Abstract
Purpose: This study was conducted to analyze the utilization efficiencies of electric energy and photosynthetically active radiation of lettuce grown under red LED, blue LED and fluorescent lamps with different photoperiods. Methods: Red LED with peak wavelength of 660 nm and blue LED with peak wavelength of 450 nm were used to analyze the effect of three levels of photoperiod (12/12 h, 16/8 h, 20/4 h) of LED illumination on light utilization efficiency of lettuce grown hydroponically in a closed plant production system (CPPS). Cool-white fluorescent lamps (FL) were used as the control. Photosynthetic photon flux, air temperature and relative humidity in CPPS were maintained at 230 ${\mu}mol{\cdot}m^{-2}{\cdot}s^{-1}$, $22/18^{\circ}C$ (light/darkness), and 70%, respectively. Electric conductivity and pH were controlled at 1.5-1.8 $dS{\cdot}m^{-1}$ and 5.5-6.0, respectively. The light utilization efficiency based on the chemical energy converted by photosynthesis, the accumulated electric energy consumed by artificial lighting sources, and the accumulated photosynthetically active radiation illuminated from artificial lighting sources were calculated. Results: As compared to the control, we found that the accumulated electric energy consumption decreased by 75.6% for red LED and by 70.7% for blue LED. The accumulated photosynthetically active radiation illuminated from red LED and blue LED decreased by 43.8% and 33.5%, respectively, compared with the control. The electric energy utilization efficiency (EEUE) of lettuce at growth stage 2 was 1.29-2.06% for red LED, 0.76-1.53% for blue LED, and 0.25-0.41% for FL. The photosynthetically active radiation utilization efficiency (PARUE) of lettuce was 6.25-9.95% for red LED, 3.75-7.49% for blue LED, and 2.77-4.62% for FL. EEUE and PARUE significantly increased with the increasing light period. Conclusions: From these results, illumination time of 16-20 h in a day was proposed to improve the light utilization efficiency of lettuce grown in a plant factory.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
Red LED decreased accumulated electric energy consumption of lettuce by 75.6% relative to fluorescent lamps.
- Taxon
- Lettuce
Lactuca sativat0 - Treatment
- red LEDe0
- Outcome
- accumulated electric energy consumptione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 75.6%e0
- Comparator
- controle7
- Setting
- closed plant production system (CPPS)e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e0“we found that the accumulated electric energy consumption decreased by 75.6% for red LED and by 70.7% for blue LED”
e7“Cool-white fluorescent lamps (FL) were used as the control”
e6“grown hydroponically in a closed plant production system (CPPS)”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue LED decreased accumulated electric energy consumption of lettuce by 70.7% relative to fluorescent lamps.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- blue LEDe0
- Outcome
- accumulated electric energy consumptione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 70.7%e0
- Comparator
- controle7
- Setting
- closed plant production system (CPPS)e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e0“we found that the accumulated electric energy consumption decreased by 75.6% for red LED and by 70.7% for blue LED”
e7“Cool-white fluorescent lamps (FL) were used as the control”
e6“grown hydroponically in a closed plant production system (CPPS)”
Claim · model-written summary
Red LED decreased accumulated photosynthetically active radiation by 43.8% compared with the control.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- red LEDe1
- Outcome
- accumulated photosynthetically active radiatione1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- 43.8%e1
- Comparator
- the controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e1“The accumulated photosynthetically active radiation illuminated from red LED and blue LED decreased by 43.8% and 33.5%, respectively, compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue LED decreased accumulated photosynthetically active radiation by 33.5% compared with the control.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- blue LEDe1
- Outcome
- accumulated photosynthetically active radiatione1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- 33.5%e1
- Comparator
- the controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e1“The accumulated photosynthetically active radiation illuminated from red LED and blue LED decreased by 43.8% and 33.5%, respectively, compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
EEUE of lettuce at growth stage 2 under red LED was 1.29-2.06%.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae2
- Organ / stage
- growth stage 2e2
- Treatment
- red LEDe2
- Outcome
- electric energy utilization efficiency (EEUE)e2
- Value
- 1.29-2.06%e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e2“The electric energy utilization efficiency (EEUE) of lettuce at growth stage 2 was 1.29-2.06% for red LED, 0.76-1.53% for blue LED, and 0.25-0.41% for FL”
Claim · model-written summary
EEUE of lettuce at growth stage 2 under blue LED was 0.76-1.53%.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae2
- Organ / stage
- growth stage 2e2
- Treatment
- blue LEDe2
- Outcome
- electric energy utilization efficiency (EEUE)e2
- Value
- 0.76-1.53%e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e2“The electric energy utilization efficiency (EEUE) of lettuce at growth stage 2 was 1.29-2.06% for red LED, 0.76-1.53% for blue LED, and 0.25-0.41% for FL”
Claim · model-written summary
EEUE of lettuce at growth stage 2 under fluorescent lamps was 0.25-0.41%.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae2
- Organ / stage
- growth stage 2e2
- Treatment
- FLe2
- Outcome
- electric energy utilization efficiency (EEUE)e2
- Value
- 0.25-0.41%e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e2“The electric energy utilization efficiency (EEUE) of lettuce at growth stage 2 was 1.29-2.06% for red LED, 0.76-1.53% for blue LED, and 0.25-0.41% for FL”
Claim · model-written summary
PARUE of lettuce under red LED was 6.25-9.95%.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae3
- Treatment
- red LEDe3
- Outcome
- photosynthetically active radiation utilization efficiency (PARUE)e3
- Value
- 6.25-9.95%e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e3“The photosynthetically active radiation utilization efficiency (PARUE) of lettuce was 6.25-9.95% for red LED, 3.75-7.49% for blue LED, and 2.77-4.62% for FL”
Claim · model-written summary
PARUE of lettuce under blue LED was 3.75-7.49%.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae3
- Treatment
- blue LEDe3
- Outcome
- photosynthetically active radiation utilization efficiency (PARUE)e3
- Value
- 3.75-7.49%e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e3“The photosynthetically active radiation utilization efficiency (PARUE) of lettuce was 6.25-9.95% for red LED, 3.75-7.49% for blue LED, and 2.77-4.62% for FL”
Claim · model-written summary
PARUE of lettuce under fluorescent lamps was 2.77-4.62%.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae3
- Treatment
- FLe3
- Outcome
- photosynthetically active radiation utilization efficiency (PARUE)e3
- Value
- 2.77-4.62%e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e3“The photosynthetically active radiation utilization efficiency (PARUE) of lettuce was 6.25-9.95% for red LED, 3.75-7.49% for blue LED, and 2.77-4.62% for FL”
Claim · model-written summary
EEUE and PARUE of lettuce significantly increased with a longer light period.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- light periode4
- Outcome
- EEUE and PARUEe4
- Direction
- significantly increasede4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e4“EEUE and PARUE significantly increased with the increasing light period”
Claim · model-written summary
An illumination time of 16-20 h per day is proposed to improve light utilization efficiency of lettuce in a plant factory.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae5
- Outcome
- improve the light utilization efficiencye5
- Setting
- plant factorye5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Lettuce Grown under Red LED, Blue LED and Fluorescent Lamps”
e5“illumination time of 16-20 h in a day was proposed to improve the light utilization efficiency of lettuce grown in a plant factory”
The same questions in other papers
light · pest · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →light · physiology: photosynthesis · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
55 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
71 papers more in this group
See all 75 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.