RPAS/UAV for pesticide application

• Regulatory challenges
• Update on the OECD

Working Party on Pesticides

– Drone sub-group

Rod Edmundson – Director, Permits�7 February 2024

The use and demand for use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft System or RPAS, also known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or Uncrewed Aerial Spray Systems (UASS), to apply pesticides is increasing.

​

However, adoption of this new method of applying pesticides can present challenges for regulatory authorities working with legislative regimes and processes developed prior to the emergence of this technology.

The case for RPAS in minor use

Battery operational back-pack

Vacuum pump

Mechanical powered pump – high volume

Hand pump back-pack

​

RPAS / UASS / UAV

Replaced mostly high exposure

and less accurate application

methods in China

Oil Palm Bagworm example in Malaysia: UAVs becoming a new method of application that provides better coverage and less exposure

UAVs can complement other application methods: i.e. spot applications, borders and sensitive areas

Application outside Asia – Switzerland

Switzerland among few EU countries that have aerial application approved, use of helicopters for spraying in difficult to reach vineyards grown in steep terrain

Current status of pesticide application by RPAS in Australia

The APVMA considers pesticide application by RPAS is covered by our July 2019 Spray Drift Policy and the spray drift definition of ‘aircraft’:

• An ‘aircraft’ is a fixed-wing or rotary aircraft that applies spray in-flight. This includes unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

​

Current use of RPAS for chemical application in Australia

The application of pesticides by RPAS must be in accordance with current label directions for aerial application. This includes:

• observance of all buffer zone requirements
• spray quality requirements
• water carrier volumes
• release height
• any other spray drift mitigations on the label or permits.

​

​

Current use of RPAS for chemical application in Australia

• The APVMA considers that the risk to operators, bystanders and the environment, as well as risk mitigation measures associated with RPAS application, will require specific consideration of the risks for permit and registration applications
• Before RPAS/UASS specific label recommendations can be made regulatory quality data is required for risk assessment

​

​

​

Working Party on Pesticides Drone Subgroup

• Formed in June 2019

“Define aspects of drone technology which will influence the risk characterisation in comparison with existing pesticide product evaluations (e.g. for aerial application) in order to establish if there are any additional requirements / information gaps and to recommend an approach to WGP to address any related risks.”

​

Publications

• Emerging technologies webpage apvma.gov.au/node/91741�
• one.oecd.org/document/ENV/CBC/MONO(2021)39/En/pdf�

“State of the knowledge literature review on unmanned aerial spray systems in agriculture”

​

​

WPP endorsed recommendations

Standard testing protocols / methodologies for consistent assessment of risks related to application of pesticides:�

• Development of standard testing methodologies�
• Publish interim best practice�
• Develop empirical database and standard drift curve �
• Gather data for operational practices� i) operators� ii) potential edge of field effects�
• Develop a mechanistic model for predicting spray deposition

​

​

Formation of UAPASTF

• Formation of the Unmanned Aerial Pesticide Application System Task Force (UAPASTF)
• November 2021
• The primary goals of the Task Force:
• To generate and submit regulatory data to government agencies
• The work of the industry taskforce is paramount to achieving some of the deliverables outlined in the work plan of the OECD Drone / UASS Subgroup.

​

Unmanned Aerial Pesticide Application System Task Force (UAPASTF)

Parties interested in the work of, or registrants interested in joining the UAPASTF should contact:

Dr. Greg Watson,

Chair, UAPASTF Administrative Committee greg.watson@bayer.com

+1 314 343 8120

Industry sponsored task force – (UAPASTF) established

​

• UASS curves are somewhere between aerial and ground-based methodologies, comparing closest to orchard airblast applications, based on the published literature �
• Comparisons were done to basic drift curves �for the EU, US, and Canada�

Uncrewed aerial spray systems and equivalency with conventional techniques

UASS drift assessment and comparison with the EPA AgDRIFT 2.1.1 orchard, ground, and aerial curves. The 6-rotor UASS operated at a velocity of 3.6 m/s and 4.6 m altitude, with a medium and 2 coarse nozzles

UASS drift assessment and comparison with the PMRA AgDISP for aerial, and empirical data for tractor boom sprayers with a medium spray distribution and orchard airblast early. The 6-rotor UASS operated at a velocity of 3.6 m/s and 4.6 m altitude, with a medium and 2 coarse nozzles

Uncrewed aerial spray systems and equivalency with conventional techniques:

UAPASTF Non-GLP pilot spray drift trial results – comparison with PMRA Drift Curves

AgDISP Pro UAV spray drift mechanistic model against field trials

Slide adapted from IUPAC presentation

OECD Co-operative Research Programme: Sustainable Agricultural and Food Systems (CRP) Sponsored

​

�Drone Spraying of Pesticides

York, United Kingdom

23 to 24 May 2023

​

UAPASTF best�practices document

Thank you and acknowledgements

​

CropLife America

​

Unmanned Aerial Pesticide Application System Task Force (UAPASTF)

​

Greg Watson

Bayer

​

Hector Portillo

FMC

apvma.gov.au