Spray drift as influenced by meteorological and technical factors.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate spray drift from a conventional field sprayer as influenced by meteorological and technical factors, and to provide spray operators with data on which to base sound judgements when applying pesticides. The study was conducted in grazing fields and cereal crops. RESULTS: Interpreting the results from 15 field trials under varying meteorological conditions using different boom heights and driving speeds indicates that, during normal spraying conditions, the most decisive factors influencing the total spray drift (TSD) will be boom height and wind speed, followed by air temperature, driving speed and vapour pressure deficit. One important finding was that TSD (within the encompassed range of meteorological conditions and a boom height of 0.4 m) could be expressed as a simple function of the fraction of droplets ≤ 100 µm. In cereal crops: TSD = 0.36 + 0.11× [fr. (d ≤ 100 µm)] and in grazing fields, TSD = 1.02 + 0.10× [fr. (d ≤ 100 µm)]. In most cases a fraction of the airborne drift passed over the 6 m sampling mast located 5 m downwind of the spray swath. CONCLUSIONS: Under specified conditions, the present results indicate a simple relation between the total spray drift and volume fractions of droplets ≤ 100 µm. Given the nozzle type, it was concluded that the most decisive factors determining TSD are wind speed and boom height. Evaluating the relative importance of the meteorological and technical factors contributes to increasing knowledge in this field of research.

Comparison of collectors of airborne spray drift. Experiments in a wind tunnel and field measurements.

BACKGROUND: In this study, the collecting efficiency of different samplers of airborne drift was compared both in wind tunnel and in field experiments. The aim was to select an appropriate sampler for collecting airborne spray drift under field conditions. RESULTS: The wind tunnel study examined three static samplers and one dynamic sampler. The dynamic sampler had the highest overall collecting efficiency. Among the static samplers, the pipe cleaner collector had the highest efficiency. These two samplers were selected for evaluation in the subsequent field study. Results from 29 individual field experiments showed that the pipe cleaner collector on average had a 10% lower collecting efficiency than the dynamic sampler. However, the deposits on the pipe cleaners generally were highest at the 0.5 m level, and for the dynamic sampler at the 1 m level. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded from the wind tunnel part of the study that the amount of drift collected on the static collectors had a more strongly positive correlation with increasing wind speed compared with the dynamic sampler. In the field study, the difference in efficiency between the two types of collector was fairly small. As the difference in collecting efficiency between the different types of sampler was small, the dynamic sampler was selected for further measurements of airborne drift under field conditions owing to its more well-defined collecting area. This study of collecting efficiency of airborne spray drift of static and dynamic samplers under field conditions contributes to increasing knowledge in this field of research.