Performance of Various Drift Control Additives.

Gerardo MASIA 1, Adriana FUICA 2, Leonardo VENTURELLI 2, Gustavo GONZALEZ ANTA 3

1
Eng. Agr., Instituto de Ingenieria Rural, Centro de Investigación en Agroindustria, Centro Nacional de
Investigaciones Agropecuarias, INTA. C.C. 25 Castelar (1712), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
2
Instituto de Ingenieria Rural, CIA, CNIA, INTA. CC 25 Castelar (1712), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
3
Rizobacter Argentina S.A. Pergamino, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
gmasia@cnia.inta.gov.ar

Abstract:
Spray drift is the movement of a pesticide through the air, during or after application, to a site
other than the intended target. Drift is considered to be the most challenging problem facing
applicators and pesticide manufacturers. One way to minimize drift is to use spray additives which
increase spray droplet size. Drift control additives are a specific class of chemical adjuvant. In this
research, five commercial and experimental adjuvants were evaluated in order to study which one
had the best performance. They were: Rasa (organic compost of varied composition) at three
concentrations, Rizospray Super liquido (soya lecithin + propionic acid) to 0.2 % and 0.4 % and
Rizospray Antideriva (polyacrylamide), which were compared with pure water as reference. In
order to do this a flat fan nozzle 8002 standard type was used at 0.70 m high in a wind tunnel.
Pressure was set at 300 KPa. Spray nozzles were arranged in a parallel and perpendicular way to
wind direction into the tunnel. The drift liquid volume was calculated by difference between flow
delivered from spray nozzle and collected in the distribution bench. All data was subjected to
analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey’s test was used at 5% level of significance for means
separation.
The lowest drift occurred with Rizospray Super liquido in its two concentrations (0.2% and 0.4%)
and in both wind directions. The effect of increasing the concentration from 0.2% to 0.4% was not
significant. The order of decreasing efficiency of the other products was: Rasa 100, Rizospray
Antideriva, Rasa 300 and Rasa 200. Finally, drift in two wind directions with all products was
evaluated. Lower drift was obtained with parallel form. Rizospray Super liquido in both
concentrations had the best performance in all situations studied.
Key words: drift, spray additives, wind direction

INTRODUCTION: The effect of equipment or operating conditions

In Argentina, during 2006, 252,4 million liters
(902,5 million dollars) of pesticides were applied,
where 71% were herbicides, 13% insecticides and 9%
fungicides. Due to concerns about pest control costs
and environmental pollution, it is essential to apply
pesticides with precision and care. On the major
problems challenging pesticide applicators is spray
drift, which is defined as movement of a pesticide
through the air, during or after application, to a site
other than the intended target (Ozkan & Derksen,
1998). This is one of the major concerns in terms of
protecting the environment, pesticide efficiency and
operator safety (Göbel and Pearson, 1993). The effect
of some meteorological variables have been discussed
by several researchers including Yates et al. (1978,
1974), Threadgill and Smith (1975), Smith et al.
(1979), Picot et al. (1986).
(or both) on downwind spray deposits was also
investigated (Smith and Burt, 1970; Bode et al. 1976;
Lake et al., 1978; Yates et al., 1978; Smith et al.,
1979). In addition, it was included drift evaluations of
an electrostatic charging device (Threadgill, 1973)
and an air-assisted boom sprayer (Maybank et al.,
1979). Smith et al. (1982) reported the importance of
boom height and horizontal wind speed; Reichard et
al. (1992) determined drift distances of spray droplets
in a tunnel wind.
Another way to minimize drift is by using spray
additives which increase spray droplet size, because
droplets less than 100 microns in size obtain a
horizontal trajectory in a very short time and
evaporate very rapidly. Drift control additives are a
specific class of chemical adjuvant. Tests indicate
that, in some cases, drift control additives can reduce
downwind drift deposits by 50 to 80 percent (Hofman propagating to the drift analysis any difference in the
and Solseng, 2001). volumes given by the nozzles.
Spray additives, which were developed to either Spray flow was determinated through gravimetric
increase droplet size or reduce evaporation, or both, method, using an electronic balance with accuracy of
have also been studied relative to drift deposits (Ware +/- 0.1 gram, whereas the variable time was
et al., 1970; Bode et al. 1976; Yates et al. 1976). quantified by means of an electronic chronometer
However deposition efficiencies decreased as droplets with tenths of a second. For both tests (spray flow
size increased above 140 µm (Smith et. al. 2000). The and spray drift), each treatment was replicated ten
appropriate size of drop will be the one which be times. All data was subjected to analysis of variance
effectively deposit pesticides in target and avoid the (ANOVA), and Tukey’s test was used at 5% level of
effects of the drift. significance for means separation.
The objective of this study was to evaluate drift
with various spray adjuvants in different Table 1. Adjuvants with their respective trade name,
internal denomination and used concentration.
concentrations and two wind directions.
Trade name Denomination Concentration
(%)
MATERIAL AND METHOD:
Rasa 100 R100 0.02
The experiment was carried out in a distribution
Rasa 200 R200 0.02
bench built of aluminum profiles according with Rasa 300 R300 0.02
standard ISO 5682/1. It was equipped with 60 Rizospray Super RSL0.2 0.2
grooves and a device allowing collection of the liquid. Liquido
Moreover, this bench was provided with a wind tunnel Rizospray Super RSL0.4 0.4
Liquido
of 1 x 1.53 x 8 m. which allowed suction turbine to
Rizospray antideriva RA 0.03
obtain wind speed of the order of 4.0 m sec-1 with an
average turbulence of 3%. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
It was used flat fan nozzle 80-02 with polymer The first results obtained are expressed in tables 2
holder of Albuz mark at 0.70 m high in the wind and 3. Tables 2 and 3 apply a multiple comparison
tunnel. Spray pressure was set at 300 kPa. Spray procedure to determine which product means are
nozzles were arranged in two positions into the significantly different.
tunnel, parallel (lateral position) and perpendicular It is possible to be observed that the Rizospray
(frontal position) way to wind direction. Super Liquido in its two concentrations (RSL0.4 and
In this research, five commercial and experimental RSL0.2) was the product that presented minor drift, in
adjuvants were evaluated in order to study which one both wind directions, separately.
had the best performance. They were: Rasa (organic
Table 2. Multiple range tests for drift by product with
compost of varied composition) at three
frontal wind direction. Values followed by the same
concentrations, Rizospray Super liquido (soya lecithin letter are not significantly different from each other.
+ propionic acid) to 0.2 % and 0.4 % and Rizospray (Method: 95.0 percent Tukey HSD).

Antideriva (polyacrylamide) (Table 1), which were Product Replicants Means Homogeneous groups
RSL0.4 10 10.6374 a
compared with water as reference. All products
RSL0.2 10 12.8639 b
belong to the company Rizobacter Argentina S.A. R100 10 19.9812 c
Reference spray flow was set previously in water and R300 10 21.0318 d
in each product. Water 10 22.4454 e
The drift liquid volume was calculated by difference RA 10 22.8279 e
R200 10 25.3933 f
between flow delivered from spray nozzle and
collected in the distribution bench. The results were
expressed as cm3 drifted every 100 cm3 sprayed
(reference spray flow), with which it is avoided
Table 3. Multiple range tests for drift by product CONCLUSIONS.
with lateral wind direction. Values followed by the The RSL, in the two used concentrations, had the
same letter are not significantly different from each
other. (Method: 95.0 percent Tukey HSD). best yield in all the analyzed situations. The others
Product Replicants Means Homogeneous groups alternated their order of effectiveness, based on the
RSL0.4 10 4.2984 a two positions of the wind.
RSL0.2 10 4.3239 a The order of products, considering a decreasing
RA 10 9.2673 b efficiency in the reduction of the percentage of drift
R100 10 12.1051 c
was: RSL0.4 and RSL0.2, R100, RA, R300 and R200.
Water 10 16.7458 d
R300 10 17.2409 d
R200 10 17.7813 d REFERENCES
Bode, L.E.; Butler, B.J.; Goering, C.E. 1976. Spray drift and
recovery as affected by spray thickener, nozzle type,
If both positions of the nozzle with respect to the and nozzle pressure. Transactions of the ASAE 19
wind direction are considered (frontal and lateral), (2):213-218.
Göbel, B.; Pearson, S. 1993. Drift reduction by spray
the mentioned tendencies keep up. In general, with nozzles techniques. Second Symposium on pesticides
this product a drift less than 50% was obtained of application techniques. 9 pp.
Hofman, V.; Solseng, E. 2001. Reducing spray drift.
the one observed in pure water. The effect of
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering. NDSU
increasing the concentration from 0.2% to 0.4% was Extension Service. North Dakota State University,
not significant. In sequence of decreasing efficiency Fargo, North Dakota 58105,
International Standard ISO 5682/1. 1987. Equipment for
they were located R100, RA, R300 and R200. crop protection-Spraying equipment-Part 1: Test
Between all these treatments, significant differences methods of sprayer nozzles. First edition. 14pp.
Lake, J.R.; Frost, A.R., Lockwood, A. 1978. Drift from an
were observed, which appear in table 4.
ulvamast sprayer. Proceeding 1978 BCPC-Weeds.681-
686.
Table 4. Multiple range tests for drift by product with Miralles, A.; Bogliani, M. 1993. Macroscopic evaluation of
two wind direction. Values followed by the same the wind effect on a spray. BCPC International
letter for products are not significantly different from Symposium on Pesticides Application. Tome 1. 117-
each other. (Method: 95.0 percent Tukey HSD). 124.
Product Replicants Means Homogeneous groups Maybank, J.; Yoshida, K.; Wallace, K.; Peters, M. 1979.
RSL0.4 20 7.4679 a Herbicide spray drift and deposition characteristic for a
prototype air cushion crop sprayer. Saskatchewan
RSL0.2 20 8.5939 a Research Council Report N° P 79-3.
R100 20 16.0431 b Ozkan, H.E.; Derksen, R.C. 1998. Effectiveness of Turbo
RA 20 16.0477 b drop® and Turbo Teejet® nozzles in drift reduction.
R300 20 19.1364 bc Ohio State University Extension. AEX-S24-98. 7 pp.
Water 20 19.5956 bc Picot, J.J.C.; Kristmanson, D.D.; Basak Brown,N. 1986.
Canopy deposit and off-target drift in forest aerial
R200 20 21.5853 c
spraying. The effects of operational parameters.
Transactions of the ASAE 29 (1): 90-96.
Finally all products were checked out to two wind Reichard, D.L.; Zhu, H.; Fox, R.D.; Brazee, R.D. 1992. Wind
directions detecting significant effects. In front tunnel evaluation of a computer program to model
spray drift. Transactions of the ASAE 35 (3): 755-758.
position could be displayed a greater percentage of Smith, D.B.; Burt, E.C. 1970. Effects of the size of ULV
drift, coincidently with the results obtained by Miralles droplets on deposits within cotton foliage both inside
and immediately downwind from a treated swat. J.
(1993). The values of the test are observed in table 5.
Economic Entomology. 63(5): 1400-1405.
Smith, D.B.; Harris, F.D.; Goering,C.E. 1979. Variables
Table 5. Multiple range tests for drift by wind affecting the drift of agricultural spray a progress
direction. Values followed by the same letter are not report. Paper N° V-3b-4. Commission Internationals de
Genie Rural. París, France.
significantly different from each other. (Method: 95.0
Smith, D.B.; Harris, F.D.; Butter, B.J. 1982. Shielded
percent Tukey HSD). sprayer boom to reduce drift. Transactions of the ASAE
Wind Replicants Means Homogeneous 25 (5): 1136-1147.
Smith, D.B.; Askew, S.D.; Morris, W.H.; Shaw D.R.;
direction groups
Boyette, M. 2000. Droplet size leaf morphology effects
Lateral 70 11.6804 a on pesticide spray deposition. Transactions of the
Frontal 70 19.3116 b ASAE 43 (2): 255-259.
Threadgill, E.D. 1973. Evaluation of aerial electrostatic
spray charging equipment. Mississippi Agric. Forestry.
Bull. N° 65. 12 pp.
Threadgill, E.D.; Smith, D.B. 1975. Effects of physical an
meteorological parameters on the drift of controlled
size droplets. Transactions of the ASAE 18(1): 51-56.
Ware, G.W.; Estesen, B.J.; Cahill, W.P.; Gerhardt, P.D.;
Frost, K.R. 1970. Pesticide drift III. Drift reduction with
spray thickeners. J. Economic Entomology. 63(4):
1314-1316.
Yates, W.E., Akesson, N.B.; Cowden, R.E. 1974. Criteria for
minimizing drift residues on crop downwind from aerial
applications. Transactions of the ASAE 17 (4): 627-
632.
Yates, W.E., Akesson, N.B.; Bayer D.E. 1976. Effects of
spray adjuvants on drift hazards Transactions of the
ASAE 19 (1): 41-46.
Yates, W.E., Akesson, N.B.; Bayer D.E. 1978. Drift of
glyphosate sprays applied with aerial and ground
equipment. Weed Sei. 26(6): 597 - 604.