I was (don't ask why
) reading MBFerts description on how to prepare a Tria solution using Tween-20... should anyone use that, then most certainly they're doing it wrong.
Besides that, I found one report (the famous and repeatedly cited one) wherein they claim the exponentially better results and higher stability of microcrystalline (whyever this should be better than micelles) and rather basic (why use high and possibly damaging pH if there are other means?) suspensions made with ultrasound and combined with calcium ions (the troubling part isn't the far-fetched association with calcium effects on auxins but that they discovered said old jar...) and one patent claim (again, the famous and blablabla) wherein they claim that one shall use a detergent (short chained and sulphonated, they said... and what didn't they test? Right!) at a mol.-fraction of triacontanol and diluting below its CMC (the given reasons look at first and second glance quite dubious and are in conflict with the calcium theory).
It may well be that I missed a point. Actually, it's very easy to miss something due to missing data...
Other patent claims regarding simple dissolution in organic solvents and diluting in water afterwards seem way more convenient and work too. A proper 'side-by-side' is (to my knowledge) outstanding.
I got some logical conclusions from what I've read in said papers and patents but hadn't had the chance to test them yet...
Be that as it may, so far there is no 'right' or 'wrong' (apart from BMFerts version which runs against everything), just different claims (and you can claim anything in a patent but have no need for proof of efficacy regarding agrochemicals) and a shiny (but ominous and rather old publication. The widespread use of Tria worldwide and the different used formula (usually, people don't care how and what exactly they prepare) coupled with satisfied farmers and scientists lets assume that Tria (given a high enough purity) works no matter what. Could we do things better? Maybe...
Besides that, I found one report (the famous and repeatedly cited one) wherein they claim the exponentially better results and higher stability of microcrystalline (whyever this should be better than micelles) and rather basic (why use high and possibly damaging pH if there are other means?) suspensions made with ultrasound and combined with calcium ions (the troubling part isn't the far-fetched association with calcium effects on auxins but that they discovered said old jar...) and one patent claim (again, the famous and blablabla) wherein they claim that one shall use a detergent (short chained and sulphonated, they said... and what didn't they test? Right!) at a mol.-fraction of triacontanol and diluting below its CMC (the given reasons look at first and second glance quite dubious and are in conflict with the calcium theory).
It may well be that I missed a point. Actually, it's very easy to miss something due to missing data...
Other patent claims regarding simple dissolution in organic solvents and diluting in water afterwards seem way more convenient and work too. A proper 'side-by-side' is (to my knowledge) outstanding.
I got some logical conclusions from what I've read in said papers and patents but hadn't had the chance to test them yet...
Be that as it may, so far there is no 'right' or 'wrong' (apart from BMFerts version which runs against everything), just different claims (and you can claim anything in a patent but have no need for proof of efficacy regarding agrochemicals) and a shiny (but ominous and rather old publication. The widespread use of Tria worldwide and the different used formula (usually, people don't care how and what exactly they prepare) coupled with satisfied farmers and scientists lets assume that Tria (given a high enough purity) works no matter what. Could we do things better? Maybe...