Assessing a novel smartphone application – SnapCard, compared to five imaging systems to quantify droplet deposition on artificial collectors

•SnapCard measured coverage precisely compared with industry standard image analysis software.•Kromekote is comparable to water-sensitive paper for coverage measurements.•Spray quality is an important factor influencing coverage.•SnapCard is a reliable tool for in-field image analysis of sprayed col...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Computers and electronics in agriculture 2016-10, Vol.128, p.193-198
Hauptverfasser: Ferguson, J. Connor, Chechetto, Rodolfo G., O’Donnell, Chris C., Fritz, Brad K., Hoffmann, W. Clint, Coleman, Chet E., Chauhan, Bhagirath S., Adkins, Steve W., Kruger, Greg R., Hewitt, Andrew J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 198
container_issue
container_start_page 193
container_title Computers and electronics in agriculture
container_volume 128
creator Ferguson, J. Connor
Chechetto, Rodolfo G.
O’Donnell, Chris C.
Fritz, Brad K.
Hoffmann, W. Clint
Coleman, Chet E.
Chauhan, Bhagirath S.
Adkins, Steve W.
Kruger, Greg R.
Hewitt, Andrew J.
description •SnapCard measured coverage precisely compared with industry standard image analysis software.•Kromekote is comparable to water-sensitive paper for coverage measurements.•Spray quality is an important factor influencing coverage.•SnapCard is a reliable tool for in-field image analysis of sprayed collectors. Previous work sought to compare the results from imaging software for characterising droplet coverage, but none exists examining these five software programs: Droplet Scan®, Swath Kit®, Deposit Scan, Image J, and Drop Vision®-Ag. Additionally, a freely available smartphone application (App), SnapCard was developed to provide an extension tool for in-field analysis of spray collectors, but nothing has been published regarding its comparison to other imaging software systems. The present study was conducted to compare five existing imaging software types against the new App, SnapCard. Six nozzles producing different spray qualities were selected to spray a water+Brilliant Blue Dye solution over two artificial collector types (water sensitive paper and Kromekote®). Each collector was assessed for percent coverage using the five imaging systems and SnapCard. Objectives of this study were: 1. To establish a baseline dataset using the sprayed cards and five commonly used imaging systems, and compare the coverage results from each. 2. Use the baseline data from Objective 1 as a measurement of precision to judge the results from SnapCard. 3. Make an assessment of SnapCard against the other imaging software type data in the study. Results showed that SnapCard has similar measured coverage means compared to other image analysis systems. For both collector types, SnapCard measured coverage within one standard deviation of the means across nozzle types. SnapCard is able to provide an immediate answer without expensive software or needing a laboratory to measure sprayed collector coverage with precise results, which further underscores its value. The other software types were not all similar for coverage, but the data followed the same trends for droplet size. Increasing the droplet size consistently decreased the coverage, across both collector types. Droplet Scan reported the highest coverage while Drop Vision-Ag and Swath Kit gave lower coverage values on water sensitive paper and Kromekote® collectors, respectively.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.compag.2016.08.022
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1845823398</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S016816991630182X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1845823398</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-6b9582367f4311371ffb2559b5032782f85ac24d341efc70f8f86ce70a100fed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM-KFDEQxoO44LjrG3jI0YPdJuk_SV-EZXBVWPDgeg6ZdGXMkO5kUz0Dc_MNPPiGPsmmdzwLBUUlVb-P7yPkLWc1Z7z_cKhtnJLZ16JMNVM1E-IF2XAlRSU5ky_JpnyoivfD8Iq8RjywMg9KbsjvW0RA9POeGjrHEwSKk8lL-hlnoCal4K1ZfJzp319_6PfZpK3J43v6LJhhpEukzp-A-snsVwqecYEJ1_fHo5kX7850zDEFWOgIKaJ_ppUqKt55600otBDALjHjDblyJiC8-devyY-7Tw_bL9X9t89ft7f3lW1Ut1T9buiUaHrp2obzRnLndqLrhl3HGiGVcKozVrRj03JwVjKnnOotSGY4Yw7G5pq8u3BTjo9HwEVPHi2EYGaIR9RctatAM6iy2l5WbY6IGZxOubjNZ82ZXvPXB33JX6_5a6Z0yb-cfbycQbFx8pA1Wg-zhdHn4lWP0f8f8ATmvpR1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1845823398</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing a novel smartphone application – SnapCard, compared to five imaging systems to quantify droplet deposition on artificial collectors</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Ferguson, J. Connor ; Chechetto, Rodolfo G. ; O’Donnell, Chris C. ; Fritz, Brad K. ; Hoffmann, W. Clint ; Coleman, Chet E. ; Chauhan, Bhagirath S. ; Adkins, Steve W. ; Kruger, Greg R. ; Hewitt, Andrew J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ferguson, J. Connor ; Chechetto, Rodolfo G. ; O’Donnell, Chris C. ; Fritz, Brad K. ; Hoffmann, W. Clint ; Coleman, Chet E. ; Chauhan, Bhagirath S. ; Adkins, Steve W. ; Kruger, Greg R. ; Hewitt, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><description>•SnapCard measured coverage precisely compared with industry standard image analysis software.•Kromekote is comparable to water-sensitive paper for coverage measurements.•Spray quality is an important factor influencing coverage.•SnapCard is a reliable tool for in-field image analysis of sprayed collectors. Previous work sought to compare the results from imaging software for characterising droplet coverage, but none exists examining these five software programs: Droplet Scan®, Swath Kit®, Deposit Scan, Image J, and Drop Vision®-Ag. Additionally, a freely available smartphone application (App), SnapCard was developed to provide an extension tool for in-field analysis of spray collectors, but nothing has been published regarding its comparison to other imaging software systems. The present study was conducted to compare five existing imaging software types against the new App, SnapCard. Six nozzles producing different spray qualities were selected to spray a water+Brilliant Blue Dye solution over two artificial collector types (water sensitive paper and Kromekote®). Each collector was assessed for percent coverage using the five imaging systems and SnapCard. Objectives of this study were: 1. To establish a baseline dataset using the sprayed cards and five commonly used imaging systems, and compare the coverage results from each. 2. Use the baseline data from Objective 1 as a measurement of precision to judge the results from SnapCard. 3. Make an assessment of SnapCard against the other imaging software type data in the study. Results showed that SnapCard has similar measured coverage means compared to other image analysis systems. For both collector types, SnapCard measured coverage within one standard deviation of the means across nozzle types. SnapCard is able to provide an immediate answer without expensive software or needing a laboratory to measure sprayed collector coverage with precise results, which further underscores its value. The other software types were not all similar for coverage, but the data followed the same trends for droplet size. Increasing the droplet size consistently decreased the coverage, across both collector types. Droplet Scan reported the highest coverage while Drop Vision-Ag and Swath Kit gave lower coverage values on water sensitive paper and Kromekote® collectors, respectively.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0168-1699</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7107</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2016.08.022</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Accumulators ; Collectors ; Computer programs ; Droplet size ; Droplets ; Image analysis ; Imaging ; Kromekote ; Smartphone App ; SnapCard ; Software ; Spray quality ; Sprayers ; Sprays ; Water-sensitive paper</subject><ispartof>Computers and electronics in agriculture, 2016-10, Vol.128, p.193-198</ispartof><rights>2016 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-6b9582367f4311371ffb2559b5032782f85ac24d341efc70f8f86ce70a100fed3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-6b9582367f4311371ffb2559b5032782f85ac24d341efc70f8f86ce70a100fed3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.08.022$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ferguson, J. Connor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chechetto, Rodolfo G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Donnell, Chris C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fritz, Brad K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoffmann, W. Clint</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Chet E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chauhan, Bhagirath S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adkins, Steve W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruger, Greg R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hewitt, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing a novel smartphone application – SnapCard, compared to five imaging systems to quantify droplet deposition on artificial collectors</title><title>Computers and electronics in agriculture</title><description>•SnapCard measured coverage precisely compared with industry standard image analysis software.•Kromekote is comparable to water-sensitive paper for coverage measurements.•Spray quality is an important factor influencing coverage.•SnapCard is a reliable tool for in-field image analysis of sprayed collectors. Previous work sought to compare the results from imaging software for characterising droplet coverage, but none exists examining these five software programs: Droplet Scan®, Swath Kit®, Deposit Scan, Image J, and Drop Vision®-Ag. Additionally, a freely available smartphone application (App), SnapCard was developed to provide an extension tool for in-field analysis of spray collectors, but nothing has been published regarding its comparison to other imaging software systems. The present study was conducted to compare five existing imaging software types against the new App, SnapCard. Six nozzles producing different spray qualities were selected to spray a water+Brilliant Blue Dye solution over two artificial collector types (water sensitive paper and Kromekote®). Each collector was assessed for percent coverage using the five imaging systems and SnapCard. Objectives of this study were: 1. To establish a baseline dataset using the sprayed cards and five commonly used imaging systems, and compare the coverage results from each. 2. Use the baseline data from Objective 1 as a measurement of precision to judge the results from SnapCard. 3. Make an assessment of SnapCard against the other imaging software type data in the study. Results showed that SnapCard has similar measured coverage means compared to other image analysis systems. For both collector types, SnapCard measured coverage within one standard deviation of the means across nozzle types. SnapCard is able to provide an immediate answer without expensive software or needing a laboratory to measure sprayed collector coverage with precise results, which further underscores its value. The other software types were not all similar for coverage, but the data followed the same trends for droplet size. Increasing the droplet size consistently decreased the coverage, across both collector types. Droplet Scan reported the highest coverage while Drop Vision-Ag and Swath Kit gave lower coverage values on water sensitive paper and Kromekote® collectors, respectively.</description><subject>Accumulators</subject><subject>Collectors</subject><subject>Computer programs</subject><subject>Droplet size</subject><subject>Droplets</subject><subject>Image analysis</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Kromekote</subject><subject>Smartphone App</subject><subject>SnapCard</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Spray quality</subject><subject>Sprayers</subject><subject>Sprays</subject><subject>Water-sensitive paper</subject><issn>0168-1699</issn><issn>1872-7107</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM-KFDEQxoO44LjrG3jI0YPdJuk_SV-EZXBVWPDgeg6ZdGXMkO5kUz0Dc_MNPPiGPsmmdzwLBUUlVb-P7yPkLWc1Z7z_cKhtnJLZ16JMNVM1E-IF2XAlRSU5ky_JpnyoivfD8Iq8RjywMg9KbsjvW0RA9POeGjrHEwSKk8lL-hlnoCal4K1ZfJzp319_6PfZpK3J43v6LJhhpEukzp-A-snsVwqecYEJ1_fHo5kX7850zDEFWOgIKaJ_ppUqKt55600otBDALjHjDblyJiC8-devyY-7Tw_bL9X9t89ft7f3lW1Ut1T9buiUaHrp2obzRnLndqLrhl3HGiGVcKozVrRj03JwVjKnnOotSGY4Yw7G5pq8u3BTjo9HwEVPHi2EYGaIR9RctatAM6iy2l5WbY6IGZxOubjNZ82ZXvPXB33JX6_5a6Z0yb-cfbycQbFx8pA1Wg-zhdHn4lWP0f8f8ATmvpR1</recordid><startdate>201610</startdate><enddate>201610</enddate><creator>Ferguson, J. Connor</creator><creator>Chechetto, Rodolfo G.</creator><creator>O’Donnell, Chris C.</creator><creator>Fritz, Brad K.</creator><creator>Hoffmann, W. Clint</creator><creator>Coleman, Chet E.</creator><creator>Chauhan, Bhagirath S.</creator><creator>Adkins, Steve W.</creator><creator>Kruger, Greg R.</creator><creator>Hewitt, Andrew J.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201610</creationdate><title>Assessing a novel smartphone application – SnapCard, compared to five imaging systems to quantify droplet deposition on artificial collectors</title><author>Ferguson, J. Connor ; Chechetto, Rodolfo G. ; O’Donnell, Chris C. ; Fritz, Brad K. ; Hoffmann, W. Clint ; Coleman, Chet E. ; Chauhan, Bhagirath S. ; Adkins, Steve W. ; Kruger, Greg R. ; Hewitt, Andrew J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-6b9582367f4311371ffb2559b5032782f85ac24d341efc70f8f86ce70a100fed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Accumulators</topic><topic>Collectors</topic><topic>Computer programs</topic><topic>Droplet size</topic><topic>Droplets</topic><topic>Image analysis</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Kromekote</topic><topic>Smartphone App</topic><topic>SnapCard</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Spray quality</topic><topic>Sprayers</topic><topic>Sprays</topic><topic>Water-sensitive paper</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ferguson, J. Connor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chechetto, Rodolfo G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Donnell, Chris C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fritz, Brad K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoffmann, W. Clint</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Chet E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chauhan, Bhagirath S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adkins, Steve W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruger, Greg R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hewitt, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Computers and electronics in agriculture</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ferguson, J. Connor</au><au>Chechetto, Rodolfo G.</au><au>O’Donnell, Chris C.</au><au>Fritz, Brad K.</au><au>Hoffmann, W. Clint</au><au>Coleman, Chet E.</au><au>Chauhan, Bhagirath S.</au><au>Adkins, Steve W.</au><au>Kruger, Greg R.</au><au>Hewitt, Andrew J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing a novel smartphone application – SnapCard, compared to five imaging systems to quantify droplet deposition on artificial collectors</atitle><jtitle>Computers and electronics in agriculture</jtitle><date>2016-10</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>128</volume><spage>193</spage><epage>198</epage><pages>193-198</pages><issn>0168-1699</issn><eissn>1872-7107</eissn><abstract>•SnapCard measured coverage precisely compared with industry standard image analysis software.•Kromekote is comparable to water-sensitive paper for coverage measurements.•Spray quality is an important factor influencing coverage.•SnapCard is a reliable tool for in-field image analysis of sprayed collectors. Previous work sought to compare the results from imaging software for characterising droplet coverage, but none exists examining these five software programs: Droplet Scan®, Swath Kit®, Deposit Scan, Image J, and Drop Vision®-Ag. Additionally, a freely available smartphone application (App), SnapCard was developed to provide an extension tool for in-field analysis of spray collectors, but nothing has been published regarding its comparison to other imaging software systems. The present study was conducted to compare five existing imaging software types against the new App, SnapCard. Six nozzles producing different spray qualities were selected to spray a water+Brilliant Blue Dye solution over two artificial collector types (water sensitive paper and Kromekote®). Each collector was assessed for percent coverage using the five imaging systems and SnapCard. Objectives of this study were: 1. To establish a baseline dataset using the sprayed cards and five commonly used imaging systems, and compare the coverage results from each. 2. Use the baseline data from Objective 1 as a measurement of precision to judge the results from SnapCard. 3. Make an assessment of SnapCard against the other imaging software type data in the study. Results showed that SnapCard has similar measured coverage means compared to other image analysis systems. For both collector types, SnapCard measured coverage within one standard deviation of the means across nozzle types. SnapCard is able to provide an immediate answer without expensive software or needing a laboratory to measure sprayed collector coverage with precise results, which further underscores its value. The other software types were not all similar for coverage, but the data followed the same trends for droplet size. Increasing the droplet size consistently decreased the coverage, across both collector types. Droplet Scan reported the highest coverage while Drop Vision-Ag and Swath Kit gave lower coverage values on water sensitive paper and Kromekote® collectors, respectively.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.compag.2016.08.022</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0168-1699
ispartof Computers and electronics in agriculture, 2016-10, Vol.128, p.193-198
issn 0168-1699
1872-7107
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1845823398
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Accumulators
Collectors
Computer programs
Droplet size
Droplets
Image analysis
Imaging
Kromekote
Smartphone App
SnapCard
Software
Spray quality
Sprayers
Sprays
Water-sensitive paper
title Assessing a novel smartphone application – SnapCard, compared to five imaging systems to quantify droplet deposition on artificial collectors
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T13%3A07%3A58IST&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=Assessing%20a%20novel%20smartphone%20application%20%E2%80%93%20SnapCard,%20compared%20to%20five%20imaging%20systems%20to%20quantify%20droplet%20deposition%20on%20artificial%20collectors&rft.jtitle=Computers%20and%20electronics%20in%20agriculture&rft.au=Ferguson,%20J.%20Connor&rft.date=2016-10&rft.volume=128&rft.spage=193&rft.epage=198&rft.pages=193-198&rft.issn=0168-1699&rft.eissn=1872-7107&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.compag.2016.08.022&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1845823398%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=1845823398&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S016816991630182X&rfr_iscdi=true