Agricultural Research Division of IANR


Date of this Version



Journal of Plant Protection Research 60 (1), 2020 DOI: 10.24425/jppr.2020.132210


The study was conducted at the University of Nebraska Pesticide Application and Tech-nology Laboratory in North Platte, Nebraska in July 2015. Two application volume rates (100 and 200 l · ha−1) and three nozzle types (XR, AIXR, TTI) were selected at two flow rates (0.8 and 1.6 l · min−1) and at a single application speed of 7.7 km · h−1. Each collec-tor type [Mylar washed (MW), Mylar image analysis (MIA), water-sensitive paper (WSP), and Kromekote (KK)] was arranged in a randomized complete block design. Each nozzle treatment was replicated twice, providing six cards of each collector type for each nozzle treatment. A water + 0.4% v/v Rhodamine WT spray solution was applied, given the fluo-rescent and visible qualities of Rhodamine, which allows it to be applied over all the collec-tor types. MW had the highest coverage at 18.3% across nozzle type, followed by WSP at 18%, KK at 12% and lastly by MIA at 4%. MW resulted in a 58% increase in coverage, WSP in a 56% increase, and KK only an increase of 39% when the volume rate was doubled from 100 l · ha−1 to 200 l · ha−1 across nozzle type. MW coverage was similar to KK for half of the nozzles (XR 11002, XR 11004, AIXR 11002). Droplet number density fixed effects were all significant for nozzle type and collector type (p < 0.001) as was the interaction of nozzle type and collector type (p < 0.001). Results from this study suggest a strong correlation to data produced with WSP and MW collectors, as there was full agreement between both types except for the TTI 11004. Using both collector types in the same study would allow for a visual understanding of the distribution of the spray, while also giving an idea of the concentration of that distribution.