HERBICIDE COMPOSITION, FORMULATIONS AND METHODS

THEREOF

FIELD OF INVENTION [001] The present disclosure broadly relates to the crop improvement and management. More particularly the present invention relates to an herbicide composition for the protection of crops against undesired plant growth and the use of the composition. The present disclosure further relates to a formulation comprising the herbicide composition and process of preparing the same thereof.

BACKGROUND OF INVENTION

[002] The control of unwanted vegetation is a continuous effort to remove the poisonous/noxious weeds and, in turn, increasing crop productivity. However, growing crops in fields pose several challenges to the farmers as unwanted weeds negatively affect the crop production and its yield. Nevertheless, weeds are unwanted and undesirable plants that interfere with the utilization of land, water resources, and nutrients thus, adversely affect human welfare by competing with the beneficial and desired vegetation in croplands, forests, aquatic systems, etc. resulting into a non-cropped areas like industrial sites, road/rail lines, airfields, landscape plantings, water tanks, waterways, etc.

[003] Studies show the economic losses due to weeds on-Farm Research trials conducted by All India Coordinated Research Project on Weed Management between 2003 and 2014 in major field crops in different districts of 18 states of India (Gharde, Yogita, et al. "Assessment of yield and economic losses in agriculture due to weeds in India." Crop Protection 107 (2018): 12-18). The study stated greater variability in potential yield losses among the different locations (states) in case of direct-seeded rice (15-66%) and maize (18-65%).

[004] Controlling weeds may involve a wide range of techniques. One of the major techniques involves the chemical treatment of weeds by the application of a chemical (herbicide) to an already germinated weeds or to the soil surface for controlling germinating weed species. [005] Herbicides are agents, usually chemical, used for killing or inhibiting the growth of unwanted plants, such as residential or agricultural weeds and invasive species. A great advantage of chemical herbicides over mechanical weed control is the ease of application, which often saves on the cost of labor. There are different types of herbicides known in the literature. For instance, selective herbicides kill weed targets while leaving the desired crop relatively unharmed. On the other hand, some of the herbicides act by interfering with the growth of the weed plant blocking certain plant hormones. Herbicides can be applied by several methods and at various times during the growth period of a crop. Out of these, four common methods of herbicide applications are pre -plant incorporation (PPI), pre emergence, early post-emergence, and post-emergence. In pre -plant incorporation application, the herbicide is sprayed and mixed in the surface soil before planting or sowing to achieve good weed control. Pre -emergence application corresponds to herbicide application just after sowing the seed of the crop or within 0-3 days of transplantation, before the emergence of the weeds and crop from the soil surface. Early post-emergence herbicides are applied between 8-12 days after sowing of the crop. Post-emergence application involves herbicide application after the crop and weeds have emerged from the soil surface. Based on the type of crop, method of application, chemical properties of herbicide, type of weed control (broadleaf, grasses, and sedges) and duration of weed control, herbicides are categorized and selected for application.

[006] CA2712696C reveals an herbicide composition comprising two active ingredients clodinafop-propargyl and metsulfuron methyl in a particulate form having a hydrophobic inert coating material. WO2012042316A1 reveals a storage stable granular formulation comprising pyrazosulfuron ethyl, pretilachlor, and sodium lignosulphonate.

[007] Although a lot of efforts have been taken towards developing the herbicide compositions, there remains a need to solve the stability of the herbicide related to combinations of active ingredients. Also, the prior arts remain deficit in providing enhanced compatibility between two or more active ingredients which show synergistic, superior, and desirable weed control benefits without affecting the plant health of the main crop

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[008] In an aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided an herbicide composition comprising: (a) 2’,4’-dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromcthyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; and (b) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide; wherein the 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10.

[009] In second aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation comprising: (a) the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide, wherein the 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to the 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10; and (b) agronomically acceptable excipient, wherein the herbicide composition to the agronomically acceptable excipient weight ratio is in the range of 40:60 - 60:40.

[0010] In third aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation comprising a) 40 to 60 % (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of a solvent, c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent, e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent, f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide, g) 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, and h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent, wherein the 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonanilide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10. [0011] In fourth aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation comprising a) 40 to 60 % (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1-yl) methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water, c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent, e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent, f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide, g) 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, and h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent, wherein the 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10;.

[0012] In fifth aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation comprising: (a) the herbicide composition and; (b) agronomically acceptable excipient, the process comprising contacting the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonan i]ide; and (ii) 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide wherein the 2 ^, ,4’-dichloro-5’- (4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10, and the agronomically acceptable excipient to obtain the formulation, wherein the herbicide composition to the agronomically acceptable excipient weight ratio is in the range of 40:60 - 60:40.

[0013] In sixth aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a process for preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1-yl) methane sulfonanilide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with a surface active agent, a solvent and a diluent to form an emulsion; and mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent and an acidic buffer to obtain the formulation.

[0014] In seventh aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a process for preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1-yl) methane sulfonanilide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide with a surface active agent, water and a diluent to form an emulsion; and mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent and an acidic buffer to obtain the formulation.

[0015] In eighth aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the composition or the formulation as disclosed herein.

[0016] In ninth aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a weed control method in crop fields, the method comprising applying the composition or the formulation as disclosed herein.

[0017] These and other features, aspects, and advantages of the present subject matter will be better understood with reference to the following description and appended claims. This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form. This summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0018] Those skilled in the art will be aware that the present disclosure is subject to variations and modifications other than those specifically described. It is to be understood that the present disclosure includes all such variations and modifications. The disclosure also includes all such steps, features, compositions, and compounds referred to or indicated in this specification, individually or collectively, and any and all combinations of any or more of such steps or features. Definitions [0019] For convenience, before further description of the present disclosure, certain terms employed in the specification, and examples are delineated here. These definitions should be read in the light of the remainder of the disclosure and understood as by a person of skill in the art. The terms used herein have the meanings recognized and known to those of skill in the art, however, for convenience and completeness, particular terms and their meanings are set forth below.

[0020] The articles “a”, “an” and “the” are used to refer to one or to more than one (i.e., to at least one) of the grammatical object of the article. [0021] The terms “comprise” and “comprising” are used in the inclusive, open sense, meaning that additional elements may be included. It is not intended to be construed as “consists of only”.

[0022] Throughout this specification, unless the context requires otherwise the word “comprise”, and variations such as “comprises” and “comprising”, will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated element or step or group of element or steps but not the exclusion of any other element or step or group of element or steps.

[0023] The term “including” is used to mean “including but not limited to”. “Including” and “including but not limited to” are used interchangeably. [0024] The term “herbicide or weedkillers” are substances used to control unwanted plants. Selective herbicides control specific weed species while leaving the desired crop relatively unharmed, while non-selective herbicides can be used to clear waste ground, industrial and construction sites, and railway embankments as they kill all plant material with which they come into contact. [0025] The term “fertilization” as used herein refers to the addition of any natural or synthetic material to the plant or soil or plant to supply nutrients to it to keep it healthy.

[0026] The term “watering” as used herein refers to the addition of water to the soil of plants. [0027] The term “flooding” as used herein refers to watering the plants to such an extent that water accumulates in the soil and raises to a certain height. This method of watering is generally adopted in agriculture for growing rice crops.

[0028] The term “foliage” as used herein refers to leaves and stem of a plant. [0029] The term “foliar spray” as used herein refers to a solution that is sprayed over the plant surface, covering the leaves and stem.

[0030] The term “broadcasted” as used herein refers to a spray solution that is mixed with sand or urea or any other carrier and sprinkled over an agricultural field or plants uniformly to ensure an almost equal spread of solution in the entire field or plants.

[0031] The term “an anti-freeze agent” as used herein refers to additives meant for decreasing the freezing point of solutions. They are added to the solution in order to make it applicable in cold environments too.

[0032] The term “an anti-foaming agent” used herein refers to an additive that reduces or hinders the formation of foam in industrial process liquids.

[0033] The term “polymer” used herein refers to surfactant used in the preparation of a suspension of a material. For the purpose of the present disclosure, the polymer used herein is a modified sodium lignosulphonate selected from the group consisting of Ufoxane 3 A, Ultrazine NA, Vanisperse CB, or combinations thereof. The polymer is used for the preparation of a suspension of 2’,4’-dichloiO-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesulfonanilide ( sulfentrazone) .

[0034] The term “a thickening agent” used herein refers to an additive which used to increase the viscosity of a solution. The thickening agent may be one or a combination of more than one. A suitable thickening agent in any individual case may be determined by one of average/ordinary skill in the art.

[0035] The term “a biocide” as used herein refers to a chemical substance or microorganism intended to destroy, deter, render harmless, or exert a controlling effect on any harmful organism like Mycorhizza, bacteria, fungi and the like. [0036] The term “an acidic buffer” used herein refers to a solution that has pH less than 7 and contains a weak acid and one of its salt. It resists any change to pH when another acid or base is added to it.

[0037] The term “diluent” used herein refers to a liquid which is added to a material to reduce its viscosity and enable free flowing of the material. In the present disclosure the diluent is a continuous phase which facilitates easy handling of the formulation for applying in the fields. The diluent includes but not limited to water.

[0038] The term “a carrier” used herein refers to a substance that contains other substances to carry it to its required position such as soil or roots of plants.

[0039] The term “safener” are chemical compounds used in combination with herbicides to make them safer - that is, to reduce the effect of the herbicide on crop plants, and to improve selectivity between crop plants vs. weed species being targeted by the herbicide.

[0040] The term “syneresis” is a phenomenon where any suspension formulation develops a top down layer separation during its shelf life. A suspension formulation with minimum syneresis i.e., with minimum layer separation in top, signifies that it is physically stable throughout its shelf life.

[0041] The term “leaf injury” used herein refers to defects in the leaves of the plants and may be caused due to the chemical or herbicide spray.

[0042] The term “wilting” used herein refers to the loss of rigidity of non-woody parts of plants and also serves to reduce water loss, as it makes the leaves expose less surface area.

[0043] The term “vein clearing” used herein refers to a symptom occurred due to loss of normal green coloration of plant veins, to become unnaturally clear or translucent, which usually turn yellow later.

[0044] The term “necrosis” used herein refers to a condition due to degeneration of cells or tissues which causes the leaves, stem or other parts to darken and wilt. [0045] The term “epinasty” used herein refers to nastic movement in which a plant parts where in downward curvature of leaves etc., takes place due to differential growth rates. [0046] The term “hyponasty” used herein refers to an increase in growth in a lower part of a plant causing it to bend upward. Hyponasty is an upward bending of leaves or other plant parts caused by increased growth on their lower surface.

[0047] The term “wet-milling” used herein refers to a process of grinding or crushing solid particles to disperse them in another liquid solution.

[0048] The term “cps” used herein refers to SI unit of viscosity which is an abbreviated form of centipoise wherein one centipoise is equal to one millipascal second.

[0049] The term “sedimentation” used herein refers to settling or depositing a substance suspended, dispersed, or dissolved in another substance.

[0050] The term “EC” used herein refers to emulsifiable concentrate which is a liquid formulation containing one or more water-immiscible organic solvent and an emulsifier.

[0051] The term “emulsifier” used herein refers to surface active agents which stabilise emulsions by increasing the extent of contact between the two immiscible liquids in the emulsion.

[0052] The term “EW” used herein refers to oil in water emulsion in which water insoluble oily phase is dispersed in water.

[0053] The term “effective amount” used herein refers to the amount of the formulation that will kill a weed. The “effective amount” will vary depending on the formulation concentration, the type of plants(s) being treated, the severity of the weed infestation, the result desired, and the life stage of the weeds during treatment, among other factors. Thus, it is not always possible to specify an exact “effective amount.” However, an appropriate “effective amount” in any individual case may be determined by one of ordinary/average skilled in the art.

[0054] The term “2’,4’-dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromcthyl-4,5-dihydro-3-m cthyl-5- oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesulfonanilide” used herein refers to sulfentrazone.

[0055] The term “2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide� �� as used herein refers to pretilachlor. [0056] The unit “g a. i/ha” refers to grams of active ingredient per hectare of the field/area.

[0057] The term “crop fields” refers to any field for growing crops such as rice, direct seeded or sprouted rice, transplanted rice, groundnut, potato, sugarcane, mentha crops or combinations thereof.

[0058] Ratios, concentrations, amounts, and other numerical data may be presented herein in a range format. It is to be understood that such range format is used merely for convenience and brevity and should be interpreted flexibly to include not only the numerical values explicitly recited as the limits of the range, but also to include all the individual numerical values or sub-ranges encompassed within that range as if each numerical value and sub-range is explicitly recited. For example, a weight range of 100-1500 g a.i./ha should be interpreted to include not only the explicitly recited limits of 100 g a.i./ha to 1500 g a.i./ha, but also to include sub-ranges, such as 150- 950 g a.i./ha 200- 800 g a.i./ha, and so forth, as well as individual amounts, including fractional amounts, within the specified ranges, such as 150.2 g a.i./ha, and 900.2 g a.i./ha, for example.

[0059] Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this disclosure belongs. Although any methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice or testing of the disclosure, the preferred methods, and materials are now described. All publications mentioned herein are incorporated herein by reference.

[0060] Although 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesulfonanilide is used as a pre-emergence herbicide, it requires moisture at the time of application or light irrigation after application, to reach its pre-emergence herbicide activity. Mainly the plant roots absorb 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide and the susceptible plants die after emergence and exposure to light. 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide is recommended as a foliar spray on transplanted paddy at 0-3 days after transplanting. Before application, the standing water is drained out and the herbicide is applied as a blanket foliar spray. The next day the water is again re- impounded to get the desired results. This is a labor intense application that puts lot of strain on the farmers. 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide over the years being continuously used is not able to give effective and longer duration of control of broad spectrum of weeds like broad leaf weeds, grasses, and sedges. Even after application of 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide, farmers perform 2-3 rounds of hand weeding, which is an expensive practice. Moreover, hand weeding is a major challenge due to the non-availability of labor. [0061] In transplanted rice, the dominant weeds are grasses and sedges followed by broadleaf weeds. However, there is a shift in weed flora, depending on a specific region, soil type, water availability and usage pattern of herbicides from the previous years. The dominant weeds of grass category in rice are Echinochloa crusgalli, Echinochloa colonum, Leptochloa chinensis. The dominant weeds of broadleaf category are Monochoria vaginalis, Ludwigia parviflora, Commelina benghalensis, Eclipta prostrata, Rotala indica. The dominant weeds of sedges category are Cyperus iria, Cyperus difformis, Scirpus maritimus and Fimbristylis milliacea.

[0062] Over the years other pre -emergence herbicides and their combinations launched by various companies, are not as effective to 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyljacetanilide, but are effective only against a particular category of weeds and continuous use of these herbicides leads to the resistance of weeds to these herbicides. In this context, there is an urgent need to identify a suitable herbicide with a different mode of action applicable on a wide variety of weed plants, and a combination partner to give superior control of a broad spectrum of weeds with a longer duration of control along with increasing the resistance factor of the herbicides. Nevertheless, 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide being from anilide family and 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide being from chloroacetanilide family to be delivered in full water as a continuous medium has its own challenges particularly because of chemical instability of 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N -(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide . 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide is commercially available in EC, EW formulations where the diluent is an aromatic petroleum hydrocarbon. However, water-based formulation of 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide and in combination with another herbicide component is not available due to inherent challenges of the formulation. 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide as one of the components of the formulation has a strong tendency to decompose over a period of time, thereby leading to unstable formulation. Hence, it is a major challenge to keep 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide activity stable throughout the shelf life of pre-mixed formulation product when combined with 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl) methane sulfonanilide. It was surprisingly found that by dispersing emulsified droplets dispersed inside a suspension containing very fine particles of 2’,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl- 4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide, which finally results into a suspo-emulsion. Also, the formulations provided in the present disclosure are stable in water as a solvent, which makes the formulation more advantageous, cost effective, and easy to use. The formulations disclosed are user and environment friendly. Further, the present disclosure also emphasize the stability of the formulation in water with their components corresponding weight percentages.

[0063] Accordingly, in view of the foregoing disadvantages inherent in the current known products and applications as mentioned above, the present disclosure overcomes the shortcomings of the prior art disclosures and provides a composition comprising two active ingredients, i.e., 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methane sulfonanilide and 2-chloro- 2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide, and a formulation comprising the aforementioned composition with an agronomically acceptable excipient. The composition and the formulation of the present disclosure is a stable suspo- emulsion herbicide composition. The composition of the present disclosure are formulated to contain excipients, such as solvents, anti-caking agents, stabilizers, defoamers, slip agents, humectants, dispersants, wetting agents, thickening agents, emulsifiers, and preservatives which increase the long-lasting activity of the actives. Other components that enhance the biological activity of these ingredients may optionally be included.

[0064] The present disclosure is not to be limited in scope by the specific embodiments described herein, which are intended for the purposes of exemplification only. Functionally-equivalent products, compositions, and methods are clearly within the scope of the disclosure, as described herein.

[0065] The present disclosure discloses an herbicide composition/formulation comprising 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H-

1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide and 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide as active ingredients in certain specific ratios. The present disclosure refers to sulfentrazone as 2’, 4’ -dichloro-5 ’-(4-difluoromethyl-4, 5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide and pretilachlor as 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide. Further, a formulation comprising the composition of the present disclosure, and an agronomically acceptable excipient is also disclosed. The agronomically acceptable excipient is selected from (a) a solvent, (b) a surface active agent, (c) an anti-freeze agent, (d) an anti-foaming agent, (e) a thickening agent, (f) a biocide, (g) a polymer, (h) an acidic buffer, or combinations thereof. The present disclosure further discloses a method of application of the formulation for control of broad spectrum of weeds as a pre-emergence application in the form of a suspo-emulsion in a site having different types of soils, clayey loam or sandy loam soils, grown with a rice crop.

[0066] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided an herbicide composition comprising: (a) 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; and (b) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide wherein the 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10. [0067] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided an herbicide composition comprising: (a) 2’,4’-dichloro-5’-(4-diriuoromcthyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide; and (b) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide, wherein the 2’, 4’ -dichloro-5 ’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesuifonanilide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:100.

[0068] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided an herbicide composition comprising: (a) 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide; and (b) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide, wherein the 2’, 4’ -dichloro-5 ’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesulfonanilide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl)acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:50. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, 2’, 4’ -dichloro-5 ’-(4-difluoromethyl-4, 5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesulfonanilide to the 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:20. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, 2’, 4’ -dichloro-5 ’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide to the 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:5. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesulfonanilide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:2.

[0069] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation comprising: (a) the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’, 4’ -dichloro-5 ’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide, wherein 2’, 4’ -dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH-

1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesulfonanilide to 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10; and (b) agronomically acceptable excipient, wherein the herbicide composition to the agronomic ally acceptable excipient weight ratio is in the range of 40:60 - 60:40. [0070] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation comprising: (a) the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’,4’-dichloiO-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide, wherein 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo-lH-

1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10; and (b) agronomically acceptable excipient, wherein the herbicide composition to the agronomically acceptable excipient weight ratio is in the range of 42:58- 60:40. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the herbicide composition to the agronomically acceptable excipient weight ratio is in the range of 44:56 - 60:40. In yet another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the herbicide composition to the agronomically acceptable excipient weight ratio is in the range of 45:55 - 60:40. In one another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the herbicide composition to the agronomically acceptable excipient weight ratio is of 46:54. In one another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the herbicide composition to the agronomically acceptable excipient weight ratio is of 47:53.

[0071] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation comprising: (a) the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide, wherein 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo-lH-

1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10; and (b) agronomically acceptable excipient is selected from solvent, surface active agent, anti-freeze agent, anti-foaming agent, thickening agent, biocide, polymer, acidic buffer, diluent or combinations thereof.

[0072] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation, wherein the formulation comprises a) 40 to 60% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’,4’-dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromcthyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of a solvent; c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer; and h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent, wherein the 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10.

[0073] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation, wherein the formulation comprises a) 42 to 58% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide; b) 5 to 25 % (w/w) of a solvent; c) 4 to 9% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 2 to 6% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.4 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.05 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 0.1 to 5% (w/w) of a polymer; and h) 10 to 20% (w/w) of a diluent, wherein the 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10.

[0074] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation, wherein the formulation comprises a) 45 to 55% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide; b) 10 to 20 % (w/w) of a solvent; c) 5 to 9% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 3 to 6% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent; e) 0.2 to 0.4 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.1 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 0.1 to 4% (w/w) of a polymer; and h) 15 to 20% (w/w) of a diluent, wherein the 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonanilide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:5.

[0075] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation, wherein the formulation comprises a) 40 to 60% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water; c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer; and h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent, wherein 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonanilide to 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N -(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10.

[0076] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation, wherein the formulation comprises a) 42 to 58% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide; b) 5 to 25 % (w/w) of water; c) 4 to 9% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 2 to 6% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.4 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.05 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 0.1 to 5% (w/w) of a polymer; and h) 10 to 20% (w/w) of a diluent, wherein 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonanilide to 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N -(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10.

[0077] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation, wherein the formulation comprises a) 45 to 55% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide; b) 10 to 20 % (w/w) of a water; c) 5 to 9% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 3 to 6% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent; e) 0.2 to 0.4 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.1 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 0.1 to 4% (w/w) of a polymer; and h) 15 to 20% (w/w) of a diluent, wherein 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonanilide to 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N -(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:5.

[0078] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the formulation further comprises 0.05 to 2% (w/w) of a thickening agent; 6 to 12% (w/w) of a safener; and 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the formulation further comprises 0.1 to 1% (w/w) of a thickening agent; 7 to 11% (w/w) of a safener; and 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer.

[0079] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation, wherein the formulation comprises a) 40 to 60% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of a solvent; c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer; h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent, i) 0.05 to 1% (w/w) of a thickening agent; and j) 7 to 11% (w/w) of a safener, wherein 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N -(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10.

[0080] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation, wherein the formulation comprises a) 40 to 60% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of a solvent; c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer; h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent, i) 0.05 to 1% (w/w) of a thickening agent; j) 7 to 11% (w/w) of a safener; and k) 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer wherein 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5- oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to 2-chloro-2’,6’ -diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10.

[0081] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation, wherein the formulation comprises a) 40 to 60% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water; c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer; h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent, i) 0.05 to 1% (w/w) of a thickening agent; and j) 7 to 11% (w/w) of a safener, wherein 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N -(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10.

[0082] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation, wherein the formulation comprises a) 40 to 60% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water; c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer; h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent, i) 0.05 to 1% (w/w) of a thickening agent; j) 7 to 11% (w/w) of a safener; and k) 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer wherein 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5- oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to 2-chloro-2’,6’ -diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10. [0083] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the solvent is selected from C8-C10 dimethyl amide fatty acid, C9-C12 aromatic petroleum hydrocarbon, water, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, C8-C10 dimethyl amide fatty acid is selected from Agnique AMD 12, Agnique AMD 810, Hallcomid 1225, Rhodiasolve ADMA 810 (solvent 810), Rhodiasolve ADMA10 (solvent ADMA 10), Genagen 4166 (solvent 4166), Genagen 4296 (solvent 4296), or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, C9-C12 aromatic petroleum hydrocarbon is selected from Solvent C-IX, Solvesso 100, Solvesso 150, Solvesso 200, Solvesso 150ND, Solvesso 200ND, or combinations thereof.

[0084] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the solvent is selected from Genagen 4266, Solvent C- IX, Solvesso 100, Solvent 4166, Solvent 810, Solvent C-IX, water or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the solvent is selected from Genagen 4266, solvent C-IX, solvesso 100, solvent 4166, solvent 810, solvent C-IX, or combinations thereof. In yet another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the solvent is water.

[0085] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the surface active agent is selected from butyl block copolymer, alkyl benzene sulphonate, castor oil ethoxylate, tristyrylphenol ethoxylate, sodium alkyl naphthalene sulphonate -formaldehyde condensate, acrylic copolymer solution, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, butyl block copolymer is selected from Emulsogen 3510, Agnique CSO, Toximul 8321, Step flow 26, Soprophor 796P, Soprophor TSP/461, Atlas G5000, Pluronic PE 10300, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, alkyl benzene sulphonate is selected from Rhodacal 70C, Rhodacal 70BC, Calsogen AR100, Calsogen AR100ND, Calsogen ARL100ND, Phenyl Sulphonate CA, Phenyl Sulphonate CAL, Unitop Unicabs 7060, Unicabs 7030, Rhodacal 60/BE, Rhodacal 65/BR, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, castor oil ethoxylate is selected from Emulsogen EL360, Alkamuls OR36, Agnique CSO 35, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, tristyrylphenol ethoxylate is selected from Unitop W20, Noigen AB90, Soprophor BSU CR, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, sodium alkyl naphthalene sulphonate -formaldehyde condensate is selected from Supragil MNS90, Tersperse 2020, Morwet D425, Igsurf 2080DW, Unitop Disperstox LS, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, acrylic copolymer solution is selected from Atlox 4913, Atlox 4914, Tersperse 2500, or combinations thereof. In yet another embodiment of the present disclosure, the surface active agent is selected from AtlasG5000, Rhodacal 70C, Calsogen AR100, Emulsogen 3510, Atlox 4913, Morwet D425, Igsurf 2080DW, Unitop Dispertox LS, Atlox 4914, or combinations thereof. In yet another embodiment of the present disclosure, the surface active is selected from AtlasG5000, Atlox 4914, or combinations thereof.

[0086] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the anti-freeze agent is selected from glycerin, propylene glycol, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the anti freeze agent is propylene glycol.

[0087] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the anti-foaming agent is a silicone emulsion and wherein the silicone emulsion is selected from Rhodorsil Silcolapse 5020, Sag 1572, Sag 10, Sag 30, Rhodorsil 432, or combination thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation, wherein the anti-foaming agent is Sag 1572.

[0088] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the thickening agent is selected from xanthan gum, polysaccharide, cellulosic material, hydrophilic fumed silica, hydrated magnesium silica, sodium aluminosilicate, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, the thickening agent is xanthan gum. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, the polysaccharide is Rhodopol. In another embodiment of present disclosure, the cellulosic material is carboxymethyl cellulose. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, the hydrophilic fumed silica is selected from Cab-O-sil H-5, Cab-O-sil EH-5, Cab-O-sil M-5, and combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, hydrated magnesium silicate Veegum. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, sodium aluminosilicate is Tixolex 28.

[0089] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the biocide is selected from Nipacide Cl 15, Proxel GXL, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the biocide is Proxel GXL.

[0090] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the polymer is a modified sodium lignosulphonate and wherein the modified sodium lignosulphonate is selected from Ufoxane 3A, Ultrazine NA, Vanisperse CB, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the polymer is a modified sodium lignosulphonate and the modified sodium lignosulphonate is Ultrazine NA.

[0091] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the acidic buffer is selected from citric acid, acetic acid, sodium acetate, sodium citrate, boric acid, or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the acidic buffer is citric acid.

[0092] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the formulation further comprises a safener selected from fenclorim, mefenpyr, isoxadifen, benoxacor, cloquinacet mexyl or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the safener is fenclorim.

[0093] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a suspo- emulsion formulation as disclosed herein, wherein the formulation further comprises a carrier. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, the carrier is selected from urea, sand, or combinations thereof.

[0094] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation comprising: (a) the herbicide composition and; (b) agronomically acceptable excipient, the process comprising contacting the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’,4’-dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromcthyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonan i]ide; and (ii) 2- chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide, wherein T ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N -(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10; and the agronomically acceptable excipient to obtain the formulation, wherein the herbicide composition to the agronomically acceptable excipient weight ratio is in the range of 40:60 - 60:40. [0095] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with a surface active agent, a solvent and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion to obtain the formulation.

[0096] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with a surface active agent, a solvent and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent to obtain the formulation.

[0097] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting T ,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with a surface active agent, a solvent and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent and an acidic buffer to obtain the formulation.

[0098] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with a surface active agent, a solvent and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent, an acidic buffer and a safener to obtain the formulation.

[0099] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with a surface active agent, a solvent and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent and an acidic buffer to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 200 to 400 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 120 minutes.

[00100] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti- foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide with a surface active agent, a solvent and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent and an acidic buffer to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes.

[00101] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 10 to 40% (w/w) of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesulfonanilide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent, 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti- foam agent, 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 10 to 50% (w/w) of 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 2 to 30 % (w/w) of a solvent and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence 0.05 to 2% (w/w) of a thickening agent to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes. [00102] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 10 to 40% (w/w) of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent, 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti- foam agent, 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 10 to 50% (w/w) of 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 2 to 30 % (w/w) of a solvent and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence 0.05 to 2% (w/w) of a thickening agent and 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes.

[00103] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 10 to 35% (w/w) of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent, 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti- foam agent, 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 10 to 30% (w/w) of 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 2 to 30 % (w/w) of a solvent and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence 0.05 to 2% (w/w) of a thickening agent, 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer and 6 to 12% (w/w) of a safener to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes.

[00104] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 15 to 20% (w/w) of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent, 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti- foam agent, 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 20 to 35% (w/w) of 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 2 to 30 % (w/w) of a solvent and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence 0.05 to 2% (w/w) of a thickening agent, 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer and 6 to 12% (w/w) of a safener to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes. [00105] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol-

1-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting

2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide with a surface active agent, water and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent to obtain the formulation.

[00106] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol-

1-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting

2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with a surface active agent, water and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion to obtain the formulation.

[00107] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol-

1-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting

2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with a surface active agent, water and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent to obtain the formulation.

[00108] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol-

1-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting

2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with a surface active agent, water and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent and an acidic buffer to obtain the formulation.

[00109] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol-

1-yl)methanesulfonanilide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting

2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide with a surface active agent, water and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent, an acidic buffer and a safener to obtain the formulation.

[00110] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol-

1-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting

2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide with a surface active agent, water and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 200 to 400 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 120 minutes. [00111] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol-

1-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with a surface active agent, an anti-freeze agent, an anti foam agent, a polymer, a biocide and a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting

2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide with a surface active agent, water and a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence of a thickening agent and an acidic buffer to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes.

[00112] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 10 to 40% (w/w) of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesulfonanilide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent, 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti- foam agent, 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 20 to 50% (w/w) of 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes.

[00113] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 15 to 20% (w/w) of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent, 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti- foam agent, 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 20 to 35% (w/w) of 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes.

[00114] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 10 to 40% (w/w) of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent, 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti- foam agent, 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 20 to 50% (w/w) of 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence 0.05 to 2% (w/w) of a thickening agent to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes.

[00115] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 10 to 40% (w/w) of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent, 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti- foam agent, 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 20 to 50% (w/w) of 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence 0.05 to 2% (w/w) of a thickening agent and 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes.

[00116] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 10 to 40% (w/w) of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent, 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti- foam agent, 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 20 to 50% (w/w) of 2- chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence 0.05 to 2% (w/w) of a thickening agent, 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer and 6 to 12% (w/w) of a safener to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes.

[00117] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparation of the formulation, the process comprising: a) contacting 10 to 40% (w/w) of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti- freeze agent, 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti- foam agent, 0.1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer, 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form a suspension; b) contacting 20 to 50% (w/w) of 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide with 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent, 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water and 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent to form an emulsion; and c) mixing the suspension with the emulsion in the presence 0.05 to 2% (w/w) of a thickening agent, 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer and 6 to 12% (w/w) of a safener to obtain the formulation and wherein mixing the suspension with the emulsion is carried out at a stirring speed in the range of 250 to 350 rpm for a time period in the range of 20 to 100 minutes.

[00118] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4’-dichloro-5’- (4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl)acetanilide, wherein the 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide to the 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10. [00119] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the formulation comprising: (a) the herbicide composition comprising: (i) T ,4’ -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromcthyl-4,5-dihydro-3-mcthyl-5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide and; (b) agronomically acceptable excipient. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, the site includes a site having clayey loam soil, sandy loam soil, and combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, the site includes a site having different types of soil.

[00120] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the formulation comprising: (a) 40 to 60%(w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonan i]ide; and (ii) 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of a solvent; c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer; and h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent. [00121] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the formulation comprising: (a) 40 to 60% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonan i]ide; and (ii) 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of a solvent; c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer; h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent; i) 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer; j) 0.05 to 2% (w/w) of a thickening agent; and k) 6 to 12% of a safener.

[00122] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the formulation comprising: (a) 40 to 60%(w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’,4’-dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromcthyl-4,5- dihydro-3-mcthyl-5-oxo- 1 H- 1 ,2,4-triazol- 1 -yljmcthancsulfonanilidc; and (ii) 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water; c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer; and h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent.

[00123] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the formulation comprising: (a) 40 to 60% (w/w) of the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonan i]ide; and (ii) 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide; b) 2 to 30 % (w/w) of water; c) 2 to 10% (w/w) of a surface active agent; d) 1 to 8% (w/w) of an anti-freeze agent; e) 0.1 to 0.5 % (w/w) of an anti-foaming agent; f) 0.02 to 0.2 % (w/w) of a biocide; g) 1 to 6% (w/w) of a polymer; h) 7 to 25% (w/w) of a diluent; i) 0.1 to 2% (w/w) of an acidic buffer; j) 0.05 to 2% (w/w) of a thickening agent; and k) 6 to 12% of a safener.

[00124] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in clayey loam soils, the method comprising applying the formulation comprising: (a) the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide and; (b) agronomically acceptable excipient. [00125] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in clayey loam soils, the method comprising applying the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl)acetanilide, wherein the 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide to the 2- chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10.

[00126] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in sandy loam soils, the method comprising applying the formulation comprising: (a) the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide and; (b) agronomically acceptable excipient. [00127] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in sandy loam soils, the method comprising applying the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesulfonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl)acetanilide, wherein the 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-lH- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesulfonanilide to the 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10.

[00128] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a weed control method in crop fields, the method comprising applying the formulation comprising: (a) the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl)acetani]ide and; (b) agronomically acceptable excipient in the crop fields.

[00129] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a weed control method in rice fields, the method comprising applying the formulation comprising: (a) the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide and; (b) agronomically acceptable excipient in the rice fields. [00130] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a weed control method in crop fields, the method comprising applying the herbicide composition comprising: (i) 2’,4’-dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromcthyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide; and (ii) 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide and; (b) agronomicaily acceptable excipient in the crop fields, wherein the 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide to the 2-chloro-2’,6’- diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 - 1:10. [00131] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of a broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the formulation in the fields with a use rate of 0.2 - 4.0 kg/ha.

[00132] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of a broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the formulation in the fields to provide a total weight of the herbicide composition in the range of 100-1500 g a.i./ha. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre emergence control of a broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the formulation in the fields to provide a total weight of the herbicide composition in the range of 100-1300 g a.i./ha. In yet another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of a broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the formulation in the fields to provide a total weight of the herbicide composition in the range of 100- 1000 g a.i./ha.

[00133] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for pre-emergence control of broad spectrum of weeds in a site, the method comprising applying the formulation in the fields to provide a total weight of the herbicide composition in the range of 100-1500 g a.i./ha, wherein the total weight of herbicide composition comprises 100-300 g a.i./ha of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide and 150-450 g a.i./ha of 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) ac etanil ide .

[00134] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a weed control method in crop fields, the method comprising applying the formulation in the fields to provide a total weight of the herbicide composition in the range of 100-1500 g a.i./ha.

[00135] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a weed control method in crop fields, the method comprising applying the formulation in the fields at application timings for direct-seeded rice or transplanted rice in various types of soils.

[00136] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a weed control method in crop fields, the method comprising applying the formulation in the fields for direct seeded or sprouted rice, transplanted rice, groundnut, potato, sugarcane, mentha crops or combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a weed control method in crop fields, the method comprising applying the formulation in the fields for direct seeded or sprouted rice, transplanted rice, groundnut, potato, sugarcane, or mentha crops.

[00137] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the composition of the present disclosure may be formulated in various ways, depending on which biological and / or chemical-physical parameters are predetermined. Possible formulation options are, for example wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil-in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo-emulsions (SE), water-dispersible granules (WG), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes.

[00138] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the composition of the present disclosure may be formulated as water-disper sable granule (WG) formulation comprising: (1) 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; (2) 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ - diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide; and (3) agronomically acceptable excipient selected from the group consisting of: (a) at least one dispersing agent, (b) at least one wetting agent, (c) at least one absorbing agent, (d) at least one anti-foaming agent, (e) at least one buffering agent, (f) at least one filler, and combinations thereof.

[00139] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the composition of the present disclosure may be formulated as emulsifiable concentrate (EC) formulation comprising: ( 1) T ,4’ -dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; (2) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide; and (3) agronomically acceptable excipient selected from the group consisting of: (a) at least one solvent, (b) at least one co-solvent, (c) at least surface active agent, (d) at least one co-surface active agent, (e) at least one stabilizing agents, and combinations thereof.

[00140] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the composition of the present disclosure may be formulated as wettable powder (WP) formulation comprising: ( 1) T ,4’ -dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; (2) 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide; and (3) agronomically acceptable excipient selected from the group consisting of: (a) at least one dispersing agent, (b) at least one wetting agent, (c) at least one absorbing agent, (d) at least one anti-foaming agent, (e) at least one buffering agent, (f) at least one filler, (g) at least one stabilizing agent, and combinations thereof.

[00141] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the composition of the present disclosure may be formulated as an emulsion (EW) such as oil in water formulation comprising: (1) 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; (2) 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ - diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide; and (3) agronomically acceptable excipient selected from the group consisting of: (a) at least one solvent, (b) at least one surface active agent, (c) at least one co-surface active agent, (d) at least one anti freeze agent, (e) at least one anti-foaming agent, (f) at least one stabilizing agent, (g) at least one diluent, (h) at least one thickening agent, (i) at least one biocide, and combinations thereof.

[00142] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the composition of the present disclosure may be formulated as mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion in Water (EW), i.e., ZW formulation comprising: (1) 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide; (2) 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide; and (3) agronomically acceptable excipient selected from the group consisting of: (a) at least one solvent, (b) at least one co-solvent, (c) at least one surface active agent, (d) at least one co-surface active agent, (e) at least one anti-freeze agent, (f) at least one anti-foaming agent, (g) at least one phase stabilizing agent, (h) at least one diluent, (i) at least one thickening agent, (j) at least one biocide, (k) at least one oil-soluble monomer, (1) at least one water-soluble monomer, (m) at least one dispersing agent, (n) at least one protective colloid, (o) at least one acidic buffer, and combinations thereof.

[00143] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to include the composition/formulation as described herein, with other pesticide active substances such as fungicides, pesticides, weedicides or insecticides, safeners, fertilizers, growth regulators, and combinations thereof. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, the composition/formulation can be used in the form of a ready-made formulation or as a tank mix.

[00144] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the composition/formulation as described herein can be applied to plants, plant parts, soil, plant seed, and combinations thereof.

[00145] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the composition/formulation as described herein can be applied by a method selected from broadcasting with a carrier, broadcasting with sand, broadcasting with urea, foliar spray, basal barking, boom sprayers, aerial spraying, misters, blanket wipers, rope wick applicators, weed seekers, back-pack sprayers, spot spraying, chipping, hand roguing, wick wiping or combinations thereof. [00146] Although the subject matter has been described in considerable detail with reference to certain examples and implementations thereof, other implementations are possible.

EXAMPLES

[00147] The disclosure will now be illustrated with working examples, which is intended to illustrate the working of disclosure and not intended to take restrictively to imply any limitations on the scope of the present disclosure. Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to which this disclosure belongs. Although methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice of the disclosed methods and compositions, the exemplary methods, devices and materials are described herein. It is to be understood that this disclosure is not limited to particular methods, and experimental conditions described, as such methods and conditions may apply. [00148] The working and non-working examples as depicted in the forthcoming sections highlight the criticality of the working percentages of different components in achieving an herbicide composition/formulation of the present disclosure. It is further specified that the presence of 2’,4’-dichloiO-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide and 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N -(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide is critical to achieve present herbicide composition/formulation. The absence of any of the components specified above or replacement of the same with any other components substantially affects the efficacy of the composition/formulation in terms of phytotoxicity, weed control and yield attributed parameters of the crop. Materials and Methods

[00149] Field trials were conducted at three sites namely, Eluru and Nellore situated in Andhra Pradesh and Cuddalore situated in Tamil Nadu, India to evaluate the efficacy of the present formulation for weed suppression and to find out the appropriate dose of this herbicide composition/formulation and its impact on transplanted rice. Each field was transplanted with a different variety of rice. The preceding crop to the field was kept as rice as well. The rice crop was grown using normal package of practices under field conditions in the respective regions like fertilization, pest control, watering, flooding, and maintenance to ensure good growth of the crop and the weed. The trials were carried out with 10 treatments. With four replications for recording phytotoxicity observations, while three replicates for other biometric parameters to account for reproducibility of the results. The treatments were only applied once, on second day after transplanting. Treatments comprising of and 2’,4’-dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromcthyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide and 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ - diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide were mixed in required quantity of sand or urea and broadcasted in the crop/rice fields with standing water. Treatments of 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide, penoxasulam and its combination are applied as blanket foliar pre -emergence application. For each treatment, the appropriate amount to treat the plot area was formulated, to achieve the desired application rate, based on unit area of application (hectare), was calculated and measured. Sand or urea required to treat the desired area was taken. The required quantity of the chemical was mixed thoroughly with sand or urea. The chemical treated sand or urea is broadcasted in standing water in the field. This chemical, dissolves in the standing water and forms a layer on the soil surface. By this method, the contact of the chemical with foliage is minimized. Treatments were rated and compared to the hand weeded treatment (weed free), weedy check (where water is sprayed) and standard herbicide treatments which were commercially popular and recommended.

[00150] T ,4’ -dichloro-5’-(4-dinuoromcthyl-4,5-dihydro-3-mcthyl-5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide 39.6% SC, 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide 50% EC, Penoxasulam 21.7% SC and Penoxasulam 1.97% + Butachlor 38.8% SE are the standard benchmark formulations were procured from local markets and are commercially recommended. The required quantity of the chemical was taken and mixed in the required amount of water and sprayed.

[00151] Overall, the combination of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide and 2-chloro- 2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide in the disclosed weight ranges is essential to have desired performance of the herbicide composition/formulation. Replacing even a single component with another component does not provide the desired effect. Also, deviating from the disclosed weight ranges does not exhibit the desired result.

[00152] The forthcoming examples explain how that how the present disclosure provides an herbicide composition/formulation comprising 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide (sulfentrazone) and 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide (pretilachlor) as the active ingredients. Also described is a formulation, comprising the herbicide composition/formulation, an agronomically acceptable excipient and a carrier. Studies are provided to support the stability of the formulation. The examples also include the process for obtaining and preparing the composition and the formulation. Further included is the method of application of the formulation in a site having clayey loam and sandy loam soil, transplanted with rice crop. Studies have been carried out in different agro-climatic conditions to see its efficacy and dose optimization in different types of soils.

EXAMPLE 1

Process of preparation of formulation of the present disclosure ( Siis poe muls ion)

[00153] The herbicide composition/formulation comprising 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4- difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide200 and 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl)acetani]ide300g/L SE was prepared and this composition/formulation was then used in the preparation of the formulation. Active ingredient 2-chloro- 2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide was taken in an emulsion form while active ingredient T ,4’ -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromcthyl-4,5-dihydro-3-mcthyl-5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide was taken in a suspension form. Both the emulsion and suspension were then contacted with agronomically acceptable excipients to finally form the formulation of the present disclosure.

Process of preparation 2-chloro-2’,6’-die thyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide emulsion (oil phase)

[00154] 300 g/litre 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide equivalent to 28.5% w/w per 100% w/w of 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide compound was accurately weighed and added to a beaker. To the beaker, suitable amounts of either only aromatic hydrocarbon solvent or the dimethyl amide based fatty acid or a mixture of both were added. The mixture was made for a 1 litre batch of SE formulation. It was stirred well at ambient temperature using a IKA RW28 stirrer at 300 rpm for 30 minutes, followed by addition of surface active agents for emulsion phase as mentioned in table 1. The resulting mixture was again stirred till the solution became clear and homogenous. Process of preparation of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesulfonanilide suspension

(suspension phase)

[00155] 200 g/litre 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide equivalent to 17.5% w/w per 100% w/w of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide compound was accurately weighed and added to a beaker to form a total of 1 litre batch of SE formulation. To the beaker, one or more of the surface-active agents for suspension phase was added including the modified sodium lignosulphonate and acidic buffer followed by addition of anti-freeze agents, anti-foam agents and distilled water as the continuous phase as mentioned in Table E The resulting mixture was stirred well in a IKAT18 High shear mixer or by any suitable high shear mixer and was then passed through a wet milling equipment 0.35L Lab mill, operated at 3000 rpm at 10°C for about 15 minutes. Milling was continued till the particle size of 90% of the particles (d90) became 5 microns.

Process of contacting oil phase and suspension phase [00156] The suspension phase was removed from the wet milling equipment and added to a medium shear mechanical IKA RW28 mixer. The stirring speed was kept at 300rpm at ambient temperature, while the emulsion phase was being slowly added to the mixer. After the complete addition of the emulsion phase, stirring was continued for another 20 minutes, followed by the addition of thickening agent, biocide and acidic buffer as mentioned in Table 1. The resulting mixture was further stirred at a speed of 300 rpm in Brookfield Viscometer DVII+ Pro using Spindle3 at 30°C for 45 minutes till the viscosity in a range of about 250-400 cps was achieved. The desired viscosity was adjusted by adding either more water or thickening and the mixture was again stirred for another 30 minutes at around 300rpm speed.

[00157] Table 1 describes the 3 pre-mix formulations labeled from A to C which were prepared in varying weight percentages of the aforementioned category of components. The Table also includes the percentage of active ingredient content before (0 day) and after 14 days of accelerated storage and its analysis in terms of percentage degradation as compared to allowed % degradation. Initial and final % of 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide content before and after the accelerated storage for the mentioned time period was calculated. The storage stability of the pre-mix formulation of the present disclosure was compared with the storage stability in combination with the tank mix. The term tank mix refers to, when the particular active ingredients of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesulfonanilide and 2-chloro-

2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide are mixed in the tank before spraying. According to, standard international specification, 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide can be considered stable under maximum of 5 % degradation.

Table 1: [00158] Table 1 suggests a significant difference in accelerated storage stability with varying weight % of certain components in the pre-mix formulations. 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methane sulfonanilide and 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide were determined using High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analytical technique. Criticality lies in the wt % of the various components added in the pre-mix formulations. Since the solvent for 2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide plays a major role in deciding its stability, all three pre-mix formulations were further subjected to storage stability related tests. The pre-mix formulations were checked for their viscosity, pourability and dispersion stability and compared to that of standard specifications. In Table 1 the formulation comprises Sulfentrazone : Pretilachlor is 17.5:28.5% SE which is about 1:1.625 and is the most preferable ratio range of 1:1 - 1:2. In another experiment, a higher ratio of Sulfentrazone : Pretilachlor of 17.5:36.75 % with ratio outside 1:2 of loading of both the active ingredients was carried out. It was found that Pretilachlor loading more than 35% makes it to consume more of a continuous diluent water to be eligible to keep it under stability and simultaneously consumes more surface active compounds like EO-PO (ethylene oxide and propylene oxide) Block copolymer and another polymeric surfactant as well. This increase of excipients quantities affects the equilibrium between pretilachlor emulsion phase and sulfentrazone suspension phase and makes it less stable in physico chemical stability. Therefore ratio of sulfentrazone : pretilachlor at 1:1 - 1:2 was preferred and in a higher ratio range the suspoemulsion was found to result in less stable formulations. [00159] Table 1A reveals data captured for viscosity in terms of cps at 30°C, pourability in terms of percentage of maximum residue and dispersion stability in terms of volume of sediment obtained in milliliters. The data is recorded at 0 day and at an accelerated storage test (AST) and the percentage of increase of each property was calculated. Table 1A also includes the method adopted for each test. Table 1A:

[00160] Results and observations in Table 1A indicate that all three pre-mix formulations A, B, and C gave comparable results. The pre-mix formulations according to the present disclosure and the process for the preparation thereof makes the 2-chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide active ingredient content stable, as it showed no significant changes in physical and chemical properties viz. appearance, active ingredient content, viscosity, pourability and dispersion stability and thus can be used for further application.

EXAMPLE 2 Field trial on clayey loam soil

[00161] Table 2 discloses details of 10 treatments that were employed for carrying out the field trials over the field transplanted with rice. Details of the treatments (dosages g a.i./ha and formulation dosage/ha) are given in Table 2. The application time for all the treatments was within 0-3 days after transplantation. Treatments T3 to T7 were broadcasted in the field while T8- T9 were applied as foliar spray.

Table 2:

[00162] Experiments were carried out using the ten treatments as described above in Example 2. The performance of the new combination of active ingredients 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesuhonani]ide+2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide 500

SE formulation was evaluated against the weed flora in rice crop during kharif season. Recommended set of package of practices for rice crop was followed to raise the crop. The treatments were applied as a pre-emergence spray at the second day of transplanting(DAT). Phytotoxicity treatments were conducted on a scale of 1-10 for all the treatments. Yield attributed parameters such as number of tillers per hill, plant height, grain yield and straw yield were recorded at different appropriate time intervals in order to evaluate the plant health of rice crop. The data on the population of weeds and their dry weight was also recorded. The results of several quantitative and qualitative studies are enumerated below in Tables 3 to 14.

[00163] The disclosure will now be explained in more detail that illustrates but is not intended to limit the disclosure.

FIELD TRIAL - 1

[00164] A field trial was conducted at Eluru situated in Andhra Pradesh, India having clayey loam soil, sown with MPU 1121 variety of rice. The plot size was 10 m x 10 m (100 sq.m). Treatments T3 to T10 were mixed with 1.25 kg carrier selected from sand or urea which were applied at second day after transplantation as pre-emergence application.

EXAMPLE 3

Phyto toxicity studies (Pre -emergence control of weeds)

[00165] Phytotoxicity observations if any, were recorded for all the treatments, before, 3 ^rd , 15 ^th and 30 ^th day after transplanting as recorded in Table 3-8. Notation and grading used for recording phytotoxicity are nature of injury: leaf injury (1); wilting (w); vein clearing (v); necrosis (n); epinasty (e) and hyponasty (h). These gradations are as per the CIB Protocols on the scale of 1-10, wherein grades 1-10 denote a range of percentage phytotoxicity as 1 = 0-10%, 2 = 11-20%, 3 = 21-30%, 4 = 31-40%, 5 = 41-50%, 6 = 51-60%, 7 = 61-70%, 8 = 71-80%, 9 = 81-90% and 10 = 91-100%.

[00166] Table 3 shows symptoms of leaf injury (1) on a scale of 1-10 at different time intervals before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any leaf injury symptoms and showed 0% leaf injury at all the stages of the rice crop. Table 3:

* Phytotoxicity observations of leaf injury recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1-1

[00167] Table 4 shows symptoms of wilting (w) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any wilting symptoms and recorded 0% wilting at all the stages of the rice crop.

Table 4:

* Phytotoxicity observations of wilting recorded was 0% andhence graded as w-1

[00168] Table 5 shows symptoms of vein clearing (v) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. AH the treatments did not exhibit any vein clearing symptoms and recorded 0% vein clearing at all the stages of the rice crop. Table 5:

* Phytotoxicity observations of vein clearing recorded was 0% and hence graded as v-1 [00169] Table 6 shows symptoms of necrosis (n) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any necrosis symptoms and recorded 0% necrosis at all the stages of the rice crop. Table 6:

* Phytotoxicity observations of necrosis recorded was 0% and hencegraded as n-1

[00170] Table 7 shows symptoms of epinasty (e) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit epinasty symptoms and recorded 0% epinasty at all the stages of the rice crop. Table 7:

* Phytotoxicity observations of epinasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as e-1

[00171] Table 8 shows symptoms of hyponasty (h) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any hyponasty symptoms and recorded 0% hyponasty at all the stages of the rice crop. Table 8:

* Phytotoxicity observations of hypo nasty recorded was 0% andhence graded as h-1

[00172] Tables 3 to 8 suggests that the all the treatments did not show any phytotoxicity symptoms and recorded 0% symptoms in terms of leaf Injury, wilting, vein clearing, necrosis, epinasty and hyponasty at all the stages of the rice crop.

EXAMPLE 4

Analysis of biometric parameters

[00173] The biometric parameters in terms of number of tillers (Table 9), plant height (Table 10), grain yield and straw yield (Table 11) were recorded

[00174] Same replications Rl, R2, and R3 as that used in Example 4 were employed. The data were subjected to statistical analysis to compare the treatments. For convenience, the volume of applied dosages of all treatments have been included in the tables. [00175] Table 9 discloses the number of tillers per hill observed on applying each treatment at 30 ^th and 60 ^th day after transplantation. The observations were recorded with 3 replications of each treatment. The mean of number of tillers observed after applying treatments T3 to T10 were compared with the mean of number of tillers observed on hand weeding treatment T2. Statistical analysis of the entire data was carried out. Table 9:

[00176] Results and observations in Table 9 reveal that there were no significant differences among the treatments in terms of the number of tillers per hill at all the observations recorded. The number of tillers in all the treatments were comparable to that of hand weeding plot but significantly superior to that of weedy check treatment Tl.

[00177] Table 10 discloses the effect of each treatment on the height of the rice plant observed at 30 ^th and 60 ^th day after transplantation. The mean height of the plants in all the herbicide treatments were comparable to that of the hand weeding treatment and superior to that of the weedy check treatments.

Table 10: [00178] Table 11 discloses effect of each treatment on the grain yield(kg/ha) and straw yield(kg/ha) of the rice crop recorded at harvest.

Table 11:

[00179] Treatment of hand weeding(T2) recorded the highest grain anc straw yield. Treatments of T ,4’ -dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide and 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide @ of 230 + 345 g a.i./ha and 250 + 375 g a.i./ha respectively highest grain and straw yield among the herbicide treatments. These treatments were statistically comparable to that of hand weeding treatment. These treatments were superior when compared to that of standard herbicide treatments.

EXAMPLE 5

Observations on weed control and weed flora

[00180] Observations on weed population per sq.m and dry weight of weeds in grams per sq.m were recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days of transplantation (DAT) as recorded in Table 12. The data were subjected to statistical analysis.

Table 12: number of weeds per sq.m and was comparable to that of hand weeding treatment.

These treatments were superior when compared to all other treatments and to that of all the standard treatments at all the observations recorded. The dry weight of weeds exhibited a similar trend of results.

[00182] Table 13 discloses the specific weeds observed after applying the treatments which were identified, counted and recorded as below. The observations were made on the weeds like broadleaf weeds, such as, Eclipta prostrata, Ludwigia parviflora, Monochoria vaginalis. Grasses like Echinochloa crus-galli, Echinochloa colonum, and sedges, Cyperus difformis, Cyperus iria and Scirpus maritimus.

Table 13:

[00183] Contents of Table 13 clearly indicate the effectiveness of treatments T5 and T6 in controlling the broad spectrum of weed flora of rice crop. It was observed, that the efficacy of the treatments increased from T5 to T6 as the volume of dosage increased. The treatments of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide + 2-chloro- 2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide 500 SE gave superior control of sedges when compared to the standard treatments. Overall quantitative analysis of the data suggests that the innovative combination of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl- 4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide 200+2- chloro-2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide300 500 SE g/L formulation @ 230 + 345 g a.i./ha and 250 + 375 g a.i./ha were the best treatments among the herbicide treatments and at par with each other in efficiently controlling the broad spectrum of weeds of grasses, broad leaf weeds and sedges.

[00184] Table 14 reveals the dry weight in g/sq.m recorded for each of the weed species as in table 13.

Table 14:

[00185] The dry weight of weeds exhibited a similar trenc of results as that of the number of weeds. From the analysis of the above data, it can be concluded that the herbicide composition/formulation comprising the combination of 2’,4’-dichloro-

5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)me thane sulfonanilide 200+2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide300g/L SE formulation applied as a pre-emergence herbicide in clayey loam soil @ 230 + 345 g a.i./ha and 250 + 375 g a.i./ha respectively were comparable to that of hand weeding treatment and superior to all other herbicide treatments in terms of broad spectrum control of weeds and longer duration of control and without causing significant phytotoxicity to the crop. The formulation also gave desirable results for high grain and straw yield, maximum number of tillers and lowest weed population and dry weight. Moreover, the herbicide composition/formulation as suspo- emulsion treatments of the present disclosure effectively demonstrate desirable storage stability and an efficient process of preparation and application thereof. FIELD TRIAL - 2

[00186] Field trials were conducted transplanted rice field at Nellore in Andhra Pradesh, India having clayey loam soil sown with NLR-34449 variety of rice. The plot size was 10 m x 20 m (200 sq.m). Treatments T3 to T10 were mixed with 2.0 kg carrier selected from sand or urea which were applied at second day after transplantation as pre-emergence application.

EXAMPLE 6 Phyto toxicity studies (Pre -emergence control of weeds)

[00187] Phytotoxicity observations if any, were recorded for all the treatments, before, 3 ^rd , 15 ^th and 30 ^th day after transplanting. Notation and grading used for recording phytotoxicity are nature of injury: leaf injury (1); wilting (w); vein clearing (v); necrosis (n); epinasty (e) and hyponasty (h). These gradations are as per the CIB Protocols, where 1= 0-10%, 2=11-20%, 3=21-30%, 4 = 31-40%, 5 = 41-50%, 6 = 51-60%, 7 = 61-70%, 8 = 71-80%, 9= 81-90% and 10= 91-100%. [00188] Table 15 shows symptoms of leaf injury (1) on a scale of 1-10 at different time intervals before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any leaf injury symptoms and recorded 0% leaf injury at all the stages of the rice crop.

Table 15:

* Phytotoxicity observations of leaf injury recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1-1

[00189] Table 16 shows symptoms of wilting (w) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. AH the treatments did not exhibit any wilting symptoms recorded 0% wilting at all the stages of the rice crop. Table 16:

* Phytotoxicity observations of wilting recorded was 0% andhence graded as w-1

[00190] Table 17 shows symptoms of vein clearing (v) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any vein clearing symptoms and recorded 0% vein clearing at all the stages of the rice crop. Table 17:

* Phytotoxicity observations of vein clearing recorded was 0% and hence graded as v-1 [00191] Table 18 shows symptoms of necrosis (n) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any necrosis symptoms and recorded 0% necrosis at all the stages of the rice crop.

Table 18:

* Phytotoxicity observations of necrosis recorded was 0% and hencegraded as n-1

[00192] Table 19 shows symptoms of epinasty (e) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any epinasty symptoms and recorded 0% epinasty at all the stages of the rice crop. Table 19:

* Phytotoxicity observations of epinasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as e-1

[00193] Table 20 shows symptoms of hyponasty (h) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any hyponasty symptoms and recorded 0% hyponasty at all the stages of the rice crop. Table 20:

* Phytotoxicity observations of hypo nasty recorded was 0% andhence graded as h-1

[00194] Tables 15 to 20 reveal that all the treatments did not show any phytotoxicity symptoms and recorded 0% symptoms in terms of leaf injury, wilting, vein clearing, necrosis, epinasty and hyponasty at all the stages of crop.

EXAMPLE 7

Analysis of Biometric parameters

[00195] The biometric parameters in terms of number of tillers (Table 21), plant height (Table 22), grain yield and straw yield (Table 23) were recorded. The data were subjected to Statistical analysis ANOVA.

[00196] Table 21 shows the data for number of tillers observed for each treatment. There was no significant difference among the mean of number of tillers recorded at 30 DAT and 60 DAT in the herbicide treatments (T3 to T10). These treatments were comparable to that of the hand weed treatment(T2) and superior to that of weedy check treatment (Tl).

Table 21:

[00197] Table 22 records the data for plant height observed at different time intervals. Similar trend of results was observed in plant height as in number of tillers in Table 21. Table 22:

[00198] Thus, the 500 SE formulation 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5’-(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide 200+2-chloro- 2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]idein different dosages is found to be effective in maintaining the plant height of the rice crop.

[00199] Table 23 shows the grain and straw yield recorded at harvest. The mean of all the replications for each treatment was calculated and compared with the standard treatments.

Table 23:

Treatments of 500 SE formulation 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesulfonanilide and 2-chloro- 2 ^, ,6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide @ 230 + 345 g a.i./ha and 250 + 375 g a.i./ha respectively highest grain and straw yield among the herbicide treatments. These treatments were statistically comparable to that of hand weeding treatment. These treatments were superior when compared to that of standard herbicide treatments. EXAMPLES 8

Observations on weed control and weed flora

[00201] Observations on weed population per sq.m and dry weight of weeds in grams per sq.m were recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days of transplantation(DAT) as recorded in Table 12. The data were subjected to statistical analysis. Table 24: number of weeds at all the observations. Treatments of &5 and T6 @ 230 + 345g a.i./h and 250 + 375 g a.i./ha recorded the lowest number of weeds and these treatments were statistically comparable to that of Hand weeding treatment. These treatments were superior to that of the standard treatments. The dry weight of weeds exhibited a similar trend of results to that of the number of weeds (Table 24).

[00203] Table 25 discloses the specific weeds observed after applying the treatments which were identified, counted and recorded as below.

Table 25:

[00204] Contents of Table 25 shows the effect of treatments on the number of weeds and dry weight of weeds species wise. Treatments of 230 + 345 g a.i./ha and 250 + 375 g a.i./ha recorded the lowest number of weeds and comparable to that of Hand weeding treatment. These treatments were superior when compared to that of the standard treatments. It was interesting to note that treatments of 500 SE formulation T ,4’ -dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- l,2,4-triazol-l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide and 2-chloro-2’,6’-diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide were superior in terms of recording the lowest number of sedges when compared to standard treatments.

[00205] The dry weight of weeds exhibited a similar trend of results as the number of weeds, species wise as recorded in Table 26. Table 26:

Weed Weed Treatments (dry weight of weed (g)/sq.m)

EXAMPLE 9

Trial on sandy loam soils

[00206] Another trial has been carried out in sandy loam soils at Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. As the adsorption of herbicides is low and the release of chemical is faster when compared to clayey loam soils, lower dosages of 500 SE formulation 2’,4’- dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonani]ide + 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N -(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide were evaluated in transplanted rice. The details of the treatment are contained in table 27. The formulations were prepared using the methods described above.

Table 27:

FIELD TRIAL - 3

[00207] Field trials were conducted transplanted rice field at Cuddalore situated in Tamil Nadu, India having sandy loam soils, sown with PY 3 variety of rice. The plot size was 10 m x 10 m (100 sq.m). Treatments T3 to T10 were mixed with sand or urea and broadcasted in the standing water of the field on the second day after transplantation as a pre-emergence application.

EXAMPLE 10 Phyto toxicity studies (Pre -emergence control of weeds)

[00208] Phytotoxicity observations if any, were recorded for all the treatments, before, 3 ^rd , 15 ^th and 30 ^th day after transplanting. Notation and grading used for recording phytotoxicity are nature of injury: leaf injury (1); wilting (w); vein clearing (v); necrosis (n); epinasty (e) and hyponasty (h). These gradations are as per the CIB Protocols, where 1= 0-10%, 2=11-20%, 3=21-30%, 4 = 31-40%, 5 = 41-50%, 6 = 51-60%, 7 = 61-70%, 8 = 71-80%, 9= 81-90% and 10= 91-100%. [00209] Table 28 shows symptoms of leaf injury (1) on a scale of 1-10 at different time intervals before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any leaf injury symptoms and recorded 0% leaf injury at all the stages of the rice crop.

Table 28:

* Phytotoxicity observations of leaf injury recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1-1

[00210] Table 29 shows symptoms of wilting (w) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. AH the treatments did not exhibit any wilting symptoms and recorded 0% wilting at all the stages of the rice crop.

Table 29:

* Phytotoxicity observations of wilting recorded was 0% andhence graded as w-1

[00211] Table 30 shows symptoms of vein clearing (v) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. Ail the treatments did not exhibit any vein clearing symptoms and recorded 0% vein clearing at ail the stages of the rice crop.

Table 30:

* Phytotoxicity observations of vein clearing recorded was 0% and hencegradedas v-1 [00212] Table 31 shows symptoms of necrosis (n) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. Ail the treatments did not exhibit any necrosis symptoms and recorded 0% necrosis at ail the stages of the rice crop.

Table 31:

* Phytotoxicity observations of necrosis recorded was 0% and hencegraded as n-1

[00213] Table 32 shows symptoms of epinasty (e) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any epinasty symptoms and recorded 0% epinasty at all the stages of the rice crop. Table 32: * Phytotoxicity observations of epinasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as e-1 [00214] Table 33 shows symptoms of hyponasty (h) on a scale of 1-10 before and after the application of the treatments. All the treatments did not exhibit any hyponasty symptoms and recorded 0% hyponasty at all the stages of the rice crop. Table 33:

* Phytotoxicity observations of hyponasty recorded was 0% andhence graded as h-1

[00215] Tables 28 to 33 reveal that all the treatments did not show any phytotoxicity symptoms and recorded 0% symptoms in terms of leaf injury, wilting, vein clearing, necrosis, epinasty and hyponasty at all the stages of crop.

EXAMPLE 11

Analysis of Biometric parame teres

[00216] The adsorption of Pre-emergence herbicides to the soil is higher in clayey loam soils when compared to sandy loam soils. In this context, herbicide composition was evaluated at lower dosages. Observations on the number of tillers, plant height, grain and straw yield were recorded. Observations on weed flora, number of weeds/sq.m and dry weight of weeds were recorded at periodic intervals. [00217] There is no significant differences among the herbicide treatments in terms of number of tiUers per hill. These treatments were comparable to that of hand weeding treatment and superior to weedy check treatment (Table 34).

Table 34:

[00218] Observations on exhibited a similar trend of results to that of number of tiUers (Table 35).

Table 35:

[00219] Treatment of hand weeding (T2) recorded the highest grain and straw yield

(Table 36). Among the herbicide treatments, 500 SE formulation 2’,4’-dichloro-5’- (4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- 1- yl)methanesu]fonanilide @ 150 + 225 g a.i./ha and 170 + 255 g a.i./ha recorded the highest grain and straw yield and were comparable to that of the hand weeding treatment. These treatments were superior when compared to that of the standard treatments.

Table 36: EXAMPLE 12

Observations on weed control and weed flora

[00220] The number of weeds/sq.m and dry weight of weeds were monitored at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days of transplantation(DAT) as recorded in Table 37. Species, number of weeds/sq.m and dry weight of weeds were recorded to get an better understanding on the efficacy of these treatments on weed spectrum. The data was also subjected to statistical analysis.

Table 37:

[00221] Hand weeding treatment recorded lowest number of weeds. Treatments of 2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesulfonanilide + 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N -(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide

500 SE formulation at the rates tried, recorded the lowest number of weeds and these treatments were comparable to that of the standard treatments. The number of weeds in the combination treatments were significantly lower when compared to the standalone treatments. This clearly shows the synergism of the combination formulation. Treatments of T ,4’ -dichloro-5’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4- triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide + 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl- N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide 500 SE formulation @ 150 + 225 g a.i./ha and 170 + 255 g a.i./ha were found to be superior in terms of weed control. These treatments gave longer duration of control when compared to that of the standard treatments.

[00222] The dry weight of weeds exhibited a similar trend of results when compared to the number of weeds/sq.m.(Table 37). Observations on species wise count of the number of weeds/sq.m and dry weight of weeds are given in Table 38 and Table 39 respectively.

Table 38: [00223] Treatments of 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide + 2-chloro-2’,6’ -diethyl-N-(2- propoxyethyl) acetanilide 500 SE formulation @ 150 + 225 g a.i./ha, 170 + 255 g a.i./ha, and 190 + 285 g a.i./ha recorded the lowest of weeds when compared to the standard treatments. It is interesting to note that these treatments were significantly superior in the control of sedges when compared to the standard treatments (Table 38). The dry weight of weeds exhibited a similar trend of results (Table 39).

Table 39: [00224] Based on the results of the study from Table 39 it can be concluded that

2’ ,4’ -dichloro-5 ’ -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonani]ide + 2-chloro-2’ ,6’ -diethyl-N -(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide

500 SE formulation @ 150 + 225 g a.i./ha and 170 + 255 g a.i./ha did not have any phytotoxicity to the crop at all stages They were superior in terms of weed control and gave longer duration of control when compared to the standard treatments. EXAMPLE 13

[00225] In the above examples, a solvent selected from was used in the preparation of the suspoemulsion. Further experiments were carried out to optimize the preparation of the suspoemulsion with water as the solvent. It was found that by replacing the organic solvent(s) partially or fully with water and with suitable surface active agents, the Pretilachlor EW phase gave a better result. It not only gave better physico chemical properties but was found to be safer, user friendly, environment friendly formulation as it is free of any petroleum hydrocarbon solvent.

[00226] To further illustrate the following experiments as provided in Table 40 were performed and an analysis on the obtained suspoemulsion was carried out. Table 40

[00227] Experiments 72 to 75 resulted in 1 ml sediment, 1 ml creaming with top layer syneresis. However experiment 76 with water in the pretichlor emulsion phase passed in both physical appearance and Dispersion stability. The Dispersion stability test is directly related to the appearance of the product when the farmers spray in the field and in this test, if any creaming or sediment formed, that formulatiom may be less desired.

[00228] Experiment 76 where Pretilachlor was formulated as a EW only with water is considered a superior performance and was further tested by incorporating an additional dispersing agent to act as a co-dispersant which is the polymer as mentioned in the Table 41 in the sulfentrazone suspension phase

[00229] It was also found that this additional dispersing agent as illustrated in Table 41 gives stability to the formulation not only stabilizing the Active Ingredients stability but also the actual dilution properties like Dispersion stability . [00230] As this polymer protects the active ingredient stability, there was no need for acidic buffer and its usage discontinued.

Table 41

[00231] Experiments 77 to 80 were performed with various surface active agents and the physical appearance, the dispersion stability and the top layer syneresis was compared. From Table 41, it can be observed that the experiments 78, 79 and 80 were found to be promising and to establish the repeatability and reproducibility in the results, the following experiments 95 to 98 were performed as described in

Table 42. Table 42

ND- Not Determined

[00232] From table 42 it was clear that formulations corresponding to experiments 96 and 98 had the least or no top layer synersis with better dispersion stability than experiments 95 and 97. Thus, the formulation with polymer ultrazine NA resulted in better stability and the formulation was used for further screening. Experiments 96 and 98 were repeated on a large scale production and the results are tabulated below in Table 43.

Table 43

[00233] Table 43 clearly showed better physical properties and with good dispersion stability and appearance. These results show that the formulations are stable, can be prepared in large scale and are effectively reproducible.

[00234] While evaluating other Physical properties prescribed for a SE formulation( Suspo Emulsion) as per FAO specification using CIPAC Test procedures, it was found a polymer Ultrazine NA provides an added stability to the formulation as done in Experiment 105 as illustrated in Table 43.

[00235] The same Experiment 105, (Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE) were sent for multiple Inhouse field trials and for field trials that were conducted at Agricultural Research Institutes at various areas.

EXAMPLE 14

FIELD TRIAL BIO-EFFICACY DATA:

[00236] Field trials were conducted at three locations namely Eluru and Nellore situated in Andhra Pradesh and Cuddalore situated in Tamil Nadu, India to evaluate the bio-efficacy of the formulations for weed suppression and to optimize the appropriate of this herbicide composition/formulation and its impact on transplanted rice under various soil conditions. Different varieties were used to see if any varietal difference were there. The rice crop was grown using normal package of practices under field conditions in the respective regions like fertilization, pest control, water flooding and other agronomic practices to ensure good growth of the crop till harvest.

FIELD TRIAL STUDIES (Eluru) - FORMULATIONS 77 TO 80 [00237] In the first lot pre-mixed samples of Expt.77, Expt. 78, Expt. 79 and Expt. 80 were evaluated with 17 treatments at Eluru, Andhra Pradesh. The treatments were replicated three times for recording phytotoxicity observations, no. of tillers/plant, height of plants, weed density and biomass and yield parameters. The treatments were applied once, on second day after transplanting. Treatments of these samples were mixed in required quantity of sand or urea and broadcasted in the rice fields with standing water. Treatments of Pretilachlor, Penoxasulam and its combination are applied as blanket foliar pre -emergence application. For each treatment, the appropriate amount to treat the plot area was formulated, to achieve the desired application rate, based on unit area of application was calculated and measured. Sand or urea required to treat the desired area was taken. The required quantity of the formulation was mixed thoroughly with sand or urea and broadcasted in the standing water of the field. By this method, the contact of the chemical with foliage was minimized. Treatments were rated and compared to hand weeding treatment (weed free), Weedy check(where water is sprayed) and standard herbicide treatments which were commercially popular and recommended.

[00238] Table 44 illustrates the treatments with various formulation covering the formulations of Exp. 77 to 80 (T3 to T14) along with standard herbicide composition (T15 to T17). The formulations were applied between 0-3 days from day of transplantation either by broadcasting with urea or by foliar spray. Table 44

Phyto toxicity studies

[00239] Phytotoxicity observations if any, were recorded for all the treatments, before, 3 ^rd , 15 ^th and 30 ^th day after transplanting as recorded in Table 45-50.

Notation and grading used for recording phytotoxicity are nature of injury: leaf injury (1); wilting (w); vein clearing (v); necrosis (n); epinasty (e) and hyponasty (h). These gradations are as per the CIB Protocols on the scale of 1-10, wherein grades 1-10 denote a range of percentage phytotoxicity as 1 = 0-10%, 2 = 11-20%, 3 = 21-30%, 4 = 31-40%, 5 = 41-50%, 6 = 51-60%, 7 = 61-70%, 8 = 71-80%, 9 = 81-90% and 10 = 91-100%. Table 45

[00240] Phytotoxicity observations of Leaf injury recorded was 0% and hence graded as L-l

[00241] Table 46 shows symptoms of Wilting before and after spraying of Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE. Table 46

[00242] Phytotoxicity observations of Wilting recorded was 0% and lence graded as W-l.

[00243] Table 47 shows Symptoms of vein clearing before and after spraying of Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE. Phytotoxicity observations of vein clearing recorded was 0% and hence graded as V-l Table 47

[00244] Table 48 shows Symptoms of Necrosis before and after spraying of

Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE. Phytotoxicity observations of Necrosis recorded was 0% and hence graded as N-l. Table 48

[00245] Table 49 shows symptoms of Epinasty before and after spraying of

Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE. Phytotoxicity observations of Epinasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as E-l. Table 49

[00246] Table 50 shows Symptoms of Hyponasty before and after spraying of

Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE. Phytotoxicity observations of Hyponasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as h-1.

Table 50

Analysis of biometric parameters

[00247] The biometric parameters in terms of number of tillers (Table 51), plant height (Table 52), no of weeds and dry weeds (Table 53), grain yield and straw yield (Table 54) were recorded [00248] The data were subjected to statistical analysis to compare the treatments.

For convenience, the volume of applied dosages of all treatments have been included in the tables.

[00249] Table 51 discloses the number of tiUers per hill observed on applying each treatment at 30th and 60th day after transplantation. The observations were recorded with 3 replications of each treatment. The mean of number of tiUers observed after applying treatments T3 to T17 were compared with the mean of number of tiUers observed on hand weeding treatment T2. Statistical analysis of the entire data was carried out.

Table 51

Table 52

Table 53

Table 54 [00250] From above tables 45 to 54 the following observations and conclusions were drawn.

[00251] All the treatments did not exhibit any phytotoxicity and showed 0% phytotoxicity symptoms at all the stages of the crop in terms of Leaf injury, Wilting, Vein clearing, Necrosis, Epinasty and Hyponasty symptoms. Hence, notated under the category of 1 (Tables 45 to 50). There were no significant differences among the herbicide treatments in terms of number of tillers per hill at all the observations recorded (Table 51). The number of tillers in all the herbicide treatments were comparable to that of hand weeding plot but significantly superior to that of Weedy Check treatment.

[00252] Height of plants of coded products Exp.78, Exp.79 and Exp. 80 at all observations recorded at all the dosages tried were comparable to that of the standards treatments and that of hand weeding treatment (Table 52). Among the herbicide treatments Exp. 77 recorded the lowest height of plants but higher than that of weedy check treatment.

[00253] The dominant weed flora in the Weedy check plot are Commelina benghalensis, Eclipta prostrata, Ludwigia parviflora, Marselia quadrifolia, Monochoria vaginalis of broadleaf weeds, Grasses like Echinochloa crus-galli Echinochloa colonum Leptochloa chinensis and Sedges, Cyperus difformis Cyperus iria Scirpus maritimus

[00254] Treatments of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE, formulations of Exp. 78, Exp. 79 and Exp. 80 recorded the lowest number of weeds at all the dosages tried and was comparable to that of the hand weeding treatment (Table 53). Treatments of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE of Exp. 78, Exp. 79 and Exp. 80 @ 230 + 345 g a.i./ha and 250 + 375 g a.i./ha were higher and were comparable to that of the standard treatments but comparable to that of hand weeding treatment. [00255] Dry weight of weeds exhibited the similar trend of results (Table 53). Treatments with formulations of Exp. 78, Exp. 79 and Exp. 80 of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE@ 250 + 375 g a.i./ha and 230 + 345 g a.i./ha gave longer duration of control when compared to the standard herbicide treatments.

[00256] Treatments of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE @ 250 + 375 g a.i./ha and 230 + 345 g a.i./ha recorded the lowest number of weeds across the weed spectrum. It was interesting to note that these treatments gave excellent control of sedges when compared to the standard treatments (Table 53). Results clearly shows that Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor has an edge over control of sedges and longer duration of control. Treatments of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE, formulations of Exp. 78, Exp. 79 and Exp. 80 recorded the lowest number of weeds across the weed spectrum and appeared to be promising in clayey loam soils. [00257] Based on the above results of the study it was concluded that Exp. 78, Exp. 79 and Exp. 80 had better performance compared to formulation of Exp. 77 of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE at all the rates tried respectively, to all the standards herbicide treatments and comparable to that of the hand weeding treatment in terms of broad spectrum of weeds(number and dry weight of weeds) and grain and straw yield. These treatments gave longer duration of control when compared to that of the standard herbicide treatments.

FIELD TRIAL STUDIES (Cuddalore) - FORMULATIONS 77 TO 80 [00258] In the first lot pre-mixed samples of Expt.77, Expt. 78, Expt. 79 and Expt. 80 were evaluated with 17 treatments at Cuddalore, Tamilnadu. The treatments were replicated three times for recording phytotoxicity observations, no. of tiUers/plant, height of plants, weed density and biomass and yield parameters. The treatments were applied once, on second day after transplanting. Treatments of these samples were mixed in required quantity of sand or urea and broadcasted in the rice fields with standing water. Treatments of Pretilachlor, Penoxasulam and its combination are applied as blanket foliar pre -emergence application. For each treatment, the appropriate amount to treat the plot area was formulated, to achieve the desired application rate, based on unit area of application was calculated and measured. Sand or urea required to treat the desired area was taken. The required quantity of the formulation was mixed thoroughly with sand or urea and broadcasted in the standing water of the field. By this method, the contact of the chemical with foliage was minimized. Treatments were rated and compared to hand weeding treatment (weed free), Weedy check(where water is sprayed) and standard herbicide treatments which were commercially popular and recommended.

[00259] Table 55 illustrates the treatments with various formulation covering the formulations of Exp. 77 to 80 (T3 to T14) along with standard herbicide composition (T15 to T17). The formulations were applied between 0-3 days from day of transplantation either by broadcasting with urea or by foliar spray.

Table 55

Phyto toxicity studies

[00260] Phytotoxicity observations if any, were recorded for all the treatments, before, 3 ^rd , 15 ^th and 30 ^th day after transplanting and was recorded in Tables 56-61.

Notation and grading used for recording phytotoxicity are nature of injury: leaf injury (1); wilting (w); vein clearing (v); necrosis (n); epinasty (e) and hyponasty (h). These gradations are as per the CIB Protocols on the scale of 1-10, wherein grades 1-10 denote a range of percentage phytotoxicity as 1 = 0-10%, 2 = 11-20%, 3 = 21-30%, 4 = 31-40%, 5 = 41-50%, 6 = 51-60%, 7 = 61-70%, 8 = 71-80%, 9 = 81-90% and 10 = 91-100%. Table 56

Phytotoxicity observations of Leaf injury recorded was 0% and hence graded as L-

1

[00261] Table 57 shows symptoms of Wilting before and after spraying of Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE. Table 57

Phytotoxicity observations of Wilting recorded was 0% and hence graded as W-l. [00262] Table 58 shows Symptoms of Vein clearing before and after spraying of Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE. Phytotoxicity observations of

Vein clearing recorded was 0% and hence graded as V-l Table 58

[00263] Table 59 shows Symptoms of Necrosis before and after spraying of

Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE. Phytotoxicity observations of Necrosis recorded was 0% and hence graded as n-1.

Table 59

[00264] Table 60 shows symptoms of Epinasty before and after spraying of Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE. Phytotoxicity observations of Epinasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as E-l.

Table 60 [00265] Table 61 shows Symptoms of Hyponasty before and after spraying of

Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE. Phytotoxicity observations of Hyponasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as h-1.

Table 61

[00266] The field trial studies showed that the all the treatments did not exhibit any phytotoxicity and showed 0% phytotoxicity symptoms at all the stages of the crop in terms of Leaf injury, Wilting, Vein clearing, Necrosis, Epinasty and Hyponasty symptoms. Analysis of biometric parameters

[00267] The biometric parameters in terms of number of tillers (Table 62), plant height (Table 63), no of weeds and dry weeds (Table 64), grain yield and straw yield (Table 65) were recorded

[00268] The data were subjected to statistical analysis to compare the treatments. For convenience, the volume of applied dosages of all treatments have been included in the tables.

[00269] Table 62 discloses the number of tillers per hill observed on applying each treatment at 30th and 60th day after transplantation. The observations were recorded with 3 replications of each treatment. The mean of number of tillers observed after applying treatments T3 to T17 were compared with the mean of number of tillers observed on hand weeding treatment T2. Statistical analysis of the entire data was carried out.

Table 62

Table 63

Table & Dry weightof weeds/sq.m

Table 65 [00270] Results obtained from field trial studies using the formulations 77 to 80 from Cuddalore, Tamil Nnadu, was found to be in coherent to the results obtained from Eluru, Andhra Ppradcsh. Based on these results it was found that the formulations 78 to 80 performed better than the formulation 77 at all dosages and at all rates. And these treatments gave better weed control and longer duration of control when compared to that of the standard herbicide treatments.

EXAMPLE 15

FIELD TRIAL STUDIES - FORMULATIONS 96 TO 98 [00271] Formulations corresponding to Exp. 96 to 98 were further evaluated by field trial studies. These formulations were evaluated with 14 treatments at Eluru, Andhra Pradesh and Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. The treatments were replicated three times for recording phytotoxicity observations, No. of tiUers/plant, Height of plants, weed density and biomass and yield parameters. The treatments were applied once, on second day after transplanting. Treatments of these samples were mixed in required quantity of sand or urea and broadcasted in the rice fields with standing water. Treatments of Pretilachlor, Penoxasulam and its combination are applied as blanket foliar pre-emergence application. For each treatment, the appropriate amount to treat the plot area was formulated, to achieve the desired application rate, based on unit area of application was calculated and measured. Sand or urea required to treat the desired area was taken. The required quantity of the chemical was mixed thoroughly with sand or urea and broadcasted in the standing water of the field. By this method, the contact of the chemical with foliage is minimized. Treatments were rated and compared to hand weeding treatment (weed free), Weedy check(where water is sprayed) and standard herbicide treatments which were commercially popular and recommended.

FIELD TRIAL STUDIES (Eluru) - FORMULATIONS 96 TO 98 [00272] Formulations corresponding to Exp. 96 to 98 were evaluated by field trial studies. These formulations were evaluated with 14 treatments at Eluru, Andhra Pradesh. The treatments were replicated three times for recording phytotoxicity observations, No. of tiUers/plant, Height of plants, weed density, biomass and yield parameters. [00273] Table 66 illustrates the treatments with various formulation covering the formulations of Exp. 96 to 98 (T3 to Til) along with standard herbicide composition (T12 to T14). The formulations were applied between 0-3 days from day of transplantation either by broadcasting with urea or by foliar spray. Table 66

Phyto toxicity studies

[00274] Phytotoxicity observations if any, were recorded for all the treatments, before, 3 ^rd , 15 ^th and 30 ^th day after transplanting and was recorded in Tables 67 to 72. Notation and grading used for recording phytotoxicity are nature of injury: leaf injury (1); wilting (w); vein clearing (v); necrosis (n); epinasty (e) and hyponasty (h). These gradations are as per the CIB Protocols on the scale of 1-10, wherein grades 1-10 denote a range of percentage phytotoxicity as 1 = 0-10%, 2 = 11-20%, 3 = 21-30%, 4 = 31-40%, 5 = 41-50%, 6 = 51-60%, 7 = 61-70%, 8 = 71-80%, 9 = 81-90% and 10 = 91-100%. Table 67

* Phytotoxicity observations of Leaf injury recorded was 0% and hence graded as L-l Table 68

* Phytotoxicity observations of Wilting recorded was 0% and hence graded as W-l Table 69

* Phytotoxicity observations of Vein clearing recorded was 0% and hence graded as W-l Table 70

* Phytotoxicity observations of Necrosis recorded was 0% and hence graded as N-l Table 71

* Phytotoxicity observations ofEpinastyrecorded was 0% and hence graded as E-l Table 72

* Phytotoxicity observations of Hyponasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as h-1

[00275] The field trial studies showed that the all the treatments did not exhibit any phytotoxicity and showed 0% phytotoxicity symptoms at all the stages of the crop in terms of Leaf injury, Wilting, Vein clearing, Necrosis, Epinasty and Hyponasty symptoms.

Analysis of biometric parameters

[00276] The biometric parameters in terms of number of tillers (Table 73), plant height (Table 74), no of weeds and dry weeds (Table 75), grain yield and straw yield (Table 76) were recorded

[00277] The data were subjected to statistical analysis to compare the treatments. For convenience, the volume of applied dosages of all treatments have been included in the tables. Table 73

Table 74 Table 75

Table 76.

[00278] There were no significant differences among the lerbicide treatments in terms of number of tillers per hill at all the observations recorded. The number of tillers in all the herbicide treatments were comparable to that of hand weeding plot but significantly superior to that of Weedy Check treatment (Table 73).

[00279] Height of plants of Exp.96, Exp.97 and Exp. 98 at all observations recorded at all the dosages tried were comparable to that of the standards treatments and that of hand weeding treatment at observations recorded at 30 DAT. (Table 75). However, the herbicide formulation Exp. 97 recorded the lowest plant height among the herbicide treatments. Herbicide formulations Exp. 96 and Exp. 98 recorded the highest plant height among herbicide treatments and these were comparable to that of the standard treatments.

[00280] The dominant weed flora in the Weedy check plot are Commelina benghalensis, Eclipta prostrata, Ludwigia parviflora, Marselia quadrifolia,

Monochoria vaginalis of broadleaf weeds, Grasses like Echinochloa crus-galli Echinochloa colonum and Sedges, Cyperus difformis Cyperus iria Scirpus maritimus.

[00281] Treatments of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE of Exp. 97 recorded the highest number of weeds among the herbicide treatments. Treatments of coded products Exp. 96 and Exp. 98, recorded the lowest number of weeds at all the dosages tried and was comparable to that of the hand weeding treatment and were slightly higher to that of the standard treatments (Table 75). Dry weight of weeds exhibited the similar trend of results (Table 75). Treatments of coded products of Exp. 96 and Exp. 98 gave longer duration of control when compared to the standard herbicide treatments.

[00282] Treatments of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE @ 250 + 375 g a.i./ha and 230 + 345 g a.i./ha recorded the lowest number of weeds across the weed spectrum. It was interesting to note that these treatments gave excellent control of sedges when compared to the standard treatments (Table 75). Results clearly showed that Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor had an edge over control of sedges and longer duration of control.

[00283] Treatments of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE, with Exp. 96 and Exp. 98 recorded the highest grain and straw yield at all the dosages tried were appreciably higher than Exp. 97, the standard treatments and hand weeding treatment(Table 76). Treatments of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE, of Exp. 96 and Exp. 98 recorded the lowest number of weeds across the weed spectrum and appeared to be promising in clayey loam soils.

[00284] Formulations of Exp. 96 and Exp. 98 had comparably better performance compared to formulation of Exp. 97 of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE at all the rates tried respectively, to all the standards herbicide treatments and comparable to that of the hand weeding treatment in terms of broad spectrum of weeds(number and dry weight of weeds) and grain and straw yield. These treatments gave longer duration of control when compared to that of the standard herbicide treatments.

FIELD TRIAL STUDIES (Cuddalore) - FORMULATIONS 96 TO 98 [00285] Formulations corresponding to Exp. 96 to 98 were evaluated by field trial studies. These formulations were evaluated with 14 treatments at Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. The treatments were replicated three times for recording phytotoxicity observations, No. of tiUers/plant, Height of plants, weed density and biomass and yield parameters.

[00286] The treatments with various formulation used in the Eluru field (Table 66) covering the formulations of Exp. 96 to 98 (T3 to Til) along with standard herbicide composition (T12 to T14). The formulations were applied between 0-3 days from day of transplantation either by broadcasting with urea or by foliar spray.

Phyto toxicity studies

[00287] Phytotoxicity observations if any, were recorded for all the treatments, before, 3 ^rd , 15 ^th and 30 ^th day after transplanting and was recorded in Tables 77 to 82 Notation and grading used for recording phytotoxicity are nature of injury: leaf injury (1); wilting (w); vein clearing (v); necrosis (n); epinasty (e) and hyponasty (h). These gradations are as per the CIB Protocols on the scale of 1-10, wherein grades 1-10 denote a range of percentage phytotoxicity as 1 = 0-10%, 2 = 11-20%, 3 = 21-30%, 4 = 31-40%, 5 = 41-50%, 6 = 51-60%, 7 = 61-70%, 8 = 71-80%, 9 = 81-90% and 10 = 91-100%. Table 77 *Phy to toxicity observations of Leaf injury recorded was 0% and hence graded as L- 1 Table 78

* Phytotoxicity observations of Wilting recorded was 0% and hence graded as W- 1

Table 79

*Phy to toxicity observations of Vein clearing recordec was 0% and hence graded as V- 1 Table 80 * Phytotoxicity observations of Necrosis recorded was 0% and hence graded as N-l

Table 81

*Phytotoxicity observations of Epinasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as E-l Table 82

*Phytotoxicity observations of Hyponasty recorded was 0% and hence gradec as h-

1

Analysis of biometric parameters

[00288] The biometric parameters in terms of number of tillers (Table 83), plant height (Table 84), no of weeds and dry weeds (Table 85), grain yield and straw yield (Table 86) were recorded.

[00289] The data were subjected to statistical analysis to compare the treatments. For convenience, the volume of applied dosages of all treatments have been included in the tables. Table 83

Table 84

Table 85

Table 86

[00290] Results from field trial studies using the formulations 96 to 98 from Cuddalore, Tamilnadu, was found to be coherent with the results obtained from Eluru, Andhrapradesh. Based on these results it was found that the formulations 96 and 98 performed better than the formulation 97 at all dosages and at all rates. And these treatments gave better weed control and longer duration of control when compared to that of the standard herbicide treatments EXAMPLE 16

FIELD TRIAL STUDIES - FORMULATIONS 105 AND 108 [00291] Similar evaluations as described above were performed for the formulations corresponding to experiments 105 and 108. These samples were evaluated with 11 treatments at Eluru, Andhra Pradesh and Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. The treatments were replicated three times for recording phytotoxicity observations, No. of tiUers/plant, Height of plants, weed density and biomass and yield parameters. The treatments were applied once, on second day after transplanting. Treatments of these samples were mixed in required quantity of sand or urea and broadcasted in the rice fields with standing water. Treatments of Pretilachlor, Penoxasulam and its combination are applied as blanket foliar pre- emergence application. For each treatment, the appropriate amount to treat the plot area was formulated, to achieve the desired application rate, based on unit area of application was calculated and measured. Sand or urea required to treat the desired area was taken. The required quantity of the chemical was mixed thoroughly with sand or urea and broadcasted in the standing water of the field. By this method, the contact of the chemical with foliage is minimized. Treatments were rated and compared to hand weeding treatment (weed free), Weedy check(where water is sprayed) and standard herbicide treatments which were commercially popular and recommended.

[00292] Table 87 illustrates the treatments with various formulation covering the formulations of Exp. 105 and 108 (T3 to T8) along with standard herbicide composition (T9 to Til). The formulations were applied between 0-3 days from day of transplantation either by broadcasting with urea or by foliar spray.

Table 87

Phyto toxicity studies

[00293] Phytotoxicity observations if any, were recorded for all the treatments (Table 87) before, 3 ^rd , 15 ^th and 30 ^th day after transplanting and was recorded in Tables 88 to 93. Notation and grading used for recording phytotoxicity are nature of injury: leaf injury (1); wilting (w); vein clearing (v); necrosis (n); epinasty (e) and hyponasty (h). These gradations are as per the CIB Protocols on the scale of 1- 10, wherein grades 1-10 denote a range of percentage phytotoxicity as 1 = 0-10%, 2 = 11-20%, 3 = 21-30%, 4 = 31-40%, 5 = 41-50%, 6 = 51-60%, 7 = 61-70%, 8 = 71-80%, 9 = 81-90% and 10 = 91-100%.

Table 88

*Phytotoxicity observations of Leaf injury recorded was 0% and hence graded as L-l

Table 89

*Phytotoxicity observations of Wilting recorded was 0% and hence graded as W-l

Table 90

*Phytotoxicity observations of Vein clearing recorded was 0% and hence graded as V-l

Table 91

*Phytotoxicity observations of Necrosis recorded was 0% and hence graded as N-l Table 92

*Phytotoxicity observations of Epinasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as E-l

Table 93

*Phytotoxicity observations of Hyponasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as h-1

[00294] The field trial studies showed that the all the treatments did not exhibit any phytotoxicity and showed 0% phytotoxicity symptoms at all the stages of the crop in terms of Leaf injury, Wilting, Vein clearing, Necrosis, Epinasty and Hyponasty symptoms. Analysis of biometric parameters [00295] The biometric parameters in terms of number of tillers (Table 94), plant height (Table 95), no of weeds and dry weeds (Table 96), grain yield and straw yield (Table 97) were recorded.

[00296] The data were subjected to statistical analysis to compare the treatments. For convenience, the volume of applied dosages of all treatments have been included in the tables below.

Table 94 Table 95

Table 96 Table 97

[00297] There were no significant differences among the herbicide treatments in terms of number of tiUers per hill at all the observations recorded. The number of tiUers in all the herbicide treatments were comparable to that of hand weeding plot but significantly superior to that of Weedy Check treatment (Table 94).

[00298] Height of plants of Exp. 105 recorded the lowest height of plants. Treatments of Exp 108 at all observations and different dosages evaluated, recorded the highest height of plants when compared to the standard treatments and were com were comparable to that of the standards treatments and to that of hand weeding treatment(Table 95).

[00299] Treatments of Exp. 108 recorded the lowest number of weeds at all the dosages tried and was comparable to that of the hand weeding treatment and were slightly superior to that of the standard treatments (Table 96). Dry weight of weeds exhibited the similar trend of results (Table 96). Treatments of Exp. 105 gave longer duration of control when compared to the standard herbicide treatments and treatment of hand weeding.

[00300] Treatments of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE @ 230 + 345 g a.i./ha and 250 + 375 g a.i./ha recorded the lowest number of weeds across the weed spectrum. It was interesting to note that these treatments gave excellent control of sedges when compared to the standard treatments (Table 96). Results clearly shows that Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor has an edge over control of sedges and longer duration of control.

[00301] Treatments of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE, of Exp. 108 and Exp. 105 recorded the highest grain and straw yield and were higher than that of the standard treatments and hand weeding treatment (Table 97). Treatments of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE, of Exp. 108 recorded the lowest number of weeds across the weed spectrum and appeared to be promising in clayey loam soils.

[00302] Exp.108 and Exp. 105 of Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE had a better performance at all the rates tried respectively, to all the standards herbicide treatments and comparable to that of the hand weeding treatment in terms of broad spectrum of weeds(number and dry weight of weeds) and grain and straw yield. These treatments gave longer duration of control when compared to that of the standard herbicide treatments. FIELD TRIAL STUDIES (Cuddalore) - FORMULATIONS 105 and 108

Phyto toxicity studies

[00303] Phytotoxicity observations if any, were recorded for all the treatments (Table 87) before, 3 ^rd , 15 ^th and 30 ^th day after transplanting and was recorded in Tables 98 to 103. Notation and grading used for recording phytotoxicity are nature of injury: leaf injury (1); wilting (w); vein clearing (v); necrosis (n); epinasty (e) and hyponasty (h). These gradations are as per the CIB Protocols on the scale of 1- 10, wherein grades 1-10 denote a range of percentage phytotoxicity as 1 = 0-10%, 2 = 11-20%, 3 = 21-30%, 4 = 31-40%, 5 = 41-50%, 6 = 51-60%, 7 = 61-70%, 8 = 71-80%, 9 = 81-90% and 10 = 91-100%.

Table 98

*Phytotoxicity observations of Leaf injury recorded was 0% and hence graded as L-1 Table 99

*Phytotoxicity observations of Wilting recorded was 0% and hence graded as W-l

Table 100

*Phytotoxicity observations of Vein clearing recorded was 0% and hence graded as V-l

Table 101

*Phytotoxicity observations of Necrosis recorded was 0% and hence graded as N-l Table 102

*Phytotoxicity observations of Epinasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as E-l

Table 103

*Phytotoxicity observations of Hyponasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as h-1

[00304] The field trial studies showed that the all the treatments did not exhibit any phytotoxicity and showed 0% phytotoxicity symptoms at all the stages of the crop in terms of Leaf injury, Wilting, Vein clearing, Necrosis, Epinasty and Hyponasty symptoms.

Analysis of biometric parameters

[00305] The biometric parameters in terms of number of tillers (Table 104), plant height (Table 105), no of weeds and dry weeds (Table 106), grain yield and straw yield (Table 107) were recorded.

[00306] The data were subjected to statistical analysis to compare the treatments. For convenience, the volume of applied dosages of all treatments have been included in the tables below. Table 104

Table 105 Table 106

Table 107

[00307] Results from field trial studies using the formulations 105 and 108 from Cuddalore, Tamilnadu, was found to be coherent with the results obtained from Eluru, Andhrapradesh. Based on these results it was found that the formulations 105 and 108 had an appreciable performance however, 105 exhibited better performance than 108. Also these treatments gave better weed control and longer duration of control when compared to that of the standard herbicide treatments

EXAMPLE 17

FIELD TRIAL STUDIES-FORMULATION 105

[00308] Formulations corresponding to Exp. 105 with varied Sulfentrazone + Pretilachlor 500 SE weight ratios were further evaluated by field trial studies. These formulations were evaluated with 9 treatments at Eluru, Andhra Pradesh. The treatments were replicated three times for recording phytotoxicity observations, No. of tiUers/plant, Height of plants, weed density and biomass and yield parameters. The treatments were applied once, on second day after transplanting. Treatments of these samples were mixed in required quantity of sand or urea and broadcasted in the rice fields with standing water. Treatments of Pretilachlor, Penoxasulam and its combination are applied as blanket foliar pre- emergence application. For each treatment, the appropriate amount to treat the plot area was formulated, to achieve the desired application rate, based on unit area of application was calculated and measured Sand or urea required to treat the desired area was taken The required quantity of the chemical was mixed thoroughly with sand or urea and broadcasted in the standing water of the field By this method, the contact of the chemical with foliage is minimized. Treatments were rated and compared to hand weeding treatment (weed free), Weedy check(where water is sprayed) and standard herbicide treatments which were commercially popular and recommended.

[00309] Table 108 illustrates the treatments with various formulation covering the formulations of Exp.105 (T3 to T6) along with standard herbicide composition (T7 to T9). The formulations were applied between 0-3 days from day of transplantation either by broadcasting with urea or by foliar spray.

Table 108

Phyto toxicity studies

[00310] Phytotoxicity observations if any, were recorded for all the treatments, before, 3 ^rd , 15 ^th and 30 ^th day after transplanting and was recorded I Tables 109 to

114. Notation and grading used for recording phytotoxicity are nature of injury: leaf injury (1); wilting (w); vein clearing (v); necrosis (n); epinasty (e) and hyponasty (h). These gradations are as per the CIB Protocols on the scale of 1-10, wherein grades 1-10 denote a range of percentage phytotoxicity as 1 = 0-10%, 2 = 11-20%, 3 = 21-30%, 4 = 31-40%, 5 = 41-50%, 6 = 51-60%, 7 = 61-70%, 8 = 71- 80%, 9 = 81-90% and 10 = 91-100%. Table 109

*Phytotoxicityobservations of Leaf injury recorded was 0% and hence graded as L-1

Table 110

*Phytotoxicity observations of Wilting recorded was 0% and hence graded as W-l

Table 111

*Phytotoxicity observations of Vein clearing recorded was 0% and hence graded as V-l

Table 112

*Phytotoxicity observations of Necrosis recorded was 0% and hence graded as N-l

Table 113

*Phytotoxicity observations of Epinastyrecordedwas 0% and hence graded as E-l

Table 114

*Phytotoxicity observations of Hyponasty recorded was 0% and hence graded as h-1

[00311] The field trial studies showed that the all the treatments did not exhibit any phytotoxicity and showed 0% phytotoxicity symptoms at all the stages of the crop in terms of Leaf injury, Wilting, Vein clearing, Necrosis, Epinasty and Hyponasty symptoms.

Analysis of biometric parameters

[00312] The biometric parameters in terms of number of tillers (Table 115), plant height (Table 116), no of weeds and dry weeds (Table 117), grain yield and straw yield (Table 118) were recorded. [00313] The data were subjected to statistical analysis to compare the treatments.

For convenience, the volume of applied dosages of all treatments have been included in the tables.

Table 115

Table 117

Table 118

[00314] There were no significant differences among the herbicide treatments in terms of number of tiUers per hill at all the observations recorded. The number of tiUers in all the herbicide treatments were comparable to that of hand weeding plot but significantly superior to that of Weedy Check treatment (Table 115).

[00315] There were no significant difference among the herbicide treatment on height of plants at all the observations recorded and these were comparable to the standard treatment of hand weeding (Table 116). Weedy check recorded the lowest height of plants.

[00316] Treatment of Hand Weeding recorded the lowest number of weeds at all the observations recorded (Table 117). Treatments of Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE @ 200 + 300, 230 + 345 and 250 + 375 g a.i. ha recorded the lowest of weeds per unit area and these treatments were comparable to that of the standard treatment of Hand Weeding but higher than the standard herbicide treatments. Weedy Check recorded the highest number of weeds at all the observations’ recorded. It was interesting to note that treatments of Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE gave excellent control of sedges when compared to the standard herbicide treatments (Table 117). Dry weight of weeds exhibited the similar trend of results.

[00317] Treatment of Hand Weeding recorded the highest grain and straw yield (Table 118). Among the herbicide treatments, of Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE @ 200 + 300, 230 + 345 and 250 + 375 g a.i. ha recorded the highest grain and straw yield and these treatments were comparable to that of the standard treatment of Hand Weeding. These treatments were appreciably higher than that of standard herbicide treatments in terms of yield parameters.

[00318] Therefore it can be concluded that Sulfentrazone 200 + Pretilachlor 300 SE @ 200 + 300, 230 + 345 and 250 + 375 g a.i./ha gave excellent control of weeds and longer duration of control when compared to the standards herbicide treatments. These treatments were comparable to that of the standard treatment of Hand Weeding in terms of weed population, dry weight of weeds and there by reflecting in the grain and straw yield. EXAMPLE 18

FORMULATION COMPRISING SAFENER

[00319] Herbicides compositions are selective in a particular crop within certain limits imposed by the herbicide, the plant, the method and time of application, the application rate and environment conditions. Safeners are compounds of diverse chemical families, which are applied along with herbicide composition to protect crops against their injury. Using chemical safeners offer practical, efficient and simple method of improving herbicide selectivity. Safeners have been applied successfully in cereal crops such as maize, rice and sorghum, against pre- emergence thiocarbamate and chloroacetanilide herbicides. Various hypothesis were proposed explaining mechanisms of action of herbicide safeners: interference with uptake and translocation of the herbicide, alteration in herbicide metabolism, and competition at site of action of the herbicide. The use of herbicide safeners can significantly alleviate herbicide injury to protect crop plants and expand the application scope of the existing herbicides in the field into wide range of crops. [00320] Usage of pre-emergence herbicides on direct seeded or sprouted rice or drilled rice is restricted due to its phytotoxicity on the crop. Various herbicides have been incorporated with safeners, for the safe usage on the crops.

[00321] Accordingly in the present invention safeners selected from particularly Fenclorim, Mefenpyr, Isoxadifen, benoxacor or Cloquinacet mexyl were evaluated with the formulation of Sulfentrazone 17.5% + Pretilachlor 28.5% SE.

[00322] Various safeners were initially evaluated as a tank mix with the formulation of Sulfentrazone 17.5% + Pretilachlor 28.5% SE on Rice, Groundnut and mentha crops. It was observed that, the formulation of Sulfentrazone 17.5% + Pretilachlor 28.5% SE along with various dosages of Fenclorim ranging from 40 to 100 g/litre did not cause any phytotoxicity to the Direct Seeded or Sprouted rice, Transplanted rice, Groundnut, Potato, Sugarcane and mentha crops even at higher dosages than recommended.

[00323] Hence, two formulations, Expt 200 and Expt 201 with Fenclorim @ 75 g/1 and 100 g/ 1 with formulation of Sulfentrazone 17.5% + Pretilachlor 28.5% SE for preliminary field trials were performed. [00324] Table 119 illustrates the Expt 200 and 201 with safener Fenclorim included in the formulation. Table 119

[00325] From Table 119, it can be observed that the use of safener retained the appearance and the stability of the formulations. Therefore, further field trial data were generated using the formulation from Expt 200 and 201.

[00326] Formulations of Exp. 200 and Exp. 201 were evaluated @ 250 + 375 g a.i. and 350 +525 g a.i./ha on Direct Seeded Rice or Sprouted rice. These samples were compared with formulations of Sulfentrazone 17.5% + Pretilachlor 28.5% SE at the same rates. The standards for the purpose of the comparison were, Pretilachlor 50% EC at the recommended rate of 500 g a.i./ha. It was observed that the results of the study indicated that formulations of Expt. 200 and Expt. 201 did not cause any phytotoxicity when compared to the straight formulations in per cent germination, plant height and grain yield. [00327] Similarly formulations of Exp. 200 and Exp. 201 were evaluated @ 250 + 375 g a.i. and 350 +525 g a.i./ha on groundnut plants. These samples were compared with formulation of Sulfentrazone 17.5% + Pretilachlor 28.5% SE at the same rates. The standards for the purpose of the comparison were, Pretilachlor 50% EC at the recommended rate of 500 g a.i./ha. The results indicated that the performance of the formulations of Expt. 200 and Expt. 201 were higher when compared to the standard treatments in terms of germination, plant height and yield.

Advantages of the present disclosure

[00328] The present disclosure provides an herbicide composition/formulation in a specific combination of active ingredients 2 ^, ,4 ^, -dichloro-5 ^, -(4-difluoromethyl-4,5- dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1,2,4-triazol- l-yl)methanesu]fonanilide and 2-chloro-

2 ^. .6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetani]ide. The present disclosure provides a formulation comprising the herbicide composition which is stable in the presence of solvent such as aromatic hydrocarbons. Further the present invention provides a water stable composition which is more advantageous with respect to their properties and agrochemical performance. The formulations with water are more user friendly, as well as environment friendly. The herbicide composition/formulation when applied in specific dosages in the transplanted rice field, as a pre-emergence application does not impart any phytotoxicity to the rice crop while exhibiting excellent control over broad spectrum of weeds, longer duration of control and superior efficacy towards sedges. The herbicide composition/formulation of the present disclosure is a suspo-emulsion providing it desirable storage stability with respect to degradation of highly unstable 2-chloro-

2 ^. .6 ^, -diethyl-N-(2-propoxyethyl)acetanilide. The composition/formulation has also been observed to be effective in wide range of soil types. The dosage variation in ranges from 130 + 195 g a.i./ha to 190 + 285 g a.i./ha in sandy loam soils and ranges from 190 + 285 g a.i./ha to 250 + 375 g a.i./ha in clayey loam soil. Moreover, the herbicide composition/formulation of the present disclosure provides improved plant health depicted by enhanced yield attributed parameters such as number of tillers per hill, and grain and straw yield of the main crop. The present disclosure also provides an efficient process of preparation of suspo-emulsion herbicide composition/formulation and its application thereof.

[00329] Field evaluation of the formulation of the present disclosure provides dosage optimaztion, method of application, time of application for registration purposes on rice and other crops in various geographical locations.