Ground Deposition and Airborne Spray Drift Assessment in Vineyard and Orchard: The Influence of Environmental Variables and Sprayer Settings
<p>Trial layout according to the ISO22866:2005 [<a href="#B5-sustainability-09-00728" class="html-bibr">5</a>].</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Compass rose representing all wind directions during trials and relative scheme of spray track direction in vineyard and apple tree orchard.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Boxplots of (<b>a</b>) all wind speed and (<b>b</b>) all wind direction measurements for 24 trials, 12 in vineyard and 12 in apple tree orchard.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Scatterplot and red LOESS curve (Kernel Epanechnikov function that fit 90% of points) to explore relationship between minimum wind speed and wind direction range for all field trials (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 24).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Scatterplots of wind direction values in relation to the wind speed values recorded in all trials conducted in (<b>a</b>) vineyard (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 4608); and (<b>b</b>) apple tree orchard (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3312).</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Spray drift deposition profile obtained using vineyard sprayer in vineyard crop: (<b>a</b>) mean and (<b>b</b>) 90th percentile based on percent of applied volume. Spray drift deposit on the collectors are represented at each distance from the sprayed area. Configurations: nozzles (ATR: conventional, TVI: air induction), forward speed (6:6 km h<sup>−1</sup>) and airflow rate (L: low, H: high). Reference: Grape Vine Late Growth (GVLG) proposed by Rautmann et al. [<a href="#B42-sustainability-09-00728" class="html-bibr">42</a>].</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Airborne spray drift deposition profile obtained using vineyard sprayer in vineyard crop: (<b>a</b>) mean and (<b>b</b>) 90th percentile based on percent of applied volume. Spray drift deposit on the collectors are represented at two heights above the ground. Configurations: nozzles (ATR: conventional, TVI: air induction), forward speed (6:6 km h<sup>−1</sup>) and airflow rate (L: low, H: high).</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Drift values (DVs) derived from: (<b>a</b>) ground deposition and airborne spray drift curves at (<b>b</b>) 5 m and (<b>c</b>) 10 m distance to the sprayed area for each configuration tested using vineyard sprayer. The bars show the mean ± SE of the mean. Configurations: nozzles (ATR: conventional, TVI: air induction), forward speed (6:6 km h<sup>−1</sup>), and fan airflow rate (L: low, H: high).</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Spray drift deposition profile obtained using orchard sprayer in apple tree orchard crop: (<b>a</b>) mean and (<b>b</b>) 90th percentile based on percent of applied volume. Spray drift deposit on the collectors are represented at each distance from the sprayed area. Configurations: nozzles (ATR: conventional, TVI: air induction), forward speed (6:6 km h<sup>−1</sup>) and airflow rate (L: low, H: high). Reference: Fruit Crop Late Growth (FCLG) proposed by Rautmann et al. [<a href="#B42-sustainability-09-00728" class="html-bibr">42</a>].</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Airborne spray drift deposition profile obtained using orchard sprayer in apple tree orchard crop: (<b>a</b>) mean and (<b>b</b>) 90th percentile based on percent of applied volume. Spray drift deposit on the collectors are represented at each height above the ground. Configurations: nozzles (ATR: conventional, TVI: air induction), forward speed (6:6 km h<sup>−1</sup>) and airflow rate (L: low, H: high).</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Drift values (DVs) derived from: (<b>a</b>) ground deposition and airborne spray drift at (<b>b</b>) 5 m and (<b>c</b>) 10 m distance to the sprayed area curves, according to the configurations tested using orchard sprayer. The bars show the mean ± SE of the mean. Configurations: nozzles (ATR: conventional, TVI: air induction), forward speed (6:6 km h<sup>−1</sup>), and fan airflow rate (L: low, H: high).</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Visual patterns of relevant relationships among CV% of Drift Values ((<b>e</b>) DVs of ground and (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) airborne 5 m; and (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) airborne 10 m) and CV% of wind characteristics ((<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) wind speed and (<b>e</b>) wind direction) (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 8). CV% represent the variability among the three replicates of each configuration tested in field trials using vineyard sprayer and orchard sprayer.</p> "> Figure 13
<p>Principal Component Analysis (PCA) bi-plots for the first three principal components (PCs: (<b>a</b>) PC1 vs. PC2; (<b>b</b>) PC2 vs. PC3; and (<b>c</b>) PC3 vs. PC1), which explain 89.5% of variance in the PCA analysis of sprayer configurations tested using the ISO22866 field trials test method. Red dots represent the scores for the vineyard sprayer and green dots represent the scores for the orchard sprayer. PCA variable loadings are shown as lines: sprayer setting parameters (nozzles D[v,0.1], D[v,0.5], and D[v,0.9] in blue and fan air volume in violet), main wind characteristics (Min, Max, Mean wind speed and Mean wind direction in red) and spray drift deposition (ground and airborne at 5 m and 10 m in green). Configurations: nozzles (ATR: conventional, TVI: air induction), forward speed (6:6 km h<sup>−1</sup>) and airflow rate (L: low, H: high).</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Tests Location and Crop Characterization
2.2. Experimental Plot Design
2.3. Weather Conditions during Trials
2.4. Characteristics and Configurations of Airblast Sprayers
2.5. Characterization of Nozzle Droplet Size Spectra
2.6. Spray Liquid and Tracer Concentration
2.7. Spray Drift Assessment
2.8. Drift Value Calculation
2.9. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Weather Conditions during Trials
3.2. Drift Evaluation in Vineyard
3.3. Drift Evaluation in Apple Tree Orchard
3.4. Correlation between Drift Values (DVs) and Wind Parameters
3.5. Overview Results
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nuyttens, D.; de Schampheleire, M.; Baetens, K.; Sonck, B. The influence of operator controlled variables on spray drift from field crop sprayers. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 1129–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doruchowski, G.; Balsari, P.; Gil, E.; Marucco, P.; Roettle, M.; Wehmann, H.J. Environmentally Optimised Sprayer (EOS)—A software application for comprehensive assessment of environmental safety features of sprayers. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 482–483, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Parliament. Directive 2009/128/EC of the European parliament and the council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, 309, 71–86. [Google Scholar]
- Muscutt, A.D.; Harris, G.L.; Bailey, S.W.; Davies, B.D. Buffer zones to improve water quality: A review of their potential use in UK agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1993, 45, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 22866:2005: Equipment for Crop Protection—Methods for Field Measurements of Spray Drift; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Van den Berg, F.; Kubiak, R.; Benjey, W.G.; Majewski, M.S.; Yates, S.R.; Reeves, G.L.; Smelt, J.H.; Linden, A.M.A.V.D. Emission of pesticides into the air. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1999, 115, 195–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felsot, A.S.; Unsworth, J.B.; Linders, J.B.H.J.; Roberts, G. Agrochemical spray drift; assessment and mitigation—A review. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 2011, 46, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dabrowski, J.M.; Schulz, R. Predicted and measured levels of azinphosmethyl in the Lourens River, South Africa. Comparison of runoff and spray drift. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22, 494–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marrs, R.H.; Frost, A.J.; Plant, R.A.; Lunnis, P. Determination of buffer zones to protect seedlings of non-target plants from the effects of glyphosate spray drift. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1993, 45, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernst, W.R.; Jonah, P.; Doe, K.; Julien, G.; Hennigar, P. Toxicity to aquatic organisms of off-target deposition of endosulfan applied by aircraft. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1991, 10, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lahr, J.; Gadji, B.; Dia, D. Predicted buffer zones to protect temporary pond invertebrates from groundbased insecticide applications against desert locusts. Crop Prot. 2000, 19, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, B.N.K.; Williams, C.T. Buffer zone widths for honeybees from ground and aerial spraying of insecticides. Environ. Pollut. 1990, 63, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çilgi, T.; Jepson, P.C. The risks posed by Deltamethrin drift to hedgerow butterflies. Environ. Pollut. 1995, 87, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benbrook, C.M.; Baker, B.P. Perspective on dietary risk assessment of pesticide residues in organic food. Sustainability 2014, 6, 3552–3570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler ellis, M.C.; Lane, A.G.; O’Sullivan, C.M.; Miller, P.C.H.; Glass, C.R. Bystander exposure to pesticide spray drift: New data for model development and validation. Biosyst. Eng. 2010, 107, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofman, V.; Solseng, E. Reducing Spray Drift; North Dakota State University NDSU Extension Service AE-1210: Fargo, ND, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Arvidsson, T.; Bergström, L.; Kreuger, J. Spray drift as influenced by meteorological and technical factors. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 586–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nuyttens, D.; de Shampheleire, M.; Steurbaut, W.; Baetens, K.; Verboven, P.; Nicolaï, B.; Ramon, H.; Sonck, B. Experimental study of factors influencing the risk of drift from field sprayers. Part 2: Spray application technique. Asp. Appl. Biol. Int. Adv. Pestic. Appl. 2006, 77, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Praat, J.-P.; Maber, J.F.; Manktelow, D.W.L. The effect of canopy development and sprayer position on spray drift from a pipfruit orchard. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2000, 53, 241–247. [Google Scholar]
- Thistle, H. The role of stability in fine pesticide droplet dispersion in the atmosphere: A review of physical concepts. Trans. ASABE 2000, 46, 1409–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozkan, H.E.; Zhu, H. Effect of Major Variables on Drift Distances of Spray Droplets; Extension FactSheet AEX 525-98; Food Agricultural and Biological Engineering: Columbus, OH, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, D.B.; Harris, F.D.; Butler, B.J. Variables affecting drift from ground boom sprayers. Trans. ASABE 1982, 25, 1499–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 22369-1:2006: Crop Protection Equipment—Drift Classification of Spraying Equipment—Part 1: Classes; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Van de Zande, J.C.; Stallinga, H.; Michielsen, J.M.G.P.; Velde, P.V. Effect of width of spray-free buffer zones, nozzle type and air assistance on spray drift. Asp. Appl. Biol. Int. Adv. Pestic. Appl. 2010, 99, 255–263. [Google Scholar]
- Balsari, P.; Marucco, P.; Tamagnone, M. A test bench for the classification of boom sprayers according to drift risk. Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 1482–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salyani, M.; Farooq, M. Drift potential of citrus air-carrier sprayers. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 2004, 117, 130–135. [Google Scholar]
- Van de Zande, J.C.; Porskamp, H.A.J.; Michielsen, J.M.G.P.; Holterman, H.J.; Huijsman, J.F.M. Classification of spray applications for driftability, to protect surface water. Asp. Appl. Biol. Int. Adv. Pestic. Appl. 2000, 66, 57–65. [Google Scholar]
- Threadgill, E.D.; Smith, D.B. Effect of physical and meteorological parameters on drift of controlled size droplets. Trans. ASAE 1975, 18, 51–56. [Google Scholar]
- Goering, C.E.; Butler, B. Paired field studies of herbicide drift. Trans. ASAE 1975, 18, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bode, L.E.; Butler, B.J.; Goering, C.E. Spray drift and recovery as affected by spray thickener, nozzle type, and nozzle pressure. Trans. ASAE 1976, 19, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fritz, B.K. Meteorological effects on deposition and drift of aerially applied sprays. Trans. ASAE 2006, 49, 1295–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D.R.; Stoughton, T.E.; Steinke, W.E.; Huddleston, E.W.; Ross, J.B. Atmospheric stability effects on pesticide drift from an irrigated orchard. Trans. ASAE 2000, 43, 1057–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Courshee, R. Investigations on spray drift. Part II: The occurrence of drift. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1959, 4, 229–241. [Google Scholar]
- Van de Zande, J.C.; Michielsen, J.M.G.P.; Stallinga, H. Spray Drift and Off-Field Evaluation of Agrochemicals in the Netherlands; WUR-PRI Report 149; Wageningen UR Plant Research International: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Rimmer, D.A.; Johnson, P.D.; Kelsey, A.; Warren, N.D. Field experiments to assess approaches for spray drift incident investigation. Pest Manag. Sci. 2009, 65, 665–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Schampheleire, M.; Baetens, K.; Nuyttens, D.; Spanoghe, P. Spray drift measurements to evaluate the Belgian drift mitigation measures in field crops. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 577–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsen, S.C.K.; Spliid, N.H.; Svensmark, B. Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application. 2. Primary drift (droplet drift). Chemosphere 2006, 64, 778–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ravier, I.; Haouisee, E.; Clément, M.; Seux, R.; Briand, O. Field experiments for the evaluation of pesticide spray-drift on arable crops. Pest Manag. Sci. 2005, 61, 728–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Phillips, J.; Miller, P.C.H. Field and wind tunnel measurements of the airborne spray volume downwind of single flat-fan nozzle. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1999, 72, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huijsmans, J.F.M.; van de Zande, J.C. Workshop Harmonisation of Drift and Drift Reducing Methodologies for Evaluation and Authorization of Plant Protection Products; WUR-PRI Report 390; Wageningen UR Plant Research International: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Gil, E.; Gallart, M.; Balsari, P.; Marucco, P.; Almajano, M.P.; Llop, J. Influence of wind velocity and wind direction on measurements of spray drift potential of boom sprayers using drift test bench. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2015, 202, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rautmann, D.; Streloke, M.; Winkler, R. New basic drift values in the authorization procedure for plant protection products. Mitt. Biol. Bundesanst. Land Forstwirtsch. 2001, 383, 133–141. [Google Scholar]
- Duga, A.T.; Ruysen, K.; Dekeyser, D.; Nuyttens, D.; Bylemans, D.; Nicolai, B.M.; Verboven, P. Spray deposition profiles in pome fruit trees: Effects of sprayer design, training system and tree canopy characteristics. Crop Prot. 2015, 67, 200–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farooq, M.; Salyani, M. Modelling of spray penetration and deposition on citrus tree canopies. Trans. ASABE 2004, 47, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascuzzi, S. Outcomes on the spray profiles produced by the feasible adjustments of commonly used sprayers in “Tendone” vineyards of Apulis (Southern Italy). Sustainability 2016, 8, 1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sehsah, E.M.E.; Herbst, A. Drift potential for low pressure external mixing twin fluid nozzles based on wind tunnel measurements. Misr J. Agric. Eng. 2010, 27, 438–464. [Google Scholar]
- Baetens, K.; Ho, Q.T.; Nuyttens, D.; de Schampheleire, M.; Endalew, A.; Hertog, M.; Nicolai, B.; Ramon, H.; Verboven, P. Development of a 2-D-diffusion advection model for fast prediction of field drift. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 43, 1674–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Zande, J.C.; Stallinga, H.; Michielsen, J.M.G.P.; Velde, P.V. Effect of Sprayer Speed on Spray Drift. 2005. Available online: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237430147_Effect_of_Sprayer_Speed_on_Spray_Drift (accessed on 6 September 2016).
- Hewitt, A.J.; Miller, P.C.H.; Bagley, W.E. Interaction of Tank Mix and Nozzle Design on Spray Performance and Drift Potential; Paper 01-011081; ASAE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Gil, E.; Balsari, P.; Gallart, M.; Llorens, J.; Marucco, P.; Gummer Andersen, P.; Fàbregas, X.; Llop, J. Determination of drift potential of different flat fan nozzles on a boom sprayer using a test bench. Crop Prot. 2014, 56, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jong, E.; van de Zande, J.C.; Stallinga, H. The Effects of Vertical and horIzontal Boom Movements on the Uniformity of Spray Distribution; Paper 00-PM-015; AgEng: Warwick, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Nuyttens, D.; de Schampheleire, M.; Verboven, P.; Brusselman, E.; Dekeyser, D. Droplet size-velocity characteristics of agricultural sprays. Trans. ASABE 2009, 52, 1471–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Zande, J.C.; Holterman, H.J.; Wenneker, M. Nozzle classification for drift reduction in orchard spraying: Identification of drift reduction class threshold nozzles. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2008, 10, 080013. [Google Scholar]
- Nuyttens, D.; Baetens, K.; de Schampheleire, M.; Sonck, B. Effect of nozzle type, size and pressure on spray droplet characteristics. Biosyst. Eng. 2007, 97, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuyttens, D.; de Schampheleire, M.; Baetens, K.; Sonck, B. PDPA Laser-based characterisation of agricultural spray nozzles. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2006, 8, 06024. [Google Scholar]
- Van de Zande, J.C.; Porskamp, H.A.J.; Holterman, H.J. Influence of reference nozzle choice on spray drift classification. Asp. Appl. Biol. Int. Adv. Pestic. Appl. 2002, 66, 49–56. [Google Scholar]
- Wolf, T.M.; Stumborg, M.; Caldwell, B.C.; Grover, R. A chamber for scanning spray from agricultural nozzles using an Aerometrics Phase Doppler particle analyzer. Can. Agric. Eng. 1995, 37, 305–310. [Google Scholar]
- Bachalo, W.D.; Houser, M.J. Phase/Doppler analyzer for simultaneous measurements of drop size and velocity distributions. Opt. Eng. 1984, 23, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuyttens, D.; Taylor, W.A.; de Schampheleire, M.; Verboven, P.; Dekeyser, D. Influence of nozzle type and size on drift potential by means of different wind tunnel evaluation methods. Biosyst. Eng. 2009, 103, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, L.J.; Miller, P.C.H.; Fu, Z.T. The classification of the drift risk of sprays produced by spinning discs based on wind tunnel measurements. Biosyst. Eng. 2008, 100, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guler, H.; Zhu, H.; Ozkan, H.E.; Derksen, R.C.; Yu, Y.; Krause, C.R. Spray characteristics and drift reduction potential with air induction and conventional flat fan nozzles. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 745–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayat, A.; Bozdogan, N.Y. An air-assisted spinning disc nozzle and its performance on spray deposition and reduction of drift potential. Crop Prot. 2005, 24, 951–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fietsam, J.F.W.; Young, B.G.; Steffen, R.W. Differential response of herbicide drift reduction nozzles to drift control agents with glyphosate. Trans. ASABE 2004, 47, 1405–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herbst, A. A Method to Determine Spray Drift Potential from Nozzles and Its Link to Buffer Zone Restriction; Paper 011047; ASAE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Southcombe, E.S.E.; Miller, P.C.H.; Ganzelmeier, H.; van de Zande, J.C.; Miralles, A.; Hewitt, A.J. The international (BCPC) spray classification system including a drift potential factor. In Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference-Weeds, Brighton, UK, 17–20 November 1997; pp. 371–380. [Google Scholar]
- Balsari, P.; Gil, E.; Marucco, P.; Gallart, M.; Bozzer, C.; Llop, J.; Tamagnone, M. Study and development of a test methodology to assess potential drift generated by air-assisted sprayers. Asp. Appl. Biol. Int. Adv. Pestic. Appl. 2014, 122, 339–346. [Google Scholar]
- Nuyttens, D.; Zwertvaegher, I.; Dekeyser, D. Comparison between drift test bench results and other drift assessment techniques. Asp. Appl. Biol. Int. Adv. Pestic. Appl. 2014, 122, 293–302. [Google Scholar]
- Balsari, P.; Marucco, P.; Tamagnone, M. Study of a test methodology to assess potential spray drift generated by air-assisted sprayers for arboreal crops. In Proceedings of the AgEng Conference 2012, Valencia, Spain, 8–12 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Vanella, G.; Salyani, M.; Balsari, P.; Futch, S.H.; Sweeb, R.D. A method for assessing drift potential of a citrus herbicide applicator. HortTechnology 2011, 21, 745–751. [Google Scholar]
- Craig, I.P. The GDS model—A rapid computational technique for the calculation of aircraft spray drift buffer distances. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2004, 43, 235–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raupach, M.R.; Briggs, P.R.; Ahmad, N.; Edge, V.E. Endosulfan transport: II. Modelling airborne dispersal and deposition by spray and vapour. J. Environ. Qual. 2001, 30, 729–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De-Leeuw, F.A.A.M.; Van Pul, W.; Van den Berg, F.; Gilbert, A.J. The use of atmospheric dispersion models in risk assessment decision support systems for pesticides. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2000, 62, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, S.J.; Salt, D.W.; Lee, B.E.; Ford, M.G. A model for the capture of aerially sprayed pesticide by barley. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2000, 87, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holterman, H.J.; van de Zande, J.C.; Porskamp, H.A.J.; Huijsmans, J.F.M. Modelling spray drift from boom sprayer. Comput. Electron. Agric. 1997, 19, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, R.W.; Miller, P.C.H. Drift predictions in the near nozzle region of a flat fan spray. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1994, 59, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, P.C.H.; Hadfield, D. A simulation model of the spray drift from hydraulic nozzles. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1989, 42, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sidahmed, M.; Brown, R. Computer simulation of factors affecting drift from a forestry airblast sprayer. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 2002, 44, 227–235. [Google Scholar]
- Tsay, J.; Fox, R.D.; Ozkan, H.E.; Brazee, R.D.; Derksen, R.C. Evaluation of a pneumatic-shielded spraying system by CFD simulation. Trans. ASABE 2002, 45, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da Silva, A.; Sinfort, C.; Vanhiesbecq, S.; Polveche, V.; Huberson, S.; Silva, F.; Bonicelli, B. Simulation of sprayed pesticide deposit within a vineyard. Parasitica 2001, 57, 195–204. [Google Scholar]
- Weiner, K.L.; Parkin, C.S. The use of computational fluid dynamic code for modelling spray from a mistblower. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1993, 55, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuyttens, D.; de Schampheleire, M.; Verboven, P.; Sonck, B. Comparison between indirect and direct spray drift assessment methods. Biosyst. Eng. 2010, 105, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil, E.; Llorens, J.; Llop, J.; Fàbregas, X.; Gallart, M. Use of terrestrial LIDAR sensor for drift detection on vineyard spraying. Sensors 2013, 13, 516–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salyani, M.; Miller, D.R.; Farooq, M.; Sweeb, R.D. Effects of sprayer operating parameters on airborne drift from citrus air-carrier sprayers. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR Ej. 2013, 15, 27. [Google Scholar]
- Cunha, J.P.; Chueca, P.; Garcerá, C.; Moltó, E. Risk assessment of pesticide spray drift from citrus applications with air-blast sprayers in Spain. Crop Prot. 2012, 42, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Ramos, F.; Vidal, M.; Bone, A. Field evaluation of an air-assisted sprayer equipped with two reversed rotation fans. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2009, 25, 481–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llorens, J.; Gallart, M.; Llop, J.; Miranda-Fuentes, A.; Gil, E. Difficulties to apply ISO 22866 requirements for drift measurements. A particular case of traditional olive tree plantations. Asp. Appl. Biol. Int. Adv. Pestic. Appl. 2016, 132, 31–37. [Google Scholar]
- Gil, Y.; Sinfort, C. Emission of pesticides to the air during sprayer application: A bibliographic review. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 5183–5193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balsari, P.; Marucco, P.; Doruchowski, G.; Ophoff, H.; Roettele, M. Best Management Practice to Reduce Spray Drift; TOPPS Prowadis Projects Sponsored by European Crop Protection Association ECPA: Brussels Belgium, 2011; Available online: http://www.topps-life.org/uploads/8/0/0/3/8003583/ansicht_drift_book_englisch.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2017).
- Cook, R.J. The potential impact of buffer zones in agricultural practice. In Buffer Zones: Their Processes and Potential in Water Protection; Haycock, N., Burt, T., Goulding, K.W.T., Pinay, G., Eds.; QUEST Environmental: Harpenden, UK, 1997; pp. 265–274. [Google Scholar]
- Meier, U. Growth Stages of Mono- and Dicotylodonous Plants: BBCH Monograph, 2nd ed.; Uwe Meier Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry: Braunschweigh, Germany, 2001; pp. 1–158. [Google Scholar]
- Lorenz, D.; Eichorn, D.; Bleiholder, H.; Klose, R.; Meier, U.; Weber, E. Phänologische Entwicklungsstadien der Weinrebe (Vitis vinifera L. ssp. vinifera). Codierung und Beschreibung nach der erweiterten BBCH-Skala. Vitic. Enol. Sci. 1994, 49, 66–70. [Google Scholar]
- Meier, U.; Garf, H.; Hack, H.; Hess, M.; Kennel, W.; Klose, R.; Mappes, D.; Seipp, D.; Stauss, R.; Streif, D.; van den Boom, T. Phänologische Entwicklungsstadien der Kernobstes (Malus domestica Borkh. und Pyrus communis L.), des Steinobstes (Prunus-Arten), der Johannisbeere (Ribes-Arten) und der Erdbeere (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.). Codierung und Beschreibung nach der Erweiterten BBCH-Skala, mit Abbildungen. Nachrichtenbl. Deut. Pflanzenschutzd. 1994, 46, 141–153. [Google Scholar]
- Pergher, G. Recovery rate and tracers dye used for spray deposit assessment. Trans. ASABE 2001, 44, 787–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 22401:2015: Equipment for Crop Protection—Method for Measurement of Potential Drift from Horizontal Boom Sprayer Systems by the Use of a Test Bench; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; p. 12. [Google Scholar]
- Grella, M.; Marucco, P.; Manzone, M.; Gallart, M.; Balsari, P. Effect of sprayer settings on spray drift during pesticide application in poplar plantations (Populus spp.). Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 578, 427–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Pergher, G.; Petris, R. The effect of air flow rate on spray deposition in a Guyot trained vineyard. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR Ej. 2008, 10, 08010. [Google Scholar]
- Balsari, P.; Marucco, P.; Grella, M.; Savoia, S. Spray drift measurements in Italian vineyards and orchards. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Spray Application in Fruit Growing (SuproFruit 2015), Lindau/Lake Costance, Germany, 15–18 July 2015; pp. 30–31. [Google Scholar]
- Van de Zande, J.C.; Butler Ellis, M.C.; Wenneker, M.; Walklate, P.J.; Kennedy, M. Spray drift and bystander risk from fruit crop spraying. Asp. Appl. Biol. Int. Adv. Pestic. 2014, 122, 177–185. [Google Scholar]
- Belcher, S.E.; Jerram, N.; Hunt, J.C.R. Adjustment of a turbulent boundary layer to a canopy of roughness elements. J. Fluid Mech. 2003, 488, 369–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da Silva, A.; Sinfort, C.; Tinet, C.; Pierrot, D.; Huberson, S. A lagrangian model for spray behaviour within vine canopies. J. Aerosol Sci. 2006, 37, 658–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, C. Momentum transfer within canopies. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 2008, 47, 262–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cross, J.V.; Walklate, P.J.; Murray, R.A.; Richardson, G.M. Spray deposits and losses in different sized apple trees from an axial fan orchard sprayer: 3. Effects of air volumetric flow rate. Crop Prot. 2003, 22, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Schampheleire, M.; Nuyttens, D.; Dekeyser, D.; Verboven, P.; Spanoghe, P.; Cornelis, W.; Gabrielis, D.; Steurbaut, W. Deposition of spray drift behind border structures. Crop Prot. 2009, 28, 1061–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleugh, H.A. Effects of windbreaks on airflow, microclimates and crop yields. Agrof. Syst. 1998, 41, 55–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raupach, M.R.; Woods, N.; Dorr, G.; Leys, J.F.; Cleugh, H.A. The entrapment of particles by windbreaks. Atmos. Environ. 2001, 35, 3373–3383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Combellack, J.H.; Western, N.M.; Richardson, R.G. A comparison of the drift potential of a novel twin fluid nozzle with conventional low-volume flat-fan nozzles when using a range of adjuvants. Crop Prot. 1996, 15, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maybank, J.; Yoshida, K.; Grover, R. Spray drift from agriculture pesticide applications. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1978, 28, 1009–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yates, W.E.; Akesson, N.B.; Couts, H.H. Drift hazards related to ultra-low-volume and dilute sprays by agricultural aircraft. Trans. ASABE 1967, 10, 628–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bird, S.L.; Esterly, D.M.; Perry, S.G. Atmospheric pollutants and trace gases. Off-target deposition of pesticides from agricultural aerial spray applications. J. Environ. Qual. 1996, 25, 1095–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Combellack, J.H. Loss of herbicides from ground sprayers. Weed Res. 1982, 22, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frost, K.R.; Ware, G.W. Pesticide drift from aerial and ground applications. Agric. Eng. 1970, 51, 460–464. [Google Scholar]
- Bode, L.E. Downwind drift deposits by ground applications. Proceedings of Pesticide Drift Management Symposium; South Dakota University: Brookings, SD, USA, 1984; p. 50. [Google Scholar]
- Bouse, L.F.; Kirk, I.W.; Bode, L.E. Effect of spray mixture on droplet size. Trans. ASAE 1990, 33, 783–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sprayer | Nozzle Type | Fan Air Flow Rate (m3 h−1) | Forward Speed (m s−1) | Configuration ID a |
---|---|---|---|---|
Vineyard | ATR 80 orange | 20,000 | 1.67 | ATR6H |
Vineyard | ATR 80 orange | 11,000 | 1.67 | ATR6L |
Vineyard | TVI 8002 yellow | 20,000 | 1.67 | TVI6H |
Vineyard | TVI 8002 yellow | 11,000 | 1.67 | TVI6L |
Orchard | ATR 80 red | 46,000 | 1.67 | ATR6H |
Orchard | ATR 80 red | 29,000 | 1.67 | ATR6L |
Orchard | TVI 80025 lilac | 46,000 | 1.67 | TVI6H |
Orchard | TVI 80025 lilac | 29,000 | 1.67 | TVI6L |
Nozzle Type | Spray Pressure (MPa) | D[v,0.1] a (µm) | D[v,0.5] a (µm) | D[v,0.9] a (µm) | V100 b (%) | Flow Rate (L min−1) | Spray Angle (°) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ATR 80 orange | 1.0 | 47 | 95 | 171 | 50.45 | 1.39 | 80 |
TVI 8002 yellow | 1.0 | 190 | 606 | 1271 | 2.42 | 1.46 | 80 |
ATR 80 red | 1.5 | 32 | 86 | 173 | 57.64 | 2.33 | 80 |
TVI 80025 lilac | 1.5 | 128 | 407 | 872 | 5.59 | 2.24 | 80 |
Config & Replicates | Weather Parameters | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Temperature | RH | Wind Speed | Wind Direction | |||||||||
Mean | ∆ | Mean | ∆ | Min | Max | Mean | Outliers a | Mean | Range | Centered b | ||
°C | °C | % | % | m s−1 | m s−1 | m s−1 | % | ° az. | ° | % | ||
Vineyard sprayer | ||||||||||||
ATR6H | 1 | 26.8 | 0.15 | 63.9 | 0.39 | 1.9 | 7.1 | 4.3 | 0.0 | 155.1 | 69 | 96.1 |
2 | 26.5 | 0.15 | 68.3 | 0.42 | 0.2 | 5.0 | 2.3 | 8.8 | 176.0 | 146 | 97.9 | |
3 | 25.8 | 0.15 | 70.6 | 0.43 | 0.4 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 4.6 | 167.2 | 122 | 96.1 | |
ATR6L | 1 | 23.9 | 0.16 | 78.8 | 0.41 | 0.3 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 39.9 | 183.6 | 104 | 99.3 |
2 | 28.5 | 0.13 | 50.5 | 0.34 | 2.4 | 10.8 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 158.9 | 72 | 96.5 | |
3 | 25.2 | 0.13 | 62.9 | 0.42 | 0.1 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 12.9 | 201.7 | 304 | 82.5 | |
TVI6H | 1 | 22.6 | 0.14 | 70.4 | 0.50 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 1.4 | 39.5 | 201.5 | 216 | 69.4 |
2 | 22.7 | 0.13 | 64.6 | 0.37 | 0.1 | 3.6 | 1.4 | 34.8 | 182.6 | 184 | 86.5 | |
3 | 22.3 | 0.17 | 66.3 | 0.35 | 0.1 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 47.9 | 213.9 | 163 | 64.7 | |
TVI6L | 1 | 25.8 | 0.15 | 72.5 | 0.46 | 1.1 | 5.8 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 163.5 | 91 | 99.3 |
2 | 25.4 | 0.13 | 74.5 | 0.49 | 1.1 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 174.6 | 76 | 100.0 | |
3 | 24.0 | 0.14 | 78.9 | 0.45 | 0.8 | 3.9 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 162.5 | 76 | 99.4 | |
Apple tree orchard sprayer | ||||||||||||
ATR6H | 1 | 24.4 | 0.19 | 79.7 | 0.26 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 13.5 | 175.7 | 91 | 99.8 |
2 | 23.9 | 0.17 | 81.6 | 0.32 | 0.4 | 2.6 | 1.2 | 25.0 | 172.4 | 120 | 98.3 | |
3 | 26.1 | 0.14 | 77.1 | 0.50 | 1.2 | 5.9 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 180.1 | 114 | 99.3 | |
ATR6L | 1 | 25.5 | 0.12 | 73.2 | 0.56 | 0.9 | 3.8 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 148.1 | 109 | 80.4 |
2 | 25.4 | 0.11 | 73.0 | 0.55 | 0.9 | 4.2 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 148.7 | 104 | 89.4 | |
3 | 25.3 | 0.13 | 73.4 | 0.56 | 0.6 | 3.8 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 153.4 | 100 | 90.0 | |
TVI6H | 1 | 24.7 | 0.13 | 75.3 | 0.58 | 0.8 | 4.5 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 165.6 | 84 | 96.7 |
2 | 24.7 | 0.13 | 75.6 | 0.57 | 0.9 | 5.0 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 163.2 | 92 | 97.1 | |
3 | 24.6 | 0.13 | 75.9 | 0.57 | 1.0 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 168.9 | 86 | 98.7 | |
TVI6L | 1 | 26.4 | 0.15 | 73.6 | 0.45 | 0.7 | 4.4 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 204.1 | 82 | 95.3 |
2 | 26.4 | 0.15 | 71.9 | 0.46 | 1.0 | 5.7 | 3.0 | 0.1 | 195.0 | 104 | 97.6 | |
3 | 25.9 | 0.14 | 74.2 | 0.50 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 187.7 | 89 | 99.8 |
Wind Speed | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wind Direction | Min (m s−1) | Max (m s−1) | Mean (m s−1) | Outliers (%) a | ||||||||
Pr (>F) | Sign. c | ρ d | Pr (>F) | Sign. c | ρ d | Pr (>F) | Sign. c | ρ d | Pr (>F) | Sign. c | ρ d | |
Mean (°az) | 0.010 | ** | −0.516 | 0.137 | NS | −0.312 | 0.045 | * | −0.413 | 0.004 | ** | 0.567 |
Range (°) | 0.001 | *** | −0.637 | 0.123 | NS | −0.323 | 0.025 | * | −0.456 | 0.007 | ** | −0.534 |
Center (%) b | 0.028 | * | 0.447 | 0.139 | NS | 0.311 | 0.082 | NS | 0.363 | 0.002 | ** | −0.611 |
Vineyard Sprayer | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ground DVs a | Airborne 5 m DVs a | Airborne 10 m DVs a | ||||
Source | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | Pr (>F) | Sign. b |
Nozzle type | 0.001 | ** | 4.54 × 10−4 | *** | 4.51 × 10−4 | *** |
Fan air flow rate | 0.554 | NS | 0.822 | NS | 0.753 | NS |
Nozzle type * Fan air flow rate | 0.174 | NS | 0.316 | NS | 0.267 | NS |
Orchard Sprayer | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ground DVs a | Airborne 5 m DVs a | Airborne 10 m DVs a | ||||
Source | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | Pr (>F) | Sign. b |
Nozzle type | 2.51 × 10−4 | *** | 0.003 | ** | 0.001 | ** |
Fan air flow rate | 0.193 | NS | 0.372 | NS | 0.697 | NS |
Nozzle type * Fan air flow rate | 0.152 | NS | 0.600 | NS | 0.697 | NS |
Drift Values -DVs- | Wind Speed | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Min (m s−1) | Max (m s−1) | Mean (m s−1) | Outliers (%)a | |||||||||
Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | |
Ground | 0.250 | NS | 2.44 × 10−1 | 0.026 | * | 0.452 | 0.037 | * | 0.429 | 0.612 | NS | −0.109 |
Airborne 5 m | 0.012 | * | 0.503 | 1.16 × 10−4 | *** | 0.706 | 3.07 × 10−4 | *** | 0.674 | 0.277 | NS | −0.231 |
Airborne 10 m | 0.024 | * | 0.460 | 2.80 × 10−4 | *** | 0.677 | 0.001 | *** | 0.641 | 0.292 | NS | −0.225 |
Drift Values -DVs- | Wind Direction | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (°az) | Range (°) | Centered (%) a | |||||||
Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | |
Ground | 0.339 | NS | −0.204 | 0.501 | NS | 0.144 | 0.713 | NS | 0.079 |
Airborne 5 m | 0.199 | NS | −0.272 | 0.482 | NS | 0.151 | 0.866 | NS | −0.036 |
Airborne 10 m | 0.234 | NS | −0.252 | 0.497 | NS | 0.146 | 0.995 | NS | −0.001 |
Drift Values -CV%- | Wind Speed -CV%- | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Min (m s−1) | Max (m s−1) | Mean (m s−1) | Outliers (%) a | |||||||||
Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | |
Ground | 0.153 | NS | 0.556 | 0.239 | NS | 0.471 | 0.290 | NS | 0.428 | 0.571 | NS | −0.237 |
Airborne 5 m | 0.104 | NS | 0.616 | 2.93 × 10−4 | *** | 0.950 | 0.003 | ** | 0.887 | 0.785 | NS | 0.116 |
Airborne 10 m | 0.091 | NS | 0.635 | 1.47 × 10−4 | *** | 0.961 | 0.003 | ** | 0.891 | 0.903 | NS | 0.052 |
Drift Values -CV%- | Wind Direction -CV%- | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (°az) | Range (°) | Centered (%) a | |||||||
Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | Pr (>F) | Sign. b | ρ c | |
Ground | 0.004 | ** | 0.877 | 0.073 | NS | 0.663 | 0.103 | NS | 0.617 |
Airborne 5 m | 0.142 | NS | 0.567 | 0.710 | NS | 0.157 | 0.026 | * | 0.770 |
Airborne 10 m | 0.142 | NS | 0.568 | 0.657 | NS | 0.188 | 0.026 | * | 0.768 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Grella, M.; Gallart, M.; Marucco, P.; Balsari, P.; Gil, E. Ground Deposition and Airborne Spray Drift Assessment in Vineyard and Orchard: The Influence of Environmental Variables and Sprayer Settings. Sustainability 2017, 9, 728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050728
Grella M, Gallart M, Marucco P, Balsari P, Gil E. Ground Deposition and Airborne Spray Drift Assessment in Vineyard and Orchard: The Influence of Environmental Variables and Sprayer Settings. Sustainability. 2017; 9(5):728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050728
Chicago/Turabian StyleGrella, Marco, Montserrat Gallart, Paolo Marucco, Paolo Balsari, and Emilio Gil. 2017. "Ground Deposition and Airborne Spray Drift Assessment in Vineyard and Orchard: The Influence of Environmental Variables and Sprayer Settings" Sustainability 9, no. 5: 728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050728