Field experiments to assess approaches for spray drift incident investigation

Rimmer, Duncan A.; Johnson, Paul D.; Kelsey, Adrian; Warren, Nicholas

doi:10.1002/ps.1734

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As expected, the configurations tested using nozzles at 0.50 m height above the ground showed an average deposition at all sampled distances higher than when 0.25 m height was used. These results confirmed the negative effect of increased spray boom height on drift generation [41,[62][63][64][65]. The effect of boom height on the spray drift profiles was evident in the first sampled distance (1 m from sprayed area), where spray drift was reduced on average from 25 to 6%, from 15 to 4%, from 5 to 3% and from 6 to 2% for XR110015, XR11003, AI110015 and AI11003, respectively.…”

Section: Environmental Conditions During Field Trialssupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Combination of different SDRTs could possibly provide better results in terms of drift reduction. A lot of research has been focused on spray drift generated during PPP canopy application in 3D crops using air-assisted sprayers [56][57][58][59][60][61] and PPP applications in arable field crops using boom sprayers [56,[62][63][64][65]. However, to date, few experimental data are available for the spray drift generated during herbicide spray application in vineyards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spray Drift Generated in Vineyard during Under-Row Weed Control and Suckering: Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Drift-Reducing Techniques

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The most widespread method for weed control and suckering in vineyards is under-row band herbicide application. It could be performed for weed control only (WC) or weed control and suckering (WSC) simultaneously. During herbicide application, spray drift is one of the most important environmental issues. The objective of this experimental work was to evaluate the performance of specific Spray Drift Reducing Techniques (SDRTs) used either for WC or WSC spray applications. Furthermore, spray drift reduction achieved by buffer zone adoption was investigated. All spray drift measurements were conducted according to ISO22866:2005 protocol. Sixteen configurations deriving from four nozzle types (two conventional and two air-induction—AI) combined with or without a semi-shielded boom at two different heights (0.25 m for WC and 0.50 m for WSC) were tested. A fully-shielded boom was also tested in combination with conventional nozzles at 0.25 m height for WC. Ground spray drift profiles were obtained, from which corresponding Drift Values (DVs) were calculated. Then, the related drift reduction was calculated based on ISO22369-1:2006. It was revealed that WC spray applications generate lower spray drift than WSC applications. In all cases, using AI nozzles and semi-shielded boom significantly reduced DVs; the optimum combination of SDRTs decreased spray drift by up to 78% and 95% for WC and WSC spray application, respectively. The fully-shielded boom allowed reducing nearly 100% of spray drift generation. Finally, the adoption of a cropped buffer zone that includes the two outermost vineyard rows lowered the total spray drift up to 97%. The first 90th percentile model for the spray drift generated during herbicide application in vineyards was also obtained.

show abstract

Section: Environmental Conditions During Field Trialssupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spray Drift Generated in Vineyard during Under-Row Weed Control and Suckering: Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Drift-Reducing Techniques

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different methods to measure spray drift, both direct as spray drift field measurements and indirect as drift potential laboratory measurements, have been described. Direct drift measurements from field experiments utilize the complex and time‐consuming standardized protocol ISO 22866 . It provides results that are highly affected by external factors like environmental conditions during testing .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a new method to classify the airblast sprayers according to their potential drift reduction: comparison of direct and new indirect measurement methods

Grella

Marucco

Balsari

2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Drift is one of the most important issues to consider for realising sustainable pesticide sprays. This study proposes an alternative indirect methodology for comparative measurements of drift reduction potential (DRP) generated by airblast sprayers, aimed at overcoming the practical inconveniences and drawbacks of standardized ISO 22866:2005. A test bench in the absence of target crop and wind was employed to measure drift potential values (DPVs). A variation to the proposed method that introduced a crop between sprayer and test bench device was considered to study the canopy effect (absence/presence) and to validate the method. In parallel, direct spray drift measurements (ISO 22866) were performed to obtain the drift value (DV). A representative vineyard airblast sprayer was evaluated in four configurations (a combination of two fan airflow rates and two nozzle types). The configurations tested under the three methods (direct and indirects) were classified according to achieved drift reduction percentages (ISO 22369-1:2013) and compared. RESULTS: Indirect methods discriminated DPVs from different nozzles (conventional, air induction) and fan airflow rate (high, low) combinations.Indirect methods also showed that despite crop influence on drift amount, target absence has a negligible effect when used specifically for DRP determination/classification. In fact, identical DRP final classifications were achieved for the two methodologies tested. Alternatively, all tested configurations resulted in lower DR values following the ISO 22866 field method, which caused different final classifications due to the high dependence of results on external factors. CONCLUSIONS:The alternative test bench methodology, characterized by the absence of target crop and calm of wind, was considered feasible for comparative measurements of airblast sprayer DRP.

show abstract

“…In most cases, the spray drift measurements in the field follow the standardized protocol established by ISO 22866:2005, resulting in very complicated and time-consuming experiments (Phillips and Miller, 1999;Ravier et al, 2005;Carlsen et al, 2006;Schampheleire et al, 2008;Rimmer et al, 2009) and even a high dependence on external factors. Moreover, field experiments with different spraying systems cannot be performed under directly comparable and exactly repeatable conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of wind velocity and wind direction on measurements of spray drift potential of boom sprayers using drift test bench

Gil

Gallart

Balsari

et al. 2015

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field experiments to assess approaches for spray drift incident investigation

Cited by 12 publications

References 3 publications

Spray Drift Generated in Vineyard during Under-Row Weed Control and Suckering: Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Drift-Reducing Techniques

Spray Drift Generated in Vineyard during Under-Row Weed Control and Suckering: Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Drift-Reducing Techniques

Toward a new method to classify the airblast sprayers according to their potential drift reduction: comparison of direct and new indirect measurement methods

Influence of wind velocity and wind direction on measurements of spray drift potential of boom sprayers using drift test bench

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About