See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/388965690

Development and performance evaluation of small scale walk behind sprayer

Article · February 2025

CITATIONS READS

0 149

10 authors, including:

Dr. Abdul Ghafoor Zia Ul Haq

University of Agriculture Faisalabad Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University
64 PUBLICATIONS 1,306 CITATIONS 69 PUBLICATIONS 60 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aksar Ali Khan Talha Mehmood

Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University
12 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS 56 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Aksar Ali Khan on 14 February 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN 2709–3662 (Print)
ISSN 2709–3670 (Online)
[Link]
Journal of Agriculture and Food
2024, Volume 5, No.2, pp. 19-36
Development and performance evaluation of small
scale walk behind sprayer
Hafiz Talha Ahmeda , Abdul Ghafoora, Zia-Ul-Haqb*, Aksar Ali Khanb, Talha
Mehmoodb, Abu Saadb, Syed Mudassir Razac, Muhammad Adnan Islamd, Ibrar
Ahmade, Muzammil Husaind

Abstract
Spraying agrochemicals on crop is essential to protect them from insects, pests and weeds.
Different machine like knapsack, boom and aircraft are being commonly used worldwide
to spray agrochemicals for crop protection. Knapsack sprayer is a common equipment
used by the farming community in [Link] sprayers have less field efficiency and
can lead to operator discomfort and back pain. Tractor mounted boom sprayers and
aircraft sprayers may also be used but these are very expensive equipments and small
farmer cannot afford them. To address this farming community challenge, a small scale
walk behind sprayer was designed and manufactured at Agricultural Engineering
Workshop, University of Agriculture Faisalabad in 2020. This newly developed spraying
machine is light weight and easy to operate in the fields. Performance of walk behind
sprayer was evaluated in the term of effective field capacity, field efficiency and wheel
slippage. Spraying machine can work for five hours after one recharge of a 12V battery.
a
Department of Farm Machinery & Power Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and
Technology University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan;b Department of Farm
Machinery and Precision Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and
Technology, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan; c College of
Engineering, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.; d Agricultural
Engineering Institute, National Agricultural Research Center, Pakistan Agricultural
Research Council, Islamabad, Pakistan.; *Corresponding Author: [Link]@[Link]
Ahmed et al. 20
Pump produced pressure of 150 PSI and discharge rate of nozzles were 0.5 liters per
minute. Overall machine has proven beneficial for the small farmer as it can easily spray
5 acres/day. The research findings showed that field efficiency of machine was 77.7%
and slippage factor was 13.5%. It is concluded from the study that newly developed
technology performed better as compared to knapsack sprayer therefore this machine is
recommended to the farmers.
Keywords: Agrochemicals; Cost effective; Crop protection; Operator comfort; Small
sprayer
Article History: Received:; Revised: 15th September, 2023; Accepted: 29rh December, 2023
Introduction
Agrochemicals were introduced aiming at enhancing crop yields and at protecting crops
from pests. Due to adaptation and resistance developed by pests to chemicals, every year
higher amounts and new chemical compounds are used to protect crops, causing undesired
side effects and raising the costs of food production (Carvalho 2006). The success of pest
control operations depends on proper technique of application and the equipment used for
applying pesticide. Manually operated equipment such as lever operated knapsack
sprayers are commonly used by farmers. In case of operation of knapsack sprayer, the
vertical position leads to an awkward posture which causes many discomforts in operator’s
head, neck and shoulder areas. Thus, battery operated walk behind type sprayer was
developed to reduce the pain and time used for the spraying operation. Walk behind type
sprayer is effective, more efficient and capable of spraying at faster rate. It is also
beneficial for small-scale farmer and unskilled labour who can easily work without any
problem (Mishra et al. 2023).
The small and marginal farmers in India are contributing about 51.2% into the total country
production. Knapsack sprayers are commonly used on Indian farms by small and marginal
farmers for pest control due to cost-effectiveness and ease of use but they have limited
productivity. The physiological energy consumption and discomfort were reduced without
compromising the output which was increased to 0.3 ha/hr using a solar powered sprayer
(Sinha et al. 2018).
Assessing an electrically powered sprayer backpack, able to carry up to 10 liters of liquid,
designed using local materials was the subject of the report. This is a terrifying heat-
denying mechanism no longer in need of any energy consumption for air pressure control
that is a default part of every knapsack sprayer. Another essential content are the tank, a
12 volt water pump, a 12 volt accumulator battery, the belt (strap), the feeding pipe, and
finally a spraying-handle with lance and nozzle. The data which showed the flow rate,
application rates and distribution rates of the method was conducted in both lab works and
field trials. In determining flow rate, there was application of simple hydraulic principles.
I then used the effective walking speed during agri-field to determine the application rate.
Research carried out in the laboratory reported that the drop in liquid head resulted in
slower flow rate. Other than the reduced output, it was also found that the efficiency
dramatically decreased as the battery voltage dropped. The sprayer applying the chemical
substance at a walking speed of 0.7 m/s can construe the possible application within a
hectare of land, but the time taken can be termed as 4.17 hours. Loss of functionality may
become a problem since the device will not be able to keep operating constantly due to the
voltage drop after 2 hours. To overcome this challenge for using the drones in a large-scale
Ahmed et al. 21
spraying, we recommend that we should carry extra batteries to the farms to avoid
interruptions while operating (Awulu & Sohotshan, 2012). The use of mechanization in
nursery raising, out-planting, interculture, irrigation, plant protection, pruning, harvesting,
and processing has a great impact on the whole production cycle (Khan et al. 2023).
A knapsack sprayer is a portable unit which one wears like a book bag. One hand
carries the pump, while the other holds a spray nozzle. ATV Sprayers are also rather
pricey, and it is a challenge to find one with all the features that minimize time, work and
improvement. It is a 20-gallon tank sprayer with a 2.0-gpm motor and spray tips that are
also connected to the garden hose having a spray nozzle attached to it (Niese 2018).
The extensive usage of pest control procedures depends mainly upon the appropriate use
of techniques and the good quality of the equipment. Previously, with five liters capacity
for the liquid and an integrated lever to operate the knapsack sprayer, old-fashioned being
a dominant solution for farmers were lever-operated knapsack sprayers. Although the use
of sprayers provides with ease and convenience in achieving those aerial targets, it may
lead to pain in the operator's head, neck, and shoulder area because of the terrible posture
that is needed during operation of the sprayer. These issues were diagnosed and methods
to overcome were invented. For this purpose a walk-behind sprayer that operated on
battery was developed. A mist-type of sprayer is preferred because it leads to these
outcomes such as the wastage is reduced, it is costly to apply, and spraying is faster.
Besides, the developing fact remains that it is beneficial both for small scale farmers and
unskilled laborers as well, where for the sake of convenience, they don't have to be
discomfort. It allows actual work time for post, which is powered either by 8AH or 12AH
battery, to be approximately of 2 to 3 hours and 5 to 6 hours, respectively. These objectives
explain the initial investment cost of Rs19165.80 per year on the battery-operated walk-
behind sprayer, which calculates to Rs171,000 per season. In addition to this, sprayer’s
emission factor per cumulative melting area is 2.21 years per year. In all, the battery-
operated walk-behind sprayer definitely brings in a big change in means of pest control
which is further making control of pest a lot easier. It is doing that by introducing
efficiency, comfort for the user and cost-effectiveness (Mishra et al. 2023). Conventional
machines are labor-intensive, time-consuming, and have high yield losses (up to 30%)
(Husain et al, 2024).
The efficiency of tractor operated boom sprayer was measured on Chilly. The boom
sprayer designed in the laboratory performed well at 0.90l/min nozzle discharge and 689.5
kPa operating pressure. The variation of droplet size, spray uniformity, and droplet density
variate as the nozzle discharge rate and pressure was kept to be 0.45, 0.70, 0.90, and 1.35
l/min and 275.8 kPa, respectively. For nozzle 0.9 lpm and pressure 689.5 kPa, the Volume
Median Diameter (VMD), Uniformity Coefficient (UC) and Droplet Density (DD) of the
existing boom sprayer have 130.9-206.36 µm, 0.98-1.39 and 11-27 number of
droplets/cm2, respectively. The new design of the boom sprayer with a working pressure
of 689.5 kPa and a nozzle discharge rate of 0.90 l/min is distinctly superior in terms of
discharge as well as nozzle pressure for each individual nozzle (Pramod et al. 2023).
Rear-mounted boom sprayer, power till type is new for cotton and row crops that will
allow to spray efficiently with saving of the chemicals at the minimum. During field
application, this nozzle heads will spray 16 cone nozzles, which are 40 cm apart and
extending over a lane at 2 km onward the speed. This sprayer is a rational choice for
farmers with a small area as it has the capacity to spray up to 0.72 ha/ hour which makes
Ahmed et al. 22
the treatment of crops timely and effective. The improved view along the vertical line due
to this assembly helps the operator to perform operation accurately and safely. Controls
which the operator can comfortably reach will give a chance of using them to spray the
pesticides effectively without putting his health in danger. Besides, the operator adjusts
the immediate surrounding of the boom by using clamps and pipes to avoid emission
through convection especially-during horrendous weather conditions that lead to
chemicals deposited on the canopy. It is also ensured that the application of chemicals is
done properly, and therefore workers are protected from the risks that accompany exposure
to chemicals. Those risks include firstly health-related problems. Such development will
thus allow the farmers to easily use this sprayer to kill insects and caterpillars on cotton
and other row crops, this directly leads to crop health improvement and productivity with
a guarantee that farmers and applicators are safe from the health hazards of insecticide
pests (Padmanathan & Kathirvel 2007). In Pakistan, harvesting is presently conducted
through manual labor or with the utilization of outdated models with huge grain quality
and quantity losses (Khan et al. 2024).
The spray should be spread uniformly over the bed only and no spray should be
applied onto the paths between beds in case of bed-grown crops. The aim was to develop
and apply a model that allows designing advantageous set-ups of nozzles on sprayer boom
for bed-grown crops. Designs using fourfold nozzle bodies are presented to find best
solutions for beds with widths between 1.1 m and 1.5 m for boom heights of 0.2 m to 0.6
above crop, allowing customized dose rate application depending on the canopy height
range. Many possible configurations are simulated, but only a fraction of them fit the
conditions that can be stipulated by the user (Holterman et al. 2018).
A semi-automatic boom sprayer was created to facilitate an easier application of
pesticides on corn crops. The performance of the semi-automatic boom sprayer was
compared with that of generally used knapsack sprayers in which a test was
undertaken. Other components of this research included laboratory evaluation, field
evaluation, and cost assessments. Based on 15 days and 30 days technical testing with
corn, the semi-automatic boom sprayer capacity was recorded as 0.318 ha/h at operator
speed of 0.316 m/s. The semi-automatic boom sprayer had a larger tank capacity as
compared to that of the knapsack sprayer. The spraying effectiveness of the semi-
automatic boom sprayer was better in comparison to the knapsack, specifically 86.033%
against 85. 269%, respectively (Putri et al. 2022).
In the technological sense, automatic target spray technology based on real-time
sensors and automatic target spray technology based on geographic information
technology are discussed as far as sensing mechanisms are concerned; in terms of control
systems, pressure flow regulation system, PWM (Pulse Width Module) control flow
regulation system and liquid chemical concentration mixed regulation system are
presented. In the area of spray technology, it primarily concerns the development and
utilization of variable nozzles as well a projection on the development path and application
potential for variable spray technology (Dou et al. 2018).
The farmers in Pakistan are poor and majority of them have less number of
acreage essential for using hi-tech machinery. The currently used knapsack sprayers create
health hazards and farming community demand for an alternative small scales sprayer
suitable for their socio-economic conditions. Therefore, to development of a small scale
walk behind pesticide sprayer was the need of hour.
Ahmed et al. 23
Materials and Methods
Keeping in view the farmer needs, a small scale walk behind battery operated
walk behind mobile pesticide sprayer was developed using locally available material and
manufacturing facilities. The machine consist of main frame, storage tank, battery, battery
charging system, DC pump, battery charging alarm system, nozzles, ON/OFF button,
boom, height adjusting bar, handles and wheel system as shown in figure 1 and the actual
machine is shown in figure 2. The detail of each component is given below;

Boom Battery
Bar

Handle
Nozzles

Storage
Tank

Wheels

Figure 1. 3D view of walk behind pesticide sprayer

Main Frame
Main frame is made of mild steel pipes. This is the most important and mother part of this
spraying equipment. Mild steel pipe which is used for the construction of main frame have
dimensions of 25 mm width and 25 mm height. Pipes were joint together by the arc
welding process in the mechanical workshop. This frame is supported by a front wheel
and two rear wheels. Three wheel are used to maintain balance of the machine in the field
conditions.
Storage Tank
It is made of plastic which is used to store mixture of agrochemical and water for spraying
and installed on the main frame. As water is continuously contacted with the tank walls,
this enhance the chances of rusting. To eliminate this risk, plastic material is used because
it has more resistance against rusting or oxidization.
Pump
A diaphragm pump is used to generate pressure of the spraying liquid. Pump is mounted
on the main frame with the help of nuts and bolts. A 12 volt battery is available for the
Ahmed et al. 24
energy requirement of the pump. Pump suck mixture of chemical and water from the
storage tank through suction pipe and then push it towards nozzles through delivery pipe.
Battery
A rechargeable dry battery is used as a power source for the pump operation, which is
mounted on the main frame and connected with the pump with electrical wires. This is a
12 volt battery that can generate current up to seven amperes. Battery recharging time is
approximately two hours and its discharging time is about five hours. A four ampere
adopter is used to recharge the battery. Battery can work up to 5 hours in field and it is
charged by an automatic battery charger.
Battery Charging System
A battery charger is used to charge the battery, which is an adapter having a small
transformer and rectifiers in it. Rectifier is used to convert AC (alternating current) into
DC (direct current). It take current from the outer source usually WAPDA home
connection AC current and convert it to DC current to charge the battery. After charging
the battery it automatically cutoff the current.
Battery Charging Alarm System
This circuit is installed on internal side of battery charger to control its charging. During
charging it shows red light on its display, while battery is fully charged it disconnect the
current from the source to battery and show green light.
Nozzles
Nozzles are used to discharge mixture of pesticide and water with optimum pressure.
Different types of nozzles are in use now a days by the farmers. Different nozzles operates
on different pressures and they made different flow patterns. Nozzles selection depends
upon chemical being sprayed and the crop grown. Hollow cone nozzles have been used in
small scale walk behind pesticide spraying machine. Factors that influence their
performance include nozzle design, spray quality, and application rate (Jalu et al. 2023).
Power ON/OFF System
This button is mounted on the handle of the machine to control power supply from the
battery to pump to facilitate operator in ease of operation (starting and stopping spraying).
Safety parameters of using electric equipment were kept in mind therefore all live wire is
covered with plastic pipe.
Boom Bar
Boom bar is designed in such a way that it has provision of folding up to 2 times of its
width having the total swath of 2185 mm and it can be reduced to 711 mm. It is made up
of mild steel and three pieces of steel pipe are used on which nozzles are mounted. These
pipes were first drilled to make an opening to install nozzles on them and then they were
welded from both ends and nozzles were mounted.
Each steel pipe is of 610 mm length and connected with each other by the mean of rubber
pipes which helps them in folding. Boom of the small scale walk behind mobile pesticide
sprayer is designed in way that it can fold and can reduce its width three times of its
original width. In this shape the spraying equipment occupy minimum space and easy to
handle when it is not in the field.
Boom bar Specifications
Width of the boom = 2185 mm
Diameter of Boom Pipe = 10 mm
Ahmed et al. 25
Clamps are used to connect the rubber and steel pipes and nut bolts are used to tighten the
boom on the desired height.
Height adjusting bars
These bar are made up of mild steel and connected with main frame through welding. Total
height of these bars is 30 inches and these are used to support the boom on required height
and to maintain its balance while spraying.
Handle
On the rear side of the main frame of this machine, there are handles to steer the machine
and these handles are made up of mild steel pipes.
Wheel System
There are three wheels used in this design of the machine, a front wheel and two rear
wheels. These wheels have a great role in machine balancing in the field.

Figure 2. Field testing of walk behind pesticide sprayer

Economic Depreciation of Walk behind Pesticide Sprayer

Depreciation of walk behind pesticide sprayer is the reduction in its value over the period
of time. The value or price of the machine depends upon the age of the machine and how
many hours it has worked in the field. Machine loses its value as it gets old with the
passage of time. Depreciation value of walk behind mobile pesticide sprayer was
calculated as;
DC = (P-S) / L
Where
Dc is stand for net depreciation value
P is Purchasing cost
Ahmed et al. 26
S is salvage cost (Regain or recoverable value)
L is total usage of the machine in years
Salvage value is the price of the machine after the life of the machine i.e. after the full
depreciation it will still have some cost.

Results and Discussions

Laboratory and field testing of small scale walk behind mobile pesticide sprayer were
carried out at University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Theoretical and effective field
capacities of walk behind spraying machine were calculated. Storage tank discharging
time, battery charging and discharging time were also noted. Nozzle calibration of walk
behind pesticide sprayer was carried out to adjust the discharge rate of each nozzle.
Theoretical Field Capacity
Theoretical field capacity depends upon the walking speed of the operator and the swath
width of machine. The speeds of the walk behind pesticide sprayer were noted while the
swath width of the machine is 2184 mm.
W = 86 inches (2.18 m)
The theoretical field capacity was calculated;
TFC = (S × W)/10
TFC = (2.63 × 2.18)/10
TFC = 0.57 ha/hr.
TFC = 1.40 acre/hr.
The maximum theoretical field capacity of small scale walk behind pesticide sprayer was
measured in the third trial which was 0.59 hectare per hour while minimum theoretical
field capacity was found in the first trial which was 0.54 hectare per hour while the average
TFC for machine is 0.57 ha per hr as shown in figure 3.

0.7
0.6
0.5
TFC (ha/hr.)

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3
Trial No.
Figure 3. Result of theoretical field capacity of sprayer
Ahmed et al. 27
Calibration of Spray Nozzles
The newly fabricated walk behind small scale pesticide sprayer have six hollow
cone nozzles on its boom. Each nozzle have distance of 406 mm between them and they
can operate from 20 PSI to 50 PSI pressure while nozzle discharge rate is 0.51 L/min.
Figure 4 illustrates, nozzle number 1 and 6 have less discharge as compared to
Nozzle number 3 and 4 but this difference is negligible while the nozzle number 2, 4 and
5 have similar discharge rates. The average discharge rate of all nozzles was found to be
0.53 l/min. Over all machine distribution efficiency is good and all nozzles operates on
constant pressure and discharge rate.

0.56
Discharge Rate (L/min)

0.52

0.48

0.44
1 2 3 4 5 6

Nozzle Number
Figure 4. Discharge rate of different nozzles

Battery Discharging Time

A 12 volt battery is used as a power source for the operation of diaphragm pump.
Battery timing is very important factor in this walk behind sprayer design. Figure 5
illustrate the results for battery discharging trials;
According to results, it is estimated that battery can work continuously in the field
for about five hours. Battery discharging time for all the three repetitions were nearly same
as shown in the Figure 26. As per TFC, machine can spray on an area of 1.33 acres per
hour which means that after one full charge of the battery, 3.7 acres can be sprayed by the
help of this machine.
One power cycle of battery = 3.7 acres sprayed
Battery Charging Timing
Batteries were fully discharged and recharged for three times to check the average
recharging time of battery.
Ahmed et al. 28

350
300
250
200
Time

150
100
50
0
1 2 3
Trial

Figure 5. Results of battery discharging time

160

140

120

100
TIME

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3
TRIAL

Figure 6. Results of battery charging time

Ahmed et al. 29
Figure 6 explain that battery of small scale walk behind pesticide sprayer took
maximum time of 133 minutes to fully recharge. In third trial battery took minimum time
of 114 minutes but the average charging time of battery is around 120 minutes.
Storage Tank Discharging Time
Storage tank is fixed on the main frame of the spraying equipment. Storage tank
discharging time were measured three times and the results obtained were noted. Figure 7
shows the results of tests carried out to evaluate the storage tank discharging time.
700

600

500
Time (seconds)

400

300

200

100

0
1 2 3
Trial No.
Figure 7. Storage tank discharging time

It was observed after three trials that storage tank fully discharged after10
minutes of operation and operator had to recharge the storage tank. For 120 liters of agro
chemical spraying on one acre, storage tank will have to be refilled for four times.
Effective Field Capacity
Effective Filed Capacity of the walk behind small scale pesticide sprayer was
calculated by the given formula;
EFC = Area/Time
Area = (60.9 × 6.09) m2
= 371 m2
Time = 315 seconds
= 0.087 hours
EFC = 371 / 0.087
= 4264.36 m2/hr.
Ahmed et al. 30
= 4264.36/ 10,000 ha/hr.
= 0.42 ha / hr.
= 1.03 acre/hr.

EFC (ha/hr.)
0.5
0.45
0.4
EFC (ha/hr.)

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 2 3
Trial No.

Figure 8. Trial results of effective field capacity

Figure 8 illustrates that the results of all three trials of EFC were nearly same.
The maximum EFC of 0.43 ha/hr was found in the third trial while the minimum EFC 0.40
ha/ha was found in the second trial. The average EFC of the machine is about 0.41 hectare
per hour. It is highly dependent on the operator’s speed in the field and the actual field
conditions.
Field Efficiency of the Sprayer
Field efficiency of the machine can be determined by the TFC and EFC of the
machine. It was calculated by using formula;
Field Efficiency = (TFC/EFC) × 100
Field Efficiency = (0.42/0.54) × 100
= 77.77 %
It was found that the Field efficiency of the walk behind pesticide sprayer is 77%.
It can vary as per variation in operator’s walking speed and field conditions.
Wheel Slippage of the Spraying Equipment
Wheels performance of spraying machine varies in different field conditions.
Speed of the sprayer with load and without load were tested and wheel rotations of the
machine were counted three times.
Ahmed et al. 31

Wheel Slippage Calculation

Rotations Without Load Rotations With Load
42.5
42
41.5
Rotations of wheel

41
40.5
40
39.5
39
38.5
38
37.5
1 2 3
Trial No.

Figure 9. Results of wheel slippage calculation

Figure 9 illustrate that small scale walk behind pesticide sprayer covered the
measured distance of 20m all the time with nearly same number of rotations of wheel with
load and without load. The maximum no. of rotations 41.5 were observed in third trial
without load while the minimum no. of rotations were 39.5 in the first trial of machine
when it was loaded. The average difference between the rotations of wheel with load and
without load was only half rotation. Wheel slippage of walk behind pesticide sprayer was
calculated as below;
Wheel Slippage = ((Rwol - Rwl) / Rwol) × 100
Rwol = 40.5
Rwl = 40
Wheel Slippage = ((40.5 – 40) / 40.5) × 100
Wheel Slippage = 1.23 %
Nozzle Canopy and Overlapping
Nozzles which are used in the walk behind pesticide sprayer are hollow cone
nozzles having operating pressure of about 30 psi and discharge for each nozzle is 0.5
liters per minute. Nozzles are 16 inches away from each other and the canopy of the
nozzles reached about 10 inches away from the discharging point. The width of the cone
was 254mm while the overlapping was of 4 inches.
Canopy Width = 254 mm
Overlapping = 101 mm (25%)
Spray pattern = Hollow cone
Ahmed et al. 32
o
Spray angle = 85
Economic Analysis of Walk behind Pesticide Sprayer
Cost analysis of the walk behind pesticide sprayer is depend upon two factors,
first is fixed cost and second is variable cost. Both factors are discussed below
Total purchase cost of the sprayer, P = PKR 25000.
Total life of the sprayer = 10 years
Yearly usage of sprayer = 30 days
Daily working hours = 8 hours
Total working hours per year = 30 × 8
= 240 hours per year
Total life of the sprayer in hours = 240 × 10
= 2400 hours
Salvage value of the sprayer, S = 10% of P
= PKR 2500
Fixed Cost of Walk behind Pesticide Sprayer
Fixed cost of walk behind mobile pesticide sprayer includes
1. Depreciation cost
2. Interest
3. Insurance
4. Taxes
5. Housing and shelter
Depreciation Cost (Dc)
The depreciation cost of walk behind pesticide sprayer was calculated as;
P−S
𝐷𝑐 =
10
25000 − 2500
𝐷𝑐 =
10

So, the depreciation cost was calculated to be PKR 2250 per year which is PKR 9.37 per
hour.
Interest, Insurance, Tax and Housing
This machine is small in size and has low initial cost, so interest, insurance, tax
and housing are not taken into account in this case.
Total Fixed Cost
The total fixed cost can be calculated as sum of the above parameters i.e.
Total Fixed Cost = Dc + Ir + Is + Tx + H&S
Thus, the total fixed cost was calculated to be PKR 9.37 per hour.
Variable Cost of Walk behind Sprayer
The variable cost of machine includes:
1. Labor cost
2. Repair and maintenance cost
3. Fuel cost
Ahmed et al. 33
Labor Cost (Lc)
Labor is required to operate the small scale walk behind mobile pesticide sprayer.
In Pakistan labor charge the money according to storage tanks consumed while spraying.
As per discussed earlier, walk behind pesticide sprayer have 30 liter of storage tank.
In an hour sprayer cover the area = 1 acre
In one acre storage tank refill = 4 times
Labor cost for 1 storage tank = PKR 60
Total cost per hour = PKR 240 per hour
Repair and Maintenance Cost (R&M)
Repair and Maintenance for every machine is required due to wear and tear
during the field operation. Maintenance cost is estimated to be 80% of initial cost and is
calculated as;
Maintenance cost = 25000 × 0.8
= PKR 20000 for 10 years.
Maintenance cost per year = 20000 / 10
= PKR 2000 per year
Maintenance cost per hour = 2000/240
= PKR 8.33 per hour
Fuel Cost (Fc)
No fuel is required for the operation of walk behind pesticide sprayer. However,
the battery is charged after five hours of working. The battery consumed 1 unit of
electricity for every recharge.
Cost of one unit of electricity = PKR 10
No. of recharging per year = 240/5
= 48 times per year
Total cost of battery charging in a year = 48 × 10
= PKR 480 per year
Thus, the battery charging cost per hour was calculated to be PKR 2 per hour.
Total Variable Cost
The total variable cost is calculated to be as sum of the above parameters;
Total Variable Cost = Lc + R&M + Fc
The total variable cost was calculated to be PKR 250.33 per hour.
Total Cost of Walk behind Pesticide Sprayer
Total cost of the small scale walk behind pesticide sprayer is the sum of fixed
cost and variable cost.
Total Cost = Fixed cost + Variable cost
= 9.37 + 250.33
= PKR 259.7 per hour
Ahmed et al. 34
Cost Comparison of Small Scale Walk behind Pesticide Sprayer with Knapsack Sprayer

400
365.53
350

300
Rupees in PKR

259.7
250

200

150

100

50

0
Knap sack sprayer Walk Behind Sprayer

Figure 10. Illustrates that small scale walk behind pesticide sprayer is very much
cheaper machine as compared to traditional knap sack sprayers.

Difference of per hour cost between knap sack and walk behind pesticide sprayers.
Knap sack sprayer = PKR 365.53
Walk behind sprayer = PKR 259.70
Difference = PKR 105.83
Saving per hour = PKR 105.83.
Working hour in year = 240 hours
Total saving in an year = 240 × 105.83
= PKR 25399 per year
The newly developed small scale walk behind pesticide sprayer saves more than 25
thousands rupees per year. It is more than its initial cost. So the payback period of walk
behind sprayer is almost 1 year.

Conclusions
After the comprehensive testing of walk behind pesticide sprayer it was
concluded that effective field capacity, wheel slippage and field efficiency of this machine
Ahmed et al. 35
was one acre/hour, 1.23% and 77% respectively. The battery capacity of sprayer was
measured to be five hours. About four to six storage tanks of agro chemicals were required
to spray one acre. It has proven to be more cost effective as compared to knapsack sprayer.
Limitations and Future Recommendations
The following recommendations and suggestions are made to improve the
performance of small scale walk behind pesticide sprayer;
1. This newly developed machine have fixed spacing of wheels. An adjustable
wheels mechanism should be developed for this spraying machine. It will
enhance its capabilities of spraying in different row to row spacing.
2. This machine have fixed height of spraying nozzles. An adjustable nozzles
mechanism should be developed, so that nozzles can be adjusted according to
position of plants.
References
Awulu, J. O., & Sohotshan, P. Y. (2012). International Journal of Science and Technology
Evaluation of a Developed Electrically Operated Knapsack Sprayer. 2(11), 769–
772. [Link]
Carvalho, F. P. (2006). Agriculture, pesticides, food security and food safety.
Environmental Science and Policy, 9(7–8), 685–692.
[Link]
Dou, H., Zhang, C., Li, L., Hao, G., Ding, B., Gong, W., & Huang, P. (2018). Application
of variable spray technology in agriculture. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, 186(5). [Link]
Holterman, H. J., Van De Zande, J. C., & Van Velde, P. (2018). Optimizing sprayer boom
design for bed-grown crops. Aspects of Applied Biology, 1–9.
Husain, M., Haq, Z. U., Mahmood, H. S., Jahanzaib, M., Islam, M. A., Niazi, B. M. K.,
Ali, M. M., Saad, A., Khan, A. A., & Nawaz, Q. (2024). Performance Evaluation of
Precision Groundnut Digger-Inverter. Agricultural Sciences Journal, 6(2), 17–26.
[Link]
Jalu, M. V, Yadav, R., & Ambaliya, P. S. (2023). A comprehensive review of various
types of sprayers used in modern agriculture. ~ 143 ~ The Pharma Innovation
Journal, 12(4), 143–149. [Link]
Khan, A. A., Zia-Ul-Haq., Islam, M. A., Saad, A., Raza, S. M., Ali, I., Sheraz, K., Usman,
M., Ali, M. M., & Ali, M. (2023). Prospects and Scope of Olive Mechanization: A
Review. Zoo Botanica, 1(2), 79–93.
[Link]
Khan, A. A., Zia-Ul-haq, Asam, H. M., Khan, M. A., Zeeshan, A., Qamar, S., & Saad, A.
(2024). Performance Evaluation of Half-Feed Rice Combine Harvester.
Proceedings of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences: Part A, 61(1), 81–88.
[Link]
Mishra, P. K., Kumar, M., & Singh, V. K. (2023). Development of battery operated walk
behind type sprayer. 12(9), 67–73.
Padmanathan, P. K., & Kathirvel, K. (2007). Performance Evaluation of Power Tiller
Operated Rear Mounted Boom Sprayer for Cotton Crop. Research Journal of
Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 3(4), 224–227.
 Ahmed et al. 36
Pramod, P. P., Raosaheb, G. N., Kashinath, K. J., & Madhukar, N. S. (2023). Performance
evaluation of tractor mounted boom sprayer on chilly crop. Environment
Conservation Journal, 24(2), 61–69. [Link]
Putri, R. E., Aprilio, J., Santosa, Geraldo, J. P., & Ade, S. (2022). Semi-Automatic Boom
Sprayer Development for Corn Crop Protection. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, 1097(1), 0–10. [Link]
1315/1097/1/012002
Russel, N. (2018). All-Terrain Vehicle Sprayer. Department of Mechanical and Materials
Engineering College of Engineering and Applied Science University of Cincinnati.
[Link]
Sinha, J. P., Singh, J. K., Kumar, A., & Agarwal, K. N. (2018). Development of solar
powered knapsack sprayer. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 88(4), 590–595.
[Link]

Citation
Ahmed, H.T., Ghafoor, A., Ul-Haq, Z., Khan, A.A., Mehmood, T., Saaed, A., Raza,
S.M., Islam, M.A., Ahmed, I., Hussain, M. (2024). Development and
performance evalution of small scale walk behind sprayers. Journal of
Agriculture and Food, 5(2), 19–36.

View publication stats