Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:25:48.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Calibration of Greenhouse Spray Chambers—The Importance of Dynamic Nozzle Patternation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Thomas M. Wolf ,
Shu Hua Liu ,
Brian C. Caldwell  and
Andrew I. Hsiao
Thomas M. Wolf
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Regina Research Station, Box 440, Regina, SK, Canada S4P 3A2
Shu Hua Liu
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Regina Research Station, Box 440, Regina, SK, Canada S4P 3A2
Brian C. Caldwell
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Regina Research Station, Box 440, Regina, SK, Canada S4P 3A2
Andrew I. Hsiao
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Regina Research Station, Box 440, Regina, SK, Canada S4P 3A2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In an attempt to refine calibration procedures for greenhouse spray chambers, the effects of an herbicide adjuvant, operating pressure, and travel speed on the static and dynamic spray patterns of single flat-fan hydraulic nozzle tips were studied. The volume output in the central 15 cm of the spray pattern (where target plants would ordinarily be positioned) was used as an indicator of the relative dosages received from both a tapered flat-fan tip (8001 VS) and an even-spray tip (8001 EVS). All tested variables significantly altered the spray pattern. Specifically, dynamic spray patterns differed from static patterns, and speed of travel affected the dynamic pattern for both tapered and even flat-fan sprays. Increasing the travel speed from 0.375 to 0.75 m/s reduced spray deposit in the central 15 cm of the spray pattern by up to 19% for water, and by up to 34% for water containing 0.1% v/v nonionic surfactant. Increasing surfactant concentration to 1% decreased the magnitude of the speed effect. Higher pressure sprays tended to reduce the effect of increased travel speeds. These results show that changes in physicochemical properties of the spray solution as well as air turbulence introduced by nozzle movement can affect the pesticide dosage to which a target plant is exposed in a spray chamber. For proper treatment comparison, delivery systems for greenhouse spray experiments should be calibrated with end-use spray liquids, operating pressures, and nozzle travel speeds.

Keywords

Dose responsedroplet size distributionflat-fan nozzlekinematic viscositystatic surface tensionNIS, nonionic surfactantNMD, number median diameterPDPA, Phase/Doppler Particle AnalyzerVMD, volume median diameter
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 1997 , pp. 428 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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. Azimi, A. H., Carpenter, T. G., and Reichard, D. L. 1985. Nozzle spray distribution for pesticide application. Trans. ASAE 28:1410–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Chapple, A. C., Downer, R. A., and Hall, F. R. 1993a. Effects of spray adjuvants on swath patterns and droplet spectra for a flat-fan hydraulic nozzle. Crop Prot. 12:579–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Chapple, A. C., Hall, F. R., and Bishop, B. L. 1993b. Assessment of single-nozzle patternation and extrapolation to moving booms. Crop Prot. 12:207–213.Google Scholar
4. Downer, R. A., Cooper, J. A., Chapple, A. C., Hall, F. R., Reichard, D. L., and Zhu, H. 1995a. The effect of dynamic surface tension and high shear viscosity on droplet size distributions produced by a flat fan nozzle. In Hall, F. R., Berger, P. D., and Collins, H. M., eds. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems. Volume 14. ASTM STP 1234. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
5. Downer, R. A., Wolf, T. M., Chapple, A. C., Hall, F. R., and Hazen, J. L. 1995b. Characterizing the impact of drift management adjuvants on the dose transfer process. In Gaskin, Robyn E., ed. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. Rotorua: New Zealand Forest Research Institute Bulletin. pp. 138–143.Google Scholar
6. Knoche, M. 1994. Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot. 13:163–178.Google Scholar
7. Lefebvre, A. H. 1989. Atomization and Sprays. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. 421 p.Google Scholar
8. Leunda, P., Debouche, C., and Caussin, R. 1990. Predicting the transverse volume distribution under an agricultural spray boom. Crop Prot. 9:111–114.Google Scholar
9. Miller, P.C.H., Mawer, C. J., and Merritt, C. R. 1989. Wind tunnel studies of the spray drift from two types of agricultural spray nozzle. Aspects Appl. Biol. 21:237–238.Google Scholar
10. Morgan, M. J., Rasmussen, L. W., and Orton, L. W. 1957. The effects of wind on delivery patterns of nozzles used for weed spraying. Weeds 5:350–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
12. Solie, J. B. and Gerling, J. F. 1985. Spray pattern analysis system for pesticide application. Trans. ASAE 28:1430–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Wolf, T. M., Grover, R., Wallace, K., Shewchuk, S. R., and Maybank, J. 1993. Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:1261–1273.Google Scholar
14. Wolf, T. M., Stumborg, M., Caldwell, B. C., and Grover, R. 1995. A chamber for scanning spray from agricultural nozzles using an Aerometrics Phase/Doppler Particle Analyzer. Can. Agric. Eng. 37:305–310.Google Scholar
15. Young, B. W. 1990. Droplet dynamics in hydraulic nozzle spray clouds. In Bode, L. E., Hazen, J. L., and Chasin, D. G., eds. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems. Volume 10. ASTM STP 1078. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials. pp. 142–155.Google Scholar