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

net/publication/223175098

Effect of nozzle type, size and pressure on spray droplet characteristics

Article  in  Biosystems Engineering · July 2007

DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.03.001

CITATIONS READS

241 7,647

4 authors, including:

David Nuyttens Katrijn Baetens

Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences
211 PUBLICATIONS   2,459 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   968 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bart Sonck
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research
140 PUBLICATIONS   2,036 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

NewStheps View project

SRAABWater View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Nuyttens on 12 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 97 (2007) 333– 345

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/15375110

Research Paper: PM—Power and Machinery

Effect of nozzle type, size and pressure on spray droplet

characteristics

D. Nuyttensa,, K. Baetensb, M. De Schampheleirec, B. Soncka

a
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Scientific Institute of the Flemish Community, Technology and Food, Agricultural
Engineering, Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 115, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
b
Department Biosystems, Catholic University of Leuven, MeBioS, De Croylaan 42, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
c
Department of Crop Protection, University Ghent, Coupure links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

art i cle info The characteristics of agricultural sprays belong to the most critical factors affecting spray
drift, deposition on plants, spray coverage and biological efficacy. Hence, within the
Article history: framework of a research project about agricultural spray drift, the effect of nozzle type, size
Received 8 June 2006 and pressure on spray droplet characteristics was investigated. The objective of this study
Accepted 2 March 2007 was to develop a test rig and protocol for the characterisation of spray nozzles using a
Available online 19 June 2007 phase doppler particle analyser (PDPA). This test rig was able to measure droplet sizes and
velocities based on light-scattering principles. It was composed of a climate room, a spray
unit, a three-dimensional automated positioning system and an Aerometrics PDPA one-
dimensional system. The droplet size and velocity characteristics of different nozzle–
pressure combinations was measured and compared with the results obtained by other
researchers using different measuring techniques and procedures.
In total, 32 nozzle–pressure combinations were tested and classified based on droplet
size spectra and the British Crop Protection Council (BCPC) classification scheme. The test
results clearly show the effect of the nozzle type, size and pressure on the droplet size and
velocity spectra. Comparison with the results from other researches confirms the need for
reference nozzles to classify sprays because of the considerable variation of absolute
results depending on settings and type of measuring equipment.
& 2007 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction as well as environmental hazards. Hence, the ideal nozzle–

The spray characteristics of agricultural spray nozzles are
important criteria in the application of pesticides because
of their ultimate effect on the efficiency of the pesticide
application process. Droplet size and velocity affect the
structure of the spray deposits and the driftability of
the droplets (Taylor et al., 2004). Furthermore, droplet size
may influence the biological efficacy of the applied pesticide
pressure combination will maximise spray efficiency for
depositing and transferring a lethal dose to the target, whilst
minimising off-target losses such as spray drift and user
exposure. The spray characteristics influencing the efficiency
of the pesticide application process are the droplet size and
velocity distribution, the volume distribution pattern, the
entrained air characteristics, the spray structure and the
structure of individual droplets (Miller & Butler Ellis, 2000).

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: david.nuyttens@ilvo.vlaanderen.be (D. Nuyttens), katrijn.baetens@biw.kuleuven.be (K. Baetens),
Mieke.DeSchampheleire@UGent.be (M. De Schampheleire).
1537-5110/$ - see front matter & 2007 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.03.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
334 BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
Nomenclature
D10 arithmetic mean diameter, mm
D20 surface mean diameter, mm
D30 volume mean diameter, mm
D32 Sauter mean diameter or the diameter of a drop
having the same volume to surface area ratio as
the total volume of all the drops to the total
surface area of all the drops, mm
Dv0.1, Dv0.25, Dv0.75, Dv0.9 volume diameter below
which smaller droplets constitute, respectively,
10%, 25%, 75% and 90% of the total volume, mm
Dv0.5 volume median diameter (VMD) below which
smaller droplets constitute 50% of the total
volume, mm
di diameter of droplet i, mm
fd frequency of the scattered light, s1
NMD number median diameter, the droplet diameter
below which the droplet diameter for 50% of the
number of drops are smaller, mm
This paper focuses on the measurement of droplet size and
velocity characteristics.
Over the last years, several techniques using laser instru-
mentation have been developed to determine droplet char-
acteristics, such as laser diffraction (Malvern laser) (Barnett &
Matthews, 1992; Butler Ellis & Bradley, 2002), the optical area
probe technique (Particle Measuring System) (Combellack
et al., 2002) and the phase doppler particle analyser (PDPA,
Aerometrics) (Farooq et al., 2001). Nevertheless, different
studies have shown a wide variation in mean droplet sizes
for the same nozzle specifications while using different
techniques (Western et al., 1989; Barnett and Matthews,
1992; Miller et al., 1995; Hewitt et al. 1998; Porskamp et al.,
1999; Womac et al., 1999; Nilars et al., 2000; Womac, 2000;
Herbst, 2001; Powell et al., 2002; Van De Zande et al., 2002).
The objectives of this study were to develop a test rig and
protocol using a PDPA, to measure and evaluate the droplet size
and velocity characteristics of different nozzle–pressure com-
binations including the BCPC reference nozzles and to compare
the obtained results with the results obtained by other
researchers using different measuring techniques and proce-
dures. In this paper, a description of a PDPA test rig and a
measuring protocol is presented along with the results of 32
commonly used nozzle–pressure combinations including the
BCPC reference nozzles. Results are compared with the results
obtained by other studies. The measurements are used as an
input for a computational fluid dynamics drift-prediction
model (Baetens et al., 2006, 2007) and to classify nozzles based
on their driftability by measurements in the field (Nuyttens et
al., 2006) and in a wind tunnel (De Schampheleire et al., 2006).
2. Materials and methods
The test rig developed and used in this research is composed
of a spray unit, a three-dimensional automated positioning
97 (2007) 333 – 345
n total number of droplets
RSF relative span, a dimensionless parameter indica-
tive of the uniformity of the drop size distribution
V100, V200 proportion of total volume of droplets smaller
than, respectively, 100, 200 mm in diameter, %
v particle speed, m/s
vs scanning speed, m/s
vvol10, vvol25, vvol50, vvol75, vvol90 droplet velocity
below which slower droplets constitute, respec-
tively, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90% of the total spray
volume, m/s
x length of the rectangular scan pattern, m
y width of the rectangular scan pattern, m
Dx distance interval in the X direction during scan-
ning, m
Dy distance interval in the Y direction during scan-
ning, m
df fringe spacing, m
y angle between the two laser beams, 1
l laser wavelength, m
system, a climate room and a PDPA laser system. Nuyttens et
al. (2005) have already described this test rig in detail.
2.1. Spray unit and three-dimensional positioning system
The spray unit consisted of an insulated spray liquid tank
with a volume of 100 l, a fluid level control system, a liquid
temperature control system with a heating resistor and a
cooling unit, a mechanical and hydraulic mixing system, a
vertical in-line centrifugal pump and a pressure regulator
with digital pressure gauge (resolution: 0.01 bar). In case of
continuous spraying, a fluid temperature range from 5 to 50 1C
was feasible.
2.2. Three-dimensional positioning system
In the test rig, the PDPA equipment with the measuring
volume at a fixed point is kept stationary, and an automated
XYZ-transporter moves the nozzle with a traverse range of
2.0  2.2 m. The vertical distance between the nozzle and the
measuring point (Z direction) can be adjusted manually from
0 to 0.90 m. With this positioning system, different programs
can be carried out:
(1) a free manually controlled movement of the spray nozzle;
(2) a movement of the spray nozzle to a certain XY position in
which the nozzle is stationed for a definable period of time
and
(3) a scanning of a defined rectangular pattern to sample a
‘complete’ scan of the spray cloud.
In the case of scanning a rectangular pattern the length of
the rectangular scan pattern x in m, the distance interval in
the X direction during scanning Dx in m, the width of the
rectangular scan pattern y in m and the distance interval in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
the Y direction during scanning Dy in m, can be chosen as
desired as illustrated in Fig. 1. Moreover, there are two
possible ways of scanning: (a) continuous, at a constant
definable scanning speed vs in m/s without stops and (b)
discontinuous, with stops at distance intervals Dx for a
definable period of time.
2.3. Climate room
The laser measurements were performed in an insulated
climate room provided with a temperature and humidity
control system. Under normal working conditions, an ambi-
ent temperature range from 5 to 30 1C and a relative humidity
range from 30% to 90% are achievable. Hence, realistic
outdoor climatic conditions can be simulated.
2.4. Phase doppler particle analyser
The PDPA laser used in this research was an Aerometrics
PDPA one dimensional system. A droplet passes through a
small sampling volume, scattering light by refraction. For this
one-dimensional system, velocity measurement is limited to
the dominant vertical direction. The system comprises
several units, namely: a 300 mW Argon-Ion laser, a fibre drive,
a fibre-optic coupler, transmitter and receiver, a real-time
signal analyser (RSA) and DataVIEW-NT 2.0.4.0 software. The
instrument was operated in the near-forward scatter mode
(first order of defraction) with the receiving optics set at 301 to
the incident beam.
When a spherical droplet crosses the measurement vo-
lume, formed by the intersecting laser beams, the rays enter
the droplet at different angles. Since the droplet has a
different index of refraction compared to its surroundings,
the rays have to travel along different optical paths causing
the light waves to shift relative to each other. These phase
shifts result in an interference pattern in the field surround-
vs end
y or deflection which occur in dense particle environments.
Y
x y
start
x
X
Fig. 1 – Scan trajectory; x and y, length and width of the
rectangular scan pattern; Dx and Dy, distance intervals in the
X and Y direction; vs, scanning speed.
97 (20 07) 33 3 – 345 335
ing the particle. The spacing of the interference fringes
depends on the beam intersection angle. The light wave-
length and the spacing are inversely proportional to the
diameter of the sphere. If a particle is moving with a velocity v
in m/s through the intersection of the beams, light will scatter
with a Doppler frequency fd in s1. This frequency fd is equal
to the velocity of the scattering particle velocity v divided by
the fringe spacing df in m. Hence, frequency fd and particle
velocity v are related through
l
v ¼ f d df ¼ f d , (1)
2 sinðy=2Þ
where l is the laser wavelength in m; and y is the angle
between the two laser beams in degrees.
The fibre-optic receiver collects the scattered light when
particles pass through the measurement volume created by
the optical transmitter. Photomultiplier tubes convert the
light into electrical signals to be processed for velocity and
size information by the RSA. Finally, the DataVIEW-NT
software contributes to the overall ease of use of the system
and gives complete control over the presentation and
acquisition of the data.
Measurement ranges for velocity and diameter can be
changed through variations in the optical equipment, laser
beam separation and lens focal lengths of the transmitting
and receiving optics. Settings were chosen to cover a size
range of about 9–1000 mm. Phase doppler particle analyser
systems in general have a tendency to generate some
erroneous data in the high end of the droplet diameter range.
That is why validation criteria are used to decide whether a
droplet is to be accepted or discarded. As these erroneous
data generally refer to large droplets, they can have an
important influence on the droplet size characteristics. They
can occur when a droplet passing the measuring volume
reflects, and does not refract the light into the receiving optics
or because of the passing of more than one particle at a time.
These erroneous measurements are eliminated by analysing
the intensity vs diameter graph. Upper and lower limit curves
determine which droplets to accept and which to discard. A
big droplet with low intensity is often a cause of the above-
mentioned erroneous measurements, and since a big droplet
is expected to refract light with large intensity, it is discarded
from the measurement. The same is valid for small droplets
with high intensity. Elimination of operator dependence is by
no means complete; however, a certain degree of data
evaluation is possible using this intensity validation feature.
On the other hand, PDPA requires no calibration because the
particle size and velocity are dependent only on the laser
wavelength and optical configuration. PDPA measurements
are not based upon the scattered light intensity and,
consequently, are not subject to errors from beam attenuation
2.5. Measuring protocol
Prior to the laser measurements, the flow rate of each nozzle
was tested at a pressure of 3.0 bar by the accredited Spray
Technology Laboratory (BELAC, 2006; BELAC accreditation
certificate No. 197 — Test according to NBN EN ISO/IEC 259
17025:2000) of the Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
336 BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 97 (2007) 333 – 345

Table 1 – Characteristics of the scan trajectory for the different nozzle types

Scan speed vs, m/s x, m y, m Dy, m Measuring time, s

1101 flat fan nozzles 0.0250 1.50 0.40 0.10 316

801 flat fan nozzles 0.0166 1.00 0.40 0.10 324
801 cone nozzle 0.0300 1.00 1.00 0.10 400

x and y, length and width of the rectangular scan pattern; Dy, distance interval in the Y direction.

Table 2 – Overview of the tested nozzle–pressure combinations

Nozzle Pressure, bar Nozzle Pressure, bar Nozzle Pressure, bar

Delavan LF 110 01a 4.5 Albuz API 110 06 3.0 Hardi ISO F 110 03 2.0; 3.0; 4.0
Lurmark F 110 03a 3.0 Albuz AXI 110 02 3.0 Hardi ISO F 110 04 3.0
Lechler LU 120 06a 2.0 Albuz AXI 110 04 3.0 Hardi ISO F 110 06 3.0
TeeJet 80 08a 2.5 Albuz AXI 110 06 3.0 Hardi ISO LD 110 02 3.0
TeeJet 80 15a 2.0 Albuz ADI 110 02 3.0 Hardi ISO LD 110 03 3.0
Albuz ATR80 blue 3.0 Albuz ADI 110 04 3.0 Hardi ISO LD 110 04 3.0
Albuz ATR80 green 3.0 Albuz AVI 110 02 3.0 Hardi ISO Injet 110 02 3.0
Albuz ATR80 orange 3.0 Albuz AVI 110 04 3.0 Hardi ISO Injet 110 03 3.0
Albuz API 110 02 3.0 Albuz AVI 110 06 3.0 Hardi ISO Injet 110 04 3.0
Albuz API 110 04 3.0 Hardi ISO F 110 02 3.0 Hardi ISO Injet 110 06 3.0

a
BCPC reference nozzle–pressure combinations.

10

7
Volume, % of total

0
120 _ 140

160 _ 180

200 _ 220

240 _ 260

280 _ 300

320 _ 340

360 _ 380

400 _ 420

440 _ 460

480 _ 500

520 _ 540

560 _ 580

600 _ 620

640 _ 660

680 _ 700

720 _ 740

760 _ 780

800 _ 820

840 _ 860

880 _ 900
80 _ 100
40 _ 60
0 _ 20

Droplet diameter interval, µm

Fig. 2 – Volumetric droplet size distribution for different Hardi nozzles at a pressure of 3.0 bar: , Hardi ISO F 110 02;
—m—, Hardi ISO F 110 03; —’—, Hardi ISO F 110 04; —K—, Hardi ISO F 110 06; , Hardi ISO LD 110 02; , Hardi
ISO LD 110 03; , Hardi ISO LD 110 04; , Hardi ISO Injet 02; , Hardi ISO Injet 03; , Hardi ISO Injet
04; , Hardi ISO Injet 06.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 97 (20 07) 33 3 – 345 337

Research (ILVO), Belgium (Goossens & Braekman, 2003). A

maximal deviation of 2.5% was allowed compared to the 3. Results and discussion
prescribed nominal flow rate.
For the PDPA measurements, three nozzles were selected In total, 32 nozzle–pressure combinations (288 measurements)
for each nozzle–pressure combination to be tested. Each were tested including the BCPC reference nozzles (Southcombe
nozzle was tested three times. This makes a total of nine et al., 1997) and the nozzle–pressure combinations used in a
measurements for each nozzle–pressure combination. Each whole series of field drift measurements (Nuyttens et al., 2006)
scan yields data for at least 10 000 droplets. The British Crop (Table 2). Different characteristics were calculated:
Protection Council (BCPC) reference nozzle fine-medium
(Lurmark F 110 03 at 3.0 bar) was used as a reference nozzle (1) BCPC — BCPC spray quality class based on droplet size;
to check for the repeatability of the measurements and the (2) Dv0.1, Dv0.25, Dv0.75, Dv0.9 — volume diameter in mm below
measuring equipment (Southcombe et al., 1997). All measure- which smaller droplets constitute, respectively, 10%, 25%,
ments were made spraying water with a temperature of 20 1C. 75% and 90% of the total volume;
Environmental conditions are kept constant at a temperature (3) Dv0.5 — volume median diameter (VMD) in ı́m below which
of 20 1C and a relative humidity of 60–70%. The nozzle was smaller droplets constitute 50% of the total volume;
positioned 0.50 m above the measuring point of the PDPA. (4) V100, V200 – proportion of total volume in % of droplets
To enable the whole of the spray fan to be sampled, the smaller than, respectively, 100, 200 mm in diameter;
nozzle is mounted on the transporter. A different scan (5) D10, D20, D30 — arithmetic, surface and volume mean
trajectory (Fig. 1) was programmed depending on the type of diameters in mm, respectively.
nozzle, i.e. 110 1 flat fan nozzle, 80 1 flat fan nozzle or 80 1 cone They are given, respectively, by
nozzle. All measurements were carried out through the long P
n
di
axis of the spray cloud at a constant scan speed (Dx not
D10 ¼ i¼1 , (2)
applicable) (Table 1). n

100

90

80
Cumulative volume, % of total

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 _ 20

40 _ 60

80 _ 100

120 _ 140

160 _ 180

200 _ 220

240 _ 260

280 _ 300

320 _ 340

360 _ 380

400 _ 420

440 _ 460

480 _ 500

520 _ 540

560 _ 580

600 _ 620

640 _ 660

680 _ 700

720 _ 740

760 _ 780

800 _ 820

840 _ 860

880 _ 900

Droplet diameter interval, µm

Fig. 3 – Cumulative volumetric droplet size distribution for different Albuz nozzles at a pressure of 3.0 bar and the five BCPC
reference nozzle–pressure combinations: , Delavan 110 01 at 4.5 bar; —n—, Lurmark 110 03 at 3.0 bar; —B—, Lechler
110 06 at 2.0 bar; —&—, TeeJet 80 08 at 2.5 bar; —J—, TeeJet 80 15 at 2.0 bar; , Albuz ATR orange; , Albuz API
110 02; —’—, Albuz API 110 04; —K—, Albuz API 110 06; , Albuz AXI 110 02; , Albuz AXI 110 04; ,
Albuz AXI 110 06; , Albuz ADI 110 02; , Albuz ADI 110 04; , Albuz AVI 110 02; , Albuz AVI 110
04; , Albuz AVI 110 06.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
338 BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 97 (2007) 333 – 345

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uP
un 2 defined by
u di
t
D20 ¼ i¼1 ; (3) Dv0:9  Dv0:1
n RSF ¼ , (6)
Dv0:5

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uP (9) vvol10, vvol25, vvol50, vvol75, vvol90 — droplet velocity in m/s
un 3
u
3 di
t below which slower droplets constitute, respectively, 10%,
D30 ¼ i¼1 , (4)
n 25%, 50%, 75%, 90% of the total spray volume.

where di is the diameter in mm of droplet i and n is the

Fig. 2 presents the volumetric droplet size distribution for
total number of droplets;
different types (F, standard flat fan; LD, anti-drift flat fan,
(6) D32 — Sauter mean diameter defined as the diameter in
and Injet: air inclusion) and sizes of Hardi agricultural
mm of a drop having the same volume-to-surface area
spray nozzles at a spray pressure of 3.0 bar. In Fig. 3,
ratio as the total volume of all the drops to the total
the volumetric droplet size distribution is presented cumula-
surface area of all the drops, and is given by
tively for different types and sizes of Albuz spray nozzles
P
n
d3i (ATR, hollow cone; API, standard flat fan; ADI, anti-drift
i¼1 flat fan; and AVI, air inclusion) together with the five BCPC
D32 ¼ (5)
Pn
d2i reference flat fan nozzles for nozzle classification, i.e.,
i¼1
Delavan LF 110 01 at 4.5 bar (very fine/fine), Lurmark F 110 03
at 3.0 bar (fine/medium), Lechler LU 120 06 at 2.0 bar (medium/
(7) NMD — number median diameter in mm below which the coarse), TeeJet 8008 at 2.5 bar (coarse/very coarse) and TeeJet
droplet diameter for 50% of the number of drops are 8015 at 2.0 bar (very coarse/extremely coarse). These
smaller; reference nozzles are used to define six spray categories,
(8) RSF – relative span factor, a dimensionless parameter viz.: Very Fine (VF), Fine (F), Medium (M), Coarse (C), Very
indicative of the uniformity of the drop size distribution, Coarse (VC) and Extremely Coarse (EC). This classification is

800

700

600
Droplet diameter, µm

500

400

300

200

100

0
10 25 50 75 90
Proportion of total volume, %
Fig. 4 – Droplet diameters below which smaller droplets constitute 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% of the total volume (Dv0.1,
Dv0.25, Dv0.5, Dv0.75 and Dv0.9) for the five BCPC reference nozzle–pressure combinations and for different Hardi nozzles at
3.0 bar: , Delavan 110 01 at 4.5 bar; —n—, Lurmark 110 03 at 3.0 bar; —B—, Lechler 110 06 at 2.0 bar; —&—, TeeJet
8008 at 2.5 bar; —J—, TeeJet 8015 at 2.0 bar; , Hardi ISO F 110 02; —m—, Hardi ISO F 110 03; —’—, Hardi ISO F 110 04;
—K—, Hardi ISO F 110 06; , Hardi ISO LD 110 02; , Hardi ISO LD 110 03; , Hardi ISO LD 110 04; ,
Hardi ISO Injet 02; , Hardi ISO Injet 03; , Hardi ISO Injet 04; , Hardi ISO Injet 06.
Table 3 – Droplet characteristics (average7standard deviation) of 32 nozzle–pressure combinations
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
ARTICLE IN PRESS
97 (20 07) 33 3 – 345
339
 340
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
ARTICLE IN PRESS

VF, very fine; F, fine; M, medium; C, coarse; VC, very coarse; XC, extremely coarse; Dv0.1, Dv0.5, Dv0.9, diameter below which smaller droplets constitute 10%, 50% and 90% of the total volume; V100, V200,
97 (2007) 333 – 345

proportion of total volume of droplets smaller than 100, 200 mm in diameter; D10, D20, D30, D32, arithmetic, surface, volume and Sauter mean diameter; NMD, number mean diameter; RSF, relative span
factor; vvol50, droplet velocity below which slower droplets constitute 50% of the total spray volume
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 97 (20 07) 33 3 – 345 341

based on the comparison of the droplet size spectrum (Dv0.1,
Dv0.5 and Dv0.9) produced by a spray nozzle at a given pressure
with these reference spectra as shown in Fig. 4. In this figure,
droplet size characteristics Dv0.1, Dv0.25, Dv0.5, Dv0.75 and Dv0.9
for different Hardi nozzles and the BCPC reference nozzles are
presented together with the 95% confidence intervals for the
reference nozzles. Other nozzle–pressure combinations show
similar repeatabilities.
Droplet sizes vary from a few micrometres up to some
hundreds of micrometres depending on the nozzle type and
size. For the same nozzle size and pressure, cone nozzles
produce the finest droplet size spectrum and the highest
proportion of droplets prone to drift, followed by standard flat
fan nozzles, low-drift flat fan nozzles and air injection
nozzles. This can be concluded from the Dv0.1, Dv0.25, Dv0.5,
D10, D20, D30 and D32, V100, V200, values for the different
nozzle–pressure combinations in Table 3. At a pressure of
3.0 bar, the Albuz AXI flat fan wide range nozzles produce
about the same droplet size spectrum compared with the
Albuz API standard flat fan nozzles. Only for the ISO 06 nozzle
size the droplet sizes are slightly bigger for standard flat fan
Albuz API 06 nozzle.
In general, the larger the International Standard Organisa-
tion (ISO) nozzle size, the larger is the droplet size spectrum
(Figs. 2–4) except for the larger Albuz air injection nozzles
where the difference in droplet sizes between Albuz
AVI 110 04 and Albuz AVI 110 06 is negligible (Fig. 2).
For example Dv0.5 values were, respectively, 214.2, 273.6,
303.4 and 345.4 mm for ISO 02, 03, 04 and 06 Hardi standard
flat fan nozzles at a pressure of 3.0 bar. This emphasises
the need for effective drift control practices in systems
with low application volumes. As expected, the five BCPC
reference nozzles cover the entire range of measured
droplet sizes (Figs. 3 and 4) and at a pressure of 3.0 bar,
the majority of nozzles is classified as medium (Table 3).
A higher spray pressure corresponds with a smaller droplet
size spectrum but the effect of spray pressure for the Hardi
ISO F 110 03 nozzle is rather limited within a pressure
range from 2.0 to 4.0 bar compared to the effect of nozzle
size and type. Relative span factors, RSF, are quite constant
for the different nozzle–pressure combinations and range
from 0.7 for the four types of Hardi ISO Injet nozzles, up to 1.3
for the Hardi ISO F 110 03 nozzle at a pressure of 4.0 bar.
The values for V100 and V200 vary from 0.5% and 3.9%

100

90

80
Cumulative volume, % of total

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1→0

0→1

1→2

2→3

3→4

4→5

5→6

6→7

7→8

8→9

9→10

10→11

11→12

12→13

13→14

14→15

15→16
−3→−2

−2→−1

Droplet velocity interval, m/s

Fig. 5 – Cumulative volumetric droplet velocity distribution for different Albuz nozzles at 3.0 bar and the five BCPC reference
nozzle–pressure combinations: , Delavan 110 01 at 4.5 bar; —n—, Lurmark 110 03 at 3.0 bar; —B—, Lechler 110 06 at
2.0 bar; —&—, TeeJet 8008 at 2.5 bar; —J—, TeeJet 80 15 at 2.0 bar; , Albuz ATR orange; , Albuz API 110 02;
—’—, Albuz API 110 04; —K—, Albuz API 110 06; , Albuz AXI 110 02; , Albuz AXI 110 04; , Albuz AXI
110 06; , Albuz ADI 110 02; , Albuz ADI 110 04; , Albuz AVI 110 02; , Albuz AVI 110 04; ,
Albuz AVI 110 06.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
342 BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 97 (2007) 333 – 345

for the Albuz AVI 04 nozzles at 3.0 bar up to 18.3% and 67.4%
for the reference nozzle Delavan 110 01 at 4.5 bar (VF/F)
which is important with regard to driftability (Table 3).
For the other reference nozzles, V100 values of 5.5 (F/M), 2.7
(M/C), 1.2 (C/VC) and 0.6% (VC/EC) are measured as presented
in Table 3. Although there is no specific droplet size range that
is liable to drift under all conditions, many researchers have
considered droplets smaller than 100 (Grover et al., 1978;
Byass & Lake, 1977) or 200 mm (Bouse et al., 1990) to be the
most drift prone. It is important to note that for the different
air injection nozzles, V100 values are less than what one
would expect regarding the V100 values of the reference
nozzles of the BCPC nozzle class they belong to. This can also
be deduced from the low RSF values for the different air
inclusion nozzles and it is important with regard to the
classification of nozzles based on their driftability. Although it
is possible to reduce the proportion of drift susceptible
droplets using anti-drift flat fan or air inclusion nozzles,
there is a concern that because of the larger droplets an
increased runoff and a reduction in efficacy of foliar acting
pesticides may occur (Wolf, 2002). Besides, the authors want
to emphasise that many other factors affect drift formation
including environment, wind, temperature and liquid proper-
ties. A complete overview of the most important droplet
characteristics is given in Table 3.
Similar to droplet size spectrum, each nozzle–pressure
combination produces a droplet velocity spectrum with
velocities varying from about 0 to 15 m s1. This is illustrated
in Fig. 5 which presents the cumulative volumetric droplet
velocity distribution for different Albuz and the reference
nozzles and in Fig. 6 presents droplet velocity characteristics
vvol10, vvol25, vvol50, vvol75, vvol90 for different Hardi and the
reference nozzles. Moreover, there is a strong correlation
between droplet sizes and velocities. In general, bigger droplet
sizes correspond with higher droplet velocities. That is why
anti-drift flat fan nozzles generally produce faster droplets
compared to standard flat fan nozzles for the same pressure
and nozzle size. For air injection nozzles, droplet velocities are
lesser than expected, mainly because of the big pressure drop
in the nozzle created by a combination of Venturi and pre-
orifice effect. This is illustrated by the steeper curves for air
inclusion nozzles in Fig. 5 and the flatter curves in Fig. 6. The
effect of the possible presence of small air bubbles in the
droplets, which make them less heavy, is less important
because only little air is included using water at a pressure of
3 bar (Combellack & Miller, 2001). Again, variations in droplet

12

10
Droplet velocity, m/s

0
10 25 50 75 90
Proportion of total volume, %
Fig. 6 – Droplet velocities below which slower droplets constitute 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% of the total volume (vvol10, vvol25,
vvol50, vvol75, vvol90) for the five BCPC reference nozzle–pressure combinations and for different Hardi nozzles at 3.0 bar:
, Delavan 110 01 at 4.5 bar; —n—, Lurmark 110 03 at 3.0 bar; —B—, Lechler 110 06 at 2.0 bar; —&—, TeeJet 80 08 at
2.5 bar; —J—, TeeJet 80 15 at 2.0 bar; ——, Hardi ISO F 110 02; —m—, Hardi ISO F 110 03; —’—, Hardi ISO F 110 04; —K—,
Hardi ISO F 110 06; , Hardi ISO LD 110 02; , Hardi ISO LD 110 03; , Hardi ISO LD 110 04; , Hardi
ISO Injet 02; , Hardi ISO Injet 03; , Hardi ISO Injet 04; , Hardi ISO Injet 06.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
800
700
600
Droplet diameter, μm
500
400
300
200
100
0
Dv0.1 Dv0.5 Dv0.9 Dv0.1 Dv0.5 Dv0.9 Dv0.1 Dv0.5 Dv0.9 Dv0.1 Dv0.5 Dv0.9
Delavan 110 01 Lurmark 110 03
at 4.5 bar at 3.0 bar
Fig. 7 – Variability of measured results (Dv0.1, Dv0.5 and Dv0.9) from 17 different studies on four BCPC reference nozzle–pressure
combinations by means of boxplots indicating the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentile of the measuring data; Dv0.1,
Dv0.5 and Dv0.9, Volume diameter below which smaller droplets constitute 10%, 75% and 90% of the total volume:
measuring results from this study.
velocities are important with regard to aspects of driftability,
crop penetration and retention by the plant surfaces.
Different drop size characteristics have already been
measured by other researchers using different techniques.
For the BCPC reference nozzles, 17 references (Dv0.1, Dv0.5 and
Dv0.9) were found in total (Western et al., 1989; Barnett &
Matthews, 1992; Miller et al., 1995; Hewitt et al., 1998;
Porskamp et al., 1999; Womac, 1999; Nilars et al., 2000; Womac,
2000; Herbst, 2001; Powell et al., 2002; Van De Zande et al.,
2002). The spreading of these measurements is presented in
Fig. 7 together with the PDPA measuring results presented in
this publication. It is clear that absolute results differ
significantly between different researches depending on
measuring protocol, settings and type of measuring equip-
ment. In general, results of the PDPA measurements are
situated at the higher end of the spreading. Moreover,
variation between measuring results increases with droplet
size. This confirms the need for (BCPC) reference nozzles to
classify sprays. In Table 4, the BCPC classification for the
tested nozzle–pressure combinations is compared with the
results of five other investigations, also using laser techni-
ques but not considering droplet size class ‘extremely coarse’.
Despite the wide range of absolute measurements (Fig. 7),
classification was identical in 73% of the cases. This quite
uniform classification confirms the usefulness of these
reference nozzles.
97 (20 07) 33 3 – 345 343
Lechler 110 06 TeeJet 80 08
at 2.0 bar at 2.5 bar
,
4. Conclusions
A test rig for the characterisation of spray nozzles within the
framework of a research project about agricultural spray drift,
using a phase doppler particle analyser (PDPA) was developed
and a measuring protocol was established. This PDPA is
capable of producing huge amounts of useful and repeatable
data. From the results, it is clear that nozzle type as well as
nozzle size have an important effect on droplet size as well as
on velocity spectra. For the same nozzle size and spray
pressure, cone nozzles produced the finest droplet size
spectrum followed by standard flat fan nozzles, low-drift flat
fan nozzles and air injection nozzles. The larger the ISO
nozzle size, the larger is the droplet size spectrum. Moreover,
droplet size and droplet velocity spectra were correlated to
each other. This information is very useful with regard to the
risk of spray drift and the quantity and distribution of the
deposit on the target. Comparison with the results from other
research confirms the need for reference nozzles to classify
sprays because of the considerable variation of absolute
results depending on measuring protocol and settings and
type of measuring equipment. In future, results will be linked
to the drift potential of different nozzle–pressure combina-
tions and used as an input for a computational fluid dynamics
spray drift model.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
344 BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
Table 4 – Comparison of BCPC nozzle classification with different other investigations
References: I: Hardi nozzles product guide, II: Huygebaert et al. (2004), III: Nilars et al. (2000), IV: Nilars et al. (2000) and V: BCPC nozzle card.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Ministry of the Flemish
Community IWT-Vlaanderen. The authors wish to thank the
technical staff of ILVO and especially Jo Neirynck for the
technical support.
R E F E R E N C E S
Baetens K; Nuyttens D; Verboven P; De Schampheleire M; Nicolaı̈
B; Sonck B; Steurbaut W; Ramon (2006). The relative impor-
tance of environmental and field sprayer parameters for
reducing drift: a CFD sensitivity study. Aspects of Applied
Biology, International Advances in Pesticide Application, 77(2),
303–311
97 (2007) 333 – 345
Baetens K; Nuyttens D; Verboven P; De Schampheleire M; Nicolaı̈
B; Ramon H. (2007). Predicting drift from field spraying by
means of a 3D computational fluid dynamics model. Compu-
ters and Electronics in Agriculture. doi:10.1016/j.com-
pag.2007.01.009
Barnett G S; Matthews G A (1992). Effect of different fan nozzles
and spray liquids on droplet spectra with special reference to
drift control. International Pest Control, 31, 81–85
BELAC (2006). Belgian Accreditation Body. Accreditation Certifi-
cate No. 197 — TEST according to NBN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2000
for the Laboratory for Spray Application Techniques of the
ILVO, T&V — Agricultural Engineering
Bouse L F; Kirk I W; Bode L E (1990). Effect of spray mixture on
droplet size. Transactions of the ASAE, 33(3), 783–788
Butler Ellis M C; Bradley A (2002). The influence of formulation on
spray drift. Aspects of Applied Biology, International Advances
in Pesticide Application, 66, 251–258
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
Byass J B; Lake J R (1977). Spray drift from a tractor-powered field
sprayer. Pesticide Science, 8, 117–126
Combellack, J H: Miller P C H. (2001). Effect of adjuvants on spray
patternation and the volume of air inducted by selected
nozzles. Proceedings Sixth International Symposium on
Adjuvants for Agrochemicals, pp 557–562
Combellack J H; Miller P C H; Tuck C R; Christian C B (2002). Some
performance characteristics of a novel design of twin fluid
nozzle. Aspects of Applied Biology, International Advances in
Pesticide Application, 66, 237–244
De Schampheleire M; Spanoghe P; Nuyttens D; Baetens K;
Cornelis W; Gabriels D; Van Der Meeren P (2006). Classifica-
tion of spray nozzles based on droplet size distributions and
wind tunnel tests. Communications in Agricultural and
Applied Biological Sciences, 71(2a), 201–208
Farooq M; Balachandar R; Wulfsohn D; Wolf T M (2001).
Agricultural sprays in cross flow and drift. Journal of Agricul-
tural Engineering Research, 78(4), 347–358, doi:10.1006/
jaer.2000.0660
Goossens E; Braekman P (2003). Accreditation as a safeguard for
the quality of the inspection of sprayers and the spray
technology laboratory. Stosowanie Agrochemikaliów 89/03,
Instytut Uprawy Nawozenia I Gleboznawstwa, Congres ‘An-
wendung flüssiger Agrochemikalien’, XI Krajowe seminarium,
pp 67 – 72, 22 – 23, juli 2003, Pulawy, Poland
Grover R; Kerr L A; Maybank J; Yoshidja K (1978). Field measure-
ment of droplet drift from ground sprayers, I: sampling,
analytical and data integration techniques. Canadian Journal
of Plant Science, 58, 611–622
Herbst A (2001). Droplet sizing on agricultural sprays—a compar-
ison of measuring systems using a standard droplet size
classification scheme. Proceedings ILASS Europe 2001, Zurich,
Switzerland
Hewitt A J; Valcore D L; Teske M E; Schick R J (1998). Droplet size
classification for agricultural sprays. Proceedings Ilass 11th
Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems,
Sacramento, CA, May 1998
Huygebaert B; Jaeken P; Nuyttens D; Hofkens S; Hucorne P;
Pittomvils I; Vanhiesbecq S; Verstraete A (2004). Etude de
moyens de réduction de la dérive — project driftreducerende
maatregelen [Study about drift mitigation measures]. Fonds
budgétaire des Matières premières — Service Public Fédéral
Santé publique, Sécurité de la Chaı̂ne alimentaire et Envir-
onnement. Projet No. FF 03/01 (425), juin 2004
Miller P C H; Smith R W, Tuck C R; Walklate P J (1995). The
classification of agricultural sprays based on droplet size
distributions and the results from wind tunnel tests. Pro-
ceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference — Weeds,
pp 1125–1134
Miller P C H; Butler Ellis M C (2000). Effects of formulation on
spray nozzle performance for applications from ground-based
boom sprayers. Crop Protection, 19, 609–615
View publication stats
97 (20 07) 33 3 – 345 345
Nilars M S; Spragge P; Tuck, C (2000). Measuring techniques for
drop size measurements—In-flight measuring of droplet sizes
from agricultural nozzles, a comparison of two commonly
used laser systems. Hardi International Application Technol-
ogy Course 2002, pp 47–55
Nuyttens D; De Schampheleire M; Steurbaut W; Baetens K;
Verboven P; Nicolaı̈ B; Ramon H; Sonck B (2005). A PDPA laser-
based measuring set-up for the characterisation of spray
nozzles. Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biolo-
gical Sciences. Ghent University, 70(4), 989–995
Nuyttens D; De Schampheleire M; Steurbaut W; Baetens K;
Verboven P; Nicolaı̈ B; Ramon H; Sonck B (2006). Experimental
study of factors influencing the risk of drift from field sprayers,
part 2: spray application technique. Aspects of Applied
Biology, 77(2), 331–339
Porskamp H A J; van de Zande J C; Holterman H J; Huijsmans J F M
(1999). Classification of spray nozzles based on driftability.
DLO Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering,
Report 99-02, 22p. Wageningen, The Netherlands
Powell E S; Orson J H; Miller P C H; Kudsk P; Mathiassen S (2002).
Defining the size of target for air induction nozzles. Aspects of
Applied Biology, International Advances in Pesticide Applica-
tion, 66, 65–72
Southcombe E S E; Miller P C H; Ganzelmeier H; van de Zande J
C;Miralles A; Hewitt A J (1997). The international (BCPC) spray
classification system including a drift potential factor. Pro-
ceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference — Weeds,
pp 371–380
Taylor W A; Womac A R, Miller P C H; Taylor B P (2004). An
attempt to relate drop size to drift risk. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift
Management, pp 210–223
van de Zande J C; Porskamp H A J; Holterman H J (2002). Influence
of reference nozzle choice on spray drift classification. Aspects
of Applied Biology, International Advances in Pesticide Appli-
cation, 66, 49–55
Western N B; Hislop E C; Herrington P J; Jones E I (1989).
Comparative drift measurements for BCPC reference hydrau-
lic nozzles and for an airtec twin fluid nozzle under controlled
conditions. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection,
Conference — Weeds, 6B-6, 641–648
Wolf T M (2002). Optimising herbicide performance—biological
consequences of using low-drift nozzles. Aspects of Applied
Biology, International Advances in Pesticide Application, 66,
79–86
Womac A R; Maynard R A; Kirk I W (1999). Measurement
variations in reference sprays for nozzle classification.
Transactions of the ASAE, 42, 609–616
Womac A R (2000). Quality control of standardized reference
spray nozzles. Transactions of the ASAE, 43(1), 47–56