BACKGROUND: Although considered as a safe pesticide application method, treated seeds can pose environmental risks when abraded pesticide-laden seed particles are expelled during sowing. This dust drift risk is clearly linked with seed coating quality. Seed coating quality is traditionally assessed with Heubach dust meters, and guidelines are established in terms of the 'Heubach value'. This technique may, however, not take all drift-sensitive particles into account. In this study, results of the Heubach test are compared with two alternative set-ups: mechanical sieving and the individual sowing element. RESULTS: The abrasion potential assessed with the Heubach dust meter was much lower than the total dust fraction generated by mechanical sieving and the individual sowing element. The amount of dust produced and the dust particle size distribution of both the other techniques were comparable. CONCLUSION: It looks as if the Heubach dust meter underestimates the risk of dust drift. Using one of the alternative methods might be a more appropriate way to assess the abrasion potential of seeds. Given the low investment cost required, mechanical sieving seems to be a good approach for non-specialised labs. The individual sowing element set-up is the most realistic simulation of in-field dust drift generation but requires a higher initial investment. Therefore, this set-up is most suitable for specialised labs and is recommended for further research in this area.
BACKGROUND: Although considered as a safe pesticide application method, treated seeds can pose environmental risks when abraded pesticide-laden seed particles are expelled during sowing. This dust drift risk is clearly linked with seed coating quality. Seed coating quality is traditionally assessed with Heubach dust meters, and guidelines are established in terms of the 'Heubach value'. This technique may, however, not take all drift-sensitive particles into account. In this study, results of the Heubach test are compared with two alternative set-ups: mechanical sieving and the individual sowing element. RESULTS: The abrasion potential assessed with the Heubach dust meter was much lower than the total dust fraction generated by mechanical sieving and the individual sowing element. The amount of dust produced and the dust particle size distribution of both the other techniques were comparable. CONCLUSION: It looks as if the Heubach dust meter underestimates the risk of dust drift. Using one of the alternative methods might be a more appropriate way to assess the abrasion potential of seeds. Given the low investment cost required, mechanical sieving seems to be a good approach for non-specialised labs. The individual sowing element set-up is the most realistic simulation of in-field dust drift generation but requires a higher initial investment. Therefore, this set-up is most suitable for specialised labs and is recommended for further research in this area.