Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:17:45.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Surfactants and Plant Species on Leaf Retention of Spray Solutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Hans De Ruiter ,
André J.M. Uffing ,
Esther Meinen  and
Albertus Prins
Hans De Ruiter
Affiliation:
Centre for Agrobiological Res., P.O. Box 14, 6700 AA Wageningen
André J.M. Uffing
Affiliation:
Centre for Agrobiological Res., P.O. Box 14, 6700 AA Wageningen
Esther Meinen
Affiliation:
Centre for Agrobiological Res., P.O. Box 14, 6700 AA Wageningen
Albertus Prins
Affiliation:
Agricultural Univ., Dep. Food Sci., Wageningen, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spray solutions containing a cationic or a nonionic surfactant were applied to six plant species at a broad range of concentrations. The species investigated were three weeds (black nightshade, chamomile, and quackgrass) and three crops (winter wheat, pea, and tomato). The microroughness of the leaf surface as revealed by scanning electron microscopy appeared to be a relevant retention-determining factor. Plant species with crystalline epicuticular waxes (winter wheat, pea, and quackgrass) retained much less spray solution than the other species, which are characterized by a smooth cuticular surface. The two surfactants enhanced retention on species with a reflective surface, whereas retention on black nightshade, chamomile, and tomato was hardly influenced by addition of surfactants. The two surfactants had a similar influence on the retention. Surfactant at 1% (wt/v) enhanced retention on pea, winter wheat, and quackgrass by factors of twenty, six, and four, respectively, compared with retention without surfactant. A linear relation between retention and logarithm of surfactant concentration was observed. Retention of spray drops was related not to equilibrium surface tension of the spray solution but rather to dynamic surface tension.

Keywords

Black nightshade, Solanum nigrum L. # SOLNIchamomile, Chamomilla recutita (L.) # MATCHquackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski. # AGRREwinter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Arminda’pea, Pisum sativum L. ‘Finale’tomato, Solanum lycopersicum L. ‘Moneymaker’Wettingdynamic surface tensionSOLNIMATCHAGRRE
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 38 , Issue 6 , November 1990 , pp. 567 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anderson, N. H., Hall, D. J., and Seaman, D. 1987. Spray retention: effects of surfactants and plant species. Aspects Appl. Biol. 14:233–243.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, N. H., Hall, D. J., and Western, N. M. 1983. The role of dynamic surface tension in spray retention. Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Plant Prot. Page 576.Google Scholar
3. Boize, L. M., Lee, G.W.J., and Tadros, T. F. 1983. The effect of the physico-chemical stability of emulsions of an ester of 2,4-D on their biological activity. Pestic. Sci. 14:427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Davies, P. J., Drennan, D.S.H., Fryer, J. D., and Holly, K. 1967. The basis of the differential phytotoxicity of 4-hydroxy-3,5-diiodobenzonitrile I. The influence of spray retention and plant morphology. Weed Res. 7:220–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Ford, M. G. and Salt, D. W. 1987. Behaviour of insecticide deposits and their transfer from plant to insect surfaces. Pages 26–81 in Cottrell, H. J., ed. Pesticides on Plant Surfaces. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
6. Harkins, W. D. and Jordan, H. F. 1930. A method for the determination of surface and interfacial tension from the maximum pull on a ring. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 52:1751–1772.Google Scholar
7. Hartley, G. S. and Brunskill, R. T. 1958. Reflection of water drops from surfaces. Pages 402–469 in Danielli, J. F., Pankhurst, K.G.A., and Riddiford, A. C., eds. Surface Phenomena in Chemistry and Biology, Pergamon Press, London.Google Scholar
8. Holloway, P. J. 1970. Surface factors affecting the wetting of leaves. Pestic. Sci. 1:156–163.Google Scholar
9. Padday, J. F. 1957. A direct reading electrically operated balance for static and dynamic surface-tension measurement. Proc. Int. Congr. Surf. Activity, London. Pages 1–6.Google Scholar
10. Reichard, D. L. 1988. Drop formation and impaction on the plant. Weed Technol. 2:82–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Richardson, R. G. 1984. Fluorescent tracer technique for measuring total herbicide deposits on plants. Aust. Weeds 3:123–124.Google Scholar
12. Seaman, D. 1979. Colloid and surface science and technology in the pesticide industry. Chemical Industry (London). Pages 159–165.Google Scholar
13. Steiner, A. A. 1984. The universal nutrient solution. OSOSC Proc. 6th. Int. Congress on Soilless Culture. Pages 633–650.Google Scholar
14. Tadros, Th. F. 1987. Interactions at interfaces and effects on transfer and performance. Aspects Appl. Biol. 14:1–22.Google Scholar
15. Taylor, W. A. and Shaw, G. B. 1983. The effect of drop speed, size and surfactant on the deposition of spray on barley and radish or mustard. Pestic. Sci. 14:659–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar