Aerial electrostatic charged sprays of Thiodan + Ovasyn, Danitol + Orthene, Capture + Orthene, and Asana XL + Curacron were compared with electrostatic uncharged sprays (applied with the electrostatic system) and with conventional spray applications at 0.75 + 0.25, 0.20 + 0.50, 0.08 + 0.50 and 0.05 + 0.50 lb active ingredients (a.i.) per acre, respectively, for seasonal control of sweetpotato whiteflies (SWF) on cotton during the 1995 season at Maricopa, AZ. Electrostatic charged sprays of Thiodan, Danitol, Capture and Asana applied at one-half label rates using the same chemical combinations were also included in the study. The volumetric spray application rates for electrostatic spray charging and conventional protocols were 0.5 and 5.0 gallons per acre, respectively. Seasonal mean numbers of viable eggs and live large nymphs in the electrostatic spray charging protocol at the full label rate were comparable to those in conventional applications. Seasonal means of SWFs were significantly higher in the one-half label rate than in the full label rate electrostatic charged and conventional spray applications. The data suggest that the potential for electrostatic spray charging technology as a practical application method is substantial and that with additional research this technology could be moved towards commercialization.