Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T04:00:32.853Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Affecting the Application of Low-Volume Sprays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

R. C. Amsden
R. C. Amsden*
Affiliation:
Fisons Pest Control Limited
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Aerial crop spraying necessitates the lowest feasible application rates to minimise costs. The low volumes now being used in the Tropics and in this country often require very high concentrations of active ingredient. Most agricultural sprays are formulated for use in 10-100 gallons per acre. When the same weight of chemical is applied in one gallon or less per acre any one of hitherto disregarded factors, such as surface tension, rate of evaporation, density, viscosity, dynamic catch, and so on, may unexpectedly reach a critical value. An understanding of the limits of these factors is essential for the diagnosis or prevention of faulty biological performance.

Information

Type
All-Day Symposium on Agricultural Aviation
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 68 , Issue 644 , August 1964, pp. 535 - 539
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1964

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

1.Kruse, C. W., Hess, A. D. and Ludvig, G. F.The Performance of Liquid Spray Nozzles for Aircraft Insecticide Application. Journal of the National Malaria Society, Vol. 8 (4), pp. 312–334, 1949.Google Scholar
2.Fraser, R. P. The Mechanics of Producing Sprays of Different Characteristics. Plant Protection Conference, 1956, pp. 237–277. Butterworths Scientific Publications, 1956.Google Scholar
3.Razak, K.An Operations Analysis and Distributor Wing Experiments. Agricultural Aviation, Vol. 4 (4), pp. 118–130, 1962.Google Scholar
4.Tanasawa, Y., Sasali, S. and Nagai, N.Technical Report of Tohoku University, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 73–95, 1957.Google Scholar
5.Edwards, C. J. and Ripper, W. E. Droplet Size, Rates of Application and the Avoidance of Spray Drift. Proceedings of British Weed Control Conference 1953, pp. 348–367.Google Scholar
6.Courshee, R. J.A Pocket Calculator for Small Volume Spraying. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, Vol. 1 (1), pp. 143–149, 1956.Google Scholar
7.Akesson, N. B. and Yates, W. E.Research and Development of Chemical Distribution Equipment of Agricultural Aircraft in California. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol. 67 (636), pp. 760–767, December 1963.Google Scholar
8.Courshee, R. J.Investigations on Spray Drift—Part II. The Occurrence of Drift. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, Vol. 4 (3), pp. 229–242, 1959.Google Scholar
Courshee, R. I. and Ireson, M. J.Part III. The Range of Projection of Small Drops. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, Vol. 6 (1), pp. 59–63, 1961.Google Scholar
9.Brunskill, R. T. Physical Factors Affecting the Retention of Spray Droplets on Leaf Surfaces. 3rd British Weed Control Conference, pp. 593–603, 1956.Google Scholar
10.Hartley, G. S. Private communications, 1963.Google Scholar