Comparing Quality of a Telescopic Boom Sprayer with Conventional Orchard Sprayers in Iran | ||
| Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology | ||
| Article 1, Volume 18, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 585-599 PDF (1.06 M) | ||
| Authors | ||
| A. Jafari Malekabadi* 1; M. Sadeghi2; H. Zaki Dizaji3 | ||
| 1Department of Biosystem Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Islamic Republic of Iran. | ||
| 2Department of Farm Machinery, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Islamic Republic of Iran. | ||
| 3Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering and Mechanization, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Chamran University, Ahwaz, Islamic Republic of Iran. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| In small orchards, gardeners face several problems such as irregular tree planting, hard trafficability for tractors, economic problems for buying tractors, high drift in high height sprayers, low height of spraying, and difficulty of working with conventional sprayers. In this study, in order to solve some of these problems, a telescoping boom sprayer was designed and fabricated. The sprayer equipped with This Boom (TS) was evaluated in comparison with the conventional sprayers [Wheel Barrow (WBS), Electrostatic (ES), Side Pump (SPS) Sprayers] in terms of drift, spraying quality, solution consumption, fuel consumption, spray height, spraying time, and spray loss. Results showed that the spraying quality coefficient of ES was better than that of SPS; WBS and TS could not be evaluated because the surface of sensitive papers was wetted completely, but distribution of droplets on each card and between the cards was more uniform in TS. Due to differences in drift, WBS had the highest mean of droplet area and TS had the lowest. Also, WBS, TS, SPS, and ES had the maximum amount of solution consumption while ES, TS, and WBS had the minimum. SPS and ES did not spray at high height; however, TS and WBS could spray at high height. The maximum and minimum spraying times were recorded for WBS and SPS, respectively. Values of 9.93 and 2.80 mm2 were obtained for mean spray loss area of SPS and ES, respectively. Spray loss area of the TS and WBS was not calculated. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Electrostatic sprayer; Side pump sprayer; Telescoping boom; Wheel barrow sprayer | ||
| References | ||
|
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 153 PDF Download: 88 |
||
| Number of Journals | 45 |
| Number of Issues | 2,160 |
| Number of Articles | 24,577 |
| Article View | 19,949,853 |
| PDF Download | 16,088,348 |