Tag Archives: vertical grow system

Diaries were used to detect effects of cooking and indoor combustion events

Asthma was not associated with PM10 or SO2, except for an unexpected inverse association in boys for PM10. The association of acute asthma with CO is supported in a Seattle panel study of 133 asthmatic children and is likely explained by more causal components of vehicle exhaust and other combustion byproducts . It is possible that associations between allergic respiratory illnesses and traffic density are due to NAAQS criteria air pollutants, particularly NO2, which is directly related to local traffic density . Krämer et al. assessed this possibility in a study of 306 children 9 years of age living at least 2 years in a home near major roads in Germany . Using passive samples with Palmes tubes, weekly average concentrations were measured for personal NO2 in March and September, and for outdoor home or near home NO2 at 158 locations in each of four seasons . Investigators showed that outdoor NO2 was a good predictor of home traffic density but a poor predictor for personal NO2 exposure reflecting the known importance of indoor NO2 sources. They followed the children with weekly parental questionnaires for atopic symptoms for 1 year. In suburban areas there was little variation in outdoor NO2, and inclusion of suburban subjects in regression models decreased parameter estimates and increased standard errors. For urban areas , they found that atopic sensitizations to pollen, to house dust mite or cat, and to milk or egg were each significantly associated with outdoor NO2 but not predicted personal NO2. They also found that outdoor NO2, but not predicted personal NO2, was significantly associated with reports of at least 1 week with symptoms of wheezing and of allergic rhinitis. Relationships for atopy and rhinitis symptoms by quartile of outdoor NO2 suggested a dose–response relationship . Although an ever diagnosis of hay fever was associated with outdoor NO2, diagnosed asthma was not . The maximum outdoor NO2 of the urban sites was 36 ppb ,vertical grow system which is far less than the U.S. EPA NAAQS of 53 ppb annual mean . The overall results suggest that outdoor NO2 was serving as a marker for more causal airborne agents rather than a direct effect of NO2.

High personal exposures to PAHs near busy streets were possible in the study by Krämer et al. , as well as other studies in Table 2 for high traffic density. Dubowsky et al. measured total real-time, particle bound PAHs from three nonsmoking indoor sites with different traffic densities characteristic of urban, semiurban, and suburban residencies.A significant contribution of traffic related PAHs to indoor PAHs was detected. Indoor peaks occurred during morning rush hour on weekdays only . The geometric means of PAHs corrected for indoor sources were urban, 31 ng/m3; semiurban, 19 ng/m3; and suburban, 8 ng/m3. Despite the suggestion that NO2 may be acting as a surrogate pollutant, the respiratory effects of NO2 are still important. However, the magnitudes of effects of NO2 on asthma are not entirely clear, and there are considerable inconsistencies in the experimental literature. Some studies have shown alterations in lung function, airway responsiveness, or symptoms, whereas others have not, even at high concentrations [reviewed by Bascom et al. ]. Data that support the traffic density studies come from a clinical crossover study that used ambient exposures of 20 mild pollen-allergic adult asthmatic individuals . Subjects showed early- and late-phase bronchospastic reactions to pollen allergen challenge that were greater 4 hr after a 30-min exposure in a car parked in a road tunnel compared with a low control exposure in a suburban hotel . Specific airway resistance 15 min after allergen challenge increased 44% in 12 subjects exposed to road tunnel NO2 > 159 ppb compared with 24% for their control exposures . The higher NO2 tunnel exposures were associated with significantly more symptoms and beta-agonist inhaler use 18 hr after allergen challenge. In addition, FEV1 decreased significantly more than with control exposures 3–10 hr after allergen challenge . Effects were smaller using PM10 or PM2.5 as the exposure metric. The authors compared their results with those from earlier chamber studies using 265 ppb NO2 before allergen challenge.

They concluded that although those results also showed an enhancement of early- and late-phase asthmatic reactions , effects were greater for lower NO2 exposures in the tunnel, suggesting other pollutants were important. Other agents aside from either NAAQS criteria air pollutants or air toxics could explain some part of the association of asthma and allergy outcomes with traffic density. Latex allergen found on respirable rubber tire particles is likely common in urban air and could lead to sensitization and respiratory symptoms. In addition, the physical action of motor vehicles on road dust, which is known to contain pollen grains, could lead to the production and resuspension of smaller respirable pollen fragments . Other allergenic bioaerosols such as fungal spores could be fragmented and resuspended as well. Interactions between pollutants and allergens could also influence effects. Allergenic molecules could be delivered to target sites in the airways on diesel carbon particles. as evidenced in vitro using the rye grass pollen allergen Lol p1 . Another study using immunogold labeling techniques found that indoor home soot particles, primarily in the sub-micrometer size range, had bound antigens of cat , dog , and birch pollen , and this adsorption was replicated in vitro with DEP particles . Other biologic interactions between pollutants and allergens on airways that favor inflammatory reactions have been hypothesized , including enhancement of allergen sensitization in asthmatic children with ETS exposure and pollutant-induced enhancements of the antigenicity of allergens .Experimental evidence supports the biologic plausibility of a role for PAHs from fossil fuel combustion products in the onset and exacerbation of asthma. However, the occupational data on DE and asthma onset are limited to one three-case series. In addition, despite high exposures, overall inconsistency is found in occupational studies of respiratory symptoms or lung function and diesel/gas exhaust exposures. Bias from the healthy worker effect is likely given the expectation of avoidance behavior among individuals with respiratory sensitivity to inhaled irritants, including asthmatics. This behavior has been hypothesized to result from a toxicant-induced loss of tolerance . The inconsistent and weak occupational evidence does not rule out different dose–response relationships for asthma in nonoccupational settings. Epidemiologic results showing associations between childhood asthma and ETS may be explained, in part, by PAHs. Positive results in epidemiologic studies of asthma and traffic-related exposures also may be explained, in part, by PAHs.

The question that remains is, what are the determinants of asthma associations with complex mixtures of ETS-related and traffic-related particle components and gases? The above review gives the overall impression that asthma,indoor weed growing accessories related respiratory symptoms, lung function deficits, and atopy are higher among people living near busy traffic. Some data coherent with this view are found in studies showing a higher prevalence of asthma and atopic conditions in more developed Westernized countries and in urban compared with rural areas [reviewed by Beasley et al. and Weinberg ]. For instance, studies in Africa have shown that pediatric asthma is rare in rural regions, whereas African children living in urban areas have experienced an increasing incidence of asthma . The urban-rural differences have tended to narrow as rural Africans became more Westernized . This suggests that the increase of asthma seen in developed countries may be attributable to some component of urbanization, including automobile and truck traffic. However, this urbanization gradient is not a consistent finding across the literature . For instance, in the traffic exposure–response study by Montnémery et al. , although there were significant associations of asthma symptoms and diagnosis to traffic density, there were no urban-rural differences. In addition, some recent studies that specifically examined farming environments, found a decreased risk of asthma and atopy among children living on farms , particularly where there is regular contact with farm animals. This prompted these investigators to hypothesize that a “protective farm factor” may reflect the influence of microbial agents on TH1 versus TH2 cell development or reflect the development of immuno tolerance . This possibility, in addition to potentially high levels of confounding by uncontrolled factors that vary by geography, makes it difficult to clearly interpret the cross-sectional studies on urban versus rural areas or ecologic studies of international differences.The following section will examine the epidemiologic literature on the relationship of asthma and atopy in children to formaldehyde. This serves to exemplify one of the few low molecular weight agents associated with asthma in both the occupational and nonoccupational literature, and to exemplify an air toxic that has effects from low to high exposure levels. However, there are little available nonoccupational data on the risk of asthma onset from formaldehyde. One study passively measured formaldehyde over 2 weeks in the homes of 298 children and 613 adults . In log-linear models controlling for SES variables and ethnicity, the study found a significantly higher prevalence of physician-diagnosed asthma and chronic bronchitis in children 6–15 years of age living in homes with higher formaldehyde concentrations over 41 ppb . However, the room specific measurements revealed that the association was attributable to high formaldehyde concentrations in kitchens, particularly those homes with ETS exposures , suggesting possible confounding by other factors not measured. In random effects models controlling for SES and ETS, they found significant inverse associations between morning PEF rates and average formaldehyde from the bedroom, and between evening PEF and household average formaldehyde.

There was no apparent threshold level. The PEF finding was independent of ETS, but the effects of age or of anthropomorphic factors were not mentioned. Symptoms of chronic cough and wheeze were higher, and PEF lower, in adults living in houses with higher formaldehyde levels. There was a significant interaction between formaldehyde and tobacco smoking in relation to cough in adults. Passive measurements of NO2 did not confound the associations in children or adults. Other nonoccupational data on formaldehyde relate indirectly to asthma. Wantke et al. evaluated levels of specific IgE to formaldehyde using RAST in 62 eight-year old children attending one school with particleboard paneling and urea foam window framing. The children were transferred to a brick building because of elevated formaldehyde levels in particleboard classrooms and complaints of headache, cough, rhinitis, and nosebleeds. Symptoms and specific IgE were examined before and 3 months after cessation of exposure. At baseline, three children had RAST classes ≥ 2 and 21 had classes ≥ 1.3 , whereas all 19 control children attending another school had classes < 1.3. After transfer, the RAST classes significantly decreased from 1.7 ± 0.5 to 1.2 ± 0.2 , and symptoms decreased. However, IgE levels did not correlate with symptoms. None of the children had asthma. Garrett et al. hypothesized that formaldehyde may adversely affect the lower respiratory tract by increasing the risk of allergic sensitization to common allergens. They studied 43 homes with at least one asthmatic child and 37 homes with only nonasthmatic children . Atopy was evaluated in the children with SPTs for allergy to 12 common animal, fungal, and pollen allergens. Formaldehyde was measured passively throughout the homes over 4 days in four different times of 1 year. Atopic sensitization by SPT was associated with formaldehyde levels [OR for 20 µg/m3 increase, 1.42 ]. Across three formaldehyde exposure categories, there was also a significant increase in the number of positive SPTs and in the wheal ratio of allergen SPT over histamine SPT. Mean respiratory symptom scores were significantly and positively associated across the three categories. There was a significant positive association between parent-reported, physician-diagnosed asthma and formaldehyde, but this was confounded by history of parental asthma and parental allergy. It is unclear why these familial determinants were treated as confounders rather than effect modifiers, although knowledge of asthma by parents may lead to bias in the assessment of asthma in their children. Several other studies of nonasthmatic subjects have examined health outcomes and biomarkers that are relevant to asthma. Franklin et al. studied 224 children 6–13 years of age with no history of upper or lower respiratory tract diseases, using expired nitric oxide as a marker for lower airway inflammation . Formaldehyde was passively monitored in the children’s homes for 3–4 days.

Which Plants Can Be Grown In Vertical Farming

Vertical farming offers versatility in crop selection, allowing a wide range of plants to be grown in indoor, vertical environments. While some crops are particularly well-suited for vertical farming, the potential plant options are extensive. Here are some commonly grown plants in vertical farming systems:

  1. Leafy Greens: Lettuces (such as butterhead, romaine, and leaf lettuce), kale, spinach, Swiss chard, arugula, and microgreens are popular choices for vertical farming due to their fast growth, high demand, and compact size.
  2. Herbs: Basil, cilantro, parsley, mint, thyme, oregano, and other culinary herbs thrive in vertical farming systems. These herbs are often grown for their flavor, fragrance, and culinary applications.
  3. Strawberries: Vertical farming allows strawberries to be grown efficiently, making use of vertical space and maximizing yields. The controlled environment helps maintain consistent temperature and humidity, which is beneficial for strawberry cultivation.
  4. Tomatoes: Compact or determinate tomato varieties, such as cherry tomatoes or vine tomatoes, can be grown in vertical farming systems. Trellising or supporting the plants allows them to grow vertically and efficiently utilize the available space.
  5. Peppers: Bell peppers, chili peppers, and other varieties of peppers can be grown vertically, with the plants supported and trained to grow upward. Vertical farming provides a controlled environment for pepper production, allowing for consistent quality and yields.
  6. Cucumbers: Vine cucumbers can be successfully grown in vertical farming systems with proper support and trellising. Compact or bush varieties are preferred to manage the plant’s size and allow for vertical growth.
  7. Beans and Peas: Bush varieties of beans and peas are suitable for vertical farming. The plants can be trained to grow upward, and the vertical environment helps support the plants’ structure and pod development.
  8. Sprouts and Microgreens: Vertical farming is well-suited for cultivating sprouts and microgreens, which are young, nutrient-dense plants harvested at an early stage. These include broccoli sprouts, radish sprouts, pea shoots, sunflower shoots, and many others.
  9. Flowers and Ornamental Plants: Some vertical farming systems also grow flowers and ornamental plants, such as decorative foliage, flowering plants, or plants used in floral arrangements. These plants can add aesthetic value to vertical farms or be grown for commercial purposes.

These are just a few examples,vertical grow rack and the possibilities for crops in vertical farming are extensive. The choice of crops may vary based on factors such as market demand, growing conditions, space availability, and specific system design. Growers often select crops based on their profitability, suitability for controlled environments, and consumer preferences in their target market.

Which Plants Can be Grown in Vertical Farming

Vertical farming is a method of growing plants in vertically stacked layers or structures, often indoors or in controlled environments. This approach maximizes space utilization and allows for year-round cultivation. Various types of plants can be grown successfully in vertical farming systems. Here are some examples:

  1. Leafy Greens: Lettuce, spinach, kale, arugula, Swiss chard, and other leafy greens are popular choices for vertical farming. They have a short growth cycle, high yield potential, and don’t require extensive root systems.
  2. Herbs: Basil, mint, parsley, cilantro, and other herbs are well-suited for vertical farming. They thrive in compact spaces and can be grown hydroponically or aeroponically.
  3. Strawberries: Strawberries are ideal for vertical farming due to their compact size and vertical growth habit. They can be grown in towers or hanging baskets, making efficient use of vertical space.
  4. Microgreens: Microgreens are young, tender greens harvested at an early stage of growth. They include various plants like radish, broccoli, mustard, and many others. Microgreens have a short growth cycle, allowing for quick turnover and high productivity in vertical farming systems.
  5. Tomatoes: Certain varieties of tomatoes, such as determinate or bushy types, can be grown vertically using trellises or cages. These compact tomato plants can produce a good yield in vertical farming setups.
  6. Cucumbers: Compact or bush cucumbers are suitable for vertical farming. They can be trained to grow vertically using trellises or supported by strings or netting.
  7. Peppers: Some pepper varieties, like compact or dwarf cultivars, can be grown vertically. They can be trained to grow upward, providing higher yields in limited space.
  8. Flowers: Certain flowers, such as petunias, marigolds, and impatiens, can be grown in vertical farming setups for ornamental purposes. They add aesthetic appeal to indoor or vertical garden environments.
  9. Small Fruits: Some small fruit plants, like dwarf or miniaturized fruit trees, can be grown vertically in controlled environments. Examples include compact varieties of citrus trees, miniaturized apple trees, or columnar blueberries.

It’s important to consider the specific requirements of each plant, including light, temperature, humidity, and nutrient needs when implementing vertical farming systems. By optimizing these conditions and utilizing appropriate growing techniques like hydroponics or aeroponics, a wide range of plants can thrive in vertical farming environments.

Is a Grow Room Better Than a Grow Tent

Whether a grow room or a grow tent is better depends on your specific needs and circumstances. Here are some factors to consider when comparing the two:

  1. Space: A grow room typically offers more space compared to a grow tent. If you have a large-scale operation or want to grow a significant number of plants, a cannabis grow room might be more suitable. However, if you have limited space or want a more compact setup, a grow tent can be a viable option.
  2. Control: A grow room provides more control over environmental factors like temperature, humidity, and lighting. With a grow room, you have the flexibility to customize and fine-tune these conditions to meet the specific requirements of your plants. Grow tents, on the other hand, may have more limited control options but still offer a degree of control over the environment.
  3. Setup and Portability: Grow tents are generally easier and quicker to set up compared to a grow room. They usually come as complete kits with pre-installed ventilation ports, reflective interior surfaces, and other accessories. Grow tents are also more portable and can be easily disassembled and moved if needed. Grow rooms, on the other hand, require more planning, construction, and installation.
  4. Light Leakage and Reflection: Grow tents typically have a highly reflective interior surface, which helps maximize light efficiency by bouncing it back onto the plants. They are designed to minimize light leakage, which can be beneficial for light-sensitive plants like cannabis during their flowering stage. While grow rooms can also be made reflective, they may require additional materials and installation to achieve the same level of reflection and light containment.
  5. Cost: Grow tents tend to be more affordable compared to setting up a dedicated grow room. They offer a cost-effective solution,vertical grow system especially for small-scale or hobbyist growers. Grow rooms require more investment in construction materials, ventilation systems, and other equipment, which can be costlier upfront.
  6. Scalability: If you plan to expand your operation in the future, a grow room may offer more scalability. You can modify or expand the space as needed, allowing for increased plant capacity. Grow tents, while available in various sizes, have limitations in terms of their size and may not be as easily expandable.

Ultimately, the choice between a grow room and a grow tent depends on your specific requirements, available space, budget, and long-term goals. Consider factors such as scale, control, convenience, and cost to determine which option best suits your needs.