One of the pleasures of working in agricultural extension is when you’re able to help a grower solve a problem. This was one of those happy occasions. An orchardist purchased a Lipco multi-row recycling sprayer and wanted help evaluating their spray coverage.
We worked in 3.7 m (12 foot), mature, high-density Royal Gala trees. The sprayer was driving at 5.0 km/h (3.1 mph), operating at 11 bar (160 psi) using orange Albuz 80 degree air-induction flat fans. This resulted in about 350 L/ha (~37 gpa).
This grower wisely invested in the air-assist option, which produces a vertical plane of somewhat laminar air to entrain the spray and carry it into the centre of the target canopy. Whatever spray blows through the tree should impact the opposing shroud and get recycled back to the tank. All in all, how could you miss?
…we managed to.
Water sensitive papers were placed back-to-back facing each alley (in other words, facing the spray booms). Despite our best efforts, each pass resulted in inconsistent coverage. Papers were replaced in the same location and orientation for each pass and no settings were changed. Nevertheless, sometimes a paper got spray and sometimes it didn’t. What was going on? It was as if the two air streams were interfering with one another – almost cancelling each other out.
Air from tangential (cross-flow) fans oriented perpendicular to the canopy in direct opposition will cancel out. This reduces canopy penetration.
Where possible, do not position laminar air outlets in direct opposition. The convergence creates a high-pressure zone that reduces spray penetration. Some sprayers are designed to avoid this by staggering air outlets one ahead of the other. Laminar flows will deflect unpredictably around this pressurized area and carry droplets back out of the canopy. Unless the canopy is particularly narrow and sparse, turbulent air handling systems do not typically create this problem. In both cases, canopy penetration is improved when fans are staggered and/or are angled slightly forward or backward.
Grey arrows indicate direction of travel. The air outlets of wrap-around sprayers should be symmetrical when viewed from behind. A. Tangential fans in direct opposition: Poor coverage. B. Tangential fans angled forward/backward: Possible vortices and good coverage. C. Tangential fans angled backward: Good coverage, but if the angle is too steep, air will not penetrate the canopy. D. Straight-through axial fans in direct opposition: Good coverage in denser canopies. E. Straight-through axial fans angled slightly backward: Good coverage but limit the angle to prevent the trailing edge of the air wash from missing the canopy entirely. F. Straight-through axial fans angled forward: Slight angles are acceptable, but too much in this image. Wind created by travel speed subtracts from air energy. This creates a risk of reduced coverage and increased operator exposure.
We decided to turn the outer boom/shroud/fan assemblies 10˚ backward by loosening the four bolts at the top of the gantry (see below). This minor change in configuration improved spray coverage significantly. Increasing the angle beyond 10° might have caused the air wash to trail along the canopy face and would have made sprayer turns difficult at the row ends.
We loosened the four clamping screws to adjust the fan angle on the outer boom of this Lipco Recycling Tunnel sprayer.
We replaced the water sensitive papers and ran another pass. The operator later told me he could see the leaves and branches rustling in the row where we made the adjustment, but not in the unadjusted row. The result on water-sensitive paper was dramatic.
Since experiencing this in 2013, I have been told that the Lipco instruction manual advises against air in direct opposition. It was a poorly translated and somewhat obscure sentence buried in the manual, but I concede that it was there. Determine whether your sprayer produces more laminar or more turbulent air, and explore how their relative orientation impacts canopy penetration.
Checking coverage on water-sensitive paper with some of the Grape Growers of Ontario members in 2012Press play to hear the audio version of this article.
When an extension specialist, equipment retailer or consultant is asked to calibrate an airblast sprayer, they would be well advised to calibrate the sprayer operator as well.
Consider this: you and the operator are each investing three hours (average) to optimize the sprayer for a specific set of circumstances: the crop dimensions, density, and the weather conditions at the time of calibration. Depending on the reason for the application, you may even account for the product(s) mode of action and the pest location. This means that once you leave, the circumstances will change and the benefits of your efforts will quickly diminish.
Calibrations, like milk, have an expiry date.
There are three possible outcomes from a single, stand-alone calibration:
The operator manages efficacious applications throughout the season because the variability in weather, crop and pest isn’t significant. This is generally not the case.
Not recognizing that sprayer settings need constant adjustments (or being unable to make the changes) the operator experiences only modest results and decides calibration isn’t worthwhile.
The operator experiences failures and lays the fault with you (as the last person the touch the sprayer) and/or the agrichemical rep that sold the chemical. Few sprayer operators blame timing or spray coverage.
Explaining how to place water-sensitive paper and ribbons in an apple tree
The solution lies in the proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” It is the sprayer calibrator’s responsibility to involve the sprayer operator and ensure they understand what is being done, why it is being done, and how to do it when you leave. Otherwise, expect to calibrate that sprayer again… soon.
Personally, I have had the most success educating and empowering sprayer operators to make their own seasonal adjustments based on a formulaic approach. Depending what you are trying to accomplish, you may not need all of the following steps, or you may perform some on your own and others as part of the education:
1) You could be working one-on-one, or you may be presenting to a large group. When it’s the latter, I like to arrive the day before to meet the host or owner of the sprayer(s). You can scope out the operation and triage the equipment so you know what parts you might need the next day. It also helps to see the space you will be working in.
2) Perform a pre-calibration inspection of the equipment with the sprayer operator. They know their equipment and can tell you about usage, history and maintenance. It also opens a dialogue between you and helps the operator to relax. Remember: from their perspective they may feel they are being judged and they will take criticisms and corrections personally. Do your best to reassure them that you are trying to make a good thing better – not to correct failings.
3) If you’re working at a large operation, educate the manager (decision maker) and the operators (drivers) at the same time. If you teach the manager, they might not effectively communicate the lessons to their operators. Likewise, if you teach the operators, they may not be able to convince the manager to let them spend money, or time, on making changes to the sprayer program. Get everyone on the same page, at the same time.
4) With the operator, perform a basic maintenance check. Specifically, confirm sprayer ground speed, evaluate pressure gauge accuracy and evaluate nozzles. Explain what you are doing, and ask the operator questions. This is where you learn about their attitude. Are they open-minded about changing how they do things? How has their efficacy been in the past? Will they spring for new parts? Do they need convincing that this process must be repeated regularly?
Demonstrating how deflectors aim air, and spray, into the target using some scrap wood.
5) With the sprayer in the crop, have the operator tie wind-indicator ribbons in the canopy (or better, use lengths pre-tied to springback clips). Explain what they are doing and why. Tell them these ribbons should be monitored, maintained and replaced season-long.
Here’s a tip: If you are working with a large audience, keeping them focused is critical. Growers will take the opportunity to catch up with each other while you are occupied with the sprayer. They are also inclined to wander away to answer cell phones. If they are not focused, you are on a service call and are not really educating. If you feel you are losing control, single out the ringleaders or wayward students and give them jobs, such as holding tools, or placing/removing water sensitive papers. When they have a responsibility, they pay closer attention.
A convenient, weather proof calibration kit for flagging tape, clips and water sensitive paper.
6) Discuss where water-sensitive papers should go, and how they should face. Give the operator a latex glove and after you write on the back of each card (position and trial number) have them clip them in place. Tell them how much they cost, where to buy them and the benefits of using them regularly.
7) Have the operator spray the target crop using their typical set-up (i.e. ground speed, pressure, rate, air settings, etc.) Have attendees and the operator watch the ribbons as the sprayer passes. Spray from one side with both booms on and then stop to discuss results. Then spray from the other side and explore the cumulative impact.
8) The operator will be very surprised to learn they have drenched or missed the papers. They may or may not be surprised to have seen the ribbons stood straight out (indicating too much air). If you like, you can even set up papers in the next alley (or alleys) to show how much spray blew through the target. When the papers are dry enough, collect them and store them somewhere safe for later comparison. They tend to blow away, so stick them to a whiteboard with two-sided tape, or clip them there with paperclips. Explain that they can (potentially) save a lot of money and lost fill-time by improving their efficiency. Get them on-board for the big change to come.
9) Optimize sprayer ground speed, air direction (i.e. deflectors) and air speed/volume (i.e. fan speed). Then re-nozzle the sprayer using brass disc and core tips to reduce output in areas that were drenched or increase output in areas of sparse coverage. Quite often, I turn off the lowest (and sometimes, highest) nozzle positions. A piece of water-sensitive paper at the top and bottom of the canopy will confirm the wisdom in this. Label a new set of papers and have the growers position them in the same locations. Spray again. This entire process should take about 1/2 an hour and is described in detail in the Airblast101 handbook.
Tying flagging tape in trees to indicate prevailing wind and to calibrate airblast air settings.
10) The goal is 85 medium droplets per square centimetre and 10-15% coverage on 80% of the target surfaces for most insecticides and fungicides. If there are still drenches or misses, or if you’ve gone too far in a few positions, correct them and try once more. This is iterative. Make sure the sprayer operator will not be spraying in particularly hot or windy conditions, or your calibration at the top of the target can be compromised. Once you are both satisfied, work out the new sprayer output per area (e.g. US gpa or L/ha). You will have to discuss whether the operator plans to concentrate the tank mix to maintain the labelled “per area” rate (not recommended by me) or will continue to mix the tank as always and simply drive further on it (recommended by me). The later is called “Crop-Adapted Spraying“. Don’t push because it’s their livelihood, and therefore their choice.
11) The final step relies on how well you’ve earned the sprayer operator’s trust throughout this process. Once you have an output and spray distribution that you are both happy with, the operator should invest in molded ceramic tips that emit similar rates to replace the brass disc-core. Then, they must be willing to repeat the process on any crops that are significantly different to ensure they have the right settings. Sometimes only modest changes are required between blocks. Perhaps they will dedicate certain sprayers to certain blocks to reduce the number of changes required. In either case, they will have to revisit these settings as the season progresses to compensate for denser and/or larger canopies.
A few examples
The following figures illustrate three airblast calibrations in Ontario apple orchards from spring 2014. Some required one attempt; others required a few trial settings before we achieved reasonable coverage. In all three cases, the sprayer operators reduced per-area rates, bought new nozzles and planned to buy water-sensitive paper. Further, they indicated they would continue to monitor ribbons (as long as they could be seen) and would review coverage after petal-fall.
Several nozzles shut off, spray re-distributed. Targets still drenched in two locations with a 24% savings in spray mix.Three successive re-calibrations were required. Output was reduced in the first trial, but poor coverage in position 3. Top nozzles turned off and spray re-distributed in trial 2, but a gust of wind reduced coverage at the top of the tree. Bottom nozzles turned off and spray redistributed to top nozzles for a 40% savings in spray mix.Output reduced in all nozzle positions and sprayer fan speed reduced. The high humidity greatly reduced droplet evaporation and increased the spread on the papers. In this case, it was decided not to reduce output any further to account for anticipated growth and the high humidity. There was a 27% savings in spray mix.
Conclusion
So, the next time you calibrate an airblast sprayer, be sure to teach the sprayer operator (and audience) what you are doing and why. Involve and engage them. Answer their questions. Encourage them to perform the same calibration for each significantly different block and make mid-season changes. With luck they will only call back to report success and savings, and not to condemn your efforts, or worse: to ask you to re-calibrate their sprayer!
Some pesticide labels require or prohibit certain droplet sizes to reduce the potential for drift. But, even when labels are silent about size restrictions, operators should be aware of the potential for droplet size to affect coverage. In the case of airblast, droplets should be:
large enough to survive evaporation between nozzle and target.
small enough to adhere without drifting off course.
plentiful enough to provide uniform coverage without compromising productivity (e.g. affecting refills and travel speed).
Once spray leaves the nozzle, the operator has no more control over the application, so it’s important to plan for as many contributing factors as possible. Deciding which nozzles to use (and yes, you have alternatives beyond disc-core), requires an understanding spray quality symbols and basic droplet behaviour.
Spray Quality
Droplet diameter is measured in microns (µm). For a given pressure, a nozzle creates a range of droplet sizes which are described by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) standard S572.3 (Feb. 2020) In North America, these spray quality ratings range from “Extremely Fine – XF” to “Ultra Coarse – UC”. For interest, the scale is based on the British Crop Protection Council (BCPC) system, which is slightly different.
To make sense of the spray quality rating, we must first understand that not every droplet produced by a hydraulic nozzle is the same size. We noted that a single nozzle produces a range of droplet sizes. Spray quality captures that span using a few key metrics. The first is the Volume Median Diameter (VMD) or DV0.5. Think of it this way: Let’s say you have a hollow cone nozzle that breaks a volume of liquid up into droplets. Let’s arrange them from finest to coarsest as in the following graph.
The DV0.5 refers to the droplet size where half the spray volume is comprised droplets smaller than the DV0.5, and the other half is comprised of larger droplets. But we need more to understand the variation in the population. In other words, are they all the same size, or do they vary a great deal?
That’s why we also assign a DV0.1 which tells us the droplet size where 10% of the spray volume is comprised of smaller droplets, and a DV0.9 which indicates that 10% of the spray volume is comprised of larger droplets. Let’s add them to the graph:
With all three numbers, we can calculate the Relative Span (RS) by subtracting the DV0.1 from the DV0.9 and dividing by the DV0.5. The smaller the resulting number, the less variation there is in the spray quality. Two nozzles might produce a range of droplets with the same DV0.5, but the one with the larger RS is more variable, and is more likely to drift. Since we don’t typically have access to the RS of each nozzle, we rely on the spray quality symbols in nozzle catalogues to alert us to potential drift issues.
Relative Droplet Size
Did you notice in the graph that there are a lot of Fine droplets compared to Coarse? Disc-core (or disc-whirl) nozzles do not have spray quality ratings, and moulded hollow cones may or may not. This is, in part, because the standard was developed for flat fan nozzles, but mostly it arises from the nature of airblast spraying. No matter the original droplet diameter, the air shear from the sprayer and the distance-to-target reduce the DV0.5 considerably by the time spray reaches the target. It is safe to assume that the final spray quality will be much finer than the nozzle’s rating.
Incidentally, this is a big difference between boom sprayers and airblast: Where the boom sprayer operator should be aware of how pressure affects droplet size, it’s of little consequence to an airblast operator. On an airblast sprayer, pressure really only affects nozzle rate.
So, while shear and evaporation raise drift potential, shear also increases droplet count. Imagine the volume a nozzle emits as a cake. No matter how many slices you cut the cake into, you still have the same amount of cake. The finer the slices, the more people can have a slice, albeit not very much. Similarly, a single Coarse droplet can contain the same volume as many finer droplets. Mathematically, a droplet with diameter X represents the same volume as eight droplets with diameters of 1/2X. See the illustration below:
The eight to one rule: Every time the diameter of a droplet spray is doubled, there are eight times fewer droplets. Conversely, every time the diameter of a droplet is halved, there are eight times more.
Droplet Behaviour
The droplets that comprise the spray behave differently from one another. Finer droplets have a low settling velocity, which means they take a long time to fall out of the air. Conversely, coarser droplets fall out of the air more quickly. Think of how a ping pong ball (the finer droplet) has much less mass than a golf ball (the coarser droplet). When thrown into the wind, the golf ball follows a simple trajectory before falling. The ping-pong ball behaves erratically, like a soap bubble. Wind, thermals, humidity and many other factors will change where it goes because it is too light to resist them. It may even land behind the thrower, blown by the prevailing wind.
It is because of the behaviour of finer droplets, and the airblast sprayer’s inclination to create them, that we must be so diligent when we adjust the air settings.
We once explored this at a nursery workshop. The operator was spraying whips, which are young trees with very few lateral branches. He used a cannon sprayer to cover 30 rows (15 from each side) and felt he would incur less drift if he just used pressure, not air, to propel the spray. Water sensitive paper exposed the erratic coverage that resulted. Coverage uniformity was greatly improved when air was used, even when only spraying from one side of the 30 row block. Of course, this was only to demonstrate a principle; we don’t recommend alternate-row-middle-spraying.
Air-induction nozzles can be used to increase the median droplet size on an airblast sprayer. When used in the top nozzles positions, the coarser droplets that miss the top of tall targets will ultimately fall (reducing drift). They can also be used in positions that correspond to restricted airflow. In this case the operator relies on pressure to propel the coarser droplets where there is limited air to carry finer droplets.
Conclusion
The net result of all this is that the sprayer operator must choose a nozzle, pressure, and travel speed while considering the effect of distance-to-target and the weather. The resultant range of droplets should be fine enough to increase droplet count and be carried by sprayer air to deposit uniformly throughout the canopy. However, droplets should also be coarse enough to reduce drift if they miss.
Hey, if it was easy, anyone could do it!
Move ahead to 29:40 to watch a video describing how droplets behave an misbehave. Ahhhh Covid-hair. It was a thing.
This research was performed with Dennis Van Dyk, OMAFA Vegetable Crop Specialist.
In 2018, MS Gregson introduced a line of electrostatic sprayers (the Ecostatik) in Canada. While electrostatic technology has been used in agriculture since the 1980’s, this is the first time ground rigs have been so readily available to Ontario (possibly Canadian) growers.
The 3-point hitch Ecostatik can be configured for vertical booms or for banded/broadcast applications. The largest version has a 150 gallon tank, 10 gallon rinse tank and 72 nozzles on 7.5″ centres on a 60 foot boom. That model requires a 75 HP tractor, but 100 HP is preferred. The manufacturer claims the Ecostatik uses 50% less spray mix, gives superior underleaf coverage, and loses less spray to the soil compared to conventional methods.
Ecostatik 3-point hitch electrostatic sprayer. 14′ boom model pictured.
Objective
In the summer of 2018 we evaluated and compared the electrostatic sprayer to conventional application methods at the University of Guelph’s Holland Marsh Research Station. Our goal was to assess spray coverage and physical drift in a vegetable crop.
Treatment 2: Conventional Air Induction (AI) flat fan tip at 50 gpa (468 L/ha).
Treatment 3: Ecostatik at 11.8 gpa (110 L/ha): electric charge on.
Treatment 4: Ecostatik at 11.8 gpa (110 L/ha): electric charge off.
Sprayer set-ups
Conventional Sprayer
11.5 ft (3.5 m) boom with 20” (50 cm) nozzle spacing set 18” (45 cm) from nozzle to top of crop.
Treatment 1: D3-DC25 HC @ 140 psi and 3 km/h. SC-1 SpotOn calibration vessel (SC-1) gave an average flow of 1.36 L/min (0.36 gpm). Very Fine spray quality.
Treatment 2: AI11003 AI @ 80 psi and 4 km/h. At 50 psi, SC-1 gave an average flow of 1.21 L/min (0.32 gpm). Very Coarse spray quality.
Ecostatik Sprayer
15 ft (~4.5 m) boom with 7.5” (19 cm) nozzle spacing set 18” (45 cm) from nozzle to top of crop.
With tractor set to 2,100 rpms, avg. air speed was measured using a Kestrel wind meter. The turbulent nature of the air precluded testing with a Pitot meter. At 5″ from the nozzle: 71.5 mph (32 m/s). At 10″: 37.5 mph (16.6 m/s). At 18″ (target distance): 21 mph (9.4 m/s).
The MaxCharge nozzles contained TeeJet CP4916-16 flow regulator orifice plates. At 25 psi they should have emitted 0.020 gpm. However, the SC-1 indicated a consistent 0.034 gpm from multiple nozzles. We postulate that the air assist created a low pressure environment that increased flow. Extremely Fine spray quality.
Treatment 3: Electric charge of -16 µA (tested using a voltmeter set to 200 µA) and speed of 3.7 km/h.
Treatment 4: Electric charge off and speed of 3.7 km/h.
The Ecostatik boomTesting electrostatic charge with a voltmeter. Hair standing on end was a fun extra.
Experimental Design
Fluorimetry
We used the fluorescent dye Rhodamine WT as a coverage indicator. This allowed us to take tissue samples to evaluate deposition, rather than rely on analogs like water sensitive paper. Further, the dye is detectable in parts per billion concentrations, making it sensitive enough for detection in drift studies.
The conventional sprayer received 40 gallons (151.5L) of water dosed with 303.5 mL dye (i.e. 2 mL / L).
The electrostatic sprayer 20 gallons (75.75 L) of water dosed with 151.5 mL dye (i.e. 2 mL / L).
A sample of the tank mix was collected from the nozzle prior to each application. It was later used to calibrate the fluorimeter for samples taken during that application.
Tissue samples were removed and dried to establish their dry weight.
Rhodamine WT pooling on carrot (and weeds) as boom charged prior to application.
Spray Coverage
We chose to spray carrot on 20″ (50 cm) spacing on August 30, when the crop canopy was densest and represented the most challenging target. Our targets were leaflets located about mid canopy depth, and 1″ lengths of stem just above the crown. A diagram illustrating the experimental design appears later in the article.
Fluorimetry lab station. Inset: A typical length of stem and a leaflet with a Sharpie for scale.Drawing a tank sample prior to application. Carrot canopy was mature and very dense.
12 m blocks were randomly flagged for each treatment. There were 3 blocks per treatment. 4 treatments * 3 replications = 12 blocks.
Temperature, windspeed, humidity and time were recorded prior to each application.
Three plants were randomly sampled from each block. These sub samples were averaged to get a single data point. 3 replicated blocks x 4 treatments x 6 subsamples = 72 tissue samples (36 leaflets and 36 stems).
Samples were collected 60 seconds after spraying ended, placed in sample tubes pre-filled with 40 mL of water and immediately placed in the dark.
Drift
We also performed an analysis of physical drift for each treatment.
4″ lengths of pipecleaner mounted vertically ~12″ above the crop canopy as drift collectors.
They were placed in a straight line from the middle of the boom at 1 m, 2 m, 4 m, 8 m and 16 m downwind.
Samples were collected 60 seconds after spraying ended, placed in sample tubes pre-filled with 40 mL of water and immediately placed in the dark.
Spray coverage spray drift trial block design.
The following graph shows the coverage observed in µL rhodamine per dry weight of tissue sampled. Bars represent standard error. Each treatment represents three passes (n=3) where each pass included three sub-samples averaged to offset the high variability inherit to spraying. While statistical analysis did not prove significant, there were strong trends. The AI nozzle deposited more dye on the leaves, while the HC and both electrostatic applications were par. Stem coverage achieved in conventional applications was approximately double that of the electrostatic. However, note that the electrostatic system only applied 1/5 of the volume sprayed conventionally.
When the data is normalized to depict a 500 L/ha application for all treatments, a different story emerges (see below). Now foliar coverage is 25-100% better for electrostatic applications than conventional. Stem coverage is twice that of conventional. Unexpectedly, the uncharged electrostatic treatment outperformed the charged treatment on the leaves. This might be the result of variability in the application, or the result of coronal discharge which can occur when pointy leaves repel charged droplets. This suspicion might be supported by the similar coverage achieved on the stems in both Treatment 3 and 4. You can read more about the Corona Discharge Effect in this article.
Regarding drift, we will focus on the normalized data (where all treatments are adjusted to 500 L/ha). An analysis of variance indicated with 95% confidence that the electrostatic treatments drifted significantly more than conventional (approximately 5x more rhodamine detected). Particle drift follows an inverse square rule, where levels decline with distance, but the decline is only minor in all treatments. This may be a function of weather conditions, coupled with the limited distance investigated.
Winds averaged 6.5 km/h gusting up to 10 km/h at boom height. Temperatures were between 15-17°C and relative humidity at ~70%. These conditions are conducive to drift as droplets are less likely to evaporate and in the case of Very Fine droplets, travel great distances. Many drift studies extend to 300 m from the point of application, whereas we were unable to monitor beyond 16 m. The downward trend would likely have been observed were we able to sample further downwind.
Observations
Our data supports the manufacturer’s claim that the electrostatic sprayer has the potential to match the coverage from a conventional application while using 50% less water and pesticide. It is unclear whether the electrostatic charge plays a role in this coverage, or if it is the result of the Very Fine spray quality and air assist (which have been demonstrated to improve canopy penetration). Further, it is unclear whether the charge may actually have been detrimental in the carrot crop. Claims of improved coverage uniformity were not explored in this study, but observations of water-sensitive paper in soybean (see image below) did indicate consistent under-leaf coverage, even at 50% application volume.
The five-fold increase in drift potential is a significant barrier for this technology. The spray cloud is comprised of like-charged particles that expand in three dimensions, which improves coverage uniformity and penetration into the canopy, but also causes droplets to expand up and out of the canopy. Air assist is used to propel them downward, but the turbulent 9.4 m/s windspeed seemed excessive, even for a dense carrot crop.
It is possible that focussing and reducing that airspeed may also reduce drift without compromising coverage. Presently, the air shear design of the Ecostatik’s MaxCharge nozzles prevent the operator from reducing the air speed without compromising spray quality. And, even if air speed could be reduced, the spray quality must remain Very Fine to achieve an optimal mass-to-charge ratio, and will therefore always carry an inherently high drift potential.
Thanks to Kevin Van der Kooi for spraying, and Laura Riches, Tamika Bishop, Terisa Set, Christine Dervaric, Claire Penstone and Aki Shimizu for sample collection.Special thanks to Cora Loucks for assistance with statistical analysis and Martin Brunelle of MS Gregson for providing the Ecostatik for evaluation.
Dear reader: This article is intended to provide basic information on how electrostatic sprayers work in an agricultural setting. The author does not sell or manufacture sprayers. If your interest is related to spraying disinfectant in private or commercial settings, please contact retailers or manufacturers of electrostatic sprayers.
Listen to article
Electrostatic nozzles have been tested in agriculture since the late 1970’s. Predominantly used in aerial applications, they are sometimes employed on airblast sprayers in orchard and berry operations, and on horizontal booms in vegetable crops. To a lesser extent, they are even mounted on wands for low acreage applications.
Claims
Independent research, manufacturer claims and user testimonials are intriguing:
Improved retention (>50% better than conventional) and/or potential savings of 50% spray mix.
Reduction in losses to soil.
Improved efficacy with both insect and disease control.
So it begs the question: “Why doesn’t everyone have an electrostatic sprayer?” We performed a study in carrot in Ontario’s Holland Marsh to explore some of the claims and to get a first-hand experience with the technology. That article might help answer the question. But first, read this article which explores the basic principles behind how electrostatic applications work.
Charging the Droplet
Spray is charged by a high voltage supercharger. Commonly, the charge is induced by an electrode positioned close to the atomizing spray plume as droplets begin to form. This is referred to as coronal discharge. An intense electric field imparts a positive or negative charge depending on the polarity of the DC power used. Think of it as high-voltage static electricity.
Sometimes the spray is atomized by a hydraulic nozzle (e.g. a hollow cone) and sometimes using an air-shear nozzle. The latter has the added advantage of blowing droplets away from the electrode and projecting them into the canopy.
Let’s consider a negatively-charged droplet (see diagram below). The droplet becomes polarized when it passes through the electric field. The field attracts electrons to the droplet surface and repels positrons towards the centre. The droplet now has its own field that electrically motivates it to land on neutral objects. As they approach such an object, the negative charge on the droplet surface repels mobile electrons on the surface of the target, which redistribute, creating a relative positive charge on the surface and attract the droplet.
Another style of electrostatic technology employs a highly charged plate along the air outlet of the sprayer, generally attached just inside the duct. The clearance between the droplets and the plates is quite large in relation to that in a twin-fluid atomizer, coil-type charging system.
Droplet Size
Droplet size is a critical factor. Droplets must be large enough to resist evaporation and drift but small enough that the charge can change their trajectory when it comes close to a target (I.e., the Charge-to-Mass Ratio). Most electrostatic nozzles produce ~50 µm droplets, categorized in agriculture as Very Fine. For comparison, a human hair ranges from 20 to 180 µm. Fog is about 5 µm. Such a small droplet means that the distance between nozzle and canopy is a determining factor for the spray depositing, or drifting.
Droplet Behaviour
Many forces influence droplet behaviour (E.g., inertia, wind, gravity, etc.). Very Fine droplets have a low terminal velocity causing them to fall slowly (~40 seconds to fall 3 m). This makes them highly drift-prone. However, simulations have shown that a charged droplet released close to a grounded target would be “pulled” faster than an uncharged droplet. Further, their trajectories would be less affected by air movement and they have the potential to move upwards against gravity towards the underside of a leaf.
Of course the droplets must reach the canopy before any of these potential advantages can be realized. Even with air-assist to project the spray into the canopy, it has been shown that the droplet must be within two centimetres of the target before attraction improves deposition. There are many physical phenomena that influence this process:
The Faraday Cage Effect can occur when spraying dense canopies. The spray deposits on the first grounded object it encounters. This is the outer surfaces of the canopy and the spray can be prevented from moving deeper into dense canopies. Regarding arable crops, there is often a naturally occurring negative charge on the earth’s surface that repels negatively charged spray. This may be why studies often report reduced loss to soil.
The Corona Effect is a very complicated relationship between the shape, density and spacing of the crop and it’s influence on charged spray. Research has shown that deposition is better for rounded targets than pointed. The gaseous exchange of charges between leaf tips and spray can neutralize or even repel droplets. This may be why electrostatic demonstrations so often include fruit or spheres.
The Expansion Cloud Effect (or cooler, the “Space Cloud” Effect) describes how charged droplets are repelled by objects with a like charge. Coulomb’s Law describes how objects with an opposite charge attract, but it also says objects with a like charge repel. Since the droplets all have the same charge, they repel each other. While this causes the plume to expand into the canopy and helps to distribute the droplets to give uniform coverage, it also causes droplets to expand upwards away from the crop, making them susceptible to drift.
Observations
The opportunity for reduced pesticide use is appealing and it may entice consumers to consider the electrostatic sprayer as a more environmentally-conscious choice. However, we have found very few studies relating to drift, and opinions are mixed whether electrostatic applications are any more drift-prone than conventional applications.
Considered collectively, electrostatic applications seem to perform well in controlled conditions, but the complications arising from variability in a natural environment coupled with the cost of equipment has slowed adoption. The current rules for practical adoption are poorly defined. More fulsome drift studies are required and coverage uniformity and canopy penetration (particularly from ground rig systems) must be consistent in real world settings.
Nevertheless, electrostatic applications have a lot of “potential”.
