DEVELOPMENT OF A FOGGING SYSTEM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL IN

AN A-FRAME GREENHOUSE

BY

MICHAEL OLUWAGBEMIGA OYEDEJI

MATRICULATION NO: 192868

A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

IN PARTIAL FUFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF

BACHELOR OF SCIENCES (B.Sc) DEGREE

IN AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

DECEMBER, 2021.
 CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this project was carried out by MICHAEL OLUWAGBEMIGA

OYEDEJI, Matric No. 192868 of the Department of Agricultural and Environmental

Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

……………………………………………………

Supervisor

Dr. M.O. Omobowale

B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc., Ph.D. (Ibadan) MNSE, MASABE, Reg. Engr. (COREN)

………………………………………………….

Head of Department

Prof. A.K. Aremu

B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc., Ph.D. (Ibadan) MNIAE, MNSE, Reg. Engr. (COREN)

ii
 DEDICATION

This project is dedicated to God Almighty who renews me through His awesomeness, unending

grace and mercy.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My uttermost gratitude goes to God Almighty for giving me the inspiration, strength, resources

and the opportunity to witness this day in good health and making my project success. May his

name be glorified forever (Amen).

Secondly, I want to express my profound gratitude to my family, especially my parents (Mr &

Mrs Oyedeji) and my siblings, for supporting me to this stage of my life, financially and morally.

I also appreciate my friends for their word of encouragement during the execution of this project.

Next, my sincere appreciation goes to my supervisor Dr. M.O. Omobowale for the intellectual

role, great commitment and his level of understanding which greatly contributed to the success

of this project.

Also, I want to appreciate all the lecturers and non-teaching staffs in the department of

Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, University of Ibadan, for their tutelage and support

all through my programme with the department.

Finally, I would love to say a big thank you to all my friends who helped with contributions and

ideas especially Nicholas Adeniji, Daniel Olaoye, Adekeye Eyitayo, and Akinsoji Hammed.

Thank you so much and God bless you all. Amen.

iv
 ABSTRACT

Controlled environment agriculture provides wide range of benefits to increase food productivity
but the problem of optimal microclimate is still a major problem in the tropical climate. This
project objective is to develop a low-cost fogging system for environmental control in an A-
frame greenhouse.

The design of the fogging system was based on the fog cooling sizing handbook (2015). The
design was done to determine the number and spacing of the foggers, pump capacity and cooling
load. The fogging system was comprised of ½, ¾ and 1 inch’s pipe, valves, 0.5 hp pumping
machine, 500 liters underground storage tank and micro-controller (a sensor and a timer) for
temperature regulation. The evaluation of the fogging system was carried out by installing a data
logger to record microclimate parameters for duration of 18 days with the micro-controller set at
27oC threshold. A greenhouse without the fogging system (control) was monitor simultaneously
to validate the performance of the fogging system. The descriptive statistics, and analysis of
variance was performed at 5% level of significance on temperature and humidity data obtained
from the two greenhouses.

The result obtained shows that the temperature of the greenhouse with fogging system ranges
between 21.5 and 47.5oC, while the control greenhouse temperature was ranged between 21.50
and 51.50oC. the humidity of the greenhouse with fogging 40 and 93%, while the control
greenhouse humidity was ranged between 36.5 and 88.50%. The ANOVA result shows that there
was a significant difference between the temperature of the greenhouses with p – value less than
0.05, and also there was a significant difference between the humidity of the greenhouses with p
– value less than 0.05. the Tukey pairwise comparison between the temperatures show there was
significant difference and as well as for the humidity.

The fogging system excellent performed to reduce the temperature of the greenhouse as
compared to the greenhouse without fogging system.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENT

TITLE PAGE i

CERTIFICATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRACT v

TABLE OF CONTENT vi

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES x

LIST OF PLATES xi

CHAPTER ONE 1

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General Background 1

1.2 Problem Statement 2

1.3 Objectives 3

1.4 Justification 3

1.5 Scope 3

CHAPTER TWO 4

LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.1 Greenhouse Cooling Technologies 4

vi
2.2 Evaporative Cooling 6

2.1.1 Direct Evaporative Cooling 7

2.1.1.1 Fog Cooling Method 8

2.1.1.2 Fan and Pad Cooling Method 14

2.1.2 Indirect or Roof Evaporative Cooling 16

2.1.3 Two-Stage Evaporative and Mixed Mode Cooling 18

2.2 Natural Ventilation 22

CHAPTER 3 28

MATERIALS AND METHODS 28

3.1 Location 28

3.2 Design Consideration 28

3.3 Design Theory 29

3.3.1 Environmental Information 29

3.3.2 Exhaust Fan Airflow Rate 33

3.3.3 Pump Capacity 33

3.3.4 Number of Nozzles 34

3.3.5 Cooling Load 34

3.4 Design Calculations 35

3.4.1 Number of Foggers and Spacing 35

vii
 3.4.2 Discharge of Fogging System 36

3.4.3 Cooling Load 37

3.5 Materials 39

3.6 Methods 41

3.6.1 Fogging Lines 41

3.6.2 Underground Water Storage 41

3.7 Microclimate Monitoring 45

CHAPTER FOUR 47

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 47

4.1 Temperature 47

4.2 Humidity 52

CHAPTER FIVE 56

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 56

5.1 Conclusions 56

5.2 Recommendations 56

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page

2.1 Selection Factor for Naturally Ventilated Greenhouse 14

2.2 Selection Factor for Mechanically Ventilated Greenhouse 14

3.1 Bill of Materials and Specifications 41

4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the Microclimate Parameters

of the Greenhouses 50

4.2 Results of ANOVA on the Temperature of the greenhouses 52

4.3 Tukey Comparison of the Greenhouses Temperature 52

4.4 Results of ANOVA on the Humidity of the greenhouses 56

4.5 Tukey Comparison of the Greenhouses Humidity 56

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page

2.1 Schematic of a greenhouse fogging or misting system installation 8

2.2 A Fan and a Pad Evaporative cooling system 15

2.3 Schematic of a greenhouse with evaporative

cooling by moving water film over external shade cloth 18

2.4 Naturally ventilated greenhouse 24

3.1 Fogging System Layout 31

3.2 Fogging Layout in the Greenhouse 32

3.3 Schematic Diagram of the Fogging System 33

4.1 Temperature Profile in the Greenhouses 51

4.2 Humidity Profile of the Greenhouses 55

x
 LIST OF PLATES

Plate No. Title Page

3.1 Underground Water Storage 43

3.2 Foggers Installation 43

3.3 Microcontroller Temperature Sensor and Timer 45

3.4 Lascar Data Loggers 45

3.5 The fogging system 47

xi
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Background

According to Mijinyawa (2010), a greenhouse is a structure composed of a stiff framework and

translucent material that is used to cultivate plants by utilizing solar radiation or radiant energy.

Greenhouses and other controlled environment plant production methods are associated with the

production of high-value crops during the off-season in cold-climate regions where outdoor

production is not feasible (Smith and Stwalley, 2021).

When it comes to greenhouses, their primary function is to produce and maintain an atmosphere

that allows for optimum agricultural productivity and profit (Ouammi et al., 2019). The presence

of warmth and humidity is required for the growth of most plants. Despite the fact that both glass

and plastic film allow sunlight to enter the greenhouse (Hiscott et al., 2021), they are poor

conductors of heat, and as a result, they prevent heat from escaping to the outside.

In order to enhance productivity throughout the warmer season, greenhouses must be kept cold

(Rabbi et al., 2019). Natural ventilation is a great method of lowering the temperature in a

greenhouse when the surrounding temperature is below 32°C. The utilization of natural

ventilation to cool a greenhouse properly becomes impossible when the temperature rises over

that point.

Another cooling approach is the fan-pad cooling procedure, which lowers the temperature of the

greenhouse air by 5 to 6 degrees Celsius (Saberian and Sajadive, 2020). The combination of

continuous operation and poor water quality causes the pad to clog with time, resulting in a

decline in cooling effectiveness.

1
Employees in the greenhouse business regularly employ evaporative cooling technologies to

keep the temperature down in their workplaces right now (Ghoulem et al., 2019). The practical

approach can be divided into three types: fan and pad, fan and mist (Yang et al., 2020), and fog

spray. Fan and pad are the most common form. Despite the fact that the fog spray approach for

cooling operations inside a greenhouse is less expensive in terms of equipment expenses and

easier to install than the fan and pad method, El – Gayar et al. (2018) found that it can achieve

superior evaporation efficiency and a more uniform indoor temperature. Additional advantages

of using this method include the fact that it requires less airtightness in a greenhouse and is well

suited for naturally ventilated greenhouses (Zheng et al., 2020)

Fogging systems make use of small drops of water sprayed in the fog range (60 microns in

diameter) to enhance the amount of water surface that comes into contact with the surrounding

air. In the greenhouse, water droplets are easily transported and evaporated by absorbing latent

heat from the air, resulting in a lower dry bulb temperature and greater air humidity (Rodriguez

2017). It is possible to get the most consistent temperature distribution possible when employing

a fogging system. It is possible to achieve a wide range of needed temperatures and relative

humidity in greenhouses with this type of cooling system (Mirja et al., 2016).

1.2 Problem Statement

The sharp increase in population growth in Nigeria, which is projected to reach 400 million by

2050, will increase the rate of food demand for survival amidst climate change. In order to meet

the food demand of the population, there is a need for greenhouse technologies to boost food

production and yield and mitigate the effects of climate change on food production. In the

tropical region like Nigeria, greenhouses are associated with high temperature profiles,

2
especially during the drying seasons, which means no optimal conditions for the cultivation of

low temperature-tolerance crops.

1.3 Objectives

The main objective of this project is to develop a low-cost fogging system for environmental

control in an A-frame greenhouse in order to create an optimal micro-climate for crop

production. In achieving the main objective, the following activities were carried out;

i. Design of cooling requirements, installation of foggers, lines and water storage.

ii. Monitoring and evaluation of microclimate in a fogging installed A-framed greenhouse

and no fogging A-framed greenhouse.

1.4 Justification

The use of a fogging system is an excellent alternative for cooling. As air temperatures build in

greenhouses water loss from the plants can exceed the amount of water the plants can take up.

Using this system in this situation, lowers air temperature, increases the humidity of the air, and

does not saturate the growing mediums exposing them to fungi, moss, and gnats. It also provides

a more uniform mist distribution within the greenhouse and has lower maintenance costs. It

requires less management to keep the humidity high

1.5 Scope

This study is limited to design and installation of fogging system for a A-framed greenhouse

made of polycarbonate glazing material and monitoring of the microclimate within the

greenhouse

3
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Greenhouse Cooling Technologies

Greenhouses are constructed to offer a controlled environment for plant growth, with their

primary goal being to establish an internal microclimate that is conducive to plant growth

Ganguly and Ghosh, 2011). The structure is a complicated thermodynamic system in which the

relative humidity and temperature of the interior environment are controlled in order to promote

plant growth and productivity (Nicolosi et al., 2017). Greenhouses and other indoor plant

factories are one of the many alternative methods of meeting the food needs of the urban

population, and they are becoming increasingly popular (Zhang et al., 2016). In recent years, its

cultivation has progressed from simple open field crop planting to highly urbane agriculture

(CEA) facilities, which have given rise to the image of plant factories for urban agriculture

production. As a result of these advancements, scientific discoveries for efficient plant

production in densely populated cities and multi-story structures have been furthered.

Efforts to improve low-cost greenhouse design have the potential to increase food security,

particularly in locations where global climate change is progressively adding to the

inconsistencies in local weather patterns (Groener et al., 2015). Because of the challenges posed

by harsh climate and water scarcity in greenhouse all-year-round cultivation, greenhouses are

designed to provide adequate control of their own microclimate, such as relative humidity, CO2

concentration, temperature, and lighting, depending on ambient conditions and type of

cultivation, as well as adequate control of the surrounding environment (Ghani et al.,2019). In

greenhouses, management measures such as ventilation, heating, and carbon dioxide enrichment

4
can be used to modify the microclimates, so ensuring that crops grow in the most favorable

environmental conditions possible. Because of this, greenhouses are generally constructed to

withstand the threats of external elements, environmental factors, and internal loads, while also

maximizing the amount of solar radiation available to the crop. Consequently (Santosh et al.,

2017).

Despite the fact that greenhouse technology is a viable option for achieving sustainable crop

production in places with severe climatic conditions, high summer temperatures make it difficult

to achieve successful crop production in these environments most especially in the tropics.

Furthermore, greenhouse farming in hot climates is typically associated with a high solar thermal

load, which causes significant problems inside the greenhouse environment and inhibits plant

growth (Misra and Ghosh, 2018). As a result, one of the most important engineering aims in

precision agriculture is to manage the climate in greenhouses. Because it maintains the proper

balance of carbon dioxide, temperature, and humidity levels inside the greenhouse, continuous

positive air flow inside a greenhouse is essential for plant growth (Buffignton et al., 2016).

greenhouse cooling is an important issue to consider when designing a greenhouse. It is possible

to achieve greenhouse cooling using either natural or artificial means.

Natural ventilation in greenhouses is normally performed through air exchanges through several

controlled openings, because air speed distribution has a significant impact on greenhouse heat

and mass transfer (Duarete-Galvan et al., 2012). It is a factor of the external and interior wind

speeds and temperature variations of the greenhouse, as well as the total area of vents, to

determine how quickly air is exchanged through natural convection (which is a highly important

component in naturally ventilated greenhouses). Natural ventilation, on the other hand, becomes

extremely difficult in extremely hot climates with low air speeds, necessitating the installation of

5
artificial cooling devices in greenhouses to mitigate the heat. The use of forced ventilation was

developed because it is necessary to keep greenhouses cool during the hot summer months

because natural ventilation is difficult without wind or at temperatures exceeding 32oC. The use

of fans and blowers can be used to introduce forced ventilation; however, the inefficiency of fans

and blowers to remove indoor hot air in closed greenhouses during the peak summer months has

led to the advent of additional technologies such as fan and pad systems and fogging systems

(Mirja et al., 2016).

Semiarid climates and tropical regions have a tremendous potential for production because of the

vast amounts of solar energy they receive throughout the year. However, these regions,

particularly semiarid climates, are hindered by high air temperatures and limited water

availability. Optimizing ventilation through the use of cooling systems such as the fog cooling

system in conjunction with natural ventilation, on the other hand, will provide a more favorable

growing environment for plants in such places while also allowing for less water use (Ishii et al.,

2016). Two or three cooling systems combined will increase the likelihood of meeting cooling

requirements for greenhouses in tropical locations. As a result, the selection and execution of

microclimate cooling methods in greenhouses should be tailored to the crop being grown, the

type of measurement being used, and the budget for the greenhouse (Singh et al., 2018). Natural

ventilation, shade, and evaporative cooling are the engineering techniques that are most typically

utilized in greenhouses to control the microclimate under cropping settings.

2.2 Evaporative Cooling

Evaporative cooling is the removal of latent heat from the air by liquid water (which evaporates

into vapor), resulting in an increase in the relative humidity of the air while it is being cooled.

6
Water evaporation into the airstream can also be defined as a process that lowers the temperature

of the air by the evaporation of water. The loss of energy from the air as a result of water

evaporation causes the temperature of the air to drop. Evaporative cooling is a method of

removing sensible heat from the interior of a greenhouse more efficiently. According to Kuang-

Cheng et al. (2015), during evaporative cooling, the relative humidity and dry-bulb temperature

of the external air, as well as other factors such as system control strategy, atomization capacity

of spraying nozzles, ventilation mode, and water quality parameters, influence the cooling

efficiency. Evaporative cooling is one of various ways for greenhouse cooling that have altered

the creation of cooling systems in greenhouses since the nineteenth century and is still in use

across the world (Misra and Ghosh, 2018). There are three types of greenhouse evaporative

cooling systems: direct evaporative cooling, indirect or roof evaporative cooling, and two-stage

or mixed-mode cooling systems.

2.1.1 Direct Evaporative Cooling

The direct evaporative cooling process involves the contact of water and air in a cross-flow

arrangement, with the horizontal channels for air and the vertical channels for water arranged in

a cross-flow configuration (Warke and Deshmukh, 2017). Warm air is drawn through a porous

wetted pad by a fan, and the drawn water absorbs heat and evaporates through a porous wetted

medium, resulting in the air leaving the system at a lower temperature. Using water sprayed on

the pad surface, the porous pads are continuously moistened, which helps to keep the wet bulb

temperature consistent.

7
2.1.1.1 Fog Cooling Method

Fogging systems, such as the one shown in Figure 2.1, have multipurpose features and are

integrated with other components so that the fogging system does not detract from the

attractiveness of the surrounding environment. Fogging systems are typically comprised of a

high-pressure pump, motor, atomizing nozzles, and pipelines, with the water being sprayed

through small apertures (orifices) through the nozzle. Typical applications for fogging systems

include growing and storing vegetables, wine barrel storage, chicken houses, textile or paper

production, and wood conditioning. Fogging systems are also used in many other applications

(Ronald and Soriano, 2018).

Fig 2.1: Schematic of a greenhouse fogging or misting system installation.

8
Water is sprayed into the airstream as fine using the fogging technique of cooling, according to

Misra and Ghosh (2018), in which direct contact with water in the air occurs. Cooling is

accomplished through the evaporation of the sprayed water droplets (Hugang and Shuangi,

2015). Foliage systems in greenhouses in Israel, for example, can provide a wide range of

desirable temperatures and relative humidity levels in greenhouses during most months of the

year with just a little impact on radiation levels inside the greenhouse.

If the fogging and misting systems are used instead of the fan and pad evaporative cooling

system, Ganguly and Ghosh (2011) found that the fogging and misting systems can effectively

lower temperatures up to 5–6oC below the ambient temperature and also provide more uniform

temperature and humidity levels inside the greenhouse. Fogging systems, which use evaporative

cooling, are becoming increasingly popular in arid and semi-arid countries as a means of

increasing production cycles during extremely hot seasons as well as achieving near-optimal

settings for all year-round production. When designing a fogging system that will give good

control of the indoor climatic conditions while also resulting in a decent crop yield of high-

quality product, it is necessary to first identify the ventilation characteristics of the greenhouse.

Temperature, relative humidity, specific heat, heat transfer coefficient, and viscosity of air are

just a few of the variables that might affect ventilation characteristics.

According to Zhang et al. (2015), the effects of micro-fog systems in greenhouse environments

on tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.) productivity during the summer season were investigated.

They discovered that the mean air temperature and vapour pressure deficit (VPD) were reduced

by 3.2 oC and 1 kPa, respectively, when micro-fog systems were used in the greenhouse. In

addition, the relative humidity in the micro-fog-treated greenhouse increased by 13.3%. Plants

9
treated with micro-fog had significantly higher stomatal density and index, as well as improved

stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rates, compared to untreated plants. Transpiration rates

were reduced for the plants in the micro-fog treated greenhouse as well, allowing for optimal

water use by the plants in the treated greenhouse. The micro-fog treatment boosted the

marketable yield of the tomato by 12.3%, which is a significant improvement.

Ozturk (2006) evaluated the impacts of a fogging system in a multi-span plastic greenhouse in

the Cukurova region of Yernice-Adana, Turkey, and found that it increased the productivity of

the greenhouse. The design of the fogging system under consideration consists of three nozzle

lines, each of which has 82 fog generating nozzles and has a nozzle spacing of 2.5m. It was

determined that the efficiency of the fogging system was 50.5% when measured based on air

flow rate and evaporation; however, when measured using lower outside relative humidity, the

efficiency climbed to as high as 80%. In addition, it was discovered that the fogging system

reduced the ambient temperature by 6.6oC within the greenhouse while simultaneously

increasing the relative humidity by 25%. The average airflow rate per square meter was

98kg/h/m2, while the average evaporation rate per square meter was 483.

An alternative method of evaluating the fogging system was utilized by Mirja et al. (2016), who

calculated the fraction of water that evaporated from the fog-generating nozzles in order to

evaluate the system. After examining the performance of the fogging system for two distinct

fogging durations and at two distinct fogging intervals, it was discovered that the fogging system

could reduce the temperature inside the greenhouse by up to 4oC when using a 1.5-minute

duration and a 4.5-minute interval, respectively.

10
Misra and Ghosh (2018) evaluated the performance of a fogging system with solar chimney

assisted ventilation in a circular greenhouse, placing particular emphasis on the importance of

fogging intervals in the performance evaluation of the fogging system. They discovered that

during peak ambient temperatures, optimised fogging with spray intervals of 1.5–2 min was able

to successfully lower temperatures by 4 to 6 oC below the ambient temperature.

In addition, Kwwsung et al. (2007) discovered that when simulating the air temperature and

humidity distribution for greenhouses using fog cooling systems, a height of 2.3 m from the floor

and 1.9 m from the sidewalls with a nozzle spacing of 3.7 m was the most effective height for the

experimental fog cooling system to operate at the best efficiency (using FLUENT, a CFD

program). In their review of the effects of cooling strategies on the uniformity and microclimate

of greenhouses,

Hesham et al. (2016) stated that the spatial distribution of temperature and relative humidity in

fog-cooled greenhouses is dependent on the amount of spread water fog, the amount of fogging

and interval times, and the evaporation mechanism in fog-cooled greenhouses Sanchez-

Hermosilla et al. (2013) conducted an experimental investigation on a fogging system for

spraying plant-protection compounds in a greenhouse located in Almera, Spain, and reported

their findings. The spray deposition and losses to the soil from the system with twin spray

nozzles were compared to those from a manual spray in order to analyze the spray deposition and

losses to the soil. Results showed that the air water spray caused a deposition in the plant canopy

that expanded in size as the plants grew, presumably as a result of a greater number of droplets

reaching the crops before evaporating. In addition, it was discovered that the technology created

less deposition over the crop than manual spray guns. According to the findings of the reviewed

11
studies, fog and mist cooling systems are capable of achieving large amounts of water

evaporation while also keeping the surrounding plants dry.

Furthermore, when compared to natural ventilation methods such as roof vents, fog systems can

create a more equal distribution of temperature and humidity in a greenhouse environment

(Katsoulas et al., 2012). The majority of greenhouse fog cooling systems are not "stand-alone"

systems; rather, they are used in conjunction with either natural or forced ventilation systems to

provide maximum cooling efficiency (usually using fans or blowers). Ventilation systems like

these assist in circulating air that has been cooled by the fogging system and also assist in

expelling hot air from within the greenhouse.

Information about the conditions for which a fogging system is developed is essential. Ambient

pressure, temperature, and humidity are examples of environmental parameters to be determined

experimentally (Hain et al., 2008). The experimental determination of outdoor temperature is

one of the most important parameters of interest in order to determine the pump selection factor,

thus determining the minimum pump capacity. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show the pump selection

factors for both naturally ventilated greenhouses and mechanically ventilated greenhouses.

Glazing material used is pivotal to the microclimate within the greenhouse. The type of glazing

material determines the distance from the greenhouse wall to the mist circumference during

fogging. When an appropriate distance is not set out between the wall and the mist

circumference, there is a tendency for mist condensation on the wall, which may serve as a nest

for insects’ growth. A distance of 1000 mm is maintained between the center of the fogger and

the wall. The type of fogger (single, two-way and four-way) used determines the coverage of the

fogger.

12
Table 2.1 Selection Factor for Naturally Ventilated Greenhouse
Outdoor Temperature Range (°C) Selection Factor µ (l/min/m2)

24-29 0.00652

29-35 0.00815

35-41 0.0122

41-46 0.0163

Source: Fog cooling sizing handbook, 2015.

Table 2.2: Selection Factor for Mechanically Ventilated Greenhouse

Outdoor Temperature Range (°C) Selection Factor µ (l/min/m3)

24-29 0.00241

29-35 0.00334

35-41 0.00456

41-46 0.00582

Sources: fog cooling sizing handbook, 2015.

13
2.1.1.2 Fan and Pad Cooling Method

Fan and pad cooling systems consist of induced draft fans put on one side of the greenhouse wall

and a cooling pad installed on the other side of the greenhouse wall (Figure 2.2). A pump

circulates water through the cooling pad, which is maintained wet by the suction created by the

induced draught pads, which forces air through it and keeps it moist. When a fan and pad

technique of cooling is used in fully enclosed greenhouses, air travels through the wetted pads,

allowing the water to evaporate. During the process of transitioning from liquid to vapour, each

gallon of evaporated water absorbs 8,545.95 kJ of heat energy from the surrounding air. This

heat energy is converted to kinetic energy. Heat is taken from the atmosphere, resulting in a

decrease in temperature when air is introduced into the greenhouse. (Aljubury et al., 2017). The

performance of fan and pad evaporative coolers vary depending on whether the pads are made of

various materials.

Figure 2.2: A Fan and a Pad Evaporative cooling system

14
Many researches have been conducted in recent years to investigate the usage of fan-pad systems

for cooling greenhouses in hot and arid climates, and a number of methods have been offered to

increase their performance even further. Using fan-pad technology, Ganguly and Ghosh (2007)

built a thermal model of a floricultural greenhouse that is both ventilated and cooled. Cooling

was done through the use of a combination of fan-pad systems and shade devices, while

dehumidification was accomplished through the use of forced ventilation. The results of the

study revealed that the fan-pad ventilation system was most successful during the summer,

however it was less effective during the monsoon due to the high humidity levels in the external

air, which reduces the effectiveness of evaporative cooling in the summer.

Vala et al. (2016) tested the performance of the CELdek pad, coconut noir, aspen pad, and wood

shavings in a storage room and found that they performed similarly. Every pad was maintained at

the following values: 116m/s air velocity, 100mm pad thickness, and 31 gallons per minute of

water flow. Wood wool produced the greatest temperature loss, with a 9.75 oC, followed by

CELdek, which produced an 8 oC drop. The use of wood shavings and coconut noir resulted in

temperature decreases of 3.25 oC and 3.5 oC, respectively. Wood wool likewise had the highest

maximum saturation efficiency, with 92.20%, followed by CELdek with 90.70%, wood shavings

with 65.83 percent, and coconut noir with 67.42%.

A study conducted in Khartoum by Ahmed et al. (2011) examined evaporative cooling pads

made up of straw mats, CELdek mats, and sliced wood mats, which were deployed in three

greenhouses containing cucumber plants. Environmental parameters were measured at 8 a.m., 1

a.m., and 6 p.m., and it was discovered that, despite the fact that the greenhouse with straw pads

15
had the lowest temperature, followed by CELdek and then wood pads, the greenhouse with wood

pads had the highest yield, the longest stem length and diameter, the greatest number and width

of leaves, the greatest length and diameter of fruit, and the greatest weight of fresh and dry

matter of fruit, all of which were recorded in the greenhouse with According to Lopez et al.

(2012), the microclimate in three Mediterranean multi-span greenhouses with different cooling

methods (pad fan, fog, and natural ventilation) was studied without accounting for the crop's

contribution to cooling and humidification. To homogenise the microclimate inside the

greenhouse, interior fans were used. The air velocity vectors were analyzed in order to better

understand the airflow pattern and the homogeneity provided by the cooling procedures used in

the experiment. The combined pad-fan cooling system with a shade screen achieved the largest

drop in temperature, according to the findings of the study. The utilization of this combination,

on the other hand, is restricted to crops with minimal evapotranspiration.

As part of their research, Romantchik et al. (2017) estimated the amount of energy required by a

fan-pad system installed in a span-type greenhouse with a double layer of polyethylene plastic

cover. It was possible to estimate greenhouse temperatures, ventilation rates, and energy

consumption using a model calibrated with tests, which allowed for the reliable sizing of the PV

systems. The results of the study demonstrated that the grid-connected photovoltaic system was

capable of generating all of the energy required by the fans.

2.1.2 Indirect or Roof Evaporative Cooling

Roof evaporative cooling is one of the simple methods of evaporative cooling systems. In this

cooling system, cooling is achieved by spraying water on the roof of the greenhouse. The water

evaporates, taking heat from the roof and cooling the roof surface (Figure 2.3).

16
Figure 2.3: Schematic of a greenhouse with evaporative cooling by moving water film over
external shade cloth.

Ghosal et al (2003) developed a model for roof evaporative cooling in an even span greenhouse

that took into account a thin film of water on the roof surface. They tested their approach in an

experimental greenhouse located in Delhi, which proved to be successful. The trials were carried

out in the greenhouse under three different settings: shading with water sprinkling on the roof,

roof shading, and roof un-shading conditions. Using shading with water sprinkling and shading

without flow of water conditions, it was discovered that the greenhouse temperature reduced by

6oC and 2oC, respectively, when compared to un-shaded circumstances.

17
Using a mathematical model of an even span greenhouse in which the roof cooling was provided

by a film of moving water, Ghosal and Das (2012) demonstrated that the roof cooling could be

achieved. Greenhouse roofs were covered with jute fabric, which helped to maintain a thin film

of water flow on the surface. The model that was constructed was capable of determining the

efficacy of the cooling system in question.

An experimental study was carried out by Helmy et al. (2013) on two small (6 m2) identical

greenhouses that were both equipped with a combined evaporative cooling system on their roof

as well as their inside. It was discovered that the combined cooling system outperformed the fan-

pad system in terms of performance, and that there was a nearly 1.1-5.44oC temperature

differential between the two systems in the morning and afternoon, respectively, between the two

systems. They have tested with a variety of different pad materials in order to find the most

efficient pad material in terms of cooling efficiency.

2.1.3 Two-Stage Evaporative and Mixed Mode Cooling

A two-stage evaporative cooler, also known as an indirect/direct cooler, is a type of evaporative

cooler that is more advanced than a traditional single-stage evaporative cooler in that it produces

cool air with a significantly lower relative humidity than a traditional single-stage evaporative

cooler. Two-stage evaporative coolers can be helpful in hot, dry areas, such as desert regions,

when the single-stage variety would be ineffective due to the lack of moisture. As a rule, they

can lower the temperature of outside air by up to 10oC, while also producing air that is less

humid than that delivered by a single-stage system.

The first (indirect) stage involves passing entering heated air via a heat exchanger loaded with

water, which cools the air without adding moisture. The second (direct) stage involves passing

air over a water-soaked pad, where the temperature lowers even further and the air picks up

18
additional water, which raises the humidity. Weaker air can contain more moisture than warmer

air, hence cooler air is used to supply the second stage evaporator, resulting in less humidity

being delivered to the atmosphere. A two-stage system provides cold air with a relative humidity

ranging between 50 and 70%, depending on the climate, as opposed to a single-stage system that

produces air with an approximate relative humidity of 80%.

Davies and Paton (2005) presented a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model that was

calibrated with a prototype seawater greenhouse created in the United Arab Emirates. The

calibration of the model may be able to forecast the temperatures and airflow inside the building.

It is claimed by Davies (2005) that the use of liquid desiccators in conjunction with solar

regeneration can be considered for lowering the temperature of an evaporatively cooled

greenhouse. He proposed a system that was comparable to the classic fan-pad system, with the

addition of a desiccant pad that would be installed before to the first evaporator pad. He

conducted an experiment in Abu Dhabi's Gulf climate and discovered that a liquid-desiccant

cooling system may lower the greenhouse temperature by 5oC compared to a typical fan-pad

system.

Mahmoudi et al. (2010) developed a model that incorporates a passive condenser with the

purpose of improving fresh water generation. The plants benefited from the cool climate given

by the greenhouse. The simulated findings revealed that the passive condenser had a greater

ability to create fresh water than the actual pump-operated system, indicating that it was more

efficient.

Aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES) system is used by Wong et al. (2011) to construct a

conceptual design of the mechanical equipment required to cool, store heat, and heat a

greenhouse operation. They created a detailed thermal energy model for a greenhouse using the

19
TRNSYS software, which is capable of modeling the energy performance for both the traditional

(open) and the "closed" greenhouse energy operations in the Canadian environment.

A two-stage evaporative cooling system for greenhouse application was developed by Abbouda

and Almuhanna (2012), which included direct evaporative cooling (DEC) consisting of the

cooling pad and indirect evaporative cooling consisting of the cooling coil unit (CCU) for the

greenhouse application. When hot water is evaporating from a dew point, heat is absorbed;

however, when hot air passes through a cooling coil, it transfers heat burden to the water. It was

discovered that the CCU was the only device that could offer an hourly average temperature drop

of 8.1oC with an efficacy of 47.4%. The DEC, on the other hand, had an hourly average efficacy

of 75.12%, according to the data. When the combined cooling mode (which includes both CCU

and DEC) was employed, the hourly mean greenhouse air temperature was reduced by 19.1 oC

on average temperature is 9.0oC during the day and 9.0oC during the night.

Lychnos and Davies (2012) developed a theoretical model to analyze the performance of a

greenhouse that was equipped with a solar power regenerator, MgCl2 desiccators, and an

evaporative pad, among other things. A mathematical model had been constructed for both the

regenerator and the desiccators, and the findings indicated a good match with the experimental

values obtained during a hot summer day in the field. Their findings revealed how desiccators

with pad systems reduced average daily maximum temperatures by 5.5 to 7.5 oC when compared

to the standard evaporative cooling system during the hot season.

A desert location in Oman was the setting for an experimental examination by Al-Busaidi and

Al-Mulla (2014), who conducted their research in two different greenhouses: a seawater

greenhouse (SWGH) and a conventional greenhouse (CGH). Despite the fact that both

greenhouses were equipped with fans and pad evaporative cooling systems, the SWGH chose to
20
use seawater rather than fresh water to meet its cooling requirements. In addition, the cooling

SWGH incorporated a desalination unit, which produced fresh water for the irrigation needs of

the cucumber plants that were grown within the greenhouse. It was discovered that SWGH

reduced greenhouse temperature by 4.8°C, but conventional greenhouse reduced greenhouse

temperature by 7.4°C when compared to the ambient temperature. Also noted was that CGH

could not consistently maintain an interior humidity greater than 60%, whereas SWGH was able

to do so.

Abu-Hamdeh and colleagues (2016) devised and built a solar desiccant evaporative cooling

system that might be used to cool greenhouses in humid climates. When compared to ordinary

water evaporation cooling, they found that the proposed cooling may reduce the interior

temperature by around 6 degrees Celsius.

A two-stage evaporative cooling system (indirect-direct cooling system; IDEC) was presented

by Aljubury et al. (2017) for safeguarding plants in a greenhouse located in a desert climate

where the temperature of the ambient air frequently approaches 50oC. The cooling system

consists of one indirect evaporative cooling (IEC) heat exchanger and three pads, which are split

into three phases by the heat exchanger. It was for this reason that they created the indirect-direct

evaporative cooling (IDEC) technique to study the greenhouse microclimate. It was decided to

use geothermal water as a cooling fluid for indirect heat exchangers and as a wetting fluid for the

pads. They discovered that the IDEC system increased evaporative cooling efficiency to 108%

when compared to the direct evaporative cooling (DEC) system, which had a 77.5% at efficiency

at the time. As a result, they came to the conclusion that using ground water as a coolant in the

IDEC had reduced greenhouse temperatures by about 12.1 to 21.6oC while increasing relative

humidity from 8 to 62% when compared to ambient circumstances.

21
A thermal model of a desiccant-assisted dispersed fan-pad ventilated greenhouse system was

created by Banik and Ganguly (2017) to predict the temperature of the interior air in the

greenhouse. They tested the model against a reference model research that was already published

in the literature. It was discovered that, during a hot and humid season, the greenhouse was

capable of reducing temperatures by 4.3oC above the ambient temperature, whereas the typical

fan-pad system only reduced temperatures by 2.5oC below the ambient temperature. They also

included a cumulative cash flow model, which allowed them to determine the payback period

and the net present value of the greenhouse installation.

2.2 Natural Ventilation

Natural ventilation in greenhouses is defined as the interchange of air between the greenhouse's

outside and interior air that is helped by natural wind, differences in air density, and/or the

buoyancy effect of the air in the greenhouse. Naturally ventilated greenhouses provide more

accurate management of air temperature, humidity, and gas concentration within the greenhouse,

which helps to regulate the transpiration and photosynthetic activities of plants, ultimately

resulting in higher yields and higher quality crops (FAO, 2013). Natural ventilation is most

effective during the winter months, when the temperature differential between the inside and

outside of the greenhouse is the greatest. However, that is the time of day when the least amount

of ventilation is required. Natural ventilation is used to ventilate the majority of greenhouses,

making them appropriate for usage in mild regions or for the growing of heat-tolerant crops

(McCartney et al., 2018).

22
According to the University of Guelph's Greenhouse Engineering Department (2009),

greenhouses that use natural ventilation as their cooling system should be constructed in such a

manner that warm air can rise via the ridge vent while cooler air can enter along the sides.

Figure 2.4 Naturally ventilated greenhouse

As a result of its popularity, natural ventilation is considered to be the most cost-effective

cooling option for greenhouses, according to experts. Natural ventilation in agricultural

greenhouses has a number of advantages, including lower construction and maintenance costs,

the provision of fresh oxygen, a reduction in the incidence of insect pests or diseases, the

elimination of the need for electricity, the achievement of optimal temperature and relative

humidity, and a high level of support for pollination among others. Natural ventilation options in

greenhouses are often roll-up sides or ridge vents that are built into the main structure of the

greenhouse and can be controlled automatically or manually as needed.

According to Ganguly and Ghosh (2011), the rate of air exchange in naturally ventilated

greenhouses is a highly important component that is dependent on the total area of vents in the

greenhouse, as well as the wind speed and temperature difference between the inside and outside

23
air in the greenhouse. So they recommended that in naturally ventilated greenhouses, the total

amount of vent openings should range between 15 and 30% of the floor surface, since any

additional increase in vent openings will only provide a small improvement in performance.

In order to better understand the influence of natural ventilation on the microclimate of

greenhouses in hot areas, researchers have conducted research. Field trials, laboratory scale

testing, and numerical modeling are some of the most often utilized approaches in data collection

and processing. Campen and Bot (2003) used three-dimensional modeling to investigate the

performance of a naturally ventilated greenhouse. The rollup type window and the flap type

window were the two roof opening configurations that were explored. The results of the

simulation were confirmed by measurements of tracer gases performed experimentally. The

results of the study revealed that the rollup type window had better ventilation rates than the

other types of windows because the cover had larger apertures.

A naturally ventilated greenhouse in Zimbabwe was studied by Mashonjowa et al. (2013) who

used the Gembloux dynamic greenhouse climate mode to simulate the performance of the

greenhouse. The model is made up of a differential equation system that is based on the heat and

mass balance of the various levels of the greenhouse. The results of the study demonstrated that

the wind effect and discharge coefficients were not only affected by the ventilation system, but

also by the meteorological conditions.

With the help of a validated numerical model, Baeza et al. (2009) evaluated the impact of side

wall openings on the buoyancy-driven flows in a multi-span greenhouse environment. The

findings revealed that the ventilation rate per unit ground area of a 20-span greenhouse with side

walls and roof openings was two times higher than the ventilation rate per unit ground area of a

greenhouse with only roof openings. Using a combined roof-side wall opening design in a 3-span
24
greenhouse, the ventilation rate was found to be 7 times higher than with a single roof vent.

When it comes to temperature distribution, a significant portion of the greenhouse (48.3 to 79 %)

had an indoor-outdoor temperature difference of 4 degrees Celsius or more for the roof-only

ventilation. These areas comprised 23.4 to 36.1% of the total area under this combined

ventilation setup. The findings of the study showed that the optimal design of side wall vents for

buoyancy-driven ventilation is critical, particularly for greenhouses with a smaller number of

spanning members. Furthermore, when air exchange is buoyancy-driven, the placement of bug

netting over the vents can limit ventilation rates by as much as 87%.

According to Montero and Baeza (2012), they explored a new five-span greenhouse design that

featured a 30o slope roof with side wall ventilation in addition to a roof ventilation system for

each span. In order to prevent hot and dry wind from impinging directly on the plants, deflector

panels were installed on the ridges of the windward and leeward spans as well as on the side wall

vents. It was determined that the proposed design was superior than a standard parral-type

greenhouse, which had a shallow slope roof, modest vertical and sidewall vents, and no

deflectors. The results showed that the proposed design could produce ventilation rates that were

up to four times higher than those achieved by the parallel-type greenhouse design. The air

circulation and temperature distribution in the greenhouse have both improved, as has the

temperature distribution.

He et al. (2015) investigated the effect of vent openings on the microclimate of a multi-span

greenhouse over the summer and winter seasons. The development of a three-dimensional

numerical model of an 11-span plastic greenhouse was carried out in this study. The model was

tested in an experimental setting. The findings revealed that the layout of the vents has a

significant impact on microclimate patterns, as well as the distribution and behavior of the inside

25
air. temperature and humidity. The temperature and relative humidity of the airflow dropped

dramatically in the first span and increased greatly in the second and third spans when the roof

opening design was used. The roof plus side opening layout resulted in a favorable air

temperature distribution, according to the findings. However, there was a significant difference

in the amount of humidity between the two sides of the greenhouse compared to the other.

Additionally, it was discovered that increasing the size of the vent aperture resulted in a

reduction in the amount of time required for dehumidification.

A study conducted in Spain by Espinoza et al. (2017) investigated the influence of the ventilator

arrangement on the flow distribution in a multi-span greenhouse while taking into consideration

the influence of neighbouring greenhouses. Experiments were conducted to examine two

different roof vent configurations: two and three half-arched roof vents with side vents. The

results showed that the two-roof and side-vent layout resulted in a lower overall ventilation flow

rate, but that air movement in the crop zone improved as a result of the configuration. In

addition, the neighboring greenhouse on the leeward side reduced the ventilation capacity of the

structure.

Utilizing a dynamic semi-empirical model, Reyes-Rosas et al. (2017) projected the temperatures

of airflow, crops, cover, and soil in a naturally ventilated greenhouse using a natural ventilation

system. Controlling the vent opening was accomplished through the use of Synopta software

(Hortisystems UK Ltd, West Sussex, UK). The results of the study revealed that decreasing air

movement resulted in significant heterogeneity in the temperature distribution, with a difference

of 7–8 oC between the zones near the plants and the zones close to the greenhouse covering in the

middle of the spans, where the hot air accumulated as a result of buoyancy-driven flow patterns.

Researchers Li, Huang, and Zhang (2017) investigated temperature, humidity, and solar radiation

26
fluctuations in an open-air greenhouse in the Chinese city of Shouguang throughout the hot

season of 2017 and 2018. For the experimental study, two single-sloped greenhouses were used

as test sites. It was also necessary to construct a thermal model in order to establish energy

balance equations and to control the microclimate factors of the greenhouses. The findings

revealed that the air temperature ranged between 21 and 26oC, while the relative humidity ranged

between 84 and 98%. A shorter span and a higher roof height were also shown to improve heat

preservation and energy savings in a single-sloped greenhouse, according to the research

findings. The use of natural ventilation to control the temperature and humidity of a greenhouse

is dependent on the daily variation of a variety of elements, including the outer climate, the crops

being grown, the orientation of the greenhouse, and the size and location of the openings in the

greenhouse.

27
 CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Location

This project was carried out at the Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering,

Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, located in Ibadan, a city in South-Western Nigeria

with coordinates of latitude 7° 26' 57.27 "and longitude 3° 53' 8.93 "at 227 m above mean sea

level.

3.2 Design Consideration

Greenhouse microclimate: The microclimate of a greenhouse is described by the level of

temperature and humidity within the system. The temperature and humidity within the

greenhouse with respect to the ambient conditions determine the magnitude of the cooling load,

pump capacity, and fogging capacity. For this project, the fog cooling sizing handbook (2015)

was used to select appropriate values for the design of the fogging system.

Size and shape of the greenhouse: It is very significant because it determines the optimal

number of foggers that can be used within the space and the extraction of humid air from the

system. In this project, a greenhouse of dimensions (5800 mm x 4000 mm x 2500 mm) and A-

framed type was installed with a fogging system.

Water storage capacity: Although the amount of water required by the fogging system during

the day varies depending on the ambient environment, During the cool period, the fogging

system needs a lower volume of water as compared to the warm period. Also, it is vital to

28
prepare for a period of water outage due to faulty water supply lines. A 500-liter water storage

tank was used for the fogging system.

3.3 Design Theory

Figure 3.1-3.3 shows the fogging system layout inside the greenhouse.

3.3.1 Environmental Information

The pump selection factor will be determined using Table 3.3 since the greenhouse for which the

fogging system will be designed is equipped with an exhaust fan.

29
Figure 3.1: Fogging System Layout

30
Figure 3.2 Fogging Layout in the Greenhouse

31
Figure 3.3 Schematic Diagram of the Fogging System

32
3.3.2 Exhaust Fan Airflow Rate

The exhaust fan airflow rate is determined based on the dimension of the greenhouse, which is

the volume of the greenhouse. The typical air change per hour for the greenhouse should be in

accordance with the air exchange index.

!
Ø = "# %&'( )*
(3.1)

Where;

Ø = the exhaust fan airflow in m3/min or l/min.

V = volume of the greenhouse m3

N = number of times the air in the greenhouse should be changed in 1hr.

3.3.3 Pump Capacity

Pump capacity determines the flow rate at which mist is delivered into the greenhouse. It is

important to select the right pump capacity that will ensure optimal and uniformity in the

delivery of mist within the greenhouse without any damage to the fogging system line.

Q = Ø ×µ (3.2)

where;

Ø = cubic meter of air flow of exhaust fan m3/min or l/min

µ = pump selection factor

33
3.3.4 Number of Nozzles

Number of nozzles or foggers is a function of pump capacity and fogger delivery rating. For this

project, a four-way fogger with anti-drip which is rated 0.334 l/min at 344.74kpa.

+
N=, (3.3)

where;

Q = high-pressure pump capacity in l/min

𝜕 = nozzle rating in l/min (0.334)

3.3.5 Cooling Load

In calculating the cooling load, air flow in m3/min, water pumping rate in kg/s, outdoor air

temperature, and required or optimal greenhouse air temperature were considered. A

psychometric chart was employed to determine the specific volume (Sv) and specific humidity of

the air inlet and outdoor air as well as the enthalpy (h).

Dry air mass volume flow rate (ma*)

-∗
ma* = / (kg/s) (3.4)
!"

Where;

v* = air volume flow rate at inlet (m3/s)

Sv1 = specific volume of air inlet (m3/s) dry air

Condensate water mass flow rate (mw*)

mw* = ma* * (SH1 – SH2) (kg/s) (3.5)

34
Where;

SH1 = specific humidity of air at inlet.

SH2 = specific humidity of air at outlet.

Cooling load (Q*)

Q* = ma* * (h2-h1) + (mw* * hw) (KJ/s) (3.6)

Where;

h1 = enthalpy of the air at inlet (KJ/kg)

h2 = enthalpy of the air at outlet (KJ/kg)

hw = enthalpy at water inlet temperature (KJ/kg)

3.4 Design Calculations

3.4.1 Number of Foggers and Spacing

Length of the greenhouse (L) = 5.8 m

Width of the greenhouse (W) = 4 m

Height of the greenhouse at the center (H) = 3.3 m

Area of the greenhouse (A) = 𝐿 ∗ 𝑊 = 5.8 ∗ 4 = 23.2 𝑚0

Volume of the greenhouse (V) = 𝐿 ∗ 𝑊 ∗ 𝐻 = 5.8 ∗ 4 ∗ 3.3 = 76.56 𝑚1

The allowable distance between each four-way fogger (D) = 2 m

To calculate number of foggers as per the length and width of the greenhouse;

35
 2 4.6
Number of foggers per length of the greenhouse = 3 = 0
= 2.9 ≅ 3

2 7
Number of foggers per width of the greenhouse = 3 = 0 = 2

The total number of foggers = 3 * 2 = 6 foggers or nozzles

The foggers spacing is determined as follows;

Nozzle or fogger grids = 3 * 2

4.6
Fogger spacing along the length = 1
= 1.93 ≅ 2𝑚;

8.91 8.91
Spacing to the wall = 3
= 0
= 0.91 ≅ 1 m

7
Fogger spacing along the Width = 0 = 2 𝑚;

0 0
Spacing to the wall = 3 = 0 = 1

Hence, the spacing of foggers along the length and width is 2 m while to the wall is 1 m.

3.4.2 Discharge of Fogging System

According to the manufacturer, the discharge Q required for each fogging system, since four-

%#
way foggers are used is 𝑄 = 1.39 × 10:" (
; since six foggers are used the total discharge;

%#
Qt = 6 × 1.39 × 10:" = 8.34 × 10:" (

It is recommended by the manufacturer to use high pressure pump of 0.5hp rating with the four-

way foggers

36
3.4.3 Cooling Load

From Eqn 3.1; airflow rate (Ø)

Volume of the greenhouse = 76.56m3

It is assumed that the heat will be much, therefore, air exchange is needed to be carried out in
"#
every 15minutes. Thus, number of times air is exchanged per hour (N = 84 = 4)

;".4"
Ø= "#
×4

= 5.104 𝑚³/𝑚𝑖𝑛

= 0.0851𝑚1 /𝑠

From Equation 3.2, water pump rate (Qm)

(Qm) = Qt × 𝜕 (kg/s)

Where;

𝜕 = density of water in kg/m3 = 1000 kg/m3

Qm = 8.34 × 10:" × 1000 = 8.34 × 10:1 𝑘𝑔/𝑠

The maximum outside air temperature (T1) = 35℃,

Required greenhouse air temperature (T2) = 27℃; optimal temperature for plant growths

(Supriyanto and Fathurrahmani, 2019)

SV1 (inlet specific volume) = 0.90m3/kg dry air,

SH2 (outlet specific humidity) = 0.023kg/kg dry air,

37
SH1 = 0.029kg/kg dry air,

From Equation 3.4;

𝑘𝑔? ∅ #.#648
Dry air mass volume flow rate (ma*) in 𝑠 = /!" = #.9# = 0.09456𝑘𝑔/𝑠

From Equation 3.5;

𝑘𝑔?
Condensate water mass flow rate (mw*) in *
𝑠 = ma × (SH1 – SH2)

mw* = 0.09456 × (0.029 − 0.023) = 0.0005673𝑘𝑔/𝑠

From Equation 3.6;

h1 = (𝑐𝑝𝑎 × 𝑇1) + (𝑆𝐻1 × 𝐻𝑔1)

h2 = (𝑐𝑝𝑎 × 𝑇2) + (𝑆𝐻2 × 𝐻𝑔2)

where;

cpa = specific heat of air = 1.006kJ/kg℃

Using equation 3.7 and 3.8

h1 = (1.006× 35) + (0.029× 2564.6) = 109.58kJ/kg

h2 = (1.006× 27) + (0.023× 2550.14) = 85.82𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔

Cooling load (Q*) in 𝐾𝐽?𝑠= ma* ´ (h2-h1) + (mw* ´ hw)

Q* = 0.0851 × (85.82 − 109.58) + (0.0005673 × 113.19) = 1.96kw = 1.96kJ/s

38
3.5 Materials

The materials used for the installation of the fogging system were sourced locally within the

Ibadan metropolis. Materials were selected based on their functionality, strength, and durability.

Functionality defines the ability to perform the intended purpose, strength indicates the ability of

materials to withstand some degree of impact, and durability determines the life span of the

materials. For the fogging system, high-pressure polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe was used as well

as the storage tank to prevent immediate cracks, corrosion, and contamination of water. The bill

of materials and specifications are presented in Table 3.1.

39
Table 3.1: Bill of Materials and Specifications

S/N Materials Quantity Rate (NGN) Total (NGN)

1 Four-way foggers 6 1500 9,000

2 High pressure Water pump 1 25000 25,000

(0.5hp)

3 Medium gum 1 350 350

4 Thread tape (brimix) 1 250 250

5 ½ inch pvc pipe 4 2400 9,600

6 ½ inch elbow 3 60 180

7 ½ by ¾ tee joint 1 80 80

8 ½ inch tee 7 70 490

9 ½ inch socket 5 90 450

10 ½ inch female adapter 7 60 420

11 Water reservoir 1 free 0.00

12 Ball valve 1 2000 2,000

13 Suction bottom valve 1 1000 1,000

14 Temperature sensor micro 1 free 0.00

controller

15 ¾ inch pvc pipe 1 2200 2,200

16 Workmanship 5,000

Grand Total 55,120

40
3.6 Methods

3.6.1 Fogging Lines

Three different diameters of PVC pipes were used to form the fogging system lines. The pipes

were 12.5 mm, 18.75 mm, and 25 mm in diameter. The 25mm diameter pipe was connected to

the main supply to deliver water into the underground storage tank and also to supply water to

the pump which supplies water to the foggers. A reducer socket was attached to the outlet hole of

the pump to reduce the diameter from 25 mm to 18.75 mm. An 18.75mm diameter pvc pipe was

connected to the outlet pipe from the top of the pump at the floor of the greenhouse to the side

height of the greenhouse. At this joint, another reducer was introduced to reduce the 18.75mm

diameter pipe to 12.5mm, to which the line that supplies the foggers or nozzles was connected.

The reduction in the lines was to increase the pressure of supply. The lines were joined together

using sockets, unions, elbows, reducers, and gum at some required points.

3.6.2 Underground Water Storage

Earth was dug to accommodate the 500-liter tank that serves as a reservoir for the fogging

system. The storage was connected with a ball valve that controlled the inflow of water so as to

avoid overflow during inflow. Underground storage receives inflow from the main source while

a pump pumps the water in the storage to supply foggers. The water inflow line to the storage

was fixed with a water filter to trap particles and dirt that may block foggers. Plate 3.1 shows

underground water storage.

41
 \

Plate 3.1: Underground Water Storage

Plate 3.2: Foggers Installation

42
Foggers Installation

A four-way fogger was installed at required points as shown in Figure 3.1. the foggers were

incorporate with set of filters to trap dirt. the fogger tail was threaded with mask tape to avoid

leakages. the foggers were fixed into points in the lines. Plate 3.2 shows installation of foggers

to the fogger line.

Micro-controller Installation

The micro-controller was installed inside the greenhouse to regulate the fogging system. The

microcontroller was comprised of a temperature sensor (STC-1000) and a timer. The temperature

sensor was used to read the temperature within the greenhouse and actuate the pump at a

particular temperature threshold, which is a temperature greater than 27oC. The information sent

to the pump about the temperature was regulated by time, which controls the duration of the

drizzling of the fogging system. Plate 3.3 shows the micro-controller (temperature sensor and

timer).

43
Plate 3.3: Microcontroller Temperature Sensor and Timer

Plate 3.4: Lascar Data Loggers

44
3.7 Microclimate Monitoring

Lascar data logger was installed inside the two greenhouse that is one with fogging system and

other without fogging system. The data logger was calibrated to take reading for a period of 24

hours per day at interval of 5mins. The data logger was used to take two major reading in

microclimate monitoring that is the temperature and humidity. The data loggers used were shown

in Plate 3.4. Hence, Plate 3.5 shows the fogging system.

45
Plate 3.5: The fogging system

46
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Temperature

The daily (8am – 6pm) temperature trend obtained for the greenhouses for the period of study is

presented in the Figure 4.1. It was observed from the graph that the daily temperature of the

greenhouse without fogging system is very high for most of the period during study. The

descriptive statistics of the temperatures are presented in Table 4.1

In the greenhouse with fogging system, the daily mean temperature was 36.63 ± 4.76oC. The

minimum temperature obtained was 21.50oC and the maximum was 47.50oC. The most frequent

temperature within the system while fogging is operating during date time was 40.5oC. The

considerable high in the temperature within the greenhouse was due to inefficient of the extractor

to extract heat trap by the mists.

In the greenhouse that serves as control, the daily average temperature obtained was 39.34 ±

6.1oC. The minimum temperature was 21.5oC and the maximum was 51.5oC. The consistent

temperature reading was 43.5oC.

It was observed that the minimum temperature between the greenhouses was the same because

the temperature has not gone beyond the threshold temperature set in the greenhouse with

fogging system.

The fogging system drop the temperature level within the greenhouse by considerable degree

with an average value of 2.71 ± 3.33oC. The range of the temperature differences were between -

10.5oC and 14.5oC. The repeated temperature drop was 4oC. It was understood that the negative

47
in the temperature difference was due to inefficiently removal of humid air from the greenhouse

with fogging system for considerable long period.

The statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA at 5% level of significance for temperatures in

the greenhouses (Table 4.2) shows that there was a significant difference between the

temperature obtained from the greenhouse with fogging system and the greenhouse without

fogging system. This result was compared using Tukey pairwise comparison (Table 4.3), it also

supports that there was significant difference.

Generally, the temperature obtained in the greenhouse with fogging system was optimal for

cultivation of some selected crops.

48
Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of the Microclimate Parameters of the Greenhouses
Variable Mean StDev Minimum Median Maximum Mode Skewness Kurtosis
Control 39.339 6.100 21.500 40.500 51.500 43.5 -0.59 -0.24
Temperature
Control Humidity 57.071 12.912 36.500 53.000 88.500 48.5 0.85 -0.25
Fogging 36.625 4.760 21.500 37.500 47.500 40.5 -0.59 0.04
Temperature
Fogging Humidity 66.714 12.098 40.000 64.000 93.000 60 0.66 -0.38
Temperature 2.7138 3.3262 -10.5000 3.0000 14.5000 4 -0.19 2.26
Differences
Humidity 9.643 7.332 -17.500 10.500 43.000 10.5 0.24 3.18
Differences
*Control: the greenhouse without fogging system

*Fogging: the greenhouse with fogging system.

49
Figure 4.1: Temperature Profile in the Greenhouses

50
Table 4.2: Results of ANOVA on the Temperature of the greenhouses
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Factor 1 8602 8602.15 287.41 0.000
Error 4670 139775 29.93
Total 4671 148377

Table 4.3: Tukey Comparison of the Greenhouses Temperature

Factor N Mean Grouping
Control Temperature 2336 39.339 A
Fogging Temperature 2336 36.6248 B
*Control Temperature: Temperature obtained from the greenhouse without fogging

system

*Fogging Temperature: Temperature obtained from the greenhouse with fogging system.

51
4.2 Humidity

Humidity describes amount of water contain in the air properties within the greenhouses. The

descriptive of the daily (8am – 6 pm) humidity obtained from the greenhouses for the period of

study is shown in Table 4.1. The profile of humidity in the greenhouses is presented in Figure

4.2.

In the case of greenhouse without the fogging system, the humidity ranged between 36.5 –

88.55%. the average humidity obtained during the study was 57.1 ± 12.91% and the most

occurring humidity was 48.5%. The low in humidity in this greenhouse is characterized by high

temperature profile. This level of humidity may subject crops to water stresses and increase in

evapotranspiration. In scenario where there was no proper water budget and balance for crops in

the greenhouse, it may lead to plant wilting.

The greenhouse with the fogging system has humidity ranged between 40 and 93% and an

average value of 66.71 ± 12.1%. During the study it was observed that the most frequent

humidity was 60%. Though, the humidity level obtained is optimal for some selected crops and

this will ensure minimal evapotranspiration.

There was a significant difference in the humidity of the greenhouses. It can also denote from the

graph that in some condition where the fogging system was not actuated by the micro-controller

the humidity was similar in the greenhouses. The average humidity difference was 9.64 ±

7.332%. the minimum humidity difference was -17.5% and the maximum was 43%. The most

humidity difference was 10.5%. the negative in difference indicates that the humidity level of

greenhouse without fogging system was high than the greenhouse with fogging system because

of wind chill effect which affect the ventilation rate.

52
The statistical results using ANOVA at 5% level of significance (Table 4.4) shows that there was

a significant difference in the humidity of the greenhouses as p-value less than 0.05. The result of

ANOVA was compared using Tukey pairwise comparison which shows there was a significant

difference in the humidity of the greenhouses (Table 4.5).

53
Figure 4.2: Humidity Profile of the Greenhouses

54
Table 4.4: Results of ANOVA on the Humidity of the greenhouses
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Factor 1 108604 108604 693.75 0.000
Error 4670 731070 157
Total 4671 839674

Table 4.5: Tukey Comparison of the Greenhouses Humidity

Factor N Mean Grouping
Fogging Humidity 2336 66.714 A
Control Humidity 2336 57.071 B
*Control Humidity: Humidity obtained from the greenhouse without fogging system

*Fogging Humidity: Humidity obtained from the greenhouse with fogging system.

55
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

The followings conclusions were drawn from the study;

i. There was obvious difference in the temperature trend obtained in the greenhouse

installed with fogging system as compared to the greenhouse without fogging system.

ii. The humidity level of the greenhouse with fogging system consistently increase due to

continuous mists of water in the system while the humidity of the greenhouse without

fogging system keeping low due to its frequently rise in air temperature within the

system.

iii. During the study, it was observed at some points that there was no difference between the

temperature observed in both greenhouses. This occurred due to continuous rising in

solar radiation and in efficient of the extractor to extract humid air from the greenhouse

with fogging installation.

iv. It is noticed that if the framing members of the greenhouse is not properly coated with

anti-rust paint it may get rust fast due to continuous contact with mist.

5.2 Recommendations

i. It is recommended that the water to be used for fogging should be pre-cool to increase its

effectiveness.

ii. The greenhouse should be incorporated with water recycling system for the fogging

system in order to improve water use efficiency.

56
iii. A study should be carried out to study the effect of fogging on some crop parameters.

iv. It is recommended that an efficient ventilation system that can perform optimally to meet

the greenhouse requirement especially under fogging system should be designed and

installed.

v. There should be a proper drainage for the greenhouse where fogging system is used,

majorly, a floored greenhouse.

57
 REFERENCES

Abbouda, S. K., and E. A. Almuhanna. 2012. Improvement of evaporative cooling system

efficiency in greenhouses. International Journal of Latest Trends in Agriculture and

Food Sciences, 2(2): 83–89.

Abu-Hamdeh, N. H., and K. H. Almitani. 2016. Solar liquid desiccant regeneration and

nanofluids in evaporative cooling for greenhouse food production in Saudi Arabia. Solar

Energy, 134: 202–210

Ahmed, E. M., Abas, O., Ahmed, M., & Ismail, M. R. (2011). Performance Evaluation of three

different types of Evaporative Pads in greenhouses in sudan. Saudi journal of Biological

Sciences, 18, pp.45-51.

Al-Busaidi, H. A., and Y. A. Al-Mulla. 2014. Crop water requirement inside conventional versus

seawater greenhouses. Acta Horticulture, 1054: 73–80.

Alijubury, I. M. A., and H. D. Ridha. 2017. Enhancement ofevaporative cooling system in a

greenhouse using geothermal energy. Renewable Energy, 111: 321–333

Baeza, E., P_erez-Parra, J., Montero, J., Bailey, B., L_opez, J., & G_azquez, J. (2009). Analysis

of the role of sidewall vents on buoyancy-driven natural ventilation in parral-type

greenhouses with and without insect screens using computational fluid dynamics.

Biosystems Engineering, 104, 86-96.

Banik, P., & Ganguly, A. (2017). Performance and economic analysis of a floricultural

greenhouse with distributed fan-pad evaporative cooling coupled with solar

desiccation. Solar Energy, 147, 439-447.

58
Brinkmann, S. (2021). Saltwater Greenhouse Cooling System for Agricultural Drainage

Treatment and Food Production (Doctoral dissertation, University of California,

Merced).

Buffington , D. E., Bucklin, R. A., Henley, R. W., & McConell, D. B. (2016). Greenhouse

Campen, J. B., & Bot, G. P. A. (2003). Determination of greenhousespecific aspects of

ventilation using three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics. Biosystems

Engineering, 84, 69-77.

Davies, P. A. 2005. A solar cooling system for greenhouse food production in hot climates. Solar

Energy, 79(6): 661–668.

Davies, P. A., and C. Paton. 2005. The seawater greenhouse in the United Arab Emirates:

thermal climates and evaluation of design options. Desalination, 173(2): 103–111.

Duarte-Galvan, C., Torres-Pacheco, I., Guevara-Gonzalez, R. G., Romero-Troncoso, R. J.,

Contreras-Medina, L. M., Rios-Alcaraz, M. A., et al. (2012). Review: Advantags and

Disadvantages of Control theories applied in greenhouse climate control systems.

Spanish Journalof Agricultural Research, pp. 926-938

El-Gayar, S., Negm, A., & Abdrabbo, M. (2018). Greenhouse operation and management in

Egypt. In Conventional Water Resources and Agriculture in Egypt (pp. 489-560).

Springer, Cham.

FAO. (2013). Good Agricultural Practices for Greenhouse vVegetable Crops: Principles for

Mediterranean Climate areas. Rome: Food and Agr. organisation of the United Nations.

Ganguly, A., & Ghosh, S. (2007). Modelling and analysis of a fanepad ventilated floricultural

greenhouse. Energy and Buildings, 39, 1092-1097.

59
Ganguly, A., & Ghosh, S. (2011). A Review of Ventilation and Cooling Technologies in

Agricultural Greenhouse Application. Iranica journal of Energy and Environment, pp.32-

46.

Ghani, S., Bakochristou, F., ElBaily, E. M., Seilfelislam, G. M., Mohammed, R. M., Ayman, M.

A.,(2019). Design Challenges of Agricultural Greenhouses in Hot and Arid

environments–A review. Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and Food, pp.48-70.,

Ghosal, M. K., and R. K. Das. 2012. Mathematical modeling for cooling by water evaporation

over roof of a greenhouse. Engineering and Technology in India, 3(2): 131–135.

Ghosal, M. K., G. N. Tiwari, and N. S. L. Sirivastava. 2003. Modeling and experimental

validation of a greenhouse with evaporative cooling by moving water film over external

shade cloth. Energy and Buildings, 35(8): 843–850..

Ghoulem, M., El Moueddeb, K., Nehdi, E., Boukhanouf, R., & Calautit, J. K. (2019).

Greenhouse design and cooling technologies for sustainable food cultivation in hot

climates: Review of current practice and future status. Biosystems Engineering, 183, 121-

150.

Groener, B., Knopp, N., Korgan , K., Rowen, P., Romero, J., Smith, K., et al. (2015).

Preliminary Design of Low -cost Greenhouse with Open source control Systems.

Procedia Engineering, pp.470-479.

Gruda, N., Bisbis, M., & Tanny, J. (2019). Impacts of protected vegetable cultivation on climate

change and adaptation strategies for cleaner production–a review. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 225, 324-339.

60
Hain, Y., Litinetski, V., & Litinetsky, A. (2008): Parametric study of installed fogging systems

using CFD model. In Engineering Systems Design and Analysis (Vol. 48357, pp. 25-

33).

He, K. S., Chen, D. A., Sun, L. J., Liu, Z. L., & Huang, Z. Y. (2015). The effect of vent openings

on the microclimate inside multi-span greenhouses during summer and winter seasons.

EngineeringApplications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 9, 399-410.

Helmy, M. A., M. A. Eltawil, R. R. Abo-shieshaa, and N. M. El-Zan. (2013): Enhancing the

evaporative cooling performanceof fan-pad system using alternative pad materials and

water film over the greenhouse roof. CIGR Journal, 15(2): 173–187.

Hesham , A. A., Al-Faraj, A. A., Hegazy, M. A., & Abdel-Ghany, A. M. (2016). Effect of

Cooling Strategies on the Uniformity of Greenhouse Microclimate : A Review. Ciencia e

Tecnica Vitivinicola, pp.1-40.

Hiscott, D., Cvetkovska, M., Mumin, M. A., & Charpentier, P. A. (2021): Light Downshifting

ZnO-EVA Nanocomposite Greenhouse Films and Their Influence on Photosynthetic

Green Algae Growth. ACS Applied Polymer Materials, 3(8), 3800-3810.

Hugang, L., & Shuangxi, W. (2015). Technologies and studies in greenhouse cooling. World

Improve the Design of a Fog system for cooling Greenhouses. Japan Agricultural Research

Quarterly, 41(4), pp.283-290.

Ishii, M., Sase, S., Moriyama, H., Okushima, L., Ikeguchi, A., Hayashi, M., et al. (2016).

REVIEW: Controlled Environment Agriculture for Effective Plant Production Systemsn

in Semiarid Greenhouses. Japan Agricultural Research Quaterly, 50(2), pp.101-113.

Katsoulas, N., Kittas, C., & Bartzanas, T. (2012). Microclimate distribution in a greenhouse

cooled by a fog system. Acta Horticulturae, 927, 773-778.

61
Keesung, K., Giacomelii, G. A., Yoon, j. Y., & Sadanori, S. (2007). CFD Modelling to Improve

the Design of a Fog system for cooling Greenhouses. Japan Agricultural Research

Quarterly, 41(4), pp.283-290.

Khan, S., Parkinson, S., & Qin, Y. (2017). Fog computing security: a review of current

applications and security solutions. Journal of Cloud Computing, 6(1), 1-22.

Kuang-Cheng, Y., Hsiang-Min, H., & Yen-Ching, C. (2015). Discussiona and Measurement of

applying a cooling Fogging Air- Conditioning System for Working Environment cooling

and Air Quality improvement. Journal of Applied Sciences, pp.763-772.

Li, A., Huang, L., & Zhang, T. (2017). Field test and analysis of microclimate in naturally

ventilated single-sloped greenhouses. Energy and Buildings, 13, 479-489.

Lo´pez, A., D. L. Valera, F. D. Molina-Aiz, and A. Pena. 2012. Sonic anemometry to evaluate

airflow characteristics and temperature distribution in empty Mediterranean greenhouses

equipped with pad-fan and fog systems. Biosystems Engineering, 113(4): 334–350.

Lychnos, G., and P. A. Davies. 2012. Modelling and experimental verification of a solar-

powered liquid desiccant cooling system for greenhouse food production in hot climates.

Energy, 40(1): 116–130.

Mahmoudi, H., N. Spahis, S. A. Abdul-Wahab, S. S. Sablani, and M. F. A. Goosen. 2010.

Improving the performance of a seawater greenhouse desalination system by assessment

of simulation models for different condensers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews, 14(8): 2182–2188.

Mashonjowa, E., Ronsse, F., Milford, J. R., & Pieters, J. G. (2013). Modelling the thermal

performance of a naturally ventilated greenhouse in Zimbabwe using a dynamic

greenhouse climate model. Solar Energy, 91, 381e393.

62
McCartney, L., Orsat , V., & Lefsrud, M. G. (2018). An experimental Study of the cooling

performance and airflow patterns in a model Natural Ventilation Augmented Cooling

(NVAC) greenhouse. Biosystems Engineering, 174, pp.173-189.

Mirja, A. S., Misra, D., & Ghosh, S. (2016). Study the Performance of a Fogging system for a

naturally ventilated, fog-cooled greenhouse. Journal of Energy Research and

Environmental Technology, 19-23.

Misra, D., & Ghosh, S. (2017). Microclimate modelling and analysis of a fog-cooled naturally

ventilated greenhouse. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and

Biotechnology, 2(2), pp.998-1002.

Misra, D., & Ghosh, S. (2018). Evaporative cooling technologies for greenhouses: a

comprehensive review. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 20(1), 1-

15.

Nicolosi, G., Volpe, R., & Messineo, A. (2017). An Innovative Adaptive Control

of applying a cooling Fogging Air- Conditioning System for Working Environment

cooling and Air Quality improvement. Journal of Applied Sciences, pp.763-772.

Ouammi, A., Achour, Y., Zejli, D., & Dagdougui, H. (2019): Supervisory model predictive

control for optimal energy management of networked smart greenhouses integrated

microgrid. IEEE transactions on automation science and engineering, 17(1), 117-128.

Ozturk, H. H. (2006). Evaporative Cooling efficiency of a fogging system in a Rose Greenhouse.

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 1231-1237.

Porumb, B., Ungureşan, P., Tutunaru, L. F., Şerban, A., & Bălan, M. (2016). A review of

indirect evaporative cooling operating conditions and performances. Energy

Procedia, 85, 452-460.

63
Rabbi, B., Chen, Z. H., & Sethuvenkatraman, S. (2019). Protected cropping in warm climates: a

review of humidity control and cooling methods. Energies, 12(14), 2737.

Reyes-Rosas, A., Molina-Aiz, F. D., Valera, D. L., L_opez, A., & Khamkure, S. (2017).

Development of a single energy balance model for prediction of temperatures inside a

naturally ventilated greenhouse with polypropylene soil mulch. Computers and

Electronics in Agriculture, 142, 9-28.

Rodriguez, R. M. (2017). Experimental Evaluation of Cooling Effectiveness and Water

Conservation in a Poultry House Using Flow Blurring Atomizers. University of South

Florida.

Romantchik, E., E. Ríos, E. Sánchez, and I. López. 2017. Determination of energy to be supplied

by photovoltaic systems for fan-pad systems in cooling process of greenhouses. Applied

Thermal Engineering, 114: 1161–1168.

Saberian, A., Sajadiye, S. M. (2020). Assessing the variable performance of fan-and-pad cooling

in a subtropical desert greenhouse. Applied Thermal Engineering, 179, 115672.

Sanchez-Hermosilla, J., P_aez, F., Rinc_on, V. J., & Callej_on, A. J.(2013). Evaluation of a fog

cooling system for applying plantprotection products in a greenhouse tomato crop. Crop

Protection, 48, 76e81.

Santosh, D. T., Tiwari, K. N., Singh, V. K., & Raja, R. G. (2017). Microcliate Control in

Greenhouse. Int.Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, pp.1730-1742.

Singh, M. C., Singh, J. P., Pandey, S. K., Cutting, N. G., Sharma, P., Shrivastav, V., et al.

(2018). A review of three commonly used Techniques of controlling Greenhouse

Microclimate. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7(1),

pp.3491-3506.
64
Smith, R. J., and Stwalley, R. M. (2021): SUCCESSFUL CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT

AGRICULTURE PROJECTS. In 2021 ASABE Annual International Virtual Meeting (p.

1). American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.

Supriyanto, A., & Fathurrahmani, F. (2019). The prototype of the Greenhouse Smart Control and

Monitoring System in Hydroponic Plants. Digital Zone: Jurnal Teknologi Informasi

Dan Komunikasi, 10(2), 131-143.

Teitel, M., Montero, J. I., & Baeza, E. J. (2012). Greenhouse design:Concepts and trends. Acta

Horticulturae, 952, 605-620

University of Guelph's Greenhouse Engineering Department UGCE. (2009). Greenhouse:

Heating . Cooling and Ventilation. Georgia: University of Georgia Co-Operative

Extension (Bulletin 792).

Vala , K. V., Kumparat, M. T., & Nema, A. (2016, September). Comparative Performance

Evaluation of Evaporative Cooling Pad materials with Commercial Pads. International

Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT), 39(4), pp.198-203.

Warke , D. A., & Deshmukh, J. S. (2017). Experimental Analysis of Cellulose Cooling pads in

evaporative coolers. Int. Journal of Energy Science and Engineering, 3(4), 37-43.

Yang, H., Rong, L., Liu, X., Liu, L., Fan, M., & Pei, N. (2020). Experimental research on spray

evaporative cooling system applied to air-cooled chiller condenser. Energy Reports, 6,

906-913.

Zhang , Y., Kacira , M., & Lingling, A. (2016). A CFD study on Improving air flow uniformity

in indoor plant factory systems. Biosystems Engineering, pp.193-205.

Zhang, D., Zhang, Z., Jianming, L., Chang, Y., Tonghua, P., & Qingjie, D. (2015). Regulation of

Vapour Pressure deficit by greenhouse Micro-fog systems Improved growth and

65
 Productivity of Tomato via Enhancing photosynthesis during summer seasons. PLOS

ONE, 10(7), pp.1-16.

Zheng, X., Cooper, E., Gillott, M., & Wood, C. (2020). A practical review of alternatives to the

steady pressurisation method for determining building airtightness. Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews, 132, 110049.

66
 APPENDIX

Figure 1: Orthographic Projection of the fogging system

67