These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

270 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16628944)

  • 1. Drift studies--comparison of field and wind tunnel experiments.
    Stadler R; Regenauer W
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2005; 70(4):971-3. PubMed ID: 16628944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Interception of spray drift by border structures. Part 1: wind tunnel experiments.
    De Schampheleire M; Nuyttens D; Dekeyser D; Verboven P; Cornelis W; Gabriels D; Spanoghe P
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2008; 73(4):719-22. PubMed ID: 19226819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Direct and indirect drift assessment means. Part 4: a comparative study.
    Nuyttens D; Baetens K; De Schampheleire M; Sonck B
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2008; 73(4):769-74. PubMed ID: 19226827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Occurrence of spray drift for different crop types: cereal, cereal stubble and grassland.
    De Schampheleire M; Nuyttens D; Dekeyser D; Verboven P; Spanoghe P
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2008; 73(4):743-7. PubMed ID: 19226823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of the entrained air and initial droplet velocity on the release height parameter of a Gaussian spray drift model.
    Stainier C; Destain MF; Schiffers B; Lebeau F
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2006; 71(2 Pt A):197-200. PubMed ID: 17390793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Direct and indirect drift assessment means. Part 3: field drift experiments.
    Nuyttens D; De Schampheleire M; Baetens K; Dekeyser D; Sonck B
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2008; 73(4):763-7. PubMed ID: 19226826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of collectors of airborne spray drift. Experiments in a wind tunnel and field measurements.
    Arvidsson T; Bergström L; Kreuger J
    Pest Manag Sci; 2011 Jun; 67(6):725-33. PubMed ID: 21445941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Direct and indirect drift assessment means. Part 2: wind tunnel experiments.
    Nuyttens D; De Schampheleire M; Baetens K; Sonck B
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2008; 73(4):757-61. PubMed ID: 19226825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Buffer zones for reducing pesticide drift to ditches and risks to aquatic organisms.
    de Snoo GR; de Wit PJ
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 1998 Sep; 41(1):112-8. PubMed ID: 9756699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Spray drift as affected by meteorological conditions.
    Nuyttens D; Sonck B; de Schampheleire M; Steurbaut W; Baetens K; Verboven P; Nicolaï B; Ramon H
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2005; 70(4):947-59. PubMed ID: 16628942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Classification of spray nozzles based on droplet size distributions and wind tunnel tests.
    De Schamphelerie M; Spanoghe P; Nuyttens D; Baetens K; Cornelis W; Gabriels D; Van der Meeren P
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2006; 71(2 Pt A):201-7. PubMed ID: 17390794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The assessment of spray drift damage for ten major crops in Belgium.
    de Schampheleire M; Spanoghe P; Steurbaut W; Nuyttens D; Sonck B
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2005; 70(4):1037-42. PubMed ID: 16628952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application. 2. Primary drift (droplet drift).
    Carlsen SC; Spliid NH; Svensmark B
    Chemosphere; 2006 Jul; 64(5):778-86. PubMed ID: 16337986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of realtime spray drift using RTDrift Gaussian advection-diffusion model.
    Lebeau F; Verstraete A; Schiffers B; Destain MF
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2009; 74(1):11-24. PubMed ID: 20218507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of natural windbreaks on drift reduction in orchard spraying.
    Wenneker M; Heijne B; van de Zande JC
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2005; 70(4):961-9. PubMed ID: 16628943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Interception of spray drift by border structures. Part 2: field experiments.
    De Schampheleire M; Nuyttens D; Dekeyser D; Verboven P; Spanoghe P
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2008; 73(4):723-7. PubMed ID: 19226820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Field experiments to assess approaches for spray drift incident investigation.
    Rimmer DA; Johnson PD; Kelsey A; Warren ND
    Pest Manag Sci; 2009 Jun; 65(6):665-71. PubMed ID: 19291679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Simulation of drift of pesticides: development and validation of a model.
    Brusselman E; Spanoghe P; Van der Meeren P; Gabriels D; Steurbaut W
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2003; 68(4 Pt B):749-58. PubMed ID: 15151311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Off-target loss in ornamental nurseries with different spray techniques.
    Zhu H; Derksen RC; Krause CR; Zondag RH
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2009; 74(1):25-36. PubMed ID: 20218508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of air support on droplet characteristics and spray drift.
    Nuyttens D; Dekeyser D; De Schampheleire M; Baetens K; Sonck B
    Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2007; 72(2):71-9. PubMed ID: 18399426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.