Spray distribution when spraying potatoes with a conventional or an air-assisted field boom sprayer

Zande, J.C. van de; Michielsen, J.M.G.P.; Stallinga, H.; Porskamp, H.A.J.; Huijsmans, H.J. Holterman J.F.M.

doi:10.13031/2013.9139

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Spray drift is highly influenced by many factors that may be grouped [8] into one of the following categories: equipment and application techniques; spray characteristics; operator care and skill. Diverse methodologies [9–12] developed in the last years to evaluate and quantify the effect of different parameters involved in the process, in a big effort to define a spray classification, have always resulted in great variability due to the influence of environmental conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a Terrestrial LIDAR Sensor for Drift Detection in Vineyard Spraying

Gil

Llorens

Casamada

et al. 2013

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of a scanning Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system to characterize drift during pesticide application is described. The LIDAR system is compared with an ad hoc test bench used to quantify the amount of spray liquid moving beyond the canopy. Two sprayers were used during the field test; a conventional mist blower at two air flow rates (27,507 and 34,959 m3·h−1) equipped with two different nozzle types (conventional and air injection) and a multi row sprayer with individually oriented air outlets. A simple model based on a linear function was used to predict spray deposit using LIDAR measurements and to compare with the deposits measured over the test bench. Results showed differences in the effectiveness of the LIDAR sensor depending on the sprayed droplet size (nozzle type) and air intensity. For conventional mist blower and low air flow rate; the sensor detects a greater number of drift drops obtaining a better correlation (r = 0.91; p < 0.01) than for the case of coarse droplets or high air flow rate. In the case of the multi row sprayer; drift deposition in the test bench was very poor. In general; the use of the LIDAR sensor presents an interesting and easy technique to establish the potential drift of a specific spray situation as an adequate alternative for the evaluation of drift potential.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a Terrestrial LIDAR Sensor for Drift Detection in Vineyard Spraying

Gil

Llorens

Casamada

et al. 2013

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Calculations of the spray distribution between different ‘compartments’ in field studies of spray drift may provide information about the reliability of the experimental methodology in general as well as the measuring techniques used in the field. According to van de Zande et al ,10 spray techniques can be evaluated and ranked according to: spray deposit on the target (e.g. a crop) and on the ground underneath the canopy; ground deposit due to fall‐out drift; airborne drift.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spray drift as influenced by meteorological and technical factors

Arvidsson

Bergström

Kreuger

2011

Pest Management Science

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under specified conditions, the present results indicate a simple relation between the total spray drift and volume fractions of droplets ≤ 100 µm. Given the nozzle type, it was concluded that the most decisive factors determining TSD are wind speed and boom height. Evaluating the relative importance of the meteorological and technical factors contributes to increasing knowledge in this field of research.

show abstract

“…They proposed to use a value somewhere between the mean values and the mean value + standard deviation of the mean. The crop interception values established in this way were supported by some experimental deposition values from a literature search (van de Zande et al, 1999). Data on ground deposition in vine, fruit and hops were compiled by Ganzelmeier (1997).…”

Section: Methodology Used By Focus To Derive Crop Interception Factorsmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…The fraction of droplets lost as spray drift typically amounts to a few per cent (of the applied dose) with boom sprayer (Ganzelmeier, 1997;van de Zande et al, 1999), but is considerably larger from orchard sprayers (Heer et al, 1985a;Heer et al, 1985b;Ganzelmeier, 1997). The other source of pesticide loss during application, evaporation, is mentioned by the FOCUS Air Group (FOCUS, 2008).…”

Section: Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s The rules were mentioned by van der Linden and Resseler (2009) in the answer to the EFSA question regarding how to obtain the crop interception values in preparation of the EFSA opinion (2012). Indeed, it has not been possible to find the scientific evidence which justifies the extrapolation rules proposed by FOCUS.…”

Section: Methodology Used By Focus To Derive Crop Interception Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation