All-terrain vehicle (ATV) crashes are one of the leading causes of death and injury in agriculture across the United States. Use of ATVs is highly prevalent in rural areas and has seen an increase in their application for a variety of agricultural work tasks. Empirical research on the use of these vehicles for agricultural tasks and associated injuries is limited, especially in the United States. Moreover, little is known about the risk factors associated with ATV-related injuries while doing farm work. A comprehensive review was conducted to evaluate the current injury burden of ATV use in agriculture, the need for future research, and possible solutions related to agricultural ATV safety. Potential injury prevention approaches are evaluated based on the hierarchy of control, including elimination or substitution (using side-by-side vehicles instead of ATVs or modifying ATV design), engineering control (operator protection devices), administrative authority (regulations and standards in the United States and around the world), training, and use of personal protective equipment. In addition, vehicle nomenclature, risk factors, and crash mechanisms are reviewed. Recommendations to decrease the likelihood of ATV crashes and injuries are provided.

The number of spray deposits plays an important role in effective and efficient spraying. The spraying equipment is one of the most significant factors that affect the number of spray deposits. Therefore, the study was focused on the parameter optimization of a newly developed self-propelled variable height crop sprayer. Response surface methodology (RSM) along with Box–Behnken design (BBD) was used to study the effect of the independent variables (forward speed, spray height, and spray pressure) on response variables such as droplet density, coverage per-centage, and Volume Median Diameter (VMD). The experiment was conducted in the cotton field. Additionally, the RSM model was validated in this research. The results revealed that the coefficient of determination (R2) values was good for all response variables in the quadratic polynomial model. The optimized parameters were 6.5 km/h, 60 cm, 4 bar for fungicide application, and 8 km/h, 70 cm, 3 bar for insecticide and herbicide application. The predicted response variable values at the optimal conditions were 60.4 droplet/cm², 27%, 230 µm for fungicides and 37.8 droplet/cm², 19.1%, 225.4 µm for insecticide and herbicides application. The model validation is confirmed by the mean of actual response variable values at the optimal condition for insecticide and herbicides application, which was 41.35 ± 3.67 droplet/cm², 21.10 ± 1.72%, 227.43 ± 1.22 µm, and the prediction error was 8.46%, 9.2%, and 0.9% for droplet density, coverage percentage, and VMD, respectively. This study can provide support for further optimizing the parameters of the sprayer.

In most Asian countries, farmers have smallholdings ranging from one to two hectares. The tractor-mounted boom sprayers cannot practically be used in small size farms with divided plots and complex terrain. To cope with these issues, a prototype self-propelled crop sprayer was developed, including a 20-hp engine, 300 L liquid tank, and hydraulically-controlled spray boom with eight hollow cone nozzles. The spray symmetry of the hollow cone nozzle was evaluated under four pressures (2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 bar) in the laboratory. The operating parameters of the sprayer, such as forward speed (4, 6, and 8 km h⁻¹), spray height (40, 55, and 70 cm), and pressure (3, 5, and 7 bar) were optimized by measuring three spray characteristics including droplet density, coverage percentage, and Volume Median Diameter (VMD) in the cotton field. The results revealed that the nozzle spray was symmetrical at 2.5 and 3 bar pressure as the R² value was higher than 0.96. The field test result showed that in all treatments, treatments T14 (6 km h⁻¹, 55 cm, 5 bar) and T22 (8 km h⁻¹, 55 cm, 3 bar) were suitable for spraying medium-to-low concentration solution (post-emergence herbicides and fungicides) and high concentration solution (insecticides and pre-emergence herbicides), respectively. The spray characteristics at treatments T14 and T22 were 64.7 droplets cm⁻², 26.7%, 230 µm, and 39 droplets cm⁻², 14.9%, and 219.8 µm respectively. The field efficiency of the sprayer was 61%. The spraying cost per unit area was 55–64% less compared to manual labor cost. In conclusion, a prototype self-propelled crop sprayer is an efficient and environment-friendly technology for small farms. Operating the sprayer at the optimal parameters also saves operational costs and time.

Unmanaged spray drift from orchard pesticide application contributes to environmental contamination and causes significant danger to farmworkers, nearby residential areas, and neighbors’ crops. Most drift control approaches do not guarantee adequate and uniform canopy spray coverage. Our goal was to develop a spray backstop system that could block drifting from the top without any negative impact on spray coverage and on-target deposition. The design included a foldable mast and a shade structure that covered the trees from the top. We used a continuous loop sampling to assess and quantify the effectiveness of spray backstop on drift potential reduction. We also collected leaf samples from different sections of trees to compare on-target deposition and coverage. The results showed that the spray backstop system could significantly (p-Value < 0.01) reduce drift potential from the top (78% on average). While we did not find any statistical difference in overall canopy deposition with and without the backstop system, we observed some improvement in treetops deposition. This experiment’s output suggests that growers may be able to adjust their air-assist sprayers for a more uniform spray coverage without concern about the off-target movement of spray droplets when they employ the spray backstop system.

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) incidents are one of the leading causes of injuries and fatalities among youth in the agricultural industry. It has been hypothesized that many youth-related ATV incidents occur because children ride ATVs that do not fit their capabilities and are not following basic safe riding practices. In addition, various ATV safety guidelines regarding youth (e.g., CPSC, ANSI/SVIA, ASI) are inconsistent and may not align with state or local laws. To the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive studies have compared the physical and mental requirements for riding ATVs and the youth’s capabilities to ride ATVs safely. Consequently, there are no scientific-based recommendations for age limitation, physical and mental capabilities, and safety requirements for youth to ride ATVs safely. Thus, there is a need to review the available sources related to youth safety and ATVs in the agricultural industry, identify the research voids, and recommend modifications to current ATV guidelines. This study conducted a systematic review of available ATV-related studies, standards, guidelines, and laws to establish better-informed minimum age, physical and mental capabilities, and safety requirements for youths to ride ATVs on the farm.