Comparison of spray operator exposure during orchard spraying with hand-held equipment fitted with standard and air injector nozzles

Wicke, H.; Bäcker, Gerhard; Frießleben, R.

doi:10.1016/s0261-2194(99)00053-8

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reports of droplet size measurements made with a Malvern particle size analyzer (Derksen et al, 1999b;Womac et al, 1997) have shown that air-induction nozzles increase volume median diameter compared to similar flow rate standard flat-fan nozzles. Wicke et al (1999), studying contamination on spray equipment operators, further illustrated that reduced off-target losses were possible through use of air-induction nozzles. In their work, they showed that applications made to tree canopies with a spray lance produced fewer deposits on the operators' clothing when air-induction nozzles were used compared to conventional cone nozzles.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coverage and Drift Produced by Air Induction and Conventional Hydraulic Nozzles Used for Orchard Applications

Derksen¹,

Zhu²,

Fox³

et al. 2007

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A conventional, axial-flow, air-blast orchard sprayer was used to make applications to the outside row of a semi-dwarf apple block. Fluorescent tracer was applied at the same rate using either disc-core nozzle sets or air-induction nozzles fitted with flat-fan tips. The experiment included measuring the percent area of spray coverage on leaves after three variations in spray application method. Each of the variations used a different type of nozzle on the same conventional, axial-fan orchard sprayer. The three nozzle variations were a Spraying Systems D3-25 nozzle set, a Spraying Systems D4-25 nozzle set, and a TurboDrop 02 (TD02) air-induction nozzle set. Canopy spray deposits, downwind sedimentation, and airborne spray losses were also measured following treatment on the inside half of the outside row using D4-25 nozzles or TD02 nozzles. The small droplet spectrum D3-25 nozzle set produced the highest leaf surface coverage on both upperside and underside surfaces at 2.0 and 3.0 m heights in the canopy. The upperside leaf surface coverage produced by the D3-25 nozzle was only somewhat greater than the TD02 nozzle. It was, however, significantly higher than the D4-25 nozzle set at the 3.0Ăm height. Conversely, the underside leaf surface coverage produced by the D3-25 was significantly greater than the TD02 nozzle set at both 2.0 and 3.0 m heights and not statistically different from the D4-25 nozzle set at the lower sampling height. There were relatively few differences in canopy spray deposits between the D4-25 and TD02 nozzle sets. The TD02 treatment produced the lowest downwind sedimentation deposits on targets 8 to 32 m from the edge of the orchard. The D4-25 produced approximately three times higher deposits up to 9 m above the ground than the TD02 treatment on passive nylon screens located 8 m downwind from the edge of the orchard. The D4-25 treatment produced significantly higher airborne deposits on elevated, high-volume, air sampler filters out to 64 m. At 128 m, sedimentation and airborne deposits were similar for the D4-25 and TD02 treatments.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coverage and Drift Produced by Air Induction and Conventional Hydraulic Nozzles Used for Orchard Applications

Derksen¹,

Zhu²,

Fox³

et al. 2007

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tartrazine was chosen for the present experiment because it combined high accuracy, safety and sensitivity with a significant reduction in time and cost. In addition, it is water soluble, stable under various light and temperature conditions and can be extracted easily from cellulose [15,16]. Spray operator exposures were compared among the different spray application techniques by measuring the deposits of dye tracer spray liquids on patches (10 cm × 10 cm) fixed onto the spray operators' garments.…”

Section: Methods For Detection Of Operator Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

Operator exposure to spray deposits using various application techniques in paddy fields

Punyawattoe¹

2019

JHR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The safety of operators handling pesticides is still one of the main problems facing Thai agricultural workers. The purpose of this paper is to study the safety of farmers and the techniques recommended to farmers by the Department of Agriculture in Thailand, i.e. spraying to achieve optimum spray volume with consideration for wind direction – henceforth referred to as officer techniques. Design/methodology/approach Operator exposure was detected by verifying the deposition of dye tracer on the coveralls worn by ten spray service team leaders, for all applications between May and June 2017. For each technique, a total of 15 patches were attached at the lower legs, thigh, chest, forearms, upper arms, hands, face, forehead and back. Each individual technique was performed four times in the area of 1,800 m2. Findings The results showed that the deposits with the farmers’ techniques was much higher than with officers’ techniques ranging from 2.32 to 23.91 times at the tillering stage and 9.90 to 56.79 times at the booting stage, respectively. These results indicate that the spray application technique has a considerable potential for reducing the contamination of spray operators by 56.96–98.23 percent. Operator safety can be considerably improved by the spray application technique employed. Without any investment and changing equipment, only by considering wind direction, officers’ techniques could avoid much deposition, which is the most practical operation in the field. The boom sprayer as a novel recommended technique is an alternative giving a positive result and it can be a substitute for the conventional method. Furthermore, the authors must pay attention to personal protective equipment (PPE) because depositions were discovered on the whole of the bodies of those tested. PPE is the best way to protect an operator from pesticide contamination. Originality/value Operator exposure data can be helpful in further development of exposure models and databases for risk assessment and pesticide registration in Thailand.

show abstract

“…Tests in India have shown that by controlling spray pressure, operator exposure was reduced (Shaw et al, 2000). Use of a coarser spray for an air induction nozzle can also reduce operator exposure (Wicke et al, 1999). Simply holding the nozzle downwind, as advocated with handcarried rotary atomiser sprayers, widely used to control cotton insect pests, will reduce operator exposure.…”

Section: During Sprayingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operator exposure to pesticides

Matthews

2002

Pest. Outlook

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of spray operator exposure during orchard spraying with hand-held equipment fitted with standard and air injector nozzles

Cited by 16 publications

References 3 publications

Coverage and Drift Produced by Air Induction and Conventional Hydraulic Nozzles Used for Orchard Applications

Coverage and Drift Produced by Air Induction and Conventional Hydraulic Nozzles Used for Orchard Applications

Operator exposure to spray deposits using various application techniques in paddy fields

Operator exposure to pesticides

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About