Deposition of spray drift behind border structures

Windbreaks present a porous obstacle to the approaching airflow, forcing air to flow through the windbreak at a reduced speed and accelerate over the top. In this research, windbreaks were considered as border structures to mitigate spray drift. Air flows, with an interspace between it, particles are filtered from the flow by deposition on the windbreak. Hence there is a reduction in deposition in the downwind sheltered area (the ‘quiet zone’) behind the windbreak. Peak deposition in the sheltered area can occur at minimum wind speeds. The deposition profiles of spray drift behind various border structures were measured. In the first part, drift tests were performed in a wind tunnel. Artificial screens with various heights and open areas were tested. A row of plastic Christmas trees and natural canopies were also tested. Subsequently, drift experiments were performed under field conditions in a grassland with the artificial screens and a row of Fagus sylvatica trees. The artificial screens reduced spray drift deposition in the sheltered region, but significant deposition peaks were found behind the screens. The natural structures had potential to reduce drift deposition when their height was at least equal to the height of the spray nozzle(s). The drift deposition at short distances behind the natural structures was higher than deposition behind artificial structures, but conversely peaks in deposition in sheltered areas were not created by the natural structures.

[1]  H. Cleugh,et al.  Effects of windbreaks on airflow, microclimates and crop yields , 1998, Agroforestry Systems.

[2]  N. Breda Ground-based measurements of leaf area index: a review of methods, instruments and current controversies. , 2003, Journal of experimental botany.

[3]  Michael R. Raupach,et al.  A wind tunnel study of turbulent flow around single and multiple windbreaks, part I: Velocity fields , 1996 .

[4]  N. Woods,et al.  The entrapment of particles by windbreaks , 2001 .

[5]  David Nuyttens,et al.  Spray drift measurements to evaluate the Belgian drift mitigation measures in field crops , 2008 .

[6]  Wim Cornelis,et al.  The I.C.E. wind tunnel for wind and water erosion studies , 1997 .

[7]  Erich J. Plate,et al.  The aerodynamics of shelter belts , 1971 .

[8]  David Nuyttens,et al.  Effects on pesticide spray drift of the physicochemical properties of the spray liquid , 2009, Precision Agriculture.

[9]  Wim Cornelis,et al.  Optimal windbreak design for wind-erosion control , 2005 .

[10]  Pieter Spanoghe,et al.  Risk assessment of pesticide spray drift damage in Belgium , 2007 .

[11]  W. Dierickx Flow reduction of synthetic screens obtained with both a water and airflow apparatus , 1998 .

[12]  A. J. Frost,et al.  The effects of hedges on spray deposition and on the biological impact of pesticide spray drift. , 1994, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[13]  H. Ganzelmeier,et al.  Drift, drift reducing sprayers and sprayer testing. , 2000 .

[14]  K. G. McNaughton,et al.  1 – Effects of Windbreaks on Turbulent Transport and Microclimate , 1988 .

[15]  Gordon M. Heisler,et al.  2. Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow , 1988 .

[16]  D. C. Stevenson,et al.  Wind protection by model fences in a simulated atmospheric boundary layer , 1977 .

[17]  R. A. Pinker,et al.  Pressure loss Associated with Compressible flow through Square-Mesh wire Gauzes: , 1967 .