Author:
Bouse L. F.,Carlton J. B.,Merkle M. G.
Abstract
Low pressure and reduced pressure fan and reduced pressure hollow cone nozzles were compared to conventional fan and hollow cone nozzles to determine their potential for reducing spray drift. Other comparisons included two different spray pressures for a low pressure fan nozzle, low and reduced pressure fan nozzles versus air-aspirating foam nozzles, low pressure versus reduced pressure fan nozzles, and reduced pressure hollow cone nozzles versus reduced pressure fan nozzles. Spray recoveries within 36 m downwind of the spray release point were significantly greater for the low pressure and reduced pressure fan and reduced pressure hollow cone nozzles than for the conventional fan and hollow cone nozzles. An air-aspirating nozzle producing spray without foaming adjuvant resulted in significantly greater spray recovery than a low pressure fan nozzle. The recovery from a reduced pressure fan nozzle having a rated flow of 12.6 cm3/s was significantly greater than that from a low pressure fan nozzle.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Plant Science,Agronomy and Crop Science
Reference5 articles.
1. Dual spray equipment for airplane spraying tests;Miller;U.S. Dept. of Agri.,1951
2. Comparison of Recoveries from a Tower-Mounted Dual Sprayer
3. Paired Field Studies of Herbicide Drift
4. 54.8% alcohol sulfates, salts of alkyl and di-alkyl, 2,5-diketotetrahydrofuran, alkyl sulfonates, isopropanol.
Cited by
19 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献