| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1711579 | Biosystems Engineering | 2012 | 13 Pages |
The performance of several commercial and experimental software packages (Gotas, StainMaster, ImageTool, StainAnalysis, AgroScan, DropletScan and Spray_imageI and II) that produce indicators of crop spraying quality based on the image processing of water-sensitive papers used as artificial targets were compared against known coverage, droplet size spectra and class size distribution verified through manual counting. A number of artificial targets used to test the software were obtained by controlled spray applications and given droplet density between 14 and 108 drops cm−2 and a wide range of droplet size spectra. The results showed that artificial targets coupled with an appropriate image system can be an accurate technique to compute spray parameters. The between-methods differences were 6.7% for droplet density, 11.5% for volume median diameter, <3% for coverage (%) and <3% coverage density. For the 16 droplet class size distribution tested the between-methods differences were all <15%. However, most of the image analysis systems were not effective in accurately measuring coverage density when coverage rate is greater than about 17%. The Spray_imageII software estimated the coverage density with a mean absolute error of 2% and the absolute error is below 10%, even with about 43% of coverage rate. This software, when compared to the other programmes tested, provided the best accuracy for coverage and droplet size spectrum as well as for droplet class size distribution.
► Image processing systems of water-sensitive paper were compared against manual measurements. ► Between-methods differences are 6.7% for droplets number and 3% for coverage. ► Spray_imageII software provided the best accuracy for droplet spectrum and coverage.
