ArticleChemosphere2019
Real-Time Monitoring of Spray Drift from Three Different Orchard Sprayers.
Article in Chemosphere, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing tunnel sprayer performance through optimization of constructional parameters.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Combined Infection Control Interventions Protect Essential Food Workers from Occupational Exposures to SARS-CoV-2 in the Agricultural Environment.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2023Article
- Effects of sprayer speed, spray distance, and nozzle arrangement angle on low-flow air-assisted spray deposition.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Examining the role of wind in human illness due to pesticide drift in Washington state, 2000-2015.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2021Article
- Comparison of Droplet Size, Coverage, and Drift Potential from UAV Application Methods and Ground Application Methods on Row Crops.Transactions of the ASABE · 2021Article
- An Intelligent Multi-Sensor Variable Spray System with Chaotic Optimization and Adaptive Fuzzy Control.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Spray Drift from Three Airblast Sprayer Technologies in a Modern Orchard Work Environment.Annals of work exposures and health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In Washington State, half of all pesticide-related illnesses in agriculture result from drift, the off-target movement of pesticides. Of these, a significant proportion involve workers on another farm and orchard airblast applications. We compared the spray drift exposure reduction potential of two modern tower sprayers - directed air tower (DAT) and multi-headed fan tower (MFT), in relation to a traditional axial fan airblast (AFA) sprayer. We employed real-time particle monitors (Dylos DC1100) during a randomized control trial of orchard spray applications. Sections of a field were randomly sprayed by three alternating spray technologies - AFA, DAT and MFT - while monitors sampled particulate matter above and below the canopy at various downwind locations in a neighboring field. Geometric mean particle mass concentrations (PMC) outside the intended spray area were elevated during all applications at all of our sampling distances (16-74 m, 51-244 ft). After adjusting for wind speed and sampling height, the 75th percentile (95% confidence interval) PMC level was significantly greater during spray events than background levels by 105 (93, 120) μg/m
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.