Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:37:05.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Formulation and Nozzle Type on Droplet Size with Isopropylamine and Trimesium Salts of Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Thomas C. Mueller  and
Alvin R. Womac
Thomas C. Mueller
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. TN 37901; TMUELLER@UTK.EDU
Alvin R. Womac
Affiliation:
Agricultural Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. TN 37901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When spray mixtures were examined using a laser spray droplet analyzer, the new isopropylamine glyphosate formulation produced more small droplets than a previous isopropylamine salt of glyphosate formulation or glyphosate–trimesium plus nonionic surfactant. The use of a pre-orifice flat-fan nozzle and an impact type flat-fan nozzle reduced the amount of small droplets produced compared to an existing extended range flat-fan nozzle, while maintaining a spray droplet distribution that could still provide good weed control. The new nozzle technologies could provide a useful management tool to manage potential drift situations.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N(phosphonomethyl)glycineglyphosate–trimesium, sulfonium:trimethyl–salt with N(phosphonomethyl)glycine (1:1)Spray driftdroplet size analysisMalvern laserXR, extended range nozzleDG, Drift Guard nozzleTT, Turbo Teejet nozzle, DV0.5, volume median diameter, NIS, nonionic surfactantIPA I and IPA II, isopropylamine salt of glyphosate containing proprietary adjuvants
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 639 - 643
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the 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

Ashton, F. M. and Monaco, T. J. 1991. Nitriles, phenoxies, and pyridazinones. In Weed Science Principles and Practices. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience Publishers. pp. 246–247.Google Scholar
Currier, W. W., Maccollum, G. B., and Baumann, G. L. 1982. Drift residues of air-applied carbaryl in an orchard environment. J. Econ. Entom. 75:1062–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodge, L. G. 1987. Drop-size measurement techniques for sprays: comparison of Malvern laser diffraction and Aerometrics phase Doppler. Appl. Optics 26:2144–2154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirleman, E. D. and Dodge, L. G. 1985. Performance comparison of Malvern instruments laser diffraction drop size analyzers. Proceedings, International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems—85. London. Pp. IVA.3.1–14.Google Scholar
Huitink, G., Walker, J. T., and Lavy, T. L. 1990. Downwind deposition of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid herbicide (2,4-D) in invert emulsion. Trans ASAE 33:1051–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, R., Huddleston, E. W., Ross, J. B., Henderson, J. A., and Ferguson, E. W. 1986. Deposition and drift or pydrin in cottonseed oil and water under arid conditions applied with a dual spray system aircraft. Trans ASAE 29:378–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, W. E. and Akesson, N. B. 1974. Effect of spray adjuvants on drift hazards. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper No. 74–1008. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.Google Scholar
Yates, W. E., Akesson, N. B., and Bayer, D. E. 1978. Drift of glyphosate sprays applied with aerial and ground equipment. Weed Sci. 26:597–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar