This growing collection consists of scholarly works authored by ASU-affiliated faculty, staff, and community members, and it contains many open access articles. ASU-affiliated authors are encouraged to Share Your Work in KEEP.

Displaying 41 - 42 of 42
Filtering by

Clear all filters

129197-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The land, water, and energy requirements of hydroponics were compared to those of conventional agriculture by example of lettuce production in Yuma, Arizona, USA. Data were obtained from crop budgets and governmental agricultural statistics, and contrasted with theoretical data for hydroponic lettuce production derived by using engineering equations populated with

The land, water, and energy requirements of hydroponics were compared to those of conventional agriculture by example of lettuce production in Yuma, Arizona, USA. Data were obtained from crop budgets and governmental agricultural statistics, and contrasted with theoretical data for hydroponic lettuce production derived by using engineering equations populated with literature values. Yields of lettuce per greenhouse unit (815 m(2)) of 41 +/- 6.1 kg/m(2)/y had water and energy demands of 20 +/- 3.8 L/kg/y and 90,000 +/- 11,000 kJ/kg/y (+/- standard deviation), respectively. In comparison, conventional production yielded 3.9 +/- 0.21 kg/m(2)/y of produce, with water and energy demands of 250 +/- 25 L/kg/y and 1100 +/- 75 kJ/kg/y, respectively. Hydroponics offered 11 +/- 1.7 times higher yields but required 82 +/- 11 times more energy compared to conventionally produced lettuce. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first quantitative comparison of conventional and hydroponic produce production by example of lettuce grown in the southwestern United States. It identified energy availability as a major factor in assessing the sustainability of hydroponics, and it points to water-scarce settings offering an abundance of renewable energy (e.g., from solar, geothermal, or wind power) as particularly attractive regions for hydroponic agriculture.

ContributorsBarbosa, Guilherme Lages (Author) / Gadelha, Francisca Daiane Almeida (Author) / Kublik, Natalya (Author) / Proctor, Alan (Author) / Reichelm, Lucas (Author) / Weissinger, Emily (Author) / Wohlleb, Gregory (Author) / Halden, Rolf (Author) / Biodesign Institute (Contributor)
Created2015-06-01
129141-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Traditionally, hazardous chemicals have been regulated in the U.S. on a one-by-one basis, an approach that is slow, expensive and can be inefficient, as illustrated by a decades-long succession of replacing one type of organohalogen flame retardants (OHFRs) with another one, without addressing the root cause of toxicity and associated

Traditionally, hazardous chemicals have been regulated in the U.S. on a one-by-one basis, an approach that is slow, expensive and can be inefficient, as illustrated by a decades-long succession of replacing one type of organohalogen flame retardants (OHFRs) with another one, without addressing the root cause of toxicity and associated public health threats posed. The present article expounds on the need for efficient monitoring strategies and pragmatic steps in reducing environmental pollution and adverse human health impacts. A promising approach is to combine specific bioassays with state-of-the-art chemical screening to identify chemicals and chemical mixtures sharing specific modes of action (MOAs) and pathways of toxicity (PoTs). This approach could be used to identify and regulate hazardous chemicals as classes or compound families, featuring similar biological end-points, such as endocrine disruption and mutagenicity. Opportunities and potential obstacles of implementing this approach are discussed.

ContributorsVenkatesan, Arjunkrishna (Author) / Halden, Rolf (Author) / Biodesign Institute (Contributor)
Created2015-08-28