Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T22:08:15.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Whirl Chamber Nozzles Compared to Other Herbicide Nozzles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Glenn C. Klingman
Get access

Abstract

Seven different types of nozzles were compared as to uniformity of spray application, spray drift, and tendency to clog. The wide angle whirl chamber nozzles applied the spray more uniformly than other nozzles. Increasing nozzle height to 1.5 times the recommended height increased uniformity of spray application with most nozzles. Lowering the nozzle height to half the recommended height seriously reduced uniformity of spray application with almost all nozzles except the wide angle whirl chamber nozzles which provided a uniform spray at all 3 heights. The whirl chamber nozzles were least easily clogged of the nozzles studied. Wettable powders normally applied in 30 gallons or more per acre have been satisfactorily applied at rates of less than ¼ of this amount. Spray drift was reduced to a no crop hazard level, with effective coverage, at rates of application as low as 7 gallons per acre.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 1964 , pp. 10 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © 1964 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. Akesson, N. B. 1955. Drift problems in the application of 2,4-D by aircraft. Down to Earth 10(4):16–18.Google Scholar
2. Barger, E. L., Collins, E. V., Norton, R. A., and Liljedahl, J. B. 1948. Problems in the design of chemical weed control equipment for row crops. Agr. Eng. 29:381–383.Google Scholar
3. Behrens, R. 1957. Influence of various components on the effectiveness of 2,4,5-T sprays. Weeds 5:183–196.Google Scholar
4. Brooks, F. A. 1947. The drifting of poisonous dusts applied by airplanes and land rigs. Agr. Eng. 28:233–239.Google Scholar
5. Courshee, R. J. 1954. Nozzles and performance. Agr. Machinery. 8(70):57.Google Scholar
6. Courshee, R. J. 1959. Investigations on spray drift. II. The occurrence of drift. Agr. Eng. Res. 4:229–242.Google Scholar
7. Ennis, W. B. Jr. and Williamson, R. E. 1963. Influence of droplet size on effectiveness of low volume herbicidal sprays. Weeds 11:67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hedden, O. K. 1961. Spray drop sizes and size distribution in pesticide sprays. Agr. Eng. Special Power and Machinery Edition. 4:158–159.Google Scholar
9. Holly, K. 1956. Performance of spray nozzles. Proc. British Weed Control Conf. 1:605.Google Scholar
10. Klingman, G. C. 1961. Weed control: as a science. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 421 p. Pages 96–97, 197. Google Scholar
11. Richey, C. B., Jacobson, P., Hall, C. W. 1961. Agr. Eng. Handbook. 195 p. In Gunkel, W. W. and Richey, C. B., Sprayers and dusters. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. 880 p. Google Scholar
12. Staniland, L. N. 1960. Fluorescent tracer techniques. J. Agr. Eng. Res. 5:42–82.Google Scholar
13. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1960. The nature and fate of chemicals applied to soils, plants and animals. ARS 20–9. p. 70–83. In Carleton, W. A., Liljedahl, L. A., Irons, F., Hedden, O. K. and Brazee, R. D., The development of equipment in the application of agricultural chemicals.Google Scholar
14. U. S. Government Printing Office. 1963. Use of pesticides. A report of the President's Science Advisory Committee. May 15. Washington. 25 p.Google Scholar
15. Westerman, A. 1956. Hydraulic spray nozzles. Proc. British Weed Control Conf. 1:119–129.Google Scholar