The Pharma Innovation Journal 2023; 12(4): 143-149

ISSN (E): 2277-7695

ISSN (P): 2349-8242
NAAS Rating: 5.23 A comprehensive review of various types of sprayers
TPI 2023; 12(4): 143-149
© 2023 TPI used in modern agriculture
www.thepharmajournal.com
Received: 25-02-2023
Accepted: 31-03-2023 Mayur V Jalu, R Yadav and Pravina S Ambaliya
Mayur V Jalu
Research Scholar Department of Abstract
Farm Machinery and Power In modern agriculture, the use of sprayers has become indispensable for crop protection and
Engineering Collage of management. The effectiveness and efficiency of sprayers are essential to achieving optimal yields.
Agricultural Engineering and There are various types of sprayers available, such as boom sprayers, air blast sprayers, and electrostatic
Technology, Junagadh sprayers, each with its own advantages and limitations. Factors that influence their performance include
Agricultural University, nozzle design, spray quality, and application rate. Moreover, here we discuss recent developments in
Junagadh, Gujarat, India
sprayer technology and their potential impact on the future of agriculture. This review aims to assist
farmers, researchers, and agricultural practitioners in selecting the most appropriate sprayer for their
R Yadav
Professor & Head Department of specific needs and applications. It also provides insight into the current state and future prospects of
Farm Engineering Collage of sprayer technology, with the goal of promoting sustainable and efficient agricultural practices.
Agriculture, Junagadh
Agricultural University, Keywords: Pest, insect, sprayer, efficiency, cost
Junagadh, Gujarat, India
1. Introduction
Pravina S Ambaliya Sprayer is a device used in agriculture used to spray liquids like water, insecticides, and
Research Scholar, Department of
Farm Machinery and Power pesticides in agriculture. Application of chemical is the most important operations in farming
Engineering CAET, Junagadh to get higher yield. At present, different categories of sprayers and weeders that are manually
Agricultural University, operated, animal drawn, tractor mounted, and self-propelled types are available (Ambaliya et
Junagadh, Gujarat, India al. 2022) [2]. Agricultural sprayers have components like spray nozzle, liquid tank, sprayer
pump, pressure regulator, valves and fluid plumbing and some sprayers have spray gun. This
agriculture sprayers comes in various size, design and performance specifications. There are
number of sprayers which are designed for different spraying applications like gardening,
crops, trees, fruit, livestock needs, and weed control.
In the agricultural industry, pesticides play a significant role in the maintenance of crop health
and consequently, the stability of the farmers’ income. These machines are ideal for a variety
of farming tasks during crop production cycle. These remarkable farming tools come in
various sizes and types, from hand-held and manual sprayers to large trailed or mounted
sprayers followed by advanced atomizers.
Sprayers are essential tools for the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in
modern agriculture. The use of sprayers has significantly increased in recent years due to their
effectiveness in reducing crop damage and improving yields (Aktar et al. 2009) [1]. There are
various types of sprayers available in the market, each with unique features and capabilities
designed for specific applications. The proper selection of a sprayer for a specific crop and
application is crucial for achieving optimal results. The different types of sprayers used in
modern agriculture, including their working principles, advantages, and limitations. We will
also discuss the latest advancements in sprayer technology, including precision agriculture and
autonomous sprayers.
Farmers use various types of sprayers to manage pests and diseases in their crops. The
selection of the right plant protection appliances is crucial for successful pest management and
crop productivity. The selection of plant protection equipment should be based on several
Corresponding Author:
factors, including ergonomic, economic, efficacy, and ecological considerations. Ergonomics
Mayur V Jalu involves selecting equipment that is easy and comfortable to use, reducing operator fatigue and
Research Scholar Department of injury. Economic factors involve selecting equipment that is cost-effective in terms of
Farm Machinery and Power purchase, maintenance, and repair. Efficacy involves selecting equipment that can deliver the
Engineering Collage of appropriate amount of pesticide to the target area effectively. Ecological considerations
Agricultural Engineering and
Technology, Junagadh
involve selecting equipment that minimizes the environmental impact of pesticide application,
Agricultural University, such as reducing spray drift and minimizing pesticide runoff. Using the right plant protection
Junagadh, Gujarat, India equipment and techniques can help farmers effectively manage pests while minimizing the
~ 143 ~
 The Pharma Innovation Journal https://www.thepharmajournal.com

impact on the environment and maximizing crop productivity capacity of 15 liters. This sprayer is used particularly for spot
(Pankaj and Shashidhar 2018) [16]. treatment.
The use of pesticides and herbicides in agriculture is critical
for crop protection and increased yield. However, traditional 2.1.2 Pneumatic or compressed system knapsack
methods of pesticide application often involve the use of In this sprayer, pumping is not necessary during spraying.
fossil fuels and have adverse environmental impacts. In recent After filling the liquid 2/3rd capacity the tank is pressurized.
years, there has been increasing interest in developing It is used in limited amount to spray on weeds in paddy and
sustainable and environmentally friendly pest control jute.
technologies. Solar-powered remote-controlled boom sprayers
are one such technology that has gained significant attention 2.1.3 Motorized pneumatic
in the agricultural industry. This type of sprayer uses solar As a low volume sprayer, it is suitable for spraying
panels to power its electric motors and can be operated concentrated spray liquid, a blast of air flows through
remotely, reducing the need for fossil fuels and minimizing spraying jet of delivery hose and nozzle tube and ejects spray
human exposure to chemicals. liquid in this blast. Air blast atomizes spray liquid in to fine
droplets. Air acts as carrier, faster the air is pressured, more
2. Review of literature the atomization. These sprayers are also used as blowers. Mist
2.1 Manual spraying blower causes considerable loss of CPP (Crop Protection
Mostly in India we used the old method and equipment for the Products: herbicides, pesticides and fungicides) by winds.
agriculture. For agriculture the pesticide and water is mostly
required after the some interval of time to remove the insect 2.1.4 Foot sprayer/pedal pump sprayers
from the agriculture land. This sprayer is operated by foot and popularly used for CPP
application. It has provision of 1–2 long delivery hoses, fitted
2.1.1 Hydraulic knapsack sprayer with either lance or 2-6 nozzle booms. This sprayer has
This is the manually operated sprayer, works with the help of advantage of high-volume spray and covers large area.
hand lever to maintain constant pressure and has a tank

(a) Hydraulic Knapsack Sprayer (b) Manual pneumatic knapsack sprayer

(c) Motorized pneumatic knapsack sprayer (d) Foot Sprayer/Pedal Pump Sprayers
Fig 1: Manually operated sprayers
~ 144 ~
 The Pharma Innovation Journal https://www.thepharmajournal.com

2.2 Animal operated spraying spraying on cotton crop was developed. The sprayer is
Gupta et al. (2003) [7] designed and developed a bullock powered by a two cylinder 20 hp diesel engine and has a
drawn fraction sprayer. The performance of the sprayer was ground clearance of 1200 mm. Maximum Road speed of the
evaluated for different parameters in laboratory and field sprayer was 20 km/h and can be operated at field speed up to
conditions at pressure of 3.5 kg/cm2. The average boom 5 km/h. The boom width of the sprayer is 8.87 m with 14
discharge observed was at 2.47 l/min and 2.53 l/min in nozzles spacing at 67.5 cm. Effective width of coverage is
laboratory and field conditions, respectively. The spray 9.45 m. Boom height can be adjusted from 315 mm to 1685
distribution pattern was uniform for all the nozzles at 400 mm mm to suit different crop heights. Machines track width is
height. The spray pattern becomes wider for the central 13201 mm. During operation two rows of cotton crop come
nozzles at 400 mm height. The average horse power required under the machine chassis. The tank capacity is 1000 litres
to operate the machine was 0.486 hp. The average field sufficient to cover 4 ha with one filling. The machine can
capacity of the sprayer was 0.704 ha/h, which was almost cover an area of 2 ha/h and the tank were refilled every two
seven times of the knapsack sprayer. The sprayer required hours. Tank refilling time is about 30-45 minutes depending
only 1.44 man-hour to cover 1 ha area. upon the distance of water source. Mechanical damage caused
Amonye et al. (2014) [3] Designed and Developed animal by the movement of high clearance sprayer was less than that
drawn ground metered axle mechanism boom sprayer. The caused by commonly used tractor operated sprayers. Average
sprayer consists of a boom with multiple Controlled Droplet yield obtained from Area sprayed by high clearance sprayer
Applicator (CDA) atomizer nozzles, a gear pump, a chemical was 10 % higher than the area sprayed by tractor operated
tank, and chair for an operator; all attached to a framework sprayer.
bolted to a rear axle. It was observed that the Dynamic Wheel Ghafoor et al. (2022) [6] developed prototype self-propelled
Load assuming even distribution of load was found to be 1575 crop sprayer, including a 20-hp engine, 300 L liquid tank, and
N and a net pull of 820 N. The net pull offers convenient task hydraulically-controlled spray boom with eight hollow cone
and shall easily swallow energy requirement for spraying nozzles. The spray symmetry of the hollow cone nozzle was
uphill terrains. evaluated under four pressures (2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 bar) in the
Netam et al. (2021) [14] developed animal drawn solar laboratory. The operating parameters of the sprayer, such as
powered sprayer. During the laboratory test, the suitable forward speed (4, 6, and 8 km/h), spray height (40, 55, and 70
operating pressure of 4 kg/cm2 was selected based on the cm), and pressure (3, 5, and 7 bar) were optimized by
discharge rate. The average discharge rate of 240 l/h was measuring three spray characteristics including droplet
obtained at an operating pressure of 4 kg/cm2. The actual field density, coverage percentage, and Volume Median Diameter
capacity was found to be 0.52 ha/h with the field efficiency of (VMD) in the cotton field. The results revealed that the nozzle
83 %. The sprayer was capable to cover 4 rows. The average spray was symmetrical at 2.5 and 3 bar pressure as the
power output was found to be 0.87 kW. The cost of operation R2 value was higher than 0.96. The field test result showed
was 274.25 Rs/ha. Pay Back Period was found to be 0.26 that in all treatments, treatments T14 (6 km/h, 55 cm, 5 bar)
years. The sprayer is capable to discharge the chemical spray and T22 (8 km/h, 55 cm, 3 bar) were suitable for spraying
solution of 432 l/ha. medium-to-low concentration solution (post-emergence
herbicides and fungicides) and high concentration solution
(insecticides and pre-emergence herbicides), respectively. The
field efficiency of the sprayer was 61 %. The spraying cost
per unit area was 55–64 % less compared to manual labour
cost. In conclusion, a prototype self-propelled crop sprayer is
an efficient and environment-friendly technology for small
farms. Operating the sprayer at the optimal parameters also
saves operational costs and time.

Fig 2: Animal drawn sprayer

2.3 Power Operated Spraying

Spraying methods are manual spraying, animal spraying and
power-based spraying. Further the machine drawn spraying
methods are categorises as self-propelled, power tiller
operated, tractor operated or tractor mounted and solar
operated sprayers. Various reviews regarding these methods
are studied as below. Fig 3: Prototype of self-propelled sprayer

2.3.1 Self-propelled sprayer 2.3.2 Power tiller operated sprayer

Mahal et al. (2007) [11] developed high clearance power Padmanathan and Kathirvel (2007) [15] evaluated the
sprayer for cotton. A self-propelled high clearance sprayer for performance of power tiller operated rear mounted boom

~ 145 ~
 The Pharma Innovation Journal https://www.thepharmajournal.com

sprayer for cotton crop. A power tiller operated rear mounted existing 9-m spray boom.
boom sprayer was developed for spraying cotton and other Singh et al. (2010) [21] developed and field evaluated a tractor
crops planted in rows and to produce uniform spray pattern mounted air assisted sprayer for cotton. At three different
using minimum amount of spray materials. The spray boom forward speeds (0.5, 2.5, and 4.0 km/h) dye solution was
has sixteen hollow cone nozzles, placed 40 cm apart. It has a sprayed on the crop by the tractor mounted, air assisted
swath width of 3.2 m for a forward speed of 2 km/h. The sprayer and conventional tractor mounted sprayers. Droplet
effective field capacity of the sprayer was 0.72 ha/h. The size (NMD and VMD), uniformity coefficient, droplet
performance of the power tiller operated boom sprayer was density, percent areas covered by droplet spots per square
satisfactory at a pressure of 3 kg/cm2 and can be adopted by centimetre and bio efficiency were studied. At a forward
the farmers for spraying cotton crop and other row crops. To speed of 4.0 km/h, better uniformity coefficient 1.69 was
facilitate for the convenience of the operator the design of the obtained for the air assisted sprayer as compared to the
entire controls was provided near the operator seat so that conventional sprayer 2.04. The tractor mounted air assisted
very efficient spraying can be achieved without affecting the sprayer, droplet deposition on the underside of the leaves was
health of the operator. Providing additional clamp and pipes in the range of 14 to 94 drops/cm2 at different portions of the
keeping in view the safety of the operator controlled the plant. At the forward speed of 4.0 km/h, the area covered by
boom, chemical spraying did not affect the operator. the droplets on the underside of top, middle and bottom leaves
Power tiller-operated intra canopy sprayers for cotton and were 1.11, 0.93 and 0.44 % for air assisted sprayer but there
pigeon pea crops were created by Suresh et al. (2013) [19]. The was no droplet deposition by the conventional sprayer.
canopy requirements of tall crops like cotton and pigeon pea Jayashree and Krishnan (2012) [10] developed and evaluated
led to the development of a five-nozzle boom system. the performance of tractor operated target actuated sprayer to
assessment of the in a lab the system showed that the HCN reduce the off-target application of chemical and thereby
80250 hydraulic nozzle combined with the 125 mm air sleeve reduce soil and environmental pollution. The main focus of
provides a proper droplet size distribution to get more than 90 the study was on how the amount of chemical delivered was
% droplets within the 300-micron range and around 13-16 % affected by forward speed, simulation plate width, chemical
percentage area covered on the front and rear of leaves in the concentration, and sensor height. According to mean
entire canopy. An air aid system and similar boom were built comparison experiments, the smallest amount of chemical
for a power tiller controlled spraying system, and they were supplied (499 L) was attained at a 25 % chemical
tested in the field. At a forward speed of 1.31 km/h, the concentration, a simulation plate width of 100 mm, a forward
practical field capacity was 0.146 ha/h for the pigeon pea speed of 3.5 km/h, and a sensor height of 300 mm above the
crop. The percentage area covered by the droplets on the front plant canopy.
and back side of the leaves was almost equal viz. 17.5-18 %. Babasaheb and Ravi (2013) [4] tested a tractor-operated
The mean droplet size varied from 120 to 124 microns with hydraulic boom sprayer on a cotton crop in order to find the
more than 90 % droplets less than 300-micron size. best pressure and discharge rate for minimising sprayer
pesticide losses. Sprayer underwent testing in the field for
cotton crop to investigate the effects of nozzle pressures (viz.,
275.8, 413.7, 551.6, and 689.5 kPa) and discharge rates (viz.,
0.45, 0.70, 0.90, and 1.35 l/min) on spray uniformity. A more
uniform spray was produced with a nozzle discharge rate of
0.90 l/min and a nozzle pressure of 689.5 kPa, with droplet
sizes ranging from 125.55 to 287.50 m, droplet densities of 18
to 30 drops/cm2, and uniformity coefficients of 0.96 to 1.20.
Jassowal et al. (2016) [9] evaluated a tractor operated trailed
type boom sprayer in field. Sprayer was operated in the cotton
field at three forward speeds 2.5, 3.5 and 4 km/h and at five
fluid flow pressures 3.5, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 kg/cm2 for its
performance evaluation. It was observed that with variation in
pressure, number median diameter of spray varied from
198.28 to 293.1 µm and volume median diameter was in the
Fig 4: Power tiller operated rear mounted boom sprayer for cotton range of 300-452 µm. smaller size droplets were obtained at
crop high pressure. Droplet density on leaves varied from 26 to
177 drops/cm2. Area covered by droplet spots on upper side of
2.3.3 Tractor operated or mounted sprayer the top leaves, middle leaves and bottom leaves varied from
Nalavade et al. (2008) [13] developed a tractor mounted wide 14.18 to 24.70 mm2/cm2, 11.01 to 23.07 mm2 /cm2 and 8.74 to
spray boom for increased efficiency. A 15-m tractor mounted 17.22 mm2/cm2, respectively. Volume of spray deposition on
spray boom was developed considering the stresses acting on upper side of the top leaves, middle leaves and bottom leaves
the boom structure. It was tested in the laboratory and in the varied from 330.19×10-6 to 677.87×10-6 cc/cm2, 293.27×10-6
field to evaluate its performance. The developed spray boom's to 633.99×10-6 cc/cm2 and 202.71×10-6 to 685.5×10-6 cc/cm2,
performance was compared with existing 9-m spray boom respectively. Field capacity of the sprayer was 4.23 ha/h at the
developed by a local manufacturer. Further, both spray booms forward speed of 4.0 km/h and the average fuel consumption
were evaluated from the economic point of view. Statistical was 4.88 l/h.
analysis showed that there was no significant variation in Sanchavat et al. (2017) [17] evaluated a tractor mounted boom
spray uniformity within a field for all the test trials. A 15-m sprayer was tested under laboratory conditions at varying
spray boom was found to be more economical than the pressure levels of 500, 600 and 700 kPa. For each pressure
~ 146 ~
 The Pharma Innovation Journal https://www.thepharmajournal.com

level spray angle, spray pattern, nozzle discharge, spray 110.81 and 101.26 l/h, respectively. The application rates for
distribution and swath width were measured. The spray angle sugarcane and paddy were 195.25 and 154.75 l/ha,
of the nozzle was 80º, 85º, and 88º at the pump pressure of respectively.
500, 600, and 700 kPa, respectively whereas the swath width Issa et al. (2020) [8] developed and tested movable solar
was 1235, 1294 and 1375 mm at pump pressure level of 500, operated sprayer for farming operation. The system operates
600, 700 kPa, respectively. The average theoretical field in both direct mode and indirect mode. In the direct mode, the
capacity, effective field capacity and field efficiency was sprayer is operated from the electricity generated by 50W
found to be 3.3 ha/h, 2.08 ha/h and 63.03 %, respectively for solar panel mounted on a movable frame and in the indirect
cotton crop. mode it is operated on stored electrical energy in the lead-acid
DC battery (12 V, 12 Ah). Priming diaphragm pump of 10W
or mini-DC reciprocating cycle motor of 5W is used to
generate the required operating pressure to spray the liquid
pesticide formulations. The capacity of the storage tank is 20
liters for uninterrupted operation of 25.1 minutes with the
discharge rate of 0.79 l/min through the electric flexible mists
high-pressure multiple sprayers with four nozzles. Data
generated from the theoretical formulae were used to fabricate
the system using locally available and durable materials. The
sprayer was tested in farmland on two different crops after
charging the battery for 3 hours in sunlight. The results
obtained were as follows: Power conversion efficiency 20.4
%, the time required to charge the battery 2.88 hrs, time taken
to spray 1 acre of land 2.13 hrs, backup time of spray 14.5
Fig 5: Tractor mounted boom sprayer hrs, application rate 0.04 l/m2 and operating time of the
battery 8hrs. The results obtained show that solar sprayer was
2.3.4 Solar operated sprayer effective and will be useful in rural areas where there is no
Renewable Energy resources are the most preferable constant power supply. The system is incorporated with an
resources for generation of electrical energy because of energy bulb and charging kit to light up the farmyard and for
environmentally friendly. Of all the renewable energy the operator to charge his/her phone.
resources, solar power is the most resource mainly because it
is free, unlimited and free from pollution. The solar energy is
usually harvested through solar panels that are made up of
photovoltaic cells. Approximately 80 % of all photovoltaic
systems are mended into a standalone system
Sinha et al (2018) [18] concluded that, knapsack sprayers are
very commonly used by small and marginal farmers for Pest
control because of affordability and ease of operation but with
lower outputs. An attempt was made to develop a solar
powered sprayer which had higher output (0.3 ha/h) with
lower physiological energy consumption and discomfort. An
electronic control had been embedded for protection against
deep discharge and over charging of battery for longer
operational life. The system could be fully charged by solar
energy within two hours of irradiation and can be operated
continuously for six hours. This ensures quality spray with
uniform droplet size in the swath. Anti-clogging filter had
also been installed before the nozzle in nozzle head for
trouble free operation as well as longer service life of nozzle.
Basavaraj et al. (2020) [5] developed and evaluated Solar
Operated Sprayer. This equipment does not use any other
external source of power for spraying and is operated by the
Fig 6: Solar powered knapsack sprayer
user only; it reduces drudgery, economical and eco-friendly as
it uses the solar energy which can be easily affordable by the
2.4 Drone mounted sprayer
farmers. The performance evaluation of the sprayer was This sprayer is very useful where human interventions are not
carried out for spraying in sugarcane and paddy. The walking
possible for spraying of chemicals on crops including rice
speed of the operator is about 2.5 km/h and which fields and orchard crops as well as crops under terrain lands.
corresponds to a theoretical field capacity of about 0.6 ha/h. This technology greatly helpful for small farming community
The effective field capacity of the sprayer was observed to be
in reducing cost of pesticide application and environmental
0.5 ha/h and field efficiency was 83.33 % was observed. The pollution but also biological efficacy of application
maximum flow rate obtained for four-hole adjustable nozzles
technology.
with a flow rate of 2.1 l/min and minimum flow rate was Yallappa et al. (2017) [20] developed and field evaluated drone
obtained for hallow cone nozzle with a flow rate of 1.021 mounted sprayer mainly consists of BLDC motors, LiPo
l/min. The discharge rates for sugarcane and paddy were (Lithium polymer) batteries, pesticide tank, pump, and
~ 147 ~
 The Pharma Innovation Journal https://www.thepharmajournal.com

supporting frame. Six BLDC motors were mounted to hexa- Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) – aircrafts are used to spray
copter frame to lift of 5 kg payload capacity. Two LiPo the pesticides to avoid the health problems of humans when
batteries of 6 cells – 8000 mAh were used to supply the they spray manually. UAVs can be used easily, where the
necessary current required for the propulsion system. A 5-liter equipment and labours difficulty to operate.
capacity conical-square shaped fluid tank was used to hold the
pesticide solution. A 12 V DC motor coupled with pump was
used to pressurize spray liquid and then to atomize in to fine
spray droplets by means of four nozzles. A suitable
aluminium supporting frame was used to mount the spray
liquid tank, sprayer motor, spray and supporting legs (landing
gears) for safe take-off and landing. The entire drone mounted
sprayer operation controlling with the help of transmitter at
ground level, HD FPV camera also provide at front down side
of drone sprayer unit to monitoring the live spaying operation.
The developed drone mounted sprayer was evaluated for its
field performance in groundnut and paddy crop and the
average field capacity was found to be 1.15 ha/h and 1.08
ha/h, respectively at a forward speed of 3.6 km/h and 1m
height of spray. The cost of operation for groundnut and
paddy crops using drone mounted sprayer has been worked
out 345 and 367 Rs/ha, respectively. The spray uniformity Fig 7: Drone mounted sprayer
was increased with increase in height of spray and operating
pressure. A VMD and NMD of spray droplet size were Results and Discussion
measured and it was found to be 345 and 270 μm, The Results and Discussion section of a review article on
respectively in lab condition. agricultural sprayers would provide a comprehensive
Mogili et al. (2018) [12] concluded there are too many overview of the various types of sprayers used in modern
developments in precision agriculture for increasing the crop agriculture, highlighting their effectiveness, and discussing
productivity. Especially, in the developing countries like their impact on crop yield, quality, and overall farm
India, over 70 % of the rural people depends upon the productivity as summarized in Table 1. Additionally, the
agriculture fields. The agriculture fields face dramatic losses advantages and disadvantages of the different agricultural
due to the diseases. These diseases came from the pests and sprayers would be thoroughly discussed in Table 2. The
insets, which reduces the productivity of the crops. Pesticides section would also evaluate the environmental and economic
and fertilizers are used to kill the insects and pests in order to implications of using different types of sprayers and make
enhance the crop quality. The WHO (World Health recommendations for their use in different agricultural
Organization) estimated as one million cases of ill effected, applications.
when spraying the pesticides in the crop filed manually. The

Table 1: Comparison of different spraying methods

Discharge Field capacity Efficiency Cost
Sr. No. Sparing Methods Author
(l/min) (ha/h) (%) (Rs/ha)
1 Manual Spraying - - - -
2 Animal Drawn Spraying Gupta et al. (2003) [7] 2.53 0.704 - -
Netam et al. (2021) [14] 240 l/h 0.52 83 % 274.25
3 Power Operated Spraying
Self-Propelled Sprayer Ghafoor et al. (2022) [6] - 2.19 61 % 147.87
Power Tiller Operated Sprayer Padmanathan and Kathirvel (2007) [15] 4.128 0.72 - 88.25
Suresh et al. (2013) [19] - 0.146 - -
Tractor Operated or Mounted Sprayer Sanchavat et al. (2017) [17] - 2.08 63.03 % -
Solar Operated Sprayer Basavaraj et al. (2020) [5] 1.68 0.66 83.33 % -
4 Drone Mounted Spraying Yallappa et al. (2017) [20] 1.83 62.84 % 345

Table 2: Comparison of Spraying Methods

Sr no. Methods Advantages Disadvantages
Plant damage/pesticide losses are low Time and labour consuming
1 Manual Sprayer
Easy to maintain and repair Slow compared to machine sprayers
Animal Drawn Less labour required as compared to manual method Less efficient and require more time as compare to
2
Sprayer Cost-effective for small-scale farmers power operated sprayer Limited capacity and speed
Power Operated Highly efficient, time saving, minimum labour required Requires skilled operators and regular training
3
Sprayer Accurate and consistent application Expensive to purchase and maintain
Environmentally friendly and sustainable Initial cost may be higher than manual spraying
Solar operated
4 Energy-efficient and low-cost operation May not be suitable for use in areas with limited
sprayer
No fuel or electricity costs sunlight
Cover more area in short time Require special knowledge and skills,
Drone Mounted
5 Apply spraying immediately after rain, minimize Drones are weather sensitive, don’t use at flowering
Sprayer
obvious hazards and health risk stage

~ 148 ~
 The Pharma Innovation Journal https://www.thepharmajournal.com

3. Conclusions of bullock drawn traction sprayer. Agricultural

Modern agriculture relies heavily on the use of sprayers to Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
apply pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers to crops. The types 2003;34(1):26-30.
of sprayers used in agriculture have evolved over time, with 8. Issa WA, Abdulmumuni B, Azeez RO, Okpara IN,
advances in technology and changes in farming practices. One Fanifosi JO, Ologunye OB. Design, fabrication, and
of the most common types of sprayers used in modern testing of a movable solar operated sprayer for farming
agriculture is the boom sprayer. Boom sprayers use a series of operation. International Journal of Mechanical
nozzles mounted on a horizontal boom to apply pesticides or Engineering and Technology. 2020;11(03):6-14.
other chemicals to crops. These sprayers are typically 9. Jassowal NS, Singh SK, Dixit AK, Rohinish K. Field
mounted on tractors and can cover a large area quickly and evaluation of a tractor operated trailed type boom
efficiently. sprayer. Agricultural Engineering Today. 2016;40(2):41-
In recent years, there has been growing interest in the use of 52.
solar-powered sprayers in modern agriculture. Solar-powered 10. Jayashree GC, Krishnan DA. Performance evaluation of
sprayers, such as the solar boom sprayer, use solar panels to tractor operated target actuated sprayer. African Journal
power the pump and other components of the sprayer. This of Agricultural Research. 2012;7(49):6605-6612.
technology has several advantages over traditional sprayers, 11. Mahal JS, Garg IK, Sharma VK, Dixit AK. Development
including reduced fuel consumption and lower carbon of high clearance power sprayer for cotton. Journal of
emissions. Agricultural Engineering. 2007;44(3):92- 96.
Solar-powered sprayers also offer greater flexibility and 12. Mogili UR, Deepak BBVL. Review on application of
mobility, as they are not dependent on a tractor or other drone systems in precision agriculture. Procedia
vehicle for power. This can be particularly useful in remote Computer Science. 2018;133:502-509.
areas or in regions where access to electricity is limited. 13. Nalavade PP, Salokhe VM, Jayasuriya HPW, Hiroshi N.
Additionally, solar-powered sprayers are typically quieter Development of a tractor mounted wide spray boom for
than traditional sprayers, which can reduce noise pollution increased efficiency. Journal of Food, Agriculture and
and minimize disruption to wildlife and neighbouring Environment. 2008;6(2):164-169.
communities. while solar-powered sprayers offer several 14. Netam V, Lima A, Victor VM, Patel KK. Development
advantages over traditional sprayers, their effectiveness and of animal drawn solar powered sprayer. The Pharma
cost-effectiveness in different farming situations needs to be Innovation Journal. 2021;10(12):860-862.
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The technology is still 15. Padmanathan PK, Kathrivel K. Performance evaluation
developing, and improvements in efficiency and cost may of power tiller operated rear mounted boom sprayer for
make them a more viable option for farmers in the future. cotton crop. Research Journal of Agriculture and
Overall, the type of sprayer used in modern agriculture Biological Science. 2007;3(4):224-227.
depends on a variety of factors, including the type of crop 16. Pankaj BG, Shashidhar SK. A Review on pesticides
being sprayed, the size of the area being treated, and the type sprayer technology approach in ergonomics, economics
of chemical being applied. The choice of sprayer depends on and ecologic in agriculture field. International Journal of
several factors, and advances in technology have made these Engineering Science Invention. 2018;7(9):01-05.
sprayers more efficient and environmentally friendly. 17. Sanchavat HB, Chaudhary HS, Bhautik G, Singh SN.
Field evaluation of a tractor mounted boom
4. References sprayer. Agricultural Engineering Today. 2017;41(4):67-
1. Aktar W, Sengupta D, Chowdhury A. Impact of 71.
pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and 18. Sinha JP, Singh JK, Kumar A, Agarwal KN.
hazards. Interdisciplinary Toxicology. 2009;2(1):1. Development of solar powered knapsack sprayer. Indian
2. Ambaliya PS, Tiwari VK, Jalu MV. Development and Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2018;88(4):590-595.
Performance Evaluation of Mini Tractor Operated 19. Suresh N, Agrawal KN, Singh RC. Development of
Sprayer cum Weeder. International Journal of power tiller operated intra canopy sprayer for cotton and
Agriculture Innovations and Research. 2022;11(1):39-48. pigeon pea crops. Agricultural Engineering Today.
3. Amonye MC, Suleiman ML, El-Okene A, Abdulmalik 2013;37(2):17-22.
IO, Makoyo M. Design and development of animal 20. Yallappa D, Veerangouda M, Maski D, Palled V,
drawn ground metered axle mechanism boom Bheemanna M. Development and evaluation of drone
sprayer. International Journal of Engineering Research mounted sprayer for pesticide applications to crops. IEEE
and Applications. 2014;4(9):01-09. Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
4. Babasaheb G, Ravi M. Field evaluation of tractor (GHTC); c2017. p. 1-7.
operated boom sprayer of cotton crop. International 21. Singh A, Agrawal M, Marshall FM. The role of organic
Journal of Agricultural Engineering. 2013;6(2):372-374. vs. inorganic fertilizers in reducing phytoavailability of
5. Basavaraj PR, Ajaykumar K, Swathi M. Development heavy metals in a wastewater-irrigated area. Ecological
and evaluation of solar operated sprayer. Indian Journal Engineering. 2010 Dec 1;36(12):1733-1740.
of Ecology. 2020;47(11):245-248.
6. Ghafoor A, Khan FA, Khorsandi F, Khan MA, Nauman
HM, Farid MU. Development and evaluation of a
prototypes self-propelled crop sprayer for agricultural
sustainability in small farms. Sustainability.
2022;14(15):9204.
7. Gupta RA, Patel BP, Pund SR. Design and development
~ 149 ~