4.5 Article

Assessment of spray deposition and recycling rate in the vineyard from a new type of air-assisted tunnel sprayer

Journal

CROP PROTECTION
Volume 45, Issue -, Pages 6-14

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2012.11.021

Keywords

Recycling sprayer; Deposit assessment; Separator panels; Airflow rate; Vineyard; Spray saving

Categories

Funding

  1. Regione autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia [RAF.9/7217]
  2. ENAMA (Ente Nazionale per la Meccanizzazione Agricola)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A new, two-row, air-assisted tunnel sprayer was tested in the vineyard in comparison to a conventional, broadcast sprayer. The tunnel was fitted with external axial flow fans (airflow rate: 2.23 m(3) s(-1) per row) and lamellate separating panels, designed to filter the excess spray and recover its liquid fraction for recycling, while discharging the air to the outside. Two field tests were performed, at end of flowering and beginning of ripening. Mean deposits on the leaves and on leaf undersides at twelve canopy locations (three height ranges, two depths and the two sides of the row) were assessed using a soluble colour dye (Tartrazine) as a tracer. Mean foliar deposition from the tunnel sprayer and the reference sprayer was not statistically different at either growth stage. The tunnel sprayer gave increased deposit variability on leaf undersides in the first test, associated with uneven deposition over the canopy heights and significant differences between the two sides of the row. This was corrected by a different adjustment of the nozzles and air outlets in the second test when, as a whole, the overall performances of both sprayers could be considered comparable. Penetration into the canopy was similar despite smaller airflow rate of the tunnel sprayer, and coverage of undersides was also comparable and in line with previous tests performed with air-assisted vineyard sprayers. The recycling rate of the tunnel sprayer was 50.1% of spray volume applied in the first experiment, and 34.0% in the second experiment. This confirmed the potential of this technique for substantial spray saving and reduction in chemical input, without compromising deposition. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available