## 3 Results and Discussion
In the further rows, the spray coverage of the DRAs was about 2-3 times lower. Only at a distance of 6 m the droplet coverage of the DRA3 solution is the same as that of water. The results show that DRA1 is the most effective of the three DRAs, as all spray drift measurement areas had the lowest coverage. When comparing the results of DRA2 and DRA3, it is difficult to judge which was more effective, as their effectiveness varied between the different areas. Increasing the lateral wind velocity to \(v\) = 8 m s\({}^{-1}\) with the air flow generation bench shows an even more intense spray drift and a further increase in the spray coverage of the plants outside the spray zone. Also, when compared to the results obtained at \(v\) = 6 m s\({}^{-1}\), even with DRAs, droplets were carried up to 15 m away from the spray zone (Figure 12). In the spray zone, the influence of DRAs on the coverage is further reduced, as only the application of DRA1 resulted in a higher spray coverage of about 14.3% than water. The highest spray coverage was recorded in the second row of artificial plants (3 m from the  
Figure 12: Artificial plant coverage with spray droplets at 1.0 m height and spray drift during the spraying process under \(v\) = 6 m s\({}^{-1}\) and \(v\) = 8 m s\({}^{-1}\) lateral wind. spray zone). For the control, the coverage was 8.1% (about 6.5 times higher than in the spray zone), for DRA1 4.8% (about 3.4 times higher than in the spray zone), for DRA2 4.5% (about 3.8 times higher than in the spray zone), and for DRA3 4.6% (about 3.8 times higher than in the spray zone). The spray drift results show that the efficiency of the formulations is similar in most zones. The results obtained at distances of 3 m and 6 m from the spray zone are more significant. Comparing the results of the DRA solutions with the control at 3 m from the spray zone, it was found that the spray coverage of DRA1 is about 40.7% lower than that of water, DRA2 about 44.4%, and DRA3 about 43.2%. In the row of artificial plants at 6 m from the spray zone, the spray coverage with water was 0.9%, DRA1 0.3% (3 times lower than water coverage), DRA2 0.5% (about 44.4% lower than water coverage), and DRA3 0.8% (about 11.1% lower than water coverage). It is difficult to distinguish which of the DRAs was the most effective, as their results were similar in most zones. The coverage and spray drift results of the droplets sprayed by the spraying robot at a height of 0.5 m from the ground and subjected to a lateral wind of \(v=6\) m s\({}^{-1}\) are analyzed below. The data show that the droplets drifted up to 12 m from the spray zone and up to 15 m for the control. The spray coverage in the spray zone was 52.3% for the control, 71.3% for DRA1 (about 26.6% higher coverage than water), 62.6% for DRA2 (about 16.5% higher coverage than water), and 54.7% for DRA3 (about 4.4% higher coverage than water). In the tests, the use of DRAs not only improved the coverage of the spray zone but also reduced the downwind drift of droplets. The greatest effect of DRAs was observed at distances between 6 m and 12 m from the spray zone. In row 3 of the artificial plants (6 m from the spray zone), the coverage of water droplets on these plants at 0.5 m was 9.5%, 2.5% for DRA1 (approximately 3.8 times lower coverage than water), 3.4% for DRA2 (approximately 2.8 times lower coverage than water), and 4.3% for DRA3 (approximately 2.2 times lower coverage than water). Considering the results obtained at row 4 (9 m from the spray zone), the droplet coverage was 6.8% for the control, 1.5% for DRA1 and DRA2 (about 4.5 times lower than water coverage), and 1.9% for DRA3 (about 3.6 times lower than water coverage). Comparing the results obtained at 12 m from the spray zone, the spray coverage was 1.8% for the control, 0.2% for DRA1 (9 times lower coverage than water), and 0.3% for DRA2 and DRA3 (6 times lower coverage than water).