Gibbs J, Peters T M, Heck L P
Industrial Hygienist, Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa, and Owner, Gibbs Ventures and Consulting, Iowa City, Iowa.
Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Trans ASABE. 2021;64(3):819-828. doi: 10.13031/trans.14121.
Worldwide, the use of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) for pesticide application has grown tremendously in the past decade. Their adoption has been slower for Midwestern row crops. This study compared droplet size, coverage, and drift potential of sprays from UAV application methods to those from ground (implement) sprayer methods on corn in the Midwest. Droplet sizes measured during UAV spray trials [geometric mean diameters of 179 and 112 μm for UAV (boom) and UAV (no boom), respectively] were substantially smaller than those deposited during implement spray trials [mean diameters of 303 and 423 μm for implement (regular) and implement (pulse)]. Droplet coverage was high and localized in the middle swath of the field for the UAV with boom (10 to 30 droplets cm) and with no boom (60 droplets cm). Droplet coverage was broader, covering the entire field width for the implement methods (10 to 40 droplets cm). Vertical coverage of droplets was more uniform for UAV methods than implement methods. Although the UAVs produced smaller droplets than the implement methods, we still observed greater potential for downwind pesticide drift during the implement spray trials. Because localized application may be beneficial for pest control and drift reduction, the findings indicate a strong potential for "spot" or "band" spray coverage using UAV methods. This is likely due to the smaller size, reduced spray volumes, and increased agility of UAVs as compared to more conventional methods.
在全球范围内,过去十年中使用无人机(UAV)进行农药喷洒的情况有了巨大增长。对于美国中西部的行播作物而言,无人机的采用速度较为缓慢。本研究比较了无人机喷洒方法与地面(机具)喷雾器方法在中西部玉米田上的喷雾液滴大小、覆盖范围和漂移潜力。无人机喷雾试验期间测得的液滴大小[无人机(喷杆)和无人机(无喷杆)的几何平均直径分别为179和112μm]明显小于机具喷雾试验期间沉积的液滴大小[机具(常规)和机具(脉冲)的平均直径为303和423μm]。对于有喷杆的无人机(10至30个液滴/平方厘米)和无喷杆的无人机(60个液滴/平方厘米),液滴覆盖范围在田地中间条带较高且局部化。机具方法的液滴覆盖范围更广,覆盖了整个田地宽度(10至40个液滴/平方厘米)。无人机方法的液滴垂直覆盖比机具方法更均匀。尽管无人机产生的液滴比机具方法小,但我们在机具喷雾试验期间仍观察到农药顺风漂移的可能性更大。由于局部施药可能有利于害虫防治和减少漂移,研究结果表明使用无人机方法进行“点”喷或“条”喷覆盖具有很大潜力。这可能是因为与更传统的方法相比,无人机尺寸更小、喷雾量减少且灵活性更高。