Engineering Papers⌕ Search

NASA NTRS · 20040090232

Stabilization of pH in solid-matrix hydroponic systems

Abstract

2-[N-morpholino]ethanesulfonic acid (MES) buffer or Amberlite DP-1 (cation-exchange resin beads) were used to stabilize substrate pH of passive-wicking, solid-matrix hydroponic systems in which small canopies of Brassica napus L. (CrGC 5-2, genome : ACaacc) were grown to maturity. Two concentrations of MES (5 or 10 mM) were included in Hoagland 1 nutrient solution. Alternatively, resin beads were incorporated into the 2 vermiculite : 1 perlite (v/v) growth medium at 6% or 12% of total substrate volume. Both strategies stabilized pH without toxic side effects on plants. Average seed yield rates for all four pH stabilization treatments (13.3 to 16.9 g m-2 day-1) were about double that of the control (8.2 g m-2 day-1), for which there was no attempt to buffer substrate pH. Both the highest canopy seed yield rate (16.9 g m-2 day-1) and the highest shoot harvest index (19.5%) occurred with the 6% resin bead treatment, even though the 10 mM MES and 12% bead treatments maintained pH within the narrowest limits. The pH stabilization methods tested did not significantly affect seed oil and protein contents.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Frick, J., Mitchell, C. A.. 1993-10-01. Stabilization of pH in solid-matrix hydroponic systems. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20040090232

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

Diminished forearm vasomotor response to central hypervolemic loading in aerobically fit individuals

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that cardiopulmonary baroreflex control of forearm vascular resistance (FVR) during central hypervolemic loading was less sensitive in exercise trained high fit individuals (HF) compared to untrained average fit individuals (AF). Eight AF (age: 24 +/- 1 yr and weight: 78.9 +/- 1.7 kg) and eight HF (22 +/- 1 yr 79.5 +/- 2.4 kg) voluntarily participated in the investigation. Maximal aerobic power (determined on a treadmill), plasma volume and blood volume (Evans blue dilution method) were significantly greater in the HF than AF (60.8 +/- 0.7 vs. 41.2 +/- 1.9 ml.kg-1.min-1, 3.96 +/- 0.17 vs 3.36 +/- 0.08 1, and 6.33 +/- 0.23 vs 5.28 +/- 0.13 1). Baseline heart rate (HR), central venous pressure (CVP), mean arterial pressure (MAP, measured by an intraradial catheter or a Finapres finger cuff), forearm blood flow (FBF, plethysmography), and FVR, calculated from the ratio (MAP-CVP)/FBF, were not different between the HF and the AF. Lower body negative pressure (LBNP, -5, -10, -15, and -20 torr) and passive leg elevation (LE, 50 cm) combined with lower body positive pressure (LBPP, +5, +10, and +20 torr) were utilized to elicit central hypovolemia and hypervolemia, respectively. Range of CVP (from LBNP to LE+LBPP) was similar in the AF (from -3.9 to +1.9 mm Hg) and HF (from -4.0 to +2.2 mm Hg). However, FVR/CVP was significantly less in the HF (-1.8 +/- 0.1 unit.mm Hg-1) than AF (-34 +/- 0.1 unit.mm Hg-1). The FVR decrease in response to increase in CVP was significantly diminished in the HF (-1.46 +/- 0.45 unit.mm Hg-1) compared to the AF (-4.40 +/- 0.97 unit.mm Hg-1), and during LBNP induced unloading the FVR/CVP of the HF (-2.01 +/- 0.49 unit.mm Hg-1) was less (P < 0.08) than the AF (-3.28 +/- 0.69 unit.mm Hg-1). We concluded that the cardiopulmonary baroreceptor mediated FVR reflex response was significantly less sensitive to changes in CVP in individuals who practice exercise training.

NASA Discipline Number 93-10↗

Experimental models for cellular radiation targets: LET, RBE and radioprotectors

The topics of this presentation are: a brief review of the early research, the ideas it stimulated and the ways they are used in current efforts to explain cellular radiosensitivity; an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of two experimental models used in vitro for simulating the induction of double strand breaks (DSB) and single strand breaks (SSB) in situ. Note that when alkali is used to denature cellular DNA for the determination of strand breaks, both overt SSB and the SSB that result from DSB in the denaturation process are recorded as total strand breaks (TSB). All information is taken from published literature.

NASA Discipline Number 93-10↗