Experimental Study of the Droplet Deposition Characteristics on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Platform under Wind Tunnel Conditions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Nozzle and Spray Medium
2.2. Atomization Characteristic Test
2.3. Droplet Deposition Test
2.4. Calculation of Potential Drift Performance
3. Results
3.1. Atomization Characteristics
3.2. Droplet Deposition Amount
3.3. Drift Potential Reduction Percentage
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Yang, S.L.; Yang, X.B.; Mo, J.Y. The application of unmanned aircraft systems to plant protection in China. Precis. Agric. 2018, 19, 278–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.C.; Xue, X.Y.; Chen, C.; Sun, Z.; Sun, T. Development of a low-cost quadrotor UAV based on ADRC for agricultural remote sensing. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2019, 12, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, Y.B.; Chen, S.D. Current status and trends of plant protection UAV and its spraying technology in China. Int. J. Precis. Agric. Aviat. 2018, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, X.K. Rapid development of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for plant protection and application technology in China. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2018, 29, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, X.K.; Bonds, J.; Herbst, A.; Langenakens, J. Recent development of unmanned aerial vehicle for plant protection in East Asia. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2017, 10, 18–30. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, S.; Wang, Z.G.; Wachenheim, C.J. Technology adoption among farmers in Jilin Province, China: The case of aerial pesticide application. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2019, 11, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishel, F.M.; Ferrell, J.A. Managing pesticide drift. EDIS 2010, 2010, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.N. Study on Spray Drift and Anti-Drift Method. Ph.D. Thesis, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China, 2017. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Y.B.; Thomson, S.J.; Hoffmann, W.C.; Lan, Y.B.; Fritz, B.K. Development and prospect of unmanned aerial vehicle technologies for agricultural production management. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2013, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Hilz, E.; Vermeer, A.W.P. Spray drift review: The extent to which a formulation can contribute to spray drift reduction. Crop Prot. 2013, 44, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damalas, C.A.; Koutroubas, S.D. Farmers’ Exposure to Pesticides: Toxicity Types and Ways of Prevention. Toxics 2016, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, S.J.; Mehler, L.; Beckman, J.; Diebolt-Brown, B.; Prado, J.; Lackovic, M.; Waltz, J.; Mulay, P.; Schwartz, A.; Mitchell, Y.; et al. Acute pesticide illnesses associated with off-target pesticide drift from agricultural applications: 11 States, 1998–2006. Environ. Health Perspect. 2011, 119, 1162–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cunha, J.P.; Chueca, P.; Garcerá, C.; Moltó, E. Risk assessment of pesticide spray drift from citrus applications with air-blast sprayers in Spain. Crop Prot. 2012, 42, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, P.C.; Lan, Y.B.; Huang, X.Y.; Qi, H.X.; Wang, G.B.; Wang, J.; Wang, L.L.; Xiao, H.X. Droplet deposition and control of planthoppers of different nozzles in two-stage rice with a quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicle. Agronomy 2020, 10, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiao, Q.G.; Xin, F.; Lou, Z.X.; Zhou, T.T.; Wang, G.B.; Han, X.Q.; Lan, Y.B.; Fu, W. Effect of aviation spray adjuvants on defoliant droplet deposition and cotton defoliation efficacy sprayed by unmanned aerial vehicles. Agronomy 2019, 9, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nuyttens, D.; Schampheleire, M.D.; Verboven, P.; Sonck, B. Comparison between indirect and direct spray drift assessment methods. Biosyst. Eng. 2010, 105, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.C.; Dorr, G.; Zheng, J.Q.; Zhou, H.P.; Yu, J. Wind tunnel experiment and regression model for spray drift. Trans. CSAE 2015, 31, 94–100. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ding, S.M.; Xue, X.Y.; Qin, W.C.; Gu, W.; Cai, C.; Cui, L. Influencing factors research and performance experiment on droplets deposition at low wind speed. Int. J. Precis. Agric. Aviat. 2019, 2, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.B.; Han, Y.X.; Li, X.; Andaloro, J.; Chen, P.C.; Hoffmann, W.C.; Han, X.Q.; Chen, S.D.; Lan, Y.B. Field evaluation of spray drift and environmental impact using an agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sprayer. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 737, 139793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferguson, J.C.; O’Donnell, C.C.; Chauhan, B.S.; Adkins, S.W.; Kruger, G.R.; Wang, R.B.; Urach Ferreira, P.H.; Hewitt, A. Determining the uniformity and consistency of droplet size across spray drift reducing nozzles in a wind tunnel. Crop Prot. 2015, 76, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.N.; He, X.K.; Song, J.L.; Herbst, A. Effect of adjuvant types and concentration on spray Drift Potential of different nozzles. Trans. CSAE 2015, 31, 49–55. [Google Scholar]
- Alves, G.S.; Kruger, G.R.; da Cunha, J.P.A.R.; Vieira, B.C.; Henry, R.S.; Obradovic, A.; Grujic, M. Spray drift from dicamba and glyphosate applications in a wind tunnel. Weed Technol. 2017, 31, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, G.S.; Kruger, G.R.; da Cunha, J.P.A.R.; de Santana, D.G.; Pinto, L.A.T.; Guimarães, F.; Zaric, M. Dicamba spray drift as influenced by wind speed and nozzle type. Weed Technol. 2017, 31, 724–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.L.; Herbst, A.; Zeng, A.J.; Wongsuk, S.; Qiao, B.Y.; Qi, P.; Bonds, J.; Overbeck, V.; Yang, Y.; Gao, W.L.; et al. Assessment of spray deposition, drift and mass balance from unmanned aerial vehicle sprayer using an artificial vineyard. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 777, 146181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhan, Y.L.; Chen, P.C.; Xu, W.C.; Chen, S.D.; Han, Y.F.; Lan, Y.B.; Wang, G.B. Influence of the downwash airflow distribution characteristics of a plant protection UAV on spray deposit distribution. Biosyst. Eng. 2022, 216, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.B.; Xue, X.Y.; Cai, C.; Sun, Z.; Zhou, Q.Q. Numerical simulation and analysis on spray drift movement of multirotor plant protection unmanned aerial vehicle. Energies 2018, 11, 2399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmad, F.; Qiu, B.J.; Dong, X.Y.; Ma, J.; Huang, X.; Ahmed, S.; Chandio, F.A. Effect of operational parameters of UAV sprayer on spray deposition pattern in target and off-target zones during outer field weed control application. Comput. Electron. Agr. 2020, 172, 105350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, S.M.; Xue, X.Y.; Lan, Y.B.; Cai, C.; Zhang, L.; Qin, W.C.; Zhang, S.C. Design and experiment of NJS-1 type open-circuit closed wind tunnel for plant protection. Trans. CSAE 2015, 31, 76–84. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Fritz, B.K.; Hoffmann, W.C.; Kruger, G.R.; Henry, R.S.; Hewitt, A.; Czaczyk, Z. Comparison of drop size data from ground and aerial application nozzles at three testing laboratories. At. Spray 2014, 24, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ANSI/ASAE S572; Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet Spectra. 3rd ed. American National Standards Institute: New York, NY, America, 2020.
- Zhou, Q.Q. Research of Narrow Droplets Spectral Atomization Property of Centrifugal Nozzle in Low Volume Aviation Spray. M.A. Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S.D.; Lan, Y.B.; Li, J.Y.; Zhou, Z.Y.; Jin, J.; Liu, A.M. Effect of spray parameters of small unmanned helicopter on distribution regularity of droplet deposition in hybrid rice canopy. Trans. CSAE 2016, 32, 40–46. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.; Liu, D.J.; Wang, G.; Zhang, X.; Lu, X.Y.; Gong, Y. Effect of spray parameters and adjuvant type on droplet deposition deposition of plant protection unmanned aerial vehicle in mid-growth-cotton field. Chin. J. Pestic. Sci. 2020, 22, 347–352. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Lou, Z.X.; Xin, F.; Han, X.Q.; Lan, Y.B.; Duan, T.Z.; Fu, W. Effect of unmanned aerial vehicle flight height on droplet distribution, drift and control of cotton aPHids and spider mites. Agronomy 2018, 8, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ISO 22856:2008 International Standard; Equipment for Crop Protection—Methods for the Laboratory Measurement of Spray Drift—Wind Tunnels. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
- Miller, P.C.H.; Mawer, C.J.; Merritt, C.R. Wind tunnel studies of the spray drift from two types of agricultural spray nozzle. Asp. Appl. Biol. (UK) 1989, 21, 237–238. [Google Scholar]
- Herbst, A.; Ganzelmeier, H. Classification of sprayers according to drift risk—A German approach. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2000, 57, 35–40. [Google Scholar]
- Nilars, M.S. Some nozzle performance considerations when using wide booms at higher spraying speeds. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2002, 66, 95–105. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, H.C.; Gary, D.; Zheng, J.Q.; Zhou, H.P. Wind tunnel experiment of influence on droplet size distribution of flat fan nozzles. Trans. CSAE 2012, 43, 53–57. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Jiao, Y.X.; Xue, X.Y.; Ding, S.M.; Zhou, Q.Q.; Tian, Y.; Liu, X.M. Influence of Poly (Ethylene Glycol) 20,000 Concentration on Atomization and Deposition Characteristics of Nozzle. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruno, C.V.; Maxwel, C.O.; Guilherme, S.A.; Jeffrey, A.G.; Kasey, S.; Reid, J.S.; Ryan, J.R.; Greg, R.K.; Rodrigo, W. Hooded broadcast sprayer for particle drift reduction. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 1519–1528. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzalez-Tello, P.; Camacho, F.; Blazquez, G. Density and viscosity of concentrated aqueous solutions of polyethylene glycol. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1994, 39, 611–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, M.C.B.; Tuck, C.R.; Miller, P.C.H. The effect of some adjuvants on sprays produced by agricultural flat fan nozzles. Crop Prot. 1997, 16, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medet, İ.; Ali, B.; Ali, B.; Muhammed, C.T.; Alper, S. Assessment of Spray Drift with Various Adjuvants in a Wind Tunnel. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2377. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.L.; Zeng, A.J.; He, X.K.; Song, J.L.; Herbst, A.; Gao, W.L. Spray drift characteristics test of unmanned aerial vehicle spray unit under wind tunnel conditions. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2020, 13, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Q.; Zhang, R.R.; Chen, L.P.; Xu, M.; Yi, T.C.; Zhang, B. Droplets movement and deposition of an eight-rotor agricultural UAV in downwash airflow field. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2017, 10, 47–56. [Google Scholar]
Spraying Medium | Pressure/bar | DV10/μm | DV50/μm | DV90/μm | ΦVol<150 μm/% | Droplet Spectrum Width RS/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tap water | 2 | 84.76 | 139.09 (±2.42) a | 234.36 | 53.92 (±0.95) | 1.08 (±0.06) a |
3 | 77.43 | 126.51 (±4.54) b | 221.83 | 59.28 (±2.18) | 1.14 (±0.02) b | |
4 | 71.37 | 113.21 (±1.50) c | 205.15 | 66.25 (±0.87) | 1.18 (±0.02) b | |
30 g/LPEG-20000 | 2 | 134.51 | 204.02 (±3.50) d | 354.54 | 20.76 (±0.14) | 1.08 (±0.06) a |
3 | 129.26 | 184.90 (±2.32) e | 308.80 | 30.56 (±0.46) | 0.97 (±0.02) c | |
4 | 125.28 | 166.75 (±4.13) f | 279.99 | 44.98 (±0.34) | 0.93 (±0.04) c |
Spraying Medium | Wind Speed/m·s−1 | Pressure/Bar | Droplet Deposition Amount/μL·L−1 | Total Drift Deposition (V1+…V5)/μL·L−1 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
V5 | V4 | V3 | V2 | V1 | ||||
Tap water | 1 | 2 | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 32.30 (±0.66) | 32.3 |
3 | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 4.52 (±0.76) | 1.21 (±0.13) | 29.05 (±3.40) | 34.78 | ||
4 | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 35.64 (±0.66) | 35.64 | ||
3 | 2 | 40.50 (±1.66) | 66.21 (±2.92) | 70.68 (±2.79) | 54.66 (±1.00) | 53.04 (±2.13) | 285.09 | |
3 | 28.19 (±1.93) | 46.80 (±2.33) | 42.40 (±0.28) | 62.80 (±0.72) | 150.40 (±7.21) | 330.59 | ||
4 | 21.42 (±2.46) | 40.00 (±2.05) | 35.82 (±1.83) | 73.78 (±0.24) | 166.10 (±4.45) | 337.12 | ||
5 | 2 | 72.30 (±2.23) | 85.47 (±1.68) | 231.40 (±9.24) | 396.00 (±11.14) | 764.86 (±10.34) | 1549.97 | |
3 | 53.57 (±2.80) | 119.80 (±0.90) | 301.70 (±3.37) | 500.20 (±12.12) | 833.20 (±5.37) | 1808.47 | ||
4 | 115.80 (±5.47) | 223.80 (±6.85) | 404.4 (±10.73) | 902.20 (±30.72) | 1099.5 (±12.58) | 2745.2 | ||
30 g/L PEG-20000 | 1 | 2 | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 10.81 (±0.46) | 10.81 |
3 | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 20.10 (±0.47) | 20.1 | ||
4 | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 19.73 (±0.79) | 19.73 | ||
3 | 2 | 3.73 (±0.16) | 0.00 (±0.00) | 5.34 (±0.26) | 56.27 (±1.32) | 119.30 (±3.55) | 184.64 | |
3 | 31.56 (±0.80) | 51.06 (±0.88) | 62.11 (±2.52) | 89.35 (±3.07) | 101.10 (±5.85) | 335.18 | ||
4 | 76.98 (±3.31) | 79.29 (±1.51) | 80.00 (±0.50) | 98.31 (±3.47) | 137.31 (±4.25) | 471.89 | ||
5 | 2 | 52.00 (±0.65) | 93.40 (±0.94) | 139.80 (±0.83) | 328.20 (±7.36) | 501.62 (±7.51) | 1115.02 | |
3 | 66.03 (±0.94) | 108.20 (±0.96) | 164.90 (±1.65) | 461.30 (±1.85) | 594.53 (±10.32) | 1394.96 | ||
4 | 39.82 (±2.94) | 88.36 (±1.94) | 174.40 (±2.09) | 550.06 (±8.73) | 682.05 (±6.09) | 1534.69 | ||
Reference Spray | 12.85 (±0.08) | 54.46 (±0.11) | 206.2 (±5.16) | 799.43 (±11.31) | 1069.8 (±12.36) | 2142.69 |
Spraying Medium | Wind Speed/m·s−1 | Pressure/Bar | Droplet Deposition Amount/μL·L−1 | Target Area Deposition (H1+H2)/μL·L−1 | Total Drift Deposition (H3+…H8)/μL·L−1 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | H2 | H3 | H4 | H5 | H6 | H7 | H8 | |||||
Tap water | 1 | 2 | 2077.2 (±67.4) | 97.1 (±6.4) | 32.3 (±0.7) | 12.4 (±1.1) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 2174.14 | 44.72 |
3 | 2062.1 (±48.4) | 227.5 (±8.6) | 29.1 (±3.4) | 16.7 (±0.5) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 2289.5 | 45.73 | ||
4 | 2162.4 (±25.9) | 238.5 (±11.3) | 35.6 (±0.7) | 18.9 (±1.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 2400.5 | 54.57 | ||
3 | 2 | 1175.5 (±16.7) | 434.2 (±7.0) | 123.0 (±2.1) | 22.6 (±0.5) | 1.2 (±0.2) | 1.7 (±0.2) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 1609.1 | 148.63 | |
3 | 1267.2 (±4.2) | 572.8 (±10.0) | 150.4 (±7.2) | 38.9 (±2.3) | 8.2 (±0.4) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 1839.8 | 201.29 | ||
4 | 1373.3 (±18.0) | 581.7 (±9.5) | 166.1 (±4.5) | 14.6 (±0.9) | 35.1 (±1.5) | 9.1 (±0.6) | 4.1 (±0.4) | 0.1 (±0.0) | 1954.7 | 229.02 | ||
5 | 2 | 16.0 (±0.8) | 1406.1 (±29.8) | 764.9 (±10.3) | 42.4 (±1.6) | 22.6 (±0.5) | 16.0 (±0.3) | 9.4 (±0.3) | 1.9 (±0.2) | 1422.02 | 857.02 | |
3 | 20.9 (±1.7) | 1456.3 (±35.9) | 833.2 (±5.4) | 19.1 (±0.5) | 42.4 (±1.1) | 11.4 (±0.9) | 13.6 (±0.8) | 6.3 (±0.2) | 1476.9 | 926.01 | ||
4 | 23.8 (±2.6) | 1623.4 (±30.5) | 1099.5 (±12.6) | 122.4 (±3.8) | 22.0 (±0.4) | 6.3 (±0.3) | 1.1 (±0.1) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 1646.82 | 1250.85 | ||
30 g/L PEG-20000 | 1 | 2 | 2202.1 (±15.8) | 135.2 (±3.8) | 10.8 (±0.5) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 2337.32 | 10.81 |
3 | 2310.9 (±20.1) | 260.5 (±6.0) | 20.1 (±0.5) | 10.4 (±0.2) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.9 (±0.1) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 2571.42 | 31.35 | ||
4 | 2530.2 (±30.0) | 296.2 (±6.0) | 19.7 (±0.8) | 13.2 (±0.7) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 2826.42 | 32.89 | ||
3 | 2 | 1216.2 (±19.7) | 537.5 (±7.9) | 99.3 (±3.6) | 28.4 (±0.3) | 9.8 (±0.1) | 9.0 (±0.5) | 9.6 (±0.4) | 4.2 (±0.2) | 1753.71 | 160.32 | |
3 | 1461.5 (±19.4) | 706.2 (±5.0) | 101.1 (±5.9) | 36.9 (±1.8) | 21.6 (±0.4) | 8.0 (±0.3) | 3.2 (±0.4) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 2167.75 | 170.84 | ||
4 | 1650.2 (±33.0) | 694.2 (±12.6) | 137.3 (±4.3) | 44.1 (±1.2) | 12.0 (±0.5) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 2344.39 | 193.36 | ||
5 | 2 | 143.7 (±3.9) | 955.6 (±3.7) | 501.6 (±7.5) | 88.0 (±1.8) | 69.2 (±2.1) | 38.0 (±0.5) | 11.5 (±0.3) | 2.9 (±0.1) | 1099.36 | 711.21 | |
3 | 41.8 (±0.7) | 1714.1 (±24.8) | 594.5 (±10.3) | 90.4 (±0.9) | 24.1 (±1.0) | 12.1 (±0.7) | 6.7 (±0.3) | 3.1 (±0.2) | 1755.88 | 730.84 | ||
4 | 52.3 (±1.2) | 1622.3 (±30.2) | 682.1 (±6.1) | 75.1 (±2.5) | 11.6 (±0.6) | 12.5 (±0.4) | 8.3 (±0.3) | 3.6 (±0.2) | 1674.53 | 793.28 | ||
Reference spray | 93.52 | 422.38 | 1069.75 | 591.76 | 272.70 | 146.13 | 83.25 | 26.13 | 515.90 | 2189.72 |
Spraying Medium | Wind Speed/m·s −1 | Pressure/Bar | DPV | DPH | DPRPV/% | DPRPH/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tap water | 1 | 2 | 2.01 | 35.49 | 98.75 (±3.50) | 97.84 (±4.51) |
3 | 2.04 | 31.36 | 98.73 (±3.41) | 98.09 (±2.90) | ||
4 | 1.58 | 32.67 | 99.01 (±4.39) | 98.01 (±3.15) | ||
3 | 2 | 29.60 | 64.73 | 81.51 (±3.19) | 96.06 (±4.99) | |
3 | 26.26 | 126.72 | 83.60 (±3.80) | 92.28 (±3.58) | ||
4 | 21.63 | 129.72 | 86.49 (±4.15) | 92.10 (±4.11) | ||
5 | 2 | 140.55 | 588.42 | 12.23 (±0.58) | 64.16 (±3.12) | |
3 | 137.19 | 508.79 | 14.33 (±1.20) | 69.01 (±4.48) | ||
4 | 190.03 | 623.42 | −18.66 (±0.95) | 62.03 (±2.55) | ||
30 g/L PEG-20000 | 1 | 2 | 0.67 | 6.71 | 99.58 (±5.10) | 99.59 (±3.56) |
3 | 1.01 | 21.41 | 99.37 (±4.84) | 98.70 (±3.90) | ||
4 | 0.88 | 20.47 | 99.45 (±5.16) | 98.75 (±3.42) | ||
3 | 2 | 15.30 | 162.19 | 90.45 (±3.12) | 90.12 (±4.53) | |
3 | 27.02 | 110.84 | 83.13 (±2.23) | 93.25 (±3.55) | ||
4 | 32.42 | 110.85 | 79.75 (±2.88) | 93.25 (±3.81) | ||
5 | 2 | 104.13 | 694.38 | 34.98 (±1.89) | 57.71 (±2.50) | |
3 | 107.00 | 434.18 | 33.18 (±2.65) | 73.55 (±3.85) | ||
4 | 104.33 | 400.40 | 34.85 (±1.95) | 75.61 (±3.66) | ||
Reference spray | 160.14 | 1641.78 | 0 | 0 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jiao, Y.; Xue, X.; Ding, S.; Zhou, Q.; Kong, W.; Tian, Y.; Liu, X. Experimental Study of the Droplet Deposition Characteristics on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Platform under Wind Tunnel Conditions. Agronomy 2022, 12, 3066. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123066
Jiao Y, Xue X, Ding S, Zhou Q, Kong W, Tian Y, Liu X. Experimental Study of the Droplet Deposition Characteristics on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Platform under Wind Tunnel Conditions. Agronomy. 2022; 12(12):3066. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123066
Chicago/Turabian StyleJiao, Yuxuan, Xinyu Xue, Suming Ding, Qingqing Zhou, Wei Kong, Yong Tian, and Xiaoming Liu. 2022. "Experimental Study of the Droplet Deposition Characteristics on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Platform under Wind Tunnel Conditions" Agronomy 12, no. 12: 3066. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123066