicur 250 g/l EC. According to the table below, the formulation produced as described in example 1 gave much less phytotoxicity on coffee plants than the Folicur 250 g/l EC did.

    Product and dose
    (g ai/ha)
    Average % necrotic areas on coffee leaves - each treatment tested on 4 plants
    No treatment
    (Control)
    0 0 0 0
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    1200 g ai/ha
    30 30 30 20
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    600 g ai/ha
    15 5 10 5
    Folicur 250 g/l EC
    300 g ai/ha
    3 3 0 0
    Product according to Example 1
    1200 g ai/ha
    0 1 0 0
    Product according to Example 1
    600 g ai/ha
    0 0 1 0
    Product according to Example 1
    300 g ai/ha
    0 0 0 0

     


    Example 17 - preparation of formulation (comparative)

    A formulation was prepared as outlined in example 1, but without a water-immiscible co-solvent, with the ingredients specified in the table below.

    INGREDIENTS g/1000 g g/liter
    a) Tebuconazole 260.6 249.4
    c) N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone 154.5 147.8
    b) Agnique ME 890-G 484.9 464.0
    e) DISPER  AP3 50.00 47.85
    e) Phenylsulfonat CA 50.00 47.85

     

    The composition gave an unacceptable degree of tebuconazole crystallization after dilution to spraying concentration. The crystals gave rise to filter and nozzle blockage in the spraying equipment.


    Example 18 - preparation of formulation (comparative)

    A formulation was prepared as outlined in example 1, but without an ester of a plant oil, with the ingredients specified in the table below.

    INGREDIENTS g/1000 g g/liter
    a) Tebuconazole 260.6 253.3
    c) N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone 154.5 150.1
    d) Octanol 484.9 464.0
    e) DISPER  AP3 50.00 48.6
    e) Phenylsulfonat CA 50.00 48.6

    The composition gave an unacceptable degree of tebuconazole crystallization after dilution to spraying concentration. The crystals gave rise to filter and nozzle blockage in the spraying equipment.

  •  

     

     


    下一记录:成膜助剂
    上一记录:PVA-聚乙烯醇
    版权所有 © 2012 无锡颐景丰科技有限公司  地址:无锡市滨湖区梁清路555号龙山大厦901室  邮箱:andy.zhang@jingfung.com
    联系电话:0510-85169316  公司传真:0510-85162237 苏ICP备14026336号   [管理员]