Fluid sprinkling – spraying – and diffusing – Processes
Reexamination Certificate
2000-02-14
2002-04-23
Morris, Lesley D. (Department: 3752)
Fluid sprinkling, spraying, and diffusing
Processes
C239S164000, C239S159000, C239S172000, C239S176000, C239S420000, C239S422000, C239S428000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06375089
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Technical Field of the Invention
The present invention is directed to improved devices and methods to optimize the efficacy of biologically and/or chemically active ingredients that are applied to agricultural products and crops during the growing process, including without limitation indoor and outdoor broad-acre crops, orchards, trees, vines, nursery plants, and row crops, or to any surface or volume where pest growth control is effected using various types of nozzles and spray clouds. Active ingredients typically include, for example but not for purposes of limitation, biologically and/or chemically active biologicals, biorationals, and substances such as agrochemicals that include, for purposes of example without limitation, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and their safeners (or antidotes), and other biocides including biological pesticides, plant growth regulators, and bactericides, and including such pest control agents such as fungi, bacteria, viruses, and pheromones and/or other semiochemicals that disrupt populations rather than kill individual organisms.
2. Background
The agriculture, horticulture, and public health application of sprayed substances having biologically and/or chemically active ingredients (“AI”), such as agrochemical pesticides has been effected with extremely poor efficiency. See, for example, Graham-Bryce I. J., Pesticide Research for the Improvement of Human Welfare. In Pesticide Chemistry: Human Welfare and the Environment. Volume 1. Synthesis and Structure-Activity Relationships. (Eds. P. Doyle & T. Fujita), Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1983 (hereafter “Graham-Bryce 1983”). In part, this is because macro-targets such as fields, orchards, trees, vines, nursery plants, and row crops usually have to be treated as a whole, whether or not individual small areas support weeds or crop plants that are infected with pests or pathogens. See, Hislop E. C., Can we define and achieve optimum pesticide deposits?, Aspects of Applied Biology 14: 153-165, 1987 (hereafter “Hislop 1987”). Even when an insecticide, for example, is deposited on an infested plant, the pest accumulates little of the insecticide. See, Adams A. J. & Hall F. R., Initial behavioural responses of Aphis gossypii to defined deposits of bifenthrin on chrysanthemum, Crop Protection 9: 39-43, 1990 (hereafter “Adams & Hall 1990”). Even less reaches the susceptible site within the organism. See, Graham-Bryce 1983, Hall F. R. & Adams A. J., Microdroplet application for determination of comparative topical and residual efficacy of formulated permethrin to two populations of diamondback moth (
Plutella xylostella
L.), Pesticide Science 28: 337-343, 1990 (hereafter “Hall & Adams 1990”); and Ratcliffe, S. L. & Yendol, W. G., Lethal dose and associated effects of Bacillus thuringiensis in sprayed droplets against gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantridae), Journal of Environmental Science Health B28: 91-104, 1993 (hereafter “Ratcliffe & Yendol 1993”).
Estimates vary as to how much of the pesticide sprayed actually reaches its intended target and results in pest mortality, which is sometimes also referred to as “application efficiency”. Application efficiencies are very poor and typically range from about 1% for some broad-spectrum post-emergent foliar-applied herbicides to much lower estimates. This means that about 99% of the biocide is wasted during the application spray process. See, for example, Graham-Bryce 1983, and Chapple, A. C., Wolf, T. M., Downer, R. A., Taylor, R. A. J. & Hall, F. R., Use of nozzle-induced air-entrainment to reduce active ingredient requirements for pest control. Crop Protection 16, 323-330, 1997 (hereafter “Chapple et al. 1997”). An even more distressing example shows a less than 0.001% application efficiency for the insecticide permethrin, which fares two-orders of magnitude worse when applied against diamondback moth larvae, a worldwide pest of cabbage and other Cruciferae. See, Hall & Adams 1990.
An improved application system would apply the exact quantity of pesticide required to kill the weed, insect, or pathogen targets in the field. With application efficiencies <1% for the vast majority of application scenarios, there is considerable room for improvement, with attendant reductions in environmental and health risks, and producer costs. Little has been achieved to overcome the inefficiencies in the application process, although reduction of total AI applied by selective treatment of small pest-infested areas, so-called precision agriculture, is currently an active area of research. An alternative approach that reduces the application rate is to improve the efficiency of delivery of pesticides to the pests.
Even when plants are targeted individually, much of the spray directed at them often fails to be retained. See, Cooke B. K., Hislop E. C., Herrington P. J., Western N. M., Jones K. G., Woodley S. E. & Chapple A. C., The physical, chemical, and biological appraisal of alternative spray techniques in cereals. Crop Protection 5; 155-164, 1986 (hereafter “Cook et al. 1986”); and Salt, D. W. & Ford, M. G., The kinetics of insecticide action, Part V: Deterministic models to simulate the movement of pesticide from discreet deposits and to predict optimum deposit characteristics on leaf surfaces for the control of sedentary crop pests. Pesticide Science, 1993 (hereafter “Salt & Ford 1993”). Instead, it contaminates the soil, or drifts from the area, or both. When a fraction of the spray does land on the target plant, its spatial distribution may be sub-optimal for the desired biological effect. The excess insecticide is not only wasted, it enters the environment as contamination and may contribute to resistance: exposure to sub-lethal doses of insecticides is thought to be a contributory factor in the development of insecticide resistance. See, Rousch, T. T., Designing resistance management programs: how can you choose?, Pesticide Science 26: 423-441, 1989 (hereafter “Rousch 1989”).
Preliminary attempts have been made to accomplish the results achieved by the present invention and are described by various authors. See, Hall, F. R., Downer R. A., Wolf T. M., and Chapple A. C., The “Double Nozzle” A New Way of Reducing Drift and Improving Dose-Transfer?, In
Pesticide Fonnulations and Application Systems: Sixteenth Symposium
, ASTM STP 1312 eds. M. J. Hopkinson, H. M. Collins, and G. Robert Goss, pp. 114-12, American Society for testing and Materials, Philadelphia, USA, 1996 (hereafter, Hall et al. 1996); Hall, F. R., Taylor, R. A. J. & Chapple, A. C., Termination Report to The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Cooperative State Research Service, Grant No. 94-37313-0679, A New Pesticide Delivery System to Reduce Environmental Contamination, Laboratory for Pest Control Application Technology (LPCAT), Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC), 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, Ohio, 44691, U.S.A., 1998 (hereafter, Hall et al. 1998).
What has been needed but heretofore unavailable is a device that improves the present state of the art of spraying biocides on various agricultural products, surfaces, or into volumes, that increases the effectiveness of the treatment. Also, the device must be compatible for use with widely employed agricultural equipment such as mobile spraying units that incorporate platforms having folding, deployable, and stowable booms. Such spraying units are typically self-propelled or propelled using tractors and other motorized vehicles.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In developing the device according to the present invention, a detailed study of the deposit quality has been accomplished to determine the precise arrangement of components needed to improve the state of the art as previously described. Accordingly, what has been needed but heretofore unavailable is a device such as the present invention that can significantly improve the deposit quality and the dose transfer.
In one preferred embodiment of the present invention, a multiple nozzle sprayer includes a fixed or swing bracket assembly, or a spraye
Chapple Andrew Charles
Taylor Robin A. J.
Kim Christopher S.
Morris Lesley D.
Standley & Gilcrest LLP
The Ohio State University
LandOfFree
Multiple sprayer assembly and method for use does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Multiple sprayer assembly and method for use, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Multiple sprayer assembly and method for use will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2899508