Assessing a novel smartphone application - SnapCard, compared to five imaging systems to quantify droplet deposition on artificial collectors

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorFerguson, J. Connor
dc.contributor.authorChechetto, Rodolfo G. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorO'Donnell, Chris C.
dc.contributor.authorFritz, Brad K.
dc.contributor.authorHoffmann, W. Clint
dc.contributor.authorColeman, Chet E.
dc.contributor.authorChauhan, Bhagirath S.
dc.contributor.authorAdkins, Steve W.
dc.contributor.authorKruger, Greg R.
dc.contributor.authorHewitt, Andrew J.
dc.contributor.institutionUniv Queensland
dc.contributor.institutionNorthwest Missouri State Univ
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionARS
dc.contributor.institutionUniv Nebraska Lincoln
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-26T17:06:43Z
dc.date.available2018-11-26T17:06:43Z
dc.date.issued2016-10-01
dc.description.abstractPrevious work sought to compare the results from imaging software for characterising droplet coverage, but none exists examining these five software programs: Droplet Scan (R), Swath Kit (R), Deposit Scan, Image J, and Drop Vision (R)-Ag. Additionally, a freely available smartphone application (App), SnapCard was developed to provide an extension tool for in-field analysis of spray collectors, but nothing has been published regarding its comparison to other imaging software systems. The present study was conducted to compare five existing imaging software types against the new App, SnapCard. Six nozzles producing different spray qualities were selected to spray a water + Brilliant Blue Dye solution over two artificial collector types (water sensitive paper and Kromekote (R)). Each collector was assessed for percent coverage using the five imaging systems and SnapCard. Objectives of this study were: 1. To establish a baseline dataset using the sprayed cards and five commonly used imaging systems, and compare the coverage results from each. 2. Use the baseline data from Objective 1 as a measurement of precision to judge the results from SnapCard. 3. Make an assessment of SnapCard against the other imaging software type data in the study. Results showed that SnapCard has similar measured coverage means compared to other image analysis systems. For both collector types, SnapCard measured coverage within one standard deviation of the means across nozzle types. SnapCard is able to provide an immediate answer without expensive software or needing a laboratory to measure sprayed collector coverage with precise results, which further underscores its value. The other software types were not all similar for coverage, but the data followed the same trends for droplet size. Increasing the droplet size consistently decreased the coverage, across both collector types. Droplet Scan reported the highest coverage while Drop Vision-Ag and Swath Kit gave lower coverage values on water sensitive paper and Kromekote (R) collectors, respectively. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.en
dc.description.affiliationUniv Queensland, Gatton, Qld 4343, Australia
dc.description.affiliationNorthwest Missouri State Univ, Maryville, MO 64468 USA
dc.description.affiliationSao Paulo State Univ FCA, Dept Rural Engn, BR-18610 Sao Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationARS, USDA, 2771 F&B Rd, College Stn, TX 77845 USA
dc.description.affiliationUniv Queensland, Queensland Alliance Agr & Food Innovat, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia
dc.description.affiliationUniv Nebraska Lincoln, North Platte, NE 69101 USA
dc.description.affiliationUnespSao Paulo State Univ FCA, Dept Rural Engn, BR-18610 Sao Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.sponsorshipGrains Research and Development Corporation of Australia (GRDC)
dc.format.extent193-198
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.08.022
dc.identifier.citationComputers And Electronics In Agriculture. Oxford: Elsevier Sci Ltd, v. 128, p. 193-198, 2016.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.compag.2016.08.022
dc.identifier.fileWOS000385473300021.pdf
dc.identifier.issn0168-1699
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/162062
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000385473300021
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.relation.ispartofComputers And Electronics In Agriculture
dc.relation.ispartofsjr0,814
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso aberto
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectImage analysis
dc.subjectKromekote
dc.subjectWater-sensitive paper
dc.subjectSnapCard
dc.subjectSmartphone App
dc.subjectSprays
dc.subjectDroplet size
dc.subjectSpray quality
dc.titleAssessing a novel smartphone application - SnapCard, compared to five imaging systems to quantify droplet deposition on artificial collectorsen
dc.typeArtigo
dcterms.licensehttp://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/article-posting-policy
dcterms.rightsHolderElsevier B.V.

Arquivos

Pacote Original
Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
WOS000385473300021.pdf
Tamanho:
1023.96 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição:
Baixar

Coleções

Artigos - Engenharia Rural - FCA