2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.060
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Field experiment on spray drift: Deposition and airborne drift during application to a winter wheat crop

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our a priori hypothesis was that for children living adjacent to cultivated fields, passive exposure to drift of the pesticides used for the specific crop types was not negligible (Lu et al, 2000; Rubino et al, 2012). We selected a 100-meter buffer around homes since it represents the distance where substantial pesticide drift occurs according to some studies (Wittich and Siebers, 2002; Siebers et al, 2003; Martin, 2008; Wolters et al, 2008; Cornelis et al, 2009; Garron et al, 2009), taking into account that in Italy agricultural fields are sprayed only by ground-based devices and therefore larger drifts are difficult to assume (Tsakirakis et al, 2014). In particular, for arable crops, sprayers’ devices are kept in a horizontal position, very close to the plants, so the dispersion of pesticides is very limited.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our a priori hypothesis was that for children living adjacent to cultivated fields, passive exposure to drift of the pesticides used for the specific crop types was not negligible (Lu et al, 2000; Rubino et al, 2012). We selected a 100-meter buffer around homes since it represents the distance where substantial pesticide drift occurs according to some studies (Wittich and Siebers, 2002; Siebers et al, 2003; Martin, 2008; Wolters et al, 2008; Cornelis et al, 2009; Garron et al, 2009), taking into account that in Italy agricultural fields are sprayed only by ground-based devices and therefore larger drifts are difficult to assume (Tsakirakis et al, 2014). In particular, for arable crops, sprayers’ devices are kept in a horizontal position, very close to the plants, so the dispersion of pesticides is very limited.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…proximity and pesticide levels (Curwin et al, 2005;Ward et al, 2006). Evidence has also shown that pesticides sprayed on fields can drift from the spraying area by up to 400 m (Fenske et al, 2002;Koch et al, 2002;Siebers et al, 2003;Quandt et al, 2004;Carlsen et al, 2006;Wolters et al, 2008) and 750 m (Ward et al, 2006). Moreover, living with a farmworker has been associated with an increase in pesticide concentrations in the household (Gibbs et al, 2017;Bennett et al, 2019;López-Gálvez et al, 2019;Dereumeaux et al, 2020).…”
Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar to Xue et al, Wang et al [17] measured that 90% of drift droplets of a fuel powered single-rotor UAV are within 9.3-14.5 m under the wind speed of 0.76-5.5 m/s. Compared with the conventional boom sprayer [20,21], the droplets drift distance of UAV sprayer would be further.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%