;Con el objetivo de evaluar fisicamente las aspersiones, en terminos de cubrimiento y tamano de gota, determinar el rendimiento de aplicacion y el desprendimiento de frutos de cafe por el desplazamiento de los operarios, se evaluaron los equipos: de palanca (P), presion previa retenida (PPR), presion previa retenida con aguilon vertical (PPR+AV), motorizado de espalda (ME) y semiestacionario (SE). Los resultados mostraron que los mayores cubrimientos se registraron con los equipos ME y SE en las dos densidades y condiciones de pendiente. Los equipos de P, PPR y PPR+AV registraron cubrimientos similares y superiores a 300 gotas/cm2. Los equipos SE y ME presentaron los menores tamanos de gota (VMD) y los mayores tamanos de gotas se registraron con los equipos P, PPR y PPR+AV. El mayor rendimiento de aplicacion se presento con el SE. Con los equipos manuales de espalda se registro mayor rendimiento (PPR+AV), seguido por el de P y el PPR. Los mayores desprendimientos de frutos se produjeron con los equipos ME, P y PPR+AV, en las densidades de 5.000 y 10.000 plantas/ha y pendiente mayor y menor al 40%. Puede concluirse que todos los equipos presentaron mayores cubrimientos y rendimiento de aplicacion en la menor densidad de siembra, en ambas condiciones de pendiente. Palabras clave: Cubrimiento, Diametro medio volumetrico, rendimiento de aplicacion, desprendimiento de frutos de cafe. PHYSICAL EVALUATION OF SPRAYING SYSTEMS FOR THE CONTROL OF THE COFFEE BERRY BORER In order to evaluate spraying physically in terms of: spray coverage, volume median diameter of droplets, determine the application work rate and removing of coffee fruits by displacement of the operators for coffee berry borer control the sprayers equipments were evaluated: lever -operated knapsack (LOKS), pressure retained sprayer (PRS), pressure retained sprayer with vertical boom (PRS + VB), motorised knapsack with piston pump (MKWPP) and semi-stationary (SS). The results showed that the greater coverage produced equipment (MKWPP) and (SS) in both density and slope conditions. The sprayer equipments (LOKS), (PRS) and (PRS + VB) recorded similar sprays coverage above 300 droplets/square centimeter. The equipment (SS) and (MKWPP) had the lowest droplet sizes (VMD) and higher (LOK), (PRS) and (PRS + VB). The major efficiency of spraying was presented by (SS), followed by the (MKWPP). Between the knapsack sprayers equipments the (PRS + VB) was the more efficient followed by the (LOKS) and finally the (PRS). The largest removing of coffee fruits was caused by sprayer equipments (MKWPP), (LOKS) and (PRS + VB) at densities of 5,000 and 10,000 plants/ha and higher slope and less than 40%. The conclusions of this research were: all the sprayer equipments had greater coverage and application work rate in the lowest density in both slope conditions. The equipment (SS) and (MKWPP) produced smaller droplet sizes but the major droplet size was produced by the (LOKS). The largest removing of coffee fruits was generated by the equipments (LOKS) and (MKWPP) and the lower by (PRS) and (SS).