Tag: coverage

  • Evaluating Electrostatic Spraying in Carrot

    Evaluating Electrostatic Spraying in Carrot

    This research was performed with Dennis Van Dyk, OMAFA Vegetable Crop Specialist.

    In 2018, MS Gregson introduced a line of electrostatic sprayers (the Ecostatik) in Canada. While electrostatic technology has been used in agriculture since the 1980’s, this is the first time ground rigs have been so readily available to Ontario (possibly Canadian) growers.

    The 3-point hitch Ecostatik can be configured for vertical booms or for banded/broadcast applications. The largest version has a 150 gallon tank, 10 gallon rinse tank and 72 nozzles on 7.5″ centres on a 60 foot boom. That model requires a 75 HP tractor, but 100 HP is preferred. The manufacturer claims the Ecostatik uses 50% less spray mix, gives superior underleaf coverage, and loses less spray to the soil compared to conventional methods.

    Ecostatik 3-point hitch electrostatic sprayer. 14′ boom model pictured.

    Objective

    In the summer of 2018 we evaluated and compared the electrostatic sprayer to conventional application methods at the University of Guelph’s Holland Marsh Research Station. Our goal was to assess spray coverage and physical drift in a vegetable crop.

    Treatments

    • Treatment 1: Conventional Hollow Cone (HC) at 53.5 gpa (500 L/ha).
    • Treatment 2: Conventional Air Induction (AI) flat fan tip at 50 gpa (468 L/ha).
    • Treatment 3: Ecostatik at 11.8 gpa (110 L/ha): electric charge on.
    • Treatment 4: Ecostatik at 11.8 gpa (110 L/ha): electric charge off.

    Sprayer set-ups

    Conventional Sprayer

    • 11.5 ft (3.5 m) boom with 20” (50 cm) nozzle spacing set 18” (45 cm) from nozzle to top of crop.
    • Treatment 1: D3-DC25 HC @ 140 psi and 3 km/h. SC-1 SpotOn calibration vessel (SC-1) gave an average flow of 1.36 L/min (0.36 gpm). Very Fine spray quality.
    • Treatment 2: AI11003 AI @ 80 psi and 4 km/h. At 50 psi, SC-1 gave an average flow of 1.21 L/min (0.32 gpm). Very Coarse spray quality.

    Ecostatik Sprayer

    • 15 ft (~4.5 m) boom with 7.5” (19 cm) nozzle spacing set 18” (45 cm) from nozzle to top of crop.
    • With tractor set to 2,100 rpms, avg. air speed was measured using a Kestrel wind meter. The turbulent nature of the air precluded testing with a Pitot meter. At 5″ from the nozzle: 71.5 mph (32 m/s). At 10″: 37.5 mph (16.6 m/s). At 18″ (target distance): 21 mph (9.4 m/s).
    • The MaxCharge nozzles contained TeeJet CP4916-16 flow regulator orifice plates. At 25 psi they should have emitted 0.020 gpm. However, the SC-1 indicated a consistent 0.034 gpm from multiple nozzles. We postulate that the air assist created a low pressure environment that increased flow. Extremely Fine spray quality.
    • Treatment 3: Electric charge of -16 µA (tested using a voltmeter set to 200 µA) and speed of 3.7 km/h.
    • Treatment 4: Electric charge off and speed of 3.7 km/h.
    The Ecostatik boom
    Testing electrostatic charge with a voltmeter. Hair standing on end was a fun extra.

    Experimental Design

    Fluorimetry

    We used the fluorescent dye Rhodamine WT as a coverage indicator. This allowed us to take tissue samples to evaluate deposition, rather than rely on analogs like water sensitive paper. Further, the dye is detectable in parts per billion concentrations, making it sensitive enough for detection in drift studies.

    • The conventional sprayer received 40 gallons (151.5L) of water dosed with 303.5 mL dye (i.e. 2 mL / L).
    • The electrostatic sprayer 20 gallons (75.75 L) of water dosed with 151.5 mL dye (i.e. 2 mL / L).
    • A sample of the tank mix was collected from the nozzle prior to each application. It was later used to calibrate the fluorimeter for samples taken during that application.
    • Tissue samples were removed and dried to establish their dry weight.
    Rhodamine WT pooling on carrot (and weeds) as boom charged prior to application.

    Spray Coverage

    We chose to spray carrot on 20″ (50 cm) spacing on August 30, when the crop canopy was densest and represented the most challenging target. Our targets were leaflets located about mid canopy depth, and 1″ lengths of stem just above the crown. A diagram illustrating the experimental design appears later in the article.

    Fluorimetry lab station. Inset: A typical length of stem and a leaflet with a Sharpie for scale.
    Drawing a tank sample prior to application. Carrot canopy was mature and very dense.
    • 12 m blocks were randomly flagged for each treatment. There were 3 blocks per treatment. 4 treatments * 3 replications = 12 blocks.
    • Temperature, windspeed, humidity and time were recorded prior to each application.
    • Three plants were randomly sampled from each block. These sub samples were averaged to get a single data point. 3 replicated blocks x 4 treatments x 6 subsamples = 72 tissue samples (36 leaflets and 36 stems).
    • Samples were collected 60 seconds after spraying ended, placed in sample tubes pre-filled with 40 mL of water and immediately placed in the dark.

    Drift

    We also performed an analysis of physical drift for each treatment.

    • 4″ lengths of pipecleaner mounted vertically ~12″ above the crop canopy as drift collectors.
    • They were placed in a straight line from the middle of the boom at 1 m, 2 m, 4 m, 8 m and 16 m downwind.
    • Samples were collected 60 seconds after spraying ended, placed in sample tubes pre-filled with 40 mL of water and immediately placed in the dark.
    Spray coverage spray drift trial block design.

    The following graph shows the coverage observed in µL rhodamine per dry weight of tissue sampled. Bars represent standard error. Each treatment represents three passes (n=3) where each pass included three sub-samples averaged to offset the high variability inherit to spraying. While statistical analysis did not prove significant, there were strong trends. The AI nozzle deposited more dye on the leaves, while the HC and both electrostatic applications were par. Stem coverage achieved in conventional applications was approximately double that of the electrostatic. However, note that the electrostatic system only applied 1/5 of the volume sprayed conventionally.

    When the data is normalized to depict a 500 L/ha application for all treatments, a different story emerges (see below). Now foliar coverage is 25-100% better for electrostatic applications than conventional. Stem coverage is twice that of conventional. Unexpectedly, the uncharged electrostatic treatment outperformed the charged treatment on the leaves. This might be the result of variability in the application, or the result of coronal discharge which can occur when pointy leaves repel charged droplets. This suspicion might be supported by the similar coverage achieved on the stems in both Treatment 3 and 4. You can read more about the Corona Discharge Effect in this article.

    Regarding drift, we will focus on the normalized data (where all treatments are adjusted to 500 L/ha). An analysis of variance indicated with 95% confidence that the electrostatic treatments drifted significantly more than conventional (approximately 5x more rhodamine detected). Particle drift follows an inverse square rule, where levels decline with distance, but the decline is only minor in all treatments. This may be a function of weather conditions, coupled with the limited distance investigated.

    Winds averaged 6.5 km/h gusting up to 10 km/h at boom height. Temperatures were between 15-17°C and relative humidity at ~70%. These conditions are conducive to drift as droplets are less likely to evaporate and in the case of Very Fine droplets, travel great distances. Many drift studies extend to 300 m from the point of application, whereas we were unable to monitor beyond 16 m. The downward trend would likely have been observed were we able to sample further downwind.

    Observations

    Our data supports the manufacturer’s claim that the electrostatic sprayer has the potential to match the coverage from a conventional application while using 50% less water and pesticide. It is unclear whether the electrostatic charge plays a role in this coverage, or if it is the result of the Very Fine spray quality and air assist (which have been demonstrated to improve canopy penetration). Further, it is unclear whether the charge may actually have been detrimental in the carrot crop. Claims of improved coverage uniformity were not explored in this study, but observations of water-sensitive paper in soybean (see image below) did indicate consistent under-leaf coverage, even at 50% application volume.

    The five-fold increase in drift potential is a significant barrier for this technology. The spray cloud is comprised of like-charged particles that expand in three dimensions, which improves coverage uniformity and penetration into the canopy, but also causes droplets to expand up and out of the canopy. Air assist is used to propel them downward, but the turbulent 9.4 m/s windspeed seemed excessive, even for a dense carrot crop.

    It is possible that focussing and reducing that airspeed may also reduce drift without compromising coverage. Presently, the air shear design of the Ecostatik’s MaxCharge nozzles prevent the operator from reducing the air speed without compromising spray quality. And, even if air speed could be reduced, the spray quality must remain Very Fine to achieve an optimal mass-to-charge ratio, and will therefore always carry an inherently high drift potential.

    Thanks to Kevin Van der Kooi for spraying, and Laura Riches, Tamika Bishop, Terisa Set, Christine Dervaric, Claire Penstone and Aki Shimizu for sample collection. Special thanks to Cora Loucks for assistance with statistical analysis and Martin Brunelle of MS Gregson for providing the Ecostatik for evaluation.

  • Electrostatic Spraying in Agriculture

    Electrostatic Spraying in Agriculture

    Dear reader: This article is intended to provide basic information on how electrostatic sprayers work in an agricultural setting. The author does not sell or manufacture sprayers. If your interest is related to spraying disinfectant in private or commercial settings, please contact retailers or manufacturers of electrostatic sprayers.

    Listen to article

    Electrostatic nozzles have been tested in agriculture since the late 1970’s. Predominantly used in aerial applications, they are sometimes employed on airblast sprayers in orchard and berry operations, and on horizontal booms in vegetable crops. To a lesser extent, they are even mounted on wands for low acreage applications.

    Claims

    Independent research, manufacturer claims and user testimonials are intriguing:

    • Improved coverage uniformity (i.e. underleaf coverage, panoramic stem coverage and canopy penetration).
    • Improved retention (>50% better than conventional) and/or potential savings of 50% spray mix.
    • Reduction in losses to soil.
    • Improved efficacy with both insect and disease control.

    So it begs the question: “Why doesn’t everyone have an electrostatic sprayer?” We performed a study in carrot in Ontario’s Holland Marsh to explore some of the claims and to get a first-hand experience with the technology. That article might help answer the question. But first, read this article which explores the basic principles behind how electrostatic applications work.

    Charging the Droplet

    Spray is charged by a high voltage supercharger. Commonly, the charge is induced by an electrode positioned close to the atomizing spray plume as droplets begin to form. This is referred to as coronal discharge. An intense electric field imparts a positive or negative charge depending on the polarity of the DC power used. Think of it as high-voltage static electricity.

    Sometimes the spray is atomized by a hydraulic nozzle (e.g. a hollow cone) and sometimes using an air-shear nozzle. The latter has the added advantage of blowing droplets away from the electrode and projecting them into the canopy.

    Let’s consider a negatively-charged droplet (see diagram below). The droplet becomes polarized when it passes through the electric field. The field attracts electrons to the droplet surface and repels positrons towards the centre. The droplet now has its own field that electrically motivates it to land on neutral objects. As they approach such an object, the negative charge on the droplet surface repels mobile electrons on the surface of the target, which redistribute, creating a relative positive charge on the surface and attract the droplet.

    Another style of electrostatic technology employs a highly charged plate along the air outlet of the sprayer, generally attached just inside the duct. The clearance between the droplets and the plates is quite large in relation to that in a twin-fluid atomizer, coil-type charging system.

    Droplet Size

    Droplet size is a critical factor. Droplets must be large enough to resist evaporation and drift but small enough that the charge can change their trajectory when it comes close to a target (I.e., the Charge-to-Mass Ratio). Most electrostatic nozzles produce ~50 µm droplets, categorized in agriculture as Very Fine. For comparison, a human hair ranges from 20 to 180 µm. Fog is about 5 µm. Such a small droplet means that the distance between nozzle and canopy is a determining factor for the spray depositing, or drifting.

    Droplet Behaviour

    Many forces influence droplet behaviour (E.g., inertia, wind, gravity, etc.). Very Fine droplets have a low terminal velocity causing them to fall slowly (~40 seconds to fall 3 m). This makes them highly drift-prone. However, simulations have shown that a charged droplet released close to a grounded target would be “pulled” faster than an uncharged droplet. Further, their trajectories would be less affected by air movement and they have the potential to move upwards against gravity towards the underside of a leaf.

    Of course the droplets must reach the canopy before any of these potential advantages can be realized. Even with air-assist to project the spray into the canopy, it has been shown that the droplet must be within two centimetres of the target before attraction improves deposition. There are many physical phenomena that influence this process:

    The Faraday Cage Effect can occur when spraying dense canopies. The spray deposits on the first grounded object it encounters. This is the outer surfaces of the canopy and the spray can be prevented from moving deeper into dense canopies. Regarding arable crops, there is often a naturally occurring negative charge on the earth’s surface that repels negatively charged spray. This may be why studies often report reduced loss to soil.

    The Corona Effect is a very complicated relationship between the shape, density and spacing of the crop and it’s influence on charged spray. Research has shown that deposition is better for rounded targets than pointed. The gaseous exchange of charges between leaf tips and spray can neutralize or even repel droplets. This may be why electrostatic demonstrations so often include fruit or spheres.

    The Expansion Cloud Effect (or cooler, the “Space Cloud” Effect) describes how charged droplets are repelled by objects with a like charge. Coulomb’s Law describes how objects with an opposite charge attract, but it also says objects with a like charge repel. Since the droplets all have the same charge, they repel each other. While this causes the plume to expand into the canopy and helps to distribute the droplets to give uniform coverage, it also causes droplets to expand upwards away from the crop, making them susceptible to drift.

    Observations

    The opportunity for reduced pesticide use is appealing and it may entice consumers to consider the electrostatic sprayer as a more environmentally-conscious choice. However, we have found very few studies relating to drift, and opinions are mixed whether electrostatic applications are any more drift-prone than conventional applications.

    Considered collectively, electrostatic applications seem to perform well in controlled conditions, but the complications arising from variability in a natural environment coupled with the cost of equipment has slowed adoption. The current rules for practical adoption are poorly defined. More fulsome drift studies are required and coverage uniformity and canopy penetration (particularly from ground rig systems) must be consistent in real world settings.

    Nevertheless, electrostatic applications have a lot of “potential”.

  • Diagnosing Airblast Coverage

    Diagnosing Airblast Coverage

    Assuming there are no mechanical or maintenance problems, water-sensitive paper can be used to diagnose sprayer performance. Go here to read more about water-sensitive paper. Interpreting the results and knowing what changes to make is the critical part of the process. Observing no coverage, or a sodden paper, make for obvious conclusions… but what about everything in between? Here are the ground rules:

    First: Only ever test coverage in environmental conditions you would normally spray in. Temperature, humidity and wind speed can make or break an airblast calibration.

    Second: When altering sprayer settings, only make one change at a time for each test pass so you can isolate what’s wrong.

    Third: Each pass requires a new set of papers located in the same place, oriented the same way, distributed throughout the canopy. Mark their locations with bright flagging tape and write the pass number and canopy position on the back of paper prior to placement. This helps you to compare the passes later on. Don’t collect papers until they’ve had an opportunity to dry a little, or they will smear and stick together.

    Fourth: Pass down one alley first. Have a look at the papers without removing them. Then, spray the target canopy from the other side. Now the papers can be removed for analysis. This order is important because it reveals the impact of wind direction and the cumulative effect of spraying from both sides. In some cases, the sprayer operator may wish to travel an additional upwind alley to reflect the cumulative coverage on a typical spray day. Alternate row applications are not recommended.

    This Turbomist has been outfitted with sensors that detect the presence of a canopy. Each eye corresponds to a boom section, turning the section on and off as required and improving efficiency. If it’s not there, why spray it?
    This Turbomist has been outfitted with sensors that detect the presence of a canopy. Each eye corresponds to a boom section, turning the section on and off as required and improving efficiency. If it’s not there, why spray it?

    Once the papers are retrieved, it’s time to diagnose the coverage. The following situations are typical in calibrations, and possible fixes are suggested. Remember, this is a process that takes time. Several passes may be required before satisfactory coverage is obtained. Once the correct settings are determined for the block, continue to use them until there is a significant change in the crop staging or weather. At that point, repeat the process.

    Seven Situations

    Situation One:

    <15% coverage and <85 Fine/Medium droplets/cm2 at top of target (e.g. tall targets such as hops or trees). Suggested Fixes:

    • Wind might be stealing fine droplets. Try Coarser droplets (e.g. using air induction nozzles). Be aware that you may have to increase volume to compensate for reduced droplet counts and that they may fall out of the airstream before reaching distant targets.
    • Deflectors may not be channelling air and spray correctly – extrapolate air direction using ribbons on deflectors.
    • Fan may have to be set to higher gear, or if using GUTD, return to 540 rpm to increase fan speed. If still insufficient, you may need a sprayer with higher air capacity.

    Situation Two:

    <15% coverage and <85 Fine/Medium droplets/cm2 deep in canopy – sometimes papers on outside of canopy are visibly wet. Suggested Fixes:

    • Ground speed may be too high. Use flagging tape indicator on far side of target and see if air is getting through.
    • Canopy maintenance may be required (e.g. pruning, hedging, leaf stripping, etc.). No sprayer can consistently penetrate really dense canopies.
    • Fan may have to be set to higher gear, or if using GUTD, return to 540 rpm to increase fan speed. If still insufficient, you may need a sprayer with higher air capacity.
    • Increase carrier volume.

    Situation Three:

    Papers are drenched, dripping or show channels of running liquid. Suggested Fixes:

    • Reduce spray volume, either overall or in key locations on the boom corresponding to the drenched papers.
    • Ground speed may be too low. Use flagging tape indicator on far side of target and see if too much air is getting through. If so, increase ground speed.

    Situation Four:

    Considerable overspray beyond target row. Suggested Fixes:

    • Turn off upper nozzles until spray JUST clears target.
    • Deflectors may not be channelling air and spray correctly – extrapolate air direction using ribbons on deflectors.

    Situation Four:

    Considerable blow-through beyond target row. Suggested Fixes:

    • Slow the fan speed by shifting to low gear, or using GUTD method
    • Ground speed may be increased as long as coverage is not compromised. Use flagging tape indicator on far side of target and see if air is getting through.

    Situation Five:

    Ground under target row is drenched. Suggested Fixes:

    • Rotate lower nozzles slightly upward, but do not shut them off. If ground remains drenched, turn them off entirely. Each hollow cone produces up to an 80º spray angle, so the next higher nozzle often compensates by spraying lower than expected.
    • Deflectors may not be channelling air and spray correctly – extrapolate air direction using ribbons on deflectors.

    Situation Six:

    <15% coverage and <85 Fine/Medium droplets/cm2. Remember that this coverage threshold is only a point of reference, not a hard fact. It does not apply when using Coarser droplets. Suggested Fixes:

    • Increase spray volume, either overall or in key locations on the boom corresponding to the under-sprayed papers.
    • Wind might be stealing fine droplets. Try coarser droplets (e.g. using air induction nozzles). Be aware that you may have to increase volume to compensate for reduced droplet counts.
    • Ground speed may be too high. Use flagging tape indicator on far side of target and see if enough air is getting through. If not, decrease ground speed.
    • Canopy maintenance may be required (e.g. pruning, hedging, leaf stripping, etc.). No sprayer can consistently penetrate really dense canopies.

    Situation Seven:

    Inconsistent coverage on outer edge of canopy (e.g. one spot never seems to get spray.) Suggested Fixes:

    • Nozzle spray angle may be too acute (e.g. full cones), and spray is not overlapping before reaching target. Try wider spray angles.
    • Some tower sprayers have ‘dead spots’ in their air. Check for limp or flagging ribbons tied to nozzle bodies and/or deflectors. Deflectors may need to be adjusted, or adjacent nozzle body angles repositioned to compensate. Try an air induction nozzle in the dead zone.
    • Canopy may be brushing against nozzles as the sprayer passes, temporarily blocking them. Canopy management required.
    Some sprayers, such as Rears, Turbomist, FMC or this Durand Wayland have an option for electronic ‘eyes’ that detect spray targets. The boom will shut off completely if there is a gap in the planting. This can save a great deal of wasted spray. It is less applicable in trellised plantings where it has been known to be “fooled” by wires and posts.
    Some sprayers, such as Rears, Turbomist, FMC or this Durand Wayland have an option for electronic ‘eyes’ that detect spray targets. The boom will shut off completely if there is a gap in the planting. This can save a great deal of wasted spray. It is less applicable in trellised plantings where it has been known to be “fooled” by wires and posts.

    If you still are unable to achieve satisfactory coverage, you may have to consider more extreme solutions. You may have an under- or over-powered sprayer. You may have to perform significant canopy management. Or, you may be trying to spray in poor weather conditions.

  • Air-Assist Improves Coverage in Field Corn

    Air-Assist Improves Coverage in Field Corn

    Why aren’t there more air-assist boom sprayers in Canada? I can understand why field croppers might hesitate to pay for the feature because it’s only been in recent years that fungicide applications have become a regular part of their annual spray program. But, high-value horticultural muck crops like onion and carrot, or field vegetables like tomato and peppers have been a great fit for many years.

    One operation near Dresden, Ontario was thinking the same way when they bought a used 2010 Miller Condor with a Spray-Air boom from Indiana. In the past, they employed a trailed Hardi sprayer applying 40 gpa using Turbo TeeJets alternating front-to-back in their field tomato and onion crops. They felt they could achieve better coverage with the air assist feature.

    On June 19 the onion and tomato canopies were still too sparse to be a good testing ground (and the ground was very wet). So, we decided to run coverage trials in a stand of 3 foot high corn on 30 inch centres.

    The Spray Air boom features a series of air shear nozzles on 10 inch centres. A liquid feed line meters spray mix to the orifice, where high-volume air is directed at the flow via two Cross-Flow jets. This shreds the liquid into spray and shapes a 60 inch flat fan pattern. The operator can select from a range of air speed/volume settings that affect spray quality (lower air means Coarser and fewer droplets and a smaller fan angle).

    This particular boom also carried a set of hydraulic nozzles, so the operator could elect to turn off the Spray Air feature and employ a conventional application. This would be appropriate if applying a herbicide using air induction nozzles. In this case, the sprayer was equipped with TeeJet FullJet cones.

    The first thing we noticed was that the air was not distributed evenly across the boom. We inspected the baffles that join each boom section, but found no problem.

    We then suspected the Spray Air combination nozzles might be occluded with debris (it did come all the way from Indiana). This turned out to be the case, so we popped them out and cleared the Cross Flow jets of any obstructions.

    We then measured the air speed produced by the boom. A Pitot meter proved to be too finicky to get a consistent reading, so we used a Kestrel wind meter held 12 inches from the nozzle. The operator moved between the six air settings in the cab, producing the following air speeds. Note that these speeds were much slower than the 100+ mph (160+ km/h) speeds noted in the Miller brochure. The owner has since told me that they found a number of air leaks in the boom that they have been diligently repairing, and as a result he’s operating at a lower air setting.

    Air SettingApproximate Airspeed at 12”
    14 mph (6.5 km/h)
    26.5 mph (10.5 km/h)
    38.5 mph (13.5 km/h)
    412.5 mph (20 km/h)
    515.5 mph (25 km/h)
    617.5 mph (28 km/h)

    We used water-sensitive paper wrapped around dowels to illustrate potential spray coverage.

    They were placed perpendicular to the spray at three depths in the corn canopy: High, Middle and Bottom. This provided an indication of panoramic coverage and represents a very difficult-to-wet target. In the last two trials, we also added a horizontal target at the Middle (not shown) and Bottom position to illustrate overall canopy penetration, and two at the High condition, angled at 45º into the sprayer’s path and 45º away from the sprayer’s path. These gave an indication of the highest potential coverage available to the canopy. Papers were later unfurled and digitally scanned. The papers were analyzed using DepositScan to determine the total percent coverage, and the droplet density.

    Trials took place between 8:30 and 11:00. Temperature slowly climbed from 20ºC to 23ºC (~ 70ºF). Relative humidity dropped from 69% to 60%. With the exception of Trial 1, we sprayed in a tail wind of 7.5 mph (12 km/h) gusting up to 10 mph (16 km/h). Travel speed was 7 mph (11 km/h).

    In the first five trials we made single, progressive adjustments to the spray settings that we assumed would improve coverage. Finally, we compared what we felt were optimal settings with the Spray Air (Trial 5) to optimal settings for the conventional hydraulic nozzles (Trial 6). Details are as follows:

    TrialAir settingSpray Volume (gpa)Boom Height (inches)
    121420
    23.51420
    361420
    46146
    56206
    6No Air – Fullcones206

    You can watch the passes in the following video. Note the boom height and the trailing spray.

    The following two graphs show the coverage obtained in the High, Middle and Bottom positions for all six trials. The first graph is percent coverage, and the second is droplet density.

    In trial 1 the air was insufficient to properly atomize the spray mix (as seen in the video) and this is evident in both graphs. By increasing the air in trials 2 and 3, we see that coverage increases in the High and Middle positions, but declines a little in the Bottom position. When we lower the boom closer to the canopy in Trial 4, we see increased coverage again in the High and Bottom positions, but lose ground in the Middle. We then increase our water volume for exceptional gains in the Middle and Bottom position, but at the expense of the High. Throughout these changes, overall coverage trended up. Finally, when we turn off the Spray Air system, and switch to the Fullcones, which were set to spray the same volume via the rate controller, there is a drastic reduction in coverage in all positions.

    Let’s look at the additional papers placed for Trials 5 and 6 in the following graphs.

    Even when papers were oriented to intercept the spray as much as possible, The Spray Air system provided superior coverage compared to the hydraulic nozzle.

    This leads us to conclude that there is an advantage to air assist in overall coverage and canopy penetration. Further, it demonstrates that such a system requires careful calibration to ensure it is being used optimally. Water volume, air settings and travel speed should all be reconsidered when the environmental conditions change (e.g. temperature and wind) and when spraying different crops, at different stages of growth.

    Two weeks after this trial, the corn grew too high for the Miller boom, but the grower moved into his onion and tomato and was very pleased with the overall coverage the Spray Air was providing. He’d also replaced the fullcones with 110 degree AI flat fans for herbicide spraying.

    I’d like to see more air-assist booms in Canada.

  • Airblast Towers are Worth Considering

    Airblast Towers are Worth Considering

    Are you considering shelling out for a tower extension for your airblast sprayer? Spray towers are an excellent investment, but they warrant special consideration. Towers move the air and nozzles closer to the target compared to the curved booms on a conventional airblast sprayer. When the distance-to-target is reduced, the odds of droplets reaching the target are improved. That means less pesticide drift and more deposit in the plant canopy.

    Be Aware: Nozzles need a minimal distance from the target to create an optimal spray pattern, so do not get too close.

    Many growers report savings when switching from conventional airblast to towers. The towers are more efficient at depositing the spray, so they have to reduce their typical sprayer volumes to prevent run-off. We worked with one apple grower that switched from a conventional sprayer to one with a tower. His lake-side orchard was plagued by wind, and his conventional sprayer had a relatively small fan diameter (~2 feet) that couldn’t compete. Traditionally, the grower used higher spray volumes to compensate. His new tower sprayer had a larger fan (~3 foot diameter) but perhaps equally import was that the tower reduced the distance-to-target. As a result, he was able to reduce his spray output by more than 200 L/ha while improving his overall coverage! That represented considerable cost savings and reduced environmental impact.

    Towers may provide better coverage than conventional sprayers in orchards with horizontal scaffolding. The tower sprays between branches, penetrating more easily, while the conventional sprayer has to spray through them. Concept from K. Blagborne, British Columbia.
    Towers may provide better coverage than conventional sprayers in orchards with horizontal scaffolding. The tower sprays between branches, penetrating more easily, while the conventional sprayer has to spray through them. Concept from K. Blagborne, British Columbia.

    While there are many benefits associated with towers, they are not suitable for all situations:

    • Towers must be taller than the highest target (e.g. treetop)
    • Towers should be used on level ground. Towers will roll on the vertical axis (i.e. tip left and right) on uneven ground, potentially missing or over-shooting targets
    • Towers must be able to clear netting, trellises, or an overhanging canopy.
    The perils of towers on uneven ground. For towers to be effective, the tower must be at least as tall as the target. When the target is only slightly higher than the tower, some sprayer operators install an additional nozzle body on the top deflector plate to extend the reach.
    The perils of towers on uneven ground. For towers to be effective, the tower must be at least as tall as the target. When the target is only slightly higher than the tower, some sprayer operators install an additional nozzle body on the top deflector plate to extend the reach.
    A home-grown airblast sprayer with tower. PVC ducts, sheets of plastic, a squirrel cage blower and grower ingenuity. While it looks suspect, and difficult to clean, it reputedly works very well in highbush blueberries.
    A home-grown airblast sprayer with tower. PVC ducts, sheets of plastic, a squirrel cage blower and grower ingenuity. While it looks suspect, and difficult to clean, it reputedly works very well in highbush blueberries.

    Occasionally, we have discovered areas along tower outlets where there is reduced air flow. You can usually feel these “dead zones” with your hand (beware flying debris), but it’s better to observe short ribbons attached to the nozzle bodies as described in our articles about adjusting air direction and speed/volume. In low fan gear, watch to see if any ribbons flag or appear slack from a lack of air, you can “borrow” air by re-positioning neighbouring deflectors. If that’s not possible, try replacing the conventional nozzles in the dead zone with air induction nozzles; coverage should improve in that zone because pressure propels coarser droplets further than finer droplets. We’ve seen significant improvements using this technique in high density orchards.

    In the end, if a tower will fit in our operation, we suggest it’s a worthwhile investment that will make coverage more consistent, reduce off-target drift and possibly reduce the volume of spray needed per hectare.

    Towers come in many shapes and sizes. Orchards aren’t the only good fit for towers; grapes, bushes and canes can also benefit from small towers.
    Towers come in many shapes and sizes. Orchards aren’t the only good fit for towers; grapes, bushes and canes can also benefit from small towers.