Skip to Main Content
Skip Nav Destination
ASTM Selected Technical Papers
Pesticide Formulation and Delivery Systems: 32nd Volume, Innovating Legacy Products for New Uses
By
Mark L. Bernards
Mark L. Bernards
Guest Editor and Symposium Chairman
1
Western Illinois University
,
Macomb, IL,
US
Search for other works by this author on:
Editor
Bala Devisetty
Bala Devisetty
Symposium Co-Chairman
2
Valent Biosciences Corporation
,
Long Grove, IL,
US
Search for other works by this author on:
ISBN:
978-0-8031-7544-0
No. of Pages:
220
Publisher:
ASTM International
Publication date:
2013

The impact of tank mix adjuvants and a formulated fungicide on spray atomization and in-field movement under aerial application conditions was examined. High speed wind tunnel testing was conducted to determine droplet size resulting from treatments selected for evaluation in the field. These treatments included a “blank” (water plus a non-ionic surfactant) as well as five additional solutions with a formulated fungicide, four of which have an additional adjuvant. The wind tunnel testing measured droplet size using the flat fan nozzles and operational parameters (spray pressure, nozzle orientation, and airspeed) selected for field trials. These treatments were then evaluated in the field for both in-swath and downwind deposition, with a mass balance on the measured results used to compare each of the formulated product treatments to a reference treatment. Wind tunnel results showed the formulated product tank mixes resulted in significantly different droplet sizes than the water and non-ionic surfactant “blank” reference sprays. Additional adjuvants resulted in minimal changes in droplet size as compared to the formulated product mixture. However the polymer tested broadened the droplet size distribution. Drift modeling of the wind tunnel droplet size results demonstrated little difference between the formulated product and spray adjuvant spray mixtures. However, all treatment solutions significantly reduced modeled drift as compared to the reference treatment. While the field study results did highlight significant differences between treatments solutions, it also showed a great degree in data variability as a result of meteorological and sampling issues. These results have led the authors to conclude that field testing of potential drift reduction technologies under aerial application conditions will be cost prohibitive and likely would give highly variable results. Wind tunnel evaluations at certified laboratories offer a much quicker and inexpensive method for evaluating large numbers of nozzle and spray formulation treatments.

1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
, “
Draft Generic Verification Protocol for the Verification of Pesticide Spray Drift Reduction Technologies for Row and Field Crops
,”
Report No.. EPA/600/R-07/102
,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
,
Washington, D.C.
,
2007
.
2.
ASTM E1260-05
, “
Standard Test Method for Determining Liquid Drop Size Characteristics in a Spray Using Optical Nonimaging Light-Scattering Instruments
,”
Annual Book of ASTM Standards
, Vol.
14.02
,
ASTM International
,
West Conshohocken, PA
,
2009
, pp. 1–4.
3.
ISO Standard 22856:2008
, “
Equipment for Crop Protection—Methods for Laboratory Measurement of Spray Drift—Wind Tunnels
,”
International Standard Organization
,
Geneva, Switzerland
,
2008
.
4.
ASABE Standards S572.1
, “
Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet Spectra
,”
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
,
St. Joseph, MI
,
1999
.
5.
Connell
,
R. J.
,
Hewitt
,
A. J.
,
Wolf
,
T.
, and
Miller
,
P. C. H.
, “
WTDISP—Adapting a Lagrangian Ground Sprayer Model Using Wind Tunnel Data
,”
Proceedings of the 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress
,
Cairns
,
Australia
,
2009
, pp. 4402–4408.
6.
Bilanin
,
A. J.
,
Teske
,
M. E.
,
Barry
,
J. W.
, and
Eckblad
,
R. B.
, “
AGDISP: The Aircraft Spray Dispersion Model, Code Development and Experimental Validation
,”
Trans. ASABE
, Vol.
32
, No.
1
,
1989
, pp. 327–334.
7.
ASABE Standards S561.1
, “
Procedure for Measuring Drift Deposits from Ground, Orchard, and Aerial Sprayers
,”
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
,
St. Joseph, MI
,
2004
.
8.
Hoffmann
,
W. C.
and
Kirk
,
I. W.
, “
Spray Deposition and Drift from Two “Medium” Nozzles
,”
Trans. ASABE
, Vol.
48
, No.
1
,
2005
, pp. 5–11.
9.
Kirk
,
I. W.
, “
Aerial Spray Drift from Different Formulations of Glyphosate
,”
Trans. ASABE
, Vol.
43
, No.
3
,
2000
, pp. 555–559.
10.
Franz
,
E.
,
Bouse
,
L. F.
,
Carlton
,
J. B.
,
Kirk
,
I. W.
, and
Latheef
,
M. A.
, “
Aerial Spray Deposit Relations with Plant Canopy and Weather Parameters
,”
Trans. ASABE
, Vol.
41
, No.
4
,
1998
, pp. 959–966.
11.
Nordby
,
A.
and
Skuterud
,
R.
, “
The Effects of Boom Height, Working Pressure and Wind Speed on Spray Drift
,”
Weed Res.
, Vol.
14
, No.
6
,
1974
, pp. 385–395.
12.
Yates
,
W. E.
,
Akesson
,
N. B.
, and
Cowden
,
R.E.
, “
Criteria for Minimizing Drift Residues on Crops Downwind from Aerial Applications
,”
Trans. ASABE
, Vol.
17
, No.
4
,
1974
, pp. 627–632.
13.
Hewitt
,
A. J.
, “
Development of the Spray Drift Task Force Database for Aerial Applications
,”
Envir. Toxic. Chem.
, Vol.
21
, No.
3
,
2002
, pp. 648–658.
14.
Spanoghe
,
P.
,
Schampheleire
,
M. D.
,
Van der Meeren
,
P.
, and
Steurbaut
,
W.
, “
Review: Influence of Agricultural Adjuvants on Droplet Spectra
,”
Pest Man. Sci.
, Vol.
63
, No.
1
,
2007
, pp. 4–16.
15.
Hewitt
,
A. J.
, “
Spray Optimization through Application and Liquid Physical Property Variables—I
,”
Environmentalist
, Vol.
28
, No.
1
,
2008
, pp. 25–30.
16.
Sanderson
,
R.
,
Hewitt
,
A. J.
,
Huddleston
,
E. W.
, and
Ross
,
J. B.
, “
Relative Drift Potential and Droplet Size Spectra of Aerially Applied Propanil Formulations
,”
Crop Prot.
, Vol.
16
, No.
8
,
1997
, pp. 717–721.
17.
Kirk
,
I. W.
, “
Aerial Spray Drift from Different Formulations of Glyphosate
,”
Trans. ASABE
, Vol.
43
, No.
3
,
2000
, pp. 555–559.
18.
Hall
,
F. R.
,
Chapple
,
A. C.
,
Downer
,
R. A.
,
Kirchner
,
L. M.
, and
Thackner
,
J. R. M.
, “
Pesticide Application as Affected by Spray Modifiers
,”
Pest. Sci.
, Vol.
38
, No.
1
,
1993
, pp. 123–133.
19.
Hoffmann
,
W. C.
,
Hewitt
,
A. J.
,
Ross
,
J. B.
,
Bagley
,
W. E.
,
Martin
,
D. E.
, and
Fritz
,
B. K.
, “
Spray Adjuvant Effects on Droplet Size Spectra Measured by Three Laser-Based Systems in a High Speed Wind Tunnel
,”
J. ASTM Int.
, Vol.
5
, No.
6
,
2008
, pp. 1–12.
20.
Lan
,
Y.
,
Hoffmann
,
W. C.
,
Fritz
,
B. K.
,
Martin
,
D. E.
,
Lopez
,
J. D.
, “
Spray Drift Mitigation with Spray Mix Adjuvants
,”
Appl. Eng. Agric.
, Vol.
24
, No.
1
,
2008
, pp. 5–10.
21.
Fritz
,
B. K.
,
Hoffmann
,
W. C.
, and
Jank
,
P.
, “
A Fluorescent Tracer Method for Evaluating Spray Transport and Rate of Field and Laboratory Spray Applications
,”
J. ASTM Int.
, Vol.
8
, No.
3
,
2011
, pp. 1–9.
22.
Fritz
,
B. K.
,
Hoffmann
,
W. C.
,
Bagley
,
W. E.
, and
Hewitt
,
A.
, “
Field Scale Evaluation of Spray Drift Reduction Technologies from Ground and Aerial Application Systems
,”
J. ASTM Int.
, Vol.
8
, No.
5
,
2011
, pp. 1–11.
23.
Yates
,
W. E.
,
Akesson
,
N. B.
, and
Coutts
,
H. H.
, “
Evaluation of Drift Residues from Aerial Applications
,”
Trans. ASABE
, Vol.
9
, No.
3
,
1966
, pp. 389–393, 397.
24.
Fritz
,
B. K.
, “
Meteorological Effects on Deposition and Drift of Aerially Applied Sprays
.”
Trans. ASABE
, Vol.
49
, No.
5
,
2006
, pp. 1295–1301.
25.
Kirk
,
I. W.
, “
Measurement and Prediction of Atomization Parameters from Fixed-Wing Aircraft Spray Nozzles
,”
Trans. ASABE
, Vol.
50
, No.
3
,
2007
, pp. 693–703.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this chapter.
Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal