Field-crop-sprayer potential drift measured using test bench: Effects of boom height and nozzle type
Rights accessOpen Access
Because of variations in environmental conditions, spray-drift field measurements following ISO 22866:2005 involve complicated and time-consuming experiments often with low repeatability. Therefore, simple, repeatable, and precise alternative drift assessment methods that are complementary to the official standards are required. One of the alternatives is the use of a drift test bench for field crop sprayers. Previous studies have demonstrated that the drift test bench can be considered an adequate complement to existing standard protocols for field drift measurements. In this study, in order to further improve the methodology and to evaluate the possibility of classifying different field-crop-sprayer settings according to drift risk using a test bench, a series of tests were performed in a test hall. A conventional mounted Delvano HD3 crop sprayer (Delvano, Kuurne, Belgium) equipped with an 800-l spray tank and a 15-m-wide stainless steel spray boom was used. Eight different sprayer setups were tested, involving three nozzle types (TeeJet XR 110 04, Agrotop TDXL 110 04 and Micron Micromax 3) and three boom heights (0.30, 0.50, and 0.70 m). For the drift classification, the reference sprayer drift behaviour was defined as that obtained using conventional flat fan TeeJet XR 110 04 nozzles operated at 0.30 MPa and at a boom height of 0.50 m. The different sprayer setups were successfully assigned to different drift reduction classes, and the results underlined the effects of nozzle type and boom height on the potential drift. The feasibility of the test-bench methodology for classifying field-crop-sprayer drift according to ISO 22369-1:2006 was demonstrated.
CitationBalsari, Paolo, Gil, E., Marucco, Paolo, van de Zande, J., Nuyttens, D., Herbst, A., Gallart, M. Field-crop-sprayer potential drift measured using test bench: Effects of boom height and nozzle type. "Biosystems engineering", 1 Febrer 2017, vol. 154, p. 3-13.