Author
Listed:
- Peter A. Larbi
(Kearney Agricultural Research and Extension Center, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Parlier, CA 93648, USA
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA)
- Greg W. Douhan
(Tulare County Cooperative Extension, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tulare, CA 93274, USA)
- Harold W. Thistle
(TEALS, LLC, Whitesville, NY 14897, USA)
- Michael J. Willett
(Integrated Plant Health Strategies LLC, Yakima, WA 98902, USA)
Abstract
Airblast sprayers remain the dominant pesticide delivery system in California citrus; however, mechanistic characterization of spray transport and off-target fate under realistic field-scale atmospheric variability remains limited. Regulatory airblast drift assessments in the United States (U.S.) currently rely on a sparse, dormant-apple canopy representation, despite substantial structural differences from foliated citrus canopies that may influence drift behavior. To address this gap, this study quantified airblast spray drift in a commercial citrus orchard across multiple downwind distances under varied daytime meteorological conditions and evaluated the influence of distance and weather variables on measured drift. Airborne and sedimentation drift were measured from a conventional axial-fan airblast sprayer operating at 10.3 bar, 5.1 km·h −1 , and 935 L·ha −1 in a 4.0 m tall mandarin ( Citrus reticulata ) orchard using a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 22866-aligned protocol. Drift collectors ( n = 2688), including flat cards, artificial foliage, and horizontal and vertical string samplers, were deployed from 33 m upwind to 183 m downwind of the orchard edge. Airborne drift measurements showed no significant vertical stratification or near-field decay between 8 m and 23 m downwind ( p > 0.05), indicating rapid plume homogenization following canopy exit. In contrast, sedimentation drift declined sharply within 30 m and attenuated logarithmically with distance, governed by progressive droplet depletion and plume dilution. Estimated drift cessation distances were 127.5 m for artificial foliage and 182.1 m for horizontal string samplers. Drift magnitude varied significantly among trials ( p < 0.05), reflecting sensitivity to meteorological variability. Multiple linear regression identified wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric pressure as significant predictors of downwind deposition ( p < 0.05), whereas air temperature and relative humidity primarily influenced drift through evaporative control of droplet lifetime. Collectively, these results demonstrate that spray drift from foliated citrus canopies is substantially attenuated relative to dormant-canopy scenarios. Although not intended to define regulatory buffer distances, the high-resolution dataset generated provides mechanistically interpretable parameterization inputs for next-generation airblast drift models, supporting improved representation of canopy interactions, plume evolution, and meteorological modulation in regulatory exposure assessments.
Suggested Citation
Peter A. Larbi & Greg W. Douhan & Harold W. Thistle & Michael J. Willett, 2026.
"Downwind Drift of Airblast Spray from Foliated Citrus Canopies: A Field Assessment for Mechanistic Modeling,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-23, May.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:9:p:4499-:d:1934859
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:9:p:4499-:d:1934859. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.