PULVERIZACIONES AGRÍCOLAS: COMPARACIÓN DE METODOLOGÍAS PARA SU EVALUACIÓN

IF 0.3 Q4 AGRONOMY

Chilean Journal of Agricultural & Animal Sciences Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.29393/chjaas37-33pavm90033

Víctor Hugo Merani, Facundo Guilino, M. Ponce, J. M. Vazquez, L. Larrieu, A. Giambelluca, P. Platz, Santiago Tour, Matilde Mur

{"title":"PULVERIZACIONES AGRÍCOLAS: COMPARACIÓN DE METODOLOGÍAS PARA SU EVALUACIÓN","authors":"Víctor Hugo Merani, Facundo Guilino, M. Ponce, J. M. Vazquez, L. Larrieu, A. Giambelluca, P. Platz, Santiago Tour, Matilde Mur","doi":"10.29393/chjaas37-33pavm90033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A study was conducted in order to compare two types of artificial collectors (water-sensitive paper and photographic paper) using two software programs (Gotas-PC and CIR1.5) for the assessment of spray applications with two different nozzle types (XR11002VP and TXA8002VK). The evaluated parameters were DV0.5, droplet number density and efficiency, this was compared to the colometric determination with bright blue tracer. The trial was conducted inside a closed facility, under semi-controlled conditions, in absence of wind and on a uniform level ground. Droplet number density did not show significant differences between collectors using Gotas-PC, but differences were found with CIR1.5. For water-sensitive paper, efficiency is overestimated with CIR1.5 software but underestimated with Gotas-PC. However, both software programs underestimate with photographic paper according to the smaller imprints that result in lower values of DV0,5 and efficiency. In applications with smaller droplet population, efficiency is similar with both software programs. The CIR1.5 software is more sensitive for analyzing drops on both collector types and can distinguish a larger number of drops and smaller sizes. water-sensitive paper, photography paper, Kromecote, Gotas-PC.","PeriodicalId":42485,"journal":{"name":"Chilean Journal of Agricultural & Animal Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chilean Journal of Agricultural & Animal Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29393/chjaas37-33pavm90033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

A study was conducted in order to compare two types of artificial collectors (water-sensitive paper and photographic paper) using two software programs (Gotas-PC and CIR1.5) for the assessment of spray applications with two different nozzle types (XR11002VP and TXA8002VK). The evaluated parameters were DV0.5, droplet number density and efficiency, this was compared to the colometric determination with bright blue tracer. The trial was conducted inside a closed facility, under semi-controlled conditions, in absence of wind and on a uniform level ground. Droplet number density did not show significant differences between collectors using Gotas-PC, but differences were found with CIR1.5. For water-sensitive paper, efficiency is overestimated with CIR1.5 software but underestimated with Gotas-PC. However, both software programs underestimate with photographic paper according to the smaller imprints that result in lower values of DV0,5 and efficiency. In applications with smaller droplet population, efficiency is similar with both software programs. The CIR1.5 software is more sensitive for analyzing drops on both collector types and can distinguish a larger number of drops and smaller sizes. water-sensitive paper, photography paper, Kromecote, Gotas-PC.

查看原文本刊更多论文

农业喷洒:评价方法的比较

使用两个软件程序（Gotas PC和CIR1.5）对两种不同喷嘴类型（XR11002VP和TXA8002VK）的喷雾应用进行评估，以比较两种类型的人造收集器（水敏纸和相纸）。评价的参数为DV0.5、液滴数密度和效率，并与亮蓝色示踪剂的色度测定进行了比较。试验在一个封闭的设施内，在半受控的条件下，在没有风的情况下，在均匀的水平地面上进行。液滴数密度在使用Gotas PC的收集器之间没有显示出显著差异，但在CIR1.5中发现了差异。对于水敏纸，CIR1.5软件高估了效率，但Gotas-PC低估了效率。然而，根据较小的印记，这两个软件程序都低估了相纸，从而导致DV0.5和效率的值较低。在液滴数量较小的应用程序中，两种软件程序的效率相似。CIR1.5软件对分析两种收集器类型上的液滴更加敏感，可以区分较大数量的液滴和较小尺寸的液滴。水敏纸，摄影纸，Kromecote，Gotas-PC。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Chilean Journal of Agricultural & Animal Sciences AGRONOMY-

CiteScore

0.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Revista Chile de Agricultura y Ciencias Veterinarias es una revista de acceso abierto (open access), que significa que su contenido está disponible en forma gratuita para los usuarios y sus instituciones. Los usuarios pueden leer, descargar, copiar, distribuir, imprimir, buscar, o establecer una conexión a los artículos sin necesidad de pedir autorización previa al editor o a los autores. Esto es de acuerdo con la definición de Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). Los artículos se publican bajo una licencia de Creative Commons reconocimiento No Comercial 4.0 Internacional. Copyright: Se autoriza la reproducción y cita de los artículos publicados en Chilean Journal of Agricultural & Animal Sciences (ex Agro-Ciencia), siempre que se indique el nombre del autor(es), año, volumen, número y páginas. Las opiniones y afirmaciones expuestas en los trabajos representan exclusivamente los puntos de vista de los autores. La mención de productos o marcas comerciales en la revista no implica una recomendación por parte de la Universidad de Concepción.