It’s unfortunate, but every year we encounter a few instances of mysterious crop injury following an application. Was it a product formulation issue? Was it a mismatch between genetics and chemistry? Was it a stressed crop? Or was it a contaminated sprayer? Sometimes we never find out. Sometimes we do.
The Investigation
In this case study, Roundup WeatherMAX was applied to Pioneer P23Z58E (Enlist) soybean and the applicator noticed significant necrosis around 5 days after application (Figure 1). They suspected an issue with the variety and/or the product.
Figure 1 – Damaged soybean,
In response, we compared three spray solutions (Figure 2):
Herbicide from the grower mixed with clean water
Herbicide from an independent source mixed with clean water, and
Spray solution collected directly from the grower’s sprayer.
Figure 2 – A closer look at all 3 solutions. This bottle on the left (solution from sprayer) is clearly different from the other two, suggesting some manner of contamination. Significant or not, the freshly-mixed WeatherMAX from the grower (middle) appears to be a deeper blue colour than that from the independent source (right).
The sprayer sample contained visible sediment (Figure 3) and differed in appearance from the freshly mixed solutions, suggesting potential contamination.
Figure 3 – Sediment in sprayer solution sanple.
The treatments were applied to two soybean varieties to determine whether varietal sensitivity was involved.
What the Bioassay Showed
Soybeans treated with either source of freshly mixed herbicide showed no injury (Figures 4 and 5). In contrast, soybeans treated with spray solution collected from the sprayer developed significant leaf necrosis (Figure 6). Similar responses occurred across two soybean varieties, ruling out both product quality and varietal sensitivity as causes of the injury.
Figure 4 – There was no injury where the grower’s unused herbicide was mixed with deionized water and sprayed 9 days earlier.Figure 5 – The independently-sourced herbicide mixed with deionized water gave no crop injury.Figure 5 – Significant leaf necrosis from the bottle containing spray solution collected from the grower’s sprayer.
Conclusion
Field bioassays are valuable diagnostic tools that sprayer operators can use themselves to determine the cause of unexpected results. In this case, the investigation demonstrated that crop injury was caused by residual contamination within the sprayer rather than by the herbicide formulation or soybean genetics.
Visible sediment or unusual spray solution appearance may indicate contamination. Even when a sprayer has been cleaned, residues can remain in plumbing, filters, and other components if cleanout procedures are not thorough. Effective sprayer hygiene is essential when switching between products.
Thorough sprayer cleanout remains one of the most important practices for preventing avoidable crop injury and maintaining confidence in pesticide performance. The grower’s final comment following the assay was “we did it to ourselves”.
Sprayer manufacturers have all but offloaded the entire responsibility for drift management to the sprayer nozzle. It’s asking too much.
Sprayers have changed a lot over the past 25 years. They have become larger, with more tank capacity, boom width, and, if self-propelled, horsepower. They are more comfortable and ergonomic, with more sophisticated swath control and guidance systems. But every year, a very important deficiency in their design becomes obvious. Drift control.
The changes described above are intended to improve productivity and fight operator fatigue. Today’s sprayer can cover more ground than ever before. But the demand to cover ground, through a combination of growth in farm size and frequency of treatment, has outpaced machine productivity. As a result, operators find themselves ever further in a time deficit, with acres on the to do list and no time to get the work done.
Spray drift remains the single most limiting factor to the safe application of pesticides. Spraying cannot happen when it’s too windy or during inversions because all agricultural nozzles produce fine droplets whose movement in the atmosphere cannot be controlled. This has been an issue since spraying began.
Simply put, pesticides belong in one place only, and that is on the treated swath. Applicators have some tools to make this happen, such as using coarser sprays, lowering the booms, choosing very specific weather conditions, and the like. But when winds are incessant, and crops and pests are quickly growing out of the treatable stages, what is an applicator to do? There is only one thing they can do: lower their standards. Either miss the treatment and suffer the yield loss, or spray in the wind and hope nothing bad happens.
Neither of these options are acceptable.
There isn’t an easy fix. Spraying is a game of tight margins. The spray liquid in the tank must be atomized into droplets that can make their way to the target and provide adequate coverage when they get there. The total liquid volume to achieve that task must also be practical. The global ag industry has determined, over the past 100 years, that about 100 to 200 L/ha, 10 to 20 gallons per acre, is the ballpark amount that allows reasonable work rates with sprays that are just coarse enough to resist displacement in modest winds. If it gets windier and we need even coarser sprays, we need to add more water to maintain an acceptable droplet density on the targets. And of course, the droplets need to stick to those targets, so there is a limit how coarse we can spray.
Over the past 20 years, we’ve been asking the low-drift nozzle to do the heavy lifting in drift management, and it has served us well. But with a return to more contact modes of action for resistance management, there’s a need to retain good coverage for product performance.
What ag needs is a drift-reducing technology that is better than the low-drift nozzle. We need a technology that maintains a practical water volume limit and combines this with intermediate spray qualities that generate good pesticide efficacy without allowing drift under windy conditions.
These technologies need to do just one of three things: (a) Protect the driftable droplets from exposure to moving air with a physical barrier, (b) make driftable droplets less drift-prone by increasing their velocity, or (c) eliminate the driftable droplets altogether.
Let’s have a look at some options, and explore the pros and cons.
Shields and Cones. A shroud surrounding the boom was first proposed and built in the 1950s in the UK by Dr. Walter Ripper. Although never commercial, his “Nodrif” boom inspired an entire industry that took hold in western Canada in the 1980s and 1990s. Shrouding worked. In studies conducted at Ag Canada, shrouds produced by Flexi-Coil, Rogers Engineering, AgShield, and Brandt reduced drift by up to 80%. But shrouds disappeared in the 90s, partly because of the advent of tight-folding suspended booms where their physical size posed a problem, but also because of crop contamination from the shrouds and poor nozzle visibility in case of blockages.
The advent of the air-induced low-drift nozzle offered an alternative, but coarseness has been taken to its practical limit.
What about a newly engineered version of shrouds that addresses its shortcomings? Willmar Fabrication has created the Redball Buffer Sprayer, for example. We see hooded sprayers in row crops. But there may be other ideas. The simple device called the PatternMaster introduced by KB Industries a few years back was also a step in that direction. Let’s keep working on this.
Figure 1: Shrouded booms, once common on the prairies and proven effective (Brandt cones, top), are still used on research and turf sprayers (bottom).
Air Assist. Small drops don’t drift just because they’re small. They drift because they have very little kinetic energy, and they get blown off course easily. Speed them up, and that problem is solved. Introducing an air stream at the nozzle can do just that. Furthermore, air assist also enhances canopy penetration, a problem that we currently attempt to address with the addition of more water. Again, this idea is not new. Hardi, once the world’s largest sprayer manufacturer, has had the TwinForce boom available for decades. An inflatable bag is positioned over the boom. Openings along the bottom direct the air down. The operator turns a knob in the cab to control fan speed, and another for forward or backward angle, until the combination is suited to the canopy and the travel speed. The SprayAir, out of Carseland, AB (purchased by Miller but no longer available) was a less elegant version because they chose an air-shear atomizer that sometimes required more air than was prudent. Too much air rebounds off the ground, increasing the drift issue. Their Trident boom, allowing a hydraulic nozzle to be used with air assist, continues to have potential.
Air bag type air assist systems were also available from other manufacturers, but none were ever commercially successful.
Figure 2: Air assisted booms such as this Hardi TwinForce accelerate small droplets, reducing their drift-potential and improving canopy penetration (Source: Hardi Sprayers)
Low Booms. How low can booms go? It depends on the nozzle spacing and fan angle. Horsch claims that with a good boom package, this is an option. They are offering 10” spacing, and with wide fan angles, booms as low as 15” would still provide good overlap. Hands up who will try this at 18 mph. Wingssprayer has an interesting design where the boom rests on backswept plastic sheets, providing a physical barrier and a low height.
Figure 3: Low booms can significantly reduce drift, but their success depends on superior stability and height control (Top, Source: Horsch Sprayers; Bottom, Source: Wingssprayer)
Twin Fluid Atomizer. In this atomizer type, both air and liquid are forced out through the same nozzle. The ratio of air and liquid determines the liquid flow rate and the degree of atomization. First introduced by Cleanacres in the UK as the Airtec, improved by Harry Combellack in Australia over many years, and making a re-appearance with the Dutch manufacturer Agrifac, it’s been one of my favourite atomizers. The small amount of air moving through each nozzle is not enough for serious air-assist, but the idea is good and perhaps it can be improved.
Figure 4: A twin fluid atomizer utilizes air (entering from hose) and liquid (entering from boom) to create a spray whose droplet size and flow rate are adjustable. Air generates some assist to reduce drift.
Electrostatics. Forget about it for drift control. The attractive force is so weak that it only works for very small droplets over short distances. It needs air-assist to work properly. See point #2.
Rotary Atomizer. These are common on aircraft these days, as rotary cages, offering a more consistent droplet size range that eliminates the largest, water-wasting droplets, and curtails many of the smallest droplets produced by hydraulic atomizers. These attributes are powerful and address the fundamental problem: If the small droplets drift, then let’s not produce them. In reality, rotary atomizers are used mainly to produce smaller droplets to save water in the aerial business, not really solving the drift problem. In the 1970s and 80s, the concept was advanced by Micron Corporation, led by Ed Bals and later by his son Tom. Although very successful in forestry and hand-held applications in arid regions where water posed a serious limitation, the transition to boom spraying never happened.
Rotary atomizers are now making a comeback with drone sprayers. Though promising, the flow rate capabilities of spinning disks are lower than those of the cages mounted on crewed aircraft. As a result, the disk may flood, and will no longer produce the desired monodisperse distributions.
Figure 5: Rotary atomizers can eliminate larger droplets and sharply reduced the smallest ones, leaving a more uniform sized distribution (insert). They are used on aircraft to save water, but have not been adopted on ground equipment to control drift.
A new Atomizer. All hydraulic nozzles produce a wide variety of droplet sizes, and that variety has provided robust performance over a wide range of conditions. But it can also be a problem. Even the venerable dicamba nozzles that create Extremely Coarse and Ultra Coarse sprays produce some fines that drift in inversions. The idea put forth by Ed Bals, to eliminate the problematic size ranges, is sound. But the rotary atomizer is hard to implement on a boom sprayer. Can there be an innovation that maintains a simple overall design, produces a narrow, but low-drift droplet size range, and mates it to a bit of air assist to get the spray where it belongs? Absolutely.
Figure 6: Current hydraulic atomizers tend to produce a wide range of droplet sizes. The distribution on the left results in significant drift (droplets <150 µm). The one on the right wastes the larger droplets (droplets >600 µm. The narrower span in the centre distribution avoids these problem areas and delivers the spray in an efficacious portion.
Adjuvants. One of the problems with low-drift nozzles is their tendency to generate some very large droplets. These droplets are not very abundant and therefore don’t contribute to coverage, but they nonetheless consume significant carrier volume. The current generation of oil-based drift-reducing adjuvants (DRAs) have helped reduce the drift-prone size fraction without increasing the largest droplet size fraction as much as low-drift nozzles do. This more surgical approach is welcome. Unfortunately, the drift-reducing effect is not as much as low-drift nozzles alone can achieve. A combination of these two technologies is likely the best way forward.
Figure 7: Effect of DRA on driftable fines (left) and overall volume median diameter (VMD, right) from AIXR11004 tip. Data courtesy Winfield United.
Targetted Sprays. An obvious way to reduce drift is to spray less. With recent developments in camera-driven spot spraying, this is already happening. It’s safe to assume that every percentage not sprayed is an equivalent reduction in drift potential. And with reports of 50 to 90% savings, this will be significant. How these product savings are deployed remains important. Some applicators choose to raise pesticide rates to effect better control, and this of course negates some of the gains. Others are increasing the overall spray volume. This then opens the door to the use of coarser sprays without loss of coverage, enhancing gains.
Figure 8: Spot spraying (Courtesy Croplands)
To create value for farmers you first need to understand farmers’ priorities and problems. Getting the spraying job completed on time often means squeezing the work into ever narrower time frame, between rains, between winds in the afternoons and inversions that same evening, between too much dew and too dry, between too early and too late. I am looking forward to the day when engineering resources are allocated to address these issues better, protecting both the environment and the stress levels on the farm.
Timing trumps most things in crop protection. A great spray applied at the wrong time isn’t nearly as valuable as a mediocre spray at the right time. So how do we improve our ability to get things done at the right time?
Often, we try to win races by driving faster. In our last article, we looked at driving speed and concluded that faster speeds can lead to more drift and less uniform deposition. Driving slower can be viewed as a sort of insurance policy: You may not notice the benefits right away, but on days when that extra bit of performance is required, you’re covered.
So how do you get the job done quickly if you can’t drive faster? To answer, we have to look to other opportunities for boosting productivity.
Recently, we used our and tried to capture all the elements of a normal spray operation that affect timeliness. These were:
travel speed
boom width
tank size
water volume
field length
number of headlands
turning speed
fill time
First, we identified a reasonable base condition. For the sprayer, that was a travel speed of 14 mph, a 90’ boom, an 800 gal tank, a 10 gpa water volume, and a 20 minute fill time. Then, we set up a typical field situation, which was spraying a half-mile run on a quarter with two sprayed headlands and a turning speed of 8 mph. Finally, we changed one factor at a time to determine its relative importance.
Before we discuss the results, let’s make it clear that just because changing some of these factors improves productivity doesn’t mean we’re recommending them! For example, adequate water volume remains an important input that improves coverage and permits the use of low-drift sprays. Larger tanks increase compaction and take more power, and so forth.
Here’s what we found:
All productivity values were expressed as acres per engine hour. For this reason, our numbers will be lower than what a typical sprayer monitor reports, most of which calculate acres per spraying hour.
For the base condition, the sprayer spent 15% of its driving time turning, and 37% of its on-field time stationary (i.e. filling or cleaning). For every hour spent on the field, less than half the time (48%) was spent spraying. This resulted in an average productivity of 82 acres/h.
Increasing the spray speed to 18 mph increased average productivity to 93 acres/h, but it also increased the proportion of time spent turning and loading, resulting in just 40% of the field time spent spraying.
Decreasing the loading time from 20 to 10 minutes reduced the proportion of field time spent stationary to 23%, covering 100 acres/h at 14 mph. Surprisingly, this was the productivity-winner, resuling in 62% of on-field time spraying.
We discovered other powerful productivity factors, and chief among them was boom width. A 33% increase in boom width from 90’ to 120’ gave a productivity boost to 94 acres/h, close to the same result as increasing the travel speed to 18 mph earlier. Similar side effects occurred: more time turning, and a greater proportion of time filling, as we saw with faster travel speeds.
Boom width seems to have some room for growth. Many smaller European counties use wider booms than we do in North America, for example. With gps guidance and large fields, we have excellent conditions for their implementation.
Two other factors that had similar effects to fill time were water volume and tank size. Less water and larger tanks increased productivity by decreasing the fill frequency, with effects similar in magnitude to speeding up the fill time. Decreasing the water volume from 10 to 5 gpa increased productivity to 100 acres/h by decreasing the proportion of time the sprayer was stopped from 37% to 23%. Increasing from an 800 to a 1,200 gallon tank increased productivity to 94 acres/h, again by decreasing the proportion of time spent filling to 28%.
Taken together, a sprayer with a 120’ boom, a 1,200 gal tank, applying 10 gpa and filling in 10 min had an average productivity of 132 acres/h. And this was achieved without driving faster than 14 mph. If you can string two quarters together and drive a whole mile before turning, that number rises to 145 acres/h, a surprisingly large 13 acres/h gain.
The perspective of minimizing downtime extends to other tasks, too:
Be more prepared for the job by reviewing the product label in advance, noting the correct mixing order.
Keep extra nozzles, clamps, and nozzle bodies in the cab.
Don’t clean plugged nozzles, replace them.
Use low-drift nozzles so a small increase in wind doesn’t shut you down.
Ensure all the products needed are on the tender truck (e.g. pesticide, adjuvant, tank cleaner, anti-foamer, etc.).
Consider switching to 3” plumbing (pump rates of 300 – 400 gpm are possible).
Make sure your inductor won’t be the limiting factor. For example, product pumps can be awfully slow when the product is cold. It might be worthwhile to explore a venturi system.
Speeding up the fill process is a good idea, but be careful with certain products. Dry materials such as the sulfonyl ureas (e.g. Refine, Express SG, etc.) and some fungicides (e.g. Astound, etc.) require time to hydrate in water so they mix properly. Some operators pre-hydrate these in a smaller tank, while others get an extra tank to pre-mix whole loads and simply transfer them over.
Also think about the time spent cleaning the sprayer. Thoroughness is important, but perhaps there are efficiencies to be gained there as well, like never letting a sprayer sit after spraying. We’ve written about continuous rinsing, for example, to improve cleaning speed and effectiveness.
So, the quicker we can spray, while ensuring a quality job, the more effective our crop protection practices will be. We encourage you to use our to determine your best configuration.
Got a productivity tips to share? Let us know! And remember: In spraying, the race is won in the pits.
Factor
Base
Drive Faster
Fill Faster
Spray Wider
Less Water
Bigger Tank
New Sprayer
Travel Speed
14 mph
18 mph
14 mph
14 mph
14 mph
14 mph
14 mph
Fill time
20 min
20 min
10 min
20 min
20 min
20 min
10 min
Boom Width
90 ft
90 ft
90 ft
120 ft
90 ft
90 ft
120 ft
Water Volume
10 gpa
10 gpa
10 gpa
10 gpa
5 gpa
10 gpa
10 gpa
Tank Size
800 gal
800 gal
800 gal
800 gal
800 gal
1200 gal
1200 gal
Field Length
0.5 mile
0.5 mile
0.5 mile
0.5 mile
0.5 mile
0.5 mile
0.5 mile
Time Turning
15%
19%
15%
20%
15%
15%
20%
Time Loading
37%
42%
23%
42%
23%
28%
19%
Time Spraying
48%
39%
62%
38%
62%
57%
61%
Acres/h
82
93
100
94
100
94
132
To work with the productivity calculator, click here.
We’ve been here before, haven’t we? I could rehash the explanation of why wheat head coverage is important, and define the variables involved, but perhaps you’re already in-the-know. Instead, new readers (and those requiring a refresh) can go give this article and this article a quick read and then come back. I’ll wait.
Why perform another wheat head nozzle assessment? Primarily we do it so you don’t have to, but in this case there’s a specific problem we’re trying to solve and a “new” nozzle to explore.
The problem (and some history)
Let’s digress a little and use the historical experience shared by Clean Field Services (CFS) in Drayton, Ontario (cooperators in this study), to explain the problem and our objective.
As broadacre sprayers evolve, nozzle technology has been lagging. Consider a basic field sprayer equipped with a centrifugal pump. Its performance curve exhibits a direct relationship between flow rate and pressure. In this case, the operator relies on a rate controller to bypass flow to maintain a target application rate across a range of travel speeds.
However, bypassing changes system pressure, which inadvertently changes the average droplet size. Basically, increasing travel speed reduces droplet size and vice versa. This was the manner of sprayer used in Ontario more than 20 years ago when researchers demonstrated that TeeJet Turbo FloodJets, alternated front-to-back, provided excellent coverage of wheat heads at the T3 timing. This is what Clean Field Services used.
However, some booms have obstructions that interfere with the aggressive spray angles produced by wide-pattern nozzles such as the Turbo FloodJet. CFS experienced this when they got a RoGator in 2012 and later an R-series Deere in 2017. At one point they tried using extensions to clear the obstruction, but this proved to be a nuisance and interfered with folding. They settled on GreenLeaf Technologies’ TurboDrop Asymmetric DualFan (TADF), which worked great, until the sprayer changed again.
A visual history of wheat nozzles at Clean Field Services.
Pulse Width Modulation
Sprayer plumbing and control systems have evolved. The introduction of pulse width modulation (PWM) technology changed the way rate control is achieved. Rather than regulating flow by altering pressure, PWM intermittently interrupts flow at the nozzle. This decouples flow rate from pressure, preserving droplet size across a range of travel speeds. Most air induction (AI) nozzles, such as the TADF are not approved for use with PWM systems.
John Deere’s ExactApply PWM system became available in 2017, and CFS got one in 2018. Operators could mount two nozzles in each position, creating opportunities for interesting new configurations. One of the recommended nozzles was the Defy 3D, which features a 38° angle and was developed by Hypro in collaboration with Syngenta to help control blackgrass in the UK. It performed well in drift-reduction studies relative to conventional flat-fan nozzles.
Welcome to Canada
CFS mounted a single Defy 3D ’08 in each nozzle body, and had problems. Canadian sprayer operators, on average, drive faster than their UK cousins. Even with PWM, the largest Defy 3D tip (the ’08) required a flow rate that increased system pressure, which in turn led to a drifty experience. Bad in itself, but also not ideal for angled applications, because finer spray deposits with the wind rather than ballistically.
They tried throttling back, slowing down and/or adjusting water volumes, but felt they never really dialed it in. They settled on a Defy 3D ’08 in the B (rear) position, and an ’05 in the A (front) position at 21 km/h (13 mph) to apply 156 L/ha (16.67 gpa).
Exploring a solution
Wouldn’t it be nice to have your cake and eat it too? Drive faster, apply higher volumes and still mitigate drift? Enter the 3D Ninety, with claims of good fungicide utility while producing a significantly coarser droplet than the Defy. They came out in 2021, and yet they are still difficult to find in North America. This study establishes baseline panoramic coverage from the Defy 3D, then benchmarks it against the 3D Ninety and a hybrid configuration at a faster travel speed.
Experimental design
The trial took place in a mature wheat field in Drayton, Ontario on July 22, 2026. Temperature was 15°C, and while generally windy, we operated in an area protected by a windbreak, reducing windspeed from an ambient 18 km/h to an average 8 km/h at boom height.
Sprayer settings
A John Deere See and Spray Premium (410R) was used in the study. For each condition, we isolated a section of seven nozzles in the middle of the left and right booms (as far as possible from boom tip and chassis). Nozzles were on 50 cm (20″) spacing, so this spanned 2.7 m. The sprayer was set to a 70% D.C., and the boom was 50 cm (20″) above the wheat heads. The treatment conditions were as follows:
Treatment
Forward Nozzle
Rear Nozzle
Pressure (psi)
Travel speed (mph)
1
’05 Defy 3D
’08 Defy 3D
25
13
2
’05 3D Ninety
’08 3D Ninety
40
16
3
’05 Defy 3D
’08 3D Ninety
40
16
Operational settings and nozzles for each treatment.
In all treatments the ’05 faced forward and the ’08 faced back.
Samplers
A series of four posts were positioned in the wheat, spaced 0.5 m apart and centred on the corresponding section of nozzles. The samplers were SpotOn water sensitive papers (WSP) mounted in custom holders to orient four papers at 90° to the sprayer: Advance (facing the sprayer), Left, Retreat (facing away from the sprayer) and Right.
A series of samplers positioned at wheat head height, 50 cm apart, centred on the swath produced by the section of seven trial nozzles.
A parallel tramline approximately 1 m from the samplers provided access. The sprayer began spraying 15 m (50 feet) before the samplers and continued spraying the same distance beyond them. Once the spray settled, the samplers were retrieved. A single pass represented a repetition and there were three passes per treatment.
Papers were digitized using a DropScope (SprayX) and the analysis was performed in R (v. 4.6.0), leveraging the rpy2 library for integration with Python within the Colab environment.
What we saw
The following image shows a typical coverage pattern for each treatment. While WSP is not able to determine droplet size accurately, it can certainly reveal relative differences. It was clear that the Defy 3D produced smaller droplets than the 3D Ninety, and that there were far more of them. The hybrid condition shows a more heterogeneous coverage pattern, which would be expected given it represents a greater span of droplet sizes than either nozzle design used alone.
Typical coverage pattern from each treament.
Defy 3D
3D Ninety
Hybrid Defy 3D and 3D Ninety
Continuing with general observations, we can average the coverage measured on each plane, on each sampler, for each treatment. When spoiled samplers were removed from the study (it happens), coverage can be described as either the area covered, or the number of deposits per area. With no exploration of variability, we see that the Defy 3D resulted in the greatest average coverage as represented by either metric.
Treatment
n
Mean Area Covered (%)
Mean Deposits/cm²
Defy 3D
46
3.73
126.35
3D Combo
44
3.22
87.64
3D Ninety
47
3.02
93.77
We can drill down and explore coverage by WSP orientation as well, this time including some measure of variability (standard deviation). As a matter of housekeeping, there was no evidence that repetition or post position had any meaningful bearing on coverage results (Pearson p of 0.422 and 0.455 and Spearman p of 0.267 and 0.217). We see the highest average number of deposits on the retreat side (facing the wind) in all treatments. Similarly, and excepting the combination treatment, we see the greatest average area covered on the same plane.
Treatment
Orientation
n
Mean Deposits/cm²
SD
Mean Area Covered (%)
SD
3D Combo
Advance
11
83.00
53.58
4.98
2.80
3D Combo
Left
11
63.36
38.07
1.67
1.24
3D Combo
Retreat
10
138.20
58.38
4.12
1.93
3D Combo
Right
12
72.00
63.84
2.29
1.93
3D Ninety
Advance
11
67.82
52.92
3.41
3.38
3D Ninety
Left
12
42.25
49.83
1.96
1.61
3D Ninety
Retreat
12
191.17
54.20
4.89
2.07
3D Ninety
Right
12
71.67
50.30
1.87
1.46
Defy 3D
Advance
12
124.92
65.48
4.19
2.64
Defy 3D
Left
12
80.75
49.75
2.48
1.74
Defy 3D
Retreat
10
207.70
115.84
5.55
3.45
Defy 3D
Right
12
105.58
75.92
2.98
2.83
We can illustrate this using box and whisker plots, which show all the data as well as the relative span of each treatment. This makes it easier to compare the treatments and determine if any differences in average coverage were significant or not.
We can illustrate coverage in an even more intuitive manner using a rosette-style graph. Here we see the average deposit density or the percent area covered for each treatment on each plane. Note that the discrepancy between the Advance (shadowed by wind) and Retreat (wind-facing) side is far greater when the coverage is represented by droplet counts rather than area covered.
Average coverage on each plane for each treatment, as represented by deposit density.Average coverage on each plane for each treatment, as represented by percent area.
Interpretation and discussion
Deposits/cm² and percent area covered were strongly positively associated (r = 0.75), indicating that higher deposit counts generally corresponded to greater percent coverage. The relationship wasn’t perfect, suggesting that other factors also influenced coverage and leaving room for interpretation.
The Defy 3D produced the highest overall coverage, as reflected in total deposit counts. This is consistent with the fact that it emits a higher proportion of finer droplets relative to the 3D Ninety. While finer droplets can improve coverage, they are also more prone to drift and tend to deposit on the downwind face of vertical targets. We have evidence of this in all treatments, which showed more deposits on the Retreat (windward) face than on the Advance face, which was sheltered from the wind.
This deposition pattern is likely influenced by the rear-facing nozzle configuration (an ‘08), which delivers a higher application rate than the forward-facing nozzle (an ‘05). With higher boom heights or stronger wind conditions, this configuration may be less effective, as reported in previous studies. In this comparison, the Defy 3D also exhibited the greatest variability, suggesting greater sensitivity to such conditions.
The 3D Ninety and hybrid treatments were difficult to separate based on overall coverage. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of coverage between them, although the hybrid condition showed a more balanced distribution of deposits between the Advance and Retreat faces. In contrast, the 3D Ninety would be expected to produce a coarser spray that is less susceptible to deflection, assuming boom height is sufficiently low to maintain droplet trajectory. Despite this, it recorded more deposits on the Retreat face than the hybrid condition. We have no explanation.
The hybrid configuration was designed to improve deposition balance by combining complementary spray characteristics. The forward-facing nozzle produced finer droplets, which can be carried along by the sprayer’s forward momentum to enhance forward deposition. The rear-facing nozzle produced coarser droplets at a higher application rate, compensating for lower droplet numbers while counteracting forward momentum to improve retreat-side coverage.
Although the hybrid treatment appeared to provide a more even distribution of deposits between the Advance and Retreat faces, it is uncertain whether this would translate into improved biological efficacy. Further trials would be needed to evaluate whether this deposition balance leads to measurable yield gains.
It is also important to note that both the 3D Ninety and hybrid treatments were applied at 25.7 km/h (16 mph), nearly 20% faster than the Defy 3D treatments. This indicates potential for higher productivity. Given the relatively balanced deposition observed, a combination of a forward-facing Defy 3D nozzle and a rear 3D Ninety nozzle may offer improved resilience to changes in boom height and wind speed while maintaining adequate coverage at higher travel speeds.
Thanks to Clean Field Services for their participation in this study, thanks to Agflow Canada (Hypro / Shurflo) for donating the 3D Ninety’s, and thanks to Cesar Cappa, OMAFA weed specialist in horticulture for patiently explaining how to use R more effectively.
Spray coverage describes the degree of contact between spray droplets and the target surface area. This metric can be used to predict the success of an application. One of the easiest methods for visualizing coverage is to use water sensitive paper (WSP), which is a passive, artificial collector that turns from yellow to blue when contacted by water.
WSP is often used to evaluate iterative changes to a spray program. Placed strategically throughout a target canopy, or directly on the ground, achieving uniform, threshold coverage translates into improved efficacy, reduced waste, reduced off-target contamination and reduced risk of pesticide resistance development. WSP were also used to develop a system that measures the area covered by the effective radial distance in an attempt to relate the area covered by a stain to a larger area where sufficient pesticide activity is taking place.
WSP tends to underestimate the spreading effect that can occur on plant surfaces (especially when surfactants are used), but they are effective as a relative index.
A brief history of WSP
In 1970, a journal article described a new method for sampling and assessing spray droplets. Photographic paper treated with bromoethyl blue created a yellow surface that changed colour when it encountered moisture. The pH-based reaction was fast and irreversible, leaving a distinct blue stain to mark the deposition.
Ciba-Geigy Ltd. made water sensitive paper commercially available in 1985 (later as Novartis in 1996 and as Syngenta since 2000). It is produced in several formats, but aluminum foil packages of 50, 76 x 22 mm (1 x 3 in.) papers are the most popular. Odds are if you’ve ever used water sensitive paper, it originated from Syngenta in Switzerland. In 2023 I noticed that the papers now say “made in Germany.”
Change of manufacturing location?
In recent years, two new options have been made commercially available: Innoquest’s SpotOn Paper (United States) and WSPaper (Brazil). At the time of writing, there has been no impartial comparative evaluation of these three products.
Once dry, the blue stains on WSP are irreversible and papers can be stored for long periods of time. However unstained portions will continue to react to moisture from humidity, dew, or fingerprints, so care must be taken in their handling and storage.
Comparing WSP brands
The three commercially-available brands of WSP were subjected to a series of comparisons. The intention was not to rank these products, but to determine if they performed in a similar fashion and to alert users to any significant differences.
Packaging and Appearance
Each package was donated for the study. The SpotOn (SO) papers had a “sell-by” date of November 2023, the Syngenta (SY) papers (provided via Spraying Systems Co.) were dated February 2021 and the WSPaper (WS) was their newest formulation (white package, not silver), received June 2021. The comparison was performed on July 5, 2021.
WSP packages.
Each product was a foil or plasticized bag of 50, 26 x 76 mm papers. SO and WS had a re-sealing feature similar to that of a sandwich bag. SO also included a package of silica gel desiccant to capture moisture and a pair of plastic forceps to facilitate handling.
Users are encouraged to label papers to ensure they know their relative position and sprayer pass for later analysis. It was possible to write in ink on the faces of the SY and SO papers, but not WS. It was possible to write on the back of all brands.
The three papers were different shades of yellow. Further, in the author’s experience, the colour can be visibly different between batches of the same brand. In the case of larger experiments where more than 50 papers are required, it would be prudent to ensure papers are not only from the same manufacturer, but the same production batch. This would not be an issue when subjectively comparing papers, but when using software that employs colour thresholding to identify deposits, it could create artifacts. Presently, only Syngenta has a batch number (found on a sticker on the back of the bag).
Bleed-through
WSP is often placed in foliar canopies which are subject to dew and transpiration that can cause the papers to react prematurely. This can be particularly limiting when moisture soaks through the backs of papers. Each brand of paper was placed face-up on a drop of water to see if the water would bleed through.
Three brands were placed on a single drop of water. Within five minutes, WSPaper and Syngenta brands wicked the water through, causing a colour reaction. SpotOn did not, although the yellow surface darkened. When a drop of water was applied to the face, the SpotOn paper still produced a blue stain.
WS quickly curled as the water wicked in from the edges. Within five minutes the water soaked through from the back as well. Within five minutes SY also curled, but the colour reaction was entirely due to water soaking through and not wicking along the edges of the paper. SO did not curl and there was no colour reaction save a minor wicking reaction at one edge. It did however produce a dark yellow patch. In order to see if a colour reaction was still possible, a single drop of water was placed on the face and the colour reaction was distinct and instantaneous.
Note: Others have since replicated this experiment and reported that the response depends on the amount of water used and how long you leave it. We repeated our experiment with higher volumes and longer wait times (see image below). Ultimately, no brand of WSP is water proof from the back. Nevertheless, with small volumes of water (such as from dew) the original assessment of each brand is still valid.
A replication of the bleed-through experiment with the same batch of papers was performed with higher water volumes and a longer duration. Eventually, all three brands bled through. (SpotOn left, WSPaper middle, Syngenta right).
Deformation and drying time
Users of water sensitive paper may be familiar with its occasional tendency to curl when one side is sprayed. In extreme cases, this movement could create smears if the paper contacted other wetted surfaces in dense foliage. The degree of curling was significantly different by brand, with SY becoming convex when wet and then flexing back into a concave form once dry. WS deformed as well, but only to a minor degree. SO did not appear to deform at all. Syngenta has noted that the degree to which their papers curl depends on the batch. Their manufacturing process has changed over the years in response to regulatory requirements and minor adjustments are still occasionally made.
Once dry, each brand of WSP tended to curl to different degrees. Syngenta curled the most and SpotOn the least if at all.
There was no appreciable difference in the time it took for any brand to dry. This is based on attempts to smear papers every 30 seconds. All were dry in under five minutes.
Experimental design
While there is considerable variability inherent to spraying, every effort was made to maintain consistent conditions. Papers were sprayed in a closed room with no appreciable air currents (21.5 °C and 64% RH). Papers were paired randomly, side-by-side on a plastic sled. The sled was pulled at 2.5 kmh (~1.5 mph) through the centre of a spray swath produced by a TeeJet XR80015 positioned 50 cm (20 in.) above the targets. The nozzle operated at 2.75 bar (40 psi) to produce ~270 L/ha (~29 gpa) with Fine spray quality. Six passes were made, producing four sprayed papers for each brand.
All papers were dry to the touch after two minutes. They were removed to a cooler, low humidity space and were digitized and analyzed using the SprayX DropScope (v.2.3.0) within an hour of spraying. We noted that while WS and SO fit easily into the DropScope port, the SY papers were sometimes slightly wider and had to be forced. Learn more about how to digitize and analyze WSP in this series of articles.
Screen capture from DropScope’s smartphone app.
The “ground” option was selected, and each brand of paper was processed using its specific spread factor. DropScope has a detection threshold of 35 µm. This is appropriate as the smallest droplet diameter that can be resolved by any brand of WSP is ~30 µm (Syngenta, Innoquest, SprayX – Personal Communication).
Percent surface covered
The average percent surface covered was calculated with standard error of the mean for each paper. WS and SO produced similar values between 30 and 35%. While all three brands exhibited similar variability, SY approached saturation at approximately 80% coverage. Therefore, WSPaper exhibited a slightly higher degree of spread than SpotOn, while the Syngenta paper exhibited a significantly higher degree of spread.
For reference, it can be difficult to determine if a stain represents a single deposit or is the result of multiple overlapping deposits. This becomes a problem when the surface of the WSP exceeds 20% total coverage. Further, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish a stain from the background, unstained surface when papers exceed 50% total coverage.
Average percent surface coverage by brand.DropScope-digitized images of three brands of WSP. The Syngenta and SpotOn papers were sprayed simultaneously while the WSPaper was sprayed in a subsequent pass. WSPaper exhibited a slightly higher degree of spread than SpotOn, while the Syngenta paper exhibited a significantly higher degree of spread.
Deposit density
The average deposit density is a count of discrete objects (i.e. stains) per cm2. WS appeared to resolve the highest count, followed by SY and then SO. The process for determining what is a discrete object, and not the result of anomalies such as overlapping deposits, elliptical deposits or imperfections in the paper itself is complicated and computationally heavy. The algorithms employed by DropScope treated each paper consistently. So, while some differences are attributed to variations in spraying, they also reflect the paper’s innate ability to resolve individual deposits.
Average deposit density was highest for WSPaper, then Syngenta, then SpotOn. Variability was similar in all cases.
Droplet diameter
It is not the intent of this article to determine if WSP should be used to extrapolate the original droplet size. The many assumptions and inconsistencies inherent to this process are well known. Nevertheless, some researchers do use WSP in this manner, so a comparison was warranted.
DropScope bins deposit diameters by size to produce histograms of deposit size by count. These stain diameters are used to extrapolate DV0.1, DV0.5 (VMD), DV0.9 and NMD, which describe the population of droplets that produced the stains. DV0.5 is the Volume Median Diameter, or the droplet diameter where half the volume is composed of finer droplets and the other half by coarser droplets. Number Median Diameter (NMD) is the droplet diameter where half the total droplets are finer, and half the total droplets are coarser.
Each brand of WSP will permit a certain degree of spread when a droplet of water contacts the surface. This spread factor is specific to the brand of paper. Further, the spread factor is not constant for all droplet sizes; Finer droplets will spread less than coarser droplets.
When processing data using DropScope, selecting the appropriate spread factor makes a significant difference to the output. For example, here are the same four SY papers processed using the Syngenta-specific spread factor as well as the spread factors intended for SpotOn and WSPaper.
The same four Syngenta papers were processed by DropScope using the Syngenta-specific spread factor as well as the SpotOn and WSPaper spread factors. The resulting VMD and NMD were very different.
Therefore, each brand of water sensitive paper was analyzed using its brand-specific spread factor (according to DropScope), to produce the following graph.
Three brands of WSP processed by DropScope using their specific spread factors. VMD differed by as much as 30%.
SY produced a VMD higher than that of WS, and both were higher than SO. There was less variability in the NMD, but this was expected given the high droplet count on the finer side of a hydraulic nozzle’s droplet size spectrum.
Conclusion
Water sensitive paper has immeasurable value in agricultural spraying. It is far more important to encourage its use than to quibble over brands. However, when these tools are used for more rigorous evaluations of spray coverage, brand-specific variability must be addressed.
The differences in how each brand responds to moisture (i.e. discolouration and deformation) may factor into which brand is most appropriate for a given situation. Further, there appear to be significant differences in how each brand resolves coverage. Once again, this may be irrelevant for those spray operators who occasionally use WSP to inform their spraying practices, but for consultants and researchers it is suggested that they use a single brand for an experiment, with papers produced in the same batch run.
If there’s one thing that stays the same, it’s that nothing stays the same. Formulations and manufacturing processes change. According to SprayX, manufacturers of the DropScope, all three of the papers described in this article (written in 2021) have changed in recent years. Some have improved and others can create potential errors in digitizing coverage. The following points may require a deeper understanding of how WSP is digitized and analyzed. Refer to this series of three articles.
Be aware of the following best practices when using WSP:
Be aware of package expiration dates. Expired paper will work differently from new paper, creating an artifact in analysis.
Papers with bright, reflective surfaces can cause an underestimation of deposit counts (specifically the smallest deposits).
Best results are obtained when using water for testing. Adjuvants and pesticide co-formulants have minor impacts on spread, but can also change the how the paper changes colour, making thresholding difficult.
Beware papers that create stains with bright borders and faint (hollow) centres (see image below). This can lead to an underestimation of volume median diameter. If your camera or scanner permits, examine the coverage in binary (e.g. black and white) for more accurate results.
Do not sample the edge of the WSP (leave at least a mm) to avoid edge effects such as wicking and partial impacts. Some scanners have a setting, or you can select the area manually.
Note the physical shape of the paper itself. Inconsistencies in the length and width (cutting errors) can make papers difficult to use in certain scanners, and curled papers cause changes in perspective and focal distance that can lead to errors.
When not using a sealed camera or scanner (e.g. DropScope or flatbed), changes in the camera angle, shadows, lighting conditions, and make/model of cellphone camera will affect the results. Be consistent.
Stains with faint centers may not register correctly with some software. This could be due to adjuvants in the liquid, or issues with the coating itself. Other issues might include inconsistent coatings that are either too thick or to thin affecting the reaction to water.
