Lab experiment
The encapsulated sulfentrazone particles were characterized in SEM (Fig 1) and also analysed with EDAX (Energy dispersive X-ray analysis) which is used for elemental analysis or chemical characterization of a sample. SEM images (Fig 1) were clearly showing that spherical or round particles which were encapsulated by the starch molecules. In the organic phase because of mixing and continuous stirring the polyethylene glycol polymerized and mixed with herbicide molecules in the presence of solvent dichloromethane. Similar results were observed by
Mohanraj and Chen (2006). In the same way covalent bonding ability, mixing during preparation or surface adsorption ability of PEG was explained by
Hans and Lowman (2002).
Reis et al., (2006) explained in similar way about solvents used in organic phase as encapsulant and observed nano encapsulated particles were obtained by dispersion (Fig 1).
The SEM-EDAX image (Fig 2) is showing that presence of carbon and oxygen peak and also presence of little amounts of fluorine, Sulphur and chlorine confirmed the presence of active ingredient of sulfentrazone in the encapsulated herbicide.
Dayan et al., (1998) given structure of sulfentrazone in the similar way which supports the above elemental composition. The spherical nanoparticles with smooth and shining surface is showing that herbicide was encapsulated with starch molecules (Fig 1).
In the particle size analyzer it was tested to know the size of encapsulated particles and zeta potential of the particles. The average particle size of encapsulated sulfentrazone and normal sulfentrazone were 186.9 nm (Fig 3) and 626.9 nm (Fig 4) respectively which were clearly showing that encapsulated herbicidal particle size was far less than normal herbicide because of using solvent evaporation method by the processes of polymerization, dissociation and dispersion by the presence of polyethylene glycol, dichloromethane and starch. The zeta potential of encapsulated sulfentrazone was -38.1 mV (Fig 5). Zeta potential is a measure of surface charges present on the nano particles. Zeta potential shows the stability of the colloids. Nano particles with zeta potential above (+/-) 30 mV have been considered to be stable in suspension, as the charge on the surface of particles prevents aggregation. As the zeta potential of encapsulated sulfentrazone was -38.1 mV which is more than (+/-) 30 mV, thus the encapsulated sulfentrazone herbicide is stable. This stability might be useful for slow release of the particle and also for reducing vertical and horizontal leachability.
Field experiment
Weed flora
Weed species vegetation in the screening trial consists of
Dinebra retroflexa, Echinochloa colonum, Amaranthus viridis, Calotropis gigantea, Corchorus trilocularis, Euphorbia thymifolia, Malachra capitata, Parthenium hysterophorus, Portulaca oleracea, Trianthema portulacastrum. All these weeds were occurred in main field trial I and II also except
Calotropis gigantea and
Parthenium hysterophorus. Among these most dominant weed species were grasses. Similar findings were observed by
Dayan et al., (1996).
Screening trial
Effect of weed management treatments on weeds
The higher weed density was observed in unweeded control respectively at 20, 40 and 60 DAS. Lower weed density was noticed in the treatments T
7 (Sulfentrazone @ 0.40 kg a.i. ha
-1 e
+ at 2 DAS) and T8 (Sulfentrazone @ 0.40 kg a.i. ha
-1 e
+ at 3 DAS) at 20 and 40 DAS respectively. But at 60 DAS lower weed density was noticed in T
1 (Sulfentrazone @ 0.30 kg a.i.ha
-1 e
+ at 1 DBS) and T
5 (Sulfentrazone @ 0.40 kg a.i. ha
-1 e
+ at 1 DBS) (Table 1). The results were in conformity with the findings of
Srivastava (2003). He proved that in hand weeded plot weed density was 43.53 m
-2 whereas in the sulfentrazone (0.8 L ha
-1) treated plot the weed density was only 0.90 m
-2.
Effect of weed management treatments on blackgram crop
Plant height (cm) was lesser in all the sulfentrazone applied treatments compared to absolute control (15.87 and 49.73) at 20 and 40 DAS. But at 60 DAS the plant height was on par in T
1,T
3,T
4, T
5, T
9,and T
11 with the control (55.07) (Table 2). In case of plant dry weight (g plant
-1) at 20 DAS there was no significant difference among the treatments. At 40 and 60 DAS more dry weight was noticed in T
1,T
3, T
5, T
9 and T
11 compared to unweeded control (Table 2).
Seed yield, hull yield and haulm yield (kg ha
-1) of blackgram were higher in sulfentrazone @ 0.30 (T
1) and 0.40 (T
5) kg a.i. ha
-1 at 1 DBS which are 1349, 587 and 3851 kg ha
-1 in T
1 and 1355, 589 and 3842 kg ha
-1, respectively (Table 1). Similar results were recorded by
Krausz et al., (1998) in soybean when sulfentrazone applied @ 0.42 kg a.i. ha
-1.
Main trial I and II
Effect of weed management treatments on weeds
Zero weed density was noticed with the application of encapsulated sulfentrazone at 1 DBS (T
1), hand weeding at 15 and 30 DAS (T
7) and weed free plot (T
8) in both the trials at 20 DAS. Very low weed density was observed in T
1 and T
2 (sulfentrazone without encapsulation applied at 1 DBS) and T
7 in both the trials at 40 and 60 DAS. All the other treatments also noticed lower weed population compared to absolute control in both main trials (Table 3). The results were in conformity with the findings of
Srivastava (2003). In case of pendimethalin similar weed density was observed by
Gupta et al., (2013).
Effect of weed management treatments on blackgram crop
In plant dry matter at 20 DAS there was no significant difference among the treatments. At 40 and 60 DAS more plant dry weight was noticed in all the treatments compared to control (Table 4). Seed yield, hull yield and haulm yield of blackgram were higher in T
1, T
2, T
5, T
7 and T
8 in both trials (Table 5). There was no significant difference in harvest index of all the treatments (Table 5). Higher gross returns (92,233 Rs ha
-1), net returns (64,548 Rs ha
-1) and B:C ratio (3.33) were acquired in T
1 followed by T
2 and least Gross returns (27,808 Rs ha
-1) and net returns (3,033 Rs ha
-1) and B:C ratio (1.12) were acquired in absolute control (Table 6). The results were supported by the findings of
Shruthi and Salakinkop (2015).