Research of Nozzles of a Robotic Platform for Weed Spraying
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32515/2414-3820.2026.56.198-208Keywords:
spraying, nozzles, research, herbicides, weed controlAbstract
Crop losses in agriculture are often caused by insufficiently effective organization of technological processes for weed control. Therefore, the elimination of unwanted vegetation through the application of herbicides is widely used. To achieve this goal, innovative technological processes and machinery, particularly robotic systems, are being introduced in agriculture. At the present stage, the implementation of robotics in agricultural production is hindered by the limited research on the feasibility of its adoption and the effectiveness of robotic systems compared with conventional agricultural technologies and production means. The effectiveness of the herbicide spraying process, as shown by an in-depth analysis of existing studies, depends on many factors. The operational parameters of sprayers and their structural components influence herbicide consumption, the uniformity of leaf coverage of weeds, and also determine the level of environmental impact. Sprayer nozzles largely determine the quality indicators of the spraying process. At the National University of Water and Environmental Engineering, Department of Agroengineering, a robotic platform has been developed on which equipment for pre-sowing herbicide application is installed. To ensure the efficiency of the spraying process, different nozzle options were considered for equipping the boom of the robotic platform. This work presents the results of laboratory studies of industrial slot nozzles and a nozzle design that was modified and manufactured using 3D printing. The nozzle contains an additional element that allows the liquid flow to be divided into separate fine streams, ensuring a fine-dispersed spray. Laboratory studies confirmed the validity of the nozzle design concept. The droplets deposited on the test surface had a diameter of 0.050–0.15 mm compared to 0.1–0.25 mm typical for industrial nozzles. Based on the analysis of the obtained results, it was established that the use of the author’s nozzle increases the spray angle by an average of 5.8% depending on the installation height of the nozzle, and increases the volume of liquid output. At the same time, the nozzle with the insert enabled a finer atomization of the spray, which allows more effective coverage of plant leaves with herbicide.
References
1. Gleason, F. H., Marano, A. V., Johnson, P., & Martin, W. W. (2010). Blastocladian parasites of invertebrates. Fungal Biology Reviews, 24(1–2), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2010.03.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2010.03.004
2. Ugljic, Z., Mobli, A., DeWerff, R., & Werle, R. (2022). Targeted herbicide spraying systems: Role of nozzle type, number of nozzle activation, nozzle orientation, and boom height on spray coverage and weed control. Pest Management Science, 82(6), 5216–5224. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.70629 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.70629
3. Chethan, C. R., Singh, P. K., Dubey, R. P., Singhariya, S., & Choudhary, V. K. (2019). Herbicide application in agriculture: Nozzle selection and effective application. Indian Farming, 68(12).
4. Prado, E. P., Guerreiro, J. C., Ferreira-Filho, P. J., do Nascimento, V., Ferrari, S., Galindo, F. S., Funichello, M., Raetano, C. G., Pagliari, P. H., Chechetto, R. G., & Rodrigues Neto, A. D. (2024). Performance of spray nozzles and droplet size on glufosinate deposition and weed biological efficacy. Crop Protection, 177, 106560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2023.106560 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2023.106560
5. Byer, K. N., Peng, G., Wolf, T. M., & Caldwell, B. C. (2006). Spray retention and its effect on weed control by mycoherbicides. Biological Control, 37(3), 307–313.
6. Byer, K. N., Peng, G., Wolf, T. M., & Caldwell, B. C. (2006). Spray retention for liquid and mycoherbicide inoculum in three weed-biocontrol systems. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 16, 815–823. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09583150600700123
7. Knoche, M. (1994). Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Protection, 13(3), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-2194(94)90075-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-2194(94)90075-2
8. Feng, P. C. C., Chiu, T., Sammons, R. D., & Ryerse, J. S. (2003). Droplet size affects glyphosate retention, absorption, and translocation in corn. Weed Science, 51(3), 443–448. https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2003)051[0443:DSAGRA]2.0.CO;2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2003)051[0443:DSAGRA]2.0.CO;2
9. Oliveira, O. G. T. M., Lopes, P. R. M., Raetano, C. G., & Prado, E. P. (2021). Influence of droplet size on spray deposition and weed control using glyphosate. Engenharia Agrícola,41(4),449–457. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-eng.agric.v41n4p449-457/2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-eng.agric.v41n4p449-457/2021
10. Byer, K. N., Peng, G., Wolf, T. M., & Caldwell, B. C. (2006). Spray retention and its effect on weed control by mycoherbicides. Biological Control, 37(3), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.12.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.12.002
11. Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, D. R., Fish, J. D., Hermansky, C. G., & Valcore, D. L. (2002). Development of the Spray Drift Task Force database for aerial applications. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21(3), 648–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620210326 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620210326
12. Lafferty, C. L., & Tian, L. F. (2001). The impacts of pre-orifice and air-inlet design features on nozzle performance. Proceedings of the ASAE Annual International Meeting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.7343
13. Azghadi, M. R., Olsen, A., Wood, J., Saleh, A., Calvert, B., Granshaw, T., Fillols, E., & Philippa, B. (2025). Precision robotic spot-spraying: Reducing herbicide use and enhancing environmental outcomes in sugarcane. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 235, 110365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2025.110365 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2025.110365
14. Zhang, W., Miao, Z., Li, N., He, C., & Sun, T. (2022). Review of current robotic approaches for precision weed management. Current Robotics Reports, 3(3), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-022-00086-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-022-00086-5
15. McCool, C., Beattie, J., Firn, J., Lehnert, C., Kulk, J., Bawden, O., et al. (2018). Efficacy of mechanical weeding tools: A study into alternative weed management strategies enabled by robotics. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(2), 1184–1190. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2018.2794619 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2018.2794619
16. State Standard of Ukraine. (2019). DSTU ISO 5682-1:2019 (ISO 5682-1:2017, IDT). Equipment for crop protection — Spraying equipment — Part 1: Test methods for sprayer nozzles. Kyiv, Ukraine: DP UkrNDNC. [in Ukrainian].
17. Stoliarenko, H. S. (2023). Redox systems and the use of oxygen-containing radicals. Vertykal. [in Ukrainian].
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Artem Mykhailov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
ISSN 
ISSN 
