Tag: coverage

Comparing Fluorescent Dyes for Spray Coverage Evaluation

I work in agricultural extension and I’m always on the lookout for new methods to help me achieve my goals. A big part of my job is to research and teach efficient, effective and safe crop protection practices, so it follows that I have to be able to evaluate the quality of a spray application. Fundamentally, there are two ways to do it:

Wait to see if the pesticide did its job and protected the crop from weeds / bugs / disease.
Don’t wait. Confirm your spray is depositing where you want it before committing to the application.

Three guesses which approach I advocate. So, how do you check spray coverage in a way that’s quick, cheap, easy and informative? Again, there are choices, but rather than simply list them I’ll add a little insight in the form of pros and cons.

Method	Pros	Cons
Water sensitive paper	Relatively cheap, available, clean, easy, repeatable, supports a photographic record, simple to analyze.	Does not accurately reflect coverage on plant surface, slow to place and retrieve, can be spoiled by dew, humidity and physical contact.
Inspecting for residue / wetness	Cheap and fast.	Not proactive, too subjective, not repeatable, pesticide many not leave visible residue, requires re-entry soon after spraying.
Inspecting spray pattern (e.g. shoulder check)	Cheap and fast.	Not proactive, not indicative of coverage, not repeatable.
Watching for run-off	Just don’t.	Just don’t.
Fluorescent dyes	Reflects actual, whole-canopy coverage and off-target coverage at same time.	Expensive, hard to find, messy, time-consuming, hard to photograph, not repeatable, leaves unwanted residues (or can’t be used on edibles), may have to take place at night, may fade quickly… *or is any of this actually true?*

I’ve never been a proponent of spraying dyes because of the reasons I listed in the table. If I already have difficulty convincing a grower to leave the sprayer or tractor cab to place and retrieve water sensitive papers, what are the odds of them mixing a messy and expensive tank of dye and waiting until twilight to see the results?

On the other hand, dyes are compelling. Particularly if we change the perspective a little. What if we consider the use of dyes, not as a tool for a grower, but as a tool for agricultural extension or consultation (really, anyone that wants to research or teach the safe and effective use of crop inputs)? Several of the cons are minimized or even eliminated. Additionally, this new lens reveals several uses for dyes beyond spray coverage. This is not an exhaustive list:

Off-target (primarily drift) evaluation
Dermal exposure / PPE evaluation
Rinsate / sprayer cleanout evaluation
Sprayer loading / point source contamination evaluation

I decided to compare a few of these dyes. I enlisted the help of a local blueberry operation. Being October, all the berries have been picked so we could spray the bushes without any risk to the fruit. Plus the sprayer was clean and the growers were curious to evaluate their spray coverage.

Having secured a location, spray equipment, and operator, I needed dyes and some criteria for choosing them. First and foremost, I chose fluorescent dyes that glowed under UV (aka black lights). My thinking was that they would be more interesting in demos, and given that we might be spraying horticultural operations, I didn’t want obvious and persistent stains on the produce. At least not something easily seen in daylight before it broke down and/or was washed away.

My UV dye candidates had to be:

Moderately inexpensive.
Non-toxic (i.e. had an SDS that clearly permitted human exposure, were environmentally friendly and could be sprayed on edible crops).
Readily available in Ontario (e.g. quickly and cheaply shipped from within Canada or perhaps the US).
Available in formats that facilitated small volume batches (anywhere from 50 mL squirt bottles for indoor demos, up to 50 L volumes for field demos).
Clearly visible on plant tissue.

I found five likely prospects for the study. I won’t list prices, but none of them were over $100.00 CAD. Number 3 was a free sample and number 5 was gifted to me by a colleague more than 15 years ago. I looked up the SDS for that last one and was surprised that it was relatively inert. So, I used it.

Dye number	Name of dye	Commercial size	Manufacturer	Location
1	IFWB-C81PT	1 pint	Risk Reactor	California, USA
2	UVTRACER-G1PT	1 pint	Risk Reactor	California, USA
3	Eco Pigment Blaze Orange SPL15JX	Sample size – 100 grams	DayGlo	Cleveland, Ohio, USA
4	Fluorescent Yellow Tempura Paint	1 liter	Tri-Art Manufacturing	Kingston, Ontario, CA
5	Phosphor Powder (Zinc Orthosilicate: Manganese CAS#11-47-2)	1 kg	Global Tungsten and Powders Corp.	Pennsylvania, USA

I also purchased UV lights. When I was bequeathed the phosphor powder it came with heavy, ancient, black lights. They made an unsettling humming noise and required a power source, making them unwieldly for field work. I opted to try three battery powered versions instead. Again, I won’t list prices, but they weren’t unreasonable.

UV flashlight number	Name of light	Manufacturer	Wavelength / wattage	Batteries
1	Super Tac	Risk Reactor	395 NM / 850 µW/cm² at 5 inches	Rechargeable battery provided
2	Mini Zoom	Risk Reactor	395 NM / 1 watt	1 AAA
3	V3 UV Flashlight with 68 LEDs	Amazon.ca	395 NM / 10 watts	3 AA

Regarding the recipes, one of my criteria was that the dyes could be mixed in relatively small batches. I chose 50 L as the high end because the airblast sprayer we were using (Turbo-Mist 30P) could still prime when only 50 L was added to the tank. This allowed us to mix as small a batch as possible, while still having enough to spray a row of berries from both sides. We left three rows between treatments to serve as buffers.

Turbo-Mist Model 30P before the dye-job.

I also had to consider the nature of the dyes. The Eco Pigment (Dye 3) is a hydrophobic powder and two colleagues warned me that it was notorious for plugging filters. So, it had to be mixed with a non-ionic surfactant (NIS) to help “wet” the powder prior to adding it to the tank. In fact, NIS seemed like a good idea for all my dye candidates, so I included Activate Plus (Sollio Agriculture, Winfield Solutions) in each recipe.

I added the dye, NIS, and a small amount of water to a Pyrex measuring cup on a digital scale, then rinsed the cup into a final volume of 50 L while filling the tank. I didn’t always follow the advice I received, so I’ll show you the ratios I was told and (right or wrong) what I ultimately did.

Dye number	Manufacturer- or colleague-suggested ratio	Amount of dye	Amount of NIS	Amount of water
1	1 part dye : 10,000 parts water	125 mL	65 mL	310 mL
2	1 part dye : 10,000 parts water	125 mL	65 mL	310 mL
3	1 gram dye : 1 mL NIS : 200 L water	65 grams	65 mL	425 mL
4	1 part paint : 100 parts water	500 mL	65 mL	0 mL
5	1 gram dye : 1.25 L water	65 grams	65 mL	425 mL

It took roughly 15 minutes to fill, prime, spray, and rinse out each dye. We started at 5:00 p.m., were done at 6:15, and then waited for sunset at 7:30.

50 L tank mixes going through circulation and paddle agitation.

Draining the remains and rinsing the tank. It looks terrible, but these dyes are intended for environmental projects like tracing water courses.

We used a smartphone (Google Pixel 9a – 48 megapixel camera) to photograph each combination of dye and flashlight. It was tricky to find an angle where the black light illuminated the residue, but didn’t wash out the photo. In those cases where the dye was evident, it was always far more vibrant in person than through the lens of a camera. As for the results?

Lets start with the lights. We found that the high wattage of Light 3 showed dye more easily. This also happened to be the cheapest light, which was a pleasant surprise.

Dye 1 and 2 were disappointing. We couldn’t see anything on the plants. This dye is intended for monitoring plumbing and water courses, and the manufacturer states that the colour will disappear if the solution is mixed with chlorine. Perhaps mixing it with city water caused it to fade, but that’s likely to happen, so these dyes failed.

Dye 1 – Light 1, 2 and 3. A sad, single drop showed up for Light 3.

Dye 2 – Light 1, 2 and 3. Again, a solitary deposit illuminated under Light 3.

Dye 3 was spectacular. Not only was it evident with every light source (including day light to some extent), but we were able to find it several rows downwind, on the sprayer nozzles, all over the tires and on the floor of the cab (which surprised the operator). I may have mixed this one too strong; It seemed to clump on the leaves, but perhaps that’s because they were exceptionally waxy.

Dye 3 showed up everywhere… whether we wanted it there or not.

Dye 4 came in second place. It wasn’t amazing, but it was visible. This is children’s tempera paint, used in daycares for finger painting and at universities for raves. I’ve used it in the past with mixed results, not only to spray canopies, but in classroom demos on cabbage leaves and as a surrogate tracer to hunt down where pesticide hides in sprayer plumbing. It’s OK in a pinch if you mix it at least 2x more concentrated than I did here.

Dye 5, like dyes 1 and 2, was a disappointment. I’ve seen it used in powder-form to demonstrate how dermal exposure can spread as you touch clothing, doorknobs, your face, and places where the occasional adjustment is required. But in a liquid solution, it wasn’t any good at all.

Persistence

We followed up after the application to see if the dyes would persist. Twenty four hours after application, Dye 4 (our runner-up) was gone. This was no surprise given it was a water soluble paint and wasn’t terribly showy to begin with. However, Dye 3 (our winner) was still clearly in evidence. This is a hydrophobic, micro ground powder (~0.1 micron). That’s one reason it had to be mixed with a non-ionic surfactant. The following photos shows little or no change after 24 hours and a respectable dew:

Three days after application (DAA), we had a rain event. Four DAA this (blurry, sorry) image was taken:

We see that the deposits did redistribute to drip points and the overall coverage was reduced, but it was still holding on. This means it likely shouldn’t be used on any horticultural crop that isn’t going to be washed. Or at least used long before any fruit, leafy green or vegetable contacted by the powder will be harvested. Not because it is unsafe (see safety data sheet) but because of the optics to buyers.

Conclusion

And so, I hope you have been inspired by this process. I’ve learned that the use of dyes for education and research is potentially powerful, relatively cheap, and more accessible than I originally thought. Certainly the growers were impressed by what they could suddenly see and it’s led them to reassess some of their practices. Just bear in mind the possible persistence, and remember to wear gloves when mixing.

Thanks to Mark Ledebuhr, Helmut Spieser, David Manktelow, and Ben Werling for the helpful advice. Thanks to Brandon and Jordan Falcon for use of their spray equipment and their blueberry operation.

October 2, 2025

Mode of Action and Spray Quality
The decision on which application method is best for herbicides boils down to two main factors: (a) target type and (b) mode of action. In general, it’s easier for sprays to stick to broadleaf plants on account of their comparatively larger leaf size and better wettability compared to grassy plants. There are exceptions, of course – at the cotyledon stage, broadleaf plants can be very small and a finer spray with tighter droplet spacing may be needed. Water sensitive paper is a very useful tool to make that assessment. Imagine if a tiny cotyledon could fit between deposits – that could be a miss!
Some weeds are also more difficult to wet, and those may also need a finer spray or a better surfactant for proper leaf contact. An easy test is to apply plain water to the leaf with a spray bottle. If the water beads off or the droplets remain perched on top in discrete spheres, the surface is considered hard to wet. Most grassy weeds are hard to wet, while most broadleaf weeds are easy to wet.
Grassy weeds are an especially difficult target because they have smaller, more vertically oriented leaves, and almost without exception are more difficult to wet than broadleaf species. All these factors call for finer sprays for effective targeting and spray retention.
Broadleaf weeds usually have more horizontally oriented leaves which also happen to be larger. As a result, they can intercept larger droplets quite efficiently.
There are about thirty mode of action (MOA) groups among the herbicides with about ten accounting for the majority in Canadian prairie agriculture. It’s probably an over-simplification to categorize them into just two groups – systemic and contact. But that grouping goes a long way to making an application decision.
Contact products (MOA Group 5, 6, 10, 14, 22, 27) must form a deposit that provides good coverage. Good coverage is an ambiguous term that basically means that droplets need to be closely spaced and cover a significant proportion of the surface area because their physiological effects occur under the droplet, and don’t spread far from there. One way to generate more droplets is to reduce droplet diameter, another is to add more water. A reasonable combination of both is ideal because simply making droplets smaller creates issues with evaporation and drift.
Systemic products (MOA Group 1, 2, 4, 9) will translocate within the plant to their site of action after uptake. As a result, coverage is less important as long as sufficient dose is presented to the plant. In practice, this means coarser sprays and/or less water may be acceptable.
When two factors are combined, either in a tank mix or a weed spectrum, the more limiting factor rules. Application of a tank mix or product that is active on both broadleaf and grass plants will be governed by the limitation placed on grass targets. A tank mix comprised of both systemic and contact products is governed by the limitations placed on contact products.
A factor we should also consider is soil activity and the presence of residue. Studies have shown that soil-active products are relatively insensitive to droplet size. But if they have to travel through a layer of trash to get to the soil surface, more application volume is the best tool.
Below are some recommended spray qualities and water volumes for use in Canada. The spray qualities listed in the table can be matched to a specific nozzle by referring to nozzle manufacturer catalogues, websites, or apps. Note that Wilger also offers traditional VMD measurements on their site, allowing users to be a bit more specific if necessary.
Click here to download PDF
February 9, 2023

How to Spray Ginseng

This article was co-written with Dr. Sean Westerveld, Ontario Ginseng and Herb Specialist.

An effective ginseng protection program begins with observing the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) process:

diagnose the problem,
monitor the problem,
control the problem, and
monitor the results.

When spraying is warranted, the operator should understand the basics of application technology. This not only includes the equipment, but the effects of changing spraying parameters (such as pressure or carrier volume), the impact of weather conditions (such as wind and relative humidity) and the product being applied (such as correct timing and safety requirements). The operator should also understand how to properly maintain, calibrate and orient the sprayer according to the nature of the target. Finally, monitoring the results requires the operator to respond to changes in the environment and target during application and to consider these factors when evaluating the outcome.

The ginseng garden

This is a four-year old garden, which represents one of the largest, densest ginseng canopies an applicator can spray. The six-foot wide beds in this particular garden are higher than most beds, making sprayer/tractor clearance an issue. It also means the distance-to-target from boom to canopy is less in the middle of the bed than it is nearer the alleys, making it difficult to ensure consistent coverage. Sprayer operators typically drive in the same direction over each bed, “training” the plants to bend in the same direction each time the tractor passes over the surface. This practice, combined with fenders on the tractor wheels, helps to minimize physical damage as the sprayer passes.

In a four year old ginseng garden. Clearance is an issue. — Clearance is an issue in a four year old ginseng garden.

The sprayer

This custom-built sprayer is a fairly standard design for most ginseng operations: Eight nozzles on each wing and nine on the centre boom. Spacing varies but this sprayer is on 11 inch centres, with the outermost nozzles on five inch centres and aimed outward towards the adjacent beds. Given the limited boom height, all nozzles are aimed back about 45 degrees to increase the distance to target and allow for overlap. The angle is critical to prevent gaps in the spray swath, but given the recommended practice of limited overlap for hollow cone nozzles, the 11 inch spacing may be a little shorter than required.

Custom-made ginseng sprayer. A standard design. — Custom-made ginseng sprayer. A standard design in Ontario.

Spray coverage

There is no hard and fast rule for spraying ginseng. The crop can receive 30 or more applications a year, most of which are fungicide applications. Tip: Monitoring the small plants inside the canopy is a good indicator of overall garden health.

The following lists products available for use in Ontario at the time this article was published. The application target varies for each product, depending on the pest or disease the applicator wishes to control. As such, the application volume should reflect the location of the intended target. For example, a foliar-and-stem application should achieve consistent coverage of all leaf surfaces without incurring run-off. An application intended to reach the crown through the straw will require some run-off down the plant stem and should require a higher volume than a foliar-and-stem application. Many products will become immobilized if they dry onto the straw. Applications are best done to wet straw, followed by irrigation or rainfall to wash the product into the root zone. Applications for diseases like Rhizoctonia generally take place early in the season before the canopy closes, and higher volumes may not be required to achieve root coverage. In order to know how much is required for optimal coverage, read on.

Table 1 – Spray target and relative volume by pest

Pest	Application Target – Specific Product	Garden Age	Relative Volume
Alternaria and/or Botrytis	Foliar and Stem – all products	Seedling – 2nd year	Low
		3rd – 4th year	Moderate
Phytophthora Leaf Blight	Foliar and Stem – most products	Seedling	Low
		2nd-4th year	Moderate
	Foliar – Aiette and Phostrol	All	Low
Phytophthora Root Rot	Root – xylem-mobile root rot products	All	High
	Foliar – Aiette and Phostrol	All	Low
Phytophthora Leaf and Root	Root – xylem-mobile root rot products	All	High
	Foliar – Aiette and Phostrol	All	High
Cylindrocarpon	Root – all products	All	High
Rhizoctonia	Root – most products	All	High
	Root – Quadris	Seedling	High
Pythium	Root – all products	All	High
Aphids	Foliar and Stem/Berries – all products	All	Moderate
Cutworms	Stem – all products	All	Low
Four-Lined Plant Bug	Foliar – all products	All	Moderate
Leafrollers	Foliar and Stem – all products	All	Moderate
Root Lesion Nematodes	Root – all products	All	High

History of the ginseng boom in Ontario

Historically, ginseng sprayer operators used brass hollow cone nozzles to spray ginseng. For reasons that are unclear, many then adopted the Casotti-style sprayer, which used higher volumes and an oscillating nozzle assembly to create a larger swath. This was determined to be overkill for ginseng, and it produced inconsistent coverage.

Many growers (sadly, not all) switched back to horizontal booms and began using the Arag microjet assembly. Drop nozzles (aka drop arms, drop booms, drop legs, etc.) were positioned with disc-core hollow cone nozzles behind the wheels to direct spray into the canopy from below.

Later, we demonstrated that the microjet mixing valve was difficult to set accurately, creating outputs +/- 50% the optimal rate. In response, a new variation on the Arag microjet was introduced, with a more reliable rate adjustment and a lower price tag (they are imported from Italy by a single North American distributor). The drop nozzles are absolutely critical for under canopy coverage, and growers have begun suspending them in each alley – not just behind the sprayer wheels. I predict the future boom arrangement will return to hollow cone nozzles, but in the form of molded poly nozzles with ceramic handling and drop nozzles with full cone disc-core assemblies. Air assist would be even better.

Sprayer settings

Most operators employ a ground speed of about 5 km/h (3.1 mph), operate at about 13.8 bar (200 psi) with nozzles spaced 25-30.5 cm (10-12”) spraying anywhere from 1,000 L/ha (107 gal./ac.) to 1,686 L/ha (180 gal./ac.). The application volume should reflect the stage of crop growth, the age of the garden and the target in question (see Table 1). Applicators should also consider droplet size (Table 2). This is difficult to control given that the majority use Arag microjets with the 1.5 mm orifice disc. In which case, pressure choice will affect median droplet size, with lower pressures increasing median droplet diameter and vice versa.

Table 2 – The Impact of Droplet Size

Droplet Size	Drops per area	Retention	Canopy Penetration	Drift Potential
Fine	High	High	Low	High
Medium	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate
Coarse	Low	Low	High	Low

The older style Arag microjets with 1.5 mm diameter discs have highly variable outputs. We developed tables listing their rates with the mixing valve handle set in two positions. They can be found here. We have also developed tables for the newer Arag nozzles for the 1.0, 1.2 and 1.5 mm discs based on 28 cm (11”) spacing. They are listed in Metric and U.S. Imperial.

Download the tables here: Metric (or) U.S. Imperial

Timed output test

Park the clean sprayer and get the pressure up to the desired level. Using a calibration vessel, perform a timed output test to determine each nozzle rate. I prefer the SpotOn SC-4 and a length of 1” braided line to direct the spray into the vessel. You will get wet, so ensure the water is clean and/or wear appropriate PPE.

At 200 psi, we took readings from each microjet and found that while they were more consistent than the older model, there was still a lot of variation from tip to tip. This required us to turn the valve on the nozzle to get a more consistent output, then take another reading, and repeat until we liked what we saw. It became tricky to adjust the rate without reducing the hollow cone pattern to a solid stream because only a slight turn of the nozzle was required. Once we had it, we tightened the lock nut and moved to the next nozzle. Table 3 is a record of the procedure.

While calibrating, we noticed some of the nozzles would suddenly appear plugged, or dense lines could be seen in the spray cone indicating something was wrong. We cleaned them to discover bits of plastic from the poly tank. I asked about strainers, but they are not available for the microjets. I asked about in-line filters, but they aren’t rated for 200 psi. Filling the tank with clean water is very important, but even more so with these nozzles.

Table 3 – Calibrating the new Arag microjets

Nozzle Position	Rates in gpm (bold represents final rate)	Nozzle Position	Rates in gpm (bold represents final rate)
1	0.97, 0.96, 0.93	14	0.77, 0.92
2	1.07, 1.07, 1.26, 0.9	15	0.76, 0.8, 0.95
3	1.1, 1.1, 1.1, 0.93	16	0.97, 0.95
4	0.73, 0.92	17	0.73, 1.0, 1.07, 1.0, 0.98
5	0.92, 0.92	18	0.83, 0.94
6	0.94	19	0.77, 1.0, 0.99, 1.1, 1.24, 10.8, 0.93
7	0.88	20	0.77, 0.88
8	0.92	21	0.71, 0.95
9	0.95	22	0.77, 1.07, 1.04, 1.1, 1.27, 1.0
10	0.90	23	1.06, 0.97
11	0.86	24	0.77, 0.97
12	0.76, 0.83, 1.0, 1.0, 1.2, 0.92	25	0.68, 0.95
13	0.77, 0.92

Average output: 0.93 gpm, standard deviation of 0.03 gpm.

Ground speed

Once the nozzles were adjusted, we filled the tank ½ full and measured out 25 m in the bed. We would normally do 50 m, but the row was too short. The sprayer operator drove the course and we measured the time it took to travel the 25 m distance. Pass one took 18.5 seconds and pass two took 18.3 seconds. That’s an average of 18.4, which we then double so it works in the formula = 36.8 s.

( 50 × 3.6 ) ÷ 36.8 s = 4.9 km/h

Adjusting the drop leg nozzles

This sprayer had drops behind the wheels and two more to hang in the adjacent alleys. This is excellent because research has shown considerably improved coverage with directed spray from drop arms. In my mind, these are not optional – they are mandatory!

We swapped out the hollow cones we found in those positions for full cone disc and core (D5-DC35). Full cones increase the number of droplets that will clear the raised bed and enter the canopy. When adjusting them, be sure to minimize the portion intercepting the bed, while minimizing the spray escaping up through the canopy. It’s a fine line.

Calculating sprayer output

25 microjets at 200 psi = average of 0.93 gpm = 23.25 gpm
8 × D5-DC35 at 200 psi = 1.4 gpm × 8 = 11.2 gpm
That’s ~34.5 gpm for the boom.
Ground speed was 4.9 k/hr or ~ 3mph.

GPA = (GPM × 5,940) ÷ (mph ÷ nozzle spacing in inches)
GPA = (34.5 gpm x 5,940) ÷ (3.0 mph × 11 inches)
GPA = 204,940 ÷ 33
62.1 GPA or about 580 L/ha.

Diagnosing coverage

Water sensitive paper, which turns from yellow to blue when contacted by moisture, was placed in the ginseng canopy. Two sets of papers were set out, with four papers in each set. The canopy was still wet with rain, which made placement difficult as the papers would accidentally contact water on the leaves and change colour prematurely.

Water-sensitive paper wrapped around tubes for panoramic coverage.

Position#1	Clipped face-down on the underside of leaves at the top of the canopy.
Position#2	Clipped face-up on the upper side of leaves in the middle of the canopy.
Position#3	Clipped face-down on the underside of leaves in the middle of the canopy.
Position#4	Wrapped around a plastic tube and threaded over a wire flag, located at the foot of the plant to give panoramic coverage at the root.

The sprayer passed over the canopy spraying water, and papers were carefully retrieved, allowed to dry and scanned.

Generally, there were no “misses” whatsoever. Position 1 showed excellent coverage, with no indication of run-off and a high droplet count with even distribution. This is ideal for foliar applications, and under-leaf coverage is notoriously difficult to achieve. Positions 2 through 4 showed excessive coverage, with the exception of one of the position 3 papers, which was still adequate.

Example of coverage and paper locations in canopy.

Next steps

Ideally, the operator would drop the pressure by 20 psi increments, reducing output until coverage failed. It is important to note that the operating pressure must never approach the lower end of the nozzle’s recommended pressure range, or the spray quality will be compromised and so will coverage.

Once the coverage is considered a failure, the operator would return to the lowest output that did a good job, and the sprayer is calibrated for that crop (at that stage of growth).

Note that the calibration must be performed for each significantly different crop. With the exception of an early-season drench intended to contact the entire root, an emerging one year old garden would need a very different prescription than a four year old garden with a fully-developed canopy. Plus, the weather conditions will affect coverage, so do not calibrate in conditions you would not normally spray in. Hot and dry and windy conditions produce very different coverage compared to cool, humid and still conditions.

Once the operator knows what each garden requires, they will be able to mix their tanks using the same concentration of carrier to formulated product as they normally use, but likely go further on the tank. It will take some practice before the operator knows how much spray mix is required to finish the job.

November 10, 2022

Spray Coverage in Field Tomato

Spraying field tomato is difficult – period.

In Ontario, early variety tomato canopies get very dense in July. The inner canopy is relatively still, humid, cool and a perfect environment for diseases such as late blight. It is challenging to deliver fungicides to the inner canopy and this can lead to inadequate disease control. Matters are slightly improved as the fruit grows and pulls the canopy open, and staked tomatoes might allow for the use of directed sprays, such as drop arms in staked peppers. But, there’s no getting around it – from a droplet’s perspective, it’s tough to get through the outer canopy.

DSCF0002 — Imagine you are a spray droplet trying to get inside this canopy.

Study 1 – Qualitative Observations

In August, 2011 we worked in a market garden operation in Bolton comparing the spray coverage from four different nozzle configurations. We used the growers typical spray parameters: a travel speed of 4.5 km/h (2.8 mph), an operating pressure of about 4 bar (60 psi), a boom height of 45 cm (18 in) above the ground, and a sprayer output of 550 L/ha (~60 gpa). To monitor spray coverage, water sensitive paper was placed face-up in the middle of the tomato canopy. This diagnostic tool turns from yellow to blue when contacted by spray.

Water-sensitive paper at top of tomato canopy - easy to hit. — Water-sensitive paper at top of tomato canopy – easy to hit.

This particular sprayer was equipped with an air assist sleeve that blew a curtain of air into the canopy at about 100 km/h (65 mph) as indicated by an air speed monitor placed at the air outlet. When properly adjusted, air-assist booms have a number of benefits:

They part the outer canopy giving spray access to the inner canopy.
They rustle leaves to expose all surfaces to spray.
They permit the use of smaller droplets, which are more numerous and adhere to vertical surfaces, by entraining them and reducing drift.
They extend the spray window by permitting the applicator to operate in slightly higher ambient wind speeds.

Boom sprayer with air assist sleeve operating.

We sprayed using the four different nozzle configurations, with and without air assist. Our goal was to make qualitative assessments (Good, Moderate, Poor), and here’s what we observed:

Nozzle Type / Sprayer Output	With Air Assist	Without Air Assist
80 degree flat fans /~550 L/ha (60 g/ac)	Good coverage in upper canopy Poor / Moderate canopy penetration Low drift	Good coverage in upper canopy Poor canopy penetration Moderate drift
80 degree air induction flat fans /~550 L/ha (60 g/ac)	Inconsistent upper canopy coverage Poor canopy penetration “No” drift	Inconsistent upper canopy coverage Poor canopy penetration “No”/Low drift
TwinJet dual 80 degree flat fans /~550 L/ha (60 g/ac)	Good coverage in upper canopy Poor / Moderate canopy penetration Moderate Drift	Good coverage in upper canopy Poor canopy penetration Moderate/High drift
Hollow cones /~750 L/ha (80 g/ac)	Good coverage in upper canopy Moderate canopy penetration Low drift	Good coverage in upper canopy Poor canopy penetration Very High drift

The air induction nozzles performed poorly. Their Coarse/Very Coarse droplets impacted on the outer canopy, created run-off and resulted in very little canopy penetration. Medium droplets produced by twin fans and conventional flat fans were both inconsistent with inner-canopy coverage, but some advantage may have been observed with air assist. The TwinJets contributed to higher drift (likely because they were too high off the canopy) but otherwise produced coverage similar to the conventional flat fans. From these observations, the convention that spray shape (e.g. cone, fan, twin) has little or no impact on broadleaf canopy penetration holds true.

Acceptable spray coverage deep in canopy (harder to hit) using hollow cone nozzles. — Acceptable spray coverage deep in canopy (harder to hit) using hollow cone nozzles and air assist.

After inspecting the papers deep in the canopy, we were surprised that air assist did not obviously improve canopy penetration. It did seem to help, but it wasn’t a slam-dunk. This may be because finer droplets (<50µm) are not easily seen on water sensitive paper. It might also be because we did not calibrate the air speed to the canopy: too little air and spray impacts on the outer canopy, while too much air forces leaves out of the way and spray is blown into the ground. It was obvious that drift was greatly reduced, so logically the spray had to have gone somewhere – we can only assume it entered the canopy.

The best results were achieved with hollow cones and air assist. Theoretically, smaller droplets should improve the potential for coverage by sheer number, but they slow quickly and are easily blown off course. Winds were only about 5 km/h (3 mph) during the trials. Had they been higher, the no-air-assist condition would have resulted in poorer canopy coverage. While we feel the air assist improved inner canopy coverage, we attribute much of the performance to the spray volume of 750 L/ha (80 gpa), which was significantly higher than we used with the other nozzles. When we attempted lower volumes using the hollow cones (not shown) the inner canopy coverage was greatly compromised. Higher volumes are a demonstrated means for improving canopy penetration, so this observation is consistent with what was expected.

The 2011 trial suggested that hollow cone tips used with high volume and air assist, improved canopy coverage and penetration. They are, however, very prone to drift and their use is not recommended without an air assist sleeve to counter the spray drift. Spray volumes over 500 L/ha are highly recommended.

Study 2 – Quantitative Observations

In July, 2016 we ran another study in Chatham-Kent. This operation was concerned about spray drift and recently changed from Hardi hollow cones on 25 cm (10″) centres to TeeJet Turbo TwinJets on 50 cm (20″) centres. They wanted to know if they had improved their coverage. We decided to test four nozzles at similar driving speeds and volumes.

Once again, we used water-sensitive paper. This time we placed two pieces back-to-back (face up and face down) about 1/3 down into the canopy. Then we placed two more in the same orientation about 2/3 down into the canopy. We did this for three plants for each pass. The next four images show the visual drift and weather conditions for each nozzle. Note that only one boom section was nozzled (indicated by a white line) in each condition.

Condition 1 – Turbo TwinJet (Coarse Spray Quality)

Condition 2 – Hollow Cones (10″ centres – Fine/Medium Spray Quality)

Condition 3 – XR 110° FlatFan (Fine Spray Quality)

Condition 4 – TeeJet 3070 (Coarse Spray Quality)

It was very humid, making it difficult to place and retrieve the papers without smearing them. This made it tricky to discern differences in coverage, and the blurring prevented us from quantifying droplet density (i.e. number of drops per unit area). Nevertheless, papers were scanned and the percent coverage was calculated using the DepositScan software developed by the USDA’s Dr. Heping Zhu. The average percent-coverage (± S.E. n=3) is shown in the image below.

Coverage on the upward-facing papers in the upper portion of the canopy showed excessive coverage for all nozzles but the 3070. Little or no coverage was detected on the downward-facing cards, but without air-assist or a directed application (e.g. drop arms), this was expected. It’s the deeper canopy that’s of particular interest. The only significant difference may lie in the XR flat fan which showed more coverage on the upward facing papers and some (however little) on the downward facing papers.

This came as something of a surprise given that the XR produced a Fine spray quality and there was no air assist to guide spray into the canopy. I believe the high humidity and low winds played a role in this outcome by reducing evaporation and off-target drift. On a drier, windier day, we likely would not have seen this level of inner canopy coverage for either the XR or the hollow cone. By comparison, the Turbo TwinJet with its Coarse spray quality not only reduces off target drift, but would be more resilient in drier and windier weather and may very well have produced the best coverage by comparison.

Take Home

Drawing from both studies:

Properly calibrated air assist will reduce drift and has promise to improve canopy penetration/coverage.
Spray shape (e.g. twin, hollow cone, flat fan) does not seem to play a role in canopy penetration.
Spray quality larger than Coarse may negatively impact canopy penetration in tomato.
Coarse spray quality is perhaps the most versatile option when volume is sufficient (>500 L/ha).
Fine-Medium spray quality is only a viable option in high humidity and light winds. However, air assist is critical to counter drift, and high spray volumes (>500 L/ha) are still required despite the higher droplet count.
Underleaf coverage is exceedingly difficult to achieve, even with finer spray quality and air assist.

This occurred in Ontario (date and location withheld). The sprayer missed the outer edge of the tomato field during a late blight application. An unintentional field check, and amazing to see the results.

August 4, 2022

Gear up – Throttle down
In 1977, David Shelton and Kenneth Von Bargen (University of Nebraska) published an article called “10-1977 CC279 Gear Up – Throttle Down”. It described the merits of reducing tractor rpm’s for trailed implements that didn’t need 540 rpm to operate. In 2001 (republished in 2009), Robert Grisso (Extension Engineer with Virginia Cooperative Extension) described the same fuel-saving practice. Again, it was noted that many PTO-driven farm implements don’t need full tractor power, so why waste the fuel? He tested shifting to a higher tractor gear and slowing engine speed to maintain the desired ground speed. 700 diesel tractors were tested, and as long as the equipment could operate at a lower PTO speed and the tractor itself didn’t lug (i.e. overload), as much as 40% of the diesel was saved.
How this applies to Airblast
For airblast operators with PTO-driven sprayers and positive-displacement pumps, this has potential for reducing air energy. Gearing up and throttling down (GUTD) sees the operator reducing the PTO speed from 540 rpm to somewhere between 350-375 rpms, which not only saves fuel but more importantly slows the fan speed. This may be an option when air energy from the sprayer, even at higher travel speeds and a low fan gear, still overblows the target canopy.
Some airblast sprayers, like this one, feature fan blades with manually-adjustable pitch to increase or lower air volume and speed. It’s often a pain to try to adjust them, and most operators only try it once.
A good time to try this out is early in the spraying season when (most) canopies are dormant and at their most sparse. For example, when applying dormant sprays in apple orchards, look to see if the wood on the sprayer-side gets wet, but does not creep around the sides. This suggests that the air, and much of it’s droplet payload, are being deflected. When the air speed is slowed, it will become more diffuse and turbulent on target surfaces, and this turbulence helps more droplets deposit in a panoramic fashion within (not past) the target canopy. Look to see if the wood is wet >50% around the circumference of the branches. You’ll get the rest when you spray form the other side.
Limitations
GUTD is not always appropriate. It requires airblast sprayers with PTO-driven positive displacement pumps (e.g. diaphragm). Airblast sprayers with centrifugal pumps would experience a drop in operating pressure and would have to be re-nozzled. Further, the pump must have sufficient surplus capacity to maintain pressure at low rpms.
GUTD is not intended for air-shear sprayers that employ twin-fluid nozzles because dropping air speed below a certain threshold may compromise spray quality; the air needs to be fast enough to create and direct spray droplets
The tractor must have sufficient horsepower (more than 25% in excess of minimally-required capacity) to permit the reduction in engine torque. This is especially important if the operator is on hilly terrain. If the tractor begins to lug (e.g. black smoke, sluggish response, strange sounds) you’ll be in trouble.
Observations
We first experimented with GUTD in 2013. We noticed how much quieter the sprayer was, and the fuel consumption was certainly reduced. One grower-cooperator switched to a GUTD spray strategy mid-way through their dormant oil application in pears. We saw the trees immediately began to drip. Panoramic coverage was improved significantly; once the operator passed down the other side of the target, capillary action and surface tension helped to give near-complete coverage.
However, in one instance, the operator was already applying a low spray volume per hectare using air induction nozzles and their lowest fan gear. By further slowing fan speed using GUTD, coverage at the top of his cherry trees was compromised.
In short, GUTD can work under the right circumstances. If you want to try it, use water-sensitive paper to establish a base-line with your current practice, and then evaluate coverage after you change your sprayer settings.
May 18, 2022