Wind tunnel measurements and model predictions for estimating spray drift reduction under field conditions

Ellis, M. C. B.; Alanis, Rafael; Lane, A.; Tuck, C. R.; Nuyttens, David; Zande, J.C. van de

doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.08.013

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The drift in this test, in which a pitch angle of 5 degrees was set according to the flight attitude during the actual operation, can be equivalent to that of the field test based on the functional relationship of speed, time, and distance. In addition, many of the regulations relating to spray drift issued by research institutions, such as the Local Environmental Risk Assessment for Pesticides in the UK [40], has relied on the wind tunnel evaluation system. The reliable data used to guide the operation can be obtained through small-scale tests under strictly controlled test conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reliable data used to guide the operation can be obtained through small-scale tests under strictly controlled test conditions. The investigations of the relationship between field data and the wind tunnel [40] and the computer-based drift model [41] have been reported recently, but there is difficulty identifying the changing data sets. How to represent the 'real world' is a challenging task, because of the uncontrollable and irregular test conditions which may have a great impact on the drift.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Drift Evaluation of a Quadrotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Sprayer: Effect of Liquid Pressure and Wind Speed on Drift Potential Based on Wind Tunnel Test

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) applied to agricultural plant protection is widely used, and the field of operation is expanding due to their high efficiency and pesticide application reduction. However, the work on pesticide drift lags behind the development of the UAV spraying device. Methods: We compared the spray drift potential at four liquid pressures of 2, 3, 4, and 5 bar ejected from the hydraulic nozzles mounted on a UAV test platform exposed to different wind speeds of 2, 4, and 6 m/s produced by a wind tunnel. The combination of the wind tunnel and the UAV test platform was used to obtain strict test conditions. The droplet size distribution under spray drift pressures was measured by a laser diffraction instrument. Results: Increasing the pressure leads to smaller droplet volume diameters and produced fine droplets of less than 100 µm. The deposition in the drift area was elevated at most of the sampling locations by setting higher pressure and faster wind speed. The deposition ratios were all higher than the flow ratios under three wind speeds after the adjustment of pressures. For most samples within a short drift distance (2–8 m), the drift with the rotor motor off was more than an order of magnitude higher than that with the rotor motor on at a pressure of 3 bar. Conclusions: In this study, the wind speed and liquid pressure all had a significant effect on the UAV spray drift, and the rotor wind significantly inhibited a large number of droplets from drifting further.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drift Evaluation of a Quadrotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Sprayer: Effect of Liquid Pressure and Wind Speed on Drift Potential Based on Wind Tunnel Test

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Until now, various studies have proposed alternative indirect drift measurement methods that target easy, repeatable, and precise procedures, with a focus having been placed on drift measurement and classification of field crop sprayers . Researchers have proposed the following as easy, repeatable, and precise alternative indirect test methods for drift measurement based on spray drift potential: phase doppler particle analyser (PDPA) laser measurement, wind tunnel measurement, and test bench measurement . Test bench measurement was recently officially adopted by an ISO working group (ISO TC23/SC6 WG 16) as a new method for measurement of potential spray drift of horizontal boom sprayers, and the standard protocol was recently published as ISO 22401:2015…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a new method to classify the airblast sprayers according to their potential drift reduction: comparison of direct and new indirect measurement methods

Grella

Marucco

Balsari

2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Drift is one of the most important issues to consider for realising sustainable pesticide sprays. This study proposes an alternative indirect methodology for comparative measurements of drift reduction potential (DRP) generated by airblast sprayers, aimed at overcoming the practical inconveniences and drawbacks of standardized ISO 22866:2005. A test bench in the absence of target crop and wind was employed to measure drift potential values (DPVs). A variation to the proposed method that introduced a crop between sprayer and test bench device was considered to study the canopy effect (absence/presence) and to validate the method. In parallel, direct spray drift measurements (ISO 22866) were performed to obtain the drift value (DV). A representative vineyard airblast sprayer was evaluated in four configurations (a combination of two fan airflow rates and two nozzle types). The configurations tested under the three methods (direct and indirects) were classified according to achieved drift reduction percentages (ISO 22369-1:2013) and compared. RESULTS: Indirect methods discriminated DPVs from different nozzles (conventional, air induction) and fan airflow rate (high, low) combinations.Indirect methods also showed that despite crop influence on drift amount, target absence has a negligible effect when used specifically for DRP determination/classification. In fact, identical DRP final classifications were achieved for the two methodologies tested. Alternatively, all tested configurations resulted in lower DR values following the ISO 22866 field method, which caused different final classifications due to the high dependence of results on external factors. CONCLUSIONS:The alternative test bench methodology, characterized by the absence of target crop and calm of wind, was considered feasible for comparative measurements of airblast sprayer DRP.

show abstract

“…Moreover, several reports support the use of both methods to calculate relative drift risk by comparing different nozzle types and sizes, different wind speeds and nozzle heights (Ferguson et al, 2015; Ferguson et al, 2016; Guler et al, 2007; Guler, Zhu, Ozkan, Derksen, & Krause, 2006; Nuyttens, Taylor, De Schampheleire, Verboven, & Dekeyser, 2009; Taylor, Womac, Miller, & Taylor, 2004). Others have conducted studies to compare wind tunnel recorded data and field measured data in order to extrapolate the drift reduction values to field conditions (Butler Ellis et al, 2017; Torrent et al, 2017). In the studies described here, we have used the wind tunnel measurements to adjust exposure values measured in bystander drift studies using one set of application parameters to extrapolate to exposure using an application condition, which is defined as default in European PPP registration processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurements of the dermal exposure to bystanders from direct off‐crop drift during the application of plant protection products

Küster

Hewitt²,

Ellis

et al. 2021

Annals of Applied Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We determined the dermal exposure of plant protection products containing prothioconazole (PTZ) after spraying a standard crop using a tractor‐operated boom sprayer. Dermal exposure of adult and child bystanders to PTZ and its metabolite, PTZ‐desthio was quantified in bystander drift studies. Exposure was greater on mannequins placed 2 m from the zero line, compared with 5 m or 8 m. When the overall boom height above the ground was the same, the relative boom and canopy heights had no impact on the spray drift, allowing pooling of data from different studies. Wind tunnel experiments were used to compare two flat fan nozzle types, which allowed dermal exposure measured in early bystander field studies using the flat fan TeeJet XR 110 03 nozzle to be adjusted using a conversion factor to reflect exposure from Hypro F110‐03 nozzles. Values from studies using both flat fan nozzle types were pooled and compared with exposure using drift reduction nozzles. For the first time, 3D life‐size mannequins used in field studies have shown that drift reduction nozzles exceed the EFSA‐recommended 50% reduction in drift (potential exposure was reduced by 58–67%). The BREAM2 (Bystander and Resident Exposure Assessment Model) model resulted in better predictions of measured dermal exposure of PTZ equivalents than BREAM, albeit producing more conservative values for the 75th and 95th percentiles of potential dermal exposure compared to field studies (2.6‐fold higher than measured values). Our results using measured potential and actual exposures indicate that the EFSA calculation of 18% protection by light clothing was too conservative.

show abstract

Wind tunnel measurements and model predictions for estimating spray drift reduction under field conditions

Cited by 18 publications

References 3 publications

Drift Evaluation of a Quadrotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Sprayer: Effect of Liquid Pressure and Wind Speed on Drift Potential Based on Wind Tunnel Test

Drift Evaluation of a Quadrotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Sprayer: Effect of Liquid Pressure and Wind Speed on Drift Potential Based on Wind Tunnel Test

Toward a new method to classify the airblast sprayers according to their potential drift reduction: comparison of direct and new indirect measurement methods

Measurements of the dermal exposure to bystanders from direct off‐crop drift during the application of plant protection products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About