Author: Jason Deveau

Assessing Airblast Coverage
This article describes a method for assessing airblast sprayer coverage based on a protocol developed by Dr. David Manktelow (Applied Research and Technologies Ltd., NZ). It was co-written with David Manktelow and Mark Ledebuhr (Application Insight, LLC, USA). An older article describing canopy coverage assessment can be found here.
Why assess coverage?
Airblast sprayer configuration can require a lot of guesswork. There’s too much time between spraying and observing the results for operators to evaluate adjustments. They need timely feedback to assess the fit between sprayer and target.
Achieving adequate coverage of target surfaces (e.g. fruit, wood, inner canopy, etc.) is the basis of effective crop protection. Assessing coverage as soon as possible alerts the operator to correctable problems. The following three methods are helpful, but they have limitations.
The shoulder-check
Shoulder-checks can identify leaks and plugs, but operators cannot detect variation in flow from nozzle-to-nozzle (even when it’s over 50%). The vantage point also makes it difficult to determine if spray is passing under, over or through the target row. It is better to perform an inspection with the help of a partner outside the sprayer as part of a formal pre-spray check.
Shoulder-checks are fine for detecting plugged or leaking nozzles, but the vantage point makes it hard to discern much else.
Run-off
Unless specified by the pesticide label (e.g. drenching bark with oil), spraying to run-off usually means excessive and non-uniform coverage. It’s been demonstrated in trees and vines that when the outer canopy begins to drip, the inner has only received about half the spray volume.
Efficacy trials confirm that spraying to run-off will provide protection, but it’s unnecessarily wasteful. Loses of 10-15% have been measured at the point run-off. Additional spray volume may increase coverage in the inner canopy, but the saturated outer canopy receives no additional deposit. The excess simply drips off. Further, there are potential phytotoxicity issues at the drip-points where residues concentrate as they dry.
Dripping is an unreliable coverage criterion because the threshold for run-off depends on the nature of the target surface (e.g. waxy, hairy, vertical) and the product formulation (e.g. oils, stickers, spreaders) and droplet size.
Run-off is not a reliable indication of good coverage.
Inspecting wetting and residue
Inspecting targets for wetting or residue can give a broad indication of whether a target received spray, but it’s hard to see on some plant surfaces. Dry fluorescent tracers and kaolin clay can help operators visualize deposits on actual plant surfaces, but they are messy, time-consuming and after-the-fact (i.e. too late too correct sprayer settings).
Helpful Tip: Look for residue on high-contrast infrastructure, like trellises or black irrigation lines. Remember, they are sill only subjective indicators.
The preferred method
Water sensitive paper
This method relies on water sensitive papers to help visualize spray coverage. The yellow side can resolve droplets >50µm in diameter, turning blue where it contacts moisture. With the aid of smartphone apps such as SnapCard (as of 2026, may no longer be available), or portable scanners such as DropScope, water sensitive papers can be used to characterize droplet density and droplet size up to 30% total coverage.
These surrogate surfaces do not show the spreading effects that can occur on plant surfaces (especially where surfactants are used). They also show lower deposits than leaves, which move freely in airblast air. Nevertheless, they give a useful indication of potential coverage.
To avoid fingerprints, wear gloves or handle them by the back and edges. They will slowly turn blue in humid conditions, so keep them sealed in their foil package when not in use. Packages of 50, 25x75mm (1×3 inch) papers are available online or from local agrichemical retailers for about $50.00.
Preparing water sensitive papers
You will need ten pushpins (five dark coloured, five light coloured), ten papers and a resealable plastic bag. The following process may seem like close-up magic but with practice you can quickly prepare multiple sets of papers.
1. Remove eleven papers from the foil package.
2. Stack them yellow-side-up and flip the top paper
  over.
3. Using the flipped paper, carefully fold the
  stack in half. Now ten are folded yellow-side-out.
4. Expose 1/4 of the middle paper. Pinching the
  stack firmly will flex it and give support as you pierce the corner with a
  pushpin (twist as you push).
5. Use the pushpin as a handle to slide it from the
  stack and drop it into a Ziploc bag. Repeat the process for the remaining nine
  papers (return the outside one to the package for later use).
6. They will remain viable in the sealed bag for
  several days before they are used in the target canopy. Once placed in the
  canopy, ten folded papers provide 20 target surfaces.
Six steps to preparing and attaching water sensitive paper.
Placing the papers
To avoid boundary effects, don’t place papers in the periphery of the planting. To make sure the sprayer is up-to-speed and the canopy is not overly exposed to wind, go a short distance into the target row and pick a representative tree or vine. The pins will hold the papers to stems, twigs and leaf petioles. Shadowing from leaves is inevitable, but try to avoid placing them up against fruit, leaves or wood. Relative placement within the canopy depends on canopy size:
Small canopies
For grape, pin five dark pins into stems next to inner bunches deep in canopy. Pin the five light pins around the outer bunches, oriented with one side of the paper exposed to the sprayer. When you stand back, it should be hard to see the inner papers.
Similar positioning can be used for berry canes and bushes. Pin five dark pins in the inner canopy, spanning the height but oriented randomly. Pin five light pins in the outer canopy, spanning the height but oriented with one side exposed to the sprayer.
Helpful Tip: Keep the papers clustered in a 1-2m (6 ft) row and tuck the Ziploc bag into the dripline to mark where they are. They shouldn’t take long to find after spraying.
Medium canopies
For high-density orchards and larger trellised canopies, a ladder might be required. Pin five dark pins in the inner canopy, spanning the height but oriented randomly. Pin five light pins in the outer canopy, spanning the height but oriented randomly
Large canopies
For large trees (e.g. tree nut, citrus, sour cherry), a modified approach is required. Instead of dark pins, use sections of plastic or galvanized conduit. Note the wire clips developed to affix papers to the conduit in the image below. Any method of firmly affixing the papers is acceptable.
Stand at the trunk and raise the conduit section by section to reach the full height of the canopy. Attach five papers as you erect the conduit mast with one at the top, one at the bottom and the other three evenly distributed. A wrap of electrical tape may be required to help hold sections together. Then, pin five light pins in the outer canopy, oriented randomly and spanning as high as can be conveniently reached.
Helpful Tip: Tie a length of flagging tape near the papers to make them easier to find and replace between assessments.
Use lengths of metal or plastic conduit to create a mast that can span the height of large canopies. Distribute papers evenly along the length as it is assembled.
Larger trees, like nuts, citrus and sour cherry make it harder to assess all canopy positions (and to spray them).
Spraying
It is preferable to spray clean water from a rinsed sprayer, but you can assess coverage during a chemical spray if label restrictions permit re-entry. Always wear PPE when required.
Spray the target row as you normally would (e.g. both sides, alternate row middle, multiple rows) in weather you would normally spray in. Retrieve the papers as soon as they are dry enough to handle.
Assessing canopy coverage
Coverage assessment form
Download a copy of the Canopy Coverage Assessment form.
Complete the top section, being sure to describe the sprayer set-up, application volume and weather conditions at the time of spraying. Either staple or glue the recovered papers to the form. Try to arrange them relative to their original positions in the canopy.
Helpful Tip: Glue sticks work very well but avoid lumps that will show through.
What do you think of the coverage seen on the 20 surfaces in this example? Seven of the 20 surfaces (35%) show almost no deposit, and 10 (50%) have visibly low numbers of relatively large droplets – that is usually an indication of inadequate coverage.
Assessing each paper
Research and experience suggest that a droplet density of about 85 Fine/Medium-sized droplets per cm² and about 15% overall coverage is adequate for most foliar insecticides and fungicides. With experience, this can be judged by eye. Note: only 80% of all papers require this minimal threshold coverage. This is described later in the article.
Helpful Tip: It is sometimes helpful consider the amount of yellow left between the blue.
Grade each of the 20 surfaces as (E)xcessive, (A)dequate or (I)nadequate by circling the corresponding letter on the form.
- Adequate satisfies minimal coverage.
- Excessive will provide crop protection, but
  often indicates unnecessary waste.
- Inadequate includes non-uniform coverage and nil
  coverage.
There are a few notable exceptions:
- Make allowances for papers where potentially
  Adequate coverage has been masked by an adjacent obstacle (see paper number 5,
  below).
- Finer sprays will have very high droplet counts
  and less volume. Paper number 6 (below) would be Inadequate for a high volume,
  dilute application. However, this uniform distribution is Adequate for a low
  volume, concentrated application (e.g. mistblower).
- Coarser sprays may have lower droplet counts or coalesce
  into blobs (see paper number 2, below). Focus on even distribution and the 15% overall
  coverage.
Unless using a scanner, visually assessing papers can be subjective. Rely on droplet density, overall coverage and the product’s mode of action when making a determination. Paper number 6 is Adequate for a mistblower due to the high droplet density and uniformity.
Assessing the canopy
Spray coverage can be highly variable. This method employs 20 surfaces and semi-random orientation to offset some of that variability. Minimal coverage (i.e. Adequate and Excessive) should be achieved on 80% of the papers.
Complete canopy coverage is not required. Studies in New Zealand winegrapes showed a direct correlation between the percentage of Inadequate papers and levels of bunch botrytis. Disease levels increased as the number of Inadequate papers increased over 20%.
Watch for the following in the overall coverage patterns:
Clustered gaps in coverage
This occurs when spray fails to reach the targets. Gaps often occur in the top third of large canopies and deep in dense canopies. This could indicate problems with air speed/orientation, dense canopies, or inadequate flow from corresponding nozzle positions.
Uneven coverage
In medium and large canopies, the outer canopy often receives more spray than the inner canopy, and this may be unavoidable. Be aware that an even distribution of droplets on poorly covered surfaces could indicate underdosing relative to bluer surfaces.
Run-off
This is typical in the outer portion of large and/or dense canopies during high volume (i.e. dilute) applications. More than 50% of surfaces will be thoroughly wetted; Papers will curl, and blue dye may drip off. Unless specified on the product label, it is excessive for foliar applications, but may be unavoidable.
In low volume (concentrate) applications, run-off could indicate poor nozzle distribution or tight alleys. It is generally undesirable and indicates waste.
Improving canopy coverage
This is an iterative process requiring a few attempts before coverage is improved. Try to identify the most limiting factor, make a single adjustment, and then reassess. Consider factors such as travel speed, sprayer air output, nozzle rates and overall spray volume. Also consider canopy management and weather conditions.
When water sensitive papers are prepared in advance, each assessment should take two people about 20 minutes. Compare assessments side-by-side. When one set of papers appears “bluer” than another, measurements have shown it represents >20% difference in actual canopy deposits. This is very likely to have a biological impact.
This small investment of time and money can return better crop protection, greater efficiency, and confidence that the airblast sprayer is doing the job.
Real world example
While in Mildura, AU, we were invited to optimize a Silvan wrap-around multirow sprayer in box-hedged grape. Originally an air-shear sprayer, it was converted to employ air induction hollow cone nozzles (six air outlets per row-side, 550 L/ha [50 gpa], 8.5 km/h [5.3 mph]).
A Silvan wrap-around multirow sprayer in grape.
We noted that the outer arms were 2.8m (9 ft) from the canopy, and the inner arms were 2.1m (7 ft). We brought them in to 2.1m and employed the previously described assessment method to establish a baseline for comparison (see assessment number 1).
The outer arm was brought in until nozzles on both arms were equidistant from the target canopy.
Assessment Number 1 (Left). Mostly Inadequate.
Watching as the sprayer passed, we noted the canopy compressed rather than ruffled. This was likely caused by the air outlets being perpendicular to the canopy. When the canopy closed, air and spray were deflected rather than allowed to penetrate. There were also V-shaped plates in each air outlet left over from its days as an air-shear sprayer that deflected the air in strange ways.
We angled the air ducts and decided to remove the 80 degree air induction nozzles. There have been recent reports of improved grape canopy penetration from the new Arag 40 degree hollow cones, so we tried them. Unfortunately, we chose nozzles with too high an output and the operating pressure dropped below 3 bar (44 psi). With poor atomization, the resulting coverage was still poor. Note the finer droplet size from the switch from air induction to conventional hollow cones (see assessment number 2).
Assessment Number 2 (Middle). Finer droplets and still mostly Inadequate.
Time was limited, so we made two significant changes before the final assessment (yes, we know we said one at a time). First, we rearranged the nozzles. 60% of the total volume was from 40 degree nozzles aiming finer droplets at the fruit zone. The remaining 40% was from 80 degree A.I. nozzles aiming coarser, drift-resistant droplets at the upper canopy. This also restored our working pressure.
Then we noticed the position of the nozzles relative to the air outlets. The air preceded the nozzles, which would leave the droplets trailing behind the air rather than carried into the canopy. We turned the nozzle/duct assembly 180 degrees, so the nozzles preceded the air outlet. The final assessment showed greatly improved coverage (see assessment number 3).
Flipped nozzle/air duct assemblies so nozzles preceded air to better entrain the spray.
Assessment Number 3 (Right). Far better coverage, but still room for improvement at the top of the canopy.
The sprayer operator reaped immediate benefit from the two hours of assessment and reconfiguration and has continued to use this method to optimize the match between his sprayers and crops throughout the season.
January 22, 2020
Remove and scrub your filters – Even when you use Dawn
This article was co-developed by Mike Cowbrough, OMAFRA Weed Management Specialist in Field Crops
Why scrub filters?
Why do we ask you to manually scrub residue from sprayer filters and housings before changing chemistries? Here are three reasons why rinsing in-place may not be good enough:
- There is potential for biologically-active levels of residue to persist in filters, even after a triple rinse, that could harm the next crop sprayed.
- Persistent residues could cause physical antagonism with the chemistry you use next. This can cost time and/or efficacy should it plug filters and nozzles or reduce spray uniformity.
- Persistent residues could cause chemical antagonism with the chemistry you use next – even several batches later. This could harm crops when the residue carried over from a much earlier application suddenly becomes soluble again thanks to detergents or pH adjusters in subsequent tank mixes.
An experiment
To some, the previous statements may seem excessive. Many sprayer operators claim that scrubbing filters is time consuming, or that they’ve never had a problem before, or that the tiny amount of residue they see in the filters after rinsing couldn’t possibly cause damage. We decided to test the efficacy of rinsing filters without removing them.
We constructed a table-top system that could circulate chemistry through a 50 mesh filter. Think of it as a scaled-down sprayer that returns solution to the tank rather than spray it out. It replicates what the line filters on a larger sprayer might experience during a typical spray day.
Table-top system to circulate spray mix at 1 gallon per minute through a 50 mesh filter.
The method
The tank (i.e. the bucket) would be filled with a tank mix and circulated through the filter to replicate a spray day. The contaminated filter could then be sampled to establish a baseline, and then alternately contaminated and rinsed in place to compare how much residue remained. Specifically, we would drop the filter housing and scrub all surfaces in 500 ml of water to collect any and all residue.
Each sample collected would be poured through a filter for a visual check of residue. A small volume would be reserved to be sprayed on soybean and white bean seedlings as a bio assay of activity.
The process
We used Sencor (metribuzin) mixed at a rate that represented the low end of the label: 250 grams of product per acre at 5 gallons per acre. Not knowing what to expect, we circulated the solution through the filter for 20 minutes pumped at a rate of 1 gallon per minute and peeked into the tank.
After 20 minutes of circulation, Sencor began to foam.
Seeing that we were creating foam, we decided to add defoamer. Then we peeked into the filter housing to see what had accumulated so far.
Very little residue was found on the filter or in the housing after 20 minutes of circulation.
Finding very little in the way of residue, we chose to let the system circulate for an hour. We felt this would represent a single real-world tank’s worth of product. Since we’d added defoamer, we decided it was safe to leave the lab and let the system circulate…
Foam overs: No fun in the field and no fun in the lab.
Despite having added defoamer, we had a mess to clean up. When we opened the bucket we noted all the product clinging to the lid (see below). We collected some of this scum to replicate what might be clinging to parts of the spray tank that are not adequately covered by rinse-down nozzles. We then dropped the filter into 500 ml of water and scrubbed the housing and filter to collect any and all residue.
Collecting residue from the bucket lid to replicate what might remain in a tank that is not sufficiently rinsed.
We then added additional defoamer and checked in regularly as we circulated the mixture for several hours to replicate a full day of spraying. This time when we checked to see how much residue we had collected, found a surprising amount.
Residue following several hours of circulation, prior to triple rinsing with water.
We replaced the filter and performed a triple rinse with water before dropping the filter to collect our residue sample. As shown below, the triple rinse cleared much of the residue, but trace amounts were still visible.
Residue following several hours of circulation and a triple rinse with water.
Dawn Detergent and the 5 Second Squeeze
We refilled the tank with Sencor and defoamer and circulated it for several hours to once again contaminate the filter. This time, however, we added detergent to the second rinse. We did this in response to claims that Dawn dish detergent removed residues from dry products such as Atrazine without having to drop the filters.
A former agrichemical rep explained that the practice likely originated in Western Canada some years ago when several growers suddenly experienced physical incompatibilities with a particular batch of dry product. It was suspected that the problem was due to abnormally cold temperatures during mixing, but the result was that many were left with solids in the tanks that could not be flushed.
Ionic surfactants are found in “cheap and nasty” shampoos, dish detergents and car care products. They can be tough on the skin, but they are of higher surfactantcy than NIS. And so, agrichemical reps bought pallets of Dawn dish detergent (Branded “Fairy” in the UK) from big box stores and found it broke the solids down sufficiently to flush the tanks. From there, it is likely growers started adding it during the rinse to facilitate cleanout. But, is the “Five second squeeze” a myth or does it work?
Results
Adding Dawn detergent to the second rinse reduced visible residue in the filter housing and on the plastic sides of pop bottles that stored the rinsate.
We saw a visible reduction in the filmy residue left behind by Sencor in the filter housing and on the walls of the pop bottles used to store the rinsate. It was easy to see why the 5 second squeeze appeared to improve matters… but was there enough residue to still there to cause trouble?
Rinsate filtered through red cloth for a visual check of residue.
We poured the rinsate from each sample through red cloth. There was little or no visible evidence of Sencor in the sample taken from the lid of the filter following an hour of spraying (left), or our baseline sample of a filter contaminated after an hour of circulation with no rinse (second from left). There was a great deal in the sample from the filter following “a day’s spraying” and a triple rinse (second from right), and less in the triple rinse containing detergent (right). These last two conditions are compared below.
Following several hours of spraying, residue following a triple rinse with water (left) and a triple rinse with detergent in the second rinse (right).
A volume of the rinsate from each sample was reserved for bio assay on soybean seedlings. The filter in the spray booth was cleaned thoroughly between conditions.
The following images show that even when there was little or no visible residue, there was still sufficient activity remaining to injure, or in the case of the triple rinse with water, kill soybean seedlings.
Summary
Bear in mind that this is a single experiment with a single chemistry, but it does support the following observations:
- Always rinse the sprayer as soon as possible and pay attention to dead-end plumbing and filters. Diligence is a function of knowing what was sprayed last, what is coming next, and the sensitivity of the crops being sprayed.
- Cleaners do not decontaminate – they loosen residues to make rinsing more effective. In our experiment, Dawn detergent appeared to reduce residue and that will keep you spraying plug-free for longer. But, the bioassay showed sufficient activity remained to cause carry-over damage.
- A triple rinse with water may be insufficient to remove residue from filters. Even if the residue left behind does not cause damage in the next crop sprayed, it can persist and has the potential to react antagonistically with subsequent sprays.
Bonus: Pro Tips
Not long after publishing this article, we were contacted by a grower who had difficulties with clay-based products plugging up his filters. It took a carry-over incident to convince him he needed to address the problem, so he installed $20 ball valves at the bottom of the filter housings. This isn’t as good as dropping and scrubbing filters, but opening and closing the valve under pressure during rinsing blew the filters clear of visible residue. Others have noted similar modifications on the pump of their tender truck to clear the filter of algae.
Other options include a hydraulic-style ball valve (stronger than plastic). Or, install a gator lock cam after the valve and insert a plug so if it’s accidentally opened it won’t dump the tank. Just keep a hose in the toolbox and insert it when you need to flush. Finally, one grower added a Thompson strainer to the sprayer and removed the screens from the Banjo Y’s. He ran a 1″ hose from the Thompson to a valve by the work station and cracks it open as part of every rinse.
A cheap and effective solution for clearing filters of residue. Not as good as dropping and scrubbing, but a great compromise.
Ball valves tend to protrude below the sprayer, so they may catch high corn. Be careful.
January 10, 2020
Airblast Agitation and Solubags
Agricultural products are formulated to be as emulsifiable as possible, but many do not mix well in water. They contain elements that do not dissolve (e.g. wettable powders), or they may be petroleum distillates (e.g. emulsifiable concentrates). Other products are heavier than water and form precipitates (e.g. fertilizers and powdered metals like copper). Consequently, good agitation is very important.
Effective agitation requires water to “sweep” the bottom of the tank so that any precipitated material is picked up and re-mixed. Turbulence is often not enough. If there is too little agitation, the pesticide will be applied unevenly and not always at the required rate. If there is too much agitation, the pesticide may foam (which can be controlled using anti-foamers) or cause an invert emulsion (a gel). There are two types of airblast sprayer agitation: Mechanical and Hydraulic (learn about pros and cons here).
Mechanical Agitation
Mechanical Agitation is produced by paddles that are attached to a shaft mounted near the bottom of the spray tank. While effective, this system cannot always sweep the very bottom of the tank, so there is always some material that precipitates out of reach. Are your nozzles and screens plugging frequently, and is there “sludge” left at the bottom of the tank after spraying? You may have an agitation issue.
Note the two paddles set at 90° to one another on the mechanical agitation shaft in this very cool “cutaway” Turbomist sprayer.
Hydraulic Agitation
Hydraulic Agitation is accomplished by returning a portion of the pump output to the tank. Cylindrical and oval tanks are the ideal configuration for the sparging (i.e. rinsing) type of hydraulic return agitation system. This system consists of a tube located longitudinally along the wall of the tank, with volume booster nozzles aimed at the centreline so they sweep across the bottom. Volume booster nozzles take a small amount of water pumped into their venturi chamber and create a vacuum that draws three to four times that volume from the surrounding water and expels it out the end.
For hydraulic agitation to the effective, the agitator nozzle(s) should be fed by a dedicated line from the pressure side of the pump (not the pressure regulator). They should have a valve to throttle the flow or completely shut it off to prevent foaming.
A mixing nozzle in the basket of a Hol sprayer.
With enough pump capacity, a hydraulic return in the tank basket is a great way to agitate as you mix. A return in an older FMC.
Adding Water Soluble Pouches
Adding pesticide to the sprayer may not always be straight-forward. Many airblast operators, for example, place dissolvable pouches in the basket so they can be broken up by the hydraulic return, or the fill water. But fill water often splatters out of the basket, and the bags can burst open, releasing product into the air. This creates unnecessary contamination and both inhalation and dermal exposure concerns.
Photo credit: Mario Lanthier.
Photo credit: Mario Lanthier.
Some elect to temporarily remove the basket and add the pouches to a half-full tank with the agitator on. However, the pump can suck in the partially dissolved bag which then coats the intake screen. This is exacerbated when the fill water is cold. I know of one operator that had to rebuild the pump because the Viton seals burned out. This operator now adds pouches to the basket while standing upwind and away from potential splatter. Or, they mix a pre-slurry.
Mixing a pre-slurry requires the operator cut the bag into a five or 10 gallon bucket filled with water and to incorporate using a paint mixer. However, mixing a pre-slurry increases the chances of dermal exposure, inhalation and point-source contamination. Dissolvable bags were intended as a form of closed transfer, which is a good idea. Mixing a pre-slurry defeats that intent.
And so, for all these reason, I don’t feel dissolvable pouches are a good formulation choice. If possible, select product formulations that do not cause possible filling issues and better match the capabilities of your agitation system. Always choose the safest and most effective filling method for your sprayer design.
January 2, 2020
Re-imagining of the Axial Airblast Fan
On a trip to Mildura, Victoria I met Matthew McWilliams, Director at Interlink Sprayers. His passion for innovation was exciting. He described Interlink’s history of near-annual design improvements, each of which made the last generation of sprayers look a bit passé. Continual improvement means spending a lot of time educating and upgrading customer’s sprayers, but that level of support is worth it. Their strategy of drawing from leading international designs and improving on them has led to a unique axial fan assembly that boasts impressive benefits for those spraying large canopies.
A man and his fan housing.
Matt explained a problem common to any axial fan: they hate back-pressure. When an axial fan blows air against a volute, which redirects the air laterally, the back-pressure acts like an air break. It pushes back against the fan, flexing the blades, reducing output volume and reducing efficiency.
In an effort to relieve some of this pressure, Interlink cut a hole in the volute (called an “Unloader”). Venting reduced the pressure and increased efficiency significantly. It did something else, too, but we’ll get to that later.
This success led them to reconsider fan blade design. Classic, rectilinear fan blades are inefficient. They only produce air over the last 1/3 of their length. Using computational fluid dynamics, they modelled an efficient sickle-shape that creates pressure over the entire length. This means it can produce as much volume as a rectilinear blade, but with fewer revolutions.
The difference between rectilinear and sickle-shaped fan blades.
When the new blades were combined with the Unloader, they were able to move the fan closer to the volute and make the cowl longer. A less-exposed fan is not only safer, but its proximity to the volute increased efficiency.
The result was a 2.5x increase in pressure and a concomitant 30% savings in horsepower. In other words, while similarly-sized sprayers were using 25 L (6.5 US gal.) of fuel per hour, they created the same air volume and speed using 17 L (4.5 US gal.) fuel per hour.
But why stop there?
Nut orchards in Australia and the US can grow up to 21 meters (~70 feet). A low-profile axial sprayer must produce a great deal of air volume to both penetrate the canopy and reach the top. Increasing fan diameter can help, but perhaps two fans are better? Air-O-Fan has their twin-fan system, where two shaft-driven fans with reversed blade pitches produce high-volume turbulent air. Interlock decided to try it.
Hydraulics permit the twin-fan head to be raised off the ground.
When two hydraulically driven fans were placed back-to-back (spinning counter to one another) the Unloaders did something Unexpected. Normally, an axial fan blowing against a volute creates deflection, causing higher speeds on the downward side of the fan. Most sprayers use vanes to correct this, but they cause back-pressure. Serendipitously, when placed back-to-back, the pressure vented through the Unloaders was reclaimed on the upward side of each fan, equalizing airspeed across the outlet.
The air vented through the Uploader evened-out the airspeed.
Computational fluid dynamics demonstrate even air-speed and volume on both sides of the sprayer.
And there’s still more. Since this counter-rotation twin fan design is hydraulically driven, it is not restricted by a shaft. This allows the head to be lifted off the ground. Quite often in large orchards, air and nozzles are aimed too low, wasting spray below the canopy. Lifting the fan and nozzle banks brings everything closer to the top of the canopy; a notoriously difficult target to reach. It also reduces the level of dust and detritus stirred up from the canopy floor. Operators reported that the elevated fan head helped keep fan intakes and radiators (required on Australian airblast sprayers) clear of debris.
This low-profile axial airblast fan is a refreshing new approach to a design that has seen only marginal improvement over the last 20 years. Given the pace of innovation in Matt’s factory, I’m sure the next set of improvements will be in place by the time this article is published.

December 2, 2019
Pesticide Drift and Communication
When it comes to information about mitigating pesticide drift, it’s plentiful and easily accessed. I have an archive of >30 articles written by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture staff spanning 1999 to present day. Many are on this website. In fact, there’s so much good information out there (see BeDriftAware) it feels like there’s nothing left to say. As a connoisseur (and author) of such materials, I’ve noticed they can be grouped into four common themes – see if you recognize any:
- The Carrot: These articles describe the benefits of reduced drift, like solid neighbourly relations, reduced environmental impact, saving money in wasted pesticide and improved spray coverage.
- The Stick: These articles feature insurance adjusters or regulators providing statistics from case studies on the financial, legal, and insurance impacts of drift. Not to mention the time it takes to deal with these issues.
- The Heart: Many articles describe the frustration and emotional impact from the driftee’s perspective. Others chronicle the conflict, irritation and personal insult that come from being accused of drifting.
- The Facts: Here we have technical specialists laying out math, such as weather models describing spray behaviour, buffer zones and drift reduction technologies like nozzles, shrouds and sprayer calibration.
Beyond the written word there are also videos, PowerPoint presentations, workshops or demonstrations, government fact sheets, marketing brochures, social media content and smartphone apps. And yet, every May-July, the drift complaints seem to roll in regardless. For those that ask “why?” here are a few possible reasons:
Why drift happens
- Maybe the sprayer operator is pressed for time and chooses to ignore best practices in an effort to catch up. Haste can lead to mistakes.
- Perhaps the sprayer operator is new and inexperienced, or falls into that small demographic without ready access to educational resources like ag meetings or the internet.
- Maybe the operator is a veteran lulled into false security having successfully sprayed so many acres, for so many hours, for so many years. Why be so diligent when nothing bad ever seems to happen? Bad logic, but not uncommon.
- Maybe the problem stemmed from poor communication. Perhaps the land is rented by one person, to a farmer that isn’t there, who has their fields sprayed by custom applicators, who don’t know what’s around the field.
- Or, perhaps, even the best-intentioned sprayer operator can have bad luck.
Where can drift take place?
Agricultural spray (i.e. field crop or horticulture) has the potential to move between operations, or onto residential areas, or sensitive environmental areas. A single operation can even drift an incompatible chemistry onto itself. There are also residential applications (e.g. lawn care) that can negatively affect neighbours. Industrial applications such as roadside sprays can drift to agricultural or residential. Even organic operations spray products that can move outside the treatment area if conditions allow.
It is important to recognize that every single spray application has the potential for off-target movement. That’s why it’s so important to know what and who is around the treated area.
Communication helps
Communication between neighbours can make a big difference, both in preventing drift damage and resolving matters should an incident occur. Here are two perspectives on the same chemical trespass incident. In the first, the parties do not know, and do not care to know, one another. In the second, the parties have communicated previously. Which scenario will be easier to resolve?
1. A “field cropper that drives 20 miles per hour in high winds” is contacted by a MECP officer on behalf of a “vegetable grower that’s always complaining about spraying”. Accusations and defensiveness between the two parties escalate until they prevent them from speaking directly. Specialists, adjusters, and the officer find themselves acting as mediators. The process is slow and likely headed for court.
2. Sarah knocks on Kevin’s door and says there might be something wrong with her crop – can he come have a look? She has (rightfully) contacted the MECP to collect samples just in case, and Kevin has all his spray records so they can figure it out. They call in a crop consultant and she contacts a university specialist to solve the problem and prevent it happening again. They follow the crop to yield to determine the impact and agree on a settlement between them.
Regarding Scenario 1, it’s not my intention to slander field croppers or horticulturalists; I have actually heard parties involved in highly emotional drift disputes describe one another this way. My intent is to point out that you cannot label an entire industry based on the actions of an individual. When parties see each other in this fashion they are unlikely to work together to resolve the problem. No one will be satisfied with the outcome.
Regarding Scenario 2, I have observed that once each party has a face and a name, it’s so much easier to find solutions. It doesn’t mean someone wasn’t at fault or that compensation isn’t required, but the dialogue facilitates a faster, easier and less emotional outcome. Obviously, in the case of repeated or large-scale incidents, communication may not yield satisfactory results. I’m hopeful, but not naive.
Opening a dialogue
Communication can be initiated from either direction: An applicator can inform a residential neighbour or fellow farmer with sensitive crops when and what they intend to spray. Likewise, the neighbour or sensitive crop grower can reach out to the applicator to let them know they are there and that they are concerned.
There’s no need to wait until there’s a problem. Both parties benefit from keeping one another informed about when sprays go on and the state of any sensitive crops. And, if there is an issue, both parties should begin documenting conditions and suspected damage as soon as possible and over time during the resolution.
Penn State produced a great article about speaking about pesticides with neighbours.
Final thoughts
So, the core of this article isn’t how to prevent drift, or what to do if you suspect it. That’s all been said and I’ve listed a few resources for reference at the end. This article is about being aware of drift potential and about opening lines of communication between those that share borders.
So follow the links below to learn more about what you can do to mitigate drift. Then, go introduce yourself to your neighbours. Bring a pie. Everyone loves pie.
Resources
- Article – This link includes four videos and a factsheet about what drift is, how to prevent it and what to do if you suspect it.
- Article – This link includes a video and a factsheet about surface inversions and drift.
- Article – Spraying in the wind.
- Video – The time of day can affect drift potential.
- Video – Spray quality (i.e. droplet size) and how it relates to drift.
- Two articles (one and two) on reducing travel speed and employing other means of improving productivity.
- Article – Drift-reducing nozzles.
- Website – This is a link to BeDriftAware, a collection of resources and tools to encourage the use of best application practices by farmers and sprayer operators to reduce the possibility of spray drift.
July 15, 2019