Abstract
In Switzerland, regulatory requirements mandated that spraying drones undergo a testing procedure, which included assessing their transversal spray distribution using a patternator. Various stakeholders have repeatedly expressed uncertainty as to whether these static measurements correctly reflect the real dynamic spray distribution or whether this type of measurement falsifies the spray pattern. Taking these uncertainties into account, the present study compared the static patternator method with dynamic field measurements using water-sensitive and filter paper. The three methods showed good agreement in the results. In contrast to the other two methods, the measurements on the patternator showed the lowest variability, which shows that hovering at the same point probably causes some compensation in the distribution. Different nozzles (flat fan, hollow cone, air induction nozzles) produce quite similar distribution patterns in all three measurement methods, whereby the injector nozzle with the largest droplets produced the best transverse distribution with a coefficient of variation of less than 10 %.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
