Spray deposition in “tendone” vineyards when using a pneumatic electrostatic sprayer

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of electrostatic charge on foliar spray deposition in an Apulian “tendone” vineyard using an innovative pneumatic electrostatic sprayer. The sprayer was fitted with nozzles that linked the pneumatic atomization of the liquid, obtained using compressed air, to the electrostatic induction charge, thereby producing a stream of charged fine droplets. Furthermore, the sprayer was designed for low volume treatments, and the experimentation was carried out during a phenological stage with high leaf density to evaluate the performance of the machine under particularly challenging operative conditions. The sprayer was studied at three forward speeds (4, 5, and 6 km h−1), and gave poor deposition inside the canopy, whether or not the electrostatic system was activated. Forward speed did not significantly affect the mean foliar spray deposition, whereas activation of the electrostatic system significantly increased the deposit only on the layer of foliage nearest to the sprayer (lower layer), but had no effect on deposition on the layer of foliage inside the canopy (upper layer). The ratio between the deposits on the two layers (lower:upper) was 6.5:1 when the electrostatic system was switched off, and 9.0:1 when it was switched on. However, this behaviour may allow targeted treatments on grapes, such as with Plant Protection Products (PPP) or bio growth stimulants. Furthermore, the small droplets produced by the machine are suitable for table grape protection because the droplets do not mark the grapes, which would reduce the quality of the product and its commercial value.

[1]  Simone Pascuzzi,et al.  The effects of the forward speed and air volume of an air-assisted sprayer on spray deposition in tendone trained vineyards , 2013 .

[2]  F. R. Hall,et al.  Effect of Electrostatic Charging on the Dose Transfer of Water-Based Pesticide Mixtures , 1996 .

[3]  Shaoxing Zhao,et al.  Factors affecting deposition in electrostatic pesticide spraying , 2008 .

[4]  Richard A. Cairncross,et al.  A computer simulation for predicting electrostatic spray coating patterns , 2005 .

[5]  Jean Cross,et al.  Electrostatics, Principles, Problems and Applications , 1987 .

[6]  S. Edward Law,et al.  Agricultural electrostatic spray application: a review of significant research and development during the 20th century , 2001 .

[7]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[8]  C. Mishra,et al.  Current status of electrostatic spraying technology for efficient crop protection , 2014 .

[9]  Emanuele Cerruto,et al.  STUDY OFANEW MODEL OF SPRAYER FOR APPLICATIONS IN “TENDONE” VINEYARDS , 2008 .

[10]  C. Ghanshyam,et al.  Electrostatic hand pressure knapsack spray system with enhanced performance for small scale farms , 2013 .

[11]  Wamadeva Balachandran,et al.  Design of electrostatic fog generator using a reverse field modelling technique , 1997, IAS '97. Conference Record of the 1997 IEEE Industry Applications Conference Thirty-Second IAS Annual Meeting.

[12]  E. C. Hislop,et al.  Experimental air-assisted electrohydrodynamic spraying , 1994 .

[13]  S E Law,et al.  Embedded- Electrode Electrostatic-Induction Spray-Charging Nozzle: Theoretical and Engineering Design , 1978 .

[14]  G. M. Richardson,et al.  Spray deposits and losses in different sized apple trees from an axial fan orchard sprayer: 3. Effects of air volumetric flow rate , 2001 .

[15]  G. Matthews,et al.  Elestrostatic spraying of pesticides: A review , 1989 .

[16]  H. Seifert,et al.  Rocket Propulsion Elements , 1963 .

[17]  Devanand Maski,et al.  Effects of electrode voltage, liquid flow rate, and liquid properties on spray chargeability of an air-assisted electrostatic-induction spray-charging system , 2010 .