Form - 2
THE PATENTS ACT, 1970
(39 of 1970 )
COMPLETE SPECIFICATION
( See Section 10 )
1. A SYNERGISTIC INSECTICIDAL COMPOSITION OF CYPERMETHRIN AND QUINALPHOS.
2. We United Phosphorus Ltd., a company incorporated under the
Companies Act,1956 and having its reigstered office at 3-11, GIDC,
Vapi - 396 195, State of Gujarat, India and having its office at Uniphos
House, C.D.Marg, Khar (West), Mumbai - 400 052, State of
Maharashtra, India.
The following specification particularly describes and ascertain the nature of this invention and the manner in which it is to be performed :
GRANTED
18-11-2005


ORIGINAL
569/MUM/2000
21/06/2000

The present invention relates to insecticidal composition with synergistic effects of two active insecticides Cypermethrin and Quinalphos.
The protection of crops and its produce from insect pest damage is essential in agriculture produce enhancement. To help combat these problems, various chemicals and its formulations were invented in effective management of pests.
Insecticides of many types and groups are reported in the literature and a large number are commercially in use for effective control of pests in agriculture.
In many cases, active insecticides have shown more effectiveness in combination than when
applied individually. Since the combination demonstrates a potency and activity level
exceeding that, which might be expected, from a mere addition of the individual potencies
of the components, are there by called as 'synergism'. The present invention highlights the
synergistic effect of combination of two known active insecticides "Cypermethrin" and
"Quinalphos". Both individual insecticides, forming this combination, which is the subject
of this invention are known to be potent insecticides, for their activity independent of each
other.
In modern agriculture scenario, where insect has attained resistance, due to indiscriminate and non-judicious use of pesticide, in view to manage insect pests for a desire of higher yields and those insects which are hard to kill by the existing commercial insecticides solely and in cyclic spray mixtures, warrents invention of a potent synergistic insecticidal composition.
Cypermethrin and Quinalphos in a synergistic composition has a higher potentiation, as insecticide, and is highly effective in controlling insect pests including even hard to kill pests. The synergic composition gives a quick knockdown kill of the pests. It is comparatively more persistant. It penetrates deep in leaves, killing many internal feeders. It is strongly active as a contact and stomach insecticide. It is especially a potent lethal weapon to kill, hard-to-kill, resistance insect pests, which are normally not controlled by other insecticides.

The name 'Cypermethrin', an insecticide, belongs to synthetic pyrethroid group describes a chemical substance having a solubility in water of 0.004 mg/I (at pH7); corresponds to a mixture of cis and trans isomers having following formula :

(RS> o- cyano-3-phenoxybeiuyl (IRS, 3RS; IRS, 3SR)-3-(2,2-2,2-dlmethylcyclopropanecarboxylate.
So being almost insoluble in water, it is soluble in acetone, chloroform, cyclohexanone, xylene >450 (g/1); ethanol 337 (g/1), hexane 103 (g/1) at 20°C.
'Quinalphos' an organophosphorus group insecticide, identifies a compound corresponds to
the formula.

It has a solubility in water of 17.8 mg/1 (22-23°C) with m.p. 31-32°C. It is readily soluble in toluene, xylene, diethyl ether, ethyl acetate, acetone, acetonitrile, methanol, ethanol etc. It is known as Kinalux, Ekalux etc.
Both of these compounds are capable of controlling a large spectrum of insects especially Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera and other class in fruits, vegetables, ornamentals etc. Cypermethrin is distinguished for its sudden shock effect alongwith good residual activity on treated plants. Quinalphos when penetrates in the plant tissues through translamina action, exhibits a quick knock-down effect to control internal feeders of leaf and is also a cholinesterase inhibitor.

In the present invention, the two effects i.e. residual activity and action after penetration through translamina in plant tissue, are synergically combined into a formulation of improved (high yielding) efficiency assuming that the dosage (mass of active ingredients per hectare) significantly lesser than that required, when these two components are utilised separately, under identical conditions, and also reduces the chances of resistance development (which will result when a single active ingredient is used for a long time and in high doses). It is also providing a ready to use, compatible Plant-mix in an effective synergistic composition along with the improved in insecticidal activity.
The present invention provides a synergistic composition of "Cypermethrin" and "Quinalphos" with solvent and emulsifier(s).
p
The preliminary pilot trials of various strength of Cypermethrin and Quinalphos carried to find out the composition, of Cypermethrin + Quinalphos, which exhibits optimum synergistic value. The process for preparing this mixture comprises the dissolution of Cypermethrin and Quinalphos with solvent to form a uniform homogeneous mixture, using a simple stirrer for several minutes, and then the required quantity of emulsifier was added; a further stirring and mixing for few minutes makes the product in a ready-to-use emulsifiable concentrate (EC).
The invention is illustrative by the follwoing examples.

Example-1
The formulation was developed, containing Cypermethrin 2.5% + Quinalphos 15.0% (w/w) EC , as follows :
Cypermethrin 2.5% + Quinalphos 15.0% EC (w/w)
Cypermethrin @ 92.0% 2.72 % w/w
Quinalphos @ 70.0% 21.43% w/w
Emulsifier Ca-alkyl aryl sulfonate(anionic) 10.00 % w/w
& Polyoxyethylene ether(nonionic)
Solvent Dimethyl Benzene 65.85 % w/w
Total 100.00 % w/w
METHOD
65.85 g of Solvent was taken in a glass vessel, equipped with the stirrer. With continuous stirring 21.43 g of Quinalphos Tech. was added gradually. After the completion of Quinalphos addition, 2.72 g of Cypermethrin(pre-heated) was gradually added and the whole mass was continuously stirred for 10 to 15 minutes. After this, the addition of 10.0 g surfactant completed and agitation was continued for half an hour to make the bulk homogeneous, which provides the emulsifiable concentrate (EC) as the final stage product.
Example-2
The formulation was developed, containing Cypermethrin 2.5 % + Quinalphos 20.0 % (w/w) EC, as follows :
Cypermethrin 2.5 % + Quinalphos 20.0 % EC (w/w)
Cypermethrin @ 92.0% 2.72 % w/w
Quinalphos @ 70.0% 28.57 % w/w
Emulsifier Ca-alkyl aryl sulfonate(anionic) 10.00 % w/w
& Polyoxyethylene ether(nonionic)
Solvent Dimethyl Benzene 58.71 % w/w
Total 100.00 % w/w

METHOD
58.71 g of Solvent was taken in a glass vessel, equipped with the stirrer. With continuous stirring 28.57 g of Quinalphos Tech. was added gradually. After the completion of Quinalphos addition, 2.72 g of Cypermethrin(pre-heated) was gradually added and the whole mass was continuously stirred for 10 to 15 minutes. After this, the addition of 10.00 g surfactant completed and agitation was continued for half an hour to make the bulk homogeneous, which provides the EC as the final stage product.
Example-3
The formulation was developed, containing Cypermethrin 2.5 % + Quinalphos 25.0 % (w/w) EC, as follows:
Cypermethrin 2.5% + Quinalphos 25.0 % EC (w/w)
Cypermethrin @ 92.0% 2.72 % w/w
Quinalphos @ 70.0% 35.72 % w/w
Emulsifier Ca-alkyl aryl sulfonate(anionic) 10.00 % w/w
& Polyoxyethylene ether(nonionic)
Solvent Dimethyl Benzene 51.56 %. w/w
Total 100.00 % w/w
METHOD
51.56 g of Solvent was taken in a glass vessel, equipped with the stirrer. With continuous stirring 35.72 g of Quinalphos Tech. was added gradually. After the completion of Quinalphos addition, 2.72 g of Cypermethrin(pre-heated) was gradually added and the whole mass was continuously stirred for 10 to 15 minutes. After this, the addition of 10.0 g surfactant completed and agitation was continued for half an hour to make the bulk homogeneous, which provides the EC as the final stage product.

Example-4
The formulation was developed, containing Cypermethrin 3.0 % + Quinalphos 15% (w/w) EC, as follows:
Cypermethrin 3.0 % + Quinalphos 15.0% EC (w/w)
Cypermethrin @ 92.0% 3.26 % w/w
Quinalphos @ 70.0% 21.43 % w/w
Emulsifier Ca-alkyl aryl sulfonate(anionic) 10.00 % w/w
& Polyoxyethylene ether(nonionic)
Solvent Dimethyl Benzene 65.31 % w/w
Total 100.00 % w/w
METHOD
65.31 g of Solvent was taken in a glass vessel, equipped with the stirrer. With continuous stirring 21.43 g of Quinalphos Tech. was added gradually. After the completion of Quinalphos addition, 3.26 g of Cypermethrin(pre-heated) was gradually added and the whole mass was continuously stirred for 10 to 15 minutes. After this, the addition of 10.0 g surfactant completed and agitation was continued for half an hour to make the bulk homogeneous, which provides the EC as the final stage product.
Example-5
The formulation was developed, containing Cypermethrin 3.0% + Quinalphos 20.0% (w/w) EC, as follows :
Cypermethrin 3.0% + Quinalphos 20.0% EC (w/w)
Cypermethrin @ 92.0% 3.26 % w/w
Quinalphos @ 70.0% 28.57 % w/w
Emulsifier Ca-alkyl aryl sulfonate(anionic) 10.00 % w/w
& Polyoxyethylene ether(nonionic)
Solvent Dimethyl Benzene 58.17 % w/w
Total 100.00 % w/w

METHOD
58.17 g of Solvent was taken in a glass vessel, equipped with the stirrer. With continuous stirring 28.57 g of Quinalphos Tech. was added gradually. After the completion of Quinalphos addition,3.26 g of Cypermethrin(pre-heated) was gradually added and the whole mass was continuously stirred for 10 to 15 minutes. After this, the addition of 10.0 g surfactant completed and agitation was continued for half an hour to make the bulk homogeneous, which provides the EC as the final stage product.
Example-6
The formulation was developed, containing Cypermethrin 3.0% + Quinalphos 25.0% (w/w) EC, as follows :
Cypermethrin 3.0% + Quinalphos 25.0 % EC (w/w)
Cypermethrin @ 92.0% 3.26 % w/w
Quinalphos @ 70.0% 35.72 % w/w
Emulsifier Ca-alkyl aryl sulfonate(anionic) 10.00 % w/w
& Polyoxyethylene ether(nonionic)
Solvent Dimethyl Benzene 51.02 % w/w
Total 100.00 % w/w
METHOD
51.02 g of Solvent was taken in a glass vessel, equipped with the stirrer.With continuous stirring 35.72 g of Quinalphos Tech. was added gradually. After the completion of Quinalphos addition, 3.26 g of Cypermethrin(pre-heated) was gradually added and the whole mass was continuously stirred for 10 to 15 minutes. After this, the addition of 10.0 g surfactant completed and agitation was continued for half an hour to make the bulk homogeneous, which provides the EC as the final stage product.

Example-7
The formulation was developed, containing Cypermethrin3.5% + Quinalphos 15.0% (w/w) EC, as follows :
Cypermethrin 3.5% + Quinalphos 15.0% EC (w/w)
Cypermethrin @ 92.0% 3.81 % w/w
Quinalphos @ 70.0% 21.43 % w/w
Emulsifier Ca-alkyl aryl sulfonate(anionic) 10.00 % w/w
& Polyoxyethylene ether(nonionic)
Solvent Dimethyl Benzene 64.76 % w/w
Total 100.00 % w/w
METHOD
64.76 g of Solvent was taken in a glass vessel, equipped with the stirrer. With continuous stirring 21.43 g of Quinalphos Tech. was added gradually. After the compietion of Quinalphos addition, 3.81 g of Cypermethrin(pre-heated) was gradually added and the whole mass was continuously stirred for 10 to 15 minutes. After this, the addition of 10.0 g surfactant completed and agitation was continued for half an hour to make the bulk homogeneous, which provides the EC as the final stage product.
Example-8
The formulation was developed, containing Cypermethrin 3.5% + Quinalphos 20.0% (w/w) EC, as follows:
Cypermethrin 3.5% + Quinalphos 20.0% EC (w/w)
Cypermethrin @ 92.0% 3.81 % w/w
Quinalphos @ 70.0% 28.57 % w/w
Emulsifier Ca-alkyl aryl sulfonate(anionic) 10.00 % w/w
& Polyoxyethylene ether(nonionic)
Solvent Dimethyl Benzene 57.62 % w/w

Total

100.00 % w/w

METHOD
57.62 g of Solvent was taken in a glass vessel, equipped with the stirrer. With continuous stirring 28.57 g of Quinalphos Tech. was added gradually. After the completion of Quinalphos addition, 3.81 g of Cypermethrin(pre-heated) was gradually added and the whole mass was continuously stirred for 10 to 15 minutes. After this, the addition of 10.0 g surfactant completed and agitation was continued for half an hour to make the bulk homogeneous, which provides the EC as the final stage product.
Example-9
The formulation was developed, containing Cypermethrin 3.5% + Quinalphos 25.0% (w/w) EC, as follows :
Cypermethrin 3.5% + Quinalphos 25.0% EC (w/w)
Cypermethrin @ 92.0% 3.81 % w/w
Quinalphos @ 70.0% 35.72 % w/w
Emulsifier Ca-alkyl aryl sulfonate(anionic) 10.00 % w/w
& Polyoxyethylene ether(nonionic)
Solvent Dimethyl Benzene 50.47 % w/w
Total 100.00 % w/w
METHOD
50.47 g of Solvent was taken in a glass vessel, equipped with the stirrer. With continuous stirring 35.72 g of Quinalphos Tech. was added gradually. After the completion of Quinalphos addition, 3.81 g of Cypermethrin(pre-heated) was gradually added and the whole mass was continuously stirred for 10 to 15 minutes. After this, the addition of 10.0 g surfactant completed and agitation was continued for half an hour to make the bulk homogeneous, which provides the EC as the final stage product.

:
SYNERGISM
Example-10 - Table-1
In the table set forth below, the results of a series of tests are indicated which shows synergistic activity between the two classes of compounds which make up the composition of the present invention.
The effects is observed by comparing the extent of fruit damage on number basis and weight basis in the test fields treated with insecticidal combination of the invention against that occuring in untreated or fields with compounds individually. The crop considered was Brinjal and insect was shoot and fruit borer of Brinjal. "Leucinodes orbonalis"
Test-1.
Details of experiment .(Sight-1)

a) Test layout
b) Replications
c) Treatments
d) Plot size
e) Spacing
0 Variety
g) Crop
h) Application time
I) Application rate

Randomised Block Design
Three
Seven
3.75 x6m2 = 22.5m2
0.75 x 0.6 m2
Composite - 2
Brinjal
a) First Treatment imposed at peak
level of pest incidence.
b) Second spraying done after 15
days of first treatment.
2.25 litres per plot.
= (10001 /ha spray volume).

j) Untreated control plots were sprayed with the same quantity of water (without
insecticide) only.

k)

Pest

"Leucinodes orbonalis" (Gueen) (Shoot and fruit borer of Brinjal)

Method of Observation:
Treatment were imposed at the peak level of pest incidence. Observations on damage by shoot and fruit borer, one day before, three days after and seven days after spraying on number basis, were made. The damages was also recorded on weight basis, seven days after treatment imposition.
After fifteen days of first treatment imposition, second spraying as per the treatments was made and observations were recorded in the same manner in Table-1..
Example-11 - Table-2
Test -2

Details of experiment

(Sight-2)

a) Test layout Randomised Block Design.
b) Replications Three
i
c) Treatments Seven
d) Plot size 3.75 x 6 m2 = 22.5 m2
e) Spraying 0.75 x 0.6 m2
f Variety Composite - 2 (as used at sight-1).
g) Crop Brinjal.
h) Application time a. First treatment imposed at peak
level of pest incidence.
b. Second spraying done after 15
first treatment.
I) Application Rate 2.25 litres per plot = (10001/ha spray volume).
J) Untreated control plots were sp rayed with the same quantity of water (without
insecticides) only

Method of Observation:
Treatment were imposed at the peak level of pest incidence. Observations on damage by shoot and fruit borer, one day before, three days after and seven days after spraying on number basis, were made. The damages was also recorded on weight basis, seven days after treatment imposition.
After fifteen days of first treatment imposition, second spraying as per the treatments was made and observations were recorded in the same manner in Table-2.
Example-12 - Table-3
Test-3
In the table set forth below the results of a series of tests are indicated, which show synergistic activity between two classes of compounds which make up the composition of the present invention.
The effect is observed by comparing the extent of bollworm incidence, for sucking pests population per leaf in the test fields treated with insecticidal combination of the invention against that occuring in untreated and individually treated fields. The crop considered was Cotton and insects were Cotton bollworm and sucking pests.
Sight-1

Details of experiment
a) Test layout
b) Replications
c) Treatment
d) Plot size
e) Variety
0 Crop
g) Application time

Randomised block design.
Three
Eight
4.5 x 4.2 sq.m
DCH-32 hybrid Cotton
Cotton
Five spray
1. Two months after sowing
2. 21 days after first spray
3. 14 days after second spray
4. 10 days after third spray
5. 18 days after fourth spray

:
h) Applicatin rate : Two litres per plot.
i) Untreated control plots were sprayed with the same quantity of water. (i.e. 2 litres
per plot) without insecticides,
j) Number of Cotton pickings : 2
k) Common spray for early sucking pests : 3 sprays on 22nd, 37th, and
48th day after sowing.
Method of Observations
a) Bollworms
Five plants per replication were selected and tagged. The number of fruiting bodies damaged and healthy were recorded. Observations were made one day before spraying and four days after spraying. The percentage of fruiting bodies damaged was computed. Similarly, at picking, the no. of good opening bolls and bad opening bolls on five tagged plants were recorded at each picking and mean per plant was computed in percent
b) Sucking Pests
Five plants per replication were selected and tagged. The no. of aphids, leaf hopper and Whitefly were counted on three leaves from each plant (3,5 and 7th leaf on the main stem from top). Population count was made on one day before spraying and four days after spraying. The mean population per plant was estimated.
Example-13 - TabIe-4
Test-4
In the table set forth below the results of a series of tests are indicated, which show synergistic activity between two classes of compounds which make up the composition of the present invention.
The effect is observed by comapring the extent of bollworm incidence, for sucking pests population per leaf in the test fields treated with insecticidal combination of the invention against that occuring in untreated and individually treated fields. The crop considered was Cotton and insects were Cotton bollworm and sucking pests.

Sight-2 Details of experiment
a) Test layout Randomised block design.
b) Replications Three
c) Treatment Eight
d) Plot size 4.5 x 4.2 sq.m
e) Variety : DH-11 hybrid cotton
f Crop Cotton
g) Application time Six spray
1. Two months after sowing
2. 12 days after first spray
3. 10 days after second spray
4. 14 days after third spray
5. 13 days after fourth spray
6. 14 days after fifth spray
h) Application rate Two litres per plot.
i Untreated control plots were sprayed with the same quantity of w
'. (i.e. 2 litres
per plot) without insecticides,
j) Number of Cotton pickings : 2.
k) Common spray for early sucking pests : 2 sprays on 35th and, 52nd,
day after sowing.
Method of Observations
a) Bollworms
Five plants per replication were selected and tagged. The no. of fruiting bodies damaged and healthy were recorded. Observations were made one day before spraying and four days after spraying. The percentage of fruiting bodies damaged was computed. Similarly, at picking, the no. of good opening bolls and bad opening bolls on five tagged plants were recorded at each picking and mean per plant was computed in percent.
b) Sucking Pests
Five plants per replication were selected and tagged. The no. of aphids, leafhopper and Jassids were counted on three leaves from each plant (3,5 and 7th leaf on the main stem from top). Population count was made on one day before spraying and four days after spraying. The mean population per plant was estimated.

TABLE-1 Sight-1 (Pooled Average Data of Kharif & Summer Efficiency of Cypermethrin + Quinalphos EC Against Brinjal Shoot & Fruit Borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis)
Concentration
% w/w Rate /lit of
Water
sprayed
(ml/1) % Fruit Damage

First Spray Second Spray

Number Basis Wt. Basis Number Basis WtBasis

1DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS
3 DAS 7 DAS

CPN(2.5) + QP(15.0)EC 1.0 48.80 43.60 48.60 40.30 44.60 39.20 35.90
CPN(2.5) + QP(20.0) EC 1.0 47.50 39.80 33.50 36.10 29.60 27.00 29.70
CPN(2.5) + QP(25.0 ) EC 1.0 49.10 32.60 28.30 22.20 22.90 20.50 18.00
CPN(3.0) + QP(15.0)EC 1.0 48.20 35.00 37.00 35.60 32.00 34.10 26.00
CPN(3.0) + QP(20.0) EC 1.0 49.00 30.20 28.40 24.60 23.10 20.70 19.00
CPN(3.0) + QP(25.0)EC 1.0 47.60 28.50 26.90 17.50 22.40 19.70 16.70
CPN(3.5)+QP(15.0)EC 1.0 49.20 38.00 29.20 26.10 26.30 22.80 24.90
CPN(3.5)+ QP(20.0)EC 1.0 48.70 29.10 27.10 24.90 22.40 19.90 18.30
CPN(3.5)+ QP(25.0)EC 1.0 47.90 25.40 23.60 16.30 19.10 16.80 15.00
CPN 10EC 0.5 50.00 43.60 33.90 30.20 43.30 38.90 34.30
QP 25 EC 2.0 50.30 52.90 45.30 46.40 47.70 46.00 47.40
CPN 2.5 1.0 50.20 49.70 49.30 49.80 49.90 49.00 55.80
CPN 3.0 1.0 50.00 49.20 48.70 49.00 48.70 47.80 52.50
CPN 3.5 1.0 50.10 48.70 47.30 47.90 46.50 45.00 48.50
QP15 1.0 50.50 59.98 59.60 57.70 57.00 58.00 60.00
QP20 1.0 50.30 59.00 56.00 54.50 55.00 57.00 55.00
QP25 2.0 50.30 52.90 45.30 46.40 47.70 46.00 47.40
Untreated Control 47.30 55.10 55.70 61.70 54.50 63.90 60.00
Water only
Where DBS : Day before spraying DAS : Day after spraying CPN : Cypermethrin a.i. QP: Quinalphos a.i.

Table - 2-
CPNEC QP EC ML/LTR EXPECTED OBSERVED

% Fruit saved % Fruit damaged % Fruit saved % Fruit damaged

E 100 -E B 100-B

2.5 - 1.0 - - - 55.80
3.0 - 1.0 - - - 52.50
3.5 - 1.0 - - - 48.50
- 15.0 1.0 - - - 60.00
- 20.0 1.0 - - - 55.00
- 25.0 1.0 - - - 47.40
2.5 15.0 1.0 66.5200 33.4800 64.10 35.90 -2.420
2.5 20.0 1.0 69.3100 30.6900 70.30 29.70 0.990
2.5 25.0 1.0 73.5508 26.4492 82.00 18.00 8.449
3.0 15.0 1.0 38.5000 31.5000 74.00 26.00 5.500
3.0 20.0 1.0 71.1250 28.8750 81.00 19.00 9.875
3.0 25.0 1.0 75.1150 24.8850 83.30 16.70 8.185
3.5 15.0 1.0 70.9000 29.1000 75.10 24.90 4.200
3.5 20.0 1.0 73.3250 26.6750 81.70 18.30 8.375
3.5 25.0 1.0 77.0110 22.9890 85.00 15.00 7.989
10.0 - 1.0 - 65.70 34.30
- 25.0 2.0 - 52.60 47.40
Untreated 1.0 - 40.00 60.00



_

■'. ! \ ....... Kharif &

TABLE-2 Slght-2(Pooled Average Data of
Summer
Efficiency of Cypermethrin + Quinalphos EC Against Brinjai Shoot & Fruit Borer
(Leuanodes orbonalis)

i
% Fruit Damage:
Concentration Rate /IK of -■

%w/w Water ."
sprayed First Spray Second Spray
(ml/I) Number Basis . Number Basis
1 DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS Wt. Basis 3 DAS 7 DAS Wt.Basis
CPN(2.5)+ QP(15.0) EC 1.0 52.60 47.90 43.40 50.10 H2.90 43.70 45.90
CPN(2.5)+ QP(20.0) EC 1.0 50.30 44.20 38.70 48.40 40.30 41.10 40.20
CPN(2.5) + QP(25.0) EC 1.0 53.70 37.80 34.40 33.70 30.90 29.20 28.10
CPN(3.0) + QP(15.0)EC 1.0 51.50 40.30 42.30 49.30 44.80 42.00 43.10
CPN(3.0) ♦ QP(20.0) EC 1.0 53.10 35.90 36.30 38.00 35.90 30.80 29.00
CPN(3.0) + QP(25.0) EC 1.0 50.00 34.20 30.40 30.00 30.00 28.00 21.20
CPN(3.5) + QP(15.0)EC 1.0 53.40 43.90 37.10 39.80 29.50 36.20 36.20
CPN(3.5)+QP(20.0)EC 1.0 52.20 35.30 32.60 34.10 40 25.80 24.20
CPN(3.5)+ QP(25.0)EC 1.0 49.20 30.10 28.70 27.40 27.90 26.00 20.40
CPN10EC 0.5 48.00 44.60 34.90 29.80 28.30 28.70 34.90
QP 25 EC 2.0 49.201 47.70 51.10: 39.60 4:38.-50 37.20 39.00
Untreated Control ' 47.80 54.90 60.50; 61.70 54.50 68.90 49.00
Water only

i
Where DBS : Day before spraying
DAS : Day after spraying
CPN: Cypermethrin a.l.
QO: Quinalphos a.l. | •■
18
Table-3 : Bioefficacy of Cypermethrin + Quinalphos (CPN + QP) EC on Cotton bollworm incidence.

Sr
No Concentration % w/w Rate/Ltr of water sprayed (ml/ltr) %
bollworm incidence GOB/plant BOB/ptant

1 CPN(2.5) + QP(I5.0)EC 1.0 26.46 7.86 17.69
2 3 CPN(2 5) + QP(20.0)EC 1.0 18.37 9.01 16.52

CPN(2 5) + QP(25 0) EC l0 13.61 12.70 1437
4 5 CPN(l0) + QPr(i5.0)EC lO 20.86 8.50 17.04

CPN(3 0) + QP (20 0) EC 10 13.82 12.27 14.53
6 CPN(3 0) + QP (25.0) EC 1.0 12.10 1436 12.26
7 CPN (3.5)+ QP (15.0) EC 1.0 15.14 10.25 16.01
8 CPN(3 5) + QP (20.0) EC 1.0 12.62 14.80 11.90
9 CPN(3.5) + QP(25.0)EC 1.0 1123 16 34 10.24
10 CPN 10 EC 10 15.59 10.47 12.80
11 QP 25 EC 1.0 20.41 8.63 14.33
12 Untreated Control - 48.27 3.76 18.09
* GOB- GoodoptmdBeta BOB ■ Bad opcntd BoU CPS » Cyptrmtthrm QP - Qmnalphoi

Table-4 . Bioefficacy of Cypermethrin + Quinalphos (CPN + QP)EC on Cotton bollworm incidence.

Sr
No Concentration % w/w Rate/Ltr of water sprayed (ml/ltr) %
bollworm
incidence GOB/plant BOB/plant

1 CPN(2 5) + QP(15.0)EC 10 2780 6.01 18.46
2 3 CPN(2.5)+ QP (20.0) EC 1.0 19.16 7.07 17.34

CPN(2.5) + QP(25.0)EC 1.0 15.43 10.20 14.03 «
4 CPN(3.0) + QP(15.0)EC 1.0 21.37 6.50 18.28
5 CPN(3.0) + QP(20.0)EC 1.0 15.85 9.90 14.25
6 7 CPN(3 0) + QP (25.0) EC 1.0 12.75 14.87 9.73

CPN (3 5) + QP (15.0) EC 1.0 17.22 8.60 16.63
8 CPN(3.5) + QP(20.0)EC 1.0 13.99 14.10 10.00
9 CPN (3 5) + QP (25 0)EC 1.0 12.12 15.21 8.76
10 CPN 10 EC 1.0 19.86 9.27 12.17
11 QP 25 EC 1.0 24.20 8.10 15.25
12 Untreated Control 49.37 3.54 20.34
' <*JH ■ (iouj opened HoUl ROB ■ HaJ uptMd Bolt I'I'S' - C)jyermelhnn QP ■ Quinalphos

:
The test results, of all the formulated product samples in example-1 to 9; reveals that the samples could be classified into four groups according to their efficacy.
Group - A(Grade-I)
1. Cypermethrin (3.0%) + Quinalphos (20.0%) EC w/w
2. Cypermethrin (2.5% ) + Quinalphos (25.0%) EC w/w
3. Cypermethrin (3.5%) + Quinalphos (25.0%) EC w/w
4. Cypermethrin (3.0%) + Quinalphos (25.0%) EC w/w
5. Cypermethrin (3.5% ) + Quinalphos (20.0%) EC w/w
Group - B(Grade-II)
1. Cypermethrin (3.5%) + Quinalphos (15.0%) EC w/w
2. Cypermethrin (2.5%) + Quinalphos (20.0%) EC w/w
Group - C(Grade-III)
1. Cypermethrin (3.0% )+ Quinalphos (15.0% ) EC w/w
2. Cypermethrin (2.5%) + Quinalphos (15.0% ) EC w/w
Group - D( Grade-IV)
Untreated.
RESULT
Out of the Grade-I results in group-A, the concentration of Cypermethrin(3.0%) + Quinalphos (20.0%) EC (w/w) earns the preference on the others due to low residual value, lower loading of toxicant /ha., without compromising the preferred results.
ADVANTAGES
* The selected synergistic composition of Cypermethrin 3.0% + Quinalphos 20.0% EC w/w has : -low residua] value;
-lower loading of toxicant /ha to achieve same results.
* The composition proposed by the present invention is very effective against shoot and
fruit borers of Brinjal and Cotton Bollworms and leaf hoppers, when used in 1:6.7 ratio of
Cypermethrin : Quinalphos due to synergic activity.

* The EC on addition to water emulsifies easily.
* The diluted emulsion exhibits good stability. This helps in uniform distribution of active ingredient on plants when applied.
CONCLUSION
The overall results and observations from table 1,2,3 & 4 shows that Cypermethrin (3.0%)+ Quinalphos (20.0%) w/w EC is showing a good synergic property in comparison to existing formulation of Cypermethrin and Quinalphos individually.
Ex ample-14 - Table-5 (Brinjal)
The operation described in example-10 was repeated on Three replicates test plots on the same crop variety with various doses of application e.g. 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0 ml of Cypermethrin (3.0%) + Quinalphos (20.0%) EC (w/w) and 0.5 ml of Cypermethrin 10EC and 2 ml of Quinalphos 25EC per litre of spray liquid. All other conditions remained the same. The results of this test are reported for each spray i.e. (first spray and second spray) in Table-5.
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS (Table-5)
After 1st spray
a. Results of the experiment revealed that Cypermethrin + Quinalphos (3 + 20)
23EC (g/kg) have shown more effectiveness than when Cypermethrin and
Quinalphos applied individually.
b. In the present invention, results obtained shows that in combination, the requirement
of active ingredient is less than that compared to their individual requirement, which
confirms the synergic activity of product.
c. Seven days after first spraying, Cyeprmethrin (3) + Quinalphos (20) 23EC(g/kg) 1
ml/lit, treatment found superior by recording least fruit damage 36.3%.
d. The treatment , Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC at and 0.75 ml/lit. and
Cypermethrin 10EC at 0.5 ml/lit. had recorded significantly least percent of fruit
damage 30.5, 34.1 and 35.2 respectively on weight basis and found superior over
remaining other treatments.

Table-6 Sight -1 (Pooled Average Data of Khartf & Summer)

EFFICIENCY of Cypenmethrin (3.0%) +Qulnalphos(20.0%) EC w/w against Brinjal Shot

and Furtt Borer (Leu&nodes orbonallsy

■': -:. ;.. % Fruit Damage
Sr.No. Treatment Rate /lit of
Water ."' = " ■■■
(ml/L) First Spray Second Spray

■ Number Basis Number Basis Wt. Basis

"'■- ■' * 1 DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS Wt. Basis 3 DAS 7 DAS

1 CPN + QP 23 EC 0.25 50.30 47.60 48.00 50.30 47.90 47.90 . 51.80
2 CPN+ QP 23 EC 0.50 54.80 47.40 49.00 48.00 43.20 43.70 46.40
3 CPN +QP 23EC 0.75 51.30 45.80 46.40 34.10 39.20 38.70 41.20
4 CPN + QP 23 EC 1.00 53.10 35.90 36.30 30.50 34.90 37.50 31.60
5 CYPERMETHRIN 10EC 0.50 50.00 43.80 43.90 35.20 43.30 38.90 34.30
6 QUINALPHOS 25 EC. 2.00 50.00 52.90 45.30 48.40 47.70 46.00 47.40
7 Untreated Control/Water only) 45.50 55.10 55.70 61.70 54.50 63.90 60.00

Note: Whe sre DBS = Days before spraying DAS = Days after spraying

CPN =Cypermethrln a.l.

QP= Quinalphos a.i.

After 2nd Spray.
a. Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC at 0.75 and 1 ml/lit have found superior by
recording relatively lesser fruit damage, both at 3 and 7 days after spraying and were on par
with each other. However, Cypermethrin 10EC 0.5 ml/lit. was on par with treatment seven
days after spraying, by recording 38.9% fruit damage.
b. On weight basis Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 1 ml/lit. and Cypermethrin
10EC 0.5 ml/lit. have recorded significantly lesser damage 31.6 and 34.3% respectively.
CONCLUSION
Table-5 shows the average results of trials at sight, clearly shows that Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC is superior in reducing the damage than Cypermethrin and Quinalphos used individually, on "Leucinodes orbonalis" (Shoot and fruit borer of Brinjal).
The active ingredient requirement, on the basis of the results, are also less in comparison to Cypermethrin (10EC) & Quinalphos (25EC) when applied individually.
Example-15 - Table-6 (Brinjal)
The operation described in example-11 was repeated on Three replicates test plots on the same Crop variety with various doses of application e.g. 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0 ml of Cypermethrin (3.0%) + Quinalphos (20.0%) EC (w/w) and 0.5 ml of Cypermethrin 10EC and 2 ml of Quinalphos 25EC per litre of spray liquid. All other conditions remained the same. The results of this test are reported for each spray i.e. (first spray and second spray) in Table-6.

Table--b EFFICIENCY of Cype 6 Sight - 2 (Pooled Average Data of Kharif & SummeO ■' ■-' :.'

srmethrin (3.0%)+ Quinalphos(20.0%) (w/w) 1 and Furit Borer (Leudnodes orbonalls)" EC against Brinjal Shoot

% Fruit Damage
Sr.No. Treatment Rate /lit of

Water \
(ml/L) First Spray Second Spray
Number Basis Wt. Basis Number Basis Wt.Basis

1 DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS
3 DAS 7 DAS I

1 CPN+QP 23 EC 0.25 49.30 48.00 51.30 39.90 36.10 40.50 43.00
2 CPN +QP 23 EC 0.50 47.20 40.80 45.80 38.40 31.20 36.10 37.00
3 CPN +QP 23EC 0.75 46.80 41.20 40.00 38.40 22.00 22.10 28.80
4 CPN+ QP 23 EC 1.00 47.50 40.30 29.50 22.90 19.70 18.10 25.60
5 CYPERMETHRIN 10EC 0.50 48.00 44.60 34.90 29.80 24.30 20.10 27.30
6 QUINALPHOS 25 EC. 2.00 49.20 47.70 51.10 39.60 36.50 37.20 39.00
7 Untreated Control/Water only) 47.80 54.90 - 60.50 41.70 54.50 .68.90 49.00


Note I

Where DB. = Days before spraying

DAS = Days After spraying

■
CPN = Cypermethrin a.i. = Quinalphos a.i.

QP
i i


RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS - Table-6
After 1st spray.
a. Results of the experiment revealed that Cypermethrin + Quinalphos
(3 + 20) 23 EC (g/kg) have shown more effectiveness than when Cypermethrin
and Quinalphos used individually.
b. In the present invention, results obtained shows that in combination, the requirement
of active ingredient is less than that compared to their individual requirement, which
confirms the synergic activity of product.
c. Seven days after first spraying, Cyeprmethrin (3) + Quinlaphos (20) 23EC(g/kg) at
ml/lit, treatment found superior by recording least fruit damage 29.5%.
d. The treatment , Cypermethrin + Qinalphos 23EC at and 0.75 ml/lit. and
Cypermethrin 10EC at 0.5 ml/lit. had recorded significantly least percent of fruit
damage 22.9, 36.4 and 29.8 respectively, on weight basis and found superior over
remaining treatments.
After 2nd Spray.
a. Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC at 0.75 and 1 ml/lit have found superior by
recording relatively lesser fruit damage, both at 3 and 7 days after spraying and were
on par with each other. However, Cypermethrin 10EC 0.5 ml/lit. was on par with
treatment seven days after spraying, by recording 20.10% fruit damage.
b. On weight basis Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 1 ml/lit. and Cypermethrin
10EC 0.5 ml/lit. have recorded significantly lesser damage 25.60 and 27.30 %
respectively.
CONCLUSION
Table-6 shows the average results of trials at sight, clearly shows that Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC is superior in reducing the damage than Cypermethrin and Quinalphos used individually on "Leucinodes orbonalis" (Shoot and fruit borer of Brinjal).
The active ingredient requirement, on the basis of the results, are also less in comparison to Cypermethrin (10EC) & Quinalphos (25EC) when applied individually.

Example-16 -Table-7 & 8 (Cotton)
The operation as described in example 12 was repeated on three replicates test plots on the same crop variety with various doses of application, e.g. 250, 500, 1000,1500, 2000 ml/ha of Cypermethrin (30) + Quinalphos (200) EC (g/kg) and 600 ml/ha of Cypermethrin 10 EC and 2000 ml/ha of Quinalphos 25 EC. All other conditions remained the same. The results of this test are reported in Table 7 & 8.
Result and Discussions
The results of the field trials carried out to evaluate the synergic activity of Cypermethrin (3) + Quinalphos (20) 23EC g/kg against cotton insects pests shows:
Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC at 2 1/ha recorded a min. 9.79% bollworm damage which was on par with 1.5 l/ha. treatment. The later three treatments are significantly superior to rest of the treatments, even individually. Untreated control recorded a max. of 49.73% bollworm incidence. The Cypermethrin 10EC at 600 ml/ha and Quinalphos 25EC at 2 1/ha shown 15.59 and 20.41 % bollworm damage. (Table 8).
Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC at all dosage level recorded significantly lower leafhopper pupulation which was on the par with Cypermethrin 10EC and Quinalphos 25EC in applied dose which recorded significantly higher population of Ieafhopper.(Table-7). Untreated control recorded a max. of 5.27 leafhopper per leaf.
Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC at 1 litre/ha recorded very low population of
aphids which was on par with the two higher dosage levels and also with one
lower dosage level but differed significantly with the lowest dosage of 250 ml /ha
treatment. Cypermethrin 10EC alone at 600 ml/ha recorded significantly higher population of
19.17 aphids per leaf. Untreated control recorded only 2.40 aphids per leaf because of high
leafhopper incidence which has displaced the aphid population.(Table 7)

Table-7 - Bio-efficacy of CYPERMETHRIN + QUINALPHOS 23EC on Cotton sucking Pest.
Mean Pest Pouplation/leaf
Sr
N
0. Treatments Dosage (ml/ha) EC Leafhopper. Whitefly Aphid

1 Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 250 0.20 0.37 2.08
2 Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 500 0.25 0.17 1.33
3 Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 1000 0.65 0.24 0.44
4 Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 1500 0.52 0.13 0.80
5 Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 2000 0.50 0.10 0.60
6 Cypermethrin 10EC 600 0.96 0.35 19.17
7 Quinalphos 25 EC 2000 1.85 0.20 1.75
8 Untreated control - 5.27 0.13 2.40
Table-8 : Bioefficacy of Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC on cotton boilworm incidence.

Sr. No. Treatment Dosage (ml/ha) EC %
boilworm
incidence GOB/plant BOB/plant

1 Cypermethrin+Quinalphos 23EC 250 27.53 8.23 18.47
2 Cypermethrin+Quinalphos 23EC 500 20.80 9.53 18.13
3 Cypermethrin+Quinalphos 23EC 1000 13.82 12.27 12.53
4 Cypermethrin+Quinalphos 23EC 1500 10.81 16.00 9.80
5 Cypermethirn+Quinalphos 23EC 2000 9.79 17.80 8.60
6 Cypermethrin 10EC 600 15.59 10.47 12.80
7 Quinalphos 25EC 2000 20.41 8.63 14.33
8 Untreated control - 49.73 3.87 15.53
* GOB - Good opened Bolls BOB - Bad opened Bolls

Cypermethrin (3) + Quinalphos(20) 23EC at 2 litres/ha. recorded a max. of 17.80 GOB per plant and a min. of 8.60 BOB per plant which was on par with its 1.5 l/ha. treatment. These two treatments are significantly superior to rest of the treatments. (Table-8).
All the treatments in this trial were found non-phytotoxic to the plants in, Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23 EC, treated plots.
CONCLUSION
Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC recorded a lower bollworm damage as compared to Quinalphos 25EC and Cypermethrin 10EC. This confirm the synergic activity of the two compounds in consideration and also helps to reduce the chances of resistant development which may result when a single active ingredient used for a long time or in high doses.
Example-17 - Table 9 & 10 (Cotton)
The operation as described in exmaple 13 was repeated on Three replicates test plots on the same Crop variety with various does of application. For example 250, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 ml/ha of Cypermethrin (30) + Quinalphos (200) EC (g/kg) and 600 ml/ha of Cypermethrin 10EC and 2000 ml /ha of Quinalphos 25EC. All other conditions remained the same. The results of this test are reported in Table 9 & 10.
Result and Discussions
The results of the field trials carried out to evaluate the synergic activity of Cypermethrin (3) + Quinalphos (20) 23 EC g/kg against cotton insects pests shows :
Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC at 2 l/ha recorded a min. 9.35% bollworm damage which was on par with 1.5 l/ha. treatment. The later three treatments are significantly superior to rest of the treatments, even individually. Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC at 250, 500ml/ha. recorded significantly higher percent bollworms incidence.(Table 10) Untreated control recorded a max. of 50.20% bollworm incidence. The Cypermethrin 10EC at 600 ml/ha and Quinalphos 25EC 2 l/ha shown 19.86 and 24.20 % bollworm damage.

Table-9- Bio-efficacy of CYPERMETHRIN + QUINALPHOS 23EC on Cotton sucking Pest.
Mean Pest Pouplation/leaf
Sr
N
0.
1 Treatments Dosage (ml/ha) EC Leafhopper. Jassid Aphid

Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 250 0.53 3.12 9.65
2 Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 500 0.48 2.78 18.40
3 Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 1000 0.32 2.66 7.45
4 Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 1500 0.28 2.17 7.15
5 Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC 2000 0.25 2.12 6.20
6 Cypermethrin 10EC 600 0.94 5.95 21.35
7 Quinalphos 25 EC 2000 1.40 2.30 2.85
8 Untreated control - 5.82 2.05 4.10
Table-10 Bioefficacy of Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC on cotton bollworm incidence.

Sr.
No. Treatment Dosage (ml/ha) EC %
bollworm
incidence GOB/plant BOB/plant

1 Cypermethrin+Quinalphos 23EC 250 31.60 5.35 20.10
2 Cypermethrin+Quinalphos 23EC 500 25.50 7.60 16.15
3 Cypermethrin+Quinalphos 23EC 1000 15.85 9.90 14.25
4 Cypermethrin+Quinalphos 23EC 1500 10.25 15.05 12.10
5 Cypermethirn+Quinalphos 23EC 2000 9.35 16.20 10.85
6 Cypermethrin 10EC 600 19.86 9.27 12.17
7 Quinalphos 25EC 2000 24.20 8.10 15.25
8 Untreated control - 50.20 3.40 21.15
* GOB - Good opened Bolls BOB - Bad opened Bolls

Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC at all dosage level recorded significantly lower leafhopper population which was on the par with Cypermethrin 10EC and Quinalphos 25EC in applied dose which recorded significantly higher population of leafhopper.(Table-9). Untreated control recorded a max. of 5.82 leafhopper per leaf.
Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC at 2 1/ha recorded very low population of aphids which was on par with the two higher dosage levels and also with one lower dosage level but differed significantly with the lowest dosage of 250 ml /ha treatment( 9.65 aphids per leaf). Cypermethrin 10EC alone at 600 ml/ha recorded significantly higher population of 21.35 aphids per leaf. Untreated control recorded only 4.10 aphids per leaf because of high leafhopper incidence which has displaced the aphid population. (Table-9).
Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC at 2 litres/ha. recorded a max. of 16.20 GOB per plant and a min. of 10.85 BOB per plant which was on par with 1.5 1/ha. treatment. These two treatments are significantly superior to rest of the treatments. (Table 10)
All the treatments in this trial were found non-phytotoxic to all plants in, Cyperemthrin + Quinalphos 23 EC, treated plots.
CONCLUSION
Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 23EC recorded a lower bollworm damage as compared to Quinalphos 25EC and Cypermethrin 10EC. This confirm the synergic activity of the two compounds in consideration and also helps to reduce the chances of resistant development which may result when a single active ingredient is used for a long time or in high doses.

The synergic effect which is the base of the composition proposed by the present invention has been demonstrated by way of results of the compaign carried out in 1995-97. The effect is described as follows.
The mentioned numbers for each component - Cypermethrin + Quinalphos corresponds to grams of each in 1 kg of the formulation in three different conceentration ( 2.7 + 18.0, 3.0 + 20.0, 3.3+22.0 all in % w/w) were tested using same operating condition as described in erample-10 except variation in active ingredient in the ratio (by weight) of 1:6.7 (i.e. 13:87 in parts of a.i. of Cypermethrin : Quinalphos).

Test-5

Sort of Pest. "Leucinodes orbonalis" Gueen (Fruit and Shoot borer of
Brinjal).
Crop Brinjal
REPETITIONS :3
Experiment -1

Concentration % (w/w)

% Fruit Infestation
1 DBS 3 DAS

7 DAS

Cypermethrin 2.7+QuinaIphos 18.0 Cypermethrin 3.0+ Quinalphos 20.0 Cypermethrin 3.3+ Quinalphos 22.0

54.5 51.5 52.7
51.3 45.8 36.4
50.9 45.4 38.6

Experiment-2 Concentration % (w/w)

% Fruit Infestation
1 DBS 3 DAS

7 DAS

Cypermethrin 2.7+Quinalphos 18.0 Cypermethrin 3.0+ Quinalphos 20.0 Cypermethrin 3.3+ Quinalphos 22.0

52.8 49.4 50.6
53.1 40.9 36.0
52.9 39.8 38.0

CONCLUSION
Concentration % (w/w)

Performance Crop
Residual

Cypermethrin 2.7 + Quinalphos 18.0 Normal BDL
Cypermethrin 3.0 + Quinalphos 20.0 Very good BDL
Cypermethrin 3.3 + Quinalphos 22.0 Very Good Trace
Note : BDL = below detectable level DBS = Day before spraying DAS = Day after
spraying.
Our above experiment shows that the compatible formulation mix of Cypermethrin(3.0) + Quinalphos (20.0) % (w/w) exhibits a good effect and helps in reducing the percentage of fruit infestation as compared to other two concentrations (Cypermethrin 2.7 + Quinalphos 18.0 ; Cypermethrin 3.3 + Quinalphos 22.0 % (w/w) taken in considerations.
Test-6
The operative conditon as described in example-12 was repeated on three replicates test plots on the same Crop variety but with various strength of active ingredients (2.7 + 18.0, 3.0+20.0, 3.3+22.0 all in % w/w) in the ratio (by weight) of 1:6.7 (i.e . 13 parts of Cypermethrin + 87 parts of Quinalphos).
Crop Cotton
Sort of Pest. a) Bollworm (Cotton Crop)
b) Jassid
REPETITIONS-3
Experiment -1 (Percentage of incidence after spraying)
Concentration % (w/w) % of incidence
Bollworm. Jassid
Cypermethrin 2.7+Quinalphos 18.0 20:8 9.5
Cypermethrin 3.0+ Quinalphos 20.0 10:2 6.4
Cypermethrin 3.3+ Quinalphos 22.0 9.8 6.0

Experiment -2

Concentration % (w/w) % of incidence
Bollworm. Jassid
Cypermethrin 2.7+Quinalphos 18.0 19.6 10.9
Cypermethrin 3.0+ Quinalphos 20.0 9.3 7.2
Cypermethrin 3.3+ Quinalphos 22.0 8.8 6.9
CONCLUSION :
Concentrations % (w/w) Performance Crop Residual
bollworm Jassid
Cypermethrin 2.7 + Quinalphos 18.0 Normal Normal BDL
Cypermethrin 3.0 + Quinalphos 20.0 Very Good Very Good BDL
Cypermethrin 3.3 + Quinalphos 22.0 Very good Very good Trace
Note : BDL = below detectable level
The above experiment on Cotton for Bollworms and Jassids established that Cypermethrin 3.0 + Quinalphos 20.0 % w/w EC & Cypermethrin 3.3 + Quinalphos 22.0 % w/w are showing the efficiency in controlling at par to each other whereas that with Cypermethrin 2.7 + Quinalphos 18.0 % w/w shows normal results when used at the required, active ingredient, dosage per hactare.
From the above tests 5 & 6, it is concluded that Cypermethrin 3.0% + Quinalphos 20.0% EC (w/w) is very effective when compared to higher concentration combinations. As it is evident that the higher concentration combination does not exhibit any considerable improvement in effectiveness but it only adds to unnecessary, excess use of active ingredient to cause environment pollution. The composition above (Cyperemethrin (3%) + Quinalphos (20%) 23EC w/w) can be applied as per the prescribed recommendation the label by mixing the concentrate and water at the right dosage. It sprayed by using high volume sprayer viz. Knapsack sprayer using 500-1000 ltrs of water per hectare.

:
The minimum dosage of Cypermethrin 3.0% + Quinalphos 20.0% EC w/w depend upon the type and the evolution of that field of cultivation. The experiments conducted make it possible to recommend the following initial doses.
Crop Pest(Type of Culture) Dose ml/ha. Waiting
Period in
Brinjal Shoot and fruit borer 350-400 7
"Leucinodes orbonalis" Gueen
Cotton American boll worm 1000-1250 15
Spotted boll worm Jassids (Leaf hoppers).
Test-7
Phytotoxic studies on Brinjal and Cotton.
Observations taken for 7 days on necrosis, epinasty, hyponasty, leaf tip injury, leaf surface injury, wilting and vein clearing etc.
Table-11: Phytotoxicity of Cypermethrin 3% + Quinalphos 20% EC (w/w) on Brinjal and Cotton.
Per cent Phytotoxicity
Treatments Dosage (ml/lit.) 1DAS 3 DAS 5 DAS 7 DAS
CPN + QP23 EC 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CPN + QP 23EC 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CPN + QP 23EC 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CPN + QP 23EC 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cypermethrin 10EC 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quinalphos 25 EC 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Untreated control - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Note : DAS = Days after spraying CPN = Cyperemthrin QP=Quinalphos
RESULT:
All the treatments in the trials were found non-phytotoxic to Brinjal as well as Cotton Crop plants in treated plots.

INFERENCE
* The above examples, their results and observations conclude that Cypermethrin + Quinalphos exhibits synergistic insecticidal activity in the range of 1:4 to 1:10 (Cypermethrin : Quinalphos) at the required, active ingredient, dosage per hactare.
* The synergistic insecticidal composition of Cypermethrin + Quinalphos can be prepared by following method as described in example-1 to 9.
* It also reveals that optimum synergistic activity is being noticed in the ratio of 1:6.7( i.e. 13:87 parts of Cypermethrin : Quinalphos) at the required active ingredient
dosage per hactare
* Cypermethrin 3% + Quinalphos 20% (w/w) EC is very effective among the lower and higher concentration in the same ratio of 1:6.7 and is very effective against Brinjal Shoot and fufit borer and Cotton bollworm, leaf hopper and sucking pest.
* The synergistic composition of Cypermethrin and Quinalphos reveals that the active ingredient dosage per hactare. is significantly lesser than that required when Cypermethrin and Quinalphos applied individually for same performance.
* The synergistic composition proposed reduces the chances of resistance
development and act as a potent lethal weapon to kill these insects
* The formulated product of Cypermethrin + Quinalphos provides a compatible, plant mix in ready to use synergistic composition.
* The formulated product provides a uniform distribution of active ingredient on treated plants.

We CLAIM
1. A synergistic insecticidal composition of Cypermethrin and Quinalphos for crop
protection comprising active ingredients Cypermethrin

wherein the ratio of Cypermethrin to Quinalphos is 1:4 to 1:10, alongwith emulsifier(s) (i) and solvent (ii);
(i) emulsifier - a blend of salts of alkyl aryl sulfonate and polyoxyethylene
ether, (ii) Solvent - dimethyl benzene,
to make the composition of the present invention as emulsifiable concentrate.
2. A synergistic insecticidal composition of Cypermethrin and Quinalphos for crop
protection as claimed in claim 1, wherein the preferred ratio of Cypermethrin to
Quinalphos is 1 : 6.7 (active ingredient ratio) or 13 : 87 (gravimetric weight ratio).

3. A synergistic insecticidal composition of Cypermethrin and Quinalphos for crop protection as claimed in claim 1, wherein Cypermethrin is 30 gm and Quinalphos is 200 gm (per kg of formulation) to make a total strength of 230 g/kg of emulsifiable concentrate.
4. A synergistic insecticidal composition of Cypermethrin and Quinalphos for crop protection as claimed in claim 1,wherein the mentioned emulsifier(s) and solvent are in liquid form.

5. A synergistic insecticidal composition of Cypermethrin and Quinalphos for crop
protection as substantially herein described and exemplified.
Dated 21s', day of June, 2000
M. B TRIVEDI Company Secretary For United Phosphorus Ltd., Uniphos House, C. D. Marg, Khar West, Mumbai - 400 052, Maharashtra, INDIA.