View Presentation Application

Deposition Results of Different Style Spray Tips at Varying Speeds and Altitudes from an Unmanned Aerial System

Agronomy & Pest Management

Alan Leininger
Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator
Ohio State University
Napoleon

Abstract

The application of pesticides with a UAS has become a popular practice over the past few years within crop production. The ability to carry larger volumes of liquid onboard, reduced costs, and simple operation has attributed to the increased popularity. Additionally, the increased number of fungicide applications in corn due to the tar spot disease has shown that the demand for aerial applications of all types has increased with UAS pesticide application technology providing the opportunity to meet the increased demand. The challenge of applying pesticides with a UAS is understanding the performance and efficacy of applied  products. Limited information exists in terms of field performance using different nozzle styles, flight heights and flight speeds.  Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare different nozzle styles and their performance in terms of coverage and droplet size for an UAS sprayer. A frame was constructed out of dimensional pine lumber with the dimensions of 10’ High by 31’ wide. The frame had 3 different heights of 5’, 10’, & 15’ where water sensitive cards were placed 15” apart along each 31’ row for a total of 36 cards per pass of the UAS sprayer. Three different nozzles were tested: Turbo TeeJet, Turbo TeeJet Air Induction, and the TeeJet XR. Additional treatments were two ground speeds 15 and 20 mph.  All tests were replicated 4 times. A Hylio 110 equipped with for all tests. After each pass, water sensitive cards were collected, placed in a sealed bag, and then transported to a lab for analysis with a DropScope scanner. Means and variations were then computed for each nozzle at each card position of the swath. Results indicated that the applications by the UAS sprayer with non-air induction nozzles had significantly smaller droplets, but better coverage compared to an air induction nozzle. For applications within corn canopy, the droplet size and coverage were more consistent at the ear leaf than a tradition ground sprayer.

Authors: Alan Leininger, John Fulton, E. Ozkan, Kendall Lovejoy, Amber Emmons, Kyle Verhoff, Grant Davis, S. Karhoff
  1. Alan Leininger Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Ohio State University Extension, Ohio, 43545
  2. John Fulton Professor Research, Extension and Teaching, Food Agriculture & Biological Engineering, Ohio State University, Ohio, 43210
  3. E. Ozkan Professor Research & Extension Food Agriculture & Biological Engineering, Ohio State University, Ohio, 43210
  4. Kendall Lovejoy Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Ohio State University Extension, Ohio, 43567
  5. Amber Emmons Water Quality Extension Associate, Ohio State University Extension, Ohio, 43402
  6. Kyle Verhoff Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Ohio State University Extension, Ohio, 43512
  7. Grant Davis Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Ohio State University Extension, Ohio, 43078
  8. S. Karhoff Field Specialist Agronomic Systems, Ohio State University Extension, Ohio, 45875