Comparing greenhouse sprayers: the dose-transfer process

Three sprayers were evaluated for their affect on retention and efficacy: a carbon dioxide powered high-volume sprayer, a DRAMM coldfogger, and an Electrostatic Spraying Systems (ESS) sprayer with air-assistance. The active ingredients used were spinosad and azadirachtin. The plant canopy was constructed in the greenhouse using potted soybeans (Glycine max (L) Merrill cr Pioneer 9392). Application efficacy with spinosad was assessed using thrips [Western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)] and mite (two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch) abundance on shoots and leaves. Application efficacy with azadirachtin was assessed using thrips and aphid (soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura) abundance on shoots and leaves. The atomization characteristics of each sprayer were measured using an Aerometrics phase/Doppler particle analyzer (PDPA) 100-1D. The results of four tests are presented. Two tests used each sprayer according to manufacturer recommendations. These are 'recommended volume' tests that confound differences in toxicant distribution caused by the sprayer with differences caused by changes in application volume. The other two tests were 'constant volume' tests in which all three sprayers were used to deliver the same application volume. Both types of test gave differences between sprayers in retention of toxicant, but only the recommended volume tests showed significant effects of the sprayers on pest abundance. We attribute this difference to the role played by changing application volumes in the dose-transfer process. The constant-volume tests showed that application equipment influences efficacy.