Output variation of trigger-pump sprayers used for individual plant treatments
Individual plant treatment (IPT) techniques (e.g., basal bark, cut stump, hack and squirt) are used for woody invasive plant management and often rely on small trigger-pump spray bottles as an economical and efficient way to deliver a herbicide to the target species. Worldwide, plastic suppliers pro...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Invasive plant science and management 2021-12, Vol.14 (4), p.278-281 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 281 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 278 |
container_title | Invasive plant science and management |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Enloe, Stephen F Leary, James K Bell, Kenzie Lauer, Dwight K |
description | Individual plant treatment (IPT) techniques (e.g., basal bark, cut stump, hack and squirt) are used for woody invasive plant management and often rely on small trigger-pump spray bottles as an economical and efficient way to deliver a herbicide to the target species. Worldwide, plastic suppliers produce many models and designs with a wide range of uses, including pesticide application. However, spray bottle performance has rarely been examined in relation to IPT techniques for operational invasive plant management. We tested 10 commonly available spray bottles for trigger output and variation over repeated strokes. We also examined sustained trigger sprayer performance over a 6-wk period for spray bottles containing water or basal oil carriers blended with amine and ester formulations of triclopyr, respectively. In the first study, we found significant differences in spray output per stroke between almost every bottle tested. Almost all spray bottle brands yielded outputs greater than 1.0 ml per stroke, which exceeds the maximum application amount specified for hack and squirt. Several bottles produced an output of greater than 2.5 ml per stroke. In the second study, the output per stroke was reduced for basal oil mixes, with significant reductions measured for two brands by 21 d and for all three brands tested by 42 d after mixing. These results indicate that consumer-grade trigger sprayers are likely to depreciate rapidly with routine operational use without proper hygiene maintenance. Even then it is likely that these application devices may need to be replaced several times annually. Trigger-pump spray bottles are an economical and practical solution for remote field operations and volunteer weed control activities. These sprayers are most suitable for spray-to-wet techniques such as basal bark and cut-surface treatments but may potentially be less suited for hack and squirt application, which often requires sub-milliliter precision. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/inp.2021.32 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2620961448</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_inp_2021_32</cupid><sourcerecordid>2620961448</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b328t-dffd0a1733128d69a79542476f7551bc6f1f9e26068d07224288c8bbf846ee7f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90MtKAzEUBuAgCtbqyhcIuBKZmmSmuSyleINiNwruQqZJSkpnEnMp9O2d0oobcXXO4uM_hx-Aa4wmGGF27_owIYjgSU1OwAiLWlSsYZ-nPzsR-BxcpLRGiCJKxQi8LUoOJcOtik5l53voLczRrVYmVqF0AaYQ1c7EBEsyGlofoeu12zpd1AaGjerz4I3KnelzugRnVm2SuTrOMfh4enyfvVTzxfPr7GFetTXhudLWaqQwq2tMuKZCMTFtSMOoZdMpbpfUYisMGX7kGjFCGsL5kret5Q01htl6DG4OuSH6r2JSlmtfYj-clIQSJChuGj6ou4NaRp9SNFaG6DoVdxIjuS9MDoXJfWGyJoOujlp1bXR6ZX5D__a3B98673vzb_Y3K-h7FA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2620961448</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Output variation of trigger-pump sprayers used for individual plant treatments</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Enloe, Stephen F ; Leary, James K ; Bell, Kenzie ; Lauer, Dwight K</creator><creatorcontrib>Enloe, Stephen F ; Leary, James K ; Bell, Kenzie ; Lauer, Dwight K</creatorcontrib><description>Individual plant treatment (IPT) techniques (e.g., basal bark, cut stump, hack and squirt) are used for woody invasive plant management and often rely on small trigger-pump spray bottles as an economical and efficient way to deliver a herbicide to the target species. Worldwide, plastic suppliers produce many models and designs with a wide range of uses, including pesticide application. However, spray bottle performance has rarely been examined in relation to IPT techniques for operational invasive plant management. We tested 10 commonly available spray bottles for trigger output and variation over repeated strokes. We also examined sustained trigger sprayer performance over a 6-wk period for spray bottles containing water or basal oil carriers blended with amine and ester formulations of triclopyr, respectively. In the first study, we found significant differences in spray output per stroke between almost every bottle tested. Almost all spray bottle brands yielded outputs greater than 1.0 ml per stroke, which exceeds the maximum application amount specified for hack and squirt. Several bottles produced an output of greater than 2.5 ml per stroke. In the second study, the output per stroke was reduced for basal oil mixes, with significant reductions measured for two brands by 21 d and for all three brands tested by 42 d after mixing. These results indicate that consumer-grade trigger sprayers are likely to depreciate rapidly with routine operational use without proper hygiene maintenance. Even then it is likely that these application devices may need to be replaced several times annually. Trigger-pump spray bottles are an economical and practical solution for remote field operations and volunteer weed control activities. These sprayers are most suitable for spray-to-wet techniques such as basal bark and cut-surface treatments but may potentially be less suited for hack and squirt application, which often requires sub-milliliter precision.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1939-7291</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-747X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/inp.2021.32</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: The Weed Science Society of America</publisher><subject>Amines ; Bark ; Bottles ; Formulations ; Herbicides ; Hygiene ; Invasive plant management ; Invasive plants ; Pesticide application ; Pesticides ; Plant management ; spray bottles ; sprayer calibration ; Sprays ; stroke output ; Surface treatment ; Triclopyr ; Weed control</subject><ispartof>Invasive plant science and management, 2021-12, Vol.14 (4), p.278-281</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America.</rights><rights>The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b328t-dffd0a1733128d69a79542476f7551bc6f1f9e26068d07224288c8bbf846ee7f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6390-3352 ; 0000-0003-3269-4011 ; 0000-0002-7879-8265 ; 0000-0002-6059-6884</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1939729121000328/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,27915,27916,55619</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Enloe, Stephen F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leary, James K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bell, Kenzie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lauer, Dwight K</creatorcontrib><title>Output variation of trigger-pump sprayers used for individual plant treatments</title><title>Invasive plant science and management</title><addtitle>Invasive plant sci. manag</addtitle><description>Individual plant treatment (IPT) techniques (e.g., basal bark, cut stump, hack and squirt) are used for woody invasive plant management and often rely on small trigger-pump spray bottles as an economical and efficient way to deliver a herbicide to the target species. Worldwide, plastic suppliers produce many models and designs with a wide range of uses, including pesticide application. However, spray bottle performance has rarely been examined in relation to IPT techniques for operational invasive plant management. We tested 10 commonly available spray bottles for trigger output and variation over repeated strokes. We also examined sustained trigger sprayer performance over a 6-wk period for spray bottles containing water or basal oil carriers blended with amine and ester formulations of triclopyr, respectively. In the first study, we found significant differences in spray output per stroke between almost every bottle tested. Almost all spray bottle brands yielded outputs greater than 1.0 ml per stroke, which exceeds the maximum application amount specified for hack and squirt. Several bottles produced an output of greater than 2.5 ml per stroke. In the second study, the output per stroke was reduced for basal oil mixes, with significant reductions measured for two brands by 21 d and for all three brands tested by 42 d after mixing. These results indicate that consumer-grade trigger sprayers are likely to depreciate rapidly with routine operational use without proper hygiene maintenance. Even then it is likely that these application devices may need to be replaced several times annually. Trigger-pump spray bottles are an economical and practical solution for remote field operations and volunteer weed control activities. These sprayers are most suitable for spray-to-wet techniques such as basal bark and cut-surface treatments but may potentially be less suited for hack and squirt application, which often requires sub-milliliter precision.</description><subject>Amines</subject><subject>Bark</subject><subject>Bottles</subject><subject>Formulations</subject><subject>Herbicides</subject><subject>Hygiene</subject><subject>Invasive plant management</subject><subject>Invasive plants</subject><subject>Pesticide application</subject><subject>Pesticides</subject><subject>Plant management</subject><subject>spray bottles</subject><subject>sprayer calibration</subject><subject>Sprays</subject><subject>stroke output</subject><subject>Surface treatment</subject><subject>Triclopyr</subject><subject>Weed control</subject><issn>1939-7291</issn><issn>1939-747X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp90MtKAzEUBuAgCtbqyhcIuBKZmmSmuSyleINiNwruQqZJSkpnEnMp9O2d0oobcXXO4uM_hx-Aa4wmGGF27_owIYjgSU1OwAiLWlSsYZ-nPzsR-BxcpLRGiCJKxQi8LUoOJcOtik5l53voLczRrVYmVqF0AaYQ1c7EBEsyGlofoeu12zpd1AaGjerz4I3KnelzugRnVm2SuTrOMfh4enyfvVTzxfPr7GFetTXhudLWaqQwq2tMuKZCMTFtSMOoZdMpbpfUYisMGX7kGjFCGsL5kret5Q01htl6DG4OuSH6r2JSlmtfYj-clIQSJChuGj6ou4NaRp9SNFaG6DoVdxIjuS9MDoXJfWGyJoOujlp1bXR6ZX5D__a3B98673vzb_Y3K-h7FA</recordid><startdate>20211201</startdate><enddate>20211201</enddate><creator>Enloe, Stephen F</creator><creator>Leary, James K</creator><creator>Bell, Kenzie</creator><creator>Lauer, Dwight K</creator><general>The Weed Science Society of America</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6390-3352</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3269-4011</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7879-8265</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6059-6884</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211201</creationdate><title>Output variation of trigger-pump sprayers used for individual plant treatments</title><author>Enloe, Stephen F ; Leary, James K ; Bell, Kenzie ; Lauer, Dwight K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b328t-dffd0a1733128d69a79542476f7551bc6f1f9e26068d07224288c8bbf846ee7f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Amines</topic><topic>Bark</topic><topic>Bottles</topic><topic>Formulations</topic><topic>Herbicides</topic><topic>Hygiene</topic><topic>Invasive plant management</topic><topic>Invasive plants</topic><topic>Pesticide application</topic><topic>Pesticides</topic><topic>Plant management</topic><topic>spray bottles</topic><topic>sprayer calibration</topic><topic>Sprays</topic><topic>stroke output</topic><topic>Surface treatment</topic><topic>Triclopyr</topic><topic>Weed control</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Enloe, Stephen F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leary, James K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bell, Kenzie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lauer, Dwight K</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Invasive plant science and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Enloe, Stephen F</au><au>Leary, James K</au><au>Bell, Kenzie</au><au>Lauer, Dwight K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Output variation of trigger-pump sprayers used for individual plant treatments</atitle><jtitle>Invasive plant science and management</jtitle><addtitle>Invasive plant sci. manag</addtitle><date>2021-12-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>278</spage><epage>281</epage><pages>278-281</pages><issn>1939-7291</issn><eissn>1939-747X</eissn><abstract>Individual plant treatment (IPT) techniques (e.g., basal bark, cut stump, hack and squirt) are used for woody invasive plant management and often rely on small trigger-pump spray bottles as an economical and efficient way to deliver a herbicide to the target species. Worldwide, plastic suppliers produce many models and designs with a wide range of uses, including pesticide application. However, spray bottle performance has rarely been examined in relation to IPT techniques for operational invasive plant management. We tested 10 commonly available spray bottles for trigger output and variation over repeated strokes. We also examined sustained trigger sprayer performance over a 6-wk period for spray bottles containing water or basal oil carriers blended with amine and ester formulations of triclopyr, respectively. In the first study, we found significant differences in spray output per stroke between almost every bottle tested. Almost all spray bottle brands yielded outputs greater than 1.0 ml per stroke, which exceeds the maximum application amount specified for hack and squirt. Several bottles produced an output of greater than 2.5 ml per stroke. In the second study, the output per stroke was reduced for basal oil mixes, with significant reductions measured for two brands by 21 d and for all three brands tested by 42 d after mixing. These results indicate that consumer-grade trigger sprayers are likely to depreciate rapidly with routine operational use without proper hygiene maintenance. Even then it is likely that these application devices may need to be replaced several times annually. Trigger-pump spray bottles are an economical and practical solution for remote field operations and volunteer weed control activities. These sprayers are most suitable for spray-to-wet techniques such as basal bark and cut-surface treatments but may potentially be less suited for hack and squirt application, which often requires sub-milliliter precision.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>The Weed Science Society of America</pub><doi>10.1017/inp.2021.32</doi><tpages>4</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6390-3352</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3269-4011</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7879-8265</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6059-6884</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1939-7291 |
ispartof | Invasive plant science and management, 2021-12, Vol.14 (4), p.278-281 |
issn | 1939-7291 1939-747X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2620961448 |
source | Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Amines Bark Bottles Formulations Herbicides Hygiene Invasive plant management Invasive plants Pesticide application Pesticides Plant management spray bottles sprayer calibration Sprays stroke output Surface treatment Triclopyr Weed control |
title | Output variation of trigger-pump sprayers used for individual plant treatments |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T00%3A22%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Output%20variation%20of%20trigger-pump%20sprayers%20used%20for%20individual%20plant%20treatments&rft.jtitle=Invasive%20plant%20science%20and%20management&rft.au=Enloe,%20Stephen%20F&rft.date=2021-12-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=278&rft.epage=281&rft.pages=278-281&rft.issn=1939-7291&rft.eissn=1939-747X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/inp.2021.32&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2620961448%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2620961448&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_inp_2021_32&rfr_iscdi=true |