See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323800275

Field Evaluation of tractor mounted boom sprayer

Article · March 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 2,503

2 authors:

Hitesh Sanchavat Bhautik Gajera

Navsari Agricultural University Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Field Evaluation of tractor mounted boom sprayer View project

Low Cost- Renewable Energy Driven (LC- RED) Water Treatment Solutions Centre View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hitesh Sanchavat on 06 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Field Evaluation of a Tractor Mounted Boom

Sprayer

H. Sanchavat (LM-11046), H. Chudhary, G.Bhautik and S. N.

Singh(LM-10675)

Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering,

C.A.E.T. , N.A.U., Dediapada. -393040

Email: shitesh@nau.in

ABSTRACT

A tractor mounted boom sprayer was evaluated for its performance under

local agro-climatic conditions at farmers field Village Timbapada, Dediapada. The

sprayer was tested under laboratory conditions at varying pressure levels of 500,

600 and 700 kPa. For each pressure level spray angle, spray pattern, nozzle

discharge, spray distribution and swath width were measured. The spray angle of

the nozzle was 80, 85, and 88 degree at the pump pressure of 500, 600, and

700 kPa, respectively whereas the swath width was 1235, 1294 and 1375 mm at

pump pressure level of 500, 600, 700 kPa respectively. The average theoretical

field capacity, effective field capacity and field efficiency was found to be 3.3

ha/h, 2.08 ha/h and 63.03% respectively for cotton crop.

Keywords: Nozzle discharge, spray angle, sprayer pattern, boom sprayer

INTRODUCTION

India is first country in the word in terms of cotton cultivation area and

second in the world in terms of cotton production, next to China starting with a

humble figure of 3 million bales; India has attained the status of second largest

producer country today with a production of 351 lakhs bales of each 170 kg in

2016-17. Gujarat is India’s largest cotton producing state followed by

Maharashtra in the country.

 Pests, insects and diseases are disastrous to the crops since origin of

agriculture. Different methods are used to control these pests and insects but

most effective and reliable method to control these is chemical application. In

recent decades increased use of chemicals caused hazardous condition related

to environment and public health. Nowadays agriculture is facing significant

challenges, due to increase in public concerns about the impacts of agricultural

production practices on the environment to have a safe and secure environment

for living. So, agricultural community is forced to invest huge amount of money in

the area of controlled chemical applications. Due to daily rising demand of

human population, decreasing crop acreage, use of pesticide in agriculture is

increasing day by day. Excessive use of chemicals results in the resistivity of the

insects to the chemicals, pollutes the environment and ground water and also

results in increase in the cost of crop production. In India, most of the farmers

uses manually operated sprayer such as knapsack sprayer. But these sprayers

are inefficient, time consuming and exhausting. Using such type of sprayer

operator comes in direct connect with toxic insecticides leading to health issues.

In comparison to knapsack sprayer, tractor operated sprayers are more efficient.

These sprayers can be operated at higher pressures and at desired forward

speeds.

Shukla et al. (1987) found 29.6% net increase in yield of cotton in the field

sprayed by the tractor mounted sprayer as compared to the knapsack sprayer.

Selection of nozzle is also very important. Singh et al. (2006) compared triple

action, bi-action and hollow cone nozzles at four different pressures of 2.5, 3.0,

3.5 and 4.0 kg/cm2. It was found that the spray distribution was better in case of

triple action and bi-action nozzles. The bi-action nozzle gave best results at the

pressure of 3.5 kg/cm2 with least coefficient of variation. The discharge rate of

hollow cone nozzle and bi-action nozzle were found suitable for spraying in

cotton crop whereas in case of triple action nozzle it was very high. Dahab and
Eltahir (2010) observed that with increase in pressure from 2 bars to 4 bars,

average droplet density increased by 50% and higher pressure produced smaller

size droplets with better uniformity of spray distribution. Pimental (1995) reported

that less than 0.1% of pesticides applied for pest control reach their target pests.

Thus, more than 99.9% of pesticides used move into the environment where

they adversely affect public health and beneficialbiota, andcontaminate soil,

water, and the atmosphere of the ecosystem. Improved pesticide application

technologies can improve pesticide use efficiency and protect public health and

the environment.

Singh et al (2010) developed a tractor mounted air-assisted sprayer and

compared with a convention tractor mounted boom sprayer in cotton crop. Both

the sprayers were operated at the forward speed of 4 km/h and working pressure

of 3.5 kg/cm2. The droplet deposition on the underside of the leaves of top,

middle and lower portion of plants in case of conventional sprayer was negligible

but in case of air-assisted sprayer deposition were 43, 23 and 14 drops/cm2 area

on underside of top, middle and bottom leaves respectively. Gholap-et al (2013)

conducted hydraulic booms sprayer was tested in the field for cotton crop to

study effect of nozzle discharge rates (viz. 0.45, 0.70, 0.90 and 1.35 l/min) and

nozzle pressures (viz., 275.8, 413.7, 551.6 and 689.5 kPa) for spray uniformity.

From the study it was found that nozzle discharge rate of 0.90 L/min and nozzle

pressure of 689.5kPa produced more uniform spray with droplet size of 125.55 to

287.50μm, droplet density of 18 to 30 drops/cm2 and uniformity coefficient of

0.96 to 1.20.

An efficient sprayer will be helpful in enhancing the effectiveness of pesticides.

Spraying in developed countries allows consumers to consume high-quality

produce that is free of insect blemishes and insect contamination. A major

reason for such a pesticide loss is insufficient nozzle pressure, nozzle discharge,

nozzle height etc. Hence, it is necessary to determine the optimum pressure and
discharge rate so as to reduce the pesticide losses from sprayer. Therefore,

selection of an efficient sprayer and its operational parameters under local agro-

climatic conditions is needed. Therefore, the tractor mounted boom sprayer was

tested in laboratory at different pressure (500, 600 and 700kPa) for its

performance for optimize the pressure and optimum pressure condition is used

for field evaluation.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Description of mounted type boom sprayer: A tractor mounted boom sprayer

was selected for the study (Fig.1) and standard test procedure for testing of

sprayer was used for testing (FAO 2001). The sprayer consisted of a

polyethylene tank having capacity of 500 liters, a hydraulic pump, controlling

system, filling unit and spraying nozzles. A total of 10 hollow cone nozzles at the

variable spacing were mounted on a folding type boom. Spray boom could be

lifted or lowered with hydraulic power. The pump of the sprayer was having

maximum pressure up to 1400 kPa, ASPEE make and gross weight 300 kg, An

11 m boom sprayer was mounted on a 50 HP tractor with the help of three point

linkage. A v-belt pulley of sprayer was connected to the tractor P. T. O. unit with

universal joint.

Fig. 1 Tractor Mounted Boom sprayer

Field testing of mounted type boom sprayer

Travelling speed

For calculating travelling speed, two poles 30 meters apart were placed.

On the opposite side also two poles were placed to form the corner of the

rectangle, parallel to at least one long side of the test plot. The speed was

calculated from the time required to machine to travel the distance (30 m). The

average of such 5 readings were taken to calculate the travelling speed of

machine in km/h.

Spray pattern

An ideal nozzle will deliver uniform/even spray along its area of coverage.

In order to determine the spray pattern of a hollow cone nozzle, a patternator

consisting of PVC semi-circular inclined channels was used as shown in Fig.2.

The nozzle spray volume was collected in test tubes and evenness of the spray

was determined by drawing a pattern graph for different working pressures-.

Fig.2 Determine the spray pattern with the help of patternator

Nozzle discharge

The discharge of a nozzle is a function of its design/type, orifice size,

shape and operating pressure. A test bench was used to measure the discharge

of the sprayer nozzles at the desired pressure in the laboratory. A graduated

beaker and stopwatch were used to measure and record the discharge of the

nozzles. Spray discharge was collected in still air for a period of 60 seconds.

Spray angle

Spray angle is another important parameter of nozzle performance that

establishes the correct nozzle spacing, overlapping and height of the application.

Spray angle is dependent on type of nozzle, orifice size and operating pressure.

As pressure increases, spray angle and swath width also increases. Spray angle

of the nozzles was calculated in the laboratory using patternator.

Spray deposition in field conditions the field experiments were carried out on

cotton crop 80 days after sowing having plant spacing of (45 x 60) cm. The

tractor operated booms sprayer was tested at average speed of 3.00 km/h in

cotton crop reported by Muhammad et al (2006). Three plants were randomly

selected and glossy paper was placed on upper and underside of leaves at top,

middle and bottom portion of plants. Methylene blue MS dye mixed @5 g/l in

water was sprayed on cotton crop. When the sprayed material dried, the glossy

paper strips were collected for analysis. Field capacity, field efficiency and fuel

consumption were determined following standard procedures.

Actual field capacity

For calculating actual field capacity, the time consumed for real work and

that lost for other activities such as turning, filling of tank were taken into

consideration.

Actual field capacity was given by

Actual field capacity =

Theoretical field capacity

Theoretical field capacity was calculated by following formula (Sahay, 2008)

Theoretical field capacity =

Field efficiency & economics

Field efficiency is the ratio of actual field capacity to the theoretical field capacity;

field efficiency is expressed in %, (Sahay, 2008). The operational cost of tractor

operated sprayers was determined as per standard procedure .

Field efficiency = 100

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Spray pattern

The nozzle spray volume was collected in test tubes and evenness of the spray

was determined by drawing a pattern graph for different working pressures. The

bar graph of spray pattern (Fig.3) for 600 kPa followed almost a normal

distribution, which is a sign of uniform spray pattern and for other two pressure

setting that is 500 and 700 kPa, the pattern tends to deviate from normal

distribution as shown . The discharge data of individual nozzle obtained in

different pressure level were stored in M.S. Excel and statistical analysis was

conducted. The data were analyzed on computer using factorial CRD statistical

software packages. After analyzing the data, a set of independent variable giving

optimum value of pressure 600 kPa was used for field evaluation.
 Fig.3 Spray distribution of two nozzles at different pressure

Spray discharge was collected in still air for a period of 60 seconds. Total

discharge of the booms at 500, 600 and 700-kPa pressure was observed to be

13.97, 12.23 and 13.03 l/min in the laboratory (Table 1) as compared to 13.34,

12.10 and 12.79 l/min, respectively in the field (Fig. 4). The discharge of the

sprayer measured in the field was about one l/min less than that of laboratory

conditions, which is within acceptable range.

Spray angle

Spray angle was found to be 80o, 85oand 88o for 500, 600 and 700 kPa

pressure settings, respectively (Fig.5). The recommended angle of hollow cone

nozzle is 65o to 110o.

Swath width

The swath width is 1235, 1294, 1375 mm with 11, 15, 20% overlaps at

pump pressure 500, 600, 700 kPa respectively (Fig.6).

Fig.4. Total discharge of boom sprayer (10 nozzles) at different

Pressure level under laboratory and field conditions

Fig.5: Spray angle at different pressure

Fig.6: Swath width at different pressure levels

Field efficiency of boom sprayer

Sprayer speed 3.0 km/h and actual booms width of 11.0 m were used to find

TFC. On an average theoretical field capacity turned out to be 3.3 ha/h for 3

trials. Effective field capacity was calculated by dividing the actual area (ha)

sprayed and time spent in spraying. The actual spraying time was calculated by

subtracting the time lost in turning, refilling, and other stoppages, etc. from the

total time spent in the field. Average effective field capacity for 3 trials came out

to be 2.08 ha/h in cotton crop as shown Fig.7. The sprayer was used to apply

insecticides and it was observed that insecticide uniformly applied throughout the

field. The field efficiency was thus calculated as 63.03%, which was equivalent

(55-65%) as recommended by Hunt (1983). The cost of operation of tractor

operated booms sprayer was 220.79/ha for cotton crop.

CONCLUSIONS

The boom sprayer was tested under laboratory conditions at 500, 600

and 700 kPa pressure levels. The spray pattern was uniformly distributed in 600

kPa pressure and for other two pressure setting, the pattern tends to deviate

from normal distribution. Spray angle was found to be 80o, 85oand 88o for 500,

600 and 700 kPa pressure settings, respectively. It is observed that tractor

mounted sprayer operate at 600 kPa give better uniformly application of

insecticides throughout the field in cotton crop. The swath width is 1235, 1294,

1375 mm at pump pressure 500, 600, 700 kPa. respectively. The average

theoretical field capacity was found to be 3.3 ha/h, the average effective field

capacity was 2.08 ha/h and field efficiency 63.03% for cotton crop at 600 kPa

and operational cost was 220.79/ha.

 Fig. 7 Tractor mounted booms sprayer

REFERENCES

http://cotcorp.gov.in/current-cotton.aspx pageid 4 accessed on 18.08.2017

Dahab M H; Eltahir N B. 2010. Spray droplet number and volume distribution as

affected by pressure and forward speed. Agricultural Mechanization in

Asia,Africa and Latin America 41(4):36-42

Gholap, B. S., Mathur, R., Wandkar, S. V., & Jadhav, p.(2013). Effect of nozzle

discharge rate and nozzle pressure on uniform deposition of spray. International

Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 6(1), 138-14

FAO (2001).Guidelines on standards for agricultural pesticide application

equipments and related test procedures. Vehicle Mounted and trailed sprayers.

Vol 2.

Hunt, DR, 1983. Farm Power and Machinery Management (8th Edition). Iowa
State University Press, Ames, IA, 365 pp.
Muhammad, I., hussain, A., & Munir, A. (2006). Evaluation of spray uniformity

distribution by environment friendly university boom sprayer test bench. Pak. J.

Agri. Sci, 43(2), 93-96

Pimental D; 1995. Amounts of pesticides reaching target pests: Environmental

impacts and ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,Volume

8(1) :17–29

Sahay, Jagdishwar (2008). Text book of elements of agricultural Engineering.

233-235.

Shukla L N; Sandhar N S; Singh S; Singh J. 1987. Development and evaluation

of wide-swath tractor-mounted sprayer for cotton crop. Agricultural

Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America 18(2):33-36.

Singh S K; Singh S; Dixit A K; Khurana R. 2010. Development and field

evaluation of tractor mounted air-assisted sprayer for cotton.

AgriculturalMechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America 41(4):49-54.

Singh S K; Singh S; Sharda V; Singh N. 2006. Performance of different nozzles

for tractor mounted sprayer. J Res Punjab Agric Uni. 43 (1):44-49.

 Table 1: Spray discharge at different pressure

NP Nozzle pressure(kPa)
P1 500 P2 600 P3 700
1 1.13 1.02 1.05
2 1.30 1.15 1.17
3 1.36 1.03 1.14
4 1.46 1.31 1.34
5 1.37 1.23 1.37
6 1.37 1.25 1.31
7 1.37 1.31 1.35
8 1.30 1.23 1.29
9 1.72 1.33 1.54
10 1.59 1.37 1.46
Total discharge(lit/min) 13.79 12.23 13.02
Average nozzle 1.39 1.22 1.30

dischargedischarge(lit/min)
Table: 2 ANOVA TWO FACTOR CRD

SR DF SS MS Cal F SEM CD TEST

N 9 1.51 0.17 107.48 0.013 .037 *

P 2 0.45 0.23 45.19 0.007 .020 *

NP 18 0.19 0.01 6.88 0.0228 .065 *

ERROR 60 0.09 0.016 CV%=3.02

Total 89 2.26

*Significance variation in discharge

View publication stats