Progress 07/01/22 to 08/31/23
Outputs
Target Audience:CelluDot has a diverse target audience for the herbicidal adjuvant application going from soybean, corn, and cotton farmers (end-users) toagrochemical manufacturers and distributors of agrochemicals and adjuvants (customers) tostates plant boards (influencers)and federal agencies like the EPA (regulators). We have recently identified turf grass and growers of fruits and vegetables for their fungicide uses. Herbicide drift isues are not limited to row crops; orchards, vineyards, trees, and even residential and commercial landscapes haveshown to be adversely affected. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Similar to that mentioned in our progress report as it follows: A significant training and professional development at CelluDotis STEM and business education of undergraduate and graduate students. In the last year, CelluDot has already worked with 4 interns, 3 of them pursuing STEM degrees and one from the school of business (marketting). To this date, the business and 1 STEM interns havegraduated and relocated to other cities. We are continuing to work with the other two students that have been given part time positions. In general, the interns have learned the fundamentals of scientific research, product development, data collection and analyses, customer discovery, lean canvas model, etc. during their time with us. At CelluDot, we try to make these positions mutually beneficial for both parties, and always take a proactive training-based approachso that traineesacquire useful research and entrepreneurial skills for next steps in their professional journeys. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Farmers have suffered the financial repercussions of herbicide drift, and we constantly take their feedbackto asses their needs in terms of crop protection. This problem impacts their bottom line and adversely affects their already slim margins. Including farmers trade shows, we have used the extension services to comunicate the findings of our results as we understand widespread of our technology byfarmers will result in many benefits: a) it will make herbicide applications more efficient, ease weed control without spraying excessive amounts of herbicides, thus boosting agricultural productivity, b) it will enable farmers to spend less time and resources on drift management, c) and reduced volatility of herbicides extensively used by farmers growing GM crops will also let farmers, growing conventional or non-GM crops or other sensitive high value cash crops, to have the freedom and flexibility to continue growing these crops without incurring drift-related damages, d) last but not the least, it will reduce the environmental impacts of herbicide drift and reduce our dependence on petroleum-derived synthetic polymers; reducing toxic chemicals in the air we breathe and the water we drink, and will contribute in reversing the phenomenon of declining bee populations, a threat to global agriculture. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
CelluDot has performed tests for all of the objectives as planned and shown above. Since our last progress report, the only objectiveremaining to complete was the assessment of the volatility in Objective 4.This portionof our work was able to be completed as a no cost extension. The performance of our product, BioGripTMadjuvant, to reduce dicamba volatility was evaluatedin the field under low tunnel. Air samplers were installed under the tunnel to capture aerossols of dicamba that are moving through the tunnel. Additionally, we usedthe no-cost extesnion time to run humidome tests using the EPA-approved methodology from a thrid-party lab (Symbiotic Research and Genesis Midwest Laboratories). In 2022, visible injury to soybean was low (9% at most) and was numerically highest with XtendiMax-VaporGrip. The other treatments had between 4 and 5% injury, 4 WAT. Yield parameters were all not affected by exposure to dicamba vapors, except shoot biomass, which was 20% to 42% lesser than that of the nontreated check. Nevertheless, there was a trend of symptotamic plants producing numerically less pods, seeds per pod, weight of seeds, and shoot biomass compared to the nontreated check regardless of the dicamba formulation and adjuvant. In 2023, injury to soybean was higher (up to 25%, 5 WAT) than in 2022. This could be due to three factors: 1) dicamba volatilized more from soil medium than from sand; 2) dicamba volatilization increased with the addition of glyphosate, as expected based on established data; and 3) young soybean (V6) being more sensitive to dicamba vapor than older soybean (R0). With Engenia formulation, soybean injury was higher (19%, 5 WAT) than with the commercial standard, Sentris (8%). Injury was observed farther from the center of the plot (229 cm N, 109 cm S) with BioGripthan with Sentris (77 cm N, 93 cm S). The volatilization distance to the north was significantly higher with BioGripthan with Sentris. With XtendiMax formulation, soybean injury was similar with BioGripTM and with VaporGrip, but numerically higher with BioGrip(24% vs. 14%). The observable volatilization distance in either direction was not different between adjuvants. The concentration of dicamba detected from air samples in 2022 was 3.4 to 5.9 times lower than what was detected in 2023. This indicates that the modifications to the methodology in 2023, especially the addition of glyphosate to dicamba, increased the amount of volatilization. This is good in the sense that the volatilization problem in commercial fields has been exacerbated by mixing glyphosate with dicamba. In this 'worst case' scenario, volatilization was highest with Engenia + BioGripand lowest with Engenia + Sentris. With XtendiMax, volatilization was similar between BioGripand VaporGrip. Regardless of detected volatilization being low in 2022, the pattern was the same as in 2023. The amount of dicamba detected from air samples supported the pattern of injury to soybean. Surprisingly, the humidome test data showed thatBioGripperformed well as compared to Sentris (approved standard). BioGrip passed the test with both brands of dicamba (Engenia and XtendiMax), and this was true in either case, i.e., in the presence as well as in the absence of glyphosate.To pass the test, volatilization of dicamba with aproduct must be less than or equal to (at alpha = 0.1) that caused with Sentris. Statistical evaluation indicated that the calculated t-value (one-tailed, alpha = 0.1) was less than the tabulated t-value, therefore the Null Hypothesis was accepted, which means that volatilization of dicamba when used in conjunction with BioGrip was less than or equal to volatilization with Sentris (as standard). Addition of glyphosate to the tank mix is known to reduce its pH and worsen its drift potential.In fact, it has been shown to increase both particle drift (by virtue of decreasing spray droplet size) and the volatilization potential of herbicides such as dicamba (by virtue of decreasing pH). It is also known to have antagonistic interactions with dicamba and reduce weed control efficacy.In our experiments, we had the same observation, i.e., pH of spray mix (for both was lower in the presence of glyphosateby almost 3.5-4.0 units in the case of Sentris and by almost 2-2.5 units in the case of BioGrip. The magnitude of reduction in pH was certainly lower for BioGrip, demonstrating the excellent buffering capacity of our adjuvant. The main trendis that: a) when glyphosateis not included in the spray mixture, dicamba has lower volatilization values with BioGrip than with Sentris as our VRA products keep the spray solution pH from becoming basic (i.e., around 9.5for the standard Sentris but for BioGrip, it stays neutral - around 6.5), and b) when glyphosate is present in the spray mixture, BioGrip appear to cause similar or slightly higher (but not significantly higher) volatilization of dicamba than that caused by Sentris (the pH for spray solutions with Sentris is neutral ~ 6.0 and with BioGrip it is acidic ~ 5). These results also highlight that pH is not the only significant factor driving dicamba volatilization because despite lower pH values of the spray mix with BioGrip compared to those with Sentris, dicamba volatilization remained under control. Our adjuvant consists of a crosslinked biopolymer network that prevents dicamba from escaping too quickly, which in turn improves its adsorption and absorptioninto target weeds. Overall,our results show that BioGrip hasboth particle and vapor drift reducing properties when used in conjunction with dicamba. These studies have demonstrated the combined functionality of our adjuvant, thus showing that farmers only need to use one product to serve both purposes, at use rates not exceeding 1% v/v. With further re-formulation and product development, we aim to achieve the same or better drift reducing properties at even further reduced use rates.
Publications
|
Progress 07/01/22 to 02/28/23
Outputs
Target Audience:CelluDot's target audiences are farmers (end-users), agrochemical manufacturers and distributors of agrochemicals and adjuvants (customers), states plant boards (influencers), and federal agencies like the EPA (regulators). Implications of drift are not limited to row crops, as orchards, vineyards, trees, and even native, residential and commercial landscapes have been shown to be adversely affected. Changes/Problems:At first, we have planned to use Kochia for the efficiacy test, but after multiple discussions with our research colaborator(subawardee) at the Research Institute(University of AR System Division of Ag), we switched from Kochia to Lambsquater and Waterhemp that are mostly troublesome weeds in agriculatural regions in the south, mid-south, and mid-west. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?A significant training and professional development of our venture is STEM and business education of undergraduate and graduate students. In the last year, CelluDot has already worked with 4interns, 3of them pursuing STEM degrees and one from the school of business (marketting). The interns havelearned the fundamentals of scientific research, product development, data collection and analyses, customer discovery, lean canvas model, etc. during their time with us. At CelluDot, we try to make these internships mutually beneficial for both parties, and always take a training-based approach in our day-to-day functioning so that they acquire useful research and entrepreneurial skills for next steps in their professional journeys. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Even though farmers are not our direct customers, but the end-users, they have suffered the financial repercussions of herbicide drift. This problem impacts their bottom line and adversely affects their already slim margins. So far, we have used the extension services to comunicate the findings of our results as we understandwidespread of our technology by commodity farmers will result in many benefits: a) it will make herbicide applications more efficient, ease weed control without spraying excessive amounts of herbicides, thus boosting agricultural productivity, b) it will enable farmersto spend less time and resources on drift management, c) and reduced volatility of herbicides extensively used by farmers growing GM crops will also let farmers, growing conventional or non-GM crops or other sensitive high value cash crops, to have the freedom and flexibility to continue growing these crops without incurring drift-related damages, d) last but not the least, it will reduce the environmental impacts of herbicide drift and reduce our dependence on petroleum-derived synthetic polymers; reducing toxic chemicals in the air we breathe and the water we drink, and will contribute in reversing the phenomenon of declining bee populations, a threat to global agriculture. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We anticipate we will requesta no cost extension of 6 monthsto repeat Objective 4 (Assess volatility via post application injury on non-genetically modified (GM) soybean, as crop model, via low tunnel field trials).
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
So far, CelluDot has performed tests for all of the objectives as planned and shown above, except for the the assessment of the volatility in Objective 4. We evaluated different volatilization rates and nozzle types, as well as effficacity tests on model specicies such as lambsquaterand waterhemp. Out of the four objectives we have planned, we will not be able to finish Objective 4by the end of our funded deadline. This objective was assigned to the sub-awardee at the University of AR System Division of Agriculture (UADA), and the test was run as designed. But unfortunately, we had to deal with a lot of rain and storms in June-July of 2022. These unforeseen weather events did not favor the time sensitive experiment. After sending the cellulosic membranes for MS-HPLC analysis, the data did not make a lot of sense. But by that time, the soybeans were already grown beyond the suitable testing size. At this time, we are working to complete this objective.
Publications
|