Tag: coverage

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

Angled Spray Nozzles in Wheat
When T3 wheat rears its head, the first rainy day brings questions about spray angles. Let’s begin with a graphic that illustrates how angled sprays cover a vertical target like a wheat head. Assuming moderate wind and sufficiently large droplets, this is a simplified depiction of what we would expect to see.
But is this how the nozzles actually perform? Are dual angles really better than a single fan with an aggressive angle? We hoped to answer these questions when we demonstrated a selection of dual fan nozzles at Canada’s Outdoor Farm Show in 2013. But it was a very windy few days and what we saw was that regardless of the nozzle, most of the spray tended to deposit with the wind.
A 10 km/h wind will easily deflect Medium-and-smaller droplets and at 20 km/h all but the coarsest spray is deflected. This leads to non-uniform deposits and unacceptable levels of drift (yes, even through it’s a fungicide and you have lots of acreage.) To learn more, we turned to the literature to review studies performed in Ontario and Saskatchewan.
Wolf and Caldwell
In 2002, Dr. Tom Wolf and Brian Caldwell experimented with fan angles. They evaluated the impact of nozzle angle, travel speed, and droplet size on the “front” (facing the sprayer’s advance) and “back” (sprayer’s retreat) of vertical targets. They ran three laboratory experiments: spray configuration (single vs. double fan), travel speed (7.6 and 15.2 km/h) and spray quality (conventional versus air-induced droplets) using TeeJet XR’s and Billericay air bubbles at a rate of 175 L/ha. Here’s what they observed:
- Larger, air-induced droplets produced higher average deposits than smaller, conventional droplets.
- Twin fans improved overall average deposit compared to single fans.
- Building on the first two points, twin air-induction fans improved overall average deposit versus conventional twin fans, and also improved deposit uniformity (i.e. coverage on the front versus the back of the vertical targets).
- Higher travel speeds improved overall average deposit, but at the cost of reduced uniformity as the rear-facing target received reduced coverage (particularly in the case of conventional droplets).
- Spray angle did not impact coverage from conventional tips, but increasing from 30 to 60 degrees improved coverage for AI tips.
While the coverage data was compelling, growers were not reporting improved efficacy with the improved coverage. The authors felt there were confounding variables like crop susceptibility, disease pressure and product effectiveness. Their conclusion was that applicators should strive for improved coverage, but only after integrated pest management (IPM) criteria such as product choice, crop staging and application timing are satisfied.
Hooker and Spieser
In 2004, Dr. David Hooker (University of Guelph) and Helmut Spieser (OMAFRA) started exploring nozzle configuration and sprayer set-ups to optimize Folicur applications in wheat. For several years they ran field trials exploring panoramic wheat head coverage. That is, not only the front and back of the wheat head, but the sides as well. Ten different nozzle configurations were used:
- TurboTeeJets mounted in dual swivel bodies (backwards and forwards)
- AirMix air induction nozzles mounted in dual swivel bodies
- Air induced Turbo TeeJets mounted in dual swivel bodies
- Single Turbo TeeJets angled forward or angled backwards
- Single Turbo FloodJets angled forward or angled backwards
- TwinJets
- Single Hollow cones
- Turbo TeeJet’s mounted in Twincaps
- Turbo TeeJet Duos
- Single Turbo FloodJets alternating forward and backwards
They explored boom height (0.5 m and 0.8 m above the crop), travel speed (10 km/h and 20 km/h) and application volume (93.5 L/ha and 187 L/ha). Here is a summary of their findings:
- Travel speed did not appear to impact overall coverage.
- Spraying higher volumes improved coverage.
- Lowering the boom improved coverage.
- Coverage from conventional flat fans and TwinJets gave ~15-18% coverage and 22-26 mg of copper was deposited per m², but alternating Turbo FloodJets gave ~29% coverage and deposited ~37 mg copper per m².
- The highest percent coverage was obtained using Turbo TeeJets or the AirMix tips mounted in dual swivels (~26% coverage), or single Turbo Floodjets alternating forward and backwards (34% coverage) as long as the spray was not obstructed by the boom structure itself.
Hooker and Schaafsma
A few years later, Dr. Hooker and Dr. Art Schaafsma worked with OMAFRA to explore efficacy. DON is a mycotoxin that may be produced in wheat infected by Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) or scab. There is an indirect relationship between wheat head coverage of fungicide and the reduction of FHB and DON: The higher and more uniform the coverage (with the right timing) the lower FHB and DON.
In two field experiments they performed in 2008, DON values in the untreated checks were around four parts per million. DON was reduced by an average of 22.5% using a single flat fan, 23.0% using a TwinJet and 41.5% using alternating Turbo FloodJets when averaged across two fields, two fungicides and four reps (n=16). They all reduced DON significantly. There was no statistical difference between singles and twins, but control from the alternating Turbo FloodJets was significantly better.
The Return of Wolf and Caldwell
Then, in 2012, Tom and Brian evaluated the new asymmetrical twin fan nozzles from TeeJet. The marketing claimed they could improve overall coverage at higher travel speeds because they decrease the contribution of the front-facing fan and increased the angle of the back. Tom and Brian’s lab-based experiments determined that:
- Asymmetricals increased overall deposit amounts and uniformity versus single fan and symmetrical twin fans.
- Nozzle orientation (alternating or not) seemed unimportant.
- As suggested earlier, boom height was a big factor in coverage. Nozzle angle didn’t improve coverage when the boom was too high, but spray deposit increased significantly when the boom was lowered.
- Coarser spray droplets have more momentum, so they can travel greater distances on their original vector. A coarser spray quality is the best choice for any angled fan.
Water volumes and FHB
Let’s address the notion that high water volumes might increase Fusarium Head Blight (FHB). This is a hypothesis that seems to have resonated with growers. Dr. David Hooker ran trials where he tried to favour FHB by spraying 40-50 gpa of water multiple times per day (even up to 100 gpa). There was no pathological impact (personal communication).
Consider that 1″ of rain is the equivalent of 2,715 gpa of water. Raising your carrier volume from 15 gpa to 20 gpa is the equivalent of 0.000184″ of rain. Admittedly, it’s all aimed at the wheat head, but it’s still a tremendously small volume. While studies have shown a diminishing return in coverage at 30 or 40 gpa, spraying with 20 gpa appears to be a safe way to improve coverage significantly.
Learn more about early morning spraying here, and a more in depth discussion of spraying when there is dew here.
Summary
So here’s what we can say based on all this research:
- Higher volumes improve coverage (significantly up to ~200 L/ha or 20 gpa). Can you go to 30 gpa? Yes, and it will likely improve coverage, but it’s a diminishing return and at some point you will incur run-off.
- When using angled sprays, coarser droplets improve vertical coverage. Compared to finer droplets, they move faster, survive longer (i.e. resist evaporation) and are less likely to be deflected by wind.
- Maintaining the lowest operable boom height improves coverage from angled sprays. We want 100% overlap at target height, and with angled sprays that means getting pretty close. Aim for the highest wheat heads and not the tillers. If you’re 2′ away, you’re likely too high.
- Symmetrical fans with shallow angles (e.g. 30°) improve coverage uniformity on vertical targets versus single fans, and a steeper backward-facing angle (e.g. 70°) improves coverage even more on the sprayer-retreat side.
- Travel speed may or may not affect coverage, but slower speeds do facilitate lower booms, which do improve coverage.
- Timing, weather and product choice are likely the most critical factors.
Angled sprays may offer some advantage in other situations, but they are primarily intended for panoramic coverage of vertical targets.
Short videos about dual fans
June 9, 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
Drop Hoses Improve Coverage in Field Peppers
In early July 2016, a farm supplier contacted us on behalf of a client with a history of disease control issues in his field pepper operation. He wanted us to calibrate their sprayer and diagnose spray coverage to see if there was room for improvement. Improved coverage doesn’t necessarily mean improved efficacy, but generally it’s a reliable indicator. When we arrived at the field the winds were gusting over 15 km/h, which had the potential to create a massive drift issue. We were only spraying water, so it was decided that if we managed decent coverage in those conditions, there would be no need to worry on an acceptable spray day.
Field pepper in Southern Ontario in mid-July
The grower traditionally ran two different settings on his sprayer. They were relatively low volumes for a vegetable operation, but the crop was still small at this stage, so we did not propose raising the volume:
1. TeeJet AITX 11008’s on 50 cm (20″) centres at 11.25 kmh (7 mph) and 3.44 bar (50 psi). That’s 3.35 L/min (0.89 gpm) per nozzle for a total rate of 350 L/ha (37.5 gpa).
2. TeeJet ConeJet TXVK18’s on 50 cm (20″) centres at 7 kmh (4.5 mph) and 3.44 bar (80 psi). That’s 1.6 L/min (0.42 gpm) per nozzle for a total rate of 275 L/ha (29.5 gpa).
To test the coverage with these settings, we folded a piece of water-sensitive paper over a leaf to cover both surfaces, and wrapped one around a hollow tube to mimic a plant stem (see figure). Three plants were papered for each sprayer pass. Papers were collected, digitized and analysed for percent-coverage and droplet density. When diagnosing coverage for a horticultural crop, a distribution of 85 medium deposits/cm² and 10-15% coverage is a reasonable standard for most applications.
Location of water-sensitive papers in situ.
The first condition (the AITX tips) averaged 17% coverage on upper leaf surfaces (37 deposits/cm²). These were coarser droplets at relatively low volume, so it was no surprise that we didn’t achieve 85 deposit/cm² target. When using such large droplets, it is more important to achieve an even distribution and the 10-15% surface coverage (we achieved 17%). There were no deposits on the underside of the leaves (See figure 1), but that was also expected as coarser droplets tend to follow a downward vector that is not conductive to under-leaf coverage.
Figure 1 – Water-sensitive papers from three plants sprayed in Condition 1. Percent coverage and droplet density are calculated for the leaves, and a visual inspection is made of the stems.
The second condition (the ConeJets) provided better coverage. The fine droplets produced covered an average 17.5% coverage with a distribution of 99 deposits/cm² on upper surfaces, and 23% coverage with a distribution of 185 deposits/cm² on lower surfaces. Panoramic stem coverage was improved as well (see figure 2). This is excellent coverage, but the finer droplets were highly prone to drift (see below). With no form of drift control, this set up is undesirable.
Figure 2 – Water-sensitive papers from three plants sprayed in Condition 2. Percent coverage and droplet density are calculated for the leaves, and a visual inspection is made of the stems.
With no form of drift control, the finer droplets produced by hollow cones create unacceptable spray drift, even in moderate wind conditions.
This led us to propose a more directed boom arrangement: We set up a hollow cone over the row (the grower’s original ConeJet) and a drop hose suspended in each alley with two TeeJet XR 8004 flat fans positioned on an angle (i.e. not vertical or horizontal to ground). This gave sufficient height to span the canopy with as little direct waste on the ground as possible. As the crop grows, the nozzles would need to be twisted into a more vertical alignment.
ConeJet TXVK18’s alternating with drop hoses with TeeJet XR 8004’s.
We did not use an air induction fan to avoid the Very Coarse spray quality and we used 80° instead of 110° to ensure the spray did not overshoot or undershoot the plant. Here are the details of the third set up:
3. TeeJet ConeJet TXVK-18’s on 100 cm (40″) centres at 7 kmh (4.5 mph) and 3.44 bar (80 psi). That’s 1.6 L/min (0.42 gpm) per nozzle. Also, two TeeJet XR 8004’s per drop on 100 cm (40″) centres at 7 kmh (4.5 mph) and 3.44 bar (80 psi). That’s ~4.5 L/min (1.2 gpm) per drop hose. Together, set of nozzle for a total rate of 523 L/ha (56 gpa).
This set up raised the volume considerably and aimed spray directly at the sides of the plant. Coverage was excessive and in a few cases exceeded what the diagnostic software could reliably resolve (see figure 3). Since the plants were still small at this stage, it was decided we would let them “grow into the volume” and come back to check coverage once they were at full size.
Figure 3 – Water-sensitive papers from three plants sprayed in Condition 3. Percent coverage and droplet density are calculated for the leaves, and a visual inspection is made of the stems.
When we returned in mid-August the plants had reached full maturity. In this final coverage trial, we added a second water-sensitive paper to each plant to span the height of the crop canopy, which had grown considerably.
The same pepper plants ~5 weeks later had more than doubled in size.
Coverage was reduced compared to how we left things in July, but appeared to be sufficient on key surfaces (see figure 4). The papers showed upper leaf-surface coverage of 63%-to-offscale and deposit distribution of 137 deposits/cm²-to-offscale. Coverage on the lower leaf surfaces was greatly reduced to 4-4.5% and 36-90 deposits/cm². Panoramic stem coverage was present, but minimal. Applying higher volumes would likely have improved matters.
Figure 4 – Water-sensitive papers from three plants sprayed in Condition 3, ~5 weeks later. Percent coverage and deposit density are calculated for the leaves, and a visual inspection is made of the stems.
When asked about the drop hoses, the grower reported “They are a bit of a nuisance because they take extra time to put on, and they get caught in the bush at the back of the field. But if they increase our coverage, then they’re worth the extra effort.”
Final thoughts
Adding drop hoses to a vegetable sprayer may be unconventional, but if fungicide coverage is a concern, and the drops will fit between rows, they might be worth a try. Carefully consider the volumes you use because they should reflect the size of the plant canopy you are trying to protect. Finally, water-sensitive paper provides excellent feedback to help you decide if your field volume, nozzle rates and nozzle positions are providing acceptable coverage.
April 22, 2022
What’s the Cost of Poor Deposit Uniformity?
We’ve heard it often: calibrate your nozzles to be sure your boom output is uniform across its entire width. The downside of poor uniformity is obvious: strips of over- or under-application causing problems with pest control or crop tolerance. A graduated cylinder held for 30 s under each nozzle is the approach of choice. Several electronic versions exist to make the job easier, for example the Spot On.
But there’s more to the story. Nozzle calibration only ensures volumetric uniformity from nozzle to nozzle. It serves to identify worn, plugged, or damaged nozzles, and little else.
After release, the spray is atomized and distributed across a wider area with a properly developed pattern. An operator adjusts boom height or spray pressure to generate proper overlap for a given fan angle at the target height. Unfortunately, the uniformity of this pattern can’t be measured with a graduated cylinder, so we’ve traditionally used a “patternator”, a flat collector placed under a few nozzles that uses a series of channels to show the peaks and valleys of the volumetric distribution. Both calibration and patternation are done with a stationary spray boom. Nozzle manufacturers employ both methods to ensure their products meet international uniformity standards before marketing.
A spray patternator determines the uniformity of a stationary boom’s spray distribution (Photo: TeeJet)
Burt even that isn’t enough. We can have good volumetric distribution but still have inconsistent coverage in places. To identify those regions, we need a way to measure small amounts of spray deposit under a moving boom, ideally in the canopy we intend to treat. Here we have a few options. We can place a tracer (dye, salt, etc.) in the tank, and collect spray on small collectors placed throughout the area to be treated. We collect the samples, wash them, and analyze the solvent for the tracer. This requires special equipment and takes time. It’s useful, but only measures dose, not droplet size or density.
Plastic straws can act as collectors of sprays under field conditions.
Monofilament strings can be used to collect spray over long distances.
A faster way is to use water-sensitive paper, about which we’ve written here and here. Using WSP is fast and easy, and it can provide additional information such as the number of droplets per unit area, or the total percent of the area covered, or even the size of the deposits, with the right equipment. We call this “coverage”, and believe this to be one of the two components of good pest control (the other being “dose”, the total amount of material deposited). Because the world isn’t fair, WSP isn’t great at quantifying dose.
Water-Sensitive paper provides a quick visual indication of the deposit, not just amount but also qualitative aspects such as droplet size and distribution.
The industry has done a good job of identifying the dose required for good control, and this is reflected in the rate recommendations on a label. But there are a few gaps. They don’t tell us, for example, what “good coverage” is, despite often telling us to “ensure” it.
Back to Deposit Uniformity
We quantify deposit uniformity by calculating the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of a series of measurements. The CV is defined as the standard deviation of these measurements, expressed as a percent of the mean value.
Because it’s hard to measure, it’s easy to ignore. But here are a few basics our research has told us: (In the first three examples, deposits were measured under a spray boom using petri plate or drinking straw samplers. There was no interference from a canopy. The last example was taken from within a canopy.)
- When measuring the deposited dose, the CV under a boom tended to rise with increased wind speed. This is no surprise, as it reflects that more wind has a greater chance to displace spray from its intended destination.
Spray deposit uniformity, observed during various spray drift studies, tended to decrease with higher wind speeds.
- Higher booms and increased travel speed also tended to increase deposit CV.
Faster travel speeds during spray drift studies tended to decrease uniformity.
- Finer sprays tended to increase deposit CV. This makes sense, as the finer droplets are more easily displaced by air movement.
Coarser sprays created more uniform deposits possibly because they were more resistant to turbulent displacement.
- Deposits were reduced and became more variable deeper in a broadleaf canopy. Again this makes sense, as there are a lot of obstacles to clear and canopies themselves are by no means uniform.
Deposit amount was lower in the canopy, as expected. But the lower deposit was also more variable.
Also note that the CV in the canopy was quite a bit higher (40 – 60%) than for the exposed targets (10 – 20%). That’s another challenge.
To recap, the best uniformity was achieved with low booms (as long as patterns overlap sufficiently), slow speeds, low winds, and coarser sprays. It’s easy to see that current spray practice isn’t always conducive to uniform deposits.
Deposit variability as captured by a 2 mm diameter string with two sprayer configurations.
So What?
Why does uniformity matter? It matters because more variable deposits are less efficient. They require higher doses for the same effect as uniform deposits. Here’s why:
The figure below shows a typical dose response curve for a herbicide. On the y-axis, we see weed biomass, on the x-axis herbicide dose. At low pesticide doses, not much happens. (In fact, we often see a slight increase in biomass with very low herbicide doses.) As we increase dose, biomass begins to decline, and as dose increases further, the effect begins to taper off. At a certain dose, no further biological response is possible.
A typical dose response curve for a herbicide.
In the next figure, we see that application of a uniform dose “a” results in biomass “y”, about 20% of untreated.
A dose response curve represents the weed biomass that resulted from any applied dose.
Next, we apply the same average dose, but we do it non-uniformly. At some locations under the boom, the deposit may be 40% higher or lower than average. The result is response “z”. Weed control is worse, as bad as it would have been at a lower uniformly applied dose (effective dose “b”).
A variable dose across a field results in many individual weed biomasses because of deposit variation. The net result is lower control.
This effect only happens when the effective dose is near the lower inflection point of the dose response curve. Perhaps we’re shaving rates. Perhaps the weather is challenging the herbicide’s performance. Or perhaps the weed is difficult to control. Under those conditions, any gain in performance with a higher dose is less than the penalty from a lower dose.
There are two ways to correct this performance loss. One is to apply a higher herbicide rate. It’s commonly done, as insurance against – you guessed it – variability, and it’s one reason why label rates have some flexibility. The second way is to improve deposit uniformity. In effect, better uniformity allows for rate reductions.
Label rates are typically in the flat region of the dose response curve to allow for variable conditions in weed susceptibility, weed growth stage, growing conditions, and deposit variability.
Take Home Message
Uniform spray deposition improves overall control. Our examples used herbicides, but the same is true for fungicides and insecticides. It’s true for field crops as well as fruit and vegetable sprays.
Uniformity is especially important when the application is done under adverse conditions in which the pesticide performance is challenged. It’s a fundamental part of good application practice.
It’s not always easy to improve uniformity. But at least it should be measured. Without measuring it, an applicator may never know how much product is being wasted. Have a look at the Crop Adapted Spraying approach Jason is using, it’s a template for all sorts of applications.
What can you do? The easiest task is to record the flow from each nozzle. The results might be surprising. Ensuring proper and consistent boom height is also important. Using water-sensitive paper to visualize the quality of the job would be icing on the cake. And adjusting application method, with uniformity as a goal…that gets you a gold star.
February 3, 2022