Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T01:19:44.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rotary Disk Atomization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Maurice R. Gebhardt
Maurice R. Gebhardt*
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Crop Prod Res. Unit, Agric. Eng., Univ. Mo., Columbia, MO 65211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the late 1930s, European engineers discovered that, for very low flow rates, rotary disk atomizers produced a more definable range of droplet sizes than hydraulic atomizers. In the late 1970s, a cup-like spinning atomizer was developed to apply herbicides at low and ultra-low volumes. Rotary atomizers distribute droplets in a pattern similar to hollow cone nozzles. The droplet trajectory could affect deposits adversely since droplets released horizontally are exposed to wind and other environmental effects longer than hydraulic spray nozzles. Propellers and fans were used to enhance downward movement of droplets without considering that droplet impingement velocity was critical for efficient deposition. In the early 1980s, rotary atomizers were promoted to reduce herbicide rates, but the claims were products of unconfirmed testing. Herbicide efficacy in confirmed research was not influenced by application with the rotary atomizer, but lower carrier rates reduced the amount of water handled during the spraying operation. The cost of the atomizer, more maintenance, and greater care during operation with no decrease in herbicide rates discourage continued use.

Keywords

Controlled droplet applicatorCDA

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 106 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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

1. Alimardani, R., and Solie, J. B. 1985. Predicting spray patterns of a vertical rotary disc atomizer. Paper No. 85-1007. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.Google Scholar
2. Bals, E. J. 1969. Design of rotary atomizers. Pages 156–165 in Proc. 4th Int. Agric. Aviation Congr., Kingston, U.K. Google Scholar
3. Behrens, R. 1957. Influence of various components on the effectiveness of 2,4,5-T sprays. Weeds 5:183–196.Google Scholar
4. Bode, L. E., Butler, B. J., Pearson, S. L., and Bouse, L. F. 1983. Characteristics of the Micromax rotary atomizer. Trans. ASAE 26:999–1005.Google Scholar
5. Bode, L. E., Zimmerman, T. E., Goering, C. E., and Gebhardt, M. R. 1972. Effects of flow rate on the distribution pattern and drop size spectrum of a spinning atomizer. Trans. ASAE 15:86–90.Google Scholar
6. Boize, L. M., and Dombrowski, N. 1976. The atomization characteristics of a spinning disc ultra-low volume applicator. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 21:87–99.Google Scholar
7. Buehring, N. W., Roth, L. O., and Santelmann, P. W. 1972. Plant response to herbicide spray drop size and carrier volume. Trans. ASAE 16:636–638.Google Scholar
8. Buhler, D. D., and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Effect of application factors on postemergence phytotoxicity of fluazifop-butyl, haloxyfop-methyl, and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 32:574–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Castleman, R. A. 1924. The influence of the degree of instability on the phenomena of round liquid columns. Nature 114:857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Chen, Y., and Penner, D. 1985. Combination effects of acifluorfen with crop oil concentrates and postemergence grass herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:91–95.Google Scholar
11. Derksen, R. C. 1983. Performance characteristics of four rotary atomizers. M.S. thesis, Univ. Ill., Urbana-Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
12. Dombrowski, N., and Lloyd, T. L. 1974. Atomization of liquids by spinning cups. Chem. Eng. J. (Lausanne) 8:63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Elbanna, H., Rashed, M.I.I., and Ghazi, M. A. 1984. Droplets from liquid sheets in an airstream. Trans. ASAE 27:677–679.Google Scholar
14. Ennis, W. B. Jr., and Williamson, R. E. 1963. Influence of droplet size on effectiveness of low-volume herbicidal sprays. Weeds 11:67–72.Google Scholar
15. Frost, A. R. 1978. Rotary atomization. Br. Crop Prot. Cont. Monogr. No. 22. p. 7–21.Google Scholar
16. Frost, A. R. 1981. Rotary atomization in the ligament formation mode. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 26:67–78.Google Scholar
17. Frost, A. R., and Green, R. 1978. Drop size spectra and spray distribution from a Micron Battleship disc. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. – Weeds. p. 667–672.Google Scholar
18. Gebhardt, M. R., Webber, C. L. III, and Bouse, L. F. 1985. Comparison of a rotary atomizer to a fan nozzle for herbicide application. Trans. ASAE 28:382–385,392.Google Scholar
19. Goering, C. E., Foster, R. A., Bode, L. E., and Gebhardt, M. R. 1973. Development of a shielded, spinning disk atomizer. Trans. ASAE 15:814–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Heijne, C. G. 1978. A study of the effects of disc speed and flow rate on the performance of the Micron ‘Battleship’. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. – Weeds. p. 673–679.Google Scholar
21. Hinze, J. O., and Milhorn, H. 1950. Atomization of liquids by means of a rotating cup. J. Appl. Mech. 17:145–153.Google Scholar
22. Jordan, T. N. 1981. Effects of diluent volumes and surfactant on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 29:79–83.Google Scholar
23. Lake, J. R., Frost, A. R., and Green, R. 1976. Measurements of drop size and spray distribution from a Micron Herbi disc. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.–Weeds 2:399–405.Google Scholar
24. Lapple, C. E., Henry, J. P., and Blake, D. E. 1967. Atomization A survey and critique of the literature. Special Tech. Rep. No. 6. Stanford Res. Inst., Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
25. Marshall, W. R. Jr. 1954. Atomization and spray drying. Chem. Eng. Prog. Monogr., Ser. No. 2, Vol. 50. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng., New York.Google Scholar
26. McKinlay, K. S., Brandt, S. A., Morse, P., and Ashford, R. 1972. Droplet size and phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weed Sci. 20:450–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Reichard, D. L., and Triplett, G. B. 1983. Paraquat efficacy as influenced by atomizer type. Weed Sci. 31:779–782.Google Scholar
28. Richardson, R. G. 1983. Effect of droplet size on the control of weeds with2,4-D. Aust. Weeds 2:133–136.Google Scholar
29. Smith, D. B., Burt, E. C., and Benci, F. J. 1970. Design of a spinning disc, droplet separator and the determination of the size and density of droplets deposited on cotton foliage. Trans. ASAE 13:664–668.Google Scholar
30. Spence, C. B., and Cox, T. I. 1983. Monitoring and regulation of controlled-drop applicator rotor speeds. Weed Sci. 31:472–475.Google Scholar
31. Walker, S. R. 1981. Comparison of controlled droplet and conventional application of post-emergence herbicides. Proc. 6th Aust. Weeds Conf. 1:117.Google Scholar