Field evaluation shows sustainable pesticide application in small landholdings, indicating effectiveness for farmers.
Manual pesticide spraying, commonly practiced in small landholdings, is laborious and hazardous. Tractor-operated sprayers and drones offer high field capacity and reduce manual labour; however, they involve high initial cost, fuel-related pollution, and uneven spraying, while drones pose risks of pesticide drift. These limitations make them unsuitable for small landholdings. To address this, a self-propelled electric electrostatic sprayer was developed for sustainable pesticide application in small landholdings. The sprayer consisted four air-assisted electrostatic spraying units, a propelling unit with transmission system, a powering unit with lead-acid batteries, a DC pump, and a spray tank. Field performance was evaluated at forwardspeedof 1.2km h-1. The sprayer achieved turning radius, swath, application rate, effective field capacity and field efficiency of 1.01 m, 2.2 m, 416.82 l ha−1, 0.18 ha h−1, and 70%, respectively. It produced VMD of 155.9–204 µm, droplet density of 28–73 droplets cm-2, RSF of 0.65–0.91, and UC of 2.02–3.16 across canopy heights. Once fully charged, the sprayer operated for 75 minutes. Propelling unit consumed the highest power (207.83 W), followed by spray-charging unit (51.33 W) and blowers (48.94W).The electric electrostatic sprayer performed satisfactorily and proved effective for small landholders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohanty et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: