Calibrating a boom sprayer is not as difficult as it sounds. There are several ways to calibrate a sprayer. Regardless of which method you choose, it usually doesn’t take more than 30 minutes, and only three things are needed:
a timer (or watch or smart phones) showing seconds,
a measuring tape, and
a jar graduated in ounces.
Here, I will describe perhaps the easiest of all the methods to calibrate a field sprayer.
Now is the time to get the field sprayer out of the shed and get it ready for the season. Check all the components of the sprayer to make sure they are in working order. Next step in preparations for the season is to calibrate the sprayer. The only way you can achieve maximum accuracy from a sprayer is by calibrating it once before the spraying season starts, and re-calibrating it frequently throughout the spraying season. While applying too little pesticide may result in ineffective pest control, too much pesticide wastes money, may damage the crop and increases the potential risk of contaminating ground water and environment. The primary goal with calibration is to determine the actual rate of application in gallons per acre, then to make adjustments if the difference between the actual rate and the intended rate is greater or less than 5% of the intended rate. This is a recommended guideline by USEPA and USDA.
Before starting calibration, make sure you have a good set of nozzles on the sprayer. Nozzles wear through extended use causing over application, or some nozzles may be plugged. Clean and check the output of all the nozzles for a given length of time at a given spray pressure (usually 1 minute and 40 psi). Compare output from each nozzle’s output with the expected output shown in the nozzle catalog for that nozzle at the same pressure. Replace the nozzles showing an output error of more than 10% of the output of the new nozzle. Once you do this, now you are ready to calibrate your sprayer.
Fill the sprayer tank (at least half full) with water.
Run the sprayer, inspect it for leaks, and make sure all vital parts function properly.
Measure the distance in inches between the nozzles.
Measure an appropriate travel distance in the field based on this nozzle spacing. The appropriate distances for different nozzle spacing is as follows: 408 ft for a 10-inch spacing, 272 ft for a 15-inch spacing, 204 ft for 20-inch spacing, 136 feet for a 30-inch spacing, and 102 feet for a 40-inch spacing.
Drive through the measured distance in the field at your normal spraying speed, and record the travel time in seconds. Repeat this procedure and average the two measurements.
With the sprayer parked, run the sprayer at the same pressure level and catch the output from each nozzle in a measuring jar for the travel time required in step 5 above.
Calculate the average nozzle output by adding the individual outputs and then dividing by the number of nozzles tested. The final average nozzle output in ounces you get is equal to the application rate in gallons per acre. For example, if you catch 15 ounces from a set of nozzles, the actual application rate of the sprayer is equal to 15 gallons per acre.
Compare the actual application rate with the recommended or intended rate. If the actual rate is more than 5 percent higher or lower than the recommended or intended rate, you must make adjustments in either the spray pressure or the travel speed or in both. For example, to increase the flow rate you will need to either slow down, or increase the spray pressure. The opposite is true when you need to reduce application rate. As you make these changes stay within proper and safe operating condition of the sprayer. Remember increased pressure will result in increasing the number of small, drift-prone droplets.
Repeat steps 5-8 above until the recommended application error of +5% or less is achieved.
Note: While there’s nothing wrong with this article, a more recent article on this subject can be found here.
It’s nearing the end of a long morning of spraying and you just want to get it done. As the tank empties and you watch the last of the spray cloud waft through the row, you’re thinking about rinsing out and moving on… but did the spray land where you wanted?
How do you really know if you hit the target?
Maybe you’re content with the occasional “shoulder checks” you made from the cab while spraying. Perhaps you stop at the end of the row and get out of the tractor to look for wet foliage during. Maybe you plan to return once the product is dry and look for white residue.
This early morning “shoulder check” was photographed by the operator using his smartphone. You can’t see coverage, but gaps in the spray will show if nozzles are plugged. You can also check to see if you are overshooting or blowing through the target. Photo Credit – C. Hedges, ON.
These are all good feedback practices, but a more accurate method is the use of water-sensitive paper, which turns from yellow to blue wherever spray touches it. You can easily see the distribution of the spray and the overall area covered, and it can be quantified so you can compare one sprayer set-up to another, or see the impact of weather, or even the effects of nozzle choice, pressure and water volume.
Water- (and oil-) sensitive paper: Cheap, simple and available on-line or in person from your favourite sprayer equipment store.
Draw a map
Begin by creating a simple drawing of the tree, cane, bush,vine, etc. you wish to spray. Label the drawing with unique numbers that correspond to where you are going to place the papers. Write the numbers on the back of each paper so you can see where they came from after they are collected. You should also note the pass number, so you can differentiate between each sprayer setup and corresponding pass. You might make a change and want to see how it affects coverage, and it’s very easy to mix up the papers if you haven’t record everything clearly. Plan to do this for at least two plants upwind from the sprayer to ensure you will get an accurate representation of average coverage. Be sure to wear disposable gloves and avoid dew so the papers don’t react prematurely.
Create a simple drawing of the target. Number positions on the drawing that correspond to where you plan to place the papers.
Distribute the papers
It is critical to distribute the papers evenly throughout each target canopy. They should be placed in key locations where pest damage has been an issue in the past (e.g. scab at the top of a tree, or spotted-wing drosophila at the bottom-centre of highbush blueberry), or anywhere coverage is notoriously difficult. Our preference is to place them at the top, centre and bottom of a tree canopy as well as laterally from the outer edge of the canopy beside the sprayer moving in towards the trunk.
Number positions on the drawing that correspond to where you plan to place the papers. Label the papers as well so you know where they came from. Consider writing the pass number and the position (e.g. 1-1 would be Pass 1, Position 1) so you can evaluate the changes to the sprayer settings from pass to pass. Later, all the information from the calibration can be entered into your spray records, like in this mock-up.
We use spring-back paper clips attached to alligator clips at 90 degrees to attach the papers to small branches. You can also staple them to the upper or lower face of the leaves (as long as they don’t cause leaf to droop). You can wrap them around stems for panoramic coverage or to monitor drenches. They can be stapled the trunk to show if spray is aimed into the canopy or being wasted. You can even skewer to the ground using wire flags to to illustrate poor lower-nozzle positioning and/or canopy run-off. Put them wherever you want to know about spray coverage!
This home-made double-ended alligator clip holds papers at right angles. One end for the paper, the other end to a twig or wire flag.
We typically orient them facing the alleys so their sensitive faces are square to the sprayer as it passes. We often use two in each location, oriented back-to-back facing each alley so you can resolve coverage from both sides. The important part is to ensure you are consistent. Mark the location in the canopy with some colourful flagging tape so you can find the papers after you spray, and if you wish to replace them with fresh papers to evaluate another pass, orient them the same way to make the comparison fair.
Water-sensitive papers located in five positions in an Empire apple tree. Two papers were pinned back-to-back in each position, distributed evenly throughout the canopy, facing the alleys. One paper was located at the lowest branch to determine if the lowest nozzle position needed to be on. Another paper was pinned to the ground face-up under the tree to show any excessive waste. Be consistent from pass to pass.
Spray, check and spray again
Once the papers are in place, pass by on one side with both booms open (as you would normally spray). Be sure to start spraying well before passing the target, and keep spraying afterwards to ensure the resultant coverage represents an actual application. It is very informative to get out of the cab and examine the papers before passing by on the other side. You can learn a lot about how the wind is affecting the spay.
Once papers are in place, pass by spraying with both booms open to emulate a typical spray day. Be sure to start spraying well before passing the target, and keep spraying afterwards to ensure the resultant coverage represents an actual application. It can be very informative to examine coverage at this point to see how wind is affecting the spray. Then, pass by on the other side to complete the application.An example of the coverage obtained on water-sensitive papers placed throughout an apple tree canopy, and on the ground beneath it.
Interpret the patterns
You might notice the outer portions of larger canopies receive more spray than the inside. This is hardly surprising given that spray must pass through the outside to get to the inside. As a result, inner papers often receive proportionally less spray and should be the basis for determining if you have sufficient spray coverage. This is also why the label recommendation of “spraying to the point of runoff” is unhelpful: the outer portion of wide, dense canopies often begin to drip before the inner portion receives sufficient coverage. Further, how do you spray to the point of runoff? How do you know when to stop before it’s too late? Label language can be frustrating…
When water-sensitive paper is sprayed to the point of run-off, the blue dye will drip. This is fine for a drench (dilute) application, but excessive for a typical concentrated application like foliar fungicides and insecticides.
When assessing coverage, don’t follow the droplet counts in the small guide that comes with the paper sensitive paper kit – they haven’t been updated for a very long time and are more appropriate for field crop applications – not airblast applications. Research and experience suggest that 85 discrete fine/medium-sized droplets per square centimetre and a total coverage of 10-15% should be sufficient for most foliar insecticides and fungicides. Remember, this is only a suggested threshold and in the case of coarser sprays, focus more on even distribution and the 10-15% coverage.
It’s debatable, but 85 Fine/Medium-sized drops per square centimetre and about 15% total surface covered on a minimum 80% of all papers represents adequate airblast spray coverage for most foliar applications. It is less applicable for applications made with Coarse/Very Coarse droplets, because there are fewer of them and they generally cover more area. In this case, focus more on the even distribution of spray and the 15% coverage. An extreme example of this is a drench (dilute) application of oil where total saturation is the goal. Conversely, ultra-low volume applications employ Very Fine droplets and a better metric is uniform, high droplet density rather than area covered.
Make a change and try again
There’s no easy way to define a threshold between sufficient and insufficient spray coverage. When you retrieve and examine the papers, think about how the product is intended to work: “Is it a contact, trans-laminar or locally systemic pesticide? What are the odds that an insect or spore will come in contact with residue? Will I be spraying again soon (e.g. fungicide) and will the spray already on the leaves have residual activity?” Regarding that last thought, protectant fungicide applications are often layered, so what one spray misses, the next will catch. Quite often, “sufficient coverage” is less than most sprayer operators think.
If you are content with the coverage, record your sprayer settings to use them again in that block (in similar weather, and assuming the crop canopy doesn’t change significantly before the next spray day). If you are not content, make a change to the sprayer to improve matters, reset the papers, and go again. It can take time and some effort to get it right, but improved coverage and reduced waste are ample financial reward for your efforts.
Other methods of evaluating coverage
It should be noted that while water-sensitive paper is versatile, cheap and easy to use, it has its shortcomings. Placement and orientation of the paper is very important; it’s easy to hit papers on the outside of the canopy with the sensitive-side facing the sprayer. It’s considerably harder when they are at the very centre of the canopy, or hiding behind fruit. When the thin edge of the paper is oriented to the spray (i.e. oriented facing the ground), it presents very little surface and can be difficult to hit.
Use enough air to only just ruffle the leaves. This exposes all surfaces, however briefly, to the spray. Too much air will align leaves with the spray, exposing only their thin edge and making coverage difficult. Too much air may also cause leaves to shingle (overlap), and create shadows like on the grape leaves shown here.
Further, the papers won’t show the finest droplets (<50 µm), so there may be spray even though you can’t see it. Taken collectively with the product’s mode of action (i.e. contact or locally systemic), and any possible re-distribution by rain or dew, spray coverage becomes a good indicator for protection, but it isn’t definitive. While coverage is a good indicator, improved coverage does not always mean improved efficacy.
Some sprayer operators use other methods to confirm their coverage. Kaolin clay is an inert compound that leaves white residue when dry. Red, yellow or green water-soluble, food-grade dyes will also indicate coverage. Even fluorescent dyes such as phosphorus can be sprayed at night and illuminated under black lights.
Kaolin clay and fluorescent dies sprayed into fruit canopies give a lot of information about sprayer coverage, but are relatively inconvenient compared to water-sensitive paper.Red food-grade dye sprayed from a horizontal boom to demonstrate downwind drift onto a white target. This was a messy experiment and my hands, and the sprayer, were pink for a long time afterwards. Photo Credit – J. McDougall, Ontario.
Take home
These methods give the sprayer operator a lot of information because they land on the actual target, not a piece of paper hung in the canopy. But, they require a lot of time and effort and are typically out of reach for most operators. Further, they do not allow multiple applications on the same canopy to compare the effect of sprayer settings on coverage – once the target is sprayed, it’s sprayed.
No matter which method you choose to use, understanding how changes to you sprayer, or the impact of weather, affect coverage is a critical piece of information. Operators should make an effort to evaluate spray coverage. Here are a few videos describing the process:
Using water-sensitive paper for airblast coverage diagnostics – thanks to Penn State, Univ. New Hampshire and Chazzbo Media (2014).
Checking water-sensitive paper in an orchard. Tower is spraying only water during a calibration run (2013).
Spray application is one of the most important activities regularly done in any crop operation. It can also be one of the most expensive and time-consuming. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a multi-step process that helps sprayer operators make informed choices about when and what to spray. But, the decision to spray is not the end of the process.
Spraying highbush blueberry in British Columbia just after a rain. Not ideal, but sometimes the window for application is very small. It’s not the ideal situation, but one strategy for spraying a protectant fungicide on wet leaves is to concentrate the tank mix and use less spray per hectare. The fewer, and more concentrated, spray droplets will dilute in the water already on the leaves and the possibility of run-off is reduced. This is a stop-gap measure, only. The spray will not dry or distribute as it was intended and this strategy will require an additional full-rate application as soon as the weather improves, as long as the label permits. It is often said there is no such thing as a wasted fungicide application.
The sprayer operator now faces a lot of decisions about sprayer set-up and application method. These decisions determine if the application will be effective, and they also determine if it will be efficient. Efficient spraying saves money and reduces environmental impact. The goal is to be both effective and efficient.
So what should the operator be aware of?
A quick Google search reveals a seemingly endless number of sprayer articles by government, industry and academia (and many on this website!). There are differences in definitions, opinions on priorities vary, and classic sprayer wisdom is sometimes supported and sometimes debunked by current research. But, if you read enough of them you will find more similarities than differences, and common themes will emerge.
Most agree that the objective of spraying is the safe and timely delivery of an effective, uniform dose of product to a target area. Any product not deposited on the target (e.g. spray drift, sprayer leaks, run-off, etc.) reduces efficiency and is called wastage. The literature points to six broad elements that affect spray efficiency and effectiveness. Sprayer operators should actively consider all six elements before, and during, each spray application.
The six elements in the illustration overlap because changing one of the elements often means reconsidering others. For example, increasing droplet size to reduce drift potential also reduces the number of droplets sprayed. This may warrant higher spray volumes, which means you might require a more dilute tank-mix to maintain the rate-per-area. Only the sprayer operator’s decisions affect all the elements, which is why it’s pictured in the centre. Technology or technique can not compensate for an inattentive operator; an operator’s skill and willingness to do a good job impacts the overall efficiency and effectiveness of every spray application. Understanding how droplets behave (or misbehave) is essential.
The six elements of effective and efficient spray application.
Each element is comprised of many contributing factors. Some of these factors might fit under multiple elements and certainly we’ve reorganized this list many times over the years. No matter how they are presented, all of these factors (and more) contribute to the success of spray applications and they should figure into the operator’s considerations.
The expanded six elements of effective and efficient spray application.
So, as sprayer operators, we should all be aware of how the factors that affect an application. Take an active role! Don’t be afraid to get out of the tractor and make changes to your pressure or your nozzle choice. Check your coverage as you spray, and make adjustments as the weather changes. Finally, recognize when it’s a waste of time and spray, and know when to pack it in. The days of “set it and forget it” are no more!
Sprayer operators recognize the importance of matching their sprayer settings to the crop to optimize efficacy. For example, spraying a protective fungicide in field tomato should require a different approach from spraying a locally systemic insecticide in staked peppers. Knowing this, many operators make ad hoc changes and then wait to “see if it worked”. A process is required that empowers the operator to make systematic changes to their program and assess coverage immediately.
Such a process would require some fundamental understanding of how droplets behave, the location of the target, and the physical structure of the crop. This would be tempered by broader concerns such as weather (e.g. wind, rain and inversions as they affect coverage and spray drift), pest staging, and sprayer capacity (i.e. the sprayer’s ability to cover the crop in the window of time available). Finally, there has to be a mechanism for the operator to make a single change, then assess the impact in a quick, convenient, and yet quantitative manner.
There are always exceptions to a rule, but an operator looking to assess spray coverage might consider the following process:
Understand how the pesticide works. Not only do certain tank mixes and weather conditions affect pesticide efficacy, but the mode of action plays a big role. A contact product must hit the target, while a locally systemic offers more latitude and can withstand less coverage.
Use IPM to determine where the pest is, whether it’s at a stage of development where it is susceptible to the spray, and where the spray needs to be to affect it. For example, if the pest is deep in the canopy, or under a leaf, or in the flower, this is where spray coverage should be targeted and assessed.
Understand droplet behaviour.
Coarser droplets move in straight lines and are prone to runoff (especially on waxy and vertical targets). They rarely provide acceptable canopy penetration in dense, broadleaf canopies and do not give under-leaf or panoramic stem coverage. The Coarser the droplet, the fewer the sprayer produces, reducing droplet density. However, they are not prone to drift and can tolerate higher winds.
Finer droplets slow quickly and tend to move in random directions without some form of entrainment (e.g. air-assist). While they are not prone to runoff, they can get caught up on trichomes (leaf hairs) and may not reach the leaf surface. They provide improved canopy penetration and some under-leaf and panoramic stem coverage, but their lack of momentum leads some operators to use higher pressures to “fog them in”. Higher pressures are generally not advisable because they increase the potential for drift and often result in less spray available to the crop.
Consider the droplets’ point of view. Look along the droplets potential path from nozzle to target. If there’s something in the way, consider re-orienting the nozzle using drop-arms, or a nozzle body that can be adjusted to change the spray direction.
Understand the impact of water volume and travel speed. Higher volumes improve spray coverage by increasing the number of droplets. Slower speeds give more opportunity for spray to penetrate the canopy and reduce the potential for drift, leaving more spray available to cover the crop.
Use water-and-oil sensitive paper to assess spray coverage. The operator should pin or clip papers in the crop, in locations and orientations representing the desired target. Wire flags and flagging tape mark their locations:
Spray using water to establish baseline coverage.
Retrieve the papers and replace them with a new set in the same locations and orientation.
Make one change to the sprayer set-up and determine whether or not coverage was improved.
Continue to tweak the sprayer until coverage is improved. Sometimes, improving spray efficiency means maintaining coverage while using less spray.
Understand how much is enough. Knowing whether to drench the target, or be satisfied with a low droplet density depends on how the pesticide works and whether or not the pest is mobile. As a general rule for foliar insecticides and fungicides, 85 drops per square centimeter and 10-15% surface coverage on 80% of all targets should be sufficient.
Now, a few caveats: Know that under-leaf coverage is VERY difficult to achieve and that improved coverage does not necessarily mean improve efficacy. Further, know that a systematic approach requires time and effort, and should only be performed in weather conditions the operator would spray in.
Read about how a similar process was used to assess coverage in field tomato and in staked pepper. It may take time out of an already busy schedule, but performing this assessment is always worth it.
Before we dive into the details, let’s start with a quick video summary filmed by RealAgriculture at Canada’s Outdoor Farm Show in September, 2016.
When the pressure drops and the nozzles begin to sputter, the sprayer is considered empty. However, it can still retain a lot of spray solution. Repeated rinses or tank dumps in the same location can lead to accumulation and cause point source contamination.
In response to unacceptably high levels of environmental pesticide contamination, the European Union published an amendment to their directive regarding machinery for pesticide application (2009/127/EC). Their intention was to raise the standard of equipment design to reduce the standing volume of spray solution, and to improve cleaning practices. In order to comply, sprayer technology and operator practices would have to change. But the the amendment didn’t specify how, or to what level.
France (2006) and Denmark (2009) legislated that a rinsed sprayer must not have more than 1% or 2%, respectively, of the original tank mix concentration, as sampled at the nozzle. In response, P G Anderson et al. suggested that residual concentrations should be sampled from at least three places on the sprayer. They conducted research (download here) that showed that both field and airblast sprayers can retain 10-15% of the original concentration in the empty/fill valves, boom ends and filters, while rinsate measured 1-2% at the nozzle. They also stated that in order for sprayer designers, operators and authorities to comply with these new rules, someone had to develop a simple but robust method for cleaning sprayers.
Continuous cleaning
In a later paper, the author and his team proposed a method called “Continuous cleaning” (download here), which employs a dedicated clean water pump to push spray solution from the tank and out the boom in the field. For comparison, the traditional triple rinse method employs the main pump to dilute the remaining spray solution with clean water in a series of rinses and sprays. You can learn more about point source contamination and rinsing methods in this clear and informative presentation by P. Balsari and P. Marucco (download here) given in 2015 at the University of Turin in Italy.
The continuous cleaning method isn’t new. In the 1970s some farmers cleaned their sprayers by plumbing a water supply hose into the suction line while spraying out the rinsate. They were on to something, because formal testing in the late 1990s showed that continuous cleaning was more efficient than triple rinsing. Then, from 2005 onward, research by groups such as betterspraying aps, TOPPS, the Julius Kuhn-Institut and AAMS further refined the process for both field and airblast sprayers.
Anderson et al. made compelling claims about the continuous cleaning method. They stated that a 4,000 L sprayer with a 400 L clean water reservoir would require only 100 L to clean the plumbing as effectively as triple rinsing, which would require the entire 400 L. The remaining 300 L could be used to rinse the exterior and the entire process could take place in the field, in rotating locations. Perhaps most intriguing of all was that it would only take five minutes.
But, it is important to note that their rinsate samples came from the nozzles, as required by France and Denmark. The issue of higher concentrations in dead-end plumbing is not addressed.
European adoption
In anticipation of the regulations, some manufacturers were already developing continuous cleaning kits to upgrade sprayers of all makes, models and ages. In Denmark (and to a lesser extent in France and Germany) these kits were used at workshops to upgrade sprayers. But, the installation process was not always straight-forward.
Some kits performed better than others and expertise was needed to match the flow rate, tank rinse nozzles and the pump’s power requirements to the sprayers. Depending on the sprayer’s design, it sometimes required trial and error to establish a process of opening and closing valves during rinsing. Independent testing showed that many sprayers were greatly improved,(download here) but others proved incompatible due to the volume or inaccessibility of residual spray mix remaining in the plumbing. Specific cases include dead-ends on boom sections, or exceptionally long return lines on circulating booms
Defining a fit for North America
In early 2016, we wrote a preliminary article describing what we knew of the method and it created a lot of interest. We decided to test it our for ourselves in a demo at the Canadian Outdoor Farm Show. But before we describe what we did, let’s clarify a few terms. You may have noted that in Europe the process is called “Continuous cleaning” but moving forward we will refer to the method as “Continuous rinsing”. This is because we feel cleaning a sprayer and rinsing a sprayer are different processes with different objectives.
“Cleaning” a sprayer is a total decontamination that should be performed when changing chemicals and at the end of every spray day. It requires the use of a detergent and any label-required additive (such as ammonia following the new dicamba products). Perhaps most importantly, it requires the operator to address the dead-end plumbing areas. There is no universally-accepted process, but we describe fairly common protocols for field sprayers here and for airblast sprayers here.
“Rinsing” is a less intensive process intended to reduce the amount of residue that can build up on, or soak into, sprayer surfaces. Water is brought into contact with most of the plumbing to dilute any solution left in the sprayer, and is then sprayed out in the field. This process should be performed every few loads, or when moving an empty sprayer between fields, or if the operator has (perhaps unwisely) decided not to clean the sprayer at the end of the day because they are spraying the same chemical tomorrow. Often, this is accomplished using the triple rinse process, which we describe here:
Triple Rinse Process
The pressure drops and nozzles sputter (i.e. spray tank is empty).
If the sprayer has an inductor bowl or loading bypass, and if the operator doesn’t already rinse these systems following filling, the operator will exit the cab, open the valve to clean water reservoir, and use a portion of the clean water to clean these circuits. In some cases, the rinse process can be performed without the operator having to leave the cab.
Sprayers with dead end plumbing on boom section ends warrant special consideration. Spray mix can be harboured in the dead ends and is a significant source of contamination, no matter how much rinsing is performed (see video). Therefore, the first rinse (step 5) should be interrupted before it is complete to allow boom ends to be opened, flushed and closed.
The operator then introduces 1/3 of the clean water reservoir to the spray tank through the rinsing nozzle(s) and circulates for 5 minutes (including the agitation line).
The operator returns to cab, and drives to spray the volume out in the field until the nozzles sputter.
Operator exits the cab and introduces 1/3 of the clean water reservoir to the spray tank through the rinsing nozzle(s) and circulates for 5 minutes (including the agitation line).
The operator returns to cab, and drives to spray the volume out in the field until the nozzles sputter.
Operator exits the cab and introduces 1/3 of the clean water reservoir to the spray tank through the rinsing nozzle(s) and circulates for 5 minutes (including the agitation line).
The operator returns to cab, and drives to spray the volume out in the field until the nozzles sputter.
The process, illustrated in this field sprayer plumbing animation, takes about 40 minutes and may require the operator to leave the cab multiple times.
Continuous rinsing requires a second pump to be installed in the system. Rather than performing a serial dilution in three batches, this rinsing essentially pushes spray solution out of the sprayer using clean water. The agitation line creates some dilution since it loops back to the tank, but that small volume is quickly diluted by the process, as below:
Continuous Rinse Process
Pressure drops and nozzles sputter (i.e. spray tank is empty).
If the sprayer has an inductor bowl or loading bypass, and if the operator doesn’t already rinse these systems following filling, the operator will exit the cab, open the valve to clean water reservoir, and use a portion of the clean water to clean these circuits.
There can be no dead-end plumbing at the end of boom sections for this process to work (e.g. sections terminate with air-aspirating end caps).
The operator returns to cab (if they left), and begins introducing clean water to the tank through the rinsing nozzle(s).
When a small volume has been introduced, the operator engages the agitation line with reduced flow to tank and begins driving and spraying at a rate slightly higher than the clean water pump’s flow rate.
Operator continues to spray until the nozzles sputter.
The process, illustrated in this field sprayer plumbing animation, takes about 10 minutes and requires the operator to leave the cab once at most.
Building a demo system and model
We worked with HJV Equipment in Alliston, Ontario to build a bench-top model representing a simple, scaled-down sprayer rinse system. Using the model, we planned to compare the effectiveness and the efficiency of triple rinsing to continuous rinsing – and we would do so in front of an audience. HJV felt that to make an appropriate model, we should base it on an installed system. So, they plumbed a working system into a RoGator 700.
They used two Hypro electric roller pumps (model 4101 N-H) in parallel, plumbed into the clean water reservoir. Anti-backflow valves led the water to the tank rinse nozzles. The system could be engaged from the cab and could be isolated from the existing rinse system, leaving the sprayer’s original system intact and available for when full cleanings were required. The designer/mechanic points out key features in the following video.
The RoGator 700 has a 700 US gallon tank and a 50 US gallon clean water reservoir. By tapping into an existing compressor, HJV created a means for blowing out the boom with air, greatly reducing the amount of spray solution left in the empty sprayer. Still, the “empty” sprayer would retain about 15 US gallons in the pump, sump and remaining lines. Based on those parameters, we designed and constructed our scaled model. We used 10 L in the main tank and 4.5 L in the clean water reservoir. The lines and sump held about 1.25 L so we felt breaking the 4.5 L of clean water into three 1.5 L volumes was fair.
In the images that follow you can see the components. Basically we have a spray tank, clean water reservoir, main pump, dedicated clean water pump, the sprayer boom, and some clever anti-backflow and valves to switch the “sprayer” from one method of rinsing to the next.
But, we still had to devise a means to measure the effectiveness of the two rinsing systems. UV dye would be difficult to use with a live audience in real time, and food colouring would be too subjective. We decided to use a conductivity meter, which quickly measures the electrical conductivity of a liquid. Using NaCl (table salt) as a readily-dissolved conductor, we calibrated the unit and found we could reliably register table salt in parts per million.
The demo process
We ran the demo six times over three days and recorded how long each rinse took and how effective each rinse was in reducing the original concentration. Here’s how we did it:
Triple Rinse (~4.5 minutes)
Fill the main tank to 10 L.
Introduce 10 cc of salt (and coloured with green food dye) to create our spray mix.
Circulate the solution through the main pump and agitation line to ensure it was completely homogeneous.
Start the system spraying out of the boom.
Draw a sample of the spray mix to serve as our baseline concentration.
When the nozzles began to sputter, the tank was “empty” (duration: 150 seconds).
We drained the boom via valve on the boom-end to simulate “blowing out” the boom. (duration: 5 seconds)
We introduced 1.5 L of clean water through the tank rinse nozzle (duration: 15 seconds).
We circulated the solution through the agitation line. (duration: 30 seconds).
We sprayed the solution out of the boom, drawing a sample of rinsate before the nozzles sputtered (duration: 30 seconds)
Repeat steps 8-10 two more times to represent the other two rinses.
Continuous Rinse (~1.5 minutes)
Fill the main tank to 10 L.
Introduce 10 cc of salt (and coloured with green food dye) to create our spray mix.
Circulate the solution through the main pump and agitation line to ensure it was completely homogeneous.
Start the system spraying out of the boom.
Draw a sample of the spray mix to serve as our baseline concentration.
When the nozzles began to sputter , the tank was “empty” (duration: 150 seconds).
We drained the boom via valve on the boom-end to simulate “blowing out” the boom. (duration: 5 seconds)
We reduced the agitation flow to a low rate and introduced 1.5 L of clean water through the rinse nozzle using our dedicated pump (duration: 5 seconds)
At the 5 second mark, we started spraying while still introducing clean water.
Samples of rinsate were drawn at regular intervals, with particular attention to collect the last volume fraction as the nozzles were sputtering (duration: 100 seconds)
Results
Triple Rinse
The average starting conductivity for the triple rinse demo was 2,520 µS (n=6). The final sample of rinsate registered a conductivity of 490 µS (n=6) representing a final concentration that was 19.4% of the original. Average time: 4.5 minutes.
Continuous Rinse
The average starting conductivity for the continuous rinse demo was 2,145 µS (n=6). The final sample of rinsate registered a conductivity of 342 µS (n=6) representing a final concentration that was 16% of the original. Average time 1.5 minutes.
We were surprised the model could not reduce the concentration of salt to an acceptable 1-2% level. The Agrimetrix Dilution Calculator App suggests it should have been much better. We suspect the standing volume of the system is higher than we predicted, and we weren’t using enough clean water to dilute it. We may have had better results if we’d used a lower concentration of salt to begin with, and/or a higher volume of clean water. We will continue to tweak the demo model and will update this article as we collect more information. The more stringent research in Europe showed that continuous rinsing is a effective as triple rinsing.
The most interesting result is that continuous rinsing took 1/3 of the time triple rinsing required (1.5 minutes versus 4.5 minutes). Research in Europe suggested 1/4 of the time as triple rinsing. The difference is likely accounted for by the time the operator used leaving and entering the cab.
You can see the effectiveness of the process in this AAMS demonstration video. Sure, their demo unit is nicer than the one we built, but our rustic version has charm 🙂 Note the sequence of opening and closing valves to ensure all circuits are rinsed clear of dye.
Conclusion
If continuous rinsing is as effective as triple rinsing and can be performed in a fraction of the time with less operator exposure, then we should be modifying our sprayers to support the method. Airblast sprayers and small field sprayers are relatively easy to modify, and can be even be equipped with a spray wand so excess clean can be employed to rinse down the exterior.
Larger field sprayers, however, may be more challenging as they do not all lend themselves to the conversion:
The clean water pump (hydraulic or electric) must have sufficient power.
Matching the pump capacity to the sprayer can be problematic; The clean water pump flow rate must be 30-50% of the boom flow rate.
Sprayers with dead-end boom sections or circulating-flow return lines may not be compatible, and those with pneumatic systems to clear the boom of solution are preferred.
More sophisticated electronic rate controller systems (e.g. on the larger self-propelled sprayers) may not be compatible.
And, of course, we must remember that neither triple or continuous rinsing should be seen as a replacement for the sprayer cleaning process. Any drain-able part of the sprayer will still harbour high concentrations of residues (e.g. filters, valves, inductors, bypass lines – any dead-end plumbing). With new stacked chemistries being introduced in North America (some still active when residues register as little as a few parts per million), diligent sprayer sanitation is more important than ever.
Thanks to Jan Langenakens of aams for his help researching and informing this article.
