Field Comparisons for Drift Reducing/Deposition Aid Tank Mixes Presented at ASAE/NAAA Technical Session 37 th Annual NAAA Convention Silver Legacy Hotel and Casino Dec. 8, 2003 Robert E. Wolf & Dennis R. Gardisser Cathy Minihan Paper # AA03- 002 Biological and Agricultural Engineering
41
Embed
Field Comparisons for Drift Reducing/Deposition Aid Tank Mixes Presented at ASAE/NAAA Technical Session 37 th Annual NAAA Convention Silver Legacy Hotel.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Field Comparisons for Drift Reducing/Deposition Aid Tank Mixes
Presented at ASAE/NAAA Technical Session37th Annual NAAA Convention
Silver Legacy Hotel and CasinoDec. 8, 2003
Robert E. Wolf & Dennis R. GardisserCathy Minihan
Paper # AA03-002
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Objective:
The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of selected drift control products/deposition aids on horizontal and vertical spray drift and droplet spectra characteristics during two selected fixed wing aerial application scenarios.
Materials and Methods: Goodland Airport, Goodland, KS Sept. 25 and 26, 2002 Design 2 x 3 x 21 (126 treatments) Products and airplanes completely
randomized and blocked over both days All treatments in near 90 degree crosswind Flat, open desert-like canopy 15-25cm (6-10
A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T
% C
over
age
0ft. 5ft.
Figure 5 continued:
Vertical Drift at 11.5 MPH
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T
% C
over
age
0ft. 5ft. 10ft. 15ft. 20ft. 25ft. 30ft.
35ft. 40ft.
Figure 6:
Vertical Drift at 11.5 MPH
0.000.250.500.751.001.251.501.752.002.252.502.75
A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T
% C
over
age
0ft. 5ft.
Vertical Drift at 11.5 MPH
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0
A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T
% C
over
age
10ft. 15ft.
Vertical Drift at 11.5 MPH
0.000.250.500.751.001.251.501.752.002.252.502.75
A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T
% C
over
age
30ft. 35ft. 40ft.
Vertical Drift at 11.5 MPH
0.000.250.500.751.001.251.501.752.002.252.50
A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T
% C
over
age
20ft. 25ft.
Figure 6 continued:
Derived from Table 7 – p. 17Figure 7a: Air Tractor Canopy Droplet Spectra
with water trend lines
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
Products
Mic
ron
Siz
e
VMD VD0.1 VD0.9
Figure 7b: Air Tractor Canopy % Area Coveragewith water trend line
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.5
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
Products
% A
rea
Cov
erag
e
% Area Coverage Water % Linear (Water %)
Figure 7c: Cessna Canopy Droplet Spectrawith water trend lines
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
Products
Mic
ron
Siz
e
VMD VD0.1 VD0.9
Derived from Table 7 – p. 17
Figure 7d: Cessna Canopy % Area Coveragewith water trend line
0.00.51.01.5
2.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
Products
% A
rea
Cove
rage
% Area Coverage Water % Linear (Water %)
Figure 7a: Air Tractor Canopy Droplet Spectrawith water trend lines
0250500750
100012501500175020002250250027503000
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
Products
Mic
ron
Siz
e
VMD VD0.1 VD0.9
Figure 7c: Cessna Canopy Droplet Spectrawith water trend lines
0250500750
100012501500175020002250250027503000
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
Products
Mic
ron
Siz
e
VMD VD0.1 VD0.9
Figure 7b: Air Tractor Canopy % Area Coveragewith water trend line
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.5
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
Products
% A
rea
Cov
erag
e
% Area Coverage Water % Linear (Water %)
Figure 7d: Cessna Canopy % Area Coveragewith water trend line
0.00.51.01.5
2.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.5
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
Products
% A
rea
Cov
erag
e
% Area Coverage Water % Linear (Water %)
Summary of findings:
Product differences at all horizontal and vertical positions.
Differences in the airplanes.Differences in the wind profiles.Some products did better than water
alone.Others were the same or worse.Droplet Spectra was influenced – larger
(VMD, VD0.1, VD0.9).DS different between airplanes
Summary continued:
This is a single study, do not base your decisions solely on the information provided.
Complexities of interpreting the results require an extensive review of all the data – treatment by treatment to water, other treatments, and each aircraft.
Tank mix compatibility critical – self test!Consider all the BMP’s available for your
applications!!!Reduce drift while improving coverage. Better than water!!!!