## 3 Results and Discussion
Following droplet tests and analysis of the results obtained at 1 m from the ground with a prevailing lateral wind of \(v\) = 2 m s\({}^{-1}\), the lateral wind generated by the air flow generator was increased to \(v\) = 4 m s\({}^{-1}\). By spraying water with an agricultural spraying robot, the three used DRA solutions showed an increase in spray drift compared to the results obtained at \(v\) = 2 m s\({}^{-1}\). In the case of control (i.e., water spraying), droplets could be detected up to 12 m away from the spray zone (Figure 10). However, with DRAs, droplets from the sprayed solutions were only carried up to 6 m from the spray zone. According to [PERSON] et al. [59], the coverage of drifted droplets at distances beyond the spray zone increases with lateral wind velocity. In our study, the results show a decrease in the spray zone compared to the results obtained at \(v\) = 2 m s\({}^{-1}\) lateral wind velocity. While the water coverage was 14.2%, the coverage decreased to 5.0% (about 2.8 times) when the lateral wind velocity was increased to \(v\) = 4 m s\({}^{-1}\). A similar situation was found for the DRAs solutions: DRA1 had a coverage of 32% at \(v\) = 2 m s\({}^{-1}\) lateral wind velocity, while the coverage decreased to 10.4% (about 3.1 times) when the lateral wind velocity was increased to \(v\) = 4 m s\({}^{-1}\). Almost the same change was observed for DRA2, as the coverage decreased  
Figure 9: Artificial plant spray coverage (%) in the absence of lateral wind (\(v\) = 0 m s\({}^{-1}\)). from 34.8% to 10.6% (about 3.3 times) and for DRA3 from 16.5% to 7.8% (about 2.1 times). Although the increase in wind velocity resulted in a decrease in droplet coverage, the efficiency of the preparation is noticeable. With DRAs, the spray zone is more covered by droplets, but there is also less spray drift outside the spray zone. The results obtained at 3 m from the spray zone showed a droplet coverage of 4.2% for water spraying, 0.9% for DRA1 (coverage reduced by about 4.7 times compared to water), 1.1% for DRA2 and DRA3 (coverage reduced by about 3.8 times compared to water). At 6 m from the spray zone, droplet coverage was observed to be 0.5% for both the control and the DRA3 solution. However, for DRA1 and DRA2, the coverage was lower. The WSP coverage of the artificial plant was 0.1% for DRA1 (5 times lower than water) and 0.2% for DRA2 (2.5 times lower than water). The results for the spray coverage and drift of the sprayed droplets at 0.5 m from the ground differed from the results obtained at 1 m from the ground. In particular, WSP sheets lower down were more covered by spray droplets, and in the case of the control, they drifted 9 m from the spray zone under a lateral wind of \(v\) = 2 m s\({}^{-1}\) (Figure 11). In the spray zone, all three DRAs showed increased spray coverage. For the control, the coverage was 67.2%, for DRA1 82.1% (about 22.2% more coverage than water), for DRA2 84.9% (about 26.3% more coverage), and for DRA3 74.4% (about 10.7% more coverage). The spray drift results show that DRAs had a lower drift. When analyzing the spray coverage of the artificial plants, the spray coverage in the next row or 3 m from the spray zone was 16.5%, 8.6% for DRA1 (about 47.9% lower coverage), 9.5% for DRA2 (about 42.4% lower coverage), and 11.0% for DRA3 (33.3% lower coverage). When comparing the performance of the DRAs with each other in terms of the results obtained, DRA1 had the highest impact on the reduction in spray drift. DRA1 resulted in a reduction of about 9.5% in spray drift compared to DRA2 and about 21.8% compared to DRA3. A comparison between DRA2 and DRA3 also showed that DRA2 reduced the coverage of droplets carried by lateral wind by about 13.6% compared to DRA3. Figure 10: Artificial plant coverage with spray droplets at 1.0 m height and spray drift during the spraying process under \(v\) = 2 m s\({}^{-1}\) and \(v\) = 4 m s\({}^{-1}\) lateral wind.