PESTICIDE SPRAY APPLICATIONT

BEHAVIOR. AND ASSESSMENT:

WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS
PACIFIC
SOUTHWEST
Forest and Ranee
Experiment station
1 FOREST SERVICE
1 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
P. 0. BOX 245. BERKELEY. CALIFORNIA 94701
USDA FOREST SERVICE
GENERAL TECHNICAL
REPORT PSW- 15 11976
Pesticide Spray Application, Behavior, and Assessment: Workshop Proceedings
March1-2,1973 Emeryville,California
TechnicalCoordinator
RichardB.Roberts
CoordinatingStaff
PatrickJ.Shea,RobertL.Dimmick,AlvinM.Tanabe
CONTENTS
Preface........................................................1
WelcomeAddress................................................ 3
Harry Camp
APPLICATION
PhysicalParametersRelatingtoPesticideApplication.......... 4
Norman B. Akesson and Wesley E. Yat es
WorkshopSummary............................................... 20
Edward M. Fusse 22
Discussion..................................................... 21
BEHAVIOR
TheMicrometeorologyandPhysicsofSprayParticleBehavior....27
Harrison E. Crooner and Douglas G. Boyle
InpactionofZectranParticlesonSpruceBudwormLarvae:
A FieldExperiment...........................................40
John W. Barry, Michael Tysowsky, Jr . , Geoffrey F. Orr,
Robert B. Ekblad, Richard L. Marsalis, and Willim M.
Cies l a
WorkshopSummary............................................... 48
Robert L. Di1TOTTLek
Discussion.....................................................50
ASSESSMENT
Assessment of I ns ect i ci de Spray Processes...................... 53
Chester M. Hime l
Workshop Summary............................................... 59
John A. Neisess
Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Rapporteur Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Mark A. Chatigny
Workshop Pa r t i c i pa nt s .......................................... 66
^/MU0^2-)
Roberts. Richard B . . t echni cal coordi nat or
1976. pes t i ci de spray appl i cat i on, behavior, and assessment: workshop
proceedings. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-15, 68 p. , i l l u s .
Pa c i f i c Southwest Forest and Range Exp. St n. , Berkeley, Cal i f .
Experts from r el evant di s c i pl i ne s exchanged information on t hr ee important
problems of pes t i ci de spray technology. The f our papers present ed a r e Physical
Parameters Relating t o Pesticide Applications by N . B. Akesson and W. E . Yates;
The Micrometeorology and Physics of Spray Part i cl e Behavior by H. E . Cramer and
D. G. Boyle; Impaction of Zectran Part i cl es on Spruce Budnomi Larvae: A F i e l d
Experiment by J . W. Barry and Others; and Assessment of Insect i ci de Spray Processes
by C. M. Himel. Summaries of t he t hr e e workshop sessi ons a r e al s o included.
Oxford: 414.22(042)
Ret ri eval Terms: Spray appl i cat i ons ; i ns ect i ci des ; pes t i ci des ; spray pa r t i c l e s ;
models; zect r ans; aer osol s; t r ans por t s .
TECHNICAL COORDINATOR
RICHARD B. ROBERTS i s a r esear ch entomologist a t t he Pa c i f i c Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment St at i on, Forest Servi ce, U.S. Department of Agri cul t ure, Berkeley,
Cal i f or ni a. He joined t he St at i on s t a f f i n 1965. He holds a doct or at e i n entomol-
ogy/biochemistry from t he Uni versi t y of Idaho.
COORDINATING STAFF
PATRICK J. SHEA, a research entomologist a t t he time of t he workshop, i snow
supervi sory r esear ch entomologist i n charge of t he St a t i on' s Fi el d Evaluation
of Chemical I ns ect i ci des . He joined t he St at i on s t a f f i n 1967, and earned t he
M.S. degree i n f or e s t entomology i n 1974 a t t he Uni versi t y of Cal i f or ni a, Berkeley.
ROBERT L. DIMMICK, a r esear ch ba c t e r i ol ogi s t , i s chairman of t he Aerosol Sciences
Department of t he Naval Biosciences Laboratory, Oakland, Cal i f or ni a. He hol ds
a doct or at e i n microbiology from Purdue Uni versi t y, Lafayet t e, Indiana. ALVI N
M. TANABE was formerly an a s s i s t a nt research entomologist a t t he Naval Biosciences
Laboratory. He hol ds a doct or at e i n entomology from t he Uni versi t y of Cal i f or ni a,
Berkeley.
PREFACE
Thepurposeofthisworkshopwastobringtogetherexperts
fromallscientificdisciplinestoexchangeinformationandideas
onthreeofthemostimportantproblemsofpesticidespraytech-
nology-- application,behaviorandassessment. Thebroadrange
ofscientifictalentrepresentedandthescopeoftheeffortneeded
tokeepabreastofthisfieldareevidentfromthelistofpar-
ticipantsintheworkshop.
Therehasbeenagrowingtendencytoemphasizetheimportance
ofcontrollingthespraycloudandthedroplet(particle)size
andthenecessityofmonitoringmeteorologicalconditions. Increased
concernoveraerialapplicationtechnologyhasdevelopedforseveral
reasons,including:(1)useofpesticidesthatbiomagnifyandad-
verselyaffectnontargetorganisms,(2)increaseduseoftransient
insecticidesanddecreaseduseofresidualinsecticides,(3)increased
awarenessofthepollutionproblemsresultingfromdriftand(4)
increasingknowledgeoftheeffectiveparticlespectrumofcontact
insecticides.
Itwasourhopethatthisworkshopwouldprovideacommon
meetinggroundforthefreeexchangeofinformationandideas
amongtheworkshopattendees. Judgingbythecontentsofthese
proceedings,anexcellentstartwasmadetowardaccomplishing
thisgoal. Certainly,theresponsetothecallforcommittee
memberstoaidindevelopingstandardsandguidelineswasagood
indicationoftheenthusiasmgeneratedbytheworkshop.
Theworkshopwassponsoredbytwoorganizations.TheInsec-
ticideEvaluationProject,USDAForestService,PacificSouthwest
ForestandRangeExperimentStation,wasorganizedtodevelop
safe,selective,nonpersistent,andeffectivematerialsand
techniquestomanageforestinsectpestpopulationswithminimal
environmentaleffects. Theprogramofresearchwasdivided
intofourproblemareas:(1) screeningandbioassayofcandidate
chemicalsandformulationsforselectionofthosemosteffective
forcontrolofspecificinsectpests;(2) chemistryandtoxicology
ofselectedchemicals,whichincludessynthesisandformulation
ofselectedcandidates,physiologicalandbiochemicaleffects
ininsects,residueanalysis,andsprayparticlebehavior;
(3)penetration,translocation,andmetabolismofchemicalson
andinforesttreestodevelopeffectivefoliarsystemic
treatments;and(4) fieldevaluationofinsecticideformulations
todeterminesafetyandefficacy.
TheNavalBiosciencesLaboratory,formerlytheNavalBiomedical
ResearchLaboratory,isaresearchunitfundedinlargepartby
theOfficeofNavalResearchandtheBureauofMedicineandSurgery,
UnitedStatesNavy,andadministeredthroughtheSchoolofPublic
Health,UniversityofCalifornia. Grantsandcontractsfromother
governmentagenciesarealsopartofthefundingstructure. The
LaboratoryislocatedattheNavalSupplyCenter,Oakland,California.
TheprimaryspecialtyoftheLaboratoryisaerobiologyandthe
studyofrespiratorydiseaseandalliedmedicalproblems. Unique
equipmentandfacilitieshavebeenconstructedtopermitthestudy
ofaerosolsunderhighlycontrolledconditions,includingthe
exposureoftestanimalstoairborneparticles.
Thesmoothfunctioningoftheworkshopwouldnothavebeen
possiblewithouttheaidofPatrickSheaofthePacificSouthwest
ForestandRangeExperimentStation,Berkeley,andRichardDimmick
andAlvinTanabeoftheNavalBiosciencesLaboratory,Oakland.
Theyprovidedassistanceinplanningtheworkshopandtakingcare
ofmanydetailsessentialtoitssuccess. ThehelpofRoseMarie
Shea,EileenDimmick,PatTanabe,andBettyRoberts,together
withstaffmembersofthetwoorganizations,whoservedaspro-
jectionists,chauffeurs,andsecretarialassistants,was
indispensable.
RICHARDB.ROBERTS
Thispublicationreportsresearchinvolvingpesticides. Itdoes
notcontainrecommendationsfortheiruse,nordoesitimply
thattheusesdiscussedherehavebeenregistered. Alluses
ofpesticidesmustberegisteredbyappropriateStateand/or
Federalagenciesbeforetheycanberecommended.
CAUTION: Pesticidescanbeinjurioustohumans,domesticanimals,
desirableplants,andfishorotherwildlife--iftheyarenot
handledorappliedproperly. Useallpesticidesselectively
andcarefully. Followrecommendedpracticesforthedisposal
ofsurpluspesticidesandpesticidecontainers.
Tradenamesandcommercialenterprisesorproductsare
mentionedsolelyfornecessaryinformation. Noendorsement
bytheU.S.DepartmentofAgricultureisimplied.
Harry W. Camp
Welcometothisworkshopconcernedwithpesticidespray
technology. Thismeetingisparticularlysignificantbecause
oftheuseofchemicalsintoday's"atmosphereuofcritical
needforimprovingtheproductionoffoodandfiber,ina
situationwhereimprovementofthequalityofourenvironment
andloweringofcostsareeverybitascritical. Thereare
forcesofmenatworkinbothareas,andonlythroughtheir
cooperativeeffortswillwearriveatanacceptablesolution
totheproblemofproducingadequatesuppliesoffoodand
fiberatacceptablecostsinanenvironmentsuitabletoall
ofus.
ThisworkshopisacooperativeventureoftheNaval
BiomedicalResearch~aborator~, NavalSupplyCenter,Oakland,
California,andtheInsecticideEvaluationProject,Pacific
SouthwestForestandRangeExperimentStation,Berkeley,
California. Thegeneralobjectivesofthesetworesearch
unitsareoutlinedinyourprogramsoIshallnotrepeat
them. SpecialcreditisduetoMr.AllenJewett,Headof
theMicrobiologyBranch,NavalBiologyProgram,andDr.William
Waters,HeadofForestInsectResearch,U.S.Forestservice.
ThesetwomenfromWashingtonD.C.,areresponsiblefor
bringingtogetherthetwosponsoringunitshereintheBay
area. Locally,Dr.RichardRobertsandMr.PatrickSheaof
thePacificSouthwestStation,andDrs.RobertDimmickand
AlanTanabeoftheNavalBiomedicalResearchLaboratoryare
responsibleforarrangingtheexcellentprogramaheadofyou.
Iwouldbehappytodwellatlengthontheimportance
oftheresearchbeingdoneinpesticideapplication,behavior,
andassessment,butthefactyouarehereleadsmetobelieve
youarewellawareofitsimportance.
ItiswithagreatdealofpleasureIwelcomeyou,on
behalfofDr.NeylanVedros,DirectoroftheNavalBiomedical
ResearchLaboratory,andmyself,toBerkeleyandtothiswork-
shoponPesticideSprayTechnology. Mayyouhaveahighly
successfulmeeting.
^ - ~ t thetimeoftheworkshop,Mr.Camp,nowretired,was
Director,PacificSouthwestForestandRangeExperiment
Station,Berkeley,California.
^he NavalBiomedicalResearchLaboratoryisnowthe
NavalBiosciencesLaboratory.
'~r.WatersisnowDeanoftheCollegeofNaturalResources,
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.
APPLICATION
Physical Parameters Relating t o Pesticide Application
Norman B. Akesson Wesley E. yatesl
ABSTRACT--Integrated cont rol of crop-damaging i nsect s includes
j udi ci ous appl i cat i on of pest i ci des. Dispensing equipment i s avai l -
abl e i n wide va r i e t y t o produce vari ous drop s i zes ranging from aero-
s ol s t o coarse sprays. Si ze ranges and frequency di s t r i but i ons of
drops produced by di f f e r e nt types of equipment have been determined.
Actual f i e l d deposi t and i nsect cont act r a t e s a r e affect ed by chemi-
c a l , physi cal , and bi ol ogi cal f act or s. Ultra-low-volume spray tech-
niques a r e being i ncreasi ngl y used, with varying success.
Local
meteorology, pa r t i c ul a r l y temperature inversions, st rongl y a f f e c t s
spray di sper si on and hel ps t o determine s ui t abl e times f or applica-
t i on.
A host of measures have been used i n man's
never-ending f i ght t o pr ot ect h i s heal t h and
t ha t of h i s domestic animals, and t o pr ot ect
and i nsur e an abundant food supply i n t he f ace
of an ever-i ncreasi ng population and demands
f or a hi gher st andard of l i vi ng. I n recent
years, t he widespread occurrence of pes t i ci de
chemicals i n t he environment, along with
i ncr easi ng pol l ut i on from i ndus t r i a l and agr i -
c ul t ur a l sources has caused i ncr easi ng concern
f or pr ot ect i on of t he environment as wel l .
The f o l l y of t o t a l dependence on any one
of t he many measures avai l abl e f or pes t con-
t r o l , such as our r ecent overuse and r eckl ess
use of pes t i ci de chemicals, has been c l e a r l y
demonstrated by nat ur e' s r eact i on t o such
poorly designed measures. Examples a r e t he
development of i ns e c t r es i s t ance and t he even
more dangerous el i mi nat i on of pa r a s i t e s and
predat ors benef i ci al i n cont r ol l i ng our eco-
nomically important i ns e c t s . Under t hese
changed condi t i ons, such i ns e c t s can qui ckl y
dest roy a crop des pi t e frequent appl i cat i ons
of l a r ge r and l a r ge r amounts of t he most t oxi c
chemicals.
This problem has l ed t o a r et ur n t o t ot a l
crop management, o r what i s cal l ed i nt egr at ed
cont r ol . This i s not a new concept, but one
t ha t was, of necessi t y, widely pr act i ced
before s ynt het i c pes t i ci des were avai l abl e.
The concept has been defined as t he use of
combinations of physi cal , bi ol ogi cal , and
chemical measures t ha t have been found t o
~ e ~ a r t m e n t of Agr i cul t ur al Engineering,
Uni versi t y of Cal i f or ni a, Davis, Cal i f or ni a.
supplement and enhance one another, so t ha t t he
coordinated e f f or t s may achieve t he hi ghest
degree of ef f ect i ve cont rol . Thus, i nt egr at ed
cont rol includes crop management, management
of waste disposal and sani t at i on, and i r r i ga -
t i on and drainage cont rol , i n addi t i on t o
management and monitoring of crop pest s, which
includes consideration of seasonal and weather
i nfl uences and bi ol ogi cal means of cont rol ,
and, most important, t he judicious use and
appl i cat i on of pest i ci de chemicals.
A l l t hese measures, normally di rect ed
toward maximizing crop production and reducing
vect or o r f or es t i nsect population, must a l s o
be aimed a t reducing t he widespread i ndi scri mi -
nat e use of pest i ci des, with t he i r al l - t oo-
frequent i nj ur i ous ef f ect on t he environment
and t he heal t h of workers handling them.
New, more s peci f i c and biodegradable
chemicals ar e needed, but t here i s al s o a need
f o r gr eat er use of bi ol ogi cal control organisms,
including predat ors, par asi t es, and microbial
agent s, as well as t he more novel pheromones
and juvenile hormones. These alone cannot
overcome t he pest problems today, o r i n t he
forseeabl e f ut ur e. But as par t of an i nt egr at ed
cont rol program, and especi al l y i n conjunction
with chemical methods, they can achieve s i gni f i -
cant reduction i n t he need f or chemical cont r ol ,
and s ubs t i t ut e s af er , l e s s contaminating crop,
f or es t , and vector cont rol measures.
Important i n careful pest cont rol pr act i ces
a r e (1) sel ect i on of chemicals best s ui t ed t o
t he problems, but l e a s t damaging t o t he environ-
ment, (2) appl i cat i on of t hese a t t he proper
time and place and i n car ef ul l y metered dosages,
and ( 3) appl i cat i on i n proper formulation and
pa r t i c l e s i z e , with consi derat i on of weather
and geographic i nfl uences, and ot he r f act or s ,
such a s s a f e t y t o nontarget pl ant s and animals.
EQUIPMENT
Sui t abl e equipment, and e f f e c t i ve and
e f f i c i e nt techniques f o r i t s use, a r e as
important as t he chemical o r bi ol ogi cal agent
i t s e l f . A wide s el ect i on of equipment f o r
di spensi ng vari ous formulations i s avai l abl e.
The deci si ons governing t he s el ect i on of
equipment ar e momentous and a l l too frequent l y
poorl y evaluated. Whatever i s immediately
avai l abl e, o r t he most popular machine of t he
day, may be t he choice. The bi ol ogi s t tends
t o blame h i s f a i l ur e s on t he machine, but a l l
t oo frequent l y he i s not s uf f i c i e nt l y aware
of how t he bas i c machine funct i ons, such as
what pa r t i c l e s i z e s i t produces; he i s not
f ami l i ar with techniques of volume metering
o r appl i cat i on placement, and t he r e l a t i on of
t hese t o weather and t e r r a i n.
Sol i d formulations, a s dust s and granul es,
o f f e r a f i xed concent rat i on of t oxi cant and
f i xed pa r t i c l e s i z e , and t hus a l s o a l i mi t ed
appl i cat i on o r use. A few mat er i al s cont rol
i ns e c t o r di sease pes t s through systemic
t r a ns f e r of chemicals from f ol i age o r r oot s
t o a l l pa r t s of t he pl ant . There i s a l a r ge r
choice of systemic herbi ci des. Of exi s t i ng
systemic pes t i ci des , probably t he s a f e s t
l east -cont ami nat i ng type of formulation i s
nondusting l ar ge granul es, o r t he microgranule
o r coarse dust , i n which a l l pa r t i c l e s below
about SO pm i n diameter have been el i mi nat ed.
Ground-operated equipment f or granules ar e
of sever al t ypes; t he conventional swath-width
hopper, t he cent r i f ugal s l i nge r (broadcast ),
and t he a i r c a r r i e r (broadcast ). For he l i -
copt er s, s l i nge r spreaders and a i r c a r r i e r s
ar e popular, but f o r fixed-wing a i r c r a f t , t he
ram a i r spreaders ar e probably most widely
used.
Spray formulations of f e r a wide choice i n
t oxi cant st r engt h, pa r t i c l e s i ze, and t ot a l
appl i ed volume per appl i cat i on. For deposi t i ng-
type sprays, and f or ve r t i c a l penet r at i on of
f ol i age, l ar ge pa r t i c l e s i z e s a r e found des i r abl e
as appl i ed by pressure nozzle, boom, and of f s e t
nozzle equipment, a s well as a i r c a r r i e r appl i -
cat i on machines. For f i ne r sprays and aer osol s,
-
speci al types of equipment capable of high
atomization energy a r e found desi r abl e. These
may be high pressure hydraul i c nozzles, pro-
ducing drops down t o about 125 pm volume diam-
e t e r (vmd) , two-fluid ( a i r and l i qui d) nozzl es,
or vol at i l e- t ype two-fluid nozzl es, which can
produce atomization as f i ne a s 10 t o 15 pm vmd.
Si mi l ar l y, a i r c r a f t have been s e t up f or a l l
ranges of drop s i z e s of sprays and aer osol s,
and f o r a wide var i et y of appl i cat i on volumes
from several gal l ons t o a few ounces per acr e.
Obviously t he equipment must be matched t o t he
formulation, e i t h e r dry o r l i qui d, but much
more pa r t i c ul a r l y so when l i qui ds ar e t o be
used f or di s t i nc t and s peci f i ed operat i ons,
such a s adul t i ci di ng a s opposed t o l ar vi ci di ng
i n mosquito cont r ol .
Atomizers f or l i qui d sprays and aer osol s
may be cat egori zed a s follows, by t he source
of t he atomizing energy:
Pressure Centrifuga2
J e t Disk o r cup
Cone (hollow & Brush
s ol i d) Screen o r per-
Fan f or at ed cyl i nder
Defl ect or fan
Offset
Gaseous
Vor t i cal : low pressure, high volume
Shear
High pressure, low volume
Figure 1. Pressure-type atomizers produce a wide range of drop s i z e s s ui t a bl e
f o r both a i r c r a f t and ground machine use. From l e f t t o r i ght ,
(a) j e t , (b) hollow cone showing whi rl pl a t e , (c) cent r i f ugal - t ype
hollow cone, (d) s ol i d cone showing hol e i n whirl pl at e, (e) fan,
and ( f ) def l ect or f an.
Pr es s ur e energy nozzles-The j e t nozzl e
( f i g . l a ) and t he d e f l e c t o r f an nozzl e ( f i g . l f )
produce spr ays of l a r ge drop s i z e . These two
may be oper at ed a t pr es s ur es from a few pounds
p e r squar e i nch t o a hundred o r more, but t o
produce l a r g e drops wi t h a minimum of smal l
d r i f t a b l e dr ops, pr es s ur es shoul d not exceed
5 t o 10 l b/ i n2. The us e of t he s e nozzl es i s
confi ned t o such a ppl i c a t i ons a s l a r vi c i di ng
f o r mosquito c ont r ol , o r t o l ow- dr i f t - l os s
a ppl i c a t i ons of he r bi c i de s by a i r c r a f t o r
ground equipment.
The f an and cone t ypes a r e t he most
wi del y used pr es s ur e energy nozzl es on a i r -
c r a f t o r ground equipment. Drop s i z e may
range from 100 t o 1000 pm, varyi ng p r i -
mar i l y wi t h l i q u i d pr es s ur e. I f l i q u i d i s
di schar ged i n t o an a i r st ream, t h e a i r s hear
a c t i on i ncr eas es t h e l i qui d break-up,
i ncr eas i ngl y s o a s t h e two st reams approach
90 degr ees o r a r e di r e c t e d toward one anot her .
The f a n t ypes ( f i g . l e , f ) a r e most used
wi t h ground equipment where uni form cover i s
needed, whereas t h e cone t ypes ( f i g . l b , d ) ,
wi t h s t a i n l e s s s t e e l (hardened) o r i f i c e s and
whi r l p l a t e s , a r e wi del y used wi t h a i r c r a f t
and a i r c a r r i e r ground equipment. Drop s i z e
ranges f o r cone t ypes a r e from 125 pm vmd t o
500 pm vmd.
Gaseous energy atomizers-The gaseous
energy, t wo- f l ui d- t ype at omi zer s ( f i g . 2)
a r e capabl e o f spr ays rangi ng from f i n e t o
a e r os ol - s i z e p a r t i c l e s . Pr essur es used may
var y from a few pounds p e r squar e i nch t o
s e ve r a l hundred, and because t h e energy
r equi r ed t o produce an aer os ol becomes r a t h e r
s i g n i f i c a n t i n t erms of t h e numbers o f drops
bei ng produced, t h e aer os ol - t ype at omi zer s
a r e us ua l l y ver y s e n s i t i v e t o fl ow r a t e s ;
dr op s i z e f r e que nt l y i ncr eas es r a pi dl y a s
fl ow r a t e i nc r e a s e s . Si z e r ange va r i e s from
10 t o 100 urn vmd.
I n t h e wi de l y used col d fogger o r v o r t i -
cal - t ype at omi zer ( f i g . 3) a i r pr es s ur e seldom
exceeds 5 l b/ i n2, but a i r volume s uppl i es
energy a t around 100 f t 3/ mi n f o r each nozzl e.
Cent ri fugal energy a t omi z e r s - Rot a r y-
t ype at omi zer s ( f i g . 4) i ncl ude t hos e wi t h a
pe r f or a t e d met al s l e e ve t ype dr i ven by an
e l e c t r i c motor; t he wi del y used Mi cronai r,
which i s a i r - p r o p e l l e r dr i ven; and a s mal l er
spi nni ng s c r e e n devi ce, powered by an e l e c t r i c
motor. A l l o f t h e s e produce f i n e spr ays t o
aer os ol s , o r a range of 300 t o 50 pm.
The c e nt r i f uga l s pi nner s have been used
on bot h a i r c r a f t and ground equi pment . How-
ever , t hey a r e s us c e pt i bl e t o r a pi d wear and
i n i t i a l c o s t i s hi gh f o r good q u a l i t y u n i t s .
-
4
Ai r
Ai r
Fi gure 2 . Two ki nds o f t wo- f l ui d at omi zer s a r e
used: i n t e r n a l mixing ( l e f t ) , and
ext er nal mixing ( r i g h t ) . Both a r e
desi gned f o r produci ng f i n e spr ays
and aer os ol s .
The spi nner s a r e ver y s e n s i t i v e t o flow r a t e s ,
and i ncr eas i ng fl ow r a t e slows t he a i r - dr i ve n
t ypes; t h e sl ower spi nni ng, al ong wi t h t he
i ncr eased flow of l i qui d, r a pi dl y i ncr eas es
t h e drop s i z e . Drop s i z e range produced i s
s i mi l a r t o t h a t of t he t wo- f l ui d and hydr aul i c
t ype at omi zers; depending on t h e manner of
oper at i on.
I n t a b l e 1, spr ay and drop s i z e ranges
and some of t h e at omi zers t h a t can be used t o
produce them a r e summarized. Pr essur es f o r
l i q u i d and a i r , and a i r speed f o r t h e r o t a r y
t ype nozzl e, a r e a l s o shown.
I n t a b l e 2, f o r t h e var i ous t ypes of
spr ays and aer os ol s , and f o r t h e var i ous drop
s i z e s , t h e drop s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n i s shown,
i n cumul at i ve per cent . The 50 per cent poi nt
corresponds t o t h e volume median di amet er2
f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h i s t ype of spr ay, .
a s produced by t he nozzl e s pe c i f i e d i n t a b l e 1.
The e f f e c t i ve ne s s of an aer osol i s
dependent upon t h e numbers of smal l drops,
gener al l y under 25 urn, t h a t a r e pr es ent .
Thus it i s e a s i l y seen why t h e aer os ol s a r e
more e f f e c t i v e f o r a dul t i c i di ng; a t l e a s t 97
per cent of t h e drop volume i s i n drops below
20 pm. I n c ont r a s t , t h e ver y coar s e spr ay,
he volume median di amet er i s t h a t s i z e o f
drop which di vi des t h e t o t a l volume o f drops
found e xa c t l y i n h a l f ; t h a t i s , 50 per cent
of t he volume i s i n drops above t h a t s i z e and
SO per cent below.
Figure 3. The vor t i c a l atomizer i s shown here i n an exploded
view. Low pressure and high a i r volume produces
aer osol s as low as 10 microns volume median diameter.
.
Figure 4. Three kinds of cent r i f ugal o r r ot ar y atomizers a r e
shown here. The device a t t op has a perforat ed metal
sl eeve, and i s e l e c t r i c a l l y dri ven. In t he cent er,
t he Micronair ai r - dr i ven t ype has a spinning screen.
A t bottom another spi nner has a s t a i nl e s s s t e e l
screen, and i s e l e c t r i c a l l y dri ven.
Table 1--Summary of approximate spray and drop s i z e s produced by t he vari ous atomizers
Spray s i z e Drop s i z e range Nozzle type Operating const ant
Fine aer osol Less than 50 Cold fogger 5 l b/ i n2 a i r ps i
Coarse aer osol 50 t o 100 Two-f l ui d 30 l b/ i n2 a i r ps i
Fine spray 100 t o 250 Rotary 90 t o 100 mph a i r vel oci t y
Medium spray 250 t o 400 65015 Fan, down 40 ps i
Coarse spray 400 t o 500 D6-46 Cone, back 40 ps i
Very coarse spray More than 500 D6 J e t , back 40 ps i
A.- Pump E - Propeller J - Li qui d
B - Control valve G - Dump gate K - Boom cleanout
C - Pressure gage H - Nozzles and check valves L - Valve lever
D - Screen I- Boom mount
Figure 5. This schematic diagram shows a bas i c a i r c r a f t spray
uni t . Included a r e a tank ( out l i ne) , spray pump
and pr opel l er dri ve, and t he cont rol valve, which
di r e c t s l i qui d t o t he boom and nozzl e during spraying
o r back t o t he tank f o r r eci r cul at i on.
Tabl e 2--Drop s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n of
aer os ol s and spr ays, cumul at i ve per cent by volume1
Fi ne Coarse
1
Medium
1
Coarse Very coar s e
Drop s i z e (pm)
1 aer os ol s aer os ol s siE;s s pr ays s pr ays spr ays
CumuZative Percent
l ~ h evolume median di amet er ( under scor ed) i s t h a t s i z e of drop which di vi des
t h e t o t a l volume o f drops found e xa c t l y i n h a l f ; t h a t i s , 50 per cent of t h e
volume i s i n dr ops above t h a t s i z e and 50 per cent below.
such a s t ha t produced by t he j e t back nozzle,
di r ect ed with t he ai rst ream, i s f or l ow-dri ft -
l os s appl i cat i ons, and shows l e s s than 0.001
percent of drop volume i n drops l e s s than
60 um ( t abl e 2 ) .
Table 3, f or a i r c r a f t use, summarizes
drop s i z e ranges and recovery r a t e s . A com-
pl e t e a i r c r a f t spray uni t i s diagrammed i n
f i gur e 5.
PARTICLE SIZE, DISTRIBUTION, AND COVERAGE
The success of pes t i ci de appl i cat i ons
depends l a r gl y on t he pa r t i c l e s i z e range of
t he spray o r dry mat er i al , and on how t h i s i s
af f ect ed by chemical, physi cal , and bi ol ogi cal
f a c t or s , some of which a r e described here:
1. The basi c t oxi c i t y of t he pes t i ci de
t o t he t a r ge t pes t . A small pa r t i c l e of a
very t oxi c mat er i al may cont ai n a l e t ha l dose
f o r t he i ns ect , whereas a l ar ger drop o r
sever al small drops of a l e s s t oxi c chemical
may be r equi r ed f o r l e t ha l e f f e c t .
2. The physi cal c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of t he
chemical and i t s formulation, i ncl udi ng den-
s i t y; f l owabi l i t y f o r dust s; and vapor
pressure, vi s cos i t y, and sur f ace t ensi on f or
l i qui ds . For l i qui ds , t hese c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s
a f f e c t t he i n i t i a l atomization process, and
t he a e r i a l t r anspor t , evaporation, and deposi t
of t he drops.
3. The col l ect i on ef f i ci ency of t ar get
sur f aces, such as i ns ect s , bui l di ngs, and
veget at i on. This follows Se l l ' s law, whereby
t he col l ect i on ef f i ci ency (S) of an obj ect i s
di r e c t l y proport i onal t o t he drop diameter
squared (d2) and i t s r e l a t i ve vel oci t y (V) ,
but i nver sel y proport i onal t o t he width o r
f r ont al ar ea (D) of t he obj ect ( f i gur e 6) .
Thus, t he col l ect i on ef f i ci ency of an obj ect
i s i ncreased r api dl y by i ncreased drop s i z e
and t o a l e s s e r degree by an i ncr ease i n t he
r e l a t i ve vel oci t y of t he movement of t he
drop toward t he obj ect , but is decreased a s
t he obj ect s i z e i ncr eases.
4. Location of t he t ar get i nsect ,
whether i n t he open o r i n a shel t er ed area,
and i n motion o r a t r e s t .
5. The l ocal meteorological condi t i ons.
The presence and i nt e ns i t y of a i r turbulence,
o r t he mixing and di f f us i on capaci t y of t he
a i r duri ng appl i cat i on, gr eat l y a f f e c t t he
di sper si on of pes t i ci des , pa r t i c ul a r l y t he
small aerosol o r ai r bor ne por t i ons.
= o, od
impacted
d avai l abl e
d = drop diameter
V = drop to object velocity
p = drop density
D = object di ameter
p = f l ui d vi scosi ty
(f) = object shape: pl at e > cyl i nder >sphere
Figure 6. Se l l ' s Law f or deposi t of l i qui d
drops i s i l l us t r a t e d here.
6. The type and char act er i s t i cs of t he
ground cover. Grassy savannah o r low-growing
agr i cul t ur al crops permit r e l a t i ve l y unr es t r i c-
t ed downwind t r ans por t of f i ne l y atomized
sprays; increased bush and t r e e cover i ncr ea-
si ngl y f i l t e r s pa r t i c l e s out of t he a i r .
7 . The char act er i s t i cs of t he appl i ca-
t i on equipment, which determines t he s i z e
range o r frequency di s t r i but i on of drops as
well as t he s pa t i a l di s t r i but i on of a l l s ol i d
and l i qui d mat eri al s di r ect ed t o t he t a r ge t
ar ea.
Generally, some optimum drop s i z e range
i s recognized as most ef f ect i ve f or each
pes t i ci de and f or each formulation used f or
a s peci f i c vect or cont rol problem. Maximum
e f f e c t i ve cont rol of t he t ar get organism with
minimum use of t oxi c mat er i al s and minimum
adverse impact on t he ecosystem i s t he obj ec-
t i ve . This simple statement covers a hi ghl y '
complex physical and bi ol ogi cal phenomenon
t ha t occurs during and following an ar ea appl i -
cat i on of pes t i ci des . Research toward t he
obj ect i ve has been conducted over many year s.
The e a r l i e s t work with Par i s green and t oxi c
bot ani cal s progressed through petrochemical
products, culminating i n t he ext ensi ve use
of t he synt het i c pest i ci des, DDT and ot her
organochlorines, as well as organophosphorous
and carbamate mat er i al s.
Early observers found t ha t although DOT
and t he ot her organochlorines a r e e f f e c t i ve
a s di r e c t cont act appl i cat i ons, they a r e
especi al l y ef f ect i ve when used as r esi dual
appl i cat i ons. In cont r ast , many of t he organo-
phosphorus and carbamate compounds have a
Table3--Spraydropsizerange,approximate
recoveryrate,andrecommendeduse
Spraysizeortypeand Typicalnozzles Estimated
descriptionofspray andpressure Dropsize depositin Use
system ranges1 range2 1000feet3
Microns um vmd Percent
Coarse aerosols 80005down lessthan125 lessthan25 Aerosolapplications,in
Coneandfannozzles, D2-13down vectorcontrolandcontrol
androtaryatomizers (200to300lb/in2) offorestinsectsandagri-
culturalpathogens;usedat
lowvolumerates,primarily
foradulticiding
Fine sprays 80005down Forestpesticidechemicals,
Coneandfannozzles, D6-45down inlarge-areavectorcontrol,
androtaryatomizers (50to100lb/in2) atlowdosagesofchemicals
withlowtoxicityandrapid
degradation;alsousefulfor
agriculturalinsectpathogens
Medium sprays Alllow-toxicityagricultural
Coneandfannozzles, chemicalswheregoodcoverage
androtaryatomizers isnecessary
Coarse sprays 400to600 Toxicpesticidesofrestric-
Coneandfannozzles, D6-46back withadditives tedclassification,when
sprayadditives (30to50lb/in2) upto2000 thoroughplantcoverageis
notessential
Sprays with minimum D4toD8down 800to1000 Alltoxic,restricted--
df - i f t atlessthan60mph; withadditives classherbicidessuchas
Jetnozzlesand Backatover60mph upto5000 phenoxy-acidsandothers,
sprayadditives (30to50lb/in) withinlimitationssuchas
growingseasonandlocation
nearsusceptiblecrops
Sprays with ma x i m Microfoil 99 ormore Restrictednonvolatileherbi-
drift control (lessthan60mph cides,phenoxy-acidsand
Low-turbulencenozzles airstream) othersintheareaofsus-
ceptiblecrops,subjectto
limitationsofgrowingseason
andtypeofcrop
'sprayingSystemsCo.nozzles;positiononaircraftboomisindicatedas"down"orwiththeairstream.
~etermined withwaterbasesprays;oilswouldgivesmallerdrops.
~ ~ ~ 3 1 feetdownwind;windvelocity3to5mph,neutraltemperaturegradient;materialreleasedunder10feetheight.
*1ndrifttests,driftresiduelevelsat500feetdownwindforMicrofoil wereone-fourththoseforD4toD8jets.
high cont act and ai rborne t oxi c i t y t o i ns ect s
but degrade and l os e ef f ect i veness much more
r api dl y than t he organochlorines, pa r t i c ul a r l y
i n t he presence of water.
Earl y r esear cher s working on drop s i z e
presented dat a ( ver i f i ed i n t he l aborat ory
and t o some ext ent i n t he f i e l d) on t he most
e f f i c i e nt drop s i z e s t o be used with given
chemicals and on s peci f i ed vect or s. Lat t a
and ot her s (1974) cal cul at ed t hat t he LDsO
f o r Aedes aegypt i was obt ai ned with minimum
dosage when drops of 22.4 Urn cont ai ni ng DDT
were used with an a i r vel oci t y of 2 rnph pa s t
t he mosquito. A t 3 rnph t he drop s i z e was
found t o be 18. 3 pm, a t 4 rnph 15.8 vm, and
a t 5 rnph 14.2 m. Johnstone and ot her s (1949)
came t o t he conclusion t hat t he most ef f ec-
t i ve drop s i z e of a 10 percent DDT o i l sol u-
t i on f o r cont r ol of r e s t i ng and f l yi ng mos-
q u i t o ~ consi deri ng both impaction r a t e and
l e t ha l dose would be 33 um. This, however,
i s s t i l l below t he minimum drop s i z e (83 vm)
cont ai ni ng a l e t ha l dose of DDT and, t here-
f or e, i s a compromise s i z e ; impingement of
sever al such drops i s requi red t o k i l l an
i ndi vi dual mosquito.
Yeomans and ot her s (1949) cal cul at ed
from t he Se l l ' s law r el at i ons hi p ( f i g. 6)
t ha t a mosquito having a f r ont a l width of
0.025 i nch, a t 2 rnph a i r vel oci t y, would
c ol l e c t 15.8 vm drops most e f f i c i e nt l y.
Thi s s i z e i s somewhat smal l er than Lat t a' s
22.4 vm f o r 2 mph, because Lat t a used a
smal l er f r ont a l width f or h i s model mosquito.
I t has been shown i n r ecent s t udi es by
Weidhass and ot her s (1970) t ha t wi t h t he
newer hi ghl y t oxi c organophosphate mat er i al s,
an LDloo l e t ha l dose f o r Aedes taeniorhynchus
can be obt ai ned from a 25-pm drop of mala-
t hi on, a 17.5-vm drop of naled and a 20-vm
drop of fent hi on. These s i z e s a r e much
cl os er t o t he s i z e of drops e a r l i e r obs e r ve r s
found t o be most e f f i c i e nt l y col l ect ed by
small i ns e c t s ; such drops di d not cont ai n
l e t ha l doses of organochlorines, however.
S e l l ' s law shows t ha t t he minimum optimum
drop s i z e ( t he s i z e of t he drop most e f f i -
c i e nt l y deposited) i ncr eases f or l ar ger
i ns ect s . Thus housef l i es showed i ncr easi ng
col l ect i on of drops up t o 22.4 pm (David,
1946) and l ocus t s up t o 60 pm (McQuaig, 1962).
Drops c a r r i e d by an ai r st r eam approaching
a small obj ect , such a s a cyl i nder 1/ 8 i nch
i n diameter (represent i ng an i ns ect body),
a r e qui t e small i n r e l a t i on t o t he obj ect
(5 t o 100 pm i n r e l a t i on t o 0.318 cm, f o r
example). Such drops tend t o be di ver t ed
i n two streams around t he obj ect . Only t hose
drops di r e c t l y i n l i n e with t he cent er of t he
obj ect w i l l be deposited ( f i g. 6) . As t he
s i z e of drops o r t h e i r vel oci t y i ncr eases,
those drops approaching i n t he proj ect ed fron-
t a l ar ea of t he obj ect a r e l e s s l i ke l y t o be
drawn around it by t he ai r st r eam and a r e a l s o
deposited. The col l ect i on ef f i ci ency ( S ) ,
expressed a s percent , is t he number of drops
caught by t he obj ect divided by t he number of
drops approaching t he obj ect i n i t s pr oj ect ed
width. The graph of t he concept of Se l l ' s
law of drop col l ect i on ef f i ci ency ( f i g. 7)
shows t ha t a 0.318-cm obj ect has about a
30 percent col l ect i on ef f i ci ency f or 10-vm
drops moving a t 10 mph, but a 70 percent e f f i -
ciency f o r 25-vrn and a 95 percent ef f i ci ency
f or 100-um drops. Because t he l ar ger 1.27-cm
(1/2-inch) cyl i nder def l ect s l ar ger drops,
t he 50-vm drops a t 10 rnph ar e col l ect ed with
about 62 percent ef f i ci ency and t he 100-vm
with about 85 percent ef f i ci ency.
When t he
drop vel oci t y i s decreased, a s from 10 t o
5 mph, t he col l ect i on ef f i ci ency of obj ect s
decreases more r api dl y f o r smal l er than f o r
l a r ge r drops.
These i ndi cat i ons of t he s i z e of t he
smal l est drops f o r near-maximum col l ect i on
ef f i ci ency serve only as a gui del i ne f o r
act ual spray appl i cat i on. I n t he f i e l d,
not onl y i s t he aerosol of spray di spersed
i n a range of s i zes , but a l s o t he chemical,
physi cal , and bi ol ogi cal f act or s di scussed
e a r l i e r a f f e c t t he movement and deposi t of
t he drops.
Ear l i er observers t r i e d t o eval uat e
appl i cat i on machines and techniques i n r e l a -
t i on t o t ype of ground cover and weather i n
act ual f i e l d t r i a l s . Johnstone and ot her s
(1949) developed t heor et i cal dat a based on
atmospheric di f f usi on equations which i ndi -
cat ed t ha t i f 10-vm drops a r e r el eased a t
ground l evel , cumulative recovery (deposi t )
out t o 6 miles would never exceed 60 per-
cent under conditions of a small tempera-
t ur e i nversi on with 2 rnph vel oci t y. A t 5 rnph
vel oci t y with no i nversi on, t he recovery
could be under 36 percent . Yeomans and
ot her s (1949) showed from f i e l d s t udi e s t ha t
an aerosol with a vmd of 50 pm deposi t s up
t o 60 percent i n 2000 f e e t under temperature
i nversi on condi t i ons, but l e s s t han 23 per-
cent with more t urbul ent o r l apse weather.
Tables 4 and 5 provide dat a on t he deposi t
r a t e s of various drop s i z e ranges and swath
widths at t ai ned by di sper sal of pes t i ci des
from a i r c r a f t and from ground equipment.
Table 4--Calculated deposi t r a t e s and swath widths of various
drop-size ranges of sprays appl i ed by a i r c r a f t a t vari ous hei ght s above t he ground
( neut r al o r small temperature gr adi ent ; wind vel oci t y 3 t o 5 mph)
Drop- s i z e Estimated Estimated downwind swath width
range deposi t a t r el ease hei ght ( f eet ) o f . . .
( md, pm)
within 1000 f t
10 25 100 250 500 1000
Percent Feet
50 ' t o l oo1 IS t o 40 1000 3000 5000 1 m i 2 m i 2 m i
Ispray appl i cat i ons with vmdts under 100 pm a r e not pr a c t i c a l from a i r c r a f t because of
ext ensi ve a e r i a l d r i f t .
Table 5--Calculated deposi t r a t e s and swath widths of vari ous
drop-si ze ranges of sprays appl i ed by ground equipment
( neut r al o r small temperature gr adi ent ; wind vel oci t y 3 t o 5 mph)
Drop- s i ze Deposit (cumulative) downwind1
range
(vmd, urn) 49 f t 98 f t 327 f t 457 f t 984 f t
Percent
l ~ i s p e r s a l of pes t i ci de made a t 3 f e e t above t he ground.
---
0 . 3 1 8 ~1 1 1 ( Vei n. )
I . 2 7 cm ( 1/ 2 in.)
AI RSTREAM VELOCI TY
Figure 7. The cal cul at ed deposi t r a t e (percent) of l i qui d
drops of two di f f e r e nt s i z e s t r avel i ng a t di f f e r e nt
a i r ve l oc i t i e s onto small obj ect s i s graphed her e.
APPLICATION VOLUME This r e l a t i on i s more f or c e f ul l y shown by
t he dat a i n t a bl e 6. The val ues shown a r e f o r
Liquids may be appl i ed i n di l ut e o r con- absol ut el y s t i l l a i r ( vi r t ua l l y nonexi st ent out -
cent r at ed form. Di l ut e sprays a r e most f r e - s i de of a closed l aborat ory). The t a b l e i s based
quent l y used f or large-volume appl i cat i ons a s on t he St okesf law cal cul at i on f r equent l y used by
l a r ge drops and wi t h a wet t i ng coverage. t heor et i ci ans t o descr i be downwind t r a ns por t of
Concentrated l i qui ds , gener al l y t hose with small drops. However, t h i s i s not a pr a c t i c a l
very l i t t l e o r no di l ut i ng c a r r i e r a r e appl i ed
cal cul at i on f or f i e l d operat i ons, s i nc e i n t he
as a f i n e spray, mi s t , or aer osol . Ul t r a outdoor a i r , even under a very calm tempera-
low volume (ULV) i s anot her name f or t he con- t ure-i nversi on condi t i on, t he a i r i s cont i nu-
cent r at e- t ype aerosol sprays; i t covers a ousl y i n motion, and r i s i ng a i r cur r ent s w i l l
wide range of volumes and di l ut i ons of appl i ed keep drops a s l ar ge a s 50 urn suspended, not
sprays, from a f r act i on of an ounce t o a pi nt f or t he cal cul at ed 50 f e e t o r s o i n a 1 mph
o r more per acr e. wind when r el eased a t 10 f e e t hei ght , but f or
sever al hundred f e e t before f a l l i n g t o t he
The ULV t reat ment i s a technique f or ground. As can be seen from t a bl e 6 , a 150pm
applying a minimum amount of l i qui d per uni t diameter water drop has a f a l l vel oci t y of
ar ea compatible with t he requirements f o r 1. 5 f t per sec or about 1 mph. Thus, a 1-mph
achieving cont r ol of a s pe c i f i c organism with ve r t i c a l a i r motion would keep such a drop
a s pe c i f i c chemical. Whenever small volumes supported i ndef i ni t el y. Under f i e l d condi t i ons,
a r e appl i ed, t he l i qui d i s f i ne l y atomized t he wind w i l l move up and down a s well a s
i n or der t o maintain a des i r abl e number of t r a ve l hor i zont al l y and drops w i l l be forced
drops per uni t of ar ea o r per uni t of space downward and deposi t ed by t hese a i r movements
volume. The number of drops avai l abl e from a s well a s l of t ed by r i s i ng a i r .
a given volume of l i qui d i s i nver sel y r e l a t e d
t o t he cube of t he drop diameter. That i s, From an appl i cat i on volume of 1 gal / acr e,
i f t he volume i s hel d const ant t he following i f a l l drops were spread uniformly, t he number
r e l a t i on hol ds t r ue , i n which N1 and dl a r e of drops per uni t of sur f ace ar ea per square
t he i n i t i a l number and drop s i z e and N2 and inch w i l l vary as t he diameter cubed ( t a bl e 6) .
d2 a r e t he new number and s i z e : Thus, a 20-pm diameter drop s i z e would produce
140,000 drops/ i n2 a t 1 gal / acr e, while a
50-pm drop s i z e would gi ve only 9100. This
poi nt s out t he tremendous covering power of
small pa r t i c l e s , which permits thorough expo-
sure of t a r ge t organisms o r ot her sur f aces
Table 6--Terminal ve l oc i t i e s of water drops1 i n st i l l a i r and
numbers per given volume i n r e l a t i on t o uni t ar ea and a i r volume.
Number of drops a t appl i ed
r a t e of 1 gal / acr e
Drop diameter Terminal o r steady- A t I n a i r t o depth
i n microns s t a t e vel oci t y sur f ace of 33 f e e t
F t / s e c Pe r i n2 Pe r f t 2 Pe r i n 3 ai r
1Sol i d pa r t i c l e s would have approximately same terminal vel oci t y and numbers, but t hese
would vary somewhat, depending on t he densi t y of t he s ol i d.
t o t he small volumes of appl i ed aer osol s. I t
i s t o be noted, however, t ha t deposi t of
aer osol s i s l i mi t ed by appl i cat i on condi t i ons.
Carrying t h i s cal cul at i on one s t e p f ur t her ,
t he number of drops pe r cubi c i nch of a i r t o
a depth of 32.8 f e e t from a 1-gal / acre appl i -
cat i on i s shown i n t he f a r r i ght column, con-
s i der i ng a l l t he drops a r e of one s i z e and
uniformly di spersed. Again t he cube r el at i on-
s hi p e xi s t s , and with 20-pm diameter drops,
1. 3 drops/ i n3 would be found, while a t 50-pm-
diameter only 0.08 drops/ i n3 would e xi s t ;
t hus, space sprays, di r ect ed s pe c i f i c a l l y a t
a small t a r ge t organisms such a s a mosquito,
r equi r e t he use of drops under 50 pm diameter
f o r adequate coverage. I t should of course be
poi nt ed out t ha t no atomizer system produces
drops of one s i z e , and f o r such cal cul at i ons
r e l a t i ng drop s i z e t o vect or cont r ol , t he
normal o r skewed Gaussian di s t r i but i on of
drops, covering a wide range of , f or example,
from l e s s t han 1 pm up t o SO pm f or a 20 pm
vmd, usual l y e xi s t s .
Ultra-low-volume techniques ar e gener al l y
concerned with space spray as well as deposi-
t ed spray, and s o t he drop s i z e produced i s
i n t he range of aerosol and m i s t except i n
speci al cases where l ar ge drops can be used
a t a very low s pa t i a l di s t r i but i on. A va r i e t y
of machines using ( I ) high l i qui d pr essur es,
(2) ai r s hear such a s t ha t produced by high-
speed a i r c r a f t o r ai r st r eams, and (3) vari ous
two-fluid and spi nni ng devices a r e avai l abl e
f or producing t he f i ne drops r equi r ed f o r
ULV appl i cat i ons.
Large s cal e, low-cost mosquito cont r ol
programs have been adapted t o ULV techniques
pa r t i c ul a r l y f o r emergency treatment when
e nt i r e c i t i e s o r ot her l ar ge ar eas a r e
t r eat ed. Increasing use i s being made of
ground aerosol equipment f o r ULV-type t r e a t -
ments. Ut i l i zi ng t he " dr i f t spraying"
techniques, aer osol s of vmd below 50 pm can
be car r i ed by pr evai l i ng winds f o r downwind
di s t r i but i on i n open ar eas from 1000 f e e t t o
a mile o r more. However, t he success of such
appl i cat i ons i s wholly dependent upon a temp-
er at ur e i nversi on condition t hat w i l l r e s t r a i n
any ve r t i c a l di f f usi on of t he spray-laden
cloud. I t must a l s o be appreci at ed t ha t evap-
or at i on of t he rel eased aerosol must be kept
t o a minimum by use of l ow- vol at i l i t y spray
formulations. Applications of aerosol s under
50 ym vmd by a i r c r a f t have shown e r r a t i c
r e s ul t s ; only under unique weather conditions
w i l l t he pes t i ci des under 50 pm s e t t l e toward
t he ground i n s uf f i c i e nt numbers t o produce
e i t he r a det ect abl e deposit o r provide an
adequate number of drops f o r space sprays.
The use of thermal aerosol s where a s i gni f i -
cant por t i on of t he rel eased aerosol i s i n
pa r t i c l e s below 5 pm a s a smoke o r fog i s
being repl aced with aer osol s mechanically
produced f o r el i mi nat i on of t he wasteful and
sometimes hazardous smoke of thermal machines.
A number of sources have been ut i l i z e d
t o provide r epr esent at i ve dat a i n t abl es 4 and
5 concerning t he f a l l out of var i ous- si ze drops
appl i ed from t he a i r and t he ground. The
est i mat ed downwind recovery f or aerosol s i z e
pa r t i c l e s (under 50 pm vmd) i s shown i n t abl e
5. Si nce aerosol i ng f o r adul t i ns ect cont r ol
i s l ar gel y by di r e c t i nsect -drop cont act , the
most e f f e c t i ve drop s i z e would have t o be
small enough t o impinge on t he small surface
present ed and t o remain ai r bor ne f o r a s uf f i -
ci ent time f o r i ns ect cont act t o t ake pl ace.
Table 7 i l l u s t r a t e s t he s i z e range and
coverage c a pa bi l i t i e s of various grades of
gr anul ar mat er i al s. Dust mat er i al s a r e gen-
e r a l l y made up ot pa r t i c l e s below 25 pm
diameter ( or longest dimension) and t h e i r
c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s would follow t hose of l i qui d
drops of a s i mi l ar densi t y.
Table 4 pr esent s dat a f o r a i r c r a f t d i s t r i -
but i on of var i ous- si ze drops. The approximate
downwind spread o r swath width i n f e e t of t he
r el eased spray i ndi cat es where s i gni f i c a nt
amounts of r esi due could st i l l be found when
spray i s r el eased a t vari ous hei ght s. Thus,
i t i s shown t ha t f o r a coarse, r api dl y f a l l i ng
spray a t 400 t o 500 ym vmd, t he swath width
i s only 50 f e e t when spray i s rel eased a t a
10-foot hei ght , but i ncr eases t o 1500 f e e t
when spray i s r el eased a t a 1000-foot hei ght .
For smal l er drops of t he mist category (SO t o
100 pm vmd), t he swath width a t a 10-foot
r el eas e hei ght i s 1000 f e e t , and a t a 1000-
f oot r el eas e hei ght may be 2 miles o r more.
Sprays o r aer osol s under 50 pm vmd, as noted
e a r l i e r , a r e t oo unst abl e when appl i ed by
a i r c r a f t t o be used anywhere except under
hi ghl y cont r ol l ed s i t ua t i ons where supervi sory
personnel know t he l ocal weather conditions
and can es t abl i s h adequate vect or cont rol
with such t ype of appl i cat i ons.
In summary, a very complex physi cal -
chemical-biological system e xi s t s when chemicals
a r e used f or cont r ol l i ng i ns ect vect ors of human
and animal di sease. This system can be under-
stood through usi ng t he knowledge and pr of i -
ciency of t he sever al s c i e nt i f i c di s ci pl i nes
involved, i ncl udi ng physi cs, meteorology,
chemistry, engineering and entomology. I t
should be noted t ha t t he aerosol drop s i z e
which provides gr eat es t coverage and pot ent i al
adul t i ns ect cont act i s a l s o t he most suscep-
t i b l e t o a i r t r ans por t , depending on l ocal
meteorological f act or s .
METEOROLOGY AND PESTICIDE APPLICATION
The l ocal meteorology can be a s i gni f i -
cant f a c t or cont r ol l i ng t he success o r f a i l u r e
of a vect or cont rol operat i on. The bas i c
parameters a r e (1) temperature gradi ent or
change with hei ght , (2) wind vel oci t y and
wind vel oci t y gradi ent with hei ght , ( 3) wind
di r ect i on during d r i f t spraying o r aer osol i ng,
and (4) r e l a t i ve humidity as it r e l a t e s t o
spray drop evaporation, pa r t i c ul a r l y i f water
i s t he pes t i ci de c a r r i e r .
These f act or s a f f e c t t he r a t e of di sper -
,,
si on of pes t i ci de mat eri al s r el eas e from
e i t he r ground or a i r c r a f t equipment. The most
s i gni f i cant of t he f act or s l i s t e d i s t he
temperature gradi ent . When t he a i r overhead
i s warmer (which may occur a t vari ous l evel s )
than t hat a t t he ground, any mat er i al r el eased
a t t he ground and t r anspor t abl e by a i r , such
as aerosol pa r t i c l e s smal l er than 50 pm, w i l l
be car r i ed by t he moving a i r along a t ground
l evel and w i l l not di f f us e upward. The a i r
vel oci t y under t he i nversi on l ayer w i l l con-
t r o l t he mixing process i n t he ar ea and hi gher
vel oci t i es w i l l cause more r api d ground l evel
di sper si on. When temperature gr adi ent s a r e
i ncr easi ngl y cool er overhead above a warm
ground, t he spray can e a s i l y be di f f us ed
upward and i s r api dl y di spersed and di l ut e d
by wind.
Temperature i nversi ons ( f i g. 8) with low
wind vel oci t y and vel oci t y gr adi ent provide
t he gr eat es t ve r t i c a l confinement of r el eased
sprays, and thus t he best appl i cat i on condi-
t i ons , pa r t i c ul a r l y f or f i ne sprays, mi st s,
and aer osol s, when a l ar ge proport i on of
t he rel eased mat eri al i s ai rborne s i z e . This
means t ha t t he time f o r appl i cat i on of aer osol s,
i n pa r t i c ul a r , and f o r bes t success with f i ne
sprays and mi st s, a s wel l , should be e a r l y
morning t o mid-morning, and l a t e afternoon and
evening, when t he i nversi on condi t i on can be
shown t o commonly e xi s t . Coarse sprays may
be appl i ed a t any time during t he day, t he onl y
l i mi t at i on being t he wind vel oci t y, which w i l l
di spl ace t he a i r c r a f t swath s i gni f i c a nt l y when
wind exceeds 12 t o 15 mph. This high wind
al s o makes ground appl i cat i ons di f f i c ul t t o
manage. Downwind concent rat i on ( es s ent i al
f or aerosol i ng) i s r api dl y reduced by tempera-
t ur e l apse (temperature gradi ent decreasing
with hei ght ) and windy condi t i ons; hence t h i s
condi t i on i s favorabl e t o l e a s t downwind con-
tamination i n combination with a coarse spray.
Temperature i nversi ons a r e produced by
several means and f r equent l y more than one
means may be causing t h i s e f f e c t . The most
common i s r adi at i on i nversi on caused by t he
heat l os s o r r adi at i on by t he ground t o a
cool sky (when t he sun i s low o r below t he
horizon) ; t h i s heat l os s cools t he ground
and a i r cl ose t o i t during t he day. Another
important i nversi on cause i s t he i nf l ux over
t he land of a l a t e aft ernoon sea breeze along
coast al ar eas. This cold a i r moving up val l eys
over t he ground pushes under t he warm a i r and
causes a temperature i nversi on condition. A
t hi r d cause of temperature i nversi on condi-
t i ons i s subsidence, t he phenomenon by which
a i r from a hi gher el evat i on i s forced down
i nt o a lower l evel , such as a val l ey. This
drop i n el evat i on warms t he a i r and pl aces a
warm l ayer over a val l ey t o produce t h i s
temperature i nversi on condi t i on.
Because of t he dominant e f f e c t of i nsol a-
t i on, t he i nversi on and l apse condi t i ons follow
a di ur nal pat t er n, with l apse and neut r al (no
change i n gradi ent with hei ght ) condi t i ons pre-
vai l i ng during t he day while t he sun' s e f f e c t
i s strong, and t he i nversi on condition t aki ng
pl ace when t he sun i s low during e a r l y morning
and evening hours o r a t ni ght ( f i g. 8) . During
cloudy overcast weather, t he temperature gra-
di ent w i l l vary from neut r al t o i nversi on con-
di t i on, depending on cloud densi t y and t he two
ot her gr adi ent - af f ect i ng condi t i ons.
Turbulence of t he a i r i s a normal daytime
phenomenon which l essens under l a t e afternoon
temperature i nversi on condi t i ons, and general l y
al s o a t ni ght when t he s un' s heat i ng of t he
ground i s not cont r i but i ng t o ve r t i c a l movement
of t he a i r . I t i s possi bl e t o have turbulence
under a st r ong temperature i nversi on, but nor-
mally t h i s tends t o s t a bi l i z e t he a i r . Even
more s t a bi l i z i ng i s f or e s t o r overhead canopy.
Here t he temperature w i l l frequent l y remain t he
same ( neut r al with hei ght ) t o t he t op of t he
f or e s t cover. The wind vel oci t y w i l l be but
a f r act i on of t ha t above t he f or e s t cover and
applying an aerosol by ground under t he cover
of f e r s a r e a l i s t i c approach t o i ns ect cont r ol .
Normally, out si de ( or above) t he f or e s t cover,
Normal
\
Superadiabatic
.-
0
2 PM-
to
8 PM6 PM 5PM 4 P M
I I \ \
Figure 8. The di ur nal var i at i on i n temperature gradi ent
a f f e c t s t he di sper si on of pes t i ci de mat er i al s.
t he us ual d a i l y changes i n t emper at ur e and
wind gr a di e nt s w i l l e x i s t , wi t h t emper at ur e
i nver s i ons i n e a r l y morning and l a t e af t er noon
and dayt i me t emper at ur e l a ps e o f t ur bul e nt
mi xi ng on most sunny days. During t h e ni ght
and under cl oudy over cas t , n e u t r a l condi t i ons
( ne i t he r s t r ong l a ps e o r i nver s i on) would
l i k e l y pr edomi nat e.
Johnst one and o t h e r s (1949) det er mi ned
bot h hor i z ont a l and v e r t i c a l ( a s di schar ged
from an a i r c r a f t ) f o r e s t pe ne t r a t i on di s t a nc e s
i n t er ms o f t h e per cent o f di schar ged aer os ol
t h a t pe ne t r a t e d t h e f o r e s t t o a s t a t e d d i s -
t ance, which he showed t o var y wi t h t h e de ns i t y
o f t h e f o l i a g e cover . A ver y dense f o r e s t
mi ght have a v e r t i c a l de ns i t y o f t wi ce t h a t
o f i t s hor i z ont a l de ns i t y, owing t o ar r ange-
ment o f l eaves . He a l s o shows t h a t a e r os ol s
a ppl i e d above t h e cover and havi ng l i t t l e
downwind v e l o c i t y do not pe ne t r a t e but impinge
on t h e f o l i a g e by hor i z ont a l wind mot i on.
However, t he s e aer os ol dr ops do pe ne t r a t e
h o r i z o n t a l l y i f di s per s ed under t h e cover , a s
wi t h a ground aer os ol machine. Penet r at i on,
however, would s t i l l var y wi t h t h e de ns i t y
o f t h e cover . For example, 15-um aer os ol s
r e l e a s e d ne a r t h e ground under i nver s i on
weat her condi t i ons and 1- t o 2-mph wind vel o-
c i t y gave de pos i t s o f DDT i n t h e open (no
cover ) f o r a di s t a nc e o f 2000 f e e t . However,
wi t h l i g h t f o r e s t cover t h i s di s t a nc e was
r educed t o 600 f e e t , and i n dense j ungl e
growth t h e di s t a nc e was f u r t h e r r educed t o
200 f e e t o f e f f e c t i v e de pos i t . Hi s d a t a a l s o
shows t h a t i nc r e a s i ng t h e dr op s i z e t o 200
t o 300-pm i nc r e a s e s t h e i r v e r t i c a l penet r a-
t i o n t hr ough a f o r e s t canopy, but t h a t most
o f t hos e dr ops pe ne t r a t i ng go t o t h e ground.
For mosqui t o l a r v a l c ont r ol , s pr ays o f 200
t o 400 um vmd a r e q u i t e e f f e c t i v e by r educi ng
l o s s e s t o a e r i a l d r i f t and g e t t i n g t h e hi ghes t
de pos i t i n t h e wat er . F i l t r a t i o n by r i c e
f o l i a g e up t o 3 f e e t t a l l had ver y l i t t l e
e f f e c t on t h e pe ne t r a t i on o f a 200 um vmd
s pr ay. Bi oassay o f chemi cal s i n paper cups
t h a t were pl aced a t t h e t op o f t h e r i c e and
a l s o i n t h e wat er beneat h p l a n t s showed l i t t l e
di f f e r e nc e , al t hough bot h t h e r ecover i es were
unexpect edl y low, var yi ng from 10 t o 45 per -
cent of t h e appl i ed s pr ay ( f i e s s on and o t h e r s
1972) .
Br es ci a (1945) was one o f t h e f i r s t
r es ear cher s t o t r y t o e va l ua t e downwind t r a n s -
p o r t and p a r t i c l e s i z e i n bot h a dul t and
l a r v a l mosqui t o c ont r ol . H i s t e s t s i nvol ved
t her mal a e r os ol s o f 5 pm and 16 um vmd. His
r e s u l t s showed e f f e c t i v e l a r v a cont r ol o f
Aedes t aeni or hynchus, a l s o A. s o l Zi c i t a n s
and Anopheles quadri macuZat us a t 0 . O O l t o
0. 002 l b/ a c r e o f DDT t o di s t a nc e s o f 2000
f e e t dur i ng s t r ong i nver s i on weat her , and
wi t h gr as s y ground cover but no overhead
canopy. Under a l i g h t f o r e s t canopy t h i s
e f f e c t i v e di s t a nc e was reduced t o 1100 f e e t ,
and f o r a dense f o r e s t , t o 400 t o 500 f e e t .
For spr ay dr ops- t o- adul t o r a i r - t o i n s e c t
cont act , an aer os ol under 10 pm vmd, appl i ed
under s t r ong i nver s i on ( but wi t h a p o s i t i v e
low wind d r i f t ) , was e f f e c t i v e t o about 1 mi l e
di s t a nc e i n t h e open a r e a s , t o around 112 mi l e
under l i g h t f o r e s t , and 500 t o 1000 f e e t under
dense f o r e s t condi t i ons . I n any a ppl i c a t i on
downwind, t h e number o f ai r bor ne dr ops and t hos e
deposi t ed on t h e ground a r e i ncr eas ed by an
i nc r e a s e i n t h e appl i ed dosage. Thus, t h e
f o l i a g e obvi ousl y has a s e l e c t i v e f i l t e r i n g
capaci t y and per mi t s a gi ven per cent o f aer os ol
t o pass no mat t er how dense t h e f o l i a g e may be.
Kruse and ot he r s (1949) used engi ne exhaust
t her mal aer os ol gener at or s on a St earman t ype
a i r c r a f t . With dr op s i z e s o f 35 t o 40 u m vmd,
r ecover y on g l a s s s l i d e s pl aced i n t h e open i n
a 200-foot r ecover y swat h, under near dead calm
condi t i ons , was 9 per cent o f t h e di schar ged
s pr ay, and t h e peak was onl y 12 per cent a t t he
c e nt e r o f t h e swat h. Kr us et s f o l i a g e penet r a-
t i o n da t a i s not a va i l a bl e , b u t h e i n d i c a t e s
t h a t t h e dose r equi r ed f o r heavy, t a l l f o r e s t
canopy would b e 10 t i mes t h a t f o r t h e open
f i e l d , whi l e f o r moderat e low f o l i a g e o r g r a s s
cover he suggest ed f i v e t i mes t h e open a r e a
dosage f o r LD90 c ont r ol .
A weal t h o f i nf or mat i on has been devel oped,
most l y s i nc e 1960, on f i e l d use o f t h e organo-
phosphorus i n s e c t i c i d e s appl i ed a s t e c hni c a l
concent r at es o r c a r r i e d i n nonvol a t i l e pet r ol eum
and gl ycol s ol vent s and d i l u e n t s i ns t e a d o f
v o l a t i l e wat er base emul s i f i abl e concent r at es
o f s ol ut i ons . With t echni cal o r near - t echni cal
concent r at i ons of a c t i v e i ngr e di e nt s o f ver y
hi gh i n t r i n s i c t o x i c i t y , t h e phosphat e and
carbamat e chemi cal s have made p o s s i b l e t h e
r educt i on o f l i q u i d appl i ed per u n i t o f a r e a
t o ver y low l e v e l s o f 1 t o 3 oz j a c r e , commonly
r e f e r r e d t o a s LV (low volume) and ULV ( u l t r a
low volume) a ppl i c a t i ons . However, it shoul d
a l s o be poi nt ed out t h a t usi ng t he s e low a ppl i -
cat i on r a t e s n e c e s s i t a t e s smal l dr op s i z e
( under 100 pm) t o gi ve an e f f e c t i v e 8 t o 16
dr ops p e r i n 2 on f l a t s ur f ace, o r under 25 pm
t o gi ve a i r volume (up t o 33 f e e t hei ght )
dosage o f 30 t o 40 dr ops p e r i n 3 ( t a b l e 6 ) .
Recent l i t e r a t u r e s ugges t s t h a t t h e
e f f e c t i v e downwind r ange f o r a ground aer os ol
a ppl i c a t or usi ng organophosphorus chemi cal s
f o r a dul t mosquito cont r ol can be a s f a r a s
2 mi l es o r more i n open a r e a s (Mount and
o t h e r s 1971) when drops o f 10 t o 15 u m a r e
r el eas ed. Dosages o f t e c hni c a l nonvol a t i l e
phosphat e chemi cal s f o r caged and na t ur a l
a d u l t mosquito mor t a l i t y o f 75 t o 100 per cent
var y from 0. 1 t o 0. 001 l b/ a c r e , dependi ng on
ve c t or and chemi cal (Mount and o t h e r s 1968) .
Recent da t a on t h e e f f e c t of dense and heavy
f o r e s t o r j ungl e growth on f i l t e r i n g o f
Table 7--Deposit c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of vari ous
s i z e s of pes t i ci de granul es
Mesh s i z e Si ze of mesh
(Tyler si eve) openings
aer osol s appl i ed e i t h e r by ground o r a i r c r a f t
i ndi cat e t ha t f o r cont r ol of mosquitos i n
dense j ungl es an i ncr ease of 3 o r more times
t he usual dosage per acr e i s requi red f o r
e f f e c t i ve cont r ol .
LITEMTURE CITED
Akesson, N. B. , K. G. Whi t esel l , D. J.
Womeldorft, P. A. Gi l l e s , and W. Y. Yates
1972. Rice f i e l d mosquito cont r ol s t udi es
wi t h low volume Dursban spray, i n Colusa
County, Cal i f or ni a. 11: Operational
procedures and deposi t i on measurement.
Mosq. News 32~368-375.
Bresci a, F.
1946. Sa l t Marsh and Anopheline mosquito
cont r ol by ground di s per s al of aer osol s.
J. Econ. Entomol. 39:698-715.
David, W. A. L.
1946. Fact ors i nf l uenci ng t he i nt er act i on
of i ns e c t i c i da l m i s t and f l yi ng i ns e c t s .
Bul l . Entomol. Res. Par t I 36: 373-394,
Par t I 1 37:l-27, Par t I11 37~177-190,
Par t I V 87:393-398.
lohnstone, H. F. , W. E . Winsche, and
L. W. Smith
1949. The di sper si on and deposi t i on of
aer osol s. Chem. Rev. 44: 353-371.
Kruse, C. W. , A. D. Hess, and G. F. Ludvik
1949. The performance of l i qui d spray
nozzl es f o r a i r c r a f t i ns ect i ci de opera-
t i ons . J. Natl. Malaria SOC. 8~312-334.
Average number A t dosage of 1 l bl acr e,
granul es per number granul es deposi t ed
pound per f t 2
Lat t a, L. R. , L. V. Anderson, E. E. Rogers,
V. K. LeMer, S. Hochberg, H. Lauterbach,
and I . Johnson
1947. The e f f e c t of pa r t i c l e s i z e and
vel oci t y of movement of DDT aer osol s i n a
wind t unnel on t he mor t al i t y of mosquitos.
J. Wash. Acad. Sc i . 37~397-407.
McQuaig, R. D.
1962. The col l ect i on of spray drops by
f l yi ng l ocust s. Bul l . Entomol. Res.
53: l l l -123.
Mount, G. A. , C. S. Lofgren, K. F. Baldwin,
and N. W. Pi erce
1970. Droplet s i z e and mosquito k i l l with
ul t ral ow volume aerosol spray di spersed
from a r ot ar y- di sc nozzl e. Mosq. News
30 :331-334.
Mount, G. A.
1970. Optimum dr opl et s i z e f o r adul t mos-
qui t o cont r ol wi t h space sprays o r
aer osol s of i ns ect i ci des . Mosq. News ,
30 :70-75.
Weidhass, D. E. , M. C. Bowman, G. A. Wunt ,
C. S. Lofgren, and H. R. Ford
1970. Rel at i onshi ps of minimum l e t ha l
dose t o t he optimum s i z e of dr opl et s of
i ns e c t i c i de s f or mosquito cont r ol .
Mosq. News 30:195-200.
Yeoman, A. H. , E. E. Rogers, and W. H. Ball
1949. Deposition of aerosol pa r t i c l e s .
J. Econ. Entomol. 42:591-596.
Workshop Summary
Edward M. Fussell
The i n i t i a l e f f or t s of t h i s workshop group
on appl i cat i on were di r ect ed toward br i e f l y des-
cr i bi ng t he pr esent technology r el at ed t o appl i -
cat i on of pe s t i c i de s . We discussed only those
types of equipment and techniques t ha t have
been i n use over t he past few years. We con-
si der ed two groups of equipment because two
bas i c i n t e r e s t groups were represent ed: t he
f or e s t entomology group and t he mosquito con-
t r o l group.
For t he f or e s t i ns ect work, we have fixed-
wing a i r c r a f t ranging from single-engine equip-
ment t o DC7's, i n addi t i on t o rotary-wing a i r -
c r a f t . A l l of t hese equipment systems ar e
pr i mar i l y based on l i qui d spray. The appl i ca-
t i on r a t e s f o r t hese systems i n t he United
St a t e s a r e about 1 gal l on of mat er i al per acre;
t h i s i s t o t a l volume, not act ual mat er i al .
Thi s f i gur e va r i e s somewhat i n t he ot her pa r t s
of t h e world: f o r example, i n Canada t he app-
l i c a t i on r a t e s a r e commonly 20 ounces per acr e.
I n f o r e s t i ns e c t cont r ol , t her e i s a l s o a
p r e t t y wide va r i e t y of bas i c ground equipment,
such a s mi st dust blowers, hydraul i c sprayers,
and backpacks. Obviously, use of ground equip-
ment i s l i mi t ed t o r e l a t i ve l y small areas.
Equipment f or mosquito cont r ol i s a l i t t l e
more var i ed than t ha t f o r f or e s t i ns ect cont r ol .
I t was necessary t o cat egor i ze equipment, not
only a s a e r i a l or ground types, but a l s o a s t o
s u i t a b i l i t y f o r a dul t i ci di ng o r l ar vi ci di ng .
For mosquito l ar vi ci di ng, fixed-wing and r ot ar y-
wing a i r c r a f t ar e adapted f or appl i cat i on of
e i t he r l i qui d o r dust formulations. Fixed-
wing equipment f o r mosquito adul t i ci di ng i s
pr i mar i l y l i mi t ed t o l i qui d di sper sal systems.
A few year s ago, fogging with fixed-wing a i r -
c r a f t was a commonly used technique, especi al l y
i n Fl or i da. I bel i eve it i s not used a s
widely today. Larvi ci di ng with fixed-wing
a i r c r a f t i s pr i nc i pa l l y t he appl i cat i on of
l i qui d or gr anul ar mat er i al . Ground equip-
ment f or l ar vi ci di ng- - her e agai n we use l i qui d
o r dry appl i cat i on- - i ncl udes hydraul i c sprayers,
mi st dust blowers, and backpacks. For adul t
mosquito cont r ol we have a var i et y of equip-
ment. Mosquito abatement d i s t r i c t i n Cal i -
f or ni a a r e j us t coming around t o adul t cont r ol .
The d i s t r i c t s have concentrated pr i nci pal l y
on l a r va l cont r ol i n t he pas t but now ar e
looking t o adul t cont r ol through necessi t y.
is ease Vector Ecology and Control Center,
Alameda, Cal i f or ni a.
Mosquito abatement d i s t r i c t s i n t he East ern and
Southeastern United St at es have concent rat ed
more heavi l y on adul t cont r ol . Adult cont r ol
equipment includes thermal foggers, col d fog-
gers, mist dust blowers, and backpacks.
I t was general l y agreed t ha t t her e i s a
r e a l need f or new equipment o r f or va s t improve-
ment i n t he pr esent l y avai l abl e equipment.
The development of i ns ect i ci de di s per s al equip-
ment, f or a l l pr act i cal purposes, s t a r t e d a f t e r
World War 11. Several di f f e r e nt t ypes of
appl i cat or s were developed i n i t i a l l y and not
much change occurred f or t he next 20 o r 25 year s.
Now we ar e beginning t o r e a l i z e t ha t what was
once considered adequate no l onger meets our
requirements. The r e l a t i ve l y i ne f f e c t i ve di s -
per sal equipment used over t he pas t year s has
r es ul t ed i n a gross waste of i ns e c t i c i de s and
unnecessary contamination of t he environment.
There is a need t o determine median l e t ha l
doses f or s peci f i c i ns ect s . We need addi t i onal
information on t he mode of act i on of i ns e c t i -
cides. We need t o know exact l y how i ns e c t i c i de s
ent er t he i nsect . This i s pa r t i c ul a r l y t r ue
of aerosol s. I t i s e s s e nt i a l t ha t we determine
where t he dr opl et s impinge and how they gai n
entrance i nt o t he i ns ect .
One of t he most important t hi ngs t ha t could
r e s ul t from t h i s conference i s t ha t we agree
on t he importance of t he work on determining
dropl et s i z e requirements and s t r ongl y support
it. Although considerable work was done duri ng
t he ear l y f or t i e s on dr opl et s i z e eval uat i on,
only i n recent years have we come t o gr i ps
with t he problem. D r . Himel has been st udyi ng
t h i s problem f o r many years and I'm s ur e he
w i l l agree on t he importance of dr opl et s i z e .
Achieving t he proper dr opl et s i z e could mean
t he di f f er ence between applying a qua r t e r of
an ounce of mat eri al per acr e and appl yi ng a
pound and a ha l f per acr e. There can be t h i s
much di fference.
We f e e l t ha t something should be done t o
determine t he most e f f i c i e nt formul at i on f o r
s peci f i c pest i ci des and pes t i ci de del i ver y
systems. I t i s time i ns ect i ci de manufacturers
and formulators s t a r t e d developing i ns e c t i c i de s
t ha t f i t a pa r t i c ul a r type of equipment o r
appl i cat i on. The ol d system of determining
what is an i deal i ns ect i ci de has been r ever sed.
The emphasis on developing l ong- l ast i ng i nsec-
t i c i de s has changed. Now, t he poi nt i s not
how long it l a s t s but how qui ckl y it w i l l
break down. For t he aer osol s, t he i de a l i nsec-
t i c i d e could be one t h a t would break down and
become harmless a few hours a f t e r appl i cat i on.
I f you' r e depending on cont act , a s you would
be wi t h an aer osol , once t he i ns e c t i c i de
impinges on t h e t a r ge t and performs i t s func-
t i on, t he i ns e c t i c i de i s no l onger of any
use, and t he sooner it breaks down t he b e t t e r .
When put out i n aer osol form many i ns e c t i c i de s
break down wi t hi n a mat t er of hours, and t h i s
i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t can be used t o gr eat
advantage. We don' t wish t o imply, however,
t h a t aer osol s a r e t h e answer t o a l l our prob-
lems, because t he r e w i l l always be a need f o r
ot he r t ypes of i ns e c t i c i de appl i cat i on.
Something should be done t o minimize l os s
of t he i ns e c t i c i de t o t h e t a r g e t ar ea. One of
t h e most important t hi ngs t o keep i n mind i s
t h a t t he r e i s no way t o cont r ol an aer osol s o
t h a t i t s t ops a t a c e r t a i n l i ne . But, maybe
t he r e a r e ways t o compensate f o r t h i s , perhaps
by manipulating concent r at i ons and appl i cat i on
r a t e s . So t h a t once t he aer osol passes beyond
t h a t c e r t a i n l i n e t he concent rat i on of mat er i al ,
and t he amount of mat er i al t her e, i s no l onger
t oo s i gni f i c a nt . Also, when i ns e c t i c i de s t h a t
break down r a t h e r r api dl y a r e bei ng used, l os s
beyond t h e t a r g e t ar ea i s of l e s s consequence.
I bel i eve we a l l agr ee t h a t we' re not on t he
verge of banning t h e use of pe s t i c i de s . We' re
going t o be deal i ng wi t h t he s e chemicals f o r
decades.
There appears t o be a need t o c l e a r up
confusion i n t h e use of terminology l i k e " u l t r a
low volume." Mr . Pi erpont r epor t ed duri ng t he
sessi on t h a t by EPA de f i ni t i on, ULV i s t he
appl i cat i on of l e s s t han h a l f a gal l on of t o t a l
volume per acr e without regard t o i ns e c t i c i de
concent rat i on. Li t e r a l l y t h e de f i ni t i on i s
cor r ect because t he r ef er ence i s onl y t o volume.
The problem her e i s t h a t we were abl e t o u t i -
l i z e ULV appl i cat i ons onl y because concentra-
t i ons were i ncreased, sometimes t o near-t echni -
cal -grade l evel s . For example, a few year s
ago we used malathion 6 percent a s an a dul t i -
ci de f o r mosquito cont r ol . Now we use mala-
t hi on 95 per cent without di l ut i on. Although
t he EPA de f i ni t i on may be us ef ul t o t h a t
agency it i s l i k e l y t o l ead t o f u r t h e r con-
f usi on f o r t hose engaged i n t h e appl i cat i on
of i ns ect i ci des . I t would be d i f f i c u l t indeed
t o r e f e r t o ULV without a t l e a s t implying t h a t
t he concent rat i on of t h e i ns e c t i c i de had been
i ncreased, sometimes markedly, because a s you
decrease t h e volume you must compensate by
i ncr easi ng t h e concent rat i on. I t i s obvious
t h a t we need more meaningful terminology.
During h i s pr es ent at i on yest er day D r . Himel
suggested t he term Ul t r a Low Dosage. I t cer -
t a i n l y seems t h a t ULD makes more sense than
ULV. Af t er a l l , we a r e pr i mar i l y i nt e r e s t e d
i n t he amount of i ns e c t i c i de t h a t i s appl i ed
t o a given a r e a and not so much i n t he appl i -
cat i on r a t e , except i n s peci al cases where
s p e c i f i c di s per s al r a t e s would be r equi r ed t o
achieve a desi r ed e f f e c t o r prevent undesi r abl e
e f f e c t s .
I t was brought t o t he a t t e nt i on of t he
group by D r . Akesson t ha t t he World Heal t h
Organization has now s ubs t i t ut e d micrometer
f o r micron and volume median diameter f o r mass
median diameter.
Discussion
DR. TSCHIRLEY: You mentioned t he need f o r new
equipment o r modi fi cat i on of e xi s t i ng equip-
ment. What i s t he i nf er ence on t h i s ? Do you
mean t h a t new technology i s needed f o r t he
development of t he new equipment, o r t h a t t h e
new technology i s avai l abl e, but it i s simply
economics t h a t i s hol di ng it up?
COMMANDER FUSSELL: I am not s ur e t h a t t he
technology i s avai l abl e. I t hi nk t h a t what
we a r e going t o have t o do, bef or e we develop
new equipment, i s t o determine what i s needed.
In t h e pa s t , equipment was developed j us t t o
spray i ns e c t i c i de s wi t hout regard t o dr opl et
s i z e o r anyt hi ng of t h a t nat ur e. So I t hi nk
t ha t we f i r s t have t o deci de t he optimum s i z e
f o r t he t a r g e t i ns e c t .
DR. TSCHIRLEY: When you a r e t a l ki ng about
t h i s new equipment, a r e you t a l ki ng about t h e
spray di s t r i but i on system o r t h e vehi cl e t h a t
c a r r i e s t he di s t r i but i on system a s wel l ?
COMMANDER FUSSELL: Well, I would be more con-
cerned r i g h t now with t he di s t r i but i on system
i t s e l f . The vehi cl e f o r t h a t system i s an
e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t t hi ng, and I don' t t hi nk
it makes any di f f er ence whether i t i s ground
equipment o r a e r i a l equipment.
MR. RANDALL: I not i ced i n t h e workshop t h a t
t he r e seems t o be a complete absence of r e f -
erence t o a st andar d. I t hi nk we shoul d have
a st andard s ol ut i on o r a st andar d formul at i on
f o r which a l l t h e work could be cor r el at ed.
So i f you a r e t a l k i n g o f e x i s t i n g equipment
o r new equipment it shoul d be c a r r i e d out on
a st andar d f or mul at i on.
COMMANDER FUSSELL: That was one of t h e com-
ments made i n t h e group yes t er day, t oo. But
I di d not mention it because I knew i t was
goi ng t o come up i n t h e assessment pr es ent a-
t i on. Everybody t h e r e agreed t h a t t h e r e was
a r e a l need f o r some s o r t o f a s t andar di zed
assessment o f s pr ay dr opl e t s , because when
you get i n t o t h e f i e l d wi t h your equipment
you have no p r a c t i c a l way t o det ermi ne drop-
l e t s i z e .
DR. LYON: Yest erday Dr . Akesson mentioned
t h a t he t hought r o t a r y at omi zer s were pas s e.
Would he de s c r i be what he means by t h a t ?
I wonder i f t h a t s u b j e c t came up i n t h e app-
l i c a t i o n workshop?
COMMANDER FUSSELL: I t di d come up, onl y
b r i e f l y t hough. The comment t h a t D r . Akesson
made was t h a t on one p a r t i c u l a r model, where
t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s i ndi c a t e d t h a t it produced
dr opl e t s a t a s i z e o f 10 mi crons, t hey a c t u a l l y
observed d r o p l e t s of 30 o r 40 mi crons. They
were not get . t i ng t he dr opl e t s i z e t h a t was
a dve r t i s e d.
DR. ROBERTS: D r . Akesson, do you have any
comments t o add t o t h a t ?
DR. AKESSON: I don' t be l i e ve t h a t I s a i d t h e
r o t a r y at omi zer s were passe. Rat her, t h e poi nt
I was t r y i n g t o make was t h a t t hes e devi ces,
spi nni ng a t hi gh speeds, a r e more s ubj e c t t o
breakdown and a r e much more expensi ve t han
pr es s ur e nozzl e syst ems. The dr op- si ze s p e c t r a
t hey produce i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t
from t h a t obt ai ned wi t h t h e s i mpl er pr e s s ur e
nozzl es.
However, I would l i k e t o t a ke t h i s oppor-
t u n i t y t o t a ke Commander Fus s el l t o t a s k. I
got t h e i mpressi on yes t er day t h a t you f e l t t h e
s pr ay a ppl i c a t i on equipment i ndus t r y was not
pr ovi di ng a s much i n t h e way o f new equipment
and a ppl i c a t i on t echni ques a s it shoul d be.
I would s ugges t t h a t it i s n ' t s o much a mat t er
o f not havi ng new equipment produced, a s it i s
a l ack o f communication between many o f our
b i o l o g i s t s who cont r ol our s pr ay programs and
t he peopl e who manufact ure t h e equipment. I n
o t h e r words, t h e b i o l o g i s t s r eques t t o equi p-
ment manufact urers may be mechani cal l y i l l o g i -
c a l , whi l e t h e machines t h a t a r e bei ng of f e r e d
may appear t o t h e b i o l o g i s t s t o be ant i quat ed
and i mpossi bl e t o use f o r t h e job t o be done.
Again, I would suggest t h a t communication i s
t h e b a s i c problem. As f a r a s I can t e l l , t h e r e
a r e no a ppl i c a t i on machines on t h e market t oday
t h a t ha ve n' t been around, a t l e a s t i n b a s i c
desi gn, f o r a t l e a s t 25 ye a r s . However, i n an
at t empt t o meet t h e sometimes nebul ous demands
o f t h e b i o l o g i s t , t h e equipment manufact urer
has produced some ver y f a n c i f u l devi ces, and
a l l t oo f r equent l y he a l s o makes cl ai ms f o r
t he s e machines t h a t s t r a nge l y enough sound
e xa c t l y l i k e t h e r equest ed performance.
Take, f o r example, t he pr es ent enchantment
wi t h col d a e r os ol s o r col d f ogger s, p a r t i c u l a r l y
t he ones t h a t add ULV t o t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s .
If you go i n t o t h e l i t e r a t u r e and examine t h e
work o f Randal l Lat t a, Al f r ed Yeomans and o t h e r s
o f t h e e a r l y 194OVs, you w i l l f i n d t h a t t h e use
o f aer os ol s , bot h col d and t hermal , was wi del y
di scussed, and ext ens i ve exper i ment at i on was
c a r r i e d out , t h e dept h and q u a l i t y o f which has
not been approached s i nce t hen, wi t h per haps
t h e except i on o f t h e bi ol ogi cal - t ype r e s e a r c h
bei ng done t oday a t t h e USDA Gai nes vi l l e St a t i o n .
However, I not e t h a t i n a gr e a t deal o f
bi ol ogi c a l work, such a s s cr eeni ng t e s t s o f
var i ous chemi cal s, and t e s t s o f t h e gener al
r e s u l t s of each machine on a d u l t o r l a r v a e
cont r ol , ba s i c paramet ers of weat her, machine
oper at i on, and sometimes pr oper bi ol ogi c a l
s t a t i s t i c s a r e omi t t ed o r i gnor ed. These a r e
mighty poor examples o f r es ear ch, and t o cl ai m
t o r e por t on popul at i on c ont r ol wi t hout s pe c i -
f yi ng o r i de nt i f yi ng t h e many va r i a bl e s i n -
vol vedphysi ca1 chemical and bi ol ogi cal -i s
t oo f r equent l y onl y addi ng confusi on and wast i ng
good j our nal space.
Obviously t h i s s t a t e o f t hi ngs i s e a s i l y
descr i bed, but much more d i f f i c u l t t o do any-
t hi ng about . However, I would agai n s ugges t
t h a t t h e bi ol ogi c a l and phys i cal s c i e nc e i n t e r -
face-the r e l a t i ons hi p between t h e i n s e c t
popul at i on e f f e c t s and t h e chemi cal , t h e mode
o f a c t i on, t ype o f appl i cat i on, a ppl i c a t i on
machine, geographi cal t e r r a i n , and met eoro-
l ogi c a l p a r a me t e r s ~ s h o u l d be consi der ed and
c a r e f u l l y eval uat ed i f sound r es ear ch on such
t hi ngs a s vect or cont r ol , f o r e s t i n s e c t con-
t r o l , and o f course a g r i c u l t u r a l economic
i n s e c t cont r ol , i s bei ng at t empt ed.
Thi s t o t a l approach i s bei ng c a l l e d s ys -
tems c ont r ol o r i nt e gr a t e d c ont r ol , and o f
course c u l t u r a l , s a n i t a t i o n , and b i o l o g i c a l
cont r ol , i ncl udi ng pr e da t or - pa r a s i t e f unct i ons ,
must be i ncl uded.
Anot her f a c e t o f our s c i e nc e r e s e a r c h
i n t e r f a c e i s t h e problem o f communication i n
mat hemat i cal t ermi nol ogy. I t i s, I r e a l i z e ,
very s i mp l i s t i c f o r me a s a phys i cal s c i e n t i s t ,
t o poi nt a t t h e b i o l o g i s t and s ay t h a t what
he needs i s more number-ori ent ed d a t a ~ s t a t i s -
t i c s , computer a na l ys i s , model i ng s t u d i e s , and
i n gener al , a t i ght eni ng up o f d a t a a n a l y s i s .
We must recogni ze t h a t t h e computer, f o r
example, i s a very powerful t o o l and no amount
o f der ogat or y s t o r i e s about i t s i nhumani t y
I
and s t upi di t y, especi al l y i n r e l a t i on t o our
charge accounts with a l ar ge department s t or e ,
is going t o det r act from i t s tremendous capa-
b i l i t i e s i n r at i onal i zi ng t he type of research
and dat a anal ysi s t ha t we a l l need i n our work.
I hope t ha t I am not minimizing t he t r e -
mendous e f f or t s and very valuable work being
done by many of t he bi ol ogi cal s c i e nt i s t s
involved i n pest cont rol work. Rather, I
would hope t ha t my speaking out her e today
w i l l hel p t o open a rout e of information ex-
change and research col l abor at i on which w i l l
benef i t us a l l , both as researchers and as
c i t i z e ns .
The work associ at ed with pa r t i c l e s i z e ,
whether of spray o r dry pa r t i c l e s , has always
been s i gni f i c a nt i n r e l a t i on t o pest cont r ol .
Back i n t he DDT days, a l o t of e f f or t was
devoted t o determining t he s i z e of dr opl et
t ha t would do t he best , most e f f i c i e nt job f or
s pe c i f i c i ns ect cont r ol . Unfortunately, t he
r esear cher s then got t o t he same pl ace our
people have reached today, t he onl y di f f er ence
being t he chemicals used. Basi cal l y, t he
aerosol s i z e drops t ha t Drs. Himel, Weidhaas,
Mount, and ot her s have found t o be most ef f ec-
t i ve i n cont r ol l ed appl i cat i on s t udi es , both
l abor at or y and f i e l d, a r e not (1) e a s i l y pro-
duced, o r ( 2) e a s i l y counted and si zed, o r
(3) e a s i l y used under t he condi t i ons of prac-
t i c a l appl i cat i on work. I s t h i s not , i n pa r t
a t l e a s t , a lack of communication between
physi cal and bi ol ogi cal s c i e nt i s t s ? The
physi cal s c i e n t i s t perhaps e r r s i n h i s i n s i s t -
ence on usi ng e a s i l y managed, large-drop-
s i z e , r api dl y f a l l i ng sprays, but equal l y
i nconsi der at e i s t he bi ol ogi cal s c i e n t i s t ' s
i ns i s t ence t ha t i f hi s cont r ol l ed t e s t s prove
c e r t a i n f a c t s , ext r apol at i on t o f i e l d appl i -
cat i ons should be aut omat i cal l y and e a s i l y
accomplished i f t he equipment people would
simply buckle down and do t h e i r end of t he
job.
submit t o t he bi ol ogi s t s t ha t t h i s
s i t ua t i on i s extremely unproductive and I
would beg of you t o gi ve gr eat er consi derat i on
t o such means of approach as i nt egr at ed o r
systems cont r ol , not a f t e r your deci si ons as
t o r a t e s , drop s i z e , and i ns e c t response work
has a l l been done, but r i ght from t he time of
t he first chemical screeni ng work which shows
t ha t a chemical formulation has promise f o r
a pa r t i c ul a r job. I shoul dn' t expect t ha t
mi racl es a r e going t o suddenly occur from such
i nt egr at i on of research e f f o r t , but we cer-
t a i nl y have l i t t l e t o l os e and perhaps much
t o be gained by gi vi ng it a t r y.
COMMANDER FUSSELL: Thank you D r . Akesson.
I don' t t hi nk t her e was any i nt e nt t o imply
t ha t t he study of aerosol s only s t a r t e d i n
t he l a s t decade. We would not want t o di s-
c r e di t Yeomans o r Lat t a o r any ot her s. Many
assumptions have been made regarding aer osol s,
pa r t i c l e s i z e , impingement and t hi ngs of t h i s
s or t , and I t hi nk t hat some of t hese assump-
t i ons ar e without bas i s . So t he time has
come t o update t h i s information and use t hat
as a bas i s .
DR. KIETHLY: I t seems t o me we have st udi ed
t he l i t e r a t ur e qui t e a l o t on what people
have done, but how do we put i t t o use?
COMMANDER FUSSELL: Something should be done.
I t might be something f or government t o con-
s i de r o r it might be something f or i ndust r y
o r a combination of both t o consider.
DR. TSCHIRLEY: I would l i k e t o r et ur n t o my.
or i gi nal question and ask Dr . Akesson, i n l i ght
of t hi s di scussi on, whether o r not t he tech-
nology i s avai l abl e now t o do what we want
with t hese spray systems, o r do we need more
research t o def i ne t hi s , o r i s t her e a need
t o make t he equipment t ha t w i l l produce what
we want?
DR. AKESSON: I t hi nk t ha t t he technology i s
t her e, but I do bel i eve t ha t t he key t o t h i s
i s t he need t o get t he equipment and t he bio-
l ogi cal requirements l i ned up and cor r el at ed.
And again I would say, yes, t he technology i s
t her e, i t is a development process. I work
i n agr i cul t ur al engineering, and where does
our information come from? We get i t from
"space1' people, mechanical engi neers, c i v i l
engineers, s a ni t a r y engineers and ot her s, and
apply it t o agr i cul t ur e. There you have a
tremendous background and source of technology.
I f we can f i nd t he information we need i n
t hese areas and bri ng it t o bear, t h i s i s t he
general plan t hat we follow. I t hi nk t ha t
t he technology i s avai l abl e but we do need
t hat s pe c i f i c r el at i ons hi p.
DR. LILIJDAHL: I do not see how you can say
t ha t we have t he technology avai l abl e. A t
l e a s t one important pa r t of t he technology
requi red, i f dr opl et s i z e i s important, i s
t he a b i l i t y t o produce--in pr a c t i c a l qua nt i t i e s
and i n pr a c t i c a l s i t u a t ions--reasonably uniform
spray dr opl et s of a desi r ed s i z e . Now, as f a r
as I know, t her e i s only one process avai l abl e
f or doing t ha t i n a pr a c t i c a l s i t ua t i on i n t he
f i e l d. That i s t he one t ha t we have developed,
t hat Dallas has worked on a t College St at i on,
and t ha t I am working on again now. That has
t hr ee important l i mi t at i ons . F i r s t , it w i l l
not go below 75 microns; secondly, it i s not
good i f you have suspended mat er i al s i n wet-
t abl e powders; and t hi r d, nobody knows f o r
s ur e i f i t w i l l work i n high speed a i r streams.
Chances a r e it w i l l not . Consequently we do
not have a method of producing spr ay dr opl et s
below 75 o r maybe 50 microns of reasonabl e
uniformity, t ha t i s , something t ha t has a
coef f i ci ent of var i at i on of , say, l e s s t han
20 percent o r even l e s s than 50 per cent .
Most of t he a i r atomizing nozzl es t h a t we use
f o r f i ne sprays a r e t e r r i b l e , when you con-
s i de r t h e i r c oe f f i c i e nt s of va r i a t i on. I do
not s ee how we can consi der t hose t o be uni -
form spr ays. When we a r e r el eas i ng t hes e
very f i ne sprays, who knows how many drops
we ar e producing t h a t a r e l e s s t han 2 microns
--drops t ha t we can not even measure. I do
not t hi nk we have t he technology avai l abl e.
DR. AKESSON: The problem t h a t Lou i s br i ngi ng
out , and agai n I agree wi t h 100 per cent , i s
t ha t of t r yi ng t o produce t he t ool s t h a t we
need t o do t he r esear ch. We do not have t hose,
l e t al one t he pr a c t i c a l t ype t hi ngs t h a t we
could t ake i nt o t he f i e l d . I de nt i f i c a t i on of
small p a r t i c l e s i s gr e a t l y improved. We a r e
doing qui t e a b i t of work with a scanning el ec-
t r on microscope now, and we can i de nt i f y sub-
micron p a r t i c l e s now, but it i s not easy.
DR. LILIJDAHL: I thought t ha t Fred Tschi r l ey
was r e f e r r i ng t o whether t he information and
technology was avai l abl e t o desi gn and act ual l y
mass-produce such a machine. I do not t hi nk
we have t h a t technology.
DR. AKESSON: We have t he f i r s t - s t e p o r f i r s t -
gener at i on equipment, a s i t were, t o do t he
r esear ch work. Agreed, we can not go i nt o
t he f i e l d wi t h such a machine a t t h i s dat e.
MR. RANDALL: Can I ask a quest i on a t t h i s
poi nt ? Are you r e f e r r i ng t o dr opl et generat ors?
DR. AKESSON: Yes, both a s l abor at or y t ypes
and f i e l d t ypes.
DR. LILIJDAHL: Now I am not t a l ki ng about
l abor at or y gener at or s. I was t a l ki ng about
pr a c t i c a l f i e l d equipment.
MR. RANDALL: There i s one poi nt I would l i k e
t o br i ng t o t he a t t e nt i on of t he group her e
and I am s ur e, Ed, you a r e probably f ami l i ar
wi t h i t . Laboratory dr opl et generat ors have
been produced a t Suf f i e l d f o r t he Defense
Research Board, and publ i cat i ons descr i bi ng
t h i s equipment a r e avai l abl e. As f o r dr opl et
gener at or s out i n t he f i e l d, t he problem, I
f e e l i s t h a t t he r e a r e t oo many of them and
t her e i s no c or r e l a t i on between one machine
and t he next one, mainly because of t he l ack
of a st andar d s ol ut i on, which was a DDT-
Vel si col - f uel o i l combination. Of course
t he DDT was t he st andar d i ns e c t i c i de and we
compared everyt hi ng t o t h a t pa r t i c ul a r i nsec-
t i c i de ; t he aromatic f ue l o i l formul at i on was
our st andard l i qui d, s o t ha t we could compare
a l l new formulations agai ns t t h i s st andar d.
In t h i s way we had some cor r el at i on between
t he vari ous years t h a t we di d our work. But
i f we di d one t hi ng a t t h i s meeting, it would
be t o come up wi t h a st andard s ol ut i on, s o
t h a t everybody would use t ha t one formul at i on
or one l i qui d; t hen t he next time we meet we
would a t l e a s t have t ha t one t hi ng i n common.
The dat a could be i nt er pr et ed by everybody.
Now even i f t he work was done wi t h dr opl et
generat ors, or done i n t he f i e l d, we would
have some means of comparing our work o r dat a.
DR. MAKSYMIUK: I would l i k e t o add t o Randal l ' s
comment on t he need t o develop st andar d formu-
l a t i ons o r s ol ut i ons i n or der t o compare our
l abor at or y and f i e l d r e s ul t s . A t t h e same
time, we a l s o need t o st andar di ze our metho-
dology. Despite t he f a c t t h a t some e xi s t i ng
methods f o r determining spr ay at omi zat i on and
assessi ng spray deposi t a r e comparable, addi -
t i onal st andar di zat i on and common acceptance
of methods a r e needed i nt e r na t i ona l l y.
I would l i k e t o comment on t h e t hr e e
ar eas r e l a t e d t o t he a e r i a l appl i cat i on spr ay
equipment :
1. Coverage: surface area of foliage vs.
surface area of land -- The amount of pe s t i c i de
del i ver ed by vari ous kinds of spr ay equipment
i s cur r ent l y expressed pe r acr e o f l and ar ea,
di sregardi ng t he var i abl e amount of t he s ur -
f ace ar ea of f ol i a ge pe r a c r e . For example:
how many acr es of sur f ace ar ea of f ol i a ge a r e
t her e i n an acr e of land? We ought t o con-
s i de r hor i zont al and ve r t i c a l va r i a t i on i n
veget at i on (cabbage f i e l d, Dougl as-fi r f or e s t ,
oak f or e s t , e t c . ) . Therefore, it would be
more r e a l i s t i c t o express t h e coverage i n
terms of ar ea of f ol i age (@a, o r amount of
pe s t i c i de per uni t s ur f ace ar ea of f ol i age)
i ns t ead of a s t r a di t i ona l l y expressed pe r
uni t sur f ace ar ea of l and (gpa, pounds pe r
acr e, e t c . ) . This concept, i f used i n t he
f i e l d, w i l l provide more r e l i a b l e determina-
t i ons and comparisons of f i e l d dosages and
w i l l r e s ul t i n b e t t e r r epr oduci bi l i t y of
i ns e c t oper at i onal cont r ol programs.
2. Microbial i-nsecticides -- We under-
est i mat ed i n t h i s workshop t he importance
and need of spray equipment f o r del i ver i ng
mi crobi al i ns e c t i c i de s . These bi ol ogi cal
i ns ect i ci des ( bact er i a, vi r uses) a r e appl i ed
a s suspensions whereas most chemicals i nsec-
t i c i de s a r e appl i ed a s s ol ut i ons . The major
problem i s t ha t suspended i ns e c t pathogens
s e t t l e out , i n spr ay formulation mixing
equipment, i n a i r c r a f t t anks, and i n s pr ay
del i ver y systems. An acut e problem i n t he
s t or age of mi crobi al suspensions i s t he
sedi ment at i on and agglomeration of pa r t i c l e s .
Thi s l eads t o var i abl e del i ver y of pathogen
concent r at i ons, with e r r a t i c f ol i a ge coverage,
and i n t ur n, var i abl e and unreproducible
r e s ul t s i n i ns e c t mor t al i t y by pl ace and time.
We el i mi nat ed t h i s problem by working a s
a team with engi neers i n conceiving, designing,
and f a br i c a t i ng s peci al spr ay mixing and loading
equipment and an a i r c r a f t spr ay system.
Thi s
equipment provi des f or t h e continuous r e c i r -
c ul a t i on of s pr ay formul at i on i n t he spr ay
t anks and spray booms (on t he ground o r i n
f l i ght ) without i nj ur y t o t he pathogens e i t he r
by mechanical sources or heat .
Developed
technology i s bei ng appl i ed i n t h e f i e l d
research experiments. Hopefully, it w i l l be
t r ans f er r ed t o t he oper at i onal use a s soon
a s mi crobi al i ns e c t i c i de s can be used opera-
t i ona l l y.
3. Aerial appl i cat i on of pest i ci des -- We
have d i f f i c u l t problems i n a e r i a l appl i cat i on
of pe s t i c i de s i n f or e s t r y mainly because we can-
not cont r ol va r i a bl e meteorological and topo-
graphi c condi t i ons. Therefore, t he spray equip-
ment must have v e r s a t i l i t y f o r obt ai ni ng t he
des i r ed spr ay at omi zat i on (drop s i z e s pect r a)
and appl i cat i on r a t e s (volumes of l i qui ds ) f o r
achi evi ng s pe c i f i c pes t cont r ol obj ect i ves
s a f e l y and e f f e c t i ve l y under a wide range of
physi cal and bi ol ogi cal f i e l d condi t i ons.
DR. TSCHIRLEY: Formulations were mentioned a s
a need, t oo, i n terms of f ur t he r r esear ch.
Two quest i ons on t h i s : What i s t he l e ve l of
e f f o r t i n developing new formulations now and
was t her e any di scussi on of t he group' s
f e e l i ngs a s t o whether t h i s was t he responsi -
b i l i t y of t he publ i c o r t he pr i va t e s ect or ?
COMMANDER FUSSELL: We r e a l l y di dn' t del ve
deeply i n t o t h a t pa r t of i t . I t i s d i f f i c u l t
t o say a t t h i s poi nt who w i l l be r esponsi bl e.
The government probably does most of t he
r esear ch, but t he people from Dow, MGK,
Chemagro, e t c . , might argue about t ha t s i nce
t hey do a tremendous amount of r esear ch them-
s el ves . This f ut ur e r esear ch might not be
assi gned t o any pa r t i c ul a r group, but it i s
work t ha t should be done, t o develop formula-
t i ons , di f f e r e nt concent r at i ons, o r di f f e r e nt
c a r r i e r s . We have obt ai ned some very i nt e r -
e s t i ng r e s u l t s wi t h some of our work with
emulsions. And t h i s s o r t of t hi ng should be
expl ored more f u l l y .
DR. ROBERTS: I t seems t o me t h a t we have
been t a l ki ng about t he need f o r st andar ds of
techniques and procedures but we have not
poi nt ed a f i nger a t who i s going t o organi ze
t h i s . We should organi ze some s o r t of
governing body now s o t ha t we can assi gn
committees and begin t he t as k of def i ni ng
st andards and techniques. Otherwise, we
w i l l r et ur n t o our l abor at or i es , and next
year w i l l come back t o t h i s workshop and
t he same c r i t i c i s m and comments w i l l be made
about t he l ack of st andards or means of com-
pari ng dat a. So l e t us organi ze oursel ves
her e and now s o we can s t a r t on t h i s problem
of st andar di zi ng our methods and t echni ques.
DR. MAKSYMIUK: I understand EPA has a com-
mi t t ee on s t andar di zat i on and nomenclature
per t ai ni ng t o pes t i ci des . I t al ked t o t he
head man j us t a few weeks ago. A t a meeting
somewhere i n Phi l adel phi a, sever al engi neers
walked i n, and t hey were f e e l i ng uneasy
because they coul dn' t pa r t i c i pa t e . But t h e
chairman asked t he engi neers t o form a
committee and assi gned them t he t ask of work-
i ng on t he s t andar di zat i on of methodology
and nomenclature. I don' t know whether a
r epor t t r ans pi r ed from t h a t o r not . Perhaps
some of t he engi neers her e now know what t h e i r
col l eagues a r e doing.
DR. ROBERTS: Are we t a l ki ng about t he same
t hi ng, Bohdan? I am t a l ki ng about an i nt e r -
nal or gani zat i on composed of t he people t ha t
a r e doing t he work. I understand t ha t t her e
has t o be some f eder al r egul at i ons es t abl i s hed
by EPA.
DR. MAKSYMIUK: Once such procedures a r e
accepted by EPA, then t hey a r e mandatory t o
use. I t i s very important t h a t we p a r t i c i -
pat e on t h a t committee s o t ha t t he nomen-
c l a t ur e and s t andar di zat i on a r e t he kind t h a t
we would l i ke . I urge t h a t we pursue t h i s
mat t er and get i n touch wi t h them, t hen i f
t he need a r i s e s we provide s i zeabl e i nput .
I t would be a good i dea a l s o t o s o l i c i t such
i nput , maybe i n an advi sory capaci t y, from
t he Canadians and anybody e l s e who would l i k e
t o cont r i but e.
DR. ROBERTS: D r . Tschi r l ey, I would l i k e t o
hear your comments on t ha t . Do you have any
he'lp o r i nformat i on on t h i s mat t er?
DR. TSCHIRLEY: What t h e gentleman r e f e r s t o
I t hi nk i s a cur r ent e f f or t by ASTM, The
American Soci et y f o r Test i ng Mat er i al s. They
have had s ever al meetings now, wi t h some
di f f er ence o f opi ni on as t o j us t what t h e
st i mul us of t h i s was. But, presumably, what
they ar e t o come up with a t some poi nt i n
t he f ut ur e i s a s t andar di zat i on methodology
f o r information t ha t EPA needs i n t he pe s t i -
ci de r e gi s t r a t i on pr ocess. Now t he nomencla-
t ur e I t hi nk i s a pa r t of t h i s , and t h i s i s
something t h a t would come f a i r l y easy. But
ot her than t ha t , i t is t he methodology of
t he t e s t t ha t i s r equi r ed f or t he r e gi s t r a -
t i on of t he mat er i al s t ha t they ar e looking
a t , i ns of a r a s I know anyway, r a t he r than
anymethodologythat is involved i n t he
development of t he equipment f or del i ver i ng
pe s t i c i de s . According t o t he new pe s t i c i de
l e gi s l a t i on, t h i s does not cover t he r egi s -
t r a t i on of t he appl i cat i on equipment i t s e l f .
Of devices f o r pe s t cont r ol , yes, and of t he
pes t i ci des themselves, yes, but not t he equip-
ment f o r del i ver i ng it. So what you suggest ,
Richard, t h a t a group get t oget her t o
st andar di ze some of t he parameters t ha t you
have t o deal wi t h day a f t e r day, i s an
excel l ent suggest i on.
MR. PIERPONT: What D r . Tschi rl ey j us t s a i d
i s cor r ect , and I think t ha t Dr . Roberts'
suggest i on is a good one. A t t he pr esent
time we a r e put t i ng t oget her gui del i nes f o r
t he r e gi s t r a t i on of pes t i ci des i n t he United
St at es . One pa r t of t ha t i s t he Appendix
which w i l l i ncl ude a l l of t he t e s t methods
accept abl e f or t he development of t hes e pe s t i -
ci des. This i s where your i nput would be very
gr eat l y appreci at ed.
DR. ROBERTS: We have a golden opport uni t y her e
t o "write our own book" so t o speak. But who
i s going t o t ake t he i n i t i a t i v e and w i l l
organize t h i s group? This i s r e a l l y not my
f i e l d, s o I am going t o pass t he buck.
MR. RANDALL: I would l i k e t o t ake t h i s golden
opport uni t y t o pass t he buck a l i t t l e f ur t he r .
I t hi nk t he group t ha t works i n f or e s t r y should
handle t he requirements f or t h e i r ar ea and t he
group t ha t does t he mosquito work should handle
t ha t pa r t i c ul a r t ype of work, s o a t l e a s t t he
exper t s would be i n t h e i r own f i e l d .
BEHAVIOR
TheMicrometeorologyandPhysicsof SprayParticle Behavior
Harrison E. cramerl Douglas G. 6oyl e2
Abstract--During 30 years of experimental programs a t
Dugway Proving Ground, techniques were developed f o r computer
modeling of spray cloud behavior. Atmospheric t r ans por t and
di f f us i on processes wi t hi n f or e s t canopies a r e gener al l y qui t e
di f f e r e nt from t hose i n open t e r r a i n, a s i l l us t r a t e d by normal-
i zed ve r t i c a l pr of i l e s of windspeed and temperature. Deposi-
t i on of a e r i a l sprays on veget at i on o r i ns ect s i s apparent l y
t he r e s ul t of many di f f er ent processes t ha t a r e not well under-
stood. Some dat a on canopy penet r at i on has been gathered i n
t e s t s usi ng Zectran.
This di scussi on summarizes t he techniques
used t o support experimental spray programs a t
Dugway Proving Ground. The time span i s 30
year s. The spr ay programs themselves were
designed pr i mar i l y t o eval uat e s pe c i f i c m i l i -
t a r y systems o r items of developmental hard-
ware. For t ha t reason, viewed hi s t or i c a l l y,
t hey show no cont i nui t y of obj ect i ves . Con-
t i n u i t y i s provided, however, by t he recurrence
of t he same unknowns. I t i s r e f l e c t e d a l s o i n
t he evol ut i on of improved sensors, assay and
anal ys i s t echni ques and, s i nce t he l a t e 1950f s,
i ncreased r e l i a nc e on computer modeling of
spray cloud behavior. The cur r ent approach t o
modeling is t he cent r al theme of t h i s paper.
I n t he development of t he computational schemes
present ed, t he obj ect i ve has been and cont i nues
t o be a more us ef ul alignment between t heory
and f i e l d experiment i n t he physi cal descr i p-
t i on of aer osol and dr opl et behavior. Atmos-
pher i c t r ans por t and di f f us i on processes wi t hi n
a f or e s t canopy a r e di scussed i n a l a t e r
s ect i on. The concluding s ect i on pr esent s t he
scant dat a generat ed (through 1972) under t he
cooperat i ve agreement between Army and Forest
Ser vi ce i nves t i gat or s .
Ga r r i s on E. Cramer Co., Sa l t Lake Ci t y, Utah.
2 ~ e s e r e t Test Center, For t Douglas, Utah.
GENERALIZED MODEL CONCEPT
The employment of mathematical pr edi ct i on
models has proved mandatory i n quant i fyi ng t he
atmospheric behavior of mi l i t a r y systems, s i nce
many such systems cannot be t e s t e d. Use of pre-
di c t i on models i s a l s o e s s e nt i a l i n t he desi gn
of f i e l d t r i a l s and i n t he i nt e r pr e t a t i on of
f i e l d measurements. The concept of general i zed
concentration-dosage pr edi ct i on models was f i r s t
s t a t e d by Mi l l y (1958) who poi nt ed out t he neces-
s i t y f o r separ at i ng t he ef f ect of source f a c t or s ,
meteorological f act or s , and s i t e f a c t or s i n t he
anal ys i s and gener al i zat i on of chemical and bi o-
l ogi cal f i e l d t e s t dat a. This concept has been
broadened and implemented i n work a t Deseret Test
Center (Cramer and ot her s , 1964; 1972) and i s t he
keystone of t he model formulas f or a e r i a l spray
r el eas es given below. The general i zed models
a r e intended t o be uni ver s al l y appl i cabl e, by
s ui t a bl e s el ect i on of source and meteorological
i nput parameter val ues, t o a l l di ssemi nat i on
systems, t o a l l environmental regimes, and t o
a l l requirements. These requirements t ypi c a l l y
i ncl ude t he desi gn of f i e l d t e s t s , assessment
of t he r e s ul t s of f i e l d measurements, ext rapo-
l a t i on of t hese r e s ul t s t o f i e l d oper at i ons,
development of di ssemi nat i on systems, and hazard-
s af et y anal yses, among ot her s .
The basi c general i zed model format is a
mass cont i nui t y equation t ha t i n pr i nc i pl e pro-
vi des a complete des cr i pt i on of t he t r a j e c t or y
and pr oper t i es of an aer osol o r heavy pa r t i c ul a t e
cloud,fromthetimeofcloudstabilization
(approximateequilibriumwithambientcondi-
tionsimmediatelyfollowingdissemination),
untilthecloudhaspassedbeyondthemaximum
downwindtraveldistanceofinterest. The
termsincludedinthegeneralizedmodelmust
thereforespecifythedirectionandrateof
downwindcloudtravel;thealongwind,cross-
windandverticalclouddimensionsasfunctions
oftraveltimeanddistance;thedistribution
ofmaterialwithinthecloudasafunctionof
timeanddistance;andlossesofmaterial
throughdecayorremovalbysuchagenciesas
hydrometeors,gravitationalsettling,and
othersurfaces. Thegeneralizedmodelmust
alsoprovidefortheeffectsofvariations
inthechemicalandphysicalpropertiesof
thematerialcontainedinthestabilizedcloud;
inthemodeofreleaseandsourceemission
time;andinthemeteorological,terrain,and
vegetativefactors.
TheDeseretTestCentermodelequations
aresimilarinformtotheGaussiandiffusion
modelformulasfirstdevelopedbyA.G.Sutton
(1953)andlaterextendedbyPasquill(1962)
andothers. ACartesiancoordinatesystemis
employed,withtheoriginplacedatground
leveldirectlybelowthesource. Thexaxis
isalongthedirectionofdownwindcloud
travel,theyaxisisnormaltothealongwind
axisintheplaneofthehorizon,andthe
zaxisisdirectedalongthevertical. The
auxiliaryequationsforthelateral,vertical
andalongwindclouddimensionsareexpressed
assimplepowerlawsandcontaindirect
meteorologicalpredictors. Otherdistribution
functions,coordinatesystems,cloudexpansion
lawsandmeteorologicalpredictorscanbesub-
stitutedinthemodels. Inadditiontousing
directmeteorologicalpredictors,theDeseret
TestCentermodelsalsoprovidefortheinclu-
sionofmesoscalemeteorologicalfactorswhich
controlatmosphericdiffusion,transport,and
depletionprocessesforcloudtraveldistances
inexcessof1or2kilometers. Themesoscale
factorsmostimportantindeterminingthe
dimensionsoraerosolcloudsatdistances
greaterthanafewkilometersdownwindfrom
thepointofreleasearethedepthofthe
surfacemixinglayerandtheverticalshear
ofwindspeedandazimuthwinddirectionin
thislayer. Itfollowsthatachoiceofexpres-
sionsusedinthemodeltoaccountforthe
effectsofmicroscaleprocesses,particularly
small-scaleturbulentmixing,isfrequently
notofcriticalimportance. Otherimportant
innovationsintheDeseretTestCentermodels
includespecificprovisionsfortheeffectsof
initialcloudsizeandsourceemissiontimeon
downwindconcentration-dosagepatterns.
Itshouldberecognizedthatthegeneral-
ized modelformulasareinherentlyinterimor
stateoftheartexpressionsreflectingthe
bestavailableknowledge. Provisionhasbeen
madefortheirrefinementandimprovementas
newinformationbecomesavailable. Inmany
instances,theappropriatesourceandmeteoro-
logicalinformationisfragmentaryoralmost
completelylacking. Becauseofinadequacies
inexistingmeasurements,theamountofrigorous
modelvalidationthathasbeenpossibletodate
isdisappointinglysmall. However,theexper-
ienceinmodelvalidationhasdemonstrated
thattheoverallconceptualframeworkissound
andthattheaccuracyofmodelpredictionsis
limitedprincipallybytheaccuracyandadequacy
ofthesourceandmeteorologicalinputs.
GeneralizedModelFormulasfor
AerialSprayReleases
Inaerialsprayreleases,thereleaseof
materialtotheatmosphereiscompletedalmost
instantlyasthespraycloudgenerallyreaches
anapproximateequilibriumwiththeambient
airflowwithinseconds. Thisapproximate
equilibriumisreferredtoascloudstabili-
zationandthesourceinputsusedinthemodel
refertothepropertiesofthespraycloud
immediatelyafterithasstabilized. These
propertiesincludethedimensionsofthe
stabilizedcloud,chemicalspeciescontained
inthecloud,totalamountofeachspecies,
sizedistributionsanddensitiesofparticu-
latesordroplets,andspatialdistribution
ofeachspecieswithinthestabilizedcloud.
Inthegeneralizedconcentrationmodel
foraerialsprayreleases,theconcentration
ofairbornespraymaterialdownwindfromthe
pointofcloudstabilizationisgivenbythe
productoffiveterms:
~ ( x , y, z, t) = (PeakConcentrationTerm)(AlongwindTerm)(EdgeEffectsTerm)
(VerticalTerm)(Depletion Term)
V
The Peak Concentration Term r e f e r s t o t he Q = t ot a l quant i t y of spray mat eri al
concent rat i on a t t he cent er of t he cloud rel eased per uni t l engt h of t he
(x = ut , y = 0, z = H) and i s defined by r el eas e l i n e
t he expression
u = standard devi at i on of t he alongwind
QL concentration di s t r i but i on
2.n ox Uz
u = standard devi at i on of t he ve r t i c a l
where
-
concentration di s t r i but i on
u = mean windspeed
H = hei ght of t he cent er of t he s t a bi - The remaining four terms, which a r e a l l dimen-
l i z e d cloud o r ef f ect i ve r el eas e si onl ess, a r e defined a s follows:
hei ght
Alongwind Term = exp [-i '1
H- ( v x / ~ )
(-)'I Ver t i cal Term = lexp[-4 UJW 1
where
Depletion Term ( Pr eci pi t at i on Scavenging)
= gr avi t at i onal s e t t l i ng vel oci t y
,- -
= exp [-A(: - t I)]
H = depth of t he sur f ace mixing l ayer
where
A = f r act i on of mat eri al by weight removed
Depletion Term (Decay) = exp (-kt)
by scavenging per uni t time
t ' = time a f t e r cloud s t a bi l i z a t i on t ha t
(-k t) = exp
pr eci pi t at i on begins
where
The t ot a l weight of heavy pa r t i c ul a t e or drop-
l e t s deposited per uni t surface ar ea (contami-
k = decay coef f i ci ent
nat i on densi t y) i s defined by t he expression
where
Intheaboveexpressionsforcontamination
density,
f.= fractionbyweightofheavyparticu-
l
latesordropletswithgravitational
settlingvelocityVs
6 = verticaldiffusioncoefficientof
theorderofunity
x = verticalvirtualdistance
Y
Theauxiliarymodelformulasusedtodefine
thestandarddeviationsoftheconcentration
distribution(ox,oy,oZ)-which containthe
turbulentintensities,diffusioncoefficients,
windvelocity,andothermeteorologicalpara-
meters~will notbepresentedhere. A complete
descriptionoftheseformulasmaybefoundin
thereportpreparedforDeseretTestCenterby
Cramerandothers(1972).
FIGURE1. Schematicdiagramofabove-canopylinereleasemodel.
The a e r i a l spray model j us t out l i ned was
developed pr i nci pal l y f o r use i n open t e r r a i n
and must be modified before it can be used t o
pr edi ct concent rat i ons o r contamination den-
s i t i e s wi t hi n f or e s t canopies. A s t he model
st ands, i t can very l i ke l y be employed t o cal -
cul at e spray concent rat i ons and contamination
de ns i t i e s a t t he t op of a f or e s t canopy r es ul -
t i ng from a e r i a l l i ne source r el eas es . The
schematic diagram ( f i g. 1) shows t he spread
of a heavy pa r t i c ul a t e o r dr opl et cloud from
a l i n e source r el eas e above a f or e s t canopy.
The f eat ur es i n t he diagram r e f e r t o some of
t he more important model parameters. The
i nc l i na t i on of t he alongwind a xi s of t he
cloud c e nt e r l i ne a t an angl e vi/6 t o t he hor i -
zontal (where v i i s t he gr avi t at i onal s e t t l i ng
vel oci t y of a c l a s s o r heavy pa r t i c l e s o r
dr opl et s and ii i s t he mean windspeed) shows
t he b a l l i s t i c treatment of gr avi t at i onal s e t -
t l i n g i n t he model. The growth of t he cloud
by t ur bul ent mixing t akes pl ace about t h i s
i ncl i ned a xi s r a t he r than about a hori zont al
axi s , a s i n t he case of a vapor o r gas cloud.
Downwi nd di st ance (m)
FIGURE 2. Total surface deposi t i on from
el evat ed crosswind l i n e r el eas es ,
a t a hei ght of SO meters, f or
a mean windspeed of 5 meters per
second f or sel ect ed drop s i zes .
The ve r t i c a l term i ndi cat es t he r el at i ons hi p
between t he ve r t i c a l dimensions of t he cloud
and t he standard devi at i on of t he ve r t i c a l
concent rat i on di s t r i but i on. Although it i s
not shown i n f i gur e 1, t he edge e f f e c t s term
accounts f o r t he di l ut i on of t he cloud t ha t
occurs a t t he crosswind ext r emi t i es (end poi nt s
of t he r el eas e l i ne) produced by t he ent r ai n-
ment and mixing of ambient a i r .
Examples a r e given ( f i gs . 2, 3) of cal -
cul at i ons of t he t ot a l deposi t i on of spray
mat er i al , f o r sel ect ed drop s i z e s (densi t y =
1. 0), per uni t sur f ace ar ea, a t a hei ght of
50 meters below t he ef f ect i ve r el eas e hei ght .
This surface can be assumed t o represent t he
t op of a continuous f or e s t canopy. When t he
mean windspeed i s 5 m sec- l , a s shown i n
f i gur e 2, t he t o t a l deposi t i on i s approxi-
mately t he same f o r a l l drops l e s s than 100
microns i n diameter. A t low mean windspeeds, -
a s shown i n f i gur e 3, t he t o t a l deposi t i on i s
approximately t he same f or a l l drops l e s s t han
40 microns i n diameter.
Downwind di st ance (m)
FIGURE 3. Total surface deposi t i on from
el evat ed crosswind l i ne r el eas e,
a t a hei ght of SO meters, f o r
a mean windspeed of 1 meter per
second f or sel ect ed drop s i z e s .
ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT AND
DIFFUSION PROCESSES WITHIN FOREST CANOPIES
At mospheri c t r a ns por t and d i f f u s i o n
pr oces s es wi t hi n f o r e s t canopi es a r e ge ne r a l l y
q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t hos e i n open t e r r a i n .
I n dense canopi es, t h e met eor ol ogi cal s t r u c -
t u r e i s onl y ver y weakly coupl ed wi t h t h e
above-canopy met eor ol ogi cal s t r u c t u r e . The
wind and t emper at ur e f i e l d s t h a t cont r ol
below-canopy t r a n s p o r t and d i f f u s i o n conse-
quent l y d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t hos e t h a t
a ppl y above open t e r r a i n i n t h e absence o f a
canopy. The v e r t i c a l p r o f i l e s o f mean wind-
speed and a i r t emper at ur e below t h e t op o f a
f o r e s t canopy a r e of s pe c i a l i n t e r e s t . Nor-
mal i zed p r o f i l e s o f windspeed between ground
l e v e l and t h e t op of s e l e c t e d canopi es ( f i g . 4)
were r e por t e d by Fr i t s c he n and o t h e r s ( 1970) .
We a r e i n t e r e s t e d pr i ma r i l y i n t h e normal i zed
p r o f i l e s i n f i g u r e 4 f o r t h e Dougl as- f i r f o r e s t ,
dense c o n i f e r s t and, and moder at el y dense coni -
f e r s t a nd. The r e l e va nt f e a t u r e s of t he s e
p r o f i l e s a r e :
I n t h e upper t h i r d o f t h e canopy, t h e r e
i s a s har p decr eas e i n windspeed from
t h e above-canopy speed
I n t h e l ower t wo- t hi r ds of t h e canopy,
t h e windspeed i s al most cons t ant wi t h
hei ght , and i s appr oxi mat el y one- quar t er
t o one- t hi r d t h e val ue of t h e windspeed
a t t h e t op o f t h e canopy
An a ddi t i ona l f a c t t o be kept i n mind i s t h a t
t h e windspeed i n t he. undi s t ur bed a i r f l ow above
t h e canopy i s appr oxi mat el y t wi ce t h e windspeed
a t t h e t op o f t h e canopy. Thi s l e v e l of undi s-
t ur bed fl ow i s found a t an equi val ent canopy
hei ght above t h e t o p of t h e canopy. I t f ol l ows
t h a t wi ndspeeds i n t h e l owest t wo- t hi r ds of
dense f o r e s t canopi es w i l l r ange from about
5 t o 10 per cent o f t h e windspeed i n t h e undi s-
t ur bed f l ow above t h e t o p of t h e canopy,
Below-canopy t r a n s p o r t speeds i n dense f o r e s t
canopi es t he r e f or e a r e ge ne r a l l y o f t h e or der
of 0. 5 met er s pe r second ( 1 mi l e pe r hour ) .
Typi cal p r o f i l e s of t h e hei ght v a r i a t i o n s
i n t emper at ur e t h a t occur between t h e a i r l a y e r
above t h e t op of t h e canopy and t h e ground s ur -
f a c e below t h e canopy a r e shown i n f i g u r e 5.
The shape o f t he s e p r o f i l e s i s p r i n c i p a l l y
det er mi ned by t h e r a d i a t i o n a l cool i ng o r heat i ng
of t h e t o p o f t h e canopy. I n f a i r weat her ,
t h e t op o f t h e canopy i s warmed by s o l a r i ns o-
l a t i o n dur i ng da yl i ght hour s. A t ni ght , t h e
t op o f t h e canopy c ool s down because of r a di a -
t i o n a l heat l o s s e s t o t h e a i r l a y e r s above t h e
canopy. The t emper at ur e i n t h e l ower p a r t of
t h e canopy t ends t o r emai n unchanged. The
r e s u l t i s t h e pr oduct i on o f t her mal l y- s t abl e
l a y e r s ( t emper at ur e i s cons t ant o r i nc r e a s e s
.....--. Dense conifer understory
- Dense hardwood jungle with understory
--- Moderately dense coni fer stand - no understory
-- Isolated coni fer stand - no understory
-o- Dense cotton
--
Dougl as-f i r forest
FIGURE 4. Comparison o f nor mal i zed wind
p r o f i l e s o f va r i ous ve ge t a t i ve
canopi es where Z i s hei ght
above t h e ground, H i s t h e
hei ght of t he t o p o f t he canopy,
and ii i s t h e wi ndspeed. (From
Fr i t s chen and ot he r s , 1970)
wi t h hei ght ) above and j u s t below t h e t op o f t he
canopy a t ni ght and j u s t below t h e t op of t h e
canopy dur i ng t h e day. As shown i n f i g u r e 5,
t h e a i r l a ye r above t h e t o p o f t h e canopy i s
t her mal l y uns t abl e ( t emper at ur e decr eas es wi t h
hei ght ) dur i ng t h e day. On over cas t days and
ni ght s , t h e t emper at ur e t ends t o decr ease wi t h
hei ght t hroughout t h e canopy and i n t h e a i r
l a ye r s above t h e canopy. A s i mi l a r condi t i on
o f t hermal i n s t a b i l i t y a l s o occur s i n f a i r
weat her dur i ng t he e a r l y morning, l a t e a f t e r -
noon, o r e a r l y eveni ng. Thi s condi t i on i s
t r a n s i e n t , and t y p i c a l l y l a s t s f o r an hour o r
s o dur i ng t h e changeover from day t o day. The
pr esence o f t her mal l y- s t abl e l a y e r s i s unf avor abl e
f o r t h e d i f f u s i o n o f l i g h t p a r t i c u l a t e s o r
a e r os ol s cont ai ni ng smal l d r o p l e t s . These
ma t e r i a l s a r e not a b l e t o pe ne t r a t e t her mal l y-
s t a b l e l a ye r s , except a s a consequence o f gr a vi -
t a t i o n a l s e t t l i n g which i s ge ne r a l l y i n s i g n i f i -
cant f o r p a r t i c l e s o r d r o p l e t s wi t h di amet er s
of from 10 t o 20 mi crons o r l e s s . The p r a c t i c a l
s i gni f i c a nc e of t h i s phenomenon i s t h a t smal l
dr opl e t a e r i a l s pr ays r el eas ed above dense
f o r e s t canopi es w i l l have d i f f i c u l t y i n pene-
t r a t i n g and di f f us i ng wi t hi n t he canopi es
except duri ng t h e b r i e f f ai r - weat her change-
over per i ods i n t he e a r l y morning o r l a t e
af t er noon, o r dur i ng over cas t condi t i ons . I f
t he spr ayi ng i s performed wi t h a he l i c opt e r
t h a t hovers a t a low a l t i t u d e above t h e t op
of a dense canopy, t he downwash from t h e
r o t o r s may dr i ve t he spr ay mat er i al i n t o t he
below-canopy r egi on.
Another f e a t u r e of below-canopy meteoro-
l ogi c a l s t r u c t u r e of i n t e r e s t i s t h a t t he t u r -
bul ent i n t e n s i t i e s t end t o be q u i t e l a r g e com-
pared t o t ypi c a l val ues above open t e r r a i n .
Turbul ent i n t e n s i t y i s def i ned a s t h e r a t i o of
t he root -mean-square of t he f l uc t ua t i ons of
wind v e l o c i t y about t he mean ve l oc i t y t o t he
mean ve l oc i t y. Typi cal val ues of t h i s r a t i o
above open t e r r a i n approxi mat e 0. 10. Beneath
f o r e s t canopi es, t h e r a t i o i s approxi mat el y
1. 0. The expl anat i on i s t h a t t h e presence of
t h e low wind v e l o c i t i e s t ypi c a l of below-
canopy regi mes and l a r g e f l uc t ua t i ons i n wind
v e l o c i t y produced by a i r fl ow around obs t a c l e s
l ead t o hi gh val ues of t h e r a t i o def i ni ng t he
i n t e n s i t y of t ur bul ence. Because t he i n t e n s i t y
CLEAR NIGHT
of t ur bul ence i s a good i ndex of t ur bul e nt
mixing o r di f f us i on, t h i s means t h a t t h e
di f f us i on pr ocesses below f o r e s t canopi es a r e
ver y e f f e c t i v e i n spr eadi ng l i g h t p a r t i c u l a t e s
o r smal l dr opl e t s t hroughout t h e below-canopy
r egi on. I t must be poi nt ed out , however, t h a t
hor i zont al wind t r a ns por t of ai r bor ne ma t e r i a l
i s s ever el y r e s t r i c t e d by t h e low t r a ns por t
speeds. Al so, because al most a l l canopi es a r e
open t o t he sky i n s e l e c t e d l ocat i on, e n t r y
and e x i t of ai r bor ne mat er i al i s most l i k e l y
t o occur t hrough t he s e openi ngs which a c t a s
na t ur a l chimneys. Much of t h i s t ype of ve r -
t i c a l t r a ns por t of mat er i al occur s a s t h e
r e s u l t of dynamic f or c e s produced by t h e fl ow
of a i r above t h e undul at i ng s ur f a c e pr esent ed
by t h e t op of t h e canopy. When t h e above-
canopy windspeeds a r e of t h e or der of 10 mi l es
per hour, t he below-canopy r es i dence t i me o f
l i g h t p a r t i c u l a t e s o r smal l dr opl e t s i s l e s s
t han 1 hour, unl es s t hey a r e deposi t ed f i r ml y
on ve ge t a t i ve o r ot he r s ur f a c e s p r i o r t o t h a t
t i me. Thi s s hor t r es i dence t i me i s p r i n c i p a l l y
caused by t he r a pi d e x i t of ma t e r i a l from t he
canopy i n v e r t i c a l a i r c ur r e nt s t h a t form i n
t he na t ur a l chimneys af f or ded by c l e a r i ngs o r
openi ngs i n t h e t op of t h e canopy.
CLEAR DAY CLOUDY DAY OR NIGHT
OR
MORNING CHANGE-OVER
FIGURE 5. Ver t i cal t emperat ure p r o f i l e s (~{z})above and
below a f o r e s t canopy. Thermally s t a b l e l a ye r s
pr event t ur bul ent mixing.
DEPOSITION OF AERIAL SPRAYS ON FOREST CANOPIES
Deposi t i on of a e r i a l s pr ays on veget at i on
o r i n s e c t s appear s t o occur a s t h e r e s u l t of
a number of d i f f e r e n t pr ocesses. Cur r ent under-
st andi ng of t h e physi cs of some of t he s e
pr ocesses i s s e ve r e l y l i mi t e d. Al so, t h e
e f f i c i e nc y of t h e pr ocesses appear s t o var y
wi t h a number of met eor ol ogi cal , veget at i ve,
and o t h e r f a c t o r s . Four ba s i c c a t e gor i e s of
depos i t i on pr ocesses may be i d e n t i f i e d :
Gr avi t at i onal s e t t l i n g
I n e r t i a l i mpact i on
Tur bul ent depos i t i on o r i mpact i on
Ot her pr ocesses such a s e l e c t r o s t a t i c
a t t r a c t i o n , adhesi on, and absor pt i on
Gr a vi t a t i ona l s e t t l i n g would appear t o
be t h e dominant pr ocess l eadi ng t o t h e depo-
s i t i o n of heavy a e r os ol s and pos s i bl y, under
calm a i r condi t i ons , may appl y t o l i g h t
a e r os ol s a s wel l . The t i me r equi r ed f o r s pher i -
c a l p a r t i c l e s o r d r o p l e t s of u n i t de ns i t y t o
f a l l t hr ough v e r t i c a l di s t a nc e s of 10 met er s
and 50 met er s i s shown ( f i g . 6 ) a s a f unct i on
of dr opl et di amet er . Note t h a t t h e f a l l t i mes
f o r 20-micron dr opl e t s a r e of t he or der of l o 3
seconds, whereas t he f a l l t i mes f o r 100-micron
dr opl e t s a r e of t he or de r of l o 2 seconds.
The i n e r t i a l i mpact i on e f f i c i e nc y E i s
shown ( f i g . 7) a s a f unct i on of t h e i n e r t i a l
i mpact i on paramet er K f o r var i ous t a r g e t shapes.
The t he or e t i c a l b a s i s of i n e r t i a l i mpact i on
cont ai ns a number of l i s t i n g assumpt i ons, one
of which i s t h e exi s t ence of l ami nar f l ow.
Wi t hi n f o r e s t canopi es, t h i s assumpt i on may
be s a t i s f i e d onl y under ver y s pe c i a l condi t i ons ,
i f a t a l l , Fi gur e 8, a s i mpl i f i e d ver s i on of
f i g u r e 7, shows an envel ope of t h e val ues of
t he i n e r t i a l i mpact i on e f f i c i e nc y ver s us t h e
paramet er K f o r c i r c u l a r c yl i nde r s a s t h e i ndex
f o r t h e Reynolds number of t h e c yl i nde r s
v a r i e s over a wide r ange. Cyl i ndr i cal shapes
a r e assumed t o be r e pr e s e nt a t i ve of smal l
branches, pi ne needl es, t h e spr uce budworm and
ot he r i ns e c t s t h a t a r e t a r g e t s f o r some a e r i a l
s pr ay appl i cat i on. The gr aphs ( f i g s . 9, 10)
show t he r ange of minimum dr opl e t di amet er s
(assuming u n i t de ns i t y of t h e dr opl e t s ) r equi r ed
t o achi eve i n e r t i a l i mpact i on e f f i c i e n c i e s of
0. 5 and 0. 8 on c yl i ndr i c a l t a r g e t s when t h e
FIGURE 6 . Time i n seconds r equi r ed f o r var i ous - s i ze dr ops of
u n i t de ns i t y t o f a l l 50 met er s and 10 met er s.
FIGURE 7. I n e r t i a l i mpact i on e f f i c i e n c y E a s a f unct i on of
i n e r t i a l i mpact i on par amet er K f o r a number of
d i f f e r e n t t a r ge t shapes. (From Golovin and Putnam
1962)
t a r g e t di amet er v a r i e s from 0. 1 t o 0. 5 c e nt i -
met er s. The gr aphs have been const r uct ed by
s ol vi ng t h e formul a f o r t he i n e r t i a l i mpact i on
par amet er K shown a t t h e lower l e f t of f i g u r e
7 and marking o f f t h e r egi ons i n which t h e
i n e r t i a l i mpact i on e f f i c i e n c y E i s equal t o
0. 5 and 0. 8 by r e f e r e nc e t o t h e envel ope of
f i g u r e 8 . I n f i g u r e 9, t h e v e l o c i t y U i n t h e
formul a f o r t h e i n e r t i a l i mpact i on par amet er
K has been assi gned va l ue s from 0. 1 t o 0.5
met er s per second. I n f i g u r e 10, t h e val ue
assi gned t o U i s t h e g r a v i t a t i o n a l s e t t l i n g
v e l o c i t y of uni t - de ns i t y spher es wi t h di amet er s
shown on t h e or di na t e s c a l e . According t o
f i g u r e s 9 and 10, i n or der t o achi eve i n e r t i a l
i mpact i on e f f i c i e n c i e s of 80 per cent wi t h
a e r i a l s pr ay dr opl e t s , t h e dr opl e t di amet er
must be of t h e or der o f 100 mi cr ons.
Tur bul ent depos i t i on o r i mpact i on has
been def i ned i n two ways, bot h of which depend
on t h e e xi s t e nc e of l a r g e v e l o c i t y f l uc t ua -
t i o n s . Tur bul ent i mpact i on i s ge ne r a l l y i n t e r -
pr et ed t o mean t h a t an aer os ol p a r t i c l e o r
dr opl e t i s phys i c a l l y t r ans por t ed t o t he s ur -
f a c e of an obj e c t by a t ur bul ent eddy and
i mpact s on t h e s ur f ace. Tur bul ent depos i t i on,
on t he ot he r hand, r e f e r s t o t h e f a c t t h a t
p a r t i c l e s o r d r o p l e t s caught i n vor t ex c i r c u-
l a t i o n o r wakes i n t h e l e e of obs t a c l e s a r e
br ought t o s t a gna t i on poi nt s o r dead zones
near t h e s ur f a c e of f o l i a g e o r ot he r o b j e c t s
where t h e vor t ex c i r c u l a t i o n vani shes and t h e
d r o p l e t s o r p a r t i c l e s a r e t hus deposi t ed on
t he s ur f ace. Thi s phenomenon has been of f e r e d
a s an expl anat i on f o r t h e observed pr esence of
smal l s pr ay dr opl e t s on t he under si des of l eaves
i n canopi es and ot he r obj e c t s which cannot be
expl ai ned a s t h e r e s u l t of e i t h e r g r a v i t a t i o n a l
s e t t l i n g o r i n e r t i a l i mpact i on.
Ot her pr oces s es such a s e l e c t r o s t a t i c
a t t r a c t i o n , adhesi on, and abs or pt i on a r e pr obabl y
a l s o e f f e c t i v e under c e r t a i n condi t i ons . For
example, t he r e i s evi dence t h a t some i n s e c t s
capt ur e smal l dr opl e t s o r p a r t i c l e s by t h e a c t i on
of c i l i a o r by excr et i ng a s t i c k y subst ance.
K ( I ner t i al I mpact i on Par amet er )
FIGURE 8. I n e r t i a l i mpact i on e f f i c i e n c i e s f o r c i r c u l a r cyl i nder s ;
ifi = (Re'\ YK. (From Golovin and Putnam 1962)
K (Inertial Impact Parameter)
FIGURE 9. Minimum dr opl e t di amet er s r equi r ed f o r i n e r t i a l
i mpact i on e f f i c i e n c i e s of 0. 5 and 0.8 when u v a r i e s
from 10 t o 50 cm sec- , and D v a r i e s from 0. 1 t o 0.5 cm.
FIGURE 10. Minimum dr opl e t di amet er s r equi r ed f o r i mpact i on
e f f i c i e n c i e s o f 0. 5 and 0. 8 when u = v. and D
v a r i e s from 0. 1 t o 0. 5 cm.
t
A ve r y s i mp l i s t i c view of t h e ove r - a l l
problem of t h e optimum dr opl e t s i z e f o r a e r i a l
s pr ays i nt ended f o r c ont r ol l i ng i n s e c t s i n
f o r e s t canopi es- - i n t h e absence of such s pe c i a l
phenomena a s t h e capt ur e o f smal l d r o p l e t s by
c i l i a o r adher ence t o s t i c k y s ur f aces - - i s t h a t
t h e pr esence o f smal l dr opl e t s i z e s ( dr op diam-
e t e r s l e s s t han 20 mi crons) appear s t o be gen-
e r a l l y undes i r abl e f o r t h e f ol l owi ng r easons:
Gr a vi t a t i ona l s e t t l i n g and i n e r t i a l
i mpact i on a r e not ver y e f f e c t i v e i n
depos i t i ng d r o p l e t s o f t h i s s i z e on
t h e t a r g e t s
The e f f i c i e n c y of ot he r pr ocesses i s
not s u f f i c i e n t l y wel l e s t a bl i s he d a t
pr e s e nt t o j u s t i f y dependence on t he s e
pr ocesses
Ret ent i on o f smal l s pr ay d r o p l e t s
wi t hi n t h e canopy i s d i f f i c u l t and
t h e problems as s oci at ed wi t h s pr ay
d r i f t t o nont ar get ed a r e a s a r e
maximi zed
COOPERATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW
To da t e , Deser et Tes t Cent er has pr ovi ded
l i mi t ed met eor ol ogi cal suppor t a s wel l a s dr op-
l e t and aer os ol s i z i n g i n suppor t of f our pr o-
grams sponsored by Region One and t h e Mi ssoul a
Equipment Development Dent er , U.S. For es t
Ser vi ce. On a l l f our , Zect r an was t h e i n s e c t i -
ci de used. Two of t h e programs i nvol ved a
s pe c i a l dr y f or mul at i on o f Zect r an. These t e s t s
have been r epor t ed by Bar r y and o t h e r s (1972,
1973) . I n t h e o t h e r two programs, Zect r an was
d i l u t e d i n f u e l o i l and r e l e a s e d from bot h f i xe d
wing and r o t a r y wing a i r c r a f t a s a coar s e dr op-
l e t spr ay. The f i r s t t e s t i nvol ved t h e oper a-
t i o n a l eval uat i on o f a pr ot ot ype mi l i t a r y s pr ay
syst em. Tes t i ng was c a r r i e d out bot h a t ~ u g w a ~ ,
Ut ah, and t h e Lol o Nat i onal For e s t , Montana.
Test r e s u l t s have been r epor t ed by Tayl or and
o t h e r s (1972). Al t hough t h e r e p o r t c i t e d i s
pr i ma r i l y an eval uat i on o f mi l i t a r y hardware,
dr opl e t s pe c t r a da t a der i ved from c a l i b r a t i o n
r uns conduct ed a t Dugway a r e pr es ent ed. The
second oper at i on, under t h e sponsor shi p of t h e
U.S. For es t Ser vi ce Pa c i f i c Sout hwest For es t
and Range Experiment St a t i on, was c a r r i e d out
near LaGrande, Oregon. The i n s e c t i c i d e used
was t h e Zect r an- f uel o i l mi xt ur e r emai ni ng
a f t e r t h e Montana program.
Canopy penet r at i on d a t a obt ai ned a r e shown
i n f i g u r e s 11 and 12. The gr aphs gener al l y
f ol l ow t he f o r ma t d e ~ e l o ~ e d b y Hur t i g and ot he r s
(1953) t o eval uat e t he scr eeni ng e f f e c t of ba l -
sam f i r f ol i a ge on coar s e a e r os ol s of DDT. I n
t he f i gur e s , t o t a l mass beneat h t he canopy has
been di vi ded by t h e mass r ecover ed i n adj acent
open a r e a s . The mass r a t i o has t hen been p l o t -
t ed f o r each dr opl e t s i z e i n t e r v a l . Or di nat e
val ues can t hus be r ead d i r e c t l y a s per cent
pe ne t r a t i on f o r a gi ven dr opl e t s i z e i n t e r v a l
( i n t e r v a l mi d- poi nt s a r e p l o t t e d ) . Fi gur e 11
, shows bot h t he f i r s t Oregon t r i a l and t h e s i n g l e
Montana t r i a l . Penet r at i on f a c t o r s a r e remark-
a b l y s i mi l a r . The t r e e st and i n Oregon was a
dense clump o f Dougl as- f i r surrounded by open
meadow. Sampling ( pr i nt f l e x) car ds were pl aced
10 t o 12 i nches a p a r t beneat h t h e t r e e s and i n
t h e open meadow. I n Montana, f i r was pl aced
a t SO yar d i n t e r v a l s over an a r e a of s ever al
squar e mi l es . I n Oregon, a he l i c opt e r was
used, f l y i n g 75 t o 100 f e e t above t h e canopy.
I n Montana, r e l e a s e he i ght s of 200 f e e t were
r eached, wi t h a f i xed wing C-47 a i r c r a f t . Both
oper at i ons , however, were daybreak oper at i ons
0 FS-8, Oregon
A FS-7, Montana
01' ' ' ' ' ' " " l ' ' ' ' ' " '
10 20 50 100 200 500 II
Drop diameter (microns)
FIGURE 11. Per cent penet r at i on of a
coni f er ous canopy f o r coar se Zect ran
f u e l o i l a e r os ol s r el eas ed under
s i mi l a r condi t i ons of at mospher i c
s t a b i l i t y .
0
0
Q FS-8, Oregon, 22 Jul y 1972
FS-9,Oregon, 23 Jul y 1972
0
0 9 8 n m f i # n t
.o 1
I
10 20 50 100 200 500 1000
Drop diameter (microns)
FIGURE 12. Per cent pe ne t r a t i on of a
coni f er ous canopy f o r coar s e Zect r an
f ue l o i l aer os ol s r el eas ed under
d i f f e r i n g condi t i ons of at mospher i c
s t a b i l i t y .
( neut r al at mospheri c s t a b i l i t y ) and winds a l o f t
were calm. That i s t o say, wi t h s i mi l a r s t a -
b i l i t y regi mes, t h e r e i s a marked s i mi l a r i t y of
penet r at i on r a t i o s f o r q u i t e d i f f e r e n t oper at i ng
condi t i ons . Fi gur e 12 shows t h e two Oregon
t r i a l s . On t he second, f i r t r e e s more s pa r s l e y
spaced dominated t h e sampled t r e e s t and. Al so,
t he r e was some under st or y br oadl eaf growth. No
change was made i n spr ay syst em par amet er s f o r
t he two Oregon t r i a l s ; however on t h e second
t r i a l , t h e sample car ds were ar r ayed on a s t e e p
sl ope and t he r e was a l i g h t but de t e c t a bl e up-
d r a f t a t t he t i me of spr ayi ng. To t h e obser ver ,
t he v i s i b l e cl oud had a s l i g h t but not i c e a bl e
up-sl ope di spl acement . The 30-micron d r o p l e t s
coi nci de. With t h a t except i on not ed, t he s l opes
of t h e two l i n e s a r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . Such a
smal l sample s i z e cannot be concl usi ve. The
d a t a do s t r e s s , however, t he i mpor t ance of nor -
mal i zi ng spr ay t r i a l r e s u l t s i n t er ms of t h e
met eor ol ogi cal s t r u c t u r e a t t h e t i me of s pr ay
r e l e a s e a s an e s s e n t i a l p r e r e q u i s i t e t o any
eval uat i on desi gned t o compare bi ol ogi c a l
e f f e c t i ve ne s s of pe s t i c i de a ppl i c a t i on on con-
i f e r ous f o r e s t s .
LITERATURECITED
Barry,J.W.,andG.M.Blake
1972. Feasibilitystudyofadryliquid
insecticideemployedinaconiferous
forestedenvironment,DeseretTest
Center,FortDouglas,Utah.
Barry,J.W.,M.Tysowski,G.F.Orr,
andothers
1973. Afieldexperimentontheimpaction
ofZectranparticlesonsprucebudworm
larvae. DeseretTestCenter,Fort
Douglas,Utah.
Cramer,H.E., G.M.DeSanto,R.K. Dumbauld,
andothers
1964. Meteorologicalpredictiontechniques
anddatasystem. FinalReportunder
ContractDA-42-007-CML-552, GCAReport
64-3-G,U.S.ArmyDugwayProvingGround,
Dugway,Utah,252p.
Cramer,H.E., G.R.Bjorklund,R.K.Dumbauld,
andothers
1972. Developmentofdosagemodelsand
concepts. GCACorporationReport
RT-70-15-GunderContractNo.DAAD09-
67-C-0020(R) andDTCReportTR-72-609,
U.S. ArmyDeseretTestCenter,Fort
Douglas,Utah.
Fritschen,L.J.,C.H.Driver,C.Avery,
andothers
1970. Dispersionofairtracersintoand
withinaforestedarea:3.TRECON-68-
68-3,53p.
Golovin,M.N.,andA.A. Putnam
1962. Inertialimpactionofsingleelements.
I&CIFundamentals,1(4):264-273.
Hurtig,H.,J.J.Fettes,A.P.Randall,and
W.W.Hopewell
1953. Afieldinvestigationoftherela-
tionshipbetweentheamountofDDTspray
deposited,thephysicalpropertiesof
thesprayanditstoxicitytolarvaeof
thesprucebudworm. SuffieldReport
No.176. SuffieldExperimentalStation,
Ralston,Alberta,Canada.
Milly,G.H.
1958. Atmosphericdiffusionandgenera-
lizedmunitionexpenditures. ORGStudy
No.17,OperationsResearchGroup.
EdgewoodArsenal,Maryland.
Pasquill,F.
1962. AtmosphericDiffusion. D.Van
NostrandCo.,Ltd.,London,297p.
Sutton,0.G.
1953. Micrometeorology. McGraw-Hill,
NewYork,NewYork,333p.
Taylor,WilbertT.,W.C.McIntyre,J.W.Barry,
andothers
1972. ServicesdevelopmentaltestPWU-5/A
USAFModularInternalSpraySystem.
FinalReport. DeseretTestCenter,Fort
Douglas,Utah.
I mpact i on of Zect r an Parti cl es on Spruce Budwor m Larvae
A Field Experiment
. ~ John W. Barry Mi chael Tysowsky ~ r Geoffrey F. Orr
Robert B. ~ k b l a d ~ Richard L. ~ a r s a l i s ' Wi l l i am M . ci esl a6
Abst ract --The U.S. For es t Ser vi ce, support ed by Deser et
Test Cent er, conducted a f i e l d t e s t dur i ng June 1972 i n t h e Lolo
Nat i onal For es t , Montana. The obj e c t i ve was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t he
i mpact i on of dr y- l i qui d Zect ran p a r t i c l e s on t he west ern spr uce
budworm l a r va e a s a f unct i on of p a r t i c l e s i z e . A he l i c opt e r was
used a s t h e di ssemi nat i on vehi cl e because of t h e downwash e f f e c t ,
which a s s i s t s aer os ol pe ne t r a t i on of t h e f o r e s t canopy and enhan-
c e s p a r t i c l e i mpact i on. Rotorod sampl ers and g l a s s i mpact i on
s l i d e s were used t o obt a i n aer osol and p a r t i c l e - s i z e da t a . Bud-
worms and f i r needl es were examined, and i mpact i ng p a r t i c l e s were
count ed and measured. Ei ght y-seven per cent of t he p a r t i c l e s
observed on t h e f i r needl es were 10 mi crons o r l e s s i n di amet er,
and 87 per cent of t h e p a r t i c l e s observed on t h e budworms were
I 5 mi crons o r l e s s i n di amet er . The r e s u l t s and concl usi ons
t hrough based upon r e l a t i v e l y l i mi t e d dat a, pr ovi de ba s e l i ne s f o r
pl anni ng f u t u r e experi ment s.
Research work conduct ed by t h e U.S. mat er i al may be up t o 75 per cent l i q u i d by
Department o f Agr i cul t ur e, For est Ser vi ce, wei ght and st i l l r e t a i n t h e f r e e fl owi ng prop-
Pa c i f i c Sout hwest For es t and Range Experi - e r t i e s of a gr anul ar s o l i d .
ment St a t i o n (Himel and o t h e r s 1965, Himel
and Moore 1967, Ekblad 19711, wi t h t h e i ns ec- Spandav (1944) r epor t ed t h a t s c i e n t i s t s
t i c i d e Zect ran has di s cl os ed t h a t t he hi ghes t i n Germany were t h e f i r s t t o us e t h e dr y- l i qui d
r a t e o f mo r t a l i t y of west ern spr uce budworm concept ( o r i g i n a l l y c a l l e d c a r r i e r - dus t ) a s a
( Chor i st oneur a o e e i d e n t a l i s Freeman) was means f o r employing chemi cal agent s which coul d
achi eved by c ont a c t wi t h dr ops l e s s t han not be di spensed by t h e usual methods. These
50 mi crons i n di amet er . I n an e f f o r t t o pro- s c i e n t i s t s t horoughl y i nves t i gat ed t h e us e o f
duce smal l drops wi t h st andar d di ssemi nat i on al umi na ge l and f u l l e r ' s e a r t h a s c a r r i e r - dus t s .
equipment, a t echni que f o r devel opi ng a dry- I n gener al , t hey concluded t h a t any subst ance
l i q u i d p a r t i c l e ha s been i nve s t i ga t e d. Dry- coul d be di spensed on a c a r r i e r and t h a t t h e
l i q u i d i n s e c t i c i d e s a r e composed of a l i q u i d use o f c a r r i e r s of f er ed a new method f o r d i s -
f or mul at i on which i s coat ed on a s o l i d p a r t i c l e pe r s a l of vi scous o r gum-like ma t e r i a l s and
by a s pe c i a l bl endi ng pr oces s . The r e s u l t a n t of t hose ma t e r i a l s which coul d not be prepared
i n a f i n e l y di vi ded form by gr i ndi ng, such a s
n a t u r a l l y occur r i ng poi s ons a ndba c t e r i a l t oxi ns .
-
l ~ e s e r e t Tes t Cent er , For t Douglas, Utah. I n 1948, t he r es ear ch begun i n Germany
was i nves t i gat ed by t h e U.S. Army Chemical
I ~ C American Corp. , Goldsboro, North Car ol i na. Corps a t Edgewood Arsenal , Maryland (Wilcox
and Goldenson 1951, 1960). Physi cal char ac-
' ~ e s e r e t Test Cent er , For t Douglas, Utah. t e r i s t i c s of c a r r i e r s were def i ned, and f e a -
s i b i l i t y of t h e c a r r i e r - dus t t echni que a s a
4 .
Mi ssoul a Equipment Development Cent er, means f o r di ssemi nat i ng chemi cal agent s was
Ft . Mi ssoul a, Montana. demonst rat ed.
5 .
Mi ssoul a Equipment Development Cent er, In 1947, o i l s ol ut i ons of DDT were mixed
F t . Mi ssoul a, Montana. wi t h mi croni zed dus t (Brooks 1947) and d i s -
persed from an a i r c r a f t by means of a dus t -
f o r e s t Envi ronment al Pr ot ect i on, St a t e 5 f eed di ssemi nat or . Thi s method was used t o
Pr i va t e For es t r y, Mi ssoul a, Montana. i nc r e a s e t h e p a r t i c l e s i z e of t h e dus t s .
I ns ect i ci de dus t s were commonly used during
t he 1940' s and 1950' s. However, t he dust par-
t i c l e s were gener al l y l e s s than 10 microns i n
diameter. Low impaction e f f i c i e nc i e s , lack of
r et ent i on on l e a f sur f aces, and d r i f t problems
associ at ed with t hese small dust pa r t i c l e s
r es ul t ed i n a s h i f t of t he use of l i qui d sprays
consi st i ng of l a r ge r dr opl et s . The or i gi n of
t he term, dr y- l i qui d, i s unknown although t he
term has been i n use a t t he Edgewood Arsenal
f o r some time.
The number of c a s ua l t i e s from mal ari a and
ot her i ns ect borne di seases i n t he Pa c i f i c
t heat er i n World War I 1 was equal t o or gr eat er
than those from enemy act i on. This f a c t l ed
t he U.S. Government t o sponsor ext ensi ve s t udi es
t o understand t he i ns ect i ci de modes of act i on
involved i n reaching, impacting upon, and
k i l l i n g t he t a r ge t i ns e c t s .
The t i mel y a va i l a bi l i t y of DDT and i t s
apparent ef f ect i veness i n very low concentra-
t i ons compared t o ot her i ns e c t i c i de s provided
t he mi l i t a r y with a new chemical f o r possi bl e
cont rol of di s eas e vect or s.
In or der t o desi gn equipment f or di sper s-
i ng DDT e f f i c i e nt l y, however, information was
f i r s t needed on t he optimum pa r t i c l e s i z e .
Without such information it would be impossible
t o t ake f u l l advantage of t he t oxi c pr oper t i es
of DDT, mat er i al would be wasted, and cont r ol
would f r equent l y be i mpr act i cal . The pa r t i c l e
s i z e requi red t o obt ai n t he maximum e f f e c t
would depend not onl y on f a c t or s pecul i ar t o
t he i ns e c t i c i de , such a s s us c e pt i bi l i t y of t he
i ns e c t t o t he i ns ect i ci de, i t s mode of act i on,
and i t s chemical and physi cal pr oper t i es, but
a l s o on such ext er nal condi t i ons as meteoro-
l ogi cal f act or s , t e r r a i n, and method of
t reat ment .
The problem of optimum pa r t i c l e s i z e of
i ns e c t i c i de s has been t he subj ect of i nve s t i -
gat i on by a number of workers f or many years
before t he discovery of DDT. Smith and
Goodhue of t he U.S. Department of Agri cul t ure
(National Defense Research Committee 1946)
summarized some of t he e a r l i e r work on t he
r e l a t i ons hi p of pa r t i c l e s i z e t o i ns ect i ci de
ef f i ci ency, and concluded t ha t t he t oxi c i t y
of s ol i d- t ype i ns ect i ci des i ncreased with
decrease i n pa r t i c l e s i z e .
Dry-liquid mixtures consi st i ng of desi r ed
pa r t i c l e s i z e s of f e r several di s t i nc t advan-
t ages over l i qui d mixtures, such as: (1) ease
of handling and s t or i ng, (2) ease of dissemi-
nat i on, (3) s i mpl i ci t y i n l abor at or y assess-
ment, and (4) minimum evaporation. Because
of t hese advantages, t he U.S. Forest Servi ce
i nvest i gat ed t he dr y- l i qui d concept and det er -
mined t ha t t he r egi s t er ed Zectran FS-14
formula7 could be coated onto a dr y pa r t i c l e
of sel ect ed s i z e .
In 1971, a f i e l d experiment t o i nves t i gat e
t he f e a s i b i l i t y of using dry l i qui d, was con-
ducted i n t he Nezperce National Forest , Idaho
(Barry and Blake 1972). The mat er i al dissemi-
nated was Zectran FS-15 coated on Micro-Cel E
with a f l uor escent t r acer , Tinopal. The f or -
mulation of t h i s mixture was a j oi nt e f f o r t
by t he U.S. Forest Ser vi ce' s Paci f i c Southwest
Forest and Range Experiment St at i on and t he
Missoula Equipment Development Cent er. The
formulation consi st ed of 60 percent FS-15 and
40 percent Micro-Cel E . A s i ngl e a e r i a l l i ne
r el ease was made using a Cessna Agwagon a i r -
c r a f t with a Swathmaster di spenser. Drainage
winds were ut i l i z e d t o t r ans por t t he dry-
l i qui d aerosol throughout t he desi gnat ed t e s t
ar ea. Surface samplers, placed throughout
t he t e s t ar ea, i ndi cat ed t ha t most of t he
ar ea was covered by t he aer osol . However,
very l i t t l e reduct i on i n budworm popul at i on
was noted and very l i t t l e pa r t i c l e impaction
was observed on t he f ol i age. I t was post ul at ed
t ha t lack of impingement was t he r e s u l t of a
very low impaction ef f i ci ency associ at ed wi t h
t he small pa r t i c l e s which made up t he aer os ol .
Over 80 percent of t he pa r t i c l e s , a s measured
i n t he l aborat ory, were 4 microns or l e s s i n
diameter and f ur t her , approximately one-t ent h
of t he recommended r a t e of Zectran was
sprayed over t he desi gnat ed sampling ar ea,
i . e . , 0.018 pounds of Zectran per acr e i ns t ead
of t he requi red 0.15 pounds. The Tinopal
t r a c e r was unst abl e i n l i ght , which made micro-
scopic assessment d i f f i c u l t . Also, Tinopal
fl uoresced bl ue, which complicated e f f or t s t o
di f f e r e nt i a t e i t from na t ur a l l y occurri ng
background mat er i al . This experiment, however,
c l e a r l y demonstrated: (1) t he f e a s i b i l i t y of
using dr y- l i qui d a s a means of employing
i ns ect i ci des ; ( 2) t ha t st andard Swathmaster
t ype dus t er s can be used t o disseminate dry-
l i qui d mixtures; and ( 3) t ha t drainage winds
i n mountainous t e r r a i n can be employed t o
t r ans por t dr y- l i qui d aer osol s.
There i s l i t t l e information i n t he l i t e r a -
t ur e on t he optimum pa r t i c l e s i z e f o r impaction
on spruce budworm l ar vae feeding on coni ferous
needl es (except f o r t he Himel and Moore st udy) .
There a r e , however, sever al s t udi es which deal
with impaction of pa r t i c l e s on mosquitoes and
with t heor et i cal cal cul at i ons of impaction of
vari ous s i z e pa r t i c l e s a s a funct i on of wind-
speed, and of t he s i z e and shape of t he impac-
t i on t a r ge t .
T h e Zectran FS-15 formula i s made of 24 ounces
of Zectran (4-dimethylanimo-3, 5-xylyl methyl
carbanate) i n sol ut i on with one gal l on of
tripropylene-monomethyl glycol e t he r (TPM).
Consi der abl e empi r i cal da t a a r e a v a i l a b l e
(U.S. Department o f Agr i cul t ur e 1969) based
upon U.S. For es t Ser vi ce f i e l d exper i ence on
budworm k i l l a s a f unct i on o f mass median
di amet er8 of t h e di ssemi nat ed s pr ay. Recent
p i l o t and c ont r ol oper at i ons conduct ed by t h e
U.S. For es t Ser vi ce (U.S. Department o f Agri -
c u l t u r e 19711, under s i mi l a r condi t i ons i n
Eas t er n and Western Uni t ed St a t e s , have shown
bot h s ucces s and f a i l u r e i n achi evi ng t h e
de s i r e d degr ee of budworm c ont r ol . The mass
median di amet er produced by t h e s pr ay syst ems
used on t h e s e t e s t s was es t i mat ed t o be between
113 and 160 mi crons. The U.S. For es t Ser vi ce/
C-47 s pr a y syst em used i n t h e west ern s t a t e s
was c ha r a c t e r i z e d by Deseret Te s t Cent er
(Tayl or and o t h e r s 1972). Thi s syst em produced
a mass median di amet er o f 120 mi crons.
METHODS
The obj e c t i ve of t h i s t e s t was t o i nves -
t i g a t e t h e i mpact i on of dr y- l i qui d p a r t i c l e s
on t h e west ern spr uce budworm l a r va e a s a
f unct i on o f p a r t i c l e s i z e .
The t e s t was a cooper at i ve e f f o r t between
U.S. For es t Ser vi ce and Deseret Tes t Cent er
and was conduct ed i n t h e Kennedy Creek a r e a
o f t h e Ni nemi l e Ranger Di s t r i c t , Lolo Nat i onal
For e s t , Montana, on June 28, 1972 (Barry and
o t h e r s 1973) . A h e l i c o p t e r was employed t o
di ssemi nat e a dr y- l i qui d f or mul at i on o f t he
i n s e c t i c i d e Zect r an over two t e s t p l o t s i n a
Dougl as- f i r f o r e s t . The t r e e s i n t h e t e s t
p l o t s were hi ghl y i n f e s t e d wi t h west ern spr uce
budworm l a r v a e .
The o r i g i n a l scope o f t h e t e s t i ncl uded
s e ve r a l dupl i c a t e r e l e a s e s t o compare l i q u i d
s pr ays t o d i f f e r e n t f or mul at i ons o f dr y- l i qui d
s pr ays , i n a d d i t i o n t o comparing d i f f e r e n t
t ypes o f di s s emi nat i ng a i r c r a f t . For economic
r eas ons , however, t h e t e s t scope was reduced.
S i t e and Tes t Pl ot
Pl o t 1 c ons i s t e d o f 217 st ems per a c r e
and Pl o t 2 c ons i s t e d of 97 st ems. Each t e s t
p l o t was approxi mat el y 200 f e e t wide and
300 f e e t l ong ( f i g . 1 ) . The sampl i ng a r r a y
was i d e n t i c a l on bot h p l o t s c ons i s t i ng o f
63 r ot or od sampl er s t a t i o n s . A g l a s s impac-
t i o n s l i d e measuri ng 1 i nch by 3 i nches was
pos i t i one d a t each r ot or od s t a t i o n .
mass median di amet er i s obt ai ned by
di vi di ng t h e t o t a l volume of t h e s pr ay i n t o
two equal p a r t s ; one h a l f o f t h e mass of t h e
s pr a y i s cont ai ned i n d r o p l e t s o f s mal l er
di amet er t han t h e mass median di amet er and
t h e o t h e r h a l f i s cont ai ned i n d r o p l e t s o f
l a r g e r di amet er .
I ns e c t i c i de Mi xt ure
The dr y- l i qui d i n s e c t i c i d e f or mul at i on con-
s i s t e d of a bl end of t h e f ol l owi ng, by wei ght :
Hi S i l 233 47.5 per cent
Zect ran FS-15 50. 0 pe r c e nt
Char t r euse Pigment 720 . 2. 5 per cent
Ai r c r a f t and Di ssemi nat or
A Bel l G-3 h e l i c o p t e r equi pped wi t h a
dus t e r was used f o r spr ayi ng t h e dr y- l i qui d
mi xt ure over t h e two t e s t p l o t s . The a i r -
c r a f t speed was 30 mi l es pe r hour, and t h e
r e l e a s e hei ght was approxi mat el y 50 f e e t above
t h e canopy.
Flight l i ne
Plot 2
Meteorol ogi c st at i on
Fi gure 1. Or i ent at i on of Pl o t 1 t o Pl o t 2 and
Hel i copt er Di ssemi nat i on Li ne.
Bi ol ogi cal Sampling
A prespray i ns ect survey was conducted
i n t he t e s t area approximately 24 hours
before t he spray r el ease f or t he purpose of
es t abl i s hi ng prespray l evel of spruce budworm
popul at i on. Branch samples were obtained t o
st udy pa r t i c l e impaction of f ol i age.
Four t r e e s i n each pl ot were s el ect ed a s
sample t r e e s t o i nves t i gat e pa r t i c l e impaction
on t he budworm l ar vae. A pl a s t i c drop cl ot h
was placed beneath each of t he f our t r e e s t o
c ol l e c t f a l l i n g l ar vae. On t he morning
fol l owi ng t he t e s t , approximately 100 budworm
l ar vae were col l ect ed a t random from each
drop cl ot h and placed i n 35-mm f i l m cans f or
t r ans por t at i on t o t he l abor at or y.
The f i r needl es and budworm l ar vae were
examined under a di s s ect i ng microscope equipped
with ul t r a vi ol e t l i ght f or t he presence of
f l uor esci ng dr y- l i qui d pa r t i c l e s . The par-
t i c l e s were counted and measured.
Meteorological Instrumentation
Instruments t o record windspeed and
di r ect i on a t t he 2-meter l evel were posi t i oned
near t he cent er of Test Pl ot 1. Wet and dr y
bulb temperature readi ngs were taken a t t he
same l ocat i on duri ng t he t e s t .
RESULTS
a . Eighty-seven (87) percent of t he
pa r t i c l e s observed on t he spruce budworm
l ar vae were equal t o or l e s s than 15 microns
i n diameter; 87 percent of t he pa r t i c l e s on
t he f i r needl es were equal t o or l e s s than
10 microns i n di amet er; and, t he maj or i t y of
t he pa r t i c l e s on t he f i r needles were on t he
underside of t he needl e. Fort y (40) percent
of t he pa r t i c l e s on t he gl as s pl a t e s were
gr eat er than 33 microns ( t abl e 1-5).
b. The number median diameter of t he
dr y - l i qui d formulation was 1. 3 microns and
t he mass median diameter was 37.0 microns.
c . Under t he condi t i ons of t he t e s t ,
t he swath width exceeded 200 f e e t .
d. Budworm mor t al i t y was approximately
33 percent .
Table 1- - Di st r i but i on, by s i ze, of 150 f l uor es -
cent dry-l i qui d pa r t i c l e s found on 108 spruce
budworm 1 arvae
Pa r t i c l e Number of cumulative 1 1 1
s i ze ( u) pa r t i c l e s Percent percent by number
Table 2- - Di st r i but i on, by s i z e , of 191 f l uor es -
cent dr y- l i qui d pa r t i c l e s found on 4941 f i r
needl es from Pl ot s 1 and 2
Pa r t i c l e Cumulative
N u m b e r o f l 1 s i z e ( u) pa r t i c l e s Percent percent by number
Table 3--Di st ri but i on, by s i z e , of 355 f l uor es -
cent dr y- l i qui d pa r t i c l e s measured on
impaction pl a t e s
Pa r t i c l e Number of Cumulative
s i z e (f) pa r t i c l e s percent by number
Table 4--Summary of percent of pa r t i c l e s i z e s
observed on spruce budworm a s a funct i on of
pa r t i c l e s i z e di s t r i but i on, by number, of
pa r t i c l e s disseminated
Ratio:Percent
Pa r t i c l e disseminated/
s i z e (P) percent on needles
Table 5--Summary of percent of pa r t i c l e s i z e s
observed on f i r needl es a s a funct i on of
pa r t i c l e s i z e di s t r i but i on, by number, of
pa r t i c l e s disseminated
Rat i o :Percent
Pa r t i c l e disseminated/
s i z e (P) percent on needl es
CONCLUSIONS
a . I f t he budworm i s considered a cyl i nder
1/8-inch i n diameter, t he maj or i t y of t he par-
t i c l e s disseminated were t oo small f or e f f i c i e nt
impaction by i n e r t i a l f or ces on t he spruce bud-
worm l ar vae, a s i l l u s t r a t e d by cal cul at ed
impaction e f f i c i e nc i e s i n f i gur es 2 and 3 .
The f a c t t h a t small pa r t i c l e s were observed on
t he l ar vae suggest s t ha t anot her mechanism o r
combination of mechanisms ar e causing impac-
t i on o r deposi t i on of pa r t i c l e s on t he budworms
and f i r needl es.
b. Se l l Is t heory ( Sel l 1931) can be used
t o est i mat e t he pa r t i c l e / dr opl e t s i z e which
has t he gr eat es t impaction ef f i ci ency f or
var i ous obj ect s , i f t he par t i cl e/ dr opl et vel o-
c i t y and s i z e of t h e impaction surface i s
known ( t abl e 6, f i g. 4) .
/ Target Diameter 0. 10 inch
/ I I I
5 10 15
Velocity (mph)
Figure 2. I ne r t i a l Impaction Ef f i ci ency of
Various Si ze Pa r t i c l e s on Cyl i nders
of Various Si zes a s a Function of
Wind Speed Cal cul at ed from Golovin
and Putnam (1962).
21
Velocity (mph)
Figure 3 . I ne r t i a l Impaction Ef f i ci ency of
Various Si ze Pa r t i c l e s on Cylinders
of Various Si zes a s a Function of
Wind Speed Calculated from Golovin
and Putnam (1962).
c. The pa r t i c l e s i z e spectrum of t he aerosol
o r par t i cul at e cloud and t he hori zont al and ver -
t i c a l wind vel oci t y should be measured above and
below t he canopy i n experiments designed t o eval u-
a t e dissemination methods and t he e f f e c t s of
vari ous s i z e pa r t i c l e s .
d. The use of i ns ect mor t al i t y dat a t o
judge the ef f ect i veness of a new dissemination
technique or system, without measuring t he
meteorological i nf l uences, should be avoided.
e . Hel i copt ers provide a means of dissemi-
nat i ng i ns ect i ci des i n complex mountain t e r r a i n
with cer t ai n advantages over fixed-wing a i r c r a f t .
Harnessing t he downwash provides a means of
overcoming or reducing unfavorable meteorological
condi t i ons. However, t o be more e f f e c t i ve than
fixed-wing a i r c r a f t , t he hel i copt er must be
flown a t speeds < 40 mph and cl ose t o t he canopy
( f i g. 5) . I t i s recognized t ha t t h i s may not
be pr a c t i c a l under m i y condi t i ons.
J W 1uu 1Z*)
Drop Diameter ( p)
Figure 4. Rel at i ve Maximum Ef f i ci ency of Three
Col l ect or s as a Function of Wind
Speed and Pa r t i c l e Si ze (According
t o Se l l s Law) .
Table 6- - Par t i cl e s i z e associ at ed with maximum
impaction e f f i c i e nc y ( as a funct i on of
windspeed) on Dougl as-fi r, budworm, and
gl a s s p l a t e s , according t o Se l l ' s Law
Object Windspeed Pa r t i c l e
(width) s i z e ( u)
Dougl as-fi r
Needle
(1/16 i n. )
Budworm
(1/8 i n . )
Pl a t e s
( 1 i n . )
f . I t was beyond t h e scope of t h i s t e s t
t o st udy t h e advantages and disadvantages of
dr y- l i qui ds over t hose of l i qui d sprays.
However, dr y- l i qui ds, aer os ol s o r pa r t i c ul a t e s ,
appl i ed i n t he proper range of p a r t i c l e s i z e s
may have c e r t a i n advantages t o cont r ol f or e s t
i n s e c t s f o r s p e c i f i c appl i cat i ons , such a s
t r e e pl ant at i ons , complex mountain t e r r a i n ,
seed t r e e s , and specimen t r e e s near r ecr eat i on
and summer home s i t e s .
g.
A si mpl e and r e l i a b l e method i s needed
f o r marking swath l i n e s f o r a e r i a l spray opera-
t i o n s i n f o r e s t s .
h. The Hercules Chartreuse 720 f l uor es -
cent pigment i s a s a t i s f a c t o r y mat er i al f o r
ai di ng i n t he microscopic examination of t he
dr y- l i qui d p a r t i c l e s .
i. Future r esear ch should be di r ect ed
a t answering such quest i ons a s how many
dr opl e t s (of t h e s i z e which has a r e l a t i v e l y
hi gh impaction e f f i c i e nc y on t he s pe c i f i c
t a r g e t ) a r e necessary t o gi ve a high proba-
b i l i t y of cont act wi t h t he t a r g e t , and how
many dr opl e t s of t h i s s i z e a r e necessary t o
produce a l e t h a l dose of i ns e c t knockdown
i n t h e f i e l d .
AXE ANGLE
HOVERING FLIGHT
FORWARD FLIGHT
FORWARD SPEED (MPH)
GROSS WT. = 2650 LB.
. Dz37.1 FT.
Figure 5. Hel i copt er Wake Angle a s a Function
of Forward Speed. (Source: Obtained
from Bel l Hel i copt er Publ i cat i on
"Helicopter Techniques f o r Aeri al
Application, " Fort Worth, Texas,
January 1966).
LITERATURE CITED
Barry, John W. , and Gary M. Blake.
1972. Fe a s i b i l i t y st udy of a dr y l i q u i d
i ns e c t i c i de employed i n a coni f er ous
f or es t ed environment. Deseret Test Cent. ,
For t Douglas, Utah.
Barry, John W. , M. Tysowski, G. F. O r r ,
R. B. Ekblad, R. L . Marsal i s, and W. M. Ci esl a.
1973. A f i e l d experiment on t h e impaction
o f zect r an p a r t i c l e s on spruce budworm
l ar vae. Deseret Test Cent., For t Douglas,
Utah.
Bel l Hel i copt er Company.
1966. Hel i copt er t echni ques f o r a e r i a l
appl i cat i on. For t Worth, Texas, 138 p
Brooks, F. A.
1947. The d r i f t i n g of poisonous dus t s appl i ed
by a i r pl a ne s and l and r i g s . Agric. Eng.
28 (6) :233-4.
Ekblad, R. B.
1971. A di scussi on of dr y- l i qui ds f o r cont r ol
of spruce budworm. U.S. For est Servi ce,
Missoula Equip. Dev. Cent., Fort Missoula,
Mont .
Golovin, M. N. , and A. A. Putnam
1962. I n e r t i a l impaction on s i ngl e elements.
I&EC Fundamentals l ( 4 ) :264-73.
Himel, C. M. , L. Vaughn, R. P. Miskus, and
A. D. Moore.
1965. A new method f o r spr ay deposi t as s es s -
ment. USDA For est Serv. Res. Note PSW-87,
10 p. Pa c i f i c Southwest Forest and Range
Exp. St n. , Berkeley, Ca l i f .
Himel, C. M. , and A. D. Moore.
1967. Spruce budworm mor t a l i t y a s a f unct i on
of a e r i a l spr ay dr opl et s i z e . Sci ence
156:1250-1.
Of f i ce of Sc i e n t i f i c Research and Development.
1946. Mi l i t ar y problems wi t h aer os ol s and
nonper si st ent gases, National Defense
Research Committee, Washington, D. C.
Vol. 1, AD 506 845.
Se l l , W.
1931. Forschungsarbeiten ver ei n deust scher
i ngeni eure. Verlag, Ber l i n. 1:347.
Spandav.
1944. The us e of CW agent s i n dus t , a
summarizing r e por t . ETF 550 G-1280-
Tr ansl at i on.
Tayl or, W. T. , and ot her s .
1972. PSW-5/A USAF modular i nt e r na l spr ay
system. Deseret Tes t Cent . , Fort Douglas.
Utah.
U.S. Department of Agr i cul t ur e, For est Ser vi ce.
1971. Anal ysi s of t h e 1971 spruce budworm
p i l o t t e s t , Nezperce Nat i onal For est , Idaho,
October 19-20.
Wilcox, J . D . , and Jerome Goldenson.
1951. Car r i er dus t s f o r t oxi c aer os ol s I 1
Prel i mi nary di s pe r s a l t e s t s , TCR 78.
Technical Command Army Chemical Cent er,
Maryland.
Wilcox, J . D . , and Jerome Goldenson.
1960. Ca r r i e r dus t s f o r t o x i c aer os ol s I
Prel i mi nary survey of dus t s , TCR 66.
Technical Command, Army Chemical Cent er,
Maryland.
Workshop Summary
Robert L. Dimmick
I s ha l l pr esent t h i s a s a chronology,
because I t hi nk t ha t a sequence of event s can
yi el d i nformat i on not always vi s i bl e i n a
cat egori zed, hi s t or i c a l recount i ng. Actually,
our group j us t got s t a r t e d i nt o t he meat
of t he argument. We found ( col l ect i vel y) t ha t
we had a l o t of knowledge, but it was d i f f i -
c u l t t o combine and express i t i n a simple way
because, s ur pr i s i ngl y enough, semantics became
a major problem.
We s t a r t e d by at t empt i ng t o def i ne beha-
vi or i n i t s t o t a l i t y . We s ai d, t her e i s a
source, t he r e i s t h e a i r , t her e i s a t a r ge t ,
t her e i s t he f a t e of a pa r t i c l e ( i t l ands
someplace), and t he r e i s t h e end r e s ul t ( i t
does something). Very qui ckl y we decided
t h i s viewpoint was t oo l ar ge t o consi der, so
we s el ect ed t hr e e pa r t s . One pa r t i s t he
source, one i s t r ans por t , and one i s t a r ge t .
Source must have sever al pr oper t i es . We
decided t ha t devi ces used t o produce aer osol s
were not pa r t of our di scussi on and t ha t t he
production of t he aerosol was not pa r t of t he
concept of behavior. We wanted t o s t a r t with
what we f i n a l l y c a l l e d a "s t abi l i zed aerosol . "
This immediately cr eat ed semantic problems--
an aer osol cannot be st abi l i zed--what do you
mean by t ha t ? When t he argument was f i n a l l y
t hreshed out , we s a i d a pa r t i c l e i s emitted
from a source, some evaporat i on ( equi l i br at i on)
occurs, and f i n a l l y i t s i n i t i a l production
energy i s di s s i pat ed and it "hangs" i n t he
ai r--an aer osol pa r t i c l e . We even discovered
t ha t we were not s ur e what we meant by aer osol s
because people t al ked about aer osol "clouds."
We decided t ha t an aer osol i s j us t a col l ec-
t i on of ai r bor ne pa r t i c l e s , and l e f t i t a t
t h a t .
We t hen t r i e d t o def i ne what we mean by
' sour ce ." We s t a r t e d t al ki ng about t he st r engt h
of a source. Then we s ai d t ha t "st rengt h" i s
not exact l y what we mean by "source st rengt h"
because t ha t has connot at i ons of how much
a c t i ve i ngr edi ent i s i n a pa r t i c l e . So we
decided t o c a l l it emission r a t e : A source
i s defi ned by t he emission r a t e of pa r t i c l e s
( mat er i al ) going i nt o t he a i r times t he time
of spr ay.
' ~ a v a l Biomedical Research Laboratory, Naval
Supply Cent er, Oakland, Cal i f or ni a.
Now we had t he col l ect i on of pa r t i c l e s
hanging i n t he a i r . The f i r s t parameter we
thought of was s i z e , then s i z e di s t r i but i on.
We agreed t ha t s i z e di s t r i but i on i s approxi -
mately log normal; t he smal l er t he pa r t i c l e
becomes t he gr eat er t he number you expect t o
f i nd. And t he apparent s i z e depends on t he
technique used t o measure t he pa r t i c l e s . I f
you look i nt o l i t e r a t ur e on measurements of
s i z e di s t r i but i on, you get t he i dea t ha t t he
absol ut e l abor at or y standard i s t o count and
s i z e them under t he microscope; but even t h a t
has problems.
I was involved, f or example, with some
work with a pharmaceutical company t ha t was
making an aer osol product. They were having
pa r t i c l e anal ysi s (microscopy) done by an
i n s t i t u t e i n t he East . The company was not
happy, si nce t hey were t r yi ng t o use t he dat a
f or qua l i t y cont r ol , and it var i ed unaccountably.
So t hey sent t he i n s t i t u t e i de nt i c a l samples,
but di d not l e t them know t ha t t he samples were
i de nt i c a l . The samples were r et ur ned with
sever al di f f e r e nt s i z e est i mat es. So I f i n a l l y
convinced t he company t ha t what t hey were r e a l l y
i nt er es t ed i n was t he aerodynamic di amet ers;
i . e . , t hey should consi der t h e i r product i n
terms of i t s behavior and not worry about t he
act ual diameter of t h e i r odd-shaped pa r t i c l e s .
I t was how well t he pa r t i c l e s penet rat ed i n t o
t he lung t ha t was t he important parameter.
The panel kicked t h a t i dea around f o r a
while and found we were agai n t a l ki ng about a
"s t abi l i zed aerosol"; you have mat er i al and
you produce i t a s an aerosol and t hen i t r e a c t s
with t he a i r and comes t o some s o r t of i n i t i a l
equi l i bri um. We s ai d, what e l s e besi des s i z e
a f f e c t s t he aerosol ? Well, t he concent rat i on
does--and immediately t he quest i on ar ose, what
do you mean by concent rat i on? Someone s ai d,
T h e number of pa r t i c l e s per uni t volume of
a i r , t ha t i s t he concentration. " Someone e l s e
s ai d, "No, t ha t i s not what we mean, we mean,
how much act i ve mat eri al i s wi t hi n t he dr opl et . ' '
How should we express concent rat i on?
Probably, one has t o express it i n some way t ha t
involves both of t hese pr oper t i es : We decided
t o r e f e r t o t he formulation a s "composition"
and t he amount di spersed ( t he source st r engt h)
a s concent rat i on. We can a l l go home with
di ct i onar i es and look up some of t hese.
What has a l l t h i s t o do with behavior? Cer t ai nl y
t he chemical and physi cal pr oper t i es , and t he
composition of t he pa r t i c l e , a f f e c t t he even-
t ua l behavior.
We t hen t ur ned our minds t o t he s ubj e c t
of t r a ns por t of a e r os ol s . We deci ded n o t t o
r e f e r t o a i r a s a ve c t or but r a t h e r a s a
pr ocess of t r a ns por t a t i on. There a r e a number
o f f a c t o r s i nvol ved i n t r a ns por t a t i on, but it
was evi dent t h a t a most profound f a c t o r wi t h
r e s pe c t t o t r a ns por t o f aer os ol s , a s you might
guess, was met eor ol ogi cal e f f e c t s . As s e ve r a l
speaker s di scussed met eor ol ogi cal pr ope r t i e s ,
it became evi dent t h a t some were t a l ki ng about
mi cromet eorol ogi cal event s , whereas ot he r s were
t a l k i n g about macromet eorol ogi cal event s, and
t he two were i nt e r l i nke d. For example, t e r r a i n
i s a f a c t o r t h a t c e r t a i n l y a f f e c t s t he t r a ns por t
o f a e r os ol s ( a s it a f f e c t s a i r ) and i s con-
s i de r e d t o be, I t ake it, a p a r t of t he meteoro-
l o g i c a l pi c t ur e - - t ha t i s t he macromet eorol ogi cal
p a r t of it. On t he ot he r hand, some meteoro-
l o g i c a l event s i ncl ude i mpact i on o f p a r t i c l e s
on t h e bot t oms o f t wi gs. We spent a consi der -
a bl e amount of t i me ar gui ng about t ur bul e nt
i mpact i on, and I t hi nk i f I may make a pun,
we l e f t t h a t quest i on up i n t he a i r . Perhaps
we r e a l l y di d not underst and how t h e p a r t i c l e s
got t h e r e and perhaps t h i s i s an a r e a where
somebody shoul d do some work.
Under "t r anspor t " i s i ncl uded t he i de a of
t r a j e c t o r y . Now, what do you mean by t r a j e c -
t or y? We f i n a l l y s a i d a s I r e c a l l it, "Well,
dependi ng upon t h e t e r r a i n and a l o t of l uck
and ever yt hi ng e l s e , t h e aer os ol e i t h e r goes
i n a s t r a i g h t l i n e o r it di f f us e s , o r maybe it
makes a bend; t h i s phenomenon i s ext remel y
d i f f i c u l t t o p r e d i c t ."
That s t at ement i s t ypi c a l o f committees,
encompasses a l l knowledge and cannot be r e f ut e d;
i t i s a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e s t a t e of t h e a r t .
However, t h e r e a r e a number o f f a c t o r s i nvol ved
i n t h e f i n a l t r a j e c t o r y , and i n at t empt s t o
p r e d i c t met eor ol ogi cal event s , one t hi ng t h a t
evol ved from t h e di s cus s i on was t h a t ever y
paramet erwe t a l ke d about seemed t o be i n t e r -
connect ed wi t h ever y o t h e r paramet er. We t r i e d
but were unabl e t o make a r a t i o n a l l i st of
headi ngs, subheadi ngs, subsubheadi ngs and s o
fort h--somet hi ng bel onged over t he r e .
Regardl ess, I w i l l l i st some o f t h e f a c t o r s
we t hought might i nf l uence "t r anspor t ": t h e
e f f e c t o f l i g h t on t he p a r t i c l e , t emperat ure,
humi di t y, washout (washout, I be l i e ve , r e f e r s
t o f og i n t h e at mosphere o r r a i n o r any a c t i o n
t h a t r educes e f f e c t i ve ne s s ) , coagul at i on,
phot ol ys i s , hydr ol ys i s , evapor at i on, t ur bul ence,
di f f us i on, and t i me. Fi n a l l y someone poi nt ed
out t h a t , i n t h e l ong run, t he r e a l problem
i nvol ved account i ng f o r 100 per cent of t h e
mass i n making t h e s e measurements. I f one can
conduct experi ment s i n such a way t h a t h e can
account f o r 100 per cent of t h e mass, t hen he
i s i n a p o s i t i o n t o make meani ngful st at ement s.
During t h e cour se of t he conver sat i on we
moved from t r a j e c t o r y and t r a ns por t i n t o
' ' t ar get . " For a whi l e we were not s ur e whet her
we were t a l ki ng about t r a ns por t i t s e l f o r onl y
about t a r g e t . So we def i ned t a r g e t a s a two-
val ued word, t a r g e t and nont ar get . Here agai n
semant i cs came up. What do you mean by t h e
t a r g e t ? Take mosqui t os. I s s ur f a c e w a t e r
( t h a t you put i n s e c t i c i d e on) t h e t a r g e t , o r
i s t h e mosquito l ar vae t h e t a r g e t ? One person
t al ked about t h e t a r g e t and I was confused
u n t i l I r e a l i z e d t h a t h i s i d e a of nont ar get
was somet hi ng ( e. g. cover) t h a t kept t h e
aer os ol from g e t t i n g t o t h e t a r g e t . There
were a t l e a s t two peopl e t a l ki ng about t he
same word and coming up wi t h a d i f f e r e n t meaning.
We wondered whet her i t i s impingement o r impac-
t i o n when t he i n s e c t i c i d e g e t s on t he t a r g e t ?
Well, i n my vocabul ary impingement i mpl i es
"going i nt o" and i mpact i on i mpl i es "going ont o. "
That was not r e a l l y brought out i n t he di s cus s i on,
but it i s agai n expr es s i ve of an a t t i t u d e ; we
f e l t we had t o begi n def i ni ng our t erms and
expl ai ni ng our sel ves i n si mpl e l anguage. Because
we a r e i n d i f f e r e n t f i e l d s , i t i s al most l i k e
speaki ng d i f f e r e n t l anguages.
We t hen moved t o a di s cus s i on of t h e ques-
t i o n what a r e t h e i mport ant f a c t o r s making up
a t a r g e t . Well, t h e s i z e o f t h e t a r g e t , t h e
shape of t he t a r g e t , t he l oc a t i on, t h e or i en-
t a t i o n of t h e t a r g e t , and c e r t a i n l y t h e prob-
lems of t he canopy e f f e c t (which was def i ned
a s shadow e f f e c t s o r a s s h e l t e r e f f e c t s ) and
t he i de a of "bounce-off," which i mpl i es t h a t
l i q u i d p a r t i c l e s l a r g e r t han 50 mi crons might
behave a s e l a s t i c ma t e r i a l and, a s b a l l s i n a
game of pool , rebound t o a new t r a j e c t o r y .
Mechanisms of g r a v i t y i mpact i on and t ur bul e nt
i mpact i on and of v e n t i l a t i o n wi t hi n a canopy
a l l have t o do wi t h t h e " t ar get . "
I n summary, I f e e l t h a t t h e group i n
gener al agreed t h a t we need more r es ear ch
i n t o mi cromet eorol ogy. One of t h e e a r l i e r
papers i n t h i s symposium r e f e r r e d t o how t h e
s t andar d devi at i on of smal l ve c t or s i n a
gi ven body of a i r w i l l gi ve one a p r e t t y good
i dea o f what t he whole cl oud i s doi ng. Thi s
c e r t a i n l y i nvol ved mi cromet eorol ogi cal measure-
ment s. Some l abor at or y s t udi e s on t ur bul e nt
i mpact i on shoul d be conducted under c ont r ol l e d
condi t i ons . I t hi nk it does not make t oo much
di f f e r e nc e what t ype of ma t e r i a l you us e t o
s t udy t ur bul ent i mpact i on a s a phenomenon.
Using what ever t ype of ma t e r i a l i s e a s i e s t t o
look a t and e a s i e s t t o measure coul d be a
s t a r t i n g poi nt .
We need more e f f e c t i v e measurements of
s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n . I n our l abor at or y we do
r out i ne s i z e a na l ys i s and we use what ever
technique seems t o be most ef f ect i ve. But it
depends upon t he s i z e you ar e t al ki ng about.
I f you ar e going t o look a t bi g pa r t i c l e s and
you a r e not concerned with how many of t he
l i t t l e ones t her e ar e, then maybe t he card
method i s f i ne. But i f you want t o know what
i s t her e, t o t a l and complete, you may have t o
apply more than one par t i cl e- s i zi ng method--
a card method f or t he l ar ge ones, and perhaps
an opt i cal - el ect r oni c counting method f o r
middle s i z e range. For t he very t i ny ones
you w i l l probably have t o go t o e l e c t r os t a t i c
pr e c i pi t a t or s o r cent r i f uges.
Fi nal l y, we s a i d t ha t it would be ni ce i f
we had some concept of how t o make aer osol s go
where we wanted them t o go. I f you could j us t
defi ne t he t a r ge t and defi ne t he nont arget ,
and then i f you could come up with some kind
of a magic box which would cause pa r t i c l e s
of j us t t he r i ght s i z e t o go exact l y where
t he t ar get i s and nowhere e l s e , then we would
be doing t he job. I know t ha t sounds r a t he r
dreamlike, but t he i dea probably ought t o be
kicked around before we claim t o be exper t s
on behavior.
Discussion
DR. DRUMMOND: My quest i on probably should be
di r ect ed t o M r . Boyle. I was wondering i f
h i s t ur bul ent di f f us i on models have been proven
experi ment al l y o r a r e they j us t a s e t of
equat i ons we saw on t he board yest erday.
DR. CRAMER: Doug Boyle i s not here, so I w i l l
f i e l d t h i s quest i on. Model eval uat i on i s a
t e r r i bl y d i f f i c u l t ar ea and has been pa r t of
my i nt e r e s t s f or t he past 15 years or so. The
problem i s t ha t we har dl y ever get our hands
on enough dat a of t he r i ght kind t o do model
val i dat i on. The number of degrees of freedom
requi red f or s t a t i s t i c a l si gni f i cance i s
probably around one per f i e l d t r i a l . So
because of t he pressi ng problems t ha t were
di scussed here, where we need answers we a r e
proceeding i n an evol ut i onary way. We a r e
developing t he be s t concepts t ha t we have.
We check them as we can and t he model i t s e l f
i s r e a l l y very simple. I t i s a mass cont i -
nui t y model t o t r y and keep t r ack of every-
t hi ng. To dat e, t h e experience i s t ha t where
we a r e abl e t o obt ai n good measurements, t her e
a r e very few s ur pr i s es i n comparing t he measure-
ments and t he pr edi ct i ons. Act ual l y t he model
pr edi ct i ons gi ve us a reasonably high qua l i t y
of i nput information and a r e much be t t e r than
t he measurements by and l ar ge. So I t hi nk
t he answer i s t ha t we a r e now proceeding on
t he assumption t ha t we have provided i n t he
model f o r t he processes t ha t do occur. There
i s a judgment t o be made a s t o how well t he
model w i l l a c t ua l l y f i t any dat a. When we
get a chance t o do t ha t we might have con- .
s i der abl e confidence i n t he modeling techniques
t ha t M r . Boyle was descri bi ng. But i t i s going
t o be a very long time before we ar e sure t ha t
t hey a r e abs ol ut el y cor r ect .
DR. DRUMMOND: I f I may make a second comment
about macrometeorology and micrometeorology.
I t seems t o me t ha t t hey a r e char act er i zed by
j us t two parameters, t he s cal e and t he i nt en-
s i t y of t he turbulence. I f t he model works,
why not use t he same model under t he canopy,
because t he same physics a r e appl yi ng, only
t he s i z e of t he parameters a r e di f f e r e nt .
DR. CRAMER: Not qui t e r i ght , I would say, but
t her e i s gr eat mer i t i n what you a r e sayi ng.
There i s a l i m i t , below t he canopy problem,
i f t he canopy i s presumed t o be a formidable
ba r r i e r . There i s a di f f e r e nt kind of meteorol-
ogy involved i n some of t he important de t a i l s - -
very low wind speeds, f o r example, or t r ans por t
speeds and some of t he bulk concepts t ha t work
t e r r i bl y wel l , i n t he open, we w i l l say, have
t o be modified. I t was our hope, i n terms of
t h i s over - al l problem of r el eas e i nt o t he t r e e
a i r and going i nt o t he canopy, t ha t t her e has
got t o be an amalgamation here, but we a r e not
qui t e sur e yet what you have t o do under some
conditions--under some canopies--to t i e t hese
two types of processes t oget her . But i n t he
end, I am sure we w i l l work it out .
DR. MOORE: I would l i ke t o di r e c t t h i s quest i on
t o D r . Roberts. A few years ago you were doing
some work with ruby l a s e r holography, which i f
I can r e c a l l your work, w i l l def i ne t he s i z e
di s t r i but i on, and t he behavior of t he pa r t i c l e .
I s t h i s process i mpract i cal f o r any of t hese
research purposes?
DR. ROBERTS: A t t h i s time t he l a s e r holographic
process i s st i l l a l ab t ool . We had hopes of
t aki ng it i nt o t he f i e l d, but you have t o s e t
up f a i r l y a r t i f i c i a l condi t i ons t o obt ai n
r e s ul t s . I t i s t r ue t ha t you can get drop
spect r a, however, 1 micron i s t he lower l i m i t
of t he i nst rument at i on. You can est i mat e drop
s i z e down t o about 0. 5 microns. You have t o
keep i n mind a l s o t ha t t he depth of f i e l d f o r
focus on a hologram i s t he square of t he di a-
meter of t he pa r t i c l e . So, i f you have a
1-micron pa r t i c l e , you have one micron f or t he
depth of f i e l d of focus, o r with a 5-micron
p a r t i c l e you have a 25-micron depth of f i e l d
of focus. The ot her poi nt t o remember i s t ha t
t he f i e l d of view i s l i mi t ed t o t he diameter
of t he l a s e r l i ght , which i s 1 cm. So t ha t
anything t ha t passes through t ha t f i e l d i s
going t o be photographed. With t he ruby l a s e r ,
which has st op- act i on c a pa bi l i t i e s of up t o
10,000 f t / s e c , none of your spray pa r t i c l e s
a r e t r avel i ng a t those speeds, so any pa r t i c l e
t ha t i s passi ng through t h i s 1-cm l i ght path
w i l l be photographed and/or recorded on a
hologram.
DR. HIMEL: In Doug Boyl et s absence I want t o
r e i t e r a t e some t hi ngs t ha t we discussed t h i s
morning and t h a t he mentioned i n passi ng
yest erday and t ha t I t hi nk a r e extremely impor-
t a nt . I r e f e r t o h i s statement t h a t "on a
mass del i ver y ba s i s you de l i ve r t he same mass
with 100-micron dr opl et s a s you do with 20-micron
dr opl e t s downwind of t he spray area. " Now t o
me t h i s i s extremely important, because i n t h i s
process of looking a t spray del i ver y, you have
two major phi l osophi es. One i s gr avi t y f a l l
and t ha t i s an over si mpl i f i cat i on, and t he ot her
i s atmospheric t r ans por t and di f f usi on and t ha t
i s an over si mpl i f i cat i on. Now I do not want t o
t ake l i b e r t i e s with what Doug has s ai d, and I
am not qui t e s ur e I understand a l l he s ai d
anyway, but t hes e two processes a r e i n f a c t
i nt e r r e l a t e d. But gr avi t y f a l l has been t he
gr e a t philosophy and 100-micron dr opl et s a r e
a t l e a s t reasonabl y l ar ge, and 20-micron drop-
l e t s a r e reasonabl y smal l . To have t h i s i n-
format i on--t hat on a mass ba s i s you a r e
del i ver i ng, by t hese t r ans por t processes, t he
same mass of i ns e c t i c i de downwind a t any
sampling s t a t i on with e i t he r s i z e dr opl et s- -
i s very i mport ant . The cor ol l ar y then i s t ha t
i f you a r e i n t h i s aer osol range you ar e going
t o de l i ve r downwind t h e same mass independent
of drop s i z e below 100 microns.
MR. PILLMORE: I was i n t he behavior workshop
yest er day and i n addi t i on t o t he problem we
were having i n semantics we a l s o had some
ot her problems; di f f er ent obj ect i ves, which
I thought accounted f o r qui t e a b i t of var i a-
t i on when we were t r yi ng t o def i ne t a r ge t
and nont ar get . There were many di f f e r e nt
viewpoints. With r espect t o wi l dl i f e a s
nont ar get organisms, I would l i k e t o give
one i l l u s t r a t i o n , and t ha t involves dr opl et
s i z e a s an exposure mechanism which can hel p
t o expl ai n a l o t of di f f er ences we may see
i n t h e f i e l d appr ai sal of i ns e c t i c i de e f f e c t s .
One of t he most i l l umi nat i ng experi ences t ha t
I have had was ( i n as s oci at i on with D r . Himel)
examining var i ous i ns e c t s f or f l uor escent
pa r t i c l e s fol l owi ng t he 1965 Zectran appl i ca-
t i on i n Montana. Ea r l i e r he s ai d t ha t t he
dr opl et s i z e s of over 100 microns were not
important on t he spruce budwonn. Cer t ai nl y
t hey were not t he ones k i l l i n g most of t he
spruce budworm, but from t he st andpoi nt of
avian exposure, dr opl et s over 100 microns
di d occur and could be very important because
t hese were t he very f i r s t i ns ect s af f ect ed
immediately following t h e appl i cat i on. Con-
tamination l e ve l s of t hose f i r s t af f ect ed
ar e t he type of sample t ha t i s important i n
expl ai ni ng exposure. A t t he ot her end of
t he dr opl et spectrum t he aer osol s probably
reduce t he contamination of t he food sub-
s t r a t e , but a t t he same time r a i s e t he ques-
t i on of whether o r not t her e might be i ncr eased
r es pi r at or y exposure, pa r t i c ul a r l y of bi r ds
i n f l i g h t .
DR. ROBERTS: With r espect t o t he problem of
r es pi r at or y i nhal at i on, Dr . Dimmick, can you
gi ve us information on t he i nhal at i on s t udi e s
you have conducted?
DR. DIMMICK: I am not sur e t h a t t h i s i s impor-
t ant i n r espect t o behavior, simply because
i n our workshop we were not a bl e t o adequat el y
def i ne t he t a r ge t . However, I w i l l b r i e f l y
r e l a t e some of our f i ndi ngs. For example, i f
we exposed mice continuously t o an aer osol of
Dibrom of around 2 micron mass-median-diameter,
i t took 45 minutes bef or e we could de t e c t
something wrong with t he mice. We found t h e i r
chol i nest er ase l evel was depressed t o t he
poi nt where t hese mice were not f e e l i ng very
wel l . Under t hese same condi t i ons we exposed
Japanese quai l f o r 2% minutes and we observed
100 percent mor t al i t y. The r e s pi r a t or y
t oxi c i t y of Dibrom i n bi r ds was i ncreased about
100-fold by i nhal at i on compared t o t ha t of
i ngest i on. I t hi nk t he poi nt t ha t M r . Pi l l more
wanted t o make was t ha t of e f f e c t i ve i ngest i on.
Now, t he e f f e c t of r es pi r at or y exposure t o
bi r ds , es peci al l y i n f l i g h t , which has never
been looked a t a s yet , i s so much gr eat er than
t he i ngest i on problem t ha t i t probably needs
t o be st udi ed much more than i ngest i on.
DR. CRAMER: A t t he r i s k of perhaps not adding
anything t o t he di scussi on, I w i l l say t ha t it
seems t o me t ha t di ver s e i nt e r e s t s a r e r epr e-
sented her e. From t he poi nt of view of t he
systems engi neeri ng, what we have t o do i s
something l i k e t hi s . Describe a di spensi ng
system i f you w i l l , a product, an aer osol
cloud, and take i t unt i l we have accounted f o r
a l l t he mass f o r a s long a time and di st ance
as requi red, and t h i s w i l l vary with t he
wr i t t en obj ect i ves. But a f t e r we have des-
cr i bed t he system and what happens i n a very
general sense, then t her e i s anot her loop t ha t
you have t o go through, and then you can def i ne
what your requirements ar e, and what you must
know about t h i s . You can def i ne t he t a r ge t a t
t ha t poi nt i n a very pa r t i c ul a r way; t hen you
go back through again and determine and per-
haps el i mi nat e some of t he f eat ur es of t he
oper at i on which a r e of no i nt e r e s t t o you.
But I t hi nk i t i s t ha t second loop t ha t you
have t o go through i n t he requirements phase
of it t h a t i s important, and i f our approach
i s gener al i zed enough, we w i l l be abl e t o meet
a l l t hese requirements. But they do make a
di f f er ence i n t he s e t of parameters t ha t you
have t o consi der.
DR. MAKSYMIUK: D r . Dimmick, di d you have t he
opport uni t y t o observe coalescence of dr opl et s
i n your aer osol sprays?
DR. DIMMICK: I have, i n a way, t o di s qual i f y
myself because it became evi dent yest erday i n
our workshop t ha t when I r ef er r ed t o an aerosol
I was t al ki ng about pa r t i c l e s l e s s than 10
microns whereas ot her s were consi deri ng par -
t i c l e s l a r ge r than t ha t . What l i t t l e work we
have done simply corroborat es t ha t report ed
i n many publ i cat i ons on t he t heory of small-
pa r t i c l e coagul at i on. I n gener al , i f t her e
a r e l e s s than l o 6 pa r t i c l e s per can3, then
coagul at i on i s negl i gi bl e; i f t he number i s
gr eat er than t ha t , coalescence occurs a s a
second-order phenomenon. I have l i t t l e know-
ledge of what happens with l a r ge r pa r t i c l e s .
DR. MAKSYMIUK: I t might i nt e r e s t you t h a t i n
t he Be l t s vi l l e l ab it was found t h a t we could
not demonstrate any coalescence of spr ay drops
i n t he a i r i n t he range of a medium spr ay.
at omi zat i on. We used two spray booms systems
on t he a i r c r a f t . One system contained a bl ue
dye and t he ot her one contained a yellow dye,
and we never found green drops on our deposi t
sample sur f aces. But t h i s does not appl y t o
you, si nce your drop s i z e was probably beyond
t he range t ha t we i nvest i gat ed.
DR. HIMEL: On t h i s quest i on of mul t i pl e-
converging impingements, we do not have r e a l l y
quant i t at i ve dat a on it, but I t hi nk t ha t our
dat a from t he l ar ge spray room t ha t I r ef er r ed
t o yest erday i ndi cat ed t ha t t h i s i s a very r e a l
f act or , but obviously a f unct i on of concentra-
t i on. I cannot quant i f y t he concent rat i on,
but under t he condi t i ons used i n pes t cont r ol ,
t he coalescence and converging impingement of
dr opl et s I t hi nk i s a very r e a l problem.
ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Insecticide Spray Processes
Chester M. Himel
Abstract--A c r i t i c a l need e x i s t s f o r f i e l d methods by
which act ual del i ver y ef f i ci ency of i ns e c t i c i de spray methods
can be assessed. When t h a t i s accomplished, we w i l l be abl e
t o determine t he r el at i ons hi p between ef f i ci ency of sprays
and t h e i r dr opl et deposi t i on on cards, s l i de s and ot her impinge-
ment devi ces.
We w i l l have a new ba s i s f o r monitoring f i e l d
spr ay appl i cat i ons .
New a na l yt i c a l i nst rument s and new t r a c e r molecules of f e r
a reasonabl e pot e nt i a l f o r new assessment methods. Quant i t at i ve
st udy of t he i nt e r r e l a t i ons hi p of meteorological e f f e c t s , mass
t r ans por t , and spr ay dr opl et s i z e can be t he ba s i s f o r gr e a t
improvement i n our methods f o r spray del i ver y. Such an i ncr ease
i n ef f i ci ency i s a l ogi c a l approach t o t h e s ol ut i on of t he
i ns e c t i c i de problem.
In t he appl i cat i on of i ns e c t i c i de s t o understood. In s p i t e of t he economic and eco-
t a r ge t i ns e c t s we a r e i n t he spr ay del i ver y l ogi cal s i gni f i cance of i ns e c t i c i de s , and t h e i r
busi ness, ye t , t r a gi c a l l y, we have had no widespread use, a l l appl i cat i on methods a r e
means of measuring our del i ver y ef f i ci ency. empi ri cal . They a r e empi ri cal because adequate,
Our del i ver y systems have a l l t he s ubt l e t y quant i t at i ve, a na l yt i c a l assessment methods have
of a dump t r uck. We worry gr e a t l y about not been avai l abl e. Appl i cat i on methodology was
small amounts o f pe s t i c i de s t ha t a r e a i r - developed a t a time when e f f i c i e nc y i n t h e use
borne and may d r i f t downwind. A t t he same of i ns e c t i c i de s , and i ns e c t i c i de r esi due prob-
time, we v i r t u a l l y i gnore t he massive eco- lems, were not recognized a s i mport ant . Now,
system contamination t h a t r e s u l t s from an we f ace t he absol ut e neces s i t y of making t he
unmeasured dump of pe s t i c i de s i nt o t he t a r ge t use of i ns e c t i c i de s compatible wi t h t he pr ot ec-
ar ea. Af t er decades of use of i ns e c t i c i de s , t i on of t he environment.
t her e a r e st i l l no unequivocal dat a on ar ea-
r e l a t e d mass t r ans por t . That ecol ogi cal , The e nt i r e i ns ect i ci decont r over s y i s based
s c i e n t i f i c , and economic t ragedy stems di r ec- on t he empi ri cal nat ur e of spray del i ver y
t l y from t h e v i r t u a l absence of fundamental processes. In t he absence of qua nt i t a t i ve dat a,
assessment methods and r esear ch. cont r over s ys t ar t ed and cont i nues unabated.
Today, a l l a gr i c ul t ur a l , l egal , economic, and
I ns ect i ci des a r e del i ver ed t o t a r ge t
ecol ogi cal deci si ons a r e based on t he r e s u l t s
i ns e c t s and e nt e r t he environment by compli- of processes whose mechanisms a r e poor l y
cat ed processes whose mechanisms a r e poorl y understood.
he t r ans por t of i ns e c t i c i de s t o t a r ge t
~ e ~ a r t m e n t of Entomology, Uni ver si t y of i ns e c t s i nvol ves a complex mixture of meteoro-
Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602. l ogi cal and physi cal parameters. We need a
ba s i s f o r measurement of t hose parameters.
2~cknowledgment: I am i ndebt ed t o my col - They i ncl ude, i n pa r t , t he physi cs of atmos-
leagues a t t he Pa c i f i c Southwest St a t i on
pher i c t r ans por t , di f f us i on, and impingement,
and a t t he Uni ver si t y of Georgia f o r t h e i r
pl us met eorol ogi cal and micrometeorological
many cont r i but i ons t o t he research di scussed e f f e c t s . In t h i s complex world, we have been
her e. A t t he Uni ver si t y of Georgia, I have i n a s c i e n t i f i c a l l y unt enabl e pos i t i on. We
had t he abl e as s i s t ance of D r . Richard have had no qua nt i t a t i ve f a c t s on which t o base
Mayer, Dr . Solang Uk, and D r . J. Phi l i p
a r a t i ona l anal ys i s of our problems.
Keathley.
I t was a s c i e n t i f i c , economic, and eco-
l ogi c a l t ragedy t h a t q u a n t i t a t i v e assessment
methods were not a va i l a bl e i n t h e 1950' s and
1960' s when t he pr esent ecol ogi cal problems
s t a r t e d . Mi l l i ons of man-hours of r es ear ch,
government, i n d u s t r i a l , and l egal t i me have
been and a r e bei ng expended on t h e pos t a ppl i -
c a t i on problems of i ns e c t i c i de s and t h e i r
ecosyst em e f f e c t s . The del i ver y syst em which
causes t hes e problems, and hence i s respon-
s i b l e f o r a l l t he time and c o s t , i s l a r g e l y
i gnor ed. I t s e f f i c i a nc y may be l e s s t han
1 pe r c e nt , yet i t has not been measured! A
s u b s t a n t i a l i ncr eas e i n e f f i c i e nc y t o even
50 per cent would v i r t u a l l y sol ve t he "i nsec-
t i c i d e probl em. " To do t h a t , we need new,
hi ghl y s e n s i t i v e qua nt i t a t i ve assessment t o
measure t ar get - ar ea mass t r a ns por t . I t i s
t r u e t h a t a few year s ago, such r esear ch was
v i r t u a l l y i mpossi bl e. Today, however, t he
r e q u i s i t e a n a l y t i c a l i nst r ument at i on e x i s t s
o r can be devel oped, and t oday t h e many com-
p l e x met eor ol ogi cal problems can be success-
f u l . These new i nst r ument s and methods can
gi ve us new f a c t s t o r epl ace empi ri ci sm. We
can a t t a c k our problems from an accumul at i on
o f new knowledge. The seeds of t he pr es ent
management c r i s i s were sown when t h i s was
not i mpos s i bl e.
I t i s my purpose t o review b r i e f l y j u s t
where new assessment methods w i l l al l ow us t o
go i n t h e f u t u r e . I t i s a l s o my purpose t o
show t h a t t h e b a s i s f o r e f f e c t i ve s ol ut i on of
t he " i n s e c t i c i d e problem" i s wi t hi n our r each.
We w i l l be a b l e t o do a l l of t hose t hi ngs
which w i l l u l t i ma t e l y be known a s t h e concept
o f ul t r a - l ow dosage (ULD)-the concept of
maximum e f f i c i e n c y i n t h e use of i ns e c t i c i de s .
I t i s i n s e c t c ont r ol wi t h minimum use of
i n s e c t i c i d e s . When we a r e abl e t o put e f f i c i e n t
c ont r ol syst ems t oge t he r , our r e s u l t s w i l l be
o r d e r s o f magni t ude b e t t e r t han t hose we have
t oday.
OLDER METHODS
I n t h e l e s s complex and more r el axed e r a
of t h e 19501s , assessment of i ns e c t cont r ol
methods were l i mi t e d t o (1) a na l ys i s of t a r g e t
i n s e c t mo r t a l i t y and ( 2) s pr ay dr opl et impinge-
ment devi ces , such a s s i l i c o n e s l i d e s and
impingement c a r ds . These a r e crude, i mperfect ,
and nonqua nt i t a t i ve assessment methods. For
exampl e, t h e si mpl e phys i cs of impingement of
s pr ay d r o p l e t s on s i l i c o n e s l i d e s has never
been s t u d i e d s e r i o u s l y , y e t t hey a r e i mport ant
f i e l d assessment t o o l s . D r . Keat hi ey has
shown t h a t t h e f o r c e s o f a t t r a c t i o n of a l i qui d
d r o p l e t - t o - s i l i c o n e s ur f a c e a r e g r e a t t r t han
t he sur f ace t ensi on f or ces of t h e i mpact ed
l i qui d. Thus, apparent dr opl et s i z e on a
s i l i c one s l i d e i s a f unct i on not onl y o f t h e
dr opl e t ' s act ual s i z e but a l s o i t s v e l o c i t y
of impact. Fi nal l y, c r i t i c a l impingement
ve l oc i t y consi der at i ons prevent measurement
of spray s pect r a of ai r bor ne s pr ays wi t h s i l i -
cone s l i d e s o r impingement car ds . The cor -
r e l a t i on wi t h i ns e c t i c i de de l i ve r y t o t a r g e t
i ns e c t s i s unknown. In t h e meantime, s pr a y
cards cont i nue t o be our most popul ar f i e l d
assessment method.
One of t he major problems i nher ent i n t h e
use of impingement s l i d e s and car ds i s t h e i r
bi a s agai nst impingement of dr opl e t s s ma l l e r
t han t h e range of 40 microns. In a ddi t i on,
spr ay dr opl et s coal esce o r evapor at e i n t h e
a i r pr i or t o i mpact i on, o r two o r more may
impinge on i de nt i c a l ar eas . The problem of
mul t i pl e converging impingement ( dr opl e t -
dr opl et coal escence and mul t i pl e dr opl e t
impingement) i s i mport ant . I t can make i m -
pingement dat a equi vocal and a r t i f a c t u a l .
The bi ol ogi cal eval uat i on o f mor t a l i t y and
i mpact i on measurement of spr ay s pe c t r a a r e
i nadequat e a s assessment methods. One o f
t he c r i t i c a l def i ci enci es of t he p a s t was
t h e absence of any method by which spr ay
dr opl e t s could be t r aced by s i z e t o t a r g e t
i n s e c t s i n t h e i r nat ur al environment.
The f i r s t breakt hrough came i n 1965 when
Himel and coworkers a t t he Pa c i f i c Sout hwest
For est and Range Experiment St a t i on and t h e
Uni ver si t y of Georgia developed t h e f l uor e s -
cent p a r t i c l e spray dr opl et t r a c e method
(FP method) (Himel and ot her s 1965; Himel and
Moore 1967, 1969; Himel 1969a, 1969b, 1969c,
1969d) . That method was t h e f i r s t assessment
method f or eval uat i ng spray dr opl e t s by s i z e
and number on t ar get i ns e c t s i n t h e f i e l d and
showed t h e c r i t i c a l importance of ai r bor ne-
s i z e spr ay dr opl et s i n t he del i ver y of i ns ec-
t i c i d e s t o i ns e c t s . I t di d not gi ve d a t a on
how t hey were del i vered, onl y t he f a c t t h a t
t hey were del i vered. The e f f e c t o f t h e number
of f l uor es cent pa r t i c l e s , and t h e i r r e l a t i o n
t o dr opl e t s i ze, i s shown i n t a bl e 1.
The FP method makes possi bl e experi ment al
de t e c t i on of t h e s i z e of t he dr opl e t s t r a n s -
por t ed t o t a r ge t i ns ect s i n t h e i r na t ur a l
envi ronment s. I f t he dr opl et s found on t a r g e t
i n s e c t s a r e 200 microns and l a r ge r , t hen gr a -
v i t a t i o n a l del i ver y systems a r e oper at i onal .
I f , however, onl y ai rborne-si ze dr opl e t s a r e
found, at mospheri c t r anspor t systems a r e t he
' ~ e a t h l e ~ , J . Phi l l i p. 1972. Unpublished d a t a .
Table I--Number of f l uor escent pa r t i c l e s (FP)
i n dr opl et s of var i ous s i z e s a t t hr ee
pa r t i c l e concent rat i on l evel s
Concentration
of FP i n spray
( pa r t i c l e s per
Microns
c r i t i c a l f a c t or s i n del i ver y. I f t he del i ver y
of i ns e c t i c i de t o t a r ge t i ns e c t s i s based on
atmospheric t r ans por t , then t he ef f i ci ency of
our del i ver y systems can be improved by or der s
of magnitude. That improvement can el i mi nat e
t he "ecol ogi cal problem of i ns ect i ci des . "
The FP method allows absol ut e di f f er en-
t i a t i o n between 20- and 200-micron dr opl et s .
Therefore it al l ows absol ut e di f f e r e nt i a t i on
between t he two possi bl e t r anspor t mechanisms.
Because of i t s pr obabi l i t y bas i s , di f f e r e nt i a -
t i on between narrow ranges of dr opl et s i z e s i s
vi r t ua l l y impossible with t he FP method. Sus-
pension of FP i n spray l i qui ds i s d i f f i c u l t ;
t her ef or e t he lower l i m i t of de t e c t a bi l i t y of
dr opl et s i z e s by t he FP method i s i n t he range
of 10 t o IS microns.
In s p i t e of FP method dat a (and t he wide-
spread use of pa r t i c ul a t e meteorological t r a c e r s
i n met eorol ogi cal r esear ch) , t he gr eat ent o-
mological cl i che t h a t "small dr opl et s never
get downw i s st i l l with us. I t i s s c i e n t i f i c
and experimental nonsense, yet it pe r s i s t s
and cont i nues t o cloud experimental f a c t s .
Airborne spr ay dr opl et s ar e t he predominant
s i z e s del i ver ed t o t a r ge t i ns e c t s . They a r e
af f ect ed by meteorological f act or s and by
physi cal del i ver y systems. When a l l systems
oper at e e f f e c t i ve l y, t a r ge t i ns ect cont r ol i s
good, and when they operat e i nef f ect i vel y,
t a r ge t i ns e c t cont r ol i s low, yet we know very
l i t t l e about how t hose physi cal and meteoro-
l ogi cal processes oper at e. That i s t he chal -
lenge of today: t o develop quant i t at i ve methods
by which we can as s es s i ns ect i ci de del i ver y
systems and mass t r ans por t . Data on del i ver y
of i ns e c t i c i de spray dr opl et s t o t a r ge t i ns e c t s
a r e given i n t a bl e 2.
The dat a i n t a bl e 2 were determined by
i de nt i f i c a t i on and counting of over 100,000
spray dr opl et s on t he t a r ge t i ns e c t s . There
i s no evidence t ha t l ar ge dr opl et s ( gr eat er
than 200 microns diameter) have any s i gni f i -
cant cont r i but i on t o t a r ge t i ns e c t cont r ol
under t hese condi t i ons. Because of t h e i r
di spr opor t i onat e mass they a r e t he major f ac-
t o r i n t he environmental contamination problem.
In t he above experiments, spray dr opl et s
smal l er than 20 microns contained zero FP and
were i nvi s i bl e .
The next major breakthrough came 5 year s
l a t e r when Roberts and ot her s (1971) showed
t ha t l a s e r holography could be used t o det er -
mine t he mechanism of impaction of 1 t o 5-
micron-diameter spray dr opl et s on i ns e c t
s et ae. The dat a a r e extremely important and
r epr esent an el egant cont r i but i on t o i ns e c t i -
ci de assessment research. They show exper i -
mentally t ha t 1-micron-diameter dr opl et s can
de l i ve r i ns ect i ci de t o t a r ge t i ns e c t s , and
t hey pl ace t he optimum s i z e f o r spray dr opl et s
i n t he range of 5 microns.
A s i ndi cat ed previ ousl y, t her e a r e two
major t heor i es a s t o t he mechanism of del i ver y
of i ns ect i ci des t o t a r ge t i ns e c t s . The f i r s t
and most widely accepted i s t h a t spray drop-
l e t s f a l l by gr avi t y and impinge on t he t a r ge t
i ns e c t , o r on f ol i age which t he i ns e c t t r a -
ver ses o r e a t s . In s p i t e of decades of
research, no unequivocal experimental dat a
support t h i s t heory. The reason i s very
si mpl e--al l sprays from commercial spr ay
devi ces cont ai n s i gni f i c a nt numbers and volumes
of t he ai r bor ne spray dr opl et s . They a r e
ubi qui t ous, usual l y measured, and of t en assumed
t o be absent . In t h e i r presence, no unequivocal
dat a on t he mechanism of i ns e c t cont r ol by
gr avi t at i onal f a l l i s possi bl e. A t ypi cal
spray spectrum i s shown i n f i gur e 1.
Table 2--Size of dr opl et s found on i ns e c t s
Proportion of dr opl et s i n
Target
i ns ect
I
Percent
Spruce budworm
Boll weevil
( adul t )
Bollworm
( l ar vae)
Cabbage looper
(1 arvae)
Fi gure 1. Typi cal s pr ay spect rum;
mmd = mass median di amet er .
The second and most cont r over s i al t heor y
of s pr ay de l i ve r y i nvol ves t he phys i cal con-
c e pt s of at mospheri c t r a ns por t a nd t he impinge-
ment o f ai r bor ne- s i ze dr opl e t s . Such dr opl e t s
a r e l i mi t e d t o l e s s t han 100 mi crons and a r e
ge ne r a l l y l e s s t han 50 mi crons. Thei r del i ver y
t o t a r g e t i n s e c t s i n a f o l i a g e envi ronment
depends on phys i cal and met eor ol ogi cal par a-
met er s t h a t a r e complex and d i f f i c u l t t o
measure. Fi na l l y, t he e f f i c i e n c y of ai r bor ne
spr ay dr opl e t s i n ver y smal l s i z e s i s l i mi t ed
by c r i t i c a l impingement v e l o c i t y cons i der at i ons
and by v o l a t i l i t y . In our l abor at or y we have
shown t h e e xi s t e nc e of a f o l i a g e - a i r i n t e r -
f a c i a l b a r r i e r which i s an i mport ant f a c t o r
i n t h e d e l i v e r y of a i r bor ne s pr ay dr opl e t s t o
i n s e c t s wi t hi n a f o l i a g e envi ronment . I t
means t h a t d r o p l e t s of t h i s s i z e must be dr i ven
i n t o a f o l i a g e envi ronment . I n t h e f i e l d , t h i s
i s accompl i shed by t h e met eor ol ogi cal e f f e c t s
of a f l y i n g a i r pl a ne , o r by t h e hydr aul i c-
pneumat i c s pr ay from ground equipment. I f we
a r e t o underst and s pr ay pr ocesses, we must be
abl e t o s t udy t h e pr oces s es by which t he y
br each t h e f o l i a g e - a i r i n t e r f a c i a l b a r r i e r .
Some new concept s i n a n a l y t i c a l methodology
a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s purpose and w i l l be
out l i ne d below.
NEW METHODS
I n t h e p a s t , s pr ay assessment methods
have been l a r g e l y concerned wi t h measurement
o f s pr ay dr opl e t s i z e . A weight o r mass
bal ance i n t h e t a r g e t a r e a has been beyond
t he sampl i ng t echni ques and a n a l y t i c a l
methods a v a i l a b l e . Most at t empt s a t mass
a n a l y s i s have r equi r ed i ncor por at i on of dyes
i n t o s pr ays . Most dye mol ecul es a r e not
desi gned f o r purposes of p e s t i c i d e a na l ys i s .
For t h i s reason we have s t udi ed t he desi gn of
s pe c i a l t r a c e r mol ecul es. They must have
known s t a b i l i t y , known met abol i sm r a t e ( i n t h e
bi osyst em), and known spect r oscopi c r esponses.
Our g r e a t e s t experi ment al success, however,
has been wi t h desi gned mol ecul es t h a t can be
used wi t h gas - l i qui d chromatography (GLC) .
The requi rement s f o r such mol ecul es a r e t h a t
t hey be (1) nont oxi c, ( 2) uni que t o t h e
envi ronment , and (3) adapt ed t o GLC o r mass
spect r omet r i c a na l ys i s a t ver y hi gh (nanogram)
o r picogram) s e n s i t i v i t y . Two t y p i c a l examples
of new i n s e c t i c i d e t r a c e r mol ecul es a r e gi ven
i n f i gur e 2. I n our l abor at or y, we have
s t udi ed a whole range o f anal ogs and homologs
of such t r a c e r mol ecul es a s new t o o l s f o r
t he st udy of mass t r a ns por t of s pr ays and
i n s e c t i c i d e movement i n t he ecosyst em.
New methods f o r mass a na l ys i s of s pr ay
d i s t r i b u t i o n a r e of l i t t l e val ue unl es s
cl ean, r e a d i l y a va i l a bl e , impingement devi ces
of known c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e a va i l a bl e . We
have, t her ef or e, desi gned a s e r i e s of q u i t e
smal l g l a s s devi ces which we a r e t e s t i n g f o r
impingement e f f i c i e nc y. Gl ass devi ces a r e
of p a r t i c u l a r s i gni f i c a nc e because t hey a r e
cl ean and c ont r i but e no bi ol ogi c a l cont ami -
nant s t o mi t i gat e GLC o r mass s pect r omet r i c
a na l ys i s . The physi cs and met eorol ogy of
spr ay impingement a r e wel l known and e f f i c i e n t
mass sampling devi ces f o r r es ear ch a r e wel l
wi t hi n t he cur r ent s t a t e of t he a r t . A si mpl e
and e f f i c i e n t c a p i l l a r y impingement devi ce
(CID) i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 3.
Fi gure 2. I ns e c t i c i de t r a c e r mol ecul es
+WIRE SUPPORT
CAPILLARY
TUBE
(4.3 x 0.15 cm
Fi gur e 3. Ca pi l l a r y impingement devi ce (CID)
used i n a s s e s s i ng a i r bor ne concent r at i on
o f s pr a y t oxi c a nt .
For s e v e r a l ye a r s , we have i nve s t i ga t e d
t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f a c t ua l a na l ys i s o f t h e
i n s e c t i c i d e cont ent o f t a r g e t i n s e c t s . Unfor-
t una t e l y, t h i s i s ver y d i f f i c u l t because of
b i o l o g i c a l cont ami nant s and because o f t h e
r a pi d met abol i sm o f most i n s e c t i c i d e s i n
i n s e c t s . Fi e l d and l abor at or y r es ear ch wi t h
Dursban and Thiodan have, however, been
c a r r i e d out . The l a bor a t or y r es ear ch showed
t h a t t h e t o x i c i t y o f an i n s e c t i c i d e appear s
t o be i ndependent o f t h e phys i cal s t a t e o f
t h e i n s e c t i c i d e p r i o r t o de l i ve r y t o t h e
t a r g e t i n s e c t . Thus, t h e LDsO of t he s e i ns ec-
t i c i d e s i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i ndependent o f
whet her t hey a r e de l i ve r e d t o t a r g e t i n s e c t s
by ( I ) a i r bor ne - s i z e dr opl e t s , (2) s i n g l e
l ambda-si ze dr opl e t s , o r (3) vapor . I n
e f f e c t , t hen, i n s e c t cont r ol can onl y be
achi eved when a l e t h a l dose i s a c t u a l l y
de l i ve r e d t o t h e t a r g e t i n s e c t . Our i n s e c t
c ont r ol f a i l u r e s a r e caused by our de l i ve r y
syst em f a i l u r e s (Himel and Uk 1972a, 1972b).
I n t h e f i e l d , t h e more concent r at ed t h e
s pr ay cl oud, t h e f a r t h e r downwind i t w i l l
r e t a i n b i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t i ve ne s s . Typi cal
da t a ( t a b l e 3) were obt ai ned when spr ay cl ouds
o f va r i ous concent r at i ons o f Dursban were
t e s t e d a ga i ns t caged hous e f l i e s . The mor-
t a l i t y o f t h e f l i e s i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o
t h e i r Dursban cont ent (up t o 100 per cent mor-
t a l i t y ) and t h e di s t a nc e downwind f o r 100
pe r c e nt mo r t a l i t y i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o
Dursban concent r at i on i n t h e i n i t i a l s pr ay.
We be l i e ve t h a t t he s e d a t a a r e an expl anat i on
o f why t h e t y p i c a l , i n e f f i c i e n t spr ays used
wi t h ULV s pr ays and undi l ut ed i n s e c t i c i d e s
a r e s ucces s f ul i n t h e cont r ol o f i n s e c t s . We
a l s o be l i e ve t h a t t he s e d a t a show one method
f o r mi ni mi zi ng t h e bi ol ogi c a l e f f e c t s o f down-
wind d r i f t , by l i mi t i n g t h e concent r at i on o f
i n s e c t i c i d e s i n t he i n i t i a l s pr ay.
LITERATURE CITED
Himel, Chest er M.
1969a. The f l uor e s c e nt p a r t i c l e s pr ay
dr opl e t t r a c e r method. J. Econ.
Entomol. 62( 4) :912-916.
Himel, Chest er M.
1969b. New concept s i n i n s e c t i c i d e s f o r
s i l vi c ul t ur e - - a nd o l d concept s r e v i s i t e d .
I n Pr oceedi ngs o f t h e Four t h I nt er na-
-
t i o n a l Agr i cul t ur al Avi at i on Congress
(1969). Wagenigen, 1971. Cent . Agr i c.
Publ . and Doc. p. 275-281.
Himel, Chest er M.
1969c. The physi cs and bi ol ogy o f t h e
c ont r ol o f cot t on i n s e c t popul at i ons
wi t h i n s e c t i c i d e spr ay. J. Geor gi a
Entomol. SOC. 4( 2) : 33- 40.
Himel, Chest er M.
1969d. The optimum s i z e f o r i n s e c t i c i d e
s pr ay dr opl e t s . J. Econ. Entomol.
62(4) :919-92S.
Himel, Chest er M. , and Ar t hur D. Moore
1967. Spr uce budworm mor t a l i t y as a
f unct i on o f a e r i a l s pr ay dr opl e t s i z e .
Sci ence 156:1250-1251.
Himel, Chest er M. , and Ar t hur D. Moore
1969. Spr ay dr opl e t s i z e i n t h e c ont r ol
o f spr uce budworm b o l l weevi l , bol l -
worm, and cabbage l ooper . J. Econ.
Entomol. 62(4):916-918.
Himel, Chest er M. , and Sol ang Uk
1972a. The dos e- t oxi ci t y o f chl opyr i f os
and endosul f an i n s e c t i c i d e s on t h e
house f l y by t opi c a l , vapor , and s pr ay
t r eat ment s a s es t i mat ed by gas chroma-
t ogr aphy. J. Econ. Entomol. 65:990-994.
Himel, Chest er M. , and Sol ang Uk
1972b. Gas chromot ographi c method f o r
a na l ys i s o f chl or pyr i f os and endosul f an
i n s e c t i c i d e s i n t o p i c a l l y t r e a t e d
house f l i e s . J. Agr i c. Food Chem.
20 :638-642.
Himel, Chest er M. , Leland M. Vaughn,
Raymond P. Miskus, and A. D. Moore.
1965. A new method f o r spr ay depos i t
assessment . U.S. For est Serv. Res.
Note PSW-87, 10 p. , i l l u s . Pa c i f i c
Sout hwest For est and Range Exp. St n
Berkel ey, Ca l i f .
Robert s, Ri chard B. , Robert L. Lyon,
Marion Page, and Raymond P. Miskus.
1971. Laser hol ography: I t s a ppl i c a t i on
t o t he st udy o f t h e behavi or of i nsec-
t i c i d e p a r t i c l e s . J. Econ. Entomol.
64~533-536.
Tabl e 3. The e f f e c t s of s pr ay concent r at i on o f ~ u r s b a n l on t he de l i ve r y of i n s e c t i c i d e t o caged
hous e f l i e s 2 pl aced downwind; maximum dr opl e t di amet er 15 mi crons.
Ef f e c t s of Dursban s pr ay concent r at i ons of ...
I
1 l b/ gal 2 l b/ gal 4 l b/ gal
Mean Mean Mean
Di st ance
Mor t al i t y Dursban Mor t al i t y Dursban Mor t al i t y Dursban
(f t )
cont ent 3 cont ent cont ent
Percent d f l y Percent 4 f t y Percent ng/ f l y
100
250
500
750
1000
Cont r ol s
^low r a t e : 32 oz/min, 5 mph t r a ns por t , 2 min; spr ay formul at ed wi t h DOP and benzene
Two r e p l i c a t i o n s o f 25 f l i e s p e r cage were used; one r e pl i c a t i on was pr eser ved f o r
gas chromat ographi c a na l ys i s , t h e ot he r was t r a ns f e r r e d t o cl ean c ont a i ne r s wi t hi n
IS min f ol l owi ng di s pe r s a l .
'1n t h e l a bor a t or y t h e L D 0 f o r Dursban was det ermi ned t o be 40 ng/ f l y.
Workshop Summary
John A. Neisess
The p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e workshop were con-
cer ned wi t h a wide r ange of s pr ay depos i t
assessment problems t h a t var y accordi ng t o
t ype of p e s t i c i d e a ppl i c a t i on. The obj ec-
t i v e s o f an assessment method f o r a r es ear cher
a r e ne c e s s a r i l y d i f f e r e n t from t hos e f o r an
ope r a t i ona l program. Si mi l a r l y, t he r equi r e-
ment s o f a ppl i c a t i on f o r f o r e s t o r a g r i c u l t u r a l
pur poses, o r mosqui t o c ont r ol , e t c . , var y
wi del y. Ther ef or e, it would be ver y d i f f i c u l t
t o come up wi t h a ni c e , ne a t st andar di zed
method s u i t a b l e f o r a l l .
Very ge ne r a l l y s t a t e d t h e goal of an
assessment method f o r r es ear ch i s t o provi de
t he i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and maxi mi zat i on of t h e
v a r i a b l e s needed t o obt a i n an e f f e c t i v e con-
t r o l program. Thi s method shoul d be si mpl e
and e c ol ogi c a l l y s a f e . The assessment t ech-
ni que i s t h e r e f o r e a r es ear ch t o o l f o r ob-
t a i n i n g b a s i c knowledge which w i l l event ual l y
l e a d t o i ncr eas ed t a r g e t mo r t a l i t y r e s u l t i n g
from more e f f i c i e n t a ppl i c a t i on.
The s p e c i f i c assessment paramet ers t h a t
i n t e r e s t r es ear cher s r e l a t e t o t h e bi oassay,
t h a t i s , c o r r e l a t i n g depos i t wi t h mor t a l i t y.
They a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n how much t o x i c ma t e r i a l
i s i n t h e envi ronment and t o what degree t h i s
ma t e r i a l i s r eachi ng t h e t a r g e t . There was
much di s cus s i on i n our workshop on dr opl e t
s i z e and s i z e v a r i a t i o n . The r es ear cher s want
and need t o know t he dr opl e t s i z e s t h a t most
e f f e c t i v e l y i mpact on t he t a r g e t , and what
p a r t o f t he spr ay- dr op- si ze spect rum t h i s
e f f e c t i v e dr opl e t r e pr e s e nt s . The ul t i ma t e
assessment method would pr ovi de t h e r e s e a r c he r
wi t h i nf or mat i on on f a c t o r s t h a t produce drop-
l e t s o f t h e de s i r e d s i z e . The assessment
method may not d i s c l o s e t he mechanism by which
i mpact i on occur s, but it can r eveal t h e e f f e c t s
of such t h i n g s a s met eor ol ogi cal condi t i ons ,
s i t e , and a ppl i c a t i on t echni que on t h e depo-
s i t i o n of t h e s pr ay d r o p l e t s .
The p r i n c i p l e s behi nd oper at i onal programs
d i c t a t e d i f f e r e n t assessment r equi r ement s.
Peopl e deal i ng wi t h oper at i onal programs must
' For es t r y Sci ences Laborat ory, 3200 J e f f e r s on
Way, Cor va l l i s , Oregon.
be abl e t o a s s e s s t he adequacy of t he s pr ay
coverage r e s u l t i n g from t he a e r i a l a ppl i c a t i on
of t h e i n s e c t i c i d e , f o r t he enforcement of t he
a ppl i c a t i on c ont r a c t s . The assessment method
has t o be f a s t and si mpl e so t h a t t h e f i e l d man
can r eques t r es pr ayi ng i n a r e a s of une f f e c t i ve
coverage. The peopl e i n r es ear ch shoul d have
predet ermi ned what par amet er s w i l l det ermi ne
e f f e c t i v e coverage.
Peopl e i n t h e f i e l d want an assessment
method t h a t eval uat es how much ma t e r i a l r eaches
a sampl i ng s ur f ace, such a s a whi t e car d. The
a c t ua l eval uat i on may be i n t erms of drop s i z e s ,
de ns i t y of dr ops, volume of t o x i c ma t e r i a l , o r
combi nat i ons t he r e of . I t i s i mper at i ve t h a t t h e
method be si mpl e and i nexpensi ve because t h e
f i e l d peopl e do not have t h e t i me o r f a c i l i t i e s
t o perform p r e c i s e a na l ys i s .
Oper at i onal per sonnel a r e a l s o i n t e r e s t e d
i n r es i dues , and t h e pos s i bl e cont ami nat i on o f
f or age cr ops and waterways from t o x i c chemi cal s
appl i ed t o near by a r e a s . Work on t h i s problem
i s us ua l l y conduct ed i n conj unct i on wi t h f i s h -
e r i e s and wi l d l i f e depart ment s. Ther ef or e, i t
i s de s i r a bl e t o have an assessment method t h a t
e va l ua t e s t h e s pr ay d r i f t .
Vari ous assessment methods c u r r e n t l y bei ng
used by p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e workshop were d i s -
cussed wi t h r e s pe c t t o measurement of s pr ay
coverage. A. P. Randal l , of t he Chemical Con-
t r o l Research I n s t i t u t e , Ottawa, Canada, gave
a s hor t r e por t on t he t ype of assessment methods
used i n Canada f o r t h e l a s t 20 year s . They
dye t h e i r f or mul at i ons wi t h s ol ubl e dyes and
c o l l e c t t h e s pr ay de pos i t on g l a s s p l a t e s and
whi t e Kromekote car ds . The s pr ay depos i t i s
sampled i n t he open, f o r t hey have found t h a t
t h e depos i t sampled i n t he open c or r e l a t e d
ver y wel l wi t h t h e de pos i t found i n t he t r e e s .
They have a l s o found t h a t t he drop count s on
t h e whi t e car ds gave a b e t t e r c o r r e l a t i o n wi t h
i n s e c t mor t a l i t y t han t he volume of s pr ay
removed from t h e g l a s s p l a t e s .
The l i mi t a t i o n s of such an assessment
method a r e t h e i n a b i l i t y t o count a c c ur a t e l y
t h e ver y smal l dr opl e t s i n t he 0-25 micron
range, and t he f a c t t h a t a car d o r g l a s s
s l i d e does not ver y wel l approxi mat e t he
geometry of an i n s e c t . That is, t h i s method
does not allow f o r assessi ng t he amount of
t oxi c mat er i al or s i z e of dr opl et act ual l y
del i ver ed t o t he i ns ect o r i t s nat ur al environ-
ment. The i n a b i l i t y t o as s es s t he small drop-
l e t s may be very important i n view of t he
di scussi on of small dr opl et s i n t h i s workshop.
I f t he small dr opl et i s t he most e f f e c t i ve
s i z e of drop f or impacting on t he i ns e c t , a s
r epor t ed by D r . Himel, t hen t he ul t i mat e
assessment method should eval uat e t h i s drop-
l e t s i z e . Otherwise, we a r e not anal yzi ng
t he pa r t of t he drop-size-spectrum t h a t i s of
most i nt e r e s t t o t he r esear cher .
Sol ubl e f l uor escent t r a c e r s have been
used a s a t r a c e r system t o eval uat e spray
deposi t s. The deposi t can be sampled with
var i ous a r t i f i c i a l surfaces--whi t e cards,
aluminum pl a t e s , Mylar e t c . Also, t he
f l uor escent t r a c e r can be removed from t he
f ol i age t o gi ve an est i mat e of t he amount
of t oxi c mat er i al reaching t he i ns e c t ' s en-
vironment. Although t he method i s f a s t ,
inexpensive and s e ns i t i ve , t her e ar e some
problems. The f l uor escent dyes fade when
exposed t o s unl i ght , and t her e a r e nat ur al
f l uor esci ng contaminants which might com-
pl i c a t e t he assessment f or t he f ol i age samples.
Because t he drops on t he white cards ar e
manually s i zed and counted, t he very small
dr opl et s cannot be accur at el y counted. The
sol ubl e t r a c e r a l s o does not provide a method
f o r determining t he amount of t oxi c mat er i al
reachi ng t he i ns e c t .
Automatic counting devi ces a r e avai l abl e
which count t he spr ay drops col l ect ed on white
car ds. One such method i s used a t t he Deseret
Test Center. Photographs ar e made of t he
white cards, and t he negat i ves a r e aut omat i cal l y
scanned, and t he drops si zed and counted. The
spread f a c t or of t he spray formulation i s i ncl u-
ded i n t h e cal cul at i on of t he drop s i z e s . I t
was r epor t ed t o t he workshop t ha t l i mi t at i ons
i n t he photographic s t e p r e s t r i c t t h i s method
t o t he measurement of drops gr eat er than 40
microns i n di amet er.
D r . Himel descri bed t he use of gas- l i qui d
chromotography (GLC) and mass spectroscopy a s
r esear ch methods f o r deposi t assessment. Both
of t hese i nst rument al methods have been used
i n t h e pas t f or t he di r e c t chemical anal ys i s
of t he act ual pe s t i c i de . D r . Himel descri bed
t he use of t r a c e r systems f o r eval uat i ng t he
spray. These chemical t r a c e r s have t he advan-
t age of being fade r e s i s t a nt , and t her e a r e
l i t t l e o r no contamination problems. However,
t h i s method can onl y eval uat e t he t o t a l volume
of t h e spr ay deposi t ed on some sampling sur f ace.
There i s no provi si on f o r determining t he
number of dr opl et s o r dr opl et s i z e s .
The use of Rotor Rod Samplers was mentioned
by Jack Barry i n hi s paper deal i ng with t he
Zectran dry l i qui d t e s t . These samplers, agai n,
sample only t he t ot a l spray. Thi s method does
not give t he del i neat i on of t he drop-si ze spectrum.
Anderson Sieve Samplers a r e anot her devi ce
used t o sample t he cont ent of spray i n volumes
of a i r . By changing t he s i z e of s i eves and t he
volume of a i r sucked i nt o t he sampling devi ces,
s pe c i f i c drop-si ze ranges can be sampled by
using a number of samplers t oget her . I t i s pos-
s i bl e t o eval uat e t he e nt i r e spectrum of drops
i n a spray cloud with r espect t o p a r t i c l e s i z e
and cumulative percent of t he spray i n s pe c i f i c
drop-si ze ranges. The only shortcomings of such
a device a r e i t s expense and t he need f or a power
supply--both of which would seem t o l i m i t t he
useful ness of t he sampler i n t he f i e l d .
The only assessment method di scussed i n
our sessi on t ha t provided a measure of t he
amount of pes t i ci des and t he s i z e of spray drop-
l e t s t ha t was del i ver ed t o a t a r ge t i n i t s
nat ur al environment was t he f l uor es cent - par t i cl e
t r a c e r method di scussed by D r . Himel. However,
t h i s method i s a r esear ch t ool only. The d i f f i -
c ul t y i n handling t he FP1s and t h e i r cost make
t h i s method i mpr act i cal f or l ar ge- scal e f i e l d
use.
As f o r assessment methods cur r ent l y used
f or oper at i onal programs, t he most f a mi l i a r
i s probably t he oi l - s e ns i t i ve car d used f or
years on t he DDT programs. Thi s method was
adequate f o r enforci ng cont r act s , but such
methods have been shown t o be unr el i abl e f o r
obt ai ni ng s a t i s f a c t or y cor r el at i on between
t he deposi t and i ns e c t mor t al i t y.
Another assessment method, r epor t edl y
used with mosquito cont r ol , i s t he use of
caged i ns e c t s a s an i ndi cat or of t he amount
of deposi t . I f t he i ns e c t s i n t he cages a r e
dead, t he over al l coverage has presumably
been adequate t o obt ai n mor t al i t y.
A few new methods of assessment were di s -
cussed f o r use i n r esear ch. A new sampling
sur f ace t ha t be t t e r depi ct s t he geometry of
t he i ns e c t was di scussed. Ul t i mat el y t h i s
sur f ace could be pa r t of an anal yt i cal assess-
ment method i ns t ead of a manual counting method.
Such a sur f ace could be washed, which would a t
l e a s t reveal t he volume of spr ay impacting on
a pseudo-insect, i f not t he act ual drop s i z e .
Atomic absorpt i on could be used t o det ect
met al l i c s a l t t r a c e r s such a s magnesium s ul -
f a t e . These t r a c e r s would have t he advantage
t ha t they do not fade. However, t her e might
be contamination problems from na t ur a l l y
occurri ng s a l t s . El ect ron spi n resonance (ESR)
was a l s o suggested a s an anal yt i c t ool f o r
consi der at i on. Ni t roxi des were report ed a s
good t r a c e r s t o be used with ESR.
A new method t ha t might be appl i cabl e
f or oper at i onal use i s t he f l yi ng spot scanner,
such as t h a t used a t t he Deseret Test Center.
The method provi des f or a vi sual est i mat e of
t he deposi t on t he card f or enforcement of
appl i cat or cont r act s , but i t i s a l s o s ens i -
t i v e enough t o determine t he s pe c i f i c para-
meters of drop s i z e and t he r e l a t i ve numbers
of each s i z e drop within t he complete drop-
. .
s i z e spectrum, t hus providing conci se i nf or -
mation about t he ext ent of spray coverage.
In conclusion, i f t he workshop di d not
r e s ul t i n anything e l s e , it made t he p a r t i -
ci pant s aware of each ot he r ' s problems.
Al t ernat e assessment methods, new pr of essi onal
cont act s, or whole new concepts may have been
i ni t i a t e d as a r e s ul t of t he workshop.
Discussion
DR. AKESSON: J us t a quick comment, John. I
f eel t ha t you a r e mixing t he research i ns t r u-
mentation and t he f i e l d i nst rument at i on; you
brought out both a t vari ous times, and you
never separat ed them. May I suggest t ha t we
had be t t e r make a di s t i nc t separ at i on, because
i f we do not we a r e going t o confuse, confound,
and f r us t r a t e t he f i e l d people, es peci al l y when
we r e f e r t o such t hi ngs as scanning el ect r on
microscopes, atomic absorpt i on spectrophotom-
e t e r s , and radi ance t r i m , e t c . So, i f we a r e
t o continue i n t he f ut ur e, t he r esear cher s
should at t empt t o separ at e t hese two ar eas be-
cause of t he di f f er ences . The f i e l d personnel
f r equent l y use i ndi ces , and t r a c e r s , where i n
r esear ch we at t empt t o deal with absol ut e
val ues.
DR. NEISESS: Right, Norm, I t r i e d t o make
t ha t c l e a r .
MR. BOYLE: I would l i ke t o c l e a r up one poi nt
of possi bl e confusion on automated dr opl et
counting equipment. The Dugway machine can
be s e t t o count dr opl et s a s small a s those
f a l l i ng between zero and 20 microns. The
problem i s t ha t t he process i s photographic;
what shows on t he photograph i s counted a s a
drop, and dust can pose problems i n t ha t s i z e
range. I n pr act i ce, with dr opl et s below
40 microns, t he operat or has t o use opt i c a l
magnification and count by eye t o i nsur e i t
i s dropl et s t a i ns t ha t ar e being counted.
One ot her comment seems i n or der . Last year
when t he Missoula group brought t he i r equip-
ment t o Dugway, we asked f or only two changes
i n t h e i r standard operat i onal procedures.
The f i r s t concerned l ar ge drops, not small;
overl appi ng dr opl et s t a i ns cannot be counted,
and so we flew t he a i r c r a f t high enough above
t he ground t o minimize overlap of t he l ar ge
dr ops. The second was t o f l y crosswind i nst ead
of i n t o t he wind, and t h i s too was intended t o
provide an est i mat e of t he decrease i n average
dr opl et separat i on and addi t i onal l y t o provide
an est i mat e of t he decrease i n average dr opl et
s i z e as t he downwind di st ance i ncreased.
Neither change complicates t he a na l ys i s . I f
t he dr opl et cloud i s thought of a s a st r et ched-
out cone with t he ground a s i t s base and t he
a i r c r a f t a t t he ver t ex, you can e a s i l y pass a
new plane cl os er t o t he a i r c r a f t , i n e f f e c t ,
put t he ground where you want i t , and t he
process i s i nt er pol at i ve, not ext r apol at i ve.
We t es t ed t he C-47 system over a sampling ar r ay
covering several square mi l es, and with complete
meteorological i nst rument at i on. The Dugway
dr opl et spectrum dat a, contamination densi t y
est i mat es, and swath widths matched what Missoula
had al r eady determined on a much l e s s expensive
program. We i ncreased t he sample s i z e tremen-
dously but I do not t hi nk we added much new
information t o t he spray system char act er i zat i on.
DR. PIEPER: I was i n t he assessment workshop
a l s o and I thought t her e was an i nt e r e s t i ng
suggestion of f er ed t ha t was not mentioned her e.
That was t he addi t i on of spores of Bacillus
globigii t o t he spray formulation. I thought
t h i s suggestion could be used by a gr eat many
people and i t does not r equi r e expensive equip-
ment.
DR. MAKSYMIUK: I bel i eve, John, t ha t you men-
t i oned t ha t t her e was a minimum s e ns i t i vi t y on
Kromekote cards usi ng f l uor escent t r a c e r s of
a spher i cal drop s i z e of 20 microns. Our pub-
l i shed r esear ch shows t ha t we can go down t o
7 microns a s f a r a s spher i cal drop s i z e i s
concerned. But t he spot s i z e on t he card i s
around 20 microns. Now we do have si mpl i f i ed
and accepted f i e l d methods f o r r api d determi-
nat i on of atomization based on t he D-max
method t ha t I published i n an a r t i c l e t ha t i s
being, o r was being used r out i nel y over a
number of years. As f a r a s est i mat i ng gal l ons
per a c r e i n a f o r e s t usi ng o i l - s e n s i t i v e r ed
car ds and no dye i n t he spr ays, o r o i l spr ays,
I s l e r and Davis a t t he Be l t s v i l l e Labor at or i es
devel oped t h i s method, f ol l owi ng some Canadian
i nput by E l l i o t , and it was used oper at i onal l y
f o r year s . I t i s ver y r api d and i n s e n s i t i v e
but i t g i v e s you go o r no-go i nf or mat i on and
t h i s i s pr obabl y enough f o r t he cont r ol oper a-
t i o n s and i t t akes minimum t i me t o compare
t he s t andar ds t o t h e car ds i n t he f o r e s t and
t o es t i mat e t h e cover age.
MR. FURLOW: I would l i k e t o ask your group a
ques t i on wi t h r e s pe c t t o t he det er mi nat i on of
aer os ol d r o p l e t s i z e s of ULV spr ays, and t he
eval uat i on of t he equipment and t h e us e of
t hes e spr ays on a day-t o-day b a s i s i n t he f i e l d .
What i s t h e c ur r e nt problem on usi ng any con-
veni ent t echni que t h a t gi ves c ons i s t e nt comparable
r e s u l t s f r omone nonthermal f ogger t o anot her , t o
g e t r e s u l t s t h a t a r e known t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d i f f e r e n t from t h e t r u e volume mean di amet er ,
and do not t r u l y r e f l e c t t he s i z e of t h e
p a r t i c l e s t h a t a r e a c t u a l l y more e f f e c t i v e
i n r eachi ng and k i l l i n g t h e i ns e c t ?
DR. AKESSON: May I suggest , John, t h a t t h i s
i s p r e c i s e l y what I was r e f e r r i n g t o. You
a r e usi ng an i ndex because you a r e not obt ai ni ng
an add- val ue f o r t h e dr op s i z e . The p a r t t h a t
h u r t s i s when someone us es a f i e l d t echni que
and does not des cr i be what he di d o r t he r e l a -
t i o n between t h i s a s an i ndex and t h e add-
val ue. Then t h i s g e t s i n t o t he l i t e r a t u r e a s
add- val ues, and it can r e a l l y conf use t hi ngs .
But i f you do t h i s , and acknowledge what you
a r e doi ng, I s ee not hi ng wrong a t a l l , because
t hes e a r e f i e l d t echni ques which a r e hi ghl y
e s s e n t i a l .
MR. FURLOW: I s t h a t t he consensus of - your
committee o r group?
MR. RANDALL: There is one poi nt I would l i k e
t o br i ng out i n r egar d t o t h i s method of
usi ng car ds. That i s , no one has mentioned
st andar di zi ng t h e car ds i n t er ms o f t h e
spr ead f a c t or . Now t he s ol ut i on you use w i l l
depend on t h e s i z e o f t he dr ops i n t he car ds,
and you have a va r i a t i on of a spr ead f a c t o r
of 2 t o 6. So t h a t one ma t e r i a l w i l l have
spr ead f a c t o r o f 2 and ot he r s may have one
of 6. The drop s i z e may be i d e n t i c a l wi t h
t he same ki nds of mat er i al s ; t he r e f or e , you
cannot compare t hes e two t oget her because
t hey w i l l not have t h e same spr ead f a c t o r a t
a l l .
MR. CHATIGNY: Responding t o t h e p a r t i c l e
s i z e quest i on, I t hi nk t h a t t h e s i z e you
measure i s d i r e c t l y dependent on t h e i n s t r u -
ment you use t o measure. There a r e a v a r i e t y
of i nst r ument s. However, t he r e a r e obvi ousl y
some methods t h a t a r e st andar di zed and some
of t hes e not found i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e o r
connect ed wi t h t h e d i s c i p l i n e s of t he s c i e n-
t i s t s pr esent her e. D r . Dimmick i nforms me
t h a t t h i s came up i n t h e i r s es s i on, and he
w i l l ampl i f y t h i s i n h i s summary pr e s e nt a t i on.
Rapporteur Summary
Mark A. Chatigny
Thisworkshophascoveredaverybroad
spectrumofproblems. Solutionsforsomeare
wellinhand,othersareemergentinnewareas;
allappeartohavesomeintereffect. Wehave
consideredmeteorologicalphysics,watersur-
facedispersion,leafcoverage,andthechemis-
try,toxicityanddegradationofpesticides.
Theneedforclosecontrolofaerosoloutput,
formulation,andparticlesizetocontrol
hazardstothetargetandnontargetpopula-
tions(ifyouwilldefineas%ontarget" those
organismswedonotwishtoaffect)hasbeen
discussed. Certainlythehumanandanimal
populationandtheenvironmenthavebeenen-
dangeredtosomedegreebysomeoftheearly
pesticideapplications. Wehavepointedout
thatthereisaneedforimproveddose-response
datafromourinsecticideapplications,and
these,ofcourse,aregoingtovaryaswidely
asthenumberofinsecticidesbeingusedand
therangeoftargetspecies. Thereisalso
needforadditionalworkondispersaltech-
niques.
Allthingsconsidered,wehaveaneed
foracoordinated,multidisciplinaryprogram.
Wehaveentomologists,physicists,biologists,
engineersandmeteorologists,eachgroupwith
itsownidiom. Basicallytheyworkin"English"
(thoughIamnotalwayssureofthat)butit
isapparentthatsomeoftheworkinggroups
spentagreatdealoftheirtimejustgetting
theirwordstomeanthesamethingsorto
arriveatsomecommonusageduringthecourse
oftheirsessions. Thisisaproblem,because
ifyoubelongtoanentomologicalsociety,you
arenotusuallygoingtobetalkingtomicro-
biologists. Ifyouattendengineeringorcivil
engineeringsocietymeetings,youareprobably
notgoingtobetalkingtomanyagricultural
engineers. Dr.Akessonpointedoutthathe
obtainsinformationfromthemechanicalengi-
neersandthecivilengineers"ratherlabor-
iously." Thereisastrongneedforinter-
disciplinarycommunication. Wefind,for
example,thatsomeoftheearlycharacteriza-
tionofspray-nozzleworkwasdonebyJapanese
workerswhowereinterestedinsprayingcoal
slurriesforefficientburning. Thespray
parametersarethesame,andtheparticle-
sizedistributionfromsingleanddoublefluid
nozzlesprevailedforthemjustasitdoesfor
us. Whatthisamountto--andIthinkDr.Cramer
pointedthisoutquiteclearly--isthatweare
inneedofasystemsapproachtoourcomposite
problems. Itisessentialforustoget
togetherasoftenaswecan,tosharelanguage,
shareapproaches,andmakeasystematic
coordinationofoureffortsinboththefield
andlaboratory.
Inthismeetingwehavealsoseenquitea
gapincommunicationsbetweenresearchersand
thepeopleinthefield. Practicalconsidera-
tionslimitthefieldpeople(indetermining
particlesize)tosuchpracticesasputtingout
settlingcardsandsaying,"Thattellsmeright
nowwhatwasputon,whereitwentandthatthe
contractIhadwithapestcontroloperatorto
putoutmaterialshasbeenfulfilled." As
researcherswemightsay,"Well,thatdoesnot
tellyouwhatistheeffectivefractionofthe
materialapplied." Hemightliketoknowthe
particlesize,theconcentrationofpesticide
ineachparticle,andthemicro-andmacro-
meteorologicalconditionsthataffectedthese
things. Thecontroloperator,although
interested,mustrespond"I can'tfindoutall
thatstuff;Ijustwanttoknow,diditget
thereanddidthecontractgetfulfilled." It
isapparentthatasystemsapproach,with
measurementofmanyparameters,maybenecessary.
Weinresearcharegoingtoasktheman
inthefieldtogetsomeinformationforus.
Wearegoingtohavetogetthatinformation
fedbackintoresearchandhighertechnology
areasanduseitinoursystemmodel,andin
turn,givetheoperatorsomedirectanswers
thatwillhelphimthenandthere. Wearea
longwayfromthat,butwehavesomeofthe
toolsathand.
Surprisinglyenoughwehavemoretools
athandthanmanyofusareawareof. For
example,Dr.MortRothenberg(DeseretTest
Center)hassome30yearsofexperiencein
aerosoltravel,chemicalparticledeposition
rates,andmicro-andmacrometeorological
effectsunderjustabouteveryconceivable
condition. Muchofitistabulatedandcom-
puterizedandthereisaveritablemountain
ofinformationavailable. Wearenotmaking
adequateuseofit;Icantellthatfromthe
conversationshere. Someoftheproblemsof
particlephysicsdescribedinthismeeting
weredescribedsome25yearsago,whena
greatdealofthatdatasuchasthatcompiled
byDr.Rothenberg'sgroupwasbeingassembled.
Therehavebeenoffhandreferencestothework
ofLatta,Hochberg,LaMer,andothers;many
ofthesepeoplewhoworkedintheOfficeof
ScientificResearchandDevelopmentinthe
1940'sformulatedmanyofthebasicequations
andprinciplesonwhichalotifdispersion
modelswerebuilt. Theworkneedsupdating,
butmorethanthat,itneedstobemadeavailable
tothiscommunity--thatis,tothepeopledoing
research,and(inusableform)topestcontrol
operators.
Iventuretosaythatourproblemsin
applicationaregoingtogetworsebeforethey
getanybetter. Wearegoingtohaveincreased
pressurebytheecologistsforminimalcontami-
nationofthebiosphere. Wearegoingtohave
decreasedinterestindevelopmentofnewfor-
mulationsbythechemicalcompanies. Itcosts
agreatdealtodevelopanewchemicaltobe
dispensedinsmallfractionsofapoundinstead
ofhundredsofpoundsperacreandtomeet
stringentstandardsfornontoxicityanddegra-
dability. Themanufacturers1incentivesare
certainlybeingdecreased. Someofthemanu-
facturersmaywanttotakeissuewithmeon
that,butforourpurposesitisnottoofar
fromthemark. Weareprobablymovingtoward
moresmall-particlesprays. Muchofthe
discussioncenteredaroundapproximately20
micronsastheoptimalparticlesize. Well,
letususethatforthemoment,withthe
reservationthatwemay,asDr.Himelhas
suggested,wanttoputoutalargerparticle
sizewithanequivalentamountoftoxic
materialinordertocontrolcoverageonthe
target. Wecanformulatethatway,butthe
trendmaybetowardthesmallparticlesize.
AsDr.Dimmickhaspointedout,whenwe
dothat,wearegettingintotherespirable
particlesizerange. Further,whenweget
intosmall-particlegeneration,wehavethe
inevitablegenerationofalotofverysmall
particles. Nowtheverysmallparticle
(thismaymean0.5to0.8micronsandsmaller)
getsverydeepintotherespiratorysystemof
thehumanoranimalandisretainedand
adsorbedrapidly. Whenyouproduceanaerosol
ofafewmillionpercubicmeterof20-micron
particles,youalsoproduce100millionorso
percubicmeterinthe0.5to8micronrange.
Wehavenothadsimplesystemsformeasuring
theseparticlesizes. Ifthesearepersistent
pesticides,orinacarrierthatispersistent,
theyaregoingtostayintherespiratory
systemorsomeotherpartofthehumanbody,
wheretheymay,infact,beconcentrated.
Manypeoplearegoingtobeasking,"Whatkind
ofhazardarethesepestcontroloperators
givingusnow?" Andyouwillhavetobearwith
thembecausetheyhaveavalidconcern. While
allthisisgoingon,ourlegislatorswillbe
respondingtopublicpressuresand(although
Idonotwanttocriticizethelegislators,
whoare"voxpopuli") theywillsometimes
respondinamannerthatdoesnotreflectthe
stateoftheartincontroltechnology. They
willsimplysay,"Doit!"--thatis,"eliminate
thishazardw--andwemaynotbepreparedto
'doit"atthattimewithoutunduelossor
cost. Therearenosimpleanswerstothese
complexproblemsthatIcanseedefinedin
thesemeetings. Ithinkwehavegivenita
verygoodtryandhavemadegoodprogressin
definingourproblemareas.
Somedirectionsareindicated. Certainly
thevoluntarycommunications,likethiswork-
shop,workverywell. Ithinkyouwillall
agreethatthishasbeenagoodandsuccessful
meeting. Also,Ithinkwecouldestablish
researchprogramsthataremorecloselytiedto
applications. Ontheotherhand,theapplica-
tionspeopleneedtocomebacktotheresearcher
withsomedataandsomeindicationofpractical
limitations. Wemaysitintheivorytowerand
cookupalovelyparticle-sizeanalyzerthat
willworkinthelaboratory(andweneedthat),
butitmaybeahardertasktogetasimple
pieceofmachinerytothemaninthefieldso
thathecangiveusbackoneortwoparameters
thatcanbefittedintoourmodelatagiven
quantityandparticlesize,andwhatisthe
effectivedoseinthetargetarea. Ithinkwe
arenottoofarfromthiscapabilityifweuse
theresourcesavailabletous.
Anothersuggestedaimisperhapsmore
immediatelyattainable--thatistoestablish
anadhocorprotemstandardizationofworking
group. Itcertainlymustbeintersociety,
interagency,interdisciplinary--orwhatever
thedesiredterm--tocrossthemanydisciplines
representedhere. Wemayneedentrytoseveral
governmentagenciesforthis,andithasbeen
suggestedtoDr.Schirleythatwegotothe
FederalWorkingGrouponPestManagementfor
sanctionandassistance. Hehasagreedthat
thisisareasonablething. Perhapshecan
speakonthisworkinggrouptoEnvironmental
ProtectionAgencyandFoodandDrugAdminis-
trationandothercognizantorganizations.
Thisisfine. Hehassuggestedthathewould
bewillingtogototheNationalScienceFoun-
dationandhelpusgetsomefundingfora
maintainedworkinggroup. Dr.Rothenberg,who
isonthecommitteeoftheNationalScience
FoundationandtheResearchAppliedtoNational
Needscommittee,saidthathewouldsupport
sucharequest. Weshouldnotunderestimate
theneedforsuchagrouporthecomplexity
oftheirwork.
Ihavehadsomepersonalexperiencein
standardizationofaerosolprocedures. Our
laboratoryparticipatedinatripartiteworking
group(TheUnitedKingdom,Canada,andthe
UnitedStates)onaerosols;itfunctionedfor
about8years. Agreatpartofthattimewas
spentinstandardizingaerosols,equipment,
procedures,samplers,etc.,sothatwecould
allso(simultaneously)atleastonekindof
experiment,orfieldtest,inwhichthedata
wouldbedirectlycomparableamongallpartic-
cipants. Oneofthemoreelementarythings
thatbecamearealproblemwasthatthetempera-
tureofoneoftheaerosolchambersvariedby
abouthalfadegreeCentigradefromthosein
otherinstallations. Thedatareceivedfrom
thisunitdifferedconsiderablyfromthat
receivedfromtheothers. Attentiontoexact
detailsofeveryaspectoftheequipmentand
workwasessentialforgoodcontrolofthe
experiments.
SynopsisofContinentsfrom
EveningDinnerSession
Atthedinnermeetingfollowingthefirst
dayoftheworkshop,participantswererequested
tosubmitcommentsandquestions. Thesewere
summarizedbytheCoordinatingCommittee.
Severalpeopleindicatedinterestin
holdingtheworkshopannually;onepersonfelt
thatitdidnothavethescopeor"punch"for
anannualaffair. Atleasttwopersonssaid
(1) theworkshopshouldbeextendedanother
day,(2) theindividualworkshopsweretoo
short,and(3)theworkshopshouldnotbeso
large,asthenumberofpeopleandlackof
timelimitedthediscussion. Onepersonfelt
thatthechairmanoftheassessmentgroupwas
tooconstrictive. Anotherthoughtthatone
singletheme,ratherthanthree,wouldbe
moreproductive.
Somegeneralcommentsandsuggestions
weremade. Itwasfeltthat(1) adefinition
oftargetandnontargetpopulationsisneeded;
(2) toomuchtimewasdevotedtodropspectrum
anddepositionanalysiswhentherewasno
standardorbasicformulationasameansof
comparison;(3)atechniqueisneededtodis-
seminatemonodispersedaerosols;(4)theimpac-
tionefficiencyofsetaeonsprucebudworm
shouldbeinvestigatedandenvironmentalcon-
taminationfromanassessmentstandpointshould
beconsidered;and(5)agoodreliablemethod
foranalyzingdropletsorparticlesbelow20
micronsisneeded.
Workshop Participants
Adams,ClaudeT.,Jr. U.S.Departmentof
Agriculture,Gainesville,Fla.
Akers,Tom. USNNavalBiomedicalResearch
Laboratory,2Oakland,Calif.
Akesson,NormanB. DepartmentofAgricultural
Engineering,UniversityofCalifornia,
Davis,Calif.
Allen,RobertJ. AtmosphericScienceLabora-
tory,StanfordResearchInstitute,Men10
Park,Calif.
Andrews,TheresaL. PacificSouthwestForest
andRangeExperimentStation,USDAForest
Service,Berkeley,Calif.
Anspaugh,LynnR. LawrenceLivermore
Laboratory,Livermore,Calif.
Armstrong,J.A. ChemicalControlResearch
Institute,CanadianForestryService,
Ottawa,Ontario
Barger,JackH. NortheasternForestExperi-
mentStation,USDAForestService,Delaware,
Ohio
Barry,JohnW. ExperimentalSystemsDivision,
DugwayProvingGround,Dugway,Utah
Bogaard,Tom. McLaughlinGormleyKingCo.,
Minneapolis,Minn.
Boyle,DouglasD. ExperimentalSystems
Division,DugwayProvingGround,Dugway,
Utah
Browne,LloydE. DepartmentofEntomology,
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,Calif.
Burgoyne,William. Fresno,Calif.
Camp,HarryW. PacificSouthwestForest
andRangeExperimentStation,USDAForest
Service,Berkeley,Calif.
Chatigny,MarkA. USNNavalBiomedical
ResearchLaboratory,ZOakland,Calif.
1AllaffiliationsaregivenasofMarch1973
2NowNavalBiosciencesLaboratory
Cheeseman,Peter. Mid-AirInternational
Ltd.,Toronto,Ontario
Cowden,Robert. DepartmentofAgricultural
Engineering,UniversityofCalifornia,
Davis,Calif.
Cramer,HarrisonE. H.E.CramerCo.,Salt
LakeCity,Utah
Crisp,CarlE. PacificSouthwestForestand
RangeExperimentStation,USDAForestService,
Berkeley,Calif.
Cummings,R.H. ChevronChemicalCo.,
Richmond,Calif.
Curtis,Ralston. ZoeconCorp.,PaloAlto,
Calif.
Denning,Donald. ChemagroCorp.,Moraga,
Calif.
Dimmick,RobertL. USNNavalBiomedical
Research~aborator~Oakland,Calif.
Drummond,A.M. NationalResearchCouncil
ofCanada,Ottawa,Ontario
Dumbauld,RichardK. H.E.Cramer,Co.,
SaltLakeCity,Utah
Ekblad,Robert. MissoulaEquipmentDevelop-
mentCenter,NorthernRegion,USDAForest
Service,Missoula,Mont.
Flieger,B.W. ForestProtectionLtd.,
Fredericton,NewBrunswick
Ford,Irv. USNNavalBiomedicalResearch
Laboratory, Oakland,Calif.
Furlow,Capt.BruceM. USA5thArmyMedical
Laboratory,St.Louis,Mo.
Fussell,Comdr.EdwardM. USNDisease
Vector,EcologyandControlCenter,Alameda,
Calif.
Garner,C.F. ChemagroCorp.,KansasCity,
Mo.
Gebhart,WilliamA. BiologicalSciences
Staff,Code101B2,USNNavalFacilities
EngineeringCommand,Washington,D.C.
Goldberg,Leonard. USNNavalBiomedical
ResearchLaboratory, Oakland,Calif.
Goluba,RaymondW. LawrenceLivermore
Laboratory,Livermore,Calif.
Grau,PhilipA. AbbottLaboratories,Fresno,
Calif.
Grothaus,Lt.Comdr.RogerH. Entomology
Department,USNNavalMedicalFieldResearch
Laboratory,CampLejeune,N.C.
Heckley,Robert. USNNavalBiomedicalResearch
~aborator~, Oakland,Calif.
Himel,ChesterM. DepartmentofEntomology,
UniversityofGeorgia,Athens,Ga.
Hudson,Davis. DepartmentofAgricultural
Engineering,UniversityofCalifornia,
Davis,Calif.
Hull,Capt.W.B.USNDisease,Vector,and
EcologyControlCenter,Jacksonville,Fla.
Hunt,Richard. CaliforniaDivisionof
Forestry,Sacramento,Calif.
Jewett,AllenC. OfficeofNavalResearch
Code443,DepartmentoftheNavy,
Arlington,Va.
Kahn,R. Mid-AirInternationalLtd.,Toronto,
Ontario
Keathley,J.Phillip. Ag-OrganicsDepartment,
DowChemicalCo.,WalnutCreek,Calif.
Kettela,EdwardG. MaritimesForestResearch
Centre,CanadianForestryService,
Fredericton,NewBrunswick
Koval,Capt.John(USAF). BiomedicalDivision,
LawrenceLivermoreLaboratory,Livermore,
Calif.
Landingham,Richard. LawrenceLivermore
Laboratory,Livermore,Calif.
Lembright,HaroldW. PlantSciencesResearch
andDevelopment,AgricultureDepartment,
DowChemicalCo.,WalnutCreek,Calif.
Lewis,Lt.LarryA. USNDisease,Vector,
EcologyandControlCenter,Alameda,Calif.
Lewis,RobertG. EPANationalEnvironmental
ResearchCenter,ResearchTrianglePark,
N.C.
Liljedahl,Lou. U.S.DepartmentofAgricul-
ture,Washington,D.C.
Loefer,JohnB. OfficeofNavalResearch,
Pasadena,Calif.
Look,Melvin. PacificSouthwestForestand
RangeExperimentStation,USDAForest
Service,Berkeley,Calif.
Lynch,DonaldW. ForestFireLaboratory,
PacificSouthwestForestandRangeExperi-
mentStation,USDAForestService,
Riverside,Calif.
Lyon,RobertL. PacificSouthwestForestand
RangeExperimentStation,USDAForestService,
Berkeley,Calif.
Maksymiuk,Bohdan. PacificNorthwestForest
andRangeExperimentStation,USDAForest
Service,Corvallis,Ore.
Markin,GeorgeP. PacificNorthwestForest
andRangeExperimentStation,USDAForest
Service,Corvallis,Ore.
McKenna,William. MarianAirSpray,Inc.,
Savannah,Ga.
Mohramanne,Hasso(onsabbaticalleavefrom
Germany). NavalBiomedicalResearchLabora-
tory, Oakland,Calif.
Moore,JosephB. McLaughlinGormleyKingCo.,
Minneapolis,Minn.
Mount,GaryA. EntomologyResearchDivision,
USDAAgriculturalResearchService,Gaines-
ville,Fla.
Moussa,Maj.M.A. EntomologyResearch
Division,PreventativeMedicalDivision,
USAMedicalResearchandDevelopmentCommand,
Washington,D.C.
Neisess,JohnA. PacificNorthwestForest
andRangeExperimentStation,USDAForest
Service,Corvallis,Ore.
Nigam,P.C. ChemicalControlResearch
Institute,CanadianForestryService,
Ottawa,Ontario
Page,Marion. PacificSouthwestForestand
RangeExperimentStation,USDAForest
Service,Berkeley,Calif.
Pennington,Lt.Col.NeilE. Entomological
ScienceandPesticideDivision,USAEnviron-
mentalHygieneAgency,Md.
Phelps,PaulL. LawrenceLivermoreLabora-
tory,Livermore,Calif.
Pieper,ReneG. PacificSouthwestForestand
RangeExperimentStation,USDAForestService,
Berkeley,Calif.
Pierpont,Roger. CriteriaandEvaluation
Division,EPAOfficeofPesticidePrograms,
Washington,D.C.
Pillmore,RichardE. BureauofSportFisheries
andWildlife,Denver.Col.
Pribnow,James. NavalBiomedicalResearch
~aborator~,~ Oakland,Calif.
Randall,A.P. ChemicalControlResearch
Institute,CanadianForestryService,
Ottawa,Ontario
Raynor,G.S. MeteorologyDivision,Brook-
havenNationalLaboratory,Upton,Long
Island,N.Y.
Reimer,C.A. Ag-OrganicsDepartment,Dow
ChemicalCo.,Midland,Mich.
Richmond,Charles,E. PacificSouthwest
ForestandRangeExperimentStation,USDA
ForestService,Berkeley,Calif.
Roberts,RichardB. PacificSouthwestForest
andRangeExperimentStation,USDAForest
Service,Berkeley,Calif.
Rothenburg,Morton. DeseretTestCenter,
SaltLakeCity,Utah
Shea,PatrickJ. PacificSouthwestForest
andRangeExperimentStation,USDAForest
Service,Berkeley,Calif.
Siemer,Sid. AbbottLaboratories,Fresno,
Calif.
Sjogren,Robert. KernCountyMosquito
AbatementDistrict,Bakersfield,Calif.
Stormont,Robert. DepartmentofAgricultural
Engineering,UniversityofCalifornia,Davis,
Calif.
Tanabe,AlvinM. NavalBiomedicalResearch
~aborator~Oakland,Calif. ,2
Trostle,GalenC. IntermountainRegion,
USDAForestService,Ogden,Utah
Tschirley,FredH. U.S.Departmentof
Agriculture,Washington,D.C.
Upham,Lt.Col.RobertW.,Jr. USAMedical
EquipmentResearchandDevelopmentLabora-
tory,FortDetrick,Md.
Vaughan,LelandM. MetronicsAssociation,
Inc.,StanfordIndustrialPark,PaloAlto,
Calif.
White,JosephC. ChevronChemicalCo.,
Fresno,Calif.
Williams,CarrollB. PacificSouthwest
ForestandRangeExperimentStation,USDA
ForestService,Berkeley,Calif.
Wolfe,HomerH. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
Laboratory,Wenatchee,Wash.
Wolochow,H. NavalBiomedicalResearchLabora-
tory, Oakland,Calif.
Womeldorf,Don. BureauofVectorControl,
CaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth,
Sacramento,Calif.
Yates,Wesley. DepartmentofAgricultural
Engineering,UniversityofCalifornia,Davis,
Calif.
Young,JamesW. ZoeconCorp.,PaloAlto,
Calif.