Description:FIELD OF THE INVENTION:
The present disclosure relates to the field of agricultural insecticides. Specifically, it provides an insecticidal composition comprising a combination of active ingredients, namely Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride, and Chlorantraniliprole and methods of preparing and using such compositions. The present disclosure aims to provide enhanced control of a variety of insect pests affecting crops, with a synergistic effect that improves efficacy compared to individual components.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION:
Combination of insecticides are used to broaden the spectrum of control of insect, to improve the pest control with synergistic effect, reduce dosage, thereby reducing environmental impact, to broaden the spectrum of control, i.e. chewing and sucking insects at a time, decrease chances of development and management of resistance and to enhance residual control so lesser the number of sprays for crop protections and minimizing the pesticidal load in ecosystem. The combination of insecticides at times demonstrate an additive or synergistic effect that results in an improved control on the pests.
Insecticide or pesticides are used widely and very frequently in commercial agriculture and have enabled an enormous increase in crop yields and product quality which ultimately increased the ease to farmers in term of economic advantage as well as ease of farming activities.
Etofenprox with CAS registration number 80844-07-1 is a derivative of an aromatic ether that is 3-phenoxybenzyl ether of 2-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropan-1-ol. It has the role as a pyrethroid ether insecticide. It is functionally related to a 2-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropan-1-ol.
It has an IUPAC name1-ethoxy-4-[2-methyl-1-[(3-phenoxyphenyl) methoxy] propan-2-yl]benzene having chemical structure as:

ETOFENPROX
Cartap hydrochloride with CAS registration number 15263-52-2, a derivative of nereistoxin, a naturally occurring insecticidal substance isolated from the marine segmented worms Lumbrinereisheteropoda and Lumbrinereisbrevicirra. Cartap hydrochloride is a highly effective, broad-spectrum, low toxic and low residual insecticide, causing paralysis by cholinergic blocking action on the central nervous system of insect. It is a systemic insecticide with stomach and contact action. Insects discontinue feeding and die of starvation
It has an IUPAC name s, s’-(2-dimethylaminotrimethylene)bis(thiocarbamate) hydrochloride] having chemical structure as:


Cartap hydrochloride
Chlorantraniliprole is ananthranilic diamide insecticides, with registration number 500008-45-7 having ryanodine receptor activator and is used to protect a wide variety of crops, including corn, cotton, grapes, rice, and potatoes. It has a role as a ryanodine receptor agonist. It is an organo-bromine compound, a member of pyridines, a member of pyrazoles, a pyrazole insecticide, a member of monochlorobenzenes and a secondary carboxamide.
It has an IUPAC name 5-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-(methylcarbamoyl)phenyl]-2-(3-chloropyridin-2-yl)pyrazole -3-carboxamidehaving chemical structure as:

CHLORANTRANILIPROLE
Particular pest management techniques that the present disclosure seeks to address:
1. Development of Pest Resistance:
a. Many pests have developed resistance to single active ingredient insecticides, making them less effective over time.
b. Conventional insecticides often require increased dosages to achieve the same level of pest control, which is unsustainable and increases the risk of environmental contamination.
c. The frequent use of single-action insecticides leads to the rapid evolution of resistant pest populations, reducing long-term pest management efficacy.
2. Limited Spectrum of Pest Control:
a. Single active ingredient insecticides or basic tank mixtures may not be effective against a broad range of insect pests, leading to incomplete control.
b. Farmers often need to use multiple products to target different pests, which increases costs and complicates pest management practices.
c. Existing solutions may fail to control certain pests like whiteflies, thrips, aphids, and mites effectively in crops like cotton and chili.
3. Suboptimal Synergy in Tank Mixes:
a. Tank mixtures of individual insecticides do not always exhibit true synergistic effects. The combination may result in antagonistic or merely additive effects, which do not significantly enhance pest control.
b. Inconsistent performance of tank mixes can be attributed to the instability of the combined components, leading to inadequate pest control and uneven application.
4. Stability Issues in Formulations:
a. Existing insecticidal formulations often suffer from stability issues, especially under varying environmental conditions such as high or low temperatures.
b. Instability can lead to the separation of active ingredients, reduced efficacy, and challenges in storage and transport.
c. Unstable formulations are harder to apply uniformly, affecting the overall effectiveness of pest control measures.
5. Need for Higher Dosages:
a. Due to the lack of synergistic action, traditional formulations or single active ingredient products may require higher dosages to achieve effective pest control.
b. Increased dosages not only raise the cost of pest management but also heighten the risk of crop phytotoxicity and environmental damage, including potential harm to beneficial insects and non-target organisms.
6. Environmental and Safety Concerns:
a. The use of higher concentrations of insecticides contributes to environmental pollution and poses health risks to farmworkers and consumers.
b. There is a growing need for formulations that are effective at lower concentrations, minimizing environmental impact while maintaining pest control efficacy.
c. Safety concerns also arise from formulations that produce harmful residues or have poor degradability, necessitating safer and more eco-friendly options.
7. Application Challenges and Inconsistent Results:
a. Some existing formulations are difficult to mix or apply, leading to inconsistent distribution of the insecticide on crops.
b. Poorly mixed insecticides may form clumps or separate into different phases, making uniform application challenging and reducing the effectiveness of the treatment.
c. The variability in application quality can result in areas of the crop being under protected, leaving them vulnerable to pest damage.
8. Economic Inefficiency:
a. The need for multiple insecticides or repeated applications due to inadequate control increases the financial burden on farmers.
b. Inefficient pest management practices can lead to significant crop losses and reduced profitability for farmers.
c. A more effective, stable, and broad-spectrum insecticidal composition can reduce overall costs and enhance agricultural productivity.
The present disclosure aims to overcome these limitations by providing a synergistic insecticidal composition of Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride, and Chlorantraniliprole, ensuring high efficacy at lower dosages, broad-spectrum pest control, formulation stability, and minimal environmental impact.
OBJECT OF THE INVENTION
The main objective of the disclosure is to provide a synergistic insecticidal composition combining Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride, and Chlorantraniliprole that enhances pest control efficacy beyond the sum of individual effects.
Another important object of the present disclosure is to deliver broad-spectrum pest control that effectively targets a variety of insect pests, including leaf folder and stem borer across different crops like Paddy.
Another object of the present disclosure is to reduce the likelihood of pest resistance by utilizing a multi-component approach, thereby decreasing the dependence on single-action insecticides.
Yet another object of the present disclosure is to ensure stability of the formulation under various environmental conditions, minimizing separation or degradation of active ingredients for consistent performance.
Yet another object of the present disclosure is tolower the required dosage levels while maintaining effective pest control, reducing potential phytotoxicity to crops and minimizing environmental impact.
Yet another object of the present disclosure is to provide an easy-to-mix and apply formulation that ensures uniform distribution on crops, improving application efficiency and overall pest control results.
Yet another object of the present disclosure is to create an environmentally safer alternative by minimizing harmful residues, thus reducing health risks for farmers, consumers, and non-target organisms.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Accordingly, in one aspect, the present invention provides an insecticide composition comprising Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride, and Chlorantraniliprole.
In one aspect, the present invention provides a synergistic composition of Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride, and Chlorantraniliprole and agrochemically acceptable additives.
In yet another aspect, the present invention provides a synergistic composition comprising Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride, and Chlorantraniliprole the composition possesses Insecticidal activity.
In a further aspect, the present invention provides a method for effective control of various pest in plants.
In one aspect of the present invention, the Insecticidal composition of the present invention further comprises an agrochemically acceptable excipients selected from the group consisting of anti-freezing agent, dispersing agents, wetting agents, antifoaming agents, biocides, Super-Wetting-spreading-penetrating agent, thickeners, surfactants, preservatives, colorants, pigments, buffers, solvents, and the like. Additional components may also be included, e.g., protective colloids, adhesives, thickeners, thixotropic agents, penetration agents, stabilizers, sequestering agents.
In another aspect of the present invention, the Insecticidal composition is formulated as capsule suspension (CS), Dispersible concentrate (DC), Dustable powder (DP), Powder for dry seed treatment (DS), Emulsifiable concentrate (EC), Emulsifiable granule (EG) Emulsifiable water-in-oil (EO), Emulsifiable powder (EP), Emulsifiable for seed treatment (ES), Emulsifiable oil-in-water (EW), flowable concentrate for seed treatment (FS), Suspension Concentrate (SC), Suspo-emulsion (SE), Oil Dispersion(OD).Water dispersible powder for slurry seed treatment (WS), Water dispersible granules (WDG) and Wettable powders (WP), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC), soluble liquid (SL).
In another further aspect the insecticidal composition of the present invention is preferably formulated as a Water dispersible granules (WDG) , Wettable powders (WP) ,Granules (GR) and Oil Dispersion (OD).
In yet another embodiment of the present invention, the invention further provides the process for preparation of the said formulation wherein, the said formulation can be one or more of capsule suspension (CS), Dispersible concentrate (DC), Dustable powder (DP), Powder for dry seed treatment (DS), Emulsifiable concentrate (EC), Emulsifiable granule (EG) Emulsifiable water-in-oil (EO), Emulsifiable powder (EP), Emulsifiable for seed treatment (ES), Emulsifiable oil-in-water (EW), flowable concentrate for seed treatment (FS), Suspension Concentrate (SC), Suspo-emulsion (SE), Water dispersible powder for slurry seed treatment (WS), Water dispersible granules (WDG) and Wettable powders (WP), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC), soluble liquid (SL).
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
Discussed below are some representative embodiments of the present invention. The invention in its broader aspects is not limited to the specific details and representative methods. The illustrative examples are described in this section in connection with the embodiments and methods provided. The invention according to its various aspects is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed in the appended claims read in view of this specification and appropriate equivalents.
It is to be noted that, as used in the specification and the appended claims, the singular forms "a", "an" and "the" include plural referents unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Thus, for example, reference to a composition containing “a compound” includes a mixture of two or more compounds. It should also be noted that the term “or” is generally employed in its sense including “and/or” unless the content clearly dictates otherwise.
The expression of various quantities in terms of “% w/w” or “%” means the percentage by weight, relative to the weight of the total solution or composition unless otherwise specified.
The term “active ingredient” (a.i.) or “active agent” used herein refers to that component of the composition responsible for control of Fungal-pests or disease.
As used herein, the terms "comprises", "comprising", "includes", "including", or any other variation thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion, subject to any limitation explicitly indicated. For example, a composition or a method that comprises a list of elements is not necessarily limited to only those elements but may include other elements not expressly listed or inherent to such composition, or method.
The term "synergistic", as used herein, refers the combined action of two or more active agents blended together and administered conjointly that is greater than the sum of their individual effects.
As used herein, the term “composition” or "formulation" can be used interchangeably, unless stated otherwise, is meant to encompass, and are not limited to, compositions or formulations containing the combination of Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride, and Chlorantraniliprole.
As used herein, the term “additive(s)” or "auxiliary agent(s)" or “agrochemically acceptable carrier(s)” can be used interchangeably and refers to inert substances which are commonly used as diluent, to provide stability or to increase the activity profile of the composition or formulation with or without having agrochemical activity or direct effect on the undesired phytopathogenic insects and/or microorganisms.
As used herein, the term "agrochemically acceptable salts" are typically acid addition salts of inorganic or organic acids, preferably of hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, perchloric acid, phosphoric acid, formic acid, acetic acid, trifluoroacetic acid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, toluenesulfonic acid or benzoic acid.
As used herein, the term "effective amount" means the amount of the active substances in the compositions to achieve an observable effect on growth, including the effects of necrosis, death, retardation, prevention, and removal, destruction, or otherwise diminishing the occurrence and activity of the target organism. The effective amount can vary for the various compositions used in the present invention. An effective amount of the compositions will also vary according to the prevailing conditions such as desired pesticidal effect and duration, weather, target species, locus, mode of application, and the like.
In an embodiment, the Insecticidal composition wherein the Etofenprox ranging from 0.1% to 30.0% by weight of the Insecticidal composition.
In an embodiment, the Insecticidal composition wherein the Cartap hydrochloride ranging from 0.1% to 75.0% by weight of the Insecticidal composition.
In an embodiment, the Insecticidal composition wherein the Chlorantraniliprole ranging from 0.1% to 30.0% by weight of the Insecticidal composition.
In another embodiment of the present invention, the invention further provides the process for preparation of the said formulation wherein, the said formulation can be one or more of as suspension concentrate (SC), wettable granules (WG), wettable powder (WP), a water dispersible granule (WDG), a water dispersible tablet (WT), an ultra-low volu (ULV) liquid (UL), an ultra-low volume (ULV) suspension (SU), a water soluble powder (SP), a suspo-emulsion (SE), granule (GR), an emulsifiable granule (EG), an oil-in-water or water in oil emulsion (EW), an emulsifiable concentrate (EC), a micro-emulsion (ME), an oil dispersion (OD), a capsule suspension (CS), a dustable powder (DP) or an aerosol (AE).
In preferred embodiment of the present invention, the formulation is Suspension Concentrate (SC), Suspo-emulsion (SE), oil dispersion (OD), Water dispersible granules (WDG), Granules (GR) and Wettable powders (WP).
In yet another embodiment of the present invention, the agrochemically acceptable excipients of the formulation are selected from the group consisting of Emulsifiers dispersing agents, wetting agents, antifoaming agents, Rheology modifiers, binding agents, solvents, inert carrier, pH Modifiers, Super-Wetting-spreading-penetrating agent, Stabilizing agents, anti-freezing agent and coloring agents.
Emulsifiers is selected from the group comprising of, but not limited to ethoxylatedpropoxylated alcohols, alkylphenol ethoxylates, alkoxylatedtristyrylphenols, calcium dodecyl benzenesulfonate, mixture of fatty acid polyethylene glycol ester, ethoxylated propoxylatedpolyaryl phenol, ethoxylated fatty acids, fatty alcohol ethoxylates, ethoxylatedricinoleic acid triglycerides, sorbitan trioleate, tridecyl alcohol ethoxylate, castor oil ethoxylate, alkoxylated phosphate ester or mixtures thereof; These binders or adhesive imparting agents may be used alone or in combination thereof. The Emulsifiers is present in an amount of from 0.1% to 20.0% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Dispersing agent is selected from the group comprising of, but not limited to polymeric ester dispersant, ethoxylated polyarylphenol phosphate ester, sodium salt of naphthalene sulfonate condensate/naphthalene sulphonic acid condensate, acrylic copolymer,nonionic proprietary surfactant blend, polycarboxylates, calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, aryl sulphonate condensate,sodium lignosulphonate, dispertox BS SPL,polystyrenatedacrylated co-polymer, modified styrene acrylic copolymer, salts of phenol sulfonic acids, Terwet 2700,butyl polyalkylene oxide block co-polymer, mixture of tristyrylphenolethoxylates and polyalkylene oxide derivative of a synthetic alcohol, random co-polymer of alcoxylated polyethylene glycol or mixtures thereof; The Dispersing agent is present in an amount of from 0.1% to 20.0% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Super-Wetting-spreading-penetrating agent is blend of methylated seed oil-organic silicone compound may be selected from methylated seed oil-polyalkyleneoxide modified trisiloxane, methylated seed oil-polyalkyleneoxide modified polydimethylsiloxane, methylated seed oil-20 trisiloxane ethoxylate, Polyalkyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane methylated seed oil-polyoxyethylene methyl polysiloxane, methylated seed oil-polyether polymethyl siloxane copolymer, methylated seed oil-polyether modified polysiloxane. The Super-wetting-spreading-penetrating agent is present in an amount of from 0.1% to 5.0% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Wetting agent is selected from the group comprising of, but not limited to sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate, alpha olefin sulfonates, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, diisodecyl sodium sulfosuccinate, alkyl sulfosuccinic monoesters, dioctyl sulfosuccinate sodium salt, sulfonic acids C14-16-alkane hydroxy and C14-16-alkene sodium salts, polyoxyethylenesorbitanmonooleate, polyoxyethylene ether or mixtures thereof. The wetting agent is present in an amount of from 0.1% to 15.0% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Antifoaming agent is selected from the group comprising of, but not limited to polydimethyl siloxane, polydimethyl siloxane emulsion or mixtures thereof; The Antifoaming agent is present in an amount of from 0.01% to 5.0% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Rheology modifier is selected from the group comprising of, but not limited to precipitated silica, fumed silica, modified fumed silica, bentonite, hydroxymethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, xanthan gum, thickening silica, hydrated clay minerals, magnesium aluminium silicates, organic derivative of hectorite clay, hydrophobic fumed silica, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) or mixture thereof; The Rheology modifier is present in an amount of from 0.1% to 20.0% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Solvents is selected from the group comprising of, but not limited to Demineralized (DM) water, N-alkyl-pyrrolidone, oil medium selected from the group comprising, esterified fatty acids selected from methyl and/or ethyl ester of vegetable oil such as methyl soyate, ethyl soyate, rapeseed methyl ester, rapeseed ethyl ester or mixtures thereof. The Solvents is present in an amount of from 0% to 95% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Anti freezing agents is selected from the group comprising of, but not limited to selected from the group comprising of ethylene glycol, propane-1,2-diol, propane-1,2,3-triol, urea or mixtures thereof. The Anti freezing agents is present in an amount of from 0% to 15% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Stabilizing agents is selected from the group comprising of, but not limited to selected from the group comprising of epoxidized soyabean oil, butylated hydroxy toluene, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, sodium benzoate, etc. or mixtures thereof. The Stabilizing agents is present in an amount of from 0% to 5% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Biocide is selected from the group but not limited to 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one, formaldehyde, dipropyl glycol solution of 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one. The Biocide is present in an amount of 0% to 3.0% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
pH Stabilizers selected from the group comprising of sodium pyrophosphate, sodium acetate, sodium oxalate, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, trisodium phosphate, citric acid, trisodium citrate, monoethanol amine, triethanol amine, triethylamine, dibasic esters selected from dimethyl succinate, dimethyl glutarate, dimethyl adipate, ortho phosphoric acid, oxalic acid, citric acid, hydrochloric acid. The pH Stabilizers is present in an amount of from 0.01% to 10.0% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
PH modifiers is selected from the group comprising of, but not limited to selected from the group comprising of sodium pyrophosphate, sodium acetate, sodium oxalate, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, trisodium phosphate, trisodium citrate, monoethanol amine, triethanol amine, triethylamine, dibasic esters selected from dimethyl succinate, dimethyl glutarate, dimethyl adipate, ortho phosphoric acid, oxalic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, hydrochloric acid or mixtures thereof. The PH modifier is present in an amount of from 0% to 5% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Inert carrier is selected from the group comprising of kaolin, china clay, alumina, talc, chalk, quartz, attapulgite, montmorillonite, crushed and fractionated natural minerals such as calcite, marble, pumice, dextrin, precipitated silica, sepiolite, bentonite, river sand, white sand, zeolites, starch, sand, talc, quartz, dolomite, diatomaceous earth, aluminium oxide, silicates, calcium phosphates, calcium hydrogen phosphates, ammonium sulphate or mixtures thereof. The inert carrier is present in an amount of from 0% to 90.0% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Binding agent is selected from the group comprising of polyvinylpyrrolidone aluminium silicate, precipitated silica, fumed silica, diatomaceous earth, glucose polymers: amylose and amylopectin, a branched form, lactose anhydrous, silicic acid, sodium lignosulonate, modified phyllosilicate or mixtures thereof. The binding agent is present in an amount of from 0.1% to 5.0% by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
Coloring agent is selected from the group comprising of dye and pigment. or mixtures thereof. The Coloring agent is present in an amount of from 0.01% to 5.0 % by weight based on a total weight of the composition.
The composition of the present invention is effective for management of insect or pests selected from one or more of Cotton (Gossypium spp.), Paddy (Oryza sativa), Wheat (Triticumaestavum), Barley (Hordeum vulgare), Maize (Zea mays), Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) , Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris), Soybean (Glycin max), Peanut (Arachis hypogaea), Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) , Mustard (Brassica juncea), Rape seed (Brassica napus), Linseed (Linum usitatissimum), Sesame (Sesamum indicum), Castor (Ricinus communis), Green gram (Vigna radiate), Black gram (Vigna mungo), Chickpea (Ciceraritinum), Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), Redgram (Cajanus cajan), Frenchbean (Phaseolus vulgaris), Indian bean (Lablab purpureus), Horse gram (Macrotyloma uniflorum), Field pea (Pisum sativum), Cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba), Lentils (Lens culinaris), Brinjal (Solanum melongena), Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata), Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis), Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus), Onion (Allium cepa L.), Tomato (Solanum lycopersicun) , Potato (Solanum tuberosum) , Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), Chilly (Capsicum annum), Garlic (Allium sativum), Cucumber (Cucumis sativus), Muskmelons (Cucumis melo), Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus), Bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), Bitter gourd (Momordica charantia), Radish (Raphanus sativus), Carrot (Dacus carota subsp. sativus), Turnip (Brassica rapasubsprapa), Apple (Melus domestica), Banana (Musa 25 spp.), Citrus groups (Citrus spp.), Grape (Vitis vinifera), Guava (Psidium guajava), Litchi (Litchi chinensis), Mango (Mangifera indica), Papaya (Carica papaya), Pineapple (Ananas comosus), Pomegranate (Punica granatum) , Sapota (Manilkara zapota), Tea (Camellia sinensis), Coffea (Coffea Arabica), Turmeric (Curcuma longa), Ginger (Zingiber officinale), Cumin (Cuminum cyminum), Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-30 graecum), Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Coriander (Coriandrum sativum), Ajwain (Trachyspermumammi), Psyllium (Plantago ovate), Black Pepper (Piper nigrum), Stevia (Stevia rebaudiana), Safedmusli (Chlorophytum tuberosum), Drum stick (Moringa oleifera), Coconut (Coco nucifera), Mentha ( Mentha spp.), Rose (Rosa spp.), Jasmine (Jasminum spp.), Marigold (Tagetes spp.), Common daisy (Bellis perennis), Dahlia (Dahlia hortnesis), Gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii), Carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus) or GMO form thereof.
In yet another preferred embodiment, the present invention provides a insecticidal combination or composition comprising of Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride, and Chlorantraniliprole to control the pathogenic microorganism on economically important crops such as rice, chilli, apple, peppers, soybean, cotton, chick pea, Brinjal, pigeon pea, Grapes, Apple and pomegranate, tea, potato, and tomato.
The invention is illustrated by the experiments as exemplified below.
Examples:
The examples below are given solely for the purpose of illustration and are not to be construed as limitations of the present invention, as many variations thereof are possible without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
Example 1: Preparation of insecticidal composition as Water dispersible granule (WDG):
In an embodiment, the chemical composition of the present insecticidal is depicted below in Table 1(a) below:
Table 1(a): Insecticidal Compositionfor Water dispersible granule (WDG).
Component Quantity
(% w/w) Function
Etofenprox technical 9.50 Active ingredient
Cartap Hydrochloride technical 60.0 Active ingredient
Chlorantraniliprole technical 3.33 Active ingredient
Sodium lauryl sulphate 3.00 Wetting agent
Sodium salt of naphthalene sulfonate condensate 3.00 Dispersing agent
Polyoxyethylenesorbitanmonooleate 1.00 Wetting agent
Polyoxyethylene Ether 1.00 Wetting agent
Polyalkoxylated butyl ether block co-polymer 1.50 Emulsifier
Ethoxylatedtristyryl phenol 1.50 Emulsifier
Polydimethylsiloxane emulsion 0.50 Antifoaming agent
Tartaric acid 3.00 pH modifier
Citric acid 0.50 pH modifier
Polyvinylpyrrolidone 2.00 Binding agent
Ammonium sulphate 1.00 Inert carrier
Dextrin 5.00 Inert carrier
Precipitated silica 2.00 Inert carrier
Kaolin Q.S Inert carrier

Process for preparing Water dispersible granule (WDG)formulation:
The required amounts of Chlorantraniliprole technical, sodium lauryl sulphate, sodium salt of naphthalene sulfonate condensate, dextrin, tartaric acid, citric acid, polyvinylpyrrolidone, ammonium sulphate, precipitated silica and kaolin were blended with suitable equipment. The mixture was milled with appropriate equipment to form milled Chlorantraniliprole pre-mix. To this milled Chlorantraniliprole pre-mix required amount of Cartap hydrochloride technical, Etofenprox technical, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate, polyoxyethylene ether, polyalkoxylated butyl ether block co-polymer, ethoxylated tristyrylpheno land polydimethylsiloxane emulsion were blended. Then dough was prepared by adding appropriate amount of water. The dough was extruded with the help of a suitable extruder. The extrudes were dried with appropriate equipment. The dried extrude was sieved to form insecticidal composition of Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride and Chlorantraniliprole water dispersible granules.
Example 2: Preparation of insecticidal composition as wettable powder (WP) formulation:
Table-1 (b): Insecticidal Composition of the wettable powder (WP)formulation
Component Quantity
(% w/w) Function
Etofenprox technical 9.50 Active ingredient
Cartap Hydrochloride technical 60.0 Active ingredient
Chlorantraniliprole technical 3.33 Active ingredient
Sodium lauryl sulphate 3.00 Wetting agent
Sodium salt of naphthalene sulfonate condensate 3.00 Dispersing agent
Polyoxyethylenesorbitanmonooleate 1.00 Wetting agent
Polyoxyethylene Ether 1.00 Wetting agent
Polyalkoxylated butyl ether block co-polymer 1.50 Emulsifier
Ethoxylatedtristyrylphenol 1.50 Emulsifier
Polydimethylsiloxane emulsion 0.50 Antifoaming agent
Tartaric acid 3.00 pH modifier
Citric acid 0.50 pH modifier
Ammonium sulphate 1.00 Inert carrier
Dextrin 5.00 Inert carrier
Precipitated silica Balance to 100 Inert carrier

Process for preparing wettable powder (WP) formulation:
The required amounts of Chlorantraniliprole technical, sodium lauryl sulphate, sodium salt of naphthalene sulfonate condensate, dextrin, tartaric acid, citric acid, ammonium sulphate and precipitated silica were blended with suitable equipment. The mixture was milled with appropriate equipment to form milled Chlorantraniliprole pre-mix. To this milled Chlorantraniliprole pre-mix required amount of Cartap hydrochloride technical, Etofenprox technical, polyoxyethylenesorbitanmonooleate, polyoxyethylene ether, polyalkoxylated butyl ether block co-polymer, ethoxylated tristyrylphenol and polydimethyl siloxane emulsion were blended with suitable equipment to form insecticidal composition of Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride and Chlorantraniliprole wettable powder
Example 3: Preparation of insecticidal composition as granules (GR) formulation:
Table-1 (c): Insecticidal Composition of the granules (GR) formulation
Component Quantity
(% w/w) Function
Etofenprox technical 0.95 Active ingredient
Cartap Hydrochloride technical 6.00 Active ingredient
Chlorantraniliprole technical 0.33 Active ingredient
Polyoxyethylenesorbitanmonooleate 1.00 Wetting agent
Polyoxyethylene ether 1.00 Wetting agent
Polyalkoxylated butyl ether block co-polymer 0.50 Emulsifier
Ethoxylatedtristyrylphenol 0.50 Emulsifier
Dye 0.10 Coloring agent
Polyvinylpyrrolidone 0.50 Binding agent
Citric acid 0.50 pH modifier
Precipitated silica 0.30 Inert carrier
China clay 4.00 Inert carrier
White sand Balance to 100 Inert carrier

Process for preparing granules (GR)formulation:
The required amount of white sand was added appropriate mixing vessel. To this polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate, polyoxyethylene ether, polyalkoxylated butyl ether block co-polymer, ethoxylatedt ristyrylphenoland polyvinylpyrrolidone added under mixing. Then Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride and Chlorantraniliprole (pre-grinded), dye, citric acid, china clay and precipitated silica were added and blended with for sufficient time. The material then sieved with suitable sieve to form insecticidal composition of Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride and Chlorantraniliprole granules.
Example 4: Preparation of insecticidal composition as Oil Dispersion (OD) formulation:
Table-1 (d):Insecticidal Composition of Oil Dispersion (OD)formulation.

Component Composition (%w/w) Remark
Etofenprox technical 4.75 Active Ingredient
Cartap Hydrochloride technical 30.0 Active Ingredient
Chlorantraniliprole technical 1.67 Active Ingredient
Castor oil ethoxylate (10 mole) 6.00 Emulsifier
Calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate 2.00 Emulsifier
Mixture of fatty acid polyethylene glycol ester 4.00 Emulsifier
Polymeric ester dispersant 0.5 Dispersing agent
Ethoxylated polyarylphenol phosphate ester 0.5 Dispersing agent
Propane-1,2,3-triol 2.00 Antifreezing Agent
Polyalkyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane 1.00 Super-Wetting-spreading-penetrating agent
Polydimethylsiloxane 0.30 Antifoaming agent
Fumed silica 1.50 Rheology modifier
Citric acid 0.10 pH stabilizer
Bentonite clay 1.50 Rheology modifier
Methyl ester of vegetable oil Balance to 100 Solvent

Process for preparing Oil Dispersion (OD)formulation
In methyl ester of vegetable oil constituents namely, polyalkyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane, polydimethylsiloxane, propane-1,2,3-triol, castor oil ethoxylate(10 mole),calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, ethoxylated polyarylphenol phosphate ester, mixture of fatty acid polyethylene glycol ester and polymeric ester dispersant as mentioned in Table 4were added into the clean pre-mixing vessel fitted with the homogenizer and all the ingredients were mixed for sufficient time with the homogenizer to obtain a mixture. The active ingredients, Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride and Chlorantraniliprole and pH stabilizer were added to the obtained mixture and continued to mix for sufficient time with the homogenizer to obtain a slurry. The slurry was passed through jacketed bead mill with chilled water circulation for particle size reduction to obtain a milled slurry of desirable particle size. The milled slurry was collected into post mixing vessel fitted with the stirrer. To milled slurry bentonite clay and fumed silica were added under stirring into the post mixing vessel and continued to mix for sufficient time up to proper mixing to form insecticidal composition of Etofenprox, Cartap hydrochloride and Chlorantraniliprole oil dispersion (OD) formulation

Stability Data
Stability Study (Accelerated Storage test and low-temperature storage test)
According to the FAO/WHO manual, the “accelerated storage test” is considered as an indicative of product stability. That is, accelerated storage test data provides an indication that the product is stable for at least two years at ambient temperature. Further, the FAO/WHO manual indicates storage at 54 ± 2°C for 14 days as the default test conditions. Further, the FAO/WHO manual indicates low-temperature storage at 0 ± 2°C for 7 days.
The “accelerated storage” is the sample after subjecting the sample to accelerated storage tests at 54±2°C for 14 days.
The insecticidal formulation composition of examples 1 - 3 were found stable after accelerated stability study at 54 ± 2° C for 14 days. The insecticidal formulation composition of example 4 was found stable after accelerated stability study at 54 ± 2° C for 14 days and low temperature at 0 ± 2°C for 7 days.

Example 5:Evaluation of Bioefficacy of an Insecticidal Composition and thereof (Etofenprox + Cartap hydrochloride + Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR)) on paddy against leaf folder and stem borer
Treatments Treatment Composition Dosage/ha a.i. (gm) Dose (ml/gm/ha)
T1 Etofenprox 10% EC 75 750
T2 Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP 500 1000
T3 Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 30 150
T4 Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 75 + 500 + 30 750 + 1000 + 150
T5 Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% 48.40 + 302.50 + 15.40 550
T6 Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% 57.20 + 357.50 + 18.20 650
T7 Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% 66 + 412.50 + 21.00 750
T8 Untreated Check - -

Field trials were conducted to evaluate the effect of different insecticidal combinations, reference products such as solo formulations of Etofenprox 10% EC, Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP and Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC and untreated check (Table 2-4) against rice leaf folder (Cnaphalocrocismedinalis) and stem borer (Scirpophagaincertulas) on paddy. Various insecticidal compositions are presented in Table 2, 3 and 4.
Table 2. Details of treatments applied on paddy against leaf folder and stem borer
Treatments Treatment Composition Dosage/ha a.i. (gm) Dose (ml/gm/ha)
T1 Etofenprox 10% EC 75 750
T2 Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP 500 1000
T3 Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 30 150
T4 Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 75 + 500 + 30 750 + 1000 + 150
T5 Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% 52.25 + 330 + 18.15 550
T6 Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% 61.75 + 390 + 21.45 650
T7 Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% 71.25 + 450 + 24.75 750
T8 Untreated Check - -

Table 3. Details of treatments applied on paddy against leaf folder and stem borer
Treatments Treatment Composition Dosage/ha a.i. (gm) Dose (ml/gm/ha)
T1 Etofenprox 10% EC 75 750
T2 Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP 500 1000
T3 Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 30 150
T4 Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 75 + 500 + 30 750 + 1000 + 150
T5 Etofenprox 9.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 65% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.9% 53.90 + 357.50 + 21.45 550
T6 Etofenprox 9.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 65% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.9% 63.70 + 422.50 + 25.35 650
T7 Etofenprox 9.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 65% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.9% 73.50 + 487.50 + 29.25 750
T8 Untreated Check - -

Details of the experiment:The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design (RBD) with three replications. Throughout the cropping period, all the recommended agronomic practices were followed. Various insecticidal compositions presented in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 were applied on the paddy crop to evaluate the control of rice leaf folder and stem borer. Application was done during the vegetative phase when the insect pests population reached economic threshold level (ETL) which is 10% leaf damage and 10% dead heart in case of rice leaf folder and stem borer, respectively. Knapsack sprayer fitted with a hollow cone nozzle was used for the application. The spray volume used was 500 litres per hectare. Observations were recorded randomly from each replication (10 hills per replication) on 5th, 10th and 15th day after spray (DAS).
Rice leaf folder
For rice leaf folder, 10 plants were randomly tagged in each replication. Total number of leaves and number of leaves damaged were counted. Leaf damage (%) was calculated as follows:
Number of damaged leaves in 10 hills
Leaf damage (%) = ------------------------------------------------ X 100
Total number of leaves in 10 hills
Rice stem borer: For rice stem borer, 10 plants were randomly tagged in each replication. Total number of tillers and number of dead hearts were counted from all the tagged plants. Dead hearts were pulled out after every observation from all the treatments including untreated check. Dead heart (%) was calculated as follows:

Number of dead hearts in infested hills
Dead heart (%) = ------------------------------------------------------ X 100
Total no. of tillers observed in infested hills
Synergistic effect of the different insecticidal compositions
Synergistic effect exists whenever the action of an active ingredient combination is greater than the sum of the actions of the individual components. Synergism was calculated by using Colby’s method. The synergistic action expected for a given combination of three active components was calculated as follows:
{XY+XZ+YZ} + (XYZ)
E = X+Y+Z – ------------------ --------
100 10000
Where, E represents expected percentage of insecticidal control for the combination of the three insecticides at defined doses (for example equal to x, y and z, respectively), X is the percentage of insecticidal control observed by compound (I) at a defined dose (equal to x), Y is the percentage of insecticidal control observed by compound (II) at a defined dose (equal to y), Z is the percentage of insecticidal control observed by compound (III) at a defined dose (equal to z). When the percentage of insecticidal control observed for the combination is greater than the expected percentage, there is a synergistic effect. In the present experiment, to evaluate synergistic impact, mean control of both the pests (% reduction over control) were taken for the insecticidal treatments.

Phytotoxicity observations
For the evaluation of phytotoxicity on paddy crop, observations were made by observing the temporary or long lasting damage to the leaves if any viz., yellowing, wilting, necrosis, epinasty and hyponasty at 5, 10 and 15 DAS of different insecticidal compositions (Table 1, 2 and 3). Crop injury was observed on visual rating from 0-10 scale
Phytotoxicity rating scale
Rating Crop Injury (%) Verbal Description
0 - No symptoms
1 1-10 Verbal slight discoloration
2 11-20 More severe, but not lasting
3 21-30 Moderate and more lasting
4 31-40 Medium and lasting
5 41-50 Moderately heavy
6 51-60 Heavy
7 61-70 Very heavy
8 71-80 Nearly destroyed
9 81-90 Destroyed
10 91-100 Completely destroyed

Table 4. Effect of the insecticidal combination of “Etofenprox 4.9% + Cartap hydrochloride 28% + Chlorantraniliprole 1.7%” on the incidence of leaf folder in paddy:
T. no. Treatment Composition Dosage/ha a.i. (gm) Dose (ml/gm/ha) Leaf Damage (%) Per cent reduction over control Colby’s synergistic
ratio
5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS
T1 Etofenprox 10% EC 75 750 13.60
(21.62) 17.57
(24.78) 22.08
(27.99) 21.28 24.75 22.75 - - -
T2 Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP 500 1000 11.50
(19.77) 15.12
(22.86) 19.76
(26.37) 33.72 35.46 31.30 - - -
T3 Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 30 150 9.56
(18.00) 12.08
(20.21) 15.78
(23.39) 44.37 47.87 45.03 - - -
T4 Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 75 + 500 + 30 750 + 1000 + 150 4.22
(11.87) 5.06
(12.30) 6.76
(14.97) 75.60 78.49 76.47 1.07 1.05 1.08
T5 Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% 48.40 + 302.50 + 15.40 550 7.28
(15.62) 9.20
(17.64) 12.50
(20.66) 57.66 60.55 56.51 0.81 0.81 0.80
T6 Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% 57.20 + 357.50 + 18.20 650 6.75
(15.05) 8.55
(16.85) 11.30
(19.25) 60.87 63.42 60.34 0.86 0.85 0.85
T7 Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% 66 + 412.50 + 21.00 750 6.46
(14.69) 7.97
(16.13) 10.95
(18.37) 62.33 65.87 61.63 0.88 0.88 0.87
T8 Untreated Check - - 17.29
(24.55) 23.37
(28.89) 28.82
(32.45) - - - - -
C.D. 2.04 1.85 1.78 - - - -
SE (m) 0.78 0.63 0.84 - - - -
Figures in parenthesis are arc sine transformed values; DAS: Days After Spray

Results presented in Table 4 showed that incidence of leaf folder reduced in all the treatments. At 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, tank mix formulation of Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC (T4) @ 75+500+30 gm a.i./ha was found as the best treatment in reducing the leaf damage to 4.22, 5.06 and 6.76 %, respectively followed by T7 (Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% @ 66 + 412.50 + 21.00 gm a.i./ha). T7 showed significantly at par results with the treatment T6 and T5 (Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% applied @ 57.20 + 357.50 + 18.20 and 48.40 + 302.50 + 15.40 gm a.i./ha) which were significantly superior in comparison to the solo application of Etofenprox 10% EC @ 75 gm a.i./ha (T1), Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP @ 500 gm a.i./ha (T2) and Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC @ 30 gm a.i./ha (T3). On 10th DAS, per cent reduction in the incidence of leaf folder over control was observed to be 78.49, 65.87, 63.42, 60.55, 47.87, 35.46 and 24.75 in the treatment T4, T7, T6, T5, T3, T2 and T1, respectively. Among the treatments mentioned in Table 5, only tank mix formulation of Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC (T4) applied @ 75+500+30 gm a.i./ha showed synergistic effect. On 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, Colby’s synergistic ratio of 1.07, 1.05 and 1.08 was calculated for treatment T4.

Table 5. Effect of the insecticidal combination of “Etofenprox 6.7% + Cartap hydrochloride 34% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.5%” on the incidence of leaf folder in paddy:
Sr. No. Treatment Composition Dosage/ha a.i. (gm) Dose (ml/gm/ha) Leaf Damage (%) Per cent reduction over control Colby’s synergistic
ratio
5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS
1 Etofenprox 10% EC 75 750 13.61
(21.62) 18.55
(25.48) 21.92
(27.90) 22.52 24.56 21.41 - - -
2 Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP 500 1000 11.97
(20.22) 16.18
(23.69) 18.77
(25.65) 31.86 34.45 32.61 - - -
3 Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 30 150 9.95
(18.33) 13.13
(21.22) 16.04
(23.59) 43.52 46.80 42.37 - - -
4 Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 75 + 500 + 30 750 + 1000 + 150 4.41
(11.21) 5.50
(12.31) 6.61
(14.42) 75.05 77.67 76.25 1.07 1.05 1.10
5 Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% 52.25 + 330 + 18.15 550 5.97
(14.11) 7.85
(16.23) 9.91
(18.56) 65.85 68.13 64.51 0.94 0.92 0.93
6 Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% 61.75 + 390 + 21.45 650 3.26
(10.23) 4.11
(12.00) 5.53
(13.58) 81.51 83.28 80.13 1.16 1.13 1.15
7 Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% 71.25 + 450 + 24.75 750 2.98
(10.20) 3.71
(11.01) 5.24
(12.97) 83.23 85.05 81.29 1.19 1.15 1.17
8 Untreated Check - - 17.62
(24.80) 24.71
(29.79) 27.93
(31.89) - - - - - -
C.D. 1.94 2.21 1.73 - - - - - -
SE (m) 0.77 0.82 0.56 - - - - - -
Figures in parenthesis are arc sine transformed values: DAS: Days After Spray

Mean of observations (% leaf damage), per cent reduction over control and synergistic effect observed from different insecticidal treatments of the insecticidal composition Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% are presented in Table 5. At 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, treatment T6 (Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% @ 61.75 + 390 + 21.45 gm a.i./ha) was found as the best treatment in reducing the leaf damage to 3.26, 4.11 and 5.53 %, respectively. Treatment T4 (Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC @ 75 + 500 + 30 gm a.i./ha) was also reported significantly at par with treatment T6 which were significantly superior in comparison to the solo application of Etofenprox 10% EC @ 75 gm a.i./ha (T1), Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP @ 500 gm a.i./ha (T2) and Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC @ 30 gm a.i./ha (T3).
On 10th DAS, per cent reduction in the incidence of leaf folder over control was observed to be 85.05, 83.28, 77.67, 68.13, 46.80, 34.45 and 24.56 in the treatment T7, T6, T4, T5, T3, T2 and T1, respectively. Among the treatments mentioned in Table 5, treatments T7, T6 and T4 showed synergistic effect. On 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, Colby’s synergistic ratio of 1.16, 1.13 and 1.15 was calculated for treatment T6.

Table 6. Effect of the insecticidal combination of “Etofenprox 7.3% + Cartap hydrochloride 38% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.9%” on the incidence of leaf folder in paddy:
Tr. No. Treatment Composition Dosage/ha a.i. (gm) Dose (ml/gm/ha) Leaf Damage (%) Per cent reduction over control Colby’s synergistic
ratio
5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS
T1 Etofenprox 10% EC 75 750 13.27
(21.34) 17.22
(24.50) 22.58
(28.35) 21.02 24.43 21.15 - - -
T2 Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP 500 1000 11.13
(19.46) 14.56
(22.42) 19.19
(25.96) 33.63 36.20 33.04 - - -
T3 Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 30 150 9.61
(18.03) 12.03
(20.29) 16.04
(23.59) 42.61 47.25 44.16 - - -
T4 Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 75 + 500 + 30 750 + 1000 + 150 4.24
(12.03) 5.24
(12.62) 7.02
(15.49) 74.65 77.19 75.65 1.07 1.04 1.07
T5 Etofenprox 9.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 65% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.9% 53.90 + 357.50 + 21.45 550 3.65
(11.26) 4.44
(11.72) 6.48
(14.88) 78.54 80.41 77.49 1.12 1.08 1.10
T6 Etofenprox 9.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 65% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.9% 63.70 + 422.50 + 25.35 650 2.93
(10.68) 3.57
(11.08) 5.35
(13.91) 82.52 84.24 81.32 1.18 1.13 1.15
T7 Etofenprox 9.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 65% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.9% 73.50 + 487.50 + 29.25 750 2.70
(10.23) 3.31
(10.92) 5.13
(13.47) 83.86 85.42 82.06 1.20 1.15 1.16
T8 Untreated Check - - 16.90
(24.26) 22.97
(28.61) 28.75
(32.41) - - - - - -
C.D. 1.59 1.72 1.85 - - - - - -
SE (m) 0.71 0.59 0.65 - - - - - -
Figures in parenthesis are arc sine transformed values: DAS: Days After Spray

Results presented in Table 6 showed that incidence of leaf folder reduced in all the treatments. At 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, treatment T6 (Etofenprox 9.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 65% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.9% @ 63.70 + 422.50 + 25.35 gm a.i./ha) was found as the best treatment in reducing the leaf damage to 2.93, 3.57 and 5.35 %, respectively. Treatment T4 (Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC @ 75 + 500 + 30 gm a.i./ha) was also reported significantly at par with treatment T6 which were significantly superior in comparison to the solo application of Etofenprox 10% EC @ 75 gm a.i./ha (T1), Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP @ 500 gm a.i./ha (T2) and Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC @ 30 gm a.i./ha (T3). On 10th DAS, per cent reduction in the incidence of leaf folder over control was observed to be 85.42, 84.24, 80.41, 77.19, 47.25, 36.20 and 24.43 in the treatment T7, T6, T5, T4, T3, T2 and T1, respectively. Treatment T6 also showed synergistic effect. On 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, Colby’s synergistic ratio of 1.18, 1.13 and 1.15 was calculated for treatment T6.

Table 7. Effect of the insecticidal combination of “Etofenprox 4.9% + Cartap hydrochloride 28% + Chlorantraniliprole 1.7%” on the incidence of stem borer in paddy:
Tr. No. Treatment Composition Dosage/ha a.i. (gm) Dose (ml/gm/ha) Dead Heart (%) Per cent reduction over control Colby’s synergistic
ratio
5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS
T1 Etofenprox 10% EC 75 750 4.19
(11.77) 4.39
(12.08) 3.76
(11.12) 22.52 27.65 24.84 - - -
T2 Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP 500 1000 2.85
(9.70) 3.14
(10.12) 2.70
(9.38) 43.64 48.74 46.50 - - -
T3 Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 30 150 2.26
(8.58) 2.45
(8.87) 2.01
(8.10) 56.61 59.73 57.35 - - -
T4 Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 75 + 500 + 30 750 + 1000 + 150 0.91
(4.04) 1.01
(4.19) 0.95
(4.11) 81.48 83.26 80.27 1.01 0.98 0.97
T5 Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% 48.40 + 302.50 + 15.40 550 2.03
(8.11) 2.06
(8.15) 1.75
(7.59) 63.14 66.70 64.20 0.78 0.78 0.77
T6 Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% 57.20 + 357.50 + 18.20 650 1.51
(6.98) 1.66
(7.34) 1.42
(6.72) 69.25 72.67 70.60 0.85 0.85 0.85
T7 Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% 66 + 412.50 + 21.00 750 1.52
(6.72) 1.58
(6.86) 1.41
(6.54) 71.24 74.23 72.46 0.88 0.87 0.87
T8 Untreated Check - - 5.51
(13.48) 6.10
(14.29) 4.97
(12.84) - - - - - -
C.D. 1.94 2.06 1.78 - - - - - -
SE (m) 0.70 0.71 0.61 - - - - - -
Figures in parenthesis are arc sine transformed values; DAS: Days After Spray
Dead hearts were pulled out after every observation from all the treatments including control

Results presented in Table 7 showed that incidence of rice stem borer reduced in all the treatments. At 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, tank mix formulation of Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC (T4) @ 75+500+30 gm a.i./ ha was found as the best treatment in reducing the incidence of stem borer to 0.91, 1.01 and 0.95 %, respectively followed by T6 (Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% @ 57.20 + 357.50 + 18.20 gm a.i./ha). T7 showed significantly at par results with the treatment T6 and T5 (Etofenprox 8.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 55% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.8% applied @ 57.20 + 357.50 + 18.20 and 48.40 + 302.50 + 15.40 gm a.i./ha) which were significantly superior in comparison to the solo application of Etofenprox 10% EC @ 75 gm a.i./ha (T1), Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP @ 500 gm a.i./ha (T2) and Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC @ 30 gm a.i./ha (T3). On 10th DAS, per cent reduction in the incidence of stem borer over control was observed to be 83.26, 74.23, 72.67, 66.70, 59.73, 48.74 and 27.65 in the treatment T4, T7, T6, T5, T3, T2 and T1, respectively. Among the treatments mentioned in Table 8, only tank mix formulation of Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC (T4) applied @ 75+500+30 gm a.i./ha showed synergistic effect. On 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, Colby’s synergistic ratio of 1.01, 0.98 and 0.97 was calculated for treatment T4.

Table 8 . Effect of the insecticidal combination of “Etofenprox 6.7% + Cartap hydrochloride 34% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.5%” on the incidence of stem borer in paddy:
Tr. No. Treatment Composition Dosage/ha a.i. (gm) Dose (ml/gm/ha) Dead Heart (%) Per cent reduction over control Colby’s synergistic
ratio
5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS
T1 Etofenprox 10% EC 75 750 4.25
(11.89) 3.66
(11.01) 4.71
(12.53) 23.54 26.90 24.59 - - -
T2 Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP 500 1000 3.05
(9.95) 2.53
(9.12) 3.41
(10.62) 43.05 48.71 45.54 - - -
T3 Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 30 150 2.34
(8.74) 2.02
(8.13) 2.72
(9.47) 55.34 59.34 56.72 - - -
T4 Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 75 + 500 + 30 750 + 1000 + 150 0.97
(5.64) 0.81
(4.98) 1.19
(5.96) 81.97 84.17 80.86 1.02 0.99 0.98
T5 Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% 52.25 + 330 + 18.15 550 1.53
(7.06) 1.25
(6.52) 1.58
(7.21) 73.07 76.05 74.36 0.91 0.90 0.90
T6 Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% 61.75 + 390 + 21.45 650 0.67
(4.28) 0.51
(3.85) 0.74
(4.89) 87.15 90.15 88.02 1.08 1.06 1.07
T7 Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% 71.25 + 450 + 24.75 750 0.58
(3.85) 0.40
(3.46) 0.60
(3.91) 89.07 91.80 90.37 1.11 1.08 1.10
T8 Untreated Check - - 5.69
(13.72) 5.14
(13.03) 6.25
(14.46) - - - - - -
C.D. 1.63 1.80 1.71 - - - - - -
SE (m) 0.63 0.57 0.58 - - - - - -
Figures in parenthesis are arc sine transformed values; DAS: Days After Spray
Dead hearts were pulled out after every observation from all the treatments including control

Mean of observations (% dead heart), per cent reduction over control and synergistic effect observed from different insecticidal treatments of the present invention (Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3%) are presented in Table 8. At 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, treatment T6 (Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% @ 61.75 + 390 + 21.45 gm a.i./ha) was found as the best treatment in reducing the incidence of stem borer to 0.67, 0.51 and 0.74 %, respectively. Treatment T6 (Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC @ 75 + 500 + 30 gm a.i./ha) was also reported significantly at par with treatment T6 which were significantly superior in comparison to the solo application of Etofenprox 10% EC @ 75 gm a.i./ha (T1), Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP @ 500 gm a.i./ha (T2) and Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC @ 30 gm a.i./ha (T3).
On 10th DAS, per cent reduction in the incidence of stem borer over control was observed to be 91.80, 90.15, 84.17, 76.05, 59.34, 48.71 and 26.90 in the treatment T7, T6, T4, T5, T3, T2 and T1, respectively. Among the treatments mentioned in Table 8, treatments T7, T6 and T4 showed synergistic effect. On 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, Colby’s synergistic ratio of 1.08, 1.06 and 1.07 was calculated for treatment T6.

Table 9. Effect of the insecticidal combination of “Etofenprox 7.3% + Cartap hydrochloride 38% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.9%” on the incidence of stem borer in paddy:
Tr. No. Treatment Composition Dosage/ha a.i. (gm) Dose (ml/gm/ha) Dead Heart (%) Per cent reduction over control Colby’s synergistic
ratio
5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS
T1 Etofenprox 10% EC 75 750 4.51
(11.98) 4.13
(11.70) 3.95
(11.43) 22.38 25.87 23.22 - - -
T2 Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP 500 1000 3.10
(9.91) 2.85
(9.67) 2.80
(9.62) 44.77 48.40 45.79 - - -
T3 Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 30 150 2.55
(9.07) 2.26
(8.63) 2.19
(8.50) 56.58 59.35 57.04 - - -
T4 Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC 75 + 500 + 30 750 + 1000 + 150 1.05
(5.53) 0.86
(5.24) 0.97
(5.41) 81.65 84.78 81.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
T5 Etofenprox 9.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 65% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.9% 53.90 + 357.50 + 21.45 550 0.84
(5.20) 0.70
(4.96) 0.77
(5.05) 85.65 87.43 84.83 1.05 1.04 1.03
T6 Etofenprox 9.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 65% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.9% 63.70 + 422.50 + 25.35 650 0.59
(4.67) 0.47
(4.43) 0.58
(4.64) 89.68 91.51 88.42 1.10 1.08 1.08
T7 Etofenprox 9.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 65% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.9% 73.50 + 487.50 + 29.25 750 0.53
(4.55) 0.44
(4.36) 0.46
(4.39) 90.89 92.08 90.94 1.12 1.09 1.11
T8 Untreated Check - - 5.85
(13.96) 5.62
(13.70) 5.17
(13.12) - - - - - -
C.D. 1.85 1.63 1.71 - - - - - -
SE (m) 0.60 0.53 0.56 - - - - - -
Figures in parenthesis are arc sine transformed values; DAS: Days After Spray
Dead hearts were pulled out after every observation from all the treatments including control

Results presented in Table 9 showed that incidence of stem borer reduced in all the treatments. At 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, treatment T6 (Etofenprox 9.8% + Cartap hydrochloride 65% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.9% @ 63.70 + 422.50 + 25.35 gm a.i./ha) was found as the best treatment in reducing the incidence of stem borer to 0.59, 0.47 and 0.58 %, respectively. Treatment T4 (Etofenprox 10% EC + Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP + Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC @ 75 + 500 + 30 gm a.i./ha) was also reported significantly at par with treatment T6 which were significantly superior in comparison to the solo application of Etofenprox 10% EC @ 75 gm a.i./ha (T1), Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP @ 500 gm a.i./ha (T2) and Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC @ 30 gm a.i./ha (T3). On 10th DAS, per cent reduction in the incidence of stem borer over control was observed to be 92.08, 91.51, 87.43, 84.78, 59.35, 48.40 and 25.87 in the treatment T7, T6, T5, T4, T3, T2 and T1, respectively. Treatment T6 also showed synergistic effect. On 5th, 10th and 15th DAS, Colby’s synergistic ratio of 1.10, 1.08 and 1.08 was calculated for treatment T6.
Phytotoxicity observations
Various insecticidal compositions of the present invention provided good control of rice leaf folder and rice stem borer as compared to the reference products. Further, the use of these insecticidal compositions resulted in better crop condition i.e. fresh green leaves and didn’t produce any phytotoxic symptoms on the plants. Table 10-12 depicts the phytotoxic effects of the various insecticidal compositions of the present invention on paddy at 5th, 10th and 15th DAS.

Table 10: Phytotoxic effects of the insecticidal combination of “Etofenprox 4.9% + Cartap hydrochloride 28% + Chlorantraniliprole 1.7%” on paddy
Treatments Phytotoxicity rating
Yellowing Wilting Necrosis Epinasty Hyponasty
Days After Spray
5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 11: Phytotoxic effects of the insecticidal combination of “Etofenprox 6.7% + Cartap hydrochloride 34% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.5%” on paddy
Treatments Phytotoxicity rating
Yellowing Wilting Necrosis Epinasty Hyponasty
Days After Spray
5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 12: Phytotoxic effects of the insecticidal combination of “Etofenprox 7.3% + Cartap hydrochloride 38% + Chlorantraniliprole 2.9%” on paddy
Treatments Phytotoxicity rating
Yellowing Wilting Necrosis Epinasty Hyponasty
Days After Spray
5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conclusion
Among all the three insecticidal combinations evaluated, Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% provided good control of rice leaf folder and rice stem borer. Efficacy of Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% @ 61.75 + 390 + 21.45 and 71.25 + 450 + 24.75 gm a.i./ha (T6 and T7) showed synergistic effect in controlling rice leaf folder and rice stem borer. There was no significant difference in the results obtained from the use of Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3% @ 61.75 + 390 + 21.45 and 71.25 + 450 + 24.75 gm a.i./ha (T6 and T7). Solo applications of Etofenprox 10% EC at the rate of 75 gm a.i./ha, Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP at the rate of 500 g a.i./ha and Chlorantraniliprole 18.50% SC at the rate of 30 gm a.i./ha showed less per cent reduction in the incidence of leaf damage (%) and dead heart (%) caused by rice leaf folder and rice stem borer, respectively in comparison to the aforementioned synergistic insecticidal composition (Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartaphydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3%). This can be because each component of the aforementioned synergistic insecticidal composition (Etofenprox 9.5% + Cartap hydrochloride 60% + Chlorantraniliprole 3.3%) is complementary to each other which showed a strong synergistic effect in controlling rice leaf folder and rice stem borer.
, Claims:1. An insecticidal composition comprising a synergistic combination of-
a. Etofenprox in an amount ranging from 0.1% to 30.0% by weight;
b. Cartap hydrochloride is present in an amount ranging from 0.1% to 75.0% by weight;
c. Chlorantraniliprole is present in an amount ranging from 0.1% to 30.0% by weight; and
d. agrochemical acceptable excipient.
2. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the agrochemically acceptable excipient is Emulsifier, Dispersing agent,wettng agent, Super-Wetting-spreading-penetrating agent, Antifreezing Agent, Adjuvant, Antifoaming agent, Rheology modifier, inert carrier coloring agent, pHmodferpH stabilizer, Solvent and Binding agent.
3. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the formulation is selected from a oil dispersion (OD), Granules (GR), water-dispersible granule (WDG), or wettable powder (WP).
4. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the emulsifier is in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 20.0% by weight, selected from selected from but not limited to ethoxylatedpropoxylated alcohols, alkylphenolethoxylates, alkoxylatedtristyrylphenols, calcium dodecylbenzenesulfonate,Polyalkoxylated butyl ether block co-polymer, ethoxylatedpropoxylatedpolyaryl phenol, ethoxylated fatty acids, fatty alcohol ethoxylates, ethoxylatedricinoleic acid triglycerides, sorbitan trioleate, tridecyl alcohol ethoxylate, castor oil ethoxylate, alkoxylated phosphate ester.
5. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dispersing agent is in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 20.0% by weight, selected from selected from but not limited to polymeric ester dispersants, ethoxylated polyarylphenolphosphate esters, or sodium salt of naphthalene sulfonatecondensate, acrylic copolymer,nonionic proprietary surfactant blend, polycarboxylates, calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, sodium lignosulphonate, polystyrenatedacrylated co-polymer, modified styrene acrylic copolymer, salts of phenol sulfonic acids, butyl polyalkylene oxide block co-polymer, mixture of tristyrylphenolethoxylates and polyalkylene oxide derivative of a synthetic alcohol,random co-polymer of alcoxylated polyethylene glycol.
6. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wetting agent is in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 15.0% by weight, selected from selected from but not limited to sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate, alpha olefin sulfonates, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, diisodecyl sodium sulfosuccinate, alkyl sulfosuccinic monoesters, dioctyl sulfosuccinate sodium salt, sulfonic acids C14-16-alkane hydroxy and C14-16-alkene sodium salts, polyoxyethylenesorbitanmonooleate, polyoxyethylene ether .
7. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the antifoaming agent is in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 5.0% by weight, selected from selected from but not limited topolydimethylsiloxane or polydimethyl siloxane emulsion.
8. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the rheology modifier is in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 20.0% by weight, selected from precipitated silica, fumed silica, modified fumed silica, bentonite clay, Rhodopol 23, hydroxymethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, xanthan gum, thickening silica, hydrated clay minerals, magnesium aluminium silicates, organic derivative of hectorite clay, hydrophobic fumed silica, polyvinylpyrrolidone.
9. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the solvent component in an amount ranging from 0 to 95.0% of the composition by weight, selected from selected from but not limited to demineralized water or oil media, wherein, oil medium selected from the group comprising, esterified fatty acids selected from methylethyl ester ofvegetable oil triglycerides containing C12–C22 saturated and unsaturated fatty acid.
10. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein theantifreezing agent is in an amount ranging from 0 to 15% by weight, selected from but not limited to ethylene glycol or propane-1,2-diol or propane-1,2,3-triol, urea.
11. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein biocideisin an amount ranging from 0 to 3% by weight selected from the group but not limited to 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one, formaldehyde, dipropyl glycol solution of 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one .
12. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stabilizing agent is in an amount ranging from 0 to 5% by weight, selected from but not limited to epoxidized soyabean oil, butylated hydroxy toluene, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid.
13. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Binding agent is in an amount of from 0.1 to 5.0% by weightselected from the group comprising of polyvinylpyrrolidone aluminium silicate, precipitated silica, fumed silica, diatomaceous earth, glucose polymers: amylose and amylopectin, a branched form, lactose anhydrous, silicic acid, sodium lignosulonate, modified phyllosilicate
14. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pH modifier is in an amount ranging from 0 to 5% by weight, selected from but not limited to sodium pyrophosphate, sodium acetate, sodium oxalate, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, trisodium phosphate, citric acid, trisodium citrate, monoethanol amine, triethanol amine, triethylamine, dibasic esters selected from dimethyl succinate, dimethyl glutarate, dimethyl adipate, ortho phosphoric acid, oxalic acid, citric acid, hydrochloric acid.
15. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein inert carrier is in an amount ranging from 0 to 90% by weight selected from the group but not limited to kaolin, china clay, dextrin, alumina, talc, chalk, quartz, attapulgite, montmorillonite, crushed and fractionated natural minerals such as calcite, marble, pumice, precipitated silica, sepiolite, bentonite, river sand, white sand, zeolites, starch, sand, talc, quartz, dolomite, diatomaceous earth, aluminium oxide, silicates, calcium phosphates, calcium hydrogen phosphates, ammonium sulphate .
16. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pH Stabilizers is in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 10% by weight selected from the group comprising of sodium pyrophosphate, sodium acetate, sodium oxalate, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, trisodium phosphate, citric acid, trisodium citrate, monoethanol amine, triethanol amine, triethylamine, dibasic esters selected from dimethyl succinate, dimethyl glutarate, dimethyl adipate, ortho phosphoric acid, oxalic acid, citric acid, hydrochloric acid.
17. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Super-Wetting-spreading-penetrating is in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 5.0% by weight is blend of methylated seed oil-organic silicone compound may be selected from methylated seed oil-polyalkyleneoxide modified trisiloxane, methylated seed oil-polyalkyleneoxide modified polydimethylsiloxane, methylated seed oil-20 trisiloxane ethoxylate, Polyalkyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane methylated seed oil-polyoxyethylene methyl polysiloxane, methylated seed oil-polyether polymethyl siloxane copolymer, methylated seed oil-polyether modified polysiloxane.

18. The insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the coloring agent is in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 5.0 % by weight is selected from dye and pigment.
19. The process of preparation of an insecticidal composition as claimed in claim 1, the process comprising: preparation of the said composition with agriculturally acceptable excipients.