Anti-ultraviolet nano pesticide preparation and application thereof

Abstract

The invention discloses an anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation which is small in particle size, uniform in distribution and good in stability, has an excellent anti-ultraviolet function, can effectively reduce ultraviolet photolysis of abamectin in the anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation, is favorable for prolonging the lasting period of the preparation and reducing the dosage of pesticide on the whole, conforms to the green prevention and control policy of synergistic reduction of the pesticide, and has a broad application prospect. And a new choice is provided for scientific use and reduced use of pesticides.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention belongs to the technical field of pesticides, and in particular relates to an anti-ultraviolet nano pesticide preparation and application thereof. Background Art

[0002] At present, diseases, insects and weeds have great harm to the growth of crops, and the active ingredients of pesticides are seriously degraded by environmental factors after application. Photochemical degradation is the main form of non-biological degradation of pesticides. Under photo-oxidation conditions, the rapid degradation of pesticide active ingredients will have a significant impact on the prevention and control of diseases and insect pests, greatly reduce the utilization rate of pesticides, and cause the high cost, high price, poor effect and short duration of pesticide formulations in field applications.

[0003] Abamectin is a 16-membered macrolide compound with insecticidal, acaricidal and nematicidal activities. Its strong insecticidal activity and wide insecticidal spectrum are of epoch-making significance. However, Abamectin is sensitive to ultraviolet rays. Under the action of light, the molecular structure of Abamectin will change, resulting in a decrease or loss of its biological activity. In addition, light will also trigger the oxidation reaction of Abamectin, further accelerating its degradation process.

[0004] Spinosad is a macrolide non-toxic and highly effective biological insecticide extracted from the fermentation broth of Polyspora spinosa. It has a novel mode of action and can continuously activate the target insect acetylcholine nicotinic receptors. However, its binding site is different from that of nicotine and imidacloprid, and there is no cross-resistance with various current insecticides (28 groups of chlorfenapyr and 30 groups of bromofenapyr). It is a low-toxic, highly effective, and low-residue biological insecticide that has both efficient insecticidal performance and safety for beneficial insects and mammals.

[0005] In addition, traditional pesticide formulations are often plagued by problems such as high organic solvent content, poor dispersibility, and short effective period. Therefore, in order to reduce the photolysis of avermectin or other pesticide components in the formulation, extend the effective period of the pesticide, and improve the physical and chemical properties and delivery efficiency of the formulation, it is very necessary to study a new type of pesticide formulation. Summary of the invention

[0006] In view of the defects of the prior art, the present invention provides an anti-ultraviolet nano-pesticide preparation with excellent stability and anti-ultraviolet performance.

[0007] In one aspect, the present invention provides an anti-ultraviolet nano-pesticide preparation, which is composed of 1-5% pesticide compound, 6-8% dispersant, 4-8% light stabilizer, 0.1-0.5% defoamer, 1-5% antifreeze, 0.1-0.5% thickener and deionized water in terms of mass percentage, and the total mass percentage of each component is 100%;

[0008] Among them, the pesticide compound includes avermectin; the dispersant is a composition of fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, silicone polyoxyethylene ether and castor oil polyoxyethylene ether; the light stabilizer is a composition of nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin and epoxidized soybean oil, and the mass ratio of the three is (2.8-4.5): (0.3-1.4): (4.3-9.0); the defoaming agent is polydimethylsiloxane; the antifreeze agent is glycerol; and the thickener is xanthan gum.

[0009] Preferably, by mass percentage, the anti-ultraviolet nano-pesticide formulation comprises 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, or 5% pesticide compound; preferably, by mass percentage, the anti-ultraviolet nano-pesticide formulation comprises 6%, 7%, or 8% dispersant; preferably, by mass percentage, the anti-ultraviolet nano-pesticide formulation comprises 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.4%, or 0.5% defoamer; preferably, by mass percentage, the anti-ultraviolet nano-pesticide formulation comprises 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, or 5% antifreeze; preferably, by mass percentage, the anti-ultraviolet nano-pesticide formulation comprises 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.4%, or 0.5% thickener.

[0010] In one or more embodiments, in the light stabilizer, the mass ratio of nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin and epoxidized soybean oil is (3.6-4.5): (0.8-1.4): (6.7-9.0)

[0011] In one or more embodiments, in the light stabilizer, the mass ratio of nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin and epoxidized soybean oil is 3.6:0.8:6.7.

[0012] In one or more embodiments, in the light stabilizer, the mass ratio of nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin and epoxidized soybean oil is 4.5:1.4:9.0.

[0013] In one or more embodiments, in the dispersant, the mass ratio of fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, silicone polyoxyethylene ether and castor oil polyoxyethylene ether is 3:3:2.

[0014] In one or more embodiments, the UV-resistant nanopesticide formulation further comprises other pesticide compounds.

[0015] Preferably, the UV-resistant nano-pesticide preparation further comprises 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, or 5% of other pesticide compounds by mass percentage.

[0016] Preferably, the other pesticide compounds are selected from one or more combinations of spinosad, spirotetramat, flonicamid, spirodiclofen, high-efficiency cypermethrin, acetamiprid, methoxyfenozide and fluopyram.

[0017] In one or more embodiments, the other pesticide compound is spinosad.

[0018] In another aspect, the present invention provides a method for preparing an anti-ultraviolet nanopesticide formulation as described in any embodiment herein, the method comprising the following steps:

[0019] S1: stirring and mixing a dispersant, a light stabilizer, a defoamer, an antifreeze agent and deionized water in proportion, and adding a pesticide compound during stirring to form a suspension;

[0020] S2: subjecting the suspension to microfluidization high pressure homogenization;

[0021] S3: adding a thickener to deionized water in proportion and dissolving it until it is clear and transparent to obtain a thickener aqueous solution; under stirring conditions, slowly adding the thickener aqueous solution to the suspension treated by high pressure homogenization, stirring and mixing evenly to obtain the pesticide preparation.

[0022] In one or more embodiments, in step S2, a multi-channel microfluidic diamond interactive chamber device is selected for high-pressure homogenization, the homogenization pressure is 22000-27000 psi, and the homogenization flow rate is 90-110 mL / min.

[0023] In another aspect, the present invention provides a method for controlling pests, comprising applying the UV-resistant nanopesticide formulation as described in any embodiment herein.

[0024] In another aspect, the present invention provides the use of the UV-resistant nanopesticide formulation as described in any embodiment herein in controlling pests.

[0025] Preferably, the pest is a Lepidoptera insect; more preferably, the pest is a Pyralidae insect or a Noctuidae insect; more preferably, the pest is a leaf folder or a Spodoptera insect; more preferably, the pest is a rice leaf folder or a fall armyworm.

[0026] In another aspect, the present invention provides a light stabilizer, which is used to be added to a pesticide formulation to prevent the pesticide from photolyzing. The light stabilizer is characterized in that the light stabilizer is a composition of nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin and epoxidized soybean oil, and the mass ratio of the three is (2.8-4.5): (0.3-1.4): (4.3-9.0).

[0027] In one or more embodiments, in the light stabilizer, the mass ratio of nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin and epoxidized soybean oil is (3.6-4.5): (0.8-1.4): (6.7-9.0)

[0028] In one or more embodiments, in the light stabilizer, the mass ratio of nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin and epoxidized soybean oil is 3.6:0.8:6.7.

[0029] In one or more embodiments, in the light stabilizer, the mass ratio of nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin and epoxidized soybean oil is 4.5:1.4:9.0.

[0030] Beneficial effects of the present invention:

[0031] 1. The present invention makes the active ingredient and the light stabilizer perfectly compatible by adding a specific light stabilizer and adopting a micro-jet high-pressure homogenization preparation process, giving the preparation product excellent anti-ultraviolet performance, significantly inhibiting the degradation of the active ingredient under light and oxygen conditions, prolonging the effective period of the agent, and reducing the number of pesticide applications, thereby significantly reducing agricultural production costs.

[0032] 2. The present invention uses avermectin and spinosad as active ingredients, and by combining specific dispersants and using microfluidic high-pressure homogenization technology, the particle size of the preparation reaches nanometer level, effectively improving the stability and distribution uniformity of the pesticides in the preparation.

[0033] 3. Compared with the prior art, the present invention does not use the conventional wet grinding process in the production process, but adopts a micro-jet high-pressure homogenization preparation process. The process flow is simple, the energy consumption is greatly reduced, and the final preparation is in liquid form, avoiding the problem of dust flying during use. It is safer for operators and more environmentally friendly. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0034] Figure 1 is the particle size distribution spectrum of the pesticide formulation. Figure 1 A is the particle size distribution spectrum of the anti-ultraviolet pesticide formulation A, Figure 1 B is the particle size distribution spectrum of the anti-ultraviolet pesticide formulation C, Figure 1 C is the particle size distribution spectrum of the anti-ultraviolet pesticide formulation E, Figure 1 D is the particle size distribution spectrum of pesticide formulation G, Figure 1 E is the particle size distribution spectrum of pesticide formulation H.

[0035] Figure 2 The photolysis rate of UV-resistant pesticide formulations A to E, pesticide formulation F and pesticide formulation G changes with time. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0036] Examples 1 to 5: Anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparations

[0037] In Examples 1 to 5, anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparations A to E were prepared, which have avermectin and spinosad as active ingredients, and are prepared with dispersants, light stabilizers, defoamers, antifreeze agents, thickeners and deionized water; wherein the mass percentages of the components of the anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation A are shown in Table 1 below, the mass percentages of the components of the anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation B are shown in Table 2 below, the mass percentages of the components of the anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation C are shown in Table 3 below, the mass percentages of the components of the anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation D are shown in Table 4 below, and the mass percentages of the components of the anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation E are shown in Table 5 below. In Tables 1 to 5, the mass percentages of the components add up to 100%.

[0038] Pesticide preparation process:

[0039] S1: Stir and mix fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, silicone polyoxyethylene ether, castor oil polyoxyethylene ether, nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin, epoxy soybean oil, polydimethylsiloxane, glycerol and deionized water, and add avermectin and spinosad during the stirring process to form a suspension;

[0040] S2: The obtained suspension is subjected to microfluidic high-pressure homogenization treatment, and a multi-channel microfluidic diamond interactive chamber (model: F20Y-7) is selected, the homogenization pressure is 25000±2000psi, and the homogenization flow rate is 100±10mL / min;

[0041] S3: Add xanthan gum into deionized water and dissolve it until it is clear and transparent to obtain a 1% (w / v) xanthan gum aqueous solution; under stirring conditions, slowly add the 1% (w / v) xanthan gum aqueous solution to the suspension after high-pressure homogenization treatment, stir and mix evenly to obtain the pesticide preparation.

[0042] Table 1: Components and ratios of UV-resistant pesticide formulation A

[0043]

[0044]

[0045] Table 2: Components and ratios of UV-resistant pesticide formulation B

[0046]

[0047] Table 3: Components and ratios of UV-resistant pesticide formulation C

[0048]

[0049] Table 4: Components and ratios of UV-resistant pesticide formulation D

[0050]

[0051]

[0052] Table 5: Components and ratios of UV-resistant pesticide formulation E

[0053]

[0054] Comparative Example 1: Pesticide Formulation F

[0055] Pesticide preparation F was prepared according to the method of Example 3, but the difference between pesticide preparation F and anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation C is that it does not contain a light stabilizer. The mass percentages of the components of pesticide preparation F are shown in Table 6 below, and the mass percentages of the components add up to 100%.

[0056] Table 6: Components and proportions of pesticide formulation F

[0057]

[0058] Comparative Example 2: Pesticide Formulation G

[0059] Pesticide preparation G was prepared according to the method of Example 3, but the difference between pesticide preparation G and anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation C was that the light stabilizer ratio was 6.3:1.6:3.5. The mass percentages of the components of pesticide preparation G are shown in Table 7 below, and the total mass percentage of the components is 100%.

[0060] Table 7: Components and proportions of pesticide formulation G

[0061]

[0062]

[0063] Comparative Example 3: Pesticide Formulation H

[0064] Pesticide preparation H was prepared according to the components of Example 3, but the difference between pesticide preparation H and anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation C is that the preparation method of pesticide preparation H is conventional wet grinding. The mass percentages of the components of pesticide preparation H are shown in Table 7 below, and the mass percentages of the components add up to 100%.

[0065] Example 6: Particle size distribution test

[0066] The particle size distribution of UV-resistant pesticide formulations A to E and pesticide formulations F to H was measured using a Zetasizer Lab nanoparticle size potential analyzer. The results are as follows: Figure 1 As shown in Table 8, the smaller the average particle size, the more stable the preparation; the smaller the polydispersity index, the more uniform the particle size distribution.

[0067] Depend on Figure 1 As can be seen from Table 8, the particle sizes of anti-UV pesticide formulations A to E are relatively small; among them, the particle size of anti-UV pesticide formulation C is relatively the smallest, and the particle size distribution is relatively the most uniform, showing excellent stability.

[0068] Table 8: Pesticide formulation distribution test results

[0069] Pesticide formulations Corresponding examples / comparative examples Average particle size (nm) Polydispersity Index Anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation A Example 1 182.8 0.1705 Anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation B Example 2 188.4 0.2250 Anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation C Example 3 154.0 0.1658 Anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation D Example 4 197.3 0.2405 Anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation E Example 5 181.1 0.2135 Pesticide Formulation F Comparative Example 1 218.4 0.2572 Pesticide Formulation G Comparative Example 2 403.2 0.2170 Pesticide Formulations Comparative Example 3 1782 0.3079

[0070] Example 7: Light stability test

[0071] Anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparations A to E, pesticide preparations F and pesticide preparations G were diluted with deionized water to an avermectin concentration of 10 mg / L as test samples, and were respectively loaded into quartz photolysis reaction tubes, the stoppers were tightly closed, the outer walls of the tubes were kept clean, and the photolysis reaction tubes were placed in a photochemical reaction device to carry out a photolysis test; at the same time, a control group was set up, which had the same components as the anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation C, and was placed in a photochemical reaction device after the same treatment, but was placed in a dark environment at the same time.

[0072] The photochemical reaction device includes a light source, which is a xenon lamp (wavelength range is 290nm to 800nm) to ensure that the sample receives ultraviolet intensity of (100±10) μW / cm 2 (The wavelength for measuring UV intensity is 365 nm), and the reaction temperature is (25±5)°C.

[0073] During the photostability test, water samples were taken regularly to measure the changes in the concentration of avermectin in each pesticide formulation. During the entire photolysis test period, other light sources except the xenon lamp were isolated to reduce the impact on the experimental results. Figure 2 As shown in FIG. 1 , the photolysis rate is expressed by the reduction value of the avermectin concentration in each test sample at the same time point compared with the avermectin concentration in the control group, that is, Where t represents time in days, and C represents the avermectin concentration of the sample or control group at that time.

[0074] Depend on Figure 2 It can be seen that from the 3rd to the 28th day, the photolysis rates of the anti-ultraviolet pesticide formulations A to E were always significantly lower than those of the pesticide formulations F and G.

[0075] Example 8: Field control test of rice leaf folder

[0076] The test site of this embodiment is located in Liantang Town, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province. The test field has flat terrain, loam, medium fertility, convenient drainage and irrigation, uniform management level, uniform rice growth, and the test insect rice leaf roller occurs naturally. The test has 9 treatments, each treatment is repeated 4 times, a total of 36 plots, each plot size is 50 square meters (10 meters × 5 meters), and the plots are randomly arranged in blocks.

[0077] The test used anti-ultraviolet pesticide formulations A to C and pesticide formulations F to H to apply pesticides to rice leaf folders from the egg hatching stage to the young larval stage; the test was conducted by spraying, using a 3WD-16-9 ultra-high pressure backpack electric sprayer, with a water consumption of 30 to 50 kg / mu, and a total of 1 application. The survey adopted a five-point sampling method, with 20 fixed rice plants surveyed at each point. The insect population base was surveyed before the application, and the number of live insects was surveyed 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, and 14 days after the application, and the insect population reduction rate and control effect were calculated. The insect population reduction rate (%) and control effect (%) are calculated by the following formula:

[0078]

[0079] The test set up a blank control group, which was not treated with any preparation; and a positive control group, which was treated with 5% (w / v) avermectin-spinosad preparation (the two together were 5%, and the preparation was commercially available). The control effects of each preparation are shown in Table 9 below.

[0080] Table 9: Field control effect of each preparation on rice leaf folder

[0081]

[0082] As can be seen from Table 9, the anti-ultraviolet pesticide formulations A to C have excellent control effects on rice leaf folders in the field. The control effects can reach more than 90% 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, and 14 days after the application of the medicine. The effect is significant, and there is no phytotoxicity or other adverse effects on rice. The control effect is significantly better than that of pesticide formulations F to H and the positive control of commercially available agents.

[0083] Example 9: Field control trial of fall armyworm

[0084] The test site of this embodiment is located in Dengxiang Town, Luohe City, Henan Province. The test field has flat terrain, loam, medium fertility, convenient drainage and irrigation, uniform management level, uniform corn growth, and the test insect fall armyworm occurs naturally. The test has 9 treatments, each treatment is repeated 4 times, a total of 36 plots, each plot is 50 square meters (10 meters × 5 meters), and the plots are randomly arranged in blocks.

[0085] The test used anti-ultraviolet pesticide formulations A to C and pesticide formulations F to H to apply pesticides to fall armyworms in the early larval stage; the test was conducted by spraying, using a 3WD-16-9 ultra-high pressure backpack electric sprayer, with a water consumption of 30 to 50 kg / mu, and a total of 1 application. The survey adopted a five-point sampling method, with 20 fixed corn plants surveyed at each point. The insect population base was surveyed before the application of the medicine, and the number of live insects was surveyed 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, and 14 days after the application of the medicine, and the insect population reduction rate and control effect were calculated. The insect population reduction rate (%) and control effect (%) are calculated by the following formula:

[0086]

[0087] The test set up a blank control group, which was not treated with any preparation; and a positive control group, which was treated with 5% (w / v) avermectin-spinosad preparation (the two together were 5%, and the preparation was commercially available). The control effects of each preparation are shown in Table 10 below.

[0088] Table 10: Field control effects of various preparations on fall armyworm

[0089]

[0090] As can be seen from Table 10, the anti-UV pesticide formulations A to C have excellent control effects on the fall armyworm of corn. The control effects can reach more than 85% 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after the application, and the effect is significant. There is no phytotoxicity or other adverse effects on corn. The control effect is significantly better than that of pesticide formulations F to H and the positive control of commercially available agents.

[0091] In summary, the anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation provided by the present invention has a small particle size, uniform distribution, good stability, and excellent anti-ultraviolet function, which can effectively reduce the ultraviolet photolysis of avermectin. In the field tests of rice leaf roller and corn armyworm, the anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation provided by the present invention also showed a control effect significantly better than that of commercially available preparations. In the anti-ultraviolet pesticide preparation provided by the present invention, the ultraviolet photolysis of avermectin is significantly less, which is conducive to extending the effective period of the preparation and reducing the amount of pesticides overall, which is in line with the green prevention and control policy of increasing the efficiency and reducing the amount of pesticides, and provides a new choice for the scientific use and reduced use of pesticides.

Claims

1. An anti-ultraviolet nanopesticide preparation, characterized in that: In terms of mass percentage, the anti-ultraviolet nano pesticide preparation is composed of 1-5% pesticide compound, 6-8% dispersant, 4-8% light stabilizer, 0.1-0.5% defoamer, 1-5% antifreeze, 0.1-0.5% thickener and deionized water, and the total mass percentage of each component is 100%; Among them, the pesticide compound includes avermectin; the dispersant is a composition of fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, silicone polyoxyethylene ether and castor oil polyoxyethylene ether; the light stabilizer is a composition of nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin and epoxidized soybean oil, and the mass ratio of the three is (2.8-4.5): (0.3-1.4): (4.3-9.0); the defoaming agent is polydimethylsiloxane; the antifreeze agent is glycerol; and the thickener is xanthan gum.

2. The UV-resistant nano pesticide preparation according to claim 1, characterized in that: In the light stabilizer, the mass ratio of nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin and epoxidized soybean oil is (3.6-4.5): (0.8-1.4): (6.7-9.0).

3. The UV-resistant nano pesticide preparation according to claim 2, characterized in that: In the dispersant, the mass ratio of fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, silicone polyoxyethylene ether and castor oil polyoxyethylene ether is 3:3:

2.

4. The anti-ultraviolet nano pesticide preparation according to any one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that: The anti-ultraviolet nano pesticide preparation also includes other pesticide compounds.

5. The UV-resistant nano pesticide preparation according to claim 4, characterized in that: The other pesticide compound is spinosad.

6. A method for preparing the UV-resistant nanopesticide formulation according to any one of claims 1 to 5, characterized in that: The method comprises the following steps: S1: stirring and mixing a dispersant, a light stabilizer, a defoamer, an antifreeze agent and deionized water in proportion, and adding a pesticide compound during stirring to form a suspension; S2: subjecting the suspension to microfluidization high pressure homogenization; S3: adding a thickener to deionized water in proportion and dissolving it until it is clear and transparent to obtain a thickener aqueous solution; under stirring conditions, slowly adding the thickener aqueous solution to the suspension treated by high pressure homogenization, stirring and mixing evenly to obtain the pesticide preparation.

7. The method according to claim 6, characterized in that In the step S2, a multi-channel microfluidic diamond interactive cavity device is selected for high-pressure homogenization, the homogenization pressure is 22000-27000 psi, and the homogenization flow rate is 90-110 mL / min.

8. A method for controlling pests, comprising applying the UV-resistant nano pesticide formulation according to any one of claims 1 to 5.

9. Use of the UV-resistant nano pesticide preparation according to any one of claims 1 to 5 in controlling pests.

10. A light stabilizer, which is used to be added to a pesticide formulation to prevent the pesticide from photodegradation, characterized in that: The light stabilizer is a composition of nano titanium dioxide, hydrogenated rosin and epoxidized soybean oil, and the mass ratio of the three is (2.8-4.5): (0.3-1.4): (4.3-9.0).

Images