In 1977, David Shelton and Kenneth Von Bargen (University of Nebraska) published an article called “10-1977 CC279 Gear Up – Throttle Down”. It described the merits of reducing tractor rpm’s for trailed implements that didn’t need 540 rpm to operate. In 2001 (republished in 2009), Robert Grisso (Extension Engineer with Virginia Cooperative Extension) described the same fuel-saving practice. Again, it was noted that many PTO-driven farm implements don’t need full tractor power, so why waste the fuel? He tested shifting to a higher tractor gear and slowing engine speed to maintain the desired ground speed. 700 diesel tractors were tested, and as long as the equipment could operate at a lower PTO speed and the tractor itself didn’t lug (i.e. overload), as much as 40% of the diesel was saved.
How this applies to Airblast
For airblast operators with PTO-driven sprayers and positive-displacement pumps, this has potential for reducing air energy. Gearing up and throttling down (GUTD) sees the operator reducing the PTO speed from 540 rpm to somewhere between 350-375 rpms, which not only saves fuel but more importantly slows the fan speed. This may be an option when air energy from the sprayer, even at higher travel speeds and a low fan gear, still overblows the target canopy.
Some airblast sprayers, like this one, feature fan blades with manually-adjustable pitch to increase or lower air volume and speed. It’s often a pain to try to adjust them, and most operators only try it once.
A good time to try this out is early in the spraying season when (most) canopies are dormant and at their most sparse. For example, when applying dormant sprays in apple orchards, look to see if the wood on the sprayer-side gets wet, but does not creep around the sides. This suggests that the air, and much of it’s droplet payload, are being deflected. When the air speed is slowed, it will become more diffuse and turbulent on target surfaces, and this turbulence helps more droplets deposit in a panoramic fashion within (not past) the target canopy. Look to see if the wood is wet >50% around the circumference of the branches. You’ll get the rest when you spray form the other side.
Limitations
GUTD is not always appropriate. It requires airblast sprayers with PTO-driven positive displacement pumps (e.g. diaphragm). Airblast sprayers with centrifugal pumps would experience a drop in operating pressure and would have to be re-nozzled. Further, the pump must have sufficient surplus capacity to maintain pressure at low rpms.
GUTD is not intended for air-shear sprayers that employ twin-fluid nozzles because dropping air speed below a certain threshold may compromise spray quality; the air needs to be fast enough to create and direct spray droplets
The tractor must have sufficient horsepower (more than 25% in excess of minimally-required capacity) to permit the reduction in engine torque. This is especially important if the operator is on hilly terrain. If the tractor begins to lug (e.g. black smoke, sluggish response, strange sounds) you’ll be in trouble.
Observations
We first experimented with GUTD in 2013. We noticed how much quieter the sprayer was, and the fuel consumption was certainly reduced. One grower-cooperator switched to a GUTD spray strategy mid-way through their dormant oil application in pears. We saw the trees immediately began to drip. Panoramic coverage was improved significantly; once the operator passed down the other side of the target, capillary action and surface tension helped to give near-complete coverage.
However, in one instance, the operator was already applying a low spray volume per hectare using air induction nozzles and their lowest fan gear. By further slowing fan speed using GUTD, coverage at the top of his cherry trees was compromised.
In short, GUTD can work under the right circumstances. If you want to try it, use water-sensitive paper to establish a base-line with your current practice, and then evaluate coverage after you change your sprayer settings.
The Fundamental Relationship, a concept by Professor D. Ken Giles (Emeritus), UC Davis Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, is a way of talking about calibration without numbers and formulas. It is valuable for teaching concepts important to calibration. Since it is a relationship, it describes the variables needed and how they relate to each other.
We see here that land rate is inversely proportional to application rate. Thus, when land rate (either speed or swath width or both) are increased (and no other factors change), application rate is decreased. Likewise, flow rate is directly proportional to application rate. Thus, when flow rate is increased (and no other factors change), application rate is also increased. When flow rate is decreased (and no other factors change), application rate is also decreased.
The Fundamental Relationship is also a good way to do the math of calibration because nothing needs to be memorized. As long as the units are checked, you can’t go wrong. The Fundamental Relationship works for any sprayer calibration, as long as the units are tracked correctly and the flow rate correlates to the land rate, i.e., the land rate used is the swath that the nozzles (flow rate) are covering.
So, if the flow rate (GPM) used in the formula is for ½ of an airblast set up, the swath width in the land rate calculation would be ½ of the row width. If, for example, it is for a weed sprayer with 2 nozzles, the swath width would be the width the 2 nozzles are covering. Remember to think about this as what area is being covered by the spray:
Flow rate units are straight forward: gallons/minute.
Land rate can be a bit tricky because no one thinks in terms of acres covered per minute.
Land rate is tractor speed × swath width covered by the nozzles used to calculate flow rate.
Land rate in the above needs to be calculated in the units “ac/min”. Since there are 43,560 ft2 in an acre, the easiest way to calculate is to use the swath width in feet, and the speed in ft/min. Multiplied, this then will give you land rate in ft2/min, which can then be converted to ac/min.
Using MPH as Speed
When you measure speed in the field, those who have a speedometer on their tractor will tell you their speed in MPH. To go from a land rate with speed as MPH to ac/min, the following unit conversion is used when multiplying the speed in MPH times the swath width in feet:
Note: speed should always be measured and verified. Speedometers are notoriously incorrect!
Calculating nozzle flow rate (GPM):
You can also use the Fundamental Relationship to calculate the flow rate needed for a desired spray volume (application rate) when you have a set land rate (speed and swath width). This is necessary to help you choose your nozzles. Tractor speed is first determined by checking the coverage-using water sensitive paper or another coverage indicator like kaolin clay, and the fan (using ribbons in the canopy), to go as fast as safely possible while still getting adequate coverage. Swath width for any given field is set. What is left then is to calculate the GPM needed to achieve that application rate at that speed and swath width. This will allow you to select your nozzles based on individual nozzle GPM for a certain pressure.
To get the required GPM for one side of the sprayer, you multiply by ½:
GPM (one side of sprayer) = GPA × [(Miles/Hour × swath width (ft)) ÷ 495]× 1/2
GPM (one side of sprayer) = GPA × [(Miles/Hour × swath width (ft)) ÷ 495]
I’ve seen some folks round up the 990 to 1,000, which makes the above formula easier to remember.
Why I think the “495 formula” is bad for calibration
In my experience of teaching calibration math, folks often want to fall back on the formula they have used instead of trying the Fundamental Relationship. The problem I have with the “495 or 990” formulae, is that with using ground speed in MPH, often the step of measuring speed, a critical step for optimizing spray coverage, is eliminated.
Ground speed is assumed, the speedometer is assumed to be correct, and the entire step of measuring and setting speed is omitted-big mistake! Setting speed using flagging tape in the canopy and looking at the “Fan : Speed : Canopy” interaction is probably the most important step of calibration and optimizing coverage. So, if you must use the “495 formula”, please actually measure your ground speed!
Measuring speed manually
Typically, at least 100 feet are marked off to measure actual speed with a stopwatch. If you measure actual tractor travel time for a 100 foot length, you will likely find most common spraying speeds are timed in seconds. These can be converted to minutes, and then used in the formula for speed as ft/min which is then multiplied by the swath (or row) width in feet to obtain ft2/min, which can then be converted to ac/min.
If swath width is 6 feet, the land rate (or area the nozzles are covering) is calculated as:
264 ft/min × 6 ft = 1,584 ft2/min
In acres covered per minute, we divide by 43,560 ft2/ac to obtain a land rate of 0.036 ac/min. To travel 100 feet at this speed, it takes 0.37 minutes or 22.7 seconds. So, it is not uncommon to time 100-foot tractor runs in 21-23 seconds (which is why you need a good stopwatch). These runs are best done on the type of terrain to be sprayed; and it’s always good to take several times and average.
Remember that the speed is written as distance travelled/time. Sometimes when measuring speed, I’ve noticed that it will be written as time/distance travelled, which gives the wrong number. Track units!
Establishing an airblast nozzling solution is an involved process. We must first define the working parameters and flush out any special circumstances. Then we use an iterative approach to identify suitable nozzle combinations that require minimal changes to the sprayer.
This article outlines my process step-by-step and then applies it to a hypothetical orchard scenario. If readers wish to delve deeper into the variables or the reasoning, several links to supporting articles are provided. Be aware that nozzling the sprayer is the penultimate step in establishing optimal sprayer settings. Operators should first adjust air settings, which includes identifying a suitable travel speed. The last step in setting up any sprayer is to verify you are achieving threshold spray coverage.
Step One: Establish sprayer parameters
Is there more than one sprayer available? In diverse plantings, it may be more efficient to assign a sprayer to blocks that require the same nozzling solution.
How many nozzle positions are there on one side of the sprayer? If the nozzle bodies are roll-over style the operator can alternate between two different nozzles in each position. Some designs have twice as many nozzle bodies as needed. The intent is to assign two unique nozzle solutions in an alternating A-B set-up. This additional capacity gives us some flexibility if needed.
Is this a tower or a low-profile axial sprayer? Generally, we distribute nozzle flow evenly over a tower boom but distribute ½ the flow in the top 1/3 of the boom on a low-profile axial sprayer (depending on canopy shape and density). Air-shear and one-sided sprayers are special cases that are not addressed in this article.
What is the average travel speed, and can the operator easily change it? This process assumes the selected speed achieves a reasonable work rate while optimizing the interaction between sprayer air and the canopy.
What is the average operating pressure, and can the operator easily change it? For sprayers with positive displacement pumps, pressure is easily changed via the regulator. Not so for sprayers with centrifugal pumps. Pressure-based rate controllersempower an operator to dial in their desired volume and are easiest of all .
Step Two: Establish target parameters
What is the row spacing (or spacings)? Some operations include a variety of canopy morphologies and planting architectures.
What is the target volume (or volumes)? Operators often use a range of volumes to reflect the product being applied and the canopy area-density. This process assumes the volume will provide threshold, uniform coverage without misses or excess.
Step Three: Are there any environmental, geographical or adjacency concerns?
Each operation is unique, including conditions that may influence nozzling. For example, open water, sensitive crops, or residential areas adjacent and downwind of the planting may warrant drift-reducing nozzles or require the operator to only spray inward from one side of the sprayer. In another example, dry and windy conditions may require nozzles that produce a coarser spray quality will improve their survivability. Rolling hills and uneven alleys may cause sway that prevents the upper-most nozzles from consistently reaching the target.
Step Four: Find out why the operator is re-nozzling
The answer may reveal the operator’s willingness and ability to make changes to sprayer settings. For example, if their objective is to improve the match between sprayer and canopy it implies a willingness to take a more active role in spraying. Conversely, a less experienced operator might be satisfied with a more robust (i.e., wasteful) set up that does not require many changes between blocks.
Step Five: Determine the highest and lowest boom flow requirements
The following formulae relate travel speed, row spacing, and the desired volume sprayed per planted area to the output from a single boom. I recommend downloading this Excel-based calculator to make the process easier.
US Imperial Formula Output from single boom (gpm) = [(Sprayer Output (gpa) × Travel Speed (mph)) ÷ 990] × Row Spacing (ft)
Metric Formula Output from single boom (L/min) = [(Sprayer Output (L/ha) × Travel Speed (km/h)) ÷ 1,200] × Row Spacing (m)
Using the formula with the appropriate units, enter the highest desired volume, the fastest travel speed and the longest row spacing. This will give the highest rate of flow the boom must satisfy.
Repeat this process using the lowest desired volume, the slowest travel speed and the shortest row spacing. This will give the lowest rate of flow the boom must satisfy.
The ultimate objective is to select a combination of nozzles that can produce these two flows, distributed sensibly along the boom, with no gaps or excessive flow relative to the target. Ideally, the operator should be able to alternate between these two flows with as few changes as possible.
Step Six: Satisfy the highest flow
This step requires a nozzle manufacturer’s catalogue and a calculator (or the downloaded Excel spreadsheet). We must assume the range of available nozzle positions are oriented to span the target canopy with no over- or under-spray.
Divide the highest flow requirement by the number of available nozzles. Hypothetically, a nozzle size that produces this flow would satisfy the highest flow requirement while providing an even distribution along the boom.
Using the nozzle manufacturer’s catalog, find the flow table for the nozzle you want. Generally, a molded hollow cone nozzle is the preferred choice (e.g., TeeJet’s TXR ConeJet or Albuz’s ATR). If drift is a concern, there are also air induction (AI) hollow cones available. AI nozzles are most effective in the top two or three nozzle positions where drift potential is highest. However, they may require higher flow than calculated to compensate for a reduced droplet count.
Find the operating pressure (it may be in either the column or row heading) and find a flow rate in the body of the table that is as close as possible to your calculated ideal. It’s almost never an exact match, so choose the option that is less than the target rate – not higher.
Imagine placing that nozzle in every available position. Add up all the rates to determine how close you are to the ideal flow. It will likely be less. To compensate, replace the top nozzle on the boom with a higher rate and re-calculate the total flow. Repeat this process, substituting for nozzles with a higher rate, moving top-down along the boom until the flows match.
You have now satisfied the demand for the highest flow.
It is important to note that this process assumes the flow distribution along the boom should be relatively even, perhaps skewed towards the top. However, it is sometimes appropriate to distribute the flow differently to reflect each nozzle’s distance-to-target and the density of the corresponding portion of canopy it needs to spray. This tends to be the case when pairing low-profile radial sprayers with large or trellised canopies, and you can read more about that process in this article.
Step Seven: Satisfy the lowest flow
This is the art-and-compromise part of the nozzling process.
Confirm that the range of available nozzle positions still corresponds to the target. Quite often, the lowest flow is intended for smaller canopies. If so, we may no longer have as many nozzle positions to work with.
Imagine the sprayer is still nozzled for the highest flow per the last step. Leaving the highest effective nozzle on, imagine turning off every second nozzle. Add up the flows and determine how close you are to the lowest rate of flow. It is often still too much. Do not turn off any more nozzles or you may create gaps in the swath.
Instead, return to the nozzle catalogue and re-calculate the flows for the same nozzles, but using a lower operating pressure. Can you make that work? If not, you may have to go back further in the calculation (Step five) and recalculate the lowest flow required using a faster travel speed. This will reduce the demand for flow.
If none of those options are viable you will have to consider re-nozzling. Perhaps that’s swapping a few nozzles to lower rates. Hopefully this only requires the operator to flip a roll-over position, but it may mean using a wrench to remove caps and swap nozzles.
Once you’ve satisfied the lowest flow, the hardest part of the process is complete.
Step Eight: Satisfy the other permutations
The last step is no different than what we’ve already done. Go back to Step Five and calculate the flow for each spraying situation. That is, each unique combination of row spacing, travel speed and target volume. Using the nozzles already on the sprayer, adjust the pattern of nozzles in use (and pressure and/or travel speed if required) until each unique flow requirement is satisfied.
Step Nine: Record the setups, nozzle the sprayer and test the coverage
Be sure to clearly record the sprayer settings required to achieve each flow. Purchase the nozzles and take the time to test each set up using water sensitive paper to ensure coverage is achieved.
A working example
Let’s apply this process in a hypothetical orchard. I’ve included a screenshot of the spreadsheet I use to record the final nozzling solution (below) but feel free to design your own. It includes the nozzling solution for this example.
Our orchard is a 50 acre operation with both 11 and 15 foot row spacings. They have one tower sprayer with 15 nozzle positions on one side and they are not roll-over bodies. The operator wants to apply a 40 gpa volume (concentrated) and a 100 gpa volume (dilute). Their preferred travel speed is 4.5 mph and preferred operating pressure is 140 psi, but they are willing to change them if required.
We use the Excel calculator to work out the ideal highest and lowest demands for flow:
I usually shut off the lowest nozzle position because it almost never aims at the target. Let’s divide the high flow of 6.8 gpm by 14 available positions to give us an average output of 0.48 gpm per nozzle. This operator wants to use TeeJet TXRs, so using their table (below) we see that at 140 psi the Orange ’02 is too low and the Red ‘028 is too large. If we drop the operating pressure to 120 psi, the Red ‘028 is much closer at 0.465 gpm, so let’s do that.
A quick check gives us our current boom flow: 14 positions × 0.465 gpm per nozzle is 6.51 gpm of boom flow. We wanted 6.8 gpm, so let’s go up to the Grey ’03 in the top three positions. Now it’s 4 × 0.517 gpm + 10 × 0.465 gpm = 6.72 gpm. That’s close to our ideal 6.8 gpm, so let’s lock that down. If you want to see what this is in gpa, you can plug the value into the Excel calculator to discover it’s 99.6 gpa. Pretty darn close to our target 100 gpa.
Now using that nozzling arrangement, let’s see if we can satisfy the lowest flow requirement by shutting off every second nozzle position, leaving the highest position on. Doing so reduces us to two Greys and five Reds, totaling 3.36 gpm. That boom flow is much too high compared to the 2.0 gpm we need. However, in our hypothetical orchard, this block has shorter trees so we don’t need the highest nozzle. That drops us to only one Grey and a new total of 2.84 gpm. Good try, but it’s still too much.
Let’s reduce the operating pressure from 120 psi to 100 psi, which is as low as I like to go. According to TeeJet’s table, the Grey produces 0.473 gpm and the Red produces 0.426 gpm at this pressure. This gives us a new total of 2.60 gpm. Still too high! Well, let’s raise our travel speed from 4.5 mph to 5.0 mph and recalculate the lowest flow for Situation D:
This still won’t do it, and driving that fast (even if it’s possible) would change our air settings too drastically. Having exhausted all the easy options we have no choice but to re-nozzle the sprayer for the original lowest flow requirement.
Returning to the TeeJet table we see the best fit is to spray at 100 psi using one Red TXR80028 and five Orange TXR8002s. It’s a lucky break that our 1.98 gpm has come so close to the 2.0 gpm of flow we wanted.
Now let’s work out the best arrangement for the other permutations, Situation B and C. We need 5.0 gpm and 2.7 gpm, respectively. For Situation B, let’s use the nozzling solution from Situation A. We see that shutting off four nozzles gets us very close at 4.81 gpm or 97.3 gpa where we wanted 100 gpa. As for Situation C, let’s work from the nozzling for situation D. By adding a few more nozzles from that set, we can manage 2.71 gpm or 40.2 gpa.
Finally, we record all the settings (refer back to the spreadsheet image). We will need four Grey TXR8003s, ten Red TXR80028s and six Orange TX8002s per side, so 40 nozzles in total (plus a few spares for each rate). We will need to spray at 120 psi for Situation A and be prepared to shut off a few nozzles for Situation B. Situation C will require 100 psi and an entirely different nozzling and we will have to shut a few of them off for Situation D. Not only have we determined a nozzling solution, but we have revealed an efficient order for spraying the blocks that will require as little manual change to the sprayer as possible.
Summary
There is no one right answer to the question “which nozzles do I need” but there are certainly wrong answers. Bear this in mind when you buy a sprayer and the dealer offers you a factory-standard nozzle setup. Apply this process to your operation and be sure to use water sensitive paper to confirm the coverage and to make informed changes where required.
Press Play to hear the audio version of this article
Adjusting Sprayer Settings
Operators are encouraged to adjust airblast sprayer settings to conform to the variability in canopy size, density, spacing, and weather conditions. The efficiency and accuracy of the application is improved through the regular and independent adjustment of travel speed, nozzle output, and air settings.
Airblast design is highly variable.
Inflexible sprayer design results in a suboptimal match between equipment and crop. For example, sprayers intended to blow across multiple rows in a single pass are promoted for their high productivity, but typically compromise either coverage uniformity or drift control. In another example, low volume mist blowers utilize high speed air to atomize spray and are promoted as a means for saving water and/or pesticide. But, for many such sprayers, moderating air speed to reduce drift potential causes undesired changes to spray quality.
Even with geared fans, many of Ontario’s airblast sprayers are overpowered for vines, canes, bushberries and high-density orchards. I am uncomfortable with manually obstructing the air intake or adjusting fan blade pitch for safety reasons. Fan gears and travel speed are excellent means for adjusting air energy. Alternately, we have sometimes had success reducing air energy by gearing the tractor up and throttling down (GUTD), but it’s only for very specific situations.
It has been my experience that centrifugal pumps on axial airblast sprayers can undermine adjustment efforts when spraying small to medium sized canopies (i.e. not tree nut or citrus). In the case of GUTD, slowing the fan reduces pressure at the nozzle. Modest pressure regulation may be possible, but typically the operator must swap to larger nozzles to maintain flow. Hollow cone nozzles are only available in large flow increments (average 0.5 gpm), and stepping-up often results in excessive flow. The operator may be able to increase travel speed to compensate, but this frustrates the original intention by affecting dwell time: air settings must now be reconsidered.
Within this context, why do some Ontario airblast operators still choose airblast sprayers with centrifugal pumps? Let’s consider Ontario’s Georgian Bay area, which many manufacturers, distributors and mechanics refer to as “the last bastion of the centrifugal pump in Canada”.
Remember as you read on, Ontario’s airblast crops are predominantly small to moderate sized canopies. Centrifugal pumps are a common and appropriate pump for large canopies like tree nut and citrus.
Airblast Pumps (in Ontario)
The Georgian Bay region of Ontario.
Airblast sprayer design is highly variable, featuring a diversity of pump styles. Piston (or plunger), peristaltic, tractor-hydraulic driven centrifugal pumps are but a few. Historically, piston pumps and centrifugal pumps on John Bean and FMC sprayers were the airblast norm in Canada.
In the 1950s, Georgian Bay was home to Swanson Sprayers (now part of DW), who manufactured airblast sprayers featuring the Myers centrifugal pump. The sprayer was a good fit for the standard apple orchards found in the region. Huge canopies required high volume applications, and the rough and craggy bark harboured mites that drove the need for drenching sprays. To achieve this, sprayers traveled at 5 km/h (3.1 mph) on 7 m (24 foot) spacing, operating at 10 bar (150 psi) to emit as much as 3,750 L/ha (400 US gal./ac). At the time, a diaphragm pump could not manage this, even traveling at 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph).
A Swanson Sprayer (This one likely from Georgia, USA).
By the 1970s Holland’s Kinkelder air-shear sprayer (centrifugal pump) was introduced to Ontario and promoted as a way to use less pesticide. Perhaps ahead of their time, they never really took off because orchards were still too large for their concentrated (i.e. low-volume) applications. By the 1980s a wave of Italian-made sprayers (e.g. the Good-Boy or GB) featuring diaphragm pumps were imported into the Niagara region by distributors such as Rittenhouse.
Similar to the Kinkelder, this was one of Ontario’s last KWH air shear sprayers. RIP 2018.The Italian-made Good-Boy (or GB).
There were many cases of misuse as unfamiliar operators failed to grease direct-drive diaphragm shafts, ran the throttle beyond 540 rpm or diverted flow intended for agitation to increase flow to the booms. Decreased agitation in relatively large tanks left concentrated spray mix to clog suction filters and destroy the diaphragm pumps. It was an inauspicious start, but the diaphragm pump rallied and today we estimate that 90% of Ontario’s airblast sprayers have diaphragm pumps, while the rest are mostly centrifugal. One Ontario airblast dealer claims to sell 50 diaphragms for every centrifugal, but not in Georgian Bay.
Is it regional history or a long memory of diaphragm “growing pains” that propagate the demand for centrifugal pumps? Perhaps considerations of maintenance, expense or ease of use play a role. Dealers claim that the centrifugal pump is cheaper, but these savings are offset by custom installation costs. Perhaps weather conditions or the crop morphology make centrifugal a better fit? Let’s consider the relative benefits and limitations of diaphragm and centrifugal pumps.
Design
Centrifugal Pumps
Centrifugal Pump – Exploded View.
Most centrifugal pumps prime by gravity feed which is why they are located at the bottom of the sprayer. While less common in Ontario, there are self-priming versions that reserve fluid in the case, or employ clever plumbing, permitting a more accessible location on the sprayer.
Engine-driven centrifugal sprayers are artefacts in Ontario. The more common PTO-driven impeller operates at high speeds, requiring a >1:4 speed step-up mechanism (e.g. gearbox, pulley or hydraulic motor), and unlike diaphragms, they create smooth flow that does not require pulse suppression. While not technically required, most have a relief valve between the pump outlet and nozzle shut off valve to handle changes in pressure.
Diaphragm Pumps
Diaphragm Pump – Exploded View.
Diaphragm pumps are self-priming and readily accessible because the shaft runs through the pump to power the fan at 540 RPM, with no need to step-up. Flow is directly proportional to pump speed which in turn depends on the tractor PTO speed. A pressure regulator is used to control bypass flow, which is convenient for making adjustments in nozzle output.
Pump Flow and GUTD
Centrifugal pumps are capable of higher flow at lower nozzle pressure and require more horsepower than diaphragm pumps. Note the large relative difference in flow for a centrifugal pump between the operating pressures of 90 and 100 psi (red curve shaded red) versus that of a diaphragm pump (blue curve shaded blue).
Relative difference in flow versus PSI at constant RPM for a common Centrifugal (red) and Diaphragm (blue) pump. Shaded pressure represents 90 to 100 psi.
Centrifugal Pumps
The flow curve of a centrifugal pump drops off dramatically; pressure (not RPM) dictates flow. If you were to throttle back on a PTO-driven centrifugal pump, reduced flow would reduce the ability to build nozzle pressure. This means fan speed cannot be separated from nozzle pressure, and reducing air speed means re-nozzling.
Centrifugal flow at different RPM. Shaded pressure represents 90-100 psi.
While (unfortunately) still rare in Ontario, rate control monitors can be used (regardless of pump type) to calibrate output based on a target rate, speed and material flow using travel speed and flow sensors. Nevertheless, they cannot compensate for the aforementioned pressure loss at the nozzle if a centrifugal pump is throttled down to reduce air speed.
In any case, throttling back on a centrifugal pump can cause a condition called suction or recirculation cavitation (aka pinging). Tiny high-pressure air bubbles form on the suction side of the impellor, explosively pitting the impellor. The damage is similar to corrosion and it causes vibration that will wear the pump prematurely.
Any restriction on the inlet side (e.g. clogged suction strainer, collapsed/undersized line) can cause a loss of volume that can damage a centrifugal pump. “Dead-heading” (i.e. closing the outlet) is possible for a short period of time, but it quickly results in heat build-up which can cause damage.
Diaphragm Pumps
The flow curve of a diaphragm pump is flatter and more efficient; RPM (not pressure) dictates flow. If you slow the airblast fan by throttling the PTO below 540 rpm, flow decreases moderately, but surplus capacity allows sufficient flow to the nozzles without pressure drop. As long as the tractor does not lug, there is less noise, lower fuel consumption and therefore operator can typically adjust the air without having to change nozzles. Even if the flow changes the pressure regulator on the diaphragm pump can be used to adjust nozzle operating pressure, precluding a change in nozzle size. Convenient.
Diaphragm flow at different RPM. Shaded pressure represents 90-100 psi.
Diaphragm pumps are capable of high pressure, but are rarely operated above 150 psi in Ontario. Molded hollow cones (eg. TeeJet’s TXR or Albuz’s ATI) operate well in the lower psi range compared to pressure-loving disc-cores. Therefore, while regulators and springs are sized according to the pump’s maximum settings, they do not reflect the usage pattern. The relatively heavy spring is too stiff to compensate for changes in pressure (e.g. driving on hills or closing one boom) behaving more like a fixed bypass and undermining a calibration. The phenomenon is discussed more detail in this article.
Maintenance
Centrifugal Pumps
A centrifugal pump with self-lubricating bearings and quality seals (e.g. carbide) that is maintained seasonally and operated in the best efficiency point of the curve will run reliably for many years.
Proponents of the centrifugal pump claim they are low maintenance (compared to the diaphragm pump). This may be anecdotal, because of the pump’s out-of-sight position on the sprayer and their tolerance for neglect. A mistreated centrifugal pump fails by degrees, often forgotten until a seal leaks or a pressure drop is noticed. In the later situation, increased flow from nozzle wear can mask the problem as the sprayer continues to cover the same number of hectares. Often overlooked, worn or misaligned sheaves/belts on a centrifugal sprayer can also cause a loss of flow. Operators might notice a tail breeze that blows spray onto the belts can cause slippage and lower the nozzle pressure.
Diaphragm Pumps
Opinion is divided on the longevity and maintenance of diaphragm pumps. Some claim they are reliable and low maintenance as long as regular oil changes occur. Others suggest the complication of connecting rods, o-rings and valves require more upkeep than the simpler centrifugal. Unlike the centrifugal pump which merely loses pressure, failure on a positive displacement pump is complete and requires immediate repair
Much depends on the diaphragm material and the products being sprayed. For example, corrosive materials (e.g. copper sulfate, urea, etc.) require polymer manifolds to minimize contact with metal. Metal manifolds do not weather well.
The diaphragm pump can run dry for extended periods. This creates heat but does not often lead to failure. Failures occur from exposure to vacuum, which can happen with dirty suction filters or long and/or improperly sized suction lines, or even lack of oil support on the compression stroke (caused by over-revving).
While three-cylinder designs may not require pulsation dampening, most require an accumulator to suppress the pulsing created by each stroke. Improper adjustment can lead to “hammering” that cracks mounts and valves, and can exacerbate rub-points on hoses. Diaphragm pumps that use direct drive shafts (i.e. carry the PTO to the fan) are subjected to the thrusting of the drive shaft during turns. It is important to keep them greased.
Summarily, the longevity and maintenance requirements for either pump design seem about equal. They depend on the products being sprayed, the quality of pump materials, and adherence to the manufacturer’s instructions on correct usage and preventative maintenance.
Conclusion
Ontario’s airblast-specific crops have become smaller, closer and denser. High liquid volumes and air speeds are typically not required. Operators are encouraged to use Crop-Adapted Spraying to adjust fan speed and nozzle output to the crop and the weather. In my opinion, the diaphragm pump facilitates this, resulting in lowered input costs, reduced drift and improved coverage uniformity. I recognize that this requires skill and effort on the part of the operator, and setting-and-forgetting a centrifugal pump can be attractive, but it’s unacceptable if it leads to unnecessary environmental impact.
In the end, the sprayer manufacturer chooses the pump, atomization and air-handling system while considering safety, effectiveness, reliability and price point. The operator must acknowledge the capabilities and limitations of the sprayer design when choosing the best fit for their operation.
I still don’t know why regions like Georgian Bay seem to prefer one pump over another. Perhaps it’s simply herd mentality. Perhaps they know something I don’t. But consider: an airblast sprayer’s average lifespan is 30 years. That’s a long time to live with a decision.
Choose wisely.
Special thanks to the many dealers, manufacturers, engineers, mechanics and end-users that helped to inform this article.
This is the final part of our three-part article discussing methods for digitizing and processing water sensitive paper. You can read part one here and part two here.
Morphological operations
We can now move on to the larger shapes, or “morphology” of the objects in our binary image. Our goal is to quantify deposits by interpreting these shapes. Once again, these operations are powerful processing tools, but we must acknowledge three overriding limitations:
1. Inconsistent stains
Sometimes deposits do not create a consistent blue colour – they can get lighter or take on a greenish-yellow hue towards the perimeter of the stain. During thresholding, the outer edge can be accidently eroded, leaving behind an object with a jagged edge. This may lead us to underestimate the percent area actually covered. In the case of tiny stains, it might eliminate them entirely and lead us to underestimate deposit density.
2. Overlaps
It can be difficult to determine if an object represents a stain from a single droplet or is the result of multiple, overlapping deposits. This becomes significant when the surface of the WSP exceeds ~20% total coverage. The resulting objects may or may not have hollow centres where droplets do not overlap entirely. Misidentifying overlaps leads us to falsely conclude that an object is the result of a single, coarser droplet rather than multiple finer droplets.
3. Ellipses
Non-circular stains are formed when droplets scuff along the surface. Two droplets with the same volume encountering a paper at different angles can create stains with significantly different areas. We may wrongly conclude that the droplets that created them were coarser than they truly were. One approach is to use Feret’s Diameter (aka Caliper Diameter) by measuring the widest spans on the X and Y axes and taking the average. Another approach is to interpret the ellipse as a series of circular stains. Or we can decide to only acknowledge these objects when calculating percent area covered, but omit them when calculating deposit density or predicting original droplet size. Each strategy is a compromise, so it is important to be consistent and transparent when reporting results.
Three common problems when analysing water sensitive paper.
We’ll explore two morphological operations that can help us separate fact from fiction: Granulometry and Dilation-and-Erosion. We’re introducing these operations as part of the processing and detection step, but they may also overlap with the measurement step in our three-step process.
Granulometry
We can estimate the range of object sizes and get a sense of how they are distributed on the paper by filtering or “sieving” the image. Imagine pouring a mixture of sand and rocks through a series of ever-finer sieves. Doing so allows you to separate particles based on size exclusion. A granulometry function compares each object to a series of standardized objects with decreasing diameters. This isolates objects of a similar size and bins them in that size range. This is a powerful operation, but accuracy is lost when stains overlap to form larger objects. In this case, we move on to Dilation and Erosion.
Dilation and Erosion
Think of dilation as adding pixels to the boundary of an object. This makes tiny objects bigger, fills in any interior holes and can cause objects to merge. The number of pixel-wide dilations required to make objects contact one another can be used as a measure of deposit density.
Erosion removes pixels from the outer (and sometimes inner) boundaries of an object. This eliminates tiny artifacts that may not actually represent stains. It can also split non-circular objects into multiple parts before shrinking them into multiple nuclei (aka centroids). These last-remaining points are not necessarily the centre of a stain, but the pixels furthest away from the original boundary.
When a non-circular shape has more than one nucleus, they likely represent individual droplets that combined to form the larger stain. We can then use these nuclei to measure deposit density, such as in a Voronoi partition which triangulates each nucleus in relation to the two closest neighbours.
Many image processers use both these operations sequentially. When an image is eroded and then dilated (a process called “Opening”), smaller objects are removed, leaving the area and shape of remaining objects relatively intact. Dilating and then eroding (a process called “Closing”) fills in small holes and merges smaller objects, once again leaving the area and shape of remaining objects relatively intact. We can use both of these functions to help smooth an image prior to measurement.
(Top) Opening operations erode and then dilate the image. Moving left to right, the smaller objects tend to disappear. (Bottom) Closing operations dilate and then erode the image. Moving left to right, smaller objects either disappear or merge and holes are filled in
Distance Transformations
Distance transformations are advanced operations specifically used to separate objects that are densely packed. While not typically used when analyzing WSP, distance transformations are another means of identifying object nuclei. They are another means for teasing apart objects that are likely the result of overlapping deposits and then mapping their relative sizes and positions.
Measurement
The calculation of the area covered by deposits is straightforward. The pixels belonging to objects (the deposits) and those belonging to background are summed and then the fraction is converted to percent area covered. Research has shown that the image resolution does not significantly impact percent coverage assessments and has suggested that all image analysis software tends to produce similar results (+/- 3.5% observed when the same threshold was applied to multiple papers). This is acceptable because it’s within the variability inherent to spraying.
We ran a similar experiment wherein we analyzed the same piece of WSP using four methods. Here are a few facts about the software we used:
DropScope produces images between 2,100 and 2,300 DPI. Currently, it ignores ellipses and doesn’t count anything spanning less than ~35 µm (3 pixels).
We set ImageJ to ignore any object spanning less than 3 pixels, which at 2,400 DPI was 30 µm in diameter.
Snapcard was a free app created by Australia’s GRDC. It was benchmarked using ImageJ, tended to underestimate coverage and was fairly inconsistent. Nevertheless, it was convenient for field work. Instances may still exist, but as of 2025 it no longer available through the GRDC.
The images shown in the figure below were cropped from screenshots produced by each method. The actual ROI analyzed was ~3 cm2 for SnapCard, 3.68 cm2 for DropScope and 2.0 cm2 for both Epson/ImageJ methods. Our results indicate an +/- 4% difference in percent area coverage. This variability reflects the results of a 2016 journal article that compared SnapCard with ImageJ and other leading analytical software. That study claimed no statistically significant difference in percent coverage detected (standard deviations were about 20%). However, the ImageJ results tended to trend several percent higher than SnapCard. We saw this as well. And so, while resolution may not have a significant impact on percent area covered, there does appear to be some correlation.
Percent area covered as reported by three image analysis systems. Only a minor difference was observed when resolution was doubled using the Epson/ImageJ method.
Resolution definitely affects deposit counts. Particularly in applications that employ finer droplets. Consider the difference between detecting or missing 1,000 30 µm diameter objects. It may only amount to a fraction of a percentage of the surface covered, but +/- 1,000 objects on a 2 cm2 area is significant in terms of deposit density.
Output
Once a WSP image (or set of images) has been scanned, pre-processed, processed and measured, we will receive some manner of output. Some software packages create an attractive report with images, graphs and key values. These reports include percent coverage and many provide droplet density. Deposits may be binned by size, or spread factors are used to calculate the original droplet diameters and even estimate the volume applied by area. Other software packages provide raw data that can be imported into a statistical program or spreadsheet program like Excel for further analysis. Some software packages provide both.
How far can we take this?
Blow-by-blow data analysis is beyond the scope of this document, but how much weight should we give to coverage data obtained using WSP? The answer depends on the metric in question, but in all cases we must first acknowledge the three overriding caveats. Take it as said that they apply to everything that follows:
Different brands (and even different production runs) of WSP can produce significantly different coverage metrics. When conducting experiments, use a single brand of WSP. Better still, use papers from the same production batch whenever possible.
The same of piece of sprayed WSP can produce significantly different results depending on the software and protocol used to analyze it. When conducting experiments, use the same software and assessment protocol and be transparent about the process when communicating results.
WSP coverage may not reflect the coverage achieved on an actual plant tissue surface. It is suitable as a relative index (I.e. papers can be compared to papers, but not to tissues) but the spread factor changes with surface wettability and the surface tension of the liquid sprayed. Note the differences in percent area covered in the following experiment with an organosilicone super-spreader:
Difference in deposit spread on water sensitive paper versus a leaf surface using an organosilicone super-spreader and UV dye. The same volume was applied in each case and while the area increased two-fold on WSP it increased ~10-fold on an actual leaf. Image reproduced from work by Robyn Gaskin, Plant Protection Products, New Zealand.
Recall that we started this document by listing the four pieces of information commonly sought using WSP. They were listed in order of reliability, and now we can explain why.
The percent surface area covered: We have established that this is the most reliable piece of data. Droplets do not spread on WSP the way they do on plant surfaces, so it will underestimate actual coverage. The results vary by analytical method, but it’s likely not dependent on resolution and still falls within the variability inherent to spraying. This metric gives us valuable and actionable information. We can say whether or not we hit a target, and evaluate whether a sprayer change resulted in more or less deposit.
The density of deposits on the target area: We have established that that there are limits to the reliability of this metric. It is affected by the analytical method used and can be greatly underestimated when resolution is poor or when deposits overlap in high numbers. Also, it will never reliably reflect deposits under 30 µm. Nevertheless, under controlled conditions this information does have value and is of great interest in enquiries about drift and contact fungicides.
The size of the droplets that left the stains: This metric is highly questionable except under controlled conditions. The many assumptions about surface tension, droplet speed, and droplet evaporation make it impossible to make definitive statements about spray quality. Finer droplets are greatly underestimated in this equation. Therefore, while there may be some value in using WSP as a relative index, this metric is a crude indication at best.
The dose applied to the target surface: This metric has not been discussed up to this point, but is quickly and easily dismissed. Let’s assume that a droplet with a high concentration of an active ingredient will leave a stain that is the same area as another droplet with a lower concentration. This will lead some to suggest that as long as the original concentration is known, we can back-calculate the dose (which is the amount of active on a given area). However, one droplet has the same volume as eight droplets that are half it’s diameter. This cubic relationship means that if they all deposit, the larger droplet will cover roughly 1/2 the surface area as the eight smaller droplets. Therefore, the smaller droplets spread the same amount of active over a greater area. Spread factor muddies this a bit, but ultimately it means that dose cannot be estimated from area covered. Dose is better assessed using collectors that permit the residue to be removed, such as Petri dishes, Mylar sheets, pipe cleaners, alpha cellulose cards, or glass slides.
And so, the image analysis process described here is powerful and effective when used with water sensitive paper as long as the limitations are acknowledged. The same process can also be used with dyes and specialized collectors such as Kromekote to permit even greater resolution. But that’s another story.
2026
A new Brazilian cellphone-based system (SprayDex) emerged in 2026 that offers possibilities. Preliminary testing alongside other methods indicate it is consistent within itself, but as we saw in previous testing, the same WSP scanned using different systems will create different results. This is why, ultimately, WSP is a relative index and should only be compared within a given system; coverage cannot be reliably compared across WSP brands, or between digitization methods.
2026 Comparison of three digitization / analysis methods. Same WSP was scanned each time.
Marçal, A.R.S., Cunha, M. 2008. Image processing of artificial targets for automatic evaluation of spray targets. Trans. of the ASABE. 51(3): 811-821.
Moor, A., Langenakens, J., Vereecke, E., Jaeken, P., Lootens, P., Vandecasteele, P. 2000. Image analysis of water sensitive paper as a tool for the evaluation of spray distribution of orchard sprayers. Aspects of Applied Biology. 57.
Panneton, B. 2002. Image analysis of water‐sensitive cards for spray coverage experiments. Applied Eng. in Agric. 18(2): 179‐182.
Salyani, M., Zhu, H., Sweeb, R.D., Pai, N. 2013. Assessment of spray distribution with water-sensitive paper. Agric. Eng. Int.: CIGR Journal. 15(2): 101-111.
SnapCard website. University of Western Australia and the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia. (Note: As of 2026, may no longer exist).
Syngenta. 2002. Water‐sensitive paper for monitoring spray distributions. CH‐4002. Basle, Switzerland: Syngenta Crop Protection.
Turner, C.R., Huntington, K.A. 1970. The use of a water sensitive dye for the detection and assessment of small spray droplets. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 15: 385-387.
