Tag: drift

Deciding on the Right Way to Spray
“What is the right way to apply this pesticide?” It’s one of the classic questions. Applicators know that spray method determines the efficacy of the application as well as its environmental impact. And it has to use time and water resources efficiently to make sense.
To answer the question properly, we need to take things one step at a time.
1. Canopy: To start, we need to look at the canopy that our application will go into. If it’s an early season spray into a seedling crop, then the canopy won’t be much of a barrier. Lower water volumes can be possible. Droplet size will only depend on the target type and the pesticide mode of action.
Small weeds require more smaller droplets to secure effective targetting
If it’s a later application into the bottom of a maturing canopy, the foliage may intercept the spray before it reaches the target area. More water will likely be needed, and droplet size may become more critical for getting the spray to its destination. Dense canopies are a real challenge and lower-canopy deposition usually benefits from finer sprays because the small droplets can turn corners better.
Dense canopies are very difficult for a spray to penetrate. Higher water volumes and smaller droplets are the key tools that help.
2. Water Volume: Regardless of canopy, the range of application possibilities will depend on the water volume and spray quality combination. It’s math: assuming some constant amount of coverage on each leaf, more layers of foliage will require more water. Using less water volume will make it necessary to use finer sprays to keep droplet numbers constant. More water will allow coarser sprays. This decision has implications for drift, and by extension, affects the number of hours we can spray in a day. More drift tolerance means better application timing and overall productivity.
The tradeoffs between water volumes and droplet sizes are seen in this figure. Once a certain threshold of coverage has been reached, a further increase in coverage may not provide any additional control.
3. Target Type and Droplet Behaviour: Whatever spray we use, the target plant or insect needs to intercept, collect, and retain the spray droplet. This is where the fun begins. Target leaves may be vertical or horizontal, large or small. Their waxy surface may be easy-to-wet or difficult-to-wet. The general rules of thumb are that larger, more horizontal and easy-to-wet surfaces are better suited for coarser sprays – these are intercepted more efficiently and stick readily. That is a reason why most broadleaf weeds and crops are very compatible with low-drift sprays.
Large targets (left) are most efficient at intercepting larger droplets (provided droplet bounce is not a problem) because smaller droplets may evade capture. Smaller targets are usually missed by larger droplets but are very capable of capturing smaller droplets.
On the other hand, smaller, vertically oriented and difficult-to-wet plants require finer sprays for effective targetting. Larger drops tend to miss these targets or bounce off them. Most grassy, and some broadleaf weeds (especially at early growth stages) fall into this category.
4. Mode of Action: There are nearly 30 modes of action on the herbicide world, and another ten modes for insecticides and fifteen for fungicides. The effect of droplet size and water volume on their uptake and translocation varies, and it’s probably not correct to generalize too much. There is one notable product, glyphosate. For this product, research has consistently shown that large droplets and more concentrated mixtures provide better uptake. But we’ve also seen problems when this is over-done, causing localized toxicity and limiting translocation.
With many products, we’ve sometimes seen better performance with finer sprays due to improved coverage, yet at other times less performance due to rapid evaporation. On the whole, it’s probably still fair to say that contact modes of action require finer sprays and higher water volumes, even if there is the occasional exception. And systemic products can typically handle coarser sprays. We’ve always been surprised just how coarse we seem to be able to push the system before any loss of efficacy.
What does it all mean? In spraying, we need to accommodate a lot of diversity. The average application is broad-spectrum, targeting large and small broadleaf and grassy plants. Many sprays are tank mixes of several modes of action. It’s impossible to prescribe a specific spray for each situation. We need a little bit of everything. And the spray should not be drift-prone. It’s easy to see that we need to aim for the middle to accommodate everything.
The traditional flat fan nozzle, either in its conventional or low-drift form, generates a wide range of droplet sizes that can range from 5 µm to about 2000 µm. If we need fine droplets, they’re there. If we need larger droplets, they’re also there. The proportion of the total spray volume in each specific size fraction depends on the nozzle choice and size, the spray pressure, and the adjuvant mix in the tank. Overall, the system is very robust, and although it requires some tweaking, a well chosen average spray can achieve most tasks well enough.
A typical spray quality chart shows the expected spray quality for a range of nozzle sizes and pressures. Spray quality measurements follow standards set by the ISO and ASABE, these change from time to time and therefore charts tend to become outdated.
Our research has repeatedly shown that a Coarse spray is a good starting point that does most things well. It is acceptable to move into a Very Coarse or coarser category provided water volumes are also raised, and provided the target types and modes of action are suited for this change.
It is rarely necessary to spray finer than Coarse, and when this is done, we recommend against spraying finer than a Medium spray. There is simply no advantage from product performance, and drift risk becomes unacceptable.
Tweaking the System. In order to maximize the performance of your spray, and the efficiency of your overall spray program, here is some advice:
1. Know the spray quality of your nozzles, and their response to spray pressure. Manufacturers publish this information in their catalogues and on-line. Make this your homework assignment.
2. Use the coarsest spray that you can afford to. This will make the application safer, it will widen the weather window, and it will simply let you get more done in a day or a season. Coarse sprays work.
3. Use spray pressure and water volume to fine tune the application for a specific purpose. If using a contact product, you can keep the same nozzle you used for a systemic product. Apply more water or use more spray pressure to generate more droplets.
4. Do not skimp on water. Higher water volumes tend to make an application more uniform, robust, and crop-safe. Spray coverage improves. Canopy penetration improves. Coarser sprays are possible. The only exception to this rule is glyphosate, which works better in lower water volumes. But with higher glyphosate rates and more tank mixing, even that exception is disappearing.
5. Learn as much as you can about how your pesticides work and where they need to be in your canopy. Apply your knowledge to select optimal water volumes and spray qualities.
6. Be wary of people who advise very low water volumes in conjunction with fine sprays. They want to appeal to your need for efficiency, but do so at the cost of consistency and environmental stewardship. Plus these types of applications are illegal for many of our products.
June 7, 2017
How Do Hydraulic Low-Drift Nozzles Work?
Low drift nozzles have become the standard way to apply pesticides from a boom sprayer. In order to use them properly, we need to understand how they are designed and how they are intended to work.
Sprayer nozzles have three functions on a sprayer.
1. Metering flow
2. Atomizing liquid
3. Distributing liquid uniformly
Accurate metering of the flow is done through precise machining or molding of the nozzle.
Atomization of a liquid occurs by imposing some sort of force on the liquid that causes it to break up from a stream or a sheet into droplets of the desired spray quality.
Distribution is done by generating a pattern that, in combination with adjacent nozzles, produces similar dosages in appropriate droplet sizes and densities, along the target area.
All three of these functions are confirmed by the nozzle manufacturer, but the properties are likely to change with wear.
Atomization
Atomization forces could be air-shear (used in some aircraft, airblast, or twin-fluid nozzles), centrifugal energy (used in rotary atomizers), electrical energy (used in some electrostatic sprayers), or hydraulic pressure (used in the most common nozzles, the flat fan or hollow-cone tips).
Typically, the higher the applied energy, the greater the break-up of the spray. More air-shear resulting from faster aircraft or fan speeds, faster rotation of a cage, or more hydraulic pressure all have similar effects: they create finer sprays.
Most nozzles produce polydisperse sprays, comprised of a large number of different droplet sizes. For hydraulic flat fan nozzles, droplets ranging from 5 to 2000 µm can be produced. The exact distribution of the volume in these droplet sizes depends on the nozzle design, the spray liquid, and the pressure. Here are three examples, representing approximately Medium, Coarse, and Extremely Coarse sprays.
Droplet size distribution by number and volume from a Medium spray. Note the majority of the droplets are small, but the majority of the volume (dose) is in somewhat larger droplets.
Droplet size distribution by number and volume from a Coarse spray. Like in the Medium spray, the majority of the droplets are small although there is fewer of them. The majority of the volume is in intermediate sized droplets.
Droplet size distribution by number and volume from a Very Coarse spray. While the majority of the droplets are small as in the finer sprays, their overall number is sharply reduced from the finer sprays. The volume is now in the largest droplet sizes.
Let’s focus on hydraulic nozzles, by far the most common in agriculture.
Spray Pressure
Spray pressure is a useful tool for controlling droplet size from any hydraulic nozzle. Need a finer spray? Add pressure. It is also the basis for the age-old recommendation that lower pressures are a good tool for reducing drift.
We impose practical limits on the upper and lower range of recommended pressures based on several other factors, chief among them the spray pattern.
Spray patterns of a certain width, or angle, are required for proper pattern overlap. The convention is to space hydraulic nozzles at 15 or 20 inch intervals along a boom, and operate them at about 20” above the target. Boom height values will depend on the fan angle of the nozzle and the degree of overlap required. For low-drift flat fan tips, a minimum 100% overlap is best. With 100% overlap, the spray pattern width at target height is twice the nozzle spacing. With this approach, at any point under the boom, the target receives droplets from the closest two nozzle patterns.
Pattern angles are published by manufacturers, but in practice, angles often differ from those values and can vary with spray formulation. Importantly, they tend to become narrower at lower pressures. The exact pressure at which this happens depends on the tip design, but experience shows that pressures below 20 psi for conventional nozzles, and 30 to 40 psi for low-drift nozzles, result in poor (too narrow) patterns. Narrow patterns reduce overlap, resulting in poor distribution.
TeeJet AI11003 at 20 psi
TeeJet AI 11003 at 80 psi
We might also limit pressures at the upper end, based on drift potential. Most conventional flat fan nozzles, for example, drift excessively at pressures above 60 psi or so, hence that limit.
Low Drift Nozzles
Low drift nozzles were quickly adopted by applicators due to their ability to reduce drift and thereby widen the window of safe spray application. They work by using a two-stage design (often called “pre-orifice”) to reduce the internal operating pressure of the tip. The pre-orifice, the original liquid inlet, is round and sized for the nominal flow of the tip. The exit orifice is eliptical in shape and has a larger flow capacity than the pre-orifice, by about 1.2-fold to 2.5-fold. The larger exit creates an internal pressure drop, so the pattern formation produces larger droplets as though the operating pressure had been reduced. Most modern low-drift tips also introduce air into the nozzle via a built-in venturi. This further suppresses the formation of driftable droplets and introduces air into the interior of the nozzle, adding some pressure back to the system.. The Albuz AVI nozzle schematic below explains the venturi design.
Cross-section of the Albuz AVI venturi nozzle.
The tapered channel inside the nozzle is a venturi, which draws air into the nozzle via integrated ports. When low-drift nozzles are operated beside conventional nozzles at the same pressure, low-drift nozzles produce much fewer driftable fines, and also more larger droplets.
But while the two-stage design is useful for managing drift, it also conceals the actual operating pressure of the exit orifice in these tips. The exit orifice is important – it is the part of the nozzle that does the atomizing and that forms the pattern.
Let’s illustrate the pressure inside a low-drift tip by operating an air-induced low-drift nozzle at 60 psi. This nozzle has a pre-orifice size of 03 (0.3 US gpm at 40 psi, blue) and an exit orifice size of 06 (0.6 US gpm at 40 psi, grey). The operator sees 60 psi on the gauge. What is the exit orifice pressure?
The exit tip has twice the flow-rate of the pre-orifice, and therefore operates at one quarter the pressure, or 15 psi. Recall the square-root relationship between flow rate and pressure.
The relationship between spray pressure and flow rate. Doubling the flow rate requires a quadrupling of pressure
That’s not the whole story. The internal venturi is drawing additional air into the nozzle chamber, and depending on the operating pressure, this could be from 5 to 15 psi. The amount added depends on the specific nozzle, its flow rate, and its pressure. Let’s add 10 psi in this case. The exit tip is actually at 25 psi.
Now let’s assume the pressure gauge reads 40 psi, and that the venturi generates 5 psi additional pressure. The actual exit orifice pressure is now only 15 psi. This is at the lower limit at which a spray is atomized, and at which a good pattern can form.
Our general recommendation with venturi-style low-drift tips has been to avoid pressures below 30 or 40 psi for that reason. We’re trying to prevent the spray becoming too coarse for adequate coverage, and also to prevent the spray pattern from collapsing.
The upside of this design is that the same principle allows for much higher-pressure operation without creating excessive drift. These types of nozzle can, in fact, be operated at 70 to 90 psi without becoming very drift-prone because the pressure at which the spray liquid is atomized is likely only 30 or 40 psi (the actual exit pressure and drift potential will depend on the nozzle and the formulation).
Speed Range
A low-drift nozzle with a pressure operating range from 30 to 90 psi (i.e., 3-fold) would have a flow rate range of 1.73 (i.e., the square root of 3 due to the square root relationship of flow rate and spray pressure). This means that the fastest travel speed (at 90 psi) would be 1.73 times the slowest travel speed (at 30 psi).
A conventional nozzle operating between 20 and 60 psi would have the same travel speed range. So why don’t we just do that? The main reason is that the two-stage design lowers the overall amount of drift substantially, something a conventional nozzle can’t achieve even at very low pressures.
A second reason is that even at high pressures, a two-stage design will likely drift less than an conventional nozzle. This is still the case if the conventional nozzle is operating at low pressures. Any spray quality chart comparing spray qualities of conventional and low-drift tips will demonstrate that.
Pulse Width Modulation
PWM uses a solenoid to intermittently shut off nozzle flow, between 10 and 100 times per second (Hz) depending on the manufacturer. This has implications for nozzle design because the nozzle must not leak liquid during the brief off-cycle. If it does, the small amount of liquid leaving the nozzle will not only not atomize properly, it will also cause a pressure drop within the nozzle which must be replenished with the next on-pulse. This will mean the on-pulse will operate at a lower initial pressure, affecting pattern development and atomization. For this reason, venturi-style low-drift nozzles have not been recommended with PWM. The venturi provides an alternate exit for air or liquid, compromising nozzle performance.
And yet, some venturi style nozzles do, in fact, produce acceptable patterns with PWM according to the nozzle manufacturers. This goes to show that nozzle design can continue to evolve to provide the best in drift reduction technology with PWM. Design for PWM suitability should be at the top of nozzle manufacturers’ agendas.
Nozzle design continues to evolve. But in the foreseeable future, spray pressure will continue to control pattern width and droplet size. That’s why understanding the pressure limits of any specific nozzle type, and maintaining pressure within those limits, is so important in any spray operation.
April 4, 2017
Spray Drift – Why is it still happening?
Despite the abundance of information available on spray drift, we continue to see widespread incidents of damage to a variety of crops every year. Do applicators just not care or are they missing some vital information when making decisions to spray? I believe it is the latter.
What is the problem?
In my experience, the vast majority of spray drift cases (probably 90% or more) are the result of ‘inversion drift’. That means the drift has not come from an adjacent sprayed area, it has come from one or more sources that are some distance from the site of damage. The distance between the sprayed site and the location of the damage may vary dramatically, from a few kilometres to tens of kilometres.
Why is there so much inversion drift when labels specifically prohibit use of the products under surface temperature inversions? Many may argue that it is a blatant disregard of the label by a few applicators (translation = cowboy operators). I do not agree this is the main problem. While I can confirm the existence of ‘cowboy operators’, thankfully they are limited in number. I believe the problem is a lack of understanding about how to tell when there is an inversion and particularly not knowing how ‘day wind’ moves differently to ‘inversion wind’. I continue to see good farmers/applicators doing what they believe to be the right thing but it is not. These are people very concerned about minimizing spray drift; they honestly do not think they are doing anything wrong.
What is ‘day wind’?
After sunrise, the sun begins to heat the ground, the warm ground then heats the air close to the surface, and this air then rises. As that warm air rises, cold air from above sinks down to replace it. The ground then warms this cold air and it rises. This cycling of warm air rising and cold air sinking creates turbulence and then wind. This is a good thing; turbulent wind movement is much safer for spraying. ‘Day wind’ has a turbulent motion and is much more likely to pull any fine droplets to the ground within a reasonable distance. During the day, we can predict which direction and how far our fine droplets will travel.
What is ‘inversion wind’?
As the sun sets, the ground begins to cool quickly and this in turn cools the air next to the ground. As we all know, cold air does not rise and warm air does not sink. This means there is a layer of cold air trapped close to the surface and a layer of warm air above it. The result is no turbulent movement or mixing of the air. The air may become quite still and this is often observed around sunset when the daytime wind ceases or drops off. What happens next is where the real danger occurs for spraying.
As the night progresses and the ground cools more, the cool air close to the surface becomes colder and therefore more dense, particularly from midnight onwards. This cold dense air then begins to move across the landscape, often down slope and in very unpredictable directions. Remember this air is not turbulent, there is no mixing, it has layers of air, something like layers in plywood, and it flows parallel to the ground. Any fine droplets released into these layers of cold non-turbulent air will simply move sideways across the surface until the sun rises and heats the ground again. This is when the fine droplets are released from the layers and they come to ground, often in the lower parts of the catchment and a long way from the site of application. It is impossible to predict what direction this ‘inversion wind’ will go. For this reason, spraying in this type of wind is extremely high risk for spray drift.
Key indicators that and inversion is unlikely
- We should always expect that a surface temperature inversion has formed at sunset and will persist until sometime after sunrise unless we have one or more of the following: continuous overcast weather, with low and heavy cloud;
- continuous rain;
- wind speed remains consistently above 11km/h for the whole time between sunset and sunrise;
- and after a clear night, cumulus clouds begin to form.
Inversion wind movement – practical demonstration video
Wind is a key factor in any spray application. The problem is that not all wind is the same. To reduce the incidence of spray drift, it is critical that spray applicators understand how wind moves, particularly during a surface temperature inversion. This video uses smoke flares to visually demonstrate the air movement under inversion conditions.
Here’s what we’re looking for: moderate wind with consistent direction that disperses spray and drives it to ground.
Conclusion
Many factors affect the potential for spray to drift but the main ones are; the weather conditions at the time of application, nozzle selection, products/tank mix used, actual spray quality achieved, speed of rig, and boom height. The common denominator is that all of these things are within the control of the spray operator.
Spraying under inversion conditions is extremely high risk and prohibited on many product labels, that means it is illegal. If you are serious about preventing drift, then you must learn how to identify when an inversion is likely to be present and more importantly when it has broken.
All agricultural chemicals have the potential to drift; it is how we use them that increases or decreases that potential. Therefore, the problem is a human one, not a chemical one. There is a suite of information available but if you are still unsure or need any assistance, please seek advice from an expert. Maintaining long-term access to key products depends on us reducing spray drift.
March 8, 2017

Evaluating an Anti-Drift Adjuvant in an Airblast Sprayer

Most pesticides are either pre-formulated with the required adjuvants, or the label specifies their addition. However, compelling claims by manufacturers create interest in tank mixing additional adjuvants to improve some aspect of pesticide performance. In a previous article we advised caution when using adjuvants in airblast sprayers (see here). Specifically, we stated that unless an adjuvant has been tested with airblast equipment, do not assume it will perform as it does in a boom sprayer. In the last year, we’ve received a lot of questions about anti-drift adjuvants, so we decided to test one of the more popular products.

The Adjuvant

According to the manufacturer, InterLock is a vegetable oil-based adjuvant intended to improve deposition, canopy penetration and drift reduction from both aerial and ground applications. Independent research has validated its ability to reduce the population of Finer droplets produced by a nozzle without shifting the entire droplet spectrum into a Coarser category. As such, InterLock is used extensively in aerial and field sprayer applications, but we wanted to explore its fit in airblast applications.

There are fundamental differences in how an airblast sprayer functions compared to a field sprayer. An airblast sprayer operates at pressures considerably higher than field sprayers, and many use paddle agitation to churn tank mixes. Further, droplets are entrained by air and can be carried several meters before reaching their target. So, does the collective impact of paddle agitation, droplet shear and the increased opportunity for evaporation affect the adjuvants performance?

The Trials

Water sensitive cards were distributed throughout target trees in an apple orchard. We elected to use two models of airblast sprayer to eliminate the chance of sprayer-specific results. Both models applied either water or water-and-adjuvant. So, the four treatments were:

Hol Sprayer: Water
Hol Sprayer: Water-and-Adjuvant
Turbomist: Water
Turbomist: Water-and-Adjuvant

Weather Conditions

On the afternoon of May 30, 2016, the crosswind was 6-11 kmh (3.7-6.8 mph), the temperature was 27 ˚C (80.5 ˚F), and the relative humidity was ~50%. While warm, conditions were reasonable for spraying.

Orchard and Targets

We worked in high-density Honeycrisp apples planted in 2008 on M.26 rootstock. Row spacing was 5 m (16’), average canopy width was 1.2 m (4’) and average height was 3.3 m (11’). Water sensitive cards were located at the top, middle and bottom of each target tree, close to trunk. In each location, the cards were placed back-to-back with sensitive sides facing the alleys.

We placed cards in two trees in the same row, and the sprayer passed down both sides to complete the application. We performed this twice per treatment. That’s four trees per treatment representing a total of 24 cards (comprised of eight per position).

Sprayers

As previously mentioned, we used two models of airblast sprayer. In both designs, nozzle bodies are outside the airstream, causing additional shear as nozzles spray into the air on an angle.

A Hol sprayer with tower operated at 9.6 bar (140 psi) and driven at 5.6 kmh (3.5 mph). The sprayer was calibrated and spray was distributed to match the canopy. Nozzles were TeeJet AITX 8004s and TXR 80015’s spraying 10.2 l/min. (2.7 gpm) per side for a total rate of approximately 500 l/ha (53.5 gpa).

A Turbomist with tower was operated at 11.7 bar (170 psi) and driven at 5.6 kmh (3.5 mph). The sprayer was calibrated and spray was distributed to match the canopy. Nozzles were TeeJet AITX 8004s and TXR 8002’s spraying 10.6 l/min. (2.8 gpm) per side for a total rate of approximately 500 l/ha (53.5 gpa).

Spray mix

Sprayers were filled with water for the control trials, and then dosed with the equivalent of 250 ml per 500 L (8.5 oz in 132 US gal.) of spray mix, per manufacturer’s recommendation. We ensured lines were primed and sprayer was up to speed before spraying.

Analysis

Water sensitive cards were scanned and digitized to compare coverage and median droplet size using DepositScan software (created by Dr. Heping Zhu, USDA ARS, Ohio). Water sensitive cards have a limitation when quantifying average droplet size: once a card exceeds about 30% coverage, too many droplets overlap and their combined profile is wrongly counted as a single droplet. This can skew droplet size analysis.

For the sake of an accurate comparison, we selected subsets of the overall data; we analyzed only those cards with 40% coverage or less, then refined our comparison to those cards with 30% or less, and finally cards with 20% or less. In each subset, the data remained fairly robust because they included at least one card from each canopy position (i.e. top, middle, low) and three from each treatment.

In the following tables, the range of droplet sizes is represented by D_V0.1, D_V0.5 and D_V0.9 in µm. Basically, this is the span of droplet diameters from the smallest 10%, to the median to largest 10% in microns. The standard error of the mean and the number of papers are also indicated.

Data subset 1: Cards with 40% coverage or less

	Avg. D_V0.1 (µm) ±SEM	Avg. D_V0.5 (µm) ±SEM	Avg. D_V0.9 (µm) ±SEM
Hol	Adjuvant: 255±33 (n=8) Water: 254±24 (n=12)	Adjuvant: 664±137 (n=8) Water: 736±114 (n=12)	Adjuvant: 1,175±223 (n=8) Water: 1,391±204 (n=12)
Turbomist	Adjuvant: 252±38 (n=8) Water: 258±31 (n=9)	Adjuvant: 545±86 (n=8) Water: 697±141 (n=9)	Adjuvant: 964±168 (n=8) Water: 1,175±237 (n=9)

Data subset 2: Cards with 30% coverage or less

	Avg. D_V0.1 (µm) ±SEM	Avg. D_V0.5 (µm) ±SEM	Avg. D_V0.9 (µm) ±SEM
Hol	Adjuvant: 221±30 (n=6) Water: 189±22 (n=6)	Adjuvant: 553±127 (n=6) Water: 495±118 (n=6)	Adjuvant: 1,007±245 (n=6) Water: 969±235 (n=6)
Turbomist	Adjuvant: 240±42 (n=7) Water: 192±22 (n=5)	Adjuvant: 502±86 (n=7) Water: 433±89 (n=5)	Adjuvant: 912±184 (n=7) Water: 759±187 (n=5)

Data subset 3: Cards with 20% coverage or less

	Avg. D_V0.1 (µm) ±SEM	Avg. D_V0.5 (µm) ±SEM	Avg. D_V0.9 (µm) ±SEM
Hol	Adjuvant: 163±19 (n=3) Water: 172±28 (n=4)	Adjuvant: 371±107 (n=3) Water: 472±176 (n=4)	Adjuvant: 617±137 (n=3) Water: 904±315 (n=4)
Turbomist	Adjuvant: 240±78 (n=4) Water: 192±22 (n=5	Adjuvant: 439±140 (n=4) Water: 433±89 (n=5)	Adjuvant: 691±189 (n=4) Water: 759±187 (n=5)

Conclusions

In the first subset (i.e. 40% coverage or less) there was no trend to suggest the sprayer model made any difference in coverage. Nor did there appear to be any change in the droplet spectra produced by water or water-plus-adjuvant. In particular, there was no apparent increase in the D_V0.1 when adjuvant was used, which we would expect to see if the Finest droplets produced by the nozzle were made Coarser. We hoped that by further subdividing the data to cards with 30% coverage or less, and then 20% coverage or less might resolve some trend, but there were no significant differences to speak of.

These trials are not drift studies, so we cannot say that the adjuvant has or doesn’t have an effect on particle drift. However, according to the water sensitive cards, there is no apparent impact on droplet size or deposition. This suggests that some property of airblast application has reduced or negated the benefit of using the adjuvant. As such, the use of InterLock in an airblast sprayer cannot be recommended. It supports our position that unless an adjuvant has been tested with airblast equipment, you should not assume it will perform as it does in a boom sprayer.

Thanks to Winfield for the educational donation of InterLock, to TeeJet for the nozzles and to Provide Agro for use of the Hol sprayer. Special thanks to Donald Murdoch of the University of Guelph for operating the sprayers.

October 27, 2016

The Case for Low-Drift Sprays
This article was written by Tom Wolf for “PEI Potato News Magazine”, a publication of the Prince Edward Island Potato Board (http://peipotato.org/). It is reprinted with permission.
PEI Potato News Magazine
“Should I be using low-drift nozzles?” It seems like a simple question with an obvious answer. We all want to reduce spray drift, and this easy-to-use technology is the fastest way to get there.
And yet, the question is more complicated than it first appears. Yes, all applicators want to reduce drift, but many worry about the coarse sprays produced by low-drift nozzles. As a spray volume is divided into coarser (i.e. larger) droplets, there are fewer of them, and that can reduce coverage. It’s a legitimate concern.
Let’s start with our shared value first – the desire to reduce spray drift.
Given the economic, environmental and health impacts of spray drift, the importance is hard to over-state. That’s why spray drift management is a primary concern of our federal regulators whose job is to protect the public interest. It’s also a concern for the neighbours who have a right to keep unwanted products off their property, whether it’s residential or agricultural.
Conventional flat fan nozzles (XR8004) operating at 40 psi
Glyphosate drift with 20 km/h side wind, XR8004 40 psi
Low-drift nozzles (TD11004) operating at 60 psi
Glyphosate drift with 20 km/h side wind, TD11004 60 psi
For these reason, managing drift should be a foremost concern for applicators. The technology is vital to the crop production industry, and if we don’t take care of the issue, someone else will take care of it for us. That’s not the best path.
Much has been written about how to reduce drift. The key points are:
- choosing days with better weather,
- lowering booms and travel speeds,
- watching spray pressure,
- protecting the spray with shields,
- using coarser spray qualities on the whole.
Of these, the most economical and practical is using coarser sprays via low-drift nozzles. Engineered to emit fewer fine droplets, they are proven to reduce drift by anywhere from 50 to 95% compared to a standard flat fan of the same size. When it comes to reducing drift, they work.
When these tips first hit the mainstream as “pre-orifice” nozzles in the late 1980s, and later as “venturi” nozzles in the mid 1990s, we were impressed with their ability to reduce drift. And the obvious question was, what about product efficacy? Can fewer, larger droplets do the job? The answer, to our initial surprise, was yes.
In the late 1990s, the crop protection industry (including governments, universities, and the private sector), participated in studies throughout Europe, Australasia, and North America looking at low-drift spray performance. In Canada alone, we conducted over 100 studies and concluded that pesticide efficacy was not harmed when a properly adjusted low-drift nozzle was used. A surprising result showed that fungicides did not seem to need finer sprays, contrary to popular opinion, as long as water volumes were sufficient to provide adequate coverage.
As we did more and more studies, it became apparent which points were critical:
- When using venturi nozzles, spray pressure had to be increased from the industry standard of 40 psi to about 70 psi. This is because of a venturi nozzle’s two-stage design. The high pressure compensated for an internal pressure drop inside the nozzle. Sprays remained low-drift, but patterns and overall efficacy were better at this higher pressure.
Spray pattern of conventional spray (XR8002, 40 psi)
Spray pattern of low-drift spray (ULD12002, 60 psi)
Spray deposit of conventional spray (XR8002, 40 psi. ~10 gpa)
Spray deposit of low-drift spray (ULD12002, 60 psi, ~10 gpa)
- Spray pattern overlap needed to be greater with low-drift sprays – a full 100%. In other words, the edge of one nozzle’s spray pattern should reach the middle of the adjacent nozzles’ patterns. The pattern width at target height was now twice the nozzle spacing and this ensured good distribution of not only the spray volume, but droplet numbers, along the boom.
- We needed to pay attention to the target plant architecture and leaf surface properties. Plants such as grasses (with vertical surfaces and difficult-to-wet leaves) often had less spray retention with coarser sprays. Low-drift nozzles worked, but we couldn’t go as coarse in these cases. Careful selection of low-drift nozzles as well as more attention paid to operating pressure solved these issues.
- Our minimum water volumes had to increase slightly to compensate for the fewer drops produced by low-drift sprays. This was especially true for contact modes of action where too few droplets-per-area reduced performance. Using an Extremely Coarse spray at a very low water volume was asking for trouble.
Much of my efforts in recent years have been to advise applicators just how coarse they can safely go without harming product performance. This involves things we’ve touched on in this article, like water volumes, modes of action in the tank mix, target plant or canopy architecture, growing conditions, and the like. We’ve arrived at a few rules of thumb, like those above, but as always, it’s dangerous to oversimplify and there are always new situations to grapple with.
While we were learning how to tweak low drift nozzles to get them to perform, we also learned there were significant advantages to using coarser spray qualities.
1. Foremost, there was an immediate reduction in drift. One applicator told me years ago that switching to a low-drift spray removed a huge burden of worry from him, and that alone was worth it.
2. Low-drift sprays made it easier to spray on-time, even if weather conditions were marginal for conventional sprays. The result: the timely removal of weeds, or the correct staging of fungicides and insecticides. This has paid large dividends in terms of protected yield.
3. Coarser sprays can protect product performance from some adverse conditions, such as days with high evaporation rates. On such days, fine sprays evaporate to dryness so quickly that uptake can be limited. Larger drops stay liquid longer, with more uptake the result.
4. Directed sprays, be they banded sprays or twin fan nozzles for fungicides, make more sense from coarser nozzles. The reason is that these coarser sprays go where they’re pointed, whereas fine sprays lose their path in wind or through travel-induced deflection, very quickly.
5. We also learned about the air-entrainment that coarser sprays can produce. Large droplets dragged air with them, and smaller droplets could hitch a ride in their wake. This provided a form of air-assistance that reduced drift and carried small droplets into the canopy. Finer sprays had a harder time producing this type of drag, and sustaining it in the canopy.
When we analyzed the droplet size spectrum of coarse and fine sprays, we confirmed that the total number of droplets produced by any given volume of water had been reduced. Not a surprise. But two things struck us.
First, even though the average size of droplets in coarse sprays were very large, they still contained a population of small droplets. In fact, if you counted every single droplet in the spray, the vast majority were small and they were still taking care of coverage.
Second, the critical amount of coverage (measured as the percent of the surface area covered by spray deposits) that was necessary for a given product to work was lower than what we’d been aiming for. In other words, we didn’t need as much coverage as we thought we did, and any excess didn’t actually add to product performance in most cases.
We later analyzed the relationship between spray coverage and herbicide performance and found that the uniformity of the deposits was actually more important than the amount of coverage per se. So, if we focussed on proper overlap and spray pressure there was greater benefit than increased coverage alone. Deposit uniformity has become our research focus of late.
So, should you be using low-drift nozzles? By adopting the changes in pressure, overlap, and water volume outlined above, and paying more attention to the plant architecture and pesticide mode of action, we’ve been very successful in implementing low-drift sprays in all field crops. In my view, we can safely retire Fine sprays for all field crop pesticides. This means conventional flat fan nozzles, hollow cone nozzles, and the like. Get rid of them. All they do is add drift potential.
It’s safe to adopt low-drift sprays. Research and experience from the field prove that they work. Low-drift sprays should be viewed as an agronomic tool that improves application timing and accuracy. And with less drift, we show that agricultural practice can be both efficient and environmentally responsible. That’s going to be a very important story to tell, now and in the future.
May 20, 2016