Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:43:56.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The hydrolysis of sulphur in relation to its fungicidal activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. Martin
H. Martin
Affiliation:
(Research Department, S.E. Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. It is suggested that the fungicidal action of sulphur upon the Erysiphaceae is due primarily to hydrolysis.

2. The presence of alkali, which brings about an acceleration of this hydrolysis, should enhance the fungicidal properties of sulphur.

3. An explanation is thus afforded of the inhibition of the fungicidal action of sulphur against the hop powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca humuli) by gelatine or saponin solutions when employed as the spreader and of the promotion of fungicidal action in the presence of soft soap and alkali casein solutions.

4. Attention is drawn to analogies between the action of sulphur upon the mildew and upon copper.

5. Current views relative to the fungicidal action of sulphur are discussed from the standpoint of the hydrolysis hypothesis.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 1930 , pp. 32 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1930

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Barker, B. T. P.Ann. Report Long Ashton (1927), 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Bassett, H. and Durrant, R. G.J. Chem. Soc. (1927), 1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Bedford, Duke, , of and Pickering, S. U.11th Report Woburn Exp. Fruit Farm (1910), 118.Google Scholar
(4)Chavestelon, . Compt. Rend. (1923), 177, 1040.Google Scholar
(5)Eyre, J. V., and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1916), 7, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Eyre, J. V., Salmon, E. S. and Wormald, L. K.J. Agric. Sci. (1919), 9, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Farley, A. J.New Jersey Agric. Exp. Sta. (1923), Bull. 379.Google Scholar
(8)Goodwin, W. and Martin, H.Ann. Appl. Biol. (1928), 15, 623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Goodwin, W. and Martin, H.Ann. Appl. Biol. (1929), 16, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Goodwin, W. and Salmon, E. S.J. Min. Agric. (1927), 34, 517.Google Scholar
(11)Hollinosworth, Smith J.J. Amer. Chem. Soc. (1921), 43, 1307.Google Scholar
(12)Horton, E. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1922), 12, 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Marsh, R. W.J. Pom. Hort. Sci. (1929), 7, 237.Google Scholar
(14)Pomeranz, H.Z. Farb. Text. Ind. (1905), 4, 392.Google Scholar
(15)Roach, W. A. and Glynne, M. D.Ann. Appl. Biol. (1928), 15, 168.Google Scholar
(16)Salmon, E. S.J. Min. Agric. (1921), 28, 150.Google Scholar
(17)Selmi, F. Abst. in Just's Bot. Jahrb. (1876), 4, 116.Google Scholar
(18)Williams, R. C. and Young, H. C.Ind. Eng. Chem. (1929), 21, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19)Young, H. C. and Williams, R.Science (1928), 67, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar