After running through your sprayer’s routine maintenance, it’s time to assess the suitability of its nozzles for upcoming applications, and, let’s face it, that decision can be pretty complicated. Besides the typical competition between manufacturers, you also have to consider spray quality. Do you want coarse droplets? Fine droplets? Air induction nozzles? Twin-fan nozzles? How many gallons of water will you need per acre? Are the nozzles you want readily available and replaceable?
I have three spots for different nozzles on my new sprayer. I want burn-off, in-crop and fungicide; what three should I have (5-15gal/acre)?
In this video, Tom Wolf discusses the attributes of some of the best of Canada’s spray nozzles, providing a visual demonstration of their differences, and thoughts on nozzle selection for pre-seed, in-crop and fungicide spray applications
In June, 2014, 30 growers attended a spray coverage demonstration in a potato field in Alliston, Ontario. Our goal was to explore three questions:
What is the effect of droplet size on coverage?
What is the effect of volume on coverage?
What is the effect of spray angle on coverage?
This certainly wasn’t a scientific experiment. Spray demos are a great foil for discussing droplet behaviour and teaching operators how to diagnose spray coverage. Take the “results” with a grain of salt.
Discussing spray coverage in Alliston, Ontario (2014).
In order to see spray coverage, we placed water sensitive paper in the potato canopy (see below). Water sensitive paper turns from yellow to blue when it is contacted by water. Normally, we use a digital scanner to quantify spray coverage. However, it was a very humid day and this made it difficult for the scanner to discern spray from background. We decided to assign a qualitative value to the papers based on coverage. Low (or no) coverage got a score of zero. Moderate coverage (enough to offer good control) received a score of one. Papers with excessive coverage (anything more than moderate) received a score of two. Did I mention this wasn’t a scientific experiment?
The location of water-sensitive papers in the potato plant canopy. Two plants were papered for each nozzle.
Droplet Size
To answer the first question, we compared coverage from two hollow cone nozzles. The TeeJet TXR80028, which creates a fine/medium droplet size, and the TeeJet AITX8002VK, which is air-induced and creates a Coarse/Very Coarse droplet size. In both cases the boom was approximately 50 cm (20 in) above the top of the crop, travelling at 10 km/h (6.2 mph) and spraying about 110 L/ha (~11.5 gpa).
Generally, Coarse droplets tend to move in a straight line, and are not as easily deflected by moderate wind or travel speed. Conversely, Fine droplets slow very quickly and move erratically depending on the forces acting on them.
Graph 1 – Droplet size comparison. Cumulative spray coverage achieved in four positions, on two plants per nozzle. Low-to-no coverage = 0. Moderate coverage = 1. High-to-excessive coverage = 2.
Graph 1 shows the coverage results in each position. We see that finer droplets appear to penetrate the canopy more than the coarser droplets. We also see that under-leaf coverage was difficult to achieve overall. It’s possible the small amount of coverage achieved on the under-side of the top scaffold of leaves is the result of Coarse droplets bouncing… but if that’s the case, why wasn’t there any coverage on the upward-facing leaves inside the canopy? Write me – I’m open to ideas. In any case, redistribution is erratic and should not be relied on.
This graph may appear to favour smaller droplets, but be aware that Fine droplets are prone to drift and evaporation and should not be used without making every effort to prevent off-target movement. Shrouds, low ambient wind, and slower ground speed can help. To my mind, the best drift-mitigating option that still allows the use of finer droplets is an air-assist option on the boom, which would also improve under-leaf coverage. I’ve seen it in field tomato, soybean and even field corn. It’s disappointing that there aren’t more self-propelled sprayers in Ontario that offer this feature.
Volume
To answer this question, we compared coverage from Syngenta’s potato nozzles. They aren’t generally available in North America, but we got a few for the sake of the demo. The VP04 (gold) was operated at 1.5 bar (22 psi) and sprayed 135 L/ha (~14.4 gpa). The VP05 (Orange) sprayed 180 L/ha (~19.2 gpa) at the same pressure. The boom travelled at 10 km/h (6.2 mph) at approximately 50 cm (20 in) above the top of the crop.
Generally, raising the volume-per-hectare translates to improves coverage, but at some point there is a diminishing return. Imagine comparing coverage between 1 L/ha and 100 L/ha – there would be a big difference. Now imagine comparing 500 L/ha to 1,000 L/ha – probably not much difference, because drenched is drenched.
Graph 2 – Spray volume comparison. Cumulative spray coverage achieved in four positions, on two plants per nozzle. Low-to-no coverage = 0. Moderate coverage = 1. High-to-excessive coverage = 2.
According to Graph 2, the higher volume did not improve coverage. In fact, the lower volume appears to have superior coverage, but it’s likely not significant. Remember, there are no error bars here because there’s no statistical analysis – it’s not a scientific study. It’s possible that at this stage of growth, our 150 L/ha was close to the threshold of diminishing return.
Once again, note the absence of under-leaf coverage. Truly, the more I spray vegetable and row crops with conventional nozzles on a horizontal boom, the more I think under-leaf coverage can only be achieved by Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster while wielding Harry’s wand. Without directed sprays from drops (aka pendant nozzles, drop hoses, etc.) or some means of redistribution (e.g. air assist or even maybe electrostatics) droplets will not reliably change direction.
Spray Angle
To answer this question, we used Hypro’s Guardian Air nozzle (GA11003), which is a 110° wedge-shaped flat fan that we alternated between 15° forward and 15° backward on the boom. We compared it to Greenleaf’s TADF nozzle (a blue and yellow 02), which is an asymmetrical, 110° twin-fan tip, where one fan is at 50° and has a higher flow compared to the second fan at 10°. We also alternated these nozzles on the boom to take advantage of what became four different angles of attack. Both tips sprayed 100 L/ha (10.9 g/ac) from a boom travelling 10 km/h (6.2 mph) and about 35 cm (~14 in) from the top of the canopy.
Graph 3 – Spray angle comparison. Cumulative spray coverage achieved in four positions on two plants per nozzle. Low-to-no coverage = 0. Moderate coverage = 1. High-to-excessive coverage = 2.
Graph 3 shows a lot of spray impacting on the surface of the canopy, with moderate penetration to the upward-facing leaves in the inner canopy. The angled spray may have helped a little, but no more than the finer droplets from hollow cones. While others like it, my personal experience in soybean, field tomato and ginseng has shown that the spray angle does not have much bearing on crop penetration in a broadleaf canopy. Perhaps if the canopy is sparse… but not in dense canopies. This shouldn’t be a surprise because angled sprays are best suited to vertical targets, such as wheat heads. Graph 3 seems to bear this out.
Now, since I ran this last demo, I’ve learned that I really didn’t use the twin fan nozzles optimally. In order to keep the outputs comparable, the rate controller operated the TADF’s at about 30 psi. That pressure is fine for something like glyphosate, but for contact products 60 psi to 120 psi is preferable to put the droplets in the medium range and keep them moving at the right angle.
A lot of people like the asymmetrical nozzles in broad leaf crops, so if they’re working for you that’s great. Carry on! As for me, I’m hoping to run a more stringent experiment in the future to satisfy myself.
Take Home
So, as I’ve pointed out a few times, this comparison of nozzles and spray variables isn’t definitive. It was only a subjective demonstration. Further, coverage doesn’t necessarily imply efficacy: Just because you have more coverage doesn’t mean you didn’t already have enough to do the job.
Caveats aside, however, there are a few points to be made:
Smaller droplets penetrate dense canopies better than larger droplets, as long as they survive to arrive.
Under-leaf coverage is difficult to achieve without some form of mechanical assistance – e.g. directed application from drops, air-assist, electrostatics, etc.
Higher volumes result in improved coverage, but only to a certain point. Volume should reflect the stage of growth.
At the moment, I’m unconvinced that spray angles impact (dense) broad leaf canopy penetration. There are, of course, many other learned and experienced opinions for spraying vegetables.
All sprayers experience a drop in pressure as the solution moves further away from the pump. Here’s why that’s important, and how to measure it.
Optimal nozzle operation in terms of spray quality and fan angle is closely tied to spray pressure. As we try to maximize travel speed range with a modern sprayer, we often push spray pressure to its limits on the low and high side. For many air-induced nozzles, spray quality and fan angle become critical at about 30 psi. We need to be sure about the exact nozzle spray pressure to prevent problems.
Pressure drop is caused by the friction that the spray solution experiences as it moves from the pump to the spray nozzles. It’s caused by a number of factors, including length of tubing, elbows, valves, screens, and other flow obstructions.
Plumbing components add friction to liquid flow. If the pressure gauge is installed before these components, the nozzle pressure is unknown but will be lower than the gauge reading.
The pressure transducer that reports pressure to the cab is usually located between the pump and the manifold that divides the spray into the various boom sections. At this point, the spray liquid hasn’t experienced any significant flow restrictions. The transducer basically reports pump pressure.
Once the spray mixture starts moving through boom sections towards the nozzles, it encounters those restrictions, and pressure at the nozzle will therefore be lower than the cab reading indicates. The higher the liquid flow, the greater the friction, and therefore, pressure loss.
Even older sprayers with only two boom sections (left and right) and few elbows and reducers, will see pressure losses due to the narrow and long boom pipe that feeds up to 60′ on each side.
The nozzle pressure can be measured with a gauge placed on a nozzle body. Simply purchase a quality gauge and a threaded nozzle cap, combine the two and install in place of a nozzle.
A pressure gauge threaded into a nozzle cap can measure boom pressure.
Operate the sprayer at your expected spray pressure (say, 60 psi) with all boom sections on. Install the portable pressure gauge on an open turret position and turn into place, noting its reading. If both gauges are accurate, the boom pressure will likely be below 60 psi.
The difference between the cab gauge pressure and the boom gauge pressure two is the pressure drop. Repeat the measurement for each boom section. Also repeat at your lowest, as well as your highest expected flow rates. Higher flow rates cause greater pressure drops.
Now, use this information to adjust your interpretation of the cab pressure reading. For example, if you want to spray at 60 psi and your pressure drop is 10 psi, then the cab pressure should read 70 psi.
If your boom pressure is higher than your cab pressure, and you’ve checked the accuracy of your new boom gauge, then don’t be too mystified. Your pressure transducer is malfunctioning.
This exercise is important if you’re trying to compare your nozzle flow to the expected nominal flow of the nozzle – perhaps you’re trying to determine nozzle wear. The nominal flow of agricultural nozzles is determined at 40 psi, so it will be important to measure the flow at exactly that pressure.
By measuring pressure drop on all your boom sections, you also get a good sense of the variability in pressure across your boom. Your measurements might reveal an obstruction or a hose kink somewhere along the line.
Note that the pulse-width modulated systems offered by Capstan, Case, and Raven use a solenoid at each valve. This solenoid adds a known, and significant, pressure drop to the spray system as can be seen here.
Pulse-Width-Modulation (PWM) solenoids typically have internal flow restrictions that can contribute to pressure drop.
Here’s a fun video filmed by the Ontario Pest Education Program during a break at Ontario’s Southwest Crop Diagnostic Days:
Fungicide use appears to be the fastest growing segment of North American crop protection. Here is some advice on how to get the best bang for the buck.
Timing is the most important part of fungicide application. Diseases can develop and spread quickly. Most fungicides cannot cure a disease infection, they can only protect against it. If an application misses the window, yield is lost. Remember your priorities – become familiar with disease symptoms, the susceptibility of your crop and key growth stages. Make sure your sprayer is ready – your nozzles are installed, calibrated, and you can achieve the necessary boom height. Hire an agronomist to help scout and make recommendations. Make the right decision about whether to spray or not.
Water volume is the most important application parameter for fungicide application. In years of study, increasing water volume had a greater effect on fungicide performance than changes in droplet size or spray pressure. More water is needed for fungicides than herbicides because of the greater amount of plant material present. Getting coverage on leaf areas deeper into the canopy requires more water. Although finer sprays can also help with coverage, this practice is riskier due to drift potential and higher evaporation rates.
Double nozzles, in particular the asymmetric types, are becoming more popular with fungicides. Double nozzles are proven effective and recommended primarily for fusarium head blight, or any other disease where an exposed vertical part of the plant canopy is the primary spray target. Double nozzles are also useful for preventing the spray quality from getting too coarse as higher flow-rate nozzles (which tend to have larger droplets) are used.
Travel speed is important with fungicides. Canopy penetration sometimes improves with slower travel speeds, and this can be used as an advantage by eliminating the need for a special fungicide nozzle. For example, assume a nozzle was used to apply 8 gpa of herbicide at 15 mph at 70 psi (this pressure assumes air-induced tips). For fungicides, this same nozzle and pressure will deliver 12 gpa simply by slowing down to 10 mph.
Boom height and spray quality are both important for single angled sprays or double nozzles. The angle at which a spray leaves a nozzle diminishes quickly as air resistance and gravity exert their influence. If the boom is too high, the initial forward angle will be lost and the spray droplets will actually deposit with gravity and wind. But if the spray is a bit coarser and the boom is low enough, the angle of attack is retained for long enough to make a difference in spray deposition.
Despite these suggestions for making the spray more effective, there is no substitute for an informed decision regarding fungicide use. It’s possible that spraying is unnecessary for a number of reasons, and it’s best to have professional advice help make that call. If you decide to go ahead, ensure that your sprayer is set up to deliver the fungicide to the part of the canopy that needs protection.
Undoubtedly, the number one question we get from operators is: “Which nozzle should I get”? Luckily there’s no simple answer, or we wouldn’t have jobs! The reason it’s not simple is because selecting the “right” nozzle for a sprayer is a process. It can be broken down into two steps:
identifying the right flow rate (aka nozzle size)
choosing a specific nozzle model (i.e. brand, spray pattern type, spray quality, etc.)
It’s a big question, so let’s tackle just the first bullet: identifying the right flow rate.
All sprayer nozzles come in standardized (ISO) sizes, and these sizes are usually identified by numbers stamped on the nozzle as well as the colour of the nozzle itself. The nozzle’s key characteristics (i.e. the fan angle and nominal flow rate), are identified in a format that looks like some version of this (Fig. 1):
Fig. 1: Typical information printed on modern nozzles.
The 110 refers to the fan angle (110°) and the 04 refers to the flow rate. 04 means 0.4 US gallons of water per minute (gpm) at 40 psi. Each nozzle brand has a slightly different convention, but no matter how the information is presented it ought to be on the nozzle somewhere.
Nozzle colour has an ISO standard across fan-style nozzles, and we have this table to match the nozzle colour to the flow rate:
Fig 3: ISO nozzle colours and flow rates
You’ll note that the nozzle we pictured earlier was “flame red”, matching the 0.4 gpm on the table. So how do we use the table to pick the right size nozzle?
Application rate (i.e. gallons per acre or L/ha) is a function of travel speed, nozzle spacing along the boom, and nozzle flow rate. Traditionally, this has been expressed as the following formula in US units:
This formula is famously represented in nozzle charts found in all sprayer catalogues (Fig 4). Along the left side are nozzle sizes and pressures. Along the top is sprayer speed. The body of the table contains application volume. Pick your speed, and look for your application volume in the columns. If you want to apply five gpa, you need to look for the number 5 (or as close as you can get to it), among these numbers.
Fig 4: Typical nozzle flow rate chart, with speed at top and volumes in body. Ugh.
The format of the chart can be confusing because it doesn’t follow a modern sprayer operator’s priorities. Usually, an operator decides on an application volume first, and this decision is not very flexible. Travel speed, decided second, has more flexibility.
We’ve therefore re-worked the table to make more sense (Fig. 5). Along the top are common water volumes. The body of the table are travel speeds. Pick a water volume at the top and follow the column underneath this value to find a speed range you’re comfortable with. To the left, the nozzle size and corresponding operating pressures are now visible.
Fig. 5: Nozzle flow rate chart with volumes at top makes it user friendly.
Try to operate at a spray pressure that’s in the middle of the nozzle’s operating range. For an air-induced nozzle, the range is usually from 30 to 90 psi, so the middle is 60 to 70 psi. That should be the target pressure. Look for a nozzle size that delivers this pressure at your expected travel speed.
These columns can be used to work out a nozzle’s travel speed range. If a nozzle can be operated between 30 and 90 psi, for example, the corresponding speeds are listed in the same rows in the volume column.
For example, say you want to apply seven gpa and think that 13 mph would be a good average travel speed.
Fig 6: Five solutions for the question, “which nozzle to apply 7 gpa at 13 mph?”
Move down the seven gpa column, and you’ll encounter a value close to 13 mph five times – the yellow nozzle at 90 psi, the lilac nozzle at 60 psi, the blue nozzle at 40 psi, the dark red at 30 psi, and the red at about 25 psi. Now use the columns to see which of these three best matches your expected travel speed range.
The yellow nozzle would allow between seven and 12.5 mph from 30 and 90 psi, the lilac nozzle nine to 16 mph, the blue nozzle 11 to 19 mph, the dark red 13 to 22 mph, and the red 15 to 26 mph.
The best choice for a typical air-induced tip would be the lilac 025 size, since it would meet the target speed of 13 mph at a perfect 60 psi, about right for nozzles of that size, and allowing some travel speed flex on the slower side.
Some operators try to extend that range, but dropping below 30 psi will likely result in too narrow a pattern, or too coarse a spray quality, so it’s not advised.
Note that the three-fold change in pressure from 30 to 90 psi translates to only a 1.73-fold change in travel speed. That’s due to the square-root nature of the relationship, as illustrated by this formula:
This exercise applies to sprayers with rate controllers that adjust pressure to regulate flow rates. However, if you use pulse-width modulation (e.g. Case AIM Command, Capstan Sharpshooter, Raven Hawkeye, or TeeJet DynaJet) check out this article describing these systems.
There are a number of apps and websites, usually developed by nozzle manufacturers, which provide similar answers. These are also very useful, and all of them rely on the same formulas used in our new, simplified table. You can go here to download a high resolution version, suitable for framing, in both US and metric units.
