You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.


    Comparisons of 2-Ethylhexyl Ester Formulations of 2,4-D: Chemistry and Bioefficacy

    Published: 0

      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (144K) 9 $25   ADD TO CART
    Complete Source PDF (5.0M) 261 $160   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word


    In field trials, two formulations of 2-ethylhexyl ester 2,4-D, having different solvent systems, were applied to various crop and weed species. HM-9625-A is a traditional 2,4-D ester formulation using aromatic solvents and emulsifiers. In HM-9625-B, the aromatic solvent was replaced by a co-formulation of methylated soybean oil and organosilicone surfactant. Determinations of crop or pasture phytotoxicity and weed efficacy were observed. Also, reduced rates of the co-formulated compound (HM9625-B), were compared to higher rates of the standard material (HM9625-A), to determine differences in activity between the compounds. There was no injury observed due to applications of either formulation at all rates tested, to wheat, oats, barley, corn, orchardgrass or tall fescue. Generally, the co-formulated 2,4-D provided equivalent to slightly greater weed control at reduced rate. The field trials were conducted in 1997, 1998 and 2000 at locations in the Midwest and Northeastern regions of the United States.


    Solvents, Esterfied Seed Oils, Surfactants, Phenoxy herbicides, Organosilicone

    Author Information:

    Mack, RE
    Supervisor, Helena Chemical Company, Memphis, TN

    Roberts, JR
    Director, Helena Chemical Company, Memphis, TN

    Volgas, GC
    Manager, Helena Chemical Company, Memphis, TN

    Committee/Subcommittee: E35.22

    DOI: 10.1520/STP11202S