Assessing a novel smartphone application - SnapCard, compared to five imaging systems to quantify droplet deposition on artificial collectors

SnapCard measured coverage precisely compared with industry standard image analysis software.Kromekote is comparable to water-sensitive paper for coverage measurements.Spray quality is an important factor influencing coverage.SnapCard is a reliable tool for in-field image analysis of sprayed collectors. Previous work sought to compare the results from imaging software for characterising droplet coverage, but none exists examining these five software programs: Droplet Scanź, Swath Kitź, Deposit Scan, Image J, and Drop Visionź-Ag. Additionally, a freely available smartphone application (App), SnapCard was developed to provide an extension tool for in-field analysis of spray collectors, but nothing has been published regarding its comparison to other imaging software systems. The present study was conducted to compare five existing imaging software types against the new App, SnapCard. Six nozzles producing different spray qualities were selected to spray a water+Brilliant Blue Dye solution over two artificial collector types (water sensitive paper and Kromekoteź). Each collector was assessed for percent coverage using the five imaging systems and SnapCard. Objectives of this study were: 1. To establish a baseline dataset using the sprayed cards and five commonly used imaging systems, and compare the coverage results from each. 2. Use the baseline data from Objective 1 as a measurement of precision to judge the results from SnapCard. 3. Make an assessment of SnapCard against the other imaging software type data in the study.Results showed that SnapCard has similar measured coverage means compared to other image analysis systems. For both collector types, SnapCard measured coverage within one standard deviation of the means across nozzle types. SnapCard is able to provide an immediate answer without expensive software or needing a laboratory to measure sprayed collector coverage with precise results, which further underscores its value. The other software types were not all similar for coverage, but the data followed the same trends for droplet size. Increasing the droplet size consistently decreased the coverage, across both collector types. Droplet Scan reported the highest coverage while Drop Vision-Ag and Swath Kit gave lower coverage values on water sensitive paper and Kromekoteź collectors, respectively.

[1]  C. Laveissière,et al.  The experimental application of insecticides from a helicopter for the control of riverine populations of Glossina tachinoides in West Africa. Part VIII , 1981 .

[2]  Wesley Clint Hoffmann,et al.  COMPARISON OF THREE IMAGING SYSTEMS FOR WATER-SENSITIVE PAPERS , 2005 .

[3]  E. Franz.  Spray Coverage Analysis Using a Hand-held Scanner , 1993 .

[4]  Dennis R. Alexander,et al.  MICROCOMPUTER BASED DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM DEVELOPED TO COUNT AND SIZE LASER-GENERATED SMALL PARTICLE IMAGES. , 1985 .

[5]  Thomas M. Wolf,et al.  Optimizing postemergence herbicide deposition and efficacy through application variables in no-till systems , 2000, Weed Science.

[6]  C. Himel,et al.  The Fluorescent Particle Spray Droplet Tracer Method , 1969 .

[7]  J. P. Cunha,et al.  Computer programs for analysis of droplets sprayed on water sensitive papers , 2013 .

[8]  A. J. Hewitt,et al.  Droplet distribution densities of a pyrethroid insecticide within grass and maize canopies for the control of Spodoptera exempta larvae , 1993 .

[9]  Mário Cunha,et al.  Assessing the ability of image processing software to analyse spray quality on water-sensitive papers used as artificial targets , 2012 .

[10]  K. A. Huntington,et al.  The use of a water sensitive dye for the detection and assessment of small spray droplets , 1970 .

[11]  R. E. Wolf.  Assessing the Ability of Dropletscan to Analyze Spray Droplets from a Ground Operated Sprayer , 2003 .

[12]  Z. Šidák.  Rectangular Confidence Regions for the Means of Multivariate Normal Distributions , 1967 .

[13]  Comparison by image processing of target supports of spray droplets , 2001 .

[14]  M. Kenward,et al.  Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. , 1997, Biometrics.

[15]  L. F. Bouse,et al.  Characterizing Spray Deposit on Film by Light Transmission , 1981 .

[16]  J. Fernandez-Cornejo,et al.  Economic and policy issues of U.S. agricultural pesticide use trends. , 2013, Pest management science.

[17]  Solang Uk,et al.  Distribution and likely effectiveness of spray deposits within a cotton canopy from fine ultralow‐volume spray applied by aircraft , 1982 .

[18]  R. Courshee.  Some Aspects of the Application of Insecticides , 1960 .

[19]  L. F. Bouse,et al.  EFFECT OF SPRAY MIXTURE ON DROPLET SIZE , 1990 .

[20]  C. Nansen,et al.  Optimizing pesticide spray coverage using a novel web and smartphone tool, SnapCard , 2015, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[21]  J. D. Parker,et al.  The Experimental Application of Insecticides from a Helicopter for the Control of Riverine Populations of Glossina tachinoides in West Africa. II. Calibration of Equipment and Insecticide Dispersal , 1978 .

[22]  Bhagirath S. Chauhan,et al.  Determining the uniformity and consistency of droplet size across spray drift reducing nozzles in a wind tunnel , 2015 .

[23]  M. Knoche.  Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides , 1994 .

[24]  B. D. Hill,et al.  Use of Water-Sensitive Paper to Monitor the Deposition of Aerially Applied Insecticides , 1989 .

[25]  Masoud Salyani,et al.  A portable scanning system for evaluation of spray deposit distribution , 2011 .