Aerial Spray Droplet Deposition Determination Based on Fluorescence Correction: Exploring the Combination of a Chemical Colorant and Water-Sensitive Paper
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- An experiment method is proposed that ensures the measurement accuracy of droplet spraying operations, enables the use of existing deposition measurement techniques instead of colorant deposition measurement, and reduces the environmental pollution caused by the experiment process.
- (2)
- Based on the proposed method, validation experiments are conducted in real application scenarios to confirm the feasibility of this study, with a view to providing data references for related UASS aerial spraying detection and analysis.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Parameters of Unmanned Aerial Spraying Systems
2.2. Pre-Test
2.2.1. Measurement of Spray Nozzle Atomization Performance
2.2.2. Determination of Elution Recovery
- (1)
- Using a pipette (Beijing Dalongxingchuang Experimental Instrument Co., Ltd., Beijing, China), 5 concentrations (0.1–10.0 g/L) of RB solution were added uniformly to the 3 samplers (GMS, MS, and PVC card). The samplers were then placed at 30 °C, away from wind and direct sunlight, for 180 s. The samples were subsequently washed 3 times with distilled water, and the fluorescence value of each concentration was determined using a fluorescence spectrophotometer.
- (2)
- The samplers were placed into sealed bags and eluted 3 times with distilled water. The fluorescence value of the eluate was measured using a fluorescence spectrophotometer, with 4 replicates for each concentration.
- (3)
- The concentration of the chemical colorant RB, sampler type, and deposition results were analyzed for significance at the p < 0.05 level.
Treatment | Concentration (g/L) | Repetition | Types of Samplers | Elution Frequency | Standing Time (s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
E1 | 0.1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 180 |
E2 | 0.5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 180 |
E3 | 1.0 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 180 |
E4 | 5.0 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 180 |
E5 | 10.0 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 180 |
2.3. Field Spraying Experiment
2.3.1. Experiment Site and Meteorological Conditions
2.3.2. Experimental Setup
2.4. Experiment Data Processing
2.4.1. Optimal Concentration Selection for Chemical Colorant
- (1)
- Correlation analysis was conducted on the measured droplet deposition amounts from the 4 samplers and the concentration of the RB spraying solution, using data that conform to a normal distribution.
- (2)
- Linear fitting was performed on the ratio of the WSP to the mean deposition values measured by the 3 samplers, based on the concentration of the RB spraying solution across 5 colorant concentrations and 9 angle settings.
- (3)
- The coefficient of variation was calculated for the deposition amounts measured by the 3 samplers and the WSP, based on the concentrations of the 5 colorant RB spraying solutions at 9 angles. A smaller coefficient of variation indicates a more uniform distribution of droplet deposition. The formulas for the coefficient of variation and standard deviation are presented in Equations (11) and (12), respectively.
2.4.2. Droplet Deposition Analysis
- (1)
- Quotient value. The optimal RB spraying concentration was used in the experiment, and the average deposition amount results of the 4 samplers at 9 angles were calculated. The quotient of the average droplet deposition amount between the WSP and each of the 3 samplers at each angle was then computed to determine the proportionality of droplet deposition among the samplers.
- (2)
- Integral value. The projection of the droplet deposition amount was calculated onto the horizontal plane (Figure 4). We then determined the proportionality between the WSP and the droplet deposition amounts of the 3 samplers based on the area enclosed by the projection and the coordinate axes.
- (3)
- Linear fitting. Based on the optimal RB spray solution concentration, a linear fit was performed on the spray deposition volume results for WSP and the other 3 samplers at 9 angles to determine the proportionality of the droplet deposition volumes among the 3 samplers. Additionally, the deposition volume results for WSP and the 3 samplers at 9 angles were individually fitted, resulting in 27 sets of results that describe the proportionality relationship between WSP and each of the 3 samplers in terms of droplet deposition.
2.4.3. Droplet Size Analysis
3. Results
3.1. UASS Nozzle Performance Analysis
3.2. Elution Recovery Analysis
3.3. Optimal Chemical Colorant Concentration
3.3.1. Overall Analysis of Correlation
3.3.2. Overall Analysis of Ratio Fit
3.3.3. Overall Analysis of the Coefficient of Variation
3.4. Proportional Analysis of Droplet Deposition
3.4.1. Quotient Values
3.4.2. Integral Value
3.4.3. Linear Fit
- (1)
- Multi-angle linear fitting. The multi-angle linear fitting results of droplet deposition between the WSP and the three samplers are shown in Figure 12a–c. The fitting results are y = 1.50485x + 0.01295 (WSP–GBL, R2 = 0.86946), y = 1.47771x + 0.00785 (WSP–MS, R2 = 0.91436), and y = 1.39135x − 0.12789 (WSP–PVC, R2 = 0.82561). The data show that the R2 values after fitting for the three samplers are all above 0.82, indicating strong predictive capability.
- (2)
- Angle-specific linear fitting. Based on the optimal RB spray solution concentration, the angle-specific linear fitting results of the droplet deposition between the WSP and the three samplers were obtained at nine specific angles. The range of the fitted results (Table 8) was 1.244 to 1.890 (GBL), 1.129 to 1.739 (MS), and 1.041 to 1.632 (PVC), respectively. The results show that the correction coefficients of deposition vary at different angles, with the fitting results at large angles (A ± 60° and B ± 60°) being smaller compared to those at other angles. The largest scale factor results are observed at A + 30°.
3.5. WSP Droplet Size Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- Under the conditions of this study, the range of coefficients for corrected WSP droplet deposition by GBL, MS, and PVC samplers was found to be 1.507 to 1.547 (WSP–GBL), 1.471 to 1.478 (WSP–MS), and 1.312 to 1.391 (WSP–PVC).
- (2)
- Pre-tests should be set up according to the experiment conditions to avoid directly quoting data. Higher or lower concentrations of chemical colorant solutions should not be used. Suitable concentrations of RB spray solutions include, but are not limited to 5.0 g/L.
- (3)
- There are many factors that affect the correction coefficient. Among them, the angle and type of sampler have a significant impact on the amount of droplet deposition and the correction coefficient, which can be further investigated with respect to these variables.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
WSP | Water-sensitive paper |
GBL | Ginkgo biloba leaf |
MS | Malus spectabilis leaf |
PVC | Polyvinyl chloride |
RB | Rhodamine-B |
UASS | Unmanned aerial spraying system |
PPPs | Plant protection products |
PIV | Particle image velocimetry |
References
- Zhang, N.; Wang, M.; Wang, N. Precision agriculture—A worldwide overview. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2002, 36, 113–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taseer, A.; Han, X. Advancements in variable rate spraying for precise spray requirements in precision agriculture using Unmanned aerial spraying Systems: A review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2024, 219, 108841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Han, L.; Li, Y.; Zhang, H.; Wongsuk, S.; Li, Y.; Wu, X.; He, X. Spray performance evaluation of a six-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle sprayer for pesticide application using an orchard operation mode in apple orchards. Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 2449–2466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, S.; Li, J.; Yao, W.; Hu, X.; Wei, X.; Long, B.; Wu, H.; Li, H. Optimization of the factors affecting droplet deposition in rice fields by rotary unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Precis. Agric. 2021, 22, 1918–1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coombes, M.; Newton, S.; Knowles, J.; Garmory, A. The influence of rotor downwash on spray distribution under a quadrotor unmanned aerial system. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2022, 196, 106807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Lan, Y.; Wen, S.; Hewitt, A.J.; Yao, W.; Chen, P. Meteorological and flight altitude effects on deposition, penetration, and drift in pineapple aerial spraying. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2020, 15, e2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sassu, A.; Psiroukis, V.; Bettucci, F.; Ghiani, L.; Fountas, S.; Gambella, F. Unmanned aerial system plant protection products spraying performance evaluation on a vineyard. Precis. Agric. 2024, 25, 2082–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrović, B.; Bumbálek, R.; Zoubek, T.; Kuneš, R.; Smutný, L.; Bartoš, P. Application of precision agriculture technologies in Central Europe-review. J. Agric. Food Res. 2024, 15, 101048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubuis, P.-H.; Droz, M.; Melgar, A.; Zürcher, U.A.; Zarn, J.A.; Gindro, K.; König, S.L. Environmental, bystander and resident exposure from orchard applications using an agricultural unmanned aerial spraying system. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 881, 163371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Han, Y.; Li, X.; Andaloro, J.; Chen, P.; Hoffmann, W.C.; Han, X.; Chen, S.; Lan, Y. 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]
- Sánchez-Fernández, L.; Barrera, M.; Martínez-Guanter, J.; Pérez-Ruiz, M. Drift reduction in orchards through the use of an autonomous UAV system. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023, 211, 107981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Zhang, R.; Chen, L.; Hewitt, A.J.; He, X.; Ding, C.; Tang, Q.; Liu, B. Toward a remote sensing method based on commercial LiDAR sensors for the measurement of spray drift and potential drift reduction. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 918, 170819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Privitera, S.; Manetto, G.; Pascuzzi, S.; Pessina, D.; Cerruto, E. Drop Size Measurement Techniques for Agricultural Sprays:A State-of-The-Art Review. Agronomy 2023, 13, 678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, F.; Zhang, S.; Qiu, B.; Ma, J.; Xin, H.; Qiu, W.; Ahmed, S.; Chandio, F.A.; Khaliq, A. Comparison of Water Sensitive Paper and Glass Strip Sampling Approaches to Access Spray Deposit by UAV Sprayers. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.; Jia, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yang, L.; Wang, Y.; Kang, F. Development of a 3D point cloud reconstruction-based apple canopy liquid sedimentation model. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 451, 142038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Giles, D.K.; Niederholzer, F.J.; Andaloro, J.T.; Lang, E.B.; Watson, L.J. Evaluation of an unmanned aerial vehicle as a new method of pesticide application for almond crop protection. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 77, 527–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, C.; Huntington, K. The use of a water sensitive dye for the detection and assessment of small spray droplets. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1970, 15, 385–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simões, I.; Sousa, A.J.; Baltazar, A.; Santos, F. Spray Quality Assessment on Water-Sensitive Paper Comparing AI and Classical Computer Vision Methods. Agriculture 2025, 15, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunha, M.; Carvalho, C.; Marcal, A.R. Assessing the ability of image processing software to analyse spray quality on water-sensitive papers used as artificial targets. Biosyst. Eng. 2012, 111, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferguson, J.C.; Hewitt, A.J.; O’donnell, C.C.; Kruger, G.R. Comparison of water-sensitive paper, Kromekote and Mylar collectors for droplet deposition with a visible fluorescent dye solution. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2023, 60, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffmann, W.C.; Hewitt, A.J. Comparison of three imaging systems for water-sensitive papers. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2005, 21, 961–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, W.; Wang, X.; Lan, Y.; Jin, J. Effect of UAV prewetting application during the flowering period of cotton on pesticide droplet deposition. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2018, 5, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prado, E.P.; Guerreiro, J.C.; Ferreira-Filho, P.J.; Nascimento, V.D.; Ferrari, S.; Galindo, F.S.; Funichello, M.; Raetano, C.G.; Pagliari, P.H.; Chechetto, R.G.; et al. Performance of spray nozzles and droplet size on glufosinate deposition and weed biological efficacy. Crop Prot. 2024, 177, 106560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Xiao, S.; Liu, Y. Influence of leaf surface wettability on droplet deposition effect of rape leaves and their correlation. J. Agric. Food Res. 2019, 1, 100011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, W.-C.; Xue, X.-Y.; Zhou, Q.-Q.; Cai, C.; Wang, B.-K.; Jin, Y.-K. Use of RhB and BSF as fluorescent tracers for determining pesticide spray distribution. Anal. Methods 2018, 10, 4073–4078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.; Kumar, A.; Gupta, H. Activated banana peel carbon: A potential adsorbent for Rhodamine B decontamination from aqueous system. Appl. Water Sci. 2020, 10, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Priya, P.S.; Nandhini, P.P.; Vaishnavi, S.; Pavithra, V.; Almutairi, M.H.; Almutairi, B.O.; Arokiyaraj, S.; Pachaiappan, R.; Arockiaraj, J. Rhodamine B, an organic environmental pollutant induces reproductive toxicity in parental and teratogenicity in F1 generation in vivo. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2024, 280, 109898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witton, J.T.; Pickering, M.D.; Alvarez, T.; Reed, M.; Weyman, G.; Hodson, M.E.; Ashauer, R. Quantifying pesticide deposits and spray patterns at micro-scales on apple (Malus domesticus) leaves with a view to arthropod exposure. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 2884–2893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khot, L.R.; Salyani, M.; Sweeb, R.D. Solar and Storage Degradations of Oil- and Water-Soluble Fluorescent Dyes. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2011, 27, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, K.; Zhu, H.; Abbott, J.P. Assessment of Fluorescent Dye Brilliant Sulfaflavine Deposition on Stainless Steel Screens as Spray Droplet Collectors. Trans. ASABE 2019, 62, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASABE S572.3; Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet Spectra. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2020.
- Zhu, H.; Salyani, M.; Fox, R.D. A portable scanning system for evaluation of spray deposit distribution. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 76, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, W.; Lan, Y.; Hoffmann, W.C.; Li, J.; Guo, S.; Zhang, H.; Wang, J. Droplet Size Distribution Characteristics of Aerial Nozzles by Bell206L4 Helicopter under Medium and Low Airflow Velocity Wind Tunnel Conditions and Field Verification Test. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakkialakshmi, S.; Selvarani, P.; Chenthamarai, S. Fluorescence quenching of Rhodamine B base by two amines. Spectrochim. Acta Part A: Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2013, 105, 557–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basely, A.M.; Shaker, M.H.; Helmy, F.M.; Abdel-Messih, M.; Ahmed, M. Construction of Bi2S3/g-C3N4 step S-scheme heterojunctions for photothermal decomposition of rhodamine B dye under natural sunlight radiations. Inorg. Chem. Commun. 2023, 148, 110300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauhan, V.M.; Hopper, R.H.; Ali, S.Z.; King, E.M.; Udrea, F.; Oxley, C.H.; Aylott, J.W. Thermo-optical characterization of fluorescent rhodamine B based temperature-sensitive nanosensors using a CMOS MEMS micro-hotplate. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2014, 192, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahdar, A.; Almasi-Kashi, M. Photophysics of Rhodamine B in the nanosized water droplets: A concentration dependence study. J. Mol. Liq. 2016, 220, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, K.; Han, X.; Wang, L.; Ding, F.; Lan, Y.; Zhang, Y. Research on the fluorescence spectra characteristics of abamectin technical and preparation solution. Spectrosc. Spectr. Anal. 2022, 42, 3476–3481. [Google Scholar]
- Qian, J.; Law, C.K. Regimes of coalescence and separation in droplet collision. J. Fluid Mech. 1997, 331, 59–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koch, K.; Bhushan, B.; Barthlott, W. Multifunctional surface structures of plants: An inspiration for biomimetics. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2009, 54, 137–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.; Li, W.; Lin, C.; Wu, H.; Zhao, Y. International Biological Flora: Ginkgo Biloba. J. Ecol. 2022, 110, 951–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dörken, V.M. Morphology, anatomy and vasculature in leaves of Ginkgo biloba L. (Ginkgoaceae, Ginkgoales) under functional and evolutionary aspects. Feddes Repert. 2013, 124, 80–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Tredici, P. Ginkgos and People: A Thousand Years of Interaction. Arnoldia 1991, 51, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, Q.; Tao, J.; Wang, C.; Yin, Y.; Feng, L. Characterization of the Complete Chloroplast Genome of Malus Spectabilis ‘Guanghui’. Mitochondrial DNA Part B 2020, 5, 2555–2556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan, C.; Yang, J.; Xue, X.; Wei, J.; Li, H.; Li, Z.; Duan, Y. MsMYB62-like as a negative regulator of anthocyanin biosynthesis in Malus spectabilis. Plant Signal. Behav. 2024, 19, 2318509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, J.; Wang, H.; Chi, R.; Qiao, Y.; Wei, J.; Zhang, Y.; Han, M.; Wang, Y.; Li, H. The eTM-miR858-MYB62-like module regulates anthocyanin biosynthesis under low-nitrogen conditions in Malus spectabilis. New Phytol. 2023, 238, 2524–2544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jouyandeh, M.; Ganjali, M.R.; Hadavand, B.S.; Aghazadeh, M.; Akbari, V.; Shammiry, F.; Saeb, M.R. Curing epoxy with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) surface-functionalized CoxFe3-xO4 nanoparticles. Prog. Org. Coat. 2019, 137, 105364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Shi, H.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y. The Effects of Leaf Roughness, Surface Free Energy and Work of Adhesion on Leaf Water Drop Adhesion. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e107062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavallaro, A.; Carbonell-Silletta, L.; Burek, A.; Goldstein, G.; Scholz, F.G.; Bucci, S.J. Leaf surface traits contributing to wettability, water interception and uptake of above-ground water sources in shrubs of Patagonian arid ecosystems. Ann. Bot. 2022, 130, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | Symbol | Approx. Dv0.5 (μm) |
---|---|---|
Extremely Fine | XF | <50 |
Very fine | VF | 50~100 |
Fine | F | 100~150 |
Medium | M | 150~190 |
Coarse | C | 190~275 |
Very Coarse | VC | 275~350 |
Extremely Coarse | XC | 350~480 |
Ultra Coarse | UC | 480~660 |
Treatment | Concentration (g/L) | Repetition | Types of Samplers | Number of Angels | Total Number of Samplers |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 0.1 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 180 |
T2 | 0.5 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 180 |
T3 | 1.0 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 180 |
T4 | 5.0 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 180 |
T5 | 10.0 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 180 |
Treatment | Rotation Axis | Reverse Rotation | Angle Setting | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1~M9 | OX | A | 0°(M1) | A + 30°(M2) A − 30°(M3) | A + 60°(M4) A − 60°(M5) |
OY | B | B + 30°(M6) B − 30°(M7) | B + 60°(M8) B − 60°(M9) |
No. | SV (%) | V<150 (%volume) | V<200 (%volume) | V<250 (%volume) | RS | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dv0.1 | Dv0.5 | Dv0.9 | |||||
1 | 3.96 | 1.96 | 2.28 | 0.48 | 0.75 | 0.87 | 1.07 |
2 | 3.34 | 2.46 | 2.53 | 0.42 | 0.68 | 0.86 | 1.12 |
3 | 4.93 | 2.62 | 2.90 | 0.46 | 0.75 | 0.87 | 1.13 |
4 | 3.02 | 2.40 | 2.90 | 0.45 | 0.75 | 0.87 | 1.13 |
5 | 4.62 | 2.14 | 3.25 | 0.44 | 0.70 | 0.81 | 1.15 |
6 | 3.97 | 3.53 | 2.04 | 0.44 | 0.68 | 0.80 | 1.16 |
7 | 2.89 | 2.69 | 2.97 | 0.42 | 0.64 | 0.83 | 1.11 |
8 | 2.81 | 3.20 | 3.24 | 0.41 | 0.66 | 0.81 | 1.15 |
9 | 4.41 | 4.69 | 4.10 | 0.45 | 0.68 | 0.86 | 1.23 |
10 | 4.04 | 2.07 | 3.68 | 0.42 | 0.63 | 0.83 | 1.10 |
11 | 2.91 | 3.20 | 1.26 | 0.41 | 0.64 | 0.77 | 1.10 |
12 | 3.10 | 2.69 | 1.88 | 0.45 | 0.67 | 0.77 | 1.12 |
Concentration (g/L) | WSP–GBL | WSP–MS | WSP–PVC | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fitting Result | R2 | Fitting Result | R2 | Fitting Result | R2 | |
0.1 | y = 2.419x − 0.036 | 0.910 | y = 2.631x − 0.058 | 0.827 | y = 2.771x − 0.096 | 0.873 |
0.5 | y = 2.060x − 0.001 | 0.926 | y = 2.039x − 0.009 | 0.898 | y = 1.854x − 0.004 | 0.862 |
1.0 | y = 2.290x − 0.001 | 0.696 | y = 2.151x + 0.001 | 0.711 | y = 2.212x − 0.060 | 0.773 |
5.0 | y = 1.718x − 0.046 | 0.903 | y = 1.663x − 0.054 | 0.919 | y = 1.617x − 0.081 | 0.948 |
10.0 | y = 1.178x + 0.245 | 0.171 | y = 1.188x + 0.237 | 0.175 | y = 1.063x + 0.249 | 0.171 |
Type | Concentration (g/L) | 0° | A + 30° | A + 60° | A − 30° | A − 60° | B + 30° | B + 60° | B − 30° | B + 60° | Average Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GBL | 0.1 | 10.6 | 6.9 | 22.8 * | 8.3 | 21.1 * | 8.7 | 6.3 | 8.0 | 15.4 * | 12.0 |
0.5 | 14.3 | 22.3 * | 10.5 | 16.3 * | 33.5 * | 26.8 * | 16.9 * | 35.6 * | 6.6 | 20.3 * | |
1.0 | 38.7 * | 12.8 | 22.1 * | 33.6 * | 33.0 * | 31.3 * | 18.9 * | 28.9 * | 28.9 * | 27.6 * | |
5.0 | 23.9 | 16.8 * | 11.7 | 14.2 | 13.4 | 10.2 | 8.9 | 14.1 | 12.5 | 14 | |
10.0 | 9.1 | 15.2 * | 8.7 | 15 * | 11.8 | 123 * | 9.7 | 22.9 * | 10.3 | 25.1 * | |
MS | 0.1 | 1.2 | 6.6 | 11.7 | 17.4 * | 8.5 | 10.2 | 18.2 * | 0.058 | 15.7 * | 10.6 |
0.5 | 7.0 | 20.2 * | 10.3 | 29.0 * | 25.0 * | 10.8 | 4.0 | 39.7 * | 27.1 * | 19.2 * | |
1.0 | 23.3 * | 16.7 * | 11.4 | 11.3 | 30.7 * | 34.8 * | 15.1 * | 15.7 * | 34.2 * | 21.5 * | |
5.0 | 10.4 | 11 | 13.2 | 8.9 | 17.6 * | 11.5 | 8.9 | 22.6 * | 25.9 * | 14.4 | |
10.0 | 2.7 | 5.8 | 15.9 * | 11.1 | 1.2 | 5.0 | 8.8 | 15.6 * | 21.6 * | 9.74 | |
PVC | 0.1 | 15.6 * | 8.3 | 19.7 * | 19.7 * | 8.4 | 13.2 | 18.9 * | 12.7 | 6.4 | 13.7 |
0.5 | 7.3 | 9.8 | 17.7 * | 23.9 * | 19.9 * | 15.4 * | 13.4 | 33.5 * | 15.4 * | 17.4 * | |
1.0 | 10.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 29.1 * | 13 | 13.4 | 7.5 | 16.4 * | 7.9 | 11.3 | |
5.0 | 17.3 * | 7.8 | 5.7 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 4.7 | 10.6 | 24.2 * | 9.8 | 12.2 | |
10.0 | 9.4 | 11.4 | 12.1 | 15.7 * | 74.8 * | 7.3 | 3.1 | 19.2 * | 18.9 * | 19.1 * | |
WSP | 0.1 | 33.5 * | 15.8 * | 16.9 * | 10.9 | 15.6 * | 5.0 | 5.4 | 25.5 * | 10.8 | 15.5 * |
0.5 | 16.0 * | 25.5 * | 23.9 * | 30.3 * | 21.5 * | 23.8 * | 14.3 | 28.1 * | 32.6 * | 24.0 * | |
1.0 | 5.1 | 4.9 | 22.9 * | 31.7 * | 12.4 | 20.8 * | 17.8 * | 25.8 * | 12.1 | 17.1 * | |
5.0 | 7.4 | 14.7 | 16.5 * | 18.1 * | 15.5 * | 10.5 | 3.8 | 13 | 18.4 * | 13.1 | |
10.0 | 15.8 * | 5.1 | 23.3 * | 30.8 * | 5.0 | 5.8 | 8.1 | 17.5 * | 20.6 * | 14.7 |
Sampling Angles | Linear Fitting Result | ||
---|---|---|---|
WSP–GBL | WSP–MS | WSP–PVC | |
0° | 1.583 ± 0.138 | 1.528 ± 0.123 | 1.402 ± 0.073 |
A + 30° | 1.890 ± 0.056 | 1.739 ± 0.109 | 1.632 ± 0.074 |
A + 60° | 1.604 ± 0.070 | 1.540 ± 0.064 | 1.377 ± 0.094 |
A − 30° | 1.353 ± 0.060 | 1.267 ± 0.067 | 1.245 ± 0.044 |
A − 60° | 1.290 ± 0.027 | 1.221 ± 0.056 | 1.176 ± 0.036 |
B + 30° | 1.616 ± 0.033 | 1.583 ± 0.042 | 1.444 ± 0.062 |
B + 60° | 1.445 ± 0.043 | 1.417 ± 0.041 | 1.343 ± 0.053 |
B − 30° | 1.794 ± 0.032 | 1.690 ± 0.172 | 1.490 ± 0.098 |
B − 60° | 1.244 ± 0.060 | 1.129 ± 0.048 | 1.041 ± 0.058 |
Analytical Method | Quotient Value | Integral Value | Linear Fit | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Types of samplers | GBL | MS | PVC | GBL | MS | PVC | GBL | MS | PVC |
Correction coefficients | 1.547 | 1.471 | 1.354 | 1.543 | 1.478 | 1.312 | 1.507 | 1.478 | 1.391 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 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
Yu, Z.; Li, M.; Xing, B.; Chang, Y.; Yan, H.; Zhou, H.; Li, K.; Yao, W.; Chen, C. Aerial Spray Droplet Deposition Determination Based on Fluorescence Correction: Exploring the Combination of a Chemical Colorant and Water-Sensitive Paper. Agriculture 2025, 15, 931. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15090931
Yu Z, Li M, Xing B, Chang Y, Yan H, Zhou H, Li K, Yao W, Chen C. Aerial Spray Droplet Deposition Determination Based on Fluorescence Correction: Exploring the Combination of a Chemical Colorant and Water-Sensitive Paper. Agriculture. 2025; 15(9):931. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15090931
Chicago/Turabian StyleYu, Ziqi, Mingyang Li, Boli Xing, Yu Chang, Hao Yan, Hongyang Zhou, Kun Li, Weixiang Yao, and Chunling Chen. 2025. "Aerial Spray Droplet Deposition Determination Based on Fluorescence Correction: Exploring the Combination of a Chemical Colorant and Water-Sensitive Paper" Agriculture 15, no. 9: 931. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15090931
APA StyleYu, Z., Li, M., Xing, B., Chang, Y., Yan, H., Zhou, H., Li, K., Yao, W., & Chen, C. (2025). Aerial Spray Droplet Deposition Determination Based on Fluorescence Correction: Exploring the Combination of a Chemical Colorant and Water-Sensitive Paper. Agriculture, 15(9), 931. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15090931