Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Pest Management Scie...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Pest Management Science
Article . 2003 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Tank‐mix adjuvants and pesticide residues: some regulatory and quantitative aspects

Authors: Peter J, Holloway; Nigel M, Western;

Tank‐mix adjuvants and pesticide residues: some regulatory and quantitative aspects

Abstract

AbstractAlthough it is well known that judicious use of adjuvants can increase the performance of foliage‐applied sprays of many agrochemicals, little information is available in the public domain about their ultimate effects on pesticide residues in treated crops. In the present work, the influence of Agral (polyoxyethylene nonylphenols), Toil (methyl esters of rapeseed fatty acids) and Bond (styrene–butadiene copolymers) on surface and crop residues of diclofop‐methyl/diclofop and propiconazole in wheat and field beans was investigated using a model system simulating field practice. Pesticides were applied as commercial formulations, diclofop‐methyl 378 g litre−1 EC (Hoegrass) and propiconazole 250 g litre−1 EC (Tilt), at their maximum approved rates, 1135 g AI ha−1 and 125 g AI ha−1, respectively, both in the presence or absence of the maximum rate recommended for each candidate adjuvant. No detectable residues of diclofop‐methyl or propiconazole were found in wheat 35 days after any of the four applications. However, residues of diclofop were present in this crop, and those from applications containing Agral (0.07 mg kg−1 fresh weight (FW)) or Bond (0.08 mg kg−1 FW) were significantly lower than those with no adjuvant (0.14 mg kg−1 FW) or Toil (0.16 mg kg−1 FW). Unlike wheat, residues of both diclofop and propiconazole were detected in field beans after harvest. Significantly higher residues of the former were recorded from the applications with Agral or Bond (ca 0.32 mg kg−1 FW) than with those with no adjuvant or Toil (ca 0.15 mg kg−1 FW). All the propiconazole applications containing adjuvants showed a similar significant increase in residues (0.10–0.16 mg AI kg−1 FW) over the no‐adjuvant treatment (0.05 mg kg−1 FW) in this crop. There appeared to be little agreement between the apparent amounts of uptake, as indicated by the rates of decline of surface residues up to 5 days after application, and final residues in either target species. On wheat, surface residues of diclofop‐methyl decreased from initially ca 20 to as little as 0.02 mg kg−1 FW using adjuvants; the corresponding values for propiconazole were ca 2 to ca 0.03 mg kg−1 FW. Recoveries of diclofop‐methyl from the surfaces of field beans were much higher than those from wheat, declining from ca 30 to only ca 6 mg kg−1 FW during the course of 5 days; the corresponding residues for propiconazole were ca 2mg to 0.15mg kg−1 FW. These findings are discussed in relation to uptake results obtained with radiolabelled pesticides and adjuvants in the laboratory, and to the mandatory requirements for pesticide residue data for the authorised use of adjuvants in the UK. Copyright © 2003 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords

Crops, Agricultural, Herbicides, Phenyl Ethers, Pesticide Residues, Agriculture, Triazoles, United Kingdom, Halogenated Diphenyl Ethers, Humans, Soil Pollutants, Pesticides, Food Analysis, Triticum

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    17
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
17
Top 10%
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!