Abstract
In this upload, three different publications (one presentation deck and two conference papers) are combined that all deal with the topic of plant protection product spray drift exposure of Non-Target Terrestrial Plants. To determine pesticide spray drift exposure of non-target organisms for the risk assessment, drift deposition to horizontal collectors like petri dishes is currently used. There is little information about the volume of airborne drift captured by vertical, 3-D off-crop structures, such as plants. Preliminary wind tunnel investigations indicated that rows of plants capture similar volumes as single plants but that blocks of plants differ in the quantity captured. The front row of plants in a block, unsurprisingly, captures the most spray drift while a few rows back, the amount captured falls off considerably. There are also differences in spray drift capture depending on plant species. The results support the assumption that the standard regulatory spray drift exposure estimations based on horizontal collection do not reflect the reality of spray drift capture by off-crop canopies. Development of new testing and modelling based approaches would allow for a more realistic risk assessment. There is interest in developing approaches to higher tier testing, for non-target terrestrial plants, as an alternative to field trials which are expensive and not standardized. Developing modelling or novel experimental methods requires the main factors that determine exposure and biological effect to be taken account of appropriately. Droplet size is likely to be one of the most important parameters to be considered, and so in this study, both modelling and wind tunnel experiments were used to explore some of the factors that influence the size distribution of droplets that reach downwind non-target plants. These factors include wind speed, distance downwind and nozzle design.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
The front row of plants in a block captured the most spray drift.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee0
- Organ / stage
- front rowe0
- Outcome
- spray drifte0
- Direction
- the moste0
Verbatim
e0“The front row of plants in a block, unsurprisingly, captures the most spray drift”
Claim · model-written summary
A few rows back in a block of plants, the amount of spray drift captured falls off considerably.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee0
- Outcome
- the amount capturede0
- Direction
- falls off considerablye0
- Qualifier
- a few rows backe0
Verbatim
e0“The front row of plants in a block, unsurprisingly, captures the most spray drift while a few rows back, the amount captured falls off considerably”
Claim · model-written summary
In preliminary wind tunnel tests, rows of plants captured similar volumes of spray drift as single plants.
Verbatim
e0“Preliminary wind tunnel investigations indicated that rows of plants capture similar volumes as single plants”
Claim · model-written summary
In preliminary wind tunnel tests, blocks of plants differed in the quantity of spray drift captured.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee0
- Material
- blocks of plantse0
- Outcome
- quantity capturede0
- Direction
- differe0
Verbatim
e0“blocks of plants differ in the quantity captured”
Claim · model-written summary
Spray drift capture differs depending on plant species.
Verbatim
e0“There are also differences in spray drift capture depending on plant species”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors state that the results support the assumption that standard regulatory spray drift exposure estimates based on horizontal collection do not reflect spray drift capture by off-crop canopies.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The results support the assumption that the standard regulatory spray drift exposure estimations based on horizontal collection do not reflect the reality of spray drift capture by off-crop canopies”