Not being able to finish a tank due to weather or any other reason happens to just about everyone. Is it OK to simply leave the sprayer as is, and resume spraying later after some agitation?
In many cases, the answer is yes. Most pesticide mixtures are stable in short term storage. On resuming spraying, an agitation could be all that’s needed to get back to where you started a day or so earlier.
But there are three important exceptions.
When the active ingredient is formulated as a suspension. Suspensions are typically wettable powders and flowables, and rely on a clay carrier to distribute the active in the tank. Because clay is denser than water, these formulations settle out quickly after agitation stops. Sure, they can be brought back into suspension with vigorous agitation. But in lines and booms, boom ends and screens, dislodging a settled clay carrier is much more difficult. It’s also hard to tell if the cleaning has been successful because the problem spots are hidden.
The best solution is to flush the spray boom with water before materials can settle and lodge. A visual inspection where access is possible, such as strainer bowls and boom ends, is part of the process to ensure the formulated product has been removed.
Learn to identify which formulations are suspensions. There’s lots of jargon out there. Look for terms such as DC, DF, DG, DS, F, Gr, SP. Even EC formulations are suspensions (oil in water) and require agitation.
When the active ingredient is chemically unstable. Some pesticides can degrade in the tank, usually due to alkaline (high pH) hydrolysis. The effect is very pesticide specific, but in general, insecticides (particularly organophosphates and carbamates) are more susceptible than other pesticides. This fact sheet by Michigan State University describes the impact of pH on a the half-life of a large number of pesticides.
Note that in the examples in the MSU fact sheets, pesticide half lives are typically days and weeks, and only rarely hours. Also note that while high pH is most often problematic, low pH can lead to faster breakdown in a small number of products.
Ensuring tank mix stability requires a pH meter or paper, and possibly a pH modifier such as citric acid. But do your research first! Here’s an article on pH and water quality.
When the tank previously contained a product known to harm the current crop. This situation is most common and most difficult to address. Some examples from western Canada are Group 2 modes of action sprayed prior to a canola crop. Why are Group 2 products implicated? Many are formulated as dry products on a clay base, and these can settle in boom ends, adhere to tank walls, or get stuck on screens. Their solubility is pH dependent, as we explain in this article.
Canola is particularly sensitive to this mode of action, and the most common canola herbicides, Liberty and glyphosate, are formulated with strong detergents that act as tank cleaners.
Even when applicators think that their tank is clean, they can’t actually be sure and can’t do much about it at that stage. The stripping of tiny amounts of residue off the tank walls, filter screens, or plumbing, can happen during a mid-day stop or an overnight break. Applicators eventually find out that this happened, usually about two weeks after spraying.
Our advice is:
After spraying a herbicide to which a subsequent crop may be sensitive, with the classic case being a Group 2 and moving to canola, be extra diligent with cleaning and pay attention to the tank walls, all screens, and boom ends.
The best way to solve issues is to avoid them in the first place. If the weather looks unsettled and may interrupt your spray operation, consider mixing smaller batches that can be sprayed out completely even if conditions change quickly. This allows you to rinse the tank and spray water through the boom, thus avoiding a contamination problem developing overnight.
If that’s not possible, at least do not let a tank mix sit in the boom overnight. Instead, use your clean water tank to push water through the boom prior to storage and double check the screens. The following day, prime the boom with your tank mix as usual and resume spraying the crop.
If you’re not sure that your sprayer can draw from the clean water tank and push through the booms (the wash-down nozzles are, after all, the intended destination for that water), decipher your system and add the necessary valves that make this possible.
A useful design that helps flush and prime a boom quickly is the recirculating boom offered by some aftermarket boom manufacturers. These booms are also more common on European sprayers. A nice feature of such designs is that the tank contents can be pumped through the entire boom assembly without actually spraying. This ensures that the boom is primed without any soil contamination. It also dilutes whatever residue there may be in the boom plumbing with the entire tank, likely reducing its concentration enough to be of little concern.
An additional feature of recirculating booms is that many offer stainless steel tubing throughout most of their feed and return length, minimizing the black rubber hose products that often adsorb, and later release, herbicide contamination.
Even if a wholesale boom or sprayer change is impractical, consider switching to steel boom lines and tanks tank to minimize residue carryover.
As is often the case in the spraying business, prevention is easier and less costly than solving a big problem later. Spray mix storage is one of those examples where a small amount of extra effort at the beginning can pay big dividends later.
In Part One of this article, we showed that approximately 40% of minor use label expansions and registrant submissions rely on data from hand booms and guns. We also showed that a hydraulic backpack or knapsack will not give the same coverage as an airblast sprayer, and we concluded by suggesting that small plot researchers use spray equipment that reflects grower practices.
Unfortunately, practical logistics prevent most researchers from using a full-size airblast sprayer. They may not have access to such a sprayer, and if they do, it takes considerable time to mix and clean between treatments. Further, treatments are often only a single row, or even a single plant. It takes too much pesticide, too much time, and too much plot space to justify using a full-sized airblast sprayer, even if the relevance of the results are questionable.
Would another method of application better emulate an airblast application but retain the convenience of a hand boom or gun?
The motorized backpack mistblower
Using the same methods used to compare airblast to hand boom spray coverage in the previous article, we compared airblast sprayer coverage to that of a motorized backpack mistblower in grape, raspberry and peach (July, 2013). Once again, coverage was analyzed as overall percent coverage (see first graph) and droplet density (average droplets per square centimeter – see second graph).
Comparison of average % coverage in peach, raspberry and grape using a mistblower and air blast sprayer emitting he same volumeComparison of droplets per square centimetre in peach, raspberry and grape using a mistblower and air blast sprayer emitting the same volume
Results and Observations
The mistblower met, or in the case of droplet density, exceeded the coverage obtained using an air blast sprayer in most crops. The results led to a few observations:
The significantly-higher droplet density is a function of the Finer spray quality produced by the mistblower (see water sensitive papers below). This may still represent a confound between small plot work and large scale airblast applications.
Drift between proximal treatments may be an issue given how far the mist was blown. This should be considered when planning plots.
While not shown here, spray coverage was more consistent throughout each canopy, of each crop, when using the mistblower. This is likely because the operator was able to aim the output as they swept the spray over the canopy, thereby ensuring all surfaces were hit from multiple angles.
While we always try to be brand-neutral, it should be noted that we’ve used multiple Solo mistblowers over the years, and all of them required significant maintenance (no matter how they were cleaned and stored). It was very difficult to find brand parts and repair expertise in Ontario. The Stihl brand currently has far more dealers, and more accessible parts, and has not caused us any difficulties (yet).
Always use the highest grade gasoline in two-stroke engines to avoid ethanol gumming up the carburetors!
Always calibrate mistblowers by volume because raising and lowering the boom will affect the flow rate.
Conclusion
Hand booms, and likely hand guns, are not appropriate for testing agrichemical products intended for use with an airblast sprayer. Data derived from these methods should be questioned. An airblast sprayer is the best choice for any such research, but a mistblower is a viable alternative. Transparent, standardized operating protocols for testing products intended for use in airblast sprayers should be required.
Thanks to Vaughan Agricultural Research Services Ltd. for their assistance in the research performed for this article.
Peer-reviewed journal publications claim there is a significant difference in spray coverage and deposition patterns when an agrichemical product is applied using an airblast sprayer versus a hydraulic hand boom. An airblast sprayer creates Fine droplets that shear in entraining air and are carried into a plant canopy. Properly calibrated, the air opens the canopy to expose all target surfaces to the spray. By comparison, a hand boom relies on pressure to propel fine droplets into a canopy, and while there is some air-entrainment surrounding the spray, it cannot travel as far or displace as much canopy. As a result, most of it impacts on the outer surfaces of the canopy.
Knowing this, it is surprising that so many products intended for use with airblast sprayers are applied by researchers and consultants using hand booms or the high-pressure arborist-style handgun (see ‘Survey of Submissions’).
Survey of Submissions This graph represents a random selection of 150 minor use label expansion studies and registrant submissions from Canada and the USA spanning 1990 to 2011. It shows the application method by crop.
In 2012, we performed some research with the following goals:
To demonstrate the difference between spray deposition and coverage when using a hand boom versus an airblast sprayer.
To create a sound basis for questioning and potentially improving how agrichemical products for orchard, bush, and vine are tested in Canada.
Using water-sensitive paper to diagnose spray coverage, airblast sprayer application was compared to hand boom application in highbush blueberry, apple and grape.
Target locations in highbush blueberry.Target locations in apple.Target locations in grape panel.
Sprayers were calibrated to emit the same volume per planted area via hollow-cone nozzles. Volumes selected were based on typical application volumes for Pristine or Captan (commonly sprayed in Canada). While there is no standardized protocol (and there should be) we followed typical practices of 500L/ha for grapes, blueberry and apples until plant growth warrants higher carrier volumes. At that point, many researchers go up to 1,000 L/ha. Coverage was quantified by collecting and digitally scanning water-sensitive papers to calculate overall percent coverage (see graph) and droplet density (average droplets per square centimeter – see graph).
Overall percent coverageDroplet density
Conclusion
In all cases, airblast applications deposit > %50 more spray than a hand boom. In the case of grape, you’ll note there are three bars. This is because spraying 1,000 L/ha with the airblast sprayer drenched the targets (it was late in the season and the canopy was sparse), making it impossible to discern droplet density. When we reduced the output to 375 L/ha, we were able to register droplet density, which was still significantly higher than that produced by the hand boom at 1,000 L/ha. This raises significant questions about the validity of efficacy and residue studies performed with hand booms when growers apply the same products using airblast sprayers.
When this data was shared at extension conferences, it was sometimes noted that many researchers choose to spray the target until it is drenched, ensuring the dose administered to the crop reflects what was intended. This does not, however, invalidate the fact that a growers spray equipment and practices are significantly different, and the dose and spray distribution they achieve will not reflect the original research.
The recommendation is that researchers use the same equipment to test products as the growers use to apply them. But, recognizing the difficulties associated with performing small plot experiments with full-sized airblast sprayers, an alternative is needed. That topic will be addressed in part two of this article.
Horticultural Crops Ontario, the grower co-operators and former OMAFRA summer student Carly Decker are gratefully acknowledged for making this research possible.
A Veteran Applicator’s Questions about Pesticide Handling
Time and again, after years of working with dozens of different chemicals, I would wonder to myself “How dangerous is this chemical?”, “Is glyphosate as safe as they say it is?”, “How do I find out what type of safety gear I need while handling this chemical?”
Beyond the agrichemical dealer, ag. consultants, and university or government ag. extension specialists, a quick internet search reveals many sources of pesticide information. Collectively they identify the active ingredient(s) in formulated products, they detail which pests are best controlled by the pesticide, and they provide instruction for application. But it’s more difficult to find consistent, practical information about safe pesticide handling. Sometimes it’s excessive to the point of being impractical (try finding actual “chemical proof” gloves), and sometimes it’s minimal and vague – it depends where you look. No matter the level of precaution, pesticide safety is time consuming and involves some fussing, but it is the hallmark of responsible pesticide use. Just as we ensure that we are applying “safe rates” when spraying chemicals, we must also ensure we are respecting our own well-being while handling chemicals.
In Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is charged with protecting human health and safety by monitoring pesticides that are sold in this country. According to the Federal Pest Control Products Act all pesticides sold in Canada must be registered with the PMRA. There’s a very nice overview of how that process works here. It is during this registration process that pesticide handling precautions are identified for the label. Further classification may take place under provincial acts.
All pesticides are designed to disrupt, repel, control or kill living organisms, but when it comes to safe handling, insecticides receive the most attention. This is because herbicides and fungicides target biochemical pathways that only exist in plants or fungi. However, most pesticides can be hazardous if they are not handled correctly. The handling precautions that appear on the label are based on five factors.
Five factors that affect handling precautions:
1. Pesticide Family
This factor is the broadest way to categorize potential risk to the handler. Generally, herbicides and fungicides are considered safer than insecticides, but there are notable exceptions. Do not rely solely on the pesticide family when making decisions on pesticide handling.
2. Pesticide Mode of Action
The mode of action gives further detail into how a pesticide should be handled. Modes of action that inhibit biochemical pathways that exist in the target pest, but not in mammals (people, in particular), have lower acute toxicities. Examples include herbicides that inhibit enzymes involved in amino acid synthesis or in photosynthesis – these enzymes do not exist in mammals. However, once again, there are always exceptions. Do not rely solely on mode of action when making decisions on pesticide handling.
3. Pesticide Formulation & Route of Entry
Pesticide formulation affects how a product can potentially be absorbed into the body. Emulsifiable Concentrates (ECs), for example, have higher rates of absorption than solutions or dry products. When it comes to the route of entry, dermal contact is considered safer than inhalation or ingestion. However, not all parts of your skin are created equal, and the point of dermal contact on the body matters a great deal.
4. Pesticide Toxicity
Taken collectively, the first three factors form the overall toxicity of the pesticide. The level of toxicity cannot be predicted – it has to be tested. The LD50 (defined below) values that are reported for a pesticide come from standardized experiments such as animal feeding. Although the chosen species (usually white rats for mammalian endpoints) are known to be similar to humans in their response, there is still the possibility of error. Nevertheless, toxicity forms an important basis for establishing handling precautions.
5. Operator Exposure
People handle toxic substances every day. Household bleach, for example is surprisingly toxic, and yet it can be readily found on kitchen shelves in many homes. The risk of being harmed by a toxic product can only be determined by the likelihood of exposure. While it is possible someone might accidentally consume a hazardous dose of bleach, it’s improbable. Exposure does not just refer to a single exposure to a substance – repeated exposures to small doses of a toxic substance can have a cumulative effect. The goal when handling any pesticide is to minimize exposure, but it becomes even more critical when that pesticide is highly toxic. Together, exposure and toxicity form the basis for risk.
Risk = Hazard x Exposure
Studies have shown that exposure is greatest for handlers of agricultural pesticides during the mixing and loading phase of spraying. During this phase, the risk to the handler may be increased due to:
physical stress
the denial of risk
a negative opinion of personal protective equipment (PPE)
The main method of pesticide exposure is dermal, and many of the surfaces on a piece of equipment are already contaminated.
Health effects of pesticides: Acute and Chronic
Acute: short term
High exposure, resulting in immediate reaction due to a high dosage of pesticide exposure. The severity depends on the toxicity of the molecule and entry into the body (dermal, oral, eyes, etc.). The most common acute reaction is skin irritation, although in certain cases respiratory, digestive, and neurological systems may be affected. Organophosphate (e.g. Lorsban, Malathion) and carbamate (e.g. Sevin, Lannate) insecticides inhibit the cholinesterase enzyme, which is found in humans and affects nerve function. Frequent users of these insecticides undergo regular blood tests to ensure their levels are normal.
Chronic: long term
Chronic affects are more prolonged as they are usually due to lower doses of pesticide exposure over a longer period of time. Although some rare cancers and disruption of the reproductive system have shown to be related to this type of exposure, when the general population and farming population have been compared in studies, the farming population has shown an under-representation in the majority of cancers. In the cases were reproductive malfunctions were observed, a different cause of the malfunction, such as genetic offset, was most often observed in these situations. However, cancer types such as skin cancer and brain cancer were overrepresented in the farming community. A study in France has shown that the onset of neurological disorders in Agriculture communities shows a strong connection between Parkinson’s disease and exposure to pesticides.
Label Information
The majority of information needed to safely handle pesticides is found on the label. Pesticide labels are legal documents, meaning they can be enforced by the federal government. The problem is that most sprayer operators rarely look at the label as they are not very reader friendly and easy to skim through. Most pesticide boxes even have the recommended rate, or acres/case on the side of the box now, so there is even less reason to look at the label.
LD50– the dose of pesticide in mg per kg of the test animals body weight that is lethal to 50 percent of the group of test animals. For example, if the pesticide has an acute oral LD50 value of 1000 mg/kg, and the test animals each weigh 1 kg, then 50 percent of the animals would die if they each ate 1000 mg of pesticide at once. A 100 kg animal would need to ingest 100,000 mg (100 g) of the pesticide for the same effect. LD50 is often expressed by the route of entry – dermal, inhalation, acute oral (ingestion) are the main examples.
Degree of Risk and Hazard Symbols
The appropriate PPE for a job is determined by two factors
The Hazard Rating (above) incorporates the minimum protection generally required for a substance with the rating.
The Label Recommendations will usually give the additional specific protective clothing and equipment needs for an applicator.
Degree of Exposure
This increases as the length of each pesticide application increases. As the number of pesticide applications increases, the time between exposures decreases. If an operator becomes exposed to spray, dust or fumes the degree of exposure increases. Essentially, more protective wear is needed as the degree of exposure becomes greater.
Knowledge
This encompasses all of the above information. In order for a pesticide applicator to avoid injury or the chances of adverse effects on the body, a pesticide applicator must be knowledgeable about pesticides. It can be overwhelming for an applicator to sort through all of the information on the label or on-line regarding pesticides. So much so, that most often applicators avoid the information altogether. Ongoing training and learning will ensure that they are effective in their work. Many aspects of pest control change continuously, as new studies are conducted on the effects of pesticide exposure.
The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is available for all pesticides registered, and these are usually linked on manufacturers’ websites. It can be eye-opening what types of toxicity tests are done, and what the results are.
Denial that pesticides can potentially cause harm is also a major flaw in the behaviour of applicators. Maintaining a safe work environment and practicing personal safety will reduce the chances of an applicator experiencing serious injury throughout their farming career.
Unknowns
There is very little certainty in toxicology. For one, most testing is done using acute oral and dermal dosing. Basically, toxicologists expose test animals to the neat active ingredient and watch what happens. There is a lot of missing information – what about formulant like solvents, and surfactants? What about synergies in tank mixes? Some, but not all of these, undergo testing. We also have much less information on chronic (long-term) effects, and can only simulate these in quasi long-range tests. In addition, toxicological methodologies and statistical approaches can vary, and we should not be surprised that some reports disagree, and that there are outright conflicts between toxicologists and epidemiologists (scientists that study patterns of health in populations). Regulators are aware of these shortcomings and often use safety factors to account for them. But those of us that use these products regularly, the message is simple: be cautious, and protect yourself.
Avoid Cross-Contamination
Disposable nitrile gloves are the product of choice for handling pesticides. But one of the most common problems with the use of gloves is cross-contamination. You’re handling product with your gloves on, touching containers, hoses, valves, and couplers. When you’re done, you climb back into the cab where you take off your gloves. Later, someone climbs up into the cab to talk to you, using the railing and operating the door handle without gloves. Guess what’s on their hands? Even later, you put away the hose without gloves and return to the sprayer. Now it’s on the steering wheel and all the levers. There are a few solutions:
Double-glove so you can take the dirty outside glove off and still be protected.
Wipe down surfaces that you might touch with gloved or bare hands daily.
If using non-disposable gloves, avoid lined gloves and rinse the insides out daily.
Learn More
If you would like to learn more about pesticide safety, or to obtain pesticide application training, the Pesticide Applicator Licence can be obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture. This course offers in depth, valuable safety information for applicators, as well as general knowledge for pesticide applicators. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency provides workers, employers, and the general public with a wide range of pesticide information. The PMRA can be contacted from anywhere in Canada toll free at: 1-800-267-6315
Download this Quick Reference Guide for commonly used herbicides. Print, laminate and post it at the fill station or pesticide storage area for easy reference.
Biopesticides are a rapidly growing segment in horticultural pest control. While they are often billed as green “miracle cures”, applicators should be aware that they require unique considerations. Issues with lifespan, target specificity, and application technology can all impact their efficacy. However, like any pesticide application, careful planning can minimize wasted time and money.
Typically defined as pesticides derived from “natural” sources, biopesticides contain active ingredients extracted from plants, microorganisms, animals, and/or certain minerals. Given their origin, and the fact that many biopesticides are living organisms (as is the case with most of the microbial-based pesticides), they are often photo-sensitive and quickly break down. This generally means that they need to be re-applied often.
Mixing and handling
Pre-suspending nematodes before inoculating the spray tank.
Consideration should also be given to the lifespan of these products during the application. Many have an optimum pH for both the carrier water and the soil, and a limited temperature range outside of which they may not be active. As already mentioned, direct sunlight can quickly degrade many biopesticides, which means they should be applied either early or late in the day. Timeliness is also a factor: efficacy can be greatly reduced if the product is not used quickly – many biopesticide organisms begin to break down as soon as they are tank mixed. Also, be aware that it can be difficult (or impossible) to find suitable tank-mix partners. For example, a fungal biopesticide obviously shouldn’t be mixed with a fungicide. That also leads the applicator to consider their spray program carefully and clean their sprayers thoroughly between applications.
Efficacy
Applicators should understand how each biopesticide is supposed to control (or more likely, supress) pests. Many biopesticides have to be ingested or physically contact the pest. As such, they often need high application volumes to ensure sufficient coverage of all target surfaces. Many are slow to control the pest, so the applicator may mistakenly think the product is not working, and reapply unnecessarily.
Application equipment
Cleaning a strainer – image courtesy of M. Lanthier.
Applicators may need to reconsider their current equipment when using biopesticides. If the product has to contact the pest, high droplet density is preferred. This can be accomplished with high volumes, but also with higher droplet counts, and that means smaller droplets. Drift issues aside, many biopesticides are actually living organisms (e.g. nematodes) which might be negatively affected by the small nozzle orifice.
The “Spray Guy”, Dr. Jason Deveau, (Application Technology Specialist with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs) suggests using a nozzle with a larger exit orifice and no pre-orifice to minimize clogging or any potential damage to the microorganisms. Clogging can be further reduced by using a minimum of three levels of filtration on a sprayer. With proper agitation, a tank basket, suction filter at the pump and slotted strainers behind each tip should catch any “chunks”. In-line filters at the boom are also potentially helpful. Each filter, from tank to nozzle, should be filter smaller particles than the last. Cleaning screens diligently and inspecting the effectiveness of the agitation system, should be part of every spray day.
Applicators can account for many of these issues by understanding what the biopesticide is and how it is intended to work. Consider these questions:
When is the pest active/vulnerable?
Under what conditions does the product need to be used to be most effective?
Are there special handling or mixing considerations?
What do I need to have in place to minimize the time between mixing and applying the product?
Ultimately, an effective application of biopesticides relies on integrated pest management (IPM). Biopesticides can work as advertised when used thoughtfully and appropriately. Understanding the products benefits and limitations will ensure applicators reap the full benefits of these new and evolving methods of control.
