Category: Spray Basics

  • 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 exceed 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.

  • The Most Important Developments in Spraying

    The Most Important Developments in Spraying

    Some things have improved a lot. Others have lost ground.

    Some years ago, a few of us weed scientists sat around a table and debated the most important developments in agriculture in our lifetimes. It was a great discussion, and we arrived at a few that included direct seeding (for its soil and moisture conservation as well as improved fertilizer placement), GMO crops (for slowing Group 1 and 2 herbicide resistance), and the abandonment of summer fallow in much of western Canada. Let’s apply this exercise to spray application to see what we come up with.

    What follows are my version of the most important spray technology developments in the last 50 years.

    1. Low-drift Nozzles. Spray drift is the biggest time management challenge and also perhaps the biggest public relations battle. These nozzles reduce drift, making more time available for spraying and doing it safely and effectively.
    2. Rate Controllers. I both love and hate these things. On the one hand, a rate controller matches sprayer output to travel speed. On the other, it has allowed spray pressures to go wherever they need, even beyond the optimum, to match travel speed, and that can lead to nozzle performance issues.
    3. Pulse Width Modulation. The pulsing nozzle fixes the rate controller problem mentioned above. Now, travel speed and pressure are independent. Plus, of course, a whole host of other flow management options, such as turn compensation and rate boosting, become available.
    4. Optical Spot Spraying. Once you see these in action, you can’t go back. Why would you spray a whole field when weeds only cover 10% of it? Products like WEEDit and WeedSeeker are proven green-on-brown performers after years of field success around the world.
    5. GPS Guidance. Some of us grew up with foam or disk markers, others learned to aim for brave family members perched on headlands. Achieving accuracy was stressful, overlap was insurance, and misses were common. The importance of this development is probably under-estimated.
    6. Sectional Control. The ability to adjust the spray width in individual nozzle steps makes sense, and this can come with or without PWM. In fact, that alone can save 5% of an annual chemical bill compared to conventional sections measuring about 10 to 15 feet. And it’s definitely better than the left boom or right boom options from the 70 and 80s.
    7. Operator Comfort and Safety. The refuge of the cab makes longer days bearable for all equipment, but for spraying it dramatically improves safety as well.

    But we’re far from done. We still need work in these areas.

    1. Cleaning and Waste Management. I can’t imagine another industry where managing potentially hazardous leftover materials are left to the discretion and circumstances of the applicator. Let’s make it easy and fast to thoroughly clean the sprayer and safely dispose of leftovers. Step 1 is smarter and simpler plumbing.
    2. Boom Stability. Booms are too high, resulting in more drift and poorer nozzle performance, and adding to operator stress. The sole reason is unsatisfactory levelling. It’s possible to solve this, but it seems to not be a priority.
    3. Weight. The road to productivity seems to be paved with larger, heavier machines. The side effects are fuel consumption, compaction, getting stuck. Let’s get smarter with frame design and logistics and talk acres/h rather than tank capacity and power.
    4. Cost. All farm equipment has seen cost increases that far outstrip inflation or any reasonable accounting of productivity and features. Sprayers lead the way. Yes, it’s possible to spins this as a value proposition. But it shouldn’t be necessary.
    5. Drift Management. Sprayer design continues to ignore drift management. We need sprayers that produce less drift by design, and this requires consideration of tractor unit, wheel, and boom aerodynamics. It’s more than a droplet size issue.
    6. Direct Injection. Although very handy for single product application, the plethora of product formulations and mixes has limited the success of direct injection systems. The complexity of injecting at the nozzle, and the resulting lack of available systems, has stymied some very attractive options, such as site-specific rate or product use.
    7. Ergonomics. If you need training, or to call someone before using your new sprayer for the first time, something’s wrong. Interfaces need to be intuitive and simple. The golden age of spray monitors was the 1980s. Those featured a main power toggle switch, a pump power switch, boom section switches, an agitation switch, and a simple way to enter the important information which was basically desired application volume. The screen can still be pretty, and you can still paint and monitor or tweak all the functions if you like that. But let’s at least have different tiers so beginners can also use the machine. Make interfaces using the philosophy Steve Jobs instilled in his trusted designer Jony Ive with the first iPod: no more than three clicks to achieve any desired outcome.

    A few areas show promise and may suit certain niches.

    1. In-Crop Weed Sensing. The green-on-green sensing that has been made possible by machine learning has shown some encouraging early success. Continuing improvements will eventually bring its reliability to within commercially acceptable standards. There is significant activity below the radar in this area, as all players recognize the enormous upside of a breakthrough.
    2. Autonomy. While dispensing a pesticide adjacent to sensitive areas isn’t exactly the low-hanging fruit of autonomy, such field sprayers will have a fit in the temperate plains of North and South America, Australia, and Asia and may help solve the cost and weight problem.
    3. Drone Application. The rapid pace of advancement in remotely piloted aerial systems, along with a seemingly low barrier to entry of new companies, will put pressure on the industry to make a decision on this alternate application method. If it can be done safely, it will have a dramatic impact.

    If you want to improve your sprayer, don’t ignore the small things you can do in your operation. Although we’re conditioned to look for game-changing technology, the most sustained improvements don’t come from a single innovation, but from a period of persistent evolution. A lot of small improvements add up. Spray application is no different.

  • 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
  • Categorizing air-assist sprayers by air-handling design

    Categorizing air-assist sprayers by air-handling design

    Air handling systems

    Air handling systems can be specialists or generalists; some are designed to do one thing very well while others are more adaptable but not as precise. Fan type plays a big role in determining a sprayer’s abilities. Their native characteristics make them better suited to certain scenarios.

    This may seem contradictory, but we are not saying that the fan alone defines or limits the entire sprayer. Fans operate within a larger, engineered air handling system. Also, the operator has control over how that sprayer is configured and used. This means it is equally important to consider how the air exits the sprayer – not just the fan type that generated it.

    Fan types

    • Radial fans: Radial fans produce high volumes of moderately turbulent air, and relatively low static pressures. They are often associated with fixed vanes and straighteners inside the fan housing to reduce initial turbulence.
    • Turbines: Turbines may look like radial fans but they’re designed to spin faster and they have blades designed to compress air. They are used in sprayers that have ducts, towers, cannons, or other more complex volutes.
    • Straight-through axial fans: These fans produce high volumes of the most turbulent air. With their comparatively short throw and wide air wash, they should be positioned close to the target.
    • Tangential (aka Cross-flow) fans: Tangentials produce the most laminar air, forming a very high volume, low velocity jet sometimes called a “curtain” or “knife”. They have a comparatively long throw and rely on the canopy to induce turbulence.
    • Centrifugal (aka Squirrel cage) fans: Centrifugal fans have a side-discharge arrangement that turns air 90 degrees. They can produce high pressures and are nearly always paired with an air-shaping volute.

    We are proposing defining air-assist sprayers for perennial crops according to their air handling systems. Ultimately, the defining characteristic of each design is the net vector of the air they generate. We have provided silhouettes for clarity, but these generic designs are not intended to imply a manufacturer.

    Low profile radial

    The oldest and perhaps most recognizable air handling design, the Low Profile Radial (LPR) sprayer generates air in a radial pattern from one or more axial fans or a volute connected to some other fan style. This is the classic airblast sprayer.

    Defining characteristics

    • Wide range of adjustable air energies from virtually zero to high.
    • Minor adjustability of air vectors via deflectors and moveable outlets.
    • Net air movement is lateral and upward.

    Cannon

    The Cannon (CN) sprayer generates and channels air through a single volute and delivers the spray as a compact, point-source jet. 

    Defining characteristics

    • High air energy characterized by high velocity and low volume.
    • Extensive adjustability of air vector via a vertical duct with positional outlet and deflector(s).
    • Usually a single-sided sprayer used to spray over and through multiple rows.

    Fixed tower

    The Fixed Tower (FT) sprayer generates air from one or more axial fans, multiple straight-through radial or tangential fans. It may employ flexible tubes, tapered bags or solid ducts to redirect air laterally from a fixed central tower. It may feature additional flexible ducts or adjustable deflectors at the top of the tower to spray over and beyond the adjacent rows. 

    Defining characteristics

    • Wide range of adjustable air energies from virtually zero to high.
    • Minor adjustability of air vectors via deflectors and moveable outlets.
    • Net air movement is lateral compared to LPR sprayers.

    Targeting tower

    Similar to the FT, the Targeting Tower (TT) sprayer can focus air vectors with a wider range of adjustability, shaping the lateral air output more precisely to the canopy. TT generates air from one or more radial fans or multiple tangential or straight-through axial fans. It may employ flexible tubes or solid ducts to redirect air generally laterally. 

    Defining characteristics

    • Medium to high air energy.
    • Moderate to high adjustability of air vectors. Airflow can be subdivided into individually-adjustable sections.
    • When the tower exceeds canopy height, net air movement is lateral to slightly downward.

    Wrap-around

    The Wrap-Around (WA) sprayer surrounds the target rows with air sources. This creates multiple converging and/or opposing airflows within the row. 

    Defining characteristics

    • Straight-through axial fan systems are either electric or hydraulic with a wide range of air energies.
    • Low to high adjustability of air vector via deflectors, moveable air outlets, or fan position adjustments. May also have an adjustable frame.
    • Net air movement is ideally neutral to slightly downward.

    Summary

    In adopting this system of classification, we believe the process of optimizing sprayer configuration and calibration can be made less complicated. A universal language facilitates clear communication between growers, industry and consultants/specialists.

    We acknowledge that there may be rare sprayers that don’t fit these categories. There are commercial examples of air-assist sprayers that combine features from these air-handling designs (e.g. hybrids of LPR and FT designs)… but let’s keep things simple.