000001090 001__ 1090
000001090 005__ 20180208204657.0
000001090 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:18723207
000001090 0247_ $$2DOI$$a10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.060
000001090 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:000260941300028
000001090 037__ $$aPreJuSER-1090
000001090 041__ $$aeng
000001090 082__ $$a333.7
000001090 084__ $$2WoS$$aEnvironmental Sciences
000001090 1001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)VDB1807$$aWolters, A.$$b0$$uFZJ
000001090 245__ $$aField experiment on spray drift: Deposition and airborne drift during application to a winter wheat crop
000001090 260__ $$aAmsterdam [u.a.]$$bElsevier Science$$c2008
000001090 300__ $$a269 - 277
000001090 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article
000001090 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000001090 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000001090 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000001090 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000001090 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000001090 440_0 $$05445$$aScience of the Total Environment$$v405$$x0048-9697
000001090 500__ $$aRecord converted from VDB: 12.11.2012
000001090 520__ $$aA field experiment was performed to evaluate various techniques for measuring spray deposition and airborne drift during spray application to a winter wheat crop. The application of a spraying agent containing the fluorescent dye Brilliant Sulfo Flavine by a conventional boom sprayer was done according to good agricultural practice. Deposition was measured by horizontal collectors in various arrangements in and outside the treated area. Airborne spray drift was measured both with a passive and an active air collecting system. Spray deposits on top of the treated canopy ranged between 68 and 71% of the applied dose and showed only small differences for various arrangements of the collectors. Furthermore, only small variations were measured within the various groups of collectors used for these arrangements. Generally, the highest spray deposition outside the treated area was measured close to the sprayed plot and was accompanied by a high variability of values, while a rapid decline of deposits was detected in more remote areas. Estimations of spray deposits with the IMAG Drift Calculator were in accordance with experimental findings only for areas located at a distance of 0.5-4.5 m from the last nozzle, while there was an overestimation of a factor of 4 at a distance of 2.0-3.0 m, thus revealing a high level of uncertainty of the estimation of deposition for short distances. Airborne spray drift measured by passive and active air collecting systems was approximately at the same level, when taking into consideration the collector efficiency of the woven nylon wire used as sampling material for the passive collecting system. The maximum value of total airborne spray drift for both spray applications (0.79% of the applied dose) was determined by the active collecting system. However, the comparatively high variability of measurements at various heights above the soil by active and passive collecting systems revealed need for further studies to elucidate the spatial pattern of airborne spray drift.
000001090 536__ $$0G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407$$2G:(DE-HGF)$$aTerrestrische Umwelt$$cP24$$x0
000001090 588__ $$aDataset connected to Web of Science, Pubmed
000001090 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aAir Movements
000001090 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aAir Pollutants: analysis
000001090 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aEnvironmental Monitoring
000001090 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aPest Control: instrumentation
000001090 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aPest Control: methods
000001090 650_2 $$2MeSH$$aTriticum
000001090 650_7 $$00$$2NLM Chemicals$$aAir Pollutants
000001090 650_7 $$2WoSType$$aJ
000001090 65320 $$2Author$$aActive sampling
000001090 65320 $$2Author$$aDeposition
000001090 65320 $$2Author$$aDrift Calculator
000001090 65320 $$2Author$$aPassive sampling
000001090 65320 $$2Author$$aSpray drift
000001090 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)VDB948$$aLinnemann, V.$$b1$$uFZJ
000001090 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$avan de Zande, J.C.$$b2
000001090 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)129549$$aVereecken, H.$$b3$$uFZJ
000001090 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1498726-0$$a10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.060$$gVol. 405, p. 269 - 277$$p269 - 277$$q405<269 - 277$$tThe @science of the total environment$$v405$$x0048-9697$$y2008
000001090 8567_ $$uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.060
000001090 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:1090$$pVDB
000001090 9131_ $$0G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407$$bErde und Umwelt$$kP24$$lTerrestrische Umwelt$$vTerrestrische Umwelt$$x0
000001090 9141_ $$y2008
000001090 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0010$$aJCR/ISI refereed
000001090 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)VDB793$$d31.10.2010$$gICG$$kICG-4$$lAgrosphäre$$x1
000001090 9201_ $$0I:(DE-82)080011_20140620$$gJARA$$kJARA-ENERGY$$lJülich-Aachen Research Alliance - Energy$$x2
000001090 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)VDB1045$$gJARA$$kJARA-SIM$$lJülich-Aachen Research Alliance - Simulation Sciences$$x3
000001090 970__ $$aVDB:(DE-Juel1)101980
000001090 980__ $$aVDB
000001090 980__ $$aConvertedRecord
000001090 980__ $$ajournal
000001090 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
000001090 980__ $$aI:(DE-82)080011_20140620
000001090 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)VDB1045
000001090 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
000001090 981__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
000001090 981__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)VDB1045
000001090 981__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)VDB1047