Category: Speciality Sprayers

Main category for all sprayers that are not horizontal booms

Spraying Large Nut Trees – Part 1
Introduction
I’ve studied spray applications in a diversity of crops, both broad acre and specialty, but perhaps nothing is as challenging large tree nut canopies. Australia’s macadamia orchards can form >10 metre high, >4 metre deep canopy walls! So in writing this article I face the opposite situation I normally encounter when advising on airblast sprayer settings.
In my region, fruit orchard, cane, bush and vine crops are typically sprayed with airblast sprayers. Over the years, through breeding and crop management, these operations have densified. The idea is that smaller, uniform crops can be managed, protected and harvested more efficiently. The ratio of quality fruit to planted area goes up, and input costs go down.
However, our aging fleet of sprayers are overpowered relative to the target. This means much of what I do involves demonstrating to sprayer operators what sufficient coverage looks like, and then teaching how to restrain sprayer parameters to achieve this ideal coverage as efficiently as possible.
So, are there any commonalities?
Yes! The need to understand what “good coverage” looks like, and the parameters that affect it, is universal to any airblast operation. Assuming the operator already has product choice and pest staging well in hand, there are three major factors that influence the quality of the spray application: The sprayer settings, the geometry of the target and the environmental conditions.
In theory we can discuss each of these factors individually, but in practice they interact with one another. It is wrong to adjust one factor without considering the other two. This is also why you should be wary of anyone that tries to sell you a sprayer by demonstrating it in an empty lot on a calm day! Always calibrate a sprayer in the planting, in weather conditions you would normally spray in.
Air volume and direction
Air adjustments are perhaps the most impactful changes you can make to your operation. The air stream created by the sprayer not only conveys the spray solution to the target, but opens the canopy and exposes leaf surfaces to the spray. In order to achieve adequate coverage, the volume (and speed) of sprayer-generated air must be sufficient to span the distance from sprayer to target, and then displace the volume of air in the canopy while depositing the spray.
I admit to a bias when it comes to air shear systems. These sprayers utilize sprayer-generated air to atomize the spray liquid as well as convey it. As such, you cannot easily adjust the air without affecting spray quality (aka average droplet size or VMD). My preference is an arrangement where nozzle selection allows you to control spray quality independent of air settings. In any case, adjusting air settings requires the operator to “see” air.
In my region, I advise tying 25 cm lengths of flagging tape at the top, middle and bottom of the far side of the upwind tree. Then, drive past with the air on and the spray booms off. If the ribbons stand straight out, the sprayer is over-blowing and the operator can drop to a lower fan gear, reduce the tractor RPM’s (if using a positive displacement-style pump) or drive faster. If the ribbons don’t move, the opposite steps can be taken. If the ribbons still won’t move, the sprayer is under-powered, it’s too windy to spray, or the canopy is too large.
Learn more about these topics here .
Let’s explore that last point. In the case of a canopy as large as macadamia, it is unlikely a low-profile axial sprayer can produce sufficient air volume to displace all the air in the canopy – particularly at the top of the tree. In this case a more humble goal would be to move the leaves at the trunk, indicating that the sprayer is managing to drive the air to the centre. To monitor this, an observer wearing safety goggles would have to stand at the far side of the upwind trunk and (while being very careful of flying debris) watch for leaf movement.
This becomes increasingly difficult to monitor as the target gets fuller, higher, and farther away from the sprayer. Consider the macadamia trees in the following figure:

The observer will have difficulty seeing leaf movement at the top of either the taller or shorter tree, but we can safely assume there will be less movement as a function of height. Since our goal is uniform penetration throughout the canopy, we must somehow compensate for this differential. Consider the following figure which extrapolates the path between the sprayer air outlet and the tree:
In this figure we have divided each side of a low-profile axial sprayer into halves. The bottom half of the air outlet must produce enough air volume to displace area X. I realize I’m mixing area and volume, but bear with me. For the taller tree, the upper half of the outlet must produce enough air to displace 2.5 times the area versus the bottom half. Given that it is a single air outlet, this means inconsistent coverage.
Comparatively, the shorter tree requires a more uniform air distribution. While this improves matters, there are further challenges. Sprayer-generated air slows and disperses proportional to distance, requiring more air to compensate. Also, orchard wind speed increases with elevation, increasing the potential for interference and dispersion. So, the taller the tree, the harder it is to achieve uniform canopy penetration.
Spraying shorter nut trees with a low-profile axial sprayer is possible. The sprayer would require a large fan (≥1 m diameter), an aggressive fan blade pitch and a high fan speed. Air deflectors and air separation vanes would also be needed to segregate and focus the air. And travel speed would play a significant role.
Travel Speed
Travel speed should be considered as function of air penetration. A slower travel speed (~2 km/h) facilitates the displacement of stagnant canopy air with sprayer-generated air. Further, a slower travel speed reduces the wake effect that can suck finer droplets from the swath.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but slower speeds can result in greater productivity. There is no need to increase the volume sprayed per hectare, so additional refills are not an issue. Further, improving spray coverage at slower speeds may prevent the need for an additional “clean-up” application later on, saving time and reducing environmental impact. Time lost to slower travel speed can also be reclaimed with more efficient loading practices.
Learn more about travel speed here and productivity here.
Directed Sprays and Off-Target Deposition
When the height of the target tree exceeds alley width, or when branches overgrow alleys, many low-profile axial sprayers suffer from line-of-sight issues. Lower branches/leaves block the upper canopy and too many nozzles target the lower canopy. See the figure below.
One option is to direct spray vertically to ensure the swath reaches the top of the canopy. In this case it is hoped that droplets remain Coarse enough to fall from the swath and penetrate the canopy, or blow laterally with prevailing wind (left side of figure). This unadvisable strategy is unlikely to achieve consistent results and greatly increases the potential for drift.
Alternately, the top of the swath can be vectored directly at the top of the tree, but it must pass through canopy to reach it (right side of figure). This strategy increases the potential for drift, risks missing a portion of the upper canopy and is also unlikely to yield consistent results.
Ideally, we would use a sprayer design that brings the air (and nozzles) closer to the target. Hypothetically, there are several possible configurations, but in practice their success will be hampered by boom sway and roll (from sloped plantings or uneven alleys) and pressure drop restrictions (from boom height). Here are a few possibilities:
A. A vertical boom with a tapered inflatable bag to convey and redirect the air laterally (typically one-sided).
B. An axial sprayer topped with a ducted tower with vertical booms, terminating in either a second axial fan or one-sided cannon.
C. An axial sprayer with a vertical mast with a series of Sardi-style nozzle/fan assemblies distributed along the height.
Learn more about towers here.
In the following figure we see how two possible arrangements might work. On the left is a vertical boom with a tapered air assist system. This provides the shortest distance-to-target for each nozzle and in moving laterally, the air will more easily penetrate horizontal limbs. It also reduces the potential for drift.
On the right is a novel arrangement proposed by Dr. Ken Giles (UC Davis, California). A Sardi-style fan and nozzle assembly is elevated above the canopy from an axial sprayer. His intention was to create air and fluid interaction to generate turbulence that could improve uniformity and decrease drift. He proportioned 70% of the overall spray to the top fan, and the remaining 30% from the ground. Working in almond, he saw more even coverage distribution compared to a low-profile axial sprayer and noted it reduced off target drift. For a target as tall as macadamia, additional fans would likely be required.
In Part 2 we discuss Droplet size, Boom distribution, Spray coverage and diagnostics, California research and Canopy management.
April 20, 2018
Airblast Towers are Worth Considering
Are you considering shelling out for a tower extension for your airblast sprayer? Spray towers are an excellent investment, but they warrant special consideration. Towers move the air and nozzles closer to the target compared to the curved booms on a conventional airblast sprayer. When the distance-to-target is reduced, the odds of droplets reaching the target are improved. That means less pesticide drift and more deposit in the plant canopy.
Be Aware: Nozzles need a minimal distance from the target to create an optimal spray pattern, so do not get too close.
Many growers report savings when switching from conventional airblast to towers. The towers are more efficient at depositing the spray, so they have to reduce their typical sprayer volumes to prevent run-off. We worked with one apple grower that switched from a conventional sprayer to one with a tower. His lake-side orchard was plagued by wind, and his conventional sprayer had a relatively small fan diameter (~2 feet) that couldn’t compete. Traditionally, the grower used higher spray volumes to compensate. His new tower sprayer had a larger fan (~3 foot diameter) but perhaps equally import was that the tower reduced the distance-to-target. As a result, he was able to reduce his spray output by more than 200 L/ha while improving his overall coverage! That represented considerable cost savings and reduced environmental impact.
Towers may provide better coverage than conventional sprayers in orchards with horizontal scaffolding. The tower sprays between branches, penetrating more easily, while the conventional sprayer has to spray through them. Concept from K. Blagborne, British Columbia.
While there are many benefits associated with towers, they are not suitable for all situations:
- Towers must be taller than the highest target (e.g. treetop)
- Towers should be used on level ground. Towers will roll on the vertical axis (i.e. tip left and right) on uneven ground, potentially missing or over-shooting targets
- Towers must be able to clear netting, trellises, or an overhanging canopy.
The perils of towers on uneven ground. For towers to be effective, the tower must be at least as tall as the target. When the target is only slightly higher than the tower, some sprayer operators install an additional nozzle body on the top deflector plate to extend the reach.
A home-grown airblast sprayer with tower. PVC ducts, sheets of plastic, a squirrel cage blower and grower ingenuity. While it looks suspect, and difficult to clean, it reputedly works very well in highbush blueberries.
Occasionally, we have discovered areas along tower outlets where there is reduced air flow. You can usually feel these “dead zones” with your hand (beware flying debris), but it’s better to observe short ribbons attached to the nozzle bodies as described in our articles about adjusting air direction and speed/volume. In low fan gear, watch to see if any ribbons flag or appear slack from a lack of air, you can “borrow” air by re-positioning neighbouring deflectors. If that’s not possible, try replacing the conventional nozzles in the dead zone with air induction nozzles; coverage should improve in that zone because pressure propels coarser droplets further than finer droplets. We’ve seen significant improvements using this technique in high density orchards.
In the end, if a tower will fit in our operation, we suggest it’s a worthwhile investment that will make coverage more consistent, reduce off-target drift and possibly reduce the volume of spray needed per hectare.
Towers come in many shapes and sizes. Orchards aren’t the only good fit for towers; grapes, bushes and canes can also benefit from small towers.
April 12, 2018
Nozzle Sizing and Calibration Charts
Need to find the right nozzle size for your application? Sometimes a simple chart is the easiest way to figure things out. Print it and place it in your sprayer cab.
In this chart, identify your water volume along the top row, and follow the column until you encounter the travel speeds you’re interested in.
Once you’ve encountered your travel speed, move along the row to the left to identify the nozzle size and spray pressure.
Make sure that your travel speeds are achieved at a pressure that’s right for the nozzle you’re using. For most air-induced nozzles, this will be about 60 to 70 psi (highlighted).
Once you’ve decided on a nozzle size, the travel speed column for that size becomes the travel speed range at various pressures. Avoid operating a low-drift spray below 30 psi – its pattern will be too narrow and likely its spray quality will be too coarse for good results.
Click on the images or text below to download a high quality pdf version of each chart, starting from the top with US, 15″ spacing, then US, 20″, then US 30″, then metric, 50 cm. Print, laminate, and place them in your sprayer cab.
Download Application Chart (US units, 15″ spacing)
Download Application Chart (US units, 20″ spacing)
Download Application Chart (US units, 30″ spacing)
Download Application Chart (metric, 50 cm spacing)
Make your own chart using this Excel Template.
February 15, 2018
Diluting 20,000-Fold with a 30 Gallon Remaining Volume in a 1,200 Gallon Tank
(This short article is an addendum to this article)
Our goal in this example is to dilute by a factor of 20,000.
The maximum amount of dilution possible with a 1,200 gallon tank and a 30 gallon remainder is 1200/30=40.
The formulae:
Dilution per Rinse = final dilution ^(1/# of rinses)
Rinse Volume = (dilution per rinse * remaining volume) – remaining volume
- One rinse diluting by 20,000 – impossible with a 1,200 gallon tank (max achievable is 40-fold);
- Two sequential rinses, each diluting by a factor of 20,000^(1/2) = 141. Also impossible with a 1,200 gallon tank;
- Three sequential rinses, each diluting by a factor of 20,000^(1/3) = 27. A volume of 780 gallons can do this (27*30)-30=780 gallons. For three rinses, the total volume is 2,340 gallons.
- Four sequential rinses, each diluting by a factor of 20,000^(1/4) = 12. A volume of 330 gallons can do this, for a total volume of 1,320 gallons;
- Five sequential rinses, each diluting by a factor of 20,000^(1/5) = 7. A volume of 180 gallons can do this, for a total volume of 900 gallons;
- Six sequential rinses, each diluting by a factor of 20,000^(1/6) = 5.2. A volume of 126 gallons can do this, for a total volume of 757 gallons.
Second, let’s assume the operator is prepared to prime the boom where it doesn’t harm soybeans. Now the first new product tank takes care of the last dilution, lowering the cleanout dilution requirement by 1,200/30 = a factor of 40. Now the cleanout dilution requirement is only 20,000/40 = 500.
- One 1,200 gallon tank rinse can only achieve 40-fold dilution.
- Two rinses, each diluting by 500^(1/2) = 22. Rinse volumes of 640 gallons are sufficient, for a total of 1,280 gallons.
- Three sequential rinses, each diluting by a factor of 500^(1/3) = 7.9. A volume of 210 gallons can do this, for a total volume of 630 gallons;
- Four sequential rinses, each diluting by a factor of 500^(1/4) = 4.7. A volume of 112 gallons can do this, for a total volume of 448 gallons.
February 2, 2018
How Clean is Clean?
One of the more perplexing questions in tank cleanout is knowing when the cleaning process is good enough to prevent harm. This question is especially relevant to producers that grow canola and use Group 2 herbicide products, or grow soybeans and use dicamba on some of their area. In both of these examples, crops can be extremely sensitive to very small residues.
When does an applicator know that the cleaning job was good enough? In about two weeks! There is no easy way to tell, except to be precautionary.
A bit of math can help put us in the ballpark. First, we need to know the tolerance of a crop to the herbicide, preferably expressed as a proportion of the tank mix to be cleaned. Let’s use dicamba as an example. It’s been reported that non-dicamba tolerant soybeans can show leaf-cupping symptoms from dicamba at rates as low as 1/20,000 of the label rate.
Recall that sprayer cleanout is really two separate processes that we’ve written about here, here, and here. The first is dilution of the remaining volume in the system. The second is decontaminating specific sprayer components (filters, boom ends, hoses). We’ll focus on dilution in this article.
If you’re diluting, the second piece of information you need is how much liquid is left in the sprayer when you start cleaning. All sprayers have a certain amount of liquid left in the tank and associated plumbing after the tank is empty. The sump, the suction line feeding the pump, and the lines returning to the tank via agitation or sparge are most common. Even when the pump no longer draws liquid, those lines retain some volume of product. This volume can’t be pushed out to the boom, most of it goes back to the tank.
The volume of this “remaining liquid” is likely somewhere between three and thirty US gallons.
The remainder volume depends on the sprayer, and also how the tank is emptied. Some applicators simply spray until the solution pump pressure drops, others choose to drain the remaining liquid from a sump valve. When draining, product should be captured in pails rather than allowing it on the ground where it will harm the soil and possibly make its way into runoff.
It’s always preferable to spray the tank empty in a field.
As we’ll see below, a low remaining volume greatly improves the efficiency of the dilution process. It’s a sprayer feature that should be considered at purchase.
The table below has some sample calculations. Note that the paired cases (1&2, 3&4, 6&7) all use the same total water volume, but compare a single vs triple rinse of three different remaining volumes.
Comparing Case 1 to Case 3 or Case 6, (remaining volumes of 10, 20, and 50, respectively), it’s clear that minimizing the remaining volume is important.
It’s also striking that the same amount of clean water, subdivided into three smaller repeat batches (Case 2, 4 and 7), is much more powerful than using single batches with the same total clean water amounts.
Reducing the size of each batch even further and increasing the number of batches (Case 5) approaches what a properly executed continuous rinse can do.
Is it necessary to dilute to the level that’s safe for the next crop? Not always. The next product in the tank acts to dilute the remainder once again, possibly by a factor of 100, depending on the remaining volume and the tank size (Case 8). The material in the boom, however, won’t be diluted by this additional volume, and therefore may harm the crop unless it is first sprayed out elsewhere, especially when section ends are not drained and rinsed.
This is where a recirculating boom is valuable, providing an opportunity to charge the boom without spraying. The penalty is that the boom volume is then returned to the tank in the process, increasing the amount that needs to be diluted.
Let’s return to the dicamba example with a 20,000-fold dilution requirement and a 1,200 gallon tank. We’ll consider two examples. In the first, the operator wants to prime the boom in the soybean field without any harm to the dicamba-susceptible beans. A 20,000-fold dilution is needed.
We’ve looked at five options that each assume a remaining volume of 10 gallons. Note that our goal is the same – dilute by a factor of 20,000.
The formulae:
Dilution per Rinse = final dilution ^(1/# of rinses)
Rinse Volume = (dilution per rinse * remaining volume) – remaining volume
The maximum amount of dilution possible with a 1,200 gallon tank and a 10 gallon remainder is 120 (see Row 8, Table above).
- One rinse diluting by 20,000 – impossible with a 1,200 gallon tank (max achievable is 120-fold);
- Two sequential rinses each diluting by a factor of 20,000^(1/2) = 141. Also impossible with a 1,200 gallon tank;
- Three sequential rinses, each diluting by a factor of 20,000^(1/3) = 27. A volume of 260 gallons can do this (27*10)-10=260 gallons. For three rinses, the total volume is 780 gallons.
- Four sequential rinses, each diluting by a factor of 20,000^(1/4) = 12. A volume of 110 gallons can do this, for a total volume of 440 gallons;
- Five sequential rinses, each diluting by a factor of 20,000^(1/5) = 7. A volume of 60 gallons can do this, for a total volume of 300 gallons.
The first two examples don’t work because the tank isn’t big enough. But the three remaining examples all work equally well, they just consume different amounts of clean water.
If that doesn’t seem like a lot of work, then repeat this calculation with a 30 gallon remainder volume, common on many sprayers. Short on time? We did it for you here.
Second, let’s assume the operator is prepared to prime the boom where it doesn’t harm soybeans. Now the first new product tank takes care of the last dilution, lowering the cleanout dilution requirement by 1,200/10 = a factor of 120. Now the cleanout dilution requirement is only 20,000/120 = 166.
- One 1,200 gallon tank rinse can only achieve 120-fold dilution.
- Two rinses, each diluting by 166^(1/2) = 13. Rinse volumes of 120 gallons are sufficient, for a total of 240 gallons.
- Three sequential rinses, each diluting by a factor of 166^(1/3) = 6. A volume of 50 gallons can do this, for a total volume of 150 gallons.
The math is simple, and can be done using the formula in the first table, or this app:
The hard part is knowing what the remaining volume is. It would be very useful for a manufacturer to provide this information.
In the meantime, you can estimate on your own. Add water with surfactant to your tank, and spray it empty. While spraying, turn the agitation on and off to fill and activate the sparge, if equipped. Once the tank is empty and the spray pressure drops, stop and drain the sump into pails. Ensure that the pump suction line and the pressure line up to and including the agitation and sparge lines also drain. Disconnect these if necessary. If there is a filter housing in this circuit, remove it as well. Avoid collecting liquid from the pressure line beyond where the the agitation or sparge split off, as this will be pushed out to the boom.
An alternative is to estimate the length of hose in this circuit, using the following table as a guide:
And remember, diluting the remaining liquid is only one part of a cleaning process.
February 1, 2018