giuseppe pellizzi prize 2018 - club of bologna · new test method (test bench – indirect ....

AIRBLAST SPRAYERS SPRAY DRIFT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.

Application of direct (ISO22866:2005) and new alternative indirect test methods for spray drift

assessment.

Giuseppe Pellizzi Prize 201828th Members’ Meeting of the Club of Bologna

November 10, 2018

Grella Marco – [email protected]

Marco Grella - AIR BLAST SPRAYERS SPRAY DRIFT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.

Introduction

…PPP application not adequately addressed by legislation.

Directive 91/414/EECDirective 98/8/EC

Regulation 396/2005Directive 2000/60/EC

Directive 2006/12/ECDirective 91/686/EEC

Legislative lack

The use-phase in the life-cycle of pesticideuntil 2009…


Introduction

Council of European Union adopted Sustainable Use of Pesticide –SUD- directive (128/2009/EC)

Main strategy of SUD to achieve its goals was the mitigation of environmental risks related to pesticide application

REDUCTION OF POINT SOURCE POLLUTION SPRAY DRIFT REDUCTION

IMPORTANCE OF SPRAY DRIFT ASSESSEMENTto objectively evaluate/classify sprayers according to their drift risk


Introduction

“the quantity of plant protection product that is carried out of the sprayed area (treated) by the action of air currents during

the application process”.

SPRAY DRIFT defined by ISO22866:2005

During and immediately after sprayapplication non-target receptors canbe exposed:- Non-target crops- Water courses and sensitive areas

(playgrounds, schools, parks, etc.)- Bystanders


Introduction

Main international Standard concerning spray drift in bush/tree crops.

Currently, the unique standardized procedure to assess spray drift amount generated by PAE used in tree/bush crops is that provided by ISO22866:2005 -

Methods for field measurement of spray drift.

ISO 22369 -Drift classification of spraying equipment.• Part 1: Classes (ISO 22369-1:2006)• Part 2: Classification of field crop sprayer by field measurements

(ISO 22369-2:2010)

NO available standardized procedure to classify PAE used in tree/bush crops according their drift reduction performances!!!ADAPTATION OF ISO 22369-1 AND ISO22369-2


Introduction

Difficulties to meet the atmospheric conditions required by ISODifficulties to apply ISO field layout

• RH (no limitation)• Air temperature between 5 and

35°C• Wind speed- Mean > 1m s-1

- Minimum and maximum (no limitation)- Outliers (< 1m s-1) < of 10% of records(using 1Hz sampling frequency)• Wind direction- Mean between 90 ± 30° azimuth(spray track)- Centered direction (no more than30% of records shall be > 45° azimuthfrom the perpendicular of the spray track)

• Difficulties to find a suitable crop (rows orientation) in relation to the site-specific wind characteristics

• Bare soil parcel downwind to the sprayed area

Problems to face when following ISO22866


Introduction

Only 50% of trials accomplish the environmental ISO requirements

Configuration1

Configuration3

Configuration4

Configuration2

Seconds after application start Seconds after application start Seconds after application start

1 2 3

Replicates

Example of wind conditions recorded during drift trials in orchard


Introduction

5 m downwind distance

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

0.4 0.8 2.4 3.6Leaf Area Index (LAI)

Drift

(% o

f app

licat

ion

rate

)

Problems to face when following ISO22866

Influence of crop architecture (canopies):

• Growth stage• Variety

• Training system• Pruning system

BBCH:11 BBCH:55 BBCH:65 BBCH:79BBCH:18

Example: espalier-trained vineyard (Cv. Pinot Grigio) Guyot pruned


Introduction

NEED TO DEVELOP AN ALTERNATIVE TEST METHOD TO PERFORM COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SPRAY DRIFT GENERATED BY AIRBLAST

SPRAYERS

AVOIDING THE UNCONTROLLABLE VARIABLES THAT STRONGLY AFFECT FINAL RESULTS

ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS CROP TYPES

• Canopy architecture• Development• Layout of plantation• Training system• Growth stage

SMART ALTERNATIVE TEST METHODAIMED TO EASILY AND PROPERLY CLASSIFY THE PAE AS A FUNCTION OF THEIR DRIFT

REDUCTION PERFORMANCE

Overall wind effect


Introduction

The proposed solutions.

MEASUREMENTS OF RELATIVE SPRAY DRIFT VALUES.

The spray drift reduction performances and relative classification is based on the

comparison of candidate spraying equipment with the reference spray system.

…as already done for field crop sprayerISO22401:2015 - Methods for measurement

of potential drift from horizontal boom sprayers systems by use of a test bench.

MOVE FROM "REAL" DRIFT VALUE TO "POTENTIAL" DRIFT.…from “direct” to “indirect” test method…

DRIFT POTENTIAL: relative drift values obtained in CALM OF WIND and WITHOUT

CROP/TARGET.

USE OF “ad hoc” TEST BENCH.

Absolute spray drift values, necessary for the PPP risk

assessment for registration purposes, can only be obtained applying

standardized method ISO22866:2005.

A

B

C


At the same time…evaluate the repeatability of

results obtained in two different laboratories (IT & SP)

NEW TEST METHOD (test bench –indirect method)

STANDARDIZED METHOD ISO22866:2005 (direct method)

At the same time…assess the influence of wind speed

and direction on the final spray drift results

TO COMPARE THE CLASSIFICATION OF DIFFERENT PAE USED IN BUSH/TREE CROP SPRAY APPLICATION ACCORDING TO DRIFT

RISK USING:

Objectives


Sprayer: Fede Qi90 Futur 2000Nozzle type (pressure 1.5 Mpa): • ATR80 red (active n° 8 + 8)

• 932 L ha-1

• TVI80025 (active n° 8 + 8)• 896 L ha-1

Fan air flow rate: • HIGH (46,000 m3 h-1)• LOW (29,000 m3 h-1)Forward speed: • 6 Km/h

Sprayer: Dragone k2 500Nozzle type (pressure 1.0 Mpa): • ATR80 orange (active n° 6 + 6)

• 596 L ha-1

• TVI8002 (active n° 6 + 6)• 626 L ha-1

• Fan air flow rate: • HIGH (20,000 m3 h-1)• LOW (11,000 m3 h-1)Forward speed: • 6 Km/h

TRIALS PERFORMED using both methods(direct/indirect)

Dragone K2 500

ATR TVI

LOW HIGH LOW HIGH

6Km/h 6Km/h6Km/h 6Km/h

Fede Qi90 Futur2000

ATR TVI

LOW HIGH LOW HIGH

6Km/h 6Km/h6Km/h 6Km/h

Materials & methods


Materials & methods

The ISO 22866:2005 methodology (direct method)


Z+

Y+

WIND DIRECTION

30 m

Weather station

Ground Drift Collectors (10 sampled distances and 6 discrete sample positions at each distance)

Materials & methods

The ISO 22866:2005 methodology (direct method)


20m

20m

1.5m

20m

0.5m

Trigger system to reveal the collectors after 4s the sprayer (nozzles) pass in front test bench.

Test bench.

Concrete flat lane.

40 Petri dishes placed in the slots and initiallycovered by test bench sliding iron plates.

Test bench closed with collectors inside it. Sprayer starts the application using only the side facing the test bench acitvated.

Trigger system activated by sprayer pass and collectors revealed by test bench opening.

Weather station.

Materials & methods

The new methodology(test bench - indirect method)


Materials & methods

The new methodology (test bench - indirect method)

The test bench collects the spray fraction, defined ‘‘potential drift fraction’’, that remainssuspended over the test bench immediately after passage of the sprayer and can

potentially be carried out of the target by environmental air currents.

Ad hoc new designed method


Materials & methods

Laboratory analysis to determine the amount of tracer collected by samplers (same procedures for both methodologies tested -direct & indirect-) and built

the deposition curves.

Calculation of Drift Values –ISO 22866:2005, direct method-

Calculation of Drift Potential Values – test bench, indirect method-

𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = �𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖

𝑛𝑛

𝑖𝑖=1

∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = �𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛∗10

10

𝑛𝑛=1

Mid-ordinate rule method


Results

ISO22866: Ground spray drift and Drift Values

Only the nozzles type have a statistical influence on Drift Value (ANOVA). The different fan airflow rates

do not show statistical differences.


Test Bench method: Drift Potential Values

• No statistical effect of laboratory was assessed on final results of Drift Potential Value (ANOVA)

• Nozzles type and fan air flow rate adopted have a statistical influence on Drift Potential Value (ANOVA)

Dragone k2 500 Fede Qi90 Futur 2000

Results


COMPARISON OF DRIFT REDUCTION RESULTS OBTAINED APPLYING INDIRECT (test bench) and DIRECT (ISO22866:2005) TEST METHODS

Potential spray drift reduction (%) and classes of reduction achieved by PAE configurations tested according with ISO22369-1 (A ≥ 99 %, B 95 % ≤ 99 %, C 90 % ≤ 95 %,

D 75 % ≤ 90 %, E 50 % ≤ 75 % and F 25 % ≤ 50 %.)

Reference: ATR6H

Results

E

F

E DC

E

E

F

DC

E E


• The test bench always allowed discrimination among all sprayer settings tested.

New indirect test bench method is less susceptible to uncontrollable variables, especially wind influence, providing less variable results.

Applying ISO22866: the EFFECT OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ON FINAL SPRAY DRIFT EVALUATION WAS

DETERMINED…

…BOTH IN TERMS OF TOTAL SPRAY DRIFT DEPOSITION AND VARIABILITY OF RESULTS AMONG REPLICATIONS

Results

• The ISO22866 did not allow discrimination among all sprayer settings tested.

Only the use of drift-reducing nozzles determines a statistical spray drift reduction: the effect of fan airflow rate was concealed by environmental wind conditions at the time of spray application.

The potential spray drift measurements carried out using the test bench provides reliable results for the assignment of potential drift score related to a reference spray equipment.

THIS RATING COULD BE AN USEFUL INSTRUMENT FOR FARMERS, SPRAYERS MANUFACTURERS AND LAWMAKERS

APPROACHING IN SPRAY DRIFT REDUCING POLICY• Farmers → would be provided of practical indications for the choice of the

appropriate sprayer setting solution to limit spray drift• Sprayers manufacturers → could easier and more objectively determine the

potential spray drift reduction of their production.• Policy and regulation institutions → could consider potential spray drift

classification for the designation of appropriate mitigation measures

E.g. definition of adjustable buffer zones width depending on PAE or SDRT adopted

Conclusions



Conclusions

Grella, M., Gil, E., Balsari, P., Marucco, P., & Gallart, M. (2017). Advances in developing a new test method to assess spray drift potential from air blast sprayers. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 15(3), e0207.

Grella, M., Gallart, M., Marucco, P., Balsari, P., & Gil, E. (2017). Ground deposition and airborne spray drift assessment in vineyard and orchard: the influence of environmental variables and sprayer settings. Sustainability, 9(5), 728.

Grella, M., Marucco P., Manzone M., Gallart M., & Balsari P. (2017). Effect of sprayer settings on spray drift during pesticide application in poplar plantations (Populus spp.). Science of the Total Environment, 578, 427-439.

For further information…


Thank for your attention!!!

giuseppe pellizzi prize 2018 - club of bologna · new test method (test bench – indirect ....

Documents