4 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Can houseplants improve indoor air quality by removing CO2 and increasing relative humidity?
High indoor CO2 concentrations and low relative humidity (RH) create an array of well-documented human health issues. Therefore, assessing houseplants’ potential as a low-cost approach to CO2 removal and increasing RH is important.
We investigated how environmental factors such as ’dry’ ( 0.30 m3 m-3) growing substrates, and indoor light levels (‘low’ 10 µmol m-2 s-1, ‘high’ 50 µmol m-2 s-1 and ‘very high’ 300 µmol m-2 s-1), influence the plants’ net CO2 assimilation (‘A’) and water-vapour loss. Seven common houseplant taxa – representing a variety of leaf types, metabolisms and sizes – were studied for their ability to assimilate CO2 across a range of indoor light levels. Additionally, to assess the plants’ potential contribution to RH increase, the plants’ evapo-transpiration (ET) was measured.
At typical ‘low’ indoor light levels ‘A’ rates were generally low (< 3.9 mg hr-1). Differences between ‘dry’ and ’wet’ plants at typical indoor light levels were negligible in terms of room-level impact. Light compensation points (i.e. light levels at which plants have positive ‘A’) were in the typical indoor light range (1-50 µmol m-2 s-1) only for two studied Spathiphyllum wallisii cultivars and Hedera helix; these plants would thus provide the best CO2 removal indoors. Additionally, increasing indoor light levels to 300 µmol m-2 s-1 would, in most species, significantly increase their potential to assimilate CO2. Species which assimilated the most CO2 also contributed most to increasing RH
Changes in blink rate and ocular symptoms during different reading tasks
Ali A Abusharha Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Background: Reading from tablets is fundamental to modern culture. This study measured differences in the blink rate and symptoms of ocular discomfort in healthy participants during reading from a tablet and a paper book.Methods: Forty healthy, normal males subjects were recruited for this study. Subjects were video recorded during reading a text presented on an electronic device (9.7 inch tablet) and a hard copy format, for 15 min. Ocular discomfort experienced during reading was scored using a visual analog scale. Each participant was examined performing one of the two tasks (randomized) on one visit and the other on a separate visit (crossover design). All subjects were evaluated before the reading tasks and every 5 min during 15 min of reading.Results: The mean ± standard deviation blink rate was 19.74 ± 9.12/min at baseline. The blink rate decreased significantly under both reading conditions (to 11.35 ± 10.20 and 14.93 ± 10.90/min when reading from a book and a tablet, respectively). There was no significant difference in the blink rate over 15 min during either type of reading. The mean discomfort symptom scores were 148 for the book and 134 for the tablet; both were significantly higher than baseline. A gradual increase in symptoms was found every 5 min during both types of reading.Conclusion: The study confirmed that both the blink rate and ocular discomfort symptoms were strongly affected during performance of close visual tasks. Both reading conditions affected blinking; this may interfere with tear film dynamics. Such effects were reflected in the immediate development of ocular symptoms, which increased significantly during both types of reading. Keywords: blink rate, tear film, reading task