Next Article in Journal
Accuracy of Extraoral Digital Impressions with Multi-Unit Implants
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Dynamic Characteristics of Attached High Rise Risers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 15
10.3390/app13158768
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Multifunctional Adjuvants on Physical and Chemical Features of Spray Liquid and Efficacy in Sugar Beet

by
Robert Idziak
1,
Angelika Sobczak
2,
Hubert Waligóra
1,
Piotr Szulc
1,* and
Leszek Majchrzak
1
1
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Horticulture and Bioengineering, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Dojazd 11, 60-632 Poznan, Poland
2
Research and Education Center Gorzyn, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznan, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(15), 8768; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158768
Submission received: 21 June 2023 / Revised: 12 July 2023 / Accepted: 27 July 2023 / Published: 29 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impacts of Plant and Soil Biodiversity on Biomass Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the period 2017–2019, field experiments were conducted at the Research and Education Center Gorzyń, unit Złotniki (52°486′ N; 16°819′ E), Poznan University of Life Sciences, at the Luvisols, under natural weather conditions, to evaluate the effect of multifunctional methylated seed oil (EXP 1, 2, and 3) and standard adjuvants (AtB and S) on the efficacy of mixtures phenmedipham + ethofumesate and metamitron applied in full (PEM 1) and reduced rates (PEM 2) in sugar beet. Field studies were carried out and three applications of herbicides were administrated subsequent to the emergence of weeds (BBCH 11–12). PEM applied at reduced rates with EXP was more effective than after AtB and S adjuvants. They enabled the attainment of high and consistent efficacy of herbicides (with EXP—96–97%, AtB—97%, S—95%, compared to PEM 1—93%, and PEM 2—82%), irrespective of varying weather conditions during, and subsequent to, their application. The sugar beet root yield from herbicide treatments after tested adjuvants was higher than from the untreated control and after application of reduced rates of herbicides without adjuvants.

1. Introduction

The activity and selectivity of herbicides are affected by various factors, such as temperature, moisture, soil texture, weed biology, physiological, and biochemical processes [1,2,3], and thus, the amount of herbicides reaching weeds is actually a small percentage of the pesticides applied [4,5]. It is, therefore, logical to enhance the application of pesticides to deliver more potent ingredients directly to the targeted weeds, thereby enabling the application of the smallest possible dose of herbicide. To maintain the great efficacy of herbicide applied at reduced rates, adding an adjuvant to the spray liquid containing herbicides has been suggested [6]. Water can also influence the activity of herbicides; therefore, the final weed control result depends on its quality, i.e., primarily its reaction, temperature, and hardness [7,8]. Furthermore, numerous factors contribute to the effectiveness of herbicides, such as the choice of herbicide, application rate and timing, application method, pH of spray liquid, and technique [9]. Multifunctional adjuvants, also known as multidirectional or multicomponent, are characterized by a wide range of action. They can affect both the retention and absorption of spray droplets. In addition, adjuvants neutralize the negative effect of mineral salts contained in spray liquid [10]. Activator adjuvants can include surfactants, as well as oils, pH buffers, or nitrogen-based fertilizers. Their presence in a single formulation allows them to be used with more herbicides due to the elimination of the specific action of the individual adjuvants included in its formulation. Multifunctional adjuvants, similar to multi-component herbicides, are easier to use as they eliminate the need to purchase and mix individual components. Adjuvants added to the spray liquid with herbicides facilitate the penetration of herbicides into the leaf and cells [11]. However, only an appropriate adjuvant for a particular herbicide (active ingredient) enhances the herbicide’s performance, while the wrong one may even reduce its efficacy [12].
Effective weed control is particularly important for widely spaced crops, where post-emergence dicotyledonous weed control is mainly based on the use of substances such as ethofumesate, phenmedipham, metamitron or chloridazon, clopyralid, and triflusulfuron-methyl [13]. Considering both external factors and herbicide formulations, selecting the right adjuvant is difficult, especially for a single-component adjuvant.
The research hypothesis was that herbicide performance depended on a number of factors, which can only be overcome if a multifunctional adjuvant is added to the spray liquid. It should, therefore, be assumed that to achieve great efficacy, limit costs, and reduce adverse effects on the environment, the addition of effective adjuvants with a multidirectional effect, appropriately selected for the herbicide in question, is essential. It is then possible to effectively control weeds, but with reduced doses of herbicides because the production of the tested multifunctional adjuvants is cheaper, and they are non-crystallizing, compatible, and keep the environment safer due to the reduction of active substances of pesticides reaching the field.
The research purpose was to assess the effects of tested multifunctional adjuvants on the reaction, contact angle, surface tension, and electrolytic conductivity of the spray liquid droplets, as well as on the herbicidal efficacy of sugar beet crop plants of herbicides containing phenmedipham, ethofumesate, and metamitron.

2. Materials and Methods

Field study and laboratory analysis of physical and chemical properties of spray liquid droplets were carried out at the Research and Education Center Gorzyń, unit Złotniki (REC Złotniki, 52°486′ N; 16°819′ E), Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poland, in the years 2017–2019. To plant sugar beet, a Monosem driller was used. The field experiment conditions are presented in Table 1. Field studies were carried out under natural conditions without any artificial irrigation.
The tested adjuvants based on rapeseed oil methyl esters, and standard adjuvants with mixture of phenmedipham with ethofumesate and metamitron were used at recommended and reduced rates (Table 2). Herbicides with and without adjuvants were applied 3 times, each time after weed emergence (weed at BBCH 11–12), independent of sugar beet plant growth stage during application.
A wheelbarrow with a CO2-pressurized sprayer equipped with 250 cm boom with five TeeJet 11003 vs. nozzle tips spaced 0.5 m apart delivered 200 L ha−1 of spray liquid. The application pressure was 0.3 MPa, and the ground speed was 1.67 m s−1. Four weeks after the last herbicide application, weeds from the plots were collected (two randomly selected places in each plot). Weeds were divided into species, weighed, and, using the Henderson–Tilton formula, weed control efficacy was calculated [14].
The laboratory study included assessment of the physical and chemical properties, both of the water and spray liquid containing herbicides and adjuvants. To measure the pH and electrolytic conductivity (EC) of liquids, an Elemtron pH conductometer CPC-505 equipped with an EPS-1 electrode was used. To estimate ST (surface tension) and CA (contact angle) of droplets, an optical tensiometer KSV (Theta Lite) was used. An integral part of the tensiometer was a camera capable of taking up to 60 photos per second, one every 16 ms. The air temperature and relative humidity during surveys were 20–22 °C and 55–60%, respectively.
To analyze the recorded data, Statistica software, version 13 (StatSoft Polska Ltd., Kraków, Poland) was used. Before analysis, the raw data were checked for normal distribution of residuals and homogeneity of variance. If necessary, they were transformed to arc sine square root. Finally, back-transformed data in their original unit are presented. To determine significant differences between treatments, an ANOVA (analysis of variance) was performed. Tukey’s HSD test at p = 0.05 to separate means was used. Data from untreated checks were not included in weed control analysis. Relationships between variables pH, ST, CA, and efficacy using correlation coefficients were estimated to present correlated characters (positively or negatively) with spray liquid properties and herbicide efficacy.

3. Results

Meteorological conditions during the applications and over the next 7 days in REC Złotniki are shown in the Table 3. Temperature during the applications in 2017 ranged from 17 to 20 °C, 15 to 18 °C in 2018, but in 2019 from 12 to 20 °C, whereas RH, respectively, in the years was 60–70, 68–80, and 58–75%. The average temperature after treatments in the year 2017 was 9.6–22.1 °C, 9.7–19.4 in 2018, and in 2019, it was 7.8–19.9 °C.
The electrolytic conductivity (EC), surface tension (ST), contact angle (CA), and pH of solutions, and the untreated check versus the treatments were significant (p = 0.0001). The surface tension, contact angle, and pH of spray liquid droplets differed for treatments, and the ST, CA, EC, and pH of spray liquid droplets differed for treatments (Table 4). The presence of adjuvants in solutions led to a reduction in ST, CA, and EC both in only water, and also water with FEM at limited rates.
The addition of FEM at a full rate to water did not impact on the EC of the spray liquid, 794 and 787, which was similar to EXP 2 and EXP 3, but FEM at reduced rate led to lower EC, just as AtB and S were 737, and 725, respectively (Table 4). Values of this parameter were significantly higher than in the liquid containing water and the test and standard adjuvants. The pH of the water was 6.94, with FEM 1 and 2 7.30 and 7.48, and with the addition of EXP adjuvants, it was 7.73, 7.64, 7.71, compared to 7.54 with AtB and 7.47 with S (Table 4). There were no significant differences between spray solutions containing FEM 2 with EXP 1, 2, and 3 adjuvants and water with adjuvants (7.7–7.79, 7.64–7.81, and 7.71–7.36. Standard adjuvants AtB and S reduced the pH of the water to 7.22 or 7.49 and with FEM 2 7.54 and 7.47. The water droplet surface tension (ST) of the FEM solution totaled 47–48 mN m−1, with EXP adjuvants 35.4–43.6 compared to 35.6 and 29.1 mN m−1 (AtB and S). The tested EXP 1, EXP 2, and EXP 3 adjuvants reduced the ST of water to 34.7, 37.0, and 35.4 mN m−1, respectively, or 38.5 and 27.7 mN m−1 with AtB and S (Table 4). The CA of water droplets was 108.9°. A mixture FEM, both at full and reduced rates, resulted in a significant decrease to 77.6 (FEM 2) to 83.9° (FEM 1). The use of tested EXP adjuvants resulted in CA reduction to 58.7° (EXP 2), and 65.8–69.1° with EXP 1, and EXP 2, compared to water with EXP, 67.5, 66.4, and 69.1°, respectively. Standard adjuvants AtB, and S contributed to a further reduction in the CA of water and spray liquid, 51.9–51.1° and 62.4–52.4°, accordingly.
The laboratory results indicated that ST and CA during the first 15 s after treatment were slightly reduced for ST, and had a greater decrease for CA. Both the ST and CA of spray liquid containing FEM 1 (full rate) and FEM 2 (reduced rate) were similar but higher than treatments with adjuvants (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The adjuvants added to FEM 2 spray liquid reduced ST, the most with S, next EXP 1, AtB, EXP 3, and EXP 2, and CA with S, AtB, EXP 3, EXP 1, and EXP 2. The final ST of the spray liquid containing the adjuvants was in the range of 25–38 mN m−1 and CA between 30 and 50 degrees, compared to 40–45 mN m−1 and about 72–74 degrees, respectively, for FEM 1 and FEM 2.
The highest weed mass in sugar beet was observed in 2017 and 2018, and the lowest in 2019. The weed mass on the untreated check at that time was 4.3, 4.1, and 3.0 kg m−2, respectively. The weed community consisted of Chenopodium album L., Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Pal. Beauv., Geranium pusillum L., Polygonum aviculare L., Viola arvensis Murr., Anchusa arvensis L., Lamium purpureum L., Thlaspi arvense L., Veronica hederifolia L., Galinsoga parviflora Cav., Brassica napus L., Sonchus arvensis L., Elymus repens (L.) Gould, Galium aparine L., Papaver rhoeas L., Stellaria media Vill., and Avena fatua L. The results showed that reducing the dose of FEM always led to a statistically significant decrease in its efficacy and that the inclusion of any experimental adjuvant in the spray liquid restored efficacy to a level higher than at the reduced or even full dose. The FEM mixture with the addition of test adjuvants performed similarly to that with the addition of standard adjuvant AtB, and was slightly better than with S (Figure 3).
Correlation coefficients between the physical and chemical properties of spray liquid, and the efficacy indicate negative and statistically significant relationships. The results in Table 5 show a negative, moderate correlation in 2017 and 2019, and weak, not significant relationships between ST and herbicide efficacy in 2018. In the case of CA, the relationship between this parameter and weed control efficacy was proven in each year of the study, with a moderate correlation. Statistical analysis showed no correlation between liquid pH and weed control efficiency.

4. Discussion

Herbicides to be effective need advantageous weather conditions. Active ingredients must be translocated from the leaf surface to the target site, which takes place during active weed growth [3], the intensity of which is also related to the course of weather conditions [15]. Higher temperatures are generally favored for faster biochemical processes but warmer temperatures also can reduce the uptake of herbicides. The optimum temperature for herbicide action is between 10–20 and 25 °C, because under these conditions the physiological processes of both the crop and the weeds are at their optimum level [9]. The action of herbicides is favored not only by moderate temperature but also high humidity (at least 60–70%) [16], because of better wetting of plants [17], increased retention [18], and reduced evaporation of droplets [19]. The uptake and high efficacy of herbicides are more dependent on the humidity of the air after application than during. Other factors, such as light, rainfall, relative humidity, moisture, and wind affect herbicide activity [20]. The temperatures at REC Złotniki during herbicide application in each year of the study were favorable for herbicide activity, as the temperature did not fall below 15 °C during the treatments, with the exception of the second treatment in 2019—12.0 °C. It was also not higher than 20 °C, with an air humidity of 58%, but most often between 60 and 80%. However, assuming that favorable conditions for herbicide activity are temperatures between 10 and 20 °C [16] and air humidity over 60%, it can be assumed that thermal conditions were not the worst in this case either, as were the average daily air temperatures in the following several days after treatment.
The EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, and standard adjuvants AtB and S increased the pH of the spray liquid containing phenmedipham, ethofumesate, and metamitron relative to the untreated check. However, according to numerous studies [21,22,23], their solubility varies (1.8–4.7; 50 and 1700 mg L−1, respectively), but does not depend on the spray liquid pH.
In our own study, the impact of adjuvants on ST and CA depended on the formulation of the product to which it was added, with the direction of change always being the same; that is, adjuvants reduced the ST and CA of the spray droplets. Only the magnitude of these changes differed. The ST and CA of spray droplets containing FEM, irrespective of the agent rate, were moderate, reduced to 30–40 mN m and 58–69°. According to [24], adjuvants, regardless of chemical composition, reduced ST and CA of droplets but even in the value range of 30–40 mN m−1, it does not necessarily transfer into high herbicide efficacy [25]. Our own results confirm the correlations between these spray liquid parameters and treatment efficacy. Multifunctional adjuvants EXP 1, 2, and 3, were similar to AtB due to surfactant content, largely the retention of droplets and coverage of the plant surface, by reducing the ST and CA [25,26]. The presence of penetrants, which include plant oils, increases the penetration of herbicides through plant tissue [27].
For electrical conductivity (EC), the FEM 1 and FEM 2 alone or with adjuvant EXP 1, EXP 2, and EXP 3 solutions did not stand out in comparison to AtB and S. The water with adjuvant solutions presented lower capacity in this variable compared to FEM solutions. According to [28], it might have to do with the hydrogen ion potential because the solution with the highest EC presented a lower pH. Our own study results do not confirm such a correlation, as a low pH also corresponded to a low EC. The addition of adjuvants to water did not increase the EC as much as adjuvants with FEM 2. Solutions containing FEM 2 with adjuvants, especially EXP 1, EXP 2, and EXP 3, presented higher EC than water with adjuvants. In some opinions [29], adjuvants could change the electrical values of the spray solution. A higher EC is beneficial because of a direct influence on larger deposition on the surface, and finally better biological effectiveness [30].
Sugar beet is unable to compete with weeds, especially in the first weeks after sowing. The greatest threat to sugar beet is the presence of Chenopodium album, Amaranthus retroflexus, Galium aparine, and volunteer Brassica napus, as well as Echinochloa crus-galli [31,32,33]. Some studies [34] indicate that herbicides could greatly control weeds, especially when they are applied with adjuvants that promote activity of their active substances. The herbicide’s arrival at its site of action in the weed is preceded by the preparation of the spray liquid, application, retention, absorption, and transport to the site of action. On this pathway, herbicides face many obstacles, which adjuvants should overcome. Single-component adjuvants can limit only some factors, so the use of multicomponent and multifunctional adjuvants is essential [35]. The results indicate that appropriately selected multicomponent adjuvants increase herbicide efficacy [36]; the results of our own research confirm these reports. The EXP multicomponent adjuvants improved the effectiveness of the used herbicides. The effect of the tested adjuvants was similar to or often better than standard adjuvants based on methyl esters, surfactants, and pH buffers.

5. Conclusions

Many factors affect pesticide efficacy, but the addition of appropriate adjuvants let herbicides work correctly. Weed control can be more effective if herbicides are applied at lower doses and with adjuvants to increase the effectiveness of the active substance, or to alter the physical and chemical properties of the spray liquid. Using adjuvants is advisable, especially under unfavorable herbicide conditions when their addition maintains the high herbicide efficacy. Conversely, under more favorable conditions, the addition of adjuvants makes it possible to achieve the required effects even with reduced herbicide doses. The beneficial effect of the adjuvants tested in our own research confirms these reports as their positive effect on herbicide efficacy was observed when herbicides were applied at reduced doses. The tested multifunctional adjuvants enhanced herbicide activity as much as a standard multifunctional one, but similar or even better than a single-component one based on surfactant. They were generally effective, however, with the addition of the adjuvants EXP 2, EXP 3, and EXP 1. The pH of the spray liquid containing phenmedipham with ethofumesate and metamitron was affected by adjuvants, with an increased pH compared to the untreated check (water). They reduced the ST and CA of solution droplets containing herbicides to a level comparable to that of a standard multicomponent adjuvant and a single-component surfactant-based adjuvant. Experimental multicomponent adjuvants applied with reduced-dose phenmedipham and ethofumesate with metamitron allowed higher herbicidal efficacy than standard single-component adjuvants, and comparable or higher than with standard multicomponent adjuvants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.I. and A.S.; methodology, R.I.; software, R.I.; validation, R.I., A.S. and H.W.; formal analysis, R.I.; investigation, R.I.; resources, R.I.; data curation, R.I.; writing—original draft preparation, R.I.; writing—review and editing, H.W. and P.S.; visualization, L.M.; supervision, R.I.; project administration, R.I.; funding acquisition, R.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The National Centre for Research and Development (NCRD) entitled “Development of effective, environmentally safe adjuvants with a multidirectional mechanism of action as an important element of the optimization of chemical plant protection”, co-financed under the Innovative Economy Operational Program (grant number POIR.01.01.01-00-1881/15). This work was financed by Production and Trading Company “Agromix” Roman Szewczyk under a grant from the National Centre for Research and Development.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Did not require ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Available upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kasahara, T.; Takeuchi, T.; Koyama, K.; Kuzuma, S. Effects of environmental factors on the herbicidal activity and phytotoxicity of ipfencarbazone. J. Pestic. Sci. 2018, 43, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Kumar, V.; Kumari, A.; Price, A.J.; Bana, R.S. Impact of futuristic climate variables on weed biology and herbicidal efficacy: A review. Agronomy 2023, 13, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chahal, P.S.; Aulakh, J.S.; Rosenbaum, K.; Jhala, A.J. Growth stage affects dose response of selected glyphosate-resistant weeds to premix of 2.4-D choline and glyphosate (Enlist DuoTM herbicide). J. Agr. Sci. 2015, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Duke, S.O.; Kudsk, P.; Solomon, K.R. (Eds.) Pesticide Dose—A Parameters with Many Implications. In Pesticide Dose: Effects on the Environment and Target and Non-Target Organisms; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 101–119. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zabkiewicz, J.A. Adjuvants and herbicidal efficacy—Present status and future prospects. Weed Res. 2000, 40, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Akhter, M.J.; Abbas, R.N.; Waqas, M.A.; Noor, M.A.; Arhad, M.A.; Mahboob, W.; Nadeen, F.; Azam, M.; Gull, U. Adjuvants improves the efficacy of herbicide for weed management in maize sown under altered sowing methods. J. Exp. Biol. Agri. Sci. 2017, 5, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Green, J.M.; Hale, T. Increasing and decreasing pH enhance the biological activity of nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 2005, 19, 468–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Roskamp, J.M.; Chahal, G.S.; Johnson, W.G. Influence of water hardness and co-applied herbicides on saflufenacil efficacy. Crop Manag. 2012, 11, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Matzenbacher, F.O.; Vidal, R.A.; Merotto, J.R.A.; Trezzi, M.M. Environmental and physiological factors that affect the efficacy of herbicides that inhibit the enzyme protoporphyrinogen oxidase: A literature review. Plant Daninha 2014, 32, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Congreve, M.; Somervaille, A.; Betts, G.; Gordon, B.; Green, V.; Burgis, M. Adjuvants—Oils, Surfactants and Other Additives for Farm Chemicals Used in Grain Production—Revised 2019 Edition; GRDC: Kingston, Australia, 2019; 48p. [Google Scholar]
  11. Pacanoski, Z. Herbicides and adjuvants. In Herbicides, Physiology of Action, and Safety; Price, A., Kelton, J., Sarunaite, L., Eds.; InTech: London, UK, 2015; p. 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Rizwan, M.; Tanveer, A.; Khaliq, A.; Abbas, T.; Ikram, N.A. Increased foliar activity of isoproturon + tribenuron and pyroxsulam against little seed canary grass and field bindweed by proper adjuvant selection in wheat. Plant Daninha 2018, 36, e018166733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Deveikyte, I.; Seibutis, V.; Feiza, V.; Feiziene, D. Control of annual broadleaf weeds by combinations of herbicides in sugar beet. Zemdirbyste 2015, 102, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Idziak, R.; Woznica, Z. Efficacy of reduced rates of soil-applied dimethenamid-P and pendimethalin mixture followed by postemergence herbicides in maize. Agriculture 2020, 10, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Godar, A.S.; Varanasi, V.K.; Nakka, S.; Prasad, P.V.V.; Thompson, C.R.; Mithila, J. Physiological and molecular mechanisms of differential sensitivity of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to mesotrione at varying growth temperatures. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Kumar, A.; Kumar, M. Climate change’s impacts on weeds and herbicide efficacy: A review. Int. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2017, 6, 2846–2853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hatterman-Valenti, H.M.; Pitty, A.; Owen, M.D.K. Effect of environment on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) leaf wax and fluazifop-P absorption. Weed Sci. 2006, 54, 607–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ramsey, R.J.L.; Stephenson, G.R.; Hall, J.C. A review of the effects of humidity, humectants, and surfactant composition on the absorption and efficacy of highly water-soluble herbicides. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 2005, 82, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sellers, B.A.; Smeda, R.J.; Johnson, W.G. Diurnal fluctuations and leaf angle reduce glufosinate efficacy. Weed Technol. 2003, 17, 302–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xu, L.; Zhu, H.; Ozkan, H.E.; Bagley, W.E.; Derksen, R.C.; Krause, C.R. Adjuvant effects on evaporation time and wetted area of droplets on waxy leaves. Trans. ASABE 2010, 53, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. EFSA. Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metamitron. EFSA Sci. Rep. 2008, 6, 185r. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Tomlin, C.D.S. Ethofumesate (26255-79-6). In The E-Pesticide Manual, 13th ed.; Version 3.1.; British Crop Protection Council: Surrey, UK; Alton, Hampshire, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  23. PubChem. Phenmedipham. Ethofumesate. Metamitron. PubChem National Institutes of Healf (NIH) Database. 2020. Available online: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  24. Castro, E.B.; Carbonari, C.A.; Velini, E.D.; Gomes, G.L.G.C.; Belapart, D. Influence of adjuvants on the surface tension, deposition and effectiveness of herbicides on fleabane plants. Planta Daninha 2018, 36, e018166251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sobiech, Ł.; Grzanka, M.; Skrzypczak, G.; Idziak, R.; Włodarczak, S.; Ochowiak, M. Effect of adjuvants and pH adjuster on the efficacy of sulcotrione herbicide. Agronomy 2020, 10, 530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Calore, R.; Ferreira, M.C.; Rodrigues, N.E.L.; Otuka, A.K. Effect of herbicides associated with adjuvants in surface tension and contact angle in leaves of Ipomoea hederifolia. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2014, 122, 425–429. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tavares, R.M.; Cunha, J.P.A.R.d. Pesticide and adjuvant mixture impacts on the physico-chemical properties, droplet spectrum, and absorption of spray applied in sorghum crop. AgriEngineering 2023, 5, 646–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sasaki, R.S.; Teixeira, M.M.; Santiago, H.; Madureira, R.P.; Maciel, C.F.S.; Fernandes, H.C. Adjuvantes nas propriedades físicas da calda, espectro e eficiência de eletrificação das gotas utilizando a pulverização eletrostática. Ciência Rural. Santa Maria 2015, 45, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Assuncao, H.H.T.; Campos, S.F.B.; Sousa, L.A.; Lemes, E.M.; Zandonadi, C.H.S.; Cunha, J.P.A.R. Adjuvants plus phytosanitary products and the effects on the physical-chemical properties of the spray liquids. Biosci. J. 2019, 35, 1878–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Staiger, S. Chemical and Physical Nature of the Barrier against Active Ingredient Penetration into Leaves: Effects of Adjuvants on the Cuticular Diffusion Barrier. Ph.D. Thesis, Julius-Maximilians-Universtität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany, 2019; p. 185. [Google Scholar]
  31. Krawczyk, R.; Kaczmarek, S.; Kierzek, R. Technologia uprawy buraka cukrowego z zastosowaniem mikrodawek herbicydów w zrównoważonym rolnictwie. Fragm. Agron. 2007, 3, 252–257. [Google Scholar]
  32. Idziak, R.; Sobiech, Ł.; Woźnica, Z.; Skrzypczak, G. Biodiversity of weed flora in sugar beet. Prog. Plant Prot. 2012, 52, 1170–1176. [Google Scholar]
  33. Woźnica, Z.; Idziak, R.; Waniorek, W. Effect of adjuvant on possibility of herbicide rate reduction for weed control in sugar beet. Fragm. Agron. 2007, 4, 261–266. [Google Scholar]
  34. Alebrahim, M.T.; Majd, R.; Rashed Mohassel, M.H.; Wilcockson, S.; Baghestani, M.A.; Ghorbani, R.; Kudsk, P. Evaluation the efficacy of pre- and post-emergence herbicides for controlling Amaranthus retroflexus L. and Chenopodium album L. in potato. Crop Prot. 2012, 42, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Underwood, A.K. Adjuvant trends for the new millennium. Weed Technol. 2000, 14, 765–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Abbas, N.; Tanveer, A.; Ahmad, T.; Amin, M. Use of adjuvants to optimize the activity of two broad-spectrum herbicides for weed control in wheat. Planta Daninha 2018, 36, e018174762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Applsci 13 08768 g001 550
Figure 1. Impact of adjuvants (EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB, and S) on the surface tension (ST) of droplets of spray liquid including phenmedipham, ethofumesate, and metamitron (FEM). FEM 1—200 + 200 + 700 g ha−1; FEM 2—140 + 140 + 700 g ha−1; EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB at 1.5 L ha−1, S—0.1% v v−1.
Figure 1. Impact of adjuvants (EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB, and S) on the surface tension (ST) of droplets of spray liquid including phenmedipham, ethofumesate, and metamitron (FEM). FEM 1—200 + 200 + 700 g ha−1; FEM 2—140 + 140 + 700 g ha−1; EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB at 1.5 L ha−1, S—0.1% v v−1.
Applsci 13 08768 g001
Applsci 13 08768 g002 550
Figure 2. Impact of adjuvants (EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB, and S) on the contact angle (CA) of droplets of spray liquid including phenmedipham, ethofumesate, and metamitron (FEM). FEM 1—200 + 200 + 700 g ha−1; FEM 2—140 + 140 + 700 g ha−1; EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB at 1.5 L ha−1, S—0.1% v v−1.
Figure 2. Impact of adjuvants (EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB, and S) on the contact angle (CA) of droplets of spray liquid including phenmedipham, ethofumesate, and metamitron (FEM). FEM 1—200 + 200 + 700 g ha−1; FEM 2—140 + 140 + 700 g ha−1; EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB at 1.5 L ha−1, S—0.1% v v−1.
Applsci 13 08768 g002
Applsci 13 08768 g003 550
Figure 3. Impact of adjuvants (EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB, and S) on the efficacy of a mixture of phenmedipham, ethofumesate and metamitron (FEM). FEM 1—200 + 200 + 700 g ha−1; FEM 2—140 + 140 + 700 g ha−1; EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB at 1.5 L ha−1, S—0.1% v v−1. Values in the columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly according to the Tukey post hoc test at p = 0.05.
Figure 3. Impact of adjuvants (EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB, and S) on the efficacy of a mixture of phenmedipham, ethofumesate and metamitron (FEM). FEM 1—200 + 200 + 700 g ha−1; FEM 2—140 + 140 + 700 g ha−1; EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB at 1.5 L ha−1, S—0.1% v v−1. Values in the columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly according to the Tukey post hoc test at p = 0.05.
Applsci 13 08768 g003
Table
Table 1. Field experiment description, REC Złotniki 2017–2019.
Table 1. Field experiment description, REC Złotniki 2017–2019.
201720182019
Field experimentthe randomized complete block design
Replications4
Plot size, m (area)2.7 × 10 m (27 m−2)
Previous cropwinter barleywinter barleywinter triticale
Sugar beet varietyGellertPiastPiast
Planting date20 April13 April9 April
Planting density, no. ha−1120,000
Row space 45 cm
Planting depth, cm2.5
Type of soil and soil composition, % loamy sand
sand646464
clay141515
silt 262121
Organic matter, %1.41.71.7
pH6.87.37.2
Table
Table 2. Description of the tested and standard adjuvants added to herbicides.
Table 2. Description of the tested and standard adjuvants added to herbicides.
HerbicideTrade NameRates
RecommendedReduced
g ai ha−1
Phenmedipham a
+ ethofumesate
Metamitron b		Powertwin 400 SC, Adama Polska200140
+200+140
Goltix 700 SC, Adama Polska700700
(FEM 1)(FEM 2)
AdjuvantAdjuvant typeRate
L ha−1		Abbreviation
Adjuvant 1rapeseed oil methyl esters of fatty acids, 1.5EXP 1
surfactants, pH buffer, drift reducing agent
Adjuvant 2rapeseed oil methyl esters of fatty acids, 1.5EXP 2
surfactants, pH buffer, drift reducing agent
Adjuvant 3oil formulation, emulsifier, pH buffer1.5EXP 3
Adjuvant 4rapeseed oil methyl esters of fatty acids, 1.5AtB
surfactants, pH buffer
Adjuvant 5organosilicone surfactant0.1% v v−1S
a phenmedipham + ethofumesate (Powertwin 400 SC, Adama Deutschland GmbH, Koln, FRG); b metamitron (Goltix 700 SC, Adama Poland, Warsaw, Poland); EXP 1, ADJ 2, ADJ 3 experimental adjuvants provided by Agromix.
Table
Table 3. Temperature and relative humidity (RH) during applications in sugar beet and over the next in REC Zlotniki.
Table 3. Temperature and relative humidity (RH) during applications in sugar beet and over the next in REC Zlotniki.
YearsDate
of Treatment		Temperature
(°C)		RH
(%)		Temperature Range FWAT
(°C)
201711 May17.0609.6–16.5
19 May19.06012.2–21.9
26 May20.07013.5–22.1
201827 April15.0809.7–19.0
7 May15.06815.4–19.4
14 May18.07013.6–17.3
201926 April17.0589.5–19.9
7 May12.0607.8–12.0
20 May20.07513.1–17.7
RH—relative humidity; FWAT—in the first week after treatment.
Table
Table 4. Surface tension and contact angle for phenmedipham, ethofumesate, and metamitron blend and water with and without adjuvants.
Table 4. Surface tension and contact angle for phenmedipham, ethofumesate, and metamitron blend and water with and without adjuvants.
No.TreatmentEC
(µS cm−1)		ST
(mN m−1)		CA
(°)		pH
1.Untreated (water)794 a70.1 a108.9 a6.94 e
2.FEM 1787 a47.0 bc83.9 b7.30 cde
3.FEM 2736 b48.0 b77.6 c7.48 abcd
4.  +EXP 1724 b35.4 def65.8 ef7.73 ab
5.  +EXP 2776 a43.6 bcd58.7 g7.64 abc
6.  +EXP 3771 a39.9 bcd69.1 de7.71 ab
7.  +AtB737 b35.6 def51.9 h7.54 abcd
8.  +S 725 b29.1 ef51.1 h7.47 abcd
Water
9.  +EXP 1602 c34.7 def67.5 e7.79 a
10.  +EXP 2597 c37.0 cdef66.4 e7.81 a
11.  +EXP 3453 d35.4 def72.1 d7.36 bcd
12.  +AtB616 c38.5 bcde62.4 f7.22 de
13.  +S 617 c27.7 f52.4 h7.49 abcd
CV1.7513.42.262.34
Fc428.524.3619.912.3
W0.9720.8250.9710.992
FLevene0.4162.1370.6671.398
ST—surface tension; CA—contact angle; EC—electrolytic conductivity; FEM 1—200 + 200 + 700 g ha−1; FEM 2—140 + 140 + 700 g ha−1; EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB at 1.5 L ha−1, S—0.1% v v−1; Fc: value of F calculated; FLevene = Levene test statistic; W = Shapiro–Wilk test statistic; CV = coefficient of variation. Values in the columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly according to the Tukey post hoc test at p = 0.05.
Table
Table 5. The correlation coefficients between the physical and chemical properties of spray liquid and efficacy of FEM.
Table 5. The correlation coefficients between the physical and chemical properties of spray liquid and efficacy of FEM.
pHSTCA
201720182019201720182019201720182019
Efficacy 20170.2452--−0.5973 *--−0.6748 *--
Efficacy 2018-0.3495--−0.3726--−0.4122 *-
Efficacy 2019--0.0499--−0.4412 *--−0.4074 *
* Significant at p = 0.05; pH—reaction; ST—surface tension; CA—contact angle.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Idziak, R.; Sobczak, A.; Waligóra, H.; Szulc, P.; Majchrzak, L. Effect of Multifunctional Adjuvants on Physical and Chemical Features of Spray Liquid and Efficacy in Sugar Beet. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8768. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158768

AMA Style

Idziak R, Sobczak A, Waligóra H, Szulc P, Majchrzak L. Effect of Multifunctional Adjuvants on Physical and Chemical Features of Spray Liquid and Efficacy in Sugar Beet. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(15):8768. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158768

Chicago/Turabian Style

Idziak, Robert, Angelika Sobczak, Hubert Waligóra, Piotr Szulc, and Leszek Majchrzak. 2023. "Effect of Multifunctional Adjuvants on Physical and Chemical Features of Spray Liquid and Efficacy in Sugar Beet" Applied Sciences 13, no. 15: 8768. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158768

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop