Premium
Image analysis of shatter and pinning events on hard‐to‐wet leaf surfaces by drops containing surfactant
Author(s) -
Huet Olivier DY,
Massi Mathieu,
De Cock Nicolas,
Forster W Alison,
Zabkiewicz Jerzy A,
Pethiyagoda Ravindra,
Moroney Timothy J,
Lebeau Frederic,
McCue Scott W
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
pest management science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.296
H-Index - 125
eISSN - 1526-4998
pISSN - 1526-498X
DOI - 10.1002/ps.5796
Subject(s) - breakup , pulmonary surfactant , drop (telecommunication) , materials science , contact angle , composite material , chemistry , physics , mechanics , biochemistry , telecommunications , computer science
BACKGROUND A key challenge for developing computer models of spray retention by plants is to accurately predict how spray drops behave when impacting leaf surfaces. One poorly understood outcome occurs when drops bounce or shatter on impact but leave behind a proportion of the liquid on the surface (designated as pinning). This process is studied via impaction experiments with two hard‐to‐wet leaf surfaces (fat‐hen: Chenopodium album and barnyard grass: Echinochloa crus‐galli L. P. Beauv) and one hydrophobic artificial surface (Teflon) using three liquid formulations. RESULTS Drops that impact upon Teflon underwent pinning shatter events via a well‐known mechanism referred to as receding breakup. Drops impacting on leaf surfaces did not undergo receding breakup because the liquid rim was not in direct contact with the leaf surface when it broke into secondary droplets. However, pinning did occur on plant surfaces via a different mechanism, especially when using formulations containing a surfactant. CONCLUSION Newly developed image analysis and methodology has allowed quantification of the volume fraction pinned to surfaces when drops shatter. The addition of surfactant can increase both the probability of pinning and the pinned volume when drops shatter on fat‐hen or Teflon. However, the surfactants studied did not substantially improve the probability of pinning on barnyard grass. The difference in behaviour between the two leaf surfaces and the underlying mechanism is worth further study. © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry