Next Article in Journal
Ferrer House at Rocafort, an Early Case of Brise-Soleil’s Design for the Mediterranean Region in Valencia
Previous Article in Journal
The Benefits of Positive Energy Districts: Introducing Additionality Assessment in Évora, Amsterdam and Espoo
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Designs
Volume 8
Issue 5
10.3390/designs8050095
designs-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Open-Source Indoor Horizontal Grow Structure Designs

by
Jun-Yu Qian
1 and
Joshua M. Pearce
2,3,*
1
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Western University, 1151 Richmond St. N., London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
2
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Western University, 1151 Richmond St. N., London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
3
Ivey School of Business, Western University, 1151 Richmond St. N., London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Designs 2024, 8(5), 95; https://doi.org/10.3390/designs8050095
Submission received: 27 August 2024 / Revised: 18 September 2024 / Accepted: 20 September 2024 / Published: 23 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Bioengineering Design)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Agrivoltaic agrotunnels are currently designed for high-density grow walls that are not amenable to bush berries or root crops. Commercial grow bins provide deeper substrates for produce with more root systems but have high costs per unit growing area. To overcome the economic limitations of grow bins, this study applies the distributed manufacturing open-source design paradigm to develop four designs for low-cost open-source structures. The designs target root vegetables and bush fruit specifically to be adopted by remote communities with limited or no outdoor growing environment to offset the market price for imported fresh produce. The indoor growing designs provide the necessary structure for supporting grow lights and grow bins and enable the transplanted berry plants to flower and produce fruits. They provide a comparable amount (110 L) or more of grow volume from 106 to 192 L. The water reservoir volume for the commercial system (62 L) and grow area (0.5 m3) is surpassed by all new designs that range from 64 to 192 L and 0.51 to 0.76 m3, respectively. These superior properties are possible with material costs for all four designs that save more than 90% of the economic cost of the commercial systems.

1. Introduction

With rapid population growth [1] and global climate destabilization [2,3], there has also been a growing focus on unconventional agricultural farming [4,5]. Studies conducted in Ghana show that the current trend of urbanization in the global south is driving farmers along with arable land away from the condensed urban population [6], which subsequently imposes additional costs to both suppliers and consumers on storage facilities and transportation of food [7]. In Kampala, Uganda, continued urbanization is expected to influence low-income households the most [8]. Studies on the spatial location of new supermarkets performed in another global south city, Lusaka, Zambia, suggest that the development of urbanization and supermarkets favors areas that are already more food-secured, further burdening the low-income population [9].
Indoor growing, which has recently been industrialized [10,11,12,13], has been practiced mostly for decoration purposes for centuries [14]. It has been proposed by many authors [15,16] and, to a lesser extent, by commercial entities to adapt it from the distributed production of food within the home [17,18]. This new method of agricultural production is especially relevant for remote communities [19,20,21,22] and regions under extreme weather conditions where outdoor growing is challenging or nearly impossible [23,24]. Unfortunately, with climate change, these relatively extreme conditions are expected to grow in the future [25,26]. Even for areas where outdoor agricultural farming is frequently practiced, the increased rate of unpredictable weather could still threaten local food security, passively raising daily produce prices. Therefore, the potential to achieve growing produce year-round at home is attractive, especially for regions where market prices are high and usually coupled with inferior qualities [27,28] or have recently been affected by price spikes [29].
Indoor growing comprises several types of technical systems: lighting, water/nutrients, growing media, air quality, and crop maintenance. Optimal lighting involves altering both the spectrum and intensity of light for specific crops [30,31]. With reduced arable lands, the conventional cultivation method using soil [32] is transitioning to soil-less cultivation methods [33,34] such as hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics [35] or a mixture of two or more methods under a controlled environment. The soil-less system includes the use of alternative substrates such as rockwool to support the roots in liquid nutrients [33], and in the case of aeroponics, roots can be completely exposed to the air.
Indoor growing environments tend to have carefully controlled temperatures that can be carried out passively [36] or actively [37], as well as humidity control [38]. The active systems can adjust the speed of ventilation. Finally, for handling farming operations like planting, pollination, pruning, and harvesting, the systems can be manual or use various types of electronics and automation [39,40] to monitor and adjust the conditions of the growing environment (e.g., temperature, moisture, and pH).
In general, indoor growing has several advantages in common: (i) climate control (temperature, humidity, lighting, airflow) [41,42], (ii) pest control [38,43], which in turn minimizes the need for harmful chemicals [44] (although it should be noted that if pests invade controlled environments, they can be challenging to eliminate as there are no natural predators available [45]), (iii) high water [44] and space efficiency [46] compared to conventional farming, (iv reduced transportation economic and environmental costs as it can be localized [47], which also provides higher nutrient density [30]; and (v) all year-round production and yield consistency [30,41].
Due to these many advantages, there are several crops that are commonly produced indoors: leafy greens [48,49], mushrooms [50], tomatoes [51], strawberries [52], and herbs [49]. These crops have been shown to be amenable to indoor growing, including manageable plant and root system size, low pollination requirements, and shorter growth duration. On the other hand, several crops not commonly grown indoors include corn, root vegetables, grapes, grains, and fruit trees (e.g., apples, oranges), as heavy-duty machines are commonly used to harvest the fruits, which are less suitable for indoor operations [53].
In order to service remote communities with indoor agriculture, many novel designs based on containers have been proposed [54,55]. Many container structures used for indoor growing also have relatively poor insulation because adding insulation reduces grow volume, which makes them susceptible to large temperature fluctuations and/or large energy use [56,57]. The latter has resulted in poor economic performance [58].
A recent approach that seeks to overcome the weaknesses of containers is the concept of an agrivoltaic agrotunnel. Agrivoltaics is the colocation of agriculture and solar photovoltaic (PV) production [59]. The first agrivoltaics agrotunnel [60] used variable tilt PV [61] on the outside that grew crops underneath them to power the pumps, heat pumps, and grow lights on the inside. Various types of PV arrays can be used for agrivoltaics that depend on the specific outdoor crop, including conventional fixed tilt [62,63], stilt-based systems [64,65], trellis systems [64,65,66,67,68], fences [69,70,71], single-axis trackers [72,73], fixed vertical [74,75,76], and wind-adjusted vertical systems [77,78]. The agrivoltaics agrotunnel concept enables net zero food energy production of indoor food because the PV generation can be matched to the energy needs of the indoors. Outdoor agrivoltaics has been shown to increase yields for a wide variety of crops such as kale, chard, broccoli, pepper, tomatoes, spinach [79], celeriac [80], lettuces [81], and basil [82] as well as reducing the amount of carbon emissions [83,84,85]. Agrotunnels are modular, can be placed near the consumers to reduce food miles, and allow for climate control year-round production just like other indoor systems. Agrotunnels developed by Food Security Structures Canada (London, ON, Canada) use fiber-reinforced polymer construction to enhance its portability and strength. The structure is under warranty for 50 years. The structure itself is composed of 1.2 m × 2.4 m panels, and their lightweight design also reduces the embodied energy and emissions for transportation and ease of assembly [60]. The higher density achieved with vertical grow wall design enables economical production [60] and can even be built underground for better temperature control and resilience to extreme weather. Thus, the agrotunnel can be deployed in any environment to grow local produce and is not dependent on the local soil conditions or the environment.
Agrivoltaic agrotunnels will have varying sizes of solar PV arrays depending on the local climate and available solar flux. As a general rule, the more extreme the environment (both too hot and too cold for optimal growing), the greater the size of the PV array is needed to provide the energy for the heat pumps to maintain the operating temperature and the weaker the solar flux, the greater the PV array size is required. In addition, because grow bins use less energy per unit floor area than the grow walls, the percentage of each will also impact the PV array size. Finally, the size of the PV array will be dependent on the transparency of the PV modules. For example, a PV array made up of 90% transparent PV modules (e.g., only 10% of the area conversion efficiency of conventional PV modules) will need to be ten times larger than a conventional 0% transparent PV module array.
The agrotunnel is currently designed for high-density grow walls. These walls can be used to grow common crops such as herbs, lettuces, kale, and other leafy greens, as well as strawberries; however, they are not amenable to bush berries or root crops like potatoes. Grow bins (see Figure 1) enable remote communities with no or limited access to fresh produce (especially potatoes) as they provide deeper substrates for produce with more root systems. Figure 1 is a commercial grow bin with a retail cost of CAD 4500, which makes it financially unviable for all but the most expensive crops.
In order to overcome the primarily economic limitations of conventional grow bins, this study applies the distributed manufacturing open-source design principles [86,87] to develop low-cost open-source grow bins for agrotunnels, which can also be used for indoor growing at home. Four designs will be constructed and assessed, including the commercial comparison. Open-source designs will target achieving similar growing capacity and functionality while minimizing the cost of building the system. The performances of the open-source designs will be assessed by transplanting berry plants into them and observing the growth progress of the plants along with the berry plants in the commercial grow bin. Properties of the open-source designs will be numerically compared to each other and the commercial product for assessment, such as prices of the materials used, growing volume and area, volume of water (nutrient solution) reservoir, percent savings of cost per growing surface area compared to the commercial product, assembly difficulty, and the rigidity of the structures when being moved. This article will present for the first time in the literature the contribution of four open-source conceptual designs for grow bins targeting root vegetables and bush fruit specifically to be adopted by remote communities (poor or harsh weather) with limited or no outdoor growing environment to offset the market price for imported fresh produce. These designs are built and experimentally tested for operational validity, and a complete economic analysis is performed. The open-source designs are readily replicable by others.

2. Materials and Methods

Design Criteria

The structure shown in Figure 1 allows users to either put the plants and substrates straight into the container volume or suspend a mesh grow bag inside the container to allow better air circulation for the plants. The size of the used mesh bag is used to estimate the yield, assuming potatoes are planted inside. The mesh bag is 106.68 cm long, 25.40 cm deep, and 40.64 cm wide. With this volume (0.1 cubic meters) and depth, 3 potato plants can be planted following conventional guidelines of 25 to 30 cm of in-row spacing [88]. These structures are generally not viable for growing crops like potatoes. Consider it takes 70 to 120 days for potatoes to be ready for harvest, depending on the varieties [89], which is 3 to 4 harvests a year if grown indoors. Each harvest can potentially yield 8.1 to 9.3 kg [90]; the yield per year will then be 24.3 to 37.2 kg. The price of potatoes in Ontario, CA, is CAD 1.12 per lb. (CAD 2.5 per kg) [91]. According to this calculation, one can produce CAD 60 to CAD 93 worth of potatoes per year, which will take 48 to 74 years to recover the cost of purchasing a commercial grow bin even if all operating and labor costs are ignored.
The commercially available grow bin (Figure 1) is rendered with annotations in Figure 2. The design criteria for grow bins to replace the commercial grow bin. The main components are the planter bin that holds the crop with substrates and the reservoir bin that stores drained water from the planter bin. A submersible pump is used to deliver nutrient solution from the reservoir bin to the planter bin, controlled by a timer with adjustable frequency. The frame is optional if users can support the grow light by other means, such as suspending the light from the ceiling if available. The vertical height of the structures (around 1.8 m tall to accommodate large plants) is necessary in the tunnel since attachment to the ceiling and wall is prohibited to ensure the integrity of the tunnel structure. The height of the frame is decided by the anticipation of how tall the types of crops planted will reach at their maturity. Similarly, the inclusion of the wheel for mobility is also optional. They are added for cleaning to maintain the environment of the tunnel.
Using Figure 2 as a guide, a functional grow bin should include the following components (bottom to the top):
  • Wheels for mobility (optional);
  • Water reservoir to collect drainage from grow bin;
  • Drainage hole to allow excessive water to drain from grow bin;
  • Grow bin to hold substrate and plants;
  • The grow bins must have enough mechanical strength to hold a completely loaded grow system, including growing medium and water;
  • Irrigation system to pump reclaimed water back into grow bin;
  • Electrical box to control water pump;
  • Structure to hold and adjust the height of the grow light as plants grow. This structure must be mechanically strong enough to hold the mass of a grow light.
There are four designs aside from the commercial comparison: Inverted T, Boxed Rectangle, Single Water Reservoir, and PVC + Mobile Platform. Specifically, the designs are as accessible globally as possible using an open hardware paradigm [92,93,94,95]. This means that when possible, using off-the-shelf materials and the use of self-replicating rapid prototype (RepRap) class [96,97,98] fused filament fabrication-based 3D printers of varying tolerances and capabilities, which have been shown to radically reduce the costs of a list of products.
The concept behind the first design (Inverted T) is to use as little material as possible to support grow bins and to hang grow lights. The rectangular bottom provides a platform for the grow bins to settle. On the top, one aluminum bar is supported by two vertical extrusions to hang the grow light.
Table A1 lists the materials used for the Inverted T structure. Prices are adjusted to the actual amount of materials used based on bulk prices from the URLs. Three-dimensionally printed parts are used whenever possible to offset the prices. Figure 3 shows the rendering of the STL file for the 3DP parts. The cost of the 3DP part is estimated from the amount of filament used in the slicing software (PrusaSlicer 2.7.0) [99,100].
Figure 3 shows the rendering of the corner bracket file, which can be 3D printed to replace the metal ones to offset the cost. The mechanical requirements necessary for these designs can be met with any of the hard common commercial thermoplastics (e.g., polylactic acid (PLA), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), or polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG)). For the experiments performed here, PETG was used because it is easier to print than ABS and has a higher impact strength than PLA. Users can modify these to make them larger for a stronger connection. Table 1 shows the parameters used for slicing the STL file. Other parameters can remain in default. The infill percentage is maximized for material strength. Support is optional.
The second design (Boxed Rectangle) is a strengthened version of the first one. Additional support is added on the side to prevent the grow bins from sliding off the bottom platform. More aluminum extrusions are used for better integrity. Table A2 shows the bill of materials used for this frame.
The third design (Single Water Reservoir) targets smaller plants with smaller volume grow bins. It uses a single water reservoir for all six grow bins on top. All six grow bins are tilted inward to direct the drainage to the rain gutter placed in the center, which connects to the bottom water reservoir. Table A3 includes the bill of materials for this design.
The idea behind this version (PVC frame) is to separate the platform for supporting grow bins and the structure for hanging the grow light. It is easier to just move the bottom platform with grow bins without the burden of having to move the structure for grow light at the same time. Table A4 shows the bill of materials used. A higher cost saving is realized since more parts can be substituted with 3D-printed parts in this case.
Rendered files of 3D-printable parts for connecting PVC pipes are shown in Figure 4. Slicing parameters from Table 1 can be used for the PVC pipe fittings. Supports are required for the 3-Way Tee Connector and the 3-Way Connector. The 45-Degree Connector can be printed with one end on the bottom to avoid support, while the other two parts should be printed with the +Z axis up with supports enabled.
Aside from frames, there are universal components used in each design for holding plants and irrigation purposes. Table A5 lists the components for the single bin design (used in Inverted T, Boxed Rectangle, and PVC versions), and Table A6 lists the extra components for the Single Water Reservoir design.
All grow bin designs were experimentally tested by growing an assortment of berry bushes that would not have been possible to grow in conventional grow walls.

3. Results

Figure 5 presents a simple frame to hold three bins and grow light. Two off-the-shelf bins are stacked together. Plants will be potted on the top bin, with the bottom bin acting as the nutrient solution reservoir. Grow light is attached to the top of the frame with customized 3D-printed parts and a pair of adjustable rope hangers.
Like the design shown in Figure 5, the design in Figure 6 provides additional side rail support for the grow bins from the side to prevent them from sliding off while moving the whole structure. With both a rectangular shape on top and bottom, the integrity is better than the previous design.
Figure 7 is a more refined design for Jellybean blueberry plants that are typically shorter, so the distance between light and the plants can be reduced. It requires some additional work to tilt all the bins to allow liquid to drain into the same water reservoir shown at the bottom of the structure.
Figure 8 shows a design that separates the structure for holding the grow light and the bottom mobile platform to hold the grow bins. Cost is minimized this way as vertical aluminum profiles are replaced with PVC pipes to support the grow light.
Figure 9 shows the fruition or blossoms (for the Jellybean blueberry) of the planted berries. Prior to potting them into the grow bins, these bushes did not carry any flowers. Within one month, with proper nutrient solutions and abundant lights with proper spectrum, these berry bushes started to carry fruits or flowers.
Table 2 compares the various properties of all the grow bin systems presented in this study.

4. Discussion

As can be seen by the results in Table 2 the material costs for all the open-source grow bins are well below 10 percent of the cost of the commercial comparison. The Inverted T system represents 97% savings, which is in line with the savings found for other open-source hardware [101]. It should be pointed out, however, that costs fluctuate with the market in different geographic locations. In general, the Canadian market has higher prices for goods than much of the rest of the world, so the open-source grow bin cost values provided in the Appendix A are high-end estimates of costs for those living in other regions. The relative cost compared to commercial systems is more important, and the trend of the open-source grow bins being substantially less costly is generalizable. The cost savings can be further enhanced by 3D printing connection parts, which again is consistent with other studies of distributed additive manufacturing [102,103].
The grow volumes are comparable across the designs. The Inverted T frame has the most volume and houses three stacked bins by not having the side guard rail to prevent them from sliding off the bottom platform. The Single Water Reservoir design has just slightly less grow volume than the commercial system, while all others have a greater volume. All of the open-source designs have a greater water reservoir than the commercial system. This is an advantage to allow longer periods without grower intervention to add more water. The Inverted T design, for example, can go roughly three times longer without adding water than the commercial system with the same plants. The growing surface area is greater for all of the open-source designs than for the commercial system. This makes the cost per growing surface area perhaps the most striking, as the commercial system is CAD 9000/m2, and all of the open-source systems are under CAD 650/m2.
The assembly difficulty is estimated by the tools needed to complete the frame building. For Inverted T, Boxed Rectangle, and PVC frames, only a screwdriver and a drill are needed aside from cutting the aluminum extrusions into lengths that can be accomplished with a hacksaw (or can be ordered from vendor to length). The Single Water Reservoir design requires additional sealant for drainage systems and represents the most complicated system to fabricate. Although the commercial system was not evaluated directly as it was purchased, it does demand metal work, which requires higher skill and more costly labor. The rigidity of all the structures is estimated by how manageable it is to move them. With plants, substrates, and water inside the bins, it is difficult to maneuver all the grow bin frames because of the mass. None of the grow bins are, however, intended to be moved often. The mobility of the frames is only required in case of water leakage and cleaning below the frame. For the purpose of growing indoors, they all share very similar functionality. For applications that are not agrivoltaics agrotunnels, when organic material or walls can be utilized, users can separate the support for growing light and the grow bins, which would further reduce costs. The grow bins can be directly placed on the ground instead of offsetting some distance relative to the ground.
In summary, all four of the open-source designs offer competitive, if not greater, capacity (grow volume, water reservoir volume, and growing surface area) compared to the commercial system. Significant savings (>95%) are realized in the cost per growing surface area. Additional potential savings of 1.95%, 3.07%, and 14.8% are realized by 3D printing. The applicable parts are included at the end of Table A1 (Inverted T), A2 (Boxed Rectangular), and A4 (PVC), respectively.

4.1. Limitations

The open-source systems do have some limitations. First, in practice, it is much easier to relocate the commercial system due to its greater rigidity. To reduce the cost, black totes used as water reservoirs and planters are not fixed but just placed on the bottom platform. Moving them along with the frame when the water level is high in addition to the weight of the planter is challenging. Mobility of the system is desired but not strictly required, as maintenance of the systems can occur when transplanting and harvesting. Thus, the lowest cost systems would have no wheels but would involve the most labor to use in a commercial growing facility. All systems presented here are suitable for crops with a large root system. Leafy green can also be planted; however, it is not desirable as the root systems of leafy greens do not require much volume to show the advantages of the bin systems with their capacity. Thus, the vertical grow walls in the agrivoltaics agrotunnel are preferred as there is a much higher density of crops per unit floor area.
The irrigation frequency and duration are controlled by a programmable timer [104]. This is useful because it reduces labor from the grower in operating the agrotunnel. This technique can be scaled with a single timer that can control multiple water pumps by adding extension cords. With drainage holes present, users just need to ensure the duration of watering will saturate the growing medium, and the excessive water will drain out and be collected by the reservoir below the planter. The limitation here is that different stages of the plant will require different amounts or frequencies of irrigation, so users should physically inspect how fast the substate dries out and adjust the frequency of the watering accordingly as the plants develop (or use a smart open-source irrigation system that can automate this process [105,106,107]). Since the programmable timer can only control one outlet, all pumps connected to the same timer will operate at the same time for the same duration. In this case, if users want to plant a variety of crops with different irrigation needs within the same frame, more programmable timers will be required accordingly. This study focuses on the design part of an indoor growing structure, but there are other variables for which these designs can be used to study, such as different combinations of red and blue lights on the behavior of leaf photosynthesis [108,109,110], as well as the need for air circulation on plants’ canopy [111].
Indoor growing normally takes place using stacked horizontal flats with horizontal lights or vertical grow walls with vertical lights [4]. A common problem associated with the horizontal method is micro-climate created by the heat dissipated from artificial grow light accumulating at the top of each layer, which can heat up the plant canopy of the current layer as well as the layer above as the same structure is stacked up [56]. Those climate problems can be dealt with by implementing natural or forced ventilation strategies within the growing structure [112], but that comes with additional material and energy costs.

4.2. Future Work

Indoor growing can be traced back to the 1800s [113], initially practiced by the middle and upper class for leisure and hobby. Slowly, it is becoming an essential part of the urban produce supply [46,114]. Many products are also available online that allow consumers to grow crops at home [115,116,117], mostly for leafy green and other short-term crops. The systems presented here have a larger capacity to grow root vegetables such as potatoes and carrots as well as berry bushes. The structures detailed here could be improved. For example, if these are implemented at home with an ideal location to receive natural sunlight, the entire structure could be reduced to bins or containers to house the plants and nutrient solutions. The mobility of the structure is also not strictly required and is only needed for cleaning and reallocation. Removing the mobility features from the bin designs would provide additional percentage savings of 11.2% for Inverted T, 6.8% for Boxed Rectangle, and 8.1% for the PVC frame system, respectively. These savings are an underestimation as they are realized by only removing the wheels, including the screws and nuts required. Realistic savings will be increased by excluding the bottom platform completely as fewer aluminum extrusions are needed. Furthermore, vertical extrusions are just for the purpose of hanging grow lights, whose cost can also be eliminated by attaching lights to the ceiling, for example. In this study, only a select set of berries are tested. Even though they successfully flowered and produced fruits, other crops should also be tested. As the systems here are already in a controlled environment, the performance of the systems could differ significantly depending on the deployment location. Ideally, with autonomous watering, no care will be required; however, manual pollination was required with berries bushes. Studies also show that temperature variance could affect the yield and growth of certain crops [118,119], which is not included in this study since the facility uses continuous lighting and a constant temperature of 21 °C is maintained. Future studies can target how to reduce the cost more while maintaining the functionality of the system. While prototyping these designs, the costs were minimized by using economical materials such as 2020 aluminum extrusions and ½″ PVC pipes. Although they do provide the necessary functionalities to support the growing light and the bins, an upgrade of materials and structural integrity could be implemented. This could most economically be done using 3D-printed plastic and, ideally, recycled waste plastic, which has even lower costs than what was shown here in the results. Although the material properties of the most common 3D-printed plastics are adequate for this application [120], it is not clear what impact years of operational use under the grow lights would have on the mechanical integrity of the plastic. To overcome this challenge, light degradation-resistant plastics like acrylonitrile styrene acrylate (ASA) could be used as recommended for outdoor applications [121]. To determine if ASA is necessary, future work could also investigate accelerated testing of all of the polymers used for this application (e.g., bins, irrigation tubes, 3D-printed parts, PVC, etc.). Improvements could be made to the secondary features, such as maneuverability and overall integrity, by using more aluminum extrusions or thicker plastic extrusions and better-quality industrial castor wheels or 3D-printed wheels. In addition, the commercial system uses grow bags, which are known to perform well in controlled agriculture as they are breathable and allow for air pruning and a healthier root system [122]. Although the experimental work shown here indicated this was not necessary for some berry crops, it may be needed for other crops, and future work could adapt all of the open-source grow bins to be compatible with grow bag operation.

5. Conclusions

The indoor growing designs shown here provide the necessary structure for supporting the grow light and the grow bins. They provide a comparable amount of grow volume from a maximum of 106 to 192 L, while the commercial product has a maximum grow volume of up to 110 L. Similarly of the water reservoir volume, commercial product has a tank of 62 L, while the open-source systems’ water reservoir ranges from 64 to 192 L. Commercial product gives a growing area of 0.5 m3, and the open-source systems’ growing areas range from 0.51 to 0.76 m3. Most importantly, the percent savings of cost per growing surface area are all above 90% compared to the commercial product, and more could be realized by using 3D printing technology, removing the bottom platform, or supporting the grow light by other means, such as suspending it from the ceiling. The structures enabled the transplanted berry plants to flower and produce fruits. Some limitations (no organic materials, restrictions on adhering mechanical components to the walls and ceilings) raised here are from the strict biological protocols and physical conditions of the agrotunnel facility used to test these structures. Future work plans on improving the current structures and testing other types of crops, such as potatoes and carrots, targeting remote communities where such food sources are imported. Furthermore, the performance of these structures can be determined by the yield per container to compare with the conventional growing methods.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M.P.; methodology, J.-Y.Q. and J.M.P.; validation, J.-Y.Q. and J.M.P.; formal analysis, J.-Y.Q. and J.M.P.; investigation, J.-Y.Q. and J.M.P.; resources, J.M.P.; data curation, J.-Y.Q.; writing—original draft preparation, J.-Y.Q. and J.M.P.; writing—review and editing, J.-Y.Q. and J.M.P.; visualization, J.-Y.Q. and J.M.P.; supervision, J.M.P.; project administration, J.M.P.; funding acquisition, J.M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Weston Family Foundation through the Homegrown Innovation Challenge, Carbon Solutions @ Western, and the Thompson Endowment.

Data Availability Statement

All data and designs are available at https://osf.io/zt623/ (accessed on 19 September 2024).

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge helpful discussions and technical assistance from Greg Whiteside.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

The full BOMs are shown in Table A1 for Inverted T structure, Table A2 for Boxed Rectangle structure, Table A3 for Single Water Reservoir structure, and Table A4 for PVC frame. All URLs were accessed on 19 September 2024.
Table A1. BOM for Inverted T structure.
Table A1. BOM for Inverted T structure.
ComponentsFunctionQuantityPrice (CAD)URL
2020 Aluminum ExtrusionFrame32CAD 119.03https://www.amazon.ca/Aluminum-Extrusion-European-Standard-Anodized/dp/B09SF492NK
T Shape Joint Plates (Can be 3D printed)Connection4CAD 17.33https://www.amazon.ca/Plates-T-Slot-Aluminum-Profile-Accessories/dp/B0B9JYV7NP
M5 Drop in Tee NutConnection78CAD 21.82https://www.amazon.ca/Boeray-Carbon-Hammer-Aluminum-Extrusion/dp/B01G7ZYHHI
M5 0.8 × 8 mm ScrewsConnection78CAD 23.04https://www.amazon.ca/M5-0-8-Button-Stainless-Machine-Threaded/dp/B0B7DSMN2N
Corner Bracket (Can be 3D printed)Connection14CAD 7.20https://www.amazon.ca/Bracket-Aluminum-Extrusions-Fastener-Printer/dp/B085NRPPNM
Caster WheelsMobility6CAD 19.49https://www.princessauto.com/en/4-pk-2-in-light-duty-swivel-casters/product/PA0008937740
Grow Light Rope HangerLight Support2CAD 5.50https://www.amazon.ca/VIPARSPECTRA-Adjustable-Fixtures-Gardening-Capacity/dp/B07Z613ZM2/
Total Price:CAD 213.41
3D-printed Corner Brackets (7.22 g PETG) 14CAD 3.03
Total Price with 3DP Replacement:CAD 209.241.95% savings
Table A2. BOM for Boxed Rectangle structure.
Table A2. BOM for Boxed Rectangle structure.
ComponentsFunctionQuantityPrice (CAD)URL
2020 Aluminum ExtrusionFrame68ftCAD 252.94https://www.amazon.ca/Aluminum-Extrusion-European-Standard-Anodized/dp/B09SF492NK
Corner Bracket (Can be 3D printed)Connection36CAD 18.51https://www.amazon.ca/Aluminum-Profile-Connector-Bracket-Accessories/dp/B0B9JVW5X8
M5 0.8 × 8 mm ScrewsConnection92CAD 27.18https://www.amazon.ca/M5-0-8-Button-Stainless-Machine-Threaded/dp/B0B7DSMN2N
Grow Light Rope HangerLight Support2CAD 5.50https://www.amazon.ca/VIPARSPECTRA-Adjustable-Fixtures-Gardening-Capacity/dp/B07Z613ZM2
M5 Drop in Tee NutConnection92CAD 25.74https://www.amazon.ca/Boeray-Carbon-Hammer-Aluminum-Extrusion/dp/B01G7ZYHHI
Caster WheelsMobility6CAD 19.49https://www.princessauto.com/en/4-pk-2-in-light-duty-swivel-casters/product/PA0008937740
Total Price: CAD 349.35
3D-printed Corner Brackets (7.22 g PETG) 36CAD 7.80
Total Price with 3DP Replacement: CAD 338.643.07% savings
Table A3. BOM for Single Water Reservoir system.
Table A3. BOM for Single Water Reservoir system.
ComponentsFunctionQuantityPrice (CAD)URL
Profile 4040 Aluminum ExtrusionFrame27ftCAD 337.50https://www.amazon.ca/Aluminum-Extrusion-European-Standard-Anodized/dp/B09MWDQVB3
10 pk 1/4-20 Slide-In Centered T-Nut Connection3 packCAD 29.97https://www.princessauto.com/en/10s-10-pk-1-4-20-slide-in-centred-t-nut-fbhscs-bolt-assembly/product/PA0009132473
Caster WheelsMobility6CAD 11.99https://www.princessauto.com/en/4-pk-2-in-light-duty-swivel-casters/product/PA0008937740
Total Price: CAD 379.46
Table A4. BOM for PVC frame.
Table A4. BOM for PVC frame.
ComponentsFunctionQuantityPrice (CAD)URL
1/2″ PVC Pipe Frame43.5ftCAD 137.68https://www.amazon.ca/letsFix-Schedule-Furniture-Plumbing-Available/dp/B08KGZBGV5
2020 Aluminum ExtrusionFrame25ftCAD 93.00https://www.amazon.ca/Aluminum-Extrusion-European-Standard-Anodized/dp/B09SF492NK
Caster WheelsMobility6CAD 19.49https://www.princessauto.com/en/4-pk-2-in-light-duty-swivel-casters/product/PA0008937740
3 Way 1/2″ Tee PVC (Can be 3D printed)Connection8CAD 18.32https://www.amazon.ca/Fittings-Connector-Furniture-Structure-Connection/dp/B0BQWJKY2Z
3 way 1/2″ PVC Connector (Can be 3D printed)Connection6CAD 11.40https://www.amazon.ca/Yuema-Fitting-Build-Furniture-Fittings/dp/B082NRMNLK
Corner Bracket (Can be 3D printed)Connection16CAD 8.16https://www.amazon.ca/Bracket-Aluminum-Extrusions-Fastener-Printer/dp/B085NRPPNM
1/2″ 45 Degree 2 Way Tee PVC (Can be 3D printed)Connection4CAD 5.60https://www.amazon.ca/QWORK-Fitting-Furniture-Building-Structures/dp/B09DYHHTMY
Total Price: CAD 293.64
3D-printed 3 Way 1/2″ Tee PVC (35.58 g) 8CAD 8.54
3D-printed 3-Way PVC Connector (37.45 g) 6CAD 6.74
3D-printed Corner Brackets (7.22 g PETG) 16CAD 3.47
3D-printed 1/2″ 45 Degree 2-way Elbow (18.37 g) 4CAD 2.20
Total Price with 3DP Replacement: CAD 250.1614.80% savings
Table A5. Universal components for a single bin system.
Table A5. Universal components for a single bin system.
ComponentsQuantityPrice (CAD)URL
64 L Stackable Tote Bin2CAD 23.94https://www.homedepot.ca/product/hdx-64l-stackable-tough-strong-storage-tote-bin-plastic-organizer-box-black-base-yellow-snap-on-lid/1001057029
Rule Bilge Water Pump 750 GPH 12 V 1CAD 23.66 https://www.amazon.ca/Iztor-Bilge-Water-Marine-outlet/dp/B078GN8BNV
12 V 5 A Power Supply Adapter1CAD 17.99 https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B01GEA8PQA
RAIN BIRD 6-Port Drip Manifold1CAD 5.86 https://www.homedepot.ca/product/rain-bird-6-port-drip-manifold/1000836763
3/4″ PVC Tubing4 ftCAD 4.90 https://www.amazon.ca/Duda-Energy-HPpvc075-025ft-Pressure-Resistant/dp/B00TMTFV3G
1/2″ x 1″ Close PVC Riser1CAD 3.87 https://www.homedepot.ca/product/rain-bird-1-2-x-1-close-pvc-riser/1001493451
Reducing Elbow-3/4″ Insert X 1/2″1CAD 2.72 https://www.homedepot.ca/product/pro-connect-pvc-female-combination-reducing-elbow-3-4-inch-insert-x-1-2-inch-fpt/1000123309
1/2-inch Mt x Ft Swing-joint Elbow1CAD 1.84 https://www.homedepot.ca/product/orbit-watermaster-1-2-inch-mt-x-ft-swing-joint-elbow-dbx/1000117543
Total Price:CAD 84.78
Table A6. Extra material for Single Water Reservoir system.
Table A6. Extra material for Single Water Reservoir system.
ComponentsQuantityPrice (CAD)URL
Small Stackable Tote6CAD 41.94https://www.princessauto.com/en/product/PA0008197469
25′ × 3/4″ ID PVC Tubing1CAD 30.62https://www.amazon.ca/Duda-Energy-HPpvc075-025ft-Pressure-Resistant/dp/B00TMTFV3G
Rule Bilge Water Pump 750 GPH 12 V1CAD 23.66https://www.amazon.ca/Iztor-Bilge-Water-Marine-outlet/dp/B078GN8BNV
64L Stackable Tote Bin1CAD 10.97https://www.homedepot.ca/product/hdx-64l-stackable-tough-strong-storage-tote-bin-plastic-organizer-box-black-base-yellow-snap-on-lid/1001057029
Rain gutter cover1CAD 9.59https://www.amazon.ca/OSALADI-Attachment-Downspout-K-style-Accessories/dp/B0C7FMW59F
rain gutter1CAD 8.19https://www.rona.ca/en/product/euramax-contemporary-half-round-gutter-white-vinyl-120-in-l-x-4-in-w-t0473-0128056
PVC pipe 3/4″1CAD 5.48https://www.homedepot.ca/product/sharkbite-3-4-inch-x-5-feet-white-pex-pipe/1001013602
Total Price: CAD 130.45

References

  1. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Tirado, M.C.; Clarke, R.; Jaykus, L.A.; McQuatters-Gollop, A.; Frank, J.M. Climate Change and Food Safety: A Review. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 1745–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wheeler, T.; von Braun, J. Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security. Science 2013, 341, 508–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Beacham, A.M.; Vickers, L.H.; Monaghan, J.M. Vertical Farming: A Summary of Approaches to Growing Skywards. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 94, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kalantari, F.; Tahir, O.M.; Joni, R.A.; Fatemi, E. Opportunities and Challenges in Sustainability of Vertical Farming: A Review. J. Landsc. Ecol. 2018, 11, 35–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ayambire, R.A.; Amponsah, O.; Peprah, C.; Takyi, S.A. A Review of Practices for Sustaining Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture: Implications for Land Use Planning in Rapidly Urbanising Ghanaian Cities. Land Use Policy 2019, 84, 260–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kuusaana, E.D.; Eledi, J.A. As the City Grows, Where Do the Farmers Go? Understanding Peri-Urbanization and Food Systems in Ghana—Evidence from the Tamale Metropolis. Urban Forum 2015, 26, 443–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hemerijckx, L.-M.; Nakyagaba, G.N.; Sseviiri, H.; Janusz, K.; Eichinger, M.; Lwasa, S.; May, J.; Verburg, P.H.; Van Rompaey, A. Mapping the Consumer Foodshed of the Kampala City Region Shows the Importance of Urban Agriculture. Npj Urban Sustain. 2023, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Blekking, J.; Waldman, K.; Davies, J.; Kaputula, M.; Nelson, E.; Robeson, S.M. Rapid Urbanization and Uneven Development of the Food Retail Environment. Geoforum 2023, 147, 103893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mitchell, C.A. History of Controlled Environment Horticulture: Indoor Farming and Its Key Technologies. HortScience 2022, 57, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Niu, G.; Masabni, J. Plant Production in Controlled Environments. Horticulturae 2018, 4, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Closed Systems with Lamps for Commercial Production of Transplants Using Minimal Resources. Available online: https://www.actahort.org/books/630/630_30.htm (accessed on 27 June 2024).
  13. Park, Y.; Gómez, C.; Runkle, E.S. Indoor Production of Ornamental Seedlings, Vegetable Transplants, and Microgreens. In Plant Factory Basics, Applications and Advances; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 351–375. [Google Scholar]
  14. Marzano, A. Plants, Politics and Empire in Ancient Rome; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; ISBN 978-1-00-930226-5. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kortright, R.; Wakefield, S. Edible Backyards: A Qualitative Study of Household Food Growing and Its Contributions to Food Security. Agric. Hum. Values 2011, 28, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Church, A.; Mitchell, R.; Ravenscroft, N.; Stapleton, L.M. ‘Growing Your Own’: A Multi-Level Modelling Approach to Understanding Personal Food Growing Trends and Motivations in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 110, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Algert, S.; Diekmann, L.; Renvall, M.; Gray, L. Community and Home Gardens Increase Vegetable Intake and Food Security of Residents in San Jose, California. Calif. Agric. 2016, 70, 78–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Galhena, D.H.; Freed, R.; Maredia, K.M. Home Gardens: A Promising Approach to Enhance Household Food Security and Wellbeing. Agric. Food Secur. 2013, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Understanding Food Security Issues in Remote Western Australian Indigenous Communities—Pollard—2014—Health Promotion Journal of Australia—Wiley Online Library. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1071/HE14044 (accessed on 27 June 2024).
  20. Pollard, C. Selecting Interventions for Food Security in Remote Indigenous Communities. In Food Security in Australia: Challenges and Prospects for the Future; Farmar-Bowers, Q., Higgins, V., Millar, J., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 97–112. ISBN 978-1-4614-4484-8. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ward, P.R.; Coveney, J.; Verity, F.; Carter, P. Cost and Affordability of Healthy Food in Rural South Australia. Rural Remote Health 2012, 12, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Booth, S.; Deen, C.; Thompson, K.; Kleve, S.; Chan, E.; McCarthy, L.; Kraft, E.; Fredericks, B.; Brimblecombe, J.; Ferguson, M. Conceptualisation, Experiences and Suggestions for Improvement of Food Security amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Parents and Carers in Remote Australian Communities. Soc. Sci. Med. 2023, 320, 115726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. McCartney, L.; Lefsrud, M. Protected Agriculture in Extreme Environments: A Review of Controlled Environment Agriculture in Tropical, Arid, Polar, and Urban Locations. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2018, 34, 455–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yakovenko, D.A.; Arkhipov, S. Agriculture in the Polar Regions: New Approaches to Historical Challenges. BIO Web Conf. 2024, 108, 25008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chauhan, B.S.; Prabhjyot-Kaur; Mahajan, G.; Randhawa, R.K.; Singh, H.; Kang, M.S. Chapter Two—Global Warming and Its Possible Impact on Agriculture in India. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; Volume 123, pp. 65–121. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bhattacharya, A. Chapter 1—Global Climate Change and Its Impact on Agriculture. In Changing Climate and Resource Use Efficiency in Plants; Bhattacharya, A., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 1–50. ISBN 978-0-12-816209-5. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pollard, C.M.; Landrigan, T.J.; Ellies, P.L.; Kerr, D.A.; Underwood, L.M.L.; Goodchild, S.E. Geographic Factors as Determinants of Food Security: A Western Australian Food Pricing and Quality Study. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 23, 703–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hendrickson, D.; Smith, C.; Eikenberry, N. Fruit and Vegetable Access in Four Low-Income Food Deserts Communities in Minnesota. Agric. Hum. Values 2006, 23, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Daviron, B. Price Spikes and World Food Security. The Need for Change. Perspective 2012, 15, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kelly, N.; Vaštakaitė-Kairienė, V.; Runkle, E.S. Chapter 18—Indoor Lighting Effects on Plant Nutritional Compounds. In Plant Factory Basics, Applications and Advances; Kozai, T., Niu, G., Masabni, J., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 329–349. ISBN 978-0-323-85152-7. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kozai, T. Resource Use Efficiency of Closed Plant Production System with Artificial Light: Concept, Estimation and Application to Plant Factory. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. B 2013, 89, 447–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Fussy, A.; Papenbrock, J. An Overview of Soil and Soilless Cultivation Techniques—Chances, Challenges and the Neglected Question of Sustainability. Plants 2022, 11, 1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Lorenzo, R.D.; Pisciotta, A.; Santamaria, P.; Scariot, V. From Soil to Soil-Less in Horticulture: Quality and Typicity. Ital. J. Agron. 2013, 8, e30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gruda, N.S. Increasing Sustainability of Growing Media Constituents and Stand-Alone Substrates in Soilless Culture Systems. Agronomy 2019, 9, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Eldridge, B.M.; Manzoni, L.R.; Graham, C.A.; Rodgers, B.; Farmer, J.R.; Dodd, A.N. Getting to the Roots of Aeroponic Indoor Farming. New Phytol. 2020, 228, 1183–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Solar Energy Conservation in Greenhouse: Thermal Analysis and Experimental Validation—ScienceDirect. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148116303810 (accessed on 17 July 2024).
  37. Fitz-Rodríguez, E.; Kubota, C.; Giacomelli, G.A.; Tignor, M.E.; Wilson, S.B.; McMahon, M. Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Greenhouse Environments under Several Scenarios: A Web-Based Application. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2010, 70, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Engler, N.; Krarti, M. Review of Energy Efficiency in Controlled Environment Agriculture. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 141, 110786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Velazquez-Gonzalez, R.S.; Garcia-Garcia, A.L.; Ventura-Zapata, E.; Barceinas-Sanchez, J.D.O.; Sosa-Savedra, J.C. A Review on Hydroponics and the Technologies Associated for Medium- and Small-Scale Operations. Agriculture 2022, 12, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lamsen, F.C.; Favi, J.C.; Castillo, B.H.F. Indoor Gardening with Automatic Irrigation System Using Arduino Microcontroller. ASEAN Multidiscip. Res. J. 2022, 10, 131–148. [Google Scholar]
  41. Benke, K.; Tomkins, B. Future Food-Production Systems: Vertical Farming and Controlled-Environment Agriculture. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2017, 13, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Merrill, B.F.; Lu, N.; Yamaguchi, T.; Takagaki, M.; Maruo, T.; Kozai, T.; Yamori, W. Next Evolution of Agriculture: A Review of Innovations in Plant Factories. In Handbook of Photosynthesis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-315-37213-6. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hati, A.J.; Singh, R.R. Smart Indoor Farms: Leveraging Technological Advancements to Power a Sustainable Agricultural Revolution. AgriEngineering 2021, 3, 728–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kreuger, M.; Meeuws, L.; Meeuws, G. Total Indoor Farming Concepts for Large-Scale Production. In Smart Plant Factory: The Next Generation Indoor Vertical Farms; Kozai, T., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 125–135. ISBN 9789811310652. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mani, M. Pest Management in Horticultural Crops Under Protected Cultivation. In Trends in Horticultural Entomology; Mani, M., Ed.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 387–417. ISBN 978-981-19034-3-4. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rajan, P.; Lada, R.R.; MacDonald, M.T. Advancement in Indoor Vertical Farming for Microgreen Production. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Specht, K.; Siebert, R.; Hartmann, I.; Freisinger, U.B.; Sawicka, M.; Werner, A.; Thomaier, S.; Henckel, D.; Walk, H.; Dierich, A. Urban Agriculture of the Future: An Overview of Sustainability Aspects of Food Production in and on Buildings. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wong, C.E.; Teo, Z.W.N.; Shen, L.; Yu, H. Seeing the Lights for Leafy Greens in Indoor Vertical Farming. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 106, 48–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pennisi, G.; Orsini, F.; Landolfo, M.; Pistillo, A.; Crepaldi, A.; Nicola, S.; Fernández, J.A.; Marcelis, L.F.M.; Gianquinto, G. Optimal Photoperiod for Indoor Cultivation of Leafy Vegetables and Herbs. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2020, 85, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, L.; Qian, L.; Zhang, X.; Li, J.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, X. Research Progress on Indoor Environment of Mushroom Factory. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2022, 15, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zelkind, M.; Livingston, T.; Verlage, V. Chapter 16—Indoor Production of Tomatoes. In Plant Factory Basics, Applications and Advances; Kozai, T., Niu, G., Masabni, J., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 295–305. ISBN 978-0-323-85152-7. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ries, J. Improving Indoor Strawberry Production in Vertical Farming through Enhanced Lighting and Fertilization Strategies; Arizona State University: Tempe, AZ, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  53. Du, X.; Chen, K.; Ma, Z.; Wu, C.; Zhang, G. Design, Construction, and Evaluation of a Three-Dimensional Vibratory Harvester for Tree Fruit. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2020, 36, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Agrilyst. State of Indoor Farming. Agrilyst 2017. Available online: https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/stateofindoorfarming-report-2017.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2024).
  55. Capital, N. The Promise and Perils of Container Farming; Newbean Capital: Reno, NV, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ahamed, M.S.; Sultan, M.; Monfet, D.; Rahman, M.S.; Zhang, Y.; Zahid, A.; Bilal, M.; Ahsan, T.M.A.; Achour, Y. A Critical Review on Efficient Thermal Environment Controls in Indoor Vertical Farming. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 425, 138923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kośny, J.; Kossecka, E. Multi-Dimensional Heat Transfer through Complex Building Envelope Assemblies in Hourly Energy Simulation Programs. Energy Build. 2002, 34, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Song, R.; Liu, D.; Pan, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Meng, C. Container Farms: Energy Modeling Considering Crop Growth and Energy-Saving Potential in Different Climates. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 420, 138353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mamun, M.A.A.; Dargusch, P.; Wadley, D.; Zulkarnain, N.A.; Aziz, A.A. A Review of Research on Agrivoltaic Systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Asgari, N.; Jamil, U.; Pearce, J.M. Net Zero Agrivoltaic Arrays for Agrotunnel Vertical Growing Systems: Energy Analysis and System Sizing. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Vandewetering, N.; Hayibo, K.S.; Pearce, J.M. Open-Source Design and Economics of Manual Variable-Tilt Angle DIY Wood-Based Solar Photovoltaic Racking System. Designs 2022, 6, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Riaz, M.H.; Imran, H.; Butt, N.Z. Optimization of PV Array Density for Fixed Tilt Bifacial Solar Panels for Efficient Agrivoltaic Systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 47th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Calgary, AB, Canada, 15 June–21 August 2020; pp. 1349–1352. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tahir, Z.; Butt, N.Z. Implications of Spatial-Temporal Shading in Agrivoltaics under Fixed Tilt & Tracking Bifacial Photovoltaic Panels. Renew. Energy 2022, 190, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jamil, U.; Vandewetering, N.; Sadat, S.A.; Pearce, J.M. Wood- and Cable-Based Variable Tilt Stilt-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Racking System. Designs 2024, 8, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Krexner, T.; Bauer, A.; Gronauer, A.; Mikovits, C.; Schmidt, J.; Kral, I. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of a Stilted and Vertical Bifacial Crop-Based Agrivoltaic Multi Land-Use System and Comparison with a Mono Land-Use of Agricultural Land. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 196, 114321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Jamil, U.; Vandewetering, N.; Pearce, J.M. Solar Photovoltaic Wood Racking Mechanical Design for Trellis-Based Agrivoltaics. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0294682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Malu, P.R.; Sharma, U.S.; Pearce, J.M. Agrivoltaic Potential on Grape Farms in India. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2017, 23, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Padilla, J.; Toledo, C.; Abad, J. Enovoltaics: Symbiotic Integration of Photovoltaics in Vineyards. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 1007383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hayibo, K.S.; Pearce, J.M. Optimal Inverter and Wire Selection for Solar Photovoltaic Fencing Applications. Renew. Energy Focus 2022, 42, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Masna, S.; Morse, S.M.; Hayibo, K.S.; Pearce, J.M. The Potential for Fencing to Be Used as Low-Cost Solar Photovoltaic Racking. Sol. Energy 2023, 253, 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hwang, K.-W.; Lee, C.-Y. Estimating the Deterministic and Stochastic Levelized Cost of the Energy of Fence-Type Agrivoltaics. Energies 2024, 17, 1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Imran, H.; Riaz, M.H.; Butt, N.Z. Optimization of Single-Axis Tracking of Photovoltaic Modules for Agrivoltaic Systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 47th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Calgary, AB, Canada, 15 June–21 August 2020; pp. 1353–1356. [Google Scholar]
  73. Casares de la Torre, F.J.; Varo, M.; López-Luque, R.; Ramírez-Faz, J.; Fernández-Ahumada, L.M. Design and Analysis of a Tracking/Backtracking Strategy for PV Plants with Horizontal Trackers after Their Conversion to Agrivoltaic Plants. Renew. Energy 2022, 187, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Campana, P.E.; Stridh, B.; Amaducci, S.; Colauzzi, M. Optimisation of Vertically Mounted Agrivoltaic Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 325, 129091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jamil, U.; Bonnington, A.; Pearce, J.M. The Agrivoltaic Potential of Canada. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Riaz, M.H.; Imran, H.; Younas, R.; Butt, N.Z. The Optimization of Vertical Bifacial Photovoltaic Farms for Efficient Agrivoltaic Systems. Sol. Energy 2021, 230, 1004–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hayibo, K.S.; Pearce, J.M. Vertical Free-Swinging Photovoltaic Racking Energy Modeling: A Novel Approach to Agrivoltaics. Renew. Energy 2023, 218, 119343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Vandewetering, N.; Hayibo, K.S.; Pearce, J.M. Open-Source Vertical Swinging Wood-Based Solar Photovoltaic Racking Systems. Designs 2023, 7, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hudelson, T.; Lieth, J.H. Crop Production in Partial Shade of Solar Photovoltaic Panels on Trackers; AIP Publishing: Melville, NY, USA, 2021; Volume 2361. [Google Scholar]
  80. Weselek, A.; Bauerle, A.; Zikeli, S.; Lewandowski, I.; Högy, P. Effects on Crop Development, Yields and Chemical Composition of Celeriac (Apium graveolens L. Var. Rapaceum) Cultivated Underneath an Agrivoltaic System. Agronomy 2021, 11, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Marrou, H.; Wery, J.; Dufour, L.; Dupraz, C. Productivity and Radiation Use Efficiency of Lettuces Grown in the Partial Shade of Photovoltaic Panels. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 44, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Thompson, E.P.; Bombelli, E.L.; Shubham, S.; Watson, H.; Everard, A.; D’Ardes, V.; Schievano, A.; Bocchi, S.; Zand, N.; Howe, C.J.; et al. Tinted Semi-Transparent Solar Panels Allow Concurrent Production of Crops and Electricity on the Same Cropland. Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 2001189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Barron-Gafford, G.A.; Pavao-Zuckerman, M.A.; Minor, R.L.; Sutter, L.F.; Barnett-Moreno, I.; Blackett, D.T.; Thompson, M.; Dimond, K.; Gerlak, A.K.; Nabhan, G.P.; et al. Agrivoltaics Provide Mutual Benefits across the Food–Energy–Water Nexus in Drylands. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 848–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Edera.digital REM Tec—La Soluzione per Il Fotovoltaico Legata All’Agricoltura. Available online: https://remtec.energy/en/agrovoltaico/installations/31-castelvetro (accessed on 14 August 2024).
  85. Jamil, U.; Hickey, T.; Pearce, J.M. Solar Energy Modelling and Proposed Crops for Different Types of Agrivoltaics Systems. Energy 2024, 304, 132074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Gibb, A. Building Open Source Hardware: DIY Manufacturing for Hackers and Makers; Addison-Wesley Professional: London, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-0-13-337390-5. [Google Scholar]
  87. Oberloier, S.; Pearce, J.M. General Design Procedure for Free and Open-Source Hardware for Scientific Equipment. Designs 2018, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Smith, T.P.; Stoddard, S.; Shankle, M.; Schultheis, J. Sweetpotato Production in the United States. In The Sweetpotato; Loebenstein, G., Thottappilly, G., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 287–323. ISBN 978-1-4020-9475-0. [Google Scholar]
  89. Potatoes. Available online: https://www.rhs.org.uk/vegetables/potatoes/grow-your-own (accessed on 19 August 2024).
  90. Greg. How Many Potatoes per Plant (Detailed Explanation). 2022. Available online: https://homesteadcrowd.com/how-many-potatoes-per-plant/ (accessed on 19 August 2024).
  91. Yellow Potatoes Whole Fresh, 5lb Bag. Available online: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Yellow-Potatoes-Whole-Fresh-5lb-Bag/184310759 (accessed on 19 June 2024).
  92. Pearce, J.M. Open-Source Lab: How to Build Your Own Hardware and Reduce Research Costs; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; ISBN 978-0-12-410486-0. [Google Scholar]
  93. Chagas, A.M. Haves and Have Nots Must Find a Better Way: The Case for Open Scientific Hardware. PLoS Biol. 2018, 16, e3000014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Equitable Research Capacity towards the Sustainable Development Goals: The Case for Open Science Hardware. Available online: https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/article_1038126_jspg210202.html (accessed on 23 July 2024).
  95. Pearce, J.M. The Case for Open Source Appropriate Technology. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2012, 14, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bowyer, A. 3D Printing and Humanity’s First Imperfect Replicator. 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 2014, 1, 4–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Jones, R.; Haufe, P.; Sells, E.; Iravani, P.; Olliver, V.; Palmer, C.; Bowyer, A. RepRap—The Replicating Rapid Prototyper. Robotica 2011, 29, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Sells, E.; Bailard, S.; Smith, Z.; Bowyer, A.; Olliver, V. RepRap: The Replicating Rapid Prototyper: Maximizing Customizability by Breeding the Means of Production. In Handbook of Research in Mass Customization and Personalization; World Scientific Publishing Company: Singapore, 2009; pp. 568–580. ISBN 978-981-4280-25-9. [Google Scholar]
  99. PrusaSlicer|Original Prusa 3D Printers Directly from Josef Prusa. Available online: https://www.prusa3d.com/page/prusaslicer_424/ (accessed on 29 May 2024).
  100. Prusament PETG Jet Black 1kg|Original Prusa 3D Printers Directly from Josef Prusa. Available online: https://www.prusa3d.com/product/prusament-petg-jet-black-1kg/ (accessed on 29 May 2024).
  101. Pearce, J.M. Economic Savings for Scientific Free and Open Source Technology: A Review. HardwareX 2020, 8, e00139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Pearce, J.; Qian, J.-Y. Economic Impact of DIY Home Manufacturing of Consumer Products with Low-Cost 3D Printing from Free and Open Source Designs. Eur. J. Soc. Impact Circ. Econ. 2022, 3, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Petersen, E.E.; Pearce, J. Emergence of Home Manufacturing in the Developed World: Return on Investment for Open-Source 3-D Printers. Technologies 2017, 5, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Woods WiOn 50050 Indoor Wi-Fi Outlet, Wireless Switch, Programmable Timer: Amazon.ca: Tools & Home Improvement. Available online: https://www.amazon.ca/Woods-50050-Indoor-Wireless-Programmable/dp/B00ZYLRQNE?th=1 (accessed on 23 August 2024).
  105. Goap, A.; Sharma, D.; Shukla, A.K.; Rama Krishna, C. An IoT Based Smart Irrigation Management System Using Machine Learning and Open Source Technologies. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, 155, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Simionesei, L.; Ramos, T.B.; Palma, J.; Oliveira, A.R.; Neves, R. IrrigaSys: A Web-Based Irrigation Decision Support System Based on Open Source Data and Technology. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 178, 105822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Puig, F.; Rodríguez Díaz, J.A.; Soriano, M.A. Development of a Low-Cost Open-Source Platform for Smart Irrigation Systems. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hogewoning, S.W.; Trouwborst, G.; Maljaars, H.; Poorter, H.; van Ieperen, W.; Harbinson, J. Blue Light Dose–Responses of Leaf Photosynthesis, Morphology, and Chemical Composition of Cucumis Sativus Grown under Different Combinations of Red and Blue Light. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61, 3107–3117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Okamoto, K.; Yanagi, T.; Kondo, S. Growth and morphogenesis of lettuce seedlings raised under different combinations of red and blue light. Acta Hortic. 1997, 435, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Chan, A.M.H.; Pay, M.L.; Christensen, J.; He, F.; Roden, L.C.; Ahmed, H.; Foo, M. Red, Blue or Mix: Choice of Optimal Light Qualities for Enhanced Plant Growth and Development through in Silico Analysis. Silico Plants 2024, 6, diae008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Stark, W. The Importance of Canopy Ventilation in Controlled Environment Agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2024 ASABE Annual International Meeting. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, USA, 9–12 July 2023. [Google Scholar]
  112. Ghani, S.; Bakochristou, F.; ElBialy, E.M.A.A.; Gamaledin, S.M.A.; Rashwan, M.M.; Abdelhalim, A.M.; Ismail, S.M. Design Challenges of Agricultural Greenhouses in Hot and Arid Environments. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 2019, 12, 48–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ruppel, S. Houseplants and the Invention of Indoor Gardening. In The Routledge History of the Domestic Sphere in Europe; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; ISBN 978-0-429-03158-8. [Google Scholar]
  114. He, J. Enhancing Productivity and Improving Nutritional Quality of Subtropical and Temperate Leafy Vegetables in Tropical Greenhouses and Indoor Farming Systems. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Indoor Hydroponic Gardening Systems|AeroGarden. Available online: https://aerogarden.com/gardens/all-gardens (accessed on 21 August 2024).
  116. The Smart Garden 9. Available online: https://ca.clickandgrow.com/products/the-smart-garden-9 (accessed on 21 August 2024).
  117. Hydroponic Garden for Home|Indoor Garden by Rise Gardens. Available online: https://ca.risegardens.com/ (accessed on 21 August 2024).
  118. Kanno, K.; Mae, T.; Makino, A. High Night Temperature Stimulates Photosynthesis, Biomass Production and Growth during the Vegetative Stage of Rice Plants. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2009, 55, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Venkatramanan, V.; Singh, S.D. Differential effects of day and night temperatures on growth of wheat crop. Ann. Agric. Res. 2009, 38, 449–454. [Google Scholar]
  120. Tanikella, N.G.; Wittbrodt, B.; Pearce, J.M. Tensile Strength of Commercial Polymer Materials for Fused Filament Fabrication 3D Printing. Addit. Manuf. 2017, 15, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Botero-Valencia, J.S.; Mejia-Herrera, M.; Pearce, J.M. Design and Implementation of 3-D Printed Radiation Shields for Environmental Sensors. HardwareX 2022, 11, e00267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Whitcomb, C.E. Plant Production in Containers II; Lacebark, Inc.: Stillwater, OK, USA, 2003; ISBN 978-0-9613109-6-7. [Google Scholar]
Designs 08 00095 g001
Figure 1. Commercial grow bin.
Figure 1. Commercial grow bin.
Designs 08 00095 g001
Designs 08 00095 g002
Figure 2. Overview of commercial grow bin system.
Figure 2. Overview of commercial grow bin system.
Designs 08 00095 g002
Designs 08 00095 g003
Figure 3. Rendering of 3DP corner bracket (print with +Z axis up).
Figure 3. Rendering of 3DP corner bracket (print with +Z axis up).
Designs 08 00095 g003
Designs 08 00095 g004
Figure 4. Three-dimensional printable replacement for PVC frame (from left to right: 45-Degree Connector, 3-Way Tee Connector, and 3-Way Connector).
Figure 4. Three-dimensional printable replacement for PVC frame (from left to right: 45-Degree Connector, 3-Way Tee Connector, and 3-Way Connector).
Designs 08 00095 g004
Designs 08 00095 g005
Figure 5. Inverted T structure.
Figure 5. Inverted T structure.
Designs 08 00095 g005
Designs 08 00095 g006
Figure 6. Boxed Rectangle structure.
Figure 6. Boxed Rectangle structure.
Designs 08 00095 g006
Designs 08 00095 g007
Figure 7. Single Water Reservoir structure.
Figure 7. Single Water Reservoir structure.
Designs 08 00095 g007
Designs 08 00095 g008
Figure 8. PVC + Mobile Platform structure.
Figure 8. PVC + Mobile Platform structure.
Designs 08 00095 g008
Designs 08 00095 g009
Figure 9. Fruition of berries planted.
Figure 9. Fruition of berries planted.
Designs 08 00095 g009
Table 1. Slicing parameters of 3DP corner bracket.
Table 1. Slicing parameters of 3DP corner bracket.
Print Settings
Layer heightLayer height0.4 mm
First layer height0.3 mm
Vertical shellsPerimeters2
Horizontal shellsSolid layersTop4
Bottom3
Minimum shell thicknessTop1.2 mm
Bottom0.8 mm
InfillInfill patternRectilinear
Infill percentage100%
Top fill patternMonotonic lines
Bottom fill patternMonotonic
Skirt and brimSkirt distance 3 mm
Brim typeOuter brim only
Brim width0 mm
Temperature [PETG]Nozzle (0.6 mm)240 °C
Bed85 °C
FanAutomatic
Travel lift height0.2 mm
Retraction length1 mm
Max volumetric speed15 mm3/s
Table 2. Grow bin system design comparison.
Table 2. Grow bin system design comparison.
Inverted TBoxed
Rectangle		Single Water
Reservoir		PVCCommercial
Metal
BOM cost [CAD]CAD 201.74CAD 331.14CAD 379.46CAD 293.64CAD 4500.00
Grow volume [L]Up to 192Up to 128Up to 106Up to 128Up to 110
Water reservoir volume [L]Up to 192Up to 128Up to 64Up to 128Up to 62
Growing surface area [m2]0.760.510.600.510.50
Cost per surface area [CAD/m2]265.45649.29632.43575.769000.00
Percent savings of cost per surface area [%]97939394NA
Assembly
difficulty		LowLowMediumLowHigh
RigidityLowMediumMedium HighLowHigh
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

Qian, J.-Y.; Pearce, J.M. Open-Source Indoor Horizontal Grow Structure Designs. Designs 2024, 8, 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs8050095

AMA Style

Qian J-Y, Pearce JM. Open-Source Indoor Horizontal Grow Structure Designs. Designs. 2024; 8(5):95. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs8050095

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qian, Jun-Yu, and Joshua M. Pearce. 2024. "Open-Source Indoor Horizontal Grow Structure Designs" Designs 8, no. 5: 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs8050095

APA Style

Qian, J. -Y., & Pearce, J. M. (2024). Open-Source Indoor Horizontal Grow Structure Designs. Designs, 8(5), 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs8050095

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop