Characterization of spray deposition and drift from a low drift nozzle for aerial application at different application altitudes
Abstract
A complex interaction of controllable and uncontrollable factors is involved in aerial application of crop production and protection materials. ?Although it is difficult to completely characterize spray deposition and drift, these important factors can be estimated with appropriate sampling protocol and analysis. ?Application height is an important variable influencing off-target spray drift, but this variable has not been easily measured or logged. A custom-configured aircraft-mounted laser with logging capabilities makes this possible. ?This study was designed to investigate droplet size and deposition characteristics of a low drift CP flat-fan nozzle at application altitudes 3.7 m, 4.9 m, and 6.1 m. In the study, CP flat-fan nozzles were set to a downward angle of 30 degrees applying a mixture of water, Syl-Tac? adjuvant, and Rubidium Chloride (RbCl) tracer at a ?28.5 L/ha application rate.? Spray droplets were collected using water sensitive paper (WSP) cards placed in the spray swath. Mylar sheets were also placed in the swath and downwind for drift sampling. Statistical analysis indicated that median droplet diameter as determined by WSP in the spray swath was not significantly influenced by spray application height. ?Similarly, statistical analysis also indicated that concentration of RbCl tracer from Mylar samplers in the spray swath was not significantly influenced by application height. ?Application height had a significant effect on spray deposition from drift samplers, along with wind direction and relative humidity. ?Final results for drift samplers may have been influenced by shifts in wind direction that altered the relationship between orientation of samplers and wind.
Keywords: deposition, spray nozzle, aerial application, droplet spectra, spray drift
DOI: 10.3965/j.issn.1934-6344.2011.04.028-033
?
Citation: Huang Y, Thomson S J. ?Characterization of spray deposition and drift from a low drift nozzle for aerial application at different application altitudes. ?Int J Agric & Biol Eng, 2011; 4(4): 28
Keywords
References
Wolf R E, Bretthauer D S, Gardisser R. Determining the affect of flat-fan nozzle angle on aerial spray droplet spectra. ASAE Paper No. AA05-003. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE., 2005.
Smith D B, Bode L E, Gerard P D. Predicting ground boom spray drift. Trans. ASAE, 2000; 43(3): 547-553.
Kirk I W, Bouse L F, Carlton J B, Franz E. Aerial application parameters influence spray deposition in cotton canopies. ASAE Paper No. AA91-007. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE., 1991.
Salyani M, Cromwell R P. Spray drift from ground and aerial application. Trans. ASAE, 1992; 35(4): 1113-1120.
Yates W E, Akesson N B, Bayer D E. Effects of spray adjuvants on drift hazards. Trans. ASAE, 1976; 19(1): 41-46.
Bouse L F, Carlton J B, Jank P C. Effect of water soluble polymers on spray droplet size. Trans. ASAE, 1988; 31(6): 1633-1641, 1648.
Bird S L, Esterly D M, Perry S G. Off-target deposition of pesticides from agricultural aerial spray applications. Journal of Environmental Quality, 1996; 25, 1095-1104.
Spray Drift Task Force. A summary of aerial application studies. Spray Drift Task Force, c/o Stewart Agric. Res. Services, Macon, MO., 1997.
Lan Y, Hoffmann W C, Fritz B K, Martin D E, Lopez Jr J D. Spray drift mitigation with spray mix adjuvants. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 2008; 24(1): 5-10.
Huang Y, Thomson S J. Characterization of in-swath spray deposition of a low drift nozzle for low volume aerial application of crop production and protection materials. Trans. ASABE. In review.
Thomson S J, Young L D, Bright J R, Foster P N, Poythress D D. Effects of spray release height and nozzle/atomizer configuration on penetration of spray in a soybean canopy – preliminary results. Paper number AA07-008. National Agricultural Aviation Association, Washington, DC., 2007.
Hoffmann W C, Hewitt A J. Comparison of three imaging systems for water-sensitive papers. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 2005; 21(6): 961-964.
Copyright (c)