## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Water Source**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Adjuvant/Concentration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Droplet Volume (\(\upmu\)L)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Surface Tension (\(\upmu\)N/m)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Standard Deviation**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & & **Mean** & & **Min.** & **Max.** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{WS} & \(-/0\%\) (control) & 28 & 71.56 & 70.34 & 72.39 & 0.53 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HY/50\% & 16 & 51.45 & 45.81 & 55.85 & 2.52 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HY/100\% & 14 & 36.26 & 34.16 & 38.45 & 1.23 \\ \cline{2-6}  & OL/50\% & 16 & 52.35 & 47.30 & 58.19 & 2.84 \\ \cline{2-6}  & OL/100\% & 14 & 36.71 & 34.64 & 39.90 & 1.53 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{WUP} & \(-/0\%\) (control) & 28 & 73.41 & 71.60 & 75.04 & 0.66 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HY/50\% & 16 & 53.78 & 48.56 & 58.03 & 2.46 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HY/100\% & 14 & 36.87 & 33.43 & 40.24 & 1.96 \\ \cline{2-6}  & OL/50\% & 16 & 54.27 & 48.56 & 61.77 & 3.13 \\ \cline{2-6}  & OL/100\% & 14 & 37.19 & 33.63 & 41.15 & 2.01 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Effect of water type, adjuvant type, and concentration on the surface tension. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Water Source**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Adjuvant/Concentration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Droplet Volume (\(\upmu\)L)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Droplets (\(\upmu\)m)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Droplets (\(\upmu\)m)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SMD (\(\upmu\)m)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RS (\(\upmu\))**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{WS} & \(-/0\%\) (control) & 97.29 \(\pm\) 15.32 & 196.27 \(\pm\) 4.25 & 301.06 \(\pm\) 4.86 & 127.03 \(\pm\) 8.25 & 1.04 \(\pm\) 0.08 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HY/50\% & 73.35 \(\pm\) 6.29 & 180.24 \(\pm\) 2.47 & 351.78 \(\pm\) 8.32 & 125.71 \(\pm\) 14.50 & 1.54 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HY/100\% & 77.21 \(\pm\) 0.29 & 184.97 \(\pm\) 2.77 & 359.08 \(\pm\) 5.82 & 134.12 \(\pm\) 0.91 & 1.52 \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \cline{2-6}  & OL/50\% & 109.95 \(\pm\) 0.34 & 191.72 \(\pm\) 1.48 & 333.46 \(\pm\) 3.45 & 164.77 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 1.17 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \cline{2-6}  & OL/100\% & 82.38 \(\pm\) 2.96 & 190.34 \(\pm\) 5.58 & 391.75 \(\pm\) 9.91 & 133.51 \(\pm\) 12.17 & 1.63 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{WUP} & \(-/0\%\) (control) & 64.76 \(\pm\) 2.02 & 186.78 \(\pm\) 3.97 & 302.09 \(\pm\) 18.69 & 116.35 \(\pm\) 6.88 & 1.27 \(\pm\) 0.06 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HY/50\% & 99.87 \(\pm\) 2.81 & 185.62 \(\pm\) 2.53 & 366.58 \(\pm\) 11.76 & 149.34 \(\pm\) 14.90 & 1.44 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HY/100\% & 93.40 \(\pm\) 2.10 & 221.07 \(\pm\) 4.41 & 391.59 \(\pm\) 7.40 & 165.91 \(\pm\) 4.39 & 1.35 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\ \cline{2-6}  & OL/50\% & 96.81 \(\pm\) 0.61 & 197.34 \(\pm\) 0.50 & 373.21 \(\pm\) 10.08 & 118.34 \(\pm\) 1.45 & 1.40 \(\pm\) 0.06 \\ \cline{2-6}  & OL/100\% & 101.92 \(\pm\) 3.20 & 198.21 \(\pm\) 0.94 & 359.23 \(\pm\) 2.85 & 134.39 \(\pm\) 13.84 & 1.30 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Effect of water type, adjuvant type, and concentration on droplet size characteristics (mean \(\pm\) standard deviation). to the working liquid, the drops were found to be formed closer to the nozzle outlet, which resulted in the formation of drops of larger size and uniform spraying of the liquid [10]. In the real world, adjuvant addition should lower SMD, and this outcome should increase the amount of low range fractions of 0-150 \(\upmu\)m. In this case, the better results were obtained if HY at the concentration of 50% was used. The values of relative span (RS), which is an indicator of the homogeneity of spray droplet spectra, were higher after adding the adjuvants for both types of water, as compared to the control water sample. As values of RS closer to zero indicate better homogeneity of spray droplet, adding adjuvants resulted in an adverse effect on this indicator for both types of water. The reason for this is that the gap between D\({}_{v0.9}\) and D\({}_{v0.1}\) enlarges due to the changes in the droplets' size in the spray plume after adjuvant.