How sustainable is your formulation?

Until quite recently, discussion and activity around the environmental sustainability of agrochemicals was mainly focused on active ingredients (AIs). The debate continues, but as a result of regulatory decisions and extra-regulatory pressure, many AIs with a harmful effect on the environment have been, and continue to be, restricted or banned in certain territories. At the same time, the past 10-15 years have seen rapid growth – both in relative and absolute terms – of alternative biopesticide solutions. The use of biopesticides is an essential component of Integrated Pest Management practices, which seek to control pests while minimising harmful impacts in the environment.

These individual “micro” changes will have a positive impact but a full sustainability assessment of agrochemical practices needs to be “joined-up” in order to look at the bigger picture and consider and compare all aspects of these practices, including:

• Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions along the whole value chain, from the manufacture of inputs such as fertilisers and crop protection products, through to transport and use. This includes any impact on the ability of the soil to act as a carbon sink.
  

• The impact of agrochemical practices on water – in particular water quality, depletion of underground aquifers and the need for irrigation.
  

• What is the impact on those practices on soil, in particular on soil quality and the risk of erosion?
  

• The contamination of soil, air and water from agrochemical products and their residues – this includes problems such as run-off of pesticides and eutrophication of water courses caused by overuse of fertilisers
  

• The impact of those practices on biodiversity. An obvious example of this is the potential impact of insecticides on beneficial pollinators but the topic is wider than this and includes consideration of issues such as soil microorganisms and beneficial vegetation.
  

When we authored our recent report^ⅰ on sustainability and agrochemicals we were interested in how companies active in the sector were evaluating their impact and progress in the area of agrochemical sustainability. Our conclusion – at least on the topic of GHG emissions - was that it is a mixed picture^ⅱ. Driven by investor metrics and business risk assessments, the quality and depth of analysis and reporting from major public companies is improving, although medium-sized and smaller players are still playing catch-up. There are also signs that some biopesticides companies (most of which are smaller than the suppliers of synthetic agrochemicals) are starting to take the bigger sustainability picture into account and not just relying on the claim that something must have reduced environmental impact simply because it is natural or biological.

With the bigger picture in mind, and as formulators, we thought it would be interesting to take a look at the part played by formulation. The co-formulants used in agrochemical formulations are gradually coming under more scrutiny and some suppliers of co-formulants and adjuvants state that their products are naturally derived. While this might sound positive, of course we should look at such claims in more detail. A potential pitfall might be the use of naturally derived but still unsustainable raw materials. A classic case in point here is the use of naturally derived palm oil as a raw material for the manufacture of surfactants used as co-formulants. Infamously, much palm oil was historically derived from plantations on deforested land and such practices were clearly highly damaging to the environment and far from sustainable. The response from downstream companies in the palm oil supply chain was to set up or join certification and accreditation schemes such as RSPO^ⅲ (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) which are intended to establish and maintain sustainable sources of palm oil. Such schemes are not without criticisms but do at least demonstrate that the industry can move away from a simplistic “natural = sustainable” approach and begin to evaluate environmental impact holistically.

One way of assessing overall environmental impact of a product or a process is to carry out a life cycle assessment (LCA). When we put together our report, we found several examples of co-formulant producers who have carried out LCAs for their products. These include Borregaard^ⅳ and Croda^ⅴ amongst others. The next step would be for pesticide manufacturers to conduct full LCAs for the whole use of their formulated products (from raw materials through to application and long-term environmental impact). This is a much more complex task but one which will surely become more important as the reporting standards of these companies continue to develop.

In reality, the way we develop, make and use our formulations has huge potential to reduce (or even improve) the overall impact of these products on the environment. By improving the targeting, penetration or persistence of the AI, good formulation design can lead to effective performance at reduced AI levels with benefits including lower residues, reduced harm of non-target organisms, fewer spraying treatments and potentially also lower cost. Some of the ways in which this improvement in performance and AI efficiency include:

• Microencapsulation of the active ingredient which potentially not only “screens” the operator from direct exposure to harmful AIs but can also act to regulate the release of the AI to the target, reducing over- or under-dosing.
  

• The use of adjuvants (in-can or in-tank) to improve the chances of the AI surviving the application process, leading to lower losses and reduced total AI consumption. The functions of these adjuvants can include reducing spray droplet drift, reducing unwanted AI volatility, eliminating droplet bounce, enhancing spreading, improving persistence and rain-fastness on the leaf and improving penetration of systemic AIs into the plant.
  

• Ensuring that multiple AIs are compatibilized within the formulation, so that complex multi-AI products can be formulated to control resistant pest species or so that chemical and biological treatments can be combined, e.g., as part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) regime which takes into account the impact on the wider ecosystem beyond the crop and the field.
  

Formulation design never stands still however, and even beneficial innovations such as microencapsulation are already under scrutiny because of the impact of microplastic pollution on the environment. A likely consequence is that EU legislation^ⅵ, for instance, will lead to a ban on certain polymer systems being used for agrochemical microcapsules and seed treatment coatings. As expected, this legislation is already leading to development of microencapsulation systems that do not fall under the EU definition of intentional microplastics.

So, in summary, what can we say about the environmental sustainability of agrochemical formulations? Well, for a start it’s certainly not enough to say that they are derived from natural materials – that doesn’t necessarily make them any better or worse. Clearly, co-formulants should not be actively harmful or toxic to the environment but the assessment must go deeper than that and take into account not just the co-formulants themselves but to assess properly the full impact of the formulation from raw materials to the farm and beyond. Our assessment is that this is the stage that the industry is approaching now. Once that is achieved, the next step will then be to go beyond formulations that are merely “not negative” in their impact. This will involve promoting and supporting developments in which the formulation contributes clearly to the positive environmental benefits  of agrochemicals, such as the ones we have outlined above.

^ⅰ “Sustainability in Agrochemicals”, IHS Markit Report https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/reporting-sustainability-in-agrichemicals.html

^ⅱ “Carbon Footprint Reporting in Agrochemicals – is it just “Blah, Blah, Blah”?” D. Calvert and J. Bullock, Agropages, December 2021 https://news.agropages.com/News/NewsDetail---41208.htm

^ⅲ RSPO: https://rspo.org/certification

^ⅳ Borregaard Sustainability Report https://www.borregaard.com/sustainability/sustainability-report/

^ⅴ Croda Life Cycle Assessments https://www.crodasmartmaterials.com/en-gb/green-portal/life-cycle-assessments

^ⅵ ECHA https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/microplastics

This article will be published in AgroPages '2022 Formulation & Adjuvant Technology ' magazine to be published this May.

If you'd like to join this magazine to promote your products and solutions. Pls contact Grace Yuan via: grace@agropages.com