Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:15:08.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spray Recovery From Nozzles Designed to Reduce Drift

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

L. F. Bouse ,
J. B. Carlton  and
M. G. Merkle
L. F. Bouse
Affiliation:
Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agr., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
J. B. Carlton
Affiliation:
Texas Agr. Exp. Sta., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
M. G. Merkle
Affiliation:
Texas Agr. Exp. Sta., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Low pressure and reduced pressure fan and reduced pressure hollow cone nozzles were compared to conventional fan and hollow cone nozzles to determine their potential for reducing spray drift. Other comparisons included two different spray pressures for a low pressure fan nozzle, low and reduced pressure fan nozzles versus air-aspirating foam nozzles, low pressure versus reduced pressure fan nozzles, and reduced pressure hollow cone nozzles versus reduced pressure fan nozzles. Spray recoveries within 36 m downwind of the spray release point were significantly greater for the low pressure and reduced pressure fan and reduced pressure hollow cone nozzles than for the conventional fan and hollow cone nozzles. An air-aspirating nozzle producing spray without foaming adjuvant resulted in significantly greater spray recovery than a low pressure fan nozzle. The recovery from a reduced pressure fan nozzle having a rated flow of 12.6 cm3/s was significantly greater than that from a low pressure fan nozzle.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , July 1976 , pp. 361 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Bouse, L.F. and Merkle, M.G. 1975. Comparison of recoveries from a tower-mounted dual sprayer. Trans. of the ASAE 18:467–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Brandenberg, B.C. 1974. Raindrop® drift reduction spray nozzle. ASAE Paper No. 74–1595. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.Google Scholar
3. Goering, C.E. and Butler, B.J. 1975. Paired field studies of herbicide drift. Trans. of the ASAE 18:27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Miller, J.M. and Isler, D.A. 1951. Dual spray equipment for airplane spraying tests. U.S. Dept. of Agri. ET-294. 4 pp.Google Scholar