Content uploaded by Grzegorz Doruchowski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Grzegorz Doruchowski on Apr 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environmentally-Dependent Application System (EDAS) for safer
spray application in fruit growing
By G. DORUCHOWSKI*,W. SWIECHOWSKI, R. HOLOWNICKI and A. GODYN
Research Institute of Pomology and Floriculture, Pomologiczna 18, 96-100 Skierniewice, Poland
(e-mail: gdoru@insad.pl (Accepted 6 September 2009)
SUMMARY
Within the ISAFRUIT Project, a Crop-Adapted Spray Application (CASA) system was developed to ensure precise,
efficient, and safe spray applications in orchards, according to the actual needs of the crop and with respect for the
environment. The system consisted of three sub-systems: (i) a Crop Health Sensor (CHS), identifying the heath status
of the fruit crop; (ii) a Crop Identification System (CIS), identifying tree canopy size and density; and (iii) an
Environmentally-Dependent Application System (EDAS), identifying environmental circumstances during spray
applications.The EDAS system automatically adjusted spray application parameters such as droplet size and air flow
velocity, depending on wind velocity and direction, and the position of the sprayer in relation to sensitive areas such
as neighbouring orchards, surface water, drinking wells, and public-use sites, in order to protect these areas from
contamination. On the sprayer controlled by the EDAS system, wind velocity and direction were measured using an
ultrasonic anemometer, and sprayer position was determined by a Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS).
Nozzles were altered automatically depending on wind conditions, in order to adjust the droplet size according to the
level of drift risk. A novel fan construction allowed the supporting airflow to the left- and right-hand sections of the
sprayer to be adjusted independently. This adjustment was done automatically, depending on wind conditions and on
sprayer position. Field tests confirmed the intended performance of the sprayer controlled by the EDAS system.
Protection of the environment during the application
of plant protection products (PPP) during fruit
growing is of particular public concern. For economic
reasons, some growers apply low spray volumes, and
hence need to use fine spray nozzles that produce small
droplets which are particularly prone to wind-drift.
Such spray drift can contaminate areas outside the
orchard where there may be sensitive objects such as
open surface water, drinking wells, buildings,
PPP-sensitive crops, or public access sites. “No-spray”
buffer zones, defined in the legal regulations of some
countries, are applied to such objects, especially to
surface water, in order to protect them from
contamination with PPPs. “Good Practice in Plant
Protection” recommendations and advice to apply
drift-reducing measures in low-drift zones next to
buffer zones also exist to reduce significantly the risk of
contamination of sensitive areas.
One of the most common and effective methods to
reduce spray drift is to use coarse spray nozzles, at least
when and where such drift may cause contamination of
sensitive areas. This strategy, in combination with a
reduction in the air flow velocity, is advised to mitigate
spray drift in orchards with a high contamination risk level
(e.g.,those close to surface water).According to Wenneker
et al. (2005),the use of coarse spray nozzles and reduced,or
no, air flow on the outer tree row of an orchard resulted in
a ≥80% reduction in drift, measured at distances of 5 m
and 3 – 7 m from the last row. However, commercial PPP
sprayers have no capability for rapid alteration of their
nozzles, or to adjust air flow independently to the left-
and/or right-sides. Any adjustments in droplet size and/or
in air flow velocity need to be made manually, after
stopping the sprayer. Fatigue therefore discourages sprayer
operators from following this drift-reducing strategy. In
addition, manual adjustments of spray parameters are far
from precise, and may prove inadequate without knowing
the exact position of the sprayer in relation to the PPP-
sensitive areas, or without measuring the velocity of the
wind causing the drift.
Development of a system that identified sprayer
position and environmental conditions (e.g., wind
velocity and direction, distance from the sensitive areas)
and automatically adjusted the spray quality and air flow,
depending on the situation identified, may improve
considerably the effectiveness of spraying and protect
sensitive areas from PPP contamination. Such a system,
termed an Environmentally-Dependent Application
System (EDAS), was one of three components (sub-
systems) of the Crop-Adapted Spray Application
(CASA) system that was developed according to the
concept reported by Doruchowski et al. (2009) within the
ISAFRUIT (2006) Project. The other sub-systems in
CASA were: a Crop Health Sensor (CHS), to determine
the health status of the crop, to support decision-making
on spray application, as reported by Van de Zande et al.
(2007) and a Crop Identification System (CIS), to
identify target characteristics for precise spray
application, as reported by Balsari et al. (2007).
The aim of the work described here was to develop an
automatic spray adjustment system to alter spray quality
and the air flow produced by an orchard sprayer,
depending on wind conditions (i.e., direction and
velocity) and to position the sprayer in order to reduce
the environmental impact of spray applications during
fruit growing.
*Author for correspondence.
Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology (2009) ISAFRUIT Special Issue 107–112
EDAS for safe spray application
MATERIALS AND METHODS
EDAS is a spray application system for orchard use
which identifies environmental conditions and adjusts
the spray application parameters accordingly, in order to
minimise the risk of contamination of areas outside the
treated area, especially open surface water and other
sensitive objects. A diagram of the EDAS system is
shown in Figure 1.
The environmental parameters that needed to be
identified by the EDAS system were:
(a) wind velocity and direction, measured with an
ultrasonic anemometer (Vaisala WINDCAP®
Ultrasonic Wins Sensor WMT50WSD; Vaisala Oyj,
Helsinki, Finland); and
(b) the position of the Differential Global Positioning
System (DGPS)-navigated sprayer in relation to the
boundary line of the orchard and/or any sensitive areas
which needed to be protected from contamination.
The spray application parameters to be adjusted by
the EDAS system were:
(1) spray quality (fine spray vs. coarse spray); and
(2) the air flow used to assist spray penetration into the
tree canopy.
In order to adjust the spray quality, double-nozzle
holders with a fine spray and a coarse spray nozzle,
individually controlled by on/off pneumatic valves, were
assembled at the air spouts (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows an
example of a spraying scenario using nozzle closing or
alteration (i.e., fine spray vs. coarse spray) depending on
wind conditions, the position of the sprayer in relation to
the orchard boundary line, and the distance to a
PPP-sensitive area (i.e., a well). The nozzles were closed
when the sprayer entered into “no-spray” buffer zones,
and when it made a U-turn at the headland (Figure 3 C,
D,G).This function was used to respect legal regulations
regarding buffer zones and to meet the requirements of
“Good Practice in Plant Protection”. The fine spray
nozzles were changed to coarse spray nozzles when the
spray was applied to the first row in the orchard, when
the sprayer entered a defined low-drift zone, and when
the wind velocity exceeded a certain, pre-defined value
(Figure 3 A, F, B, E, I, J, L). This function was used to
mitigate spray drift in situations of high risk of
contamination to sensitive areas.
In order to minimise the emission of spray towards
sensitive areas, yet to ensure adequate and appropriate
spray distribution in the fruit tree canopy, the assisting air
jets (Left and Right) produced by the fan were adjusted
individually for the left-hand and right-hand sections of
the sprayer by manipulation of the airflow on the inlet
108
FIG.1
Orchard sprayer with an EDAS system. Panel A, spray quality adjusted by the alteration of nozzles (fine spray vs. coarse spray).Panel B, air velocity
adjusted by manipulation of the diaphragm-leaf-shutter on the inlet and the air vane on the outlet of the radial fan. Panel C,system controlled by the
panel PC with EDAS software.
G. DORUCHOESKI,W.SWIECHOWSKI,R.HOLOWNICKI and A. GODYN
and outlet of the fan. The novel air-jet adjustment system
of the EDAS concept was constructed and assembled on
a Hardi Arrow sprayer (ILEMO HARDI, S.A.U., Lleida,
Spain) using a P540D double-rotor radial fan having an
air output of 19,000 m3h–1. Initially, an air collector to
distribute the airflow to 16 individual air spouts (eight for
each left- or right-hand section of the sprayer) was
constructed and fixed to the fan. Having obtained a
uniform air distribution from the collector, an adjustable
air vane was assembled inside the collector in order to
adjust or to close the airflow, individually, to the left or
right sections of the sprayer (Figure 4 A). Simultaneous
measurements of air velocity from the eight air spouts
were made using a set of hot-film anemometers and an
8-channel data logger in stationary, dynamic, and orchard
situations. In each scenario, closing the airflow to one
section (left or right) resulted in an increase in air velocity
to the other section by 30 – 40%. In order to avoid this, a
diaphragm-leaf-shutter was designed and fixed to the fan
inlet (Figure 4 B). Once the collector vane had closed or
reduced the airflow to one section, the leaf-shutter
restricted the flow of air sucked in by the fan, accordingly,
so that the air velocity remained constant or increased at
a relatively low rate in the other section.
Measurements of air velocity, as described above, were
repeated for all 66 possible combinations of the
11 positions of the air vane (V1 to V11; where V1 =
airflow closed to the right section and fully open to the
left section, V6 = central position for an equal
distribution of airflow to both sections,and V11 = airflow
closed to the left section and fully open to the right
section) and the six positions of the leaf-shutter (S0 to
S5; where S0 = leaf-shutter closed and S5 = leaf-shutter
fully open).The air velocity measurements were made 30
cm from the outlet of the air spouts,with five replications
for each combination, simultaneously for the eight
spouts and separately for the left and right sections (total
= 5,280 measurements).
A control unit and software were built to control both
the air velocity and spray emission systems in various
situations,and to integrate them with a DGPS navigation
system. The sprayer was navigated by a DGPS system
consisting of an OUTBACK-S2 Version RTK + Rover
Radio BL-R02 receiver and a portable reference station
BaseLine HD (Outback®Guidance, Hiawatha, KS,
109
FIG.2
Double-nozzle holder for alterations between fine spray and coarse spray nozzles controlled by pneumatic valves.
FIG.3
Scenarios of spray applications controlled by the EDAS system.
Position A, coarse spray applied to row 1 from the outer side. Position F,
coarse spray / fine spray applied on row 1 / row 2, respectively. Positions
B, E, I,J, coarse spray applied in low-drift zone. Positions C, D, no spray
applied in buffer zone attributed to a water well. Position G, no spray
applied during a U-turn at the headland. Positions H, K, fine spray
applied inside the orchard (from rows 2 onwards) under a low wind
velocity situation (i.e., wind < 2.0 m s–1).Position L, coarse spray applied
under a high wind velocity situation (i.e., wind > 2.0 m s–1).
EDAS for safe spray application
USA) which ensured the positioning of objects with a
precision of ±10 – 15 cm.
A functional field test of the navigated EDAS sprayer
was carried out in an orchard.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the air velocity measurements (Figure 5)
showed that, by manipulation of the diaphragm-leaf-
shutter on the fan inlet and the air vane in the air
collector of the EDAS sprayer, it was possible to adjust
the air velocity separately for the left and right sections
over a range that delivered the desired application
scenario that was assumed to reduce any spray drift that
could contaminate PPP-sensitive areas neighbouring the
treated orchard (Figure 6).
The results showed:
Situation (I): a one-sided air flow at the reference
110
FIG.4
Airflow adjustment system on the EDAS sprayer. Panel A, air vane in the air collector (positions V1 and V11). Panel B, diaphragm-leaf-shutter on
the inlet of the radial fan (positions S4 and S0).
FIG.5
Average airflow velocities (in m s–1) measured for the LEFT and RIGHT air spout sections, and air velocity deviations (%) from the reference setting
(S2-V6 = 14.0 / 15.6 m s–1) for the different positions of the diaphragm-leaf-shutter on the fan inlet, and the air vane in the air collector of the EDAS
sprayer (averages of eight air spouts in five replications).
G. DORUCHOESKI,W.SWIECHOWSKI,R.HOLOWNICKI and A. GODYN
velocity, directed inside the orchard, when the two
boundary rows were sprayed during the first two
passages (Figure 6 A, B).
Situation (II): an asymmetrical distribution: full-air flow
(reference velocity) towards the inside of the orchard
and 50% air flow towards the outside of the orchard
during the third passage (Figure 6 C).
Situation (III): a symmetrical distribution of air flow at
reference velocity from either side of passage four
onwards (Figure 6 D).
Situation (IV): that when the velocity of the side-wind
exceeded a certain value (e.g., 2.0 m s–1), the air flow
against the wind was increased by 20% and the air flow
with the wind was reduced by 20% (Figure 6 E).
With the shutter-vane setting at S2-V6 (Figure 5) as a
reference (average air flow velocity at the
LEFT/RIGHT sections = 14.0/15.6 m s–1), the
combinations of shutter and vane positions were
identified to obtain air velocities on the LEFT/RIGHT
air spout sections that corresponded best to Situations
I – IV above (values in brackets, after the shutter-vane
settings listed below, show the average air flow velocities
at the air outlets for the LEFT and RIGHT section,
respectively):
Situation (I): S0-V1 (18.1 / 0.0 m s–1) or S0-V11 (0.0 / 17.5
m s–1 )
Situation (II): S0-V2-3 (15.1 / 7.0 m s–1) or S0-V9-10 (6.8
/ 15.5 m s–1)
Situation (III): S2-V6 (14.0 / 15.6 m s–1)
Situation (IV): S3-V3 (18.5 / 12.0 m s–1) or S3-V9 (11.7 /
18.7 m s–1)
The EDAS software installed in the spray computer,
integrated with the DGPS system, allowed the sprayer
operator to follow the position of the sprayer and to
observe alterations in spray parameters during
treatment. The control system recorded spray
application parameters and, after treatment, the record
could be re-played to check whether the environmental
conditions were recognised properly and whether the
response was adequate. During functional field tests of
the EDAS sprayer, the nozzles and fan devices were found
to be properly controlled to adjust spray quality and air
flow, according to sprayer position and wind situation.
The EDAS system offers fruit growers an opportunity
to adjust their spray application parameters
automatically, in order to apply PPPs with respect to the
environment and local regulations. This may be
especially useful for growers who have orchards next to
areas that need to be protected from PPP contamination.
The coarse spray that was applied by the EDAS system
to the boundary row, in a low-drift zone and during a
high wind (Figure 3 A, B, E, F, I, J, L), might produce a
poorer spray coverage on the target, compared to fine
spray, and arouse grower fears of reducing the biological
efficacy of the treatment. However, in many experiments
(Koch, 2001; Knewitz, 2002; Friessleben, 2003; Jaeken,
2003) no significant differences in the biological efficacy
of treatments were found between applications made
with a coarse or a fine spray. Wenneker et al. (2008) also
reported on the lack of influence of droplet size on
pesticide residues on fruit. These results could encourage
growers to use coarse spray nozzles, locally, with greater
confidence and without compromising fruit quality.
The field tests showed that the EDAS sprayer,
equipped with a wind sensor and a DGPS navigation
system, enabled real-time adjustments in application
parameters such as spray quality and air flow velocity,
depending on environmental conditions. This may
reduce the risk of contamination of sensitive areas and
neighbouring orchards. However, the use of this system
does not need to be limited to the applications described
in this paper. On a sprayer with an integrated CASA
system, the airflow could also be adjusted based on
canopy width and/or foliage density, measured by CIS
ultrasonic sensors, to support the spray application
concept proposed by Salyani (2007) and to optimise
spray penetration into the tree canopy.
The authors thank Tadeusz J˛edrachowicz, Marek
Bernyś, and Grzegorz Kubica for their contributions to
the EDAS concept and software development.
The ISAFRUIT Project is funded by the European
Commission under Thematic Priority 5 – Food Quality
and Safety of the 6th Framework Programme of RTD
(Contract No. FP6-FOOD-CT-2006-016279).
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this publication
may not be regarded as stating an official position of the
European Commission.
111
FIG.6
Scenarios of air flow adjustments controlled by the EDAS system.
Positions A, B, one-sided air flow (reference air velocity) directed inside
the orchard on rows 1 and 2. Position C, reduced air flow (by 50%) on
row 2 and reference air flow on row 3. Position D, symmetrical air flow
distribution (reference air velocity) on both sides of the sprayer inside
the orchard (from row 3 onwards). Position E, asymmetrical air flow
distribution in a high wind velocity situation (i.e., wind > 2.0 m s–1) with
a 20% increase against the wind, and a 20% reduction with the wind
direction.
EDAS for safe spray application112
BALSARI, P., DORUCHOWSKI, G., MARUCCO, P., TAMAGNONE, M.,
VAN DEZANDE, J.C. and WENNEKER, M. (2007). The develop-
ment of a Crop Identification System (CIS) able to adjust the
spray application to the target characteristics. Proceedings of
the 9th Workshop on Spray Application Techniques in Fruit
Growing – SuProFruit 2007. Alnarp, Sweden. (Bjugstad, N.,
Andersen, P. G., Jorgensen, M., Svensson, S .A. and Servin, D.,
Eds.). 17–18.
DORUCHOWSKI, G., BALSARI, P. and VAN DEZANDE, J. C. (2009).
Development of a Crop Adapted Spray Application system for
sustainable plant protection in fruit growing. Proceedings of the
International Symposiumon Precision Agriculture for Fruits and
Vegetables. Orlando, FL, USA. Acta Horticulturae,824,
251–259.
FRIESSLEBEN, R. (2003). Influence of coarse droplet application via
injector nozzles on the biological efficacy in apple production.
Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Spray Application
Techniques in Fruit Growing. Cuneo, Italy. (Balsari, P.,
Doruchowski, G. and Cross, J., Eds.). 109–119.
ISAFRUIT (2006). Increasing Fruit Consumption Through a Trans-
Disciplinary Approach Delivering High Quality Produce from
Environmentally-Friendly, Sustainable Production Methods.
Integrated Project within the EU 6th Framework Programme
Food Quality and Safety - 5.4.1 Total food chain. Contract No.
FP6-FOOD-CT-2006-016279-2. (www.isafruit.org).
JAEKEN, P., DEMAEYER, L., BROERS, N. and CREEMERS, P. (2003).
Nozzle choice and its effect on spray deposit and distribution,
uptake, drift and biological efficacy in standard apple orchard
(Malus sylvestris cv Jonagold). Pflantzenschutz-Nachrichten
Bayer,56, 326–353.
KNEWITZ, H., WEISSER,P. and KOCH, H.(2002).Drift-reducing spray
application in orchard and biological efficacy of pesticides.
International advances in pesticide application. Aspects of
Applied Biology,66, 231–236.
KOCH, H., KNEWITZ, H. and FLEISCHER, G. (2001). Untersuchungen
zur Abdriftredizierung und biologischen Wirksamkeit bei
grosstropfiger Applikation. Gesunde Pflanzen,53, 120–125.
SALYANI, M., PAI, N. and SWEEB, R. D. (2007). On-the-go changing
of sprayer airflow based on tree foliage density. Proceedings of
the 9th Workshop on Spray Application Techniques in Fruit
Growing – SuProFruit 2007. Alnarp, Sweden. (Bjugstad, N.,
Andersen, P.G., Jorgensen, M., Svensson, S.A. and Servin, D.,
Eds.). 63–64.
VAN DEZANDE,J.C.,WENNEKER, M., MEULEMAN, J., ACHTEN,V.,
BALSARI, P. and DORUCHOWSKI, G. (2007). Development of a
Crop Health Sensor to minimise spray applications in apple.
Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Spray Application
Techniques in Fruit Growing – SuProFruit 2007. Alnarp,
Sweden. (Bjugstad, N., Andersen, P .G., Jorgensen, M.,
Svensson, S. A. and Servin, D., Eds.). 13–14.
WENNEKER, M., HEIJNE, B. and VAN DEZANDE, J. C. (2005). Effect
of air inclusion nozzle (coarse droplet), air assistance and
one-sided spraying of the outer tree row on spray drift in
orchard spraying. Annual Review of Agricultural Engineering,
4, 115–128.
WENNEKER, M., VAN DEZANDE, J.C.and POULSEN, M. (2008). Safe
European fruit from a healthy environment. Spraying
techniques and fruit residues. Poster presented at the 3rd
ISAFRUIT General Assembly: “Quality of Fruits and Their
Supply Chain”. Girona, Spain. (www.isafruit.org).
REFERENCES
