Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T22:56:37.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterization of the Spray Droplet Spectra and Patterns of Four Venturi-Type Drift Reduction Nozzles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Etheridge ,
Alvin R. Womac  and
Thomas C. Mueller
Robert E. Etheridge
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Tennessee, P.O. Box 1071, Knoxville, TN 37901
Alvin R. Womac
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, University of Tennessee, P.O. Box 1071, Knoxville, TN 37901
Thomas C. Mueller*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Tennessee, P.O. Box 1071, Knoxville, TN 37901
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tmueller@utk.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laboratory studies were conducted using a Malvern laser droplet/particle size analyzer to determine the droplet spectra of several venturi-type drift reduction nozzles compared to a standard single, elliptical-orifice flat fan nozzle. Spray solutions of glufosinate, glyphosate, and paraquat were applied through all combinations of five nozzle types (four drift reduction), three tip sizes, and four application pressures. Nozzles were also evaluated for pattern uniformity using water plus surfactant at one pressure. When averaged over herbicide, tip size, and pressure the venturi nozzles collectively produced larger volume median diameter (VMD) droplets than the standard nozzle. The percentage of spray volume in droplets < 205 μm was less for the venturi nozzles (17%) than for the standard nozzle (65%) when averaged across all factors. The order of herbicides producing the largest droplets was paraquat (470 μm) > glyphosate (460 μm) > glufosinate (400 μm), as measured by VMD. The venturi nozzles were more variable in their spray volume distribution than the standard nozzle. Utilization of venturi-type nozzles may minimize the drift potential of the herbicides evaluated but could also lead to uneven herbicide application and subsequent erratic weed control.

Keywords

Glufosinate, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acidglyphosate, isopropylamine salt of N-(phosphonomethyl)glycineparaquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ionGlufosinateglyphosateparaquatMalvernventuri nozzleAI, Spraying Systems AI TeejetCV, coefficient of variationHSD, Tukey's honest significant differenceLM, Lurmark Ultra Lo-DriftMMD, mass median diameterNIS, nonionic surfactantPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceRU, Delavan Raindrop UltraTD, Greenleaf TurboDropV205, volume of spray in droplets < 205 μm in diameterVMD, volume median diameterXR, Spraying Systems XR Teejet

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 765 - 770
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Ambach, R. M. and Ashford, R. 1982. Effects of variations in drop makeup on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 30:221–224.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1995. Lurmark spray tips, handbook 4. Long Stanton, Cambridge, UK: Lurmark LTD.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998a. Crop Protection Chemicals Reference. New York: Chemical and Pharmaceutical Press.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998b. Delavan AgSpray nozzles, accessories, pumps, and spray kits. Monroe, NC: Delavan Spray Technologies. 120 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998c. Greenleaf TurboDrop nozzle tabulations. Covington, LA: Greenleaf Technologies. 1 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998d. TeeJet agricultural spray products, catalog 47. Wheaton, IL: Spraying Systems Co.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M. and Wyse, D. L. 1988. Influence of glyphosate concentration on glyphosate absorption and translocation in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 36:291–295.Google Scholar
Combellack, J. H., Western, N. M., and Richardson, R. G. 1996. 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. 15:147–152.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R. and Linscott, D. L. 1990. Droplet makeup and the effect on phytotoxicity of glyphosate in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 38:406–410.Google Scholar
Knoche, M. 1994. Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot. 13:163–178.Google Scholar
McKinlay, K. S., Brandt, S. A., Morse, P., and Ashford, R. 1972. Droplet size and phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weed Sci. 20:450–452.Google Scholar
McKinlay, K. S., Ashford, R., and Ford, R. J. 1974. Effects of drop size, spray volume, and dosage on paraquat toxicity. Weed Sci. 22:31–34.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Womac, A. R. 1997. Effect of formulation and nozzle type on droplet size with isopropylamine and trimesium salts of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:639–643.Google Scholar
Nordby, A. and Skuterud, R. 1975. The effects of boom height, working pressure and wind speed on spray drift. Weed Res. 14:385–395.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. 2nd ed. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Whisenant, S. G., Bouse, L. F., Crane, R. A., and Bovey, R. W. 1993. Droplet size and spray volume effects on honey mesquite mortality with clopyralid. J. Range Manage. 46:257–261.Google Scholar
Womac, A. R., Goodwin, J. C., and Hart, W. E. 1997. Tip Selection for Precision Application of Herbicides: A Look-Up Table of Drop Sizes to Assist in the Selection of Nozzles. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 695. 47 p.Google Scholar
Womac, A. R., Maynard, R. A., and Kirk, I. W. 1999. Measurement variations in reference sprays for nozzle classification. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 42:609–616.Google Scholar
Yates, E. W., Akesson, N. B., and Bayer, D. 1976. Effects of spray adjuvants on drift hazards. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 19:41–46.Google Scholar