Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Design, Build and Testing of Hardware to Safely Harvest Microgreens in Microgravity Cover

Design, Build and Testing of Hardware to Safely Harvest Microgreens in Microgravity

Open Access
|Oct 2023

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Scissors (top), Pepper Grinder (middle), and Guillotine (blade removed) (bottom) planting boxes with young Daikon radish microgreens.

Figure 2.

Parabolic flight phases. Hypergravity was experienced during ascent, microgravity at the inflection point, and hypergravity upon descent. Airplane image courtesy of Zero Gravity Corporation.

Figure 3.

Experimental setup within the ZeroG aircraft. Left: overview of the glovebox in its flight configuration within the aircraft. Right: a view inside the glovebox showing one of the two cameras filming the inside.

Figure 4.

Photograph showing (left) Guillotine, (center) Scissors, and (right) Pepper Grinder microgreen planting boxes.

Figure 5.

Pepper Grinder hardware. (A) Top view of the assembled hardware. (B) Top view of the different pieces of the hardware.

Figure 6.

Guillotine hardware. (A) Top view of the assembled hardware, (B) Top view of the different pieces of the hardware, (C) CAD drawing of the different hardware elements.

Figure 7.

Scissor and growth hardware. (A) Top view of the scissors and growth lid. (B) Top view of the different pieces of the growth hardware and scissors.

Figure 8.

Bagging methods. Left: attached bag. Right: zip-top bag.

Figure 9.

Attached bag on Pepper Grinder hardware. (A) Loose string, position while cutting the microgreens. (B) Tied string, position after harvesting complete.

Table 1.

Quantitative and qualitative data collected in-flight and post-flight.

Quantitative DataQualitative Data
In-Flight
  • Time needed for harvesting - Video Analysis

    • ○ Duration of the reduced gravity phase

    • ○ Cutting

    • ○ Containment (bagging)

    • ○ Stowing bag

  • Microgreens contamination within the glovebox - Video Analysis

  • Harvester questionnaire - Spreadsheet

Post-Flight
  • Harvest bags weights - Spreadsheet

  • Root contamination within harvest bags - Spreadsheet

  • Photos of harvested boxes - Photos

Table 2.

Criteria and associated weights used for the trade analysis, along with justification for each criterion.

CriteriaEvaluation DataData CollectionJustificationWeight
Time of ExecutionAverage total harvest time across all operatorsFlight video analysisCrew time needs to be minimized1
Microgreen DebrisAverage debris counts across all operatorsFlight video analysisLoss of food and environmental safety hazard—needs to be minimized2
Yield (edible biomass)Fresh mass adjusted by planting densityPost-flight weighingBiomass production needs to be maximized2
Root debrisAverage root debris counts across all operatorsPost-flight countFood safety hazard needs to be minimized2
Percentage of microgreens left on the hardwareRatio between microgreen plants remaining on hardware and total plantsPost-flight countLoss of food—needs to be minimized1.5
Number of seedlings growing under the lidsAverage number across all units of a given hardwarePost-flight photo analysis countLoss of food—needs to be minimized1.5
Percentage of no failures of the hardwareRatio between number of hardware failure and total runsFlight video analysisSevere loss of food, potential food safety hazard—needs to be minimized2
Perceived ease of useAverage score across all operatorsIn-flight surveysMental health of crew—needs to be maximized1
Table 3.

Average and standard deviation for eight different criteria and the six combinations.

Cutting & Bagging MethodNumber of CasesMean Time of Execution (s) +/*− Standard DeviationMicrogreen Debris (number)Yield (g of edible biomass)Root Debris (number)Microgreens left on Hardware (%)Seedlings Growing under Lid (number)**No Hardware Failure (%)Perceived Ease of Use***
Guillotine Attached9ab 18.00 +/− 4.4ab 7.78 +/− 7.0ab 19.39 +/− 5.7a 1.89 +/− 2.4a 12.56 +/− 8.0ab 13.14 +/− 10.7a 100 +/− 04.03
Guillotine Manual11ab 19.27 +/− 3.7a 8.82 +/− 4.3a 23.42 +/− 7.0a 2.55 +/− 2.7a 4.91 +/− 3.4ab 13.14 +/− 10.7a 100 +/− 04.03
Pepper Grinder Attached10*a 13.20 +/− 4.7b 2.60 +/− 1.8ab 15.24 +/− 2.6a 0.90 +/− 1.4a 0.40 +/− 0.5a 16.00 +/− 5.3ab 80 +/− 401.87
Pepper Grinder Manual9*ab 16.89 +/− 5.0a 11.00 +/− 5.9b 12.36 +/− 3.0a 0.89 +/− 1.6a 0.67 +/− 0.67a 16.00 +/− 5.3a 100 +/− 01.87
Scissors Attached10*b 20.89 +/− 5.7b 2.00 +/− 1.7a 22.68 +/− 7.7a 0.90 +/−1.4b 30.20 +/− 16.7b 6.54 +/− 3.7b 60 +/− 494.77
Scissors Manual9ab 19.56 +/− 3.9a 12.11 +/− 4.3ab 21.42 +/− 9.1a 1.67 +/− 1.9a 11.2 +/− 7.6b 6.54 +/− 3.7a 100 +/− 04.77

The letters indicate the different significance between means of the different groups following a one-way ANOVA test on the given criterion, for the factor Cutting & Bagging method.

* N=9 for the yield computation of Pepper Grinder with attached bagging. N=8 for the yield computation of Pepper Grinder with manual bagging. N=9 for the time of execution computation of Scissors with attached bagging.

** For this criterion, only differences in the growth hardware were evaluated with no effect on the cutting or bagging method and this was only done on two flights and N numbers were, respectively, 6, 8, 7, 6, 7, and 6.

*** For this criterion, the survey questionnaires did not single out differences between bagging methods, only differences in the perceived ease of the cutting method.

Table 4.

Normalized and weighted data for each criterion of the six combinations of Cutting & Bagging method.

Cutting & Bagging MethodTime of Execution (s)Microgreen Debris (number)Yield (g of edible biomass)Root debris (number)Microgreens left on Hardware (%)Seedlings Growing under the Lid (number)*No Hardware Failure (%)Perceived Ease of Use**TotalRank
Guillotine Attached0.771.051.661.210.900.882.000.559.015
Guillotine Manual0.710.872.000.701.280.882.000.558.986
Pepper Grinder Attached1.001.901.301.991.500.611.601.0010.911
Pepper Grinder Manual0.820.511.062.001.490.612.001.009.493
Scissors Attached0.632.001.941.990.021.501.200.399.672
Scissors Manual0.700.331.831.390.961.502.000.399.104

* For this criterion, only differences in the growth hardware were evaluated with no effect on the cutting or bagging method.

** For this criterion, the survey questionnaires did not single out differences between bagging methods, only differences in the perceived ease of the cutting method.

Figure 10.

Graphical representation of the trade analysis results, giving the scores of each Cutting & Bagging combination. The evaluation criteria are indicated, their color indicate their weight: red = 2, yellow = 1.5, green = 1.

Figure 11.

Photos of the three types of growth hardware after harvesting. (A) Guillotine. (B) Pepper Grinder. (C) Scissors.

Language: English
Page range: 1 - 14
Published on: Oct 31, 2023
Published by: American Society for Gravitational and Space Research
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: Volume open

© 2023 Haley O. Boles, Lucie Poulet, Christina M. Johnson, Jacob J. Torres, Lawrence L. Koss, LaShelle E. Spencer, Gioia D. Massa, published by American Society for Gravitational and Space Research
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 11 (2023): Issue 1 (January 2023)