Impact of Electrostatic and Conventional Sprayers Characteristics on Dispersion of Barrier Spray
Abstract
A study was conducted to analyze the performance of 3 electrostatic (Electrolon BP-2.5TM Spectrum Electrostatic 4010, and Spectrum Electrostatic head on a Stihl 420) and 2 conventional (Buffalo Turbine CSM2 and Stihl 420) sprayers for barrier sprays to suppress an adult mosquito population in an enclosed area. Sprayer characteristics such as charge-mass ratio, air velocity, flow rate, and droplet spectra were measured while spraying water. Dispersion of the spray cloud from these sprayers was determined using coverage on water-sensitive cards at various heights (0.5 m, 1.0 m, 1.5 m, 2.0 m, 2.5 m, and 3.0 m) and depths (1 m, 3 m, and 5 m) into the under-forest vegetation while spraying bifenthrin (TalstarTM 7.9% AI; FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA) at the rate of 21.8 ml/300 m of treated row. The charge-mass ratio data show that Electrostatic head on a Stihl 420 did not impart enough charge to the droplets to be considered as an electrostatic sprayer. In general, the charged spray cloud moved down toward the ground. The Electrolon BP 2.5 had significantly lower spray coverage on cards, indicating lack of spray dispersion. This sprayer had the lowest air velocity and did not have the air capacity needed to deliver droplets close to the target for electrostatic force to affect deposition. The analysis shows that these 2 sprayers are not a suitable choice for barrier sprays on vegetation. The results indicate that the Buffalo Turbine is suitable for barriers wider than 3 m, and the Spectrum 4010 and Stihl 420 are suitable for 1-3 m wide barriers.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Dec 01, 2010
- Accession Number
- ADA534999
Entities
People
- Bradley K. Fritz
- Bryan P. Heintschel
- Cathy A. Robinson
- Muhammad Qamar Farooq
- Todd W. Walker
- Trey English
- Vincent L. Smith
- Wesley C. Hoffmann
Organizations
- Navy Entomology Center of Excellence