Composition containing pyrethroid insecticide and application thereof

Abstract

The present invention relates to compositions containing a biologically effective amount of a compound I and a pyrethroid insecticide, and methods for their use in controlling pests in agronomic and non-agronomic environments. The compound I and a pyrethroid insecticide have a synergistic effect, so that the pest control effect can be improved, the pesticide application amount is reduced, the use frequency is reduced, and the use cost is reduced.

Description

[0001] This application is a divisional application with application number 202210247896.8, application date March 14, 2022, and invention name “A composition containing pyrethroid insecticides and its application”. Technical Field

[0002] The present invention belongs to the technical field of pesticide compounding, and specifically relates to a composition containing a biologically effective amount of Compound I and at least one pyrethroid insecticide, and methods for using the composition to control insect pests in agricultural and non-agricultural environments. Background Art

[0003] In recent years, the incidence of various crop pests has been increasing year by year, with the affected areas expanding year by year. This has caused significant damage to crops, leading to reduced crop yields and increased agricultural production costs. To improve pest control effectiveness, farmers have increased pesticide dosages or arbitrarily mixed pesticides. This unscientific use of pesticides not only fails to achieve synergistic effects, but also leads to pesticide waste, excessive residues, environmental pollution, and the development of pesticide resistance in pests. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop a composition for pest control that can expand the scope of pest control, reduce pesticide dosage, and delay the development of pesticide resistance.

[0004] In the real world of agricultural production, the long-term, continuous use of a single pesticide quickly leads to pest resistance, resulting in reduced control effectiveness, increased pesticide usage, and exacerbated pesticide residues in agricultural products and ecological damage. Combining pesticides with completely different mechanisms of action is an effective way to delay the development of pest resistance, expand the insecticide spectrum, extend the lifespan, and reduce pesticide usage. However, a major challenge is how to formulate a combination that creates synergy rather than antagonism between the various pesticides.

[0005] Patent document CN 111909143 A discloses Compound I, which has broad-spectrum insecticidal activity, particularly effective against Lepidoptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Thysanoptera, Diptera, and mites. However, it does not disclose how to combine Compound I with other drugs to achieve enhanced efficacy.

[0006] The structural formula of compound I is shown below:

[0007]

[0008] Pyrethroids are a class of synthetic insecticides that mimic the chemical structure of natural pyrethrins. They are sodium channel modulators, and their insecticidal effects are mainly contact and stomach poisoning. Pyrethroids have the following advantages: (1) High efficiency: The insecticidal activity is 2 to 10 times that of general organophosphorus insecticides; (2) Broad spectrum: They have good control effects on various fruit tree pests, such as apple and pear borers, cutworms, stink bugs, flat boat moths, geometrids, and pests with chewing and piercing mouthparts; (3) Low toxicity: The toxicity to humans and animals is lower than that of organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides, and the dosage is small and safe to use; (4) Low residue: They have less pollution to crops and the environment, are easily decomposed in the natural environment, and have low residue. Currently, there are nearly 80 pyrethroid insecticides developed worldwide, of which 24 are used for agricultural pest control.

[0009] However, the above two compounds still have the problem of drug resistance and insecticidal activity needs to be improved. Summary of the Invention

[0010] In order to improve the deficiencies of the prior art, the present invention provides a composition comprising compound I and a pyrethroid insecticide, wherein the pyrethroid insecticide is selected from at least one of the following: cypermethrin, beta-cypermethrin, cyhalothrin, beta-cyhalothrin, cyfluthrin, beta-cyhalothrin, etofenprox, tefluthrin, deltamethrin, cypromethrin and bifenthrin;

[0011] The structural formula of compound I is shown below:

[0012]

[0013] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the compound I is prepared by referring to the method of Example 1 in patent document CN 111909143 A, the entire text of which is incorporated herein by reference.

[0014] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the mass ratio of the compound I to the pyrethroid insecticide is 80-1:1-80.

[0015] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the mass ratio of Compound I to the pyrethroid insecticide is 50-1:1-50, for example, 50:1, 10:1, 5:1, 4:1, 3:1, 2:1, 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, 1:10 or 1:50.

[0016] According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the mass ratio of the compound I to the pyrethroid insecticide is 10-1:1-10.

[0017] According to an embodiment of the present invention, based on the total weight of the composition as 100%, the sum of the mass of the compound I and the pyrethroid insecticide in the composition is 1 to 80%, preferably 1%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, or 50%.

[0018] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition can be prepared as a liquid preparation or a solid preparation.

[0019] According to the embodiment of the present invention, the content range of the effective active ingredient in the preparation varies depending on the different preparation types. Generally, the liquid preparation contains 1% to 60% of the effective active ingredient by weight, preferably 5% to 50%; the solid preparation contains 5% to 80% of the effective active ingredient by weight, preferably 10% to 70%.

[0020] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition further includes at least one of deionized water, an organic solvent, an emulsifier, a dispersant, a wetting agent, a thickener, a defoaming agent, a stabilizer, a binder, a disintegrant, an antifreeze agent, an anticaking agent, a suspending agent, a film-forming agent, a preservative, a colorant, a polymer capsule wall material, a pH regulator or a filler.

[0021] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition can be diluted or used directly by the user before use. The composition can be prepared by a processing method known to those skilled in the art, that is, the effective active ingredient is mixed with one or more of deionized water, an organic solvent, an emulsifier, a dispersant, a wetting agent, a thickener, a defoaming agent, a stabilizer, a binder, a disintegrant, an antifreeze agent, an anticaking agent, a suspending agent, a film-forming agent, a preservative, a colorant, a polymer capsule wall material, a pH adjuster, or a filler to prepare the composition.

[0022] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition can be made into various dosage forms. Preferably, the dosage forms include wettable powders, water-dispersible granules, suspensions, aqueous emulsions, suspension seed coatings, microcapsule suspensions, microcapsule suspension-suspension concentrates, emulsifiable concentrates, microemulsions, dispersible liquids, and granules.

[0023] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition comprises the following components and contents when prepared as a wettable powder: 1% to 80% of compound I, 1% to 80% of pyrethroid insecticide, 0% to 10% of dispersant, 0% to 8% of wetting agent, and the balance being filler.

[0024] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition, when prepared as water-dispersible granules, comprises the following components and contents: 1% to 80% of compound I, 1% to 80% of pyrethroid insecticide, 0% to 10% of dispersant, 0% to 16% of wetting agent, 0% to 20% of disintegrant, and the balance being filler.

[0025] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition comprises the following components and contents when prepared as a suspension: 1% to 50% of compound I, 1% to 50% of pyrethroid insecticide, 0% to 5% of dispersant, 0% to 8% of wetting agent, 0% to 0.3% of thickener, 0% to 5% of antifreeze agent, and the balance is deionized water.

[0026] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition comprises the following components and contents when prepared as an aqueous emulsion: 1% to 50% of compound I, 1% to 50% of pyrethroid insecticide, 0% to 95% of organic solvent, 0% to 10% of emulsifier, 0% to 5% of antifreeze agent, 0% to 0.2% of defoaming agent, 0% to 0.5% of thickener, and the balance is deionized water.

[0027] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition comprises the following components and contents when prepared as a suspended seed coating agent: 1% to 50% of compound I, 1% to 50% of pyrethroid insecticide, 1% to 12% of dispersant, 1% to 10% of wetting agent, 1% to 10% of antifreeze agent, 0.1% to 10% of anticaking agent, 0.1% to 5% of suspending agent, 1% to 10% of film-forming agent, 0.1% to 5% of preservative, 1% to 30% of colorant, 0.1% to 5% of pH regulator, 0.1% to 8% of thickener, and the balance is deionized water.

[0028] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition, when prepared as a microcapsule suspension, includes the following components and contents: 1% to 50% of compound I, 1% to 50% of pyrethroid insecticide, 1% to 30% of polymer capsule wall material, 2% to 10% of dispersant, 1% to 50% of organic solvent, 1% to 7% of emulsifier, 0.1% to 5% of pH regulator, 0.01% to 2% of defoaming agent, 0.1% to 8% of thickener, 0.1% to 8% of antifreeze agent, and the balance is deionized water.

[0029] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition comprises the following components and contents when prepared as a microcapsule suspension-suspension concentrate: 1% to 50% of compound I, 1% to 50% of pyrethroid insecticide, 1% to 12% of polymer capsule wall material, 1% to 12% of dispersant, 1% to 8% of wetting agent, 1% to 50% of organic solvent, 1% to 8% of emulsifier, 0.01% to 2% of defoaming agent, 0.1% to 8% of thickener, 0.1% to 8% of pH regulator, 0.1% to 5% of antifreeze agent, and the balance is deionized water.

[0030] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition comprises the following components and contents when prepared into an emulsifiable concentrate: 1% to 50% of compound I, 1% to 50% of pyrethroid insecticide, 0% to 10% of emulsifier, 0% to 5% of antifreeze agent, 0% to 0.5% of stabilizer, and the balance being an organic solvent;

[0031] Alternatively, the compound I is 1% to 50%, the pyrethroid insecticide is 1% to 50%, the emulsifier is 0% to 12%, the stabilizer is 0% to 0.5%, and the balance is an organic solvent.

[0032] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition, when prepared as a microemulsion, includes the following components and contents: 1% to 50% of compound I, 1% to 50% of pyrethroid insecticide, 1% to 50% of organic solvent, 1% to 30% of emulsifier, 1% to 10% of antifreeze agent, 0.1% to 5% of stabilizer, and the balance is deionized water.

[0033] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition, when prepared as a dispersible liquid, includes the following components and contents: 1% to 50% of compound I, 1% to 50% of pyrethroid insecticide, 1% to 30% of emulsifier, 1% to 10% of antifreeze agent, 0.1% to 5% of stabilizer, and the balance is an organic solvent.

[0034] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the composition, when prepared as a granule, comprises the following components and contents: compound I 0.1% to 10%, pyrethroid insecticide 0.1% to 10%, dispersant 0% to 5%, wetting agent 0% to 5%, binder 0% to 3%, and the balance being filler.

[0035] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the emulsifier can be selected from at least one of the following: sodium lignin sulfonate, agricultural milk, phenylphenol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, tristyrylphenol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate triethanolamine salt, benzyl dimethylphenol polyoxyethylene ether, anhydrous sorbitan fatty acid ester polyoxyethylene ether, sorbitan oleate (Span-80), fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether, sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate, sodium isooctyl succinate sulfonate, nonylphenol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, castor oil polyoxyethylene ether phosphate.

[0036] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the dispersant can be selected from: glycerol fatty acid polyoxyethylene ether, polyoxyethylene alkyl aryl ether, sodium lignin sulfonate, naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde condensate, fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether sulfate, naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde condensate, naphthalenesulfonic acid formaldehyde condensate sodium salt, nonylphenol polyoxyethylene ether, polyoxyethylene lanolin alcohol, alkylphenol polyoxyethylene ether formaldehyde condensate, fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether, fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan fatty acid ester, and phosphate.

[0037] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the wetting agent can be selected from: trisiloxane polyoxyethylene ether, sodium N-lauroyl glutamate, sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, sodium methylnaphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde condensate, castor oil polyoxyethylene ether, triphenethyl phenol polyoxyethylene ether, sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, sodium alkylnaphthalene sulfonate, sodium isooctyl succinate sulfonate, polyoxyethylene alkyl aryl ether, fatty alcohol polyether glycerol fatty acid polyoxyethylene ether, and at least one of fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether.

[0038] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the binder can be selected from at least one of xanthan gum, starch, urea-formaldehyde resin, gelatin, gum arabic, carboxymethyl cellulose, carboxyethyl cellulose, and polyvinyl alcohol.

[0039] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the disintegrant may be selected from at least one of sodium bicarbonate, ammonium sulfate, sodium sulfate, calcium sulfate, and magnesium chloride.

[0040] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the thickener may be selected from at least one of magnesium aluminum silicate, polyvinyl acetate, xanthan gum, gelatin, gum arabic, and polyvinyl alcohol.

[0041] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the defoaming agent can be selected from at least one of silicone oil, n-octanol, silicone, butyl phosphate, isobutyl phosphate, and the like.

[0042] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the antifreeze agent can be selected from at least one of propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, glycerol, etc.

[0043] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the stabilizer can be selected from at least one of triethanolamine, epichlorohydrin, butyl glycidyl ether, triphenyl phosphite, N-soybean oil-based trimethylene diamine, dialkyl succinate acetic acid sulfonate, etc.

[0044] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the filler includes a solid filler and a liquid filler. The solid filler can be selected from at least one of kaolin, attapulgite, diatomaceous earth, white carbon black, bentonite, montmorillonite, calcium carbonate, and talc. The liquid filler can be selected from at least one of soybean oil, castor oil, and mineral oil.

[0045] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the organic solvent can be selected from at least one of ethyl acetate, acetone, isopropanol, 2,2,2-trifluoroethanol, propylene carbonate, benzene, toluene, xylene, dimethylformamide, dimethyl sulfoxide, dichloromethane, cyclohexane, cyclohexanone, N-methylpyrrolidone, and solvent oil (such as 150# solvent oil).

[0046] The present invention also provides use of the composition for preventing and controlling insect pests in agriculture and non-agriculture.

[0047] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the insect pests are pests such as Lepidoptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Thysanoptera, Diptera, and mites.

[0048] As an embodiment, the insect pest is selected from the group consisting of corn armyworm, cabbage diamondback moth, cabbage beet armyworm, cucumber borer, cotton aphid, wheat aphid, tomato whitefly and tea green leafhopper.

[0049] The present invention also provides a method for controlling agricultural or non-agricultural pests, comprising applying the above composition to plants where the pests exist.

[0050] The composition of the present invention can be provided as a finished formulation or as a single dose. It can be mixed directly before use and then mixed with water to the desired concentration. It can be applied to crops in any manner, such as spraying, root irrigation, or application. In specific applications, it can also be mixed with other agents such as growth regulators, soil conditioners, herbicides, and nematicides.

[0051] The present invention also provides a composition for controlling invertebrate pests, comprising a biologically effective amount of Compound I, a pyrethroid insecticide and at least one other component selected from a surfactant, a solid diluent and a liquid diluent, wherein the composition optionally further contains an effective amount of at least one other biologically active compound or active agent, wherein the pyrethroid insecticide is selected from at least one of the following: cypermethrin, highly effective cypermethrin, chlorfenapyr, highly effective chlorfenapyr, flucythrin, highly effective flucythrin, etofenprox, tefluthrin, deltamethrin, cypromethrin and bifenthrin.

[0052] The present invention also provides a method for controlling invertebrate pests, which comprises contacting the invertebrate pests or their environment with a biologically effective amount of the composition of the present invention as described above.

[0053] The present invention also provides a spray composition comprising the composition of the present invention as described above and a propellant.

[0054] The present invention also provides a bait composition comprising the composition of the present invention as described above; one or more food materials; optionally an attractant; and optionally a wetting agent.

[0055] Beneficial effects of the present invention:

[0056] The composition of the present invention has the following advantages:

[0057] 1) It has a synergistic effect, which can improve the pest control effect; 2) It expands the insecticide spectrum, and the insect pests in the field often occur in mixed groups, which has a stronger effect on pests; 3) The two active ingredients have different mechanisms of action, and their mixed use can delay the development of pest resistance; 4) It reduces the amount of pesticide applied, reduces the number of applications, and reduces the cost of use. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0058] The present invention will be described in further detail below with reference to specific examples. It should be understood that the following examples are merely illustrative and explanations of the present invention and should not be construed as limiting the scope of protection of the present invention. All technologies implemented based on the above content of the present invention are encompassed within the scope of protection that the present invention is intended to protect.

[0059] Unless otherwise specified, the experimental methods used in the following examples are conventional methods; the reagents, materials, etc. used in the following examples are all commercially available unless otherwise specified.

[0060] The present invention uses a combination of indoor bioassay and field test methods to test the insecticidal efficacy of the composition. It should be noted that any modifications, equivalent substitutions, and improvements made within the spirit and principles of the present invention are intended to be included within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0061] Compound I used in the following examples was prepared according to the method of Example 1 in patent document CN 111909143 A.

[0062] Unless otherwise specified, the percentages in the components of the preparations in the following examples refer to the percentage by mass.

[0063] 1. Preparation Example:

[0064] Preparation Example 1: Wettable Powder

[0065]

[0066] The above materials are coarsely ground in proportion and then put into a mixer for uniform mixing, and then subjected to air flow grinding to obtain the finished product.

[0067] Preparation Example 2: Water Dispersible Granules

[0068]

[0069] The effective active ingredients and various auxiliary agents are mixed evenly according to the formula ratio, and then the powder is obtained after air flow crushing. A certain amount of water is added to mix and granulate, and the finished product is obtained after drying and screening.

[0070] Preparation Example 3: Suspension

[0071]

[0072]

[0073] The effective active ingredients and various additives are mixed evenly according to the formula ratio, and the finished product is obtained after high-speed shearing and sand grinding.

[0074] Preparation Example 4: Emulsifiable Concentrate

[0075]

[0076] The above raw materials are mixed in proportion and dissolved into a uniform oil phase; after passing the inspection, they are measured and packaged to obtain the finished product.

[0077] Preparation Example 5: Emulsion in Water

[0078]

[0079] According to the formula requirements, the above raw materials are added into the batching kettle, mixed evenly by a high-speed shearing machine to form a water emulsion, and after passing the inspection, they are measured and packaged to obtain the finished product.

[0080] Preparation Example 6: Emulsifiable Concentrate

[0081]

[0082]

[0083] The above raw materials are mixed in proportion and dissolved into a uniform oil phase; after passing the inspection, they are measured and packaged to obtain the finished product.

[0084] Preparation Example 7: Granules

[0085]

[0086] The components are fully mixed according to the formula ratio, crushed, moistened with water and then fully stirred, and then granulated with a screw extruder, dried and sieved to obtain the finished product.

[0087] The pyrethroid agent in the above preparation example is selected from one of cypermethrin, beta-cypermethrin, cyhalothrin, beta-cyhalothrin, cyfluthrin, beta-cyhalothrin, etofenprox, tefluthrin, deltamethrin, cypromethrin and bifenthrin.

[0088] 2. Indoor Toxicity Determination Example

[0089] (1) Test pests: cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii Glover), tomato whitefly (Bemisia tabaci), cabbage diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella), corn armyworm (Mythimna separata Walker).

[0090] (2) Determination method:

[0091] Pest toxicity determination method

[0092] Pest toxicity assay Cotton aphids were used as test materials, and the toxicity of compound I, pyrethroid insecticides and their mixed preparations were determined by the insect immersion method.

[0093] With reference to the Pesticide Part 6: Insecticide Activity Test - Immersion Method in the Agricultural Industry Standard of the People's Republic of China NY / T 1154.6-2006 "Guidelines for Indoor Bioassays of Pesticides", the test agents (including Compound I and pyrethroid insecticides) were first prepared into 5 concentration gradients (based on the LC values ​​of the compounds on different pests) using a suitable solvent (the type of solvent is such as acetone, methanol, N,N-dimethylformamide and dimethyl sulfoxide, etc., and is selected based on its solubility for the sample). 50 value, setting the concentration gradient according to geometric ratio or arithmetic difference), the compound I and the pyrethroid insecticides for mixing were respectively adjusted according to their LC 50 The values ​​were set to a series of ratios according to mass ratio, and the final mass concentration (the total mass of compound I and pyrethroid insecticide) was prepared according to different ratios.

[0094] After the target insects have been immersed in the solution for 5-10 seconds, remove excess solution with filter paper and transfer the insects to normal conditions for rearing. Each treatment consists of four replicates, with 10-20 insects immersed in each replicate. A control treatment containing the corresponding organic solvent without the pesticide is also included.

[0095] Pest toxicity assay The toxicity of compound I, pyrethroid insecticides and their mixed preparations were determined using cabbage diamondback moth, corn armyworm, tomato whitefly and other pests as test materials using the leaf dip method.

[0096] Referring to the Pesticide Indoor Bioassay Test Guidelines of the Agricultural Industry Standard of the People's Republic of China NY / T 1154.14-2008, Part 14: Leaf Dipping Method, the test agents (including Compound I and pyrethroid insecticides) were first prepared into 5 concentration gradients (based on the LC / MS / MS of the compounds for different pests) with a suitable solvent (the type of solvent is acetone, methanol, N, N-dimethylformamide and dimethyl sulfoxide, etc., and is selected based on its solubility for the sample). 50 value, setting the concentration gradient according to geometric ratio or arithmetic difference), the compound I and the pyrethroid insecticides for mixing were respectively adjusted according to their LC 50 The values ​​are set in a series of proportions according to mass ratio, and the final mass concentration (referring to the total mass of compound I and pyrethroid insecticide) is prepared according to different ratios.

[0097] Immerse leaf discs or segments in the test agent solution for 10 seconds (the immersion time can be extended or shortened depending on the agent's characteristics). Remove and air dry, then place in a Petri dish containing 1% water agar or moisturizing filter paper. Inoculate the dish with at least 10 test insects per replicate. Each treatment should be replicated at least four times, and a treatment without the agent (including all organic solvents and emulsifiers) should serve as a blank control.

[0098] According to Sun Yunpei's method, the co-toxicity coefficient (CTC value) of two drugs in different ratios is calculated. A CTC of ≥120 indicates a synergistic effect, a CTC ≤80 indicates an antagonistic effect, and a CTC of 80 < CTC <120 indicates an additive effect. The CTC of the mixture is calculated according to formula (1), formula (2), and formula (3):

[0099]

[0100] Where:

[0101] ATI - measured toxicity index of mixture;

[0102] S——LC of standard pesticide 50 , the unit is milligrams per liter (mg / L);

[0103] M——LC of the mixture 50 , in milligrams per liter (mg / L)

[0104] TTI=TI A ×P A +TI B ×P B (2)

[0105] Where:

[0106] TTI – Theoretical Toxicity Index of Mixtures;

[0107] TI A ——Agent toxicity index;

[0108] P A ——The percentage of agent A in the mixture, in percentage (%);

[0109] TI B ——Toxicity index of agent B;

[0110] P B ——The percentage of agent B in the mixture, in percentage (%).

[0111]

[0112] Where:

[0113] CTC – Co-toxicity coefficient;

[0114] ATI – Actual Toxicity Index of Mixture;

[0115] TTI - Theoretical Toxicity Index of Mixture.

[0116] Mixtures of different pesticides typically exhibit three types of effects: additive, synergistic, and antagonistic. However, the specific effects are unpredictable. The compositions described herein contain Compound I and a pyrethroid insecticide as the active ingredients, and are illustrated using bioassay examples.

[0117] Indoor test on the activity of pesticides against Plutella brassicae

[0118] In this test, the indoor activity test of the compounds against Plutella brassicae was carried out using the leaf dipping method to determine the activity of the insecticidal compositions of Examples 1 to 4 against Plutella brassicae.

[0119] Example 1: To verify the effects of different ratios of Compound I and cypermethrin on Plutella brassicae, indoor toxicity tests on Plutella brassicae were conducted using different ratios of Compound I and cypermethrin. The concentrations were prepared according to the mass ratios in the table, and indoor insecticidal tests were conducted. The test results are as follows:

[0120] Table 1 Toxicity test results of compound I and cypermethrin single agent and their mixture to diamondback moth

[0121] Active ingredient Ratio Regression equation <![CDATA[LC 50 ]]> Co-toxicity coefficient evaluate Compound I — y=6.8787+2.1062x 0.1282 — — Cypermethrin — y=2.0431+1.8300x 41.2851 — — Compound I: Cypermethrin 50：1 y=6.8856+1.9250x 0.1048 124.77 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cypermethrin 10：1 y=7.0488+1.8455x 0.0776 181.67 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cypermethrin 1：1 y=7.1488+2.2064x 0.1062 240.68 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cypermethrin 1：10 y=5.4548+1.8062x 0.5601 244.19 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cypermethrin 1：50 y=3.9893+1.7021x 3.9243 144.22 Increase efficiency

[0122] As shown in Table 1, the mixtures of Compound I and cypermethrin at different ratios and dosages had a significant synergistic effect on the activity of Plutella xylostella.

[0123] Example 2: To verify the effects of different ratios of Compound I and cypermethrin on Plutella brassicae, indoor toxicity tests on Plutella brassicae were conducted using different ratios of Compound I and cypermethrin. The concentrations were prepared according to the mass ratios in the table, and indoor insecticidal tests were conducted. The test results are as follows:

[0124] Table 2 Toxicity test results of compound I and highly effective cypermethrin single agent and mixture to diamondback moth

[0125]

[0126]

[0127] As shown in Table 2, the mixtures of Compound I and cypermethrin at different ratios and dosages had a significant synergistic effect on the activity of Plutella xylostella.

[0128] Example 3: To verify the effects of different ratios of Compound I and cyhalothrin on Plutella brassicae, indoor toxicity tests on Plutella brassicae were conducted using different ratios of Compound I and cyhalothrin. The concentrations were prepared according to the mass ratios in the table, and indoor insecticidal tests were conducted. The test results are as follows:

[0129] Table 3 Toxicity test results of compound I and cyhalothrin single agent and mixture to Plutella xylostella

[0130]

[0131] As shown in Table 3, the mixtures of Compound I and cyhalothrin at different ratios and dosages had a significant synergistic effect on the activity of Plutella xylostella.

[0132] Example 4: To verify the effects of different ratios of Compound I and ethofenproxetine on Plutella brassicae, indoor toxicity tests on Plutella brassicae were conducted using different ratios of Compound I and ethofenproxetine. The concentrations were prepared according to the mass ratios in the table, and indoor insecticidal tests were conducted. The test results are as follows:

[0133] Table 4 Toxicity test results of compound I and ethoxyfenproxin single agent and their mixture to Plutella xylostella

[0134] Active ingredient Ratio Regression equation <![CDATA[LC 50 ]]> Co-toxicity coefficient evaluate Compound I — y=6.8787+2.1062x 0.1282 — — ethofenprox — y=2.3337+2.0473x 20.0632 — — Compound I: Ethofenprox 50：1 y=7.3218+2.2465x 0.0926 141.20 Increase efficiency Compound I: Ethofenprox 10：1 y=7.7929+2.5326x 0.0789 178.62 Increase efficiency Compound I: Ethofenprox 1：1 y=6.6793+1.7551x 0.1104 230.77 Increase efficiency Compound I: Ethofenprox 1：10 y=5.5337+2.0496x 0.5490 241.44 Increase efficiency Compound I: Ethofenprox 1：50 y=3.8806+2.2497x 3.1448 157.56 Increase efficiency

[0135] As shown in Table 4, the mixtures of Compound I and ethofenproxetine at different ratios and dosages had a significant synergistic effect on the activity of Plutella xylostella.

[0136] Indoor test on the activity of pesticides against corn armyworm

[0137] In this test, the indoor activity test of the compounds against corn armyworm was carried out using the leaf dipping method to determine the activity of the insecticidal compositions of Examples 5-7 against corn armyworm.

[0138] Example 5: To verify the effects of different ratios of Compound I and cyfluthrin on corn armyworms, indoor toxicity tests on corn armyworms were conducted using different ratios of Compound I and cyfluthrin. The corresponding concentrations were prepared according to the mass ratios in the table, and indoor insecticidal tests were conducted. The test results are as follows:

[0139] Table 5 Toxicity test results of compound I and cyfluthrin single agent and mixture to corn armyworm

[0140] Active ingredient Ratio Regression equation <![CDATA[LC 50 ]]> Co-toxicity coefficient evaluate Compound I — y=5.7178+2.0073x 0.4389 — — Cyfluthrin — y=2.8070+2.2330x 9.5962 — — Compound I: Cyfluthrin 50：1 y=5.9373+1.9494x 0.3305 135.33 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cyfluthrin 10：1 y=6.2877+1.9997x 0.2270 211.71 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cyfluthrin 1：1 y=5.5955+1.7118x 0.4488 187.03 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cyfluthrin 1：10 y=4.6158+2.2752x 1.4752 224.56 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cyfluthrin 1：50 y=3.5173+2.1062x 5.0577 134.65 Increase efficiency

[0141] As shown in Table 5, the mixtures of Compound I and cyfluthrin in different ratios and dosages had a significant synergistic effect on the activity against corn armyworms.

[0142] Example 6: To verify the effects of different ratios of Compound I and high-efficiency flucythrin on corn armyworms, indoor toxicity tests on corn armyworms were conducted using different ratios of Compound I and high-efficiency flucythrin. The corresponding concentrations were prepared according to the mass ratios in the table, and indoor insecticidal tests were conducted. The test results are as follows:

[0143] Table 6 Toxicity test results of compound I and beta-cyfluthrin single agent and mixture to corn armyworm

[0144] Active ingredient Ratio Regression equation <![CDATA[LC 50 ]]> Co-toxicity coefficient evaluate Compound I — y=5.7178+2.0073x 0.4389 — — Beta-cyfluthrin — y=3.9638+1.2340x 6.9139 — — Compound I: Beta-cyfluthrin 50：1 y=5.8268+1.6410x 0.3134 142.66 Increase efficiency Compound I: Beta-cyfluthrin 10：1 y=6.1045+1.7979x 0.2430 197.43 Increase efficiency Compound I: Beta-cyfluthrin 5：1 y=6.4375+2.1443x 0.2136 243.48 Increase efficiency Compound I: Beta-cyfluthrin 3：1 y=6.1635+2.1301x 0.2843 201.57 Increase efficiency Compound I: Beta-cyfluthrin 1：1 y=5.9063+2.1572x 0.3801 217.15 Increase efficiency Compound I: Beta-cyfluthrin 1：3 y=5.3512+1.5530x 0.5941 248.23 Increase efficiency Compound I: Beta-cyfluthrin 1：5 y=5.1383+1.5437x 0.8136 245.69 Increase efficiency Compound I: Beta-cyfluthrin 1：10 y=4.7611+1.7934x 1.3590 217.31 Increase efficiency Compound I: Beta-cyfluthrin 1：50 y=4.0425+1.6191x 3.9029 137.40 Increase efficiency

[0145] As shown in Table 6, the mixtures of Compound I and beta-cyfluthrin in different ratios and dosages had a significant synergistic effect on the activity against corn armyworm.

[0146] Example 7: To verify the effects of different ratios of Compound I and Tefluthrin on corn armyworms, indoor toxicity tests on corn armyworms were conducted using different ratios of Compound I and Tefluthrin. The corresponding concentrations were prepared according to the mass ratios in the table, and indoor insecticidal tests were conducted. The test results are as follows:

[0147] Table 7 Toxicity test results of Compound I and Tefluthrin single agent and their mixture to corn armyworm

[0148]

[0149]

[0150] As shown in Table 7, the mixtures of Compound I and Tefluthrin in different ratios and dosages had a significant synergistic effect on the activity against corn armyworms.

[0151] Indoor test on the activity of pesticides against cotton aphids

[0152] In this test, the indoor activity test of the compound against cotton aphids was carried out using the insect immersion method to determine the activity of the insecticidal composition of Examples 8-9 against cotton aphids.

[0153] Example 8: To verify the effects of different ratios of Compound I and lambda-cyhalothrin on cotton aphids, indoor toxicity tests were conducted on different ratios of Compound I and lambda-cyhalothrin to cotton aphids. The corresponding concentrations were prepared according to the mass ratios in the table, and indoor insecticidal tests were conducted. The test results are as follows:

[0154] Table 8 Toxicity test results of compound I and lambda-cyhalothrin single agent and mixture to cotton aphid

[0155] Active ingredient Ratio Regression equation <![CDATA[LC 50 ]]> Co-toxicity coefficient evaluate Compound I — y=3.1194+1.5769x 15.5816 — — Lambda-cyhalothrin — y=3.3521+1.5879x 10.9087 — — Compound I: Lambda-cyhalothrin 50：1 y=2.7544+2.1017x 11.7074 131.98 Increase efficiency Compound I: Lambda-cyhalothrin 10：1 y=3.4179+1.7966x 7.5963 197.43 Increase efficiency Compound I: Lambda-cyhalothrin 1：1 y=3.6978+1.7074x 5.7901 221.64 Increase efficiency Compound I: Lambda-cyhalothrin 1：10 y=3.3983+2.1578x 5.5243 203.00 Increase efficiency Compound I: Lambda-cyhalothrin 1：50 y=3.0392+2.1981x 7.7985 140.71 Increase efficiency

[0156] As shown in Table 8, the mixtures of Compound I and lambda-cyhalothrin at different ratios and dosages had a significant synergistic effect on the activity against cotton aphids.

[0157] Example 9: To verify the effects of different ratios of Compound I and deltamethrin on cotton aphids, indoor toxicity tests on cotton aphids were conducted using different ratios of Compound I and deltamethrin. The corresponding concentrations were prepared according to the mass ratios in the table, and indoor insecticidal tests were conducted. The test results are as follows:

[0158] Table 9 Toxicity test results of compound I and deltamethrin single agent and their mixture to cotton aphid

[0159]

[0160]

[0161] As shown in Table 9, the mixtures of Compound I and deltamethrin at different ratios and dosages had a significant synergistic effect on the activity of cotton aphids.

[0162] Indoor test on the activity of pesticides against tomato whitefly

[0163] In this test, the indoor activity test of the compound against tomato whitefly was carried out using the leaf dipping method to determine the activity of the insecticidal composition of Examples 10-11 against tomato whitefly.

[0164] Example 10: To verify the effects of different ratios of Compound I and cypermethrin on tomato whitefly, indoor toxicity tests on tomato whitefly were conducted. The corresponding concentrations were prepared according to the mass ratios in the table, and indoor insecticidal tests were conducted. The test results are as follows:

[0165] Table 10 Toxicity test results of compound I and cypermethrin alone and their mixtures to tomato whitefly

[0166] Active ingredient Ratio Regression equation <![CDATA[LC 50 ]]> Co-toxicity coefficient evaluate Compound I — y=4.0593+1.7553x 3.4351 — — Fenpropathrin — y=2.2720+1.7479x 36.3697 — — Compound I: Cypermethrin 50：1 y=4.3103+1.6709x 2.5868 135.19 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cypermethrin 10：1 y=4.5576+1.8489x 1.7349 215.76 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cypermethrin 1：1 y=4.3335+1.6086x 2.5963 241.78 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cypermethrin 1：10 y=3.3673+1.6752x 9.4322 206.02 Increase efficiency Compound I: Cypermethrin 1：50 y=2.6784+1.8053x 19.3207 158.45 Increase efficiency

[0167] As shown in Table 10, the mixtures of Compound I and cypermethrin at different ratios and dosages had a significant synergistic effect on the activity against tomato whiteflies.

[0168] Example 11: To verify the effects of different ratios of Compound I and bifenthrin on tomato whitefly, indoor toxicity tests on tomato whitefly were conducted. The corresponding concentrations were prepared according to the mass ratios in the table, and indoor insecticidal tests were conducted. The test results are as follows:

[0169] Table 11 Toxicity test results of compound I and bifenthrin single agent and their mixture to tomato whitefly

[0170] Active ingredient Ratio Regression equation <![CDATA[LC 50 ]]> Co-toxicity coefficient evaluate Compound I — y=4.0593+1.7553x 3.4351 — — Bifenthrin — y=2.1718+2.1275x 21.3485 — — Compound I: Bifenthrin 50：1 y=4.2459+1.8411x 2.5681 136.00 Increase efficiency Compound I: Bifenthrin 10：1 y=4.4258+1.8807x 2.0199 184.11 Increase efficiency Compound I: Bifenthrin 5：1 y=4.5451+1.8920x 1.7396 229.57 Increase efficiency Compound I: Bifenthrin 3：1 y=4.5574+1.4211x 2.0487 212.18 Increase efficiency Compound I: Bifenthrin 1：1 y=4.4376+1.6864x 2.1551 274.60 Increase efficiency Compound I: Bifenthrin 1：3 y=3.9162+1.9954x 3.4923 265.36 Increase efficiency Compound I: Bifenthrin 1：5 y=4.0005+1.4871x 4.7004 242.99 Increase efficiency Compound I: Bifenthrin 1：10 y=3.3150+1.9796x 7.0989 204.01 Increase efficiency Compound I: Bifenthrin 1：50 y=3.0077+1.7274x 14.2341 136.07 Increase efficiency

[0171] As shown in Table 11, the mixtures of Compound I and bifenthrin at different ratios and dosages had a significant synergistic effect on the activity against tomato whitefly.

[0172] 3. Field efficacy embodiment

[0173] To determine the efficacy of Compound I and pyrethroid insecticides, both alone and in mixtures, against corn armyworm, cabbage diamondback moth, cabbage beet armyworm, cucumber borer, cotton aphid, wheat aphid, tomato whitefly, and tea green leafhopper, multiple efficacy trials were conducted in different regions of China. The formulations used were prepared according to Preparation Examples 1-7. The formulations listed in Table 12 were used as examples (other test formulations were prepared using the same formulations). The specific preparation methods are as follows:

[0174] Table 12 Preparation of Compound I · Lambda-cyfluthrin suspension concentrate in different ratios

[0175]

[0176]

[0177] Field efficacy test on corn armyworm.

[0178] Test method: According to the application method specified in the National Standard of the People's Republic of China GB / T 17980.80-2004, the pesticide was applied when most of the larvae in the field were in the 2nd or 3rd instar.

[0179] Survey method: According to the survey method specified in the National Standard of the People's Republic of China GB / T 17980.80-2004, 5 sampling points were taken in each plot, and 1m 2 , spread white cloth between rows of crops, pat the crops row by row to make the sticky insects fall onto the cloth, and then count the number of live insects. Count the base insect population before applying the drug, and count the number of live insects 1, 3, and 7 days after applying the drug. The formula for calculating control efficacy is:

[0180]

[0181] Cucumber borer

[0182] Test method: According to the test method specified in the National Standard of the People's Republic of China GB / T 17980.14-2000, pesticides were applied when the number of 1st to 3rd instar larvae in each plot reached a certain level.

[0183] Survey Method: Count the number of live larvae of different ages on all crops in each plot according to the survey method specified in the National Standard of the People's Republic of China, GB / T 17980.14-2000. A baseline insect population count was performed before application, and live insect counts were conducted 1, 3, and 7 days after application. The formula for calculating control efficacy is:

[0184]

[0185] Field efficacy test on cabbage diamondback moth and cabbage beet armyworm.

[0186] Test method: According to the application method specified in the National Standard of the People's Republic of China GB / T 17980.13-2000, the pesticide was applied when there were at least 1 to 3 third-instar larvae on each plant in the field.

[0187] Survey Method: According to the survey method specified in the National Standard of the People's Republic of China GB / T 17980.13-2000, samples were collected at 5 points per plot, with 20 plants sampled at each point. The number of live insects at each instar on each plant was counted. The base insect population was surveyed before treatment, and the number of live insects was surveyed 1, 3, and 7 days after treatment. The control efficacy (preventive effect) was calculated as follows:

[0188]

[0189] Field efficacy test on cotton aphids.

[0190] Test method: According to the application method specified in the National Standard of the People's Republic of China GB / T 17980.75-2004, the pesticide was applied when the number of cotton plants with aphids reached more than 20%.

[0191] Survey Method: According to the survey method specified in the National Standard of the People's Republic of China GB / T 17980.75-2004, after the cotton plant reaches the four-leaf stage (true leaves), sampling is conducted at five points per plot. Two plants are fixed at each point, and one to two aphid-bearing leaves are fixed in the middle of each plant. The number of aphids on the fixed leaves is counted. The base population is counted before treatment, and the number of live insects is counted 1, 3, and 7 days after treatment. The control efficacy (control effect) is calculated as follows:

[0192]

[0193] Field efficacy test on wheat aphids.

[0194] Test method: According to the application method specified in the National Standard of the People's Republic of China GB / T 17980.79-2004, the pesticide was applied when the wheat aphids were at their peak.

[0195] Survey Method: According to the survey method specified in the National Standard of the People's Republic of China GB / T 17980.79-2004, sampling was performed at five points in each plot. Ten aphid-infested plants were fixed at each point, and the number of aphids on the fixed plants was counted. The base population was counted before treatment, and the number of live aphids was counted 1, 3, and 7 days after treatment. The control efficacy (preventive effect) was calculated as follows:

[0196]

[0197] Field efficacy test on tomato whitefly.

[0198] According to the application method specified in the "Guidelines for Field Efficacy Tests of Pesticides (GB / T17980.16-2000)", the stems and leaves of tomatoes were sprayed.

[0199] Test method: According to the application method specified in the National Standard of the People's Republic of China (GB / T17980.16-2000), the pesticide was applied when there were 2-5 whiteflies per crop plant.

[0200] Survey Method: According to the survey method specified in the "Guidelines for Pesticide Field Efficacy Tests (GB / T17980.16-2000)", 10 crops were selected in each plot. Without disturbing the insects, the undersides of the leaves must be carefully inspected and the number of live insects recorded. The base insect population was surveyed before application, and surveyed again 1-3 days and 7 days after application. The formula for calculating control efficacy is:

[0201]

[0202] Field efficacy test on tea green leafhopper.

[0203] The tea trees were sprayed with stems and leaves according to the application method specified in the Guidelines for Field Efficacy Tests of Pesticides (GB / T17980.56-2004).

[0204] Survey Method: According to the survey method specified in the "Guidelines for Field Efficacy Tests of Pesticides (GB / T17980.56-2004)", the number of nymphs on 100 young leaves (generally the second young leaf below the bud) in each plot was randomly surveyed. The base population was surveyed before application and 1, 3, and 7 days after treatment. The formula for calculating control efficacy is:

[0205]

[0206] Table 13 Field efficacy test of compound I and beta-cyfluthrin against corn armyworm

[0207]

[0208] Note: Different letters after the data in the same column indicate significant differences at the P < 0.05 level as tested by Duncan's new multiple range test, the same below.

[0209] In the above table, Example 12 20% Compound I·Beta-cyfluthrin suspension concentrate (1:4) was prepared with reference to Preparation Example 3, wherein 20% refers to the total mass percentage of active substances (Compound I and Beta-cyfluthrin), and 1:4 refers to the mass ratio of the two active ingredients, Compound I and Beta-cyfluthrin.

[0210] The 20% Compound I·beta-cyfluthrin suspension concentrate (1:3) in Example 13 was prepared with reference to Preparation Example 3, wherein 20% refers to the total mass percentage of the active substances (Compound I and beta-cyfluthrin), and 1:3 refers to the mass ratio of the two active ingredients, Compound I and beta-cyfluthrin.

[0211] The 20% Compound I suspension concentrate in Comparative Example 1 was also prepared with reference to Preparation Example 3, wherein 20% refers to the mass percentage of the active substance Compound I.

[0212] The following other examples and comparative examples are also prepared with reference to this method and will not be described in detail here.

[0213] The test results in the table show that, when compared to a single agent, the combination of Compound I and beta-cyfluthrin exhibited significantly higher one-day, three-day, and seven-day efficacy against corn armyworms at equivalent active ingredient dosages (Comparative Examples 1 and 2 correspond to Examples 12-18). The seven-day efficacy still reached over 92.52%, demonstrating a prolonged duration of efficacy.

[0214] Table 14 Field efficacy test of compound I and beta-cyfluthrin against cucumber borer

[0215]

[0216] The test results in the table show that, when compared to the single agent, the combination of Compound I and beta-cyfluthrin exhibited significantly higher one-day, three-day, and seven-day efficacy against the cucumber borer at equivalent active ingredient dosages (Comparative Examples 3 and 4 correspond to Examples 19-25). The seven-day efficacy still reached over 94.94%, demonstrating a long-lasting effect.

[0217] Table 15 Field efficacy test of compound I and high-efficiency cypermethrin against Plutella xylostella

[0218]

[0219] The test results in the table show that, when compared to single agents, the combination of Compound I and cypermethrin exhibited significantly higher 1-day, 3-day, and 7-day control efficacy against Plutella xylostella compared to single agents at equivalent active ingredient dosages (Comparative Examples 5 and 6 correspond to Examples 26-32). The 7-day control efficacy still reached over 93.05%, demonstrating a longer duration of effectiveness.

[0220] Table 16 Field efficacy test of compound I and high-efficiency cypermethrin against cabbage beet armyworm

[0221]

[0222]

[0223] The test results in the table show that, when compared to single agents, the combination of Compound I and cypermethrin exhibited significantly higher one-day, three-day, and seven-day efficacy against Spodoptera exigua (Spodoptera exigua) than the single agent at equivalent active ingredient dosages (Comparative Examples 7 and 8 corresponding to Examples 33-39). The seven-day efficacy still reached over 94.33%, demonstrating a long-lasting effect.

[0224] Table 17 Field efficacy test of compound I and deltamethrin against cotton aphids

[0225]

[0226]

[0227] The test results in the table show that, when compared to a single agent, the combination of Compound I and deltamethrin exhibited significantly higher 1-day, 3-day, and 7-day control efficacy against cotton aphids at equivalent active ingredient dosages (Comparative Examples 9 and 10 correspond to Examples 40-46). The 7-day control efficacy still reached over 94.08%, demonstrating a longer duration of effectiveness.

[0228] Table 18 Field efficacy test of compound I and deltamethrin against wheat aphids

[0229]

[0230]

[0231] The test results in the table show that, when compared to a single agent, the combination of Compound I and deltamethrin exhibited significantly higher one-day, three-day, and seven-day control efficacy against wheat aphids at equivalent active ingredient dosages (Comparative Examples 11 and 12 correspond to Examples 47-53). The seven-day control efficacy still reached over 95.15%, demonstrating a longer duration of effectiveness.

[0232] Table 19 Field efficacy test of compound I and bifenthrin against tomato whitefly

[0233]

[0234] The test results show that when compared with a single agent, the combination of Compound I and bifenthrin exhibited significantly higher 1- to 3- and 7-day control efficacy against tomato whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci) at equivalent active ingredient dosages (Comparative Examples 13 and 14 correspond to Examples 54-60). The 7-day efficacy still reached over 94.08%, demonstrating a long-lasting effect.

[0235] Table 20 Field efficacy test of compound I and bifenthrin against tea green leafhopper

[0236]

[0237] The test results in the table show that, when compared to a single agent, the combination of Compound I and bifenthrin demonstrated significantly higher one-day, three-day, and seven-day efficacy against tea green leafhoppers at equivalent active ingredient dosages (Comparative Examples 15 and 16 correspond to Examples 61-67). The seven-day efficacy still reached over 94.98%, demonstrating a prolonged duration of effectiveness.

[0238] The above describes the embodiments of the present invention. However, the present invention is not limited to the above embodiments. Any modifications, equivalent replacements, improvements, etc. made within the spirit and principles of the present invention shall be included in the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A composition comprising compound I and a pyrethroid insecticide, characterized in that: The pyrethroid insecticide is selected from one of the following: ethofumesin, tefluthrin, cypermethrin and bifenthrin; The structure of compound I is shown below:

2. The composition according to claim 1, characterized in that The mass ratio of the compound I to the pyrethroid insecticide is 80-1:1-80.

3. The composition according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that The composition further comprises at least one of deionized water, an organic solvent, an emulsifier, a dispersant, a wetting agent, a thickener, a defoaming agent, a stabilizer, a binder, a disintegrant, an antifreeze agent, an anticaking agent, a suspending agent, a film-forming agent, a preservative, a colorant, a polymer capsule wall material, a pH regulator or a filler.

4. The composition according to claim 1, characterized in that The composition can be prepared into various dosage forms, including wettable powder, water-dispersible granules, suspension, aqueous emulsion, suspension seed coating, microcapsule suspension, microcapsule suspension-suspension concentrate, emulsifiable concentrate, microemulsion, dispersible liquid, or granule.

5. Use of the composition according to any one of claims 1 to 4 for controlling insect pests in agriculture or non-agriculture.

6. The use according to claim 5, characterized in that The insect pests are selected from the order Lepidoptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Thysanoptera, Diptera, and mites.

7. A method for controlling insect pests in agriculture or non-agriculture, characterized in that: The method comprises applying the composition according to any one of claims 1 to 4 to plants where insect pests exist.

8. A composition for controlling invertebrate pests, characterized in that The invention comprises a biologically effective amount of the composition according to any one of claims 1 to 4 and at least one other component selected from the group consisting of a surfactant, a solid diluent and a liquid diluent.

9. A method for controlling invertebrate pests, characterized in that: The method comprises contacting an invertebrate pest or its environment with a biologically effective amount of a composition according to any one of claims 1 to 4.

10. A spray composition comprising the composition according to any one of claims 1 to 4 and a propellant; or A bait composition comprising the composition of any one of claims 1 to 4; one or more food materials; an optional attractant; and an optional wetting agent.

Images