Journals / Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry / 2021 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 2

Effects of position an es in twin-jet spray applications on droplet penetration of hydraulic nozzles

Pages
203–212
Publication Date
2021-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The present findings revealed that transport potential of spray droplets was quite lower on vertical planes than on horizontal planes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was conducted to determine the effects of different position angles in twin-jet spray applications on droplet penetration of different nozzle types.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Seven different nozzle types (standard flat fan, ST; narrow flat fan, STN; multirange, LU; lowdrift potential, AD; air-induction, IDK; twin-jet air-induction, IDKT) were used and nozzles were positioned +15° along the forward direction, perpendicular to ground surface 0˚ and reverse direction of forward –15°.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The present findings revealed that transport potential of spray droplets was quite lower on vertical planes than on horizontal planes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Flat fan nozzle · pesticide application · spray coverage

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the effects of different position angles in twin-jet spray applications on droplet penetration of different nozzle types. Seven different nozzle types (standard flat fan, ST; narrow flat fan, STN; multirange, LU; lowdrift potential, AD; air-induction, IDK; twin-jet air-induction, IDKT) were used and nozzles were positioned +15° along the forward direction, perpendicular to ground surface 0˚ and reverse direction of forward –15°. Spray experiments at 100 L/ha constant application volume were conducted under controlled conditions of a closed facility. Water sensitive paper (WSP) was used as sampling surface. WSP samples were placed vertically and horizontally over both the metal frames and root collar of artificial plants. The present findings revealed that transport potential of spray droplets was quite lower on vertical planes than on horizontal planes. The greatest coverage was achieved with ST, STN, LU, and SC-type nozzles producing fine droplets. Compared to open targets, the coverage ratios around the root collars were quite low and insufficient. In all spray treatments, coverage ratio on the vertical planes was 86.1% lower than the coverage ratio on the horizontal plane. In other words, coverage ratio on the horizontal plane was 7.2 times greater than the coverage ratio on the vertical plane. Transfer efficiency of medium and coarse droplet-producing nozzles to root collars was greater than the transfer efficiency of fine droplet-producing nozzles. Such a ratio for AD, IDKT, and IDK-type nozzles was determined as 37.06, 37.85, and 41.02% respectively. According to the present findings, effects of nozzle position angle on droplet penetration were not found to be significant. However, nozzle position angle along the forward direction increased coverage ratios on the vertical planes.

🔖

Cite This Article

SAYİNCİ, B., DEMİR, B., CETİN, E. (2021). Effects of position an es in twin-jet spray applications on droplet penetration of hydraulic nozzles. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 2, 203–212. https://ajindex.com/articles/179381

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. AZIMI AH, 1985, T ASAE, V28, P1410. Ellis MCB, 1997, CROP PROT, V16, P41, DOI 10.1016/S0261-2194(96)00065-8 Foque D, 2011, PEST MANAG SCI, V67, P199, DOI 10.1002/ps.2051 Hewitt A, 1997, ATOMIZATION SPRAY, V7, P235, DOI 10.1615/AtomizSpr.v7.i3.10 Lardoux Y, 2007, BIOSYST ENG, V96, P29, DOI 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2006.08.014 Lefebvre AH., 1989, ATOMIZATION SPRAY, P434 Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry General Directorate of Agricultural Research, 2008, PLANT PROTECTION TEC Sanchez-Hermosilla J, 2004, APPL ENG AGRIC, V20, P547 Sayinci B., 2019, Yuzuncu Yil Universitesi Journal of Agricultural Sciences, V29, P94, DOI 10.29133/yyutbd.494076 Sayinci B, 2013, J AGR MACHINERY SCI, V9, P9 Sayinci B, 2014, J AGR MACHINERY SCI, V10, P129 Sayinci B, 2011, IGDIR U J I SCI TECH, V1, P81 Sayinci B, 2020, TURK J AGRIC FOR, V44, P262, DOI 10.3906/tar-1905-112 Sayinci B, 2019, ALINTERI J AGRIC SCI, V34, P67, DOI 10.28955/alinterizbd.578538 Sayinci B, 2016, TURK J AGRIC FOR, V40, P25, DOI 10.3906/tar-1411-140 Sayinci B, 2015, TURK J AGRIC FOR, V39, P692, DOI 10.3906/tar-1410-89 Sayinci B, 2011, AFR J AGR RES, V6, P352 Sharpe SM, 2018, WEED TECHNOL, V32, P80, DOI 10.1017/wet.2017.86 Srivastava AK, 1993, ASAE TXB, V6, P601. Stafford JV, 2000, J AGR ENG RES, V76, P267, DOI 10.1006/jaer.2000.0577 Zhu H, 2004, BIOSYST ENG, V87, P275, DOI 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2003.11.012 Zhu H, 2002, T ASAE, V45, P1295.