Advertisement

Physicochemical Factors Influencing the Adjuvant-Enhanced Spray Deposition and Coverage of Foliage-Applied Agrochemicals

  • P. J. Holloway
Part of the Ernst Schering Research Foundation Workshop book series (SCHERING FOUND, volume 12)

Abstract

Most pesticides are applied to foliage as sprays of water-based formulations atomised through hydraulic nozzles. It is well known that this method of transfer is inherently inefficient, resulting in only a small proportion of the dose applied actually being deposited on the intended target, with even less eventually reaching the ultimate site of biological action. In the crucial first stage of the process, from atomisation to droplet retention and deposit formation, a number of factors contribute to the shortfall, the most important of which are drift, in-flight evaporation and, especially, reflection and run-off from the target (Young 1986; Hall 1990; Hall et al. 1993). There are now increasing environmental and regulatory pressures on manufacturers to seek ways of alleviating these fundamental problems of crop spraying and, at the same time, reducing pesticide doses.

Keywords

Ethylene Oxide Physicochemical Factor Dynamic Surface Tension Spray Droplet Equilibrium Surface Tension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson NH, Hall DJ (1989) The role of dynamic surface tension in the retention of surfactant sprays on pea plants. In: Chow PNP, Grant CA, Hinshalwood AM, Simundsson E (eds) Adjuvants and agrochemicals, vol II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 51–62Google Scholar
  2. Anderson NH, Hall DJ, Western NM (1988) Physicochemical aspects of spray atomisation and reduction of drop size by surfactants, vol 1. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pesticide Application, Paris, pp 291–298Google Scholar
  3. Arnold AC (1983) Comparative droplet-size spectra for three different-angled flat fan nozzles. Crop Protect 2: 193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attwood D, Florence AT (1983) Surfactant systems their chemistry, pharmacy and biology. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Brazee RD, Reichard DL, Bukovac MJ, Fox RD (1991) A partitioned energy transfer model for spray impaction on plants. J Agric Eng Res 50: 11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunskill RT (1956) Physical factors affecting the retention of spray droplets on leaf surfaces. Proceedings of the 3rd British Weed Control Conference 2: 593–603Google Scholar
  7. Crease GJ, Hall FR, Thacker JRM (1991) Reflection of agricultural sprays from leaf surfaces. J Environ Sci Health B26: 383–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Ruiter H, Uffing AJM, Meinen E, Prins A (1990) Influence of surfactants and plant species on leaf retention of spray solutions. Weed Sci 38: 567–572Google Scholar
  9. Ford RE, Furmidge CGL (1967) Impact and spreading of spray drops on foliar surfaces. In: Wetting SCI (ed) Monograph no 25. Society of Chemical Industry, London, pp 417–432Google Scholar
  10. Göhlich H (1992) Efficient application of herbicides. Proc 1st Int Weed Control Cong 1: 150–158Google Scholar
  11. Grayson BT, Webb JD, Pack SE, Edwards E (1991) Development and assessment of a mathematical model to predict foliar spray deposition under laboratory track spraying conditions. Pestic Sci 33: 281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grayson BT, Pack SE, Edwards E, Webb JD (1993) Assessment of a mathematical model to predict spray deposition under laboratory track spraying conditions. II. Examination with further plant species and diluted formulations. Pestic Sci 37: 133–140Google Scholar
  13. Hall FR (1990) Controlled delivery and foliar spraying. In: Wilkins RM (ed) Controlled delivery of crop-protection agents. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  14. Hall FR, Chapple AC, Downer RA, Kirchner, LM, Thacker JRM (1993) Pesti- cide application as affected by spray modifiers. Pestic Sci 38: 123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartley GS (1967) Behaviour of water on surfaces at extreme limits of contact angles. In: Wetting SCI (ed) Monograph no 25. Society of Chemical Industry, London, pp 433–442Google Scholar
  16. Hartley GS, Brunskill RT (1958) Reflection of water drops from surfaces. In: Danielli JF, Parkhurst KGA, Riddiford AC (eds) Surface phenomena in chemistry and biology. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 214–223Google Scholar
  17. Holloway Pi (1993) Adjuvants for agrochemicals: why do we need them? Medelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit Gent 58/2a: 125–140Google Scholar
  18. Holloway PJ, Hayes AL, Western NM (1993) Influence of adjuvants on the retention and spreading of spray droplets on foliage (in preparation)Google Scholar
  19. Lake JR (1977) The effect of drop size and velocity on the performance of agricultural sprays. Pestic Sci 8: 515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lefebvre AH (1993) Droplet production. In: Hislop EC, Matthews GA (eds) Application technology for crop protection. CAB International, Oxford, pp 35–54Google Scholar
  21. Miller PCH (1992) Herbicide application, vol 1. Proceedings of the 1st international weed control congress, pp 159–164Google Scholar
  22. Reichard DL (1988) Drop formation and impaction on the plant. Weed Technol 2: 82–87Google Scholar
  23. Spillman JJ (1984) Spray impaction, retention and adhesion: an introduction to basic characteristics. Pestic Sci 15: 97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stevens PJG, Kimberley MO, Murphy DS, Policello GA (1993) Adhesion of spray droplets to foliage: the role of dynamic surface tension and advantages of organosilicone surfactants. Pestic Sci 38: 237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tadros TF (1987) Interactions at interfaces and effects on transfer and performance. Aspects Appl Biol 14: 1–22Google Scholar
  26. van Toor RF, Hayes AL, Cooke, BK, Holloway PJ (1993) Relationships between the herbicidal activity and foliar uptake of surfactant-containing solutions of glyphosate applied to foliage of oats and field bean. Crop Protect (in press)Google Scholar
  27. Wirth W, Storp S, Jacobsen W (1991) Mechanisms controlling leaf retention of agricultural spray solutions. Pestic Sci 33: 411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Young BW (1980) The use of high speed tine photography in pesticide spray application research. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Mechanization of Field Experiments, Wageningen, pp 116–123Google Scholar
  29. Young BW (1986) The need for a greater understanding in the application of pesticides. Outlook Agric 15: 80–87Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Holloway

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations