Creating intelligent technologies for land and water based industries
Summary
 Canadian BZM scheme
 European DRT schemes
 Assessing the UK LERAP and German schemes
independently from a NZ/ Australian perspective –
the UK data appear to be optimal
 We need to collaborate internationally to share DRT
data rather than re-testing in each country
“Typical Drift”: Aerial 2%, Orchard Airblast
0.5%, Ground 0.1%
www.agdrift.com
Drift Reduction Technologies
 DRTs are a key part of our NZ research under objective 3
(technologies)
 DRTs are of high interest in Australia and North America
 Several countries already have DRT schemes in place –
e.g. many European countries; new Canadian scheme
 The US and Australia are working on new DRT schemes
 Wind tunnel data (Europe) and Canadian field data
assess drift reduction by reduction in airborne drift and
in the case of Canada, not on ground deposition per se
DRTs currently being adopted
 Nozzles at specific pressures – European databases from
wind tunnel work at TAG Silsoe, UK and JKI, Germany:
Europe is already using these data and Canada wants to
work with Australia (and possibly NZ) to co-ordinate
requesting access for their/ our use (rather than each
country making its own separate request) – USA too?
 European data for tree and vine crop sprayers as well as air
boom sprayers like the Hardi Twin
 GRDC sponsored testing at UQ for shields, which has been
completed in wind tunnel and field
 Canada using Wolf data-shrouds/ cones
More DRTs being used/ considered
 Barrier vegetation was considered in LERAP scheme
but not used in most schemes yet. In NZ, hedges
would be an excellent DRT option, given their
common occurrence around tree and vine crops in
particular
 Dose rate is a DRT in European schemes – most labels
give a range of rates, yet risk assessment tends to use
only the highest rate
 Water depth – the default reasonable worst-case water
body is shallow – DRT depths greater
LERAP (UK)
 Local Environmental Risk Assessment for Pesticides
Canadian Buffer Zone Multiplier
 New scheme introduced mid 2011
 Allows applicators to reduce certain labeled no-spray
buffer zones if using DRTs
 Unlike the European schemes, it also includes aerial
applications
 Ground DRTs based on published work from Wolf and
others; plans to add European nozzle classifications
 Aerial DRTs based on AGDISP modeling
 Forms are completed online and then printed/ filed
Australian Vineyard Buffer Study
PIRSA/ CPAS Different sprayers; different barriers
Comparison of Barrier Types
concentration ug/L (Log scale)
10000
1000
artificial
100
None
Hedge
10
1
0.1
0.2
2.5
5
10
Distance from Barrier (m)
20
40
60
80
More on European Data
 Germany uses Lurmark 11003 as reference nozzle
(original BCPC reference)
 UK uses Teejet 11003 as reference nozzle
 These are >10% different which then produces
differences in classification of DRT nozzles in the UK
and Germany
German Reference Spray
100
95
Tank mix Distance Nozzle
90
Water
Water
Water
85
80
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
Pressure Dv0.1
µm
Lurmark 11003 3 bar
101
Lurmark 11003 3 bar
100
Lurmark 11003 3 bar
102
3.8
VMD
µm
229
228
227
Dv90
µm
397
390
386
V<150
%
23.19
23.33
22.85
V<100
%
9.78
9.91
9.62
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
70
2.6
65
2.4
60
2.2
55
2.0
50
1.8
45
1.6
40
1.4
35
1.2
30
25
1.0
20
0.8
15
0.6
10
0.4
5
0.2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600 1800 2000 2200
Droplet Diameter / µm
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
0
3600
Density distribution q3 / 1/mm
Cumulative Spray Volume (%) / %
75
3.6
UK Reference Spray
100
95
Tank mix
Distance Nozzle
90
Water + 0.1% Agral 15 cm
Water + 0.1% Agral 15 cm
Water + 0.1% Agral 15 cm
85
80
3.8
Pressure Dv0.1
µm
Teejet 11003 3 bar
127
Teejet 11003 3 bar
121
Teejet 11003 3 bar
126
VMD
µm
254
248
253
Dv90
µm
409
394
408
V<150
%
14.85
17.03
15.50
V<100
%
5.37
5.91
5.33
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
70
2.6
65
2.4
60
2.2
55
2.0
50
1.8
45
1.6
40
1.4
35
1.2
30
25
1.0
20
0.8
15
0.6
10
0.4
5
0.2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600 1800 2000 2200
Droplet Diameter / µm
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
0
3600
Density distribution q3 / 1/mm
Cumulative Spray Volume (%) / %
75
3.6
Test Substance
 Germany uses water as the test material which is not
appropriate for air induction nozzles
 UK uses water + 0.1% surfactant as the test material
 Tests at UQ revealed large differences between water,
water+Agral and water+2,4-D
100
95
90
85
80
Tank mix
Distance Nozzle
Water
Water + 0.1% Agral
Water + 0.4% Dioweed
Water
Water + 0.1% Agral
Water + 0.4% Dioweed
Water
Water + 0.1% Agral
Water + 0.4% Dioweed
Water
Water + 0.1% Agral
Water + 0.4% Dioweed
Water
Water + 0.1% Agral
Water + 0.4% Dioweed
Water
Water + 0.1% Agral
Water + 0.4% Dioweed
Water + 0.1% Agral
Water + 0.4% Dioweed
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
Cumulative Spray Volume (%) / %
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Pressure Dv0.1
µm
XR11004
4.1 bar 94
XR11004
4.1 bar 101
XR 11004
4.1 bar 87
XR11005
2.8 bar 122
XR11005
2.8 bar 128
11005XR
2.8 bar 128
AIXR 110025 4.1 bar 173
AIXR 110025 4.1 bar 178
AIXR 110025 4.1 bar 180
AI11005
2.8 bar 300
AI11005
2.8 bar 304
AI 11005
2.8 bar 317
DR11003
2.8 bar 250
DR11003
2.8 bar 260
DR11003
2.8 bar 259
DR11005
2.8 bar 310
DR11005
2.8 bar 305
DR11005
2.8 bar 303
MR8003
2.8 bar 217
MR8003
2.8 bar 208
VMD
µm
227
235
223
293
290
296
377
371
364
643
612
635
512
512
527
640
620
624
425
422
Dv90
µm
388
403
409
494
482
505
621
590
563
1022
928
1014
837
822
877
1004
982
987
665
659
V<150
%
24.94
23.16
27.63
15.16
14.33
13.83
7.14
6.58
6.30
1.55
1.62
1.23
2.77
2.02
2.34
1.44
1.21
1.51
3.53
4.40
V<100
%
11.31
9.78
13.18
6.50
5.33
5.70
2.61
2.31
2.27
0.40
0.43
0.36
0.92
0.54
0.70
0.39
0.24
0.40
1.01
1.48
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600 1800 2000
Droplet Diameter / µm
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
Examples of Sprays that Germany Classified in Same
DRT Category (50%) versus 75% in UK
(These are only a few from among many such discrepancies)
 Teejet 11005 at 3 versus 4 bar (UK 75% at 3 bar)
 Teejet 110025 at 2 versus 3 bar (UK 75% at 2 bar)
 Teejet AIC series at 2 versus 3-5 bar (UK 75% at 2 bar)
 Hardi Minidrift series at 1-1.5 versus >1.5 bar (UK 75%
at lower pressures)
 Teejet TTI series at all pressures – UK 75%
 Many others
100
1.8
95
Tank mix Distance Noz z le
90
Wate r
Wate r
Wate r
85
80
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
Pre ssure Dv0.1
µm
AIC11003 4 bar
267
AIC11003 4 bar
267
AIC11003 4 bar
260
VMD
µm
545
541
527
Dv90
µm
850
832
810
V<150
%
2.05
2.12
2.29
V<100
%
0.59
0.63
0.68
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
70
1.2
65
60
1.1
55
1.0
50
0.9
45
0.8
40
0.7
35
0.6
30
0.5
25
0.4
20
0.3
15
10
0.2
5
0.1
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600 1800 2000 2200
Droplet Diameter / µm
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
0
3600
Density distribution q3 / 1/mm
Cumulative Spray Volume (%) / %
75
100
1.5
95
Tank mix Distance Noz z le
90
Wate r
Wate r
Wate r
85
80
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
Pre ssure Dv0.1
µm
AIC11003 2 bar
385
AIC11003 2 bar
378
AIC11003 2 bar
382
VMD
µm
736
728
743
Dv90
µm
1015
1008
1065
V<150
%
0.53
0.58
0.56
V<100
%
0.07
0.08
0.08
1.3
1.2
1.1
70
1.0
65
60
0.9
55
0.8
50
0.7
45
40
0.6
35
0.5
30
0.4
25
20
0.3
15
0.2
10
0.1
5
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600 1800 2000 2200
Droplet Diameter / µm
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
0
3600
Density distribution q3 / 1/mm
Cumulative Spray Volume (%) / %
75
1.4
100
2.1
95
2.0
Tank mix Distance Nozzle
90
85
Water
Water
Water
80
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
Pressure Dv0.1
µm
Hardi Minidrift 11002 4 bar
198
Hardi Minidrift 11002 4 bar
200
Hardi Minidrift 11002 4 bar
198
VMD
µm
425
428
420
Dv90
µm
693
704
664
V<150
%
5.00
4.85
4.94
V<100
%
1.70
1.64
1.65
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
70
1.4
65
1.3
60
1.2
55
1.1
50
1.0
45
0.9
40
0.8
35
0.7
30
0.6
25
0.5
20
0.4
15
0.3
10
0.2
5
0.1
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600 1800 2000 2200
Droplet Diameter / µm
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
0
3600
Density distribution q3 / 1/mm
Cumulative Spray Volume (%) / %
75
1.9
100
1.8
95
1.7
90
1.6
80
Water
Water
Water
Cumulative Spray Volume (%) / %
75
70
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
Pressure Dv0.1
µm
Hardi Minidrift 11002 1.5 bar
315
Hardi Minidrift 11002 1.5 bar
317
Hardi Minidrift 11002 1.5 bar
320
VMD
µm
612
625
623
Dv90
µm
877
927
899
V<150
%
1.05
1.04
1.01
V<100
%
0.21
0.21
0.20
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
65
60
1.1
55
1.0
50
0.9
45
0.8
40
0.7
35
0.6
30
0.5
25
0.4
20
0.3
15
10
0.2
5
0.1
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600 1800 2000 2200
Droplet Diameter / µm
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
0
3600
Density distribution q3 / 1/mm
85
Tank mix Distance Nozzle
Aerial DRTs: US, CA, AU, NZ
1. “Drop” (Lowered) Boom System
 Lower the aircraft boom after takeoff
 Studies suggest drift may be reduced by ~60%
2. Vortex Mitigation
Technologies
Fixed-Wing Aircraft Wakes
Helicopter Wakes
3. Wing Tip Modification Devices
(John Spillman)
 Modeling suggests drift may be reduced by 50 - 75%
using wing tip sails
Reverse Venturi Chamber
(Russ Stocker)
 Reduces effective air velocity to ~half aircraft speed,
allowing coarser sprays at higher flight speeds
Other DRTs
 Non-volatile rate and evaporation reduction
Spray Block Width
 AgDRIFT ground model default field width is 274 m
 Spraying fewer swaths reduces the drift loading – can
reduce the no-spray buffer zone for 2,4-D by 75%
Example of 2,4-D Rate Reduction from 1.4 to
0.7kg/ha Giving Half the Buffer for LOC=1.4g/ha
Conclusions
 Recommend that we use the LERAP (UK) DRT data for
nozzles, working with Canada to request joint access
 Recommend the Canadian approach of assessing DRTs
based on reductions in airborne drift, sampled using
field lasers (if field studies in October validate this
approach) where data are for input to AGDISP/ WTDISP
 Need to agree on the reference systems – what are we
reducing drift from as the baseline? ISO probably best
 Recommend collaboration between our countries on
data sharing for DRT research and also
models and calculators