Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/18039
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSalcedo, Ramón-
dc.contributor.authorLlop, Jordi-
dc.contributor.authorCampos, Javier-
dc.contributor.authorMichael, Costas-
dc.contributor.authorGallart, Montserrat-
dc.contributor.authorOrtega, Paula-
dc.contributor.authorGil, Emilio-
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-11T13:02:32Z-
dc.date.available2020-03-11T13:02:32Z-
dc.date.issued2020-01-
dc.identifier.citationCrop Protection, 2020, vol. 127en_US
dc.identifier.issn02612194-
dc.description.abstractSpray application technologies for specialty crops have developed considerably in recent years with regard to improved control, reduced cost, and ability to avoid environmental contamination. For example, new developments in electrostatic sprayers have been progressively introduced as an alternative for vineyard spray applications. This study investigated the efficiency of this emerging technology in a Spanish trellis vineyard. First, a complete characterization of an electrostatic sprayer was conducted under laboratory conditions. The liquid flow rate was measured using different restrictor configurations to obtain the outgoing air velocities in the diffusers. Second, field trials were conducted in a vineyard testing, two forward speeds (5.9 and 4.7 km h−1, resulting in volume rates of 60 and 75 l ha−1, respectively) and the activated or deactivated electrostatic system. Tartrazine was used as a tracer material to evaluate the spray quality over the canopy. These results were compared with similar trials using a standard multi-row sprayer with orientable outputs at 5.9 km h−1 and 190 l ha−1. The results indicated that activated electrostatic treatments resulted in a greater amount of deposition on vegetation than the other trials. The activated system also produced a significant correlation between leaf deposition and forward speed (p ≤ 0.05). The most homogeneous results were achieved by the activated electrostatic sprayer at 5.9 km h−1 and the reference sprayer. These results suggest that electrostatic sprayers could save up to 68% of applied volume with similar or better deposition of the liquid and achieve homogeneity over the whole canopy.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofCrop Protectionen_US
dc.rights© Elsevieren_US
dc.subjectElectrostatic sprayeren_US
dc.subjectHydro-pneumatic systemen_US
dc.subjectEfficiencyen_US
dc.subjectProduct distributionen_US
dc.subjectViticultureen_US
dc.titleEvaluation of leaf deposit quality between electrostatic and conventional multi-row sprayers in a trellised vineyarden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationCyprus University of Technologyen_US
dc.collaborationUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunyaen_US
dc.subject.categoryBiological Sciencesen_US
dc.journalsSubscriptionen_US
dc.countryCyprusen_US
dc.countrySpainen_US
dc.subject.fieldNatural Sciencesen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.cropro.2019.104964en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85072562551-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85072562551-
dc.relation.volume127en_US
cut.common.academicyear2019-2020en_US
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.journal.journalissn0261-2194-
crisitem.journal.publisherElsevier-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

25
checked on Mar 14, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

22
Last Week
0
Last month
2
checked on Oct 29, 2023

Page view(s)

358
Last Week
1
Last month
9
checked on Feb 1, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in KTISIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.