Tag: airblast

Establishing an Optimal Airblast Carrier Volume

North American product labels may or may not include carrier volume recommendations. When they do, it could be based on a two-dimensional value like the planted area, or perhaps on row length which is more appropriate for trellised crops that form contiguous hedge-like canopy walls. Volume may be tied to product concentration, which sets minimum and maximum volumes based on product rates. Or, more commonly, volume recommendations take the form of vague guidelines such as “Spray to drip” or “Use enough volume to achieve good coverage”.

In all cases, spray efficacy and efficiency can be greatly improved by dialing-in the carrier volume to optimize coverage uniformity and reduce off-target spraying. This is easier said than done because the optimal spray volume is case-specific. It depends on a complicated relationship between:

Weather conditions (E.g. temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction)
Sprayer design (E.g. air handling, droplet size and flow distribution over the boom)
Traffic pattern (E.g. every row or alternate row)
Product chemistry (E.g. mode of action and formulation).
Target (E.g. Crop morphology, planting architecture)

It is the final variable, the nature of the target, which is the focus of this article. To learn more about the other variables, grab a copy of Airblast101.

The plant canopy and planting architecture dictate volume

Quite often, the target in airblast applications is the plant canopy. The plant canopy is the collective structure containing all plant surfaces. This could be the foliar portion of a single pecan tree, a panel of grapes, or a bay of container crops. The planting architecture describes how those canopies are arranged on the planted area. If we consider the canopy and architecture geometrically, we can make relative statements about the volume required when all other variables are equal.

Six geometric characteristics of the plant canopy and planting architecture.

Geometric Characteristic	Relationship to Carrier Volume (per unit planted area)
Row Spacing	The greater the row spacing, the less volume needed.
Plant Spacing	The greater the plant spacing, the less volume needed. This assumes gaps between the canopies (I.e. not a contiguous hedgerow).
*Canopy Depth	The greater the canopy depth, the more volume needed.
*Canopy Width	The greater the canopy width, the more volume needed.
*Canopy Height	The higher the canopy, the more volume needed.
Canopy Density	The denser the canopy, the more volume needed.

*The product of average canopy depth, width and height is the canopy volume. This value forms the basis for many dose expression models and historic carrier volume calculators such as Tree Row Volume.

Canopy density

Let’s focus on a single plant canopy. Research has demonstrated that with the possible exception of canopy height, canopy density has the greatest influence on optimal sprayer settings. Density describes the amount of matter inside a canopy relative to the volume of space it occupies. The denser the canopy, the more surface area there is to cover and the more difficult it is for spray to penetrate. While air handling plays a significant role in improving coverage, a denser canopy will almost always require a greater carrier volume.

When two physiologically diverse blocks share an alley, use the sprayer settings suitable for the larger of the two. It’s more important to ensure good coverage on the big block than to save on the smaller. — When two morphologically-diverse blocks share an alley, a two-sided, every-row sprayer should employ settings suitable for the larger of the two. It’s more important to ensure good coverage on the big block than to save on the smaller. Once the hybrid row is sprayed, settings should be modified to suit the block.

For most perennial crops, canopy density changes over the growing season. The influence of age and staging on canopy size and density will depend on the crop variety, plant health and canopy management practices. The practical implication is that as the canopy grows and fills it typically warrants an increase in spray volume. As illustrated in the figure below, the volume used should reflect the current stage of canopy development. If a volume suitable for the densest and largest stage of development is used all season, it will create a great deal of waste early in the season. However, if volume is increased incrementally to reflect canopy growth, a better fit between coverage and volume will minimize waste. In the image below, volume is increased around petal fall, but the fit could be improved with more increments. Caution is advised to ensure the volume is raised (if required) prior to immediate need, particularly during key developmental stages like bud break or bloom where fungicide coverage is critical.

The curved line represents the leaf area in a canopy (Y-axis, right) increasing over the growing season (X-axis). The volume of the spray (Y-axis, left) providing effective coverage is indicated in green. Spraying the same volume throughout the season means a lot of over-spray (red) early in the season. The target simply isn’t there yet. Using less volume early season and changing about midway through the season, or as required by canopy development, has the potential to save a lot of spray (blue) without compromising spray coverage. Note that the first volume should give sufficient coverage to reach mid-season, and the second volume should be sufficient to reach the end of the spraying season. Always err on the side of excessive coverage to buffer against the impact of unanticipated variables.

There are exceptions to this rule. Many nursery crops and mature evergreens often do not require changes to volume. High density apple orchards may or may not require an increase in volume. Early in the season, sparse canopies have low profiles that result in very low catch efficiencies. In other words, a great deal of spray misses the target. The amount of waste is a function of the application equipment design and the weather conditions. Most low-profile axial airblast systems envelop the target in spray with limited means of reducing air energy sufficiently, or to turn off the spray between trees. Further, sparse canopies do not restrict wind, which means ambient wind speed tends to be higher early in the season compared to when the trees become wind breaks. This creates a drift-prone situation and higher volumes are often used to compensate for the loss. The collective result is that excess spray volume is inevitable early season. As the canopies fill, the wind is reduced and catch efficiency increases, so trees intercept more spray without having to raise volumes. This balance eventually tips, however, and an increase in volume may be advisable.

Watch the following video to see the impact of using excessive spray volume (and poor air adjustment settings) in a young cherry orchard. The waste becomes particularly apparent at ~43 seconds when the sprayer passes in front of the woods and the plume can be seen with higher contrast. While some loss is inevitable in such a sparse canopy wall, this situation could be improved by using less carrier volume, larger droplets, the correct air settings, canopy-sensing optics and/or a tower or wrap-around sprayer design.

Adjusting spray volume sprayer settings to reflect the canopy can save money and reduce environmental impact during early-season applications and in young plantings. Mix the tank as you normally would to maintain the pesticide concentration on the label, but adjust the sprayer output to match the plant size. Performed correctly, you will be able to go further on a tank without compromising efficacy. This crop-adapted spraying method and the relationship between spray volume, concentration and dose are described further in this article and this article.

Estimating volume from canopy geometry

It is challenging to decide on an appropriate spray volume. Many operators resort to historical or regional practices and do not make adjustments to reflect their specific situation. Others refer to models such as Tree Row Volume (a.k.a. Canopy Row Volume) which relates canopy volume per planted area to spray volume. In this case, catch efficacy is expressed as a coverage factor, which is determined through experimentation specific to the crop, environment and sprayer.

Tree Row Volume = (Avg. Canopy Height × Avg. Canopy Spread × Planted Area) ÷ Row Spacing

Spray Volume = Tree Row Volume × Coverage Factor

In New Zealand, coverage factors for dilute applications to deciduous canopies range from 0.007 to 0.1 L/m³ (0.00052 to 0.00075 US gal/ft³). The range captures variation in canopy density and any product-specific coverage requirements. Oil sprays, for example, require more surface coverage than most products. While closer to “the truth”, the Tree Row Volume method is still only an estimate.

If the operator has no prior experience with the crop or the sprayer and wants a sanity-check on their estimated spray volume, we propose the following guidelines for full canopy dilute application to mature crops using every-row traffic patterns. The volumes may seem high, but recognize we have selected a very challenging scenario.

Small canopies (E.g. bush, vine, cane, high-density fruiting wall): 500 L/ha (55 US gal./ac.) to 1,000 L/ha (110 US gal./ac.).
Medium canopies (E.g. tender fruit, pome): 750 L/ha (80 US gal./ac.) to 1,250 L/ha (135 US gal./ac.).
Large canopies (E.g. tree nut, citrus): >2,000 L/ha (214 gal./ac.) and up tp 7,000 L/ha (748 US gal./ac.).
For sprayer operators that think in 100 m row lengths, consider 20 L volume per 100 m row length per 1 m canopy height.

Further Resources

No matter the approach to determining spray volume, it is imperative that coverage is assessed. It is amazing what we ask of airblast sprayers. Read this short article for some perspective on the coverage we hope to achieve from a given spray volume. We propose the use of water-sensitive paper to assess spray coverage. We describe its use and evaluation in detail in this article, this article and in this article. Dialing-in an optimal spray volume is an iterative process that requires careful observation and keeping records on what works and what doesn’t for your specific operation.

Jon Clements (University of Massachusetts) wrote a great blog post on the subject of TRV. He warns about special considerations when it comes to establishing effective volumes for plant growth regulators and links to a factsheet called Spray Mixing Instructions – Considering Tree Row Volume. The factsheet was written in 2021 by Terence Robinson and Poliana Francescatto (Cornell University) and Win Cowgill (Professor Emeritus, Rutgers University).

Finally, if you really want to get lost the weeds, check out this video recorded in 2021. I had an opportunity to learn from pros like Dr. Terence Bradshaw (University of Vermont) and participants from the Great Lakes region. They’ll tell you all you ever wanted to know about Tree Row Volume. Settle in!

Thanks to Mark Ledebuhr of Application Insight LLC for his contributions to this article.

November 1, 2024

Determining Airblast Travel Speed – The “Air Displacements” Method

The concept of Air Displacements was developed by Dr. David Manktelow, Applied Research and Technologies Ltd.

What is the “right” speed to drive when spraying?

Airblast sprayer operators must know their average travel speed to calculate how much pesticide and time is required to complete a spray job. Note that it’s an average, not a constant, because travel speed is significantly affected by ground surface conditions (e.g. slippage), grade (e.g. hills) and the weight of the rig (e.g. as spray mix is depleted).

The pursuit of productivity and the unchallenged status quo of traditional spray volumes, blinds many operators to the fact that travel speed is a critical factor in focusing air energy on the target canopy. As long as droplets are small enough to be entrained and directed by the air, we believe that optimizing the fit between air energy and the target canopy leads to the most frugal and effective use of spray mix and should therefore dictate travel speed. If that speed proves to be painfully slow, or terrifyingly fast, then a mismatch is revealed between the sprayer design and the operational conditions and the overall spraying strategy should be reconsidered.

This article describes a method for modelling an ideal travel speed. It can be used as a sanity check for existing operations or for those seeking to evaluate the fit of a new airblast sprayer. However, this method can only approximate travel speed. A true optimization of sprayer settings will require fine tuning using the ribbon method and, ultimately, coverage feedback from water sensitive paper (see here and an older article here). We’ll begin with how to measure average travel speed.

How to measure average travel speed

Beware the tractor speedometer or rate controller that monitors wheel rotations; both can be fooled by changes in wheel size, tire wear or slippage. GPS or radar-based speed sensors are the most accurate method.

Those that prefer a manual method can follow this classic protocol for determining average travel speed:

Go to a row that is representative of the terrain in your planting. Measure out a distance of 50 m (150 ft) and mark the start and finish positions with wire marker flags.
Fill the sprayer tank half full of water.
Select the gear and engine speed in which you intend to spray. If using a pull-behind sprayer, ensure the PTO is running or you could introduce errors.
Bring the sprayer up to speed for a running start and begin timing as the front wheel passes the first flag. This is far easier when there are two people.
Stop the timer as the front wheel passes the second flag.
Stay out of any ruts and run the course two more times.
Determine the average drive time for the three runs (i.e. the sum of all three times in seconds divided by three).
Finally, calculate travel speed using one of the following formulae, depending on preferred units:

Ground Speed (km/h) = Average drive time for 50 m (s) ÷ 13.9 (a constant)

Those that prefer a less accurate but convenient hack can download any smartphone speedometer app that can calculate an average (similar to a runner’s GPS wristwatch). Fill the sprayer tank half full and drive a representative section of your operation with the fan on and the spray off. Consult the phone for your average speed for each pass. Take a screen shot and email it to yourself as a time-stamped component of your spray records.

The “Air Displacements” method

Dwell time

Airblast sprayers use fans to move a volume of air at a certain speed, often measured in m³/hr or ft³/min. Imagine that volume of air as a three dimensional shape extending from the air outlet over a distance. Likewise, imagine the void between the sprayer outlet and the target canopy as a three dimensional shape penetrating roughly halfway into that canopy (assuming we intend to spray every row).

How long must the sprayer dwell in one spot before it pushes all the intervening air out of the way and replaces it with spray-laden air? If the sprayer drives too slowly, it will wastefully push spray through and beyond the target (i.e. blow-through). If the sprayer moves too quickly, the spray will not have an opportunity to penetrate the target canopy and most certainly not reach the highest point. This concept of focusing air energy using travel speed is called Dwell Time.

We want to calculate the volume of air the sprayer generates, compare that to the volume we want displaced, and then determine how fast we must drive to optimize the fit. We can do all this with a tape measure, an anemometer, and a partner to record the data and do a little math.

1. Measure air outlet area

With the sprayer safely off, measure the area of the air outlet(s) on one side of the sprayer. We’ll use a Turbomist 30P Low Drift Tower (below) as an example. There are two air outlets that are 5 cm wide by 150 cm high for a total area of 0.075 m² on each side. Be sure to look inside the outlet for any irregularities like baffles or obstructions intended to block air. Subtract those areas from the total. Don’t worry about small things like nozzle bodies.

For rectilinear outlets: Height (m) x width (m) = Area (m²)

For circular outlets: 3.14 x radius² (m) = Area (m²)

The air outlet on this Turbomist 30P Low Drift tower sprayer is 5 cm wide by 150 cm tall for a total area of 0.075 m².

2. Measure air speed

First, a few safety warnings: High speed air is loud and can carry debris, so always wear ear and eye protection and respect the hazards inherent to working with air-assist sprayers. Only use an anemometer rated for at least 160 km/h (100 mph) (e.g. here). Do not use a handheld weather meter such as a Kestrel because the impellor could be destroyed and become dangerous shrapnel.

Use an anemometer rated for at least 160 km/h (100 mph) (e.g. here). Do not use a handheld weather meter such as a Kestrel because the impellor could be destroyed and become dangerous shrapnel.

Bring the fan up to speed and holding the meter about 25 cm (10 in.) from the outlet, measure the air speed at several locations along the air outlet both vertically and horizontally. We calculate an average speed because many air outlets do not produce uniform air speed or volume along their outlets. For this example, we measured four locations along the air outlet on both sides of the sprayer and saw significant differences. We did this both in low and high gear (see table below).

	High Gear	High Gear	Low Gear	Low Gear
*Location Along Outlet*	*Left Side (m/s)*	*Right Side (m/s)*	*Left Side (m/s)*	*Right Side (m/s)*
Top 1/4	41.1	80.3	42.9	24.6
Upper	34.9	32.2	26.4	30.8
Lower	30.8	30.0	24.0	26.4
Bottom 1/4	33.5	40.2	26.8	31.3
Average	35.1	45.7	30.0	28.3

Anemometer readings from the low drift tower sprayer outlets, on left and right side, in high and low fan gear. Four readings from bottom to top to determine the average. Readings taken 25 cm from edge of outlet and PTO set to 540 rpm.

Multiple air outlets

Before we continue with the method, let’s change sprayers to this Turbomist 30P Grape Tower (below). The design is intended to spray adjacent rows from the vertical outlets (5 cm x 150 cm = 0.075 m²) along the tower. The upper, inverted outlets (10 cm x 63.5 cm = 0.0635m²) throw spray over the adjacent rows and cover the outside rows. The intention is to improve productivity by covering four rows of grape (or possibly three) per pass.

The Turbomist 30P Grape Tower Sprayer is a multirow system intended to drive every third or fourth row.

Lower, vertical ducts are 5 cm x 150 cm = 0.075 m²

Upper, inverted ducts are 10 cm x 63.5 cm = 0.0635m²

However, when we consider this design through the Air Displacement lens, it’s almost like having two sprayers performing two jobs simultaneously. The vertical outlets and the upper, inverted outlets are different shapes. Further, their position (distance and angle, as the top outlets are angled back more aggressively) relative to their respective target canopies are significantly different. How fast must this sprayer drive to optimize the fit? Do we have to compromise coverage and incur drift and waste from one set of outlets to accommodate the other set? The manufacturer has worked to address this potential issue by partitioning the majority of the air energy to the top outlets, but let’s see how that affects travel speed.

3. Total volumetric flow

Having already measured the outlet area, we then measured average air speed (see table below).

	High Gear	High Gear	Low Gear	Low Gear
*Location Along Outlet*	*Left Side (m/s)*	*Right Side (m/s)*	*Left Side (m/s)*	*Right Side (m/s)*
Top Outlet	27.0	26.5	27.0	26.0
Bottom Outlet	12.0	13.0	10.5	12.5

Average anemometer readings (n=4) for top and bottom outlets, on left and right side, in high and low fan gear. Readings taken 25 cm from edge of outlet and PTO set to 540 rpm.

Now we can use these two values to determine how much air the sprayer generates by calculating total volumetric flow. We first have to convert air speed from m/s to m/h to make the units work, so just multiply it by 3,600. Then we multiply that by the outlet area and we get the table below.

Average air speed (m/s) x 3,600 (a constant) = Average air speed (m/h)

Average air speed (m/h) x Outlet area (m²) = Total volumetric flow (m³/h)

	High Gear	High Gear	Low Gear	Low Gear
*Location Along Outlet*	*Left Side (m³/h)*	*Right Side (m³/h)*	*Left Side (m³/h)*	*Right Side (m³/h)*
Top Outlet	6,172.0	6,058.0	6,172.0	5,944.0
Bottom Outlet	3,240.0	3,510.0	2,835.0	3,375.0

Total volumetric flow for top and bottom outlets, on left and right side, in high and low fan gear, with PTO at 540 rpm.

4. Target volume to displace

Now that we know the volume of air the sprayer generates, let’s determine the volume of air we need to replace with that spray laden air. This is really the only tricky bit because you have to picture a cross section and then measure the shape. See the illustration below.

For the bottom outlet, it’s simple. The outlet is 81 cm from the grape panel and the grape panel is 112 cm high. We calculate the area of a rectangle by multiplying length by width, so:

Length (cm) x Width (cm) = Area (cm²)

However, the sprayer design makes the top outlet’s job trickier to figure out. This isn’t a rectangle, it’s a “quadrilateral”. We get this odd shape when either the sprayer outlet or the target canopy are significantly taller than the other. Fortunately this one has a right angle so we don’t have to brush off our high school trigonometry textbooks. Instead, we can lean on the internet using this link and plug in the values. As we can see below, the cross sectional areas spanning from the outlets and the middle of the target canopies are 0.9 m² for the bottom outlet, and 2.35 m² for the upper outlets.

This gives us a cross sectional area, but we need to convert that to a volume so we can compare the air generated to the air needed. To do that, we multiply the cross sectional area by 100 m, representing how much air would be needed over 100 m of row length. The formula and the results are presented below.

Cross sectional area (m²) x 100 m of row length = Target displacement volume (m³)

*Outlet*	*Target Displacement Volume (m³)*
Top Outlet	235.0
Bottom Outlet	90.0

Target displacement volume for each outlet over 100 m of canopy row.

5. Displacement rate

We see the target displacement volumes for each outlet are significantly different. Assuming the air from the upper outlet maintains its integrity and reaches its target canopy without being blown off course, it must produce enough air energy to fill more than twice the displacement volume of the lower outlet. We can see from the earlier calculations that it does produce almost twice the total volumetric flow. But is it enough? To know we must calculate the Displacement Rate for each outlet. Let’s just focus on the left side of the sprayer in high gear.

Total volumetric flow (m³/h) ÷ Target Volume (m³) = Displacement Rate ( displacements/h)

*Outlet*	*Displacement Rate (displacements/h) for left side of sprayer* *in high gear*
Top Outlet	26.25
Bottom Outlet	36.0

Displacement rates for the outlets on the left side of the sprayer in high gear.

So we see that the outlets at the top of the sprayer, if stationary, could displace the target volume of air 26.25 times an hour. However, the lower outlet would displace its target volume 36 times in that same hour. We see that we might have a problem. But this is for a stationary sprayer and not a sprayer in motion. The last step gives us what we came here for.

6. Ideal travel speed

We can now determine the ideal travel speed for this sprayer using that same 100 m row length.

[Displacement rate (displacements/h) x 100 m of row length] ÷ 1,000 (a constant) = Ideal travel speed (km/h)

*Outlet*	*Ideal travel speed (km/h) based on left side of sprayer*
Top Outlet	2.6
Bottom Outlet	3.6

Ideal travel speed for each outlet on the left side of the sprayer in high gear.

As we stated at the beginning of this article, this is only a model. It doesn’t account for canopy density and assumes the spray laden volume of air produced by the sprayer can reach the target intact over a given distance. However it does indicate that there is a potential issue that will lead to either over spraying the adjacent row (slower travel speed) or under spraying the distant rows (faster travel speed) which could lead to waste, drift and poor coverage.

In the image below, we chose to drive close to 2.6 km/h in high gear. No effort was made to adjust the liquid flow (i.e. change the nozzles) so there was too much spray volume here, but we can see the losses on the left (upwind) side, and the blow-through three rows over on the right (downwind) side. Leaving aside the excessive liquid volume, we could drive faster or reduce the fan gear to reduce the blow-through on the adjacent rows, but we may go too fast (or reduce the rate of air displacement) for the upper outlets to reach the target. We can already see the integrity of the upper-left outlet breaking down as it sprays into the wind.

Testing a travel speed. No effort was made to adjust liquid flow, which is excessive here. Cross wind was from the left to the right in the image. Photo by Corey Parker (Instagram: _parkerproductions)

Take home

An ideal travel speed for an airblast sprayer is more than just being productive. The spray must reach and penetrate the target. If this requires dangerously high speeds, or if you simply can’t move slowly enough, it suggests a problem with the spraying strategy. Changes will have to be made to the sprayer, the target canopy, or even the weather conditions you’re willing to spray in. Getting the job done quickly should not compromise the quality of the job. Use this method to re-evaluate your practices, or to assess the capabilities of candidate sprayers if you’re considering a new purchase. Be sure to confirm what this model is telling you using some coverage indicator, such as water sensitive paper.

Happy spraying.

August 20, 2024

Airblast Productivity and Work Rate Calculator
There are many factors that affect the work rate of an airblast application. If an operator can improve their work rate, without compromising spray efficacy or safety, they improve operational efficiency and save money.
But how does each variable factor in? Is it worth the cost of a tender truck and operator to fill more efficiently? Should you upgrade to a multi-row sprayer? Should your next planting have longer rows? We have a simple calculator that can help you make these decisions. You can build and compare multiple scenarios to explore the relative impact of small changes to your typical spray program. We recommend making only one change for each scenario so you can better understand the results. Print the comparison page for your records.
Whether you’re a sprayer operator, or a manager of sprayer operators, this exercise will help you see your spray program in a whole new light. Download a copy of the Airblast Budget and Work Rate Calculator and explore your productivity. You must have Excel to run the spreadsheet, and you must permit the use of macros (you’ll be prompted to accept).
Spoiler: It’s amazing how changes to travel speed have only a marginal impact on work rate. Often less than 60% of the total spray job is spent actually spraying!
If you’d like to see just how productive you can be, check out this rare (possibly unique) sprayer from Ed Oxley Farms in Michigan. Built on an OXBO 7550, this sprayer is the fourth iteration of a concept developed over the last 20 years by Ed Oxley Farms and ag engineers from Michigan State University.
Capable of spraying five rows at a time, this self-propelled beast is a hybrid wrap-around and targeting-tower system that uses CurTec spray heads equipped with tangential fans and wire-mesh basket rotary atomizers.
That’s not dribbling – that’s purging the boom prior to spraying.
It sprays a mere 150 L/ha (~ 15 gallons/acre) at a ripping 13 km/h (~8 mph), as seen on the Ag Leader monitor below.
When row spacing and turn time are accounted for, that means it’s capable of covering almost 15 hectares (~40 acres) per hour.
And, when not spraying grapes, the boom can be swapped to make it a high-clearance corn sprayer. It doesn’t get much more efficient than this.
The following videos will show the view from inside and outside the cab. Note that the row that’s straddled is sprayed from an overhead spray head mounted to the centre rack behind the sprayer. The two adjacent rows are covered from one side from vertical spray heads mounted on the chassis. Finally, the boom holds two more overhead spray heads for the outer-most rows.

Ideally, the boom-mounted spray heads would be suspended vertically inside the row, but it makes for such a wide turn radius that it would take too long to turn… assuming there was enough headland to allow it. They’re also swept-back to minimize the turn radius and reduce the amount of airborne spray that deposits on the sprayer itself.
A clever design that makes a few compromises to ideal coverage in order to improve productivity. The balance works for them and this sprayer might be a sign of things to come in horticultural crop production systems. Want to see how your sprayer stacks up? Download the calculator and see where you might be able to make improvements.
August 12, 2024
Airblast Nozzles – Distributing Flow
There’s a certain deer-in-headlights expression that creeps onto a sprayer operator’s face when we discuss nozzle selection. We sympathize with our field sprayer clients given the variety of brands, styles, flow rates and spray qualities they must choose from. And PWM has made the process even more complex. However, airblast operators face an additional challenge; Unlike horizontal booms, vertical booms often distribute the flow unevenly to reflect relative differences in the distance-to-target and the density of the corresponding portion of target canopy. We discuss the broader, iterative process of nozzling an airblast boom here, but in this article we focus on the topic of flow distribution.
An overwhelmed operator trying to nozzle a boom.
The question of “which rate goes where” is still debated. It’s led to diagnostic devices called Vertical Patternators which show the profile of the spray. Operators can use these to visualize their distribution… but they are few and far between. For the rest of us, deciding on the best distribution begins with understanding how the practice evolved.
The AAMS vertical patternator. The mast moves back and forth across the swath of a parked sprayer. Each black collector intercepts the spray at different heights. The fractions collect in the tubes at the bottom to show relative volume.
An OMAFRA-built vertical patternator. The sprayer parks in front of the screens, which intercept spray. It’s collected in troughs and runs into columns that show relative volume.
1950s
In the 1950s, the mantra was to blow as much as you could, as hard as you could, and hope something stuck. At the time, John Bean promoted a method called “The 70% Rule” whereby operators used full-cone, high volume disc-core nozzles to emit the vast majority of the spray from the top boom positions. John Bean provided a slide-rule calculator to help operators configure booms to align the top nozzles with the deepest, densest portion of the 20-25 foot standard trees they were trying to protect. Back then, most airblast sprayers were engine-driven low-profile radial monsters capable of blowing to the tops of those trees. The practice persisted into the 60s and was encouraged by Cornell University (Brann, J.L. Jr. 1965. Factors affecting the thoroughness of spray application. N.Y. State. Arg. Exp. Sta. J. paper no. 1429).
The profile of the spray would have looked something like the following graph:
1970s
In the 70s, extension specialists began advising operators to tailor the distribution to match the orchard spacing, tree architecture, canopy density and weather conditions. we reached deep into our archives for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s 1976 publication entitled “Orchard Sprayers” to see what we used to tell airblast operators.
Here’s a synopsis of what was advised:
1. Choose a tree size and shape that is typical of your orchard and park the sprayer at the normal spraying distance from it.
2. Find one or two middle nozzle position(s) and air deflector or vane settings that direct the spray up through the top-inside of the tree. This is called the “middle volume zone”.
3. Find rates that will give a large output in this middle volume zone, and smaller outputs for positions above and below.
4. The total output must still add up to the target volume.
It seemed operators were getting away from high rates in the top positions and instead shifting the distribution to match the canopy shape and density. If we were to follow these recommendations, the spray profile would look something like this:
This begins to resemble advise found in Agriculture Canada’s 1977 publication entitled “Air-Blast Orchard Sprayers – A Operation and Maintenance Manual“. Here we find the “2/3 boom rule” as the authors state: “To ensure good distribution through the trees, about two-thirds of the spray should be emitted from the upper half of the manifold.”
1980s
Operators followed this approach well into the 80s, as they endeavored to aim the majority of the spray into the densest part of the canopy. Many can relate to the following illustration that divides the boom. The fractions represent the portion of the available boom. The percentages indicate the relative volume. Of course, it matters how large and how far away the target is for either the 2/3-boom or 70% rule to make sense (the middle volume zone is shown receiving 65-70% in the silhouette).
1990s-2000s
The 2/3 or 70% rules still work for standard nut and citrus trees, and perhaps for large cherry trees, but pome and tender fruit orchard architecture is densifying. In the 90s and 00s we started transitioning from semi-dwarf into trellised, high density orchards. In 2005, Ohio’s Dr. Heping Zhu et al., found that a high density orchard is effectively sprayed by the same rate in each nozzle position. They wrote: “[Historical] recommendations are to use a larger nozzle at the top of each side, with the capacity of the top nozzle at least three times greater than other individual nozzles. However, results in this study with three different spray techniques showed that spray deposit was uniform across the tree canopy from top to bottom with the equal capacity nozzles on the air blast sprayer.”
What a pleasant surprise to simplify our lives! If we can use an even distribution for dense, nearby trees, it follows that any vertical crop with the same width and density located close to the sprayer (e.g. cane fruit, trellised vines, etc.) would benefit from even distribution:
Today
So, how do we do it today? There is still no simple answer; Conditions change, not all sprayers are the same, and not all applications have the same target. Let’s build on what we’ve learned to establish a process to achieve better coverage uniformity and reduce waste.
No matter the crop, the operator must first adjust air settings. Air volume and direction play the most critical role in transporting a droplet to (and into) a target canopy. Too high an air speed will cause spray to blow through the target, rather than allowing it to deposit within. Aim the air just over, and just under, the average canopy. Ensure there’s enough air to overcome ambient wind and to push the spray just past the middle of the target canopy.
It should be noted that we assume the operator is spraying every row. With certain exceptions, alternate row middle spraying is not generally recommended. Not only can it compromise coverage on the far side of the target, it makes it far harder to match the nozzling on a single-row sprayer and is a sure-fire way to increase drift.
Next, determine which nozzles are not needed (e.g. spraying the ground or excessively higher than the top of the canopy). Remember: hollow cones overlap very close to the boom and spread as much as 80°. Airblast sprayers rarely if ever need the lowest positions and unless spraying overhead trellises they may not need the highest either. Turning off the highest, and most drift-prone, nozzle positions in high density orchards is illustrated very nicely in the logo of Washington’s 2017 Pound the Plume awareness campaign.
Then, finally, we decide on distribution. If the crop is nearby and relatively narrow, you can try even distribution. If you elect to distribute the spray unevenly to better match the variable-width target, or compensate for distance, aim half the overall output at the densest part of the canopy (the middle volume zone). Consider how the following factors might influence your choices:
1. High humidity means more spray will reach the target, and vice versa. This is because all droplets are prone to evaporation. We have heard it said in dry conditions a droplet can lose ½ its diameter every 10 feet. As they evaporate they get lighter, meaning they are less subject to their original vector and the pull of gravity, and more subject to deflection by wind. The use or coarser droplets, and/or humectants, can help, but higher volumes can help too – they increase the odds of some droplets hitting the target and actually humidify the air to slow evaporation.
2. Windspeed increases with elevation, so spray is most likely to deflect at the top of canopies where they have already lost size (and momentum and direction). Early in the season when there is little if any foliage, wind speeds are higher overall. This is why we advise adjusting air settings using a ribbon test before considering boom distribution – you need enough air volume, aimed correctly, to get the spray to the top.
3. The denser and deeper a canopy, the more spray is filtered and unavailable for coverage. This is why you will always achieve more coverage on the adjacent, outer portion of a canopy versus the interior. In semi dwarf apple orchards we have seen the coverage drop by half for every meter of canopy. Finer spray can penetrate more deeply because there are more droplets and they move erratically, whereas coarser droplets move in straight lines and impact on the first thing they encounter. Higher volumes will improve penetration and overall coverage, but there is a diminishing return and runoff will occur more quickly leading to more waste.
4. Further to the last point, remember that it’s the air that propels the spray, not the pressure. Higher liquid pressure can propel coarser droplets further, but has little effect on finer droplets. imagine throwing a golf ball and a ping pong ball into a light headwind and envision how they fly. Plus, the higher the pressure, the finer the mean droplet diameter.
Confirm Your Work
To know how all these factors play out, you must use water sensitive paper (or some other form of coverage indicator) to diagnose the results. Remember, the goal is uniform coverage and for most foliar products, we want to achieve a minimum coverage threshold of 15% and a droplet density of 85 deposits per cm² on at least 80% of the targets.
Taking the time to match your output to the target has the potential to greatly improve coverage and reduce waste. Nozzle body flips and quick-change nozzle caps make the process of switching nozzles between blocks fast and easy. It’s worth it.
Grateful thanks to Mark Ledebuhr, Gail Amos and Heping Zhu who edited, corrected and contributed to this article.
March 9, 2023
Airblast Sprayers for Small Operations
Did you come here looking for advice on which sprayer is best for your small operation? Are you looking to ditch the backpack mist blower? Do you want to avoid repeatedly mounting and dismounting a 3-pt hitch sprayer from your only tractor? Are you concerned you’ll have to sell an organ to be able to afford one? We hear you, and we’ll try to help. Let’s set the stage with a few facts.
Airblast sprayers stay in service for a long time; more than twenty five years is not unheard of. The majority of them are the generalist, PTO-driven low profile radial design with capacities ranging 150 to 1,200 gallons. Typical fan diameters are around 30″ and can produce >40,000 m³/h of air, making them a good fit for most pomme, citrus and tender fruit canopies. These sprayers come with a horsepower price tag of perhaps 45 hp or more. Many of these sprayers eventually enter the used sprayer market, making them an affordable option for small acreage specialty operations. But, affordability should not be the sole motivation when choosing a sprayer.
Ontario, c.1980 and probably still out there spraying somewhere!
The key to optimizing sprayer performance is to match the air settings to the the canopy you’re trying to spray. You can start reading about the process here. In the case of small and medium-sized canopies like vine, cane and bush crops, the fleet of gently-used sprayers we just described tend to produce too much air. There are options to improve the fit, like driving faster to reduce dwell time, or perhaps the operator can employ the Gear-up Throttle-down method. But, the best plan is to employ a smaller sprayer, which produces a more appropriate air volume, has a smaller profile, delivers better fuel efficiency and won’t break the bank.
So, where are these sprayers? Unfortunately there aren’t many, and options are especially limited if you don’t own a tractor to power them.
The budget-conscious grower may be tempted to buy a sprayer that does not have air-assist. We do not recommend this. Air is a critical component for spraying canopies consistently and efficiently. Caveat Emptor!
We encountered a good solution in June, 2014, when we were invited to Durocher Farm in New Hampshire to see their new airblast sprayer. In years previous, spotted-wing drosophila (SWD) was a significant pest in this two acre, high bush blueberry planting. They claimed that since buying their new sprayer they no longer had any trouble with SWD. That’s quite an endorsement!
The Carrarospray ATVM (200 L option pictured)
I’m not sure what I expected, but I was captivated by this miniature orchard sprayer. The toy-like size carried a zero-intimidation factor and I immediately wanted to start using it. Italian-made, Carrarospray’s hobby line is designed to be pulled behind vehicles without PTO. The ATVM is available in capacities from 120-400 L. The one I saw had a 400 L capacity, adjustable air deflectors, a fan speed gear box, and it was powered by a quiet and efficient pull-start Briggs & Stratton four-stroke engine. It even had a trash guard, a kick-stand and a clean water tank for hand washing. That’s a lot of features.
Thanks to Kitt Plummer (Durocher Farm), Penn State, Univ. New Hampshire and Chazzbo Media for filming these 2014 videos:
The sprayer was pulled (in this case) by a mower, so the grower not only sprayed, but mowed his alleys at the same time. It fit beautifully between the bushes, so the potential for physical damage to the berries was minimized. The air speed and volume was enough to displace the air in the blueberry canopy and replace it with spray-laden air with minimal blow-through. Combined with an appropriate spray volume and distribution over the boom, we found that the coverage it provided was excellent.
Coverage from the top-centre of the bush.
Since seeing this sprayer, we have had reports that importing it to Canada has proved challenging. But there are alternatives. A few companies here in North America offer economy-sized airblast models that are ATV trailed, or skid-mounted, or attached to a small tractor via a three point hitch. PBM’s Lil Squirt is a simple and versatile option. Available primarily in the western US from California through to Washington.
PBM’s trailed Lil Squirt (Image from their website)
Another option is the mounted, PTO-driven mistblower line from Big John Manufacturing in Nebraska.
BJ 3PT mistblower from Big John Manufacturing (Image from their website)
Or MM Sprayer‘s ATV sprayers, which come PTO or Engine-driven. The LG400 has a 106 gallon tank and a 20″ fan. I’d like to see deflectors, but you could easily add them. Here’s a 2024 pdf on features.
Picture of the LG400 engine-driven model from www.mmsprayers.usa
Or Wisconsin’s Contree Sprayer and Equipment. They carry the “Terminator” line. Skid mounted, one-sided air shear units with capacities from 15 to 100 gallons, this company offers a range of possibilities both PTO and gas-driven. Well worth a look.
The “Terminator” skid-mounted mist blower from Contree Sprayer and Equipment (Image from their website)
Then there’s the A1 Mist sprayer series, also out of Nebraska. They carry the Terminator line as well as an interesting two-sided volute option that employs conventional nozzles and allows one pass down an alley rather than two. This is a big productivity booster:
A1’s two-way volute header. (Image from website)
A1’s PTO-driven 60 gallon, skid-mounted “Terminator”. (Image from website).
Then there are larger, PTO-driven, three-point hitch options. In fact, there are many options for this manner of sprayer, but they tend to be out of the price range for small operations, and they do require a tractor. That isn’t a deal-breaker, though, as they can sometimes be found used. Pictured below is British Columbia’s Major 193 (Slimline Manufacturing) and a Brazilian-made option (Jacto) distributed out of Quebec.
Slimline Manufacturing (aka Turbomist) makes the Major 19P 3-pt hitch tower sprayer (PTO-driven)
Jacto’s Arbus 200 3-pt hitch airblast sprayer (PTO-driven)
When considering your options, give serious thought to your work rate, refill time and other factors that go into developing a robust spraying strategy. What’s a spraying strategy? That’s a farm’s overall management and operational plan for achieving safe, effective and efficient spray coverage. You can read more in chapter 8 of Airblast101, which you can download for free, here. And, just to play Devil’s Advocate, go small but not so small that the sprayer is underpowered.
We staged this video in 2011 (spraying only water, so don’t mind the lack of PPE) to show how a sprayer can be too small for an operation. This 3-pt hitch GB cannot overcome the cross wind and the spray barely reaches the apple trees. Reducing travel speed and increasing pressure won’t cut it, either.
Of course, other possibilities are emerging for crop protection in small acreage perennial crops. Multirotor drones are capable of delivering air-assisted spray from above the canopy. While it’s still a drift-prone and inconsistent means for broadcast spraying, it might lend itself to perennial row crops. Equipment design is evolving quickly and global research is underway to establish best practices. As regulators and agrichemical companies focus more on this method we may see drones as a cheap alternative to a tractor/airblast sprayer, with no compaction, no mechanical damage to fruit/berries, and no potential for splashing infection throughout an operations.
DJI’s Agras T30
Even further into the future, small autonomous sprayers may be viable, too. Very much in their early days there is great potential. One example is the XAG Revospray Ground 2 with it’s 150L capacity or the R150 with it’s 100 L capacity.
The R150 – Image from https://hse-uav.com/. Modular system and ~32K USD (as of 2023)… if you can find one.
It’s early days, but there are researchers looking at the spray pattern from these units. The image below may not be a fair indication because the nozzle used may not have produced as wide a swath as possible. Thanks to Dr. M. Reinke for the image.
A test pass using food grade dye. You can see the waveform created by the two spray heads as they move up and down during travel.
And recently, small autonomous platforms have become more common. Perhaps there’s an opportunity to place a gas powered sprayer on these platforms, or use them to pull a hitch-style sprayer. One such possibility is created by the Burro, shown below at the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Convention in 2024.
The Burro autonomous platform.
Are you aware of a sprayer that’s not in this article? Let us know! Good luck and make sure you have only slightly more “sprayer” than you need.
February 14, 2023