IE912906A1 - Herbicidal composition - Google Patents

Abstract

A herbicidal composition comprises an aliphatic carboxylic acid, a salt thereof and an alcohol. Both the acid and salt ingredients comprise a mixture of decanoic and nonanoic acids. The alcohol is suitably butanol. The composition may be aqueous can be made in a ready-to-use formulation or a concentrate which can be diluted with water.

Description

HERBICIDAL COMPOSITION The present invention relates to a herbicidal composition that is capable of killing undesirable vegetation such as moss and weed.

Herbicides control the growth rate, and usually kill, vegetation that is undesirable by reason of its appearance, for example weeds on lawns. However, some herbicidal compositions known in the art contain organic compounds such as dichlorophen, diquat and paraquat which, apart from being unpleasant to handle and toxic to humans, are also expensive.

The present application seeks to provide a herbicidal composition that may have a high rate of kill of undesirable vegetation, and that can use commercially available ingredients that are relatively cheap. The composition is designed to be biodegradable and nontoxic to humans, animals and to other forms of life present in the environment (other than the vegetation sought to be killed).

According to a first aspect of the present invention there is provided a herbicidal composition comprising an aliphatic carboxylic acid, or a salt thereof, and an alcohol.

Here herbicidal activity means that the composition is capable of retarding the growth of, or killing, plant life such as herbage (herbs and herbaceous plants) and/or undesirable flora. Herbaceous plants are green and contain little woody tissue, while herbs are flowering plants where the aerial shoots last only as long as necessary to develop the flower or fruit. Flora is a term commonly used for plants without stems.

By means of illustration, examples of species against which the herbicidal composition of the invention may be effective include: Common Name Moss Greater Plantain Groundsel Rosebay Willowherb Nettle Grass Cow Parsley Bitter cress Latin Name(s) Homalothecium Pl antago major Senecio vulgaris Epilobium angustifolium Urtica urens Poa annua; Lolium perenne; and Festuca rubra Anthriscus svlvestris Cardamine hirsuta The applicants have found that the two components present in the herbicidal composition have a synergistic effect on enhancing both the rate and efficiency of mortality of herbage and/or undesirable flora. The herbicidal compositions may thus be at least as effective as prior art compositions, while being cheaper to produce and at the same time less toxic to humans.

When the alcohol is present with either the aliphatic carboxylic acid or the salt thereof, in the composition this is referred to as a two component system. However, in a particularly preferred embodiment the herbicidal composition contains both the aliphatic carboxylic acid as well as the salt thereof (which is referred to as a three component system). The carboxylic acid and carboxylic acid salt need not be the same, but it is preferred that they are.

The herbicidal composition is usually aqueous.

The herbicidal composition may either be in the form of a concentrate, which is to be diluted (such as with water) before use, or in a ready-f or-use (RFU) formulation. The RFU formulation can be prepared either from the appropriate amounts of ingredients or by dilution of the concentrate. The preferred ingredients, and their amounts, for the RFU formulation will be dealt with first.

The aliphatic carboxylic acid and/or salt thereof is preferably a monocarboxylic acid, for example a C8_12 carboxylic acid such as octanoic acid, nonanoic acid, decanoic acid, undecanoic acid or dodecanoic acid. Generally nonanoic acid and decanoic acid are preferred, although of these decanoic acid is usually preferable since it is available in commercial quantities in the UK.

In the case of the two component system, the aliphatic carboxylic acid or the salt thereof is suitably provided in the composition at an amount of from 0.2 to 5.0%, such as from 1.0 to 4.0% and especially from 1.6 to 3.0%.

In the three component system, where both salt and acid are present, the composition preferably has from 0.5 to 2.5%, such as from 1.0 to 2.0%, and optimally from 1.5 to 1.9%, of the salt and from 0.4 to 2.4%, such as from 0.8 to 1.3%, optimally from 0.9 to 1.1%, of the acid.

It should be understood that the terms aliphatic carboxylic acid, and the salt thereof, does not exclude a plurality of acids, or of salts of acids, respectively.

Thus, the aliphatic carboxylic acid may be provided as a mixture of a plurality of, and in particular two, aliphatic carboxylic acids. For example, this may be a mixture of a Cg and C10 aliphatic carboxylic acid, in which case the C10 acid is preferably provided in a greater amount. Thus in a preferred composition there is provided from 0.1 to 0.4%, especially from 0.2 to 0.3%, of a first, for example a Cg aliphatic carboxylic acid, and from 0.6 to 1.0%, especially from 0.7 to 0.9%, of a second, for example a C10, aliphatic carboxylic acid.

Preferred salts of aliphatic carboxylic acids include ammonium salts and/or alkali metal salts such as sodium and potassium salts. In a similar fashion to the previously mentioned aliphatic carboxylic acids, the salt may be provided as a mixture of a plurality of, and in particular two, salts of aliphatic carboxylic acids. For example, this may be a mixture of salts of Cg and C10 aliphatic carboxylic acids, in which case the C1Q acid is preferably present in a greater amount.

Thus in a particularly preferred embodiment the composition has one salt of an aliphatic carboxylic acid, eg. a Cg carboxylic acid, such as present in amount of from 0.6 to 1.2%, eg from 0.8 to 1.0%, and a second salt of an aliphatic carboxylic acid, eg. a C10 carboxylic acid, such as at an amount of from 0.6 to 1.0%, eg from 0.7 to 0.9%.

A particularly preferred composition contains two carboxylic acids and two carboxylic salts. Thus the composition may comprise: Amount by weight % Suitable Range Preferred Range Optimal Range First carboxylic acid (e.g. nonanoic acid) 0.05 to 0.6 0.1 to 0.4 0.2 to 0 First carboxylic acid salt (e.g. of nonanoic acid) 0.4 to 1.4 0.6 to 1.2 0.8 to 1 Second carboxylic acid (e.g. of decanoic acid) 0.4 to 1.4 0.6 to 1.0 0.7 to 0 Second carboxylic acid salt (e.g. of decanoic acid) 0.4 to 1.4 0.6 to 1.0 0.7 to 0 Thus the ratio of first carboxylic acid (eg. Cg) to second carboxylic acid (eg. C10) , which is also applicable to the respective salts, can be from 1:1 to 1:2, preferably from 1:1.3 to 1:1.7.

All percentages of amounts of components in the herbicidal composition in this specification are based on weight with reference to the total composition.

The alcohol is preferably a monohydric alcohol, and is preferably also a alcohol, such as a c1_10 alcohol. Advantageously the alcohol is present at an amount of from 5 to 15%, such as from 8 to 12%, optimally about 10%. The alkyl chain in the alcohol may be straight or branched. Alcohols of the following formula are particularly preferred: R2 - C - OH wherein each of R1, R2 and R3 individually represent a hydrogen atom or a 01-5, preferably a C1-3, alkyl group. Particularly preferred alcohols are monohydric and contain up to 10 carbon atoms, such as C3 - C5 alcohols, for example a C4 alcohol such as butan-l-ol.

The compositions of the present invention preferably additionally comprise an emulsifier, such as a nonionic or anionic emulsifier. Nonionic emulsifiers are preferably alkoxylated, for example with C2 or C3 alkoxy groups. Particularly preferred emulsifiers are ethoxylated, for example with from 1 to 100, suitably 2 to 23, moles of ethylene oxide.

Preferred nonionic emulsifiers include alkyl aromatic alcohol (eg. phenol) ethoxylates where the alkyl group is a Cg_ig, preferably Cg or Cg, straight chain or branched alkyl group. Thus particularly preferred emulsifiers include nonyl phenol ethoxylates (with the number of moles of ethylene oxide from 4 to 100) or octyl phenol ethoxylates (with from 1 to 70 moles of ethylene oxide).

Other suitable nonionic emulsifiers are alcohol ethoxylates, where the alcohol group is present on a (straight chain) Cg_2Q, preferably C32-i8' chain. Particularly preferred are lauryl alcohol ethoxylates (with from 2 to 23 moles of ethylene oxide), and oleyl alcohol ethoxylates (with from 2 to 20 moles ethylene oxide).

Preferred anionic emulsifiers may also be ethoxylated, and are suitably derivatives of dicarboxylic acids such as succinates, with sulphosuccinates being particularly preferred. Such derivatives include the addition of an, eg. C8_60, alkyl group; an aryl, eg. phenyl, group; a fatty alcohol, eg. a C12_18 straight chain alcohol with one or more hydroxy groups; or an alcohol, eg. Cg_ 2q, amide group; or a suitable combination of these. Preferred anionic emulsifiers thus include: alkyl sulphosuccinates; alkyl aryl ethoxylate sulphosuccinate; alkyl ethoxylate sulphosuccinate; fatty alcohol ethoxylate sulphosuccinate; and alkylolamide sulphosuccinate.

These emulsifiers are preferably added in the form of a salt. Here ethoxylation can be with from 2 to 30 moles of ethylene oxide.

A particularly preferred class of anionic emulsifiers are the alkyl sulphosuccinates, where there may be one or more, and preferably two, alkyl (eg. C6-Cio' sucl1 as Cg) groups. The emulsifier is suitably present in an amount of from 0.5 to 1.5%, such as from 0.8 to 1.2%, especially about 1%.

It should be appreciated that the balence of the composition is usually made up with water (preferably distilled).

Turning now to the concentrate, the ingredients of preference are as for the RFU formulation mutatis mutandis. It will of course be appreciated that the amounts of all the ingredients in the concentrate will be greater than for the RFU formulation (with the usual exception of water). The concentrate will generally be diluted with water (preferably distilled but tap water is quite suitable) in a volume: volume ratio of concentrate:water of from 1:7 to 1:11, such as from 1:8 to 1:10, and optimally about 1:9.

As previously mentioned, the prefered RFU formulation ingredients are also preferred for the concentrate, but a particularly satisfactory concentrate has the following ingredients: Amount by weight % Suitable Range Preferred Range Optimal Range Aliphatic carboxylic acid (e.g. decanoic acid) 6 to 13 8 to 11 9 to 10 Salt of aliphatic carboxylic acid (e.g. potassium decanoate 6 to 14 8 to 12 9.5 to 10.5 Emulsifier (e.g. nonyl phenol ethoxylate) 7 to 12 8 to 11 9 to 10 Alcohol 14 to 24 16 to 22 18 to 20 (e.g. butanol-l-ol) The concentrate preferably also contains a sequestering agent. This is suitably an amino-polyacetic acid compound (or a salt thereof), e.g. EDTA (ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid) such as the disodium salt.

The balance (up to 100% by weight) will usually be made up with distilled water.

According to a second aspect of the present invention there is provided a method of retarding the growth of, or killing, plant life, the method comprising applying a herbicidal composition comprising an aliphatic carboxylic acid, or a salt thereof, and an alcohol, to the plant life.

The herbicidal composition is preferably that of the first aspect of the present invention, and preferred features and characteristics of the first aspect are applicable to the second aspect mutatis mutandis.

A third aspect of the present invention relates to a process for the preparation of a herbicidal composition comprising an aliphatic carboxylic acid, or a salt thereof, and an alcohol, the process comprising admixing the ingredients.

The process preferably includes admixing an emulsifier. When preparing a concentrate, a sequestering agent is also preferably added. Alternatively or in addition, the process includes admixing an alkali to produce the salt of the aliphatic carboxylic acid(s). Preferably the aliphatic carboxylic acid is in a molar excess over the alkali so that the composition contains both the acid and the salt thereof. Preferred alkalis are alkali metal (eg. sodium, potassium) compounds, such as the hydroxides.

A preferred process comprises: (a) admixing water, the aliphatic carboxylic acid and the alkali; (b) heating the mixture (and preferably allowing to cool); and (c) admixing the alcohol (and preferably also the sequestering agent and/or emulsifier).

The carboxylic acid is preferably reacted with the alkali in a molar ratio of from 1.5:1 to 2.5:1, preferably from 1.9:1 to 2.2:1. Where more than one carboxylic acid is present, such as two, then the weight ratio of acids : alkali is suitably from 3:1 to 8:1, preferably from 4:1 to 6:1, optimally 5.0:1 to 5.5:1.

The invention will now be described by way of example with reference to the following Examples which are intended to be illustrative, but not limiting, on the present invention.

Example 1 A ready-for-use (RFU) herbicidal composition was prepared from the following ingredients: decanoic acid 2.35 g potassium hydroxide 0.36 g distilled water 86.29 ml butan-l-ol 10 g nonyl phenol ethoxylate 1.0 g The water was heated to 50-60°C in a flat bottom flask fitted with a water condenser. The potassium hydroxide was added with vigorous stirring until dissolved. Stirring was continued while the decanoic acid was added. The mixture was refluxed for 30 minutes and then allowed to cool to 2 0°C with continuous stirring throughout using a magnetic follower.

When cooled, the alcohol (butan-l-ol) and the emulsifier, nonyl phenol ethoxylate, were added and mixed with stirring.

Example 2 An RFU herbicidal composition was prepared as in Example 1 except the amount of water used was 87.29 ml and nonyl phenol ethoxylate was omitted.

Example 3 An RFU herbicidal composition was prepared as in Example 1 except that 1 g of sodium dioctyl sulphosuccinate was used instead of nonyl phenol ethoxylate.

Example 4 An RFU herbicidal composition was prepared using the following ingredients: butan-l-ol 10 g nonyl phenol ethoxylate 1.0 g distilled water 86.16 ml nonanoic acid 0.93 g decanoic acid 1.46 g potassium hydroxide 0.45 g.

The composition was prepared using the method described in Example 1 except that decanoic acid was replaced by a mixture of nonanoic and decanoic acid.

Example 5 A herbicidal composition (concentrate) was prepared from the following ingredients: decanoic acid 17.71 g potassium hydroxide 3.14 g (minimum 85% pure) EDTA (disodium salt) 0.95 g nonyl phenol ethoxylate 9.52 g butanol-l-ol 19.05 g water 49.63 g using the method described in Example 1 with the EDTA salt being added along with the butan-l-ol and nonyl phenol ethoxylate.

This composition was then diluted to 1 litre water (ratio of concentrate:water of 1:9) into a ready-foruse formulation.

Comparative Example 1 As a control distilled water without any additives was used.

Comparative Example 2 A composition comprising 99 ml water and 1 g nonyl phenol ethoxylate was prepared by mixing the ingredients.

Comparative Example 3 A composition containing 90 ml distilled water and 10 g butan-l-ol was prepared by mixing the ingredients. The composition had to be agitated vigorously before spraying.

Comparative Example 4 A composition was prepared having the following ingredients: distilled water 97.29 ml decanoic acid 2.35 g potassium hydroxide 0.36 g.

The composition was prepared using the method of Example 1 except that the step of mixing the alcohol and the emulsifier was omitted.

Comparative Example 5 A composition was prepared having the following ingredients: distilled water 96.29 ml decanoic acid 2.35 g nonyl phenol ethoxylate 1 g potassium hydroxide 0.36 g.

The composition was prepared using the method of Example 1 except the alcohol was omitted.

Comparative Example 6 A composition was prepared having the following ingredients: distilled water 96.29 ml decanoic acid 2.35 g sodium dioctyl sulphosuccinate 1 g potassium hydroxide 0.36 g.

The composition was prepared using the method of Example 1 except that sodium dioctyl sulphosuccinate was used instead of nonyl phenol ethoxylate.

Comparative Example 7 A composition was prepared using the following ingredients: distilled water 97.16 ml nonanoic acid 0.93 g decanoic acid 1.46 g potassium hydroxide 0.45 g.

The composition was prepared using the method of Comparative Example 4 except that decanoic acid was replaced by a mixture of nonanoic and decanoic acids.

Comparative Example 8 A composition was prepared using the following ingredients: distilled water 96.16 ml nonanoic acid 0.93 g decanoic acid 1.46 g nonyl phenol ethoxylate 1 g potassium hydroxide 0.45 g The composition was prepared using the method of Example 1 except that the alcohol was omitted.

Comparative Example 9 A composition was prepared using the following ingredients: distilled water 96.16 ml nonanoic acid 0.93 g decanoic acid 1.46 g potassium hydroxide 0.45 g sodium dioctyl sulphosuccinate 1 g.

The composition was prepared using the method of Example 1 except the alcohol was omitted and sodium dioctyl sulphosuccinate was used instead of nonyl phenol ethoxylate.

A summary of the components of the compositions prepared in Examples 1 to 4 and Comparative Examples 1 to 9 is given in Table 9. It will be seen that where the carboxylic acid is reacted with an alkali, this reaction produces water and so the percentage of water in Table 9 is slightly greater than according to the original amounts of the ingredients.

Comparative Example 10 A composition sold under the trade mark SHARPSHOOTER, by Safer, Inc. of 189 Wells Avenue, Newton, Massachusetts, (U.S.A.) was employed. This composition was analysed as comprising the following ingredients: water 97 ml nonanoic acid 0.6 g decanoic acid 1.0 g potassium salt of nonanoic acid 0.6 g potassium salt of decanoic acid 0.3 g.

The composition contains other substances which have not been identified, but the composition does not contain butan-l-ol.

Comparative Example 11 This is a proprietry brand composition sold under the trade name BIO MOSS KILLER which in use contains: water 99.648% dichlorophen, sodium salt 0.352%.

This composition is available from Pan Britannica Industries Limited.

Comparative Example 12 This is a proprietry brand composition sold under the trade name WEEDOL which contains the dichloride salt of paraquat (the generic name for 1,1'-dimethyl-4,4'dipyridylium salt) and the dibromide salt of diquat. This is available from ICI pic.

Example A Nettle plants were removed from selected outdoor growing environments and potted up into 2.5 inch square pots in standard greenhouse soil mix. Before applying any compositions to the plants they were allowed to stabilise in the greenhouse environment for at least one week.

The greenhouse temperature was maintained at around 25°C and the nettle plants were lit only by natural sunlight. The plants were watered from the bottom of the pots by capillary matting.

The plants were all of the same age and as uniform in growth developments as possible, generally 3-4 inches in height and spread.

Five groups of plants were randomly selected and up to four plants (replicates) subjected to the composition.

The compositions were applied by hand-held trigger sprayers to run off the plants. The plants remained in the greenhouse environment as described above for assessment. Assessments were made at four hours, 24 hours, 48 hours and optionally up to five or eight days from starting treatment. The treatments were applied only once at zero time.

A scale of 0-100 in steps of 10, was devised and corresponds to the amount of damage caused to the plants by each composition tested. A key is given in Table 8.

The compositions were applied by hand-held trigger sprayer to the moss at a fixed rate per unit area with the surrounding area masked off with a frame. The area . 2 to which the compositions were applied was 500cm , ie. 15g per 100cm2.

The results are given in Table 1.

Example B Example A was repeated except that rosebay willow herb plants were used instead of nettles. The results are given in Table 2.

Example C Example A was repeated except that bitter cress was used in place of nettles. The results are given in Table 3.

Example D Example A was repeated except that grass was used instead of nettles. The results are given in Table 4.

Example E Example A was repeated except that groundsel was used instead of nettles. The results are given in Table 5.

Example F Moss growning outside under normal outdoor conditions was used. The compositions were applied by hand-held trigger sprayer to the moss at a fixed rate per unit area with the surrounding area masked off with a frame. The area to which the compositions were applied was 500cm2, ie. 15g per 100cm2. Two trials were conducted, the results of the first trial is given in Table 6, and for the second trial in Table 7.

Assessments of damage was made using a squared grid, placed over the moss to arbitrarily divide the area of moss into squares. The damage to the moss for each square was used to arrive at a score of the damage as set out in Table 8, taking into account the area of moss affected and the colour of the moss after treatment. The damage score given in Tables 6 and 7 are an average of the individual scores for all the squares of the squared grid.

Table 1 (Nettles) replicate Damage score as indication of herbicidal activity at time (T) after treatment. 4hrs 24hrs 48hrs 5days 8days Example 1 1 60 90 85 95 95 2 50 75 90 — 95 3 60 85 95 - 85 mean 57 83 90 95 92 Example 3 1 0 30 - 60 - 2 - 35 60 — 80 mean 0 33 60 60 80 Example 4 50 55 70 - 90 Comparative 1 0 0 0 0 0 Example 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 mean 0 0 0 0 0 Comparative 1 5 5 5 - 20 Example 4 2 5 5 5 20 3 0 5 10 — 20 mean 3 5 7 — 20 Comparative 1 5 20 20 - - Example 7 2 20 30 40 — ·** mean 13 25 30 Comparative 1 10 30 60 60 - Example 8 2 10 50 55 mean 10 40 58 60 Comparative 1 10 30 60 60 - Example 9 2 — 50 60 • mean 10 40 60 60 Comparative 1 50 60 60 - - Example 10 2 60 70 70 mean 55 65 65 Comparative Example 12 0 5 20 - 50 Table 2 (Rosebay willow herb) repl i cate* Damage score as indication of herbicidal activity at time (T) after treatment.

Example 1 1 2 mean 4hrs 10 10 10 24hrs 48hrs 5days 8days 60 60 60 70 80 75 75 85 80 95 95 95 Example 3 40 65 75 - 95 Example 4 5 60 70 - 95 Comparative 1 0 0 0 0 0 Example 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 mean 0 0 0 0 0 Comparative 1 5 25 60 80 - Example 4 2 5 30 40 — — 3 10 40 45 - - 4 0 40 60 - - mean 5 34 51 80 — Comparative 1 20 30 70 95 - Example 7 2 20 40 55 — — 3 20 20 70 — — mean 20 30 65 95 — Comparative Example 8 - 40 70 - - Comparative Example 9 — 60 85 — — Comparative 1 35 50 90 - - Example 10 2 35 50 75 — — mean 35 50 83 — Comparative Example 12 5 15 60 - 60 Table 3 (Bitter cress) replicate Damage score as indication of herbicidal activity at time (T) after treatment. 4hrs 24hrs 48hrs 5days 8days Example 1 1 60 70 90 100 100 2 50 80 90 - 100 3 70 80 90 - 100 mean 60 77 90 100 100 Example 3 1 20 60 80 100 - 2 - 60 80 - 100 mean 20 60 80 100 100 Example 4 35 70 90 - 100 Comparative 1 0 0 0 0 0 Example l 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 mean 0 0 0 0 0 Comparative 1 40 70 90 - - Example 4 2 40 70 80 — — 3 0 10 30 - 60 mean 40 50 67 — 60 Comparative 1 50 80 90 - - Example 7 2 50 90 95 — — mean 50 85 93— —’ Comparative 1 30 60 80 80 - Example 8 2 - 50 55 — — mean 30 55 68 80 ·“ Comparative 1 30 60 80 80 - Example 9 2 — 50 80 — — mean 30 55 80 80 Comparative 1 70 90 100 - - Example 10 2 70 90 100 — — mean 70 90 100 — — Comparative Example 12 5 5 30 - 80 Table 4 (Grass) replicate Damage score as indication of herbicidal activity at time (T) after treatment.

Example 1 1 2 mean 4hrs 50 20 35 24hrs 75 50 63 48hrs 5days 8days 90 70 80 100 100 100 Example 3 - 70 75 - 100 Example 4 30 70 85 - 100 Comparative 1 0 0 0 0 0 Example 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 mean 0 0 0 0 0 Comparative 1 5 25 40 50 - Example 4 2 0 10 30 — 60 mean 3 18 35 50 60 Comparative Example 7 10 40 60 85 - Comparative Example 8 — 50 80 — — Comparative Example 9 — 45 75 — — Comparative 0 0 50 - 100 Example 12 Example 1 Example 3 Example 4 Comparative Example 1 Comparative Example 4 Comparative Example 7 Comparative Example 8 Comparative Example 9 Comparative Example 10 Comparative Example 12 Table 5 (Groundsel) replicate Damage score as indication of herbicidal activity at time (T) after treatment. 4hrs 24hrs 48hrs 5days 8days 1 30 70 90 — 100 2 40 40 75 - 100 3 40 70 80 - 100 mean 37 60 82 — 100 - 65 80 - 100 40 75 90 - 100 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 mean 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 70 80 100 — 2 20 40 70 100 - 3 15 30 60 100 - 4 0 50 60 100 - mean 14 48 68 100 — 1 30 70 80 100 — 2 80 90 90 100 - 3 50 75 90 100 - mean 53 78 87 100 — 25 50 70 - - 25 60 80 1 70 90 95 — — 2 40 80 90 - - mean 55 85 93 — — 5 10 50 — 1( Table 6 (Moss Trial No. 1) replicate Damage score as indication of herbicidal activity at time (T) after treatment. 4hrs 24hrs 48hrs 5days 8days Example 1 20 70 90 100 Exanple 3 30 70 90 100 Comparative Exanple 4 10 70 90 100 Comparative Exanple 6 10 50 90 100 - Comparative 0 0 10 20 Example 11 Table 7 (Moss Trial No. 2) replicate Damage score as indication of herbicidal activity at time (T) after treatment. 4hrs 24hrs 48hrs 5days 8days Example 1 40 70 90 100 Example 2 30 70 85 100 Comparative Exanple 2 0 0 0 0 Comparative Example 3 10 30 40 50 Carparative Example 4 10 10 60 80 Comparative Example 5 20 50 90 100 Table 8 Key to damage to plant as indication of herbicide activity 0 = No damage 10= Very slight damage, or symptoms of yellowing or deformation 20 = Signs of slight damage 30 = Light damage, clearly recognisable symptoms 40 = Heavier damage, clearly recognisable symptoms 50= Leaf edges eaten away, or considerable deformation 60 =s Widespread and heavy leaf corrosion, deformation 70 Over 50% of the leaves are corroded or deformed 80 = Extremely heavy damage, only small isolated patches of green tissue still visible 90 = Extremely severe damage, isolated green areas still visible 100 = Total damage, no green tissue visible O r- O FATTY POTASSIUM SALTS dP £ fe q r, in in in m m m co • · · · ,- T- T- O σι oooo CM CM -a· d co • • * • T“ o O O O CM • o τ— t— co • • • • lo r* LO LO co co co CO d ro 'T Lf) m in co CO co 00 00 00 • • • • • • Ο Ο O r- r— Γ““ o o o σ> o σ\ • • • o o o o o o o o o o o o o ο σ> o CTi d co in io r~o CM CM CM co CO • • • • « o o d CM » • O O O o o co o d o o r— Tf co CO • • • • • LO LO r·** LO σ> σ\ <3% cn -a* in io Φ Φ Φ 96.3 o CO O Vl co φ Φ Φ

Claims (12)

1. CLAIMS 3 1. A herbicidal composition comprising an aliphatic 4 carboxylic acid, or salt thereof, and an alcohol. 6 2. A composition as claimed in claim 1 which 7 comprises both an aliphatic carboxylic acid and a salt 8 of an aliphatic carboxylic acid. 10 3. A composition as claimed in claim 1 or 2 which is 11 aqueous. 13 4. A composition as claimed in any preceding claim 14 wherein the aliphatic carboxylic acid and/or salt 15 thereof is a Cg_ 12 carboxylic acid. 17 5. A composition as claimed in any preceding claim 18 wherein the aliphatic carboxylic acid and/or salt 19 thereof is decanoic acid. 21 6. A composition as claimed in any of claims 1 or 3 22 to 5 wherein the carboxylic acid or salt thereof is 23 present at from 0.2 to 5.0%. 25 7. A composition as claimed in claim 6 wherein the 26 carboxylic acid or salt is present at from 1.0 to 4.0%. 28 8. A composition as claimed in any of claims 2 to 5 29 wherein the salt is present at from 0.5 to 2.8% and the 30 acid is present at from 0.4 to 2.4%. 33 9. A composition as claimed in claim 8 wherein the 1 salt is present at from 1.0 to 2.0% and the acid is

2. Present at from 0.8% to 1.3%. 4 10. A composition as claimed in any preceding claim 5 wherein the carboxylic acid and/or salt thereof 6 7 comprises a plurality of acids and/or salts. / 8 11. A composition as claimed in any preceding claim 9 wherein the carboxylic acid and/or salt thereof 10 comprises a mixture of nonionic acid and decanoic acid. 11 12 12. A composition as claimed in any preceding claim 13 wherein the alcohol is a monohydric alcohol. 14 15 13. A composition as claimed in any preceding claim 16 wherein the alcohol is a c l-16 alcohol. 17 18 14. A composition as claimed in any preceding claim 19 wherein the alcohol is a C 3 _ 5 alcohol. 20 21 15. A composition as claimed in any preceding claim 22 which additionally comprises a nonionic or anionic 23 emulsifer. 25 16. A composition as claimed in claim 15 wherein the 26 emulsifer is alkoxylated. 28 17. A process for the preparation of a herbicidal 29 composition as claimed in any of claims 1 to 16, the 30 process comprising admixing the ingredients. 33 18. A method of retarding the growth of, or killing, 1 plant life, the method comprising applying to the plant 2 life a herbicidal composition as claimed in any of

3. Claims 1 to 16.

4. 5 19. A herbicidal composition substantially as herein

5. 6 described with reference to the accompanying Examples.

6. 9 20. A process according to claim 17 for the preparation of a

7. 10 herbicidal composition, substantially as hereinbefore described and

8. 11 exemplified.

9. 13 21. A herbicidal composition whenever prepared by a process

10. 14 claimed in claim 17 or 20.

11. 16 22. A method according to claim 18 of retarding the growth of, or

12. 17 killing, plant life, substantially as hereinbefore described and is exemplified.