Effect of Electrostatic Spraying Conditions on Droplet Deposition in Different Depth Areas on the Back of Target

  • 2 Accesses


In order to explore the optimal spraying effect of different electrostatic spraying parameters on droplet deposition on the back of target, the application height, angle, charging voltage, and nozzle water pressure had been applied as spraying variables for the test designed to investigate on droplet density, deposition and coverage in different depth areas of the target. The results of the study showed that the height and angle of the spatial parameters of the application had a significant effect on the application effect. The droplet deposition effect decreased by 94.71%, 89.09% and 94.17% at different depths on the back of the target as the height increased from 20 to 50 cm. The deposition effects of droplets at different depths on the back of the target at 60° tilt angle are 5.91%, 9.81% and 51.97% of them at 0° tilt angle respectively. The results of orthogonal experiment showed that the optimal parameters of different depth areas on the back of different targets were inconsistent. The height and angle of application are the main influencing factors, when the target is warped up. The depth range of the target (5–7.5 cm) is greatly affected by the nozzle water pressure. In the actual spraying pesticides application, the appropriate operating parameters can be selected according to the size and attitude of the leaf surface to improve the spraying effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. 1.

    S.E. Law, Agricultural electrostatic spray application: a review of significant research and development during the 20th century. J. Electrostat. 51(1), 25–42 (2001)

  2. 2.

    L. Ren, F. Chen, M. Yin, Progress in theory and application on electrostatic spraying technology. Mod. Agrochem. 18(01), 1–6 (2019). (in Chinese)

  3. 3.

    Q. Song, L. Li, S. Wu et al., Analysis of factors affecting inductive high voltage electrostatic spray droplet charged effect. J. Agric. Mech. Res. 39(10), 156–162 (2017). (in Chinese)

  4. 4.

    M.K. Patel, B. Praveen, H.K. Sahoo, An advance air-induced air-assisted electrostatic nozzle with enhanced Performance. Comput. Electron. Agric. 135, 280–288 (2017)

  5. 5.

    M.K. Patel, H.K. Sahoo, C. Ghanshyam, High voltage generation for charging of liquid sprays in air-assisted electrostatic nozzle system. IETE J. Res. 62(3), 424–431 (2016)

  6. 6.

    E. Moser, Electrostatic spraying with a knapsack sprayer. AMA 3, 305–309 (1987)

  7. 7.

    J. Wen, X. Song, X. Luo, Experimental study on charge characteristics of two-fluid spray. High Volt. Eng. 10, 2172–2176 (2008). (in Chinese)

  8. 8.

    G.N. Laryea, S.Y. No, Development of electrostatic pressure-swirl nozzle for agricultural applications. J. Electrostat. 57(2), 129–142 (2003)

  9. 9.

    R. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Design and experimentation research on electrostatic induction nozzle. J. Agric. Mech. Res. 1, 181–183 (2013). (in Chinese)

  10. 10.

    J. Wang, Z. Wang, Y. Huo, Effects of liquid properties on electrostatic spray characteristics (in Chinese). J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng. 30(4), 469–472 (2012)

  11. 11.

    M.K. Patel, C. Ghanshyam, P. Kapur, Characterization of electrode material for electrostatic spray charging: theoretical and engineering practices. J. Electrostat. 71(1), 55–60 (2015)

  12. 12.

    S. Gan-Mors, B. Ronen, K. Ohaliav, The effect of air velocity and proximity on the charging of sprays from conventional hydraulic nozzles. Biosyst. Eng. 121(5), 200–208 (2014)

  13. 13.

    D.E. Martin, J.B. Carlton, Airspeed and orifice size affect spray droplet spectrum from an aerial electrostatic nozzle for fixed-wing applications. Atom Sprays 22(12), 997–1010 (2013)

  14. 14.

    M.K. Patel, B. Praveen, H.K. Sahoo et al., An advance air-induced air-assisted electrostatic nozzle with enhanced performance. Comput. Electron. Agric. 135(5), 280–288 (2017)

  15. 15.

    J. Guo, M. Tailor, T. Bamber et al., Investigation of relationship between interfacial electroadhesive force and surface texture. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 49(3), 303–312 (2016)

  16. 16.

    D. Maski, D. Durairaj, Effects of charging voltage, application speed, target height, and orientation upon charged. Spray deposition on leaf abaxial and adaxial surfaces. Crop Protect. 29(2), 134–141 (2010)

  17. 17.

    M.K. Patel, H.K. Sahoo, M.K. Nayak et al., Plausibility of variable coverage high range spraying: experimental studies of an externally air-assisted electrostatic nozzle. Comput. Electron. Agric. 127, 641–651 (2016)

  18. 18.

    S. Pascuzzi, E. Cerruto, Spray deposition in “tendone” vineyards when using a pneumatic electrostatic sprayer. Crop Protect. 68(2), 1–11 (2015)

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Xiaohui Zhang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liang, Z., Ding, H., Wang, G. et al. Effect of Electrostatic Spraying Conditions on Droplet Deposition in Different Depth Areas on the Back of Target. Trans. Electr. Electron. Mater. (2020) doi:10.1007/s42341-020-00171-6

Download citation


  • Electrostatic spraying
  • Operating parameter
  • Dip angle
  • Depth areas