Category: Spray Basics

  • Evaluating Methods for Controlling Algae in Carrier Water Storage Tanks

    Evaluating Methods for Controlling Algae in Carrier Water Storage Tanks

    This work was performed with Mike Cowbrough, OMAFA Field Crop Weed Specialist.

    In the early summer months, many field and specialty crop operations collect rainwater (or possibly pump water from holding ponds) into storage tanks for use as a carrier in spray applications. These tanks may be stationary, or they may be part of a nurse or tender truck that delivers both water and chemistry to the field as a means of improving operational efficiency.

    Poly tanks. Source: Purdue Extension publication PPP-77 “Poly Tanks for Farms and Businesses“.

    In the case of translucent poly tanks, which are commonly used because of their light weight, custom shape, and low price point, light exposure will grow algae. Algal populations multiply exponentially and will clog spray filters and negatively affect filling. In response, growers use home-grown algicides such as copper sulfate, lengths of copper pipe, household bleach, chlorine, bromine, etc. They do so with little or no guidance and therefore little or no consistency. Beyond the obvious questions surrounding efficacy, it is unknown whether these adjuncts create physical or chemical incompatibilities in the tank mix. If so, there is the potential for reduced efficacy and/or crop damage.

    We tested popular methods for algae control by inoculating a series of 10 L translucent plastic jugs with an algal population sourced from a southern Ontario holding pond. The population was left to acclimate and generally establish itself (aka colonize) before we introduced some form of control. Each jug was then gently stirred and emptied through a sieve for qualitative assessment.

    In a parallel experiment, we introduced the same algicides to fill water and conducted spray trials. 10 L volumes were mixed with a field rate of glyphosate and sprayed on RR soybeans. Weed control was assessed and soybean yield measured for each treatment.

    Algicide Efficacy Experiment

    In each treatment, tap water was mixed with a micronutrient growth media (from the Canadian Phycological Culture Centre at the University of Waterloo). This was an unsterilized 10% WC(ed) solution intended to provide micronutrients for algal growth while minimizing fungal and bacterial growth.

    The source algae were collected from the bottom of a holding pond from a farm in Guelph, Ontario. Algae were homogenized and equal parts added to each jug. The jugs were former 10 L pesticide containers thoroughly rinsed and sprayed with Five Star’s “Star San” non-rinse sterilizer. Tank solutions were gently bubbled (one bubble every 10-15 seconds) with air from an aquarium pump. Air was balanced using a manifold and introduced via diffusion stones at the bottom of each jug.

    Algae sourced from a farm’s holding pond near Guelph, Ontario. Algae was homogenized before inoculating treatment jugs with equal parts.

    Treatments

    Each treatment was tap water plus growth media inoculated with algae and exposed to a natural diurnal/nocturnal cycle unless otherwise indicated.

    1. Control (no algicide)
    2. Left in a shaded area (no direct sunlight)
    3. Household bleach (approximately 5.25% sodium hypochlorite)
    4. Container was spray-painted black to exclude light
    5. Ammonia
    6. “Scotch Bright” copper-coated scour pad. (copper is often introduced as copper sulfate at 1 cup / 1,000 US gal. or a short length of copper pipe)
    7. Bromine (sourced from a local pool supply store)
    Treatment NumberTreatment NameRate
    (/US Gal.)    		Rate
    (% v/v)    		Rate
    (/10 L final volume)
    1Control (no algicide)
    2Shaded
    3*Household bleach1/4 tsp0.000333.3 mL
    4Black container
    5*Ammonia solution1/4 tsp0.000333.3 mL
    6Copper-coated scour pad
    7Bromine1/32 ml0.0000040.04 g
    Table 1. * Bleach and ammonia should never be added together as they produce toxic chloramine gas.

    Method

    On July 12, jugs were loaded with water and growth media and inoculated with algae. They were bubbled gently for one week to establish a stable algal colony. On July 19, algicides were added, or transferred to shade or black-out conditions. On August 31 (approximately six weeks later), jug contents were gently stirred and filtered through white cloth for qualitative assessment.

    Building up algal population for each jug. Note air lines through lids for slow, intermittent bubbling. Algae was not moved to black container or to the shade until after the first week of acclimation.
    Almost six weeks after algicide was added, jug contents were gently stirred and poured through white cloth to collect algae and establish how easily the liquid passed through.

    Observations

    The results of all seven treatments, plus photos of the copper-coated scour pad.

    (1) Control. Liquid poured slowly through cloth. Algae was still alive and healthy. It formed some clumps but was not as thick as other treatments.

    (2) Shaded. Liquid poured fast and easily through cloth. Was particulate in texture rather than clumpy or gelatinous. Very little mass and entirely brown, suggesting it was dead.

    (3) Household bleach. Liquid poured easily through cloth until the clump of algae sitting at the bottom of the jug came out (i.e., most algae were not suspended). Thick mat of healthy-looking algae (note profile photo #3 below). Much greener and thicker than the control (1).

    (4) Black container. Liquid poured fast and easily through cloth. Algae retained a little green coloration (more than the shaded condition (2)) but was particulate and not as healthy as the control (1). We intended for this treatment to exclude all light, but it was still able to enter at the bottom where the jug wasn’t completely painted. This may have kept the algae alive.

    In an oversight, the jug was not completely painted. This left a source of light at the bottom edge that may have helped sustain algae.

    (5) Ammonia. Very difficult to pour liquid through the cloth (note profile photo #5 below). The only condition where a mat of algae was floating at the top of the jug rather than settled at the bottom. It was healthy, green and thick.

    (6) Copper. The most gelatinous of all conditions, the liquid took the longest to pass through the cloth filter. While the algae seemed brown and dead, the gel would be very problematic during sprayer filling and spraying. Note that the copper scouring pad (shown unrinsed) has nothing growing on it.

    (7) Bromine. Like the household bleach condition, liquid poured easily until the healthy mat of algae at the bottom of the jug came out (i.e., most algae were not suspended). Note profile photo #7 below.

    Profile shots of treatment 3 (Bleach), 5 (Ammonia), and 7 (Bromine).

    Spray Efficacy Experiment

    Ideally, adjuncts added to carrier water are inert. That means they don’t reduce a herbicide’s effectiveness on susceptible weeds or increase crop injury. For example, hypochlorite (found in bleach and in chlorinated water) reduces the biological effectiveness of low concentrations of isoxaflutole (the active ingredient in herbicides such as Converge and Corvus). However, when added to higher, agriculturally-relevant concentrations, the reduction in efficacy wasn’t considered significant (Lin et al., 2003). Conversely, bromide has been added to certain herbicides to improve performance (Jeschke, 2009).

    There’s precious little information about synergistic or antagonistic effects from adding bleach, ammonia, copper or bromine to herbicide carrier water. To learn more, we added each of these adjuncts to the standard rate of glyphosate (900 gae/ha – 0.67 L/ac). Using a CO2-pressurized plot sprayer, the solution was applied to <10 cm tall weeds at 150 L/ha (15 g/ac) in glyphosate tolerant soybean at the 2nd trifoliate stage of growth (Elora Research Station, Ontario).

    Visual crop injury was evaluated at 7 and 14 days after application. Weed efficacy was evaluated at 14 and 28 days after application. Soybeans yields were collected using a Wintersteiger plot combine and adjusted to a moisture content of 14%.

    Weed Control

    All treatments provided excellent control (>90%) of the weeds emerged at the time of application. Table 2 (below) presents the % visual control 28 days after application.

    Carrier Treatment
    (glyphosate 540 g/L at 900 gae/ha or 0.67 L/ac)    		Lamb’s-quarterGreen pigweedWitch grassGreen foxtail
    1) Control0000
    2) Shaded100100100100
    3) Household bleach100100100100
    3a) Household bleach – added prior to mixing9597100100
    4) Black container100100100100
    5) Ammonia100100100100
    6) Copper-coated scour pad100100100100
    7) Bromine100100100100
    Table 2. Visual control of lamb’s-quarter, green pigweed, witch grass and green pigweed at 28 days after the application of glyphosate 540 g/L at 900 gae/ha mixed with various carrier treatments intended to prevent algae growth. Treatment numbers correspond with the soybean injury and yield image below.

    Soybean Injury and Yield

    There was no noticeable crop injury from any treatment (figure below) and yields were not significantly different from the control treatment (Table 3). However, when bleach was added prior to mixing, we did observe a trend in reduced soybean yield. We’re unable to explain this observation, but suggest it may be an unrelated issue (such as field variability). There were no obvious signs of crop injury, and the treatment provided excellent weed control.

    Photographs of each plot 14 days after application. The number/letter in each inset image corresponds to treatments in Tables 2 and 3.
    Carrier Treatment
    (glyphosate 540 g/L at 900 gae/ha or 0.67 L/ac)    		Crop Injury
    (%)*    		Avg. Yield
    (bu/ac)    		Significance**
    4) Black container040.0A
    7) Bromine039.6A
    2) Shaded038.1AB
    3) Household bleach037.6AB
    1) Control037ABC
    5) Ammonia036.9ABC
    6) Copper-coated scour pad036.1 BC
    3a) Household bleach – added prior to mixing034.0 C
    Table 3. Visual control of lamb’s-quarter, green pigweed, witch grass and green pigweed at 28 days after the application of glyphosate 540 g/L at 900 gae/ha mixed with various carrier treatments to prevent algae growth. *7 days after application. **Duncan’s multiple range test. Soybean yields that don’t share a letter in common are significantly different.

    Discussion

    We elected to use an extreme situation where a single application of algicide was applied to an established, healthy colony. It’s possible that regular applications of algicide in a volume of water with little or no algae could maintain that condition.

    A treatment was considered effective if it slowed or halted algal growth, especially if it also degraded algal populations, causing them to become brown, thin, and/or particulate. Once in the spray tank, the shear forces created by circulation should disperse any dead or degraded algal masses, making it easier to pass them through filters and nozzles.

    The shade treatment appeared to kill algae as well as cause degradation. Second place went to the black-out treatment, where some light was unfortunately allowed in. This would have continued to fuel photosynthesis in the unpainted portion at the bottom of the jug. Conversely, the black exterior likely raised temperatures above >20 °C, which depresses most algal growth and may have contributed to the degradation.

    Copper appeared to kill the algae but also created a gel that would pose problems to filters. Unlikely to be bacterial, as copper is known to suppress bacterial growth, it could have been caused by diatoms; certain invasive species are known to form brown jelly-like material endearingly referred to as “brown snot” or “rock snot”. Alternately, and according to work by J. Rodrigues and R. Lagoa, alginate polysaccharide can form viscous aqueous dispersions (such as gels) in the presence of divalent cations (such as copper).

    No treatment appeared to reduce herbicide efficacy or affect crop health. However, unexpectedly, the household bleach added prior to mixing may have reduced soybean yield. Given the limited number of replications and the single plot location, we suspect this was a field effect, unrelated to the treatment.

    Take Home

    Based on these results, a combination of shade and light-excluding materials (e.g. black paint) would be the ideal approach to algae control. It’s cheap, effective, and doesn’t require periodic management. Buying black tanks is a good choice, or you can paint them. What you should paint them with is a matter of debate and there’s a very good Twitter thread on the subject if you’re interested.

    An Aside: Algae in Ponds and Dugouts

    We didn’t test this, but the question has come up and the best we can do is share some long-standing farmer wisdom. Some have used Aquashade dye to absorb the photosynthetic wavelengths and reduce algae buildup. Reputedly it is moderately successful. Another option is adding aluminum sulfate to the pond, and with a lot of agitation it should clarify in about 48 hours. Still others have added a few square barley straw bales to the water and found it to work surprisingly well (possibly an allelopathic response). Tie a rope to them and float them in the pond.

    Citations

    Jeschke, Peter. 2009. The unique role of halogen substituents in the design of modern agrochemicals. Pest Manag Sci, 2010; 66: 10–27

    Lin, C.H., Lerch, R.N., Garrett, H.E. and M.F. George. 2003. Degradation of Isoxaflutole (Balance) Herbicide by Hypochlorite in Tap Water. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 8011-8014

  • Adjusting Sprayer for Alternate Rows

    Adjusting Sprayer for Alternate Rows

    An “Alternate Row Middle (ARM)” traffic pattern is where the sprayer passes down every second row. The intent is to improve work rate by cutting the driving time in half. The operator hopes to provide suitable coverage on both the sprayer-facing half of the canopy, and that half of the canopy facing the next alley. In our experience, this depends on sprayer design, and only works in very small/young plantings (or only for the first few applications of the season). Even then, the side facing the sprayer tends to get saturated in an effort to ensure a threshold dose reaches the far side. We’ve already captured the pros and cons of ARM in this article, and (spoiler alert) unless you’re using a wrap-around style design, it’s generally not the best approach for protecting an orchard, bush, cane or vine crop.

    So why on Earth would we be testing it here?

    We were contacted by an orchardist who planted a test block of Gala (est. spring, 2017) in an unusual way. He called it “V-Trellis Vertical Axis Cross”. Basically, he created an orchard architecture that only allowed equipment (e.g. platforms, sprayers) to pass down every second row. He figured it would save 35% of his labour costs. In the photo and illustration below, you can see the posts lean over the drivable alleys, creating a “V” shape.

    So, given that he couldn’t fit a sprayer down every row, we had no choice but to try to optimize sprayer settings for ARM applications. Note the six numbers in circles in the above illustration. They indicate where we would eventually place water-sensitive papers to diagnose spray coverage.

    Here are the settings the orchardist was using before we made any adjustments:

    • Turbomist sprayer with 11 foot high tower
    • Bottom-most nozzle was on and every second nozzle position skipped for a total of 5 nozzles active per side
    • Nozzles were TeeJet ceramic disc-core. Top to bottom: D3-DC45, D3-DC45, D3-DC45, D3-DC45, D3-DC25
    • 7 km/h (4.35 mph) travel speed per a speedometer app on a smartphone
    • Tractor engine speed was 2,150 rpm (PTO was ~ 540 rpm)
    • Fan set in low gear
    • Pressure was 190 psi
    • Ambient wind gusting to 8 km/h, temperature of 30°C, RH ~65%.

    And here is a video of what the sprayer was doing before we changed any settings. This is a single upwind pass, and as you can see, the spray blew through at least five downwind rows. Obviously, this was far too much air and spray volume.

    When we diagnose coverage in an every-row situation, we drive the alleys on each side of the target row (i.e. two passes). But, when diagnosing ARM spraying, we want to account for every drop of cumulative coverage from spraying upwind rows. So, we have to do three passes, as shown in the illustration below. In this top-down diagram, the sprayer travels the red line.

    In order to establish a baseline, we diagnosed coverage for the original settings using water-sensitive papers in the six positions indicated above. We folded them in half, so a sensitive side faced each alley. We sprayed water and later digitized the cards to determine the percent coverage on the papers. Remember, if 80% of the cards receive at least 10-15% surface coverage and a deposit density of 85 drops per cm2, it’s typically sufficient.

    Here are our results, with percent area-covered indicated in each position, as well as a representative scan of one of the papers. There’s no need to provide deposit density, which after about 30% surface coverage cannot be reliably determined.

    So, if the video doesn’t convince, then the papers certainly do: This was way too much air and spray mix.

    Next, we performed a series of air adjustments using ribbons (detailed here and here) which led us to reduce engine speed from 2,150 rpm to 1,300 using the Gear-Up, Throttle-Down method. Then we used the OrchardMax calculator to establish an ideal spray volume and guide us to which nozzle rates we should use:

    • Bottom-most nozzle was on and every second nozzle position skipped for a total of 5 nozzles active per side
    • Top nozzle was TeeJet AITX8002, followed by TeeJet TXR80015, TXR80036, TXR80015, TXR80015
    • 7 km/h (4.35 mph) travel speed per a speedometer app on a smartphone
    • Tractor engine speed was 1,300 rpm (PTO was ~ 300 rpm)
    • Fan set in low gear
    • Pressure was 100 psi
    • Ambient wind gusting to 4 km/h, temperature of 26.5°C, RH ~70%.

    The following video shows the coverage from a single pass (to be clear, no extra upwind pass). We eventually did three passes to capture the cumulative coverage, just like with the first sprayer settings. This video simply serves to show how in ARM applications, the sprayer-facing side always looks much better than the side facing away. Also note how much quieter the sprayer is, as well as the reduced blow-through.

    And here is the resultant, cumulative coverage from three passes. Once again, deposit density isn’t required as it exceeded our threshold in each position.

    In the end analysis, we saved the grower ~30% of their spray mix, greatly reduced noise and spray drift, and still achieved suitable coverage in the target canopy. So, does this mean ARM applications are redeemed? We refer you, kind reader, to our introduction where we said ARM can work in young plantings and early season applications.

    Note that the upwind side of the canopy received less coverage than the downwind side. As this new planting grows and fills, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to achieve sufficient coverage. Changes to the sprayer settings may be able to account for the imbalance, but they will also make the applications less efficient (i.e. more spray mix, more drift and coverage will still not be uniform). It remains to be seen if the spray inefficiency inherent to this orchard architecture is worth the estimated 35% savings in labour costs.

    It’s an economic decision. We’ll see.

  • Clean Your Nozzles

    Clean Your Nozzles

    When operators winterize their sprayers, they should remove all the tips and store them separately. Many store them in large pails with lids. Calibrating the sprayer just prior to winterizing will indicate if the nozzles should be stored, or replaced. Let’s assume each tip flow rate is within 5% of the average output and no more than 5% more than the manufacturer’s pressure tables. Yes, industry standard is 10%, but I always wonder how the spray quality suffers with that much wear. Nozzles are, comparatively, a cheap replacement and it’s not worth skimping. Learn more how to check nozzle flow rate, here.

    Just like any other part of the sprayer that comes in contact with spray liquid, nozzles (and strainers) should be cleaned regularly. And, just like any other part of the plumbing, the best way to do that is to dilute any residues via a series of rinses. For a more rigorous cleaning, one of the intermediate rinses should include a detergent, and soaking during this step is an excellent practice.

    The orifice of any nozzle is delicate, either machined or molded to exacting standards. Even small changes to the orifice shape results in distorted spray (e.g. spray comes out at undesirable angles), a change to the rate (typically more volume per minute) and a change in the spray quality (typically larger median droplet size). If foreign objects or residues remain in the tips, the subsequent spray job may be less accurate and even damage the tips.

    In the case of air induction nozzles, which are essentially the standard on most boom sprayers, debris and weed seeds can plug the air-intake ports. When that happens, the nozzle will not function as intended. So, while the occasional soaking of nozzles does a great deal of good, they may also have to be scrubbed. Don’t use picks or reamers! There are nozzle cleaning tools out there, but they’re basically toothbrushes so save your old ones (and mark them clearly). Soft bristles are the way to go for removing stubborn residues and cleaning any tip orifices, but we found a nifty new way:

    Occasionally we receive photos like the one below and we’re asked what we think. Well, just the same way we don’t recommend cleaning your sprayer overalls in the family clothes washer, we also don’t recommend the use of dishwashers for nozzles.

    Not a great idea. Certainly not if you intend to ever use this dishwasher for anything else. And where does the rinsate go?

    In an interesting experiment, Lucas Olenick of Wilger tried cleaning tips in a heated ultrasonic cleaner. We haven’t tested this and we don’t know what heat and vibration might do to poly and ceramic components, but surely it’s no more aggressive than hot, soapy water and a bristle brush. Lucas tried several durations with and without detergent and arrived at this recipe:

    “For tough, non-water-soluble pesticides, around 8+ hours in a heated ultra-sonic cleaner with (Dawn) dish soap to come out like brand new. Other solvents may speed this up, but I’d generally suggest against heating solvents at any concentration. For water-soluble pesticides, expect to be within the 3-6+ hours for the first time to be confident enough in not having to flow-test each of the nozzles. With any pesticides, ensure proper care in handling contaminated nozzles and rinsate after cleaning nozzles.”

    The mad genius of Lucas Olenick (@WilgerParts) who used dish detergent and a heated sonic cleaner to unplug tips. Be sure to dispose of rinsate safely. Photo credit: Lucas Olenick.

    Don’t have a heated sonic cleaner? No problem. Here’s a step by step:

    1. Wearing gloves, remove all nozzles, strainers, rubber gaskets and tips from the sprayer.
    2. Put them in a large plastic pail and cover them in warm water. Leave them to soak.
    3. Drain the pail, but be aware that the rinsate will have pesticide residue.
    4. Fill a second pail with a solution of the same commercial detergent used to clean the sprayer.
    5. With a toothbrush, scrub the caps, gaskets, strainers and nozzles to remove any residue. Some nozzles can be pulled apart to expose the mixing chamber and facilitate cleaning.
    6. Once scrubbed, leave all the parts to soak in the detergent solution.
    7. Drain the solution, which will contain trace amounts of pesticide, rinse the parts with water and reassemble the nozzles.

    While you’re at it, drop those filters and scrub them alongside the tips. This may seem extreme, but of all the technology on a sprayer, the nozzle has the biggest impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the spray job. Take the opportunity over the winter months to clean and inspect the tips for damage so the sprayer is ready for calibration in the spring.

    Soak, scrub, rinse and store nozzles and nozzle strainers. You may replace them once the sprayer is clean, but I prefer to store then separately. Photo credit: Jason Boersma (@RVFBoys), Ridge Valley Farms, Ontario.

    Thanks to Jason Boersma (@RVFBoys), Ridge Valley Farms, Ontario, who sparked this article with his tweet: “Great job for a cold winter day, soak & clean all your tips to be ready for spring also saves on down time!”

  • Spraying Weather

    Spraying Weather

    It’s time to spray and what’s the first thing you do? Check the weather forecast, of course. More often than not, the suitability of the weather is the main factor in the decision to spray. Let’s have a closer look at what each weather component contributes to the decision.

    Wind:

    Everyone knows that small droplets can drift if it’s windy, and the windier, the worse it is. But that’s hardly the whole story.  Here’s how can we improve our understanding of wind and its impact.

    • Look beyond the wind forecast. It’s standard practice to look a day or two ahead for wind forecasts. At any instant, the wind speed and direction may be acceptable for our planned spray job, but we know that it will change. Consider wind speed sites such as Windfinder, Ventusky, or Windy for added insight. These services show trends over time in a great visual interface, allowing users to anticipate changes in wind speed and direction for better planning. While they aren’t forecasts per se, visualizing wind patterns over a larger region allows a better understanding of what’s coming your way.
    Figure 1: Sites such as Windy.com offer powerful visualizations of current and future wind conditions.
    • Use wind as an ally. We’re conditioned to think of wind as having a negative effect on spray drift. The less the better. Yes, droplet displacement increases with wind speed. But the “negative-only” perspective is being re-evaluated in light of dangers associated with wind-free conditions that often occur during temperature inversions (see “Temperature”, below). In fact, wind provides several advantages over calm conditions:
      1. Directional certainty. We can assess the risk to downwind sensitive areas. This is not possible with calm conditions because inversion air flow may follow terrain, and as inversions dissipate, the first daily winds can be changeable and unpredictable in direction.
      2. Turbulence. Wind creates mechanical turbulence which helps sprays deposit and disperse.  Both of these effects have value. In a calm environment, such turbulent eddies don’t exist.
      3. Low drift options. If it’s windy, we have options to respond. We can lower the boom or lower the spray pressure. We can mix the next tank in higher water volume, forcing either a larger nozzle (larger flow rates of the same model nozzle usually produce coarser sprays) or slower travel speeds. All these practices reduce drift when it’s windy. In comparison, nothing (except not spraying) can be done to reduce risk during inversion conditions. This is because even low-drift spray contain enough fine droplets to cause damage if they linger.
    • Know your wind speed. The international standard for wind speed measurement is 10 m above ground level. When 25 km/h wind speeds are reported, they are at 10 m, not the 1 m height where the boom is located. Within the surface boundary layer, the part of the atmosphere closest to the ground, wind speeds typically increase linearly with the natural log of the height above the canopy. The slope of that line depends on atmospheric stability and roughness length. Very close to the ground, the wind speed reaches zero, and that height is a function of the roughness of the surrounding terrain.

      As a rule of thumb, over a short crop canopy, expect the wind speed at 1 m above ground to be about 0.67x of the speed at 10 m. So if the weather reports 25 km/h, the actual wind speed at boom height is closer to 17 km/h. Remember that weather stations can be far away, and local conditions will vary. Always measure your local wind speed and direction with your own weather station or handheld device, and keep a record.
    Figure 2: Relationship of wind speed and height, for three roughness conditions (Source: Oke et al, 2017)
    Figure 3: Hand-held wind meters or weather stations are an essential part of a spray operation and record keeping.

    Wind and Mode of Action. Coarser sprays are a common way to reduce drift in windy conditions. But some modes of action aren’t well suited to coarser sprays. We can schedule our spray jobs throughout the day to correspond to spray quality tolerance. Apply the products that require the finest sprays (contact products, grassy herbicides, insecticides) when conditions are best, and save the sprays that tolerate the coarser sprays (systemic products, broadleaf targets) for less certain conditions later in the day. Or treat the fields whose downwind edges border a sensitive crop during better conditions. Here’s a rough guide to spray quality and herbicide mode of action.

    Temperature

    Like wind, air temperature is more complex than it appears at first sight. Here are some other aspects to consider:

    • Understand temperature inversions. Temperature matters. But perhaps the most important aspect of temperature when it comes to spraying isn’t the temperature per se, but how it changes with height. The temperature change with height is used to identify dangerous temperature inversions.

      Here’s how temperature profiles work (for a quick Sprayers101 overview, here, for the best in-depth explanation (NDSU), here): Due to atmospheric pressure, there is always a slight temperature decrease with height, about 1 ºC per 100 m (the dry adiabatic lapse rate). This temperature profile describes a “neutral” atmosphere, i.e., no thermal effects.

      When it’s sunny, solar radiation heats the earth, which in turn warms the air near it. As a result, the rate of cooling with height is greater than the adiabatic lapse rate, and we have “unstable” conditions that are characterized by thermal turbulence (warm air rising, cold air falling) that actively mixes air parcels. Thermal turbulence is very good at dispersing anything in the air, including spray droplets.

      When solar radiation is low or absent, the earth cools and this mostly affects the air near it. As a result, air temperature rises with height, and the daytime temperature / height profile is inverted. Air parcels no longer move up or down, in fact they return to their original location if displaced. This results in a “stable” atmosphere, also called an inversion.

      Inversions are dangerous because they are associated with very low dispersion, and a spray cloud will remain concentrated and may linger over the ground for a long time, like ground fog.

      Most weather services do not actively measure inversions. Instead, their presence has to be inferred by clues. For example, inversions:
      (a) occur primarily when solar radiation is low, from early evening, overnight, to early morning;
      (b) are more likely on clear nights, when soils cool more;
      (c) can be seen when ground fog is present, or when dust hangs, moving slowly;
      (d) are associated with low ground temperatures that also cause dew. 

    Recent findings about inversion in Missouri were summed up in this excellent webinar by Dr. Mandy Bish, Extension Weed Specialist at the University of Missouri. Her studies showed that inversions can begin hours before sunset, their presence and duration are dependent on local conditions such as topography and windbreaks, and recognition of telltale signs of inversions such as lack of windspeed are important for accurate local assessments.

    Figure 4: Morning ground fog in Australia (picture provided to author).
    • Use Mesonets if you have them. Mesonets are networks of weather stations, and they can add valuable information. For example, North Dakota has an extensive network of about 130 weather stations that, among other things, measures and reports temperature inversions. NDAWN (ndawn.ndsu.nodak.edu) reports temperatures at 3 m and 1 m, and issues warnings of temperature inversions as they develop at a specific location. NDAWN information is available as an app. North Dakota isn’t the only place to have a public mesonet, check to see what’s available in your area. The added information is worth subscribing to.
    • Know the volatility of the product. Some pesticide active ingredients are volatile. This means they can evaporate from a wet or dry deposit during and after application (more here). Dicamba is a prominent example, but there are others, like trifluralin and ethalfluralin, 2,4-D and MCPA ester, and clomazone. Formulation can affect volatility, and the use of lower volatile esters of 2,4-D and better salts of dicamba have helped. Microencapsulation has been used to reduce the problem with clomazone. Volatility is strongly affected by surface temperature, and volatile products should not be sprayed on hot days or when the forecast calls for hot days following application. Volatile products have been found to evaporate from dry deposits for several days after application, and their vapours move under inversion conditions, causing widespread damage.

    Sun

    The sun plays a large role in spraying. Plants’ active growth improves herbicide translocation as well as activity in the photosystem, or in amino acid or fatty acid synthesis. The activity of herbicides has been shown to improve under sunny conditions for that reason.

    Some herbicides, most notably diquat (Reglone), work too quickly when it’s sunny, and improved performance can be gained by spraying under cloudy or low-light conditions. The lack of photosynthesis allows for some passive translocation before the product causes tissue necrosis.

    Sunny conditions also increase thermal turbulence we mentioned earlier, which is useful for burning off morning inversions. But what usually follows a sunny day is a strong inversion as the sun sets and the clear sky facilitates the earth’s rapid cooling. It would be possible to spray a bit later into the evening when it’s cloudy.

    Humidity

    Since about 99% of the spray volume is comprised of water, evaporation of this water can have strong effects on droplet behaviour. Droplets begin to evaporate as soon as they leave the nozzle, becoming smaller and more drift-prone while still in flight. Higher booms and finer sprays increase the flight-time of droplets, and this increases the sensitivity to evaporation.

    The most common measure of water in air is relative humidity (RH). RH doesn’t tell the whole story, though, because the same RH at different temperatures results in two different rates of water evaporation. A better measure is wet bulb depression. Wet bulb depression is defines as the difference in temperature reported by a dry bulb vs. a wet bulb thermometer. Wet bulb depression has more recently been coined as “Delta T” in Australia. The Delta T value is directly related to water evaporation, and charts have been published showing acceptable values for spraying. A Delta T of >10 ºC is considered too high.

    Figure 5: Delta T, also known as wet bulb depression, provides an indication of water evaporation rate.

    After they deposit on a leaf, droplets can evaporate to dryness within seconds, and a dry atmosphere can result in rapid drying that reduces herbicide uptake. In one study, a Group 2 herbicide was applied to weeds in a normal sized spray, and also as a fine mist, both under very dry conditions. The normal spray showed the expected herbicide efficacy. The finely misted herbicide had no effect on the weeds, likely because the rapid drying prevented uptake. Interestingly, the product began to work again when the plants were later placed in a humid environment.

    High humidity can also work against an application. Since humidity is often high during temperature inversions, droplets remain potent while they linger and drift over sensitive terrain. It would be better if they had evaporated and lost their effectiveness.

    Some proponents of low water volumes and fine sprays have suggested oily formulations or adjuvants prevent evaporation. While this may slow evaporation, it also creates a dangerous condition in which many small droplets remain aloft and liquid for a long time, with high activity on any target they may encounter. The bottom line: Don’t spray low volumes with oily adjuvants.

    The Perfect Day

    We know that the ideal spray day is sunny, starts a few hours after sunrise once the dew has mostly burned off, and has consistent winds away from sensitive areas. Spraying should end well before before sunset, before calm conditions signal the onset of the inversion.

    But what to do when that day never happens? All too often, high winds persist day after day, and night spraying is the only alternative. In that case, do what you can to minimize potential damage. Survey downwind areas. Choose cloudy skies that suppress inversions. Incoming weather systems are usually associated with consistent winds, and these may reduce inversion risk. If drift is a possibility, apply more water and use the coarser nozzles at your disposal to minimize it. Any investments made to boost productivity will pay dividends, allowing you to get a greater proportion of your work done when conditions are better.

    Additional Resource

    If you want an excellent resource for spray weather best practices, grab a free copy of Graeme Tepper’s “Weather Essentials for Pesticide Application” published by Australia’s GRDC.

  • Methods for Testing Nozzle Flow Rate

    Methods for Testing Nozzle Flow Rate

    Calibration should be a regular practice for every operation that uses a sprayer. Part of that process is confirming that each nozzle is operating within the manufacturer’s specifications. This is a must for researchers that adhere to Good Laboratory Practices and for custom operators that sell their services. But we didn’t just fall off the turnip truck… we know nobody else does it. In fact, we’re surprised when we hear an operator HAS checked their nozzle flow.

    And we get it. It can be awkward and time consuming. A field sprayer with 72 nozzle bodies and three nozzles in each position has a whopping 216 nozzles. A tower-style or wrap-around airblast sprayer has fewer nozzles, but the operator needs a ladder to reach them all and they don’t point straight down, so a tube must be used to guide the spray into a collection vessel.

    And when pressed, any operator that does not regularly check their nozzles counters by saying “my tank empties in the same place every time, so why check them?” Even if the sprayer does start to go further on a tank, the operator can speed up or adjust the rate controller to drop the pressure a little.

    Fair enough. This isn’t a hill we choose to die on.

    But we will say that nozzles worn by even a few percent don’t only cause a change in flow rate, but may indicate a deteriorating spray quality and spray geometry. And, when one (or a few) nozzles are worn and others are not, it’s the same as when a single nozzle is plugged – the operator won’t be able to tell from the cab because the rate controller tends to mask the problem. And, if using PWM to apply a simultaneously reduced broadcast rate, perhaps the issue is amplified? All of this impacts coverage uniformity.

    We’ll get off our soapbox now.

    Over the years we’ve encountered many methods for determining a nozzle’s flow rate. We wanted to try each of them and characterize their accuracy, precision, time required, and ease of use. This is not a ranking where we wanted to find “The Best” method. The best method depends on your situation. If you’re a researcher, then accuracy and precision may trump time and expense. If you’re a custom applicator, then perhaps time is the critical factor. And if it’s your own operation, perhaps expense matters most. It’s up to you.

    Method

    The following tests were performed on a spray patternator table. A single nozzle was operated by a ShurFlo 2088-594-154 positive displacement pump. Pressure was set using a bypass regulator and an analog pressure gauge, confirmed by a SprayX digital manometer positioned under the nozzle body via a splitter. Room temperature water was used.

    “Patty” the spray patternator table. Designed and constructed by Mohawk College, Brantford, Ontario.
    Digital manometer on a splitter parallel with the test nozzle.

    We tested ten nozzle flow rate measurement systems. There are others out there, but we limited the selection to farmer-oriented systems and not those used in mandatory government inspections.

    1. Billericay Flowcheck
    2. Delavan Calibration Cup
    3. Graduated Cylinder
    4. Greenleaf Calibration Pitcher
    5. SprayX SprayFlow Turbo
    6. SpotOn SC-1
    7. SpotOn SC-2
    8. SpotOn SC-4
    9. Weighed Output
    10. Lurmark McKenzie Calibrator

    Three samples were taken from a new TeeJet XR8004 at ~40 psi and three samples taken from a new TeeJet AIXR11004 at ~70 psi. An exception was made for the Billericay Flowcheck which specified 43.5 psi (3 bar) for all sampling. All systems were emptied or dried as much as their design permitted between samples.

    All data was converted to gallons per minute and the flow measured was compared to the calculated flow for the nozzle and pressure used. For example, if the manometer read 38 psi for the 8004, then the formula 0.4 x (38 psi ÷ 40) 0.5 gives us a calculated flow of 0.39 gpm. If the method reported 0.41 gpm, then it would be off by +5.1%.

    Results

    Consider the accuracy and the precision of each system when you review the results. Remember that precision means you get the same result with very little variation while accuracy means that on average you get the correct result. And, for context, remember that most recommend changing a nozzle when it is 10% more than the ideal flow rate. We prefer 5%, and if three or more nozzles are off spec, replace them all as a batch because they’re likely all very close. Compared to most spraying costs, a set of nozzles is not worth quibbling about. Some operators just change them annually and don’t bother with testing at all.

    Billericay Flowcheck: This is a passive measurement system. You must select the nozzle size on the bottom of the collector and suspend the unit from the nozzle body. It’s designed for a horizontal boom and you’d have trouble using it with any other sprayer. You also have to set the pressure to exactly 43.5 psi (3 bar). While fairly accurate, it spanned about +/-2.5% off ideal. You have to read from the right scale, which in this case was red and rather difficult to read because of the low contrast. It took about two minutes to reach equilibrium for each reading and a lot of liquid is lost during the process.

    We attempted to keep the unit plumb so the meniscus and scale aligned correctly. We found it difficult to read the ’04 scale because of low contrast. Pictured is 1.53 lpm.

    Delavan Calibration Cup: This small, one-handed plastic cup had a scale printed on the outside. We were limited to a 15 second collection because of how quickly it filled. Some spray was lost to mist and bounce and we used the “Fluid Oz” scale to get the highest resolution from the measurement. It took less than a minute to collect and read from the cup, but had the lowest precision and accuracy.

    Graduated Cylinder: There was little or no mist or bounce from escaping spray during collection. Our 1,000 ml graduated cylinder took 30 seconds at 40 psi and 20 seconds at 70 psi to fill making it roughly one minute per reading. A few light taps removed bubbles and once the liquid settled we could read the level. This must be performed on a level surface (in our case we used the digital level app on our iPhone). This was a very precise method, varying by less than 2%, but it wasn’t very accurate. We may have introduced error when reading the meniscus (always read from the centre) or perhaps the plastic distorted over time and affected accuracy. It may be difficult for most people to get a high quality, scientific-grade graduated cylinder.

    Greenleaf Calibration Pitcher: The pitcher had multiple scales but once again we used fluid ounces because it had the highest resolution. With the highest capacity, we were able to collect for an entire minute. Despite holding the vessel at different angles and distances, we lost a lot of spray to mist and bounce and the nozzle body was beaded with water at the end of each trial. After tapping the vessel to remove bubbles and reading on a level surface, it took about 1.5 minutes per sample and averaged an average 3% more than the calculated ideal flow rate.

    Innoquest Spot On Digital Calibrator: We’ll discuss all three Spot Ons together. The Spot Ons were a game-changer in North America when they first came out. You can read a peer-reviewed article about the SC-1 by Dr. Bob Wolf et al. published in 2015 in the Journal of Pesticide Safety here. The SC-2 is a new version of the SC-1 with added digital features that allow the user to calculate gallons per acre and it indicates tip wear based on the 10% industry standard . The most important improvements were a reduced sensitivity to foam and a thicker foam diffuser to reduce the chance of errors. The SC-4 works exactly like the SC-1, but has a larger capacity intended for high flow rate nozzles (e.g. hollow cones on an airblast sprayer). In each case, the Spot On will report in several units, and must be held steady under the nozzle flow (i.e. not moved during reading). The SC-1 and 2 took less than 12 seconds for each reading and the SC-4 took closer to 30. The SC-1 and SC-2 were relatively precise but read consistently higher than the calculated flow rate. This may be an artefact given that the units only read to 2 decimal places and this may have exaggerated any error. The SC-4 was the least accurate and precise of the three. The Spot Ons were the fastest and easiest to read of the methods used.

    Weighed Output: This method is based on the fact that 1 ml of water weighs one gram. Spray was collected for 30 seconds and weighed on a new, $25 CAD digital kitchen scale, which was tared (i.e. the weight of the vessel subtracted from the overall weight). While subject to errors from manual timing, it has the merit of removing the challenge of reading a meniscus and it’s relatively inexpensive. This method was precise and relatively accurate compared to the other methods used. It took about a minute per sample.

    SprayX SprayFlow Turbo: This was the most sophisticated method we used. The kit comes with a digital manometer, a flowmeter and a digital scale. It works though a smartphone app (screenshot below). You first have to set up a virtual sprayer, informing the app how many sections and nozzles will be tested. Then you must calibrate the flow sensor by taking three measurements versus a weighed output to eliminate possible variations caused by the nozzle, pressure, temperature, and the density of the liquid. The app walks the user through each step. This method took the most time to set up (easily 10 minutes). However, once it was set up, each nozzle could be tested in less than 30 seconds apiece. This method was the most accurate and precise, but the price may place it out of reach for the typical user.

    Screenshot from the SprayX SprayFlow app.

    Lurmark McKenzie Calibrator: This method is not reported in the box-and-whisker plot because there were significant problems that prevented accurate readings. It was difficult to get a seal over the nozzle and the floater ball would either stick or fluctuate. After several attempts, this method was abandoned.

    Conclusion

    In order to test if a process, or a thing, is occurring or produced within acceptable limits, we need a detection system with a high enough resolution. In manufacturing (e.g. factory production) this is an essential requirement in quality assurance. Let’s consider a +10% deviation from the nozzle’s ideal flow rate to be our indication that a nozzle needs to be replaced. We need a measurement system with an appropriate scale and one with sufficient precision to ensure we don’t get a false reading. Based on our data, I would suggest all systems reviewed, save the measurement cup, are viable. Even if we elect to use a more stringent rejection threshold of 5%, some systems are more precise than others (i.e. less variability), but all but the cup should still be sufficient.

    What’s the penalty for not testing, assuming we’re not talking about significantly deviant nozzles? Let’s say, for example, we are not using a rate controller and we are applying 20 US gpa at 12 mph using 72 nozzles on 20″ centres. Our boom would have to spray 58.2 gpm, which means each nozzle would have to emit 0.81 gpm. If those nozzles sprayed 5% more than intended, we’d be spraying 21 gpa instead of 20 gpa. That means for a 1,200 gallon sprayer, you’d do 57 acres instead of 60. We would have the same result if we dropped from 12 mph to 11.45 mph, which is about 5% slower. Maybe that’s a big deal for your operation, or maybe not. For most, 5% is well within the typical error inherent to spraying. Then again, perhaps it’s more important to know that each nozzle is performing in a manner similar to its neighbours to ensure the highest degree of coverage uniformity.

    Ultimately, it is important to ensure you’re as efficient as possible, and that means understanding what your nozzles are doing so you can decide if-and-when it’s time to replace them. Pick whichever method makes it easiest for you to justify testing your nozzles and do it at least once a year when you take your sprayer out of long term storage.

    Thanks to all the companies that donated or loaned their calibrators to make this article possible.