Bahadır SAYINCI, Bünyamin DEMİR, Nuri AÇIK

Comparison of spray nozzles in terms of spray coverage and drop distribution uniformity at low volume

This study was conducted to compare the spray coverage rate and spray uniformity of seven different types of hydraulic nozzles standard flat fan nozzles, ST; multirange nozzles, LU; air induction nozzles, IDK; twinjet air-induction nozzles, IDKT; narrow cone-angle standard nozzles, STD; hollow cone nozzles, DC; and antidrift nozzles, AD commonly used in pesticide applications at low application volumes. All spray applications were carried out at a constant operating pressure of 300 kPa and a low application volume of 80 L/ha. The experiments were carried out in a closed facility under controlled conditions. Spray applications were carried out with the aid of a 12-m-long linear, automatic speed-controlled spray simulator. Water-sensitive paper was used for drop sampling. The greatest spray coverage was achieved in LU nozzles and they were followed by DC and ST nozzles. The lowest spray coverage was observed in IDKT nozzles. Increasing spray coverage rates were observed with decreasing spray heights. Increasing coverage rates were also observed with decreasing forward speeds. Regarding spray uniformity, the lowest mean coefficient of variation CV was obtained from AD, IDK, and IDKT nozzles producing medium and coarse droplets. It was concluded based on the present findings that the spray height should be reduced to increase spray uniformity. ST, AD, and IDK nozzles have to be selected with greater forward speed in order to increase spray uniformity. However, in LU and DC nozzles, the lowest CV was obtained at low forward speeds.

Keywords:

Low volume application, pesticide application sprayer travel speed, spray height, spray simulator,

PDF

___

Albuz® (2016). Spray Nozzles, Albuz Catalog 2016 [online]. Website http://albuz-spray.com [accessed 30 December 2016].
Al-Sarar A, Hall FR, Downer RA (2006). Impact of spray application methodology on the development of resistance to cypermethrin and spinosad by fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith). Pest Management Science 62: 1023-1031. doi: 10.1002/ ps.1241
Azimi AH, Carpenter TG, Reichard DL (1985). Nozzle spray distribution for pesticide application. Transactions of the ASAE 28 (5): 1410-1414. doi: 10.13031/2013.32451
Bozdogan AM, Yarpuz-Bozdogan N (2008). Assessment of buffer zones to ditches of dicofol for different applied doses and replication numbers in pesticide applications in Adana province, Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 17 (3): 275-281.
Bozdogan AM, Yarpuz-Bozdogan N (2009). Determination of total risk of defoliant application in cotton on human health and environment. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 7 (1): 229-234.
Bozdogan AM, Yarpuz-Bozdogan N (2015). Determination of potential risks of pesticide applications in peanut cultivation on human health and environment. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 24 (2): 683-689.
Franz E (1993). Spray coverage analysis using a hand-held scanner. Transactions of the ASAE 36 (5): 1271-1278. doi: 10.13031/2013.28459
Koszel M (2009). Influence of fan flat nozzles wear degree on drop tracks size. Research in Agricultural Engineering 55 (2): 39-44.
Krishnan P, Gal I, Kemble LJ, Gottfried SL (1993). Effect of sprayer bounce and wind condition on spray pattern displacement of TJ60-8004 fan nozzles. Transactions of the ASAE 36 (4): 997- 1000. doi: 10.13031/2013.28425
Krishnan P, Williams TH, Kemble LJ (1988). Technical Note: Spray pattern displacement measurement technique for agricultural nozzles using spray table. Transactions of the ASAE 31 (2): 386-389. doi: 10.13031/2013.30719
Lechler® (2018). Agricultural Spray Nozzles, 2018 US Catalogue [online]. Website https://www.lechler.com/de-en/products/ product-range/agriculture/ [accessed 30 December 2018].
Matthews GA (2000). Pesticide Application Methods. Third Edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.
Salyani M (1999). Spray volume rate errors in intermittent operation of hydraulic nozzles. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 15 (1): 31-34. doi: 10.13031/2013.5783
Sanchez-Hermosilla J, Medina R (2004). Adaptive threshold for droplet spot analysis using water-sensitive paper. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 20 (5): 547-551. doi: 10.13031/2013.17454
Sayinci B, Bastaban B (2011). Spray distribution uniformity of different types of nozzles and its spray deposition in potato plant. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6 (2): 352-362. doi: 10.5897/AJAR10.480
Syngenta (2002). Water sensitive paper for monitoring spray distributions. CH-4002. Basle, Switzerland: Syngenta Crop Protection AG.
Teejet® (2013). A User’s Guide to Spray Nozzles. Teejet Technologies, pp. 58.
Teejet® (2018). Spray Nozzles. Teejet Technologies [online]. Website https://www.teejet.com/ [accessed 30 December 2018].
Vučajnk F, Sreš A, Kocjan-Ačko D, Leskošek G, Vidrih M et al. (2013). The effect of working speed on the fungicide spray deposition of winter wheat ears. Zbornik predavanj in referatov 11. Slovenskega posvetovanja o varstvu rastlin z mednarodno udeležbo Bled, 5.-6. marec 2013, 439-443 (in Slovene with an abstract in English).
Wang L, Zhang N, Slocombe JW, Thierstein GE, Kuhlman DK (1995). Experimental analysis of spray distribution pattern uniformity for agricultural nozzles. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 11 (1): 51-55. doi: 10.13031/2013.25716
Western NM, Hislop EC, Dalton WJ (1994). Experimental airassisted electrohydrodynamic spraying. Crop Protection 13 (3): 179-188. doi: 10.1016/0261-2194(94)90076-0
Womac A, Etheridge R, Seibert A, Hogan D, Ray S (2001). Sprayer speed and venturi–nozzle effects on broadcast application uniformity. Transactions of the ASABE 44 (6): 1437-1444. doi: 10.13031/2013.7011
Zhu H, Dorner JW, Rowland DL, Derksen RC, Ozkan HE (2004). Spray penetration into peanut canopies with hydraulic nozzle tips. Biosystems Engineering 87 (3): 275-273. doi: 10.1016/j. biosystemseng.2003.11.012
Zhu H, Rowland DL, Dorner JW, Derksen RC, Sorensen RB (2002). Influence of plant structure, orifice size, and nozzle inclination on spray penetration into peanut canopy. Transactions of the ASAE 45 (5): 1295-1301. doi: 10.13031/2013.11058