DRIFT POTENTIAL FOR LOW PRESSURE EXTERNAL MIXING TWIN FLUID NOZZLES BASED ON WIND TUNNEL MEASURMENTS
Sehsah, E., Herbst, A. (2010). DRIFT POTENTIAL FOR LOW PRESSURE EXTERNAL MIXING TWIN FLUID NOZZLES BASED ON WIND TUNNEL MEASURMENTS. EKB Journal Management System, 27(2), 438-464. doi: 10.21608/mjae.2010.105833
E. M. E. Sehsah; A. Herbst. "DRIFT POTENTIAL FOR LOW PRESSURE EXTERNAL MIXING TWIN FLUID NOZZLES BASED ON WIND TUNNEL MEASURMENTS". EKB Journal Management System, 27, 2, 2010, 438-464. doi: 10.21608/mjae.2010.105833
Sehsah, E., Herbst, A. (2010). 'DRIFT POTENTIAL FOR LOW PRESSURE EXTERNAL MIXING TWIN FLUID NOZZLES BASED ON WIND TUNNEL MEASURMENTS', EKB Journal Management System, 27(2), pp. 438-464. doi: 10.21608/mjae.2010.105833
Sehsah, E., Herbst, A. DRIFT POTENTIAL FOR LOW PRESSURE EXTERNAL MIXING TWIN FLUID NOZZLES BASED ON WIND TUNNEL MEASURMENTS. EKB Journal Management System, 2010; 27(2): 438-464. doi: 10.21608/mjae.2010.105833

DRIFT POTENTIAL FOR LOW PRESSURE EXTERNAL MIXING TWIN FLUID NOZZLES BASED ON WIND TUNNEL MEASURMENTS

Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Article 2, Volume 27, Issue 2, April 2010, Page 438-464  XML PDF (1.18 MB)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/mjae.2010.105833
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
E. M. E. Sehsah1; A. Herbst2
1Assis. Prof. in Agric. Eng. Dept., Fac, of Agriculture, Kafrelsheikh Univ., Egypt
2Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry Braunschweig, Application Techniques Division, Messeweg 11/12, D-38104 Braunschweig, Germany
Abstract
Wind tunnel tests provide one way in which the risk of drift from given nozzle conditions can be quantified but it is accepted that the use of field measurements and modeling approaches are also valid for determining a relative for Ex. Mix. Twin Fluid drift risk factor. The goals of present study assess the drift potential of the EMTF nozzles using wind tunnel tests, by comparing the drift profiles of sprays from EMTF nozzles those from standard fan nozzles.. As well as investigating to find the optimum combination for EMTF nozzles from the available nozzles in the marketing which may be producing the low drift. The current investigation research was carried out in the Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (JKI), Braunschweig, Germany. The wind tunnel was adapted at the optimum air conditions, 20° C air temperature and 80 % relative humidity. Eight drift-reducing external mixing twin fluid nozzles were evaluated in a wind tunnel to compare drift. Each tip was compared at 60 and 100 kPa liquid pressures, parallel to a 1, 2 and 3 m s-1 wind speeds, and at the 150 kPa air pressure for each.
The results indicated that the external mixing twin fluid nozzles may be producing the low drift at low liquid pressure. The increase of liquid pressure tends to decrease the vertical drift and increase the DIX values. The optimum co-angling for EMTF nozzles was found at 45° that may reduce the drift potential and fallout of spray for all treatment conditions. The N5 (Lechler FT 5–608 & XR110ß03 VK) nozzle may be able to reduce the low fallout airborne volume flux compared to Standard ISO nozzle and N1 nozzle which produced at 43.7 % DIX value. The DIX values at 100 kPa liquid pressures, co-angling 45°
and wind speed 1 m s-1 were 291.5% for N5  (Lechler FT 5-608 & XR110-03 VK) nozzle and 29.6 % for the N1  (Lechler FT 5-608 & TT110-03 POM) nozzle respectively. As well as the vertical drift for the above mentioned conditions were 1.5 %, 1.6 %, 1.3 % and 1.2 % for the EMTF nozzles N2, N3, N4 and N5 respectively The airborne values for N5 (Lechler FT 5–608 & XR110-03 VK) nozzle were 0.71 ml/s.mm , 0.07 and 0.046 ml/s.mm at ground level (zero mm) , 500 mm  and 600 mm height respectively.
Keywords
Drift; Low pressure; nozzles
References
Derksen, R.C. and R.L. Gray (1995): Deposition and air speed patterns of air-carrier apple orchard sprayers. Transactions of ASAE 38(1):5-11.

Fox, R.D., S.M. Hussein, D.L. Reichard, R.D. Brazee, and F.R. Hall (1994): A Comparison of spray drift deposited on ground and airborne spray collectors and on soybean plants. Fruit Crops 1994: A Summary of Research, OSU/OARDC Res Circular 298, 109-114.

Ganzelmeier, H. (1993): Drift of plant protection products in field crops, vineyards, orchards and hops.

Ganzelmeier, H., D. Rautmann, G. Backer, K.W. Eichhorn, R. Ipach, E. Kersting, H. Koch, F.-O. Ripke, N. and K. Schmidt (1992): Guidelines for checking plant protection equipment. Part VII: Measuring direct drift when applying liquid plant protection products. Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Braunschweig, Germany.

Gobel, B and S. Pearson (1993): Drift Reduction by spray nozzle techniques. Second International Symposium on Pesticide Application Techniques. 219-226.

Helck, C. and A. Herbst, (1998): Drift-Potential-Index – eine neue Kennzahl zur Beurteilung von Pflanzenschutzdüsen hinsichtlich ihres Abtriftpotentials (Drift-Potential-Index – a new parameter for the evaluation of agricultural nozzles concerning their drift potential). Nachrichtenbl. Deut. Pflanzenschutzd. 50(9): 225-232.

Herbst, A. (2001). Droplet sizing on Agricultural sprays – A comparison of measuring systems using a standard droplet sizing classification system. Proc. ILASS – Europe Zurich, Switzerland.

ISO/DIS 22856 (2007). International standard: equipment for crop protection – laboratory measurement methods of spray drift – wind tunnels.

Miller P. C. H. (1993): Spray drift and its measurement. In: Application Technology for Crop Protection (Matthews G A; Hislop E C eds), pp. 101–122. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, United Kingdom.

Nuyttens D; K. Baetens; M. De Schampheleire and B. Sonck (2007b): Effect of nozzle type, size and pressure on spray droplet characteristics.J. Biosystems Engineering, 97(3), 333–345. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.03.001.

Nuyttens D; M. De Schampheleire; K. Baetens and B. Sonck (2007a): The influence of operator controlled variables on spray drift from field crop sprayers. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(4), 1129–1140.

Ozkan, H.E. and R.C. Derksen. (1998): Extension Fact Sheet – Effectiveness of Turbodrop and Turbo TeeJet Nozzles in Drift Reduction. The Ohio State University, Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department. AEX 524-98.

Reichard, D. L., R. D. Fox, R. D. Brazee and F. R. Hall (1979): Air velocities delivered by orchard air sprayers. Transactions of ASAE 22(1):69-74, 80.

Reichard, D.L., B.R. Tennes, B.L. Burton and G.K. Brown (1982): Experimental orchard sprayer. Transaction of ASAE 25(1):33-37, 41.

Salyani, M. and R. P. Cromwell (1992): Spray drift from ground and aerial applications. Transactions of ASAE 35(4):1113-1120.

SDTF (1997): A Summary of Ground Application Studies, Stewart Agricultural Research Services, Inc. P.O. Box 509, Macon, MO. 63552.

Sehsah E.M.E. (2005): Application techniques for biological crop protection in Orchards and vineyards. Ph.D thesis, Hohenheim University, ISDN: 3-86186-484-3 Vorlag Grauer Stuttgart Germany.

Sehsah E.M.E. and S. Kleisinger (2007): Effect of low pressure liquid atomizers usage in biological pest control, Misr J.Ag.Eng., 24 (1): 62-74.

Sehsah, E., G. Baecker and S. Kleisinger (2004c): Evaluation of an experimental sprayer with rotary atomizers by air characteristics, soil sedimentation, deposition and vertical drift. International Conference Environmentally Friendly Spray Application Techniques 4-6 October, 2004c – Warsaw, Poland.

Smith, D.B., L.E. Bode, and P.D. Gerard. 2000. Predicting Ground Boom Spray Drift. Trans. ASAE 43(3):547-553.

Walklate P J; P C H.Miller; A J Gilbert (2000): Drift classification of boom sprayers based on single nozzle measurements in a wind tunnel. Aspects of Applied Biology, 57, 49–57.

Walklate P J; P C H.Miller; M. Rubbis; C R. Tuck (1994): Agricultural nozzle design for spray drift reduction. In: Proceedings ILASS-94, Rouen, France, pp. 851–858.

Williams, W.L., D.R. Gardisser, R. E. Wolf, and R. W. Whitney (1999): Field and Wind Tunnel Droplet Spectrum Data for the CP Nozzle. ASAE Paper No. AA99-007. St Joseph, MI.: ASAE.

Wolf, R. and C. Minihan (2001): Comparison of Drift Potential for Venturi, Extended Range, and Turbo Flat-fan Nozzles. ASAE Paper No. MC01-108. St. Joseph, MO.: ASAE Sponsored.

Wolf, R., (2000): The Influence of Changing Application Volumes on Droplet Size Using Blended Pulse Spraying Technology. ASAE Paper No. 001122. St. Joseph, MI.: ASAE.

Wolf, R., D. Peterson, and C. Minihan (1999): Comparisons of off-target deposits for conventional postemergence spray nozzles and venturi nozzles. Proceedings North Central Weed Science Society. 54:70.

Wolf, R., D. Peterson, and C. Minihan (2001): Influence of Nozzle Type and Spray Pressure on Droplet Size. Proceedings North Central Weed Science Society. 56:Paper No. 142.

Wolf, R.E., D.R. Gardisser, and W. L. Williams (1999): Spray Droplet Analysis of Air Induction Nozzles Using WRK DropletScan Technology. ASAE Paper No. 991026. St. Joseph, MI.: ASAE.

Womac, A.R., J.C. Goodwin, and W.E. Hart (1997): Tip Selection for Precision Application of Herbicides, University of Tennessee CES. Bulletin 695.

Statistics
Article View: 176
PDF Download: 169