Category: Nozzles and Droplets

For Basics Category

  • The Droplet Size Debate

    The Droplet Size Debate

    Funny how some issues never go away. For as long as I’ve been in the sprayer business, the question of ideal droplet size for pesticide application has remained a hot topic.  At its root are the basic facts that small droplets provide better coverage, making better use of water, but large droplets drift less.  So why are we still debating this? Because we need both of these properties to be efficient, effective, and environmentally responsible. Ultimately, the droplet size question is reduced into one of values, where everyone’s individual priorities play a role. 

    First, let’s talk about basic principles. To be effective, an active ingredient must make its way from the nozzle to the site of action in the target organism. On the way, it encounters several obstacles as summarized by Brian Young in 1986.

    Figure 1: The dose transfer process of pesticides (after Young, 1986)

    After atomization and before impaction, the spray encounters two main losses, evaporation and drift. Both of these are more severe for smaller droplets. Smaller droplets have a greater ratio of surface area to volume for any given spray volume, and can evaporate to a much smaller size, even to dryness depending on the formulation, in seconds. For water-soluble formulations, one consequence is lower uptake. Oily formulations may maintain efficacy, but neither type can escape the second effect, spray drift.

    Figure 2: Time to evaporate all water from droplets of various sizes, based on the “two-fluid” model developed by Wanner (1980). Based on 0.8% v/v non-volatile, non-soluble addition, 20 ºC, and 50% RH. This model suggests that final droplet diameter is 20% of initial diameter. Reproduced from Microclimate and Spray Dispersion by Bache and Johnstone (1992, Ellis Horwood Ltd).

    Small droplets are more susceptible to displacement by wind currents due to their small mass. There is no magical size above which drift is no longer possible, but we’ve generally used diameters of 100, 150, or 200 µm as a theoretical cutoff. The proportion of the spray’s volume in droplets smaller than these diameters can be called “drift potential”, and this value is useful to measure the impact of nozzle type, pressure, or formulation on that phenomenon.

    But it’s not quite that simple. Even a small droplet may resist drift if its exposure to wind is limited, perhaps through a protective shield shroud, or lower boom height. Or by increasing its speed through air assist. Higher energy droplets resist displacement.

    These mitigating strategies aren’t lost on sprayer manufacturers who have used them for decades to build lower drift sprayers.

    The next phase of the dose transfer process is interception. The droplet has to encounter its target, but the process is mostly coincidence. Simply put, the target has to be in the way of the droplet’s flight path for the two to meet. Denser canopies are therefore more effectively targeted. A larger number of droplets (smaller droplets or more carrier) also improve the odds. But it’s not that simple. Flight paths can change. That’s where small droplets are more inventive. Because they respond to small air currents, and because such small currents surround most objects, the smaller droplets can weave around objects, following the small eddies generated by air flows. As a result, we’re more likely to find smaller droplets further down in denser, more complex canopies where the eye can’t follow. They simply cascade through.

    Larger droplets, on the other hand, resist displacement by air and travel in straighter lines. They tend to hit the objects they encounter. For that reason, larger droplets are intercepted by the first object they reach and only make their way deeper into a canopy if the path is clear. In other words, vertical, sparser objects allow larger droplets to pass by.

    These properties are related to the droplet’s inertia, and are best described by a parameter known as “stop distance”. Assuming an initial velocity, stop distance is the distance required by a droplet to slow to its terminal velocity.

    Figure 3: Stop distance as a function of droplet size. Assuming a 20 m/s initial velocity (similar to exit velocity of a hydraulic nozzle) and gravity assistance. Note that smaller droplets without the benefit of air assist lose their initial velocity within a few cm of the nozzle exit. Reproduced from Microclimate and Spray Dispersion by Bache and Johnstone (1992, Ellis Horwood Ltd).

    These characteristics, combined with the aerodynamic properties of objects such as tiny insects, cotyledons, leaves, stems, etc. govern the collection efficiency of sprays. Small, slow moving droplets are thus best captured by small objects that don’t create strong enough deflections of airflow to steer the droplets past. Large objects that redirect air around them very effectively are better collectors of the larger or faster droplets whose kinetic energy can guide them through this turbulence. It’s also a matter of probability, as the smaller objects tend to have a lower likelihood of encountering the relatively scarce large droplets of any given spray.

    But once again, that’s not the end of the story. Interception is followed by a critical stage, retention. Objects must be able to hold onto the droplets they intercept. Slow motion video has shown that droplets flatten out on contact with an object as the liquid converts impaction velocity into lateral spread. Once at full extension, the flattened droplets will collapse even beyond their original round shape, pushing them away from the surface and possibly causing rebound. A rebounding droplet may eventually land on target, but that would be a matter of fortune. It’s better if the leaf can offer enough adhesion, diminishing the power of the rebound oscillation, allowing droplet to stick the first time.

    Figure 4: Droplet deformation during impact (C. Hao, et al. 2015. Superhydrophobic-like tunable droplet bouncing on slippery liquid interfaces. Nature Communications. August 2015).

    Small droplets have less mass, and tend to be retained more easily. But more than size is at play here. The morphology and chemistry of the leaf surface is also important, with crystalline or more oily surfaces offering less adhesion for droplets. The physico-chemical properties of the spray mixture becomes important, as characteristics such as dynamic surface tension and visco-elasticity affect spray retention. These properties are optimized through the product formulation effort, and possibly via adjuvants added to the tank.

    We sometimes classify targets as “easy to wet” or “difficult to wet” to summarize these properties. Most grassy plants (foxtails, cereals) are difficult to wet (there are exceptions, such as the sedges) and broadleaf plants vary from the easy to wet pigweeds to the difficult to wet lambsquarters and brassicas. Easy to wet species can retain larger droplets than difficult to wet species, and that’s one reason why finer sprays are preferred for grassy weed control (leaf orientation and size are another).

    Figure 5: Droplet deformation, and surfactant molecule alignment, during impaction. The inability of surfactants to reach optimal alignment quickly, and for the target surface to absorb these forces, leads to rebound.

    A few words about surface tension. Although surfactants reduce surface tension and facilitate spreading, this may not be enough to improve spray retention. To be effective, surfactant molecules need to align themselves with the surface of the droplet so they can be a “bridge” at the interface where the droplet meets the target surface. This takes time. The oscillations that occur during impaction continuously create new surfaces, and if surfactant molecules don’t follow suit immediately, the droplet will behave as if no surfactant is present.  Specialists measure “dynamic” surface tension, i.e., the surface tension at young surface ages – a few milliseconds – to better predict spray retention. Very young surface ages have surface tensions of plain water, even with a surfactant present. Only certain surfactants, or higher concentrations of surfactants, can actually improve spray retention.

    When air-induced nozzles were introduced in the mid 1990s, one of their claims was the improved spray retention due to air inclusions (bubbles) in the individual droplets. These bubbles made the droplets lighter, and also reduced their internal integrity, promoting breakup on impaction. As a result, the coarser sprays they produced actually had some of the same efficacy performance as the finer sprays they replaced. And indeed, research showed that coarser, air-induced sprays did in fact maintain good performance. Interestingly, performance of non-air-induced coarse sprays used with pulse-width modulation also showed similar robustness of performance. Research comparing air-induced to conventional sprays of similar droplet size rarely showed differences, and when they occurred, they were small in magnitude and could be corrected through improved pattern overlap.

    Figure 6: Air Bubbles in spray droplets (Source: EI Operator. Believed to originate with Silsoe Research Institute, UK)

    One reason larger droplets still work well is due to the pre-orifice designs of modern low-drift nozzles. This design reduces the internal pressure of the nozzle itself, with the effect being a slower moving large droplet. This reduced velocity takes away some of the force at impaction, reducing rebound.

    Figure 7: Droplet velocity of larger droplets is reduced by lower pressures from pre-orifice and air-induced design nozzles. Lower velocities reduce droplet rebound.

    Another neat effect of coarser sprays is their ability to entrain air. All sprays move air (simply spray into a bucket to see this), and larger droplets do this better and for longer distances. The entrained air is a form of air assist for the smaller droplets, increasing their average velocity and thus reducing their drift potential while they move in the spray pattern. 

    The final stage of the dose transfer process is deposit formation and biological effect, and that’s where we once again see differences attributable to droplet size.

    Once established on a target surface, the active ingredient usually needs to move to its site of action. In some cases, resting on the surface is sufficient, it depends on the specific product. But for the majority of herbicides, the active ingredient must move across the cuticle into the cytoplasm where it eventually migrates to the enzymes involved in photosynthesis or biosynthesis of fatty- or amino acids.  The cuticle is waxy, with only a few water-loving pathways and the uptake process is basically driven by diffusion and concentration gradients. As such, it is more effective when the product is in solution and the longer the droplet can stay wet, the better.  That’s one reason why spraying during hot, dry days may reduce performance. Again, it depends on the formulation and the mode of action. Too high a concentration can damage membranes, physiologically isolating the active ingredient and reducing its subsequent translocation. It’s always a balancing act.

    If you’ve been keeping track of the score, it’s more or less a tie between large and small droplets. One deposits better and makes more efficient use of lower water volumes, while the other has lower losses from drift and evaporation, helps smaller droplets resist drift, and may improve uptake of some products.

    And this draw is why the venerable hydraulic nozzle has been so successful for so many decades. Hydraulic atomization, by its nature, creates a wide diversity of droplet sizes, ranging from 5 to 2000 µm or greater. As Dr. Ralph Brown of the University of Guelph used to say, this nozzle provides a drop for all seasons. Some small ones for coverage and retention in hard to reach places, and some large ones for uptake and drift-reduction. The result is a robust delivery system that provides reliable results on many different targets under many conditions. In recognition of the heterogeneity of sprays, we don’t refer to specific droplet sizes, but rather their composite, grouped into international categories of Spray Quality such as Medium, Coarse, and Very Coarse.

    Our challenge is to find the spray quality sweet spot, the ideal blend of these contradictory and yet complementary features of our agricultural sprays. And I believe that task is very achievable. Simply put, broadcast agricultural sprays in field crops work reliably when applied as Coarse and Very Coarse sprays in volumes between 7 and 12 US gpa. There is no need to spray any finer than Coarse for good efficacy, as coverage is already sufficient and any additional coverage has small marginal returns. There is, however, value in adding more water when canopies are denser or when leaf area index grows as the crop matures. To gain coverage, adding water is preferred to reducing droplet size because of the value of environmental protection. It so happens that Coarse to Very Coarse sprays provide or ecxeeed the drift protection required by most agricultural labels.

    There is occasional reason for spraying even coarser than what I’ve suggested. It’s certainly required by law for dicamba products on Xtend traited soybeans and cotton, but even then, only in conjunction with higher water volumes to offset losses in droplet numbers.  In practice, moving to Extremely Coarse or Ultra Coarse sprays may allow an application to proceed in higher than average wind without adding drift risk. The use of some additional water is a relatively small price to pay for that additional capability.

    There will always be opportunities for efficacy improvement in specific cases for those willing to spend the extra time to optimize that situation. That’s one of the reasons I’m excited to see the widespread adoption of pulse width modulation (PWM) in the industry, allowing users to change spray pressure and therefore spray quality with no impact on application rate or travel speed. Or the introduction of nozzle switching from the cab, employing the optimal atomizer for a specific situation. Although it remains difficult to define the ideal spray, selecting a spray quality has never been so easy.

  • Don’t try this tempting shortcut

    Don’t try this tempting shortcut

    There’s a call that I’ve been getting for 20 years now. It came again this week. Someone has a twincap with two small air-induced tips, and they’re applying herbicides and fungicides with low water volumes, often 5 gpa, sometimes less. They call because they want to know how much wind they can spray in. Is 30 km/h OK? They want my blessing.

    I don’t need to hear much more. Some nozzles are sold entirely on the premise that they provide superior coverage – more droplets per square inch – and that this improved coverage permits the reduction of water volumes. Furthermore, the claim goes, when water is reduced, the spray concentration increases and the whole darn package just works a lot faster and better.

    This line of thinking is as old as spraying itself. Applicators seek pesticide performance as well as productivity, and this approach gives them both. The proponents are well aware of their customers’ desires, and sell into it. “Use these tips and cut back on water. Any more than this just runs off anyways. You’ll get better coverage and better performance, get more spraying done.” It’s a convincing argument. Get an edge on your neighbour, the person who’s not in on the secret and is wasting time and water.

    Why don’t I embrace it? There are a few reasons.

    First, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Invariably it involves a twin nozzle setup. Use two nozzles, get more droplets, right? If that were true, believe me, I’d be advocating for quintuples.

    Fact is that the only factors that change droplet numbers are droplet size (spray quality) and water volume. Want more droplets at the same water volume? Make the spray finer. Want to keep spray quality and add droplets? Add water (not nozzles).

    The easiest way to improve coverage at the same volume is to use a finer nozzle, or to increase spray pressure. Depending on how far you go, you could make the spray finer and cut water, and still have more droplets per square inch.

    The hardest way to improve coverage is to purchase a twincap and buy two nozzles, each of them half the size. True, within any given nozzle type, smaller sized tips usually generate finer sprays. But why bother with two tips? They’re more expensive and plug more.

    If someone asks me how to improve coverage without changing water volume, I usually tell them to speed up a few mph. The rate controller will increase pressure and the spray gets finer. If speeding up is not possible, get one size smaller nozzle and run at higher pressure, same speed. Or keep nozzle and speed, and add some gpa, pressure will go up. It’s that easy. No twins necessary.

    Second, the twin nozzle/low volume approach exaggerates the value of the twin nozzle for herbicides. With small plants and relatively open canopies in the early season, plus our high booms and travel speeds, the twin tips are not adding a lot, if anything at all, to coverage. It remains a sum of droplet size and water volume, the angle is not important at this stage. Deposit is by turbulence and wind, most of the time.

    Third, low volume believers ignore a few potential problems. Drift is a big one. Low volume, fine spray operators are surrounded by nervous neighbours. They have fewer hours per day during which drift is acceptably low. And they definitely should not be on the field when wind is at 30 km/h. Basically, they’re a bit uncomfortable (at least they should be) and get less done per day.

    Another potential problem is evaporation. Most sprays, even when applied at lower volumes, are still 90% or more water. The same volume of water evaporates much quicker when atomized into smaller droplets. This has two main downsides: On their way to the canopy, small droplets evaporate and become even more drift prone, and may not impact at all. Those that impact evaporate shortly thereafter. Research has shown that pesticide uptake is better from wet than dry deposits.

    When Delta T (dry bulb minus wet bulb temperature) is high, evaporation can be so strong that it reduces pesticide performance or causes solvent burn. Fine sprays make it worse.

    I also hear about the use of oily adjuvants to control evaporation from small droplets. This could be even more dangerous. Small droplets drift, and evaporation to dryness is actually helpful in reducing the impact of that drift. How? It makes the small droplets disappear, with their remnants dispersing into the turbulent atmosphere. With oily adjuvants, the small droplets stick around and stay potent and their drift damage is much worse.

    Lastly, the practice is possibly off label. Water volume and spray quality label statements are designed to offer good performance and acceptable drift risk. While that part of the label is often a bit dated, it does provide better support from the manufacturer should something go wrong.

    If you’re spraying under hot, dry and windy conditions, the low volume, fine spray approach is irresponsible. Use sufficient water (7 to 12 gpa) to allow low-drift sprays, at least Coarse to Very Coarse, in some case, even coarser.

    Agronomists provide the best possible information for their clients, based on scientific evidence and experience and in accordance with their professional code of ethics. Sometimes the news we deliver aren’t what the customer wants to hear. But we have to represent the interests of all of us, collectively. I find that pretty important.

  • What Nozzle is This? (Field Sprayers)

    What Nozzle is This? (Field Sprayers)

    Us this handy visual guide to identify a mystery nozzle you may find on a field sprayer. We’ve included the most common low-drift nozzles found on North American, European, and Australian sprayers. The list does not contain any conventional flat fan nozzles.

    It’s in alphabetical order by manufacturer.

    First, a reminder of the ISO colour coding of nozzles by nominal flow rate, and their approximate output at normal speeds and nozzle spacings.

    ISO Flow rate colour coding and benchmark application volumes for US and metric units

    Also recall that most nozzles have markings that identify their fan angle (usually 30, 40, 65, 80, 90, 110, 120, 130, or 150 degrees, with 80 and 110 being most common) or flow rate (in US gpm, as shown in figure above).

    Albuz (manufactured in France)


    Albuz AVI (also John Deere ULAC)
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray quality: VC
    Sizes Available: 01 – 10

    Albuz AVI Twin
    Type: Air-Induced Twin
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray quality: VC
    Sizes Available: 01 – 06

    Arag (manufactured in Italy)

    Arag Compact Fan Air (CFA)
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray quality: C
    Sizes Available: 01 – 04
    Arag Compact Fan Air Ultra (CFA-U)
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray quality: C-VC
    (intended for 2,4-D label compliance in Australia, available in 01 – 03 sizes only)
    Arag Twin Fan Low Drift (TFLD)
    Type: Pre-Orifice, suitable for PWM
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: VC – XC
    Sizes Available: 02 – 05

    Billericay Farm Systems (manufactured in UK)

    Billericay Farm Systems Air Bubble Jet (ABJ)
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: M-C
    Sizes Available: 01 – 06
    Billericay Farm Systems EasyJet (known as Pulzar in UK)
    Type: Pre-Orifice, suitable for PWM
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: M-C
    Sizes Available: 01 – 08

    Greenleaf / Agrotop (manufactured in Germany)

    Greenleaf AirMix (made by Agrotop)
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C
    Sizes Available: 01 – 06
    Greenleaf SoftDrop (made by Agrotop)
    Type: Pre-orifice, suitable for PWM
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: XC – UC
    Sizes Available: 04 – 10
    Greenleaf TurboDrop-XL (TDXL, made by Agrotop). TDXL-D appears same, but has larger exit size and produces coarser sprays for dicamba
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: TDXL, C-VC, TDXL-D, XC-UC
    Sizes Available: 01 – 15 (08 for -D)
    Greenleaf TADF (made by Agrotop). TADF-D appears same, but has larger exit size and produces coarser sprays for dicamba
    Type: Air-Induced Asymmetric Twin
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: TADF, C-VC, TADF-D, XC-UC
    Sizes Available: 01 – 15
    Greenleaf Dual Fan (DF, made by Agrotop), asymmetric twin.
    Similar to Hypro TwinCap, assembly can house two nozzles to produce a twin spray.
    Greenleaf Low Drift Dual Fan for PWM (BPDF)
    Uses AirMix nozzles with air portion removed.
    Spray Quality M – XC
    Sizes Available: 06 – 12

    Hypro Pentair / John Deere (manufactured in UK and USA)

    Hypro Guardian (Also John Deere LDX)
    Type: Pre-orifice, suitable for PWM
    Average Pressure: 40 psi
    Average Spray Quality: M
    Sizes Available: 015 – 08

    Hypro GuardianAIR (GA, also John Deere Low-Drift Air, LDA)
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C
    Sizes Available: 015 – 05
    Hypro Ultra Low-Drift (ULD, also John Deere ULD)
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C – VC
    Sizes Available: 015 – 08
    Hypro Ultra Low-Drift Max (ULDM)
    Type: Air-Induced, approved for PWM by Hypro
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: UC
    Sizes Available: 04 – 08
    Hypro GuardianAIR Twin (GAT, also John Deere GAT)
    Type: Air-Induced Twin
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: M-C
    Sizes Available: 02 – 08

    Hypro 3D (also John Deere 3D)
    Type: Pre-Orifice, suitable for PWM
    Average Pressure: 40 psi
    Average Spray Quality: M
    Sizes Available: 015 – 08
    Hypro TwinCap. Assembly can house two nozzles to produce a twin spray.

    John Deere LDM
    Type: Pre-Orifice, suitable for PWM
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C – VC
    Sizes Available: 03 – 10
    John Deere LDM showing characteristic twin pre-orifice

    Lechler (manufactured in Germany)


    Lechler ID
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C – VC
    Sizes Available: 01 – 10

    Lechler ID3
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C – VC
    Sizes Available: 01 – 10

    Lechler IDTA
    Type: Air-Induced Asymmetric Twin
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C
    Sizes Available: 02 – 08

    Lechler IDK (Also Hardi MiniDrift)
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C
    Sizes Available: 01 – 10

    Lechler IDKT (Also Hardi MiniDrift Duo)
    Type: Air-Induced Twin
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C
    Sizes Available: 015 – 06

    MagnoJet (manufactured in Brazil)

    Magnojet MUG
    Approved by EPA for Dicamba in US
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 70 psi
    Average Spray Quality: UC
    Sizes Available: 015 – 05

    TeeJet (manufactured in USA)

    TeeJet AIXR
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C
    Sizes Available: 015 – 10
    TeeJet AI
    Type: Air-Induced
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: VC
    Sizes Available: 015 – 15
    TeeJet TurboTeeJet (TT)
    Type: Pre-orifice, suitable for PWM
    Average Pressure: 40 psi
    Average Spray Quality: M-C
    Sizes Available: 01 – 12

    TeeJet TurboTwinJet (TTJ60)
    Type: Pre-orifice Twin, suitable for PWM
    Average Pressure: 40 psi
    Average Spray Quality: M-C
    Sizes Available: 02 – 10

    TeeJet Air-Induced TurboTwinJet (AITTJ60)
    Type: Air-Induced Twin (approved for PWM by TeeJet)
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C-VC
    Sizes Available: 02 – 15
    TeeJet TurboTeeJet Induction (TTI)
    Type: Air-Induced (approved for PWM by TeeJet)
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: XC-UC
    Sizes Available: 015 – 15

    TeeJet Twin TurboTeeJet Induction (TTI60)
    Type: Air-Induced Twin (approved for PWM by TeeJet)
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: XC-UC
    Sizes Available: 02 – 08
    TeeJet AI3070
    Type: Air-Induced Twin
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: C-VC
    Sizes Available: 015 – 05
    TeeJet AccuPulse TwinJet (APTJ)
    Type: Pre-orifice Twin, suitable for PWM
    Average Pressure: 60 psi
    Average Spray Quality: XC- UC
    Sizes Available: 015 – 08

    Wilger ComboJet (manufactured in US and Canada)


    Wilger ComboJet
    Available as ER,SR, MR, DR, and UR models. Appear similar, requires inscription to differentiate
    Type: Pre-orifice, suitable for PWM
    Average Pressure: 50 psi
    Average Spray Quality:
    ER: M
    SR: C
    MR: VC
    DR: XC
    UR: UC
    Sizes Available: 01 – 25
    Adaptor for Combojet tips on TeeJet connector
  • Nozzle Selection for Boom Sprayers

    Nozzle Selection for Boom Sprayers

    Picking the correct nozzle for a spray job can be a daunting task.  There is a lot of product selection, and a lot of different features.  We try to break the process down into four steps.

    1. Identify Your Needs

    Before making any assumptions about the right nozzle for you, review your needs and objectives. Are you trying to reduce drift? Do you want better coverage? Are you moving towards more fungicide application? Do you need a wide pressure range?

    It’s always a good idea to review your experience with your previous nozzle. What, if anything, would you like to change?

    2. Identify Flow Rates

    Most spray operations fall into one of three categories, (a) pre-seed burnoff (3 to 7 US gpa); (b) in-crop early post-emergence (7 to 10 US gpa); (c) late season application to mature canopies (10 – 20 US gpa).

    To find the right nozzle size, you need to know the application volume, the travel speed, and the nozzle spacing. Most sprayers have 20” nozzle spacing, but some have 15” spacing. Use these metric or US units charts to find the right flow rate for common nozzle spacings. Various on-line calculators from Hypro, Greenleaf / Agrotop, Lechler, or Wilger or their apps, are also helpful.

    If you use our chart, the top row lists water volumes. The columns contain travel speeds. Travel speed is somewhat flexible and can change throughout the field.

    Let’s assume the water volume is 7 gpa, and the desired application speed is 13 mph. Move down the “7 gpa” column, searching for 13 mph. You will encounter 13 mph about 5 times: 02 nozzle @ >90 psi, 025 nozzle @ 60 psi, 03 nozzle @ 40 psi, and 035 nozzle @ 30 psi (the 035 size is only offered by some manufacturers) and the 04 nozzle at about 25 psi.

    Nozzle chart, in US units, solving for 7 gpa at 13 mph. Five nozzles can produce the required flow, each at different pressures.

    Note that for the smaller nozzle sizes, the spray pressure is perhaps too high, and for the larger sizes, it is too low. Select a size that allows optimum nozzle performance and travel speed flexibility. In this example, the 025 size is optimal, producing an expected pressure of about 60 psi. The column for the 025 nozzle can now be used to predict the travel speed range from 30 psi to 90 psi, about 9 to 16 mph. For the 03 nozzle, the minimum speed would be 11 mph, too fast for some.

    For Pulse Width Modulation (PWM), slightly different rules apply. See here for instructions.

    3. Select the Nozzle Model

    For general spraying, we recommend intermediate spray qualities ranging from Medium to Very Coarse.

    These intermediate spray qualities offer good coverage at reasonable water volumes and good drift control. Their spray quality can be tailored with pressure adjustments to suit specific needs. For images, see here. In alphabetical order:

    Air Induced:

    There is plenty of selection in this popular category, all manufacturers offering similar specs and performance.

    Pulse Width Modulation:

    PWM nozzle selection is improving, but some gaps in availability remain.

    All nozzles should be operated near the middle of their pressure range, for air-induction this is 50 to 60 psi or higher, a bit less for non air-induced types. This allows maximum flexibility when travel speeds change or when spray quality is adjusted with pressure.


    For fusarium headblight, consider a twin fan nozzle.

    Keep your booms no more than 15” to 25” above the heads for best results.

    Air Induced:

    There is an excellent selection of twin fans from most manufacturers.

    Pulse Width Modulation:

    Relatively poor selection, limited flow rate ranges or spray qualities available for some models.


    For finer sprays (lower water volumes), simply increase spray pressure or consider a non-air-induced design.

    There has always been a large selection of finer sprays on the market, remnants from a time when drift was less important. Very few offer flow rates above 06 or 08, decreasing utility for PWM systems.

    Notice that conventional flat fan tips and most pre-orifice tips are absent from these lists. These nozzles are not recommended for herbicides because they produce sprays that are too fine for acceptable environmental protection (ASABE Fine and Medium). The added coverage afforded by such sprays only has value with low water volumes, and in those instances is more than offset by their higher drift and evaporation. An exception is the use of insecticides with contact mode of action targetting small insects such as flea beetles or aphids. In thes cases, finer sprays (ASABE Fine or Medium) may be required to provide effective tragetting.

    Very high flows are sometimes needed (11010 and above, usually for PWM). When this occurs, conventional flat fans have merit because the higher flow rates of any nozzle usually create coarser sprays, and even conventional tips will create sufficient coarseness to prevent drift.


    For the best drift protection, consider these tips.

    The advent of the dicamba-resistant trait in soybeans has spawned interest in very low drift tips that comply with the label requirements for these products. Although superior for drift control, they are not well suited for low volume or low-pressure spraying, nor for contact herbicides or grassy weeds, as spray retention and coverage may be poor. But they are very valuable when drift control is paramount and when higher volumes can be used to maintain adequate coverage.

    The following advice is based on the rules at the time it was written. These may be suitable for 2,4-D application in Australia under the newest APVMA guidelines (check spray quality to be sure it is VC or coarser). Many are also suited for Dicamba in Canada (must be XC or coarser), or dicamba in the US (must be on approved lists such as this one for Xtendimax or this one for Engenia, but caution is advised, some low pressure limits make them impractical. Always check that spray quality can be achieved at pressures that offer travel speed flexibility.

    Air Induced:

    Excellent selection. This market has received much attention in recent years.

    Pulse Width Modulation

    Before making a selection, check the nozzle’s recommended pressure range and the spray qualities within that range from the manufacturer info. The target pressure for these tips may differ from your expectations.

    4. Tweak and Confirm

    Under field conditions, the spray pressures which produce the desired water volumes can vary from the charts. Make sure you trust your pressure gauge reading and know the pressure drop from the gauge signal to the nozzles, particularly with PWM, where the solenoid adds additional drop. Add the pressure drop to your target pressure reading. If using a rate controller, use the pressure gauge as your speedometer to ensure optimal nozzle performance. Adjust travel speed until the nozzle pressure meets with your spray quality and pattern goals. If that speed is too slow or fast…you have the wrong size nozzle and/or water volume.

    Spray pressure is more important than travel speed – make your pressure gauge your speedometer.

  • Reducing Selection Pressure for Herbicide Resistance

    Reducing Selection Pressure for Herbicide Resistance

    Herbicide resistance has been called the number one threat to conventional herbicide-based weed management strategies.

    Since the 1970s, the number of cases of herbicide resistant weeds has shown a linear increase both globally (currently at about 500 documented unique weed species x mode of action cases) and within Canada (at about 70 such cases), according to the herbicide resistance website WeedScience.org. The rate of increase has been constant, and there is not yet any reason to believe that growth in the number of cases will slow.

    Figure 1: Growth of global herbicide resistance cases (Source: WeedScience.org)

    By using herbicides, we select for weed biotypes that, for some reason, can tolerate the product. Mutations which confer herbicide resistance are rare, but present at very low levels in most weed populations. Repeated use of the same mode of action will increase the relative frequency of the resistant biotype until it becomes noticeable, and shortly thereafter, problematic.

    The best-known forms of resistance involve single-gene mutations that alter herbicide target sites (target sites might be enzymes that produce essential plant cell building blocks) so that herbicide binding is reduced, resulting in reduced control. As a result, the target pathway keeps working, and the plant grows normally after herbicide application. Other forms of resistance involve the overproduction of the target enzyme by the plant, mechanisms that either metabolize or sequester the herbicides, or changes in uptake of the herbicide. The main mechanisms are summarized in this table:

    Table 1: Mechanisms of herbicide resistance*

    Resistant ClassMechanism
    Target SiteTarget site mutation
    Increased gene copy number
    Enzyme over-expression
    Non Target-SiteEnhanced metabolism
    Differential uptake
    Differential redistribution
    Sequestration
    Delayed germination
    Rapid necrosis / defoliation

    *Source: Bo AB, Won OJ, Sin HT, Lee JJ, Park KW. 2017. Mechanisms of herbicide resistance in weeds. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 44:001-015.

    The simple act of using a herbicide can select for resistance to that herbicide. While we can’t predict or prevent resistance entirely, we can slow its onset by reducing the frequency of herbicide use, for example by integrating cultural controls such as crop rotation, seeding rate, cultivar competitiveness, and other factors into our agricultural systems.

    A powerful option to slow resistance development is to reduce our reliance on a single mode of action, either by rotating modes of action in successive sprays, or, more importantly, by tank mixing multiple effective modes of action (MEMoA) whenever we make an application.

    Let’s not kid ourselves. The recent discovery of glyphosate (e.g. Roundup) -resistant wild oats in Australia, and glufosinate (e.g. Liberty) -resistant ryegrasses in several countries is sobering.  Relying more on these herbicides will only increase selection pressure.

    If we decide to use herbicides, we need to look at the situation from the perspective of delaying the onset of resistance. What we’re trying to do is buy some time, so that new strategies can be developed.

    How can spray application methods slow the onset of resistance?

    The use of herbicides will continue to select for resistance. The best we can hope to achieve within a herbicide system is to delay that eventuality.

    To better understand our options, we need to talk about a specific type of herbicide resistance called polygenic resistance. This refers to accumulation of additive genes of small effect over time, a process that is more efficient in plants that share genetic material among plants in a population, i.e., they outcross.

    Outcrossing plants receive genetic material from others, increasing their genetic diversity, and therefore their ability to adapt.

    In a field, a population of any specific weed may contain some individuals that have slightly greater tolerance to a herbicide than others. If we apply a slightly lower than label herbicide dose to those individuals, they might survive the application and eventually cross with other survivors and set seed. Their offspring may be as tolerant or even more tolerant than their parents. If this repeats itself over successive generations, the additive effects build until finally, low-level resistance becomes full-blown resistance and even label rate herbicides no longer work. This resistance isn’t a single gene mutation, it’s simply an accumulation of tolerance due to several genes which impact how much of the herbicide active ingredient reaches the target site.

    In a recent study at the University of Arkansas, susceptible Palmer amaranth (P. amaranth has both male and female plants and is therefore an obligate outcrosser) was treated with a range of dicamba doses to identify individuals that survived the higher doses. The researchers allowed the survivors to cross, and then grew out their seed, then repeating the procedure. After just three generations, the experiment produced individuals with a three-fold increase in LD50 (compare LD50 at P0 (111) to P3 (309) in Table 2). Recall that LD50 refers to the dose required to observe 50% of the full effect.

    Table 2: Dicamba doses (g ae/ha) required for 50% (LD50) and 90% (LD90) control of Palmer amaranth populations selected following sublethal doses of dicamba in the greenhouse.*

    HerbicideSelected PopulationLD50LD90
    DicambaP0111213
    P1198482
    P2221546
    P3309838

    *Source: Tehranchian, P. et al.  2017.  Recurrent sublethal-dose selection for reduced susceptibility of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to dicamba. Weed Science 2017 65:206–212.

    The lessons are three-fold:

    • Herbicide resistance cannot be prevented if herbicides are applied.
    • To prevent polygenic resistance, we need to apply the full label rate and avoid repeated sublethal doses, so that all weeds are killed;
    •  We need to apply Multiple Effective Modes of Action (MEMoA) whenever possible so that when one fails, the others have its back;

    How can this be achieved?

    1. Prevent application practices that result in less effective dosing. Larger weeds, or weeds growing in difficult environmental conditions, may require higher herbicide doses. Early application is helpful because small weeds are easier to control. In addition, crop canopy shading at later staging leads to dose reduction and increases dose variability. Spraying under windy conditions also reduces dose, and can increase deposit variability. For some herbicides such as glyphosate or diquat, the dust generated by wind or fast travel speeds can reduce effectiveness.
    Figure 2: Smaller, exposed weeds require lower doses to control
    Figure 3: Crop canopies provide valuable competition to help suppress weeds, but they can also intercept spray, reducing the dose received by weeds.
    • Get Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) with turn compensation. If your sprayer makes the same turn around the same feature year after year, then the outer boom region will under-dose the same part of the field over and over. This is the breeding ground for polygenic resistance. Look for this in field corners, around water bodies or tree bluffs, rock piles, etc.
    Figure 4: PWM correction of under-dosing during a turn
    • Prevent boom sway and yaw. Boom movements result in uneven application, which results in lower control. Pull-type sprayers with supporting wheels are best, but these are becoming rare. Suspended boom performance depends on the manufacturer and the levelling technology they use.  However, boom movement is usually more consistent with slower travel speeds.
    Figure 5: Boom yaw causing over- and under-application (Source: Farmonline.com.au)
    • Minimize air turbulence. Large sprayers, and those moving at fast speeds, create aerodynamic turbulence that can displace spray. The main problem spots are wheels, in whose tracks measurably less spray is deposited.  The exact dynamics of turbulence is still unknown, but we do know that its magnitude can be reduced with slower travel speeds.
    Figure 6: Turbulence due to sprayer speed (Source: Dr. Hubert Landry, PAMI)
    • Consider spot spraying. The use of optical spot spray equipment, such as the new WEEDit Quadro, or Trimble’s WeedSeeker II, save product during burnoff or post-harvest. These savings can make the use of more elaborate, expensive tank mixes containing multiple effective modes of action, affordable.
    Figure 7: Optical Spot Spraying (WEEDit Quadro) (Source: WEED-it.com)
    • Avoid spray drift. Field margins that harbour weeds rarely receive a full dose of herbicide. Exposing these weeds to spray drift won’t kill them. But it will, over time, select for weeds that are more able to tolerate the herbicide.

    Implications

    Aside from specific technology such as PWM, improved booms, or a spot sprayer, the most effective fix for variable application doses is slower travel speed.

    While this may seem problematic when timing is critical and greater productivity is required, there is a way to drive more slowly and still get more done. We simply need to look at productivity differently.

    We tend to equate productivity with speed. Travel speed. But a spray day is filled with many hours of non-spray time – filling, cleaning, transporting, repairing, fueling, record-keeping, etc. How much time is lost to these activities depends on the operation, but for everyone, it’s useful to do time accounting.

    Record how a spray day’s time is spent. Pay attention to activities during which you can save time without much expense.

    ActionActual TimeTarget Time
    Fuelling, lubing  
    Loading jugs and totes  
    Checking label (rates, rainfastness…)  
    Filling tender tanks  
    Loading sprayer (in yard)  
    Transport to field  
    Entering field data into monitor  
    Checking, recording weather  
    Checking for pest, stage  
    Changing nozzles  
    Spraying load  
    Unplugging / replacing nozzles  
    Replacing nozzle body  
    Making turn  
    Filling sprayer  
    Getting sprayer unstuck  
    Driving to tender truck  
    Waiting for tender truck  
    Spraying out tank remainder  
    Cleaning tank  
    Cleaning filters  
    Flushing boom ends  
    Loading sprayer (in field)  
    TOTAL

    On any given spray day, less time spent filling, or transporting, is credited to spray time.  Our analysis shows that time lost to driving slower can more than be made up with these changes. The productivity gain gives more opportunity to spray under more ideal conditions that save yield and also ensure more uniform application.

    Using productivity analysis, spraying can become more uniform and help delay the onset of resistance.

    Note: The assistance of Dr. Charles Geddes, Research Scientist at AAFC Lethbridge, in drafting this article is appreciated.