Pesticide Application Quality With Alternative Use of Water Sensitive Paper

The water sensitive paper is commonly used in the uniformity and distribution ratings of the spray droplets pattern; however, this technology still has a high cost. In this way, the present work had as objective to evaluate the quality of deposition of spray drops in different types of papers sensitive to water. The test was carried out in a wind tunnel built inside the multi-sport gymnasium of the State University of West Paraná-campus of Cascavel-PR. A semi-automated nozzle transition prototype was used to perform the tests. The variables evaluated were number of diameters, dispersion, volumetric medium diameter (VMD), droplet density, cover and droplet volume. The treatments consisted of four different types of paper compared to the water sensitive paper (control), and two nozzles. Cardboard paper stood out among the others at the cost of approximately 1% of a water-sensitive paper slip. The water sensitive paper used in agriculture can be replaced by alternative papers more economically viable and easily found in the market.


Introduction
The use of pesticide is increasing more and more, since it is still considered the main method of control of invaders, pests and diseases in the plantations.Most of these products are liquid and spray-applied (Wang et al., 2018).The application of these inputs is part of modern agriculture and this method of control contributes to the productivity and quality of agricultural crops (Hilz & Vermeer, 2013).
The applications consist of the deposition of spray drops on the target, however the lack of uniformity causes the inefficiency of the process.In this way, product drift can occur, causing waste and contamination of the environment (Nascimento et al., 2013).The reduction of the drift and the maximization of the deposition of the drops of the pesticides in the target is one of the main concerns of the application technique (Ferguson et al., 2015).Silveira et al. (2008) also affirm that ensuring the efficiency of treatments and preventing losses is the main objective for controlling the factors that involve spraying.Since excess applications increase costs, they can cause crop damage and contaminate the environment.In contrast, sub-application may result in low control over the applied target and a reduction in crop yield (Sharda, Fulton, Mcdonald, & Brodbeck, 2011   After the calibration of the equipment, the tests were started.The equipment was activated, and for its stabilization it was waited 5 seconds.Once stabilized, the movement of the cart was started, simulating the drag with the different types of paper.The trolley passed under the bar that was static for spraying the syrup on the test papers, this process was repeated for both types of nozzles, following the same test pattern.
Thus, after the spraying procedure, the test papers were collected, for the measurement of the drop spectra for the two types of nozzles in two stages.
Soon after the passage of the cart, the test papers were collected and scanned, because as they are sensitive to the humidity of the air, it was tried to scan as quickly as possible.The papers were scanned on a HP 3180 Hewlett-Packard® scanner (with a minimum resolution of 600 dpi), and the images were cut and processed in the Quant software.
Quant software processes from photos obtained by satellites to those made by microscopes and allows the application of filters, contrast and operations between channels to fit the images, because the surfaces of the papers tested are white, the individual images of each paper were processed in the software Quant in order to match the color of the water sensitive paper to be processed in the Drops software (Version 2.2, Embrapa).The program analyzes the deposition of pesticides to determine the number of droplets, number of diameters, dispersion, volumetric medium diameter (VMD), droplet density (drops cm -2 ), cover (%) and droplet volume (L ha -1 ).
The statistical design used was a 2 × 5 factorial, two types of nozzles and five types of paper.The results were obtained by ANOVA and the means were compared by Tukey's test at 5% significance, using Sisvar 5.6 software (Ferreira, 2015).We also used the software GOTAS Version 2.2, (Embrapa, 2010) for the analysis of the papers.
The software Quant produced photos by means of satellites up to them by microscopes and enabled the application of filters, contrast and operation between channels for images such as the clouds of the papers tested, as individual images of each paper were processed in the Quant software in order to match.

Results
Table 2 shows the interactions according to analysis of variance (ANOVA).From the ANOVA, it was verified by means of test f, that both types of BD-015 and CVIA-015 nozzles do not differ statistically from each other (p > 0.05), for any type of paper, that is, none of the nozzles was influenced by the response variable.Therefore, the papers tested are different (p < 0.05), that is, at least one pair of papers are different, so at least one type of paper was influenced by the response variable.Raetano, and Araújo (2004), studied sthephon spray (growth accelerator) in coffee trees, these authors obtained mean droplet densities of 30 to 60 cm -2 drops in the upper part of the plant and 217 to 230 cm -2 drops in using Arbus 400 equipment and JA2 nozzles (corresponding to 200 L ha -1 ).
The water sensitive paper presented a higher percentage of coverage (38%), being statistically higher than the others, which was closer to that of paper, but statistically different and smaller than the control sample (24%).
The papers (paperboard and rives tradition 250) were lower than the control and statistically equal, as were the papers (rives tradition 250 and sulphite).The current coverage values were higher than those obtained by Ramos et al. (2007) on citrus leaves using an Arbus 2000 spray at variable volumes of 50 to 200 L ha -1 .
The water sensitive paper and paperboard were statistically the same, with a minimum significant difference of 159 μm, where the water sensitive paper had VMD of 629 μm and the paperboard had 586 μm, paper (paperboard and rives tradition 250) were lower than the control and statistically equal, as well as the roles (rives tradition 250 and sulphite), which differs to the values found by Cunha, Teixeira and Ferreira (2003) in a similar work in which it evaluated, among other parameters, the in which it found values that varied from 83 to 129 μm when the empty conical jet nozzles were used, and from 124 to 214 μm in the flat jet nozzles.

Conclusions
The water sensitive paper used in agriculture can be replaced by alternative papers more economically viable and easily found in the market.
The paper presented more expressive and similar results to the water sensitive paper, at the cost of approximately 1% of a paper of the water sensitive paper. jas.ccsenet.

Table 1 .
Technical characteristics of the spray tips provided by the manufacturer (Insert year of publication of the manufacturer's catalog)

Table 2 .
Analysis of variance of the treatments studied (N = 50) Note. * level of significance used in the F test: 5%.

Table 3 .
C and volumIn this case the papers (cardboard, paperboard and sulphite) can replace the water sensitive paper in the collection of density.Scudeles,