FORMULATION COMPONENT
This invention relates to the use of aromatic esters as adjuvants in compositions,
particularly for agrochemical use, as well to compositions comprising such an aromatic
ester, in combination with at least one agrochemical and at least one surfactant. The
invention further extends to methods of making and using such compositions. In
particular the present invention relates to such compositions when formulated as, or
comprised by, an emulsion concentrate (EC), an emulsion in water (EW), a suspension
of particles in water (SC), a microcapsule formulation (CS), a suspension of particles
with an emulsion (SE), a dispersion concentrate (DC) or an oil suspension (OD).
The efficacy of the active ingredients (Als) in an agrochemical composition can
often be improved by the addition of further ingredients. The observed efficacy of the
combination of ingredients can sometimes be significantly higher than that which would
be expected from the individual ingredients used (synergism). An adjuvant is a
substance which can increase the biological activity of and A but is itself not
significantly biologically active. The adjuvant is often a surfactant, and can be included
in the formulation or added separately, e.g. by being built into emulsion concentrate
formulations, or as tank mix additives.
In addition to the effect on biological activity, the physical properties of an
adjuvant are of key importance and must be selected with a view to compatibility with
the formulation concerned. For instance, it is generally simpler to incorporate a solid
adjuvant into a solid formulation such as a water-soluble or water-dispersible granule. In
general adjuvants rely on surfactant properties for biological activity enhancement and
one typical class of adjuvants involves an alkyl or aryl group to provide a lipophilic
moiety and a (poly)ethoxy chain to provide a hydrophilic moiety. Much has been
published on the selection of adjuvants for various purposes, such as Hess, F.D. and
Foy, C.L, Weed technology 2000, 14, 807-813.
The present invention is based on the discovery that aromatic esters with
relatively long hydrocarbon chains are surprisingly effective adjuvants, significantly
enhancing the biological activity of active ingredients. Aromatic esters of varied
hydrocarbon chain lengths have until now only been known as solvents (such as
Benzoflex 181™ and Finsolv®TN), emollients and thickening agents for use in various
industries. There is also a meagre amount of information presently available on
preferentially shorter chain aromatic esters having putative adjuvant properties in the
context of agrochemical compositions.
According to the present invention, there is provided an agrochemical
composition comprising:
i. an active ingredient
ii. a surfactant
iii. an aromatic ester of formula (I)
wherein
R is OH, halogen, or di- . alkyl amino,
q is 0 or 1
n is an integer selected from 0 to 20 inclusive,
each A is independently C . alkanediyl,
m is an integer selected from 1, 2 and 3;
wherein when m is 1, R2 is selected from the group consisting of C -C c,alkyl, C -C
alkenyl, C7-C20 alkyldienyl and C7-C2o alkyltrienyl; and when m is 2 or 3 , R2 is selected
from the group consisting of C C2oalkyl, C -C22 alkenyl, C -C22 alkyldienyl and C -C22
alkyltrienyl; and
each group
is independently attached to any carbon atom within R2, and each R q, A and n is
independently as defined above provided that the compound of formula (I) is not
dipropylene glycol dibenzoate.
In a second aspect the invention provides for the use of an aromatic ester of
formula (I) as described herein as an adjuvant in an agrochemical composition.
In a third aspect the invention provides for the use of an agrochemical
composition as described herein to control pests.
In a further aspect there is provided a method of controlling a pest, comprising
applying a composition of the invention to said pest or to the locus of said pest.
In yet a further aspect there is provided a method of making an agrochemical
composition as described herein, comprising combining an active ingredient, a
surfactant and an aromatic ester of formula (I).
Alkyl groups and moieties are straight or branched chains, and unless explicitly
stated to the contrary, are unsubstituted. Examples of suitable alkyl groups for use in
the invention are hexyl, heptyl, octyl, nonyl, decyl, undecyl, dodecyi, tridecyl, tetradecyl,
pentadecyl, hexadecyl, heptadecyl, octadecyl, nonadecyl and eicosyl groups.
Alkenyl groups and moieties are straight or branched chains having a single
carbon-carbon double bond, and unless explicitly stated to the contrary, are
unsubstituted. Examples of suitable alkenyl groups for use in the invention are hept-1-
enyl, hept -2-enyl, hept -3-enyl, oct-1-enyl, non-1-enyl, dec-1-enyl, undec-1-enyl, and
groups derived from monoenoic fatty acids including cis-4-decenyl, cis-9-decenyl, cis-5-
laurolyl, cis-4-dodecenyl, cis-9-tetradecenyl, cis-5-tetradecenyl, cis-4-tetradecenyl, cis-9-
hexadecenyl, cis-6-hexadecenyl, cis-6-octadecenyl, cis-9-octadecenyl, trans-9-
octadecenyl, cis-1 1-octadecenyl, cis-9-eicosenyl, cis-11-eicosenyl, cis-11-docosenyl,
cis-1 3-docosenyl and cis-1 5-tetracosenyl.
Alkyldienyl groups and moieties are straight or branched chains having two
carbon-carbon double bond, and unless explicitly stated to the contrary, are
unsubstituted. Examples of suitable alkyldienyl groups for use in the invention are hept-
,3-dienyl, linoleyl, and linoelaidyl.
Alkyltrienyl groups and moieties are straight or branched chains having three
carbon-carbon double bond, and unless explicitly stated to the contrary, are
unsubstituted. Examples of suitable alkyldienyl groups for use in the invention hex-1 ,3,
5-trienyl, hepta-1 ,3,5-trienyl, and linolenyl.
The term alkanediyl defines bivalent straight or branch chained hydrocarbon
radicals such as, for example, methylene, 1,2-ethanediyl, 1,1-ethanediyl, 1,3-
propanediyl, ,1-propanediyl, 1,2-propanediyl, 1,4-butanediyl, ,5-pentanediyl and the
like.
The term halogen includes F, CI, Br, and I , with fluorine and chlorine being
particularly preferred halogens.
In particularly preferred embodiments of the invention, the preferred values for ,
n, and q, as well as the preferred groups for R and R2, in any combination thereof
(unless specifically stated otherwise) are as set out below.
As stated above, R may be a hydroxyl group, a halogen, or a i-C alkyi amino
group wherein each alkyi is independently C C alkyi. Preferably R is a di-Ci-C alkyi
amino group, and in particular a di C C alkyi amino group wherein each alkyi group is
independently methyl, ethyl, propyl or butyl, more preferably methyl or ethyl, and most
preferably each alky group s methyl. In an alternative preferred embodiment, R1 is
hydroxy, preferably 2-hydroxy.
Where q is , R is preferably at the 4 position of the phenyl ring. In certain
embodiments it is preferred that q is 0.
As stated above, each A is independently a C1-C10 alkanediyl group. Preferably
each A is independently a C1-C4 alkanediyl group, more preferably each A is
independently ethanediyl, propanediyl, butanediyl, or butanediyl, more preferably still
each A is independently ,2-ethanediyl, ,2-propanediyl, ,2-butanediyl, or 1,4-
butanediyl. ,2-ethanediyl is most preferred.
According to the invention, n is an integer selected from 0 to 20 inclusive.
Preferably n is an integer selected from 0- 0 inclusive, more preferably 0-5 inclusive,
even more preferably n is 0, , 2, or 3, and most preferably n is 0, or .
The value of is , 2 or 3.
In certain embodiments, where m is , R2 is H, or C -C alkyi. More preferably
in such embodiments R2 is C8-C alkyi, more preferably C -Ci5 alkyi, and more
preferably still, C 2-C alkyi. In specific embodiments when m is 1, R2 is 2-ethyl hexyl,
C1 alkyi, C alkyi, alkyi, C1 alkyi, C alkyi, C1 alkyi, oleyl or isoocatadecyl.
In other embodiments where is 2 or 3, the skilled man will appreciate that each
group
may be the same or different (i.e. each R q, A and n is independently as defined
hereinbefore), furthermore, each group
is independently attached to any carbon atom in R2, and R2 is Ci-C2oalkyl. In certain of
ast a C2 alkyl group, and each group
is attached to a different carbon atom in R2.
In further embodiments, when is 2 or 3, R2 is C -C18 a yi, more preferably, C8-
C17 alkyl, more preferably C alkyl, C 2-Ci alkyl, C1 alkyl, or C 7 alkyl. In certain
embodiments wherein m is 2 , R2 is a C8 branched chain alkyl group.
In one embodiment, there is provided an agrochemical composition comprising. (i)
an active ingredient, (ii) a surfactant, and ( i) an aromatic ester of formula (I)
wherein R is di-C - a ky amino, hydroxyl, or halogen, q is an integer selected
from 0 or , n is an integer selected from 0 to 20 inclusive, each A is independently C
1 alkyl, m is an integer selected from 1, 2 and 3; and wherein when m is 2 or 3, R2 is C -
C20 alkyl; each group
is independently attached to any carbon atom within R2, and each R q, A and n
is independently as defined above provided that the compound of formula (I) is not
dipropylene glycol dibenzoate, and when m is an integer selected from 1, R2 is H or
C -C20 alkyl.
Certain compounds of formula (I) are available commercially and include for
example, those described in Table 1 below which are given a trade name. Other
compounds are novel, and form a separate aspect of the invention.
Table 1 Compounds of formula (I) for use in the invention
Compound Trade name Suppliers CAS no.
C12-C15 alkyl benzoate Finsolv® Tn Innospec 68411-27-8
Isostearyl benzoate Finsolv® SB Innospec 34364-24-4
2-ethylhexyl benzoate Benzoflex 8 1 Eastman Chemical 5444-75-7
Company
2,2,4-trimethyl-1 ,3- Benzoflex 354 Eastman Chemical 68052-23-3
pentanediol dibenzoate Company, Sigma Aldrich
2-ethylhexyl-4- Escalol® 507 International Specialty 21245-02-3
(dimethylamino)benzoate Products
C12-C15 ethoxy benzoate - Dermol ©25-3B Alzo International Inc
degree of ethoxylation = 3
Tridecyl salicylate 19666-16-1
Oleth-2 benzoate
Oleth-10 benzoate
Oleth-20 benzoate
Oleth-12 benzoate
lsosteareth-12 benzoate
lsosteareth-10 benzoate
Trideceth-5 benzoate
Alternatively, aromatic esters of formula (I) may be prepared using well know
reactions. See reaction schemes 1 and 2 below.
An alcohol of formula (A) is reacted with an acid chloride of formula (AC) in order
to form a benzoic acid ester of formula (I), in which R and q are as defined hereinbefore,
and R represents the group -[AO] n-R2 wherein A, n and R2 are as defined hereinbefore.
This general reaction scheme was followed in Example 9.
Reaction scheme 2
(A) (AA) (I) (AC)
An alcohol of formula (A) is reacted with an acid anhydride of formula (AA) to
form a benzoic acid ester of formula (I) plus an acid of formula (AC). R and q are as
defined hereinbefore, and R represents the group -[AO]„-R 2 wherein A, n and R2 are as
defined hereinbefore.
Alcohols of formula (A), acid chlorides of formula (AC) and acid anhydrides of
formula (AA) are readily available or may be synthesised using standard methodology
well known in the art.
As stated previously, the present invention is based on the unexpected finding
that compounds of formula (I) are particularly good adjuvants in agrochemical
formulations. Accordingly, in one aspect, the invention provides the use of an aromatic
ester of formula (I) as described herein as a synergist in an agrochemical composition
Accordingly, such adjuvants may be combined with an active ingredient, which is
an agrochemical, in order to form an agrochemical composition. The present invention
extends to a method of making such an agrochemical composition, wherein said method
comprises combining a compound of formula (I) with an agrochemically active ingredient,
and optionally a surfactant. The noun "agrochemical" and term "agrochemically active
ingredient" are used herein interchangeably, and they include herbicides, insecticides,
nematicides, molluscicides, funcgicides, plant growth regulators, and safeners,
preferably herbicides, insecticides, and funcgicides.
Suitable herbicides include bicyclopyrone, mesotrione, fomesafen, tralkoxydim,
napropamide, amitraz, propanil, pyrimethanil, dicloran, tecnazene, toclofos methyl,
flamprop , 2,4-D, MCPA, mecoprop, clodinafop-propargyl, cyhalofop-butyl, diclofop
methyl, haloxyfop, quizalofop-P, indol-3-ylacetic acid, 1-naphthylacetic acid, isoxaben,
tebutam, chlorthal dimethyl, benomyl, benfuresate, dicamba, dichlobenil, benazolin,
triazoxide, fluazuron, teflubenzuron, phenmedipham, acetochlor, alachlor, metolachlor,
pretilachlor, thenylchlor, alloxydim, butroxydim, clethodim, cyclodim, sethoxydim,
tepraloxydim, pendimethalin, dinoterb, bifenox, oxyfluorfen, acifluorfen, fluoroglycofenethyl,
bromoxynil, ioxynil, imazamethabenz-methyl, imazapyr, imazaquin, imazethapyr,
imazapic, imazamox, flumioxazin, flumiclorac-pentyl, picloram, amodosulfuron,
chlorsulfuron, nicosulfuron, rimsulfuron, triasulfuron, triallate, pebulate, prosulfocarb,
molinate, atrazine, simazine, cyanazine, ametryn, prometryn, terbuthylazine, terbutryn,
sulcotrione, isoproturon, linuron, fenuron, chlorotoluron and metoxuron.
Suitable fungicides include isopyrazam, mandipropamid, azoxystrobin,
trifloxystrobin, kresoxim methyl, famoxadone, metominostrobin and picoxystrobin,
cyprodanil, carbendazim, thiabendazole, dimethomorph, vinclozolin, iprodione,
dithiocarbamate, imazalil, prochloraz, fluquinconazole, epoxiconazole, flutriafol,
azaconazole, bitertanol, bromuconazole, cyproconazole, difenoconazole, hexaconazole,
paclobutrazole, propiconazole, tebuconazole, triadimefon, trtiticonazole, fenpropimorph,
tridemorph, fenpropidin, mancozeb, metiram, chlorothalonil, thiram, ziram, captafol,
captan, folpet, fluazinam, flutolanil, carboxin, metalaxyl, bupirimate, ethirimol,
dimoxystrobin, fluoxastrobin, orysastrobin, metominostrobin and prothioconazole.
Suitable insecticides include thiamethoxam, imidacloprid, acetamiprid,
clothianidin, dinotefuran, nitenpyram, fipronil, abamectin, emamectin, bendiocarb,
carbaryl, fenoxycarb, isoprocarb, pirimicarb, propoxur, xylylcarb, asulam, chlorpropham,
endosulfan, heptachlor, tebufenozide, bensultap, diethofencarb, pirimiphos methyl,
aldicarb, methomyl, cyprmethrin, bioallethrin, deltamethrin, lambda cyhalothrin,
cyhalothrin, cyfluthrin, fenvalerate, imiprothrin, permethrin and halfenprox.
Suitable plant growth regulators include paclobutrazole and 1-
methylcyclopropene.
Suitable safeners include benoxacor, cloquintocet-mexyl, cyometrinil, dichlormid,
fenchlorazole-ethyl, fenclorim, flurazole, fluxofenim, mefenpyr-diethyl, MG-191,
naphthalic anhydride, and oxabetrinil.
Preferred agrochemical active ingredients are isopyrazam, epoxyconazole,
fomesafen, mesotrione, pinoxaden, abamectin and nicosulfuron.
Of course, the various editions of The Pesticide Manual [especially the 14th and
15 editions] also disclose details of agrochemicals, any one of which may suitably be
used with the present invention.
The skilled man will appreciate that compositions of the invention may comprise
one or more of the agrochemicals as described above.
Compositions of the invention will typically comprise the agrochemical in an
amount that is recommended in the art. Generally the agrochemical will be present at a
concentration of about 0.001% to 90% w/w. The skilled man will appreciate that
compositions of the invention may be in the form of a ready-to-use formulation or in
concentrate form suitable for further dilution by the end user, and the concentration of
agrochemical and compound of formula (I) will be adjusted accordingly. In concentrated
form, compositions of the invention typically comprise agrochemical at 5 to 75% w/w,
more preferably 10 to 50% w/w agrochemical. Ready-to-use compositions of the
invention will typically comprise from 0.0001% to 1% w/w, more preferably from 0.001%
to 0.5% w/w, and more preferably still from 0.001% to 0.1% w/w agrochemical.
Typically a compound of formula (I) will comprise from about 0.0005% to about
90% w/w of the total composition. When in concentrated form, compositions of the
invention typically comprise a compound of formula (I) from 1% to 80% w/w, preferably
from 5% to 60% w/w and more preferably from 10% w/w to 40% w/w. Ready to use
compositions of the invention typically comprise a compound of formula (I) from about
0.05% to about 1% w/w of the total composition, more preferably still from about 0.1% to
about 0.5% w/w of the total composition. In specific embodiments the aromatic ester will
be included at concentrations of 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.25%, 0.3%, 0.4% or 0.5% w/w of the
total composition. Compounds of formula (I) may be manufactured and/or formulated
separately, and in order to be used as an adjuvant these may be added to a separate
agrochemical formulation at a subsequent stage, typically immediately prior to use.
Compositions of the invention may be formulated in any suitable manner known
to the man skilled in the art. As mentioned above, in one form a composition of the
invention is a formulation concentrate which may be diluted or dispersed (typically in
water) by an end-user (typically a farmer) in a spray tank prior to application.
Additional formulation components may be incorporated alongside compounds of
formula (I) or compositions of the invention in such formulations. Such additional
components include, for example, adjuvants, surfactants, emulsifiers, and solvents, and
are well known to the man skilled in the art: standard formulation publications disclose
such formulation components suitable for use with the present invention (for example,
Chemistry and Technology of Agrochemical Formulations, Ed. Alan Knowles, published
by Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands in 1998; and Adjuvants and Additives:
2006 Edition by Alan Knowles, Agrow Report DS256, published by Informa UK Ltd,
December 2006). Further standard formulation components suitable for use with the
present invention are disclosed in WO2009/1 028 A 1 (see from page 46, line 5 to page
5 , line 40).
Thus, compositions of the present invention may also comprise one or more
surfactants or dispersing agents to assist the emulsification of the agrochemical on
dispersion or dilution in an aqueous medium (dispersant system). The emulsification
system is present primarily to assist in maintaining the emulsified agrochemical in water.
Many individual emulsifiers, surfactants and mixtures thereof suitable for forming an
emulsion system for an agrochemical are known to those skilled in the art and a very
wide range of choices is available. Typical surfactants that may be used to form an
emulsifier system include those containing ethylene oxide, propylene oxide or ethylene
oxide and propylene oxide; aryl or alkylaryl sulphonates and combinations of these with
either ethylene oxide or propylene oxide or both; carboxylates and combinations of
these with either ethylene oxide or propylene oxide or both. Polymers and copolymers
are also commonly used.
Compositions of the present invention may also include solvents, which may
have a range of water solubilitites. Oils with very low water solubilities may be added to
the solvent of the present invention for assorted reasons such as the provision of scent,
safening, cost reduction, improvement of the emulsification properties and alteration of
the solubilising power. Solvents with higher water solubility may also be added for
various reasons, for instance to alter the ease with which the formulation emulsifies in
water, to improve the solubility of the pesticide or of the other optional additives in the
formulation, to change the viscosity of the formulation or to add a commercial benefit.
Other optional ingredients which may be added to the formulation include for
example, colourants, scents, and other materials which benefit a typical agrochemical
formulation.
Compositions of the invention may formulated for example, as emulsion or
dispersion concentrates, emulsions in water or oil, as a suspension of particles in an
emulsion or oil, as microencapsulated formulations, aerosol sprays or fogging
formulations; and these may be further formulated into granular materials or powders,
for example for dry application or as water-dispersible formulations. Preferably
compositions of the invention will be formulated as, or comprised by an emulsion
concentrate (EC), an emulsion in water (E ), a microcapsule formulation (CS), a
suspension of particles with an emulsion of oil (suspoemulsion; SE), a dispersion
concentrate (DC) or an oil suspension (OD).
Compositions of the invention may be used to control pests. The term "pest" as
used herein includes insects, fungi, molluscs, nematodes, and unwanted plants. Thus,
in order to control a pest a composition of the invention may be applied directly to the
pest, or to the locus of a pest.
Compositions of the invention also have utility in the seed treatment arena, and
thus may be applied as appropriate to seeds.
The skilled man will appreciate that the preferences described above with
respect to various aspects and embodiments of the invention may be combined in
whatever way is deemed appropriate.
Various aspects and embodiments of the present invention will now be illustrated
in more detail by way of example. It will be appreciated that modification of detail may
be made without departing from the scope of the invention.
EXAMPLES
Example 1 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising isopyrazam
The efficacy of the following benzoic acid esters Finsolv®TN (C12-C1 alkyl
benzoate), Benzoflex 181 (2-ethylhexylbenzoate), methyl benzoate, and butyl benzoate,
as adjuvants in compositions comprising isopyrazam was tested and compared to the
standard formulations (both EC and SC) of the fungicide, which lack this type of
adjuvant.
Wheat plants were inoculated with the fungus Septoria tritici. Four days after
inoculation the plants were sprayed with a diluted emulsion concentrate or suspension
concentrate formulation of the fungicide isopyrazam at rates of 3, 0, 30 and 00 mg of
the fungicide per litre of spray solution, using a laboratory track sprayer which delivered
the spray at a rate of 200 litres per hectare. Spray tests were also carried out with
diluted suspension concentrate additionally comprising each of the benzoate adjuvants
described above. These adjuvants were added to the spray solution at a rate of 0.2 %
w/w, based on the quantity of spray liquor. The leaves of the plants were assessed
visually 1 days after the spray application and the damage was expressed as the
percentage of the leaf area infected. Each spray test was replicated three times across
the four application rates and the modelled means of these results are shown in Table 2
below.
As can be seen from Table 2 the inclusion of a benzoate as an adjuvant for
isopyrazam resulted in a significant reduction in the percentage of infection by S. tritici in
comparison to that achieved by the standard isopyrazam SC. Furthermore, the C 2-
benzoate (Finsofv®TN) gave superior results in comparison to those achieved by
inclusion of the short chain benzoates (methyl and butyl benzoate). As well as
increasing the efficacy of the standard suspension concentrate formulation (Standard
SC) of isopyrazam, inclusion of the benzoate adjuvants Benzoflex 181 (2-ethylhexyl
benzoate) and Finsolv®TN (C 2-C15 benzoate) also resulted in isopyrazam
compositions that were better at controlling S tritici than the standard isopyrazam
emulsion concentrate formulation (Standard EC).
Table 2 Mean % infection of wheat plants with S. tritici treated with isopyrazam in the presence and absence
of benzoic acid ester adjuvants. A standard T ey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each
result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same
letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean % infection
Standard Isopyrazam SC 49.4 A
Standard Isopyrazam EC 22.9 B
Standard Isopyrazam SC plus Methyl benzoate 22.1 B
Standard Isopyrazam SC plus Butyl benzoate 18. 1 BC
Standard Isopyrazam SC plus Benzoflex 8 1 11.4 CD
Standard Isopyrazam SC plus Finsolv TN 5.0 D
Example 2 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising epoxyconazole
The efficacy of the following benzoic acid esters, methyl benzoate, butyl
benzoate, Finsolv®TN (C 12-C alkyl benzoate), and Benzoflex 181 (2-ethylhexylbenzoate),
as adjuvants in compositions comprising epoxyconazole, was tested and
compared to the standard formulation (SC) of the fungicide, which lacks this type of
adjuvant.
Wheat plants were inoculated with the fungus Septoria tritici. Four days after
inoculation the plants were sprayed with a diluted suspension concentrate formulation of
the fungicide epoxyconazole at rates of 3, 10, 30 and 100 mg of the fungicide per litre of
spray solution, using a laboratory track sprayer which delivered the spray at a rate of
200 litres per hectare. Spray tests were also carried out with diluted suspension
concentrate additionally comprising each of the benzoate adjuvants described above.
These adjuvants were added to the spray solution at a rate of 0.2 % w/w, based on the
quantity of spray liquor. The leaves of the plants were assessed visually 1 days after
the spray application and the damage was expressed as the percentage of the leaf area
infected. Each spray test was replicated three times across the four application rates
and the modelled means of these results are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3 Mean %infection of wheat plants with S. tritici treated with epoxyconazole in the presence and
absence of benzoic acid ester adjuvants. A standard T ke HSD test was carried out to assess whether
each result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the
same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean %infection
Standard epoxyconazole SC 32.3 B
Standard epoxyconazole SC + methyl benzoate 18.7 C
Standard epoxyconazole SC + butyl benzoate 18.7 C
Standard epoxyconazole SC + Finsolv TN 10.8 CD
Standard epoxyconazole SC + Benzoflex 181 7.5 D
The results show that the mean percentage infection with S. tritici is reduced
further when the wheat plants were treated with compositions of epoxyconazole
comprising each of the benzoates, in comparison to the control (blank) and when treated
with the standard SC composition of epoxyconazole. This shows that the benzoates are
effective adjuvants for epoxyconazole, and in particular the longer chain alkyl benzoates
are more effective than the shorter chain alkyl benzoates.
Example 3 Use of 2-ethylhexyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate as an adjuvant for
agrochemical compositions comprising isopyrazam
The efficacy of 2-ethylhexyl-4-dimethylamino benzoate as an adjuvant for
isopyrazam was tested, and compared to the standard SC and EC formulations which
lack this type of adjuvant.
The test was conducted as described above in Example 1, and the modelled
means of the results are shown below in Table 4 .
Table 4 Mean % infection of wheat plants with S. tritici treated with isopyrazam in the presence and absence
of 2-ethylhexyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate. Astandard TukeyHSD test was carried out to assess whether
each result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the
same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean infection %
Standard isopyrazam SC 47.6 A
Standard isopyrazam EC 19.2 8
Standard isopyrazam SC +2-ethylhexyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate 18.2 B
The inclusion of 2-ethylhexyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate in compositions of
isopyrazam resulted in a reduction S. tritici infection in comparison to treatment with the
standard SC alone. Thus, 2-ethylhexyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate is an effective
adjuvant for isopyrazam and such compositions are similar in efficacy to the standard
EC isopyrazam formulation.
Example 4 Use of 2-ethylhexyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate as an adjuvant for
agrochemical compositions comprising epoxyconazole
The efficacy of 2-ethylhexyl 4-dimethylamino benzoate as an adjuvant for
epoxyconazole was tested, and compared to the standard SC formulation which lacks
this type of adjuvant.
The test was conducted as described above in Example 2 , and the modelled
means of the results are shown below in Table 5. These show that the inclusion of 2-
ethylhexyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate in compositions of epoxyconazole resulted in a
reduction S. tritici infection in comparison to treatment with the standard SC alone. Thus
2-ethylhexyl-4-dimethylamino benzoate is an effective adjuvant for epoxyconazole.
Table 5 Mean % infection of wheat plants with S. tritici treated with epoxyconazole in the presence and
absence of 2-ethylhexyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to
assess whether each result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter:
tests with the same letter are not statistically different (p<0,05).
Treatment Mean Infection %
Standard epoxyconazole SC 31.1 B
Standard epoxyconazole SC + 2-ethylhexyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate 7.8 C
Example 5 Use of a C -C alkyl benzoate as an adjuvant for agrochemical
compositions comprising nicosulfuron
The aromatic ester Finsolv® TN (C12-C alkyl benzoate) was tested in a
glasshouse against four weed species using the herbicide nicosulfuron. An
agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant in a track
sprayer, and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Nicosulfuron was
applied at either 30 or 60 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species.
The weed species and their growth stage at spraying were Abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH;
growth stage 13), Chenopodium album (CHEAL; growth stage ) , Digitaria sanguineus
(DIGSA; growth stage 13), and Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage 13).
Each spray test replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 7, 4 and 20 days following application. The results shown
in Table 6 below are mean averages over the two rates of nicosulfuron, three replicates
and the three assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of nicosulfuron in
the absence of an adjuvant, and nicosulfuron in the presence of the commercially
available tank-mix adjuvant, Atplus41 1F®.
A second experiment was conducted to assess the efficacy of Finsolv®TN as an
adjuvant in compositions of nicosulfuron. This was carried out as outlined above, with
the following change: samples were assessed at 1 and 20 days post application.
The results shown in Table 7 below are mean averages over the two rates of
nicosulfuron, three replicates and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the
efficacy of nicosulfuron in the absence of an adjuvant, and nicosulfuron in the presence
of the commercially available tank-mix adjuvant, Atplus411F®.
Table 6 Mean percentage kill results for nicolsulfuron in the presence and absence of FinsolvDTN
and Atplus 411F®. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was
statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not
statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment SETVI DIGSA CHEAL ABUTH Mean
across
species
Nicosulfuron +FINSOLV TN 50.6 A 50 A 40.0 A 26.1 AB 4 1.7 A
Nicosulfuron +ATPLUS 4 F 4 .8 B 43 A 43.9 A 30.0 A 39.6 A
Nicosulfuron 33.3 C 1. 1 26.7 B 19.4 B 20.1 B
Table 7 Mean percentage kill results for nicolsulfuron in the presence and absence of FinsolvOTN
and Atplus 4 1F®. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was
statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not
statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment ABUTH CHEAL DIGSA SETVI Mean across
species
Nicosulfuron + FINSOLV TN 41.7 A 77,9 A 85.6 A 88.2 A 72.1 A
Nicosulfuron + ATPLUS 4 11 F 43.8 A 75.4 A 80.2 A 80.0 B 69.8 A
Nicosulfuron 29.2 B 25.8 B 0.0 B 61.3 C 29.1 B
Both experiments show that the C -C benzoate is an effective adjuvant (with
comparable efficacy to the commercially available tank-mix adjuvant Atplus41 1F®) for
nicosulfuron.
Example 6 Use of a C 2-C alkyl benzoate as an aduvant for agrochemical
compositions comprising fomesafen
The aromatic ester Finsolv®TN (C -C1 alkyl benzoate) was tested in a
glasshouse against four weed species using the herbicide fomesafen. An agrochemical
composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant in a track sprayer and
was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Fomesafen was applied at either 60
or 120 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species. The weed species
and their growth stage at spraying were Chenopodium album (CHEAL;growth stage ) ,
Abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH; growth stage 12), Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage 13),
and Xanthium strumarium (XANST; growth stage 12).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 7, 4 and 20 days following application. The results shown
in Table 8 below are mean averages over the two rates of fomesafen, three replicates
and the three assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of fomesafen in the
absence of an adjuvant, and fomesafen in the presence of the commercially available
adjuvant Turbocharge®.
Table 8 Mean percentage kill results for fomesafen in the presence and absence of Finsolv®TN and
Turbocharge®. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was statistically
different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically
Treatment ABUTH CHEAL SETVI XANST Mean across
species
Fomesafen +Turbocharge 82.9 A 75 A 22.8 A 94.1 A 68.7 A
Fomesafen + FINSOLV® TN 60.6 B 63.1 B 22.2 A 84.4 B 57.6 B
Fomesafen 19.7 C 34.7 C 10.3 B 59.2 C 31.0 C
A second experiment was conducted to assess the efficacy of Finsolv®TN as an
adjuvant in compositions of fomesafen. This was carried out as outlined above, with the
following change: samples were assessed at 6, 4 and 20 days post application.
The results shown in Table 9 below are mean averages over the two rates of
fomesafen, three replicates, three assessment timings, and four weed species and are
compared to the efficacy of fomesafen in the absence of an adjuvant, and fomesafen in
the presence of the commercially available tank-mix adjuvant, Turbocharge®.
Table 9 Mean percentage kill results for fomesafen in the presence and absence of Finsolv®TN or
Turbocharge®. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was statistically
different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically
different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean across
species
Fomesafen + Turbocharge® 73.8 A
Fomesafen +FINSOLV ®TN 70.5 A
Fomesafen 44.9 B
The results show that the C 2-Cis alkyl benzoate is an effective adjuvant for
fomesafen.
Example 7 Use of a C 2-C 5 alkyl benzoate as an aduvant for agrochemical
compositions comprising mesotrione
The aromatic ester Finsolv ®TN (C1 -C alkyl benzoate) was tested in a
glasshouse against three weed species using the herbicide mesotrione. An
agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant in a track
sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Mesotrione was applied
at either 60 or 1 0 grams of pesticide per hectare on weeds which had been grown to
the 1.3 or 1.4 leaf stage. The weed species were Xanthium strumarium (XANST),
Brachiaria platyphylla (BRAPL), and Digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA). The commercially
available surfactant Tetronic® 107 was used in the spray tank at a concentration of
0.036 g/l alongside the lower concentration of mesotrione and at a concentration of
0.072 g/l at the higher concentration of mesotrione.
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 7, 4 and 20 days following application. The results shown
in Table 0 below are mean averages over the two rates of mesotrione, three replicates
and the three assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of mesotrione in the
absence of adjuvant and mesotrione in the presence of the well-known adjuvant
Tween® 20.
Table 10 Mean percentage kill results for mesotrione in the presence and absence of Finsolv® TN or Tween®
20. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was statistically different
from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically different
Adjuvant BRAPL DIGSA XANST Mean across
species
Mesotrione +FINSOLV ®TN 24.7 A 37.2 A 36. A 33.6 A
Mesotrione + Tween® 20 18.3 A 35.6 A 41.7 A 31.9 A
Mesotrione 5.3 B 20.0 B 36.7 A 19.9 B
A second experiment was conducted to assess the efficacy of Finsolv®TN as an
adjuvant in compositions of mesotrione. This was carried out as outlined above, with
the following change: samples were assessed at 6, 14 and 20 days post application.
The results shown in Table below are mean averages over the two rates of
mesotrione, three replicates, the three assessment timings, and the three weed species,
and are compared to the efficacy of mesotrione in the absence of adjuvant and
mesotrione in the presence of the well-known adjuvant Tween® 20.
Table 11 Mean percentage kill results for mesotrione in the presence and absence of Finsolv® TN or Tween®
20. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was statistically different
from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically different
(p<0.05).
Treatment Mean across
species
Mesotrione + FINSOLV® TN 7 ·4
Mesotrione + Tween® 20 55.5 A
Mesotrione
The results of both experiments show that the C12- C benzoate is an effective
adjuvant for mesotrione, and is as efficacious as the known adjuvant Tween®20.
Example 8 Use of a C -C alkyl benzoate as an aduvant for agrochemical
compositions comprising pinoxaden
The aromatic ester Finsolv®TN 2-C alkyl benzoate) was tested in a
glasshouse against four weed species using the herbicide pinoxaden. An agrochemical
composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant in a track sprayer and
was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Pinoxaden was applied at either 7.5
or 5 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species. The commercially
available surfactant Atlas® G5000 was used in the spray tank at a concentration of
0.00375 g/l alongside the lower concentration of pinoxaden and at a concentration of
0.0075 g/l at the higher concentration of pinoxaden. The weed species and their growth
stage at spraying were Alopecurus myosuroides (ALOMY; growth stage 13), Avena
fatua (AVEFA; growth stage 12); Lolium perenne (LOLPE; growth stage 13), Setaria
v ri is (SETVl; growth stage 14).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 7 , 1 and 20 days following application. The results shown
in Table 2 below are mean averages over the two rates of pinoxaden, three replicates
and the three assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of pinoxaden in the
absence of an adjuvant and pinoxaden i the presence of triethylhexyl phosphate.
Table 2 Mean percentage kill results for pinoxaden in the presence and absence of Finsolv®TN or Tween®20.
A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was statistically different from the
Treatment ALOMY AVEFA LOLPE SETVl Mean across
species
Pinoxaden + INSO V TN 6.1 AB 70.1 A 53.3 A 68.2 A 49.43 A
Pinoxaden + Triethylhexyl phosphate 7.8 A 66.2 A 55.3 A 71.4 A 50.17 A
Pinoxaden 1.1 B 2.8 B 5.0 B 0.8 B 2.43 B
A second experiment was conducted to assess the efficacy of Finsolv®TN as an
adjuvant for pinoxaden. This was carried out as outlined above, with the following
change: samples were assessed at 14 and 20 days post application. The results shown
below in Table 13 are mean averages over the two rates of pinoxaden, three replicates,
the two assessment timings, and the four weed species, and are compared to the
efficacy of pinoxaden in the absence of of an adjuvant and pinoxaden in the presence of
the common adjuvant methyl oleate.
Both experiments show that the C1 -C alky benzoate is an effective adjuvant for
pinoxaden, and is at least as efficacious as compounds known to be useful as adjuvants
in the agrochemical arena.
Table 1 Mean percentage kill results for pinoxaden in the presence and absence of Finsolv®TN or
methyl oleate. Astandard TukeyHSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was
statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same
letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean across species
Pinoxaden + FINSOLV®TN 87.0 A
Pinoxaden + methyl oleate 82.3 A
Pinoxaden 0.5 B
Example 9 Synthesis of a C -C benzoic acid ester: "Benzoate 1"
The adjuvant mixture "Benzoate 1" was synthesised by adding an oil comprising
a mixture of linear long chain ( and 7 carbons in length) alcohols to a flask and
reacting this oil with benzoyl chloride. The resulting mixture was extracted after the
reaction and purified. Analysis by nmr showed that the product consisted of long-chain
(16 and 17 carbons in length) benzoates. This benzoic acid ester was tested as an
adjuvant in Examples 0, 11, 12 , and 13 described supra.
Example 10 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising nicosulfuron
The aromatic esters Benzoate 1 (see Example 9), Benzoflex 354 (2,2,4-
trimethyl-1 ,3-pentanediol dibenzoate) and Finsolv®SB (stearyl benzoate) were tested in
a glasshouse against four weed species using the herbicide nicosulfuron. Nicosulfuron
was applied at either 30 or 60 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed
species. The weed species and their growth stage at spraying were Abutilon
theophrasti (ABUTH; growth stage 3), Chenopodium albu (CHEAL; growth stage 14),
Digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA; growth stage 13), and Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage
13).
Each spray test replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 0 days following application. The results shown in
Table 14 below are mean averages over the two rates of nicosulfuron, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of nicosulfuron in the
absence of an adjuvant, and nicosulfuron in the presence of the commercially available
tank-mix adjuvant, Atplus41 1F®.
Table 14 Mean percentage kill results for nicosulfuron in the presence and absence of Benzoate 1,
Finsolv®SB, Benzoflex 354 or Atplus 4 F®. A standard TukeyHSD test was carried out to
assess whether each result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed
as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean across SETVI ABUTH CHEAL DIGSA
species
Nicosulfuron + BENZOATE 1 75.9 A 89.7 A 65.4 B 59.2 A 89.3 A
Nicosulfuron + BENZOFLEX 354 75.9 A 88.6 A 72.1 A 59.6 A 83.2 A
Nicosulfuron + FINSOLV®SB 75.1 A 89.9 A 62.9 B 59.6 A 87.9 A
Nicosulfuron +ATPLUS 4 11 F® 74.3 A 89.2 A 63.8 B 60.0 A 84.3 A
Nicosulfuron 59.6 B 8 1.O B 56.7 C 44.6 B 56.3 B
The results show that each of the benzoic acid ester is effective as a n adjuvant
for nicosulfruon.
Example 11 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising fomesafen
The aromatic esters Benzoate 1 (see Example 9), ) , Benzoflex 354 (2,2,4-
trimethyl-1 ,3-pentanediol dibenzoate) and Finsolv®SB (stearyl benzoate) were tested in
a glasshouse against four weed species using the herbicide fomesafen.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Fomesafen
was applied at either 60 o r 12 0 grams of pesticide per hectare o n each of the weed
species. The weed species and their growth stage at spraying were Chenopodium
album (CHEAL;growth stage 14), Abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH; growth stage 12),
Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage 13), and Xanthium strumarium (XANST; growth
stage 12).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed a s a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 7 , 4 and 20 days following application. The results shown
in Table 5 below are mean averages over the two rates of fomesafen, three replicates
the three assessment timings, and the four weed species, and are compared to the
efficacy of fomesafen in the absence of an adjuvant, and fomesafen in the presence of
the commercially available adjuvant Turbocharge®.
Table 5 Mean percentage kill results or fomesafen in the presence and absence of benzoate ,
benzoflex 354, Finsolv ®S8 or Turbocharge®. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to
assess whether each result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed
as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean across
species
Fomesafen + FINSOLV SB 58.9 A
Fomesafent + BENZOATE 1 58.5 A
Fomesafen + Turbocharge ( ) 58.5 A
Fomesafe + BENZOFLEX 354 43.9 B
Fomesafen 37.7 C
The results demonstrate that all of the benzoic acid esters tested are effective as
adjuvants for fomesafen and that isostearyl benzoate, and the C -C alkyl benzoate
(benzoate 1) are as effective as the commercially available agrochemical adjuvant
Turbocharge®.
Example 12 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising mesotrione
The aromatic esters benzoate 1 (see Example 9), Benzoflex 354 (2,2,4-trimethyl-
1,3-pentanediol dibenzoate) and Finsolv®SB (stearyl benzoate) were tested in a
glasshouse against three weed species using the herbicide mesotrione.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Mesotrione
was applied at either 60 or 20 grams of pesticide per hectare on weeds which had
been grown to the .3 or 1.4 leaf stage. The weed species were Xanthium strumarium
(XANST), Brachiaria platyphylla (B AP ) , and Digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA). The
commercially available surfactant Tetronic® 1107 was used in the spray tank at a
concentration of 0.036 g alongside the lower concentration of mesotrione and at a
concentration of 0.072 g/ at the higher concentration of mesotrione.
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 7 , 4 and 20 days following application. The results shown
in Table 0 below are mean averages over the two rates of mesotrione, three replicates
and the three assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of mesotrione in the
absence of adjuvant and mesotrione in the presence of the well-known adjuvant Brij®96.
The results shown in Table 6 below are mean averages over the two rates of
mesotrione, three replicates, three assessment timings and three weed species. The
results are compared to the efficacy of mesotrione in the absence of an adjuvant and
mesotrione in the presence of the commercially available adjuvant Bhj®96.
Table 16 Mean percentage kill results for mesotrione in the presence and absence of benzoate 1,
Benzoflex 354, Finsolv®SB (stearyl benzoate) or Brij ®96. A standard TukeyHSD test was
carried out to assess whether each result was statistically different from the other results and this
is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean across
species
Mesotrione + BENZOATE 1 45.5 A
Mesotrione + FINSOLV®SB 42.5 AB
Mesotrione + BRIJ®96 40.1 B
Mesotrione + BENZOFLEX 354 36.4 B
Mesotrione 18.0 C
The results show that all of the benzoic acid esters are effective adjuvants for
mesotrione, and that benzoate 1 and Finsolv®SB (i.e. the longer chain alkyl benzoates)
are particularly effective.
Example 13 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising pinoxaden
The aromatic esters benzoate 1 (see Example 9), Benzoflex 354 (2,2,4-trimethyt-
1,3-pentanediol dibenzoate) and Finsolv®SB (stearyl benzoate) were tested in a
glasshouse against four weed species using the herbicide pinoxaden.
A n agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Pinoxaden was
applied at either 7.5 or 15 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species.
The commercially available surfactant Atlas® G5000 was used in the spray tank at a
concentration of 0.00375 g/l alongside the lower concentration of pinoxaden and at a
concentration of 0.0075 g/l at the higher concentration of pinoxaden.The weed species
and their growth stage at spraying were Alopecurus myosuroides (ALOMY; growth stage
13), Avena fatua (AVEFA; growth stage 12); Lolium perenne (LOLPE; growth stage 13),
Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage 14).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 7, 14 and 20 days following application. The results shown
in Table 7 below are mean averages over the two rates of pinoxaden, three replicates
and the three assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of pinoxaden in the
absence of an adjuvant and pinoxaden in the presence ofBrij®96 .
The results show that each of the benzoic acid esters tested is an effective
adjuvant for pinoxaden, and that benzoate 1 and Finsolv®SB (i.e. the longer chain alkyl
benzoates) are particularly effective.
Table 17 Mean percentage kill results for pinoxaden in the presence and absence of benzoate 1,
Benzoflex 354, FinsolvOSB (stearyl benzoate) or Brij ®96. A standard Tukey HSD test was
carried out to assess whether each result was statistically different from the other results and this
is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05). .
Treatment Mean across species
Pinoxaden + BENZOATE 1 577 A
Pinoxaden + FINSOLV®SB 54.3 A
Pinoxaden + BRIJ®96 497 A
Pinoxaden + BENZOFLEX 354 36.4 B
Pinoxaden 1.8 C
Example 1 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising pinoxaden
The aromatic esters Finsolv®SB (steary) benzoate), Finsolv®TN and the
aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol 25-3B were tested in a glasshouse against four weed
species using the herbicide pinoxaden.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. The adjuvant
oils were emulsified using a small amount of the surfactant Pluronic® PE 10500, which
was present in the composition at a concentration of 0.02 % v/v. Pinoxaden was applied
at either 7.5 or 5 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species. The
commercially available surfactant Atlas® G5000 was used in the spray tank at a
concentration of 0.00375 g/l alongside the lower concentration of pinoxaden and at a
concentration of 0.0075 g/l at the higher concentration of pinoxaden. The weed species
and their growth stage at spraying were Alopecurus myosuroides (ALOMY; growth stage
13), Avena fatua (AVEFA; growth stage 12); Lolium perenne (LOLPE; growth stage 13),
Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage 13-14).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 18 below are mean averages over the two rates of pinoxaden, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of pinoxaden in the
absence of an adjuvant and pinoxaden in the presence of tris 2ethylhexylphosphate
(TEHP) .
The results show that each of the benzoic acid esters tested is an effective
adjuvant for pinoxaden, and that Dermol® 25-3B was particularly effective.
Table 18 Mean percentage kill results for pinoxaden in the presence and absence of Finsolv®SB,
Finsolv®TN and the aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol 25-3B or Atplus 411F
®. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was statistically
different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not
statistically different (p<0.05)..
Treatment Mean across species
Pinoxaden + Dermol 25-3B 77.7A
Pinoxaden +TEHP 75.7A
Pinoxaden + Finsolv SB 74.4A
Pinoxaden + Finsolv TN 72.4A
Pinoxaden 2.6B
Example 15 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising nicosulfuron
The aromatic esters Finsolv®SB (stearyl benzoate), Finsolv®TN and the
aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol 25-3B were tested in a glasshouse against four weed
species using the herbicide nicosulfuron.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. The adjuvant
oils were emulsified using a small amount of the surfactant Pluronic® PE 10500, which
was present in the composition at a concentration of 0.02 % v/v. Nicosulfuron was
applied at either 30 or 6 0 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species.
The weed species and their growth stage at spraying were Abutiion theophrasti (ABUTH;
growth stage 3), Chenopodium album (CHEAL; growth stage 14-15), Digitaria
sanguineus (DIGSA; growth stage 14), and Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage 13-14).
Each spray test replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 19 below are mean averages over the two rates of nicosulfuron, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of nicosulfuron in the
absence of an adjuvant, and nicosulfuron in the presence of the commercially available
tank-mix adjuvant, Atplus F®.
Table 19 Mean percentage kill results for nicosulfuron in the presence and absence of
Finsolv®SB (stearyl benzoate), Finsolv®TN and the aromatic ester
ethoxylate Dermol 25-3B. A standard Tu e HSD test was carried out to assess whether
each result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests
with the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean across
species
Nicosulfuron +Dermol ® 25-36 6 .5A
Nicosulfuron +Finsolv ®SB 66.6A
Nicosulfuron +FINSOLV®TN 66A
Nicosulfuron +ATPLUS4 F® 60.9A
Nicosulfuron 29.6B
The results show that each of the benzoic acid ester is effective as an adjuvant
for nicosulfruon.
Example 16 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising fomesafen
The aromatic esters Finsolv®SB (stearyl benzoate), Finsolv®TN and the
aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol 25-3B were tested in a glasshouse against four weed
species using the herbicide fomesafen.
A n agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. The adjuvant
oils were emulsified using a small amount of the surfactant Pluronic® PE 0500, which
was present in the composition at a concentration of 0.02 % v/v. Fomesafen was
applied at either 60 or 20 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species.
The weed species and their growth stage at spraying were Polygonum convolvulus
(POLCO;growth stage 13-1 4), Brachiaria plantaginea (BRAL; growth stage 13-14),
Digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA; growth stage 14), and Commelina benghalensis (COMBE;
growth stage 13-14).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 20 below are mean averages over the two rates of fomesafen, three replicates the
two assessment timings, and the four weed species, and are compared to the efficacy of
fomesafen in the absence of an adjuvant, and fomesafen in the presence of the
commercially available adjuvant Turbocharge®.
Table 20 Mean percentage kill results for fomesafen in the presence and absence of Finsolv®SB
(stearyl benzoate), Finsolv®TN and the aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol
25-3B or Turbocharge®. A standard TukeyHSD test was carried out to assess whether each
result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with
the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean
across
species
Fomesafen + Dermol 25-3B 6 1.7A
Fomesafen +Turbocharge 60.7AB
Fomesafen + Finsolv SB 55.8B
Fomesafe + Finsolv TN 45.4C
Fomesafen 24.3D
The results demonstrate that all of the benzoic acid esters tested are effective as
adjuvants for fomesafen and that Finsolv SB and Dermol 25-3B are as effective as the
commercially available agrochemical adjuvant Turbocharge®.
Example 17 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising mesotrione
The aromatic esters Finsolv®SB (stearyl benzoate), Finsolv®TN and the
aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol 25-3B were tested in a glasshouse against three weed
species using the herbicide mesotrione.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. The adjuvant
oils were emulsified using a small amount of the surfactant Pluronic® PE 10500, which
was present in the composition at a concentration of 0.02 % v/v. Mesotrione was
applied at either 60 or 120 grams of pesticide per hectare o n weeds which had been
grown to the 1.3 or 1.4 leaf stage. The weed species were Xanthium strutnarium
(XANST), Brachiaria platyphylla (BRAPL), and Digitaria sanguineus (DIGSA). The
commercially available surfactant Tetronic® 1107 was used in the spray tank at a
concentration of 0.036 g/l alongside the lower concentration of mesotrione and at a
concentration of 0.072 g/l at the higher concentration of mesotrione.
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 10 below are mean averages over the two rates of mesotrione, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of mesotrione in the
absence of adjuvant and mesotrione in the presence of the well-known adjuvant
Tween®20. The results shown in Table 16 below are mean averages over the two rates
of mesotrione, three replicates, three assessment timings and three weed species. The
results are compared to the efficacy of mesotrione in the absence of an adjuvant and
mesotrione in the presence of the commercially available adjuvant Tween®20.
Table 2 1 Mean percentage kill results for mesotrione in the presence and absence of Finsolv®SB
(stearyl benzoate), Finsolv®TN and the aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol
©25-3B orTween ®20. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each
result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with
the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean
across
species
Mesotrione + Tween® 20 43.4A
Mesotrione + Dermol®25-3B 42A
Mesotrione + FINSOLV®SB 38.3A
Mesotrione + FINSOLV®TN 32.7B
Mesotrione 19.9C
The results show that all of the benzoic acid esters are effective adjuvants for
mesotrione, and that Dermol ®25-3B and Finsolv®SB (i.e. the longer chain alkyl
benzoates) are particularly effective.
Example 18 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising pinoxaden
The aromatic esters Finsolv®TN and the aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol 25-3B
were tested in a glasshouse against four weed species using the herbicide pinoxaden.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing either 0.2, 0.1, 0.05 or 0.025 %
v/v of the adjuvant in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per
hectare. The adjuvant tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate was applied at 0.5 % v/v.An
agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant in a track
sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Pinoxaden was applied
at either 7.5 or 15 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species. The
commercially available surfactant Atlas® G5000 was used in the spray tank at a
concentration of 0.00375 g/l alongside the lower concentration of pinoxaden and at a
concentration of 0.0075 g/l at the higher concentration of pinoxaden.
The weed species and their growth stage at spraying were Alopecurus myosuroides
(ALOMY; growth stage 2 ), Avena fatua (AVEFA; growth stage 12); Lolium perenne
(LOLPE; growth stage 13), Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage 12).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 22 below are mean averages over the two rates of pinoxaden, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of pinoxaden in the
absence of an adjuvant and pinoxaden in the presence of tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate .
The results show that each of the benzoic acid esters tested is an effective
adjuvant for pinoxaden, and that Dermol® 25-3B was particularly effective.
Mean percentage kill results for pinoxaden in the presence and absence of Finsolv®TN
and the aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol 25-3B or Atplus 411 F®. A standard
Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was statistically different from the
other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically
Treatment Adjuvant Mean
rate % across
v/v species
Pinoxaden + FINSOLV ®TN 0 .1 87A
Pinoxaden + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.1 86.5A
Pinoxaden + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.2 86.3A
Pinoxaden +ATPLUS 11 F® 0.5 86.1AB
Pinoxaden + FINSOLV ®TN 0.2 86AB
Pinoxaden + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.05 8 1.6AB
Pinoxaden + FINSOLV ®TN 0.05 79.1BC
Pinoxaden + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.025 72.9CD
Pinoxaden + FINSOLV ®TN 0.025 69.2D
Pinoxaden 3.6E
Example 19 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising nicosulfuron
The aromatic ester Finsolv®TN and the aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol® 25-
3B were tested in a glasshouse against four weed species using the herbicide
nicosulfuron. An agrochemical composition was prepared containing either 0.2, 0.1,
0.05 or 0.025 % v/v of the adjuvant in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of
200 litres per hectare. The commercial adjuvant Atplus ®41 1F was applied at 0.5 % v/v.
Nicosulfuron was applied at either 30 or 60 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of
the weed species. The weed species and their growth stage at spraying were Abutilon
theophrasti (ABUTH; growth stage - ), Chenopod/um album (CHEAL; growth stage
3- ) , Digiiaria sanguineus (DIGSA; growth stage 3-21 ) , and Sefan 'a viridis (SETVI;
growth stage 13).
Each spray test replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 23 below are mean averages over the two rates of nicosulfuron, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of nicosulfuron in the
absence of an adjuvant, and nicosulfuron in the presence of the commercially available
tank-mix adjuvant, Atplus41 1F®.
Mean percentage kill results for nicosulfuron in the presence and absence of
Finso!v®TN and the aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol ®25-3B. Astandard
TukeyHSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was statistically different from the
other results a d this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically
Treatment Adjuvant Mean
rate % across
v/v species
Nicosulfuron + Oermol ® 25-36 0.1 64.4A
Nicosulfuron + Dermol ®25-3B 0.2 65A
Nicosulfuron +ATPLUS4 F® 0.5 63.1A
Nicosulfuron + FINSOLV®TN 0.2 62.8A
Nicosulfuron + FINSOLV®TN 0.1 60.5AB
Nicosulfuron Dermol ®25-3B 0.05 59.4AB
Nicosulfuron + FINSOLV®TN 0.05 55.6BC
Nicosulfuron + FINSOLV®TN 0.025 54.8BC
Nicosulfuron + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.025 50.7C
Nicosulfuron 40.1
The results show that each of the benzoic acid esters was as effective as the
commercial adjuvant Atplus ®41 F but at very reduced rates of adjuvant for nicosuifruon.
Example 20 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemica) compositions
comprising fomesafen
The aromatic esters Finsolv®TN and the aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol 25-3B
were tested in a glasshouse against four weed species using the herbicide fomesafen.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing either 0.2, 0.1 , 0.05 or
0.025 % v/v of the adjuvant in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres
per hectare. The commercial adjuvant Turbocharge ® was applied at 0.5 % v/v. An
agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant in a track
sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Fomesafen was applied
at either 60 or 1 0 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species. The
weed species and their growth stage at spraying were Polygonum convolvulus
(POLCO;growth stage 13-14), Brachiaria plantaginea (BRAL; growth stage 12-1 3),
Digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA; growth stage 13), and Commelina benghalensis (COMBE;
growth stage 12).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 24 below are mean averages over the two rates of fomesafen, three replicates the
two assessment timings, and the four weed species, and are compared to the efficacy of
fomesafen in the absence of an adjuvant, and fomesafen in the presence of the
commercially available adjuvant Turbocharge®.
Table 24 Mean percentage kilt results for fomesafen In the presence and absence of Finsolv®TN
and the aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol 25-3B or Turbocharge®. A standard
Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was statistically different from the
other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically
different (p<0.05).
Treatment Adjuvant Mean
rate % across
v/v species
Fomesafen + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.2 39.2A
Fomesafen + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.1 33.4AB
Fomesafen +Turbocharge® 0.5 33.1ABC
Fomesafen + FINSOLV ®TN 0.2 29.9BCD
Fomesafen + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.05 24.4CDE
Fomesafen + FINSOLV ®TN 0.1 24.3DE
Fomesafen + FINSOLV ®TN 0.05 22.9DE
Fomesafen + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.025 22.6DE
Fomesafen + FINSOLV ®TN 0.025 21.5DE
Fomesafen 17.8E
The results demonstrate that all of the benzoic acid esters tested are effective as
adjuvants for fomesafen and that Finsolv SB and Dermol 25-3B are as effective as the
commercially available agrochemical adjuvant Turbocharge® but at a much lower use
rate of the adjuvant.
Example 21 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising mesotrione
The aromatic esters Finso1v®SB (stearyl benzoate), Finsolv®TN and the
aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol 25-3B were tested in a glasshouse against three weed
species using the herbicide mesotrione.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing either 0.2, 0.1, 0.05 or
0.025 % v/v of the adjuvant in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres
per hectare. The commercial adjuvant Tween20 ® was applied at 0.2 % v/v. Mesotrione
was applied at either 60 or 20 grams of pesticide per hectare on weeds which had
been grown to the .3 or .4 leaf stage. The commercially available surfactant
Tetronic® 1 07 was used in the spray tank at a concentration of 0.036 gl alongside the
lower concentration of mesotrione and at a concentration of 0.072 g/l at the higher
concentration of mesotrione. The weed species were Polygonum convolvulus (POLCO)
13, Brachiaria platyphylla (BRAPL) 12-13, Comelina berghalensis (COMBE) 12 and
Digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA) 13.
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 1 and 2 days following application. The results shown in
Table 25 below are mean averages over the two rates of mesotrione, three replicates,
four weed species and the two assessment timings. The adjuvants are compared to the
efficacy of mesotrione in the absence of adjuvant and mesotrione in the presence of the
well-known adjuvant Tween®20.
Table 25 Mean percentage kill results for mesotrione in the presence and absence of Finsolv®TN
and the aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol ®25-3B or Tween®20. A standard
Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was statistically different from the
other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same letter are not statistically
different (p<0.05).
Treatment Adjuvant Mean
rate % across
v v species
Mesotrione + FINSOLV ®TN 0.2 70.1A
Mesotrione + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.2 69.7A
Mesotrione + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.1 69.6AB
Mesotrione +Tween20® 0.2 66.8AB
Mesotrione + FINSOLV ®TN 0.1 65AB
Mesotrione + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.05 61.5BC
Mesotrione + Dermol ® 25-3B 0.025 56.9C
Mesotrione + FINSOLV ®TN 0.025 55.3C
Mesotrione + FINSOLV ®TN 0.05 55.2C
Mesotrione 33.7D
The results show that all of the benzoic acid esters are effective adjuvants for
mesotrione, and that they are a s effective as the commercial Adjuvant Tween®20 at a
much lower rate of adjuvant.
Example 22 Synthesis of novel adjuvants Benzoate 2 and Benzoate 3
In this example the novel compounds oleyl-2- ethoxy-benzoate and oleyl-1 0-
ethoxy-benzoate are synthesised. The adjuvant mixture "Benzoate 2" was synthesised
by adding an ethoxylated surfactant (Brij ®0-2) comprising a mixture of linear long chain
(primarily oley!, 8 carbons in length) alcohols to a flask and reacting this oil with
benzoyl chloride. The resulting mixture was extracted after the reaction and purified.
Analysis by nmr showed that the product consisted of long-chain ( 18 carbons in length)
alcohol ethoxylates with a terminal benzoate. Similarly the surfactant Brij ®O-1 0 was
reacted with benzoyl chloride to form the benzoate "Benzoate 3". These benzoic acid
esters were tested as adjuvants in Examples 23, 24, 25, and 26 described infra.
Example 23 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising pinoxaden
The two aromatic esters prepared in example 22 tested in a glasshouse against
four weed species using the herbicide pinoxaden.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Pinoxaden was
applied at either 7.5 or 15 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species.
The commercially available surfactant Atlas® G5000 was used in the spray tank at a
concentration of 0.00375 g/l alongside the lower concentration of pinoxaden and at a
concentration of 0.0075 g/l at the higher concentration of pinoxaden.The weed species
and their growth stage at spraying were Alopecurus myosuroides (ALOMY; growth stage
3) , Avena fatua (AVEFA; growth stage 12); Loliu perenne (LOLPE; growth stage 3),
Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage 13-14).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 26 below are mean averages over the two rates of pinoxaden, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of pinoxaden in the
absence of an adjuvant and pinoxaden in the presence of tris 2-ethylhexyl phosphate.
The results show that each of the benzoic acid esters tested is an effective
adjuvant for pinoxaden, and that Benzoate 2 was particularly effective.
Table 26 Mean percentage kill results for pinoxaden in the presence and absence of Benzoate 2 and
Benzoate 3 or TEHP. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result
was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the
Treatment Mean
across
species
Pinoxaden + TEHP 80.6A
Pinoxaden +Benzoate 2 75. 5A
Pinoxaden + Benzoate 3 66.5B
Pinoxaden 4.0C
Example 24 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising nicosulfuron
The two aromatic esters prepared in example 22 tested in a glasshouse against
four weed species using the herbicide nicosulfuron. Nicosulfuron was applied at either
30 or 60 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species. The weed
species and their growth stage at spraying were Abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH; growth
stage 13), Chenopodium album (CHEAL; growth stage 14-15), Digitaria sanguinalis
(DIGSA; growth stage 14), and Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage 13-14).
Each spray test replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 27 below are mean averages over the two rates of nicosulfuron, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of nicosulfuron in the
absence of an adjuvant, and nicosulfuron in the presence of the commercially available
tank-mix adjuvant, Atplus41 1F®.
Table 27 Mean percentage kill results for nicosulfuron in the presence and absence of Benzoate 2
and Benzoate 3. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was
statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same
letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean
across
species
Nicosulfuron + Atplus 4 1F 69.2A
Pinoxaden +Benzoate 2 65.6AB
Pinoxaden + Benzoate 3 6 1.2B
Pinoxaden 46.6C
The results show that each of the benzoic acid ester is effective as an adjuvant
for nicosulfruon.
Example 25 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising fomesafen
The two aromatic esters prepared in example 22 tested in a glasshouse against
four weed species using the herbicide fomesafen.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Fomesafen
was applied at either 60 or 120 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed
species. The weed species and their growth stage at spraying were Polygonum
convolvulus (POLCO;growth stage 13), Brachiaria plantaginea (BRAL; growth stage 13),
Digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA; growth stage 12-13), and Commelina benghalensis
(COMBE; growth stage 11-12).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 28 below are mean averages over the two rates of fomesafen, three replicates the
two assessment timings, and the four weed species, and are compared to the efficacy of
fomesafen in the absence of an adjuvant, and fomesafen in the presence of the
commercially available adjuvant Turbocharge®.
Mean percentage kill results for fomesafen in the presence and absence of Benzoate 2 and
Benzoate 3 o r Turbocharge®. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether
each result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests
with the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean
across
species
Fomesafen + Benzoate 2 57. 5A
Fomesafen +Turbocharge 5 1.5B
Fomesafen + Benzoate 3 48.9B
Fomesafen 32.8C
The results demonstrate that all of the benzoic acid esters tested are effective as
adjuvants for fomesafen and that Finsolv SB and Dermol 25-3B are as effective as the
commercially available agrochemical adjuvant Turbocharge®.
Example 26 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising mesotrione
The two aromatic esters prepared in example 22 tested in a glasshouse against
four weed species using the herbicide mesotrione.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Mesotrione
was applied at either 60 or 20 grams of pesticide per hectare on weeds which had
been grown to the 1.3 or 1.4 leaf stage. The commercially available surfactant Tetronic®
07 was used in the spray tank at a concentration of 0.036 g/l alongside the lower
concentration of mesotrione and at a concentration of 0.072 g/l at the higher
concentration of mesotrione. The weed species were Xanthium strumarium (XANST),
Brachiaria platyphylla (BFIAPL), and Digitaria sanguina!is (DIGSA).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 29 below are mean averages over the two rates of mesotrione, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of mesotrione in the
absence of adjuvant and mesotrione in the presence of the well-known adjuvant
Tween®20. The results shown in Table 29 below are mean averages over the two rates
of mesotrione, three replicates, three assessment timings and three weed species. The
results are compared to the efficacy of mesotrione in the absence of an adjuvant and
mesotrione in the presence of the commercially available adjuvant Tween®20.
Table 29 Mean percentage kill results for mesotrione in the presence and absence of Benzoate 2 and
Benzoate 3 or Tween®20. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each
result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with
the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean
across
species
Mesotrione + Benzoate 2 6 1. A
Mesotrione +Tween20 60.8AB
Mesotrione + Benzoate 3 55. 5B
Mesotrione 39.4C
The results show that the two benzoic acid esters are effective adjuvants for
mesotrione, and that Benzoate 2 was particularly effective.
Example 27 A further example of a novel benzoate capped ethoxylated adjuvant
The commercial product Arosurf® 66E20 (branched C18 alcohol ethoxylate with an
average of 20 moles of ethoxylate) was reacted with benzoyl chloride. The product of
this reaction was purified by chromatography and shown by nmr analysis to have a
terminal benzoate ester group on the ethoxylate.
Example 28 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising isopyrazam
The efficacy of the benzoic acid esters Finsolv®SB, and the benzoate end
capped ethoxylate Dermol ®25-3B as adjuvants in compositions comprising isopyrazam
was tested and compared to the standard formulations (both EC and SC) of the
fungicide, which lack this type of adjuvant.
Wheat plants were inoculated with the fungus Septoria tritici. Four days after
inoculation the plants were sprayed with a diluted emulsion concentrate or suspension
concentrate formulation of the fungicide isopyrazam at rates of 3 , 10 , 30 and 00 mg of
the fungicide per litre of spray solution, using a laboratory track sprayer which delivered
the spray at a rate of 200 litres per hectare. Spray tests were also carried out with
diluted suspension concentrate additionally comprising each of the benzoate adjuvants
described above. These adjuvants were added to the spray solution at a rate of 0.2 %
w/w, based on the quantity of spray liquor. The leaves of the plants were assessed
visually 1 days after the spray application and the damage was expressed as the
percentage of the leaf area infected. Each spray test was replicated three times across
the four application rates and the modelled means of these results are shown in Table
30 below.
As can be seen from Table 30 the inclusion of a benzoate as an adjuvant for
isopyrazam resulted in a significant reduction in the percentage of infection by . tritici in
comparison to that achieved by the standard isopyrazam SC. As well as increasing the
efficacy of the standard suspension concentrate formulation (Standard SC) of
isopyrazam, inclusion of the benzoate adjuvants Finsolv® SB or Dermol 25-3B also
resulted in isopyrazam compositions that were as effective at controlling S triticias the
standard isopyrazam emulsion concentrate formulation (Standard EC).
Table 30 Mean % infection of wheat plants with S. tritici treated with isopyrazam in the presence and absence
of benzoic acid ester adjuvants. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each
result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same
letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean % infection
Control (blank) 60 A
Standard Isopyrazam SC 38.6 B
Standard Isopyrazam SC plus Dermol
25-3B 26.2 C
Standard Isopyrazam EC 25.7 C
Standard Isopyrazam SC plus Finsolv SB 25.4 C
Example 29 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising epoxyconazole
The efficacy of the benzoic acid ester Finsolv®SB , and the benzoate end
capped ethoxylate Dermol ©25-3B as adjuvants in compositions comprising isopyrazam
was tested and as adjuvants in compositions comprising epoxyconazole, was tested and
compared to the standard formulation (SC) of the fungicide, which lacks this type of
adjuvant.
Wheat plants were inoculated with the fungus Septoria tritici. Four days after
inoculation the plants were sprayed with a diluted suspension concentrate formulation of
the fungicide epoxyconazole at rates of 3, 10, 30 and 100 g of the fungicide per litre of
spray solution, using a laboratory track sprayer which delivered the spray at a rate of
200 litres per hectare. Spray tests were also carried out with diluted suspension
concentrate additionally comprising each of the benzoate adjuvants described above.
These adjuvants were added to the spray solution at a rate of 0.2 % w/w, based on the
quantity of spray liquor. The leaves of the plants were assessed visually days after
the spray application and the damage was expressed as the percentage of the leaf area
infected. Each spray test was replicated three times across the four application rates
and the modelled means of these results are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 31 Mean % infection of wheat plants with S. tritici treated with epoxyconazole in the presence and
absence of benzoic acid ester adjuvants. A standard Tu ey HSD test as carried out to assess whether
each result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the
same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean % infection
Control (blank) 57.6 A
Standard epoxyconazole SC 44.5 A
Standard epoxyconazole SC + Finsolv SB 18.7 B
Standard epoxyconazole SC + Dermol 25-3B 10.8 C
The results show that the mean percentage infection with S. tritici is reduced
further when the wheat plants were treated with compositions of epoxyconazole
comprising each of the benzoates, in comparison to the control (blank) and when treated
with the standard SC composition of epoxyconazole. This shows that the benzoates are
effective adjuvants for epoxyconazole.
Example 30
Sunspray 1 N is a commercially available oil which can be used to formulate adjuvants
for tank mixing with agrochemical peroducts. One of the problems with ethoxylated
adjuvants is that they are often incompatible with such oils and cannot therefore be
formulated with this oil. This is a limitation. An advantage of a benzoate ester end
capped adjuvant is that it has excellent compatibility with oils such as Sunspray 1N.
Equal portions were prepared of Sunspray N and either Oleyl 0 ethoxylate with a
butyl end cap (Agnique OC9 FOH 10B) or oleyl ethoxylate with a benzoate end cap.
The Agnique FOH OC9 10B formed two distinct layers whereas the benzoate end cap
formed a single layer.
This demonstrates the superior miscibility of benzoate end capped adjuvants to butyl
end capped adjuvants.
Example 31 Further benzoate end capped ethoxylated surfactants
The following commercially available ethoxylated surfactants were reacted with benzoyl
chloride to form benzoate ester end capped adjuvants. The surfactants were dissolved
in dichloromethane at which point triethylamine and benzoyl chloride were successively
added. The mixture was stirred for 2 hours at 20 C. After this time the solvent was
removed and the residue dissolved in ethyl acetate and aqueous sodium bicarbonate.
The aqueous layer was washed with ethyl acetate which was then dried over anhydrous
magnesium sulphate, filtered and concentrated. The product was identified by nmr
spectroscopy.
Example 32 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising pinoxaden
The aromatic compound tridecyl salicylate was tested in a glasshouse against
four weed species using the herbicide pinoxaden.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Pinoxaden was
applied at either 7.5 or 15 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species.
The commercially available surfactant Atlas® G5000 was used in the spray tank at a
concentration of 0.00375 g/l alongside the lower concentration of pinoxaden and at a
concentration of 0.0075 g/l at the higher concentration of pinoxaden. The weed species
and their growth stage at spraying were Alopecurus myosuroides (ALOMY; growth stage
13), Avena fatua (AVEFA; growth stage 12); Loltum perenne (LOLPE; growth stage 13),
Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage 13-14).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 18 below are mean averages over the two rates of pinoxaden, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of pinoxaden in the
absence of an adjuvant and pinoxaden in the presence of tris 2-ethylhexyl phosphate
(TEHP).
The results show that tridecyl salicylate is an effective adjuvant for pinoxaden.
Table 32 Mean percentage kill results for pinoxaden in the presence and absence of tridecyl
salicylate or TEHP. A standard Tu ey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result
was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the
same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05)..
Treatment Mean
across
species
Pinoxaden + TEHP 86.1A
Pinoxaden + Tridecyl salicylate 85A
Pinoxaden 3.6B
Example 33 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising nicosulfuron
The aromatic compound tridecyl salicylate was tested in a glasshouse against
four weed species using the herbicide nicosulfuron. Nicosulfuron was applied at either
30 or 60 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed species. The weed
species and their growth stage at spraying were Abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH; growth
stage 13), Chenopodium album (CHEAL; growth stage 14-1 5), Digitaria sanguinalis
(DIGSA; growth stage 14), and Setaria viridis (SETVI; growth stage 13-1 4).
Each spray test replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 9 below are mean averages over the two rates of nicosulfuron, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of nicosulfuron in the
absence of an adjuvant, and nicosulfuron in the presence of the commercially available
tank-mix adjuvant, Atplus 1F®.
Mean percentage kill results for nicosulfuron in the presence and absence of tridecyl
salicylate. A standard Tukey HSD test was carried out to assess whether each result was
statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with the same
Treatment Mean
across
species
Nicosulfuron +ATPLUS 4 1 F® 63.1A
Nicosulfuron + Tridecyl salicylate 6 1.5A
Nicosulfuron 40. 1B
The results show that tridecyl salicylate is effective as an adjuvant for
nicosulfruon.
Example 34 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising fomesafen
The aromatic compound tridecyl salicylate was tested in a glasshouse against
four weed species using the herbicide fomesafen.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Fomesafen
was applied at either 60 or 0 grams of pesticide per hectare on each of the weed
species. The weed species and their growth stage at spraying were Polygonum
convolvulus (POLCO;growth stage 13-14), Brachiaria plantaginea (BRAL; growth stage
13-14), Digitaria sanguineus (DIGSA; growth stage 14), and Commelina benghalensis
(COMBE; growth stage 13-14).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 34 below are mean averages over the two rates of fomesafen, three replicates the
two assessment timings, and the four weed species, and are compared to the efficacy of
fomesafen in the absence of an adjuvant, and fomesafen in the presence of the
commercially available adjuvant Turbocharge®.
Mean percentage kill results for fomesafen in the presence and absence of tridecy)
salicylate or Turbocharge®. A standard T ey HSD test was carried out to assess whether
each result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests
with the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean
across
species
Fomesafen + Turbocharge® 33.0A
Fomesafen + Tridecyl salicylate 28.2A
Fomesafen 17.8B
The results demonstrate that tridecyl salicylate is effective as adjuvants for
fomesafen
Example 35 Use of benzoic acid ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
comprising mesotrione
The aromatic compound tridecyl salicylate was tested in a glasshouse against
three weed species using the herbicide mesotrione.
An agrochemical composition was prepared containing 0.2 % v/v of the adjuvant
in a track sprayer and was applied at a volume of 200 litres per hectare. Mesotrione
was applied at either 60 or 0 grams of pesticide per hectare on weeds which had
been grown to the 1.3 or 1.4 leaf stage. The commercially available surfactant Tetronic®
107 was used in the spray tank at a concentration of 0.036 g/l alongside the lower
concentration of mesotrione and at a concentration of 0.072 g/l at the higher
concentration of mesotrione. The weed species were Xanthium strumarium (XANST),
Brachiaria platyphylla (BRAPL), and Digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA).
Each spray test was replicated three times. The efficacy of the herbicide was
assessed visually and expressed as a percentage of the leaf area killed. Samples were
assessed at time periods of 14 and 2 1 days following application. The results shown in
Table 0 below are mean averages over the two rates of mesotrione, three replicates
and the two assessment timings, and are compared to the efficacy of mesotrione in the
absence of adjuvant and mesotrione in the presence of the well-known adjuvant
Tween®20. The results shown in Table 16 below are mean averages over the two rates
of mesotrione, three replicates, three assessment timings and three weed species. The
results are compared to the efficacy of mesotrione in the absence of an adjuvant and
mesotrione in the presence of the commercially available adjuvant Tween®20.
Mean percentage kill results for mesotrione in the presence and absence of tridecyl
salicylate or Tween®20. A standard TukeyHSD test was carried out to assess whether each
result was statistically different from the other results and this is expressed as a letter: tests with
the same letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Treatment Mean
across
species
Mesotrione + Tween ®20 67.1A
Mesotrione + Tridecyl salicylate 63.6A
Mesotrione 33.8B
The results show that tridecyl salicylate is an effective adjuvant for mesotrione.
Example 36 Use of aromatic ester adjuvants in agrochemical compositions
containing abamectin
The efficacy of the benzoic acid esters Finsolv®SB (isostearyl benzoate) and
Finsolv®TN (Ci 2-C1 alkyl benzoate) and the aromatic ester ethoxylate Dermol®25-3B
C 2-C alkyl ethoxy (3) benzoate) as adjuvants in compositions containing abamectin
was tested and compared to the efficacy of abamectin compositions which lack this type
of adjuvant. The adjuvants were present at 0. % v/v in the abamectin compositions.
The surfactants polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate and an ethoxylated castor oil
were also present in all the abamectin compositions tested.
Two week old French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) plants were infested with a mixed
population of two spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae. One day after infestation the
plants were treated with the test compositions, with a track sprayer from the top with a
rate of 200 litres per hectare. Plants were incubated in the greenhouse for 10 days and
the evaluation was done on mortality against Larva and Adults, just on the lower side
(untreated) of the leaves. Each experiment was replicated twice and the results were
averaged. The mortality against Larva and Adults was then averaged.
In the control experiment the beans were sprayed with water and no mortality was
observed. The beans were sprayed with aromatic ester compositions without abamectin
present, containing 0.1 % v/v Finsolv® TN, 0.1 % v/v Finsolv® SB or 0.1 % v/v Dermol®
25-3B and no mortality was observed in each case.
Table 36 % Mortality of Tetranychus urticae treated with abamectin in the
presence and absence of aromatic ester adjuvants.
As can be seen from Table 36 the inclusion of the aromatic esters as adjuvants for
abamectin provided effective control of Tetranychus urticae at much lower
concentrations of abamectin than are required in the absence of adjuvant.
CLAIMS
. An agrochemical composition comprising:
i . an active ingredient
ii. a surfactant; and
iii. an aromatic ester of formula (I)
wherein R is OH, halogen, or i-C1- alkyl amino,
q is 0 or 1
n is an integer selected from 0 to 20 inclusive,
each A is independently C^oalkanediyl,
m is an integer selected from 1, 2 or 3;
wherein when m is 1, R2 is selected from the group consisting of
C -C alkyl, C -C alkenyl, C -C 0 alkyldienyl and C -C2 alkyltrienyl; and
when m is 2 or 3, R2 is selected from the group consisting of C C2oalkyl,
C«-C 2 alkenyl, C -C 2 alkyldienyl and C -C22 alkyltrienyl; and
is independently attached to any carbon atom within R2, and each
R q , A and n is independently as defined above provided that the
compound of formula (I) is not dipropylene glycol dibenzoate.
2. An agrochemical composition according to claim 1 wherein q is ; and R is a
dimethylamino or hydroxy group.
3. An agrochemical composition according to claim 1 or claim 2 wherein n is .
4. An agrochemical composition according to any one of the preceding claims
wherein each A is independently ethanediyl, propanediyl, butanediyl or
butanediyl.
5. An agrochemical composition according to any one of the preceding claims
wherein each A is independently each A is independently ,2-ethanediyl,
1,2-propanediyl, 1,2-butanediyl or ,4-butanediyl.
6. An agrochemical composition according to claim 1 or claim 2 wherein n is 0.
7. An agrochemical composition according to any one of the preceding claims
wherein m is 1.
8. An agrochemical composition according to claim 7, wherein R2 is C8-C 8 alkyl.
9. An agrochemical composition according to claim 8, wherein R2 is 2-ethylhexyl,
C alkyl, C alkyl, C alkyl, C1 alkyl, C alkyl, C alkyl, oleyl or isooctadecyl.
10. An agrochemical composition according to any one of claims 1 to 6 wherein m is
2 .
. An agrochemical composition according to claim 0, wherein R2 is C -C, alkyl
2. An agrochemical composition according to claim 1 wherein R2 is a C8 branchedchain
alkyl, and each group
is attached to a different carbon atom in R2.
An agrochemical composition according to claim 12 wherein the compound of
formula (I) is 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol dibenzoate.
An agrochemical composition according to any one of the preceding claims
wherein the active ingredient is present at a concentration in the range from
about 0.001% to about 90% w w.
An agrochemical composition according to any one of the preceding claims
wherein the aromatic ester comprises from about 0.0005% w/w to about 90%
w/w of the total composition.
An agrochemical composition according to anyone of the preceding claims
wherein the active ingredient is selected from the group consisting of:
bicyclopyrone, mesotrione, fomesafen, tralkoxydim, napropamide, amitraz,
propanil, pyrimethanil, didoran, tecnazene, toclofos methyl, flamprop M, 2,4-D,
MCPA, mecoprop, clodinafop-propargyl, cyhalofop-butyl, diclofop methyl,
haloxyfop, quizalofop-P, indol-3-ylacetic acid, 1-naphthylacetic acid, isoxaben,
tebutam, chlorthal dimethyl, benomyl, benfuresate, dicamba, dichlobenil,
benazolin, triazoxide, fluazuron, teflubenzuron, phenmedipham, acetochlor,
alachlor, metolachlor, pretilachlor, thenylchlor, alloxydim, butroxydim, clethodim,
cyclodim, sethoxydim, tepraloxydim, pendimethalin, dinoterb, bifenox, oxyfluorfen,
acifluorfen, fluoroglycofen-ethyl, bromoxynil, ioxynil, imazamethabenz-methyl,
imazapyr, imazaquin, imazethapyr, imazapic, imazamox, flumioxazin,
flumiclorac-pentyl, picloram, amodosulfuron, chlorsulfuron, nicosulfuron,
rimsulfuron, triasulfuron, triallate, pebulate, prosulfocarb, molinate, atrazine,
simazine, cyanazine, ametryn, prometryn, terbuthylazine, terbutryn, sulcotrione,
isoproturon, linuron, fenuron, chlorotoluron, metoxuron, isopyrazam,
mandipropamid, azoxystrobin, trifloxystrobin, kresoxim methyl, famoxadone,
metominostrobin and picoxystrobin, cyprodanil, carbendazim, thiabendazole,
dimethomorph, vinclozolin, iprodione, dithiocarbamate, imazalil, prochloraz,
fluquinconazole, epoxiconazole, flutriafol, azaconazole, bitertanol,
bromuconazole, cyproconazole, difenoconazole, hexaconazole, paclobutrazole,
propiconazole, tebuconazole, triadimefon, trtiticonazole, fenpropimorph,
tridemorph, fenpropidin, mancozeb, metiram, chlorothalonil, thiram, ziram,
captafol, captan, folpet, fluazinam, flutolanil, carboxin, metalaxyl, bupirimate,
ethirimol, dimoxystrobin, fluoxastrobin, orysastrobin, metominostrobin,
prothioconazole, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin,
dinotefuran, nitenpyram, fipronil, abamectin, emamectin, bendiocarb, carbaryl,
fenoxycarb, isoprocarb, pirimicarb, propoxur, xylylcarb, asulam, chlorpropham,
endosulfan, heptachlor, tebufenozide, bensultap, diethofencarb, pirimiphos
methyl, aldicarb, methomyl, cyprmethrin, bioallethrin, deltamethrin, lambda
cyhalothrin, cyhalothrin, cyfluthrin, fenvalerate, imiprothrin, permethrin,
halfenprox, paclobutrazole, 1-methylcyclopropene, benoxacor, cloquintocetmexyl,
cyometrinil, dichlormid, fenchlorazole-ethyl, fenclorim, flurazole,
fluxofenim, mefenpyr-diethyl, MG-191, naphthalic anhydride, and oxabetrinil.
An agrochemical composition according to anyone of the preceding claims
wherein the composition is formulated as, or comprised by a microcapsule.
An agrochemical composition according to any one of the preceding claims,
wherein the composition is an emulsion concentrate (EC), an emulsion in water
(EW), a microcapsule formulation (CS), a suspension of particles in water (SC), a
dispersion concentrate (DC), a suspension of particles in an emulsion (SE), a
suspension of particles in water (SC) or a suspension of particles in oil (OD).
An agrochemical composition according to any one of the preceding claims,
comprising at least one additional component selected from the group consisting
of agrochemicals, adjuvants, surfactants, emulsifiers and solvents.
Use of an agrochemical composition as defined in any one of claims 1 to 19 to
control pests.
Use of an aromatic ester as defined in any one of claims 1 to 3, as an adjuvant
in an agrochemical composition.
A method of controlling a pest, comprising applying a composition as defined in
any one of claims 1 to 19 to said pest or the locus of said pest.
23. A method of making an agrochemical composition comprising providing:
an agrochemically active ingredient;
a surfactant; and
an aromatic ester of formula (I) as defined in any one of claims 1
to 13;
and combining the agrochemically active ingredient, surfactant and aromatic
ester of i , ii and iii.
24. A method according to claim 23, wherein the agrochemical composition is as
defined in claims 1 to 19.
25. An aromatic ester of formula (I)
R is OH, halogen or di-C^alkyl amino,
q is an integer selected from 0 and 1
n is an integer selected from 1 to 20 inclusive,
each A is independently C1- alkanediyl,
m is 1; and
R2 is selected from the group consisting of C -C2oalkyl,
C7-C20 alkenyl, C7-C oalkyldienyl and C -C20 alkyltrienyl.