Next Article in Journal
Digital Twin of Shipbuilding Process in Shipyard 4.0
Previous Article in Journal
Water Hammer Protection Characteristics and Hydraulic Performance of a Novel Air Chamber with an Adjustable Central Standpipe in a Pressurized Water Supply System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/su15129732
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of the Innovative Green Wall Modular Systems on the Urban Air

by
Natalia Shushunova
1,*,
Elena Korol
2,
Elisaveta Luzay
3 and
Diana Shafieva
3
1
Department of Integrated Safety in Construction, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering, Yaroslavskoye Shosse, 26, 129337 Moscow, Russia
2
Department of Housing and Communal Complex, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering, Yaroslavskoye Shosse, 26, 129337 Moscow, Russia
3
Department of Construction Organization and Real Estate Management, National Research Moscow State University of Civil Engineering, Yaroslavskoye Shosse 26, 129337 Moscow, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(12), 9732; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129732
Submission received: 4 May 2023 / Revised: 8 June 2023 / Accepted: 15 June 2023 / Published: 18 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aerosol Pollution and Severe Weather)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
During the construction of buildings and interior decoration, even in the manufacture of home furniture and kitchen appliances, dangerous chemicals such as benzene, formaldehyde, and others are used, which accumulate indoors during the operation of the building. Scientists have found that when high concentrations are reached, these substances can harm human health. In this article, we analyzed the possible impact of green walls on improving the condition of indoor air. During the research, five different systems and plant species were considered. Then the relationship between the leaf area, the structure of the system, and the degree of absorption of harmful substances was described. The results showed that a green wall system can improve the quality of urban air and bring a lot of benefits for the citizens.

1. Introduction

In the modern world, the problem of air pollution is acute. With the growth of cities, the emergence of industrial zones, and an increase in the number of vehicles, more and more harmful substances entering the atmosphere, such as dust, fumes, gas, mist, smoke or vapor, in certain quantities can be injurious to human health. According to WHO, this can cause different respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Atmospheric pollution can be divided into ambient (outdoor) and indoor. The sources of these pollutants are diverse. Anthropogenic ones include vehicles, ferrous and nonferrous metallurgy enterprises, thermal and nuclear power plants, and agriculture (use of fertilizers, chemical pesticides), and natural ones are volcanic eruptions, forest fires, dust storms, weathering processes, decomposition of organic substances.
These pollutants not only worsen the quality of life of people, but harm their health [1], and also directly affect the change in the appearance of the planet; this entails such terrible events as climate change due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases [2], and the extinction of biological species [2].
With regard to indoor pollution causes, there are a lot of sources of it; it can be related to any products in construction [3]. For example, coatings, paints, building materials, ceilings, and floor tiles can be the source of asbestos. Formaldehyde can be found in paints, sealants, and wood floors, carpets, and upholstery [4]. In this way, the presence of volatile organic compounds, such as formaldehyde and benzene, and semivolatile organic compounds, such as pesticides, leads to “sick building syndrome” [5].
To combat the negative results of human economic activity, many scientific studies have been conducted, among them—the effect of using plants. There are many possibilities and positive aspects of their application. Among them is the ability of the system to act as a temperature controller by reducing the surface and air temperatures of exterior walls [6], which reduces energy consumption in buildings for energy optimization [7,8], and provides functional benefits by regulating heat gain [9]. Moreover, plants are able to reduce the noise level by absorbing the sound [10], and also can ensure storm water control [11].
All these qualities of plants really show functional advantages of improving building efficiency [12] and the reduction of the island’s heat effect in the urban context [13], and of course serve aesthetic function.
According to the authors of this article, the main advantage when using green walls indoors is to improve air quality. For example, oxygen production of English ivy is 1.7 kg per 1 sq/m and carbon consumption consists of 2.4 kg per 1 sq/m [14]. Different plants and built-in green wall systems can adsorb many kinds of air pollutants—from heavy metals to the fine dust, from 20–30% [15,16]. As was said, air pollutants can be removed by plants through a small thick green wall (approximately 0.05 m), also green plants play a crucial role in the survival of life on our planet through the photosynthesis process, which takes place within their leaves and stems [17,18]. As a consequence, the air-filtering plants have a lot of wellbeing benefits for people suffering from different respiratory and cardiovascular diseases [19].
Green roof and green wall systems have a lot of benefits for urban areas and play a significant role in the creation of sustainable cities. Green walls, also known as “blue-green” roofs, are characterized by a great potential for urban areas, for example, by high water retention capacity compared to traditional green systems due to the presence of an additional storage layer—blue layer, usually equipped with a valve that allows for regulating water retention [20]. In addition, the water–energy–food–ecosystem approach of the installation of green roofs in urban areas contributes to the Development Goals defined by the 2030 Sustainable Agenda [21].
The research studies on urban resilience contribute to the resilience assessment and sustainable storm water management in practical urban planning in a context of climate adaptation plans, and identify the environmental indicators that evaluate the outcomes of the metropolitan and local planning process and actions [22,23]. We analyzed many projects that can be used as a “green print” with a great potential use of green infrastructure in the regeneration of the cities, with multiple benefits ranging from ecosystem restoration and increased property values, to improvements in personal wellbeing, and these can serve as an effective climate change adaptation solution [24,25]. These projects can take many forms, including tree planting, waterfront redevelopment, the regeneration of former industrial sites, and a rethinking of spaces to make them more ecologically diverse, and there is a need for them to be considered in terms of the geographical, political, and socioeconomic context.
Furthermore, from the point of view of maintenance, integrating green infrastructure in high-rise buildings has special design strategies; in this case, safety concerns associated with maintaining vegetation can lead to increased maintenance costs and potential risks for maintenance personnel [26,27]. In addition, during maintenance, the health and longevity of plants in green wall systems can be affected by factors such as air pollution, limited sunlight, and extreme temperature variations [28]. To overcome maintenance challenges, researchers have developed best practices for selecting plant species that are well adapted to the environmental conditions of high-rise buildings [29].
In this study, a comparative analysis of various landscaping systems is carried out: Versa wall, Alivotec, Biotecture, Vertiss, and Scotscape with the use of different types of plants, such as gerbera daisy, English ivy, marginata peace lily, mother-in-law’s tongue, Janet Craig, mass cane, warneckei, and bamboo.
Analysis was carried out, and the goal was to determine the most effective green wall system in the context of the extraction of harmful substances from the air.

2. Materials and Methods

There are a lot of different systems developed. According to the principle of operation, modern green wall systems can be divided into the following types:
-
Felt green wall systems;
-
Modular green wall systems;
-
Container (pot) green wall systems.
The main elements of all green walls are supporting materials, growing media, vegetation, wastewater, and irrigation.
The innovative green wall modular system, developed by the authors, consists of easy-to-install modules with an integrated LED system, with hydroponics principle of irrigation and green plants (Figure 1).
The main advantages of this green wall modular system are:
  • Easy installation—on the principle of the constructor Lego;
  • Integrated irrigation system;
  • Unique modular design.
In addition, we planned to study green wall modular systems in the interior of the room and their impact on the air. For this purpose, we developed innovative green wall modular systems with irrigation control system and, in our opinion, this is the best design and technological solution in terms of ergonomics, compactness, and capacity of plants with soil—45 flowers per 1 m2 (one module has dimensions 0.33 × 0.33 m) (see Figure 1b,c).
In this article we considered five different systems of existing green walls: Versa-wall, Alivotec, Biotecture, Vertiss, and Scotscape. The detailed description is shown below.
  • Versa-wall container system
It is a tray system which consists of supplying structure, trays, pots, and an irrigation system.
The main advantages of the tray green wall system are installation and maintenance simplicity, different length and sizes, and it does not require constant watering. Four-inch (10 cm) potted plants are used. The system has three dimension types:
-
Two-pot tray width is 24.92 cm;
-
Three-pot tray width is 37.46 cm;
-
Eight-pot tray width is 100 cm.
The height of each row of trays is 14.61 cm. The drawings of the system are shown below (Figure 2).
2.
Alivotec container system
The frame is made of metal, and the modules for plants are made of nontoxic plastic. The green wall consists of modules, or special trays with grooves for watering plants, and the trays have the same dimensions. Alivotec uses the natural principle of irrigation—plants absorb as much moisture as they need and when it is necessary as the soil dries. The advantage of this system is that each plant is placed in a module in its pot with soil, which greatly simplifies the process of assembling a vertical garden and the continued existence of plants.
The sizes of pots are varied: 10/11/12/13/14 cm. The size of the plastic pallet (W × D × H) is 504 × 175 × 105 mm. There are 6 of them in the basic set of the system. The size of the base wall is 117 × 50.4 cm. If the diameter of the pot is 10–12 cm, up to 24 pots can fit in the basic system. If the diameter is 13–14 cm—up to 18 pcs. The standard plants are Chlorophytum, Maranta tricolor, Epipremnum aureum, Fatsia japonica, and Philodendron scandens. The visualization of the system is given below (Figure 3).
3.
Biotecture modular hydroponic system
This system is constructed with the following parts:
  • Support system is a galvanized hot rolled steel frame.
  • The waterproof backing board is fixed to the support structure. Biotecture Limited (Chichester, UK) uses a 12 mm thick Versapanel Eco as a backing board in their Living Wall system.
  • Rear drainage layer is a geotextile material secured by the cladding rail.
  • Aluminum rail and dripline (also called panel carrier rails) carry and hold the Biotiles and they are fixed to the backing board.
  • Capillary breaks by using geotextile drainage layer.
  • Growing medium Grodan is a hydroponic growing medium with a minimal dry density of 17 kg/m3.
  • The Biotecture Living Wall System is formed using Biotile modules, each nominally 600 mm wide × 450 mm high × 62 mm thick, constructed from polypropylene.
  • Plants. The following plants are suitable for use externally and were included in Engineering Assessment Reports on Living Wall Systems that conformed to the minimum rating requirement of B-s3,d2: Acorus gramineus ‘Ogon’, Asplenium scolopendrium (SYN. Phyllitis scolopendrium)’, Buxus spp, Carex morrowii ‘Irish Green’, Convolvulus cneorum, Euonymus spp., Euphorbia spp., Geranium spp., Hebe spp., Hedera spp., Helleborus spp., Heuchera spp., Iris foetidissima, Lavender spp., Liriope spp., Pachysandra spp., Phlox douglasii ‘Lilac Cloud’, Polystichum spp., Soleirolia soleirolii, Viola odorata, Waldsteinia ternata, etc.
Planting density is 60 plants per sq m, they are lightweight at 70 kg per m2 fully saturated weight. The visualization of the system is given below (Figure 4).
4.
Vertiss modular substrate system
The green wall can be installed by using HD-EPP, which are anchored with the steel frame. The maximum density of plant covering is 32 plants per m2 [30].
Irrigation with or without fertilization has to be performed with an automatic dripper system in accordance with the professional automatic irrigation rules set forth by the corresponding national union or equivalent. Each module is watered by a minimum of 4 self-regulating and anti-syphon drippers, 2 L/h, type Techflow from Netafim or equivalent, on 16 mm 4 bars, PE hose with a short distance of 131 mm, and a long distance of 204 mm. Pipes should be made out of 10 bars, 25 mm PE rods (or bigger if necessary), and the dripper lines out of 16 mm, 4 bar, microirrigation PE hoses. The 16 mm hoses should be connected together for an optimized distribution. An air valve should be installed on the upper part and at each end of the network. The quantity of irrigation networks should be determined according to the available flow and the height and width of the green wall but also sun orientation and type of plants used. The modules have dimensions 760 × 590 × 190 mm, which are optimal for 16 planting cells. This modular substrate system is shown in Figure 5.
5.
Scotscape hydroponic wall system
The Scotscape hydroponic wall system consists of supporting wall, subframe, multilayer modules, irrigation, and, of course, plants [31]. Modules are constructed from a patented, advanced Fytotextile® (Terapia Urbana, Sevilla, Spaine) fabric. Multilayer Fytotextile® panels consist of inner and outer layers. There are 9 available standard panel options, for example, 49 planting pockets per m2. Module thickness (to front of pocket) is 8.5 cm. The weight of the planted system is 40 kg per m2, and weight without plants is 2.1 kg per m2. This hydroponic wall system is shown in Figure 6.
For implementing the research, we should understand the number of plants in each system. Below is a comparative table with calculations of how many plants fit into each system per square meter (Table 1).
We performed calculations for a room with standard dimensions, using modeling of green walls with each constructive solution, knowing the number of plants per square meter: for Versa-wall—54, for Alivotec—40, for Biotecture—60, for Vertis—32, and for Scotscape—49.
Further, the results of tests were performed using Sensidyne-Gastec air sampling equipment. Sensidyne-Gastec equipment consists of detector tubes. They are specific for different chemicals—indoor pollutants: benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), and formaldehyde, and a handheld pump to draw air through the special tubes. When air containing these pollutants is drawn through the tube, a reaction takes place and a color change occurs that is proportional to the concentration of chemical in the air sample.
Based on the analysis of the descriptions of each system, we also compiled a comparative table of the characteristics of various systems (Table 2).
In many studies, the different parts of the plants have been evaluated as possible tools of reducing pollutants in the indoor air [32]. Therefore, in this research we decided to compare green wall systems in their effectiveness in reducing air pollution by the means of the houseplants planted in them.
First and foremost, it is necessary to understand the air pollutants that houseplants in green wall systems have to struggle with. The most widely reported indoor pollutants are benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), and formaldehyde. This article is based on the NASA research on the absorption of pollutants by different houseplants (benzene, formaldehyde, trichloroethylene) for a 24 h exposure period in the Plexiglas chamber.
Data indicate that the capacity to purify the air benzene by the same plants is constantly increasing [33]. This is because microorganisms can adapt by increasing their ability to use toxic chemicals as a food source when exposed to them continuously [34,35,36,37,38,39]. The results of the research are demonstrated in Table 3.
Due to the data obtained from the NASA report [32], it is possible to observe the total number of micrograms removed from one plant. Previously, it was calculated how many plants would fit into 1 m2 of each type of green wall, so it is possible to combine these data and obtain an approximate value of absorbed micrograms of each air pollutant in a particular system.
Below, the tables (Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8) are shown with the calculations of the amount of the pollutants removed in different systems.
Further, summary tables for each of the three air pollutants were compiled to illustrate the calculations (Table 9).
To improve the perception of these tables, comparative graphs for reducing the content of harmful substances in the atmosphere were made (Figure 7).
Analyzing the data of the summary tables, it can be revealed that in all systems, trichloroethylene is best reduced by gerbera daisy, Dracaena, Spathiphyllum “Mauna Loa”; benzene is best reduced by gerbera daisy, English ivy (Hedera helix), warneckei (Dracaena deremensis “Warneckei”); and formaldehyde is better reduced by bamboo, Janet Craig, Dracaena, and Sane evieria [40,41]. In addition, Biotecture, Versa-wall, and Scotscape systems showed the best results, because they fit more plants if we compare the efficiency of the system.
Now, based on these data, we decided to consider the most effective systems and plants in different combinations, based on the percentage this plant reduces from the MPC. Firstly, we made designations of the plants and systems, which are shown below (Figure 8).
After that, we created a matrix of reduction with the best plants and system combinations. The calculations are shown in table below (Table 10).
As can be seen, the best result in a sum of reduced pollutants showed the following systems: 1B—Biotecture with gerbera daisy, 1VW—Versa wall with gerbera daisy, 1S—Scotscape with gerbera daisy, and 2VW—Versa wall with bamboo palm. We decided to take a detailed look at these four systems in the following analysis of effectiveness.

3. Results and Discussion

To study the reduction of the concentration of harmful substances through these four green walls, we used a room 3 m by 3 m, and 2.9 m high. The total volume of the room is 26.1 m3.
In the regulatory documents regarding the pollutants in the urban air, formaldehyde is classified as a toxic substance of the second hazard class; its average daily MPC—10 micrograms/m3 [42]. The maximum single MPC of benzene in the urban air is 0.3 mg/m, and the average is 0.1 mg/m. The limiting indicator of harmfulness is resorptive, hazard class 2, according to [43]. The maximum permissible concentration of trichloroethylene vapors in atmospheric air is 1 mg/m3. Thus, the content of each of the pollutants in the volume of 26.1 m3 by their average daily concentration in the air is presented in the table below (Table 11).
Then, using the previous data, we calculated the reduction of the pollutants in our room. The results are shown in the table below (Table 12).
After that, we calculated the amount of reduction of the pollutants in comparison to the actual concentration in a room and to MPC. The result is shown below (Table 13):
For better understanding, we created charts with the reduction, which are shown below (Figure 9).
As we can see, almost all systems reduced the amount of the pollutants to MPC, but formaldehyde still needs to be reduced. That is why we need to combine the plants in one system and compare them again.
To achieve the greatest efficiency, we combined plants in the size of 50/50 and carried out the same concentration reduction analysis. The combination with calculations is shown below (Table 14).
The results of reduction in comparison to MPC and actual concentration are presented in Table 15.
The charts with reduction were made (Figure 10).
Fortunately, all the system combinations worked out. In the results, it can be seen that systems Versa-Wall, Biotecture, and Scotscape are the most effective when using gerbera daisy and bamboo palm, because they can fit the biggest number of plants (the more plants—the more pollutants they can reduce), and due to physical characteristics of these two plants they can naturally reduce more pollutants.
We have plans to continue our research, using different parameters for measures, such as parameters of soil in which the plants are planted and the root systems of these plants, to investigate the impact on the air by using root systems of flowers and earth with activated carbon.

4. Conclusions

We concluded that green walls can naturally reduce more air pollutants in urban air. Green wall systems as key green building technologies bring a variety of benefits to urban spaces [44]. In addition, innovative devices, such as photovoltaic systems in different weather conditions, multiply these benefits of green technologies [45,46,47]. The novelty of this work is in the fact that the authors, for the first time, considered possible combinations of not only plants, but also made the choice of the most, in their opinion, rational constructive solutions for green wall systems offered today. The combinations of five different greening systems and nine plant species were considered in this research. We briefly examined each of the green wall systems; to achieve the greatest efficiency, we combined plants in the size of 50/50 and carried out the same concentration reduction analysis. As we concluded, almost all systems reduced the amount of the pollutants to MPC, but formaldehyde still needs to be reduced; this is why we decided to combine the plants in one system. The amount of reduction of the pollutants in comparison to the actual concentration in the room and to MPC was calculated, and the most efficient green wall systems in reducing air pollutants and built-in plants were identified.
We found experimentally that the systems Versa-Wall, Biotecture, and Scotscape are the most effective with using the plants gerbera daisy and bamboo palm, because they can fit the highest number of plants, and, as a consequence, they can reduce more pollutants. In addition, due to the physical characteristics of these two plants they can naturally reduce more pollutants.

Author Contributions

This research was created and written by N.S., E.K., E.L. and D.S. The authors E.L. and D.S. performed the green wall systems measurements in this research. N.S. and E.K. analyzed the innovative and existing green wall systems. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Manisalidis, I.; Stavropoulou, E.; Stavropoulos, A.; Bezirtzoglou, E. Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: A review. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Ramanathan, V.; Feng, Y. Air Pollution, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change: Global and Regional Perspectives. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhang, J.; Smith, K.R. Indoor air pollution: A global health concern. Br. Med. Bull. 2003, 68, 209–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Causes, Effects and Solutions to Improve Indoor Air Pollution—Conserve Energy Future. Available online: https://www.conserve-energy-future.com (accessed on 23 February 2023).
  5. Apte, M.G. Associations between indoor CO2 concentrations and sick building syndrome symptoms in US office buildings: An analysis of the 1994–1996 BASE study data. Indoor Air 2000, 10, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Zheng, X.; Dai, T.; Tang, M. An experimental study of vertical greenery systems for window shading for energy saving in summer. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bruno, R.; Bevilacqua, P.; Longo, L.; Arcuri, N. Small Size Single-axis PV Trackers: Control Strategies and System Layout for Energy Optimization. Energy Procedia 2015, 82, 737–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Wahba, S.M.; Kamel, B.A.; Nassar, K.M.; Abdelsalam, A.S. Effectiveness of Green Roofs and Green Walls on Energy Consumption and Indoor Comfort in Arid Climates. Civ. Eng. J. 2018, 4, 2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Hui, S.C.M.; Zheng, Z. Thermal regulation performance of green living walls in buildings. In Proceedings of the Joint Symposium 2013: Innovation and Technology for Built Environment, Hong Kong, China, 12 November 2013. [Google Scholar]
  10. Korol, E.; Shushunova, N.; Feoktistova, O.; Shushunova, T.; Rubtsov, O. Technical and economical factors in green roof using to reduce the aircraft noise. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 170, 01081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Cameron, R.D. Waste Water as a Water Resource Design, and Operation of an Integrated Biofilter Wastewater Treatment and Reuse System. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Horticulture, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  12. Başdoğan, G.; Çığ, A. Ecological-Social-Economical Impacts of Vertical Gardens in the Sustainable City Model. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilim. Derg. 2016, 26, 430–438. [Google Scholar]
  13. Susorova, I. Evaluation of the Effects of Vegetation and Green Walls on Building Thermal Performance and Energy Consumption. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Architecture, The Graduate College of the Illinois Institute, Chicago, IL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ottelé, M.; Perini, K.; Fraaij, A.L.A.; Haas, E.M.; Raiteri, R. Comparative life cycle analysis for green façades and living wall systems. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 3419–3429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Minke, G.; Witter, G.; Balcke, C. Häuser mit Grünem Pelz: Ein Handbuch zur Hausbegrünung; Fricke: Pforzheim, Germany, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ottelé, M. The Green Building Envelope: Vertical Greening; TU Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  17. NEDLAW Living Walls. 2008. Available online: http://www.naturaire.com/index.php (accessed on 28 February 2011).
  18. Peck, S.W.; Callaghan, C.; Kuhn, M.E.; Bass, B. Greenbacks from Green Roofs: Forging a New Industry in Canada; Peck & Associates: Norman, OK, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  19. Browning, W.D.; Kallianpurkar, N.; Ryan, C.O.; Labruto, L.; Watson, S.; Knop, T. The Economics of Biophilia; Terrapin Bright Green LLC.: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pumo, D.; Francipane, A.; Alongi, F.; Noto, L.V. The potential of multilayer green roofs for stormwater management in urban area under semi-arid Mediterranean climate conditions. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 326 Pt A, 116643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cristiano, E.; Deidda, R.; Viola, F. The role of green roofs in urban Water-Energy-Food-Ecosystem nexus: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 143876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cristiano, E.; Annis, A.; Apollonio, C.; Pumo, D.; Urru, S.; Viola, F.; Deidda, R.; Pelorosso, R.; Petroselli, A.; Tauro, F.; et al. Multilayer blue-green roofs as nature-based solutions for water and thermal insulation management. Hydrol. Res. 2022, 53, 1129–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pogliani, L.; Ronchi, S.; Arcidiacono, A.; di Martino, V.; Mazza, F. Regeneration in an ecological perspective. Urban and territorial equalisation for the provision of ecosystem services in the Metropolitan City of Milan. Land Use Policy 2023, 129, 106606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mell, I. Examining the Role of Green Infrastructure as an Advocate for Regeneration. Front. Sustain. Cities 2022, 4, 731975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Otsuka, N.; Abe, H.; Isehara, Y.; Miyagawa, T. The potential use of green infrastructure in the regeneration of brownfield sites: Three case studies from Japan’s Osaka Bay Area. Local Environ. 2021, 26, 1346–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aung, T.; Liana, S.R.; Htet, A.; Bhaumik, A. Integrating green infrastructure into urban high-rise buildings: Design strategies and benefits. Seybold Rep. 2023, 18, 1571–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Conejos, S.; Chew, M.Y.L.; Azril, F.H.B. Green maintainability assessment of high-rise vertical greenery systems. Facilities 2019, 37, 1008–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Razzaghmanesh, M.; Beecham, S.; Salemi, T. The role of green roofs in mitigating Urban Heat Island effects in the metropolitan area of Adelaide, South Australia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 15, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Manso, M.; Castro-Gomes, J. Green wall systems: A review of their characteristics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 863–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Planting Module Vertiss Plus. Available online: https://www.vertiss.net/vertiss-plus-le-module-vegetalise?lang=en (accessed on 3 May 2023).
  31. Scotscape. Available online: https://www.scotscape.co.uk/thank-you-document-download (accessed on 3 May 2023).
  32. Wolverton, B.C.; Johnson, A.; Bounds, K. Interior Landscape Plants for Indoor Air Pollution Abatement; No. NASA-TM-101766; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wolverton, B.C. Natural systems for wastewater treatment and water reuse for space and earthly applications. In Proceedings of the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Wuter Reuse Symposium IV, Denver, CO, USA, 2–7 August 1987; pp. 729–741. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wolverton, B.C. Aquatic Plants for Wastewater Treatment: An Overview. In Aquatic Plants for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery; Reddy, K.R., Smith, V.H., Eds.; Magnolia Publishing: Orlando, FL, USA, 1987; pp. 3–15. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wolverton, B.C.; Bounds, B.K. Aquatic plants for pH adjustment and removal of toxic chemicals and dissolved minerals from water supplies. J. Miss. Acad. Sci. 1988, 33, 71–80. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wolverton, B.C.; McDonald-McCaleb, R.C. Biotransformation of priority pollutants using biofilms and vascular plants. J. Miss. Acad. Sci. 1986, 31, 79–89. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wolverton, B.C.; McDonald, R.C. Natural processes for treatment of organic chemical waste. Environ. Prof. 1981, 3, 99–104. [Google Scholar]
  38. McCaleb, R.C.; Bounds, B.K. Biological activated carbon. In Proceedings of the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Water Reuse Symposium IV, Denver, CO, USA, 2–8 August 1987; pp. 1301–1316. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gitelson, J.I.; Kovrov, B.G.; Lisovskig, G.M.; Okladnikov, Y.N.; Rerberg, M.S.; Ya Sidko, F.; Terskvo, I.A. Experimental Ecological Systems Including Man. Probl. Space Biol. 1975, 28, 1–312. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bevilacqua, P. The effectiveness of green roofs in reducing building energy consumptions across different climates. A summary of literature results. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 151, 111523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bevilacqua, P.; Bruno, R.; Arcuri, N. Green roofs in a Mediterranean climate: Energy performances based on in-situ experimental data. Renew. Energy 2020, 152, 1414–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wallace, L.; Pellizzari, E.; Hartwell, T.; Rosenweig, M.; Erickson, M.; Sparacino, C.; Zelon, H. Personal exposureto volatile organic compounds: I. direct measurement in breathing-zone air, drinking water, food and exhaled breath. Environ. Res. 1984, 35, 193–211. [Google Scholar]
  43. Pellizzari, E.; Hartwell, T.; Sparacino, C.; Shelson, C.; Whitmore, R.; Leininger, C.; Zelon, H. Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study: First Season, Northern New Jersey—Interim Report; Contract No. 68-02-3679; EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  44. Shushunova, N.; Korol, E.; Luzay, E.; Shafieva, D.; Bevilacqua, P. Ensuring the Safety of Buildings by Reducing the Noise Impact through the Use of Green Wall Systems. Energies 2022, 15, 8097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bevilacqua, P.; Morabito, A.; Bruno, R.; Ferraro, V.; Arcuri, N. Seasonal performances of photovoltaic cooling systems in different weather conditions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bevilacqua, P.; Perrella, S.; Bruno, R.; Arcuri, N. An accurate thermal model for the PV electric generation prediction: Long-term validation in different climatic conditions. Renew. Energy 2021, 163, 1092–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Szyszka, J.; Bevilacqua, P.; Bruno, R. An innovative trombe wall for winter use: The thermo-diode trombe wall. Energies 2020, 13, 2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 09732 g001 550
Figure 1. The innovative green wall modular system, developed by the authors: (a) front elevation, (b) schematic view: 1—back view, 2—side view (right), 3—front view, 4—side view (left), 5—one module-element, (c) drawing (photo) of the positioning of the flowers.
Figure 1. The innovative green wall modular system, developed by the authors: (a) front elevation, (b) schematic view: 1—back view, 2—side view (right), 3—front view, 4—side view (left), 5—one module-element, (c) drawing (photo) of the positioning of the flowers.
Sustainability 15 09732 g001
Sustainability 15 09732 g002 550
Figure 2. The drawings of the Versa-wall system: (a) front elevation, (b) side elevation.
Figure 2. The drawings of the Versa-wall system: (a) front elevation, (b) side elevation.
Sustainability 15 09732 g002
Sustainability 15 09732 g003a 550Sustainability 15 09732 g003b 550
Figure 3. The scheme of the Alivotec system: (a) assembly container system, (b) types (species) of green wall plants.
Figure 3. The scheme of the Alivotec system: (a) assembly container system, (b) types (species) of green wall plants.
Sustainability 15 09732 g003aSustainability 15 09732 g003b
Sustainability 15 09732 g004 550
Figure 4. The drawings of the Biotecture system: (a) system structure, (b) dimensions of metal frames.
Figure 4. The drawings of the Biotecture system: (a) system structure, (b) dimensions of metal frames.
Sustainability 15 09732 g004
Sustainability 15 09732 g005 550
Figure 5. The drawings of the Vertiss system: (a) front and side view, (b) description of the system.
Figure 5. The drawings of the Vertiss system: (a) front and side view, (b) description of the system.
Sustainability 15 09732 g005
Sustainability 15 09732 g006 550
Figure 6. The drawings of the Scotscape system: (a) description of the system, (b) system layers (with irrigation), (c) description of the system layers.
Figure 6. The drawings of the Scotscape system: (a) description of the system, (b) system layers (with irrigation), (c) description of the system layers.
Sustainability 15 09732 g006
Sustainability 15 09732 g007 550
Figure 7. Comparative graphs for reducing the content of harmful substances: (a) TCE, (b) benzene, (c) formaldehyde.
Figure 7. Comparative graphs for reducing the content of harmful substances: (a) TCE, (b) benzene, (c) formaldehyde.
Sustainability 15 09732 g007
Sustainability 15 09732 g008 550
Figure 8. The designations of the (a) plants, (b) systems.
Figure 8. The designations of the (a) plants, (b) systems.
Sustainability 15 09732 g008
Sustainability 15 09732 g009a 550Sustainability 15 09732 g009b 550
Figure 9. The charts of the reduction of the pollutants: (a) TCE, (b) benzene, (c) formaldehyde.
Figure 9. The charts of the reduction of the pollutants: (a) TCE, (b) benzene, (c) formaldehyde.
Sustainability 15 09732 g009aSustainability 15 09732 g009b
Sustainability 15 09732 g010a 550Sustainability 15 09732 g010b 550
Figure 10. The reduction with plants placed in systems 50/50: (a) TCE, (b) benzene, (c) formaldehyde.
Figure 10. The reduction with plants placed in systems 50/50: (a) TCE, (b) benzene, (c) formaldehyde.
Sustainability 15 09732 g010aSustainability 15 09732 g010b
Table
Table 1. The number of plants.
Table 1. The number of plants.
Versa-WallAlivotecBiotectureVertisScotscape
Standard dimensions of the module/container/wall, mm1000 × 1168.8
(8-pot system)		504 × 1770600 × 450760 × 5901000 × 1000
Standard square, m21.1680.5890.270.451
Number of plants in standard square6424
(10–12 cm diameter of pots)		161449
Number of plants
in 1 m2		5440603249
Table
Table 2. The characteristics of the systems.
Table 2. The characteristics of the systems.
Comparison CriterionVersa-WallAlivotecBiotectureVertisScotscape
Construction typeContainerContainerModular (hydroponic)Modular (substrate)Hydroponic
Mounting methodContainersContainersPrepared modulesPrepared modulesFelt pockets
Growing mediumSoilSoilRockwoolPozzolan, cross-linked polymersFytotexile
Drainage systemBottom-drained or recycled waterPipe system connected to the water supply systemHydroponicHydroponicHydroponic
Irrigation systemThe water supply to trays by pipes.
It can be manual/automatic		Piping system. Irrigation is performed manually or automaticallyAutomatic watering systemAutomatic watering systemIrrigation pipework
Possibility of changing the designThe design can be changed easily by replaced plantsModifying design by moving containersModification of design by rearranging modulesModification of design by rearranging modulesThe design cannot be changed, only dismantled
Square, m211111
Number of plants per 1 m25440603249
System weight, kg/m25030709440
Table
Table 3. Air pollutants removed by houseplants during a 24 h exposure period.
Table 3. Air pollutants removed by houseplants during a 24 h exposure period.
Trichloroethylene (TCE)BenzeneFormaldehyde
Surface Area of Plant Leafs (in cm2)Quantity of Micrograms Removed (per Plant)Surface Area of Plant Leafs (in cm2)Quantity of Micrograms Removed (per Plant)Surface Area of Plant Leafs (in cm2)Quantity of Micrograms Removed (per Plant)
Gerbera daisy
(Gerbera jamesonii)		4.58138.9384.581107.653--
English ivy
(Hedera helix)		9817.1614.22776.9319859.653
Marginata
(Dracaena marginata)		7.58127.2921.33613.8947.58120.469
Peace lily
(Spathiphyllum “Mauna Loa”)		7.96027.0642.87128.7108.50916.167
Mother-in-law’s tongue
(Sane evieria)		3.4709.7207.24239.1072.87131.294
Warneckei
(Dracaena deremensis “Warneckei”)		7.24213.7607.96041.392--
Bamboo palm
(Chamaedorea seitritzii)		10.32516.5203.08514.50014.20576.707
Mass cane
(Dracaena massangeana)		7.21510.1017.58130.324--
Janet Craig
(Dracaena deremensis “Janet Craig”)		15.27018.30010.32534.07315,27548.880
Table
Table 4. Versa-wall’s removal of the pollutants.
Table 4. Versa-wall’s removal of the pollutants.
Number of Plants per 1 m2—54Trichloroethylene (TCE)BenzeneFormaldehyde
Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)
Gerbera daisy38.9382102.652107.6535813.262--
Hedera7161386.69476.9314154.2749.653521.262
Dracaena27.2921473.76813.894750.27620.4691105.326
Spathiphyllum27.0641461.45628.711550.3416.167873.018
Sane evieria9.727525.25839.1072111.77831.2941689.876
Warneckei13.76743.0441.3922235.168--
Bamboo16.52892.0814.578376.7074142.178
Cane10.101545.45430.3241637.496--
Janet Craig18.33989.8234.0731839.94248.882639.52
Table
Table 5. Alivotec’s removal of the pollutants.
Table 5. Alivotec’s removal of the pollutants.
Number of Plants per 1 m2—40Trichloroethylene (TCE)BenzeneFormaldehyde
Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)
Gerbera daisy38.9381557.52107.6534306.12--
Hedera7.161286.4476.9313077.249.653386.12
Dracaena27.2921091.6813.894555.7620.469818.76
Spathiphyllum27.0641082.5628.711148.416.167646.68
Sane evieria9.727389.0839.1071564.2831.2941251,76
Warneckei13.76550.441.3921655.68--
Bamboo16.52660.814.558076.7073068.28
Cane10.101404.0430.3241212.96--
Janet Craig18.33733.234.0731362.9248.881955.2
Table
Table 6. Biotecture’s removal of the pollutants.
Table 6. Biotecture’s removal of the pollutants.
Number of Plants per 1 m2—60Trichloroethylene (TCE)BenzeneFormaldehyde
Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)
Gerbera daisy38.9382336.28107.6536459.18--
Hedera7.161429.6676.9314615.869.653579.18
Dracaena27.2921637.5213.894833.6420.4691228.14
Spathiphyllum27.0641623.8428.711722.616.167970,02
Sane evieria9.727583.6239.1072346.4231.2941877.64
Warneckei13.76825.641.3922483,52--
Bamboo16.52991.214.587076.7074602.42
Cane10.101606.0630.3241819.44--
Janet Craig18.331099.834.0732044.3848.882932.8
Table
Table 7. Vertis’ removal of the pollutants.
Table 7. Vertis’ removal of the pollutants.
Number of Plants per 1 m2—32Trichloroethylene (TCE)BenzeneFormaldehyde
Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)
Gerbera daisy38.9381246.016107.6533444.896--
Hedera7.161229.15276.9312461.7929.653308.896
Dracaena27.292873.34413.894444.60820.469655.008
Spathiphyllum27.064866.04828.71918.7216.167517.344
Sane evieria9.727311.26439.1071251.42431.2941001.408
Warneckei13.76440.3241.3921324.544--
Bamboo16.52528.6414.546476.7072454.624
Cane10.101323.23230.324970.368--
Janet Craig18.33586.5634.0731090.33648.881564.16
Table
Table 8. Scotscape’s removal of the pollutants.
Table 8. Scotscape’s removal of the pollutants.
Number of Plants per 1 m2—49Trichloroethylene (TCE)BenzeneFormaldehyde
Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per Plant)		Quantity of Micrograms Removed
(per 1 m2)
Gerbera daisy38.9381907.962107.6535274.997--
Hedera7.161350.88976.9313769.6199.653472.997
Dracaena27.2921337.30813.894680.80620.4691002.981
Spathiphyllum27.0641326.13628.711406.7916.167792.183
Sane evieria9.727476.62339.1071916.24331.2941533.406
Warneckei13.76674.2441.3922028.208--
Bamboo16.52809.4814.5710.576.7073758.643
Cane10.101494.94930.3241485.876--
Janet Craig18.33898.1734.0731669.57748.882395.12
Table
Table 9. Total micrograms removed per 1 m2 of the green wall system.
Table 9. Total micrograms removed per 1 m2 of the green wall system.
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Versa-WallAlivotecBiotectureVertisScotscape
Gerbera daisy2102.6521557.522336.281246.0161907.962
Hedera386.694286.44429.66229.152350.889
Dracaena1473.7681091.681637.52873.3441337.308
Spathiphyllum1461.4561082.561623.84866.0481326.136
Sane evieria525.258389.08583.62311.264476.623
Warneckei743.04550.4825.6440.32674.24
Bamboo892.08660.8991.2528.64809.48
Cane545.454404.04606.06323.232494.949
Janet Craig989.82733.21099.8586.56898.17
Benzene
Versa-wallAlivotecBiotectureVertisScotscape
Gerbera daisy5813.2624306.126459.183444.8965274.997
Hedera4154.2743077.244615.862461.7923769.619
Dracaena750.276555.76833.64444.608680.806
Spathiphyllum1550.341148.41722.6918.721406.79
Sane evieria2111.7781564.282346.421251.4241916.243
Warneckei2235.1681655.682483.521324.5442028.208
Bamboo783580870464710.5
Cane1637.4961212.961819.44970.3681485.876
Janet Craig1839.9421362.922044.381090.3361669.577
Formaldehyde
Versa-wallAlivotecBiotectureVertisScotscape
Gerbera daisy-----
Hedera521.262386.12579.18308.896472.997
Dracaena1105.326818.761228.14655.0081002.981
Spathiphyllum873.018646.68970.02517.344792.183
Sane evieria1689.8761251.761877.641001.4081533.406
Warneckei-----
Bamboo4142.1783068.284602.422454.6243758.643
Cane-----
Janet Craig2639.521955.22932.81564.162395.12
Table
Table 10. Matrix of reduction.
Table 10. Matrix of reduction.
Matrix of ReductionTrichloroethylene (TCE)BenzeneFormaldehydeSum of Reduced Pollutants
1 VW2102.6525813.2607915.91
2 VW892.087834142.1785817.26
3 VW1461.4561550.34873.0183884.81
1 A1557.524306.1205863.64
2 A660.85803068.284309.08
3 A1082.561148.4646.682877.64
1 B2336.286459.1808795.46
2 B991.28704602.426463.62
3 B1623.841722.6970.024316.46
1 V1246.0163444.904690.91
2 V528.644642454.6243447.26
3 V866.048918.72517.3442302.11
1 S1907.962527507182.96
2 S809.48710.53758.6435278.62
3 S1326.1361406.79792.1833525.11
Max reduction2336.286459.184602.42
Table
Table 11. MPC of harmful substances.
Table 11. MPC of harmful substances.
Trichloroethylene (TCE)BenzeneFormaldehyde
Average daily MPC, mg/m310.10.01
Room volume, m326.126.126.1
Average daily MPC in a room26.12.610.261
The actual concentration of pollutants 28.713.1320.29232
Excess of MPC, %102012
Table
Table 12. The reduction of substances in a room.
Table 12. The reduction of substances in a room.
№System and
Plant/Pollutant		Trichloroethylene
(TCE)		BenzeneFormaldehydeSum of Reduced
Pollutants
1Biotecture
(gerbera daisy)		2336.286459.1808795.46
2Versa-wall
(gerbera daisy)		2102.6525813.26207915.914
3Scotscape
(gerbera daisy)		1907.9625274.9907182.952
4Versa wall
(bamboo palm)		892.087834142.1785817.258
Sum of reduction (of each pollutant)7238.97418,330.4324142.178
Table
Table 13. The calculation of the reduction.
Table 13. The calculation of the reduction.
mg/m3
Name of PollutantBenzeneTrichloroethylene (TCE)Formaldehyde
Average daily MPC in a room2.6126.10.261
The actual concentration of pollutants / reduced3.13228.710.29232
1Biotecture (gerbera daisy)−3.32726.3740.292
2Versa-wall (gerbera daisy)−2.68126.6070.292
3Scotscape (gerbera daisy)−2.14326.8020.292
4Versa wall (bamboo palm)2.34927.818−3.850
Table
Table 14. The combination of plants in a system.
Table 14. The combination of plants in a system.
№
of Combination		System and
Plant/Pollutant		Trichloroethylene (TCE)BenzeneFormaldehydeSum of Reduced
Pollutants
1Versa-wall (gerbera daisy)1051.3262906.63103957.957
Versa-wall (bamboo palm)446.04391.52071.0892908.629
Sum of reduction (of each pollutant) 1497.3663298.1312071.089
2Biotecture (gerbera daisy)1168.143229.5904397.73
Biotecture (bamboo palm)495.64352301.213231.81
Sum of reduction (of each pollutant) 1663.743664.592301.21
3Scotscape (gerbera daisy)953.9812637.498503591.4795
Scotscape (bamboo palm)404.74355.251879.32152639.3115
Sum of reduction (of each pollutant) 1358.7212992.74851879.3215
Table
Table 15. The calculation of the reduction in the best effective way.
Table 15. The calculation of the reduction in the best effective way.
mg/m3
Name of PollutantBenzeneTrichloroethylene (TCE)Formaldehyde
Average daily MPC in a room2.6126.10.261
The actual concentration of pollutants/reduced3.001528.710.29232
1Versa-wall0.93025.412−1.779
2Biotecture0.70025.045−2.009
3Scotscape1.12225.717−1.587
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shushunova, N.; Korol, E.; Luzay, E.; Shafieva, D. Impact of the Innovative Green Wall Modular Systems on the Urban Air. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129732

AMA Style

Shushunova N, Korol E, Luzay E, Shafieva D. Impact of the Innovative Green Wall Modular Systems on the Urban Air. Sustainability. 2023; 15(12):9732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129732

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shushunova, Natalia, Elena Korol, Elisaveta Luzay, and Diana Shafieva. 2023. "Impact of the Innovative Green Wall Modular Systems on the Urban Air" Sustainability 15, no. 12: 9732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129732

APA Style

Shushunova, N., Korol, E., Luzay, E., & Shafieva, D. (2023). Impact of the Innovative Green Wall Modular Systems on the Urban Air. Sustainability, 15(12), 9732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129732

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop