Advertisement

Evaluation of Potential Spray Drift Generated by Different Types of Airblast Sprayers Using an “ad hoc” Test Bench Device

  • M. GrellaEmail author
  • P. Marucco
  • P. Balsari
Conference paper
  • 30 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 67)

Abstract

Drift is one of the most important issues to be consider for realise a sustainable pesticide application. This study proposes an alternative methodology for quantify the Drift Potential (DP) for vineyard crop sprayers, trying to avoid the difficulties faced in conducting field trials according to the reference standard protocol (ISO 22866:2005(E): Equipment for Crop Protection—Methods for Field Measurements of Spray Drift, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2005). Thanks to a specific test bench device, it is possible to collect and quantify the spray fraction that remains suspended over the test bench immediately after passage of the sprayer and that can potentially be carried out of the target zone by environmental air currents, defined as “potential drift fraction”. The proposed methodology requires to made the test in absence of target and in calm of wind. Contextually, a variation of original test method (absent a target) was used to investigate both the possible effect of the target on the final results and the suitability of the test bench device to measure potential spray drift generated by multiple-row sprayers. The methodologies have been tested using two types of vineyards sprayers, namely conventional axial fan tower shaped and pneumatic single or multiple rows, in different configurations. By the comparison with the results obtained from a reference sprayer the resulting drift reduction potential (DRP), obtained from the two indirect methodologies investigated (presence or not of the target), were compared. The test bench trials confirmed the ability of the proposed methodology to discriminate the DP generated by different vineyard sprayers and their configurations tested. Furthermore, the results obtained from the two methodologies, indicate that, although the vineyard target influence the total amount of liquid collected by test bench, the absence of target is negligible and irrelevant in terms of final drift reduction sprayers classification.

Keywords

Test bench method Spray drift potential Classification Vineyard sprayers Single-row hydraulic sprayer Multiple-row pneumatic sprayer 

References

  1. European Community. (2009). 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. Official Journal of European Union, 309, 71–86.Google Scholar
  2. Gil, E., Llorens, J., Gallart, M., Gil-Ribes, J. A., & Miranda-Fuentes, A. (2018). First attempts to obtain a reference drift curve for traditional olive grove’s plantations following ISO 22866. Science of the Total Environment, 627, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Grella, M., Gallart, M., Marucco, P., Balsari, P., & Gil, E. (2017a). Ground deposition and airborne spray drift assessment in vineyard and orchard: The influence of environmental variables and sprayer settings. Sustainability, 9(5), 728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grella, M., Gil, E., Balsari, P., Marucco, P., & Gallart, M. (2017b). Advances in developing a new test method to assess spray drift potential from air blast sprayers. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 15(3), e0207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grella, M., Marucco, P., & Balsari, P. (2019). Toward a new method to classify the airblast sprayers according to their potential drift reduction: Comparison of direct and new indirect measurement methods. Pest Management Science, 75, 2219–2235.Google Scholar
  6. International Organization for Standardization. (2005). ISO 22866:2005(E): Equipment for crop protection—Methods for field measurements of spray drift, ed. by International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  7. International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 22369-1:2006(E): Crop protection equipment—Drift classification of spraying equipment—Part 1: classes. International Organization for Standardization, ed. by International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1.Google Scholar
  8. Nuyttens, D., Zwertvaegher, I. K. A., & Dekeyser, D. (2017). Spray drift assessment of different application techniques using a drift test bench and comparison with other assessment methods. Biosystems Engineering, 154, 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (DiSAFA)University of Turin (UNITO)GrugliascoItaly

Personalised recommendations