With a view to the SPISE 4 workshop at the end of the year 2011 a further survey in the European Member States (MS) and other countries in Europe was carried out. The aim of this survey was to compile information concerning the actual situation of sprayer inspection and the planning for the implementation of an inspection system following the Framework directive. The responsible colleagues of all involved countries got a short questionnaire where they updated the filled data and gave new information

Wehmann, H.-J.

English

JKI Open Journal Systems (Julius Kühn-Institut)

Julius-Kühn-Archiv 439 | 201250Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012 Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012Actual survey on the actions of the countries in Europe to implement the inspection system of sprayers concerning the Directive 2009/128/ECWehmann, H.-J.Julius Kühn-Institut, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Messeweg 11/12, 38104 Braun-schweig, GermanyDOI 10.5073/jka.2012.439.004SummaryWith a view to the SPISE 4 workshop at the end of the year 2011 a further survey in the European Member States (MS) and other countries in Europe was carried out. The aim of this survey was to com-pile information concerning the actual situation of sprayer inspection and the planning for the imple-mentation of an inspection system following the Framework directive. The responsible colleagues of all involved countries got a short questionnaire where they updated the filled data and gave new in-formation. 1. IntroductionOn the occasion of the previous SPISE workshops in the year 2004, 2007 and 2009 similar surveys were carried out. With that information it was pointed out that the situation regarding sprayer inspections in the Member States and other European countries at first was marked by great differences. But in view of the publishing of the DIRECTIVE 2009/128/EC more and more countries started an inspection system.With this actual survey the colleagues were asked for updating the data regarding the inspection of field and air-assisted sprayers, and for the first time for all kind of sprayers which are mentioned in ar-ticle 8 of the Directive (as foggers, hand-operated and handheld sprayers, pesticide application equip-ment not used for spraying, knapsack sprayers and spray equipment mounted on aircrafts or trains). In detail the colleagues were asked for data regarding:1. the number of sprayers in use, 2. the kind of data basis regarding the numbers of sprayers, 3. and if there will be established a sprayer register in future, 4. the obligation of the inspection. Over that there are some further questions regarding1. the exemption of kinds of sprayers and if this is following a risk assessment,2. the average inspection costs, 3. the amount of inspected sprayers in 2009 and 2010,4. the inspection interval,5. the procedure for brand new sprayers,6. the source for the requirements,7. the procedure for sprayers where a defect is stated,8. the prohibition of use if a sticker/test report is missing ,9. the bodies responsible for implementing the inspection system (as requested by article 8, paragraph 6 of the Frame Work Directive),10. a picture or scheme of a sticker,11. the execution by authorized workshops or official teams,12. the number of workshops or teams and the existence of a database where authorized work-shops are listed,13. the subsidies for the implementation of inspection sites from the government,14. the measuring system concerning the cross or vertical distribution,15. the offer or realization of adjustments and/or calibrations during the inspection procedure.Herewith I would like to take the opportunity to thank all answering colleagues for the fruitful coop-eration and for their contributions. Especially the compilation of the number of sprayers in use and the number of yearly carried out inspections was combined with some problems due to the fact that most countries do not maintain any central register in this connection.Julius-Kühn-Archiv 439 | 2012Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012 Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012512. AssessmentThe tables 1 to 3 summarize many of the collected data separated for field sprayers and air-assisted sprayers for bush and tree crops.Tab. 1. Inspection of field sprayers in the European CountriesCountry Number of spray-ers in useNumber of sprayers inspected (average 2004-2006)Number of sprayers inspected (average 2006-2008)Number of sprayers inspected (average 2009-2010)After how many years the inspec-tion must be repeatedAverage inspection cost (Euro) from…to...After how many years the first inspection of brand new spray-ers is sched-uledInspection carried out by work-shops (W) or official teams (T)Austria 40.000 9.367 10.529 7.000 3 120 3 WBelgium 18.300 6.344 6.344 5.842 3 70-160 3 TBulgaria 4.960 0 0 0 5 70-160 5 WCzech Repub-lic7.163 1.150 1.437 1.419 5 100-350 5 WDenmark 20.000 151 61 0 3 220-600 3 ?Estonia 1.500 218 234 248 348-96 + transp.3 WFinland 15.000 0 0 2.617 5 80-200 5 TFrance 150.000 0 0 14.650 5 150-250 5 WGermany 130.200 73.090 72.806 66.095 2 60-400 0.5 WGreece 48.736 0 0 18 3 ? 5 ?Hungary 35.000 0 0 0 0 ? ? ?Italy 200.000 2.300 2.333 3.660 2 to 5 40-150after 2016 before deliveryWLatvia  0 0 0 3 ? 5 TLithuania 15.000 0 0 1.043 5 30-120before deliveryWLuxembourg 1.090 421 805 224 3 120-300 3 WNetherlands 12.347 5.751 6.580 4.144 3 150-225 3 WNorway 16.000 1.950 1.000 439 5 200-350 3 WPoland 306.777 55.941 46.465 49.610 3 15-30 3 WPortugal 28.000 0 0 200 5 35 + transp. 5 ?Romania 19.533 0 0 0 5 ? 5 ?Serbia 20.000 0 0 14 2 100-250 2 TSlovakia 3.500 605 685 597 5 160-350 5 WSlovenia 16.078 7.172 10.053 6.625 2 40 0.5 TSpain 100.000 300 1.433 0 4 120-150 5 BothSweden 14.500 1.700 1.750 1.250 2 ~ 400 2 WSwitzerland 13.300 2.980 3.530 3.125 4 60-90 1 WUnited King-dom47.500 11.424 13.447 14.700 1 150-230before deliveryWJulius-Kühn-Archiv 439 | 201252Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012 Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012Tab. 2. Inspection of air-assisted sprayers in the European CountriesCountry Number of spray-ers in useNumber of sprayers inspected (average 2004-2006)Number of sprayers inspected (average 2006-2008)Number of sprayers inspected (average 2009-2010)After how many years the inspec-tion must be repeat-edAverage inspection cost (Euro) from…to...After how many years the first inspection of brand new spray-ers is scheduledInspection carried out by work-shops (W) or official teams (T)Austria 20.000 6.000 6.500 5.500 3 120 3 WBelgium 1.681 729 729 536 3 76 3 TBulgaria 1.665 0 0 0 5 70-160 5 WCzech Repub-lic1.372 74 280 266 5 100-250 5 WDenmark ? 0 0 0 3 ? 3 ?Estonia some ? 11 ? 3 ? 3 WFinland 20 0 0 0 5 ? 5 TFrance 100.000 0 0 3.400 5 130-240 5 WGermany 42.000 20.957 18.679 19.844 2 60-180 0.5 WGreece 103.857 0 0 0 3 ? 5 ?Hungary 15.000 0 0 0 0 ? ? ?Italy 400.000 5.967 4.933 7.320 2 to 5 40-150after 2016 before deliveryWLatvia ? 11 14 ? 3 ? 5 TLithuania 100 8 8 20 5 35-85before deliveryWLuxembourg 227   102 3 100-250 3 WNetherlands 1.875 831 671 588 3 120-170 3 WNorway 1.000 55 50 1 5 ? 3 WPoland 22.111 3.843 3.194 3.579 3 15-30 3 WPortugal 28.000 180 430 610 535 + tran-sp.5 ?Romania 5.680 0 0 0 5 ? 5 ?Serbia ? 2 2 10 2 100-250 2 TSlovakia 500 80 102 108 5 130-250 5 WSlovenia 6.821 2.881 2.958 2.739 2 40 0.5 TSpain 200.000 1.133 933 ? 4 120-150 5 BothSweden 250 50 50 0 2 ~ 400 2 WSwitzerland 3.000 675 769 841 4 60-90 1 WUnited King-dom2.500   850 1 180before deliveryWIt can be stated that the involved 27 countries reported an existence of about 1.2 Million of field spray-ers and nearly 1 Million of air-assisted sprayers. In Italy, France, Poland and Spain are located about 75% of these sprayers. The number of the other kinds of sprayers seems to be rather difficult to state. For all these equipment nearly all data we got were very imprecise.Julius-Kühn-Archiv 439 | 2012Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012 Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 201253With this table it is compiled in which countries and for which kinds of sprayers inspection systems already are introduced or the introduction is already prepared for 2016. As expected all attending countries focus on the field and the air-assisted sprayers. The foggers and the hand-operated sprayers and also the equipments not used for spraying, such as seed treaters, in nearly all countries are seen as objects to be inspected. This applies also for spraying equipment mounted on aircrafts or trains and so on. For handheld and knapsack sprayers nearly all countries use the possibilities of paragraph 3 of article 8 of the directive regarding a derogation. In the meantime the needed risk assessments are already in preparation. This is shown by the coloured table elements.Doubtless an important key point regarding the mutual recognition is the inspection interval. Here the values range between 1 year in UK and 5 years in 9 other countries. In Italy and Spain for the differ-ent regions different intervals are defined. All in one the average inspection interval in the meantime increased from 2.7 years in 2006 to 3.0 years in 2009 to now 4.0 years.Table 4 shows in which extent the users of air-assisted sprayers take part in the offered inspections. Yearly requested inspections in this case means: Number of sprayers in use divided by the inspection interval. From this value the percentage of real performed inspections was calculated. Assigned are the results from the time periods 2004-2006, 2006-2008 and 2009-2010. The single columns show that step by step nearly all asked countries are on the way to comprehensive inspections. The share of in-spections is increasing in most cases. In some countries the 100 % seems to be reached nearly.Tab. 3. Kind of sprayers for which inspection systems exist or will be introduced till 2016Julius-Kühn-Archiv 439 | 201254Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012 Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012Concerning the scheduled time of the first inspection of brand new sprayers the answers differs a lot. Due to the fact that some defects (e. g. leakages or internal dirtying) occur directly from the produc-tion, Italy, Lithuania and United Kingdom decided that the sprayers shall be inspected before the de-livering. Germany and Slovenia report a first inspection time at latest 6 months after the first use. Furthermore it can be summarized that nearly all attending states follows the rules of EN 13790 till the EN 16122 will be available. Also most states accept minor defects ascertained during the inspection (some only after repair other without repair of the defect too). Meanwhile serious defects in all coun-tries lead to a prohibition of use. Some reported over that a financial punishment for owners of defec-tive sprayers. Nearly all countries prohibit the use for sprayers where a sticker/test report is missing or invalid – that means where a user ignored the last date of inspection. 14 states let perform the inspec-tion by authorized workshops whereas 8 states prefer the system where official teams take this res-ponsibility. The others are undecided in this field.As inconsistent is to be seen the handling of the measurement of the cross distribution for field spray-ers: Some states prefer the usage of the measurement of the coefficient of variation, some others of the nozzle flow rate of single nozzles. And others again utilise both system. The vertical distribution for air-assisted is measured by vertical patternator test benches in 6 countries. Also 6 countries prefer the measuring of the nozzle flow rates here. 13 offer no measurements in this direction.Finally it can be summarized that countries where fruit/wine growing predominate adjustments or calibrations during the inspection are offered and often well accepted by the users.The minimum prerequisite for a mutual recognition is to know the addresses of the responsible bodies and the additional an example of the used inspection sticker. In table 5 these essential data are sum-marized.Tab. 4. Yearly inspected air-assisted sprayers as percentage of yearly requested inspections Julius-Kühn-Archiv 439 | 2012Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012 Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 201255Tab. 5. Responsible bodies and examples of stickers of attending countriesJulius-Kühn-Archiv 439 | 201256Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012 Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012Julius-Kühn-Archiv 439 | 2012Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012 Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 201257Julius-Kühn-Archiv 439 | 201258Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 2012 Fourth European Workshop on Standardised Prodedure for the Inspection of Sprayers – SPISE 4 –, Lana (South Tyrol), March 27-29, 20123. ConclusionsSummarising all data, it can be stated that the involved countries reported an existence of nearly 2.25 millions of field and air-assisted sprayers (2009: 2.5 millions). 18 countries already carry out a manda-tory inspection. All other countries reported that at latest till December 2016 all concerned sprayers will be inspected for the first time.Especially mentionable is the number of yearly carried out inspections: Since 2004 this number more than doubled from 148 thousand to now 300 thousand in the year 2010. 

Actual survey on the actions of the countries in Europe to implement the inspection system of sprayers concerning the Directive 2009/128/EC

Directory of Open Access Journals

https://ojs.openagrar.de/index.php/JKA/article/download/2340/2685

Actual survey on the actions of the countries in Europe to implement the inspection system of sprayers concerning the Directive 2009/128/EC

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

JKI Open Journal Systems (Julius Kühn-Institut)

Directory of Open Access Journals