Tommy Arvidsson1, Lars Bergström, Jenny Kreuger. 1. Division of Water Quality Management, Department of Soil and Environment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. tommy.arvidsson@mark.slu.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, the collecting efficiency of different samplers of airborne drift was compared both in wind tunnel and in field experiments. The aim was to select an appropriate sampler for collecting airborne spray drift under field conditions. RESULTS: The wind tunnel study examined three static samplers and one dynamic sampler. The dynamic sampler had the highest overall collecting efficiency. Among the static samplers, the pipe cleaner collector had the highest efficiency. These two samplers were selected for evaluation in the subsequent field study. Results from 29 individual field experiments showed that the pipe cleaner collector on average had a 10% lower collecting efficiency than the dynamic sampler. However, the deposits on the pipe cleaners generally were highest at the 0.5 m level, and for the dynamic sampler at the 1 m level. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded from the wind tunnel part of the study that the amount of drift collected on the static collectors had a more strongly positive correlation with increasing wind speed compared with the dynamic sampler. In the field study, the difference in efficiency between the two types of collector was fairly small. As the difference in collecting efficiency between the different types of sampler was small, the dynamic sampler was selected for further measurements of airborne drift under field conditions owing to its more well-defined collecting area. This study of collecting efficiency of airborne spray drift of static and dynamic samplers under field conditions contributes to increasing knowledge in this field of research.
BACKGROUND: In this study, the collecting efficiency of different samplers of airborne drift was compared both in wind tunnel and in field experiments. The aim was to select an appropriate sampler for collecting airborne spray drift under field conditions. RESULTS: The wind tunnel study examined three static samplers and one dynamic sampler. The dynamic sampler had the highest overall collecting efficiency. Among the static samplers, the pipe cleaner collector had the highest efficiency. These two samplers were selected for evaluation in the subsequent field study. Results from 29 individual field experiments showed that the pipe cleaner collector on average had a 10% lower collecting efficiency than the dynamic sampler. However, the deposits on the pipe cleaners generally were highest at the 0.5 m level, and for the dynamic sampler at the 1 m level. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded from the wind tunnel part of the study that the amount of drift collected on the static collectors had a more strongly positive correlation with increasing wind speed compared with the dynamic sampler. In the field study, the difference in efficiency between the two types of collector was fairly small. As the difference in collecting efficiency between the different types of sampler was small, the dynamic sampler was selected for further measurements of airborne drift under field conditions owing to its more well-defined collecting area. This study of collecting efficiency of airborne spray drift of static and dynamic samplers under field conditions contributes to increasing knowledge in this field of research.