Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T21:26:25.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drop Formation and Impaction on the Plant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Donald L. Reichard
Donald L. Reichard*
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Center, Wooster, OH 44691
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of variables that influence the retention of spray droplets impacting on leaf surfaces was studied, using a uniform-size droplet generator to produce drops ranging from 63 to 545 μm diam. To observe the impaction of spray droplets more easily and to measure their velocity before and after impaction, high-speed motion photography (6000 frames/sec) was used. Rebound of spray droplets depends on the micro-structure of the target surface. Leaf surfaces of several crops and weeds reflected 63 to 545 μm diam water drops traveling at velocities less than velocities of drops delivered by popular nozzles at commonly used spray pressures. If the concentration is high enough, some surfactants can reduce the rebound of drops. With one surfactant, its concentration had to be much greater than the critical micelle concentration to reduce reflection of spray drops.

Keywords

Reboundspray droplets
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 82 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anderson, N. H., and Hall, D. J. 1986. The role of dynamic surface tension in the retention of surfactant sprays on pea plants. 1st Int. Symp. Adjuvants Agrochem. Brandon, Canada.Google Scholar
2. Ennis, W. B. Jr., Williamson, R. E., and Dorschner, K. P. 1952. Studies on spray retention by leaves of different plants. Weeds 1:274–286.Google Scholar
3. Ford, R. E., and Furmidge, C.G.L. 1966. Impact and spreading of spray drops on foliar surfaces. Pages 417–432 in Monograph No. 25. Soc. Chem. Ind., London.Google Scholar
4. Furmidge, C.G.L. 1962. Physico-chemical studies on agricultural sprays. IV–The retention of spray liquids on leaf surfaces. J. Sci. Food Agric. 13:127–140.Google Scholar
5. Hartley, G. S., and Brunskill, R. T. 1958. Reflections of water drops from surfaces. Pages 213–214 in Danielle, J. F., Parkhurst, K.G.A., and Riddiford, A. C., eds. Surface Phenomena in Chemistry and Biology. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY.Google Scholar
6. Lake, J. R., and Marchant, J. A. 1983. The use of dimensional analysis in a study of drop retention on barley. Pestic. Sci. 14:638–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Reichard, D. L., Brazee, R. D., Bukovac, M. J., and Fox, R. D. 1986. A system for photographically studying droplet impaction on leaf surfaces. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 29(3):707–713.Google Scholar
8. Schneider, J. M., and Hendricks, C. D. 1964. Source of uniform-size liquid droplets. Rev. Sci. Instr. 35:1349–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Seamen, D. 1982. Pesticide surfactant systems. A multiplicity of surfactant physical properties employed to improve the biological effect. Pages 1365–1380 in Mittel, K. L. and Fendler, E. J., eds. Solution behavior of surfactants. Theor. Appl. Aspects 2:1365–1380.Google Scholar
10. Singh, M., Orsenigo, J. R., and Shaw, D. O. 1984. Surface tension and contact angle of herbicide solutions affected by surfactants. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 61(3):596–599.Google Scholar
11. Spillman, J. J. 1984. Spray impaction, retention and adhesion: an introduction to basic characteristics. Pestic. Sci. 15:97–106.Google Scholar
12. Young, B. W. 1979. Studies on the retention and deposit characteristics of pesticide sprays on foliage. Int. Comm. Agric. Eng., East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar