4.6 Article

Development of test bench to determine the distribution of granular fertilizers in planting rows using spiral roller, two spiral rollers and fluted roller

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243799

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The success of the application of granular fertilizers (GFs) in planting rows depends on the uniformity and performance of product dispensing systems, which are influenced by external factors. The objective of this study was to determine the outflow rates of two GF formulations (GF(1) 04-14-08 and GF(2) 04-30-10) using three types of fertilizer spreader-with one spiral roller (A), two spiral rollers (B), or a fluted roller (C)-and three operating speeds (1,11, 1.94, and 2.77 m s(-1)). The following parameters were determined in GFs: density, angle of repose, water content, and segregation (particle size). In the designed test bench, GFs were transferred from a reservoir to a spreader, and ultimately to a container, where they were weighed, and data were transmitted to the data acquisition system (DAS). A total of 7,560 outflow data points were collected (g s(-1)) and subjected to descriptive analysis of measures of central tendency, dispersion, asymmetry, and kurtosis, and Shewhart control charts were generated. Particle density and segregation were significantly different between the GFs, whereas the angle of repose and water content were not significantly different. The bench design and the DAS allowed measuring the outflow of GFs in different spreaders and demonstrated that this parameter was influenced by particle segregation. The segregation of GF(1) was higher than that of GF(2). The outflow variability at the speed of 1.11 m s(-1) was lower, and the spreader with a fluted roller had the highest uniformity and was the most suitable for application with variable rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available