Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci.

29(6):2019

DETERMINATION OF SPRAY ANGLE AND FLOW UNIFORMITY OF SPRAY

NOZZLES WITH IMAGE PROCESSING OPERATIONS
N. Çetin1*, C. Sağlam1 and B. Demir2
1
Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Erciyes, 38039 Kayseri, Turkey
2
Department of Mechanicaland Metal Technologies, Vocational School of Technical Sciences, University of Mersin,
33343 Mersin, Turkey
*
Corresponding Author Email: necaticetin@erciyes.edu.tr

ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the spray angle and flow uniformity of different hydraulic spray nozzles at
different spray pressures with the aid of image processing operations. Spray images were captured with a digital camera
to determine spray angles and spray patterns. Captured images were transferred to computer environment and analyzed
with different image processing software. The spray angle at 3 bar pressure was measured as 107.2º for anti-drift nozzles,
as 105.6º for air-injection nozzles, as 69.9º for ST 80 flat-fan nozzles, as 84.0º for ST 90 flat-fan nozzles, as 103.2º for
ST 110 flat-fan nozzles and as 54.2° for hollow-cone Ø1.0 mm nozzles. Cone angle at 3 bar pressure was measured as
106.7º for anti-drift nozzles, as 103.9º for air-injection nozzles, as 75.1º for ST 80 flat-fan nozzles, as 86.4º for ST 90
flat-fan nozzles, as 105.2º for ST 110 flat-fan nozzles and as 46.4º for hollow-cone Ø1.0 mm nozzles. Spray pattern
obtained with the image processing method was identical with the flow uniformity obtained with line-profile method. It
was concluded that spray pressures had significant effects on spray angles (p <0.05) of all nozzles.
Keywords: Cone angle, image processing, pressure, spray angle, spray pattern.

INTRODUCTION droplets at different sizes and speeds (Nuyttens et al.,

2007; Sayıncı, 2016). Volumetric distribution uniformity
Chemicals are used as the most common disease, should be measured and checked since it greatly
pest and weed control practice since it is easy to apply, influences droplet trajectory and interaction with the
they are fast-acting and quite effective on undesired target (Butler Ellis et al., 1997). Spray angle, volumetric
agents. Unconscious and improper pesticide treatments uniformity, length of liquid layer and application rate are
may have negative impacts on environment, ecosystem important spray characteristics effecting pesticide
and human health. Such unconscious uses also result in application process (Stafford, 2000; Vulgarakis Minov,
pesticide losses and resultant excessive uses bring an 2015).
extra cost to producers (Demir, 2015). Droplet spectrum depends on orifice outlet,
In chemical treatments, pests and diseases nozzle spray angle and operating speed and such
should be properly identified, the practice should be parameters designate spray quality. Spray coverage,
economic and the method of treatment and pesticide to be droplet size, application rate and pesticide efficiency
applied should be properly selected. Besides these influences drift potential of the nozzles (Johnson et al.,
requirements, selection of treatment unit spraying 2005). Structural characteristics of spray units, operating
chemicals onto the target also plays a significant role in parameters, meteorological parameters, plant
success of treatment. The primary target of spraying characteristics and physical characteristics of the liquid to
process is to have a homogeneous spread over the plant, be delivered are the important parameters effecting
to retain the pesticide over the plant, to reduce changes in treatment performance (Sayıncı and Bastaban, 2009).
pesticide distribution and drifts and to get the greatest Spray angle is commonly used in assessing treatment
biologic efficiency at recommended dose of application. performance of spray nozzles. Sprays mostly have a
In this sense, proper use of treatment unit at proper conical pattern. Cone angle is defined as the angle
conditions allows the best practice of chemical treatments between tangential of spray envelope at nozzle outlet
(Sayıncı, 2008). Various types of nozzles have been (Shafaee, 2011). Spray angles are generally influenced by
designed to improve application performance and nozzle dimensions, liquid characteristics and density of
efficiency. These nozzles have a large spectrum droplet the ambient to which the liquid was sprayed (Sayıncı,
diameters and spray patterns. They usually have varying 2016).
spray angles (Krishnan et al., 2004). Together with recent developments in computer
The sprays used in pesticide treatments technology, image procession has started to be used in
(hydraulic sprayers) leave the liquid to the target as various processes. In image processing, still or mobile
Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

images captured by a camera or scanner is subjected to Imaging equipment: A digital SLR camera (Nikon
digital conversion and these numeric data are interpreted D300, JP) was used to capture spray images. The camera
with the aid of different algorithms. In sustainable was mounted on a tripod and images were captured in a
agriculture, image processing is used to calculate leaf fixed position. A black background was placed behind
area index, to monitor plant growth and development, to the spray nozzle to have clear images. Two para-flashes
determine maturation times of fruits and vegetables equipped with a soft box were positioned toward to spray
through color analyses, to classify agricultural products nozzles to light spray beam. In this way, high-contrast
and to identify weeds for chemical application (Demir et images were obtained at low light intensities. To capture
al., 2016). the sprays of nozzles sequenced over a spray boom, 300
This study was carried out to determine the cm rail was constructed, and rail vehicle-mounted camera
changes in spray pattern, spray and cone angle of spray moved over these rails.
nozzles at different pressures with image processing
Single nozzle patternator: Patternator is a surface
operations. Spray angles of hydraulic nozzles were
composed of leak-proof corrugations placed side-by-side.
compared with nominal angle values. The similarities
The liquid flowing through the corrugations at a certain
between the spray patterns determined with image
pressure and height conditions is collected in
processing operations and flow uniformity charts
measurement cups (ml). These volumes are placed on
determined with line profile method were also assessed.
ordinate (y-axis) and the distances of the corrugations
either right or left of the nozzle center line are placed on
MATERIALS AND METHODS apsis (x-axis). In this way, volumetric distribution shape
(spray pattern) is obtained. In this study, a patternator
Material: This study was conducted at laboratories of made of chromium plated sheet with 60 canals (canal
Agricultural Machinery and Technologies Department of spacing 20.5 mm), total width of 120 cm and a height of
Agricultural Faculty in Atatürk University. A patternator 100 cm and able to spray from a single nozzle was used
designed by Çömlek (2017), spray handle and a camera to determine flow characteristics. Patternator canals have
were used to determine spray angle, nozzle flow rate, a height of 80 mm and manufactured as portable fashion.
coverage width and spray pattern. Resultant images were Spray height can be adjusted at between 20 - 90 cm.
transferred to computer and changes in relevant Patternator canals were installed at 10% slope to main
parameters were determined with the aid of image frame. The liquid collected within the canals initially
processing techniques. transferred to fluid conveyance line and then to 25 ml
Sprayer: Experiments were conducted in the patternator graduated polystyrene burettes through rubber pipes.
(Çömlek, 2017) and a field sprayer (TP 200 Piton, Taral®, Spraying parts and nozzle flow rate: Spray nozzle was
TR) equipped with 200 liters polyethylene tank was used mounted on 3-outlet membrane-type nozzle body (Arag
for the spray line. The pressure regulator of the outlet line SRL 40642W7 Model, IT). Spray pressure was checked
(maximum 40 bar, 90 L min-1, RG-7 Model) is controlled from a glycerin-filled manometer (Pakkens®
by a glycerin-filled variable monometer (Pakkens® MG050GRS1 Model, TR) with maximum 10 bar
Model, TR) with a spray pressure indicator of 0 – 25.0 indicator mounted quite close to the nozzle. Flow was
bar. The piston-membrane-type pump delivering the fluid controlled by a diaphragm-type solenoid valve (SMS-
into spray line (TAR30, Taral®, TR) is able to reach 30 L TORK S1020 type, TR). Nozzle flow rate was measured
min-1 nominal flow rate at 39.2 bar (40 kg cm-2) nominal at different spray pressures with a digital flow meter
pressure. Because of long operating durations, the pump (Sprayer Calibrator, SpotOn®, Model: SC-1, 1L, range of
was dismantled from the sprayer frame. Pump shaft was measurement: 0.08-3.79 L min-1).
connected to belt drive mechanism with an electric motor
(2.2 kW, 1405 rpm, AGM 100L 4a type, Gamak, TR). Method
Pump shaft speed was measured with an optic tachometer Determination of spray angle: High-contrast spray
as 500 rpm. images obtained at nozzle orifice outlet with the aid of
Nozzle types: In this study, anti-drift nozzles (AD 120- artificial light toward to spray beam at dark are presented
015, AD 120-03, AD 120-04), air-injection nozzles (AI in Figure 1. Over these images, angle module of ImageJ
120-015, AI 120-02 and AI 120-03), standard flat-fan v.1.38x (Wayne Rasband, National Institutes of Health,
nozzles (ST 80-03, ST 90-04, ST 110-01, ST 110-02, ST US, 2006) image processing software was used to
110-03 and ST 110-04) and hollow-cone nozzles (HC determine spray angle at the nozzle orifice outlet.
Ø1.0 mm, HC Ø1.2 mm and HC Ø1.5 mm) were used. Nominal angle represents the manufacturer-specified
angle valid under certain operating conditions.
Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

ST 90 ST 110
Figure 1. Spray images obtained at 3 bar spray pressure.

Determination of spray pattern: Spray patterns of 15 USA, Liu et al., 2001) and ultimately spray patterns were
spray nozzles at fixed position were determined with the obtained.
aid of 1200×1000×20.5 mm single nozzle patternator
Determination of flow uniformity with the line profile
with 60 canals. Spray height was adjusted as 40 cm for
method: Spray angle images were transferred to
anti-drift nozzles and ST 110-type nozzles, as 60 cm for
MATLAB R2009a to determine flow uniformity. Flow
ST 80, ST 90 and hollow-cone nozzles and sprays were
uniformity graphs were generated for 350th line on the
performed at 12 different pressures (1 - 12 bar) for
same “x” axis (apsis) of each image. Over the images
hollow-cone nozzles and at 8 different pressures (1 - 8
taken through artificial light at dark environment, the
bar) for the other nozzles. Experiments were conducted in
color fluctuations (gray toning, between 0-255) over the
six replications for hollow-cone nozzles, in two
line reflecting the differences in liquid volumes of spray
replications for ST 90-type nozzles, in three replications
beam were used to generate the graphs. This method used
for anti-drift and ST 80 and ST 110 type nozzles. Sprays
in determination of flow uniformity was tried for the first
were terminated when the 90% of measuring tubes was
time. Replicated measurements were more practical than
filled and the marking balls inside the tubes generated the
the other method. Better flow uniformity was achieved at
spray pattern. Spray pattern images (*.jpeg) were taken
different nozzles and different pressures through
with the aid of a digital camera (Panasonic Lumix DMC-
changing the position of line bar over the apsis axis
FZ50, JP) mounted onto a tripod from 2.5 m distance
(Çetin, 2017). However, in this study, to have an idea,
from the spray. Over these images, numbers of full tubes
graphs were generated over the same line in all images.
were determined and volumetric cover width for a certain
The graphs generated at different pressures (2.0, 4.0 and
spray height was calculated (number of full tubes × canal
6.0 bars) were compared with the spray pattern graphs
distance (2.05 cm)). Over spray pattern images, the
obtained with the aid of CMEIAS Image Tool Ver. 1.28
height of liquid flowed into the tube from each canal was
(Liu et al., 2001) at the same pressured.
determined in pixels on y-axis with the aid of an image
processing software (CMEIAS Image Tool Ver. 1.28,

Figure 2. Spray pattern on patternator

Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

Determination of cone angle: Cover width at a certain 0.31-2.29 L min-1 for standard flat-fan nozzles (ST) and
spray height (40 and 60 cm) was calculated by using between 0.53-1.92 L min-1 for hollow-cone nozzles (HC).
Equation 1. Cover width (b, cm) was calculated by
Spray angle: The changes in spray angles of anti-drift
multiplying the distance between two canals (mk) with the
and air-injection nozzles at 8 different pressures are
number of tubes used to obtained spray pattern (nk).
provided in Table 2. Mean spray angles of anti-drift
Nozzle cone angle (α°) at constant operating pressure and
nozzles varied between 94.6-121.4º. The closest values to
spray height (h, cm) was calculated by using the Equation
the nominal angle were obtained at 7-8 bar spray
2.
pressures. Mean spray angles of air-injection nozzles
varied between 85.5-124.3º. Dorr et al. (2013) reported
b = mk × nk (1) spray angle of AI 110-015-type nozzle as 124º at 150 kPa
and as 150º at 450 kPa.
⎛ b ⎞
α = 2 × tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ (2) The changes in spray angle values of standard
⎝ 2× h ⎠ flat-fan nozzles at 4 different orifice size and 8 different
spray pressures are provided in Table 3. Nominal angle is
where;
specified as 110º for this type of nozzle. The closest
α : Cone angle (°),
values to the nominal value were obtained at 3-4 bar
b : Cover width (cm, number of full tubes ×
pressures. Regarding orifice sizes, the closest values were
distance between two patternator canals),
achieved at 03 gpm (gallons per minute) orifice size.
h : Spray height (cm),
Hollow-cone nozzles had the narrowest spray
mk : Distance between two patternator canals (cm),
angles. Any nominal angles were not specified by the
nk : Number of tubes used to obtain spray pattern.
manufacturer for this type of nozzle. Spray angles were
Determination of nozzle flow rate: Nozzle flow rates tested at 3 different nozzle plates (Ø1.0 mm, Ø1.2 mm
were measured at 6 different spray pressures (2.0, 4.0, Ø1.5 mm) and 12 different pressures (Table 4). In HC
6.0, 8.0, 10.0 and 12.0 bars) for hollow-cone nozzles and Ø1.0 mm nozzle, the narrowest angle was measured as
at 4 different spray pressures (2.0, 4.0, 6.0 and 8.0 bars) 40.1º and the largest angle was measured as 57.8º. Spray
for the other nozzle types. Nozzle flow rates were angles of HC Ø1.2 mm nozzle varied between 46.4-67.7º.
measured in 3 replicated with the aid of a digital flow The largest spray angles were measured in HC Ø1.5 mm
meter (Sprayer Calibrator, SpotOn®, Model: SC-1, 1L) nozzle and the values varied between 55.0-76.1º.
with a measurement range of 0.08 - 3.79 L min-1. Mean Increasing spray angles were observed with increasing
flow rates and standard deviations were provided in orifice diameter of these nozzles.
tables and the relationships between the square root of Pressure-dependent changes in spray angles of
spray pressure and flow rate were presented in graphs and narrow cone standard flat-fan ST 80-03 and ST 90-04
linear equations. nozzles are provided in Table 5. Spray angles of ST 80-
Nozzle and pressure dependent spray angles and 03 nozzle varied between 56.4-80.2º. The closest values
nozzle flow rates were also subjected to regression to nominal angle of ST 90-04 nozzle (90º) were achieved
analysis and means were compared at significance level at 4-5 bar pressures. Standard deviations in nozzle type
P≤0.05. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS were quite low. Vulgarakis Minov (2015) reported
20.0 statistical software (IBM SPSS® 2010). Tukey pressure-dependent spray angles of ATR 80-type orange
grouping among spray pressures and spray angles for nozzles as between 92.4-101.6º.
different nozzle types was conducted with using SAS Statistics for spray angles measured at different
Version 8.02 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA, spray pressures of all nozzle types are provided in Table
1999). 7. There were cubic polynomial relationships with high
R2 values between spray pressure and spray angle and
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION resultant regression equations are provided in Table 7.
Cone angle: Nominal angles, cone angles calculated
In this study, effects of different nozzle types from the equations at 3 bar and spray angles are provided
(AD, AI, ST and HC) and different spray pressures on in Table 8. Both the spray angle and the cone angle of ST
spray and cone angle and spray pattern were investigated 90-04 and ST 110 nozzles were close to nominal angle.
through image processing technique. In general, cone angles of all nozzles were matching up
with spray angles. Çömlek (2017) reported cone angle as
Nozzle flow rate: Mean flow rates and standard 81.2º for HC Ø1.0 mm nozzle, 79.9º for HC Ø1.6 mm
deviations measured for different nozzle types at different nozzle and 93.8° for HC Ø2.4 mm. Vulgarakis Minov
spray pressures (2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0 and 12.0 bars) are (2015) reported cone angles at different heights (0, 15, 30
provided in Table 1. Mean flow rates varied between and 50 cm) and 400 kPa pressure as between 108.5-
0.49-2.65 L min-1 for anti-drift nozzles (AD), between 110.8º for XR 110-01 nozzles, as between 113.8-119.0°
0.48-1.97 L min-1 for air-injection nozzles (AI), between
Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

for XR 110-02 nozzles and as between 117.5-120.1° for coordinates of marking balls were determined and
XR 110-04 nozzles. Mengeş (1995) reported cone angles converted into numeric data (pixel) to generate spray
of flat-fan nozzles at different pressures (200, 300 and pattern. In the second method, instead of spray pattern
400 kPa) as between 98-123º. images, spray angle images obtained at the same
pressures were transferred to MATLAB and color
Spray pattern: Spray pattern images were obtained from fluctuation-dependent flow uniformity graphs were
the flows over a single-nozzle patternator. In general, obtained with the aid of line profile method from the
hydraulic spray nozzles have triangle, trapezoidal and same line over the apsis axis of each image. The graphs
rectangular patterns. drawn with the aid of line profile method took less time
Spray patterns generated with the aid of than the other method. Spray pattern and flow uniformity
CMEIAS Image Tool Ver. 1.28 and MATLAB software graphs of all nozzles were coincided with each other.
are presented in Figure 3. Two different methods were
used to determine spray patterns. In the first method,

Table 1. Flow rates of different nozzles at different pressures.

Pressure Flow rate±SD 1 Pressure Flow rate±SD
Nozzle type Nozzle type
(bar) (L min-1) (bar) (L min-1)
2 0.49±0.01 ST 110-01 2 0.31±0.02
4 0.69±0.00 4 0.44±0.03
AD 120-015
6 0.87±0.01 6 0.54±0.03
8 1.00±0.02 8 0.63±0.04
2 0.96±0.01 ST 110-02 2 0.60±0.02
4 1.37±0.01 4 0.84±0.03
AD 120-03
6 1.71±0.03 6 1.06±0.04
8 1.99±0.03 8 1.24±0.04
2 1.26±0.03 ST 110-03 2 0.91±0.01
4 1.80±0.03 4 1.26±0.03
AD 120-04
6 2.30±0.04 6 1.60±0.05
8 2.65±0.09 8 1.84±0.06
2 0.48±0.01 ST 110-04 2 1.22±0.02
4 0.69±0.01 4 1.73±0.03
AI 120-015
6 0.85±0.01 6 2.17±0.05
8 0.99±0.02 8 2.26±0.05
2 0.64±0.01 ST 80-03 2 1.22±0.08
4 0.92±0.01 4 1.79±0.19
AI 120-02
6 1.14±0.01 6 2.14±0.12
8 1.32±0.01 8 2.25±0.11
2 0.95±0.02 ST 90-04 2 1.23±0.00
4 1.34±0.02 4 1.74±0.02
AI 120-03
6 1.69±0.03 6 2.18±0.05
8 1.97±0.03 8 2.29±0.03
2 0.53±0.04 HC Ø1.5 mm 2 0.82±0.04
4 0.73±0.05 4 1.11±0.07
6 0.87±0.02 6 1.36±0.06
HC Ø1.0 mm
8 1.00±0.03 8 1.57±0.08
10 1.06±0.03 10 1.72±0.10
12 1.17±0.04 12 1.92±0.10
2 0.68±0.04
4 0.95±0.06
6 1.14±0.06
HC Ø1.2 mm
8 1.29±0.07
10 1.40±0.09
12 1.55±0.08
Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

Table 2. Pressure-dependent spray angle (º) values (Mean ± SD) of anti-drift and air-injection nozzles.

Spray pressure (bar) AD 120-015 AD 120-03 AD 120-04
1 92.3d±3.5 89.3e±5.1 102.2b±5.1
2 105.5c±4.2 100.2d±1.6 111.2sb±4.6
3 113.3bc±4.6 105.6cd±0.5 115.3a±2.4
4 115.0abc±3.0 107.9bcd±2.2 117.7a±4.5
5 120.5ab±2.1 113.1abc±2.2 119.0a±2.1
6 121.8ab±3.3 114.4abc±4.6 118.7a±2.8
7 122.6ab±3.6 115.4ab±4.1 120.0a±3.1
8 123.7a±1.9 119.1a±2.1 121.4a±5.1
Spray pressure (bar) AI 120-015 AI 120-02 AI 120-03
1 75.9e±4.8 85.3b±3.0 95.4e±4.1
2 100.9d±2.8 97.9ab±4.1 106.5d±2.8
3 112.8c±2.6 106.6a±2.4 112.9cd±1.8
4 120.3bc±0.7 113.4a±5.0 115.4bc±1.4
5 125.4ab±3.4 116.4a±1.8 119.3abc±3.4
6 126.6ab±2.0 116.4a±9.0 120.7ab±0.6
7 129.2a±2.6 116.7a±10.5 123.6a±0.2
8 132.9a±2.4 116.7a±10.4 123.4a±3.1
*
Different letters on same column show significant difference (P ≤ 0.05)

Table 3. Pressure-dependent spray angle (º) values (Mean ± SD) of standard flat-fan nozzles.

Spray pressure (bar) ST 110-01 ST 110-02 ST 110-03 ST 110-04
1 87.5d±7.6 70.5d±5.6 91.5d±3.1 102.0d±5.2
2 103.1c±0.4 89.5c±4.7 102.8c±4.4 109.0cd±3.3
3 108.9bc±3.2 100.2bc±4.9 107.0bc±3.5 113.3bc±1.7
4 117.1ab±3.6 103.8ab±3.9 111.2ab±2.5 116.9ab±1.3
5 118.5ab±2.9 107.0ab±5.3 112.7ab±2.2 118.5ab±0.9
6 119.4ab±2.7 109.9ab±2.8 115.9a±2.1 119.2ab±1.0
7 120.4a±2.8 111.0ab±3.7 116.9a±2.6 119.7ab±1.7
8 121.6a±2.6 114.5a±2.5 117.5a±2.5 120.9a±1.1
*
Different letters on same column show significant difference (P ≤ 0.05)

Table 1. Pressure-dependent spray angle (º) values (Mean ± SD) of hollow-cone nozzles.

Spray pressure (bar)* HC Ø1.0 mm HC Ø1.2 mm HC Ø1.5 mm
1 40.1b±8.7 46.4d±3.9 55.0 c±5.0
2 44.9ab±8.0 54.0cd±4.1 63.4bc±5.8
3 48.5ab±7.0 58.8bc±3.3 68.7ab±5.5
4 51.9ab±8.5 62.4ab±3.9 70.6ab±5.3
5 51.9ab±8.7 63.2ab±3.5 72.6ab±5.6
6 53.7ab±9.4 64.2ab±3.4 73.7ab±4.5
7 54.0ab±8.3 65.4ab±4.1 73.8a±4.5
8 55.1ab±7.0 66.3ab±4.0 74.4a±4.7
9 55.7ab±8.4 67.1a±4.7 74.9a±5.0
10 56.2ab±8.4 67.2a±4.9 75.5a±4.6
11 57.3a±9.2 67.7a±4.3 75.4a±3.7
12 57.8a±9.1 67.7a±4.1 76.1a±4.3
*
Different letters on same column show significant difference (P ≤ 0.05)
Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

Table 2. Pressure-dependent spray angle (º) values (Mean ± SD) of narrow-cone standard flat fan nozzles.

Spray pressure (bar) ST 80-03 ST 90-04
1 56.4b±4.6 74.4e±0.7
2 68.3ab±2.7 81.9d±1.3
3 71.9a±4.5 85.5c±0.4
4 76.2a±4.7 89.5b±1.4
5 79.1a±5.3 90.4ab±0.5
6 79.9a±5.1 91.8ab±0.2
7 79.6a±3.6 92.6a±0.4
8 80.2a±3.9 93.1a±0.3
*
Different letters on same column show significant difference (P ≤ 0.05)
In all nozzle types, the effects of spray pressure on spray angle were found to be highly significant (p<0.01) (Table 6).

Table 3. Regression analysis results.

1
Nozzle type Statistics SD MS F p (sigma)
Regression 3 183.665 241.38 0.000**
AD Error 4 0.761
Total 7
Regression 3 416.247 1089.46 0.000
AI Error 4 0.382
Total 7
Regression 3 103.689 344.58 0.000
HC Ø1.0mm Error 8 0.301
Total 11
Regression 3 154.330 245.37 0.000
HC Ø1.2mm Error 8 0.629
Total 11
Regression 3 141.218 230.83 0.000
HC Ø1.5mm Error 8 0.612
Total 11
Regression 3 98.198 404.75 0.000
ST 90-04 Error 4 0.243
Total 7
Regression 3 251.497 624.64 0.000
ST 110 Error 4 0.403
Total 7
Regression 3 159.138 126.67 0.000
ST 80-03 Error 4 1.256
Total 7
**
Highly significant (p<0.01)
1
AD: Anti-Drift nozzle, AI: Air-Injection nozzle, HC: Hollow-Cone nozzle, ST: Standard Flat-Fan nozzle

Table 4. Relationships between spray pressure and spray angle.

*
Nozzle type Equation R2
AD y = 0.148x3 − 2.634 x2 + 16.708x + 80.766 0.990
AI y = 0.200 x3 − 3.809 x 2 + 25.191x + 64.271 0.998
HC Ø1.0 mm y = 0.029 x3 − 0.739 x 2 + 6.611x + 34.385 0.989
HC Ø1.2 mm y = 0.039 x3 − 1.024 x2 + 9.100 x + 39.031 0.985
Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

HC Ø1.5 mm y = 0.048x3 − 1.209 x2 + 10.029 x + 47.019 0.984

ST 80-03 y = 0.114 x3 − 2.306 x2 + 15.734 x + 43.449 0.982
ST 90-04 y = 0.078x3 − 1.554 x2 + 10.963x + 65.056 0.994
ST 110 y = 0.173x3 − 3.166 x 2 + 20.216 x + 71.001 0.996
*
: y: Spray angle, x: Spray pressure

Table 5. Nominal angle, spray angle calculated from the equations at 3 bar and cone angles measured at 3 bar.

Angle calculated from the Cone angle
Nozzle type Nominal angle (º)
equations (º) at 3 bar (º)
AD 120 107.2 106.7±4.9
AI 120 105.6 103.9±4.2
HCØ1.0 mm - 54.2 46.4±6.6
HCØ1.2 mm - 57.1 56.7±5.8
HCØ1.5 mm - 66.2 62.4±5.0
ST 80-03 80 69.9 75.1±2.5
ST 90-04 90 84.0 86.4±2.9
ST 110 110 103.2 105.2±3.7
Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

AI 120-015
600
500 2 bar
400 4 bar
300 6 bar
200
100
0
1 11 21 31 41 51

AI 120-02
600
2 bar
500
400 4 bar
300 6 bar
200
100
0
1 11 21 31 41 51
Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

ST 80-03
2 bar
600
4 bar
500
6 bar
400
300
200
100
0
1 11 21 31 41 51

2 bar
ST 90-04
4 bar
600
6 bar

400

200

0
1 11 21 31 41 51
Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

ST 110-03
600
500 2 bar
400 4 bar
300 6 bar
200
100
0
1 11 21 31 41 51

ST 110-04
2 bar
600
4 bar
500
6 bar
400
300
200
100
0
1 11 21 31 41 51

HC Ø1.0 mm
600
2 bar
500
400 4 bar
300 6 bar
200
100
0
1 11 21 31 41 51

HC Ø1.2 mm
600
500 2 bar
400 4 bar
300 6 bar
200
100
0
1 11 21 31 41 51
Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Spray patterns (a) CMEIAS Image Tool Ver. 1.28, (b) MATLAB R2009a

Conclusions: Spray and cone angles of different spray operations can be improved to have a simple and
hydraulic nozzles were determined under different practical method to generate spray patterns. There is no
pressures and resultant values were compared with need for a special arrangement or equipment, thus the
nominal angles. Present findings revealed that spray method is also quite economical. The method employed
angles were closely related to spray pressures. The angle to determine flow uniformity is a first case. The most
specified over the nozzle body is a nominal value and proper line should be determined in spray images
present angle checks revealed that this value varied with captured from different nozzles at different pressures,
the spray pressure. Spray and cone angle values were then resultant graph will provide better flow uniformity.
close to the nominal angle values under 3 bar spray All these methods and systems should further be
pressure. There aren’t any nominal angle values for developed to improve the precision of the studies. New
hollow-cone nozzles and spray angles increased with applications and technologies should also be developed to
increasing orifice diameters. There were not any get more precise outcomes. Image processing software
significant relationships between orifice size and spray can be made more specific for this field of study. In this
angles of standard flat-fan nozzles. Nozzle types were sense, developed systems can determine spray patterns,
selected among normal and narrow-cone nozzles and the spray and cone angles from instant video images and
spray angle averages determined with image processing complete the process in shorter period and eliminate
were similar with the cone angle averages determined intuitive preferences of the operator. Operators cannot
with patternator. exhibit the same precision in every image, thus
The increase in spray pressures did not increase automation should be activated in image processing
spray angles after a certain point, angle values stayed operations. In this way, measurements will yield more
constant and small fluctuations were observed in this accurate and precise outcomes and quality of the studies
value. Zhang et al. (2017) indicated a critical injection will improve.
pressure and spray angles became independent from the
Acknowledgements: This study was supported by
spray pressure after this critical value and also indicated
Mersin University Scientific Research Projects Unit
that cover width, thus the cone angle will not increase
(BAP) (Project Code: 2017-2-AP4-2565).
further regardless of the increase in pressure beyond this
critical value.
It was proved in this study that spray pattern REFERENCES
tests performed in a patternator could also be achieved
with image processing operations. MATLAB software Butler Ellis, M. C., C. R. Tuck, and P. C. H. Miller
was used for image processing and spray pattern was (1997). The effect of some adjuvants on sprays
generated with line profile method based on color produced by agricultural flat fan nozzles. Crop
distribution at a constant height from the nozzle orifice. Protect. 16(1): 41‒50.
Resultant spray patterns were compared with the patterns Çetin, N. (2017). Determination of spraying angle and
achieved in a patternator operated under the same flow evenness in pulverizator noozles by image
parameters and quite similar outcomes were achieved. In processing operation. M. Sc. Thesis. Graduate
this sense, a simple and a new method were developed as School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Erciyes
an alternative to patternator tests. The image processing University, Kayseri.
Cetin et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 29(6):2019

Çömlek, R. (2017). Design, manufacture of spray pattern Natural and Applied Sciences, Selçuk
test unit and flow control of sprayer nozzles. M. University, Konya.
Sc. Thesis. Graduate School of Natural and Nuyttens, D. (2007). Drift from field crop sprayers: The
Applied Sciences, Atatürk University, Erzurum. influence of spray application technology
Demir, B. (2015). A projection for plant protection determined using indirect and direct drift
machinery of central anatolia region. Alınteri J. assessment means. PhD thesis KU Leuven.
Agr. Sci. 28(1): 27-32. SAS (1999). SAS Institute Inc.: SAS Version 8.02:
Demir, B., N. Çetin, and Z. A. Kuş (2016). Determination SAS/STAT Software: changes and
of color properties of weed using image enhancements through Release 8.02. Cary, NC,
processing. Alınteri J. Agric. Sci. 31(B): 59-64. SAS Institute Inc, USA.
Dorr, G. J., A. J. Hewitt, S. W. Adkins, J. Hanan, H. Sayıncı, B. (2008). Determination of spray application
Zhang, and B. Noller (2013). A comparison of performance into potato canopies with spinning
initial spray characteristics produced by disc and hydraulic spray nozzles, and biological
agricultural nozzles. Crop Protect. 53(11): 109- activities with spinosad for Leptinotarsa
117. decemlineata say (coleptera: chrysomelidae).
IBM SPSS® (2010). Statistical software. SSS Inc., IBM PhD Thesis. Graduate School of Natural and
Company©, Version 20. Applied Sciences, Atatürk University, Erzurum.
ImageJ 1.38x (2006). Image proccessing and analysis in Sayıncı, B. and S. Bastaban (2009). Factors affecting
java. USA. spray application performance of hydraulic
Johnson, P. D., D. A. Rimmer, A. N. I. Garrod, J. E. nozzles. Turkish J. Sci. Rev. 2(2): 35-41.
Helps, and C. Mawdsley (2005). Operator Sayıncı, B. (2016). The influence of strainer types on the
exposure when applying amenity herbicides by flow and droplet velocity characteristicsof
all-terrain vehicles and controlled droplet ceramic flat-fan nozzles. Turkish J. Agric. and
applicators. Annals of Occup. Hyg. 49(1): 25-32. Fores. 40(1): 25-37.
Krishnan, P., T. Evans, K. Ballal, and L. J. Kemble. Shafaee, M., S. A. Banitabaei, M. Ashjaee, and V.
(2004). Scanning electron microscopic studies of Esfahanian (2011). Effect of flow conditions on
new and used fan nozzles for agricultural spray cone angle of a two-fluid atomizer. J.
sprayers. App. Engin. in Agric. 20(2): 133-137. Mech. Sci. and Tech. 25(2): 365-369.
Liu, J., F. B. Dazzo, O. Glagoleva, B. Yu, and A.K. Jain. Stafford, J. V. (2000). Implementing precision agriculture
(2001). CMEIAS: A computer-aided system for in the 21st century. J. Agric. Engin. Res. 76(3):
the image analysis of bacterial morphotypes in 267-275.
microbial communities. Micr. Eco. 41(3): 173- Vulgarakis Minov S. (2015). Integration of imaging
194 and 42: 215. http://cme.msu.edu/cmeias/ techniques for the quantitative characterization
MATLAB (2009) MATLAB & Simulink Release 2009. of pesticide sprays. PhD Thesis. Ghent
The MathWorks Inc. University, Belgium and Burgundy University,
Mengeş, H. O. (1995). The determination of distribution France.
and pulverization characteristics for some Zhang, T., B. Dong, X. Chen, Z. Qiu, R. Jiang, and W.
different nozzle types used in mechanic field Li, (2017). Spray characteristics of pressure-
sprayers. M. Sc. Thesis. Graduate School of swirl nozzles at different nozzle diameters. App.
Therm. Engin. 121(7): 984-991.