Air induction (or Venturi) nozzles create coarser droplets that are less prone to spray drift when compared to the finer droplets produced by conventional hollow cone nozzles. Operators report less “mist” hanging in the crop while spraying with these tips and the sprayer does not appear to create an obvious, opaque plume, which is good when there are bystanders but can be difficult to assess from the sprayer cab during a shoulder check.
Beyond my own experience, I am aware of more than 30 peer-reviewed, international studies that indicate that applications from air induction hollow cones are as efficacious as conventional hollow cones. There are, however, some conditions where they may not be a good fit:
- When the canopy is very dense (e.g. un-pruned trees or grapes with a closed canopy) coarse droplets don’t penetrate as well. Canopy management is a must.
- When the canopy is very wide coarse droplets lose momentum and fall out of the air more quickly than finer droplets, and that can affect penetration depth. This is typically a concern in orchards, or operations where multiple rows are sprayed with one pass.
- If the operator is already using a low volume (e.g. L/ha or gal./ac), there may not be enough droplets to provide sufficient coverage – especially when disease pressure is high.
These are extreme situations, and failures are rarely reported as a result of using air induction nozzles. When used with sufficient volume and on a reasonable canopy, spray distribution can be excellent. Always confirm coverage with water-sensitive paper when you may a change to your sprayer.
Be aware: A red hollow cone air induction tip does not have the same flow rate as a conventional red hollow cone nozzle – they are not (yet) standardized. Always consult nozzle tables.
Here are a few emerging uses for air induction nozzles on airblast sprayers:
- Use air induction nozzles in the top two positions on each side of the sprayer, and conventional moulded hollow cones in the remaining positions. Given that the top nozzles are often the biggest contributors to off-target movement of spray, the larger droplets produced by the air induction nozzles tend to fall out of the air rather than drift away. Further, the ballistic movement of coarser droplets tends to keep them moving in a straight line after leaving the nozzle, helping to direct them to the tops of trees.
- Try replacing the conventional nozzles in any tower “dead zones” with air induction nozzles; coverage should improve in that zone because pressure propels coarser droplets further than finer droplets. We’ve seen significant improvements using this technique in high density orchards.
The spray quality produced by an air induction nozzle is affected the by air speed and the location of the nozzles on the sprayer, relative to the air outlet. Coverage patterns on water-sensitive paper indicate that nozzles located outside the air stream (e.g. Turbomist) result in smaller droplets then nozzles located inside the air stream (e.g. Durand-Wayland). This is due to air-shear, which is known to “shred” spray as the angle between the nozzle and the entraining air stream becomes more acute. The effect may be more pronounced with the air-filled droplets created by air induction nozzles.
A story: It was spring when we calibrated an older FMC with a 2’ fan in low gear. We were spraying mature high-density Royal Gala at tight cluster. The operator was travelling at 5.5 km/h spraying ~400 L/ha. This sprayer operator runs his sprayer at the lowest operating pressure I’ve ever encountered on an airblast sprayer: 60 psi. It was 10:00, the wind was a light 2 km/h, relative humidity was ~55% and the temperature was ~21 °C – beautiful conditions for spraying. Two water-sensitive papers were clipped back-to-back, facing the alleys at the top of an 11’ tree. The nozzle in the top position was a TeeJet TXVK 18 (0.24 gal/min. @ 60 psi). The coverage was good, but given the light wind and the fact that it was early spring and the paper was at the top of the tree, it didn’t make me confident. Such small droplets could easily be blown off-course as the wind picked up. We decided to install an air-induction hollow cone in that position. The TeeJet AITX 8002 emitted the same rate (0.247 gal./min/ @ 60 psi), but sprayed fewer and larger droplets. When the papers were recovered, we decided to go up one more nozzle size to increase the droplet count. We used the TeeJet AITX 80025 (0.3 gal./min. @ 60 psi). Later, we scanned the water-sensitive papers using software developed by Dr. Heping Zhu (USDA ARS in Ohio). The results are presented in the adjacent picture: the resultant coverage was exactly as we suspected.