AU2014202365B2 - Alcohol alkoxylates as adjuvants for agrochemical formulations - Google Patents

Abstract

H:\rc tenvoven\NRPo,1bl\DCC\REC\6257318_LDOC-29/04/20>4 A bioperformance enhancing adjuvant of Formula (I) R1O[BO]1 [AO]mR 2 where BO is butylene oxide; and each AO is independently propylene oxide or ethylene oxide; n1 is from I to 12; m is from 0 to 20; R1 is optionally substituted C4 20 alkyl or optionally substituted C420 alkenyl; and R1 is hydrogen or optionally substituted Cir, alky.

Description

H: ~ 31 C.. I 1 33- b1 ALCOHOL ALKOXYLATES AS ADJUVANTS FOR AGROCHEMICAL FORM ULATIONS This application is a divisional of Australian Patent Application No. 2010240690, the entire content of which is incorporated herein by reference. This invention relates to bioperformance enhancing adjuvants and to use of such adjuvants. Numerous adjuvants which enhance the bioperformance of agrochemicals are known. A broad mention of alcohol alkoxylates as penetration aids is made in WO2008/03 7375. The present invention provides a bioperformance enhancing adjuvant of formula (I):

R

1 0[BO][AO]mR2 (1) where BO is butylene oxide; and each AO is independently propylene oxide or ethylene oxide; n is from I to 12; m is from 0 to 20; R 1 is optionally substituted C420 alkyl or optionally substituted C 4

.

20 alkenyl; and R 2 is hydrogen or optionally substituted Cl 4 alkyl; provided that R 1 comprises more carbon atoms than R 2 . Each alkyl chain is, independently, straight or branched. Optional substituents on the alkyl and alkenyl groups are, independently, hydroxy and epoxy groups. Certain butylene oxide-ethylene oxide block copolymers are disclosed by J.Chlebicki in J.Colloid and Interface Science 206, 77-82 (1998). Therefore in another aspect, the present invention provides a compound of formula (I) as defined above provided that it is not a compound of formula (Ia)

R

3 0[CH2CHI(C2H)O]a[C 2 H0]Hbf (]a) when R 3 is n-butyl, n-hexyl, n-octyl or n-decyl; a is 1, 2, 3 or 4; and b is from 9.7 to 10.2. When R, is optionally substituted alkyl, suitably R 1 is optionally substituted C6is alkyl; - 1A more suitably R, is optionally substituted C16 alkyl; even more suitably R 1 is optionally substituted C 1

>

1 5 alkyl. When R, is optionally substituted alkenyl, suitably RI, is optionally substituted

C

64 8 alkenyl; more suitably R is optionally substituted oleyl; even more suitably R is oleyL. Suitably R 2 is hydrogen or optionally substituted C 1

.

3 alkyl; more suitably R, is hydrogen or optionally substituted C 1

.

2 alkyl; even more suitably R2, is hydrogen or optionally substituted methyl; most suitably R 2 is hydrogen. Suitably R 1 is non-substituted alkyl. Suitably R 2 is hydrogen or non-substituted alkyl. BO [butylene oxide] has the empirical formula C 4 HO. Every BO unit has the formula CH(R4)CI(R 5 )O but each BO unit is independently selected from the following options: R 4 is methyl and R 5 is methyl; or R 4 is ethyl and R is hydrogen: or R41 is hydrogen and R 5 is ethyl. Propylene oxide [PO] has the empirical formula C 3 HO. Every P0 unit has the formula CH(R 6

)CH(R

7 )O but each PO unit is independently selected from the following options: R, is methyl and R 7 is hydrogen; or R 6 is hydrogen and R 7 is methyL In one aspect, the block [AO],n is a PO block followed by an EO block, where the PO block is bonded to the BO block, such that the adjuvant is of formula (lb): RO[BO]JPO]m'IEO],oR 2 (b) where (in' + m" m) and R 1 , R 2 , n and m are as defined for compounds of formula (I). Suitably AO is ethylene oxide. Suitably n is from 2 to 8; more suitably from 3 to 6; even more suitably it is 4. Suitably m is from 5 to 15; more suitably it is from 8 to 12; even more suitably it is 10. In one aspect, m=0. Adjuvants for which m=0 may display very low levels of phytotoxicity [i.e. little damage to plants]. Accordingly, in another aspect, the present invention provides use of a compound of formula (1) as a bioperformance enhancing adj uvant R1O[BO!J'_, (1) -H:\tccker.wov 4 XRPObD)CREC75475_Edomc/-20I2( -2 where BO is butylene oxide; n is from 1 to 12; R is C.ny alkyl or Ct 2 o alkenyl; and

R

2 is hydrogen or C - alkyl The bioperformance enhancing adjuvants of the present invention may be used effectively at much lower concentrations than the effective concentrations for conventional adjuvants. The bioperfornmance enhancing adjuvants of the present invention may be used synergistically with other bioperfornance enhancing adjuvants of the present invention or with conventional adjuvants, The values of n and m represent values both for individual species and for averages taken over a distribution of compounds. This will be well understood by the skilled person. Suitably the bioperformance enhancing adjuvants of the present invention are used to enhance the bioperformance of a pesticide. Pesticides suitable for use with the present invention include insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, acaricides, nematicides and biocides suitable for controlling pests, diseases or weeds that are a problem in agriculture. many such pesticides are known and are described in The Pesticide Manuali 4th edition published by the British Crop Protection Council in 2006, The invention is illustrated by the following non-limiting Examples in which all parts and percentages are by weight unless otherwise stated. EXAMPLE I WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB20101000821 3 This example illustrates compounds of the present invention. Twenty eight butylene oxide based compounds were synthesised using standard techniques familiar to a skilled person- [for-examp le, see EP068.1 865A]._ Each.saTnple-consists-of-a-hydrocarbon. tail connected to a butylene oxide section which in turn is connected to an ethylene oxide 5 section; the samples are compounds of formula (I) in which AO is ethylene oxide and R2 is hydrogen; and RI, i and m are as defined in Table 1. Samples I to 3 and 24 to 27 were prepared using branched alcohols containing an average of 13 carbon atoms. Samples 4 to 7 were prepared with 2-ethylhexyl alcohol. Samples 8 to 11 were prepared using butanol as the starting solvent. Samples 12 to 14 and sample 28 used a fraction of 10 alcohols ranging from 12 to 15 carbons in length. Samples 15 to 23 used an alcohol range from C12 to C 16 . The values of n and m are average values. Table I Sample R, alkyl chain n m

CD

3 [average] 2 8 2 C 3 [average] 4 8 3 C 13 [average] 6 12 4 2-ethylhexyl 2 6 5 2-ethylhexyl 2 3 6 2-ethylhexyl 4 6 7 2-ethylhexyl 6 10 8 C 4 2 8 9 C 4 4 10 10 C 4 4 8 II C 4 6 8 12 C 1 1 5 .2- 9 13 C 12

.

15 4 10 14 C 12

.

15 6 12 15 C 124 6 1 3 16 C 12

.

16 1 5 17 C 12 -1 1 8 18 C12-16 2 5 19 C 1 2- 16 2 8 WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB20101000821 4 20 C12-16 3 5 21 C 1 2 1 6 3 8 .22 C] 2 16 4 3 23 C 1 2 1 6 4 8 24 C 13 [average] 2 3 25 C 1 3 [average] 2 8 26 C3 [average] 4 3 27 Ci 3 [average] 4 8 28 C 1215 4 0 29 C 1 8 (oleyl) 4 0 30 C 18 (oleyl) 4 20 EXAMPLE 2 This example shows that samples 15, 17, 24 and 25 from Table I behave as adjuvants for fungicides used against brown rust (puccinia recondita). Wheat was grown outside in 5 field plots. Each plot was sprayed with water at a rate of 15 litres per hectare, the water containing either difenoconazole or cyproconazole, at a concentration which enabled a pesticide application rate of 0.1, 1, 3, 10 or 30 grams per hectare. Adjuvants were added at the standard rate of 0.2 % v/v of the spray volume used. The known adjuvants BrijTM 96 and TEHP (tris 2-ethyihexyl phosphate) were also tested for comparison. Each 10 experiment was replicated four times and the results were averaged at each rate. Plants were examined for both protective action and curative effects. A standard mathematical analytical technique was used: Plots of efficacy against pesticide concentration for each adjuvant were 'logit' transformed and used to estimate the concentration required for 90% effect (ED90). For each sample, its ED90 value was compared to that of the known 15 adjuvant-Brij T M 96 or TEHP in order to generate a relative potency; the relative potency is the ratio of the ED90 values. Relative potencies are given in Table 2 [relative potency results compared to Brij]m96 for difenoconazole] and Table 3 [relative potency results compared to TEHP for cyproconazole]. Adjuvants which performed better than the standard adjuvants have a relative potency value greater than 1. 20 Table 2 Sample Protective Curative WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB20 10/000821 15 0.99 1.50 17 1.47 1.69 24 L46 2.84 25 1.22 1.07 Table 3 Sample Protective Curative 15 1.80 3.81 17 0.97 2.73 24 1.68 2.97 25 1.22 4.29 EXAMPLE 3 5 In this example Sample 13 from Table I was compared to the oil adjuvant blend Turbocharge ". The herbicide fomesafen was applied to the weed species xanthium strumarium (XANST), setaria viridis (SETVI), abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH), and chenopodium album (CHEAL) at rates of 60 or 120 grams per hectare, using a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated four times and the percentage damage to 10 the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 7, 14 and 21 days after application. Each adjuvant was applied at a rate of 0.5% of the volume of the spray water. Four effects were evaluated: pesticide rate (2 levels), adjuvant type (two levels), weed species (four levels) and days after application (three levels). A standard simple linear model was constructed to judge the significance of these effects. These effects were found to be 15 significant at a 5% level. A model was fitted using multiple linear regression using the statistics package JMP (SAS group). The effect of each adjuvant was pulled out from the model and the least significant differences evaluated using a Student's t method. In further examples, where a greater number than two adjuvants were compared, Tukey's HSD method was used. 20 Table 4 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant number 13 with the pesticide fomesafen compared to the oil adjuvant Turbocharge across four weed species and compared to single weed species. The mean values and a letter code denoting significant difference (samples with the same letter are not significantly different from WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 6 each other at the 5% level.) In addition the mean values split according to individual weed species are also shown. As can be seen, Sample 13 was more efficacious than the standard adjuvant. Turbocharged -across the weed species, and.was-as.good or.better-on individual weeds. 5 Table 4 Sample All weeds XANST CHEAL SETVI ABUTH Sample 13 61.8; A 89.7; A 89.4; A 27.5; A 4055; A Turbocharge 58.8; B 83.9; B 88.6; A 24.4; B 38.33; A EXAMPLE 4 In this example Sample 13 from Table I was compared to the adjuvant BrijTM 96V. The herbicide fomesafen was applied to the weed species xanthiurn 10 strumarium (XANST), setaria viridis (SETVI), abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH), and chenopodium album (CHEAL) at rates of 60 or 120 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 7, 14 and 21 days after application. Each adjuvant was applied at a rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray water. 15 The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 5 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant number 13 with the pesticide fomesafen compared to the adjuvant Brij 96 across four weed species and compared to single weed species. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. In addition the mean values split according to 20 individual weed species are also shown. As can be seen the butylene oxide adjuvant was more efficacious than the standard adjuvant across the weed species, and was as good or better on individual weeds, WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 Table 5 Sample All weeds ABUTH CHEAL SETVI XANST Sanple 13-- 5715; A -32.5; A- 85.27; A-- .247; A __8666;A Brij 96V 53,33; B 32.2; A 82.5; A 26.66; A 71.94; B EXAMPLE 5 In this example the rate response of the butylene oxide adjuvant number 13 of Table 1 5 was measured to display the excellent performance of this adjuvant at very low rates. compared to the adjuvant Briji"96V. The herbicide fomesafen was applied to the weed species xanthium strumarium (XANST), setaria viridis (SETVI), abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH), and chenopodium album (CHEAL) at rates of 60 or 120 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated four times and the percentage I0 damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 7, 14 and 21 days after application. The adjuvants were each applied at a rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray water. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Where a 15 sample has more than one letter it is not significantly different to any other sample with one of those letters. Table 6 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 at several addition rates with the pesticide fomesafen compared to the adjuvant Brij 96V across 20 four weed species, the mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. As can be seen the butylene oxide adjuvant was more efficacious than the standard adjuvant across the weed species. In addition it was as effective at half the rate of the standard Brij96V (Sample 13 at0 .i% cf. Brij 96V at-0.2%). The level of addition of the butylene oxide adjuvant that was statistically better than no adjuvant was 25 0.025%. This is a very low level of adjuvant addition, indicating the remarkable efficacy of this adjuvant.

WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 8 Table 6 Sample Adjuvant rate (%) Rank Mean % kill Sample 13 0.5 A -61.805 Sample 13 0.2 B 57.15 Sample 13 QA BC 54.23 Brij 96 0.2 C 53.33 Sample 13 0.05 D 43.95 Sample 13 0.025 E 38.12 No adjuvant 0 F 27.57 EXAMPLE 6 In this example the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 of Table 1 was compared 5 to the adjuvant Tweenim 20. The herbicide mesotrione was applied at rates of 45 and 90 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer to the weed species brachiaria platyphyla (BRAPL), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), polygonum convolvulus (POLCO) and amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU). In each case the experiments were replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 7, 10 14 and 21 days after application. The adjuvants was applied at a rate of 0.5% of the volume of the spray water. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 7 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 at a rate of 0.5 % v/v with the pesticide mesotrione compared to the adjuvant Tween 20 15 across four weed species and compared to single weed species. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. In addition the mean values split according to individual weed species are also shown. As can be seen the butylene oxide adjuvant was more efficacious than the standard adjuvant across-the weed species, and was as good or better on individual weeds. 20 Table 7 Sample A weeds BRAPL DIGSA POLCO AMATU Sample 13 69.986; A 54.72; A 56.94; A 97.167; A 71. 11; A Tween 20 63.861; B 44.72; B 48.33; B 95.44;A 66.94; AB No adjuvant 44.986; C 20.27; C 19.44; C 77.16; B 63.05; B WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 9 EXAMPLE 7 In this example the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 of Tablel was compared to the adjuvantBrijji$196. The herbicide mesotrione-was-applied.to-the-weed-species_ brachiaria platyphyla (BRAPL), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), polygonum convolvulus 5 (POLCO) and amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU) at rates of 45 or 90 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated fur times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 7, 14 and 21 days after application. The adjuvants were applied at a rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray water. 10 The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 8 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 at a rate of 0.2% v/v with the pesticide mesotrione compared to the adjuvant Brij 96V across four weed species, and compared to single weed species. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. In addition the mean values 15 split according to individual weed species are also shown. As can be seen the butylene oxide adjuvant was more efficacious than the standard adjuvant across the weed species, and was as good or better on individual weeds. Table 8 Sample All weeds BRAPL DIGSA POLCO AMATU Sample 13 68.44; A 51.66; A 54.72; A 97.11; A 70.28; A Brij 96V 61.4; B 41.94; B 44.72; B 93 66; B 65.28; B No adjuvant 44.99; C 20.27; C 19.44; C 77.16; C 63.05; B 20 EXAMPLE 8 In this example-the rate-response-of the-butylene oxide adjuvant-Sample 13 -of--- Table I was measured to display the excellent performance of this adjuvant at very low rates compared to the adjuvant BrijTM96V. The herbicide mesotrione was applied to the 25 weed species brachiaria platyphyla (BRAPL), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), polygonum convolvulus (POLCO) and amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU) at rates of 45 or 90 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 7, 14 and 21 days after application. The butylene oxide adjuvant was applied at rates of 0.025, 0.05, WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 10 0.1, 0.2 and 0.5% w/v of the spray water. For comparison Brij96V was added at a rate of 0.2% v/v. The-same-statistical.methodology-that-was.applied in Example.3_was-usedhere. Table 9 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 at 5 several addition rates with the pesticide mesotrione compared to the adjuvant Brij 96V across four weed species. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. As can be seen half the rate of the butylene oxide adjuvant was more efficacious than the standard adj uvant (0.1 % vs 0.2 %). In addition it was as effective at one quarter of the rate of the standard. Brij96V (0.05 % vs 0.2%). 10 The level of addition of the butylene oxide adjuvant that was statistically better than no adjuvant was 0.025 %. This is a very low level of adjuvant addition indicating the remarkable efficacy of this adjuvant. Table 9 Sample Adjuvant rate % Rank Mean % kill Standard error Sample 13 0.5 A 70.0 1.8737 Sample 13 0.2 AB 68.4 Sample 13 0.1 BC 66.2 Sample 13 0.05 CD 63.0 Brij 96 0.2 D 614 Sample 13 0.025 D 59.5 No adjuvant 0 E 45.0 15 EXAMPLE 9 In this example the rate response of the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 of Table 1 was measured to display the excellent performance of this adjuvant at very low rates. The herbicide pinoxaden was applied to the weed species loliurn perenne (LOLPE), alopecurius myosuirides (ALOMY), setaria viridis (SETVI) and avena fatua 20 (AVEFA) at rates of 7.5 or 15 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. The butylene oxide adjuvant was applied at rates of 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.5% w/v of the spray water. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here.

WO 20101122313 PCT/GB20101000821 11 Table 10 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 at several addition rates with the pesticide pinoxaden. Results are leaned across four eed species-..Theinean-values-and. aletter-denotingwhich group-each adjuvant b.elonged-to are shown. The results show that the butylene oxide adjuvant is efficacious at a very low 5 level (0.025%) and that there is a strong rate response to the added adjuvant. Table 10 Sample Adjuvant rate % Rank Mean % kill Standard error Sample 13 0.5 A 76.89 1.441 Sample 13 0.2 B 73.89 Sample 13 0.1 B 73.45 Sample 13 0.05 C 67.53 Sample 13 0.025 D 60.76 No adjuvant 0 E 4.72 EXAMPLE 10 10 In this example the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 of Table I was compared to the commercial oil adjuvant blend Atplus T M 411 F, The herbicide nicosulfuron was appl led to the weed species chenopodium album (CHEAL), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), setaria viridis (SETVI) and abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH) at rates of 30 or 60 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated four 15 times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. The adjuvants were applied at a rate of 0.5% of the volume of the spray water. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table IT shows the mean efficacy of the-butylene oxide-adjuvant Sample 13 -at a 20 rate of 0.5%v/v with the pesticide nicosulfuron compared to the oil adjuvant AtplusTM4I IF across four weed species and compared to single weed species. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. In addition the mean values split according to individual weed species are also shown. As can be seen the butylene oxide adjuvant was more efficacious than the standard adjuvant 25 across the weed species, and was as good or better on individual weeds. Table 11 WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 12 Sample All weeds CH'IEAL SETVI DIGSA ABUTH Sample 13 76.15; A 84.58; A 90; A 81.25; A 48.75; A Atplus 4!-F 66.75; B -74.17;B --- 8l.58;B -- 78-75;-A- - 32.513- No adjuvant 20.94; C 12.08; C 41.67; C 8.75; B 21.25; C EXAMPLE 11 In this example the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 of Table 1 was compared to the commercial adjuvant tris 2-ethyilhexyl phosphate (TEHP). The herbicide 5 nicosulfuron was applied to the weed species chenopodium album (CHEAL), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), setaria viridis (SETVI) and abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH)at rates of 30 or 60 grains per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. The adjuvants were applied at a rate of 10 0.2% of the volume of the spray water. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 12 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 at a rate of 0.2% v/v with the pesticide nicosulfuron compared to the adjuvant TEiP the same rate across four weed species, and compared to single weed species. The mean 15 values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown along with the standard error. In addition the mean values split according to individual weed species are also shown. As can be seen the butylene oxide adjuvant was more efficacious than the standard adjuvant across the weed species, and was as good or better on individual weeds. 20 Table 12 Sample All weeds CHEAL SETVI DIGSA ABUTH Sample 13 68.23; A 76.67;-A 80; A 73.33; A 42.92;A TEHP 58.12; B 68.33; B 77.08; A 69.17; A 17.92; B No adjuvant 20.94; C 12.08; C 41.67; B 8.75; B 21.25; B WO 20101122313 PCT/GB20101000821 13 EXAMPLE 12 In this example the rate response of the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 of Table I wasmeasured and compared to theadjuvant TEHP_ The herbicide nicosufuron was applied to the weed species chenopodium album (CHEAL), digitaria sanguinalis 5 (DIGSA), setaria viridis (SETVI) and abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH) at rates of 30 to 60 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. The butylene oxide adjuvant was applied at rates of 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.5% w/v of the spray water. For comparison TEHP was added at a 10 rate of 0.2% w/v. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 13 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant Sample 13 at several addition rates with the pesticide nicosulfuron. Results are meaned across four weed species. As a comparison the adjuvant TEHP was added at 0.2% v/v. The mean 15 values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. As can be seen half the rate of the butylene oxide adjuvant was more efficacious than the standard adjuvant (Sample 13 at 0.1% compared to TEHP at 0.2%). In addition it was as effective at one quarter of the rate of the standard TEHP (0.05% compared to 0.2%). The level of addition of the butylene oxide adjuvant that was statistically better than no 20 adjuvant was 0.025%. This is a very low level of adjuvant addition, indicating the remarkable efficacy of this adjuvant. Table 13 Sample Adjuvant rate % Rank Mean % kill Standard error Sample 13 0.5 A 76.14 1.803 Sample 13 0.2 B 68.23 Sample 13 0.1 C 63.23 TEHP 0.2 D 58.12 Sample 13 0.05 D 56.35 Sample 13 0.025 E 51.87 No adjuvant 0 F 20.93 WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 14 EXAMPLE 13 In this example the responses of the butylene oxide adjuvants 13, 17, 19, 21, 22 -and 23 oflable. Liwere measured. at-an-application rate of 0.2% of-the-volume of the spray solution used. They were compared to the commercial tank mix adjuvant 5 Atplus

TM

41 IF, which was applied at the recomne ided rate of 0,5% by volume. The herbicide nicosufuron was applied to the weed species chenopodium album (CHEAL), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), setaria viridis (SETVI) and abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH) at rates of 30 or 60 grais per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was 10 assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 14 shows the mean efficacy of six butylene oxide adjuvants at an addition rate of 0.2% with the pesticide nicosulfuron. Results are meaned across two pesticide rates and each sample was replicated four times. As a comparison the adj uvant AtpiusTM 15 41 IF was added at 0.5% v/v. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. The data shows that the butylene oxide adjuvants were at least as good as the standard which was used at a higher rate than the butylene oxide adjuvants (0.2% compared to 0.5%). Table 14 Sample All weeds ABUTH CHEAL DICSA SETVI Sample 13 78.44; A 65.42; A 85; A 67.5; A 95.83; A Sample 21 76.45; AB 66.25; A 85; A 60; AB 94.58; AB Sample 22 76.35; AB 61.67; A 85.83; A 62.5; A1B 95.42; A Sample 19 75.81; AB 65; A 84.17; A 58.33; BC 95.75; A Sample 23 74.16; AB 62.92; A 82.08; A 57.92; BC 93.75; AB Atplus 41IF 70.73; B- 60.83; A 74.17; B - -56.67;-BC- -91:25; B Sample 17 69.37; B 58.75; A 76.67; B 50.83; C 91.25; B No adjuvant 37.5; C 25.83; B 24.16; C 18.33; D 81.67; C 20 EXAMPLE 14 In this example the responses of the adjuvants 13, 17, 19, 21,22 and 23 were measured at an application rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray solution used. They were compared to the adj avant tris 2-ethylhexy 1 phosphate (TEHP), which was applied at 25 the rate of 0.5% by volume. The herbicide pinoxaden was applied at rates of 7.5 or 15 WO 2010/122313 PCT/GIB2010/000821 15 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer to the weed species lolium perenne (LOLPE), alopecurius myosuirides (ALOMY), setaria viridis (SETVI) and avena fatua (AVEFA).- In. each case the-experiments-were-replicated-four-times-and the-percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after 5 application. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 15 shows the nean efficacy of six butylene oxide adjuvants at an addition rate of 0.2% with the pesticide pinoxaden. Results are moaned across two pesticide rates and each sample was replicated four times. As a comparison the adjuvant tris 2 1o ethylhexyl phosphate was added at 0.5% v/v. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown along with the standard error. The standard TEP was used at a higher rate than the butylene oxide adjuvants (0.2% compared to 0.5%). Table 15 Sample All weeds SETVI LOLPE AVEFA ALOMY Sample 23 76.98; A 78.75; ABC 78.33; AB 78.33; AB .72.5; A Sample 13 76.98; A 83.33; A 775; AB 80.42; A 66.67; B Sample 19 76.25; A 80; AB 77.08; AB 77.08; AB 70.83; AB TEHP 75.63; A 77.5; ABC 82.5; A 73.75; AB 68.75; AB Sample 22 73.96; AB 78.33; ABC 72.5; BC 75.83; AB 69.17; AB Sample 21 72.19; AB 71.25; C 76.67; AB 71.66; B 69.17; AB Sample 17 68.02; B 72.92; BC 68.75; C 73.33; AB 57.08; C No adjuvant 15.62; C 17.08; D 7.08; D 23.33; C 15; D 15 EXAMPLE 15 In this-example the rate response-of the butylene oxide sample 27 of Table 1 was measured, displaying the excellent performance of this adjuvant compared to the commercial adjuvant Turbocharge T, used at a rate of 0.5% by volume. The herbicide 20 fomesafen was applied to the weed species xanthium strumarium (XANST), setaria viridis (SETVI), abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH) , and chenopodium album (CHEAL)at rates of 60 or 120 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 7, 14 and 21 days after application. Sample 27 was applied at a rate of 25 0.2% of the volume of the spray water.

WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB20101000821 16 The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here Table 16 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant 27 at a rate of 0.2% v/v with-the pesticide-tbmesafen-compared -to -the-adjuvantTurbocharge-at-a-rate-of.0. 5%. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown 5 along with the standard error. As can be seen the butylene oxide adjuvant was as effective as Turbocharge even although it was applied at 0.2% as opposed to 0.5% for the commercial adjuvant. Table 16 Sample All weeds XANST SETVI CHEAL ABUTH Sample 27 51.01; A 73.44; A 33.44; A 74.3; A 22,86; B Turbocharge 52.89; A 72.33; A 28.72; B 75.69; A 34.81; A No adjuvant 22.94; B 31,55;B 13.78;C 30.69;B 15.75; C 10 EXAMPLE 16 In this example the rate response of the butylene oxide adjuvant 27 of Table I was measured to display the excellent performance of this adjuvant compared to the commercial adjuvant TweenTM20, used at a rate of 0.5% by volume. The herbicide mesotrione was applied to the weed species brachiaria platyphyla (BRAPL), digitaria 15 sanguinalis (DIGSA), polygonum convolvulus (POLCO) and amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU) at rates of 45 or 90 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 7, 14 and 21 days after application. Sample 27 was applied at a rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray water. 20 The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 17 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant 27 at a rate of 0,2% v/v-with the pesticide mesotrione compared-to-the-adjuvant-Tween20 at a rate of 0.5%. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. As can be seen the butylene oxide adjuvant was as effective as Tween 20 even 25 although it was applied at 0.2% as opposed to 0.5% for the commercial adjuvant.

WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 17 Table 17 Sample All weeds POLCO DIGSA BRAPL AMATU Sample 27- 5T.26; A- 7544;-A 44.99; A 36.94; A 7L64;- A Tween 20 54.54;A 73.61;A 41.67;A 33.06;1B 69.86;A No adjuvant 34.84; B 55.5; B 20.55; B 19.17; C 44.13; B EXAMPLE 17 In this example the response of butylene oxide sample 27 of Table I was 5 measured at an application rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray solution used. It was compared to the adjuvant Genopol' m X080, which was also applied at a rate of 0.2% by volume. This adjuvant has the same alkyl chain and ethylene oxide head group as Sample 27 however it does not contain the butylene oxide moiety. The herbicide pinoxaden was applied at rates of 7.5 or 15 grams per hectare by a laboratory track 10 sprayer to the weed species lolium perenne (LOLPE), alopecurius myosuirides (ALOMY), setaria viridis (SETVi) and avena fatua (AVEFA). Each experiment was replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. 15 Table 18 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant 27 at a rate of 0.2% v/v with the pesticide pinoxaden compared to the adjuvant Genapol X080 at the same rate. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. The data shows that the butylene oxide adjuvants was significantly more efficacious than Genapol X080 across the range of weed species tested. 20 Table 18 Sample Allweeds SETVI LOLPE AVEFA -ALOMY Sample 27 71.06; A 84.4;A 59.22;A 82.3;A 58.31;A Genopol X080 52.08; B 70.67; B 20.97; B 75.47; B 41.23; B No adjuvant 7.44; C 4.75; C 6.53; C 5.74; C 12.73; C EXAMPLE 18 In this example the response of butylene oxide sample 27 of Table I was 25 measured at an application rate of 0.2% by volume of the spray solution used. It was WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB20101000821 18 compared to the commercial tank mix adjuvant Atplus r 41 IF, which was applied at the recommended rate of 0.5% by volume, and to the adjuvant Genapol!'XO80 which was appliedat 0.2%._his-adj.uvmthasthesame-alkyl-chain-and-ethylene-oxide-head.grup_. as sample 27 however it does not contain the butylene oxide moiety. The herbicide 5 nicosufuron was applied at rates of 30 or 60 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer to the weed species chenopodium album (CHEAL), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), setaria viridis (SETVI) and abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH). In each case the experiments were replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. 10 The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 19 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant 27 at a rate of 0.2 % v/v with the pesticide nicosulfuron compared to the adjuvant Genapol X080 at the same rate, and to Atplus 41 IF applied at the higher rate of 0.5%. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. The data shows that 15 the butylene oxide adjuvants was as good as Atplus 411 F which was used at a higher rate than the butylene oxide adjuvants (0.2% compared to 0.5%). It was more efficacious than Genapol X080. Table 19 Sample All weeds SETVI DIGSA CHEAL ABUTH Sample 27 70.26; A 45.13; A 79.55; A 84.58; A 71.76; A Atplus 411F 65.74; A 25.96; B 76.05; A 85.01; A 75.93; A Genopol X080 46.47; B 19.72; C 42.71; B 70.42; B 53.01; B No adjuvant 21,39; C 14.17; D 22.59; C 15.2; C 33.6; C 20 EXAMPLE 19 In this example-the rate response of the butylene oxide adjuvant 1-3 of Table 1was measured to display the excellent performance of this adjuvant compared to the commercial adjuvant Turbocharge

TM

, used at a rate of 0.5% by volume. The herbicide fomesafen was applied at rates of 60, 90 or 120 grams per hectare by a laboratory track 25 sprayer to the weed species xanthium strumarium (XANST), abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH), and chenopodium album (CHEAL). In each case the experiments were replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. Sample 13 was applied at a rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray water.

WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB20101000821 19 The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 21 shows the mean efficacy of the butvlene oxide adjuvant 13 at a rate of 0.2%iv/v -with the pesticide-fomesafena compared to-the adjuvant_Turbocharge applied at the higher rate of 0.5%. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each 5 adjuvant belonged to are shown. As can be seen the butylene oxide adjuvant was more effective than Turbocharge even although it was applied at 0.2% as opposed to 0.5% for the commercial adjuvant. Table 20 Sample All weeds XANST CHEAL ABUTH Sample 13 51.24; A 92.56; A 62.5; A 41.39; A Turbocharge 39.43; B 77.44; B 40; B 35; B No adjuvant 23.61; C 45; C 24.44; C 25; C 10 EXAMPLE 20 In this example the rate response of the butylene oxide adjuvant 13 of Table I was measured to display the excellent performance of this adjuvant compared to the commercial adjuvant Tween TM'20, used at a rate of 0.5% by volume. The herbicide mesotrione was applied at rates of 30, 60 or 90 grams per hectare by a laboratory track 15 sprayer to the weed species brachiaria platyphyla (BRAPL), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), and polygonum convolvulus (POLCO). Sample 13 was applied at a rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray water. In each case the experiments were replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. 20 The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 21 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant 13 at a rate of 0.2% v/v with the pesticide -mesotrione compared to-the adjuvant Tween 20 applied -atthe higher rate of 0.5%. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. As can be seen the butylene oxide adjuvant was more effective 25 than Tween 20 even though it was applied at 0.2% as opposed to 0.5 % for the commercial adjuvant.

WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 20 Table 21 Sample All weeds POLCO DIGSA BRAPL Sample- -289-A--36l----A 475;--A 9 4; Tween 20 26.11; B 32.77; B 45,55; A 26.11; B No ad juvant 13.61; C 27.78; C 17,5; B 9.17; C EXAMPLE 21 in this example the response of the butylene oxide adjuvant 13 of Table I was 5 measured at an application rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray solution used. It was compared to the commercial tank mix adjuvant AtplusP"41 IF, which was applied at the recommended rate of 0.5% by volume. The herbicide nicosufuron was applied at rates of 30, 45 or 60 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer to the weed species chenopodiurn album (CHEAL), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), and abutilon theophrasti to (ABUTHI). In each case the experiments were replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 22 shows the mean efficacy of the butylene oxide adjuvant 13 at a rate of 15 0.2% v/v with the pesticide nicosulfuron compared to the adjuvant Atplus 41 IF applied at the higher rate of 0.5%/. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are sh own. The data shows that the butylene oxide adjuvant was as good as Atplus 41 IF which was used at a higher rate than the butylene oxide adjuvant (0.5% compared to 0.2%). 20 Table 22 Sample All weeds DIGSA CHEAL ABUTH Sample 13 67.31; A 78.61; A 88:33; A 35; A Atplus 41 iF 63.61; A 75.55; B 88.06; A 27.22; B No adjuvant 8.11; B 4.05; C 0.56; B 19.72; C EXAMPLE 22 In this example the response of the butylene oxide adjuvant 13 of Table I was measured at an application rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray solution used. It was 25 compared to the adjuvant tris 2-ethylhexyl phosphate [TEHIIPJ, which was applied at the WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 21 higher rate of 0.5% by volume. The herbicide pinoxaden was applied at rates of 7.5, 11,25 or 15 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer to the weed species loliulm perenne (LOL,?E),.alopecurius-myosuirides (ALOMY),_and-avena-fatualAVEEA).-In each case the experiments were replicated four times and the percentage damage to the 5 weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 23 shows the mean efficacy of butylene oxide adjuvant 13 at a rate of 0.2% v/v with the pesticide pinoxaden compared to the adjuvant tris 2-ethylhexyl phosphate applied at the higher rate of 0.5%. The mean values and a letter denoting which group 10 each adjuvant belonged to are shown. The data shows that the butylene oxide adjuvant was as effective as TEHP across the range of weed species tested. Table 23 Sample All weeds LOLPE AVEFA ALOMY Sample 13 58.05; A 53.89; B 76.94; A 43.33; A TEHP 59.91; A 58.06; A 78.33; A 4333; A No adjuvant 3.43; B 2.22; C 6.39; B 1.67; B 15 EXAMPLE 23 In this example the rate response of 22 butylene oxide adjuvants of Table I were measured at an adjuvant rate of 0.2% by volume, displaying excellent performance of this adjuvant compared to the commercial adjuvant Turbocharge, which was used at a rate of 0.5% by volume. The herbicide mesotrione was applied at rates of 60 or 120 20 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer to the weed species brachiaria platyphyla (BRAPP), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH) and amaranthus retroflexus (AMARE). In each case-the experiments were replicated four times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. All the butylene oxide adjuvants were applied at a rate of 0.2% volume 25 of the spray water whereas Turbocharge was used at 0.5%. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 23 shows the mean efficacy of 22 butylene oxide adjuvants used at a rate of 0.2% v/v with the pesticide mesotrione compared to the adjuvant Turbocharge applied at the higher rate of 0.5%. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each 30 adjuvant belonged to are shown. As can be seen most of the butylene oxide adjuvants WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 22 were more effective than Turbocharge even although they were applied at 0.2% as opposed to 0.5% for the commercial adjuvant. All of the butylene adjuvants were as good as Turbocharge. Table 23 Sample Group Mean kill across weeds % 3 A 84.69 27 AB 84.27 26 ABC 83.85 21 ABCD 83.65 13 ABCDE 83.44 20 ABCDE 83.44 23 ABCDE 83.44 19 ABCDEF 83.13 7 ABCDEF 83.02 2 ABCDEF 82.60 6 ABCDEF 82.60 1 BCDEFG 81.98 22 CDEFGH 81.88 18 CDEFGH 81.77 25 CDEFGH 81.67 10 DEFGHI 81.35 17 EFGHI 81.25 11 FGHI 80.94 8 GHIJ 80.21 24 HlIJ 79.58 16 1J 79.27 Turbocharge J 78.44 5 J 78.13 No adjuvant K 69.48 WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 23 EXAMPLE 24 In this example the responses of the butylene oxide adjuvants 7, 14, 24 and 25 of fable-Lwere measured-atanapplication-rate-ot0.2%-of-the-volume-ofthe-spray-solution used. They were compared to the adjuvant Brij'i"96V, which was applied at the same 5 rate. The herbicide pinoxaden was applied to the weed species lolium perenne (LOLPE), alopecurius myosuirides (ALOMY), setaria viridis (SETVI) and avena fatua (AVEFA) at rates of 7.5 or 15 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated three times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually 13 days after application. 10 The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 25 shows the mean efficacy of 4 butylene oxide adjuvants used at a rate of 0.2% v/v with the pesticide pinoxaden compared to the adjuvant Brij 96V applied at the same rate. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. The data shows that two of the butylene oxide adjuvaits were more effective is than Brij 96V and two were as good as Brij 96V across the range of weed species tested. Table 25 Sample Group Mean kill % all weeds 7 A 72.3 14 A 67.3 25 B 57.3 Brij 96V B 55.0 24 B 52.9 No adjuvant C 16.3 EXAMPLE25 20 In this example the rate responses of four butylene oxide adjuvants ofTable 1, applied at 0.2%, displayed excellent performance when compared to the commercial adjuvant Turbocharge

M

, used at a rate of 0.5%; and to tris 2-ethylhexyl phosphate (TEHP) also used at 0.5%. The herbicide fonesafen was applied to the weed species xanthium strumarium (XANST), abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH-), setaria viridis (SETVI) 25 and chenopodium album (CHEAL) at rates of 60 or120 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated six times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 7 and 13 days after application.

WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 24 The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 26 shows the mean efficacy of 4 butylene oxide adjuvants used at a rate of _0,2%-/vwiththe pesticide fomesafen-compared-to-the adjuants-tris27ethylhexy phosphate (TEHP) and Turbocharge. The latter two adjuvants were applied at the higher 5 rate of 0.5% v/v. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown along with the standard error. As can be seen the performance of all four of the butylene oxide adjuvants was at least as good as the standard Turbocharge and most of the adjuvants were as good as or better than TEHP. 10 Table 26 Sample Group Mean kill across weeds (%) 24 A 78.2 7 B 73.6 25 B 73.1 TEHP41 B 72.7 Turbocharge C 68.7 14 C 66.1 None D 47.0 EXAMPLE 26 In this example the rate response of sample 28 of Table 1, a non-ethoxylated adjuvant, applied at 0.2% by volume was measured to display the performance of the 15 adjuvant compared to the commercial adjuvant Turbocharge, used at a rate of 0.5%. The herbicide fomesafen was applied to the weed species xanthium strumarium (XANST), abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH), setaria viridis (SETVI) and chenopodium album (CHEAL) at-rates of 60 or -20 grams per hectare-by a-laboratory track-sprayer. Each experiment was replicated three times and the percentage damage to the weeds was 20 assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 27 shows the mean efficacy of a non-ethoxylated butylene oxide adjuvanrt used at a rate of 0.2% v/v with the pesticide fomesafen compared to the adjuvant Turbocharge. Turbocharge was applied at the higher rate of 0.5%. The mean values and 25 a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. As can be seen the performance of the butylene oxide adjuvant was as good as the standard Turbocharge.

WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 25 Table 27 _ Sample -Group_Mean- kilt(%) Turbocharge A 67.6 Sample 28 A 64.7 No adjuvant B 37,7 EXAMPLE 27 5 In this example the responses of sample 28 of table 1, a non-ethoxylated butylene oxide adjuvant was compared to tris 2-ethylhexyl phosphate (TEHP). The butylene oxide adjuvant was applied at an application rate of 0.2% by volume of the spray solution used whereas TEHP was applied at 0.5%. The herbicide pinoxaden was applied to the weed species lolium perenne (LOLPE), alopecurius myosuirides (ALOMY), setaria to viridis (SETVI) and avena fatua (AVEFA) at rates of 7.5 or 15 grams per hectare by a laboratory track sprayer. Each experiment was replicated three times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually 14 and 21 days after application. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 28 shows the mean efficacy of a non-ethoxylated butylene oxide adjuvant 15 compared to TEHP with the pesticide pinoxaden. The rate of the former was 0.2% whereas the latter was applied at 0.5%. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. The data shows that the butylene oxide adjuvant was as effective as TEHP across the range of weed species tested. 20 Table 28 Sample Group Mean kill (%) IEHP A 92.6 Sample 28 A 91.0 No adjuvant B 17.4 EXAMPLE 28 In this example the rate response of a non-ethoxylated butylene oxide adjuvant 25 was measured at an adjuvant rate of 0.2% by volume in order to display the excellent WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 26 performance of this adjuvant compared to the commercial adjuvant' Tween 20, which was used at a rate of 0.5% by volume. The herbicide mesotrione was applied at rates of A5-or_90-grams-per-hectare-by-a-laborator-y-track-sprayer-to-the -weed-species-brachiaria_ decumbens (BRADE), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), polygonum convolvulus 5 (POLCO) and amaranthus retroflexus (AMARE). In each case the experiments were replicated three times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 7, 14 and 21 days after application. The butylene oxide adjuvant was applied at a rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray water whereas Tween 20 was used at 0.5%. 0The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here. Table 29 shows the rnean efficacy of an unethoxylated butylene oxide adjuvant compared to Tween 20 with the pesticide mesotrione. The rate of the former was 0.2% whereas the latter was applied at 0.5%. The mean values and a letter denoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown. As can be seen the butylene oxide adjuvant 15 was as effective as Tween 20 even though it was applied at 0.2% as opposed to 0.5% for the commercial adjuvant. Table 29 Sample Group Mean kill % Sample 28 A 68.8 Tween 20 A 65.8 No adjuvant B 47.2 EXAMPLE 29 20 In this example the response of sample 28 of Table 1, a non-ethoxylated butylene oxide adjuvant was measured at an application rate of 0.2% of the volume of the spray solution used: It was compared to the commercial tank mix adjuvantAtplus m 41 IF, which was applied at the recommended rate of 0.5% by volume. The herbicide nicosufuron was applied at rates of 30 or 60 grams per hectare by a laboratory track 25 sprayer to the weed species chenopodium album (CHEAL), digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), setaria viridis (SETVI) and abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH), In each case the experiments were replicated three times and the percentage damage to the weeds was assessed visually at time periods of 14 and 21 days after application. The same statistical methodology that was applied in Example 3 was used here.

WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 27 Table 30 shows the mean efficacy of a non-ethoxylated butylene oxide adjuvant compared to Atplus 41 IF with the pesticide nicosulfuron. The rate of the former was 0.2%./whereas-thelatter-was-.applied-at 0.5%- The-mean-values-and a_letterdenoting which group each adjuvant belonged to are shown along with the standard error. The 5 data shows that the butylene oxide adjuvant was as good as Atplus 41 IF which was used at a higher rate than the butylene oxide adjuvants (0.2% compared to 0.5%). Table 30 Sample Group Mean kill % ATPLUS 411 F A 90.4 Sample 28 A 89.2 No adjuvant B 75.0 10 EXAMPLE 30 This example shows that samples 29 and 30 from Table I behave as adjuvants for fungicides used against the fungus septoria tritici. Wheat was sprayed with water at a rate of 200 litres per hectare, the water containing either isopyrazam or epoxyconazole, at a concentration which enabled a pesticide application rate of 0.6, 2, 6 or 20 grams per 15 hectare. Sample 29 was added at a rate of 0.2% v/v of the spray volume used and sample 30 was added at a rate of 0.1 % v/v. As a comparison to these adjuvants the same formulation was tested without the adjuvant, as a standard. Each experiment was replicated 12 times and the results were averaged at each rate. Plants were examined for curative effects. The percentage disease on each sample was assessed visually and 20 averaged across the replicates at each rate. This was converted to a percentage control by comparison to the disease level on plants which were sprayed using a blank spray application where the-pesticide was not-included. Table 31 shows the percentage septoria control for the two adjuvants used with the four 25 levels of isopyrazam as well as the blank formulation. Table 32 shows the percentage septoria control for the two adjuvants used with the four levels of epoxyconazole as well as the blank formulation, In each case it can be seen that the adjuvants have improved the performance of the fungicide. Table 31 WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB2010/000821 28 Isopyrazam g/ha Control Sample 30 Sample 31 - - -2------ -2 1------------------ -- 99 -- - 6 35 85 85 2 21 53 26 0.6 18 12 0 Table 32 Epoxyconazole Sample Sample g/ha Control 30 31 20 29 99 100 6 1i 99 99 2 22 88 90 0.6 4 45 54 EXAMPLE 31 5 This is an insecticide example: it shows that sample 28 from Table I behaves as an adjuvant for the insecticide thiamethoxam against Aphis craccivora. The lower sides of French bean leaves were infested with an aphid population Aphis craccivora of mixed ages contained in clip cages. The upper sides of the leaves were sprayed with the test solutions, I day after aphid infestation. French bean was sprayed with water at a rate of 10 200 litres per hectare, the water containing 3, 6, 12.5 and 25 ppm thiamethoxam. Sample 28 was added at a rate of 0.1% v/v of the spray volume used. As a comparison to this adjuvant the same formulation was tested without the adjuvant, as a standard. 5 days after spray application, the aphids were checked visually for mortality. Each experiment was replicated twice and'the results were averaged at eachi-ate. In the control 15 experiment the beans were sprayed with water and no mortality was observed.

WO 2010/122313 PCT/GB20101000821 29 Table 33 Treatment 3ppm 6ppm 12.5 ppm 25 ppm thiamethoxam% .1 thianetioxam % thiaimethoxam ithiamethoxam mortality mortality % mortality % mortality Actara WG25 0 70 99 100 Actara WG25 50 90 97.5 100 + 0. 1% v/v sample 28 ActaraM WG25 is a commercial product containing thiamethoxam 5 EXAMPLE 32 This is a Phytotoxicity example: it shows that sample 28 from Table I is not phytotoxic to soybean, French bean and Chinese cabbage. The plants were sprayed with water at a rate of approximately 500 litres per hectare, the water containing 0. 1% v/v or 0.2% v/v adjuvant. The plants were assessed for phytotoxicity 7 days after spray application. 10 Each experiment was replicated twice and the results averaged. In the control experiment the plants were sprayed with water and no phytotoxicity was observed. The results show that the adj uvant sample 28 is safer to the crops than the alcohol ethoxy late adjuvant Genapol 0100. Table 34 Soybean French bean Chinese cabbage % phytotoxicity % phytotoxicity % phytotoxicity 0.I%v/v Sample 28 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------- ------------- --- ~--------- -- -- -- ---------------------------------- 0.2%v/v Sample 28 1 0 0 0.1%v/v Genapol 3.5 5 -2 0100 0.2%v/v Genapol 15 10 10 0100 GenapolT 0100 is a commercial surfactant from Clariant, an oleyl ethoxylate with 10 moles ethylene oxide.

H:\rctevoven\NRPo1blDCC\REC\6257348_Ldoc-29/01/2011 -30 The reference in this specification to any prior publication (or information derived from it), or to any matter which is knox, is not, and should not be taken as an acknowledgment or admission or any form of suggestion that that prior publication (or information derived from it) or known matter forms part of the common general knowledge in the field of endeavour to which this specification relates. Throughout this specification and the claims which follow, unless the context requires otherwise, the w ord "comprise", and variations such as "comprises" and "comprising", will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated integer or step or group of integers or steps but not the exclusion of any other integer or step or group of integers or steps.

Claims (7)

1. Use of a compound of formula (I) as a bioperformance enhancing adjuvant R1O[BOjR2 (I) where BO is butylene oxide; n is from I to 12; R, is C44 alkyl or C 420 dakenyl; and R 2 is hydrogen or C- 3 alkyl.

2. Use according to claim 1, wherein for the compound of formula (1), R 1 is C, 1 alkyl or C6 18 alkenyl.

3 Use according to claim 2, wherein for the compound of formula (I), R 1 is oleyl.

4. Use according to claim 2 or 3, wherein for the compound of formula (I), R 2 is hydrogen or C-2 alkyl.

5 Use according to any one of claims 2 to 4, wherein for the compound of formula (I) n is from 2 to 8.

6. Use according to claim 2, wherein for the compound of formula (1), R is C'5 alkyl; n is 4; and R 2 is hydrogen,

7, Use according to claim 2, wherein for the compound of formula (R), R is oleyl;n is 4; and R. is hydrogen,