Using Drift-Reducing Nozzles and/or Large-Caliber Nozzles
1. Presentation
Characterization of the technique
Description of the technique:
| Julien Halska | INRA | julien.halska(at)grignon.inra.fr | Dijon (21) |
Spam prevention: To use these addresses, replace (at) with @
The main ways to limit drift are:
1. Use drift-reducing nozzles which cause a 20% reduction in drift with low-pressure or calibrated disc nozzles and up to -74% with air-injection nozzles.
2. Increase the nozzle size, but then you must increase the travel speed or spray volume, which is not always possible.
3. Reduce the spraying pressure.
4. Use an adjuvant (cost-benefit ratio often questionable). Generally, the risk of drift increases sharply with a spray volume below 100 l/ha.
Implementation period On established crops
Spatial scale of implementation Plot
Application of the technique to...
All crops: Easily generalizable
All soil types: Easily generalizable
All climatic contexts: Easily generalizable
Regulation
2. Services provided by the technique
3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality: Variable
Phytosanitary emissions: DECREASE
GHG emissions: VARIABLE
Effect on water quality: Increasing
Pesticides: DECREASE
Effect on fossil resource consumption: Variable
Fossil energy consumption: VARIABLE
Other: No effect (neutral)
Pollutant transfer to water (N, P, phyto ...): Decrease
Pollutant transfer to air (N, P, phyto ...): Decrease
Fossil energy consumption: variable
If nozzle size is increased and spray volume remains the same, speed must be increased, thus consuming a bit more. For example, moving to 14 km/h instead of 10 km/h.
GHG emissions: variable
If nozzle size is increased and spray volume remains the same, speed must be increased, thus consuming a bit more.
Biodiversity: Increase
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity: No effect (neutral)
Soil fertility: No effect (neutral)
Water stress: No effect (neutral)
Functional biodiversity: No effect (neutral)
"Economic" criteria
Operating costs: No effect (neutral)
Mechanization costs: No effect (neutral)
Margin: No effect (neutral)
"Social" criteria
Working time: Variable
Possible decrease if travel speed increases linked to an increase in nozzle size at the same spray volume. For example, moving to 14 km/h instead of 10 km/h.
Observation time: No effect (neutral)
4. Favored or disadvantaged organisms
Favored Bioagressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged bioagressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Favored Auxiliaries
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged Auxiliaries
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Favored climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
5. For further information
- The choice of nozzles
- -Corpen
Application and handling techniques for phytosanitary products. Sheet II - 2 July 2006, Technical brochure, 2006
- Service note DGAL/SDQPV/2017-437
- -Ministry of Agriculture and Food
2017
Official list of means to reduce spray drift of phytopharmaceutical products. link to the list
6. Keywords
Bioagressor control method: Chemical control
Mode of action: Catch-up
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use: Efficiency
