常见农药喷施器械气流速度场的对比试验研究  

Comparative test for the air-velocity of several pesticide spraying equipments

作　　者：袁旺[1] 周志艳[1] 杨景峰[1] 闫梦璐[1] 徐赛[1] 

机构地区：[1]华南农业大学工程学院/南方农业机械与装备关键技术教育部重点实验室,广东广州510642

出　　处：《广东农业科学》2014年第10期181-184,共4页Guangdong Agricultural Sciences

基　　金：国家"863"计划项目(2012AA101901-3);教育部科学技术研究重点项目(212128);广东省高等学校科技创新项目(2012KJCX0023)

摘　　要：为了研究不同农药喷施器械的气流速度场分布特性及影响规律,揭示提高气流作用范围和实现超宽幅高效喷施作业的工作机理,开展了机动喷雾喷粉机、风送式喷雾机、热力烟雾机和悬浮管道式喷施机等4种常见喷施器械的气流速度场的现场对比试验。结果发现,4种机型的气流速度场差异较大,试验中所采用的悬浮变径管道在距离管道入口40 m处的喷施孔仍能测量到7 m/s的风速,风速衰减比小;风送式喷雾机及喷雾喷粉机相当,热力烟雾机最弱。对比试验结果表明,悬浮管道式喷施技术是拓宽农药喷施器械单次喷施作业覆盖范围的有效方法之一,通过采用悬浮管道对喷施气流进行适当的约束和导引,可以大大提高气流速度场的作用范围,提高喷施作业效率,改进喷施作业沉积效果,减少农药资源浪费和对农田环境的污染。In order to study the air-velocity distribution characteristic and its influences of different spraying equipments, and to reveal the principle to increase airflow range and spraying efficiency, a comparative test was carried out for the air-velocity of 4 kinds of plant protection equipments, including spraying and dusting machine （SDM）, air-assisted sprayer （AAS）, thermal fogger （TF） and aero-pipeline spraying machine （APSM）. The results showed that there was significant difference in air-velocity among the 4 kinds of plant protection equipments. Air-velocity attenuation ratio （AVAR） of APSM was the smallest, the air-velocity was about 7 m/s around the spraying hole, even located 40 m from the entrance of pipeline. The difference between SDM and AAS was not significant. The TF was the weakest in air-velocity. The comparative test indicates that APSM is one of the most effective methods to widen single spraying coverage. The airflow range can be increased greatly by using pipeline to constrain and guide airflow, and then results in improving spraying efficiency, reducing waste of resources and pollution of pesticides on farmland environment, promoting sustainable development of agriculture and guaranteeing the safety of crop production.

关 键 词：植保器械 农药喷施 气流速度场 对比试验 

分 类 号：S224.3[农业科学—农业机械化工程]