In Part One of this article, we showed that approximately 40% of minor use label expansions and registrant submissions rely on data from hand booms and guns. We also showed that a hydraulic backpack or knapsack will not give the same coverage as an airblast sprayer, and we concluded by suggesting that small plot researchers use spray equipment that reflects grower practices.

Unfortunately, practical logistics prevent most researchers from using a full-size airblast sprayer. They may not have access to such a sprayer, and if they do, it takes considerable time to mix and clean between treatments. Further, treatments are often only a single row, or even a single plant. It takes too much pesticide, too much time, and too much plot space to justify using a full-sized airblast sprayer, even if the relevance of the results are questionable.

Would another method of application better emulate an airblast application but retain the convenience of a hand boom or gun?

The motorized backpack mistblower

Using the same methods used to compare airblast to hand boom spray coverage in the previous article, we compared airblast sprayer coverage to that of a motorized backpack mistblower in grape, raspberry and peach (July, 2013). Once again, coverage was analyzed as overall percent coverage (see first graph) and droplet density (average droplets per square centimeter – see second graph).

Results and Observations

The mistblower met, or in the case of droplet density, exceeded the coverage obtained using an air blast sprayer in most crops. The results led to a few observations:

• The significantly-higher droplet density is a function of the Finer spray quality produced by the mistblower (see water sensitive papers below). This may still represent a confound between small plot work and large scale airblast applications.
• Drift between proximal treatments may be an issue given how far the mist was blown. This should be considered when planning plots.
• While not shown here, spray coverage was more consistent throughout each canopy, of each crop, when using the mistblower. This is likely because the operator was able to aim the output as they swept the spray over the canopy, thereby ensuring all surfaces were hit from multiple angles.
• While we always try to be brand-neutral, it should be noted that we’ve used multiple Solo mistblowers over the years, and all of them required significant maintenance (no matter how they were cleaned and stored). It was very difficult to find brand parts and repair expertise in Ontario. The Stihl brand currently has far more dealers, and more accessible parts, and has not caused us any difficulties (yet).
• Always use the highest grade gasoline in two-stroke engines to avoid ethanol gumming up the carburetors!
• Always calibrate mistblowers by volume because raising and lowering the boom will affect the flow rate.

Conclusion

Hand booms, and likely hand guns, are not appropriate for testing agrichemical products intended for use with an airblast sprayer. Data derived from these methods should be questioned. An airblast sprayer is the best choice for any such research, but a mistblower is a viable alternative. Transparent, standardized operating protocols for testing products intended for use in airblast sprayers should be required.

Thanks to Vaughan Agricultural Research Services Ltd. for their assistance in the research performed for this article.

Peer-reviewed journal publications claim there is a significant difference in spray coverage and deposition patterns when an agrichemical product is applied using an airblast sprayer versus a hydraulic hand boom. An airblast sprayer creates Fine droplets that shear in entraining air and are carried into a plant canopy. Properly calibrated, the air opens the canopy to expose all target surfaces to the spray. By comparison, a hand boom relies on pressure to propel fine droplets into a canopy, and while there is some air-entrainment surrounding the spray, it cannot travel as far or displace as much canopy. As a result, most of it impacts on the outer surfaces of the canopy.

Knowing this, it is surprising that so many products intended for use with airblast sprayers are applied by researchers and consultants using hand booms or the high-pressure arborist-style handgun (see ‘Survey of Submissions’).

In 2012, we performed some research with the following goals:

• To demonstrate the difference between spray deposition and coverage when using a hand boom versus an airblast sprayer.
• To create a sound basis for questioning and potentially improving how agrichemical products for orchard, bush, and vine are tested in Canada.

Using water-sensitive paper to diagnose spray coverage, airblast sprayer application was compared to hand boom application in highbush blueberry, apple and grape.

Sprayers were calibrated to emit the same volume per planted area via hollow-cone nozzles. Volumes selected were based on typical application volumes for Pristine or Captan (commonly sprayed in Canada). While there is no standardized protocol (and there should be) we followed typical practices of 500L/ha for grapes, blueberry and apples until plant growth warrants higher carrier volumes. At that point, many researchers go up to 1,000 L/ha. Coverage was quantified by collecting and digitally scanning water-sensitive papers to calculate overall percent coverage (see graph) and droplet density (average droplets per square centimeter – see graph).

Conclusion

In all cases, airblast applications deposit > %50 more spray than a hand boom. In the case of grape, you’ll note there are three bars. This is because spraying 1,000 L/ha with the airblast sprayer drenched the targets (it was late in the season and the canopy was sparse), making it impossible to discern droplet density. When we reduced the output to  375 L/ha, we were able to register droplet density, which was still significantly higher than that produced by the hand boom at 1,000 L/ha. This raises significant questions about the validity of efficacy and residue studies performed with hand booms when growers apply the same products using airblast sprayers.

When this data was shared at extension conferences, it was sometimes noted that many researchers choose to spray the target until it is drenched, ensuring the dose administered to the crop reflects what was intended. This does not, however, invalidate the fact that a growers spray equipment and practices are significantly different, and the dose and spray distribution they achieve will not reflect the original research.

The recommendation is that researchers use the same equipment to test products as the growers use to apply them. But, recognizing the difficulties associated with performing small plot experiments with full-sized airblast sprayers, an alternative is needed. That topic will be addressed in part two of this article.

Horticultural Crops Ontario, the grower co-operators and former OMAFRA summer student Carly Decker are gratefully acknowledged for making this research possible.