ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Wind tunnel flux comparisons using a phase Doppler interferometer
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Precision Application, Lincoln Agritech Ltd., P.O. Box 69133, Lincoln, Christchurch 7640, New Zealand
2
Department of Commerce, Lincoln University, P.O. Box 7647, Lincoln, Christchurch 7647, New Zealand
3
School of Agriculture and Food Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton QLD 4343, Australia
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Roy L. Roten
Department of Precision Application, Lincoln Agritech Ltd., P.O. Box 69133, Lincoln, Christchurch 7640, New Zealand
Submission date: 2017-06-19
Acceptance date: 2017-09-12
 
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2017;57(3):281–287
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
It is essential to know the movement of droplets in time and space (i.e. flux) when measuring and/or predicting spray drift in agricultural application. A study was performed to assess the flux measurements of a phase Doppler system against a standard monofilament system in a wind tunnel. The primary objectives of the study were to compare flux from a new phase Doppler system against 1.7 mm cotton and 2.0 mm nylon strings at varying wind speeds (1.4, 4.2, 8.3, 12.5, and 16.7 m ⋅ s–1) and spray exposures times (5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 s) with an overarching hypothesis that the active, phase Doppler is able to accurately measure the flux regardless of exposure and spray mass whereas the static string samplers are limited to a maximum retention. The phase Doppler did measure linearly as expected, however strings did not reach a point in which they loss mass; conversely, they appeared to overload with saturation. These findings are believed to be among many variables which influence the variability of previous mass balance studies.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
 
REFERENCES (18)
1.
Anonymous. 2013. Demeter PDI User Manual: Artium Technologies, Inc.
 
2.
Bachalo W.D., Rudoff R.C., Brena de La Rosa A. 1988. Mass flux measurements of a high number density spray system using the phase Doppler particle analyzer. 26th Aerospace Sciences Meeting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1988....
 
3.
Bonds J.A., Leggett M. 2015. A literature review of downwind drift from airblast sprayers: development of standard methodologies and a drift database. Transactions of the ASABE 58 (6): 1471–1477.
 
4.
Cooper J.F., Smith D.N., Dobson H.M. 1996. An evaluation of two field samplers for monitoring spray drift. Crop Protection 15 (3): 249–257. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0261....
 
5.
Dullenkopf K., Willmann M., Wittig S., Schöne F., Stieglmeier M., Tropea C., Mundo C. 1998. Comparative mass flux measurements in sprays using a patternator and the phasedoppler technique. Particle and Particle Systems Characterization 15 (2): 81–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)...<81::aid-ppsc81>3.0.co;2-a.
 
6.
Fritz B.K., Hoffmann W.C. 2008. Development of a system for determining collection efficiency of spray samplers. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 24 (3): 285–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.....
 
7.
Fritz B.K., Hoffmann W.C., Birchfield N., Ellenberger J., Khan F., Bagley W., Hewitt A.J. 2011. Evaluation of spray drift using low-speed wind tunnel measurements and dispersion modeling. p. 261–283. In: “Pesticide Formulations and Delivery Systems. 30th vol. Regulations and Innovation”. ASTM International. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1520/stp152....
 
8.
Goguen R.J., Saunders B.A.J., Picot J.J.C. 1997. Flux-based measurements with the malvern spectrometer. Transactions of the ASAE 40 (5): 1233–1236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.....
 
9.
Hinds W.C. 2012. Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles. Wiley, 504 pp.
 
10.
Hoffmann W.C., Fritz B.K., Farooq M., Walker T.W., Czaczyk Z., Hornsby J., Bonds J.A.S. 2013. Evaluation of aerial spray technologies for adult mosquito control applications. Journal of Plant Protection Research 53 (3): 222–229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jppr-2....
 
11.
Jensen P.K., Olesen M.H. 2014. Spray mass balance in pesticide application: a review. Crop Protection 61: 23–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crop....
 
12.
May K.R., Clifford R. 1967. The impaction of aerosol particles on cylinders, spheres, ribbons and discs. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 10 (2): 83–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg....
 
13.
Mercer T.T. 2012. Aerosol Technology in Hazard Evaluation. Elsevier, 406 pp.
 
14.
Nuyttens D., Baetens K., De Schampheleire M., Sonck B. 2007. Effect of nozzle type, size and pressure on spray droplet characteristics. Biosystems Engineering 97 (3): 333–345. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bi....
 
15.
Roten R.L., Ferguson J.C., Connell R.J., Gary J.D., Hewitt A.J. 2015. Preliminary investigation of phase Doppler derived flux measurements in a wind tunnel for the sampling of orchard spray drift. SuproFruit 2015 – 13th Workshop on Spray Application in Fruit Growing. 15–18 July 2015. Lindau, Germany.
 
16.
Roten R.L., Post S.L., Werner A., Hewitt A.J., Safa M. 2016. Volumetric validation of mass balance using a computational phase Doppler approach for disc core nozzles. Crop Protection 79: 128–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crop....
 
17.
Tratnig A., Brenn G. 2010. Drop size spectra in sprays from pressure-swirl atomizers. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 36 (5): 349–363. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ij....
 
18.
Zhu H., Reichard D.L., Fox R.D., Brazee R.D., Ozkan H.E. 1996. Collection efficiency of spray droplets on vertical targets. Transactions of the ASAE 39 (2): 415–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.....
 
eISSN:1899-007X
ISSN:1427-4345