Author: Jason Deveau

  • Direct Chemical Injection Systems – A Primer

    Direct Chemical Injection Systems – A Primer

    No sprayer operator is more preoccupied with work rates, sprayer cleanout and tank mixes than the custom (aka contract) applicator. Perhaps this is why we’re seeing more direct injection systems on their sprayers in recent years.

    Injection systems employ additional tanks and pumps to introduce undiluted product directly into the carrier just prior to the boom. They are designed to maintain the product concentration in the boom (they are not for variable rate prescription spraying within in a field). This permits the operator to change tank mixes between fields without having to clean out or refill.

    This generic plumbing diagram depicts an injection system that can create custom tank mixes from products held in three separate tanks. The rinse system, number of tanks, pumps and the point of injection (main pump suction or pressure side) are system-specific.

    In the 1980’s, Mid-Tech first offered the TASC peristaltic pump injection system. The bulk of this market was (and still is) right-of-way applications (e.g. railways, highways). Unlike a field application, which covers an area, these sprayers cover a linear distance that makes reloading challenging. When the chemistry is carried onboard, water can be easily accessed along the way.

    Boomless roadside spraying using an injection system (Photo courtesy of TeeJet).

    In the 1990’s, field sprayer operators tried using direct injection and encountered problems:

    • Spray concentrations would fluctuate because product was injected based on travel speed while the carrier rate was a constant.
    • Latency (aka lag) issues were commonplace. Imagine spraying 10 gpa using a boom that holds 15 gallons. A change in speed would prompt a change in injection rate that would not reach the outermost nozzles until half the acre was sprayed.
    • And, changes in temperature affected the accuracy of the injection systems, so rates changed as cold mornings gave way to warm afternoons.

    But the technology has evolved. Today’s injection systems are more consistent and accurate. Here are a few niche usage scenarios to consider:

    Usage scenarios

    1. Anhydrous ammonia applications require nitrogen stabilizers. The stabilizers are intended to treat the soil, not the ammonia. An injection system can introduce nitrogen at a rate that matches a field’s soil type, while the ammonia is applied on a per-area rate.

    2. *Small plot work, such as seed production, consists of many sub-acre plots requiring a range of doses. Injection systems improve work rate by reducing refills or cleanouts between applications.

    3. Where appropriate, border sprays of insecticide can be introduced during herbicide post applications.

    4. Applicators can adjust herbicide mixtures and glyphosate rates between fields depending on weed pressure.

    5. Custom applicators can adjust glyphosate rates when terminating cover crops. For example, alfalfa is a perennial planted for feed before corn. When it gets hardy and begins dormancy late-season, it requires more glyphosate. Oats are used as a cover following winter wheat, and both oats and volunteer wheat require a much lower dose.

    6. Clients of custom application may or may not want foliar fertilizer (e.g. zinc) amendments. This service is only feasible using direct injections systems.

    *This scenario was communicated to the author by a company selling the equipment, but subsequently there has been some question as to how this might work. The amount of time and water required to clear lines between applications would depend on the nature of the chemistry and whether it is a rate or wholesale chemistry change. As such, there are situations that would make this an impractical use of the technology.

    Today’s injection systems

    Mid-Tech/TeeJet

    In early 2000, TeeJet acquired Mid-Tech and offers two injection systems that can control up to six 28 L (7.5 gal.) or 95 L (25 gal.) tanks on a single sprayer. The tanks have an optional agitation feature.

    The MT-500 peristaltic pump (still predominantly for roadway applications) injects into the suction side of the main pump to facilitate mixing. It delivers 6-10 ml/min. (0.2-350 oz/min.) but flow rate can be changed by changing hoses. Peristaltic hoses lose accuracy as they wear with time, but hose is cheaper to replace than seats on a piston pump. It can run in reverse to pull product back from the lines. It works with the TASC controller.

    The MT-600 is a piston-pump with a mixing chamber option that injects the pressure side of the main pump leaving more clean line and increasing response time at the nozzle (i.e. less lag). It must have backflow prevention (typically a seated ball valve). Depending on the rate required, high and low-volume product pumps can be added in pairs to extend the range: 15-1,500 ml/min. (0.5-50 oz/min.), 30-3,000 ml/min. (1-100 gal./min.), 45-4,500 ml/min. (1.5-150 oz/min.) or 60-600 ml/min. (2-200 oz/min.). High and low-volume product pumps can be added in pairs to extend the range. This pump works with TASC controllers and the ISOBUS Legacy 6600 and Aeros 9040.

    Raven

    The Raven Sidekick Pro replaced their original Sidekick in 2011. It is ISOBUS compatible with many sprayers and their controllers (e.g. Deere’s Greenstar 3, Raven RCM). It controls up to five 90 L (24 gal.) or 190 L (50 gal.) tanks with optional agitation that can be removed like totes. Depending on the rate required, low [0.03-1.2 L/min. (1-40 oz/min.)] and high-volume [0.15-6 L/min. (5-200 oz/min.)] positive displacement product pumps can be used alone or in pairs to extend the range. Product is injected into a length of latticed pipe in-line on the pressure side of the main pump to create a mixing action prior to the boom.

    Other entries

    In North America, SurePoint sells the Spartan, which claims to support the direct injection of liquid chemical, fertilizer, biological, or other product into the carrier flow stream. It may be intended for towed implements rather than on a self-propelled sprayer. There are also European entries from Danfoil (theMultidose) and Diimotion (prototype PiiXdi), but information is sparse and the last update we found on either was c.2017.

    In 2025, the UK’s Knight Sprayers won gold at LAMMA 2025 for their Smart-Inject chemical system. Details are light at this point, but it’s described as a third-party retro fit for spot sprayers. Slightly diluted product in held in a second, smaller tank and circulates separately and in parallel with the sprayer’s existing lines. Chemistry is injected on demand (e.g. when a weed is detected) directly into the nozzle body between the shut-off valve and the nozzle cap.

    Pump and tank selection

    Quite often, direct injection users regret limiting their pump capacity and the number of tanks installed. This limits travel speed and encourages risky practices such as mixing multiple products in a single injection tank.

    Direct injection systems should be capable of staying within your target rate and travel speed. You can calculate your pump requirement in oz/min. using the following formula:

    [ Boom width (inches) × Typical ground speed (mph) × Product rate (oz/ac) ] ÷ 5,940

    Summary

    So, if you are considering a direct chemical injection system, give some thought to the following pros and cons.

    Pros

    • Cleanout is faster when the main tank is reserved for water (Although some operators continue to mix in the main tank and use the product tanks to amend the mix).
    • Product tanks are filled from bulk, so there are fewer jugs to handle. That reduces waste and operator exposure during loading.
    • Work rate is improved by altering tank mixes between fields without cleaning and reloading.
    • There is no spray math required during loading and no excess or deficiency at the end of a field.
    • There is no concern about a tank mix sitting for long periods during delays.
    • There is reduced potential for spills due to accident or malfunction.
    • Tracibility is improved; Instead of recording tank mix per acre, record tank mix by field.

    Cons

    • Expense.
    • Rinsing systems, if available, do not clean lines between injection pumps and tanks. Cleaning requires pulling them apart manually.
    • Product tank loading can be slow (up to ½ hr to load 50 US gallons with certain loading assemblies).
    • Some products are harder to clean out than others and can plug the injection pump if left full of chemical.
    • The number and volume of product tanks may not hold a day’s worth of chemicals.
    • Viscous or clay-based products prone to settling or separation (e.g. PrimExtra on corn or Boundry on beans) should not be used.

    Thanks to Rob Warwick and Markus Redmond (John Deere), Dennis Frey and Jordan Diefenbacher (Clean Field Services), Brian Satorius and Andy Graber (TeeJet Technologies), Nick Michael and Gary Esselink (Raven Applied Technology), Jan Langenakens (AAMS) and Mark Ledebuhr (Application Insight LLC) for informing this article.

  • Airblast Nozzles – The Nozzling Process

    Airblast Nozzles – The Nozzling Process

    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

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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 controllers empower an operator to dial in their desired volume and are easiest of all .

    Step Two: Establish target parameters

    1. What is the row spacing (or spacings)? Some operations include a variety of canopy morphologies and planting architectures.
    2. 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)) ÷ 1,220] × 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:

    Highest boom flow (gpm) = [(100 gpa × 4.5 mph) ÷ 990] × 15 ft
    Highest boom flow = 6.8 gpm

    We’ll call this “Situation A”

    Lowest boom flow (gpm) = [(40 gpa × 4.5 mph) ÷ 990] × 11 ft
    Lowest boom flow = 2.0 gpm

    We’ll call this “Situation D”

    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:

    Lowest boom flow (gpm) = [(40 gpa × 5.0 mph) ÷ 990] × 11 ft
    Lowest boom flow = 2.2 gpm

    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.

  • Pressure Changes Spray Angles

    Pressure Changes Spray Angles

    When we consult a nozzle catalogue we are interested in the flow and droplet sizes produced at a given pressure. Perhaps we should also consider the effect of pressure on spray angle. We have several articles discussing the collective impact of spray overlap, nozzle spacing and boom height on coverage uniformity (Check here and here for example). However, we don’t really address the fact that fan angle is not a constant. This may be more relevant with the growing adoption of spot sprayers.

    To illustrate the potential for fan angle variation, we assembled a collection of red, flat fan nozzles (‘04s) from several manufacturers. We plugged each nozzle into a spray pattern table, set the regulator at a given pressure, and photographed the spray angle and flow distribution. This process was repeated for each nozzle at seven different pressures within the manufacturer’s approved range of 20-80 psi. After digitizing the photos, we measured the spray angle using a digital protractor.

    We anticipated a concomitant increase in spray angle as the pressure increased. This is not news. Anyone who has operated a sprayer has seen the spray pattern open up as the boom fills and pressurizes. Bear in mind this was only performed once (i.e. n=1), so while it illustrates trends it shouldn’t be mistaken for a rigorous scientific comparison. Further, this demonstrates a static situation and not a dynamic one where travel speed, wind conditions and the vortices from the sprayer it self will influence matters.

    We saw similar trends with nozzles other than 110˚ fans, but let’s focus on 110˚s due to their current popularity.

    Fan angles for five common 110 degree AI flat fans over their manufacturer-recommended pressure range
    Fan angles for five common 110 degree AI flat fans over their manufacturer-recommended pressure range

    The spray angle for 110˚ nozzles ranged from 75˚ at 20 psi to approximately 143˚ at 80 psi. One nozzle failed to reach 110˚ at any pressure. Conversely, there was another that was over 110˚ at nearly all pressures. Ideally, spray nozzles should be operated around the middle of their manufacturer-recommended operating range. Three of the nozzles tested came close to 110˚ at that median pressure, but only the TeeJet AIC110-04 measured 110˚ at the middle of its recommended range (~50 psi).

    Using that nozzle as an example, let’s look at the pressure, spray angle and subsequent distribution of flow along the swath at three different pressures. At 20 psi, the spray angle was 85˚. The yellow balls are floats that reflect flow as a series of cross sections of the swath. We see that aside from the tapered edges (which illustrate the need for 100% overlap between neighbouring nozzles) the distribution was fairly even. One of the priorities in nozzle design is to ensure a low coefficient of variability over the operating pressure range. In other words, the length of the swath may change, but the spray quality and uniformity in that swath is still within spec. At 50 psi the nozzle produced the expected 110˚ fan, and the spray distribution remained even. At 80 psi, the angle spread out to 125˚, spanning a greater distance, but it started to produce a less-even distribution.

    Photographs of spray angle and distribution for the TeeJet AIC110-04 at the extreme low, middle and highest pressures of its recommended pressure range.
    Photographs of spray angle and distribution for the TeeJet AIC110-04 at the extreme low, middle and highest pressures of its recommended pressure range.

    When fan angle changes with pressure, it can have significant implications. Nozzle spacing on a boom varies from sprayer to sprayer. Generally 50 cm (20 inch) centres are the standard in North America, but we’ve seen 15″ and even 10″. Nozzle spacing and boom height collectively determine the degree of spray overlap. Excessive overlap isn’t a problem, although additional nozzles do mean added expense, cleaning time and potential for plugging. Conversely, gaps in the pattern could lead to sub-lethal applications or flat-out misses. For example, in this soybean demo plot (below) we sprayed a contact herbicide at low pressure to collapse the spray pattern. You can see the alternating stripes of hits and misses that resulted from an incomplete overlap of spray.

    Soybean demo plot sprayed with a contact herbicide using 110 degree air induction flat fans at 20 psi. The collapsed spray pattern did not overlap sufficiently to burn the entire crop down, leaving a striped pattern and demonstrating the poor coverage.
    Soybean demo plot sprayed with a contact herbicide using 110˚ air induction flat fans at 20 psi. The collapsed spray pattern did not overlap sufficiently to burn the entire crop down, leaving a striped pattern and demonstrating the poor coverage.

    Nozzle manufacturers generally recommend a 100% spray overlap for flat fans. This creates sufficient overlap when the boom sways low to the ground. It also increases the degree of droplet size homogeneity under the boom as coarser and fewer droplets are generally found at the “horns” or edges of the pattern compared to the centre. In order to ensure this degree of overlap, sprayer operators should observe and consider changes in fan angle over their typical pressure range. Otherwise, the cost of poor deposit uniformity under the boom could be high.

    • Operate nozzles around the middle of the manufacturer-recommended pressure range. However, just because a nozzle is rated over a range of pressures does not mean the angle is constant.
    • Lower pressures are a greater concern than higher pressures. 30 psi is the absolute lowest pressure for operating a 110˚ air induction flat fan; the ideal operating range for these nozzles is 50-70 psi.
    • If nozzles are not maintaining the recommended 100% overlap at your preferred pressure range, then consider switching nozzle rates, and adjusting pressure and boom height.

    This work was performed with Victoria Radaukas, 2015 OMAFRA application technology summer student.

  • Coverage is King

    Coverage is King

    We’ve often heard the adage “Coverage is King” but what does that mean, exactly? It means that in order for your spray application to yield acceptable results, a threshold amount of the active ingredient in your tank must end up on the target. But at what point have we achieved sufficient spray coverage without wastefully over-applying to the target? What does good coverage look like?

    Let’s manage expectations right here at the beginning of the article: There is no single, definitive answer because it depends on the nature of the application. In other words, you have to understand which factors are relevant to your specific situation before you can understand what success looks like.

    Let’s highlight some of those factors:

    Transfer Efficiency, Catch Efficiency and Retention

    This relates to the spray’s ability to span the distance from nozzle to target (transfer efficiency) get intercepted by that target (catch efficiency) and then deposit a biologically-active residue on the target surface (retention).

    • First, the spray must reach the the target location. This may be the soil, or it might be the underside of a leaf deep in a plant canopy. The degree of success will depend on the droplet size(s), distance to the target and the environmental conditions.
    • Then the droplets have to be retained by the target surface and not bounce or slide off. Difficult-to-wet surfaces such as fruit, stems and waxy vertical leaves may be more easily covered with finer droplets and/or formulations that include activator adjuvants (e.g. surfactants).
    • Then the deposit must stay wet long enough to be absorbed by the tissue, or leave a hardy residue on the surface that can withstand weathering (e.g. precipitation, sun, and even bacteria) long enough to encounter the pest. More on this below.

    Mode of Action

    This relates to where spray must deposit (or relocate to) in order for it accomplish it’s objective. Here are a few examples of how products might work. Read your pesticide label to determine your situation.

    • Some products require contact. Insects must touch them, either via a droplet landing on them or as they move through a deposit. Similarly, certain fungicides must contact fungal hyphae on the plant surface. A few products are designed to drench the target, as is the case with oil-based miticides.
    • Some insecticides must be ingested. That may be in the form of a surface deposit or in plant material that has absorbed the chemistry. Similarly, some fungicides are absorbed by plant tissue.
    • Many herbicides are mobile (i.e. systemic). They may be drawn up through the roots, or enter the cytoplasm via leaves and travel to the growing points on the plants, or move through the xylem. Others are contact, staying relatively close to the original deposit.

    The sprayer operator should consider these factors when planning the application and when evaluating the resulting coverage. So how do we visualize coverage? Some operators look for the shine on leaves, or a cloudy residue once the spray has dried. That’s better than nothing, but we recommend water sensitive paper (WSP), which is still the most versatile and economical way to visualize coverage.

    WSP can be purchased from most retailers that carry spray equipment. It is available in three sizes, of which the 1” x 3” size is the most common. It can be folded and clipped to a plant surface, or placed on the ground. We’ve written several articles on how to use it (such as here and here and in pretty much a third of the articles on Sprayers101).

    There are two metrics that must be evaluated when assessing coverage on water sensitive paper:

    • the area of the target that has spray on it, and
    • the distribution of the droplets over that area.

    Let’s use a metaphor to explain:

    The Battleship® / Coverage Metaphor

    Imagine the boats in this Battleship® game are the insect pests, and the board they’re on is a leaf. The white pegs represent the spray deposits. In this first image, we see 100% coverage and a very high deposit density. Sure, we got every boat, but this is literal and figurative overkill. There’s no need to completely drench the target in order to control most pests. When you spray a target past the point of run-off, you are not adding more pesticide to the target – you are displacing what was already there. The surface will not exceed the concentration of product you sprayed (with the possible exception of mixes that include certain adjuvants). While additional volume can improve coverage to a point, there is a diminishing return.

    Unless the label specifically asks for a drench, this is too much coverage.
    Unless the label specifically asks for a drench, this is too much coverage.

    In this second image, we’ve covered about 15% of the target area, which is reasonable. However, note the lack of distribution. You can see that we’ve missed quite a bit of the leaf. If our pretend pests are sedentary and if this was a contact product, then we’ve missed. If this was WSP we would advise the sprayer operator to note how much space there is between the deposits. Could a pest such as an insect or small weed easily fit between the deposits?

    20% coverage is good, but the distribution is bad.
    15% coverage is good, but the distribution is bad.

    In this third image, we are still covering about 15% of the target, but now the spray is distributed more evenly. Some of you are likely noticing that we missed a pest. That observation reminds me of one of my favourite exchanges from the movie “Christmas Vacation” where Clark finally got his house illuminated, but his father-in-law only sees the problems: “The little lights aren’t twinkling.” “I see that and thanks for noticing, Ed.”

    15% coverage, distributed evenly. Droplets may have some pest activity beyond the edge of the residue (light red circles).
    15% coverage, distributed evenly. Deposits may have some pest activity beyond the edge of the residue (light red circles).

    Yes, we still missed a pest, but spraying is playing a game of odds. You want enough spray to increase the odds of controlling a pest, but not so much to waste spray (and money and time). This image represents an ideal coverage situation. If this pest moves, or this pesticide redistributes even a little, it will affect the pest.

    Plus, we should not discount the threshold of influence that lies around pesticide residue. Imagine a small circle around each droplet (illustrated here as light red haloes) where active ingredient may redistribute beyond the initial deposit to affect an adjacent pest. Perhaps even more importantly, deposits do not spread on WSP the way they do on actual plant tissue, so WSP always gives an underestimate of the potential coverage.

    In this last image, we see that red deposits have been introduced. This represents a disease control program where an earlier (white) application retains some residual activity when next application (red) is applied. The second spray application almost never lands on top of the first, giving much more protection on the target. For those keeners out there, note that we got that last pest!

    In the case of fungicide applications, subsequent sprays fill in gaps left by previous sprays. If timing is prompt, residual activity will see you through.
    In the case of many disease management programs, subsequent sprays tend to fill in gaps left by previous sprays. If timing is prompt, residual activity will see you through.

    If you Absolutely Need a Number…

    So, what if you’ve read all this but still insist on a firm number to define adequate coverage? We’ll reiterate that there’s no universally-accepted threshold of deposit density or area covered. It would be nice if pesticide labels included this information, but they don’t.

    We’ll stick out necks out and say that in general practice we see excellent results when we achieve 85 discrete deposits per cm2 as well as 10-15% surface coverage on at least 80% of the water sensitive papers in a spray application. If you can manage this, it should give satisfactory results in most situations.

    Ontario Agriculture Conference – 2022

    For a really in-depth conversation on the topic of coverage, check out our presentation from the 2022 Ontario Ag Conference. We tried to deliver a fun and memorable demo at the end of this presentation to show how different droplet sizes might contribute to coverage. Enjoy.

  • ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas – Parody

    ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas – Parody

    Here’s our rendition of the Christmas classic: ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas… but with a bit of a sprayer-winterizing twist. You can hear us read it in the audio bar below, read it yourself, or watch as the talented Bridgette Readel (@bmreadel) reads it to you (end of article). Happy holidays from Sprayers101!

    ‘Twas the night before Christmas and all through the farm
    No sprayers were stirring, not even a Dramm
    The nozzles were stored in a bucket with care
    In the hopes that the herbicides were no longer there

    The impeller spun freely in its little bed
    We can’t spray next year if the controller is dead
    I took off my gloves and my PPE cap
    As the sprayer settled down for a long winter’s nap

    When from under the hood there arose such a clatter
    I sprang back to the cab to see what was the matter
    Away to the ladder I flew with a flash
    Tripped over clean filters and swore as I crashed

    The light from my smartphone held up from below
    Gave a luster of mid-day so I could behold
    Some movement above as my vision did clear
    Eight mice moving ‘round in the engine and gears

    With a flash of their tails, so lively and quick
    I knew that our cat wasn’t doing the trick
    More rapid than eagles my curses they came
    I remembered my checklist with each point by name:

    • I’d drained all the places that water could hide
    • I’d used RV antifreeze throughout the inside
    • I looked closely for leaks from tank lid to sump
    • I checked the spray tender and both transfer pumps
    • I cleaned the outside and cab wall to wall

    But I’d forgotten to mouse-proof… dash it all

    And then came a scratching from up near the roof
    The cat was responding, no longer aloof
    Down from the rafters she came with a bound
    She coiled as she listened to each squeaking sound

    Her claws sprang to life from the tip of each foot
    Her fur was all matted with ashes and soot
    Her eyes, how they twinkled, her visage so scary
    She grinned like the cat that had ate the canary

    She leaped over me and into the fray
    The mice scampered past, running every which way
    One ran up my leg and jumped onto to a shelf
    And I screamed when I saw them in spite of myself

    Then the cat reappeared strutting all ‘round my head
    And I lay there, and knew there was nothing to dread
    As I climbed to my knees, I felt I had shirked
    Steel wool and some traps would have probably worked

    Then the cat rubbed against my legs with her nose
    I reached out to pet her, as I slowly rose
    And that’s when she bit me and hissed like a kettle
    I jumped up too fast and my head hit the metal

    As I swayed back and forth the cat ran out of sight
    I’m getting a dog by the end of the night