## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatment**} & **EC** & **ST** & **CA** & **pH** \\  & & **(\(\mu\)S cm\({}^{-1}\))** & **(mN m\({}^{-1}\))** & **(\({}^{\circ}\))** & **pH** \\ \hline
1. & Untreated (water) & 794 a & 70.1 a & 108.9 a & 6.94 e \\ \hline
2. & FEM 1 & 787 a & 47.0 bc & 83.9 b & 7.30 cde \\
3. & FEM 2 & 736 b & 48.0 b & 77.6 c & 7.48 abcd \\ \hline
4. & +EXP 1 & 724 b & 35.4 def & 65.8 ef & 7.73 ab \\
5. & +EXP 2 & 776 a & 43.6 bcd & 58.7 g & 7.64 abc \\
6. & +EXP 3 & 771 a & 39.9 bcd & 69.1 de & 7.71 ab \\
7. & +AtB & 737 b & 35.6 def & 51.9 h & 7.54 abcd \\
8. & +S & 725 b & 29.1 ef & 51.1 h & 7.47 abcd \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Water} & & & \\ \hline
9. & +EXP 1 & 602 c & 34.7 def & 67.5 e & 7.79 a \\
10. & +EXP 2 & 597 c & 37.0 cdef & 66.4 e & 7.81 a \\
11. & +EXP 3 & 453 d & 35.4 def & 72.1 d & 7.36 bcd \\
12. & +AtB & 616 c & 38.5 bcde & 62.4 f & 7.22 de \\
13. & +S & 617 c & 27.7 f & 52.4 h & 7.49 abcd \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{CV} & 1.75 & 13.4 & 2.26 & 2.34 \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{F\({}_{\text{c}}\)} & 428.5 & 24.3 & 619.9 & 12.3 \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{W} & 0.972 & 0.825 & 0.971 & 0.992 \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{F\({}_{\text{Levine}}\)} & 0.416 & 2.137 & 0.667 & 1.398 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* ST—surface tension; CA—contact angle; EC—electricity conductivity; FEM 1—200 + 200 + 700 g ha\({}^{-1}\); FEM 2—140 + 140 + 700 g ha\({}^{-1}\); EXP 1, EXP 2, EXP 3, AtB at 1.5 L ha\({}^{-1}\), 5—0.1% \(v\)\(v^{-1}\); F\({}_{\text{c}}\): value of F calculated; F\({}_{\text{Levine}}\) = Leven test statistic; W = Shapiro-Wilk test statistic CV = coefficient of variation. Values in the columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly according to the [PERSON] post hoc test at \(p\) = 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Temperature and relative humidity (RH) during applications in sugar beet and over the next in REC Zlotnik. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Years**} & **Date** & **Temperature** & **RH** & **Temperature Range FWAT** \\  & **of Treatment** & **(\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **(\%)** & **(\({}^{\circ}\)C)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{2017} & 11 May & 17.0 & 60 & 9.6–16.5 \\  & 19 May & 19.0 & 60 & 12.2–21.9 \\  & 26 May & 20.0 & 70 & 13.5–22.1 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{2018} & 27 April & 15.0 & 80 & 9.7–19.0 \\  & 7 May & 15.0 & 68 & 15.4–19.4 \\  & 14 May & 18.0 & 70 & 13.6–17.3 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{2019} & 26 April & 17.0 & 58 & 9.5–19.9 \\  & 7 May & 12.0 & 60 & 7.8–12.0 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 20 May & 20.0 & 75 & 13.1–17.7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* RH—relative humidity; FWAT—in the first week after treatment.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Temperature and relative humidity (RH) during applications in sugar beet and over the next in REC Zlotnik. EC, just as AtB and S were 737, and 725, respectively (Table 4). Values of this parameter were significantly higher than in the liquid containing water and the test and standard adjuvants. The pH of the water was 6.94, with FEM 1 and 2 7.30 and 7.48, and with the addition of EXP adjuvants, it was 7.73, 7.64, 7.71, compared to 7.54 with AtB and 7.47 with S (Table 4). There were no significant differences between spray solutions containing FEM 2 with EXP 1, 2, and 3 adjuvants and water with adjuvants (7.7-7.79, 7.64-7.81, and 7.71-7.36. Standard adjuvants AtB and S reduced the pH of the water to 7.22 or 7.49 and with FEM 2 7.54 and 7.47. The water droplet surface tension (ST) of the FEM solution totaled 47-48 mN m\({}^{-1}\), with EXP adjuvants 35.4-43.6 compared to 35.6 and 29.1 mN m\({}^{-1}\) (AtB and S). The tested EXP 1, EXP 2, and EXP 3 adjuvants reduced the ST of water to 34.7, 37.0, and 35.4 mN m\({}^{-1}\), respectively, or 38.5 and 27.7 mN m\({}^{-1}\) with AtB and S (Table 4). The CA of water droplets was 108.9\({}^{\circ}\). A mixture FEM, both at full and reduced rates, resulted in a significant decrease to 77.6 (FEM 2) to 83.9\({}^{\circ}\) (FEM 1).