AIR-ASSISTED SPRAYING AND ITS DRIFT | ||||
| Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering | ||||
| Article 40, Volume 27, Issue 4, October 2010, Page 1651-1673 PDF (1.23 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/mjae.2010.105092 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| A. S. Rasmy1; A. A. M. EL-Meseery1; A. A. Abd-El Fatah2; A. M. I. Rezk3 | ||||
| 1Ass. Prof. of Agric. Eng., Agric. Eng. Dept., Fac. of Agric., Al-Azhar U., Egypt. | ||||
| 2Senior Res., Plant Prot. Ins., Agri. Res., Egypt. | ||||
| 3Master Stud. ., Agric. Eng. Dept., Fac. of Agric., Al-Azhar U., Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| The main objective of this investigation is to study and evaluate the spraying factors affecting on spray drift and the environment pollution using air-assisted spraying technique (twin spraying technique). The air-assisted spraying device was modified and fabricated in some private local workshops at Dmanhour city, EL-Behira Governorate, Egypt. The experiments were divided in two operation conditions, as with and without air-assistance. The variables of study were four levels of spray height 30, 40, 50 and 60 cm , three types of nozzle (flat fan 110º) tip sizes 1, 3 and 5mm and four levels of operation pressure 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 bar. The performance indicators of spraying device were coefficient of uniformity (CU%) of spray patternator distribution. The results were as: The maximum values of (CU%) due to using air assisted unit were 87.25, 96.06 and 88.24% at spray height 40 cm and spray pressure 2.5bar by using nozzle tip size of 1mm, 3mm and 5mm, respectively. Meanwhile, the lowest values were 77.54, 86.23 and 80.81% at spray height 60 cm by using nozzle tip size of 1mm, 3mm and 5mm, respectively without air. The off-target distance decreased from 7 to 4 m at spray height 40 cm by using nozzle tip size of 3 mm, average wind speed 1.26m/s using air assistance technique. The obtained values of (VMD) increased by using the same nozzle tip size 3mm and spray height 40 cm from 209.98 µm without air assistance to 235.18 µm with air assisted unit. The values of deposition rate increased to 0.472, 0.468, 0.446 and 0.462 mm3/cm2 at the top plant level and increased to 0.389, 0.384, 0.360 and 0.360 mm3/cm2at the bottom plant level when using nozzle tip size of 1mm and with air assisted unit at spray height of 40 cm and spray pressure levels of 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 bar respectively. Recommendation: using air assisting technique for increased of uniformity and decreased the drift. | ||||
| References | ||||
|
ASAE Standard (1992). Test procedure for dry fertilizer speaders Ag. Eng. Yearbook.
Awady, M. (2000). Engineering of sprayers and dusters, and distribution of agriculture text Bk., Col. Ag., A. shams U. :160p (In Arabic)
Carlsen, S.C.K.; N.H. Spliid and B. Svensmark (2006). Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application. 2. Primary drift (droplet drift). Chemosphere (64): 778–786.
Cordell, S. and P. Baker (1998) Cooperative extension, col. Ag. U. Arizona - AZ1050.
Combellack, J.H. (1982). Loss of herbicides from ground sprayers. Weed Res. 22: 193–204.
De Longueville, L; B. Tychon; B. Leteinturier and P. Ozer (2007). An approach to optimize the establishment of grassy headlands in the Belgian Walloon region: A tool for agri-environmental schemes. Land Use Policy 24, 443–450.
Delele, M. A; P. Jaeken; C. Debaer; K. Baetens; A. Melese Endalew; H. Ramon; B. M Nicolaï and P. Verboven (2007). CFD prototyping of an air-assisted orchard sprayer aimed at drift reduction. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 55: 16–27.
Farooq, M.; R. Balachandar; D. Wulfsohn and T.M. Wolf (2001). Agricultural sprays in cross-flow and drift. JAE Res. 78: 347–358.
Gil, Y. and C. Sinfort (2005). Emission of pesticides to the air during sprayer application: a bibliographic review. Atmospheric Environment 39: 5183–5193.
Hadar, E. (1991). Development criteria for an air-assisted ground crop sprayer. In A. Lavers et al. (ed.) Air-assisted spraying in crop protection. BCPC Monogr. 46. Brit. Crop Protect. Council, Bury St. Edmunds, England.
Hardi International Technical Report (1998). Hardi I. Spraying Co. 895411-GB-98/12.
Hardi nozzle technical guide (2007). Hardi iso nozzle Hia-marketing GB-891621-05-2007.
Hewitt, A.J. (2000). Spray drift: impact of requirements to protect the environment. Crop Prot. 19:623–627.
Imara, Z.M.; M.A. Metwally and N.M. Awad (2003). Study of some factors affecting the application uniformity and distribution patterns of two different sprayers. MJAE., 15-16 Oct.
Kappel, D. and C.S. stentrop (2003). Twin spraying – HIA technical report.
Ozkan, E. (2000). Department of food, agricultural and biological engineering Ohio State U. Ext. bulletin 816-00 [online] Available: http://ohioline.ag.ohio-state.edu/~ohioline/b816/index.html [2000, July 6].
Ozkan, H.E.; D.L. Rechard and K.D. Ackerman (1992). Effect of orifice wear on spray patterns from fan nozzles. Trans. of the ASAE, 35 (4): 1091-1096.
Schultz, R. (2004). Field studies on exposure, effects, and risk mitigation of aquatic non-point source insecticide pollution: a review. J. Envi. Quality 33: 419–448.
Taylor, W.A.; P.G. Andersen and S. Cooper (1989). The use of air assistance in a field crop sprayer to reduce drift and modify drop trajectories. Proceedings of Brighton Crop Prot. Conf – Weeds.: 631-639.
Van de Zande, J.C.; H.J. Holterman; J.M. Michielsen and H. Stallinga (2006). Temporal and spatial variability of spray drift around a sprayed field. Aspects of Applied Biology, vol. 77. Advances in Pesticide Application.: 295–302. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 110 PDF Download: 161 |
||||
