In this work, four spraying equipments were tested in the greenhouses. Each spraying equipment was operated with farmer's application volumes used. Application volumes of knapsack sprayer, high-pressure sprayer with hand-gun, motorised knapsack sprayer and low volume hand operated sprayer (Ulvafan) were 200 500, 100 and 10 1/ha, respectively. At the trials, instead of a real pesticide, Stardust tracer was sprayed on the target to quantify spray deposits. Also filter papers were used as collecting surfaces on the target surfaces, Pepper plant was used as target plant. The pepper plant was vertically divided into two locations. Four leaves were selected in each location. Filter papers were placed on lower and upper surfaces of each leaf. The amounts of deposits on filter papers were determined by the fluorometric method. By measuring the amount of tracer on the targets, relative depositions for ail spraying equipment were calculated. Furthermore, filter papers were placed on the operator clothes to determine the amount of the spray residue contaminated on clothes. On the other hand, biological efficiency tests for all tested equipment were performed with pesticides leafminer (Liriomyza spp) causing high damage to pepper plant was the target pest. Active ingredient, which is called Cyromazin, was used in the biological efficiency tests. The results of this research indicated that relative deposition of knapsack sprayer, high-pressure sprayer with hand-gun, motorised knapsack sprayer and low volume hand operated sprayer (Ulvafan) were 3.08, 0.37, 3.53 and 12.63 %, respectively. In addition, amounts of deposit at the upper and lower surfaces of leaves were similar in low volume hand operated sprayer. As one would expected amounts of deposit at upper surfaces of leaves were higher than lower surfaces of leaves in spraying with knapsack sprayer motorised knapsack sprayer and hand-gun sprayer. Comparing the residue on operator's clothes, the highest residues awe found on operator's knee and ankle in knapsack sprayer application. Biological efficiency of the knapsack sprayer, motorised knapsack sprayer and Ulvafan were not significantly different from one another statistically. However, the lowest biological efficiency was obtained by hand-gun sprayer.