ArticlePloS one2025
Energy-environmental evaluation of conventional and variable rate technology sprayer; application of Life Cycle Assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this research was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the energy and environmental efficiency of a smart sprayer with a variable rate in orange production. The smart sprayer was developed from a standard orchard sprayer with a fixed rate using different equipment. Energy indicators, encompassing energy efficiency, energy productivity, energy intensity and net energy gain, were calculated. Environmental indicators, including global warming potential, acidification, eutrophication and human toxicity potentials, were estimated using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method in 15 midpoint and 4 endpoint categories. The findings demonstrated that the smart sprayer with a variable rate held a significant advantage over the conventional sprayer with a fixed rate in terms of reducing the pesticide deposition on the trees, lowering pesticide consumption, increasing the energy efficiency and productivity and mitigating the environmental impacts. The maximum pesticide lowering was 46%, achieved at a speed of 1.6 km.hr-1. The energy efficiency and productivity changed from 0.594 to 0.650 and from 0.313 to 0.342 kg.MJ-1, respectively. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) declined from 422.860 to 407.573 kg CO2 eq per ton of orange production. The reduction of chemical pesticide, diesel fuel and agricultural machinery consumption contributed to the decrease in environmental emissions. Consequently, the smart sprayer with a variable rate emerged as a significantly more sustainable and efficient solution for orange production.
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.