## 3 Results and Discussion
Increasing the lateral wind velocity of the air flow generator to \(v=8\) m s\({}^{-1}\) resulted in spray drift of 15 m from the spray zone for both the DRAs and the water sprays (Figure 13). Comparing the results of the coverage of the spray zone with the results obtained at a lateral wind velocity of \(v=6\) m s\({}^{-1}\), a decrease in the spray coverage of the sprayed plants is observed. The use of DRAs slightly improves the coverage in the spray zone, but less with the previous case. Increasing the lateral wind velocity to \(v=8\) m s\({}^{-1}\) resulted in a decrease in coverage for the control case from 52.3% to 50.3% (about 3.8%), for DRA1 from 71.3% to 58.4% (about 18.1%), for DRA2 from 62.6% to 58.9% (about 5.9%), for DRA3 from 54.7% to 51.4% (about 6.0%). Spray coverage decreased in the spray zone as more droplets were carried away by the wind and coverage increased in the other test zones. The effectiveness of the DRAs used in the tests in reducing spray drift was most pronounced in the rows of artificial plants at distances of 6 m to 12 m from the spray zone. The spray coverage at 6 m from the spray zone was 10.4%, 3.3% for DRA1 (about 3.2 times lower than water coverage), 3.4% for DRA2 (about 3.1 times lower than water coverage), and 8.0% for DRA3 (about 23.1% lower than water coverage). In the next row of artificial plants (9 m behind the spray zone), the coverage was 9.5% for the control, 2.6% for DRA1 (about 3.7 times lower than for the control), 2.7% for DRA2 (about 3.5 times lower than for the control), and 6.3% for DRA3 (about 1.5 times lower than for the control). For the artificial plants within 12 m of the spray zone, the water spray coverage was 5.9%, for DRA1 and DRA2 it was 1.5%(about 3.9 times lower than water coverage), and for DRA3 it was 2.0% (about 3.0 times lower than water coverage). To determine the effectiveness of the three DRAs used at different lateral wind velocities (from 2 m s\({}^{-1}\) to 8 m s\({}^{-1}\)), an analysis was made of the variation in the coverage of the artificial plants by droplets of sprayed liquid at 3 m away from the spray zone. For a lateral wind velocity of \(v=2\) m s\({}^{-1}\), the spray coverage at 1 m from the ground was 1.6% (Figure 14). The coverage decreased with the application of DRAs to 0.8% for DRA1, 0.7% for DRA2, and 0.9% for DRA3. The result was that the coverage of the sheets was reduced by about a factor of 2 when using DRAs. Increasing the lateral wind velocity to \(v=2\) m s\({}^{-1}\) resulted in the highest WSP sheet coverage with water spraying. Thus, the droplet coverage with water spray was 4.2%, 0.9% for DRA1, and 1.1% for DRA2 and DRA3. DRAs were found to reduce WSP coverage by a factor of about 4.1. When the spraying process was operated at \(v=8\) m s\({}^{-1}\), the spray coverage of all sprayed liquids increased significantly. Water spraying resulted in a coverage of 8.1%, 4.8% for DRA1, 4.5% for DRA2, and 4.6% for DRA3. In this case, the application of DRAs reduced the spray coverage by about 42.8%. When analyzing the effectiveness of DRAs at 0.5 m below the spray zone, a much higher spray coverage was observed (Figure 15). For the artificial plants within 3 m of the spray zone, when subjected to a lateral wind of \(v=2\) m s\({}^{-1}\), the spray coverage was 16.5%, 8.6% for DRA1, 9.5% for DRA2, and 11.0% for DRA3. The studies showed that DRAs contribute to a reduction of about 41.2% of the WSP coverage. Increasing the lateral wind velocity by 2 m s\({}^{-1}\) resulted in a spray coverage of 24.6%, 11.5%, 11.6%, and 17.8% for DRA1, DRA2, and DRA3, respectively. The spray coverage was reduced by about 44.6% with DRA. Increasing the lateral wind velocity to \(v=8\) m s\({}^{-1}\) resulted in a spray coverage of 34.1%, 25.2%, 28.0%, and 31.2% for DRA1, DRA2, and DRA3, respectively. The addition of DRA to the spray liquid reduces the coverage by about 17.5%.