PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Charles R Krause

Publications and source records attributed to Charles R Krause.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Evaluation of a contraction flow field on hydrodynamic damage to entomopathogenic nematodes-A biological pest control agent.

Mechanized production and delivery of biological pesticides presents challenges because the biological agents must remain viable during these processes. This study evaluates the effect of flow through an abrupt contraction, where flow characteristics similar to that found within bioprocesses and spray equipment are developed, on damage to a benchmark biological pest control agent, entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs). An opposed-pistons, contraction flow device generated volumetric flow rates ranging between 8.26 cm(3)/s and 41.3 cm(3)/s. Four EPN species were evaluated: Heterorhabditis bacteriophora, Heterorhabditis megidis, Steinernema carpocapsae, and Steinernema glaseri. Damage was quantified by counting living and dead EPNs. Optical and cold field emission scanning electron microscope (CFE-SEM) images provided qualitative information to describe how the damage occurred. The experimental flow field was completely described using FLUENT, a computational fluid dynamics program. Local flow parameters computed in FLUENT were compared to EPN damage. The type and extent of damage varied between EPN species. Damaged Heterorhabditis spp. generally remained whole with an internal rupture located near the center of the body, while Steinernema spp. most often broke into several pieces. The fast-transient stress field generated at the entrance to the contraction caused a momentary tensile loading and then relaxation that damaged the EPNs. At high flow rates, the tensile stresses became large enough to cause failure of the EPN structural membrane. The relative elasticity of the EPN structural membrane may explain the differences in damage observed between the species. It is speculated that the internal rupture of the Heterorhabditis spp. occurred during the processes of stretching and relaxing at the contraction entrance. Appreciable damage was observed at lower average energy dissipation rates for H. bacteriophora (1.23E + 8 W/m(3)), H. megidis (1.72E + 8 W/m(3)), and S. glaseri (2.89E + 8 W/m(3)) compared to S. carpocapsae (3.70E + 8 W/m(3)). Energy dissipation rates within an equipment component should be kept below 1E + 8 W/m(3) to avoid hydrodynamic damage to EPNs. The relationship between average energy dissipation and EPN damage provides important information for future simulation efforts of actual spray equipment components.

Animals↗

Comparing greenhouse sprayers: the dose-transfer process.

Three sprayers were evaluated for their affect on retention and efficacy: a carbon dioxide powered high-volume sprayer, a DRAMM coldfogger, and an Electrostatic Spraying Systems (ESS) sprayer with air-assistance. The active ingredients used were spinosad and azadirachtin. The plant canopy was constructed in the greenhouse using potted soybeans (Glycine max (L) Merrill cr Pioneer 9392). Application efficacy with spinosad was assessed using thrips [Western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)] and mite (two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch) abundance on shoots and leaves. Application efficacy with azadirachtin was assessed using thrips and aphid (soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura) abundance on shoots and leaves. The atomization characteristics of each sprayer were measured using an Aerometrics phase/Doppler particle analyzer (PDPA) 100-1D. The results of four tests are presented. Two tests used each sprayer according to manufacturer recommendations. These are 'recommended volume' tests that confound differences in toxicant distribution caused by the sprayer with differences caused by changes in application volume. The other two tests were 'constant volume' tests in which all three sprayers were used to deliver the same application volume. Both types of test gave differences between sprayers in retention of toxicant, but only the recommended volume tests showed significant effects of the sprayers on pest abundance. We attribute this difference to the role played by changing application volumes in the dose-transfer process. The constant-volume tests showed that application equipment influences efficacy.

Aerosols↗